Here’s the BBC’s Richard Black at his best, positively beside himself with glee because China is now wasting more money on “renewables” than that nasty place of over-production and excess, the USA. His tone throughout is one of adulation for what China (and Britain – alarmingly for us now in third place) have achieved in tipping money down the drain. Note, too, that there is no mention in his report of the most crucial factor, namely that Spain’s policy over eight years of busting a gut to invest in green projects was a national disaster. A survey – the most detailed of its kind – by Spanish academics found:
Optimistically treating European Commission partially funded data, we find that for every renewable energy job that the State manages to finance, Spain’s experience cited by President Obama as a model reveals with high confidence, by two different methods, that the US should expect a loss of at least 2.2 jobs on average, or about nine jobs lost for every four created, to which we have to add those jobs that non-subsidized investments with the same resources would have created.
Slightly off topic but this week’s episode of QI (Friday, BBC1) flagged “kill birds” as a wrong answer for “What do wind farms do?” What a gross distortion of the truth.
I notice Black buries away in the report that China STILL relies vastly on coal for it’s power and will continue to do so for decades. The lefty drug addicts have been on a wind farm love fest all week. This morning there was more BBC bollocks about a wind farm off the Kent coast. The BBC spouting on about ‘green jobs’ and that how employing a handful of people maintaining them (most of them will be imported into the region) will somehow re-vitalise shitholes like Ramsgate. It won’t.
Also, the BBC glossed over the fact that our only windmill manufacturer closed down most of its operation on the IoW. Where was Government support then? When was lord Fondelbum? Why doesn’t the BBC make THAT the main attack point? If the Tories were in charge you know they would be frothing at the mouth like a Meow Meow starved Guardian reader seeing a free line of their favourite.
Quite right, Robin. Here in the US we’re just finding out that yet another “Green Jobs” program is an utter waste.
STIMULUS WATCH: Weatherizing Program Falling Short
After a year of crippling delays, President Barack Obama’s $5 billion program to install weather-tight windows and doors has retrofitted a fraction of homes and created far fewer construction jobs than expected.
How many jobs did all this money – which could have gone to any number of reality-based initiatives -create? 84.
The program has so far retrofitted 30,250 homes (5% of the supposed goal), which is nice, certainly. But there’s no possible way that any efficiency savings has happened to make up for the $5 billion payout.
In California – a BBC dreamland, politically, it’s also a joke. 12 homes weatherized so far.
Don’t expect any more honesty from the BBC on this than they’ve displayed on other environmental issues. I mean, they keep telling you that wind farms are the way to go, but don’t tell you that just to create 1 gigawatt of electricity requires 250 square miles of turbines. Even old hippy, drug-taking environmentals know this. Unless there’s going to be a huge venture of conquest for a newly expanded British Empire, Britain simply doesn’t have the real estate necessary to do anything significant with wind farms. It’s dishonest to keep pretending that there’s so much that can be done with them.
The BBC now attacking the Tories about their new poster campaign, some tool on News 24 going on about the punctuation!!!!!
Have a look at this graph, a graph that the BBC will never ever allow anywhere near the TV screen.
This graph smashes the AGW myth to pieces, just one graph which even the AGW fraudsters cannot deny so they use their muscle to supress it.
If the BBC told the truth it would ruin their narrative and hurt their pension fund and destroy their vested interest allies.
Hooray!
It worked.
I am just learning how to use the bits and bobs on the puter, next stop is the holy grail of links so expect lots of mistakes 😀
Ooooh bugger,
In my haste I forgot to hat tip greeniewatch/PWS for the graph. Many thanks and I hope its OK to use the graph in this way?
The big question is whether the Medieval Warm Period and Little Ice Age were global phenomena or restricted to the North Atlantic region (Europe and Western North America). If they were global then that would be a different kettle of fish from if they were restricted to the North Atlantic, as the latter would mean merely a different distribution of warmth on the Earth rather than a warmer or cooler Earth as a whole.
At the moment this is far from settled; there is evidence for example of unusual cold in the Antarctic Peninsula and South Atlantic at the same time that Europe was unusually warm during the MWP.
Ed, see http://joannenova.com.au/2009/12/fraudulent-hockey-sticks-and-hidden-data/ for a summary of the MWP being a global phenomenon. There are places where it was cooler, but they are in the minority. Note the first update at the bottom of the post saying where the data for the map comes from.
The uncertainty arises from lack of temperature readings or proxies outside Europe and North America. But it must have been damn cold in the southern hemisphere to give the FLAT overall reading for the Medieval Warm Period. To a simpleton like me, the graph looks fixed – just like the false hockey-stick rise at the end.
I have encountered Warmists who deny even the ample historical evidence of the MWP in Europe. I tend to point out that I drive up Vineyard Hill Road in Wimbledon each week – that underscores the reality of the MWP for me.
Besides, I thought there was evidence of warmer climes well outside Europe – eg China. And how come the tree-ring guys (Briffa etc) don’t look in South America and Asia ?
And how about Macchu Picchu right up there in the mountains, acres of agricultural terraces – that looks as though it was built in much warmer times.
Does it sound like a realistic propostion that the MWP was “local” when the ‘locality includes such a massive area?
There are diverse proxies available for North America/Greenland/Europe/Asia-SNE/Africa and is it really likely that such a warm period lasting centuries somehow limited itself to those geographic areas while somehow leaving others untouched and/or cooler?
The Antarctic peninsula has always been exposed to oceanic currents as the Pacific and southern Atlantic exchange dominant roles in the thermal exchange of cool and warm waters and in conjunction with the influence of the earths spin in association with a thing called precession.
This is where the strange selective amnesia of the AGW theorists exposes itself.
The Antarctic peninsular warms slightly and they cry AGW however when evidence emerges indicating cooling events in that region they choose not to apply Occams razor prefering instead to complicate their theory with ever more complications.
The MWP cannot be any more ‘local’ than the current cyclical warming, it seems almost silly in the face of actual evidence that points to any optimum/minimum having highly localised cooling/warming spots centered around where major ocean currents mix and meet.
It seems to me to be a simple excersise in logic to deduce that the ocean currents alongside the Milankovich cycles which moderate,influence and store cyclical warming/cooling would certainly expose certain locale to highly localised warming/cooling. Now I can assure you that I am definitely not the sharpest tool in the box so if it within my very limited mental capabilities to fathom this it seems a puzzle as to why the same simple logic is beyond the experts.
If we were to measure the recent warming by the same proxy methodology that we are using for the MWP I will confidently bet a months rations that the current warming itself would take on the appearence of localism, all proxies are local and it is only when those proxies are dated can they be joined together to form a bigger picture, the proxies gathered by Mann proved that local and isolated proxies when tampered with can point to a wholly dishonest conclusion. We have the proxy records, what we lack is the funding and will to fully explore those proxies which is right where frauds like Mann can pervert and select the evidence.
I should stress that my assertions are based on observation of the evidence we all have ready access to, I could well be mistaken and my conclusions be wayward, all any of us can do is view the emerging evidence with the assistance of our inbuilt logic.
The tragedy of this whole problem is the lack of impartial sources of information, we are drowning under a tsunsmi of partial and partisan data influenced and contaminated by vested interests.
I have no qualifications that make my theories any more or less correct, what this debate does prove is that it is a serious mistake to trust those so called experts and take their evidence at face value, as my greatest hero once said “trust, but verify”.
“Gulf Stream ‘is not slowing down'” (BBC undaunted.)
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/8589512.stm
“A slow-down – dramatised in the movie The Day After Tomorrow – is projected by some models of climate change.”
I saw that film and I was so scared that what I saw might actually happen. It’s such a relief to find out it was wrong. 😉
Same old Biased-BBC going full square against specifically pledged Conservative party policy.
http://www.conservatives.com/Policy/Where_we_stand/Climate_Change_and_Energy.aspx
You are whistling in the dark to expect BBC to change their biased reporting when the Conservatives are spouting rubbish like this, outdoing Labour (outdoing them rather a lot in fact).
Shows how effective the Marxist mind control of Political Correctness is.