Skip to comments.Global warming: The Oxburgh Inquiry was an offer he couldn’t refuse.
Posted on 04/26/2010 8:59:13 AM PDT by Ernest_at_the_Beach
1. The Climatic Research Unit at East Anglia University has published science that was integral to the decision of the EU and the UK to immediately implement programs subsidizing the installation of green energy generation systems.
2. Those subsidies amounted to approximately $50 billion U.S. dollars in 2008 alone.
3. Organised crime has already moved to profit from these subsidies, which appear to lack adequate controls to prevent misuse.
4. When the authorised leak of emails and documents resulted in the Climategate scandal of November 2009, it caused considerable havoc in stock market prices of green energy companies, especially when it was followed by Copenhagen, a cold winter, and scandal in carbon certificate trading.
5. East Anglia University commissioned an investigation into the practices of its research unit and asked Lord Oxburgh to chair the panel.
6. Lord Oxburgh is chairman of Falck Renewables, a manufacturer of windfarms and the UK subsidiary of The Falck Group, a Milan-based manufacturer.
7. A sister company of Oxburghs Falck Renewables, Actelios, is publicly traded and had suffered serious falls in its stock price during the period of Climategate, etc.
8. Lord Oxburghs company, its parent and more than one of its sister companies have had organised crime activities surrounding their acquisition of property and installation of green energy systems.
9. The green energy industry, organised crime investors, Falck Renewables and its parent and sister companies stood to benefit from an investigation the results of which did not overturn the science findings of CRU.
10. The investigation by Lord Oxburgh was perfunctory. The report was 5 pages. It interviewed no-one who was not employed by the University. It reviewed 11 papers that were not part of the Climategate controversy. Those papers were selected either by the University itself or a committee of the Royal Society on which Phil Jones, director of CRU, was a member.
Do I believe the mob directed the investigation? Of course not. Do I believe that Lord Oxburgh had additional reasons to weight the findings of his investigation in favor of the status quo? Its certainly possible. Do I think that having an underworld connection to renewable energy subsidies prejudices almost every decision made about renewable energy? Definitely. Do I believe East Anglia University chose the wrong person to chair its investigation? Absolutely.
The Observer, Sunday 22 March 2009
Giles Tremlett in Madrid
Windswept La Muela, with its 500 giant windmills, has become one of Spain's richest towns on the back of what is the new gold for rural communities - renewable energy. Eight years ago, the wind energy companies that provide up to 40% of Spain's electricity on blustery days came looking to plant their turbines. These now line the hills outside the town and form neat patterns across the plain.
Generating companies pay 1m (£940,000) a year to the town hall in rent and taxes. Private landowners, many of whose families worked the hard, unforgiving land for centuries, share a further 0.5m a year. Planting windmills has proved far more lucrative than cultivating crops. Each brings in about 3,000 a year to the landowner.
Interesting that they’re having the same problem as us. What with Fannie and Freddie and Wall Street we’ve got the guys who scammed our money now investigating and even running the whole thing.
The report says that the CRU group have been cleared of deliberate scientific malpractice.
Which is another way of saying that the University of East Anglia has yet to adopt the wise course of hiring registered telepaths for its review boards.
I doubt that this board, or any civil board in the UK, are legally capable of ascribing motive. Being cleared of deliberate malpractice by a civil board means precisely nothing - it is a verbal finesse that should put us on our guard.
To expand on my last - the CRU are quite obviously guilty of scientific malpractice. They won’t show their working and they won’t reveal their data.
But is their malpractice due to deliberate criminality or obstinate stupidity? UEA aren’t in a position to say - and if they did it would possibly be actionable in the UK.
The 'Razor', a newly completed tower block in Elephant and Castle, London, will generate nearly a tenth of its own energy through its three rooftop turbines. Photograph: Linda Nylind
Blades yet to be installed ....will have 5 fins....
The 19kW turbines, which were made bespoke for the project, will have five blades rather than the usual three to reduce noise.
That does look like a cool building.
Shame about the lost revenue from the top four floors and the bloody feathers that will litter the pavement below - BUT it will make a great fight location for the next Bond movie.
Analysis of windshear and mobius stresses are right at the top of the list for high buildings. To honest, those big holes should help relieve both effects.
Still - this is a complete waste of money. My prediction: the only people paying the high rents in this building will be Government-backed NGOs. Either that or the costs were highly subsidized by HM Government in the first place.
That big hole in the middle of my sentence was deliberate, it helps to relieve windshear :0)
One hand washes the other.
And over here we have....see #18.
As many of us responded earlier on, it is a whitewash. The crooks abound and will regain their foothold, and end up making big money on the scam. Don’t know how to look at the end result come out otherwise.