First of all there is no such thing as ‘settled science.’ The scientific method calls for constant questioning and re-evaluating. Second, if something is declared settled science, you can be sure that someone with a potential financial gain is promoting it (sorry for my cynicism).<\/p>\n
On Sunday, WattsUpWithThat<\/a> reported that the idea of net zero carbon is based on insufficient date. Wow. We are crippling some of the world’s major economies based on insufficient data.<\/p>\n The article quotes and article from The Telegraph posted on Saturday:<\/p>\n Britain\u2019s climate watchdog has privately admitted that a number of its key\u00a0<\/em>net zero<\/em><\/a>\u00a0recommendations may have relied on insufficient data, it has been claimed.<\/em><\/strong><\/p>\n Sir Chris Llewellyn Smith, who led a recent\u00a0<\/em>Royal Society<\/em><\/a>\u00a0study on future energy supply, said that the<\/em>\u00a0Climate Change Committee<\/em><\/a>\u00a0only \u201clooked at a single year\u201d of data showing the number of windy days in a year when it made pronouncements on the extent to which the UK could rely on wind and solar farms to meet net zero.<\/em><\/strong><\/p>\n \u201cThey have conceded privately that that was a mistake,\u201d Sir Chris said in a presentation seen by this newspaper. In contrast, the Royal Society review examined 37 years worth of weather data.<\/em><\/strong><\/p>\n Last week Sir Chris, an emeritus professor and former director of energy research at Oxford University, said that the remarks to which he was referring were made by\u00a0<\/em>Chris Stark<\/em><\/a>, the Climate Change Committee\u2019s chief executive. He said: \u201cMight be best to say that Chris Stark conceded that my comment that the CCC relied on modelling that only uses a single year of weather data \u2026 is \u2018an entirely valid criticism\u2019.\u201d<\/em><\/strong><\/p>\n The CCC said that Sir Chris\u2019s comments, in a presentation given in a personal capacity in October, following the publication of his review, related solely to a particular report it published last year on how to deliver \u201ca reliable decarbonised power system\u201d.<\/em><\/strong><\/p>\n The article at WattsUpWithThat concludes:<\/p>\n 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.<\/strong><\/p>\n In addition, the whole of the CC should now be disbanded. Unfortunately it is still required by law, but it should now be staffed by truly independent members, with a remit to prioritise energy security and cost\/benefit goals. The ideological pursuit of Net Zero must not override the wellbeing of the British public, put its energy security at risk or make the public worse off.<\/strong><\/p>\n But the current and past members of the CCC who have overseen this attempt to bamboozle and defraud the public must be held to account, and excluded from any further influence over the country\u2019s energy policy, or indeed on any issue of public policy.<\/strong><\/p>\n So why are we even thinking about doing some of the things we are doing to bring down carbon?<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":" First of all there is no such thing as ‘settled science.’ The scientific method calls for constant questioning and re-evaluating. Second, if something is declared settled science, you can be sure that someone with a potential financial gain is promoting … Continue reading