What is becoming clear is the level of statistical deception that is deliberately practised by climate activists in their hysterical pursuit of the Net Zero target.
In October the UK’s Daily Sceptic reported on a paper written for the Royal Society led by Sir Chris Llewellyn Smith of Oxford University that concluded batteries were not the answer to the huge storage requirements of intermittent ‘green’ electricity power.
Despite the prestigious academic fire power behind this conclusion (from the world’s oldest independent scientific academy), the popular media ignored it, presumably because of its unwelcome message about the much-touted battery solution.
But recent revelations suggest the report could act as a loose thread that helps unravel the collectivist Net Zero agenda in the U.K.
The Royal Society (Latin motto: Nullius in verba meaning ‘take nobody’s word for it’) analysed decades of local wind speeds and found the electricity system needed the equivalent of at least a third of green energy to be stored as backup!
It was pointed out that the cost of this would be astronomical and unrealistic.
Now it appears that the UK Government’s Climate Change Committee (CCC) fudged the issue by using just one year of high wind data in order to gain MPs’ approval for ‘Net Zero by 2050’ legislation that was then rushed through the UK parliament.
Sir Chris’s report showed that wind could fall away for days at a time during periods of intense cold dominated by high atmospheric pressure, as has happened in the recent past.
It also found wind speeds varied between years, which was previously already known and had been studied widely by other scientists.
The UK’s Telegraph newspaper has reported on remarks made by Sir Chris after the paper was published in which he noted that the CCC has “conceded privately” that reliance on one year’s data was a “mistake”.
It appears that the information given to MPs committing to 2050 Net Zero assumed there would be just seven days when wind turbines would produce less than 10% of their potential electricity output whereas there were far more days than just seven.
In reporting that the CCC has conceded the “mistake”, the Telegraph noted that Sir Chris said the committee was still saying it doesn’t differ much from his calculations.
“Well, that’s not quite true,” observed the Oxford Emeritus Professor. Asked by the newspaper if it disputed the account of Sir Chris, the Government’s Climate Change Committee spokesperson blithely stated that it had, “Nothing further to add”.
Of course, the ‘Noble Lie’ that Net Zero must be foisted on an unwilling population whatever the economic and societal cost will need to be preserved. “Nothing to see here – move along please” is likely to guide most mainstream media in covering these latest revelations.
The well-respected investigative science writer Paul Homewood is less inclined to ignore the serious matter. “It is now clear that Parliament authorised Net Zero without any proper assessment, whether financial or energy, and the whole Net Zero legislation must now be suspended until a full independent assessment is carried out.”
He goes further and states that current and past members of the CCC must be held to account, and “excluded from any further influence over the country’s energy policy”.
In general, nobody wants to talk about the lack of wind and solar backup, so there is a widespread pretence that the problem will somehow be solved in the future.
But having dismissed any role for batteries, the Royal Society suggested hydrogen as a solution, an idea, unfortunately, only slightly less dumb than batteries.
Highly explosive, low kinetic energy compared with hydrocarbons, expensive to produce, difficult to store and move around – the disadvantages of hydrogen are all too obvious.
What is becoming clear is the level of statistical deception that is practised across climate science and the promotion of Net Zero. And it’s not just in the UK – the same applies here in Australia.
Surface temperature measurements are frequently adjusted upwards on a retrospective basis despite ignoring growing ‘urban heat’ considerations.
Activists use inaccurate computer models to promote ‘garbage-in, garbage-out’ scares on an almost daily basis.
Bad weather is deliberately confused with long-term climate to suggest the latter is changing due to human-caused carbon dioxide (CO2).
And BoM weather forecasts have now added the concept of “feels like” when referring to temperature. This, of course, allows them to increase the actual temperature so that it sounds even hotter than it is. This leads to the hysterical claim of another ‘heatwave’.
Who are they to decide what it “feels like”? Does the temperature “feel like” it’s just as hot to a recent migrant from India as it does to a Canadian migrant?
And what about how it “feels like” to someone living in Darwin compared to a born and bred Tasmanian – do they both think it “feels like” the same?
The arrogance of these third-rate BoM boffins is astounding – they can’t even accurately predict next week’s weather and yet they lecture us on long-term climate issues!
And worst of all, this is all blindly accepted by the mainstream media increasingly funded by so-called ‘elite’ businessmen like ‘Twiggy’ Forrest and Simon Holmes à Court. The latter being the primary source of funding for the Teals via Climate 200.
It should be clear to everyone that people like them have only one objective and that is to become even richer off the backs of a long-suffering public whose energy, food, and everyday consumer goods prices continue to escalate as a direct result of our socialist federal government’s obsession with Net Zero.
And we all know whose driving this climate crusade in Australia……our beloved Minister for High Energy Prices, the Dishonourable Chris ‘Blackouts’ Bowen!
Thanks once again to Net Zero Watch ( firstname.lastname@example.org ) for much of the information in this article