Click images for more details



Recent posts
Recent comments

A few sites I've stumbled across recently....

Powered by Squarespace
« Deben denies interests in energy | Main | PCC throws out complaint against David Rose »

Kelly in the Times

Mike Kelly had a letter in the Times yesterday, following on from the story about possible energy blackouts.

Sir, If we have rolling blackouts in the grid in the coming winters, where does the responsibility lie? Real engineers know that infrastructure projects take a decade to deliver. Our preoccupation with alternative energies that do not generate electricity for weeks on end in dark winters originates with the drafters of the Climate Change Bill, who should have taken heed of engineers. A lack of electricity on demand is characteristic of Third World countries, and our country has been betrayed that this should happen to us. We are contemplating sanctions for misbehaviour in the healthcare and banking sectors; why not in the energy policy sector?

Professor Michael J. Kelly
Prince Philip Professor of Technology, University of Cambridge

PrintView Printer Friendly Version

Reader Comments (58)

At last it seems that someone who knows a fair bit about technology is putting their head above the parapet and daring to question the mantra of what has become known as "the Green Taliban".

Well done that man.

Jul 3, 2013 at 8:11 AM | Unregistered CommenterDoug UK

HRH would approve of that letter. Prof. Kelly is obviously the right man for the post. Curiously, the, "Kelly", was the name of the Destroyer that HRH had sunk under him during the Battle of Crete.

Jul 3, 2013 at 8:12 AM | Unregistered CommenterGrumpy Old Man

It's almost as if he's been reading BH :)

Jul 3, 2013 at 8:17 AM | Unregistered CommenterTheBigYinJames

Perhaps you could put Davey in prison with a return to said palce of Huhne.

Jul 3, 2013 at 8:23 AM | Unregistered CommenterStephen Richards

It is a characteristic of our great polity ("Best in the world") that the creators of policies ranging from the idiotic to the near criminal, never have to 'take' the blame - no sacking, dishonouring etc etc. Of course, this is one of the joys of consensus, that no one in particular is to blame. Consensual crackpots traitors and commies get away with it.

Jul 3, 2013 at 8:28 AM | Unregistered Commenterbill

I believe Offgem have now warned three times that there were going to be blackouts under current energy policies, so what do the BBC do? They wheel out Ron (blinder played) Oxburgh, who knows the square root of eff all about energy generation and distribution to tell us what's going to happen. Ronnie boy with his ever so slight scouse accent assure us that with 5% over capacity it is unlikely there will be any blackouts. Of course, as Chairman of Flack Renewables the last thing Ronnie boy wants is a "dash for gas".

I have asked DECC where is the detailed engineering plan for the onward development of our national grid, and what the engineers thought the cost would be. There isn't one, and they have no idea what the costs would be. The CCA isn't just a matter of incompetence, I believe all those involved have committed an act of treason against the British people and should be prosecuted for doing so.

I see Davey is telling us we'll have a new nuclear power plant by 2020. When did they start building it I wonder?

Jul 3, 2013 at 8:29 AM | Unregistered Commentergeronimo

No doubt their defence would be that they tried to get an engineer butfound they were all deniers.

Jul 3, 2013 at 8:35 AM | Unregistered Commenterssat

Fortunately we know who the guilty men are. They're only too proud of what they've done.

Jul 3, 2013 at 8:44 AM | Unregistered CommenterStuck-Record

Meanwhile the greens have placed a massive order for tins of glee

Jul 3, 2013 at 8:46 AM | Unregistered CommenterEternalOptimist

Presumably DECC found enough engineers who said that it is possible to make a wind farm. They ignored the 2nd part of their advice, which was that it was impossible to power the country using them.

Jul 3, 2013 at 8:59 AM | Unregistered CommenterRC Saumarez

Straight-talking Kiwi bloke

"Good on yer mate", as we say in these parts

Jul 3, 2013 at 9:16 AM | Registered CommenterAndy Scrase

Well done Professor. I really cannot remember our dear politicians admitting that engineers had objected to the climate change act. No doubt they were lumped in with the rest of the deniers. How right he is with the sentiments of his last sentence.

Jul 3, 2013 at 9:17 AM | Unregistered CommenterPeter Stroud

He says that "A lack of electricity on demand is characteristic of Third World countries" as though this a bad thing, but isn't it a pretty explicit Green goal to turn all countries into Edenic, pre-Fall, Third World countries?

Jul 3, 2013 at 9:22 AM | Unregistered CommenterJustice4Rinka

Well done Mike Kelly. Another brick in the wall.

I have copied the letter to Nick Clegg and asked him if he thinks sanctions are appropriate.

Jul 3, 2013 at 9:25 AM | Unregistered CommenternoTrohpywins

I agree with the thrust of the letter.

Those in public office (both politicians and senior civil servants who advise on policy) need to be held responsible and accountable for their decisions. They need to be held accountable for serious errors in the management of the country.

There needs to be a new offence created which would impose unlimited personal liability upon those responsible for implementing policy in the case of gross negligence in the conduct of and discharge of the duties of public office. In extreme case, this would additionally include jail time.

To give the policy teeth, all spousal assets attained within say 5 years of entering public office would be deemed the sole asset of the public official, all blind trusts, set up at any time, would be deemed the asset of the public official, ditto small companies in which the public official is a shareholder or director, and the Court should have power to unpick gifts given to relations at any time within 10 years of the official entering public service. The asset pool should include all future earnings, including pension rights.

Of course, it will be difficult to define gross negligence, but I have in mind that it should include three aspects of Brown's handling of the economy, namely the sell off of the gold reserves (not the decision to sell , but rather the advance notice given to the market that the gold would be sold off, whichcaused markets rates to drop in anticipation of large quantities coming onto the market), PPI contracts (which appear to have been so poorly negotiated that is costs several hundred pounds to change a light bulb, or thousands of pounds for the suppply of a laptop), and the failure to run the country with a budget surplus in times of plenty. May be the off balance sheet nature of unfunded public service pensions and employing people in the public service to perform unnecessary jobs should also be included.

I would also include the Climate Change Act, which has not been propelry costed, nor the effects on the way we live thought through, and made known to the public should the UK's CO2 emissions be so drastically cut. It would also include the subsidy arrangements and carbon trading, and windfarms.

I say this because the subsidies are not short term to help a fledgling new industry get on its feet, but need to be permanent since renewables are just inefficient and expensive. The effect of the policy has been to needlelssly to double energy price and so adversely skewed the market that no one will build even conevntional gas powered generators without insisting upon being paid moeny to build and/or a floor price for the electricity produced. The energy policy will have serious ramifications for UK competiteveness. As regards windfarms, even if one is concerned about CO2 emissions and/or global temperature rise, windfarms do not achieve their goal. There is no significant saving in CO2 emissions once backup is built in, and at best they result in a reduction of global temperatures measured in thousands of a degree, and are completely pointless in circumstances where China and India are engaged in building a couple of new coal fired generators every week. Carbon trading does not reduce emissions, it merely, at most, redistributes where those emissions are made (not in the UK but abroad, especially as heavy energy industry relocates abroad). These are crass errors and failings and those that thought up this policy should be held to account.

These sorts of schemes are complet fails since whatever view one has on CAGW, they do nothing to combat it. Where people are dying (and I am in no doubt that there have been premature deaths due to fuel poverty), jail time is additionally warranted.

However, since we do not have real democracy in this country and it is the politicians (not the people) who decide what laws and regulatiosn are made, there is no chance that they will vote to hold themselves responsible for the mismanagement of the country. Turkeys don't vote for Christmass, and politicians never do the right thing.

Jul 3, 2013 at 9:33 AM | Unregistered Commenterrichard verney

I cannot help it. Such a letter cheers me up enormously, and I break into that old song:

Inch by inch, row by row
Going to make the rascals go
All it takes is to look, don't you know
For their claims are so unsound.

And inch by inch, and row by row
We shall see the questions grow
And we’ll make the answers show
‘Til the junk comes tumblin’ down

Original song sung here by its author

Jul 3, 2013 at 9:39 AM | Registered CommenterJohn Shade

Isn't there even one sensible MP willing to introduce a bill to repeal the Climate Change Act? Bills introduced by back-benchers often fail, but even so we would know that all those who voted to keep the Act, and all those who abstained or could not be bothered to turn up for the debate, are guilty of gross negligence.

Of course we already know that our MPs are guilty of gross negligence with regards to energy policy but if some of them voted to repeal the Climate Change Act it would show that there are a few who are trying to make amends for their earlier mistakes.

Jul 3, 2013 at 9:45 AM | Unregistered CommenterRoy

richard verney on Jul 3, 2013 at 9:33 AM

"... so adversely skewed the market that no one will build even conventional gas powered generators without insisting upon being paid ..." [over and above what should be paid].

This is the crux of the matter: the Laws of Physics and Economics have been dismantled, so politicians have the power to do anything, and they do!

What competent scientist, engineer or economist, who still wants to consider themselves a professional, would want to enter this Alice in Wonderland world:

Alice laughed. "There's no use trying," she said: "one can't believe impossible things."
"I daresay you haven't had much practice," said the Queen. "When I was your age, I always did it for half-an-hour a day. Why, sometimes I've believed as many as six impossible things before breakfast."
(Through the Looking Glass, Chapter 5)

"When I use a word," Humpty Dumpty said in rather a scornful tone, "it means just what I choose it to mean -- neither more nor less."
"The question is," said Alice, "whether you can make words mean so many different things."
"The question is," said Humpty Dumpty, "which is to be master - - that's all."
(Through the Looking Glass, Chapter 6)

"But I don't want to go among mad people," Alice remarked.
"Oh, you can't help that," said the Cat: "we're all mad here. I'm mad. You're mad."
"How do you know I'm mad?" said Alice.
"You must be," said the Cat, "or you wouldn't have come here."
(Alice's Adventures in Wonderland, Chapter 6)

Jul 3, 2013 at 10:01 AM | Registered CommenterRobert Christopher

In the event of lights going out and power being rationed, the case 'for the prosecution' is undeniably made. It's along the same lines as being charged with driving with an unsafe load after it's fallen onto the road. The very fact the load has fallen off your wagon proves it was unsafe.

These people are happy to take the plaudits, the salary, ego trip, pension and often, honours, so they should also be prepared to take responsibility when things go catastrophiocally, avoidably wrong due to sheer ineptitude.

Won't hold me breath, mind.

Jul 3, 2013 at 10:01 AM | Unregistered Commentercheshirered


GWPF today have a proposal for ammendment that is at least sensible.

Jul 3, 2013 at 10:02 AM | Unregistered Commenterssat

I've just been watching a little segment on Bloomberg TV with Guy Johnson and a new lead for Bloomberg Energy. They were discussing the DECC and the possibility of blackouts.

What was interesting was that a) people inside the energy sector often speak about a lack of clarity as to the governments proposals and b) it seems that the DECC's plan after all may be that private industry build the shale-gas plants that are needed to provide standby capability for renewals.

So instead of saying "actually wind is nowhere near the level to replace gas" and switch to gas (with fingers up to EU targets) we may get gas by the backdoor through this private industry route. The DECC get to keep their inefficient wind farms and renewable targets, while also shovelling further subsidies into private industry to "help" them setup gas plants as backup.

Which if we hypothetically project into the future would mean that this indigenous gas will probably cost us much more with double subsidies than if we just switched to gas. We'd have one subsidy for renewables and the other for helping private industry build plants - something they should be doing themselves.

I may be wrong but having read many posts on BH now about this, I suspect that given the opportunity to pocket more cash and fleece the domestic consumer once again, this will likely happen.

Just like it did with the railways.

Jul 3, 2013 at 10:10 AM | Unregistered CommenterMicky H Corbett

There are atleast three people whose actions have led us down the path to blackouts:

Ed Miliband
Chris Huhne
Ed Davey

They should take the blame for the suicidal energy policy being thrust upon us!

Jul 3, 2013 at 10:32 AM | Unregistered CommenterConfusedPhoton

Careful that predicting the blackouts does not fall into the trap of being alarmist, counting chickens. Have these blackouts already happened? If not, please could you refer me to a cold analysis that suggests the probability of them occurring? Thanks.

Jul 3, 2013 at 10:39 AM | Unregistered CommenterOzJohnKebab

In fact the government have taken heed of engineers; specifically the IMeche. Unfortunately IMO the country has been betrayed by them too. Have a look at their list of docs if you like. There is a lot of work but it amounts to heavily disguised green-hued platitudes.

They seem to have been heavily influenced by Stern report, David McKays tunnel vision and the need for the UK to show "leadership" and get "green jobs". Their first UK odd energy plan relied on somehow cutting demand by 50% through the fabled "energy efficiency" that is so easy to say but not so easy to achieve. They seem to have resiled from that position since and have now gone for "smart-grids" and "CCS"; again things that exist more in the imagination than reality. And the way ahead is surely through "innovation".

I remember during the Stern report publication the IMeche had an online poll with the question: does it go far enough; yes or no. I emailed to ask for a 3rd option - is the Stern report "alarmist and incompetent" as per Richard Tols readily available critique? But clearly there is now an alarmist subculture there of the type that seems to have pervaded so many of our once-proud institutions.

Jul 3, 2013 at 10:44 AM | Unregistered CommenterJamesG

I'd just like to point out that it's not only electricity.

Water has been treated the same way, and is now in continual short supply. It is only the fact that we have had the wettest season for years which is saving us from drought orders at the moment...

Jul 3, 2013 at 10:56 AM | Unregistered CommenterDodgy Geezer

It is a pity that the author of the letter and most of the commenters miss the real issue. That is, politiicians and senior policy makers in the civil service, rightly, take advice from bodies like the Royal Society and other high science authorities. It is correct that they do so. Would you like the Pollies to ignore the high science authorities and base policy on advice from a blogger? If you want to change the policy you have to address the Royal Society and its counterparts.

Jul 3, 2013 at 10:58 AM | Unregistered CommenterRichard Hill

It does seem Professor Kelly points out the obvious and moves himself, wheter belated or not, into the non-nutter category. Still, the folks that vote the green-leaning-windmills-forever politicians need only look at their two hands and start counting how long a decade is, in human years. If, as some said yesterday, the UK economy will take 20 years to recover, one hopes the average Brit has the finances to buy that 5Kw or 10 Kw diesel generator and the fuel to run it.

Blackouts. Indeed.

Jul 3, 2013 at 10:59 AM | Unregistered Commentercedarhill


...Careful that predicting the blackouts does not fall into the trap of being alarmist, counting chickens. Have these blackouts already happened? If not, please could you refer me to a cold analysis that suggests the probability of them occurring?...

I would have thought that having OfGem warning several times that we are getting dangerous would be a reasonable reason for concern. Presumably they have already done an expert analysis...?

Jul 3, 2013 at 11:03 AM | Unregistered CommenterDodgy Geezer

They haven't even built a square large enough for where we can all collect when the lights go out, the heating goes off and the revolution starts.

Jul 3, 2013 at 11:13 AM | Unregistered Commenterson of mulder

Richard Verney, you are essentially saying that democracy should be scrapped in favour of handing over the rule of the country to the judiciary.

Do you really think that is a good idea?

All the confiscation of assets stuff (including spousal and extended family assets) sounds more like the outcome of a coup in a shaky polity. Winner takes all. Is that what you want?

I think that you should be careful what you wish for.

Jul 3, 2013 at 11:15 AM | Registered Commenterjohanna

Johanna, democracy went belly-up when the main parties here all refused to give us a choice about a number of major issues of which energy is only one. Imagine if you will if a party promised not to, say, introduce a carbon tax then went ahead after being elected and did it anyway.

If we can't kick out the party which supports a given policy without replacing them with another, our democratic solution is gone. How will they be held to account? Maybe taking all their stuff judicially is not a solution, but how may we hold them responsible for doing bad things otherwise?

Jul 3, 2013 at 11:39 AM | Unregistered CommenterRhoda


A couple of years ago BH regular 'Brownedoff' listed all the coal and nuclear plants slated to close in the next 5-10 years. Total about 18GW irrc. Over the same period only about 5-10GW is expected to come on stream, but most of that is renewables, which produce diddly squat in winter cold spells when GB peak demand reaches 60GW. So there will be an energy gap of at least 10-15GW. These are rough figures but is not a matter of if but when the rolling blackouts begin.

It looks like this has finally dawned on the idiots in DECC, hence Davey's latest plan to get big hospitals to run on their diesel back-up generators when grid demand is high. But this is pissing in the wind. A cold winter spell like we had in December 2009 will bring the grid down, or significant parts of it unless rolling blackouts are instigated - which they have all the plans for - e.g.

Then the shit will hit the fan - no electricity, no shops, no petrol, food distrribution, and the riots will begin, at least in some of our cities.

My father worked a s senior grid control engineer for 25 years, and I have been familiar with the the terms grid balancing, spinning reserve, dispatchable generation since my youth. It is just a shame that the idiots in the Royal Societies and the UK and Scottish governments' Scientific Advisory Committees never acquainted themselves with the basics of how the grid works before approving an energy policy based on the vagaries of the wind and unreliable and inefficient renewables. Heads should roll.

Cameron needs to have a meeting with retired senior grid engineers, (retired so they can speak freely without fear of upsetting the their idiot ex-supermarket managers who now run the big energy companies).

Jul 3, 2013 at 11:56 AM | Registered Commenterlapogus

Rhoda, I would not presume to give advice on what another country should do. What we are doing is kicking out the Labor/Greens coalition before the end of the year.

The rise of the UKIP indicates that there is a significant groundswell of dissent. But, as we are discussing elsewhere, maybe it will take a few blackouts to bring home the message to disengaged voters.

Jul 3, 2013 at 12:01 PM | Registered Commenterjohanna

Richard Hill
You're right of course and I think most people on here would accept that — in theory.
The problem arises when the activists move in, whether scientific activists like several of the UEA crowd or Nurse or political activists like baby Bryony.
Some of the advice being given to government is based on the best available evidence; most of it is based on no evidence at all, simply on so-called science by so-called scientists with an axe to grind.
Not sure how you overcome that.

Jul 3, 2013 at 12:22 PM | Registered CommenterMike Jackson

Hmmm, heavy on the taxing, light on the representing; that has a familiar, sic semper, ring to it. Do not send to know for whom it tolls.

Jul 3, 2013 at 12:47 PM | Unregistered Commenterkim

Richard Hill,

Apparently the government thinks the 'right advice' was not available from the obvious sources so over a number of years (beginning in the last century) the government has contrived to get the 'right advice' by paying for it. Government has set up and partially or wholly funded a number of organisations to tell it what it wants to hear. It also gives money to some charities to reinforce the 'right advice'.

Where to start to dismantle this unholy mess?

Jul 3, 2013 at 12:55 PM | Unregistered CommenterBilly Liar

Mike Jackson on Jul 3, 2013 at 12:22 PM

So, Science is being dismantled! It will affect every discipline within it because trust will have been lost and the 'agenda' will be to integrate all theories and 'facts' into the 'new knowledge', the 'Settled Science'.

Performing experiments will be seen as introducing inconvenient data and computer modeling and Demand Politics will be the 'New Norm'. As an example, see reports of David '£40,000' Laws telling teachers what future educational statistics should show. Just wave the magic wand!

Here is another in the Telegraph: Ban school run to keep children fit, says health chief.

So what happens when a child is knocked down: who accepts the financial consequences? They want to interfere in the scientific process, family life, social life, in fact they will turn their attention to anything except to their own responsibilities, governing the country! That is effective border control, upholding the law, which should reflect the wishes of the public, and a ensuring a credible currency.

Jul 3, 2013 at 1:05 PM | Registered CommenterRobert Christopher

lapogus on Jul 3, 2013 at 11:56 AM

It will be difficult trying to discuss the current problems with Cameron.

The political correctness in the USA did not allow them to appreciate the information about the Boston Marathon bombing they received from Russian sources. They had no concept of what motivated the bombers, while the Russians assumed that it was common knowledge. It is common knowledge, but not within the current US government organisations.

Similarly, knowledgeable scientists and engineers would have the same problem with Cameron and most of those inhabiting Westminster.

(Also, with no electricity, when the shit hits the fan, the problem will not be as widespread as expected.)

Jul 3, 2013 at 1:09 PM | Registered CommenterRobert Christopher

@RC Saumarez
Any relation?,_1st_Baron_de_Saumarez

Jul 3, 2013 at 1:22 PM | Unregistered CommenterSandyS

Actually, if you think about it, the impact of blackouts is more far-reaching than bank bailouts or press freedom - because they affect EVERYONE and EVERYTHING...

Every politician who has had a hand in this chaos should be banned from holding public office for the remainder of their natural lives...

Jul 3, 2013 at 2:00 PM | Unregistered Commentersherlock1

Robert Christopher
Banning the 'school run' to keep children fit makes perfect sense — in theory!
What makes no sense is the raft of scientists with the need to jump up and down and wave a flag shouting, "hello! hello! I'm here!!"
For an analysis of this syndrome read John Brignell's site (especially) or the (much-lamented) Junk Food Science.
Or look at some of the stuff churned out by the "medical correspondents" or the "environment correspondents".
I spent two years deputising for the editor of a small local rag (circ around 10,000 at best) and when I left I was probably the most unpopular man in the PR community. Every press release either went straight in the bucket or got a phone call asking for explanations.
If they didn't get back to me it went in the bucket then. If they did I would have them humming and hawing after about 20 seconds.
The stuff that hits the newspapers is not for being accurate or imparting information; it's for raising somebody's profile and/or ensuring that the money tap doesn't get turned off.
Wait long enough and someone else will come up with a data dredge or "meta-study" that will show (probably on the basis of half-a-dozen instances from a survey that had nothing to do with health or children or school) that the school run is actually good for their health.
As a further example, Cameron denies that the government funds (eg) Greenpeace to lobby government. You and I know that he is probably telling the truth as he understands it but if you suggest that he find out what Greenpeace spends on lobbying government and then reduce their annual grant by that amount he wouldn't understand what you're talking about and the "liberals" would accuse you of discriminating and trying to dictate how organisations spend their money.
No. But I am entitled to dictate how they spend my money and the evidence coming out of much of the scientific community in general is that they're pissing it up the wall churning out meaningless conclusions drawn from study of other people's research.

Jul 3, 2013 at 2:02 PM | Registered CommenterMike Jackson

Further to my previous...

That figure of '5%' relating to spare electricity generating capacity - are you thinking what I'm thinking..?

That doesn't - SURELY it doesn't - include WIND, does it..?

Jul 3, 2013 at 2:04 PM | Unregistered Commentersherlock1

Robert Christopher: "They want to interfere in the scientific process, family life, social life, in fact they will turn their attention to anything except to their own responsibilities, governing the country!"

Well said - see my comment here about today's obituary of Professor Kenneth Minogue.

Jul 3, 2013 at 2:15 PM | Registered CommenterRobin Guenier

Wasn't it Professor Michael Kelly who took exception to some climate scientist referring to runs of some computer model as "experiments"?

If it was, I can't remember the circumstances.

Jul 3, 2013 at 3:01 PM | Registered CommenterMartin A

Martin A: Kelly's remark was one of the notes he made at the Oxburgh enquiry - notes that did not appear in the Report but were unearthed by the Bish. See this extract from a Steve McIntyre post:

(i) I take real exception to having simulation runs described as experiments (without at least the qualification of ‘computer’ experiments). It does a disservice to centuries of real experimentation and allows simulations output to be considered as real data. This last is a very serious matter, as it can lead to the idea that real ‘real data’ might be wrong simply because it disagrees with the models! That is turning centuries of science on its head.

Jul 3, 2013 at 3:31 PM | Registered CommenterRobin Guenier

Martin, yes that's right, in his notes accompanying the Oxburgh review. Google, or do a BH search to find the details:

Jul 3, 2013 at 3:32 PM | Registered CommenterPaul Matthews

The politicians have always got the advice that they have wanted. Just stop for one minute and imagine that you were responsible for UK energy policy back in the 90's and some oik told you that CO2 was the driver of climate. Are you telling me seriously that you would not have insisted that science first showed that it understood natural variability before it put the blame on CO2. The politicians cannot evade culpability by blaming the scientists. The pollies have always arranged things so that they have received the advice they wanted.

Look at the string of numpties we have had as chief scientist.

Think Climategate. Think whitewash.

Think public enquiry.

Jul 3, 2013 at 3:42 PM | Unregistered CommenternoTrohpywins

While you're right about government getting the answers it wants I'm not sure you can blame them for the mess that came out of Climategate and the "enquiries" that flowed from it.
Governments (for better or worse) tend not to be over-endowed with scientific minds and therefore, as Richard Hill points out up-thread, are more or less obliged to take the scientists' view when they ask for advice on matters scientific. The enquiries (bar the parliamentary committee one) were not government inspired or sponsored and ministers likely took the view that the reports fairly reflected what the enquiries found.
It was UEA that decided Lord 'Dracula' Oxburgh should head an enquiry into the blood-spillage!
More puzzling is why so many governments seem to have sold their souls to the environmental activists when their aims, objects, activities, and methods are so well-known and a matter of public record.

Jul 3, 2013 at 4:20 PM | Registered CommenterMike Jackson

After a lifetime in the electricity supply industry and several years trying to get sensible answers out of succesive energy ministers, only to be told by them and the boys and girls in DECC and ite predecessors that the science was settled and that I was essentially a flat-earther and a climate change denier, I gave up trying to reason with them. Instead I have a generator, several years supply of logs, a large oil tank and lots of camping stoves etc.

Jul 3, 2013 at 5:12 PM | Registered CommenterPhillip Bratby

I'm guessing this is a different Mike Kelly from the one who wrote his own hide the decline ClimateGate e-mail. 'I'm lopping off the last few data points'

Jul 3, 2013 at 5:17 PM | Unregistered CommenterMikeN

PostPost a New Comment

Enter your information below to add a new comment.

My response is on my own website »
Author Email (optional):
Author URL (optional):
Some HTML allowed: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <code> <em> <i> <strike> <strong>