Met Office Lies: December Was Not the ‘Wettest Month Evah’

This is at best dishonest and at worst a blatant lie. Its only excuse is that cunning little asterisk, which leads you to the weasel get-out clause “*Data from the Met Office’s UK digitised records dating back to 1910.”

So not “since records began” then. But, rather, “since the records that suit our political purpose began.” Because, of course, as Paul Homewood notes the Met Office has records going much further back than 1910 – to 1776, in fact – which totally demolish this claim.

We know, for example, that the wettest December in England and Wales was in 1876. And that the wettest calendar month was in October 1903.

But of course it suits the Met Office’s purposes to pretend otherwise because it enables on-message environment correspondents like the BBC’s Warmist-In-Chief Roger Harrabin to continue the spurious narrative that there is a link between “extreme weather events” and “climate change.”

Storms propelled by the jet stream were mainly to blame, it says, with contributions from the El Nino weather phenomenon and man-made climate change.

That “and man-made climate change” appears to be a flourish of Harrabin’s. I can’t find any mention of this alleged fact in the Met Office’s original press release. If the BBC had any integrity it would have sacked this activist long ago. Harrabin is entitled to his religious beliefs but it is not for the BBC to indulge his flagrant bias at licence-fee payers’ expense.

The Met Office too is in clear breach of public standards codes here.

Read the rest at Breitbart.

Wind Industry Big Lies no. 1: Fossil Fuels Are More ‘Subsidised’ Than Renewables

Barry “Dork Brain” Gardiner

Is Labour MP Barry Gardiner vilely dishonest or just incredibly stupid? Personally since he appears to be a litigious sort of fellow I’m plumping for the latter. That’s why, I think it’s quite possible that when he was at his public school Haileybury his nickname was “Dork Brain.” (Though I have no more evidence for this than Gardiner does for most of his hysterical views on climate change)

But I leave you to draw your own conclusions after his recent claim, in an interview with Energy Live news, that the Coalition is favouring fossil fuel energy over wind energy through generous subsidies. (H/T Bishop Hill)

Here’s what Gardiner said:

He claimed the third [lie behind government energy policy] is that Government is “neutral” and doesn’t pick favourites in energy: “Last year the OECD announced that in 2010 the UK subsidised fossil fuels by £3.6 billion. In last year’s budget, the Chancellor announced a further £65million to oil and gas in 2011… In contrast the total subsidy paid to onshore wind in 2010 was just £400million.”

As Bishop Hill notes, he made the same claim in August in the New Statesman:

Last year, the OECD estimated that in 2010 the subsidies for coal, gas and petrol in the UK amounted to £3.6bn on top of which the Chancellor, in the 2012 budget, has announced further exploration and production subsidies of £65m to develop the West of Shetland fields.

So it must be true, right? Not only is Gardiner an elected member of parliament but he’s Ed Miliband’s Special Envoy For Climate Change and the Environment, and also Vice President of (the environmental movement’s sinister taxpayer-funded answer to SPECTRE) Globe International. A man with such important and influential public positions wouldn’t be in the business of telling whopping great porkies, now, would he?

Well, whether Gardiner is lying or thick as pig poo he is most certainly mistaken. Let’s examine his claim more closely in order to spare him and those like him the embarrassment of disseminating false information again.

The claim seems to have begun life in this OECD report, characteristically misrepresented by the Guardian’s Ubergruppenklimatischewahnsinnigefuhrer Damian Carrington in a piece titled Wind power still gets lower public subsidies than fossil fuel tax breaks. It claimed:

Gas, oil and coal prices were subsidised by £3.63bn in 2010, according to data from the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development , whereas offshore and onshore wind received £0.7bn in the year from April 2010.

This was at best a tendentious stretching of the truth unworthy of a serious newspaper. (If you believe the Guardian deserves such a title). At worst, it’s pure political activism. In fact, as Bishop Hill notes, the “subsidies” claimed by Carrington and Gardiner weren’t subsidies at all.

The OECD paper does not mention subsidies of £3.6bn. That figure refers to the value of the reduced rate of VAT on energy. This does not meet the definition of a subsidy, which involves a cash payment. And since it applies to all kinds of energy it cannot be a “fossil fuel” subsidy either, so Gardiner’s claim about picking favourites is patently false.

His claim about the further £65m for oil and gas is not a subsidy either, being a reduction in a supertax (the Supplementary Charge) which is paid by oil companies but not by renewables firms. This therefore is not a subsidy and demonstrates that government policy favours renewables over fossil fuels the opposite of what Gardiner has said.

This was also pointed out in June by Telegraph blogs’ own Tim Worstall. In reality, he noted, if you go by Carrington’s definition of a subsidy, it’s the wind industry which is subsidised, not the fossil fuel industry, to the tune of £41 billion.

And, if you want chapter and verse on this issue, go to the excellent Communities Against Turbines Scotland site (where the Resistance is articulate and strong) and look up Stuart Young’s report. Government subsidy for Renewables in 2012, it notes, is £1,780 million pounds. Subsidies paid to the gas, oil and coal industry in the same period: 0 pounds.

To recap then: the UK fossil fuel industry is not “subsidised” in any meaningful sense of the word “subsidy.” Charging less tax on something is not “subsidising” something.

The government does not give fossil fuel companies sweeteners to encourage them to produce more fossil fuel power. That’s because they don’t need any incentives: the fossil fuel power industry is perfectly viable without subsidy.

The government does, however, give massive sweeteners to the renewable industry wind especially. Onshore turbines are given a 100 per cent subsidy from the government (aka the taxpayer). Offshore turbines are given a 200 per cent subsidy. Without these sweeteners not a single wind turbine would be built because the power they produce being intermittent and unreliable is to all intents and purposes worthless in a free market.

Therefore what Carrington claims in that Guardian article is untrue. What Gardiner told Energy Live and the New Statesman is untrue. They really ought to know better and now they do. So if they repeat these claims again it won’t merely be down to an error of extreme stupidity, will it? It will be an abject and cynical lie.

Now we’ve settled that one I wish Gardiner the best of luck in his threatened libel action with the daily-more-magnificent-and-admirable Ben Pile (of Climate Resistance) over some Tweets summarised here by the Bishop:

@BarryGardiner is a liar about the OECD analysis, even if he is right about energy proces rising. […] Shame on you, Barry.

A tweet that ended up with quite an interesting exchange of views:

GARDINER: Your tweet is actionable. Please withdraw it. I correctly state OECD figures for Fossil Fuel Subsidies were £3.6bn in 2010

PILE: you can’t call people liars and complain about being called a liar. Oecd figures are for reduced rate of vat, not subsidiesand you know that oecd figures are reduced rate, not subsidies, hence you are dishonest.

GARDINER: Also I said gov policy was based on a lie. No named person = not actionable You named me = actionable Please retract

PILE: it’s true. You knew that what you said wasn’t true. So you lied. I said so. That ain’t ‘actionable’. If you think it isi’ll withdraw my tweet if you explain that you were wrong about subsidies to energy live newsWhen did it become ‘actionable’ to call an MP a liar, anyway?

GARDINER: So reducing tax to favour the consumption of a particular product does not count as a subsidy in your book? Really?

PILE: no, reducing tax is taking less money, subsidy is giving money. I’m surprised an MP can’t tell the difference. Hmm.and reduced rate doesn’t favour any particular form of energy. Applies to renewables too. Surprised you don’t know this.

Send me your email address, and i’ll give you my postal address so you can get your lawyer to proceed

GARDINER: Gardinerb@parliament.uk

PILE: let me up the stakes by adding ‘coward’ to liar.

PILE: thanks. I’ve got no money or property, I hope you realise. Could cost you.

Yep. Popcorn time.

Related posts:

  1. ‘Wind farms cure cancer, save kittens, create world peace’ says new wind industry report
  2. I’d rather my wife made land mines than worked in the wind farm industry
  3. We need to talk about wind farms…
  4. The best article on wind farms you will ever read

One thought on “Wind Industry Big Lies no 1: fossil fuels are more ‘subsidised’ than renewables”

  1. Tallbloke says:20th December 2012 at 10:27 pmIs Delingpole vilely dishonest or just incredibly stupid? In actual fact the the subsidies for fossil fuels dwarf those for renewables.http://www.nrdc.org/energy/files/fossilfuel4.pdf

Comments are closed.

Why Did Congressman Joe Wilson Need to Apologize for Calling Obama a Liar?

At the weekend I spoke on California talk radio KSFO 560 FM about Lockerbie, Mandelson and other terrible things with one of my favourite hosts Barbara Simpson – aka The Babe In The Bunker. All was going swimmingly until I made the mistake of saying I thought President Obama was a fundamentally decent man, who just happened to have an unusually extensive, sub-Adamms-Family creepfest of disgusting libtard scuzzballs working for his administration.

No one disputed the second part (how could you? items for my defence: Nancy Pelosi, Cass Sunstein, Carol Browner, Van Jones….) but the first suggestion prompted an instant outraged call from one listener. And rightly so, as I was quickly forced to concede. Just because Obama looks great in a suit, has a rich, deep (if increasingly soporific and platitudinous) speaking voice, a wife with well-sculpted arms, an interesting breed of dog and two cute daughters does not in anyway prove that he is a fundamentally nice guy. In fact, the longer he’s in power, the more I suspect otherwise.

As Andrew McCarthy so amusingly put it the other day at NRO’s Corner, “Obama is not Mr Magoo”. In this case, McCarthy was talking about the risibly lax vetting procedures the president applies to the appalling libtard cronies he wants to appoint as Czars, such as the recently resigned 9/11 Truther, watermelon and black activist Van Jones.

“The point, of course, is that Obama vetted Jones just fine. President Obama is not Mr. Magoo — haplessly gravitating to Truther Van and Ayers and Dohrn and Klonsky and Davis and Wright and the Chicago New Party and ACORN, etc. Jones is a kindred spirit. Obama knows exactly who he is. Jones was given a non-confirmation job precisely because that circumvented the vetting process. This isn’t one of those things that just happen. This is Barack “Transparency” Obama gaming the system.”

But he might just as well have been addressing any other aspect of the President’s John Gotti approach to politics, which is to say, POTUS gets to be the smiley guy in the nice threads who wouldn’t hurt a flea while his minions take care of all the concrete boots, horse’s heads in beds, and such like.

The fact that Representative Joe Wilson felt compelled to apologize for calling Obama a liar during a televised address speaks volumes for President Obama’s success in portraying himself as a kind of noble, lofty, honest figurehead, far above the grubby business of mere politics. But Obama isn’t. And as several commentators – including Kevin Williamson at National Review and Toby Harnden – have now amply demonstrated, Obama almost certainly WAS lying in this case when he said that his Obamacare plans would not result in US taxpayers forking out more for illegal immigrants.

“I’m a big believer we all make mistakes,” said Obama, magnanimously accepting Wilson’s apology.

But where was the mistake?

Related posts:

  1. Is ‘Kojak’ Obama losing all his hair?
  2. Obama: when all else fails, blame Dubya and the CIA
  3. Benghazi and Obama: the media is trying to shore up this desperate administration
  4. Obama’s won the Nobel Peace – WTF?!