An Inconvenient Truth or a convenient teaching aid?Readers may recall that the then Education Secretary Alan Johnson, and then Environment Secretary David Milliband sent a DVD of Al Gores film ‘An Inconvenient Truth’ to all secondary schools in England as part of the ‘sustainable schools’ programme (Newsletter 13th April). The government, enthusiastically endorsing the view that the debate over the science of climate change was over, saw this as a good way of getting the message over to the next generation.
But not everyone agrees. Thursday’s Daily Telegraph carries a report of a legal challenge by one parent and school governor: Stewart Dimmock, who has two children at a school in Dover . He is asking for a judicial review of the government’s action. With Mr Milliband now having moved on to higher things, the challenge is actually to Ed Balls, the current Secretary of State for Children, Schools and Families. On 27th, there will be an oral hearing. If successful, Mr Dimmock’s case will be heard and a decision made by the judge.
The challenge is based on a provision in the 1996 Education Act requiring that local education authorities, school governors and head teachers ‘shall forbid… the promotion of partisan political views in the teaching of any subject in the school’. If material of a political nature is presented to children, then the same parties have an obligation to take ‘such steps as are reasonably practicable to secure that…they are offered a balanced presentation of opposing views’.
The success or failure of this challenge rests, therefore, on two decisions: whether or not ‘An Inconvenient Truth’ does indeed represent a partisan view and, if so, whether sufficient balance is being provided when it is shown to children. In practical terms, it is the first decision which is more important. If a judge rules that the film is indeed partisan and unbalanced, then this would be both highly embarrassing for the government and should give politicians both here and in other countries pause for thought about how certain the science espoused by the IPCC truly is.
It is interesting to contrast the reception given to Al Gore’s polemic and the Channel 4 documentary ‘The Great Global Warming Swindle’. The latter came in for virulent criticism both for the science on which it was based and its presentation. With such a challenging title, it was bound to court controversy, and some of the criticism was indeed justified. However, it presented a point of view, rather than putting forward incontestable truth. If balance is needed, perhaps the answer is to show both programmes and then debate the points raised.
‘An Inconvenient Truth’ on the other hand, not only received a rapturous reception (including an Oscar for Gore himself) but valid criticisms have been brushed aside. More worrying than any factual errors is the exaggeration and use of emotional imagery to ram home the points. A viewer is left with the misleading impression that a large rise in sea level is likely to cause major coastal flooding this century, at a time when the IPCC is actually reducing its forecasts, and also that polar bears are immediately threatened, whereas most colonies are thriving. That doesn’t strike us as a balanced view, and it will be interesting to see if the judge next week is of the same opinion.
Environmental costs and benefits
This week, a new report by John Llewellyn of Lehman Brothers has been published. Entitled ‘The Business of Climate Change II’, it is a follow up to one published in February. In it, Llewellyn estimates the effective cost of carbon implicit in some of the policy choices made by government, and some may be surprised by his findings. His argument is that a proper macroeconomic analysis would show that some initiatives simply are not cost-effective.
The headline figure is for photovoltaics, or solar power. Because the equipment is so expensive and the output so low, the effective cost of carbon (borne to a very large extent by the taxpayer via government subsidies) is $6,300 per tonne. This compares to a current market price of around $70 per tonne in the European carbon trading system. Germany is sometimes held up as an example to follow because of the relatively high penetration of solar cells, but this is simply because the government is prepared to put in far more subsidies than other countries. Whether German taxpayers would agree if they knew the full picture is a moot point.
But ultimately, the wisdom of going down this route has to be questioned when there are much more cost effective alternatives available. They may not be as sexy, but low energy light bulbs can reduce carbon emissions at a cost of only $10 per tonne. In the meantime, European governments continue to push ahead with other more expensive options. Offshore wind comes in at a relatively reasonable (but still uneconomic) $150 per tonne, but the estimate of the implicit cost of carbon to meet the EU’s new car emission targets is $700-$2,300 per tonne.
The message from governments seems to be to reduce carbon at any price. This is both wasteful and foolish. New technologies need to be nurtured until they become economic, but actively commercialising them at taxpayers’ expense is surely not sensible when more cost-effective alternatives are available.
Electric cars
Much is heard from time to time about electric cars. On the face of it, they sound ideal: clean, silent and not a whiff of CO2 emitted. But the reality is somewhat different. Despite continued improvements in battery technology, any practical car developed so far can travel only a very limited distance before needing recharging. This may be OK for cities if there are sufficient charging points available, but would be no good for longer journeys. Nevertheless, it will be interesting to see what the motor industry comes up with and whether all-electric cars will become competitive with internal combustion or hybrid vehicles.
A more important point, though, if electric cars really do take off, is the source of the power and the overall efficiency of the whole system. Petrol engines are not particularly thermally efficient (less than 30%), while diesels may typically achieve over 50% efficiency. But coal-fired power stations operate typically at about 37% efficiency, and gas ones at up to 45%. In both cases, transmission losses to the consumer are estimated at 7.7%. The electric motors which drive the cars themselves are over 90% efficient, so the power losses at this stage are relatively small. On the face of it, generating electricity and distributing it to cars gives a similar overall efficiency to the petrol engine, but is beaten by diesels.
So, a move to electric cars would make little difference to overall energy use and, if fossil fuels are used to generate power, pretty much the same carbon emissions would result. Adding extra renewable generating capacity to power the cars would be both more expensive and give only an intermittent supply: perfect for those whose cars only need recharging when it’s sunny or windy. The only reliable answer would be additional nuclear capacity. For any country which seriously wants to reduce carbon emissions, this is surely the only way forward.
Electric cars, as any supposed panacea, need to be looked at more carefully before we rush to judgement. And, of course, if they are successful, they do nothing to ease congestion, but would be exempt from congestion charges. An interesting conundrum…
The Scientific Alliance
St John’s Innovation Centre, Cowley Road, Cambridge CB4 0WS
Tel: +44 1223 421242
Jennifer Marohasy BSc PhD is a critical thinker with expertise in the scientific method.
Well all this will be good for a science and technology history lesson eventually. Either a phase of uncertain science produced a global mass hysteria response or we see that a pluralistic society allows special interest groups to termite and undermine a key scientific message for short term personal profits.
If outfits like the Scientific Alliance had a scintilla of credibility, and from a nation that produces great documentaries from the likes of Sir David Attenborough, you would facilitate THE definitive documentary for schools that would give a balanced “view” from both sides without disgraceful “Swindelesque” data fudging where whole time series are truncated to change the story.
Put the boot into Al fine – but don’t try to defend the Swindle. It’s indefensible. The Durkin as “underdog” ruse hasn’t worked. Durkin is a shonk, a shonk, a shonk. Toss it out and move on.
If you are seriously sceptical (and your actions are demonstrating that you’re not) you’d be putting the boot fairly heavily into all ratbag theories – how many anti-AGW theories are we up to now. My head is spinning.
This whole business above is the usual denialist tactic of laying smoke and trying to shut down the debate. You don’t have to “win” – just get enough uncertainty in there to delay, delay, delay.
So where’s the definitive “Great Global Warming Science Comparison” doco eh? Only problem is that the anti-AGW side will have to get responsible and scientifically serious which at the moment it isn’t.
The green freaks aren’t satisfied with gulling scientifically illiterate voters, now they’re going after children.
Someone’s going to get hurt before this is all over.
Schiller,they’ve been targeting kids for awhile now.
Encouraging year 11 and 12 students to wag school to stage a piddly protest at Bush,demanding the right to “educate” kids in the classroom to become total vegans while proliferating outright lies about farming practices and food production are just 2 of the more recent examples here in Australia.
They are doing exactly what junk food advertisers have done for years -targeting kids who have pester power over their parents.
Yes obviously Schiller – such concern for the poor little kiddies so powerless to make up their minds – powerless like children in Africa as droughts increase. But given your high regard for them as “Darkies who lie down and die peacefully” you won’t be concerned will you. (you massive hypocrite).
And as for scientific illiteracy – well that’s your big problem.
Luke,
scientific illiteracy IS your problem – you don’t seem to understand the Platonic versus Aristotelian methods of scientific inquiry.
And surprise us all by telling us the difference in your won words, not by your usual method of plagiarism or endless citing of the literature which you probably have not read.
And the fact you need to resort to ad hominems in your posts is but another way in which you advertise your illiteracy.
Big yea of the day to Louis Hissink – Luke always has much to bellow about but never says anything worth reading.
It would be nice if he could find another blog to infest and leave this one to those who want to discuss matters environmental and who recognise that there are conflicting views that are best responded to with counter argument. Smart arse comments and ad hominem attacks add nowt to real debate.
I just thought I’d mention that 17 countries in Africa are under water at the moment! The Navy is helping rescue people, in land-locked countries.
“scientific illiteracy IS your problem – you don’t seem to understand the Platonic versus Aristotelian methods of scientific inquiry.”
Louis, you are always good for a laugh.
“And surprise us all by telling us the difference in your won words, not by your usual method of plagiarism or endless citing of the literature which you probably have not read.”
Perhaps you don’t understand the scientific method. It’s about references to research conducted using the accepted scientific method which lead on to your own new piece of research. Since Luke is not conducting his own research on AGW, he is referring to the work of others. That is not plagiarism, that is now it is supposed to work. Plagiarism is when you take the work of others and pretend it is your own. Luke takes accepted research and tells you who it came from and where, which is standard, accepted, academic practice. Maybe you need to learn something, Louis.
“And the fact you need to resort to ad hominems in your posts is but another way in which you advertise your illiteracy.”
That’s the biggest laugh of all, when you consider Luke routinely spends lengthy periods of time coming up with the academic references to support his contentions, only to routinely see his hours of work dismissed with a wave of a hand or an ad hominem attack.
Maybe what you should do, Louis, is respond to the research he cites.
SJT,
I do understand the scientific method – it use it continually in my work as an exploration geologist, a profession more adept at the scientific method than most. We get to test our theories on a daily basis.
Accepted scientific method? You mean there is an unaccepted scientific method, by definition?
Oh I am quite aware Luke does no resaearch on AGW, no serious scientist would, and we still do not know who you or Luke are, (My identity is known).
A web robot can come up with the references, so Luke’s references are comparable.
So SJT, since you have assumed to be Luke’s amanuensis, how about you telling us what the essential difference is between Platonic and Aristotelian methods?
“Oh I am quite aware Luke does no resaearch on AGW, no serious scientist would”
I think you ended the conversation right there, Louis.
SJT
My debating position proven totally. Nice of you to admit defeat.
I don’t know how, Louis. How can you reach the conclusion that “no serious scientist” would conduct research into AGW?
Now where we at Lambert’s worst anti-AGW post ever where Louis denies the laws of thermodynamics. Last time we were there Louis decamped.
Louis by your wanking we know you.
“Why think when you can feel” … yourself.
Another earthquake is starting.
Luke is one of those helpless school-children who swallowed wholesale all the Leftist drivel the teachers handed out, and never questioned a bit of it.
So you see exemplified in Luke the dangers of propagandizing children, instead of focusing on the essential skills they need in order to function normally as adults.
And this is where Schiller loses 100% – no schooling in any of these enviro issues and teachers were all pretty right wing. As usual Schillsbo – mythologising and pulling stuff of out your bum randomly like the right wing propagandist you are.
So were you educated by Nazis or the Klu Klux clan. Probably too mild for you.
Indeed its fascinating to read the modus operandi of creeps like yourself. http://www.fair.org/index.php?page=3186 Someone’s reputation is indeed going to get hurt before all this is over. Eventually Schillsy all your little schemes get found out.
Luke,
Of course you drink your pablum from such sources as fair.org like mother’s milk. I thank you for proving my point so pointedly.
Luke
you’re not trying to tell me that we shouldn’t believe what novelists like Crichton tell us?
Yes SJT beware the sneaky tactics of the fascist right – notice Shillsy had no come back or rebuttal.
You cant be serious Luke, what childish twaddle
Rog has no comeback either. Another little fascist himself.
What a load of rubbish about electric cars.
“Despite continued improvements in battery technology, any practical car developed so far can travel only a very limited distance before needing recharging.”
The latest Lithium-ion batteries from AltairNano and A123 have 10 minute charge times and ranges of 400km or more. They are being put in cars now. The fact is however most electric cars have the range that people actually need as 80% of all car journeys are under 100km.
“Petrol engines are not particularly thermally efficient (less than 30%), while diesels may typically achieve over 50% efficiency.”
Petrol engines in cars are less than 15% efficient and diesel engines installed in cars are less than 25% efficient.
“http://people.bath.ac.uk/ccsshb/12cyl/”
Only huge ship engines achieve anywhere near 50% efficiency. The beauty of electric cars is that they can use huge engines that are optimised for efficiency to generate their fuel.
So we have at worst a 37% efficient coal plant producing electricity for a 80% overall efficient electric car that is a well to wheels efficiency of
29.6% which is twice that of a IC car. If the electricity comes from a 55% efficient natural gas co-gen then the efficiency jumps to 44%.
“Adding extra renewable generating capacity to power the cars would be both more expensive and give only an intermittent supply: perfect for those whose cars only need recharging when it’s sunny or windy.”
Electric cars can act as storage to make renewable power more despatchable. It is called V2G and will form part of the new smart energy grid that old base load power like nuclear has no place in.
Ender,
Nice numbers.
When consumers discover these cars are better than what they have, they will buy them.
Is that good enough, to let consumers decide?
Luke, your nightmare has got worse. My Lavoisier paper, “The Past and Future of Climate”, is now on Youtube. Here’s the link for Part 1:
That’s right, four parts to watch and enjoy. You’ll be playing them over and over and over again. These videos are the perfect antidote to Al Gore’s concoction.
I’ve catalogued with the copy of my Swindle stuff under hardcore climate porn.
Incidentally you aren’t one of Milan Brych’s mates are you?
The invitation to attend Nexus6 blog and defend your paper awaits especially drawing conclusions from 5 cherry picks awaits,
don’t be embarrassed this cartoon will help
http://n3xus6.blogspot.com/2007/09/ha-ha.html
see Who Killed the Electric Car?
this is why innovations policy dictates that innovations are protected from ingrained systemic inertia and vested interests that seek to destroy threats and challenges.
Most of youse are like that: self-serving with small picture vision and ingrained thinking habits that restrict your comprehension. They perpetuated mistruths about the electric cars & battery technology and you happily swallow it, unquestioning. Your children are already being indoctrinated with fixed myopic smallworld thinking – at home and then at school. Don’t teach them to fish. Bring out the Cold War era textbooks!
At what cost Ender? per battery. I read about $2 per watt hour, thats a lot per 35kwh battery
Another question, what outlet is there that can deliver a full charge in 10 mins? They say that for a typical 10 min charge you need a three phase 480 volt, 400 amp circuit. Thats a high risk, heavy duty operation.
Schiller – “When consumers discover these cars are better than what they have, they will buy them.
Is that good enough, to let consumers decide?”
Sure as long as the IC car manufacturers play ball. With the EV1 the consumers were not allowed to buy the car only lease it despite the owners wanting to. Then the consumers were not allowed to decide when the cars were forcibly removed and crushed despite the consumers that decided that they wanted to keep them. Perhaps the IC car manufacturers would like to let consumers decide next time.
rog – “At what cost Ender? per battery. I read about $2 per watt hour, thats a lot per 35kwh battery”
Yes they do cost a lot at the moment as anything that is in pre-production is. Try buying a Rotax 914 aero engine ($25 000) that is made in small quantities and to exacting standards similar to present car battery packs.
“Another question, what outlet is there that can deliver a full charge in 10 mins? They say that for a typical 10 min charge you need a three phase 480 volt, 400 amp circuit. Thats a high risk, heavy duty operation.”
Yeah right. A normal 240V 3-phase outlet will give 30 amps per phase which is 21kW. The next level up is the 90amp per phase outlets that are routinely used at concerts for lighting. Most lighting guys are not rocket scientists and seem to use this sort of power without incident.
There would be little requirement for home 10 minute charging as an overnight charge would be perfectly acceptable. Fast charges would be confined to charging stations with normal 3 phase connectors that are in everyday use.
“The latest Lithium-ion batteries from AltairNano and A123 have 10 minute charge times and ranges of 400km or more. They are being put in cars now.”
Ender – that’s interesting – do you have a reference?
The Smart FourTwo ev is available in the UK to corporate clients only from November and has a max range of 72 miles – no idea how much it costs though.
‘Lobby groups funded by the US oil industry are targeting Britain in a bid to play down the threat of climate change and derail action to cut greenhouse gas emissions, leading scientists have warned.
Bob May, president of the Royal Society, says that “a lobby of professional sceptics who opposed action to tackle climate change” is turning its attention to Britain because of its high profile in the debate…
Last month the Scientific Alliance published a joint report with the George C Marshall Institute in Washington that claimed to “undermine” climate change claims.
The Marshall institute received £51,000 from ExxonMobil for its “global climate change programme” in 2003’
– The Guardian, 27 January 2005
‘Britain’s leading scientists have challenged the US oil company ExxonMobil to stop funding groups that attempt to undermine the scientific consensus on climate change.
In an unprecedented step, the Royal Society, Britain’s premier scientific academy, has written to the oil giant to demand that the company withdraws support for dozens of groups that have “misrepresented the science of climate change by outright denial of the evidence”.
The scientists also strongly criticise the company’s public statements on global warming, which they describe as “inaccurate and misleading”.
– The Guardian, 20 September 2006
‘Of the many e-mails that clogged my computer last week, pegged to the publication of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) report, one kept evading the “delete” button. It came from the Scientific Alliance (SA), an organisation located in the St John’s Innovation Centre in Cambridge. I assumed that it was connected with Cambridge University (it is not).
The e-mail, sent by its director Martin Livermore, alerted me to the “Frazer Institute Independent Summary for Policymakers (sic)”.
This, Livermore stated, was “an alternative, unbiased view of the state of climate change science, for comparison with the IPCC’s Summary for Policymakers”.
He was referring to the Fraser Institute, a Canadian free-market think-tank that has received money from ExxonMobil’
– Anjana Ahuja, The Times, 12 February 2007.
2003
$60,000 ExxonMobil Corporate Giving
Climate Change
Source: ExxonMobil 2003 Corporate Giving Report.
2004
$60,000 Exxon Corporation
Climate Change
Source: Exxon Giving Report 2004.
Only a miniscule £30,000!? I pay the Scientific Alliance either £25 or £20 per year – can’t remember exactly.
How much does the UEA centre for climate alarmism receive from HM Govt?
Don’t know why we bother with IPCC working groups when we already know the thrust of what the likes of Jones and Trenberth will write as lead authors.
‘Only a miniscule £30,000!?’ – Paul
Thats just one shill neocon Institute.. and there are lots of shill neocon Institutes Biggsy..
George C. Marshall Institute
1999
$50,000 ExxonMobil Foundation
‘support for science and public policy education programs’
Source: ExxonMobil Foundation 1999 IRS 990
2000
$50,000 ExxonMobil Foundation
general support
Source: ExxonMobil Foundation 2000 IRS 990
2001
$60,000 ExxonMobil Foundation
‘climate change work’
Source: ExxonMobil 2001 Annual Report
2002
$80,000 ExxonMobil Foundation
‘global climate change program’
Source: ExxonMobil 2002 Annual Report
2002
$10,000 ExxonMobil Corporate Giving
Awards Dinner
Source: ExxonMobil 2002 Annual Report
2003
$95,000 ExxonMobil Foundation
Global Climate Change Program
Source: ExxonMobil 2003 Corporate Giving Report
2004
$25,000 Exxon Corporation
Awards Dinner — Climate Change Activities
Source: Exxon Giving Report 2004
2004
$145,000 ExxonMobil Foundation
Climate Change
Source: Exxon Giving Report 2004
2005
$90,000 ExxonMobil Foundation
DISCREPANCY: 2005 Corporate Giving Report: General Operating Support. IRS 990 form 2005: Climate Change.
Source: ExxonMobil 2005 DIMENSIONS Report (Corporate Giving)
2005
$25,000 ExxonMobil Corporate Giving
Awards Dinner and General Operating Support
Source: ExxonMobil 2005 DIMENSIONS Report (Corporate Giving)
2006
$85,000 ExxonMobil Corporate Giving
General support and annual dinner
Source: ExxonMobil Corporate Giving Report 2006
How much is the Scientific Alliance receiving in corporate sponsorship?.. Hmmmm, according to statements in the media, the Scientific Alliance doesn’t discuss its donors does it?…
Big difference between a 90amp outlet and 400amps. Try to imagine your normal driver going to a charging station and connecting to a 400 amp outlet, in the rain…the safety features would have to be pretty strict.
A 400 amp outlet would need a transformer per outlet.
Try to be realistic Ender.
Paul Biggs – “Ender – that’s interesting – do you have a reference?”
http://www.phoenixmotorcars.com/ – they limited the size of the battery to keep costs down.
http://electricandhybridcars.com/index.php/pages/TelsaRoadster.html
http://electricandhybridcars.com/index.php/pages/lightningcar.html
The fact is that long range cars will probably be for a long time, plug in hybrids. Electric only cars will by built with the range that 90% of people actually use. When we do not have a cheap and incredibly energy dense chemical battery that basically you can pump out of the ground then the actual roles of cars will have to be more specialised.
rog – “Big difference between a 90amp outlet and 400amps. Try to imagine your normal driver going to a charging station and connecting to a 400 amp outlet, in the rain…the safety features would have to be pretty strict.
A 400 amp outlet would need a transformer per outlet.
Try to be realistic Ender.”
I think you need to learn to do some numbers before asking people to be realistic. Given a 40kWh battery a 10 minute charge would require 40*6 = 240Kw. 240Kw for 10 minutes is 40kWh.
240kW is 1000 amps at 240V or at 400V is 600 amps which is 200 amps per phase not 400amps. 400V 200 amp connectors are in commercial production and everyday use.
This a picture of a 400V three phase controller:
http://innovexpo.itee.uq.edu.au/2003/exhibits/s354264/
Similar controllers have extra circuitry to enable them to change to being the charger so this can be the size of a 200A 400V charger that also is used as the motor controller when charging is finished.
Why would this require a seperate transformer? Do you think that everytime that one of these motors is installed a seperate transformer is needed?
rog – “in the rain…the safety features would have to be pretty strict.”
Then again you could use something like this:
http://www.offshore-technology.com/contractors/cables/diamould/diamould3.html
Seapower 02 ROV plug. A three phase wet-mate power connector rated to 8kV 220A, with fully protected contacts.
Diamould – Electrical, Hydraulic and Fibre Optic Connector Solutions
Lamna Nasus
How much does the Scientific Alliance receive?
How much do the Global warmers receive – $Billions of tax payers funds as research grants.
We sceptics only have a voice because clowns like your are not in political control. If your were we would be in a climate gulag.
SJW
are you talking about humanity raising the temperature of the atmosphere, or the earth?
As the mass of the earth, per se, is somewhat larger than the atmosphere, then any thermal imbalance, assuming the present laws of physics remain operable, favours the earth than the atmosphere.
Or do you disagree with this insight?
Ender – many thanks.
How much do the Global warmers receive – $Billions of tax payers funds as research grants.
We sceptics only have a voice because clowns like your are not in political control. ‘ – Louis
Its logic Jim just not as we know it..
Make your mind up Hissink, either you think a greenie conspiracy runs governments or you think it doesn’t; you can’t say it does and it doesn’t, in consecutive sentences…
Shills and PR Institutes (just like the Tobacco corporations) are hired by globalised corporations because their research is scripted and shonky all the way down… Biggsy cant even remember what his annual sub to the Scientific Alliance is, despite being a spokesperson for them..RAOTFLMAO!
Louis is just representing the views of his mining masters like a good geologist should.