Ashden Awards (Jonathon Porritt)

Search

My Profile

Feeds

What are feeds?

Articles

Other Blogs

News Links

Organisations

« Nuclear comes clean | Main | Sandbrook Lecture »

Ashden Awards

The Met Office is going to be publishing its detailed projections for the impacts of climate change on the UK today – in unprecedented geographical detail. It’s not going to be pleasant reading.

So I’ve been cheering myself up by reminding myself, all over again, of the power of positive thinking. Just a week ago, the Ashden Awards for Sustainable Energy held their annual bash at the Royal Geographical Society, with the Prince of Wales handing out the Awards and giving a stirring speech.

For me, this event is one of the highlights of the annual calendar – it’s just incredibly uplifting to hear about the kind of cutting-edge success going on around the world from the people who are actually making it all happen.

In the context of climate change in the UK, I just want to highlight two of the 2009 winners. First is Kirklees Metropolitan Borough Council – one of the unsung heroes of local government who have been doing their "sustainability bit" for the last 20 years. But their current home insulation initiative has really made people sit up and listen as it has succeeded in achieving real scale – where so many of the current measures are just picking around at the edges. Here’s what the Award citation said:

"In 2007, Kirklees Council committed £10 million to providing free loft and cavity-wall insulation for every home in the borough where it can be used. The scheme targets one council ward at a time, using the local Councillor and local advertising, then individual home visits by assessors. By May 2009, 66,000 out of the 172,000 households in the borough had been assessed, 54,000 referred for surveys, 26,000 surveys had been completed, and 21,000 had insulation installed. This avoids an estimated 18,000 tonnes a year of CO2. 140 jobs have been created by the scheme."

In my view, every Local Authority in the country is going to have to introduce schemes along those lines over the next couple of years. That’s the consequence of the ambitious targets that have now been adopted through the Climate Change Act.

But, for many, "seeing is still believing", and there are lots of people who are not yet persuaded that doing full-on home insulation actually makes much difference. And that’s where the Sustainable Energy Academy comes in – by persuading those who’ve already done it to demonstrate how they did it to those who’d like to do it.

"The Sustainable Energy Academy has set up a network of homes, mostly built before 1919, whose owners have installed measures to reduce carbon emissions by 60% or more. Measures include roof, cavity-wall, solid-wall and under-floor insulation; triple-glazed windows; draughtproofing; heat-recovery ventilation; solar and biomass heating; efficient lighting; and solar electric supply. The SEA provides training and support to enable owners to open their homes to the public, providing real demonstrations of how to achieve significant carbon savings. To date, 25 homes belong to the network, and over 36,000 people have visited them. SEA wants to increase the network to 200 homes across the UK so that people can easily visit one."

Kirklees Council
Phil Webber
Kirklees Council
Civic Centre 3
Market Street
Huddersfield
HD1 1WG
www.kirklees.gov.uk/warmzone
phil.webber@kirklees.gov.uk
01484 223568

Sustainable Energy Academy
John Doggart
National Energy Centre
Davy Ave
Milton Keynes
MK5 8NG
www.sustainable-energyacademy.org.uk
john.doggart@s-ea.org.uk
020 7431 9314

By the way, the International Awards are equally, if not more inspiring. Check it all out on the Ashden Awards website

Posted by Jonathon Porritt on June 18, 2009 2:22 PM | Permalink

Comments (20)

Jonathan’s comment above regarding the Met Office and its climate change projections relates to my comment yesterday on his “Nuclear comes Clean” blog. With his “It’s not going to be pleasant reading” he is persisting with the environmentalist and political propaganda presenting a “doom and gloom” picture based entirely upon the projections of flawed computer models. I’ve tried the Met.Office Web-site and elsewhere regarding the climate projections Jonathan refers to but could only find mention of the UK Climate Projections 2009 (UKCP09) climate analysis tool. The DEFRA site says “The UK Climate Projections have been created to help the UK to plan for a changing climate. The Projections contain information on observed and future climate change, based on the latest scientific understanding”. The most significant part of that DEFRA statement is the final clause. Staunch environmentalist Professor Barry Brook, Director of the Research Institute for Climate Change and Sustainability, University of Adelaide admitted earlier this year what this “latest scientific understanding” of global climates is. He acknowledged that “.. it is indeed likely that the current consensus on some points of climate science is .. at least sufficiently uncertain that we don’t know anything much useful about processes or drivers ”. Current climate models such as the UKCP09 tool are structured on this unsound foundation of significant scientific uncertainty regarding the processes and drivers of global climates. Until the science of global climate processes and drivers is reasonably well understood there can be no worthwhile projections from any source, computer generated or otherwise.

Although thinking positively is a very powerful motivator, there is a big difference between “positive thinking” and wishful thinking. Wishing for people to accept without question the propaganda from politicians and environmentalists about the use of fossil fuels and climate change will not make it happen. Neither will using scare-mongering tactics. The majority of the population are not that gullible. In particular, anything claimed by politicians (national or local) is automatically distrusted.

The Asden Award citation for Kirklees Metropolitan Borough Council overlooked the important fact that those “unsung heroes” had spent £2M of taxpayers money which could have been more sensibly spent on improving local services and helping to keep down local council tax. This fact will not be overlooked so readily by the people who are paying those council taxes. It is too easy for local and national government officials to be dispose of other peoples’ (the taxpayer’s) money (often to line their own pockets). I am all for people doing there utmost to reduce their waste of energy and other resources, but simply fitting home insulation at taxpayers expense will not make this happen. There are far more effective and much more economical ways of achieving the energy saving objective, e.g. turning down the thermostat, running less hot water, using energy efficient light bulbs. All of these are at no cost to the taxpayer, who is going to be very, very hard hit after the next election, no matter who wins.

Because Jonathan’s post starts off about climate change, the inference is that installing home insulation “avoids an estimated 18,000 tonnes a year of CO2”, which will reduce climate change. The reason “there are lots of people who are not yet persuaded that doing full-on home insulation actually makes much difference” is because there is no convincing reason to believe that climate change is affected by our use of energy or associated CO2 emissions. “Human-made global climate change” is merely a hypothesis which has yet to be validated. All that has been accepted is that atmospheric CO2 concentrations have some influence on global temperatures. The significance of that influence on global climates is not yet determined None of the computer models upon which organizations like the Met Office are basing their projections have been subjected to independent Verification, Validation and Test (VV&T) procedures. Even the politically driven IPCC acknowledged this in their Assessment Report 4, report "Climate Models and Their Evaluation"” (see Politicization of Climate Change and CO2” at
http://nzclimatescience.net/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=374&Itemid=1 ).

Regards, Pete Ridley, Human-made Global Climate Change Agnostic.

PS: I’m still trying unsuccessfully to get Jonathan’s charity Forum for the Future to debate that paper as part of their Masters course “Leadership in Sustainability”. They are obviously reluctant to openly debate the skeptical argument. They won’t even publish the comments that I submit to their blog (they did publish two submissions of mine, but then removed them). The definition of “forum” is “a meeting or medium for the open discussion of subjects of public interest” so I would suggest they change their name to something like “Propaganda for the Future”. How about a competition for the most appropriate name?

Posted by Pete Ridley | June 18, 2009 9:14 PM

I have looked at the DEFRA Guidance notes for that UK Climate Projections (UKCP09) tool at http://ukclimateprojections.defra.gov.uk/content/view/514/498/index.html. Although it is a very good piece of political propaganda intended to communicate to the wider public the “Significant Human-made Global Climate Change” hypothesis (myth?), from a practical point of view it is not at all impressive. I prefer to read factual publications from which I can learn something rather than science-fiction, much of which I suspect is (as Jonathan says) “not going to be pleasant reading”.

The UKCP09 tool is based upon computerised climate models from the Met. Offices Hadley Centre and similar models from around the world. These models are merely a development of models used for weather forecasting. We all know how uncertain the Met Offices weather forecasts (another word for projections) are for even just a few days ahead. Weather is difficult enough for the Met. Office to model because of their limited understanding of its processes and drivers. Even though they use actual live measured data relating to those drivers still gives us little confidence in the Met Office forecasts (projections) for just a few days ahead. Their long range forecasts (projections) are close to being a joke.

The most revealing part of the UKCP09 Guidance is that covering the matter of “Uncertainties in climate change projections”. QUOTE:
Although modellers have improved many aspects of their models over the past decade or so, the current range of changes over the UK is not significantly narrower than that shown in UKCIP02. In practice, the prospects for better projections will depend on which aspects of future climate users are most interested in. The width of the PDFs in UKCP09 are substantial even for the next few decades, due mainly to natural variability, and grow larger through the century due to uncertainties in climate feedbacks. It may be possible to reduce short-term uncertainties with higher resolution models which may simulate better (for example) the North Atlantic storm track, and by starting model experiments with the recently-observed state of the ocean. However, this may not improve projections of (say) changes in surface temperature a hundred years ahead; at these lead times improved projections would come from more faithful representations of climate feedbacks and the carbon cycle in models.
UNQUOTE (http://ukclimateprojections.defra.gov.uk/content/view/1567/9/index.html).

Summarising this quotation, the climate forecasts available from this latest tool (UKCP09) about which the media is trumpeting today, are no more reliable than they were in 2002. This quotation is repeating what climate expert Professor Barry Brook (Note 1) acknowledged two months ago “There are a lot of uncertainties in science, and it is indeed likely that the current consensus on some points of climate science is .. . sufficiently uncertain that we don’t know anything much useful about processes or drivers..”.

If we don’t know how global climates are controlled (i.e. climate processes and drivers) then we cannot possible forecase (project) future climates in a reliable manner. We cannot even forecast next week’s weather, a much simpler system of processes and drivers. All of this is covered in the paper “Politicization of Climate Change and CO2” (Note 1)

In October 2007 a London High Court judge found that this Government of ours had contravened the 1996 Education Act prohibiting the political indoctrination of children through distributing Al Gore’s seriously flawed film ‘An Inconvenient Truth’, copied to UK schools. Surely there’s an Act of Parliament banning the promotion of blatant propaganda throughout the country. It should be possible to pursue a case against the Government over its promotion of the “human-made climate change” hypothesis as being a truth. Come on Daily Telegraph, you exposed the dishonesty of our (dis)honourable Members of Parliament over their expense claims. This is far far worse and will be much more costly for us poor taxpayers. Please run a series on this, along with your expenses exposure. Or, better still, find out if there is another Act that they are in contravention of and if there is then take it up as a “public interest” issue.

Regards, Pete Ridley, Human-made Global Climate Change Agnostic.

Note 1: See my comment on 18th June for more information.

Posted by Pete Ridley | June 19, 2009 8:45 AM

Pete Ridley has totally misquoted and misrepresented what Professor Barry Brook of Adelaide University said. His manipulation of the Prof's words shows how disingenuous and deceitful he is. For the full information on Prof Brook's AGW position go to his excellent blog www.bravenewclimate.com

Posted by perps | June 21, 2009 7:44 AM

Dear readers, I'm surprised that Perps couldn't find some biblical text to include in her comment (anyone not understanding this can look on the blog at http://bravenewclimate.com/2009/04/23/ian-plimer-heaven-and-earth/). As for misquoting Professor Brook, readers will also find that I did in fact quote him precisely. I have never interpreted what he said, simply used what I saw as that part of a long statement that was relevant to the point that I repeatedly make, i.e. that climate models are unreliable because of the uncertainties about climate science. Several times on that blog I have invited a clarification of what Professor Brook meant by those precise words which I quoted but he had refused to respond until today. Again readers can check this out themselves at the above site.

Professor Brook’s response appears on his blog on 23rd June @ 5.02. He has requoted his complete statement but made no further clarification of the extract that I have quoted. As I understand it Professor Brook objects to my use of an out-of-context extract from his statement so once again I refer readers to his blog in order to appreciate the full context of what he said. Also Perps considers that both she and Professor Brook deserve an apology. If I have made some mistake by quoting ANY extracts from what ANYONE says or writes about something I am debating then I apologise sincerely to the injured party, but I do reserve the right that we enjoy in this country (and I believe also in Australia) to freedom of speech.

Best regards, Pete Ridley, Human-made Global Climate Change Agnostic.

Posted by Pete Ridley | June 23, 2009 12:47 PM

Disingenuous once again Pete Ridley. You chopped out parts of Prof Brook's quote to deliberately give the wrong impression of his opinions. As to my supposed propensity for biblical quotes, that too is a deliberate misrepresentation of what I have said. For the record I am an atheist, and my comment on some of your truncated and distorted quotes was done to give context to your use of parts of them to suit your own position. Again the aim was to deliberately mislead. No-one should have any confidence in the veracity of your statements.

Posted by perps | June 24, 2009 7:29 AM

Dear readers, rather than being settled, the scientific debate about the “significant human-made global climate change” hypothesis continues. On Jonathan’s blog “UK is Right to Trial Carbon Capture” I commented (17th June) that the posts and seminars at http://bravenewclimate.com are well worth a visit by supporters and sceptics/agnostics alike of the hypothesis. The bravenewclimate site, which supports the hypothesis, is informative of that side of the debate. It is authored by Professor Barry Brook, Director of Climate Science at the University of Adelaide’s Environment Institute. One of Professor Brook’s blogs (Note 3) posted on 23rd April presents some criticisms of a recent book “Heaven and Earth. Global warming: the missing science” by Professor Ian Plimer, a scientist who rejects the hypothesis (this book is also well worth reading by anyone involved in the debate). Professor Brook’s blog opens with a link (Note 4) to a detailed, point-by-point critique of “Heaven and Earth. ..” by another supporter of the hypothesis, Prof Ian Enting from University of Melbourne. Professor Brook subsequently makes some criticisms of his own

Professor Plimer is Professor of Mining Geology, Geology and Geophysics (school of Earth & Environmental Sciences), University of Adelaid. In an article (Note 1) on Professor Plimer’s book in Adelaide’s The Advertiser/Sunday Mail on 14th April said (Note 2) that QUOTE: “ … The book professes to "destroy every single argument that has ever been raised about human-induced climate change". But the University of Adelaide's climate change Professor Barry Brook says it "pushes mainstream science out of context, again and again". …Professor Plimer believes the IPCC has neglected historical evidence of past climate changes, which are recorded in the rocks. .. "When we look at the history of climate changes, not one has been driven by carbon dioxide," he says. "Climate always changes, as do sea levels, as does life (on Earth) and we are living in times that are not extraordinary. The only way you can have the view that humans change climate is if you ignore history." But Professor Brook rejects the claim that a huge body of scientific evidence, from geology and astronomy, has been ignored by the IPCC. "This is an extraordinary proposition and quite at odds with the published literature, as reviewed by the IPCC," he says. "I wonder if Ian has ever read their reports to find out what they actually do say." …….
UniSA chancellor Dr Ian Gould .. A geologist by profession,.. says he was prepared to comment only as an individual, not as a representative of industry or the university. "Climate change is real, it is happening, there's no doubt," he says. "It's only an issue of how much is about carbon dioxide caused by man-made processes." UNQUOTE

As stated (Note 2) on 23rd April in The Australian newspaper (http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/story/0,25197,25372986-30417,00.html) QUOTE: In the corridors of Adelaide University, two respected professors on opposite sides of the climate change debate are pushing their theories on the subject. UNQUOTE. To the lay-person it would appear that the scientific debate over global climate change and human impact through the use of fossil fuels is far from over. It seems that these two University of Adelaide climate change protagonists are quite representative of the whole debate about the hypothesis, not only between scientists but across the spectrum.

Perps, although, like myself, you have every right to express your opinion, you should be careful what you accuse people of, especially those you hardly know. I find it impossible to understand how you can fairly accuse me of having secret motives for my comments on global climate change, since I have always made it quite clear where I stand on the “significant human-made global climate change” hypothesis. I was no different on Professor Brook’s blog. To accuse me of being disingenuous is simply rubish. As I see it your problem is that you have lost patience with anyone who disagrees with your support of the hypothesis. Your comments on Professor Brook’s blogs testify to this. From what I have seen of these I find you are far too ready to insist that what you refer to as psuedo-sceptics are “trolling” and should be “disemvowelled”. As you said on Professor Brook’s blog on 25th April @ 17.00 “forget the pseudo-sceptics” then followed on 5th June @ 16.41 with “I’m sick to the back teeth with pseudo-sceptics and their deliberate obfuscation and delaying tactics.) I WANT SOME ACTION ON AGW BEFORE IT IS TOO LATE TO SAVE THE PLANET FOR MY KIDS AND GRANDKIDS AND YES EVEN FOR OLDIES LIKE ME)”. I conclude that you have closed your mind to open debate, so your opinion is of no concern to me.

I am not aware of anyone commenting on any of blogs of Jonathan Porritt or Mark Lynas, whatever their opinions, ever being accused of “trolling”, been “disemvowelled” or banned. I commend Jonathan and Mark for there preparedness to allow open debate despite their own personal opinions (although I cannot say the same for Jonathan’s charity Forum for the Future, which has not only stopped publishing any of my comments, it even removed two). I shall submit to their blogs the submission of mine that was “disembowelled” and caused me to be banned from Professor Brook’s blog, then leave it to those with an open mind to decide whether they consider whether or not I have “totally misquoted and misrepresented what Professor Barry Brook of Adelaide University said” or am “disingenuous and deceitful”.

Meanwhile, keep on enjoying life.

Best regards, Pete Ridley, Human-made Global Climate Change Agnostic.

Notes:
1) See http://www.news.com.au/adelaidenow/story/0,22606,25376348-2682,00.html
2) Where sources are quoted the … indicate that other text considered to be irrelevant to the immediate debate has been left out for brevity. I have tried to present a balanced selection of quotations but readers should refer to the source given in order to understand the full context of what was written.
3) http://bravenewclimate.com/2009/04/23/ian-plimer-heaven-and-earth/
4) http://bravenewclimate.files.wordpress.com/2009/04/plimer1a8.pdf

Posted by Pete Ridley | June 24, 2009 9:39 PM

I think that healthy debate is essential, however I must say that the way this debate is delivered is important. Instead of trying to disprove a theory which is widely accepted through a few quotes taken out of context, why not show evidence and theories that point the other way? This is postive debate.

Placing climate change aside for a moment, what are the other advantages of taking green initiatives? Fossil fuel will run out, and as it gets closer towards the bottom of the barrel it gets messier to extract, as can be witnissed in the Athabasca Oil Sands projects. Reliance on foreign oil comprimises one's own countries goals, where we may go to war under an altruistic guise with alterior motives in order to secure energy supplies. If a nation can become energy independant, wouldn't this place less onus on the 'poor old tax payer' to fork out to fund foreign energy deals? Current energy supplies are noisy, messy and fill the air with nasty pollutants which are harmful to humans and the environment. A clean energy supply is beneficial to all, and makes sense in the long term if what we want is better use of our environment. Pete Ridley is a sceptic of climate change and if he had his way we would just go along, business as usual, until what? Oil runs out, our environment is destroyed, biodiversity is ruined. Why not get involved and say, yes, things need to change, but lets not forget about the tax payer. And anyway, that insulation will save the tax payer money in energy bills down the line. Energy bills which are constantly rising. Sounds like good planning with many advantages for the tax payer and the environement, as well as people who would like a positive attitude in preserving what we have for our children. Battling against a theory which is the best we have at the moment, is this not ludditism at its worse? Perhaps that is why when people read your replies, we feel like you are a fanatic 'anti - tree - hugger'. Let's see some healthy debate with real substance.

Posted by Will S | June 27, 2009 2:38 PM

Dear readers, I’ve just been watching the BBC News item “The Price of Going Green” on the predicted rises in the cost of energy resulting from this Government’s “green” policies. The National Energy Action charity has estimated that energy prices could rise by 10% in the next year, pushing the present 500M people in fuel poverty up to 5.5M. That is only in one year, a year in which taxpayers’ will be paying subsidies to the energy industry to help develop renewable sources. In years to come these subsidies will fall, so energy prices will increase even more drastically. Meanwhile, the cost of energy produced from the much more economical fossil fuels will also be pushed up by the energy companies way beyond any increase in the cost of fossil fuel but on the basis of “what the market can stand”.

The BBC item finished with “In the long term we’ll reap the benefits” of renewable sources. I have no disagreement with that. When fossil fuels run out we’ll need the alternatives. But that is decades away. Intense and speedy action to develop renewable sources is totally unnecessary. The only reason that the energy companies are showing an interest is because of the financial support (from the poor old taxpayer) that could be available. Why use their own funds to do development that is essential to their long-term existence. If it was left to the energy companies to pay they would pursue these developments at a much slower pace. They’ve done the risk commercial analysis which confirms no need to rush. It’s a shame for us taxpayers that adequate and independent (of the influence of the IPCC and its supporters) risk analysis has not been undertaken into the impact on global climates of our continued use of fossil fuels. Considering the low level of understanding scientists have of climate processes and drivers (Note 1) such an analysis would surely show that action against our emissions of CO2 into the atmosphere is totally unjustified.

Why are politicians supporting this precipitate action. It’s not because of a belief that it will have any impact upon global climates. That’s just a pretext. It’s in order to raise extra taxes to help pay off the enormous national debt this Government has created through its economic mismanagement over the past 12 years plus the need to attract environmentalist votes at the next election. From then on we’ll all be paying through the nose for our stupidity.

Regards, Pete Ridley, Human-made Global Climate Change Agnostic

Note 1) see http://bravenewclimate.com/2009/04/23/ian-plimer-heaven-and-earth especially 8 June 2009 at 1.24, 12 June 2009 at 20.42, 21 June 2009 at 0.09, 23 June 2009 at 5.02, 24 June 2009 at 6.12

Posted by Pete Ridley | June 27, 2009 4:49 PM

Will S, are you the William S Becker, Executive Director of the Presidential Climate Action Project, an enterprise that has developed nearly 200 recommendations for changes in federal energy and climate policies. Let me know who you are so that I can check up on your background. It helps to know a little about the other parties when debating. I fully agree with you about healthy, positive (and open) debate being essential, certainly as far as the “Human-made Global Climate Change” hypothesis is concerned, but “positive” does not mean simply debate that supports the hypothesis. For millions of deprived people around the world the economic consequences of making incorrect risk assessments on the basis of poorly understood science and flawed computer models are too dire to contemplate.

Unless theories, whether widely accepted or not, have been proven to be generally applicable they should not be used as the basis for potentially damaging action without proper and independent risk analysis being undertaken. The "human-made global climate change" hypothesis has not been proven and many scietists do not accepted it as valid. There is heated debate going on between scientists, exemplified by that between Professor Barry Brook and Professor Ian Plimer of Adelaide University. The reason for such heated debate is that climate processes and drivers are inadequately understood. Those "few quotes taken out of context" are highly significant and I have invited both Professor Brook and Professor Plimer to comment.

My quotes (Note 2) remain precisely within the context of the debate in which they were made. That debate is the same as is underway here. It is the debate about the opposing opinions among scientists regarding the “human-made global climate change” hypothesis. One debater, Professor Brook, opined that the other, Professor Plimer, had “a poor understanding of climate science” then almost in the next breath says “There are a lot of uncertainties in science, and it is indeed likely that the current consensus on some points of climate science is wrong, or at least sufficiently uncertain that we don’t know anything much useful about processes or drivers.” (see the lead item at the site in Note 1 for the full context). The remainder of the paragraph from which that quotation is extracted in no way reduces the importance to the debate of that first part of the paragraph. What is important is the relative significance of the unknown processes and drivers compared with the known ones. This is at the root of the debate. There is a very large risk management problem involving science and economics. This requires thorough, professional and independent risk analysis (see my comment of 27th June).

I have no disagreement with much of what you otherwise say in your comment, but there is absolutely no need to rush into precipitate action regarding CO2 emissions arising from the use of fossil fuels. Emitted pollutants should be avoided as much as possible but CO2 and H20 (produced when CH4 (the main constituent of natural gas) are NOT pollutants. The are essential to life as we know it.

For real substance try reading very carefully the excellent (although, like climate science, not perfect) book "Heaven and Earth. Global Warming: the missing science" by Professor Plimer. He has done much research to “show evidence and theories that point the other way“.

People making comments should try to determine the facts before making ludicrous statements. Suggesting that “Current energy supplies are noisy, messy and fill the air with nasty pollutants which are harmful to humans and the environment” is quite simply wrong. The correct statement is that “SOME energy supplies are …..”. There is virtually no pollution from the use of natural gas, a major fossil fuel (see Note) used in homes, offices and industry and even by internal combustion engines. This is almost pure methane (CH4) which, when fully oxidised (as is usual when burning it) produces only life-supporting CO2 and H2O (twice as much H2O as CO2). No source of energy is much cleaner than that. There are enormous quantities of methane still untapped and the energy companies are developing technologies for their safe extraction, e.g. from coal mines, tundra, sea beds and even from the vast stores within methane clathrate deposits. These will all be available for decades at much lower cost than renewables, unfortunately this lower cost will not be passed on to the public if governments continue to support the premature development of renewable alternatives. We need these, but not yet (if we ignore the issue of reliability of supply from unfriendly sources, but that’s a different issue).

You also make the ludicrous statement that “Pete Ridley is a sceptic of climate change”. Time after time I’ve commented that climates have changed since the world began. It is normal and will be the case long after we have departed this earth.

Implying that the use of fossil fuels until it all “runs out” dictates that “our environment is destroyed, biodiversity is ruined” is purely and simply scare-mongering. There is no sound evidence anywhere that this is an inevitable outcome, there is simply wild speculation spawned by uncertainty.

My preference is to let the taxpayers decide whether they think “that insulation will save the tax payer money in energy bills down the line” and make their own individual choice about paying for insulation now and benefiting later or using that hard-earned money for something more pressing. It’s something to do with democracy.

Yes, Will S, “Let's see some healthy debate with real substance” instead of pure environmentalist dogma.

Notes:
1) This provides a lot of useful information http://www.naturalgas.org/overview/background.asp
2) http://bravenewclimate.com/2009/04/23/ian-plimer-heaven-and-earth lead item, but see also comments on 8 June 2009 at 1.24, 12 June 2009 at 20.42, 21 June 2009 at 0.09, 23 June 2009 at 5.02, 24 June 2009 at 6.12

Best regards, Pete Ridley, Human-made global climate change agnostic

Posted by Pete Ridley | June 29, 2009 4:10 PM

For those readers who either support the "significant human-made global climate change" hypothesis or are unsure about it, try the "climate change test" at http://www.geocraft.com/WVFossils/GlobWarmTest/start.html. Enjoy and relax. We're not heading for a climate change catastrophe because of our use of fossil fuels.

Best regards, Pete Ridley, Human-made Global Climate Change Agnostic

Posted by Pete Ridley | July 3, 2009 10:16 PM

Dear other readers, I’ve just been looking at Australian geologist Peter Ravenscroft’s “Open letter to Bob Brown and the Greens” (Note 1). His letter includes some interesting comments about one of those processes and drivers that “we don’t know anything much useful about” (Note 2), geomagnetism. Peter makes some very interesting observations at the ABC Radio National Pool – ‘an on-line “town square” for all Australians’ site (Note 3) and has submitted many sceptical comments to bravenewclimate, some covering the subject of geomagnetic climate impact. All of Peter’s observations are all well worth a look at (and you’ll have a laugh or two in the process).

There is no sound scientific basis for accepting the “significant human-made global climate change” hypothesis or for believing that the use of fossil fuel as a source of energy to power global economies is other than beneficial to humankind. There are numerous climate processes and drivers other than CO2 and H2O about which scientists know nothing much useful (Note 2).

Regards, Pete Ridley, Human-made Global Warming Agnostic
Notes:
1) see http://www.pool.org.au/text/peter_ravenscroft/open_letter_to_bob_brown_and_the_greens
2) see http://bravenewclimate.com/2009/04/23/ian-plimer-heaven-and-earth especially 8 June 2009 at 1.24, 12 June 2009 at 20.42, 21 June 2009 at 0.09, 23 June 2009 at 5.02, 24 June 2009 at 6.12
3) see http://www.pool.org.au/group/climate_change

Best regards, Pete Ridley, Human-made global climate change agnostic

Posted by Pete Ridley | July 4, 2009 2:21 PM

Dear readers, You may be interested to know that Mark Lynas has stopped posting his blogs and producing his science fiction journal articles to concentrate on his new book. He’s obviously collected enough from subscribers to his blogs to earn another crust, although he appears to have recognised that there is no more money in horror stories about climate change. He says that it will be about “ecological limits - scientifically-defined and quantified limits to our interference with nine 'planetary boundaries', from climate to biodiversity loss”. Perhaps he’ll try harder this time to make his science fiction more closely relate to real life than he did in “Six Degrees .. ”. I’d hate to have to point out more distortions and omissions to his devoted readers.

Best regards, Pete Ridley, Human-made global climate change agnostic

Posted by Pete Ridley | July 6, 2009 6:13 PM

To respond to Pete Ridley:

The insulation work of Kirklees Council on average saves each household insulated £200. Thus the insulation pays for itself in about 2.5 years. There is a nett benefit for the taxpayer plus useful job creation and health benefits. Those who have difficult to insulate homes get advice on debt and benefits. Typically where eligible this finds people an extra £3,000 per year.

This is an extremely cost effective approach.

We are working ideas to enable all households to be better insulated with materials such as external renders.

On the human induced climate change side of things theere is an overwhelming consensus that our rather dramatic burning of fossil fuels since the industrial revolution has increased atmospheric levels of CO2 in the atmosphere. The IPCC reports show clear correlation with global warming and CO2 levels in recent years - on top of the various natural cycles and variations. The IPCC are very well aware of these cycles.

Even if you don't believe this, insulating homes better makes economic and health sense.

Phil Webber

Posted by Phil Webber | July 6, 2009 10:17 PM

Hello Phil (Webber), welcome to the blog and nice to hear from you. I may find time to look into your claims about the extreme cost-effectiveness of your home insulation scheme but my instinct tells me that when all of the true costs involved are included the cost to Kirklees tax payers will take much much more than 2.5 years to break even. In the true spirit of “freedom of information” (not as practiced by politicians with their expenses details) please would you supply these full cost details so that I can check over Kirklees Council’s “break-even “ figures.

The Liberal/Labour dominated Kirklees Council should let people decide for themselves how they spend their hard-earned money – that’s democracy. They may have more pressing needs than meeting the “EU-driven” Labour Government targets on home insulation. As Kirklees Council Conservative leader Councillor Dodds reportedly said: “The Liberal and Labour administration have no conscience when it comes to local democracy”.

“On the human induced climate change side of things there is” no “overwhelming consensus that our rather dramatic burning of fossil fuels since the industrial revolution has increased atmospheric levels of CO2 in the atmosphere” to an extent that causes any significant increase in global temperatures. “The IPCC reports show clear correlation with global warming and CO2 levels in recent years” but, being a scientist with a PhD, you are fully aware that a correlation does not signify a cause/effect relationship. There may well be an apparent correlation (albeit rather low, especially over the past few years) between atmospheric CO2 concentration and mean surface temperature but this does not mean (as you imply) that increased CO2 concentration causes significant warming. There is a considerable body of scientists who recognise that significant increases in atmospheric CO2 concentrations do not cause but are caused by global temperature increases (and FOLLOW these increases by hundreds of years). A large body of scientists reject the “significant human-made global climate change” hypothesis.

You, as a long-serving and staunch environmentalist (like Jonathan) and long-standing Chairman of “Scientist for Global Responsibility” may well consider it your duty to support the hypothesis. Some would say not because you consider it to be valid but because it satisfies other agendas. Many of the global population do not support the same causes as yourselves. Other things are just as if not more important, like a strong and growing economy. The actions that environmentalists are supporting will inflict more damage to already suffering global economies, with consequences that may not be significant for the privileged few like ourselves but life and death for those millions world-wide who are already struggling to survive.

It’s time for you to acknowledge the truth. Scientists have too poor an understanding of the complexities of climate processes and drivers to justify taking precipitate action to reduce the use of fossil at the expense of further undermining global economies. If climate science was settled then there would be no need to continue spending such a vast amount of money on climate research. Most of the climate researchers could be made redundant and the resources put to better use. But we all know that the science is not settled, research must continue so that we reach a position where we can reliably forecast future climates. This is a long long way off. We can’t even forecast next week’s weather reliably yet.

As for the IPCC, well, that’s another politically motivated organisation and we all know how much we can trust politicians, don’t we (thionk of statements from those self-proclaimed “honourable members” such as “weapons of mass destruction”, “the UK economy is in a stronger position than most, “we saved the world”, “public expenditure will keep on rising .. it will be a rise of 0% in 2013/14”, “I always tell the truth” and “I followed the rules”). Let’s hope the Telegraph follows up its “MPs’ expenses scandal” campaign with similar “local council expenditures scandal” and “significant human-made global climate change scandal” campaigns.

Meanwhile, keep on enjoying your privileged life-style, but try thinking of all of those around the globe who don’t have one. Best regards, Pete Ridley, Human-made global climate change agnostic.

Posted by Pete Ridley | July 8, 2009 3:34 PM

Hello again Phil (Webber), I’ve just been doing a little more digging into the costs of your wonderful award-winning home insulation scheme. BBC News item back on 11th June QUOTE: Homes are the unnoticed polluters: they produce about a third of our greenhouse gases - and home energy bills are a burden for many. Kirklees Council tackled both issues at once by sending hit squads of workers street to street, offering everyone free loft and cavity wall insulation with no conditions. UNQUOTE.

Isn’t it wonderful what politicians (local as well as central) can do with money that belongs to the poor old taxpayer. You are claimed to have said QUOTE: Every home capable of having it should get free loft or cavity wall insulation, You've got to make it easy for people. If there's no loft hatch we'll put one in for you. If you need scaffolding we'll do it - at no extra cost… we don't send you off to get a builder. We have a consultant on renewables, so you know what the best options are. These are complicated matters and I think the government hasn't understood how much help people need UNQUOTE.

Then, of course, there are those homes with no cavity walls QUOTE: "Also between 30 and 70% of homes - depending on the area - have solid walls. We've got to do something about them, too." 'Upfront financing'
Kirklees has trialled an external render-based product that is approved by English Heritage and mimics the look of brick, stone render or even Yorkshire stone. It water-proofs - and insulates better than cavity wall filling. But costs are significantly greater at £6-10k per house. ……. "The government should find the capital," .. "And the government could underwrite it” UNQUOTE.

All of this, plus the materials, plus the labour at no cost! Politicians really are wonderful – at borrowing what they don’t have to spend as soon as possible to create jobs. Then pay-back time comes along (after the next election) and those taxes shoot up and inflation races away and we all get hit for enormous tax increases. Excepting of course, the politicians, who’ll still be ripping off the taxpayer with some cleverly arranged alternatives to the expenses scandal IF THEY ARE STILL IN A POSITION SO TO DO! I trust that at the next election the electorate will get its revenge.

All of this on the back of a “significant human-made global climate change” hypothesis and forecasts from climate models, neither of which have been validated and both of which are founded on relative ignorance of the processes and drivers of global climates.

Come on Phil, let’s have those TRUE cost figures as soon as possible. By the way, did you study economics to any significant level?

Best regards, Pete Ridley, Human-made global climate change agnostic

Posted by Pete Ridley | July 9, 2009 6:40 PM

Dear readers, I’d like to remind you of the nonsense in the Times on 30th April at http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/environment/article6196286.ece and the consequences of this nonsense in today’s (11th July) Times http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/politics/article6684912.ece. If this nonsense continues then intensifies as a result of Copenhagen in December we will all be in for a terrible economic reckoning thereafter. This economic downturn will pale into insignificance by comparison.

Best regards, Pete Ridley, Human-made global climate change agnostic

Posted by Pete Ridley | July 11, 2009 10:35 AM

There’s a reassuring message about the "significant human-made global climate change" hypothesis in the article “UN Models on Global Warming Fundamentally Wrong” (Note 1). Perfectly valid scientific arguments, as you'd expect from scientists like Dr. Tsonis (I quoted from his excellent paper Note 2 - of 2007 in my paper "politicization of Climate Change & CO2" Note 3) and Dr Gray who reject the hypothesis. Even supporters of the hypothesis such as Dr. Trenberth and Dr. Renwick are admitting the deficiencies in the hypothesis and hence in the models upon which the IPCC depends for its climate forecasts (crystal-ball fortune telling).

The article references a recent paper “Global warming: Our best guess is likely wrong - Unknown processes account for much of warming in ancient hot spell” (Note 4) relating to climate feedback inadequacies in the IPCC models. This is authored by Dr. Gerald Dickens, Professor of Earth Science at Rice University, Dr. Richard E. Zeebe, Associate Professor Department of Oceanography, University of Hawaii at Manoa and Dr. James Zachos, Professor of Earth and Planetary sciences at UC Santa Cruz. Dr. Dickens has concluded that something other than carbon dioxide caused much of the heating during the Paleocene-Eocene Thermal Maximum (PETM). He said "Some feedback loop or other processes that aren't accounted for in these models -- the same ones used by the IPCC for current best estimates of 21st Century warming -- caused a substantial portion of the warming that occurred during the PETM". This is a significant shift in opinion by co-author Zachos, who in 2005 was suggesting “A Continental Scenario for the PETM: Peat/Coal … Trigger” (Note 5) as distinct from a Methane Clathrate trigger. Now it was due to some unknown process or feedback.

Professor Dickens comment aligns with that of Professor Barry Brook of Adelaide University in his blog (Note 6) in which he said “There are a lot of uncertainties in science .. ” then continued about our poor understanding of climate processes and drivers.

As I said in my 15th July comment on Jonathan’s blog “Sandbrook Lecture”, Global Governance (a.k.a. Global Dominance) is a much more frightening prospect than anything the IPCC models can foretell and is much more likely.

NOTES:
1) see http://www.rightsidenews.com/200907155494/energy-and-environment/un-models-on-global-warming-fundamentally-wrong.html
2) see “A new dynamical mechanism for major climate shifts" by Dr. Anastasios A. Tsonis et al. in Geophysical Research Letters, Vol. 34, L13705).
3) see http://nzclimatescience.net/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=374&Itemid=1
4) see http://www.eurekalert.org/pub_releases/2009-07/ru-gwo071409.php
5) see http://gsa.confex.com/gsa/2005AM/finalprogram/abstract_94450.htm
6) see http://bravenewclimate.com/2009/04/23/ian-plimer-heaven-and-earth/ especially the lead item paragraph starting “There are a lot of uncertainties in science” and comments on 8 June 2009 at 1.24, 12 June 2009 at 20.42, 21 June 2009 at 0.09, 23 June 2009 at 5.02, 24 June 2009 at 6.12

Best regards, Pete Ridley, Human-made Global Climate Change Agnostic.

Posted by Pete Ridley | July 15, 2009 9:25 PM

Dear readers, this is the lead item in Australian Senator Steve Fielding which I think all of our politicians and environmentalists should see.

QUOTE:
Climate change is real. Yes that’s right, contrary to the misreporting in the media, I do believe in climate change. That might come as a shock to some of those on the left side of politics, but it’s the truth. The question that concerns me, however, is what is driving it? Is it increasing levels of human made carbon dioxide emissions, variations in solar radiation or something else?

Around three months ago one of my advisors pulled me aside and asked me what I thought was driving climate change. I smiled and said automatically that it was obviously a result of increasing carbon dioxide emissions. I had never really looked at the science and just assumed what was reported in the media to be true. Well wasn’t I in for an enormous shock. My advisor presented me with data and some comments from a number of scientists which suddenly had me asking many questions. This led me to do some further reading and I ultimately decided to head over to Washington on a self funded trip so I could find out more about the science behind climate change.

In the US I met with numerous scientists on both sides of the debate. Some media outlets would have you believe that I met only with climate skeptics who they accuse of being paid off by the fossil fuel industry. These claims are wholly inaccurate. Moreover, I strongly believe in giving everyone a fair hearing even if it isn’t the most popular view. I believe it’s my role as a a politician, to wade through all of the spin and come up with my own conclusions after hearing all of the facts. Some of the data led me to question whether the Rudd government had got the science right. I then took some of the information and questions I had to the White House where I met with one of President Obama’s senior climate change advisors. While these discussions were fruitful, I was left at the end with even more questions than when I had started.

In an effort to try to get to the bottom of the issue I started to talk to a number of scientists based in Australia to get a feel for what their views were on the subject. Amongst the many presentations, one item really stood out. I was presented with a graph based on data that IPCC use which showed carbon dioxide emissions sky rocketing over the last 15 years while global temperatures had remained steady. This graph left me nothing short of flabbergasted. Up until this point I had truly believed that human made carbon dioxide emissions were responsible for climate change. However, this graph basically said otherwise. I was left asking myself how I could vote for a carbon pollution reduction scheme if it appeared as though carbon dioxide emissions were not driving climate change. It is important to point out that the IPCC had predicted in their models that there would be a direct correlation between increasing carbon dioxide emissions and increasing global temperatures. However, if you look at the graph it is obvious to everyone that this correlation simply does not exist.

Armed with this information I sat down with Minister Wong, the Chief Scientist and Professor Will Steffen of the ANU to hear their explanation. After an hour and a half I left none the wiser. I received a written response to my questions from the Minister a few days later which had me even more uncertain. According to the Minister, air temperature, a measurement relied upon by the IPCC and the Rudd Government to justify its emissions trading scheme was irrelevant. Instead, I was told that I should really be concerned with the variability in ocean temperatures. Not only did this contradict all of the information which the Minister had provided me with only a few days earlier but I was also aware of an IPCC report which stated that the measuring of ocean temperatures was not reliable.

I went back to the government with this question but was met with a wall of silence. They had clearly decided it was safer not to engage with me because I had legitimate questions which they probably were unable to answer. I was left feeling that the only responsible thing to do was to vote against this legislation. At the end of the day, it would be a betrayal of my duty to the Australian people to put at risk the national economy and many thousands of jobs on what is clearly inconclusive science.

But then enter Al Gore. Here was a man who had a lot of power and went around the world preaching about climate change. I thought he might have the answer for me, the ones I couldn’t extract from the Rudd government. I briefly met Mr Gore at a breakfast in Melbourne attended by more than a thousand people. He was aware of the important role Family First plays in the senate and was keen to catch up. After a series of phone calls I was met with a stonewall of resistance. I offered to meet Mr Gore at any place at any time but had no luck. Here we had the former Vice President of the United States, a self proclaimed climate change preacher running away from me over a few simple questions. I could hardly believe it. I would have thought if Al Gore was really committed to the cause he would want to meet with all senators who had concerns about the science if it would help ensure that the CPRS legislation would pass. Obviously I was wrong.

I have written to every senator urging them to look at the graph and ask themselves the key question - what is driving climate change? If they can’t answer that simple question they shouldn’t be voting for a CPRS. This decision is the biggest economic decision in this country’s history, one which is too important to vote along party lines. I call on the government to answer my question with a straight answer. If they’re not prepared to do so, I’m happy to fight the lone battle in the senate until those senators who are honest with themselves break party lines.
UNQUOTE
Regards, Pete Ridley, Human-made Global Climate Change Agnostic

Posted by Pete Ridley | July 16, 2009 9:40 PM

I have made frequent reference to the deficiencies in the climate models upon which the IPCC depends for its crystal-ball forecasts of global climates. Dr. Jeffrey Glassman (another scientist who rejects the “significant human-made global climate change” hypothesis) exposes the serious inadequacies of these models and I comment on these elsewhere (Note 1). Another article (Note 2) “There Is No Evidence” (revised only one week ago) by Dr David Evans of Sciencespeak (Note 3) also debates these model deficiencies (Dr. Evans once supported the hypothesis but now rejects it). As the “computer-literate” correctly say “garbage in - garbage out” but many supporters of the hypothesis seem incapable of recognising what even the IPCC had to admit in its latest assessment report (AR4), that climate models ".. continue to have significant limitations"( Note 4) and "The possibility of developing model capability measures … has yet to be established" (Note 5). None of the climate models used by the IPCC has ever been subjected to independent, professional Verification, Validation and Test (VV&T) procedures (Note 8). I cover these points in my paper “Politicization of Climate Change & CO2” (Note 6).

Dr, Evans spent six years from 1999 doing carbon accounting, building models for the Australian Greenhouse Office. During that time “the evidence that carbon emissions caused global warming seemed pretty good: CO2 is a greenhouse gas, the old ice core data, no other suspects. The evidence was not conclusive, but why wait until we were certain when it appeared we needed to act quickly? Soon government and the scientific community were working together and lots of science research jobs were created. We scientists had political support, the ear of government, big budgets, and we felt fairly important and useful (well, I did anyway). It was great. We were working to save the planet. But since 1999 new evidence has seriously weakened the case that carbon emissions are the main cause of global warming, and by 2007 the evidence was pretty conclusive that carbon played only a minor role and was not the main cause of the recent global warming” (Note 7).

I suggest that many of the lay supporters of the hypothesis should do some serious research into the arguments of the many scientists who reject the hypothesis, then rejoin the debate with a more open mind. Unless they are able to produce sound, up-to-date, scientifically based counter-arguments they are wasting their time (and ours) commenting. They should ask themselves why it is that virtually none of the scientists who reject the hypothesis derive any income from climate science research (or spin-off activities such as Al Gore’s Climate Change legal advice service and Carbon Trading companies). They should also ask why virtually all scientists who support the hypothesis have careers and status which depend upon a strong climate research industry.

NOTES:
1) see my comments http://www.stevefielding.com.au/blog/comments/the_real_reason_ill_fight_in_the_senate_on_climate_change/
2) see http://sciencespeak.com/NoEvidence.pdf
3) see http://sciencespeak.com/
4) http://epw.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?FuseAction=Minority.Blogs&ContentRecord_id=927b9303-802a-23ad-494b-dccb00b51a12%3Ehttp://epw.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?FuseAction=Minority.Blogs&ContentRecord_id=927b9303-802a-23ad-494b-dccb00b51a12
4) see IPCC AR4 "Climate Models and Their Evaluation".
5) see AR4 WG1 Technical Summary, Cambridge University Press, 2007.
6) see http://nzclimatescience.net/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=374&Itemid=1
7) see http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/story/0,25197,24036736-7583,00.html
8) see my comment of 14 July @ 12:51:29 AM on
http://www.stevefielding.com.au/blog/comments/assessment_of_penny_wongs_response_to_my_3_questions_on_climate_change/#comments

Best regards, Pete Ridley, Human-made Global Climate Change Agnostic

Posted by Pete Ridley | July 19, 2009 7:34 PM

Further info about the Kirklees Warm Zone scheme:

(I hadn't looked at this blog for a while)

In answer to Pete Ridley -

The figures were verified by the Ashden Award and judges and Audit Commission inspectors. If you email me I can send you a case study.

phil.webber@kirklees.gov.uk

Since then we have had some further economic analysis done too.

In rough terms the figures go like this:
For every £1 of council taxpayers money we spend the local benefits are about £4. £1 from the CERT utility contribution (which is taken from energy bills), £1 from job creation in the local area, £1 from fuel cost savings, £1 from other benefits eg facilitating access to eligible government aid for those in severe hardship.

As a local taxpayer if we can insulate your home on average you benefit from a reduced energy bill of around £200/year.

We are very aware of a large proportion of properties that we cannot insulate with a cavity fill as they don't have cavity walls.

We are currently working out a packege of around £6m to tackle this via external insulation and renewable energy generation on homes. This funding will be targeted at the fuel poor and unwell in health terms and will be 50% funded from European Regional Development money.

There is cross party very strong support for this programme. I have spoken to many local people who think it is great. Even those who can't benefit directly from insulation get a free CO monitor, low energy light bulbs, energy survey and advice, debt and benefits advice and other offers eg water conservation.

Phil Webber
Head of Kirklees Environment unit

Posted by Phil Webber | October 13, 2009 11:34 PM

Search

Feeds

Recent Posts

Categories

Archives

Articles

Other Blogs

News Links

Organisations

Ashden Awards

Comments (20)

Post a comment