This morning, and currently (at the time of writing) the whole of the UK was effectively in the state of no wind generation - see real-time weather map. Our Atlantic gale-ridden West Wales coast was showing 2 and 3 mph for over three hours.

There are a few 9 and 10 mph readings in E. Anglia and 12 mph at Campbeltown. Stornoway on Lewis was reading 6 mph.

So much for the plague of wind factories disfiguring our landscape, now standing idle. It is unlikely that the system is producing enough power to pay-back transmission loss. We are in a situation where, probably, the yaw motors are absorbing more electricity than is produced.

View full article here

How many offshore windmills did John Hutton say he would have built? Was it something like 7,000 by 2020? That's about one and a half turbines a day for the next twelve years. Does anyone seriously think this will happen? Reality seems to be biting at last, and even this shower of a so-called government seems to have realised that we need nuclear power. Wind power was a green fantasy that will surely be forgotten, unless the Green Conservatives get into power and make Zac Goldsmith the Energy Secretary. Then I really will leave the bloody country.

Ah!...how well I remember the early 70s, working in my London office like some Dickensian clerk by candlelight...the sheer 'romantic' of it all...the stiff upper lip...the bloody cold...the thought that it was time to pack my bags...and packing them.

9000 out 31,000 have Phds ????
Almost all academics have Phd that sounds very strange. How many of them have relevant Phds ? I have a Phd in chemistry but am not an expert in atmospheric chemistry.

Well, they aren't likely to be active in the field of Climate Science and be seen on this petition unless they want their funding to disappear. Doesn't mean they can't have an opinion. However, the aim of the thing is to deny the consensus. To do away with the false argument 'the science is settled'. Even in the case of a physical law, the science is only settled until it is challenged, as Einstein challenged Newton. The correct stance of a true scientist of whatever specialty is scepticism. There is plenty of evidence that on both sides of the AGW question are people who are so heavily invested in their position that their objectivity is in doubt. Climate scientists who will not release their data or methods, only the conclusions, or who run climate models which have never been subject to proper quality assurance are part of the problem. The debate isn't over, and in any field of activity (AGW or EU, for example) anybody who claims the debate is over is probably a liar and a cheat.

They can have an opinion - how relevant is it is is another matter.

I assume they can have an opinion about so-called scientists who refuse to say which weather station records they are using to measure the progress of world temperatures(Jones, UEA). Or the ones who won't disclose what adjustments they make to those records to produce their graphs(Hansen et al). Or the ones who have failed to produce a mathematical treatment which can explain the claimed climate sensitivity of temperature to changes of CO2(many). Or the ones who adjust the parameters of their computer climate models in order to produce the results they want(many). Or the ones who continue to promote paleo temperature records which have ben discredited by the NAS (Mann). All of these things are part of the debate, and it plainly is not over until these and other issues are addressed.

The petition falsifies the claim of consensus, that's all it needs to do. Pointing suspicion at the credentials of the 31,000 signatories, while accepting without question the practices of the pro-AGW faction, is to duck the many real issues.