An Inconvenient Ruminant

The inconvenient ruminant in question is the North American Bison, colloquially known as an American Buffalo.

An American Bison [wikipedia: Jack Dykinga]

The American Buffalo is a potent symbol in the USA and Canada. They have been called Buffalos since the very first European settlers arrived in the mid 1600’s and generally that is what they are known as today.

In fact there are two different subspecies of American Buffalo. The Plains Bison and the Wood Bison. Both are large animals with the Woods Bison being among the biggest of bovine animals in the world and certainly the biggest land animal in the Americas

The American Bison is undoubtedly a magnificent wild beast. But as a species they presents a bit of a problem for Vegan and other Climate Change fanatics like Extinction Rebellion. These are the people who are seeking to reduce/ban/outlaw meat eating on some half-baked delusion that disavowing meat and substituting (say) Mung beans will save the planet.

Let me tell you (with help from the history of the American Bison) why they are wrong.

But first let us just review what exactly the argument against meat production is, and why it is actually deeply flawed even without bringing the American Bison into the argument.

The general attack on the livestock industry these days centres around Climate Change and a blinkered mindset that somehow has convinced itself that animal husbandry is a "bad thing"

The main thrust of the Vegan/Extinction Rebellion argument is that domestic ruminants (mainly cattle) emit large quantities of methane. Methane is a known greenhouse warming gas with an immediate impact. Initially this impact is many times the forcing impact of an equivalent amount of Carbon Dioxide.

So you would think that the more cattle you had then the worse it would be. Over a decadel time-scale (ten years or so) and to an limited extent, that is true.

But Methane is a volatile gas and quickly breaks down in the atmosphere. It decays away exponentially. Within 18 months of a release half is gone. Within 12 years the amount left is immeasurable.

So if your ruminant herd size is stable then the warming effect from the methane release from this herd is stable. If you increase the herd size then it is true the methane release increases. But the warming effect from this increase stabilises within ten years. The net result is that for all countries with more or less stable ruminant herd sizes the contribution to global warming is already factored in. Further warming from these stable herds will be nil. Zilch. Nada.

If you want some proof of this then try this post on the British Veterinary Associations website HERE. But better still refer to the actual paper from Oxford University (IPCC researchers none the less) HERE.

Remember though. We haven’t got to the inconvenient history of the American Bison yet.

American Bisons come from countries (the USA and Canada) that the average Vegan zealot would regard as the arch-criminals of meat eating Methane production.

The USA has between 60 and 80 million cattle, all farting and burping (mostly burping) out their Methane like there was no tomorrow. But, as shown by Oxford University, if the herd size is stable, all that warming from Methane is already factored in.

This is not a gaseous Armageddon in the making. But it gets even more interesting. In fact on an historical timescale there is a reasonable chance that total ruminant emissions, (including the millions of domestic cows) may well be lower now than it was 400 years ago.

How come?  It comes down to a (real) man-made ecological disaster that befel the American Bison in the 19th century.

American Bisons or Buffaloes (call them what you will) were nearly hunted to extinction from around 1830 through to 1880.

By 1880 there were less than 1000 American Buffalos left. Luckily, even in those dark days there were people who recognised the importance in preserving these magnificent beasts.

The American Plains Buffalo was rescued from the brink of extinction. The Woods Buffalo though was feared to be extinct for over 70 years.

Then by sheer luck a herd of 200 were found in a remote part Northern Alberta in Canada in 1957.

Today in total there are about 500,000 American Buffalos in existence. Their recovery from the brink of extinction is an epic tale and something we should all be proud of. Just as we should be truly appalled how they got to the point of extinction in the first place.

So what? You may ask. How does this relate to methane release?

One simple figure should tip you off.

Remember those 500,000 American Buffalos that exist today?

Well, that number is probably less than one per cent of the estimated herd size back in 1700.

Back in 1700 the American Buffalo herd size has been estimated at being between a low of 30 million and up to 75 million. There is even a possibility it topped 100 million. A total herd population of 60 million seems to be the consensus estimate. The herds of Buffalo once stretched from down in Miami right up to Alaska.

The net result of the hunting carnage in the 19th century is that today the methane emissions from the domestic American cattle herd is largely offset and maybe completely offset by that from the slaughtered (and now missing) 60 million American Bison.

So cattle ranching in the USA and Canada has in reality only brought ruminant methane release back up to around that in pre-settlement days.

Nobody suggests that the wanton slaughter of 60 million American Bison in the 19th century was a “good thing”. Far from it.

But it does mean that today the scare stories surrounding methane release from domestic cattle in the USA and Canada are at best over-blown.

At worst they are a myth.
------
Notes:

There is quite a good Wikipedia piece on the American Bison HERE

More information on methane release by Bison and other wild ruminants can be found in This Article

What looks like an interesting book (only skimmed it so far) from the 1890’s titled:

The Extermination of the American Bison 
by William T. Hornaday

Hornaday was the Superintendent of the U.S. National Zoological Park. It looks like he was one of the heroes who saved the day as far as the American Bison was concerned.

His book is available for free from the Gutenberg project on THIS LINK.

2020 - The World just Gets Better! (So Suck it up Doomsters)

Tired of watching petulant children mouthing dogma to odious supine politicians?

Bored by ridiculous attention-seeking teenagers blubbering on about how somebody “stole their future”?

Do you get sickened by watching loathsome sociopaths as they lie and connive to trick naive youngsters into following their death cult?

Well, lighten up peeps! None of that crap is going on here!

This post is in fact a small antidote. It is in essence two fingers (one if your are American) waved at the fear-mongers and cult builders.

More to the point it is also built on the thing cultists and fear-mongers hate the most: Facts.

This post is about (you guessed it!) how things are getting better.

And Better.

AND BETTER!

And by better I don’t just mean the extra five cans of beer I found in the back of the cupboard yesterday.

I mean r-e-a-l-l-y better.

Better in how far fewer people are dying from extreme weather events.

Better in how far fewer people are living in dirt poverty.

Or even how people are simply not dying! (Well, OK. Everyone dies. Its just now they die age 70 not 35.)

So suck it up doomsters.

Whimper your way through the following examples. Wring your grubby little hands. Have a little tantrum like a two year in a supermarket. Bleat and moan like the sheep you are.

Your fetid, rancid scare-mongering will not hold. The only person who deserves to suffer from your self indulgent paranoia is yourself.

The world gets relentlessly better. The new year is unlikely to break the trend.

This is just a small selection of global improvements. Try reading Factfulness by the late great Hans Rosling if you fancy some more.

Extreme Weather Events

Do some people die from extreme weather events?
Sadly yes.

Are more people dying from extreme weather events?
No.

In fact the number of people losing their lives from extreme weather events is now lower than at any time in the last 100 years.

That somewhat ruins the hysterical rhetoric we get pummelled with on a daily basis doesn't it?

Poverty

Want to know how mass starvation and poverty is doing on a global scale?

Lets look at the number of people surviving on two dollars a day or less.

These poor souls sleep on dirt floors. They are illiterate. They die from ridiculous diseases like measles and flu. They are usually malnourished. Their lives are short, dull and brutal.

Because they are poor they have large families in the hope that one or two of their children might survive to their teens. By the way, don’t forget. This is how the sociopaths and their cults want it to stay.

If we carry on as we are then we are we can eliminate this desperate poverty in thirty years.

But only if we carry on as we are. 

We must lock out the psycho cult leaders and their gullible soldiers who seek to derail global progress.

Average Life Expectancy

Finally lets look at worldwide average life expectancy. Currently it stands at 72 . (Yes 72. That is not a misprint)

While the sociopaths witter on about how too many children are being born, the main growth in the worlds population is fuelled by people living longer. In other words people are having better lives.

Further population increase is NOT caused by an increase in births. The number of individuals between the ages of 0 to 15 has has remained roughly constant now for almost twenty years!

Yes. The worlds population is growing. It will peak at about 11 Billion in 60 years. So we know where we stand! We can plan ahead.

Stupid tearful teenagers mouthing the false dogma of their cult masters about population runaway and mass starvation should be treated like any other stupid and ill-informed teenager. They need correction. Even if they suffer cognitive dissonance on having their black nightmares thwarted.

Hopefully one day, they will escape the malign influence of their cult and gain a little more life experience. Then perhaps their world view will be more rational.

So, things are looking good.

Very good in fact.

But there are clouds on the horizon. Yet those clouds are only a threat if we decide to steer towards them.

We have to address the pathetic politically motivated nonsense being spewed out to service hidden agendas. Like all propaganda the nonsense is wrapped in morsels of truth. Usually to make it more scary.

Top of the list within these morsels of truth is Global Warming. Or Climate Change. Or the Climate Emergency. Or Climate Chaos. Or Climate Crisis. Or whatever else it gets morphed to to enhance its ability to scare gullible children.

Yes! The planet is warming. One of the aspects of this warming is sea level rise. Today the cultists and their sycophants are using future sea level rise as a primary weapon in their quest to spread fear and turn back global progress.

But sea level rise does NOT mean humanity is doomed anymore than a rising world population means humanity is doomed. Unless that is you are an avid follower of one of the nutcases running a cult scam like Extinction Rebellion.

So is this sea level rise because of human Carbon Dioxide emissions? Well, probably some of it is.

But so what?

Let’s make the unlikely assumption that ALL of the global warming from the last 150 years has been caused solely by human emissions.

Would you throw away the last 150 years of progress in order to prevent the global warming that has occurred in that period?

Would you rather leave billions living (and dying) in dirt poverty?

Would you throw away all the progress in medicine, science and engineering?

Would you rather have it that almost the whole of humanity was dirt poor rather than today where most of humanity is NOT dirt poor?

Take the average Bangladeshi. The population of Bangladesh has risen four-fold since 1950. Their life span is now about 70. In the 1950’s it was 35. The average Bangladeshi family have 2.4 children whereas forty years ago it was six.

Today Bangladesh feeds itself. Bangladesh does not suffer the crippling famines of the past. Neither does it succumb to dreadful and easily prevented epidemics.

Bangladesh is healthier, richer, and better educated than it has ever been before. It's population is stabilising. Child mortality is at an all time low.

All that because Bangladesh has embraced modern science, medicine and engineering and rejected Luddite paranoia, superstition and fear.

Meanwhile, since 1950 the world sea level has risen about 17cms. (7 inches)

Go and ask the average Bangladeshi what he/she would regard as more important aspect of the last 70 years in Bangladesh.

Was it sea level rise?
Or was it the improvement of the human condition?

We can continue to improve things and adapt to change. Or we can throw it away.

We can indulge in a panic laced pursuit of a dark self fulfilling prophesy. Or we can continue on a path that is driven by cheap plentiful energy and has been shown to improve humanity worldwide.

Sure. Let’s address Global Warming. As well as other problems like pollution. But let us do it rationally.

Let’s ensure its done to enhance humanity.

Not to diminish it.

Cows, Climate and Reality

Here’s the scary bit.

Ruminants (cows and sheep) fart and burp out Methane. Methane is a greenhouse gas many times more potent than Carbon Dioxide. Eighty six times more potent over a twenty year period. Thirty four times more potent over a hundred year period.

All of the above is true. Really!

But here's the rub.

Methane vented into the atmosphere is gone within nine years (somewhere between 8.75 and 9.5 actually – See Here ). It reacts (mainly) with hydroxyl radicals in the atmosphere to produce Water Vapour, Carbon Dioxide and Ozone.

So initially the greenhouse effect of Methane is stupendously high. But this is for a very, very short time. As the first few days turn into months the quantity of methane in the atmosphere from a release falls off a cliff. It literally disappears.

The greenhouse warming from a Methane release between years 9 - 100 in a 100 year period following a release is effectively nil. It is nil because there is none left 9 years after a release.

Methane decays in the atmosphere exponentially. Half of any release is gone in 14 months.

The net effect of a release of methane into the atmosphere is pretty much immediate and short lived.

The overall amount of Methane in the atmosphere linearly tracks the amount being released. Double the amount released – double the net amount in the atmosphere. Half the amount released then you halve it.

Assume you had a new continuous source releasing methane into the atmosphere. Then the amount of methane in the atmosphere would initially rise. Then it would level off as the newly released methane reached equilibrium with that decaying away.

After about two half-lives (say 2.5 years) the amount of methane in the atmosphere from your continuous and constant release will level off and stay constant.

Let's say our source of methane is ruminants like cattle and sheep.

It is true that cattle and sheep produce a lot of methane. 

But more to the point, they always have. 

They in effect provide a continuous and constant release of Methane into the atmosphere.

Unless the population size of these ruminants is changing then the amount of methane in the atmosphere from them will stay the same. It will be stable.

As methane has almost an immediate effect on global warming then that effect will already be evident and fully factored in today. There is no “build up” or appreciable time lag. 

If there is no further increase in total herd size then no further warming can be attributed to cattle or sheep.

Not convinced?

Here - try this latest piece of research from the British Veterinary Association. In fact their research shows that Methane release from UK sheep and cattle is actually falling. 

If it is falling then so is the established warming effect already in place from these ruminants.

The result is UK beef and sheep farms are already global warming negative. Their current activities are cooling the climate. 

If you don't believe me just read the British Veterinary Association article.

The world really is becoming a much better place. But to keep this progress on track and tackle the real issues regarding climate and pollution we need to bury the fear-mongering. 

Fakery like the current fiction that UK beef production is a terrible global warmer really does a disservice to us all.

(Don’t believe me the world is getting better? Read Factfulness by Hans Rosling – It’ll make your day) 

So whenever you see some spoilt child from Extinction Rebellion blubbering about how meat eaters have stolen their future, just tell them to lighten up and stop snivelling.

Then offer to buy them a burger.

You never know. It might work!

An Inconvenient Planetary Greening

Strange red women march in London. Assorted Climate Warriors glue themselves to things. Even Darth Vader has made an appearance.

Bizarre uniformed youths in silver outfits (that make them look like demented Telly Tubbies) traipse across the bridges of the Thames.

The Climate Rebellion gathers apace.

But meanwhile, as the rest of us stoically await the promised global annihilation, there has been an (another) unfortunate and rather embarrassing development.

I've told you about the North Pole that has point blank refused to go ice free in summer (Here)

I've told you about the decreasing average wind speeds. (Here)

But now,  it appears the planet is greening as well.

Even though Extinction Rebellion promised us desertification and mass starvation
within 10 years (9 years to go), the quantity of vegetation on the planet is increasing.

Which (somewhat) ruins the Armageddon-esque narrative. (See Here)

And it's not just me saying it. Honest! I'm just the messenger. So don't shoot! Reserve your ammo and associated climate justice for the likes of NASA.

They are the swine who've discovered this greening abomination and are bragging
about it.

It's On this Link.

Guess what? A great deal of that greening comes from ambitious tree planting programs in India and China. In other words they are taking pro-active steps to improve the environment, and it is working.

So India and China are hugely improving the lives of their populations and greening the planet as well. All primed by reliable, plentiful and cheap energy!

(The average Climate Warrior might not like that last bit - Sorry)

But it is not just India and China that are greening up. The rest of the world is too!

This has been known since 2016 (See Here) but whenever you ask your average Climate Warrior about it they either mumble in disbelief or just look at their eco-friendly shoes.

So far we have reducing average wind speeds. The north pole ice cap is still there (prophesied to be gone eight years ago). Now we have increasing growth of vegetation instead of desertification.

This climate catastrophe is not really going to plan is it?

Or rather maybe somebody has not looked at the plan properly. After all the Planet really is warming.

So whats left of this Climate Emergency?

Well, it does look like sea levels are rising. Maybe there's more precipitation (rain).

Which is after all what you would expect with Global Warming  Climate Change whatever its source.

But how bad is this change and how will drastically reducing Carbon Dioxide emissions mitigate this rise?

Is collapsing the economy and throwing millions back to the Dark Ages really worth it?

That is for another post.

Storms, Climate Change & an Economy of Truth.

You've heard the rhetoric. Global Warming/Climate Change/Climate Emergency is increasing severe weather events. There will be more storms. More destruction.

Statements like this from my friends in Greenpeace (of whom I have none) Link Here 

[quote]

“The frequency and strength of storms is increasing, leaving destruction in their wake.”

[unquote]

Lurid stuff. Frightening even.

But is it true?

Is the frequency and strength of storms increasing?

The answer to that is No.

The frequency and strength of storms is not increasing. In fact for the last thirty years the average wind speed across large sections of the planet have been in decline, as have severe storm events. You can trace a slowing in global wind speeds right back to the 1960's.

From Antarctica right up to near the North Pole wind speeds have been going down.

I’ll concentrate here on the UK but this really is a global phenomena. (see references later)

Here is the frequency of high wind gusts events across the UK by year which the Met Office states they use as an indicator of "storminess".

Notice all gusts are in decline and that includes the extreme gusts that are supposed to be increasing. (MET office Data taken from Here)

Even though they have adopted a silly storm naming scheme (one suspects in order to add a little drama to otherwise common or garden weather events) the Met Office have come out and made clear that there is no link between Global Warming and UK storm frequency.

But they cannot quite bring themselves to reference their own data showing a slow decline in storminess since the 1990's. The Met Office webpage on Wind Storms is Here

The global slowing of wind speed is emphatic and serious enough to now be a research project for EU. (Here)

Even dear old Wikipedia has a (somewhat rudimentary) page on it Here

The best page is probably This Page from the Institute of Physics. (with caveats – see later)

Here’s a few more links that give useful insight into the phenomena.

ABC News Australia

Cosmo Magazine

Nature Magazine

So, while the panic laden Drama Queens in Greenpeace and Extinction Rebellion would like you to think that storms are dangerously increasing, actually the reverse is true.

Bad things always happen. There will always be storms. But today there are less of them and they are less potent.

But you will not hear anyone suggesting that this is a “good thing”.

Even the Phys.org article above struggled hard to find some bad outcomes yet failed to address any of the advantages of lower wind speed and less storms.

Yet when we look to (say) coastal defence, less storms mean coastal defence systems last longer. Less storms mean less storm surges. Less storms mean less wind damage. Less lost work days and less insurance claims.

The list goes on.

Even a merely lower average wind speed must result in less wear and tear on external structures. I am sure you can think a few more advantages of what is in essence more benign weather. 

By the way while the linked reports are all reasonably recent, this is far from new knowledge. Its just appears to have been kept pretty quiet until now.

It is interesting to note that while these reports all mention the possible ill affect on wind-turbines the reports make great efforts to (incorrectly) indicate that little is known about the wind speed at wind-turbine height.

I first blogged on it and how it can affect the wind turbine farce using data from Garrard-Hassan. But that data from 2011 which shows the slowing of wind speed across Northern Europe seems to have been (how should we say…) overlooked.

The full 2011 post is Here: Wind Speed Decline: A Blip or a Trend?

Here's the Garrard Hassan graph (this only goes to 2005)

But whatever the effects on marginal power producers, clearly wind speed is something that is getting more benign. Maybe it is due to Global Warming, maybe not. But whatever, wind speed is not getting worse.

Global Warming may well have deleterious affects. But (like this) there may also be positive outcomes

It’s just nobody wants to tell you about them.

An Audience with Greta Thunberg

Today Greta Thunberg had an audience with Congress in the USA. One would therefore pre-suppose she was an expert in her chosen field (which I assume is Climate Science) or possibly an individual with massive popular support.

Expertise

At 16 years of age (and as far as I know not an exceptionally gifted child) it is hardly likely Greta has any expertise in climate science at all. It would seem to have been a better choice to seek testimony from someone a little more qualified.

Say Jim Hansen, James Lovelock (100 years old God bless him!) or even Bjorn Lomborg. While their testimony may well have been more boringly factual it probably would have been far less dramatic. It most certainly would not have been delivered with the arrogance that comes from being a precocious child.

Perhaps the doughty Congressmen would have been even better off by first reading Factfulness by the late Hans Rosling. Though, to be fair an optimistic book based on (gasp!) actual facts was never going to out-drama-queen a message of fear parroted by a child.

Popular Support

So that leaves the other possible pathway to give testimony to Congress - massive popular support from the American public. So lets look at Greta's pathway through the USA and how much support she has garnered in her appearances so far

Arrival
First, after a huge amount of worldwide press coverage she dramatically sailed into New York harbour. The accompanying 17 boats were all decked out before her arrival with UN goals written on their sails.  But other than these 17 pre-prepared boats, there was no spontaneous flotilla. The dock was lined by about 200 people. Hardly an auspicious start.

New York
Then on August 30th she attended a demonstration outside the UN headquarters in New York. These reports rate the attendance from “dozens”, “several dozens”,  "hundreds" to the highest at “up to 1000”

Strangely the first and last of these links are to two separate Guardian pieces. The Guardian manages to start off in its real-time reporting at “dozens” and then in a later article manages to massage that to “up to 1000”.  But remember - this is the Guardian. It often appears that truth comes a very distant second to a good story at the Guardian. 

Washington
Next there was the the Washington demonstration outside the White House on Friday 13th (unlucky for some..)

Here we again get that “dozens” of protester appeared with Greta though another news source bigs it up to 1500. But I think the Guardian gives the game away somewhat by informing us that the protest was so small it was literally surrounded by the media. It was so hemmed in could not move off for its march.

Notice none of these demonstrations and rallies attracted more than a paltry 1500 people, and that is if you believe the highest estimate. In all likely hood neither the New York or the Washington demonstrations actually reached 100 people let alone 1000. These rallies were poorly attended. Dare I say dismally so.

Congress

Yet a 16 year old non expert with a committed popular following in the USA that amounts to a few dozen gets an audience with Congress. Along with this audience she and her tiny demonstrations also get huge coverage in the world media. Before this (a few months back) she was feted by the UK parliament.

I get that uncomfortable feeling that there is something seriously amiss here.

Someone is pushing an agenda.

When Senators, Congressmen and British MPs fawn before an arrogant child (who happens to be the mascot for a death cult) I think we should all be worried.

And more than just about Global Warming.

Extinction Rebellion, the BBC and a Deadly Embrace

A Little Historical Background (skip this if you like)

In 1957 a world renowned Social Scientist named Leon Festinger  studied an end-of-the-world cult to see what would happen when their end-date came and went.

He was particularly interested in what would happen after their prophesy failed ( a disconfirmation as he called it). Surprisingly the disconfirmation did not destroy the cults belief but rather the cult tended to re-direct and reinforce it with some pseudo-rationalisation as to why the disconfirmation occurred.

Before the end-date the cult was utterly convinced that the end-of-the-world was at hand. The primary members fed off each others belief in a bizarre social embrace which annihilated
any prospect of disbelief and locked them into the cult. While the leading members were middle aged, the "foot soldiers" were almost exclusively young. Most were teenagers.

Intelligence did not appear to be a criteria in cult membership. The cult included a PhD Astro-physicist, one of the leaders was a qualified medical doctor and another was a degree qualified electrical engineer.

Yet their cult belief was laughable. They believed that the world was going to end in a flood and that they (as the chosen) would be picked up by flying saucer.  As the end-date approached they saw every calamity affecting the world (in that year there were severe earthquakes in Iran) as proof of their belief.

When the end-date came and went, the cult were presented with the painful truth that their mutually inflated prophesy had failed. Festinger later on defined this state as one of "Cognitive Dissonance" . Instead of what most people would expect to happen (i.e cult members would realise their error and move on) the cult leaders pseudo-rationalised that the disconfirmation was due to their commitment. In fact in their view the cult had saved the world from certain annihilation.

Preposterous as it was, this pseudo-rationalisation drove the cults proselytising into over-drive. The press lapped it up.

The editorial policy for almost all newspapers was (then as now) to boost circulation.

The stories of a world about to end, governmental conspiracy and a "higher calling" boosted circulation and so played directly to the newspaper's editorial policy. The fact that the cult was based on an absurd premise was irrelevant.

The editorial policy came first.

So, what has it got to do with Extinction Rebellion and the BBC?

Unfortunately, in my opinion, quite a lot.

I hate to use  25 minutes of your time but if you have a chance please watch at least a few minutes of this video of one of the founders of Extinction Rebellion in an interview on BBCs Hard Talk. (starts one minute in)

Notice the end-of-days style prophesies with "6 billion dying from wars/starvation".  Notice the impending "social collapse", how "nobody was listening". Then we have the "lying elites" and "lying experts". It could be Festinger's flying saucer fanatics talking. And of course, like Festinger's cult, only Extinction Rebellion have the answer.

So what about the BBC?

Watch the interview. While it is perfectly reasonable for a public service broadcaster to interview fanatics, the interviewer allows the Extinction Rebellion founder to get away with just about any hair brained statement he cared to mention.

He continually refers to "the science" though what he quotes is out-and-out dark fantasy and bore no relation to anything from the IPCC let alone from any other reputable scientific source. Nobody asks what science he is referring to. Let alone requesting verification.

Unchallenged, he repeated several times that 6 billion would die. At one point early on he predicts mass starvation within ten years. No scientific references were given or sought. Each time the BBC presenter nodded it through.

When the interviewer does briefly corner him the Extinction Rebellion founder then declares the interviewer was not "emotionally" connecting to the problem. (Whatever that means.) Again this ludicrous assertion is given a free pass.

The BBC interviewer appears to be solely interested in the disruption this group causes and how it may threaten the established order. The only scientific query the  presenter focused on was their crazy concept of making the UK "carbon free" by 2025. (Even the journalist finds this risible)

Other than this, in a quite shocking dereliction of journalistic enquiry the journalist simply fails to challenge the pseudo-science spouted out by this individual. Particularly, nowhere is the reduction of the planets population to just one billion by starvation and war in 60 years questioned.

I worry that this dereliction is in fact driven by BBC policy rather than simple editorial incompetence. I got the continual impression that the journalist was trying at every opportunity to align with the Extinction Rebellion founder. The scientific basis for the absurd claims went totally unchallenged. The silence implied agreement. It was in effect a discussion between two like minds. It was just one of them was more extreme than the other.

Like Festingers cult, where journalistic integrity came a distant second to editorial policy, I suspect the BBC deliberately ditched the hard (and vital) questions. To them it is better to flatter the crazies. Just as long as they more or less align with the BBC editorial policy on Climate Change.

While all cults are potentially dangerous this abomination called Extinction Rebellion makes Festingers flying saucer fools look positively benign. The social embrace from Extinction Rebellion (especially to the very young) is far more sinister, destructive and totalitarian in nature.

I fear that one day soon the followers of Extinction Rebellion may well find the "cause" has turned from a call to civil disobedience into a crushing deadly embrace that could easily cost them (and many others) their lives.

While Climate Change may well be a problem, it is NOT an end-of-days problem.

It is wholly irresponsible of an organisation like the BBC to sit back and give unchallenged airspace to (any) organisation that presents pseudo-science as fact. Even if the pseudo-science is more palatable to the BBC than asking the hard and verifiable questions.

We need a public broadcaster that is prepared to ask the hard questions. Even if the BBC themselves do not like the answers, and even if the questions go against BBC editorial policy.

Otherwise we simply have a propaganda channel.

Extinction Rebellion: When Prophesy Fails

[quote from Factfulness by Hans Rosling page 229]

"We need to create Fear!" That's what Al Gore said to me [Hans Rosling] at the start of our first conversation about how to teach climate change.

[unquote]

Hans Rosling declined Al Gore's invitation.

(By the way if you want a really excellent view on what is really happening to the world read Factfulness by Hans Rosling it is HERE)

But not everyone has the same scruples as Hans Rosling.

Unable to galvanise people to their cause by rational discourse many politicised proponents of "doing something" about Global warming/Climate Change/Climate Emergency have done exactly what Al Gore suggested to Hans Rosling.

They have deliberately gone out of their way to create a climate of fear. As an example today in the UK every out-of-the-ordinary weather event is somehow blamed on Global Warming.

Even when a reservoir Dam gets badly damaged by a ten year event (see here) it is somehow blamed on Global Warming rather than substandard maintenance.

I have to ask: SHOULDN'T a dam withstand a ten year event intact? Global warming or no global warming?

But all this fear mongering gathers like puss in a sceptic wound and now we have the inevitable result: Extinction Rebellion.

Extinction Rebellion is one of the more alarming cults to emerge in recent years.

The invisible controllers behind the organisation appear to target children. These children are then used in much the same way as African War lords use child soldiers or Drug dealers use child runners. To ensure loyalty to the cause they feed them panicky end-of-days predictions along with a sense of grievance about a "lost" future "stolen" by selfish seniors.

Let us look at the central prophesy promoted by Extinction Rebellion and their camp followers.

So, do we have only 18 months to "Save the Planet"?

The statement appears to have coalesced in this BBC article .

To be fair this 18 months is not actually a hard deadline where we all drop dead at the end of it. It is a deadline where "something has to be done".

That something appears to involve a lot of rich and powerful folk descending in Lear Jets on a few resorts and making some fatuous political statements.

So it is perhaps one of the easier prophesies to achieve. It is also one that can be successfully used to draw away from the failed climate prophesies of the last twenty years.

Take this statement from the above BBC article:

[quote]
But today, observers recognise that the decisive, political steps to enable the cuts in carbon to take place will have to happen before the end of next year. 
[unquote]

So, who are these "observers"?
What are these "political steps"?
Who finally makes the call in 18 months time as to whether the planet is saved?

This all seems somewhat less clear.

What is clear is that (short of a Global recession) Carbon emissions are not going to stop rising in the  next 18 months, let alone decrease.

China and India who together make up the bulk of coal users in the world are not going to stop improving the lives of their peoples. Nor should they.

So should the West then do the "decent" thing and abandon their peoples to poverty?
Should we revert to some pre-industrial idyll? (that never existed) and do all this to prevent (so the theory states) a rise of more than 1.5 degC over the next century?

Personally I don't do poverty.

Even the IPCC doesn't do poverty. Their more sober predictions amount to a reduction in the rate of increase of the world's prosperity NOT a decline.

Really we need to put the risk from Global warming into perspective. According to the IPCC it may impact the rate of improvement in the world economy but it will not stop that improvement. Let alone reverse it.

Carbon emission reductions or not, the world is not going to collapse into some form of dystopian ecological catastrophe. Whatever the likes of Extinction Rebellion get their child soldiers to say.

The only way it may collapse into a nightmare of increasing poverty, reduced opportunity and blighted futures is if we allow the True believers and their disciples to call the tune.

So what should we do about Global Warming??

All the progress that has been made over the last two centuries has hinged around cheap effective energy. What has been shown time and time again is that if energy supply is not long-term cheap and 24/7 effective, it is not worthwhile.

While the effects of Global Warming may be bad, they would pale into insignificance if we allowed the billions recently lifted out of dollar-a-day poverty by cheap and plentiful energy to slide back down into it again.

Yet there are viable alternatives to coal and oil (aka: gas and nuclear) that will (and do) reduce emissions without pushing people into poverty. But sadly they are not fashionable or extreme enough for the likes of Extinction Rebellion.

Whatever we do, we must not throw two centuries of progress down the toilet simply to appease a cult.

Today I read that some elements with Extinction Rebellion are going on what they laughably call a baby strike. In other words they will not be having any children.

That is of course their choice. Personally I would consider their choice a wise one bearing in mind their lack of stability.

But worryingly this nihilism is only one step away from the next cult fantasy: The ultimate sacrifice.

Like all cults, the the young and gullible are the foot soldiers. Frightened little girls and boys swept up into an apocalyptic cult by the "fear" as prescribed by Al Gore.

If we keep appeasing the zealots running this cult then one day we will find we have another Jonestown or Heavens Gate to deal with. An avoidable tragedy where the victims will be kids. Kids who will have been in a perverse way, scared to death.

For them there really will be no future.

Al Gore: When Prophesy Fails.

Back in 2006 Al Gore made the following statement:

“And politicians and corporations have been ignoring the issue for decades, to the point that unless drastic measures to reduce greenhouse gases are taken within the next 10 years, the world will reach a point of no return … A true Planetary emergency.”
[CBS News "Al Gore Does Sundance" 2006]

For those who doubt the CBS report and deny he actually said this, may I just refer you to this Al Gore Interview YouTube Video from 2017.

and this Snopes Fact Check.

I’m actually not snarking at Al Gore. But clearly as it is now 2019, 10 years have been and gone.

What I’m interested in is his response (and that of others) to this failed prophesy. 

It looks to me that the responses fit (rather alarmingly well) with Leon Festinger’s concept of “Cognitive Dissonance” which he demonstrated with his interactions with a 1950's dooms-day cult in the USA. Its recorded in his book "When Prophesy Fails" (book link: Amazon HERE)

Festinger showed that under certain circumstances, rather than reducing belief, a failed prophesy (or disconfirmation as Festinger calls it) can not only significantly increase belief but also lead to enhanced proselytising on behalf of the belief.

Festingers rules for this to happen were as follows

1. The belief must be held with deep conviction and be relevant to the believer's actions or behaviour.

2. The belief must have produced actions that are arguably difficult to undo.

3. The belief must be sufficiently specific and concerned with the real world such that it can be clearly disconfirmed.

4. The disconfirmatory evidence must be recognized by the believer.

5. The believer must have social support from other believers.

Lets apply that to Al Gore.

1. I would suggest that he strongly believes in the righteousness of his cause.

2. He (and many others) had taken drastic and costly action.

3. The belief “10 years… point of no return” is clear.

4. In the video he clearly acknowledges the failure of the prophesy.

5. As the ad-hoc head of a movement, clearly he has lots of social support.

So rather than questioning the parameters of his failed prophesy, Al Gore (along with many of his supporters and co-followers) doubles down on his primary belief and pseudo-rationalises the disconfirmation.

Take Al Gore in the video interview above. When confronted with the disconfirmation he justifies the failed prophesy roughly as so:

“We have seen a decline in emissions (on a global basis) so they’ve stabilised and in some cases have started to decline.... Some of the responses of the last ten years have helped but unfortunately a lot of damage has been done…...”

His statement that somehow greenhouse gas emissions FELL from 2006 to 2016 is a palpable nonsense. But it fits with exactly what you would expect with cognitive dissonance from a true believer.

Incidentally Here’s the emissions graph 2006 -2017

Meanwhile others seek to minimise their cognitive dissonance by denying that Al Gore ever said such a thing!

It becomes “nasty” propaganda by “trolls”. See this Guest Piece on pro-AGW Skeptical Science blog. 

Ironically all the references the author rages at with a cut-paste from Facebook are in fact fairly accurate renditions of what Al Gore really did say on January 25th, 2006 in a speech, while at the Sundance film festival. 

The author identifies the original source as a  "Climate Denial Blog". I am sure CBS News would be mortified. (original CBS News story link: Here ) 

Unfortunately this cognitive dissonance seriously affects both out ability to continue improving the world and also prevents us from moving away from panic responses to Global Warming. It stops us taking a viable approach to reducing pollution and world emissions.

But I fear worse is to come. (though not from Al Gore who I believe is an honourable man)

As item 5 from Festingers list (social support grouping) gets more intense, Climate Emergency proponents are going into over-drive proselytising their extremist view. As each day goes by they look more and more like a dangerous cult.

With groups like Extinction Rebellion focusing on the most easily led in our society (i.e. children) I fear we may be in a deadly downward spiral.

As discomfirmation follows disconfirmation some of the less gullible may escape. But others will be held in an ever tightening grip of the cults fanaticism.

I fear that one day we may not wake up to just another silly protest in London or New York.

But to another Jonestown Massacre or Heavens Gate death pact.

Planetary Extinction: When Prophesy fails

I changed the tag line to my blog recently. Now I’ve changed it back again.

I had changed it to the a leading quote from a famous doom-laden apocalyptic treatise from the 1970’s called “The Doomsday Book” (Its still here on these links Amazon UK & Amazon USA)

The quote was:

“If you believe that you will survive the next 30 years think again!”

I tagged it with the author and the date of publication

“Gordon Rattray-Taylor (1972)”

I had hoped that the “1972” would be an amusing give-a-way and that people would realise that since publication 47 years have elapsed.

But sadly no.

It seems at least one of my readers thought Billothewisp had himself turned into a doomster.

Of course I hadn’t. It was just my joke had fallen flat.

But then I wondered why people cling to unmodified theories that are delineated with failed prophesies and yet still find them compelling.

Take a look at the reviews for the Doomsday Book on Amazon. The book is very old and vastly pre-dates the internet so there’s only 1 electronic review in the USA and 4 in the UK.

Surprisingly you will find all but one of these reviews (all written more than 30 years after publication) are supportive. Even though the base prophesy of the book was plainly wrong and expired well before the reviews were written, the reviews for this dark tome show the reviewer still clinging to the core armageddon-esque beliefs of the book.

So why, in a world that is clearly and measurably getting better on almost every metric available, do people (in essence) hold to Mr Rattray-Taylors prophesies of doom?

Mr Rattray-Taylor departed this earth in 1981. No doubt he firmly expected that the rest of us would be following him down the dark tunnel in short order.

But of course, that has not happened.

In fact, by just about every metric that matters, the world has become a much, much better place.

But many are in denial about this improvement in the world.

In addition to this denial we have various new/reworked Armageddon predictions which declare that “something must be done”.

The timescale for that “something” ranges from one year (Prince Charles), eighteen Months (Extinction Rebellion), to more plausible but still tenuous timescales of ten years and thirty years.

To give that “something” a name is somewhat difficult as it keeps changing. It was Global Warming, then it turned to Climate Change. But now “Climate Change” no longer appears to be urgent enough. So it has been modified to a “Climate Emergency”.

My posts are not against the concept of the “something” known as Global Warming. Nor are they against any other section of science that gets exploited with dubious reasoning.

The purpose is to explore the exploitative dubious reasoning itself and see how it stacks up.

So lets look more closely at these predictions and monitor their progress. I also want to look at earlier predictions associated with this “something”.

But most importantly I want to see what happens when a prophesy concerning this “something” fails. Then I want to examine how that failure changes (or not) the attitudes to the core beliefs on which that prophesy is based. As well as that I want to see how (or not) the theory gets modified to accommodate reality.

From what I’ve seen so far, the social results are clearly identifiable using the work of legendary Social Scientist Leon Festinger. They are also somewhat disconcerting.

So my next post will concern Al Gore and his 2006 statement that the Arctic would be Ice free in Summer by 2016. I will also expand out Festingers key analysis and see how this fits with Mr Gore.

Later on (next week?) I intend looking more closely at Extinction Rebellion. Extinction Rebellion is an organisation which really worries me. It has all the hallmarks of a cult and I would be very worried if any of my family got tied in with it. It needs closer examination.

Then sometime in the dim and distant future I’ll finish off with more mainstream and respectable organisations like the BBC.

Robespierre, Hansen and Denialism

Once upon a time there was an organisation called “The Committee of Public Safety”. It was a bit like Orwell's later inventions of “The Ministry of Truth” and the “Ministry of Peace”. They were all the antithesis of what their name suggested.

The leader of the “The Committee of Public Safety” was a guy called Maximilien Robespierre. Robespierre rose to power during the French Revolution. During one year from 1793 though to 1794, the “Committee For Public Safety” executed/murdered somewhere between 40,000 and 200,000 people. (History Today Article Here)

Today the victims of the “Committee for Public Safety” are usually superficially presented as Toffs or Aristocrats. In fact the vast majority were just common folk who were simply in the wrong place at the wrong time. 

Appalling as that is, it is very important to understand that Robespierre was not corrupt.

Robespierre neither sought money or privilege. Though he was driven by his revolutionary zeal to seek power he was to all affects and purposes, an honest man. (just like Hitler)

Robespierre was dedicated to his cause. In a bizarre way he was dedicated to the “Public Good”.

Nobody can challenge Robespierre's good intentions. Though we may all well remember what paves the Road to Hell.

Robespierre's good intentions did not prevent him from denouncing honest citizens or even his fellow revolutionaries when it suited his ends. 

During a period know as “The Terror” Robespierre sent close friends and political allies to the guillotine as well as thousands upon thousands of hapless citizens who were really only guilty of bad timing and political unfashionability. (Wikipedia on "The Terror" Here)

Today in France, Robespierre is a synonym for a disgusting, bigoted, paranoid spasm in French history. As well as a blinkered paranoid and failed doctrine.

In modern France, no statues exist to Robespierre. Nor should they.

So how does this relate to Jim Hansen or Global Warming or even Denialism?

I expect you know that Dr J. Hansen is a Scientist of major repute. I won't bother going into his achievements here (just Google the Guy) but I suppose I should 'fess up that generally speaking (with a few caveats) I adhere to his analysis and listen carefully to what he has to say.

Today in a Robspierre-like tirade in the Guardian, Hansen, along with 3 other heavy duty scientists are preposterously accused of being Deniers. (See Guardian Article Here)

Of course the term “Denier” is remisciscent of other labels pumped out by bigots. "Witch", "Heretic", “Jew”, “Sympathiser”, “Collaborator” all come to mind. In Robespierre-speak the de-rigeur term was “Anti-Revolutionary Traitor “.

Today we have not one Robspierre but many. Each one using their spiteful categorizations to inhibit discussion and debate. The latest tirade in the Guardian is but one of many.  "The Terror" of Robspierre's time is today mirrored in the intellectual terrorism of political correctness that seeks to deny a voice to our finest scientists.

Today highly experienced and world leading scientists (like Hansen, Wigley,Emanuel and Caldeira) suggest we should pragmatically pursue Nuclear Power to fight Global Warming and Atmospheric Pollution. In the eyes of the Guardian, that is their crime.

To label this illustrious group (or anyone) as “Deniers” because they support a viable way of avoiding a potential calamity is just a descent into the modern day version of “The Terror”.

Today in the likes of WWF or Greenpeace and especially the Guardian newspaper, Citizen Robespierre would be quite at home.

Energy Storage: The Trouble with Power to Gas

There is a fundamental law of Physics called the Law of Conservation of Energy.

It's a real bitch.

Basically it demands that whatever the system you use, you can never get more energy out of it than you put in. So many beautiful dreams have come to naught - just because of this one damn law.

Even so there should be an adjunct to the law of conservation of energy. Something more like a serious health warning really.

Something like:

"Whenever you change from one form of energy to another - you will get screwed."

And I mean really screwed.

If on your last foreign holiday you thought changing currency was robbery then believe me, that was as nothing compared to the losses when changing energy form.

Truly, energy can neither be created or destroyed. But Oh Boy can it get "mislaid" dispersed or changed into unwanted useless forms whenever you try to convert one form into another.

You always (and I mean ALWAYS) end up with less than you started with. Mostly you end up with significantly less.

How good a system is at converting energy is its energy efficiency. It can never-ever be more than 100%.

90% is mind bogglingly good.

An old 19th century steam engine by comparison is about 10% efficient - on a good day.

By burning fossil fuels and liberating their stored chemical energy as heat and then changing that heat (from burning coal or gas) into electricity - you will lose about 50% of the energy as waste heat up the chimney. Still, we do it because electricity is far more useful to us than a lump of coal or a pocket of trapped gas.

Now, what would be the best way to store the energy in (say) gas for a rainy day?

Would it be by just not burning it until needed? Or would be by converting it to electriciy (50% loss) and then post generation converting it back to something else? (say another 50% loss)

I hope it is obvious that by doing a "gas->electricity->something else" you will get royally screwed. In this example you would end up with 25% of what you started with.

You are far, far better off not burning the gas until needed.

Wind turbines and solar PV do not have the luxury of having their energy pre-stored like coal, gas or nuclear. If there is excess generation by wind or solar they either waste the available energy by not converting it or they have to convert it to electricity and then convert it again to some other storeable energy form.

So, with wind (or solar) you have no option but to bear the pain and go with:

"wind->electricity->something else".

One of the much hyped "something elses" for wind/solar is called Power to Gas (Wikipedia article Here).

Twitter is alive with excited windies who see Power to Gas as the the "Great Breakthough" - The mythical silver bullet that will slay the demon problem of energy storage for wind/solar.

To be fair, Power to Gas is technically clever. It takes any excess electricity from wind/solar and via some clever chemistry uses it to generate flammable gas - either hydrogen or methane. This can then be stored and used at some later date either for heat or electricity generation..

The trouble with Power to Gas is is not the cleverness of the technology. The trouble is that damn law of physics about energy conservation. Especially the health warning attached to it.

Turning electricity to potential chemical energy (gas) is at best 75% efficient but more realistically it is around 60%. Then turning that gas back to electricity again reduces the overall efficiency to around 40% at best or more realistically about 30%. In other words we lose about two thirds of the energy - Of course the missing 2/3rds is not destroyed. It is simply just dissipated and lost to the system.

Remember this proposed technique is there to bale-out an already massively subsidized generator. Even if you totally ignore the actual cost of plant and plant operation the price of the re-generated electricity would have to be three times that of the source price just to stay level.

In reality though the price of Power to Gas has been estimated at anything from £500-1000 MWh. Or from 10 to 20 times as expensive as current gas/coal/nuclear generation.

A whole order of magnitude more expensive. Breathtaking!

Power to Gas is a nice idea. It may even have some practical niche applications. But storing excess energy from wind and solar? Dream on.

And all because of that damn law about the Conservation of Energy.

How Wind Turbines Increase Global Warming

Below, using some peer reviewed data I hope to show you why an Industrial Wind Turbine, replacing coal plant, will actually increase Global Warming for well beyond the lifespan of the Industrial Wind Turbine itself.

First of all, just to be nice, we are going to assume that some highly dubious pro-wind propaganda is true.

We will assume a turbine has a productive life of 25 years.
We will assume that it directly offsets coal plant on a one-for one basis.
We will assume it needs no spinning reserve at all.
We will totally forget about the concrete/Neodymium mining/ steel/fibreglass/copper etc.
We will ignore the methane ( a strong greenhouse gas) that gets released from disturbed peat bogs where IWT's are sometimes placed.

Most of all we will completely forget about the environmental damage to wildlife. We will also totally ignore those pesky Human Beings who think they have a right to have a say about what gets built near them (Nimbys - damn them all!)

For those of you who are either falling about laughing or about to burst a blood vessel at this point, please bear with me and read on.

At this point we need to bring in the current ruckous over shale gas.

The data here I use here is taken from this paper: Coal To Gas: The Influence of Methane Leakage by Tom L. Wigley of the (U.S.A) National Center for Atmospheric research.

The main thrust of Wigleys research was to study what effect different rates of Methane loss (rogue methane) would have on a coal to gas conversion. His initial paper dealt with only a 50% coal replacement over 50  year period with a linear rate of replacement. The electronic suppliment dealt with a much more drastic changeover where coal was totally replaced by gas in 50 years.

The surprising outcome from this research is that in the first 40 -60 years or so, as gas replaces coal the main driver of global warming is the reduction in Aerosols emmitted from coal plant. A primary constituent of coal Aerosols is Sulphur Dioxide which is a very potent anti-greenhouse gas. So the removal of the aerosols actually increases global warming. It is only after about 60 years before the reduction in Carbon Dioxide overwhelms this warming.

The best graph to illustrate the problem is actually in the electronic supplement to this paper (see graph ESM2) This graph assumes total replacement of coal with gas over 50 years.

This is the graph (the top half refers only to proposed global temperature increase and is irrelevent here)

Notice with Natural Gas there are three issues surrounding it's affect on Global warming:

1. Carbon Dioxide (CO2) reduction by displacing coal (causes reduction)
2. Seepage of Methane (CH4) from either pipes or wells. (causes increase)
3. Reduction of Aerosols (mainly Sulphur Dioxide SO2) by replacing coal. (causes increase)

You can see this clearly on the left hand portion of the above graph. While this graph includes rogue methane from natural gas, clearly, even when you take the methane out of the picture the net affect  on progressively replacing Coal plant for any non sulphurous generating plant for the first 40-60 years will be an increase in Global Warming.

Let us replace the Gas for Industrial Wind Turbines.

(We will ignore IWT peat bog methane release - although we shouldn't)

Over the 25 year life time of our idealised super Industrial Wind Turbine, these will be no reduction in Global Warming from a decrease in Carbon Dioxide generation at all. But over the same period, the reduction in Sulphur Dioxide emissions from the replaced coal plant will cause a much higher and significant rise on Global Warming.

This is true for Gas, Nuclear, Hydro, Wind and Solar. Anything, that in a rolling program reduces Sulphur Dioxide emissions will cause more Global Warming (not less) in the first 40-60 years after coal replacement starts.

A Gas plant will last 40+ years. Nuclear 60+ years, Hydro 100+ years. Plus all the three will give a consistent and reliable output without requiring any form of backup.

Even assuming the cloud cuckoo land concept of an IWT having a lifespan of 25 years, it will need to be replaced at least twice before any productive gains from Carbon Dioxide reduction will be made. The same applies to Solar.

But worse than that, the IWT's will always need backup from Gas anyway. It is very easy to visualise that even if a madcap scheme involving the building of hundreds of thousands of our idealised turbines took place, there would be no decrease in global warming at all this century. But there would be an increase in at least the first 40-60 years..

This all assumes the lies wishful thinking of the wind turbine industry are true. In my own opinion, the most likely outcome is that Industrial Wind Turbines will have no impact positive or negative on global warming at all, simply because they are so damn ineffective.

Of course, removing Sulphur Dioxide is actually a very good thing. Even if it causes a temporary rise in Global Warming. Today hundreds of thousands of people die from coal based aerosols and the sooner they are removed the better.

But really, do we need to try and do it with half baked, wildly expensive and short lived plant like IWT's? Just about anything Gas, Hydro or Nuclear is more effective. The only technology that may be even more ineffective than IWT's is solar.

The end result of this, even if you believe the Wind Industry, is that Industrial Wind Turbines are NOT going to help prevent global warming within their 25 year life span. Or during the life span of the replacement or even the replacement after that. In fact assuming they actually do replace coal plant they will increase global warming for the next two generations at least.

Note: A less valid version of this argument is currently being used by the Greens against fracking. Their argument is less valid because gas is reliable, dispatchable and requires no backup other than standard fail-safe spinning reserve. It is also plentiful, is useable in transport as well as power generation and can be stored. It is also vital as a backup for the useless wind turbines even though it already cuts CO2 emissions by 60% from coal by itself. 

But it appears that the Greens now think Sulphur Dioxide is "A Good Thing". (God help us all)