Wednesday, 25 May 2016


This piece gives the details of the decision. This is an important step and should lead to further approvals leading to cheap reliable energy to keep us warm, provided the government has the sense to use it and ignore the mad Climate Change Committee. 

Tuesday, 24 May 2016


At last a few brave MPs are putting their heads above the parapet and warning that the government is about to charge over the cliff on the climate issue. I doubt if it will, by itself, make much difference, but it may encourage a few more to join them and who knows - suddenly the people may wake up to what is planned for their future, such as stopping them from using affordable gas for heating and cooking. 

Ministers should delay setting stringent new climate change targets so the UK is not left taking more radical action than the rest of Europe, a group of MPs has warned.
The Government is obliged under the Climate Change Act to set a target by the end of June for cutting UK carbon emissions in the period 2028-2032.
The Committee on Climate Change (CCC), its official advisors, have recommended it commit to slashing emissions to 57 per cent below 1990 levels – or about a third below current levels.
It says the plan would require a radical shift toward electric cars, green energy and away from using gas for heating and cooking.

Our extra effort would result in no extra reduction in CO2 emissions across Europe as a whole – just a higher burden on British business and a lower burden on our competitors.MPs' letter to Amber Rudd
In a letter to energy secretary Amber Rudd, seen by the Telegraph, 15 MPs warn that setting the radical target now will simply allow other countries in Europe to get away with doing less.
The EU has agreed a headline target to cut the combined emissions of member states by 40 per cent on 1990 levels by 2030, but is yet to carve up individual targets for different countries.
While the UK would be expected to be allocated cuts of greater than 40 per cent, precise levels have yet to be determined. However, the CCC has already confirmed that its proposed 57 per cent cut is “tighter than our estimate of the UK share of the EU 2030 target".
In the letter to Ms Rudd, the MPs warn: “If the UK unilaterally commits to a 57 per cent reduction before these negotiations are complete we would simply reduce the burden to be shared out among other member states.
“Our extra effort would result in no extra reduction in CO2 emissions across Europe as a whole – just a higher burden on British business and a lower burden on our competitors.”

Being in the EU makes it easier and cheaper for the UK to tackle climate change than if we were acting alone. It means we can level the playing field for the benefit of British families and businesses.Department of Energy and Climate Change spokesman
The MPs, including Owen Paterson, John Redwood and Chris Heaton-Harris, urge Ms Rudd to make good on her vow that the UK would “travel in step with what is happening in the rest of the world”.
Earlier this month a rival group of Conservative MPs wrote to David Cameron urging him to accept the steep cuts proposed by the CCC in order to give confidence to green energy investors.
The setting of the previous climate target, covering the period 2023-27, caused a huge row in the Coalition in 2011, which eventually resulted in the CCC’s advice being accepted subject to a review in 2014. The review left the target unchanged.
A spokesman for the Department of Energy and Climate Change said: “Member states will start negotiating later this year on their emission targets for 2030 and this Government will fight very strongly for each country to contribute its fair share to what is a collective target.
“Being in the EU makes it easier and cheaper for the UK to tackle climate change than if we were acting alone. It means we can level the playing field for the benefit of British families and businesses.”

Monday, 23 May 2016


This article has unearthed evidence that completely contradicts the idea that global warming is increasing and that it is caused mainly by man made CO2. No doubt the alarmists will say that this paper is wrong, but then they would say that, wouldn't they?

Sunday, 22 May 2016


This article looks at a new paper which reports on this issue. You would think that in a serious science these issues would merit much consideration, but politics dictates certainty, and so any doubts as to the cause of climate change being other than CO2 must be ignored.

Saturday, 21 May 2016


This report gives the details. It seems there is a very unpleasant campaign in the USA to silence any criticism of the President's line on the climate change issue. Democracy is being by-passed over there, just as in the EU. Though in the EU there is no democracy in the first place.

Friday, 20 May 2016


U.S. Energy Information Administration, 16 May 2016
 Global energy-related carbon dioxide (CO2) emissions are projected to increase by one-third between 2012 and 2040 in EIA’s International Energy Outlook 2016 (IEO2016) Reference case, largely driven by increased energy use in countries outside of the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD). The continuing increase in total emissions occurs despite a moderate decrease in the carbon intensity (CO2 per unit of energy) of the global energy supply.

graph of energy-related carbon dioxide emissions by country or region, as explained in the article text

In conjunction with the 21st Conference of Parties in Paris (also known as COP21), many countries s_ubmitted emissions reduction goals, or Intended Nationally Determined Contributions (INDCs), under the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCC). EIA has tried to incorporate some of the specific details, such as renewable energy goals, in the IEO2016 Reference case. The wide array of approaches generated by the COP21 participants includes absolute reductions, reductions from business-as-usual cases, reductions in intensity, peaking targets, and specific policy actions, making quantification of these goals difficult.

In addition, the NDCs include elements beyond the energy sector, such as land use change and forestry pledges. Pledges include all greenhouse gases (GHGs), not just the energy-related CO2 emissions discussed here. Largely because of data limitations, EIA does not attempt to model every country individually but instead aggregates countries into 16 world regions. EIA’s projections for energy-related CO2 emissions may change significantly as laws and policies aimed at affecting GHG emissions are implemented and as existing laws are enhanced.

In 1990, the 34 current OECD member countries emitted 54% of worldwide CO2 emissions. Since then, economic growth and increased energy use in the non-OECD member countries have shifted the balance of emissions. The IEO2016 Reference case projects a continuation of the trend, with emissions from non-OECD countries increasing through 2040, while CO2 emissions from OECD member countries remain relatively flat.

graph of share of energy-related co2 emissions, as explained in the article text
Source: U.S. Energy Information Administration, International Energy Outlook 2016

Even as energy-related CO2 emissions increase, the average carbon intensity of energy continues to decline. In the IEO2016 Reference case, global carbon intensity is projected to decrease by 0.4% annually, which is a more rapid decrease than the historical annual average 0.3% decline between 1850 to 2008, as noted by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) in a recent report.

In 2012, non-OECD countries emitted 62 million metric tons of CO2 per quadrillion British thermal units (MMmt CO2/quad Btu) of energy consumed. The 2012 carbon intensity of OECD countries was lower, at about 53 MMmt CO2/quad Btu. In the projection, non-OECD countries’ intensity declines faster than that of OECD countries. Even with the more rapid decline, in 2040 carbon intensity of non-OECD countries is still higher than the 2012 carbon intensity of OECD countries.

graph of energy-related co2 intensities, as explained in the article text
Source: U.S. Energy Information Administration, International Energy Outlook 2016

Energy-related CO2 emissions result from the combustion of fossil fuels: oil, coal, and natural gas. On an energy basis, coal combustion yields higher CO2 emissions than petroleum product combustion, which in turn yields higher CO2 emissions than natural gas combustion. A projected shift from higher carbon intensity fossil fuels toward fuels with a lower carbon intensity accounts for the reduction in carbon intensity. Two major factors drive this shift: growth in the use of renewable energy sources for power generation and a change in the mix of fossil fuels toward natural gas.

Thursday, 19 May 2016


Huffington Post, 10 May 2016
 Attributing the Canadian forest fire to climate change would mean advancing bad information over good. That can only increase the likelihood that policy-makers will make poor decisions which we can all agree is not something we want to see.

Last week I wrote a piece on my personal blog titled: On forest fires climate activist aren’t just insensitive, they are also wrong which addressed some of the reporting that incorrectly claimed that climate change was responsible for the Fort McMurray fire.

The truth of the matter was presented by Elizabeth May:

Some reports have suggested that the wildfires are directly caused by climate change. No credible climate scientist would make this claim, and neither do I make this claim.

The reason Ms. May made that statement is that she recognizes that legitimate forest fire experts know better than to make such claims. So what do knowledgeable researchers in the field say? The go-to person on this topic is Dr. Mike Flannigan from the University of Alberta. He is an expert on fire and weather/climate interactions.

Dr. Flannigan has been very careful with his language and has repeatedly stated: ” it’s impossible for scientists to say global warming caused this specific fire” and “this is an example of what we expect — and consistent with what we expect for climate change.” His wording is carefully chosen and deliberate. It presents a warning about future conditions while making no claims about current conditions.

Dr. Flannigan warns of a future when, according to his research, we will be able to see the effect of climate change on fire frequency. The problem is, as he has also said, science cannot make that claim yet. So the question to be asked is why are the activists making such broad claims when the experts in the field refuse to make the same claims?

From my reading the articles it is clear that many of the journalists were not really listening to what the forest scientists, like Dr. Flannigan, were saying and were instead just looking for quotes to insert into articles that simply reinforced their pre-existing biases. They did not recognize the difference between correlation and causation and so failed to understand what the forest scientists were trying to tell them.

A number of climate activists, meanwhile, are apparently confused by the weather in Alberta. They do not appear to understand that El Nino, not climate change, is responsible for the warm, dry winter. This fact was well-expected as experts predicted the warm, dry winter months ago.

In a final attempt to link climate change to the fire, many activists have alternatively claimed that the recent El Nino itself is the result of climate change. But when you ask the experts they dismiss that claim as well. Consider Dr. Fredolin Tangang who served from 2008 to 2015 as vice-chair of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), and is one of the foremost international experts on El Nino. As he put it:

There is no conclusive evidence that the occurrence of El Nino (frequency and intensity) is influenced by climate change…El Nino occurrences did not switch in frequency or intensity due to climate change.

Dr. Tangang does acknowledge that an El Nino can enhance the effects of climate change. To paraphrase Dr. Tangang: El Nino frequencies and intensities are not linked to climate change but since El Nino will heat up an area it could have an additive effect. That is, if an area is already hot, then El Nino will make it hotter.

So what actually caused the fire to be so severe? Well it appears to be a combination of the effects of El Nino and historic forest management decisions. To explain: after the Slave Lake fire in 2011 the Alberta Government sought advice on the fire situation. The result was the Flat Top Complex Wildfire Review Committee Report which made a number of recommendations and concluded:

Before major wildfire suppression programs, boreal forests historically burned on an average cycle ranging from 50 to 200 years as a result of lightning and human-caused wildfires. Wildfire suppression has significantly reduced the area burned in Alberta’s boreal forests. However, due to reduced wildfire activity, forests of Alberta are aging, which ultimately changes ecosystems and is beginning to increase the risk of large and potentially costly catastrophic wildfires.

Essentially the report acknowledged that the trees surrounding Fort McMurray are hard-wired for fire and if they are not managed properly then these types of catastrophic fires will become more common. The warm weather may have accelerated the fires season, but the stage was set for such a fire and not enough work was done to avoid it.

I have been repeatedly asked: “what does it hurt to say that the fire was caused by climate change?” Well, the whole point of the Flat Top Complex Report (which was written in 2011-2012 remember) was to help identify ways to avoid future catastrophic fires like the one that hit Fort McMurray.

As a pragmatist I recognize that we live in a world where our governments have finite budgets and need to allocate resources wisely; to do that they need good information. Bad information makes for bad decisions, and attributing the forest fire to climate change would mean advancing bad information over good. That can only increase the likelihood that policy-makers will make poor decisions which we can all agree is not something we want to see.

Wednesday, 18 May 2016


Reuters, 17 May 2016

Emily Flitter and Steve Holland
Republican presidential contender Donald Trump said on Tuesday he would renegotiate America’s role in the U.N. global climate accord, spelling potential doom for an agreement many view as a last chance to turn the tide on global warming.


A pull-out by the world’s second biggest carbon-emitting country would hobble the deal reached in Paris last December by nearly 200 nations, who for the first time in more than two decades found a common vision for curbing greenhouse gas emissions.

"I will be looking at that very, very seriously, and at a minimum I will be renegotiating those agreements, at a minimum. And at a maximum I may do something else," the New York real estate mogul said in an interview with Reuters.

"But those agreements are one-sided agreements and they are bad for the United States."

Trump said he did not believe China, the world’s top emitter of the carbon dioxide gas that many scientists believe is contributing to global climate, would adhere to its pledge under the Paris deal.

"Not a big fan because other countries don’t adhere to it, and China doesn’t adhere to it, and China’s spewing into the atmosphere," he said.

The accord to transform the world's fossil-fuel driven economy was a potent signal to investors.

It seeks to limit a rise in global temperatures to less than 2 degrees Celsius through combined national pledges to cut emissions, and provide funding for developing nations to mitigate the damaging effects of a sea level rise and climate change.

The Obama administration pledged a 26 to 28 percent domestic reduction in greenhouse gases by 2025 compared to 2005, while China promised it would halt increases in carbon emissions by 2030. Both countries have promised to ratify the deal this year.

Many U.S. Republicans have found fault with the deal for overreacting to what they see as an uncertain threat.

Former French foreign minister Laurent Fabius, who helped broker the deal, said this month that the U.S. election was critical to its future. "If a climate change denier was to be elected, it would threaten dramatically global action against climate disruption," he said.

Trump has said that he believes global warming is a concept that was invented by China to hurt the competitiveness of U.S. business. One of his energy policy advisers is a climate change skeptic, U.S. Congressman Kevin Cramer of North Dakota.

Hillary Clinton, the leading Democratic contender for the White House, has advocated shifting the country to 50 percent clean energy by 2030.

Tuesday, 17 May 2016


This article explains how  the Australian climate alarmist leaders are trying to remove a man from his post as leader of an energy company because he once wrote an email supporting the famous Skeptics Handbook. What a ridiculous situation when a person is vilified for supporting a perfectly reasonable position.

Monday, 16 May 2016


This piece from Booker explains how the foolishness of the UK's Climate Change Act is rapidly coming back to bite the politicians who passed it back in 2008.  To meet the Act’s 80 per cent target in 2050, between 2028 and 2033 Britain must raise its emissions cuts to a staggering 57 per cent. It talks of how 60 per cent of our cars should by then be electric (currently these are barely half a per cent of new cars sold). We must look forward to abandoning use of gas for heating and cooking (currently supplying 90 per cent of us). It is indeed a terrifying prospect. Of course the government could reject these proposals, but I wouldn't bet on it. Neither would Christopher Booker.

Sunday, 15 May 2016


I know this blog is supposed to be about climate science, but today I am going to give a plug to an important movie that is now available on youtube "Brexit The Movie". For those who think that it is not important to leave the EU, or who have not made up their minds this is a must watch. The producer is Martin Durkin who made the seminal film "The Great Global warming Swindle" which was aired on UK TV a few years ago. That film is still available - there is a link on the side bar which hopefully still works. Martin is a highly effective film maker.

There are many links between the EU and global warming alarmism. Both have a strong negative effect on the UK and both cannot normally be changed by a vote - except that this June we have a referendum on EU membership - just one chance in 40 years!

Saturday, 14 May 2016


This post explains that Yorkshire councillors are expected to endorse the finding of their planning officers at a meeting to be held next Friday. At last some good news for the UK's energy, as long as the councillors hold their nerve and don't give in to the mob. They are supposed to be made of strong stuff in Yorkshire. My wife's family came from there and they were certainly in that mould.

Friday, 13 May 2016


This post explains the study. It is interesting to note that scientists know so little of these effects and yet claim to be so confident that they know enough to understand how the weather is going to warm catastrophically in the next century. 

Thursday, 12 May 2016


The Daily Caller, 5 May 2016
 Michael Bastasch
 It’s been nearly one decade since former Vice President Al Gore released his film “An Inconvenient Truth.” It sent shockwaves through American politics and emboldened environmental activists to push for more regulations on American businesses.

Gore warned increasing carbon dioxide emissions would spur catastrophic global warming that would cause more extreme weather, wipe out cities and cause ecological collapse. To stop global warming, humans needed to ditch fossil fuels and basically change every aspect of their lives.

Watching “An Inconvenient Truth” is sort of like going back in time. Back to a world where flip phones were cool and “Futurama” was still putting out new episodes. A world where a bitter presidential candidate was trying to rebrand himself as an environmental crusader.

But have Gore’s warnings, which were alarming to many in 2006, come true?

In honor of the upcoming 10th anniversary, The Daily Caller News Foundation re-watched “An Inconvenient Truth” just to see how well Gore’s warnings of future climate disaster lined up with reality.

Gore’s been harping on global warming since at least the late 1980s, but it wasn’t until 2006 he discovered a way to become massively wealthy off making movies about it and investing in government-subsidized green energy.

Gore opens the film talking about nature, then jumping to a presentation he’s giving where he shows the first image ever taken of the Earth from space. From that image, he jumps right into making alarmist claims about global warming.

Kilimanjaro Still Has Snow

One of the first glaring claims Gore makes is about Mount Kilimanjaro in Africa. He claims Africa’s tallest peak will be snow-free “within the decade.” Gore shows slides of Kilimanjaro’s peak in the 1970s versus today to conclude the snow is disappearing.

Well, it’s been a decade and, yes, there’s still snow on Kilimanjaro year-round. It doesn’t take a scientist to figure this out. One can just look at recent photos posted on the travel website

In 2014, ecologists actually monitoring Kilimanjaro’s snowpack found it was not even close to being gone. It may have shrunk a little, but ecologists were confident it would be around for the foreseeable future.

“There are ongoing several studies, but preliminary findings show that the ice is nowhere near melting,” Imani Kikoti, an ecologist at Mount Kilimanjaro National Park, told

“Much as we agree that the snow has declined over centuries, but we are comfortable that its total melt will not happen in the near future,” he said.

Gore Left Out The 15-Year “Hiatus” In Warming

Gore also claims temperature rise from increases in man-made carbon dioxide emissions were “uninterrupted and intensifying.” He goes on to claim heatwaves will become more common, like the one that killed 35,000 people across Europe in 2003.

Sounds terrifying — until you actually look at what happened to global temperature after Gore’s film was released. Global temperatures showed little to no warming trend after Gore released his film. In fact, surface temperature data showed no significant global warming for a period of about 15 years, starting in the early 2000s.

Satellite-derived temperature data showed, until the recent El Niño, no statistically significant warming trend for more than 21 years.
Gore’s movie was released right in the middle of the so-called global warming “hiatus.”

The Weather Hasn’t Gotten Worse

Gore also famously predicted storms would become more frequent and intense as man-made emissions warmed the oceans.

“And of course when the oceans get warmer, that causes stronger storms,” Gore said in his film. “That same year that we had that string of big hurricanes, we also set an all-time record for tornadoes.”

Gore’s film came out just after Hurricane Katrina ravaged the Gulf Coast. Indeed, footage of the destruction from that storm featured prominently in Gore’s film. He mentions how the U.S. was hit with a rash of severe storms in the early 2000s and how Japan saw a record number of typhoons.

“The insurance industry has actually noticed this,” Gore said. “Their recovered losses are going up.”

But Gore’s claim is more hype than actual science, since storms aren’t more extreme since 2006. In fact, not even findings from the United Nations’ Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) support Gore’s claim. […]

The North Pole Still Has Ice

Gore also claimed the Arctic could be ice-free in the coming decades. He said “within the next 50 to 70 years, it could be completely gone.”

With no Arctic sea ice, polar bears and all sorts of Arctic animals would be threatened, Gore warned, showing an animated scene of a polar bear drowning.

This is actually one of Gore’s more cautious predictions — he did incorrectly predict in 2008 there would be no Arctic by 2013. But even in this case, Gore is likely wrong because of the Arctic’s geographical setting.

The Arctic is almost completely surrounded by land, so the ice that forms there tends to stay there. Arctic ice coverage has shrunk in recent decades, but it’s not likely we will see even a summer where the North Pole is completely ice-free. […]

And before I forget, the latest data shows polar bears are actually thriving, despite shrinking ice coverage.

Wednesday, 11 May 2016


This piece explains the details. It seems that most of the "experts" have got most of the facts wrong and we are all paying and will continue to pay a lot more for our electricity than they predicted. And they expect us to trust their judgement? I think not!

Tuesday, 10 May 2016


This article confirms what other studies have said, that global rainfall has not changed significantly since 1850. Yet another alarmist myth debunked. 

Monday, 9 May 2016


This piece gives the details of this comparison of actual warming compared with the model predictions. After 15 years it is now becoming clear that the models are not fit for purpose. 

Sunday, 8 May 2016


This article  explains this extraordinary claim, which is refuted by the facts. This is yet another example of spin, deceiving the public.

Saturday, 7 May 2016


This article explains the conjunction of various climate cycles which all point to the likelihood of cooling in the near future. No doubt those who peddle warmist alarmism will be only too ready to explain this cooling on natural cycles, which is true, but equally true is the possibility that much of the warming that has occurred in the twentieth century can be similarly explained.

Friday, 6 May 2016


This article by James Delingpole is a superb refutation of the views expressed by an American comedian on his TV show. The points made are the ones that are given over and over again by countless celebrities and politicians.

Thursday, 5 May 2016


This piece explains how the EU are in a dilemma with their carbon trading scheme. On the one hand they want industry to pay enough to make them change from fossil fuels to renewables, while on the other hand not so much that they go bust or leave the EU altogether. It is a fine line as they have discovered. If only they could step back and look at the true situation they would see that global warming is not a real problem at all, but then they would have to admit they have wasted billions of pounds and no political leader wants to do that.  

Wednesday, 4 May 2016


This article looks at the evidence for  a significant long term shift in temperature in the Atlantic Ocean to a cold phase. The evidence seems to be quite strong.

Tuesday, 3 May 2016


This article looks at the distortion of climate science for political reasons.  This is a good piece by Tim Ball which rightly points out that the IPCC claims massive confidence in conclusions based on very limited understanding of many of the basic parameters which influence the climate.

Monday, 2 May 2016


This article explains how the leaders of our Western democracies, many of them conservatives, decided to push forward the agenda of the global warming hypothesis and the need to reduce CO2 emissions. What appears to have happened is that little or no consideration was given to the huge cost of doing so. It was only when these costs were calculated that our leaders realised that they had opened a massive can of worms, one that they were now incapable of dealing with. It is a sobering look at the recent history and there is a very valuable lesson to be learnt by future politicians, which is that you must be very certain of all the implications before supporting what may superficially seem like a popular and uncontroversial cause.

There is a parallel here with the decision of the UK government to join the Common Market (now the European Union) back in 1972. That also seemed like a good decision at the time. Now years later we realise that what we were told we had signed up to was very different to the reality. If our political leaders had waited a while longer instead of rushing into signing up, they would have been able to see the pitfalls and so avoid them by only agreeing to things that were of direct benefit to the UK. But the problem is that political leaders want to make grand gestures. They are easily seduced by a "quick fix". Much of this behaviour is a result of the short time between elections during which they want to make their mark, usually at our expense later.

Sunday, 1 May 2016


This article explains what the EU's highest court has done. Basically they have said that European industry is not worth protecting. The result will be that more industry will not be able to compete with the developing nations and so will have to close. Time to leave I think!

Saturday, 30 April 2016


This piece explains how Lord Turner misled listeners to the Today Programme when he tried to make out the Paris Climate Agreement was such a success. It is well worth reading the whole article, but here is  a short quote which sums up the true situation:
"Art 4(4) of the Paris Agreement confines ‘absolute emissions reduction targets’ to the developed countries and distinguishes them from the ‘mitigation efforts’ the developing countries might undertake, which will not involve absolute reductions. This provides an explicitly legal permission for developing countries not to make any CO2 reductions and will be the legal basis of continued immense increase in China’s and India’s CO2 emissions."

In other words the agreement is complete nonsense and will inevitably lead, not to any world reduction in emissions, but in fact to an increase which could not effect any reduction in global warming at all. What it will do, if the Western nations are daft enough to follow it, is to transfer our jobs and economic success to the developing nations. The question is, are we that stupid?

Friday, 29 April 2016


Here is the story which tells us that there is no choice now in Australia about whether to keep energy costs low, as both major political parties (as in the UK) seem determined to put a price on emissions. Only the voters can change things by voting for minority party candidates, but this is unlikely to happen, as we saw in the UK. It is very hard for minority parties to gain the trust of the voters. 

Thursday, 28 April 2016


This article looks at the latest attempt to close down articles in the press that are unfavourable to the hypothesis of catastrophic man made global warming. It also covers the many other attempts that have been made in recent times. As the hypothesis becomes less believable the need to suppress evidence that refutes it becomes all the more urgent and necessary for the warmists.

Wednesday, 27 April 2016


This piece gives the details of the transformation of our green planet. This is a real benefit which seems to have attracted little attention from the mainstream media. It's about time they paid more attention to these positive stories about the climate. 

Tuesday, 26 April 2016


This short paper looks at the evidence that heatwaves or droughts are currently increasing and finds that the evidence is low to non-existent. Well worth reading.

Monday, 25 April 2016


This article by Christopher Booker looks at  the latest very expensive way of reducing the UK's carbon dioxide emissions. The idea is to convert our methane gas into hydrogen and CO2 which is then pumped under ground and stored. Of course all our gas appliances would have to be converted to burn the hydrogen which is also a much greater explosion hazard, but why would our rulers worry about the occasional explosion in order to save the planet?

Sunday, 24 April 2016


A Scottish group of wind turbine objectors has come up with a character on which to build a message. I think they have been very clever and you can read their story here. The use of stories to get a message across is very effective and we need to do more of it.

Saturday, 23 April 2016


This article gives the history of Earth Day from its start in 1970 to the present day. Its amazing to see how such extreme predictions can gain such traction in today's "scientific world".

Friday, 22 April 2016


National Post - (Latest Edition)April 15, 2016LAWRENCE SOLOMON
‘Earth’s 2015 surface temperatures were the warmest since modern record keeping began in 1880,” according to an analysis released by NASA earlier this year. “Globally- averaged temperatures in 2015 shattered the previous mark set in 2014 by 0.23 degrees Fahrenheit ( 0.13 Celsius). Only once before, in 1998, has the new record been greater than the old record by this much.”
Other agencies, ones that measure temperatures in the atmosphere rather than on Earth’s surface, also found 2015 to be a warm year, although not a record- breaker. Either way, 2015 could have historical significance, according to findings by many scientists. It could mark the year that global temperatures started hurtling downward, setting Earth on a prolonged period of global cooling.
Like 1998, which NASA referenced, last year was an El Niño year — a year in which warm Pacific surface waters bathe the planet, notably raising temperatures. El Niños, first recognized by fishermen off the coast of South America in the 1600s, have always been with us, visiting the Earth in irregular fashion every few years, bumping up temperatures for six to 18 months. The 1998 and 2015 El Niños are especially noteworthy, because they were monsters — each raised surface temperatures in the central and eastern Pacific by a whopping 4.1 degrees Fahrenheit ( 2.3 Celsius), according to the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration’s Climate Prediction Center, making them the strongest El Niños since recordkeeping began in 1950.
Put another way, without last year’s El Niño, 2015 could have seen a substantial temperature drop over 2014, rather than a 0.23- degree increase. Since the 2015 El Niño is believed to be now winding down, we can expect temperatures to drop later this year and next, possibly by a lot, especially since El Niños are typically followed by La Niñas, the cool phase of the Pacific Ocean’s temperature fluctuations, when surface temperatures fall below average.
But after La Niña ends, temperatures may continue to fall. Since the 1970s, scientists have been telling us that, based on Earth’s natural glacial cycles, we’ve been due — even overdue — for another prolonged period of global cooling. Visible evidence from the sun provides a more immediate warning: Sunspots have all but disappeared. This last happened during the centuries- long Little Ice Age that began in the 15th century, when astronomers using the recently invented telescope saw only about 50 sunspots over a 30- year period, rather than the thousands that would normally have been expected. This period — which saw the Thames River in London freeze over and widespread starvation due to crop failures — is known as the Maunder Minimum, named after the English astronomer Edward Maunder. In recent years there has been a growing drumbeat from solar scientists who think we could be entering a new Maunder Minimum.
“I’ve been a solar physicist for 30 years. I’ve never seen anything quite like this,” Richard Harrison, head of space physics at the Rutherford- Appleton laboratory in Oxfordshire told BBC two years ago. Harrison states that the rate at which solar activity is falling mirrors the Maunder Minimum period of “really cold winters in the northern hemisphere, where you had a kind of a mini-ice age.” According to professor Mike Lockwood of the University of Reading, we’ve been seeing the fastest decline in solar activity in 10,000 years. In an interview with the BBC’s science editor, he stated that he views the risk of a new Maunder Minimum at 25 to 30 per cent, up from 10 per cent just a few years earlier.
Lockwood’s estimate was independently buttressed last year by a team of European researchers in a presentation to 500 astronomers and space scientists at the Royal Astronomical Society’s National Astronomy Meeting in Wales. Their well- received scientific model indicates that reduced solar activity will lead to a mini ice age from 2030 to 2040. Another study of sunspots last year by Indian, Chinese and Japanese astronomers, published in the Journal of Geophysical Research, indicates that a new ice age could start as soon as 2020 and reach its depths by 2030 to 2040.
Then again, the next ice age may have already begun, its beginnings temporarily masked by El Niño. According to Habibullo Abdussamatov, head of Russia’s Pulkovo Observatory of the Russian Academy of Sciences, in late 2014 we began our descent into another Little Ice Age, the 19th that Earth has experienced in the past 7,500 years. His analysis indicates the ice age will reach worrying depths — a “deep cooling,” imperilling the energy security of the planet — in 2060.
Against this gloomy prognosis for a frigid future, some may find solace in the work of scientists at the Potsdam Institute for Climate Impact Research in Germany. Humans burning oil, coal and gas have already emitted CO2 “sufficient to postpone the next ice age for another 50,000 years,” they stated earlier this year. “The bottom line is that we are basically skipping a whole glacial cycle,” an outcome that they see as unwelcome.
Although the last Little Ice Age had its drawbacks (Finland’s population shrank by one- third; Iceland’s by half ), it also had its benefits. As Potsdam Institute director Hans Joachim Schellnhuber explains, “we owe our fertile soil to the last ice age that also carved out today’s landscapes, leaving glaciers and rivers behind, forming fiords, moraines and lakes.”
That should be of some solace, should we find ourselves shortly shivering through the next one.

Thursday, 21 April 2016


Much of the scare over global warming is cause by the real warming that has taken place in the Arctic. But here is a scientific study which shows conclusively that the present warming is not unprecedented, but that this has occurred before in the 1920's and 1930's. It is almost certainly cause by a natural cycle, as the paper explains.

Wednesday, 20 April 2016


This report explains what is happening. There seems to be some thinking on the part of the church and its fellow greens that the fossil fuel industry has no long term future if nations are going to take the Paris climate agreement seriously. However the Paris deal has not yet been ratified and even if it is ratified by some nations that does not mean that they will stop using fossil fuels. We can see from the long term energy plans of large nations like China and India that they have no intention of stopping their use of fossil fuels any time soon. 

What is happening here is that the reality of economic success, which depends on a plentiful supply of cheap energy is coming up against the dogma of cutting CO2 emissions, which are supposed, allegedly, to prevent the climate from changing adversely. So what are Exxon Mobil supposed to do? They could take the view that they will be out of business in a few decades as, counter-intuitively, all the nations not only ratify the agreement, but exceed their pledges and phase out all fossil fuels; or they could logically assume that the nations will behave in the future as most have done in the past and continue to purchase fossil fuels in increasing quantities.

This campaign is being carried out alongside other campaigns against these companies which are designed to undermine their reputation with the public. Perhaps the next step will be to put a climate warning on petrol pumps, or on the side of motor vehicles - "THIS WILL SERIOUSLY DAMAGE YOUR PLANET". I am not kidding, this is the way they would like to go and some people will have to stop them.

Tuesday, 19 April 2016


This article looks at a ridiculous scheme to convert methane into hydrogen to replace the natural gas that is currently used to heat our home. Such an idea would be rejected immediately by any sane politician, but we are where we are.

Monday, 18 April 2016


Just when I thought that climate change was a thing of the past I get this email:

From: Planning for Climate Change Conference []
Sent: 14 April 2016 09:47
To: Planning for Climate Change Conference
Subject: Rural Development Conferences Oxford 26th October 2016 and Limerick 28th October 2016
We are pleased to announce that the  2nd UK Rural Development Conference will take place in Oxford on the 26th October 2016  followed by the 2nd Irish Rural Development Conference in Limerick on the 28th October 2016.  This Conference Series is the ideal forum in which to discuss and debate the issues that face rural communities and economies. Details can be found at, Facebook, and Twitter.

The cost to attend as a Speaker / Delegate is set competitively for 2016 and is as follows:

Speaker / Delegate - full rate: £216 (£180 plus VAT) / Euro 260
Student/Researcher Speaker / Delegate – reduced rate  : £108 (£90 plus VAT) / Euro 130

If you wish to register as a speaker or delegate please contact us at and we will make the necessary invoicing arrangements or register via the registration page on the website.
To unsubscribe from future emails please unsubscribe here.
Rural Development Conference Team
86-90 Paul Street
United Kingdom

You might think that there would be conference fatigue amongst the climate alarmist brigade, but those putting on these events don't appear to think so. Perhaps there is a big government grant on top of the attendance fees?

Sunday, 17 April 2016


This article gives the details of this sorry tale. Recycling seems to be a worthy cause but in practice it is simply uneconomic in many cases.

Saturday, 16 April 2016


Press Trust of India, 9 April 2016
 Greenland sits over an area of abnormally hot mantle material that drives a widespread melting beneath the ice sheet and rapid ice flow over a distance of several hundred kilometres, a new study has found.


Conceptual view of the interplay between the mantle and the Greenland Ice Sheet across the plume track (graphics: A. Petrunin, GFZ).

Greenland’s lithosphere has hot depths which originate in its distant geological past and cause the island’s ice to rapidly flow and melt from below.

An anomaly zone crosses Greenland from west to east where present-day flow of heat from the Earth’s interior is elevated.

With this anomaly, researchers from GFZ German Research Centre for Geosciences (GFZ) could explain observations from radar and ice core drilling data that indicate a widespread melting beneath the ice sheet and increased sliding at the base of the ice that drives the rapid ice flow over a distance of 750 kilometres from the summit area of the Greenland ice sheet to the North Atlantic Ocean.

Present-day location of the Iceland plume and zones of the mantle plume-induced thinning of the lithosphere and active melting at the ice base (graphics: A. Petrunin, GFZ)

The North Atlantic Ocean is an area of active plate tectonics. Between 80 and 35 million years ago tectonic processes moved Greenland over an area of abnormally hot mantle material that still today is responsible for the volcanic activity of Iceland, researchers said.

The mantle material heated and thinned Greenland at depth producing a strong geothermal anomaly that spans a quarter of the land area of Greenland, they said.

Predicted GF at 5[thinsp]km below the bedrock surface.
Predicted geothermal flux at 5km below the bedrock surface; image @NatureGeosci  

This ancient and long-lived source of heat has created a region where subglacial meltwater is abundant, lubricating the base of the ice and making it flow rapidly.

The study indicates that about a half of the ice in north-central Greenland is resting on a thawed bed and that the meltwater is routed to the ocean through a dense hydrological network beneath the ice.

For the first time, researchers have been able to prove strong coupling between processes deep in the Earth’s interior with the flow dynamics and subglacial hydrology of large ice sheets.

“The geothermal anomaly which resulted from the Icelandic mantle-plume tens of millions of years ago is an important motor for today’s hydrology under the ice sheet and for the high flow-rate of the ice,” said Irina Rogozhina from GHZ.

“This, in turn, broadly influences the dynamic b_ehaviour of ice masses and must be included in studies of the future response to climate change,” said Rogozhina.

Friday, 15 April 2016


No Tricks Zone, 9 April 2016

Pierre Gosselin
Will Upcoming La Nina Decide The ‘Decadal Global Climate Bet’?

Fellow climate blogger Robin Pittwood at the New Zealand-based
Kiwi Thinker here brings us up-to-date on how the current 2011 – 2020 decade is doing temperature-wise.

Many readers are aware of a
climate bet made with alarmists Rob Honeycutt and Mr. Know-it-all, Dana Nuccitelli. The skeptics bet the current decade would be cooler or the same as last decade – using the RSS and UAH satellite data, and not the made up surface stuff from NASA.

Robin’s latest calculations show that the current decade is (still) slightly cooler than the last one comprising 2001 – 2010.

Of course, as expected, the recent El Nino event closed the gap and will probably even push the current decade to be a bit warmer in the months ahead. The question that remains now is just how strong will the upcoming La Nina be? Will it be strong enough to send the global temperature downward over the next couple of years 2017 – 2019, similar to what we saw back in 2008?

Right now there are a number of indications that this is precisely what is going to happen.

Climate Bet, Mar 2016

Thursday, 14 April 2016


Watts Up With That, 8 April 2016

Eric Worrall
The Competitive Enterprise Institute has just been subpoenaed, as part of Al Gore’s Climate Witch hunt. This is a move which so blatantly reeks of McCarthyite abuse of power, even some proponents of climate a_ction are horrified at the attack on freedom which this subpoena represents.

The following is the statement of the Competitive Enterprise Institute;
CEI Fights Subpoena to Silence Debate on Climate Change
 The Competitive Enterprise Institute (CEI) today denounced a subpoena from Attorney General Claude E. Walker of the U.S. Virgin Islands that attempts to unearth a decade of the organization’s materials and work on climate change policy. This is the latest effort in an intimidation campaign to criminalize speech and research on the climate debate, led by New York Attorney General Eric Schneiderman and former Vice President Al Gore.
 “CEI will vigorously fight to quash this subpoena. It is an affront to our First Amendment rights of free speech and association for Attorney General Walker to bring such intimidating demands against a nonprofit group,” said CEI General Counsel Sam Kazman. “If Walker and his allies succeed, the real victims will be all Americans, whose access to affordable energy will be hit by one costly regulation after another, while scientific and policy debates are wiped out one subpoena at a time.”
 The subpoena requests a decade’s worth of communications, emails, statements, drafts, and other documents regarding CEI’s work on climate change and energy policy, including private donor information. It demands that CEI produce these materials from 20 years ago, from 1997-2007, by April 30, 2016.
 On March 30, 2016, Attorney General Schneiderman, former Vice President Al Gore, and attorneys general from Massachusetts, Virginia, Connecticut, Maryland, Vermont, as well as Attorney General Walker, held a press conference in New York City to announce “an unprecedented coalition of top law enforcement officials committed to aggressively protecting and building upon the recent progress the United States has made in combating climate change.” Schneiderman said that the group, calling itself “AGs United for Clean Power,” will address climate change by threatening criminal investigations and charges against companies, policy organizations, scientists, and others who disagree with its members’ climate policy agenda.
 CEI has long been a champion of sound climate change policy, and opposed previous attempts to use McCarthy-style tactics by officials aiming to limit discussions between nonprofit policy groups and the private sector regarding federal policies. CEI is being represented in this matter by attorneys Andrew M. Grossman and David B. Rivkin, Jr., who recently founded the Free Speech in Science Project to defend First Amendment rights against government abuses.

The text of the subpoena is

Here is a response from Bloomberg, which
frequently takes a pro climate action position;
Subpoenaed Into Silence on Global Warming
 The Competitive Enterprise Institute is getting subpoenaed by the attorney general of the U.S. Virgin Islands to cough up its communications regarding climate change. The scope of the subpoena is quite broad, covering the period from 1997 to 2007, and includes, according to CEI, “a decade’s worth of communications, emails, statements, drafts, and other documents regarding CEI’s work on climate change and energy policy, including private donor information.”
 My first reaction to this news was “Um, wut?” CEI has long denied humans’ role in global warming, and I have fairly substantial disagreements with CEI on the issue. However, when last I checked, it was not a criminal matter to disagree with me. It’s a pity, I grant you, but there it is; the law’s the law.

Wednesday, 13 April 2016


This article looks at the way EU generosity is costing UK jobs. It is a case of the left hand not knowing what the right hand is doing. Amazing and completely bonkers!

Tuesday, 12 April 2016


This piece explains the proposal from the Chinese. How ironic that Germany with its strong green tradition should consider importing electricity produced by coal-fired power stations. You really could not make it up, if it is true.

Monday, 11 April 2016


This article shows how manipulation of data has caused radiosonde data to change from no trend to a warming trend. Why do our political masters never question this kind of data fiddling?

Sunday, 10 April 2016


This report explains how this has come about. It is of course due to the fact that renewables are simply unreliable.

Saturday, 9 April 2016


But will those in charge listen?

Lead EU Policymaker Calls For End Of UK Carbon Floor PriceReuters, 5 April 2016

Alissa de Carbonnel
Britain should abolish its carbon floor price to help the hard-hit steel industry, the lawmaker shepherding a reform of the EU Emissions Trading System (ETS) through parliament said on Tuesday.

With the British government looking for ways to save jobs threatened by the sale of Indian firm Tata Steel’s British plants, Scottish Conservative Ian Duncan said repealing the carbon floor was one of the few tools available to it.

“The carbon floor price must go,” Duncan said, adding he would write to British Business Secretary Sajid Javid calling for an end to the policy in place since 2013.

While cheap Chinese imports are the steel industry’s primary worry, high energy prices, boosted by environmental charges, have added to their woes.

Duncan’s comments are seen fuelling a debate over how the EU’s draft reform bill can promote a high-enough carbon price to spur green growth while maintaining industry competitiveness in the absence of a global carbon market.

It runs counter to a French proposal for an EU-wide price corridor to fix what aims to be the bloc’s flagship climate policy but which is floundering as oversupply depresses prices.

While many in the 28-nation bloc oppose higher environmental taxes, such as coal-reliant Poland, EU sources said the French proposal was forcing a debate about how to shore up carbon prices.

Benchmark carbon prices are hovering around 5 euros. “The real fix would be a minimum price of 30 euros,” said Patrick Graichen of the Berlin-based think tank Agora Energiewende.

British factories regulated by the ETS, including steel which accounts for some 27 percent of EU industrial pollution, pay an additional 18 pounds ($25.58) per ton of carbon dioxide emitted.

Along with other energy-intensive industries, steelmakers fret the ETS reform will slash some of their free carbon permits. The Eurofer industry group warns they will be short of half of the permits they needed in 2030 under the proposal.

“What the European Commission is asking is too big,” Eurofer head Geert Van Poelvoorde, a senior executive at ArcelorMittal, told Reuters last month. “It pushes de-industrialization in Europe but to places where probably or most likely the CO2 emission is higher.”