Geronimo

I watched a report last night on BBC news about construction of pylons for the power network in Scotland. Apparently there is a requirement to build a large number of very tall (65m) pylons across areas of great natural beauty to transmit power from renewable resources in the North to the industrial belt in the South. OK, I understand that - very unfortunate, but given the situation on climate, probably a fairly necessary evil.

What I don’t understand, however, was the final comment in the report made by the representative of Friends of the Earth. He implied that when this activity has been completed, in 20 years or so, it should be possible to switch off all of Scotland’s fossil fuel and nuclear plants and have the whole country supplied from renewable resources.

Where has he been for the last three weeks? The UK has been experiencing the coldest winter spell for 30 years, and in Scotland’s case, probably longer; and that has occurred as a result of a ‘blocking high pressure’ over Northern Europe. The effect of this weather phenomenon, which is not particularly uncommon, is that there is virtually no wind, and what little there is is wafting gently from the direction of Siberia. What a great job the wind turbines in Scotland will have been doing to keep the people warm! I would be surprised if we were not taking energy out of the grid to prevent them from seizing up. Even wave power under these calm conditions would probably yield much lower levels than usual.

I agree that renewable energy resources such as wind and wave power are a means of reducing carbon emissions, but they provide little energy security, especially in such extreme conditions. Unless they can be combined with some form of energy storage, which, for the required capacity would be ruinously expensive, there is no way that we can consider switching off large sections of our fossil fuel and nuclear capacity.
over 2 years ago via web

I took my son to catch a BA flight to Australia last night (Sunday). After queuing for about half an hour to get into the airport we found that short stay parking for Terminal 3 was full, and had to park at Terminal 1 instead. A long walk followed.

I don’t go to Heathrow very often, I usually avoid it like the plague, but I thought that Terminal 5 was meant to reduce pressure on the other terminals. I also thought that all BA intercontinental traffic was to be routed through Terminal 5. Following the completion of Terminal 5, which I believe is now considered to be a success, things elsewhere seem as bad as ever at our primary hub.
over 2 years ago via web

I have just read an article by Christopher Monckton, referenced below, recommended to me by another Quiet Rioter, with whom I am having an interesting private dialogue on climate change. Correction, I started to read it, skimmed through, briefly glimpsed at the conclusions, but basically gave up in disgust. It purports to be a criticism of the climate change consensus, but mainly concentrates on ‘Climategate’ the email scandal surrounding the Climate Research Unit at the University of East Anglia. I am not going to comment on the content of the article, I’m sure it includes some very pertinent analysis and comment. I am a relative newcomer to the debate and I can’t boast the depth of knowledge necessary to pass serious judgement on its technical content.

I do, however, favour the climate change consensus view, but am interested in the arguments on both sides. What I did read of the article was, I found, a thoroughly nasty, vitriolic and vindictive diatribe. For example it includes descriptions of scientists as being ‘politicized’ and ‘climate criminals’ who should be ‘put on trial for high crimes against humanity’ and presumably, if found guilty, imprisoned. It refers to the ‘The unspeakable BBC, whose bias on the “global warming” issue now places its current right to levy a poll-tax on every UK citizen’. I just could not bring myself to read it completely to pass any judgement on its contents.

In support of Monckton’s case, what is the point of such an article? Who is he expecting to read it? People on his own side of the argument? Certainly – I can almost hear them now – whooping and hollering – ‘Way to go, Christopher – you give ‘em hell’. But Christopher, old buddy, you don’t to need to convince them, they are already fully on board; you need to convince people like me, people who favour the scientific consensus, but who still retain some objectivity and could be persuaded with reasoned argument that you might have a point. You won’t do it with a rant like this.

I invite Quiet Rioters to at least attempt to read the article and make their own judgement.

http://scienceandpublicpolicy.org/images/stories/papers/originals/Monckton-Caught%20Green-Handed%20Climategate%20Scandal.pdf
over 2 years ago via web

Normal 2G (GSM/GPRS) coverage at my place of work is perfect, signal continually at the top of the scale, yet 3G coverage is completely hopeless, and there appears to be no immediate prospect for improvement. Do Vodafone not use the same transmiting masts for both services? What is the technical issue preventing better 3G coverage? over 2 years ago via web

I am not sure why we are getting upset about spending money on global warming mitigation measures. £205 billion is a lot of money but it pales into insignificance when compared with the cost of failing to address the issue. You may say that there isn’t an issue – but are you sure? The fact is that nobody is sure, the jury is still out, and the clock is ticking. What we have here is a sensible piece of RISK Management. Any sensible corporate body manages its risk, and global warming is a risk - not by any means a certainty - but a risk that must be managed. Leaving it until the science is proved one way or another will be too late – it may already be too late – but it would be thoroughly irresponsible to do nothing.

Look at the extreme scenarios: we carry on as we are doing, adopting global warming mitigation actions and find in several years’ time that there is no human influence on climate. We’ve spent a lot of money, and that’s a bad thing: it has impacted world economic growth by a small, or even a significant amount and we are all a little poorer as a result. But, even in this scenario there is a good thing: a major part of the mitigation strategy will have resulted in a great deal of the earth’s carbon, which may otherwise have been turned into CO2, water and other combustion by-products, has remained in the ground. This will be an investment in the future, both in terms of energy security and the other great things we can do with hydrocarbons. The alternative extreme scenario, however, doesn’t bear thinking about. We accept the dissenters view and do nothing, and human induced global warming is found to be a reality. Although we are not certain of the processes which determine world temperatures, we are more certain of the effects on earth that increased temperatures can bring about. These represent the IMPACT of the Risk Management process, and it is a very serious impact indeed. Compared with this £205 billion is small change. This is not a global deception; it is a sensible response to a potentially devastating risk.
over 2 years ago via web

I fully agree with you Phil. These climate change deniers are very dangerous people, and what is more worrying is that, according to a recent poll, more than half the population appear to agree with them.
There are, however, fairly significant natural effects: an interesting article I was reading recently discussed 'mini ice ages' - one occurred around the time of Pieter Breughel the Elder - hence the beautiful winter scenes. it is being suggested that these may be caused by the lack of solar activity. High solar activity generates cosmic waves and this in turn tends to reduce cloud cover - don't ask me what the process is. Apparently we have been in a period of high solar activity but there are clear signs of a reduction occurring now. This should generally increase cloud cover and could create the effect of another mini ice age (cheerful thought!). That could, however, mitigate the effects that we are inflicting on the atmosphere. It's probably our only hope, going by the positions being adopted in the run-up to Copenhagen. over 2 years ago via web

Hunky Mike, I could not agree with you more, as I said in my blog, the BBC is a wonderful organisation: I am a huge fan and make use of all aspects of its output. But this is not an argument for taking a totally uncritical view of its activities. As licence fee payers we are entitled to some assurance that our money is being used wisely. Statements involving monkeys and peanuts and top managers’ salaries being a miniscule proportion of the BBC budget do not elevate the argument. The proportion is certainly not miniscule and since a very large proportion of the BBC’s budget is paid in salaries, what goes on at the top will have a strong influence on the expenditure of the whole organisation.

What concerns me is the question of the level of independent review of BBC salaries is fit for purpose. If I can be reassured of that I will be very happy, because I certainly don’t grudge my annual contribution – I think that it is great value for money.

Incidentally, the BBC Trust made a statement on 29th October that it has agreed 25 per cent cut in BBC senior management pay bill over three and a half years, followed by a freeze for three further years (albeit proposed by the BBC Executive). That’s a very encouraging development, but I am not sure why that they would be doing that if they thought that they were already giving great value for money. I’m afraid that the cynic in me might be inclined to think that in the current climate this is hasty action to avoid a more penetrating investigation of BBC activities.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/bbctrust/news/press_releases/october/management_pay.shtml
over 2 years ago via web

A lttle surprised that Quiet Riots does not yet have Afghanistan as an issue (or have have I just failed to find it?). Janice Turner in the Times was giving Twitter a hard time for being strangely mute on the issue of the five soldiers gunned down by an Afghan policeman, suggesting that it seemed to be more concerned with making up film names involving cows. I see this as a great opportunity for Quiet Riots because it provides a forum for people to get angry about things that really matter.

And before I get the obvious response - I am about to suggest Afghanistan as an issue immediately I close this blog. over 2 years ago via web

The BBC is a wonderful organisation, its content is of consistently very high quality, and it has become part of the fabric of our existence in the UK. One only needs to take a trip across the pond to realise how fortunate we are to inhabit this green and pleasant land. BUT - 37 staff earning more than the Prime Minister? 300 managers earning more than £100,000? Are they having a larf? Are they forgetting that with the licence fee they are in a monopoly situation? Very many people in the country struggle to pay this fee, and if they are not able to pay, the licence fee police are on their doorstep ready to apply a hefty fine. And yet, a significant proportion of the fee appears to be supporting one of the longest gravy trains in the UK.

Maybe there is something in George Osborne’s plan – the only problem is, it’s not retrospective, and so the gravy train will lumber on, at least for a while, and probably long enough for a way around this draconian salary limit to be found.
over 2 years ago via web