Wednesday
Mar302016
by 
Bishop Hill
Bishop Hill Jolly green giants toppled
Mar 30, 2016 Energy: wind 
Two of the headlines on Greenpeace's daily news review stuck out at me this morning.
Coal: Nearly $1 trillion could be wasted on unneeded plants
Renewables: SunEdison on brink of bankruptcy, Abengoa files
The companies named in the second headline are two of the largest players in the renewables field, so it's pretty big news that they are on the brink of exctinction, despite all the millions in taxpayers' money that has been poured into them by wise and noble politicians.
Who knows, perhaps there might be room in the marketplace for coal-fired power stations after all.
Reader Comments (159)
"a handful of howling nutjobs"
Maybe ZDB is right. Maybe the north pole really was totally ice free by 2015, maybe whole nations have been inundated by rising sea levels, maybe vast tracts of previously arable land have become deserts, and we are all totally in denial.
Or perhaps the howling nutjobs are the alarmists, still waiting for even one of their doomsday predictions to come true.
@ZedsDeadBed
never forget the lurkers/readers who only comment when they feel they can add something (you should try to do this also)
Comment on here with reasonable argument backed up by verifiable data, and people might start to listen; but you barge in, shouting and screaming, insulting everyone in sight, and wonder why nobody bothers listening. Hmmm…
What is exercising my mind is when will be the right time to buy into coal, oil, gas and other essentials on which the civilised world will be relying for heat and light for the foreseeable future.
ZDB
Many Global Warming experts now claim that they never actually predicted anything, and use this as a reason for temperatures and sea levels not having risen as they sort of hinted they should have possibly have done. Or something.
Do you think you could pop over to Real Climate, or even ask Hansen or Mann direct, and establish your 'home team' position on this, before you lecture anybody else on their personal assessments? You would not want to appear foolish, repeating stuff that experts now say they never said.
In fact some Global Warming Experts are so adamant they never said anything, they blame it all on howling nut jobs like you for making it all up.
Which just goes to prove that global warming experts are not always wrong about everything, but if you want to challenge that, feel free to ask them.
ZDB
Hallo, we have not been formally introduced. Enjoying yourself? You appear to be a relative of an old Tasmanian acquaintance of mine. Are you hairy? You certainly arrive abruptly and make a lot of noise, tearing around.
Oh no, I recognize you now, you are that failed dementor supposed to bring fear and suck all the life out of sites like this one. A failure because you are just a figure of fun. A figure nonetheless capable of making your "victims" react like ants defending their nest. Pity you are not susceptible to a quick spell, but if we just ignore you, you might just disappear up your own fundament.
Away with you now, go stir up someone else. How does your tribe say it "move along now, nothing to see".
"That is precisely what the ruling eites want to happen, imho!"
They want capitalism not to work?
I ask for scientific evidence and you refer to a political agenda (WG1, with associated SPM; unlike the full AR5 does contain a lot of scientific evidence in its 1553 pages, but an awful lot of it reveals huge holes in the theory). Hmmmm… Good thinking, ZDB.
If you truly read the comments with an open mind, you will not find anyone on this site who doubts or denies that. Now, you tell us a period in the history of this planet when there was no change in temperatures, sea levels, ice mass or glacier extent.Even within the limited extent of recorded human history, temperatures, sea-levels, ice mass and glacier extent have been higher, and temperatures, sea-levels, ice mass and glacier extent have been lower. You obviously have not been keeping up.
You accuse us of conspiracy theories but show that you are more convinced of conspiracies than anyone else. You are right, there is a howling nutjob who has recently commented on this site.
Little to no domestic coal mining in the UK (Primary activity)
Now imported coal is not being burnt.
This continues the high price of domestic electricity despite the crash in world commodity prices.
High domestic electricity charges prevents the return of secondary manufacturing activity.
This is clearly a policy goal of finance capitalism.
Finance capitalism functions by keeping the prices up (inflation)
To prevent the joining of the production / consumption loop at all costs.
The artifical scarcity system broke down in 2007.
Clearly the policy goal now is to increase real scarcity via industrial and energy sabotage.
"The predictions were that temperatures would rise,..."
And that the temperature rise would accelerate. There hasn't been any significant rise for eighteen years. They are now reduced to claiming that the satellites are lying.
"...sea levels would rise,..."
To such an extent that whole populations would be displaced and that there would be millions of refugees. The actual number of people who have been displaced by rising sea levels is in fact zero.
"...the poles would lose ice mass..."
And the ice at the North Pole would disappear altogether. The vast majority of the Ice at the North Pole is still there and the ice at the South Pole is mostly expanding.
"...and most glaciers would retreat."
As they have been doing since the end of the little ice age, and this a problem how?
"All of that is happening right now. I'm embarrassed for you that you don't know that."
Of course I do know that, but the devil is in the detail.
I do find it quite difficult to determine what it is I am supposed to be in denial of, when the howling nut jobs keep arguing with each other about all the calamities that they predicted were going to happen, which haven't happened, and now they have to deny having predicted anything, so they can claim they were not wrong. Only climate science could make up this kind of green manure at such an extortionate cost to the human race.
It would appear that climate science is useless. It has not provided any use, or anything usefull, apart from to Mann, and his fellow beasts of skience.
ZDB, many thanks for your incisive diagnosis about all the climate science lies, that some of us have raised concerns about for a while now. It is really helpful when an insider 'blows the whistle' on the scale of the fraud, which climate scientists now say was nothing to do with them.
ZDB is purely faith based in her reactionary positions. There is no there there in her rants. She is here to perform the climate kook equivalent of telling Satan to go away.
Green "energy" is just a tool/means of using "Capitalism" for a political Agenda to attack capitalism and radically change the Western World. If they get their radical change of the Western World they do not care about Jolly Green Giants going out of business.
Hunter.
You give ZDB too much credence. Like an itch you all have to scratch: an irritant without any real substance.
Or perhaps like one of those toy dolls with a drawstring at the back that, when you pull it, disgorges the same old messages with no intelligence behind them.
Don't keep pulling the string! Stop scratching.
ZDB is definitely feeding off you all, like a dementor.
I presume the Bish is engaged elsewhere otherwise the inane ramblings of the Truro Troll would have been swiftly and surgically removed. How long has she been banned from here for abuse, disinformation and deliberate water-muddying? And still she can't resist coming back to remind us what a beaten alarmist and has-been social justice warrior lookes like.
@Zeddeadbed.
It's highly unlikely Uk fossil fuel use has declined when observed from a holistic production / consumption angle rather then a narrow national perspective.
Current energy practice is designed to push up domestic prices which then reduces domestic activity.
As long as Sterling can buy the worlds products and services real energy inputs will continue to increase.
If current policy is indeed to reduce global co2 emission then it will fail.
As all scientists agree that local and national co2 emission has no effect on the environment then why is the UK engaging in such a national rather then global suppression of co2 emission?
Hint: current policy has financial rather then environmental objectives.
It only appears irrational when looking at the problem from a physical economic perspective.
It is however very rational.
Looking at the energy trends data extremely expensive and environmentally destructive biomass inputs is providing the needed stability to the grid.
Meanwhile most of the wind power is wasted.
Again the objective of diffuse renewables is to simply keep the prices high.
Residential Nat gas consumption increased slightly in 2015.
The DECC in its energy trends publication blames cold weather.....wait a minute - I thought 2015 was warm and stuff!!!
I am confused.
The warm or cold weather explanations have become laughable to a degree I did not once think possible.
No mention of other possible factors ( larger population perhaps?) always with the warm or cold weather thingies.
Biomass supplied 25.16 TWH of UK electricity in 2015.
A increase of 28.3 %.....anyone care to calculate how many American trees were cut in this making of a warm fuzzy green statistic?
In particular during Q4 biomass is beginning to approach half of steam coal electrical production.
This is emphatically not a green policy
It is a sick corporatist policy.
The only rational use of biomass energy is local collection of wood for direct burn in homes.
Predictably the DECC is endeavouring to recalculate this local activity. (refer to its special feature in the latest energy trends)
Obviously to tax this practice out of existence at some future date.
Harvesting and conversion to wood pellets in the states, it's transport across the Atlantic and its burning in electricity plants with its massive transformation losses needs to be protected from people who they themselves are seeking to protect themselves from high prices.
The goal of current industrial policy is to destroy living standards....end of.
Dear All; Please don't feed the trolls - either of them. It just gives them the delusion that someone else actually gives a shit about their inane ramblings.
Salopian
We are witnessing a continual and massive structural transformation of the UK energy system.
The green corporatists are not declining.
They are in the ascendancy.
The UK is by far the biggest user of biomass for conversion into electrical energy in the world. ( perhaps the most wastefull practice imaginable)
7TWh of biomass - elec was supplied in the 4th quarter.
This is the equivalent of the Irish grid now.
None of this makes any sense from a conventional standpoint.
One can only see the reality of our situation when you look at this through a social credit prism.
Read Oliver Heydorns latest 2 essays
The futility of full employment and the sustainable social credit ( in contrast to state capitalism / usury waste) to gain the correct perspective on this.
Who can now deny that the current object of production is not consumption.
The objective of current production is concentration and not creation of wealth ( read Bellocs classic - The Servile State)
I now understand the heartfelt plea - "Please, not the Dork!" (Apr 1, 2pm).
Seems to be a type of energy flatulence, that requires no feeding. Is this perpetual motion and can it be harnessed? Or even turned off? Seems to be intermittent since I haven't had the "pleasure" before.
Better get used to it Alan ;-)
Don't get too attached to Zed though, it and it's pearls of wisdom never stay long.
My theory about the Dork is that (s)he uses some kind of nonsense generator (like this one) to baffle the world with profoundness.
ZDB is bloody funny - please don't ban her!
The Dork however, is just boring. Please ban him and his gibberish!
@ ZedsDeadBed - Apr 2, 2016 at 10:47 PM
in reply to my comment you state (in part) -
"Add something to what? You're a bunch of evidence-free paranoid conspiracy theorists howling to each other about how basic physics dating back to the 19th century is all a big conspiracy and the answer to everything is that we keep using as much fossil fuel as we possibly can."
I try to use a bit common sense when reading/trying to understand the "Human induced Crisis?" the world is in due to AGW or whatever the current acceptable term is.
the evidence that the problem exists at all seems sketchy to me.
you then quote the findings of - "IPCC AR5 WG1. You know full well that 4 different peer-reviewed studies have found that 97% of climate scientists are in agreement regarding AGW"
that makes me cautious, you believe the 97% crap!!! , even if true, so what ?
just look at the projections that have never come true (stop,think,look left,right, then keep going works ever time)
The 97% Consensus, all it stands for, from it's illegitimate conception, to it's unwarranted and unjustified baptism by the President of the United States, really does make this the Age of Stupid Barstewards.
Wijnand. What makes you think I am attached to ZDB? I agree with David Smith, bloody funny, but that's all.
However as someone experiencing the Z phenomenon for the first time I was amazed at the reaction she (?) provoked here - all the soldier ants erupted with their fangs and stings fully operational. But you seem to have been successful, she's gone (perhaps).
Good while it lasted whereas The Dork seems to go on and on and on...........
You know, you were right, phil at least makes an argument.
Alan Kendall, it is normally best to ignore ZDB, but on this occasion, the Trolly Dolly display of cluelessness, in defiance of Hockey Team orders, was worth highlighting.
Frequency of assaults here, is unpredictable, but timing is normally after lights out in most homes and asylums.
The barrage of abuse is so formulaic, that it may even be generated by a new lower cyborg life form.
There is no doubt that modern science is driven by the desire for research grants and fame. The days (a century ago) when individuals put forward new science and were heeded are long gone. Now it is "group think" and personal competition that rule the nest - or should I say nest egg?
If anything is to change it will be a long term process, probably ruled more by public opinion influencing political voting than by the whims of journal editors who know what would put them out of a job if published. An example:
The following scientists have supported the hypothesis that planetary surface temperatures are primarily determined by the gravitationally induced temperature gradient and not by direct solar radiation (if any) reaching the base of the troposphere and any solid surface there:
1. Josef Loschmidt, a 19th century physicists who was first to estimate realistically the size of air molecules, thus leading to the Kinetic Theory of Gases from which the Ideal Gas Law and Loschmidt's gravito-thermal effect are each derived.
2. James R. Holton who wrote the book “An Introduction to Dynamic Meteorology” (second edition), Academic Press, New York, 1979.
3. Dr Hans Jelbring (with a PhD in climatology) who had a peer-reviewed paper on this published in "Energy and Environment" in 2003.
4. Drs Nikolov and Zeller who wrote a paper on the "Unified Theory of Climate" in 2011.
5. Douglas Cotton and many who have agreed with the hypothesis in his 2013 paper and book, such as John Turner (retired physics educator), professional members of a climate group he addressed and presumably most of over 70 who have "liked" his comments on LinkedIn, the world's largest network of professionals. This hypothesis extends the work of the above scientists in that it uses the Second Law of Thermodynamics to explain the required thermal energy transfer mechanisms.
Data from Venus, Uranus, Neptune and other planets, as well as Earth support the hypothesis overwhelmingly.
The hypothesis is documented in the paper linked at https://itsnotco2.wordpress.com which has been subjected to peer-review in open media for over three years without any correct refutation. Also in that paper is a study supporting the hypothesis which explains why water vapor cools rather than warms the surface of Earth.
Have over the past few days experienced for the first time a number of what you call "troll" infestations. One (ZDB) was decidedly funny just because it was over the top with its invective. It could easily be identified. It could also have been ignored yet, surprising to me, it was not. I brand this type a Tasmanian Devil/dementor hybrid.
A second type, which I was slow to recognize, is represented by Entropic Man. This type poses questions one after the other, seemingly endlessly. From answers patiently given they extract what fits their particular world model, discarding the rest and what is acceptable forms the basis of new questions. This type also seems widely read, but that reading also goes through a similar selective filtering process. The questioning just goes on and on. I liken this variety to an endless chromatography column; ideas are only allowed to rise up the column if they are the right ones, other ideas are impeded not to reach the critical part of the apparatus.
I'm uncertain whether Raff or Phil Clarke belong here, or if they are simply pub bores. And in the wrong pubs.
Not everyone here would identify EM, Raff or Phil as trolls, but I would argue that they, over time, have the same effects.
The Dork is in a class of his own, smothering everything with a smorgasbord of energy drivel. I have not really studied this variety in much detail (out of induced boredom) but recognize the validity of golf Charlie's speculation that there seems to be some sort of mechanization involved, perhaps an A(not so)I.
Then there's the latest manifestation - anonymous (1.12 Apr 4) who, if I am correct, is the same individual who has been banned elsewhere, has a fixed idea about calculating planetary surface temperatures, but has a never-ending capacity to evolve new names so evading website defence systems - in other words a Borg (Heaven protect us).
I suspect my observations are not new to many of you, but the topic fascinate me. I'm sure this affliction will soon pass.
Two questions, do these troll infections usually combine as they have done recently? Could they be coordinated?
Mr K (my little MC; glad to see you have not deserted us): I would agree with most of your analyses, but not about “anonymous”, who has presented the case in a proper, dispassionate manner, giving information for us to either pursue or ignore. I suspect that, should you decide to pursue the data, and formulate any counter-arguments, they will be accepted in the proper manner, without rancour or hostility. To merely dismiss the argument as it does not fit your (and those of many others) personal concepts is not really how debate progresses, especially when presented with: “Data from Venus, Uranus, Neptune and other planets, as well as Earth support the hypothesis overwhelmingly.” Where might this data be found, and is it accessible for anyone to view and analyse?
Alan Kendall
ZDB and D of C have independent minds, that even they have no control over.
Phil Clarke is a Greenpeace trained expert in Non Violent Direct Action. Evil oil must be defeated at all costs
Raff makes regular links to 97% Consensus sites such as Skeptical Skience
EM is similar to Raff, not the same, but similarly dependent
It is unclear whether EM and/or Raff receive any financial support for posting here, and how any bonus scheme works, but Radical Rodent's comments about brick walls was valid, and worth amplifying!
It is also unclear as to whether some of their responses, or redirected attack strategies are generated by others for them to pursue. The writing style is not always consistent, suggesting more than one technical author. Some of the top Global Warming experts writing at the Guardian, for example, show similar multiple personality disorders.
It is amazing how some of these people can come out with matching pre-determined conspiracy theories. How did they get together and agree?
If I am wrong about anything above, I don't care! AGW fanatics are trained to spot evil deniers, and disrupt them on this site, making broad brush assessments and generalisations. It is a compliment to this blog, that they have targetted it, and also that they are not censored. There is a better cross-section of knowledge and opinions here than most places, and all the better for having yourself and Paul Dennis along.
As you and Paul are deemed to have some insider knowledge, you must be exterminated to save Mann's credibility! It is interesting how Judith Curry attracts such a high level of vitriol.
Of course, these are my opinions, and others may differ!
Budgie
Your discourse only demonstrates that the free market you seek does not and cannot ever exist so basing important decisions on the assumption that it does or could exist is the sheerest folly. And btw that centrally planned economy (China) you deride is the richest country in the world and the supposed free-market champion USA (despite having more protectionism than any other country) is deeply in hock to it. So not only does the free market theory fall flat on the simplistic assumption that it is possible in the first place, it is completely shot to buggery by the actual facts on the ground.
Debt-heavy SunEdison looking to sell India assets: Mint newspaper.
http://uk.reuters.com/article/us-sunedison-inc-bankruptcy-india-idUKKCN0X10D4
TUE, MAR 29 2016
Abengoa rebounded on Tuesday a day after the indebted renewable energy firm said its creditors had backed a seven-month standstill agreement which should give it more time to restructure. YOU CAN'T RESTRUCTURE SAND CASTLES.
http://www.reuters.com/finance/stocks/companyNews?symbol=ABG.MC
Incoherent ideological drivel, JamesG.
A market can be as free as government chooses to allows it to be.
The debt government takes on, is not the fault of markets.
And debt is not necessarily a bad thing. Indeed without it there would be no growth.
golf Charlie and RR
Thank you for your information. I still consider "anonymous" to be a Borg troll, but take your point. In response I would continue to consider him(?) troll-like in his obsession and his ignoring of counter argument.
How many more varieties are there? Could innocents like me be given early warnings?
Punksta
a. I have no ideology about markets, free or otherwise. I just point out the facts as they exist. Rather it is free marketeers are driven by ideology despite all contrary evidence. I do not advocate a centrally planned economy by merely pointing out that for the Chinese it seems to have worked. That is not ideology it is plain and simple fact!
b. The debt a government takes on is a potent symbol that it cannot make real money by its current economic strategy. That much is surely undeniable. Markets are merely buying and selling; there is no mythical entity like the 'invisible hand' that always knows best: that is academic BS that btw Adam Smith never even implied.
c. Debt is not necessarily a bad thing as long as it creates wealth at some future point. If the debt increases inexorably towards eg 19 trillion dollars with no apparent end in sight then only a fool could argue for more debt. Presumably the long term strategy is a default. Is that supposed to be a good thing?
JamesG
In ignoring the point that markets can be as free as governments permit, you again show the ideological basis you now try to camouflage.
Your comments on central planning are addressed to a straw man, not me. Just more evasion from you.
The invisible hand clearly exists, serving to satisfy both parties; only an ideological moron would try and deny that. Again, your comments linking this and government debt both incoherent and addressed to some straw audience.
Yes there is an optimum amount of debt. Greater than zero.
I missed this howler....."A market can be as free as government chooses to allows it to be"
One government by itself may of course choose to believe there is a free market out there even if all other governments still subsidise their industries but that is a really good way of destroying your own industry. A government may furthermore choose to believe that home-grown industry doesn't matter as long as we can all buy stuff at a cheap price from abroad. But there comes a point where you have to look at the economies of countries making money versus those in debt and conclude that supporting your own industry turns out to be quite important.
The only howler is your own. Government are what can make markets unfree, if they so choose.
What any person or government 'believes' is or is not a free market is another one for your straw audience.
Your protectionist claptrap duly noted. That other countries subsidise does not invalidate the notion of comparative advantage; just means that where your comparative advantage lies, has now moved.
Alan Kendall, there is no definitive list. The AGW professional Mud Slingers believe they can categorise anyone who disagrees with them, and have standard scripts and replies, to deal accordingly. Rumours persist that John Cook of Skeptical Skience may know more about this, than the climate science he is an 'expert' on.
Looking up Stephan Lewandowsky on Wikipedia in interesting. Strangely it links to the Debunking Handbook, and John Cook. 97% Consensus theory is all centred around a few narrow minded individuals.
That climate science relies so heavily on Lewandowsky and Cook for disinformation propagation, is intriguing, when seen in a historical context, combined with their combined scientific knowledge, of science itself.
The Anonymous who posted earlier will be one of many. His Item 5 refers to Doug Cotton, in glowing rhetoric. This is not a good sign.
Whether you and Paul Dennis have caused a few bruised egos amongst those that thought geology etc would provide the ultimate answer, I don't know. The UK Courts of Appeal have been kept busy as a result of dazzling new forensic techniques turning out to be flawed, or stretched beyond reasonable doubt.
Confidence Limits/Error Bars etc have different meanings, depending on your field. They are abused in climate science, in the absence of fact. I know I have worked professionally, using what may have been described as professional judgement, based on experience. There are then the reasons, as to why I was not 100% confident, rather than 'pretty confident'. It comes back to Donald Rumsfeld and known unknowns, and unknown unknowns. Climate science is never honest about the known unknowns, let alone the unknown unknowns, so they are never mentioned, until after it is too late.
@Alan
Energy Drivel?, boring?
I am picking the nuggets from the latest British Energy trends publication (covering all of 2015)
Perhaps The DECC stats have become a fiction but if you take them at face value they are explosive beyond all hyperbole.
Nothing like this has ever happened before.
That is a deliberate choosing of the most inefficient means of electrical production on a scale barely imaginable.
If we look at the energy situation across Europe over the last 40~ years or so we have seen the UK maintain roughly static production / consumption ever since the early 80s dip to the mid 2000s
Meanwhile huge flows of mainly increased oil waste was observed in the European periphery up to the 2007 event.
( think of Iberian or Irish historical energy balances in this period)
We are now currently seeing major and continual declines in UK net energy consumption with the added pressure of major population movements toward this area.
Meanwhile we are again seeing tentative signs of a increase in oil waste on the euro periphery.
Ireland as always is the canary in the scarcity mine with major increases in transport inputs again seen.
Well even a straw audience would display more common sense than punksta imo but that's for others to decide. I'll be sure to tell my bank manager that optimal debt is less than zero. I guess what p really meant was...
"What is an 'Optimal Capital Structure'?
An optimal capital structure is the best debt-to-equity ratio for a firm that maximizes its value. The optimal capital structure for a company is one which offers a balance between the ideal debt-to-equity range and minimizes the firm's cost of capital. In theory, debt financing generally offers the lowest cost of capital due to its tax deductibility. However, it is rarely the optimal structure since a company's risk generally increases as debt increases."
But then trying to elicit any sense from someone who is either a) a troll just looking for a fight, or b) genuinely deluded by the claptrap put out by the Chicago boys, is not really that interesting. Here endeth the food fight. Right-wing dogma proves once again to be every bit as dumb and fact-free as left wing dogma..
Your lack of any substantive rationale, and utter inability to stick to a point, answering of questions not asked, duly noted,
You are indeed an evasive ideological moron. Scurry away if you must then.
Uk elec production is down 9TWH~ if we look at the December 2005 - 2015 trend.
From 36 TWH to 27TWH ~ if we observe IEA electrical production data.
As far as I can make out this is the most dramatic large country decline seen on the IEA data sheets during this 10 year period of economic crisis.
( source IEA monthly electricity data December 2015)
The UK has effectively outsourced itscproduction to its colonies, preventing them from servicing their own domestic demand.
The DECC useless generation data hides this fact.
JamesG, free markets are what made Britain, including Scotland, great.
More or less free markets always assert themselves to some extent, even in totalitarian states. Think of the black markets in currency that arise whenever governments try to fix exchange rates at variance from market prices.
The question, as punksta correctly asserts, is how free governments will let markets be.
The existence of markets is less to do with ideology and more to do with human enterprise. The theorists of free markets such as Adam Smith of the late lamented Scottish Enlightenment, were trying to find laws that described what they observed to work well, not devising utopian ideologies.
That doesn't mean governments should do nothing - law and order, infrastructure, enforceable contract law are all preconditions for a freer markets.
Protectionism is becoming rife again but responding with a trade war has never been shown to improve things.
Just saw Marketwatch today and SunEdison really seems to be in the excrement. Share price plunging and the shorters are out. Down over 45% today.
Currently at 23 cents. Used to be 10 dollars.
That said Chesapeake used to be 26 dollars and was at one point recently less than dollars.
Different situations though but still, energy can be a risky business.
Of the 11,000 odd scientists who were polled for a survey on AGW, of the mere 79 who bothered to respond to it, 77 said they "believed" globull warming was manmade, & that is were the 97% came from in the first place! This has been well debunked in the past! BTW I was not suggesting that Climate Scientists are "odd", although it may well explain one or two things, certainly the scientists I've worked with in the past showed some level of "oddness" at times!
Alan the Brit, unfortunately, climate scientists also assume that people appreciate their value to society, which just goes to prove that 97% of climate scientists are clueless, 97% of climate science is pointless, and only 3% of climate scientists are not worthless.