The Climate Change Act is based on Junk Science

Truth is the Climate Change Act is Central to the Wind Scam

In which case I make no apology for printing this letter and link by Doug Brodie

To: Highland South Planning Councillors

Highland North Planning Councillors


Mr David Cameron, Prime Minister

Ms Nicola Sturgeon, First Minister of the Scottish Parliament

Ms Eileen McLeod, Scottish Minister for Environment and Climate Change

Ms Ruth Davidson, Leader of the Scottish Conservative Party

Mr Murdo Fraser, Convenor of the Scottish Economy, Energy and Tourism Committee

Mr Ed Davey, UK Secretary of State for Energy and Climate Change

Ms Liz Truss, UK Environment Secretary

Mr Fergus Ewing, my MSP, also Scottish Minister for Energy

Mr Danny Alexander, my MP

Mr David Coburn, my MEP

Ms Caroline Flint, UK Shadow Secretary for Energy and Climate Change

Mr Tom Greatrex, UK Shadow Minister for Energy and Climate Change

Mr Jim Murphy, Leader of the Scottish Labour Party

Ms Claudia Beamish, Scottish Shadow Minister for Environment and Climate Change

Mr Willie Rennie, Leader of the Scottish Liberal Democrats

Mr Tavish Scott, Scottish Lib Dem Spokesperson for Environment

Mr Patrick Harvie, Co-convenor of the Scottish Green Party

Mr Graham Stringer, MP

Mr Owen Paterson, MP

Mr Roger Helmer, MEP

Viscount Ridley

Ms Liz Macdonald, Nairn council leader

Mr Will Evans, Cairn Duhie Action Group

Ms Brenda Herrick, Caithness Windfarm Information Forum

Mr John Graham, Windfarmaction

Ms Susan Crosthwaite, European Platform Against Windfarms

Scotland Against Spin

The John Muir Trust

The Taxpayers’ Alliance

The Salvation Army

Inverness Chamber of Commerce

Ken McCorquodale, Highland Council Principal Planner

Professor Richard Tol, Sussex University Chair of Economics of Climate Change

Dr Peter Lee, Principal Lecturer in Ethics and Political Theory

Professor Dieter Helm, Oxford Chair of Energy Policy

The Scientific Alliance

Mr Benny Peiser, Global Warming Policy Foundation

Mr Andrew Montford, Bishop Hill

Mr Euan Mearns, Energy Matters

Mr Paul Homewood, Not A Lot Of People Know That

Mr Anthony Watts, Watts Up With That

Ms Donna MacAllister, Inverness Courier

Mr David Rose, Mail on Sunday

Mr Christopher Booker, Telegraph

Mr Alistair Munro, The Scotsman


Dear Highland Planning Councillors,

The Climate Change Act is Based on Junk Science

My provocatively named paper The Climate Change Act is Based on Junk Science is the latest in my campaign to persuade you to reject the Highland South planning application for the Cairn Duhie wind farm. As you will see it has much wider significance than just Cairn Duhie, which is why I have also addressed it to your Highland North colleagues (64 of you in total).

My paper contains no technical arguments on how useless wind power is as a source of national electricity supply. Instead it focuses solely on exposing the UN IPCC’s deliberate manipulation and misrepresentation of climate science. It challenges the entire basis on which the UK is planning to spend many hundreds of billions of pounds over coming decades on impossible climate change mitigation. It provides a synthesis of publicly available facts, carefully researched and referenced and presented in layman’s language to explain why the climate science presented to governments by the IPCC is not fit for purpose. I urge you to take the time to read it.

The IPCC’s theory of global warming caused by man-made greenhouse gases is seriously flawed. Man-made global warming is a problem which only exists inside the IPCC’s failed computer climate models. The predictions of these models correlate extremely poorly with real world climate observations which show that, excluding observed natural warming effects and allowing for fiddled official temperature data, there has been no global warming to speak of since 1950, the year when man-made greenhouse gas global warming allegedly started to “take off” according to the IPCC. My paper presents undisputed publicly available evidence to substantiate this.

For reasons which are difficult to fathom as they are never properly explained, our governments accept the biassed IPCC advice apparently without undertaking any due diligence on it from independent, unbiased sources and use this flawed IPCC advice as justification for their ruinous and futile climate and energy policies. These policies are driving the despoliation of our landscapes and seascapes with inefficient, expensive wind turbines and other so-called renewables, worsening fuel poverty particularly for the least well off and damaging the competitiveness of our industries and hence employment prospects, all for negligible, unmeasurable climate benefit.

In November I sent an earlier version of this paper to the Westminster and Holyrood politicians copied on this email (apart from Jim Murphy and David Cameron). This updated version includes some additions and clarifications but the key difference from the original is a new postscript which reproduces and analyses the responses to that earlier version which I received from these politicians.

If you read the postscript I hope you will agree that the politicians’ responses are totally inadequate and unacceptable, especially given that implementation of the UK Climate Change Act is costing at least £18 billion per year in these times of austerity. Not one of these politicians made any attempt to challenge any of my evidence. Their responses were mostly unsubstantiated assertions and meaningless, often false mantras and clichés, typical of the “fobbing off” I have received for years on all such political “climate change” correspondence.

Despite my un-refuted evidence that the IPCC’s climate science advice is not fit for purpose, my efforts as a lone campaigner are getting nowhere against the politicians’ stone-walling. May I respectfully suggest that you collectively might be able to demand a better response from them? Maybe some of you feel that you have been put into an uncomfortable position, being expected to “rubber stamp” the government’s climate and energy policies by consenting wind farms which you personally think, as I do, are actually a very bad idea.

It seems to me that our politicians are either deliberately taking us all for fools or have gullibly swallowed a seriously flawed theory which is leading us to disaster. Either way they are serving us very badly. You owe it to yourselves and your local electorate to demand that they explain themselves better. I respectfully suggest that you collectively ask them to provide credible explanation, which means without resorting to unsubstantiated assertions, clichés and appeals to the authority of the duplicitous UN IPCC, as to why we should continue down their chosen path of hopelessly ineffective full‑speed ahead de‑industrialising of the economy, at an estimated total cost of £1.3 trillion, justified by nothing more than the UN IPCC’s deliberate political misrepresentation of the science.

If I can be of further assistance please feel free to contact me.

Yours faithfully,

Douglas S Brodie, Nairn

PS: See this recent Energy Matters article and especially the 10:02 am expert comment beneath it from Leo Smith, who set up Gridwatch, for a simple explanation of why wind power is a “triple-whammy” disaster – but not for David Cameron’s father-in-law!


About Dougal Quixote

Slightly mad. Always believes a cup is half full so continues to tilt at Wind Turbines and the politicians that seem to believe it is their god given right to ruin Scotland for a pot of fool's gold.
This entry was posted in Wind farms. Bookmark the permalink.

3 Responses to The Climate Change Act is based on Junk Science

  1. yes2solar says:

    Excellent letter, shared it to the Scottish Greens facebook group to ask their thoughts, they were a lot quicker with a perhaps worthwhile response than our politicians, linking to an article about glacier melt being proven directly to human co2, if this can be explained by solar activity and natural heating? (The pictures let the article down in style but try and ignore those and their linked propaganda wording)

    I couldn’t quickly find much debunking glacier melt theory if you can help?

  2. I note that they still adhere to AGW which has been debunked by most science. I think the article here is as good an analysis of where the Greens come from as any I have seen! I will leave it to those more informed to answer your question about Glacial melts. I address wind farms but allude to the basis that the Climate Dogma was the gate through which the wind industry charged. However discussion on climate issues creates a barrage of invective and abuse by those of ‘the cult’ which I steer well clear of.
    “Global warming believers are like a hysterical ‘cult’: MIT scientist compares ‘climate alarmists’ to religious fanatics
    Comments were made by professor of meteorology, Richard Lindzen”
    ‘Instead of saying, oh, we were wrong, they get more fanatical,’ he said
    He says 70% of the Earth is ocean, and measuring its temperature tricky
    He has previously blasted the IPCC for blaming humans for a global warming trend – and then glossing over the warming slowdown
    By Ellie Zolfagharifard , 23 January 2015
    Climate change alarmists have been likened to a fanatical ‘cult’ by an MIT professor of meteorology.
    Dr Richard Lindzen told a Massachusetts-based radio station that people who believe in global warming are becoming more hysterical in their arguments.
    ‘As with any cult, once the mythology of the cult begins falling apart, instead of saying, oh, we were wrong, they get more and more fanatical,’ he said.…/Global-warming-believers-like-…

  3. To: Mr Danny Alexander, MP

    Dear Mr Alexander,

    The Climate Change Act is Based on Junk Science

    Thank you for your reply of 14th January to my paper of 14th November. It came to late to include in my updated version of 14th January. I would award it several “bingos”:

    1. “As our need [for energy] increases, it is going to be progressively more important for us to have invested in renewable resources of energy, to help us meet demand.” My paper didn’t address the subject of renewable energy sources, other than indirectly via a few links to articles which explain how useless wind power in particular is as a source of national electricity supply. The government has produced no evidence that wind power creates any meaningful net savings in CO2 emissions. The main impact of wind so far has been to make gas powered electricity uneconomic and so encourage the use of coal fired electricity. Most experts say that 20% wind penetration is the maximum that can retain the stability of the grid. And this has to be 100% duplicated by proper power stations to keep the lights on when the wind doesn’t blow. Then we have biomass, felling forests in North America to ship across the Atlantic to burn inefficiently in expensively converted power stations like Drax. Even the climate fanatical Friends of the Earth say this is a nonsense. Then we have biofuel which is pushing up world food prices (maybe even triggering the disastrous Arab Spring) for negligible climate benefit. Then there is hugely expensive Scottish wave power which has just gone bust (Pelamis). What on earth is the point of these renewables?

    2. “In my opinion, they [EU green targets] allow member states to decarbonise in a flexible and affordable way.” What is flexible about mandating the targets in terms of the use of so-called renewables (20% by 2020) rather than actual emissions reductions? The unaccountable EU is even talking about 40% by 2030. Who in the EU would I write to in order to protest, or attempt to vote out of office? And in terms of “decarbonising”, Germany is now increasing its emissions despite having spent vast sums of money on their so-called renewables. We in the UK are failing on our “easy” 2020 targets. The 80% decarbonisation target is pure pie in the sky. I repeat my challenge of several years ago for you to provide a broad-brush one page summary of how this could be achieved without drastically shrinking the economy. Remember, it has to cover not just electricity generation but transport, heating, homes, industry, the lot. Remember that carbon capture and storage (CCS) does not exist as a viable technology (apart from a few small-scale enhanced oil recovery projects) and more and more organisations are giving up on trying to develop it commercially. If CCS could ever be made to work at full scale it would cost a fortune and would still not save all that much in overall emissions.

    3. “… it is vital that we aim for international consensus on the matter … [to avoid] putting the UK at an economic disadvantage”. This is self‑indulgent political self-delusion which is costing the UK electorate dearly. Look at the BP graphs in my paper’s section on “The Facts on Global CO2 Emissions”. Look at how useless Kyoto was. Look at how global emissions are set to go on rising for the foreseeable future thanks to developing nations, to well past the fantasy threshold needed to keep global temperatures below the fantasy 2ºC limit. Ignore the spin of Obama’s so-called agreement with China; all that China has “agreed” is to go on increasing their emissions for as long as it suits them. India and the other developing nations will do likewise. Remember that the developing world has not fallen for the UN’s scam the way the self-righteous, self-loathing western establishment has. The UN’s call for “substantial and sustained emissions reductions” cannot possibly be achieved.

    4. “The better the technology and investment environment for renewables becomes, the more economic opportunities it should provide.” The only technology which might provide some mitigation for the uselessness of intermittent so-called renewables is grid-scale electricity storage but there is nothing like this even on the horizon. As for “economic opportunities”, you seem to be “picking winners” on products which do not even exist.

    I watched today’s House of Commons debate on fracking and became totally depressed by the level of naivety and ignorance displayed by so many politicians, with Lib Dem MPs to the fore. My latest paper shows clearly that you have all fallen hook, line and sinker for the UN’s made-up global warming scare and are collectively guilty of groupthink climate fantasising. I challenge you to go through my updated paper section by section to dispute what I have written: And I would prefer to have this directly from yourself rather than from the fork-tongued climate alarmists of the DECC, to oblige you personally to face up to reality – and based on my updated paper rather than the weaker initial version. I sent the initial version to Lib Dem Ed Davey and others on the DECC but they sent no reply, despite prompting.

    Yours faithfully,

    Douglas S Brodie

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s