“When will common sense and good science prevail, and what happens if does not do so fairly soon?” – Prince Philip, Duke of Edinburgh.
“You see gigantic wind turbines appearing all over the country, but there is very little about the practical value of these monstrosities.” – Prince Philip, Duke of Edinburgh.
•
THE great Rowan Dean of Sky News “Outsiders” fame, details an extraordinary letter sent from Prince Philip, the Duke of Edinburgh, to author and geologist Ian Plimer back in 2018.
Prince Philip was a climate change sceptic. In correspondence to Spectator Australia contributor and author Ian Plimer back in 2018, the Duke of Edinburgh not only compliments Professor Plimer on his most recent book, The Climate Change Delusion, but also praises his previous book ‘Heaven and Earth’, which similarly questioned the ‘missing science’ behind the global warming scam.
Furthermore, in the letter which Ian has kindly provided to The Spectator Australia, the late Prince — who was never one to mince his words — described the wind turbines now blotting the landscapes globally as ‘monstrosities’.
Here is the letter from Windsor castle, dated 29 April 2018:
What a great question. As we can see, Prince Philip, a Patron of the Royal Geographical Society admired the work and writing of geologist Ian Plimer. In fact, the Prince attempted to invite Professor Plimer to London to address the Royal Society of Artists (RSA) on the topic of climate change. That invitation was later rescinded by the mandarins at the Palace, as was documented by James Delingpole in the UK Telegraph at the time. As Delingpole wrote:
Here’s part of the embarrassed kiss-off Prof Plimer received from the RSA’s chief executive:
I am afraid I am writing to you with some disappointing news regarding the Prince Philip Annual Lecture on 5 May.
As you well know, the debate around climate change has recently become highly politically charged, both globally and especially in your home country. Equally, as I am sure you are aware, members of the Royal Family need to be scrupulous in avoiding any appearance of advocating or supporting a particular political stance. The RSA’s charitable status also requires us to maintain absolute political independence in our programme of events and research events.
After discussion with Buckingham Palace, it is therefore with great regret that we must withdraw your invitation to give this year’s PrincePhilip Lecture. The Duke of Edinburgh is personally disappointed as he read your book with great interest and was looking forward to hearing you speak, but I know that you will recognise that the now highly controversial debate surrounding this issue would make it inevitable that he was seen to be taking a particular position.
What is extraordinary about that letter is that as well as confirming the Prince’s admiration for the Professor, it points out that the Royal Family should have nothing to do with the politics of climate change. Yet today, a decade on, both future monarchs Prince Charles and Prince William, the former in particular in advocating the Great Reset and embracing Greta Thunberg, and the latter in his fondness for Sir David Attenborough, are in climate politics up to their eyeballs.
Prince Philip, now that he’s finally in his grave, will surely spend a great deal of the years ahead spinning in it.
“It’s like the boy who repeatedly cried wolf. If I observe many successive forecast failures, I may be unwilling to take future forecasts seriously.
“The ‘problem’ is not only that all of the expired forecasts were wrong, but also that so many of them never admitted to any uncertainty about the date.”
Every once in a while, ‘a few brave scientists’, driven by verifiable science, empirical data, and an endless supply of failed predictions, feel obliged to tell you a few home truths about ‘climate change’ and the failure of manufactured hysteria, all designed to scare you into submission.
This bothers them, naturally.
Article, via the ‘International Journal of Global Warming’ …
For decades, climate change researchers and activists have used dramatic forecasts to attempt to influence public perception of the problem and as a call to action on climate change. These forecasts have frequently been for events that might be called “apocalyptic,” because they predict cataclysmic events resulting from climate change.
In a new paper published in the International Journal of Global Warming, Carnegie Mellon University’s David Rode and Paul Fischbeck argue that making such forecasts can be counterproductive. “Truly apocalyptic forecasts can only ever be observed in their failure—that is the world did not end as predicted,” says Rode, adjunct research faculty with the Carnegie Mellon Electricity Industry Center, “and observing a string of repeated apocalyptic forecast failures can undermine the public’s trust in the underlying science.”
Rode and Fischbeck, professor of Social & Decision Sciences and Engineering & Public Policy, collected 79 predictions of climate-caused apocalypse going back to the first Earth Day in 1970. With the passage of time, many of these forecasts have since expired; the dates have come and gone uneventfully. In fact, 48 (61%) of the predictions have already expired as of the end of 2020.
Fischbeck noted, “from a forecasting perspective, the ‘problem’ is not only that all of the expired forecasts were wrong, but also that so many of them never admitted to any uncertainty about the date. About 43% of the forecasts in our dataset made no mention of uncertainty.”
More information: David C. Rode et al, Apocalypse now Communicating extreme forecasts, International Journal of Global Warming (2021). DOI: 10.1504/IJGW.2021.112896
SOME might argue that the latest global temperature, as measured by x15 NASA/NOAA AMSU (advanced microwave sounding unit) satellites, measuring literally every square inch of the lower troposphere (the exact place where ‘man-made global warming’ is supposed to occur) might be an anomaly caused by the de-industrialisation experiment carried out during draconian COVID-19 lockdowns.
Not so, according to the UN’s own meteorological agency, the WMO.
They concluded that despite the draconian COVID-19 lockdowns that initiated the greatest de-industrialisation science experiment ever carried out in human history, CO₂ levels failed to drop…
Ergo, if CO₂ concentrations didn’t budge, at all, during the most comprehensive global science experiment ever undertaken in mankind’s history, then how do we know that they are even ‘ours’ to ‘bring down’?
NOAA current data reveals that global CO₂ levels are higher now, not lower, than at the same period in 2020.
So, if CO₂ levels are naturally increasing, then why is the global atmospheric temperature, according to NASA’s own MSU satellites, now below the 40 year average?
LATEST NASA/NOAA SATELLITE, GLOBAL TEMPERATURE ANOMALY
UAH Global Temperature Update for March 2021: -0.01 deg. C « Roy Spencer, PhD
April 2nd, 2021 by Roy W. Spencer, Ph. D.
The Version 6.0 global average lower tropospheric temperature (LT) anomaly for March, 2021 was -0.01 deg. C, down substantially from the February, 2021 value of +0.20 deg. C.
REMINDER: We have changed the 30-year averaging period from which we compute anomalies to 1991-2020, from the old period 1981-2010. This change does not affect the temperature trends.
Right on time, the maximum impact from the current La Nina is finally being felt on global tropospheric temperatures. The global average oceanic tropospheric temperature anomaly is -0.07 deg. C, the lowest since November 2013. The tropical (20N-20S) departure from average (-0.29 deg. C) is the coolest since June of 2012. Australia is the coolest (-0.79 deg. C) since August 2014. The linear warming trend since January, 1979 remains at +0.14 C/decade (+0.12 C/decade over the global-averaged oceans, and +0.18 C/decade over global-averaged land). UAH Global Temperature Update for March 2021: -0.01 deg. C « Roy Spencer, PhD
After decades of alarmism about global warming frying the planet, the latest UAH satellite measures show warming of 0.01 [below] the average at the end of last century. No warming at all. And nothing that could cause all the catastrophes that have been claimed. You’ve heard this news on the ABC, right? No?
•
Background on AMSU (UAH/RSS data) satellites:
NASA/NOAA AMSU ATMOSPHERIC SATELLITES
NASA’s 15 MSU and AMSU satellites generate the RSS and UAH datasets, which measure the average temperature of every cubic inch of the lower troposphere, the exact place where global warming climate change theory is meant to occur.
UAH (University Alabama Huntsville) satellite data set run byDr. John R. Christy – Distinguished Professor of Atmospheric Science and Director of the Earth System Science Center at The University of Alabama in Huntsville, and Roy Spencer Ph.D. – Principal Research Scientist at UAH.
“Wind generation was higher on this day than it was on the day before. The average for the day of 2552MW gave wind generation a daily operational Capacity Factor of 31.4%” – Anton Lang
31.4% Capacity Factor 🤦♂️.
Welcome to the Pleistocene Epoch (the era of Joe’s ‘Neanderthals’).
For comparison :
“Nuclear has the highest capacity factor of any other energy source—producing reliable, carbon-free power more than 92% of the time in 2016. That’s nearly twice as reliable as a coal (48%) or natural gas (57%) plant and almost 3 times more often than wind (35%) and solar (25%) plants.” – Office of Nuclear Energy (US Gov)
This Post details the daily wind power generation data for the AEMO coverage area in Australia. For the background information, refer to the Introductory Post at this link.
Each image is shown here at a smaller size to fit on the page alongside the data for that day. If you click on each image, it will open on a new page and at a larger size so you can better see the detail.
Note also that on some days, there will be a scale change for the main wind power image, and that even though images may look similar in shape for the power generation black line on the graph when compared to other days, that scale (the total power shown on the left hand vertical axis) has been changed to show the graph at a larger size to better fit the image for that…
By Anton Lang ~
Climatism 
Recent Comments