I particularly enjoyed this also;
http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/georgemonbiot/2010/jul/14/monckton-john-abraham

When you say “get back to us” who is us? Do you work for a scientific institution?

I have visited your link and have read a few entries which are mostly discussing the conflict between the Ayes and the Nos. There does not seem to be much science discussed. At age 79 I will not have time to read all of them.

I remain unconvinced until somebody can give me proof that the CO2 theory is based on science and not statistics; or can demonstrate scientifically that 0.0388& will cause global warming.

I bow to the fact that you obviously have more knowledge of detail than I have but you have not answered some of my questions. The report said that Revenue Support was not included in the costings. You say that “On-shore wind subsidies via the Renewable Obligation are paid after generation and therefore do not affect levelised costs”. If they are paid therefore they must surely be costs whenever they are paid.

Regarding back-up sytems you say that Reserve and Balancing costs are estimated at a few pounds per MWh. I do not understand how this is calculated but I will ignore it.

Wave power is never going to be cheaper than on-shore wind given the costs of construction and operation in a much more challenging environment.

On-shore wind subsidies via the Renewable Obligation are paid after generation and therefore do not affect levelised costs. Capacity factor is between 25 and 31% which is reasonable for a properly sited machine (many manage better than that). Levelised costs are defined as whole life cycle so demolition is included.

Reserve and Balancing costs for the Grid as a whole are more complex but I have seen reports that have looked at this and estimated it as a few pounds per MWh providing the proportion of wind power remains below around 20% of total capacity.

First of a Kind is to allow for the learning costs of bringing the first of a new design of machinery into operation – especially nuclear with its huge licensing costs.

By any chance are you now prepared to concede that your comment that wind power is more costly than other forms of generation including nuclear might be too sweeping or even just plain wrong?

http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2004/12/index/#Responses

In the absence of scientific proof rather than statistical evidence I continue to be a sceptic.

You say that we tag on to the edges of the argument & yet expect the respect for your theories that we give to those who study & publish proper scientific data. I have been trying to discover whether any scientist has actually tested my theory about 0.0388% CO2 which seems to me to be a very fundamental necessity.

You say that the fact that I have not received a reply does not mean that there is no answer. The Hadley Centre in their reply rpeated all the arguments we have heard before but did not answer my question – if they took the trouble to reply why did they not give me the information?

I have read your link but I am not convinced.

The report was looking for the least cost zero carbon option. But it did not include other forms such as wave power etc. It also did not include in the wind power costings Revenue Support by which I assume they mean subsidies. What measure of enegy generation efficiency did they include? Did they include costs of demolition at the end of life which I understand to be about 25 years?

And did they take into account the cost of building and maintaining the back-up systems needed to cope with windless days?

I do not understand when comparing with nuclesr what they mean by First of a Kind.

Sadly I think you will find there is ample scientific argument to back ‘our’ claims. Just because you have had no answers to your individual emails doesn’t mean that there are no answers.

It is not true to say wind turbines are more costly than other generation see http://www.newenergyfocus.com/do/ecco/view_item?listid=1&listcatid=154&listitemid=4032

Apolgies. In referring to the UK I thought I was posting to an American website. Still it is a WWW so it might have been appropiate.

I was not making a personal criticism = I was reflecting how little notice the CO2 theory supporters take of sceptic opinions. As soon as we raise concerns we are treated with disdain – our last prime minister in the UK referred to us as “flat earthers” and our esteemed Prince of Wales, who is usually very sound in his judgements, has also joined in the attack. None of these people answer with any scientific information to back their claims.

But to the point of this debate. My scepticism has increased since our government sent copies of Al Gore’s video to all schools. This was challenged and the High Court found eight errors of fact and then stopped looking because it was satisfied that the government was found to be illegally sending propaganda to schools. The climategate affair has been investigated three times and each time they were exonerated. Each report merely stated that the perpetrators were naive in maintaining records and threatening to destroy them rather than disclose them – no attempt was made to explain why they found that the scientific irregularities were not unlawful.

One of the chief scientific advisors to our government recently opened a BBC TV programme about climate change by vehemently defending the CO2 theory. He ended the programme by saying “we cannot explain the observed changes in climate is due to natural environment therefore it must be due to CO2″. Which backs up my belief that the theory is based on statistics and not science. Temperatures are up, CO2 is up, therefore the culprit is CO2. The BBC used to be noted for its adherence to truth and impartiality but it now merely propagates the views of its executives. This programme purported to be a discussion on the pros and cons – there were three scientists representing the pros and one the cons and the latter agreed with 75% of the pros’ arguments. How impartial was that?

But my real question is whether the catastrophic conseqences about which we are warned can be caused by CO2 of which there is only 0.0388% in the atmospehere. Forest fires burn fiercely because they are fed by 20% oxygen – if that were only 0.0388% would the fire even ignite?

I have written for an explanation to the IPCC, the CRU at East Anglia, the Hadley Centre, the UK government’s chief scientific advisor and even the
Royal Society. Despite calls from the pro lobby that scientists should be more open none of them have responded except the Hadley Centre which did not answer the question. This seems to indicate that there is no answer. If you have an answer please let me know.

In the meantime our government, despite the financial crisis, is planning to spend billions of pounds on wind turbines which have been proved to be inefficient and more costly than other forms of supply, even nuclear energy.

Rather than using this forum for personal criticism, perhaps you’d like to comment on the actual debate?

Ed’s comment “If you waste energy, it shows you have status” stirred me. Perhaps I’m lucky to be in a place where frugality is championed, how do we spread that influence… perhaps we really should try & get the Beckhams to play out the role created for them in Transition Tales?