Science and Technology CommitteeWritten evidence submitted by Brian R L Catt (CLC038)

1. Personal: I am an independent professional electrical engineer, physicist and Manchester MBA, widely experienced in the scientific and commercial applications of physics and engineering in research and business. My scientific formation includes four years at NPL, seven at the NRPB at Harwell, two at Imperial College, in a range of practical and research science responsibilities before an MBA and over 30 years in high technology business.

2. Introduction: I believe your questions miss the core point, as they assume science is communicated honestly by government using the proper scientific disciplines that true scientists apply to independently tested hypothesis as the only proven science, science fact, and all the rest unproven scientific hypothesis, science fiction.

But government has now created a new industry to exploit science as a belief in some form of science fundamentalism for profit and control, exploiting the lack of absolute scientific principles in much “science” outside physics, relying on the inability of a technologically uninformed public and arts degree based media to independently review the assertions of “science” made to justify legislation,—easiest to do with easily believed but utterly deceitful assertions based on science fiction about what can actually deliver for UK plc, and supported by a political inquisition against anyone who tries to communicate the truth in public. Particularly independent scientists who are labeled “skeptics” as if pointing out the proven truth was bad. Might as well call them heretics.

Professors Colin Mc Innes, Gordon Hughes, David MacKay, the whole of the `Lawson Foundation, and many, many others. They only deal in the absolutes of proven science, and are not rewarded by the renewables industry as are their detractors. Yeo, Hendry, Deben, Huhne, etc, This is becoming a massive problem in a society that must depend on science fact to stay developed. A science theocracy cannot succeed.

In summary “Science” has been hi jacked by lobbyists for easy profit at public expense by law, almost wherever possible, the “eco” excuse being the most common. Nothing in “science” is as it seems. MMR was the latest example of what ignorant belief and science fiction from a non-scientist exploiting some unrelated discipline for credibility can do (Medicine and other non-numeracy based disciplines are serial offenders in promoting science fiction). Science communication by government is little better when it wants to exploit science to promote a belief—and needs route and branch fixing before communicating any more “science”. Science is not a relative belief bendable to political purposes as an instrument of policy, it is absolute science fact whose laws once established can be changed by no one without the application of similar rigour, a new hypotheses, which await proof before being acted upon.

Claims for “science” from government are often uttered by unknowing soft degree PR men in support of lobbyists who benefit from the laws passed in its name—Ed Milliband, Chris Huhne, Charles Hendry, Tim Yeo, Ed Davey, David Cameron have all been guilty of this, some for “policy” support, others for actual indirect financial reward.

In fact “the greatest challenge we face” per Cameron—of climate change invoked to support renewables legislation promoting 100 or 200% subsidised wind farms and bio fuel burning that overall make CO2 emissions expensively worse in science fact—is something that was always unproven and whose nature and causes remain unknown outside of orbital and precessional terrestrial variation and solar intensity variance, plus a dash of plate tectonics and its consequences. In science fact global warming hasn’t happened as advertised for 15 years, and the major effect of the bogus legislation on the UK economy has been to waste growing billions of our money in pointless energy poverty on prescriptions that on the joined up science and even if it worked can’t affect any of the consequences of the science fiction in practical fact taken globally—to profit generator lobbyists for nothing back. So a double fraud on science fact.

3. Its not just me that sees this: Government statements on science are frequently untrue on direct science fact and are increasingly treated as such by the quality media as a result. They have smelled the science fiction for profit by law rat at the heart of lobbyist led government.

The media now look deeper into whether political science statements are independently verified science or just a deceptive communications department statements as is so often the case, purporting to be from Ed Davey, David Cameron, etc. , , misusing statistics and proven science while avoiding rigorous peer review—eg continuing assertion of accelerating human caused climate change related to CO2 emissions and false claims that energy policy solutions can change this. The physics says they can’t. (Except quietly rehabilitated nuclear, over the Lib Dems science denying bodies, because in science fact its all that can work for the UK after fossil.

4. What “Scientists”? Outside of this we have the dodgier anti-something “scientists” with no qualifications in the subject they pronounce on, and less respect for the pure disciplines of science fact, such as Sir Paul Nurse et al, a discredit to real science and the Royal Institution. Perhaps the worst offender is the utterly discredited “Doctor” Helen Caldicott’s claims of a million dead from Chernobyl using disproven LNT hypothesis etc. (about 50–60 in fact), exposed by the once anti nuclear George Monbiot! But still her anachronistically named organisation “Physicians for Social Responsibility” gets air time as unchallenged radiation experts on the BBC. nb: The BBC is another problem as a promoter of science fiction on energy by policy..

“Doctor Who? Of course Caldicott is not even a scientist of any sort, like the MMR “Doctor”, but a medic with craft skills and some very scientifically deniable beliefs. It seems the same problem occurs with climatologists whose “scientific” models owe more to untested mathematical assumptions presented as real science than real physics. Charlatans when they claim anything for them ex- ante.

5. Consequences: What we have as a result of these science fiction promoters for power and profit, such as the German Greens, is unproven hypotheses being presented as scientific fact by people outside rigorous scientific disciplines, claiming the same weight for their untested assertions. Such as your topic of climate change’s relation to human created CO2 emissions and its use to justify energy policy and legislation. No temperature rise over 15 years per NASA and the Met Office. Just a simplistic and ultimately conceited model assuming now clearly disproven relationships to predict something way beyond the scientific capabilities of the less than capable “scientists” behind it.

These were not scientists presenting proven science in the terms of their discipline, just mathematician science fiction writers with too much self-belief guessing for fame. Gamblers. Not true scientists. Such academic egos are a gift to lobbyists and politicians who can exploit their beliefs for easy MONEY. In this case government created a massive “scientific” deception to divert some easy subsidy Bilions to lobbyists, using energy policy’s “renewable” generating prescriptions. These make large and fast fiscal returns on capital by law but cannot deliver any of the claims of adequacy, controllability, sustainability or affordability made for them on the science in terms of a joined up developed UK economy (until nuclear got slipped into the renewable language). In science fact all this policy does is deliver easy Billions to generators to increase emissions overall from building utterly inadequate generation that is totally dependent on the reliable base load fossil power it is in scientific fact parasitic upon to exist, and obsolete without it.

6. Science Fiction is Easy to Disprove: I and any physicist who studies this for long can support the above hypothesis with proof in any educated forum. I explain the detail in the APPENDIX (E&OE as I am ill and out of time) for anyone who doubts the clear deceptions for regressive profit in energy policy, or the science facts of the science fiction claimed to support it. A “science” based fraud on both the false justification and its remedy.

7. Ignorance of Science Culture Makes Presentation of Truth Harder than Science Fiction: While real scientists and particularly physicists must follow the rules of science and present evidence and balance, medics and climatologists, and of course politicians, are able to get away with simple Priest like assertions of faith when telling people science fiction is science fact.

As a result mistaken hypotheses have become science for the hard of thought. For a scientist to deliberately represent an unproven hypothesis as a fact is lying. Exploiting science fiction for the financial benefit of political lobbyists by law at the people’s expense is political fraud. What we now have.

I have set out the data and basic scientific principals in writing in the appendix with simple examples for you to validate my hypothesis independently by peer review. Not opinion. Scientific method.

8. Why? It’s all about the money, science has been corrupted to support a legalised energy fraud by government, promoting bogus science as a justification for imposing laws delivering easy lobbyist profit for nothing back.

In this case using the Goebels approach of repeating the big climate change and capable renewables lies often enough, as hard to disprove as to prove, except if you are a scientist. Science fiction claims to have, but does not have, equal weight against science fact. One is supported by independent data, the other mere assertion. In this case the deception is exploited to enrich lobbyists at massive and fraudulent public cost by law, through regressive energy subsidies in the many Billions, incapable of delivering anything claimed for them in the law’s justification. The only hockey stick effect is on the pointlessly wasteful energy poverty imposed by energy policies prescriptions.

9. Interim Summary: So I don’t believe government is presenting science well, no, because it has deliberately mixed up science fact with science fiction to exploit science and public ignorance for easy profit and power by law. Legalised state fraud exploiting science fiction using the primitive approach of a theocracy.

The rigorous disciplines of hypothesis and independent test that should have been applied have been utterly ignored by politicians such as Ed Milliband, Chris Huhne, Ed Davey, Charles Hendry , Tim Yeo, Lord Deben and David Cameron, and many more—all apparently anxious to enact or sustain legislation justified on unproven science beliefs, and directly false on the science fact in respect of assertions regarding the adequacy, affordability, sustainability, decarbonisation, controllability, etc.. of its subsidised prescriptions.

10. Science Fiction: In science fact the prescriptive solutions of our science fiction energy policy can only make emissions worse, and their mostly weak variable energy sources can only deliver less adequate, much more expensive and utterly inadequate electrical energy supply, and finally are usefully unsustainable when fossil has gone—and are all supported by law that asserts the science fiction opposite. The alternative reality gets more bizarre when examining the best solutions in science fact.

11. Science Fact: In joined up science fact its simple to demonstrate CCGT gas and nuclear are our best, most capable and most rapidly decarbonising solutions to migrate to progressive, affordable, adequate, sustainable, zero carbon nuclear electrical energy, all there is that can actually power our developed economy when fossil has gone.

Whether you believe in global warming or not doesn’t matter , the best solution is not the easy money for generator’s policy prescriptions at two or three times the wholesale price by law.

Political science’s “alternatives” and “renewables” are no more than the icons of a religious dogma used as a means of control, made up assertions presented as facts for profit, untrue in rational science fact when considered at the joined up macro level. It’s a massive fiscal deception of the public using taxpayers money to promote bogus and/or unproven “science” for fraudulent lobbyist profit and the personal gain of their political representatives—such as Tim Yeo, Charles Hendry, Lord Deben, et al. Hardly the objective, honest, science based, rational democratic approach we need to stay competitive in a totally energy dependent developed technological economy.

12. Why Better Science Communication Matters: The misrepresentation of science for political and fiscal gain by law is how we now have an energy policy that in science fact cannot reduce CO2 overall, pointlessly costs us two or three times more wholesale for its prescriptive “alternative” and “renewable” energy sources that aren’t either of these things in fact and make things worse overall at the macro level, both in turn justified on a climate model that has been disproved in the assumed relationship between the CO2 emissions and global temperature rise that was used to justify the fraud.

Real science was not honestly communicated here, or used to the public good. A hypothesis was distorted into science religion presented as fact, complete with an inquisition against truth tellers who understood its deceptions, to legislate for massive profits to generators at the pointless energy poverty of every citizen in science fact.

So YES, would be great if government had a program to begin telling the public the truth on climate change and energy policy, and differentiate clearly between the unsupported beliefs of science fiction exploited for profit at our expense, and the proven science of hypotheses independently supported by tested data.

13. Climate Change Basics: In short the science facts are that atmospheric CO2 has risen by roughly c.200ppm/2.5% to around 400ppm while global temperatures have stayed flat over the last 15 years per the MET office HADCRUT3, NASA , and other respected data, etc.

There is no mutually accelerative effect shown with CO2 and water vapour, possibly a contrary effect. The modelers just don’t know. They guessed and were wrong. Science Fiction. The IPCC model was a hypothesis awaiting independent validation, not proven science, based on a late 90’s climate change hypothesis dressed up as proven science. Its predictive model is now in need of a major rethink, its relationships disproven as asserted. Work in progress. No basis for the legislation.

Our energy policies and their easy profits associated with it also require review.

14.What The Datas Say: Firstly because alternatives and renewables as legislated cannot actually reduce CO2 significantly and cannot deliver most of their claimed benefits to justify their expense in costed science fact, and second because climate change is not as was guessed at by a predictive model that is in fact an incorrect hypothesis about the highly complex multivariate and incredibly difficult to predict global climate. Just wrong.

More Reasons to be Concerned by Science Fiction: Sea levels are not rising dramatically either. In fact the Gaya theory seems more supported than the very unproven “accelerating climate change from human activity” climate change hypothesis. Lovelock has recanted on climate change.

In spite of the developing nations ramping up their emissions far more than any reduction we can contribute with our 2% of total human created emissions, with or without our energy policy, the sky is not falling and the energy policy that was created to monetise climate change for generator lobbyists by prescribing modalities that cannot solve the problem used to justify them is exposed as just that—by the science fact we always had but was misrepresented by politicians whose only grasp of it was votes and easy money for them or their lobbies.

15. Generation Basics—The Real Science Answer to Energy adequacy, affordability, sustainability and decarbonisation:

It is easy to use basic science to show that CCGT gas short term at 50% greater thermal efficiency of coal and open cycle gas and half the CO2 of coal when replacing coal, plus zero carbon nuclear generation long term, offer the ONLY capable base load energy solution for a developed UK economy. The expensive prescription of alternatives and renewables simply can’t. Subsidised prescriptions are woefully inadequate to power a developed economy because of their source energies’ weakness and substantially uncontrollable variability, and are utterly fossil dependent in science fact to exist, actually parasitic on the better/cheaper fossil energy they depend on.

On self evident fact when fossil energy is economically ended nuclear base load will be all we have to meet a two–three times larger electrical demand* (*DECC).

The weak uncontrollable alternative generation will be pointless as a grid supply without the dependable base load fossil generation it depends on to exist at all, and to make its subsidies by pushing fossil generation’s reliable energy off the grid at two–three times the price. These are simple, self evident and established scientific truths, mis-represented by the government to the public for private profit at public expense using misleading science fiction, like the wind is free. Only the wind is free, the energy costs you your future.

16. Summary: Government has used a raft of thoroughly misleading ideological assertions and unproven hypotheses not supported by proven science to justify its energy policy to date. These have been engineered in Whitehall to promote and then monetise an unproven crisis by law at the public’s avoidable cost exploiting science fiction, by preferring what can only make CO2 emissions worse on the established science with massive subsidy at huge avoidable public cost, by legislation that prefers what cannot deliver the policy objectives over that which can, for faster and easier profit by law.

Increasingly the truth of this deception is being presented by the National Media who now smell the rats in government science fiction. So for any future credibility the truth on climate change needs to separate science fact from science fiction.

What is actually established science versus unproven hypothesis and political beliefs dressed up as science.

How likely complex models are to predict the future when multivariate relationships are not understood; and

How none of fhe expensive prescriptions of energy policy can either decarbonise our economy or meet any of the long term objectives originally claimed for them by overtly fraudulent law on the science fact.

Or increasingly no one will believe you.

So a whole new, honest and proven science based approach which only promotes established science needs to be adopted to tell people the PROVEN SCIENCE FACT that underlies legislation related to climate change and energy policy. This won’t be easy to start with, as we were sold a basket of deceit by some large political egos to justify the legislation that is adding accelerating and avoidably wasted £billions to our national debt in science and economic fact.

I have set out some details that further support these statements as submitted in evidence to the ECC Select Committee, if you are deeply involved enough to check the science fact and doubt the above is based 100% in established physics and technical fact simply read this, and check what it says independently.

April 2013

Prepared 1st April 2014