Thursday, 21 June 2018

EPA - UN DEAL UNCOVERED, DESPITE PULLNG OUT OF PARIS ACCORD

CFACT uncovers EPA-UN climate deal

While President Trump is wisely withdrawing the United States from the UN's ill-conceived Paris climate accord, there is another UN agreement that also needs to be scrapped.
CFACT Senior policy analyst Bonner Cohen uncovered a “side agreement” President Obama's EPA Administrator Gina McCarthy made with the UN that could be used to resurrect UN climate policies here in the United States.

Cohen explains that a relatively unknown “Memorandum of Understanding,” (MOU) commits the EPA and UN to “achieve their common goals and objectives in the field of the environment.”

In other words, even though there’s no formal treaty or agreement, bureaucrats at EPA are given instruction to carry out radical UN environmental objectives like killing fossil fuel production, hammering auto makers with costly vehicle mandates, enacting carbon taxes, and letting subsidies for inefficient wind and solar run wild.

We asked Bonner how best to alert the Administration about the existence of this "MOU" and he suggested reaching out directly to EPA. 


We cannot let deep state bureaucrats undo all the hard work we have accomplished in convincing President Trump to withdraw from the Paris Accord.


The document was signed nine months after the adoption of the U.N.-sponsored Paris climate accord, and the wording of the MOU leaves little doubt that it was seen as an instrument to underscore America’s commitment to curtail its production and use of energy in the name of combating climate change. Thus, UNEP and the Obama EPA agreed to “cooperate on responses to climate change,” including mitigating greenhouse gas emissions, reducing short-lived climate forcers and supporting adaptation and resilience to climate change.

Taking these and similar steps, the MOU says, will enable the advance “toward green economies and resource-efficient societies through collaborative activities to promote and support sustainable consumption and production.” In truth, “green economies” are those with taxpayer-subsidized and government-mandated renewable energy (primarily wind and solar). And what constitutes “sustainable consumption and production” is in the eyes of the beholding bureaucrat, empowered either by the administrative regulatory state or by legislation adopted at the behest of deep-pocketed special interests.

Is the Trump Administration aware of this Memorandum of Understanding?  They need to be, so they can replace this document with a new "understanding" that the United States will not place its energy and economic futures in the hands of the UN! 

Wednesday, 20 June 2018

UK BACKS AWAY FROM A BAN ON FOSSIL FUELLED CARS BY 2040

This article explains the re-think, as the reality of such a drastic measure begins to come home. If true it is a sign of some common sense percolating through the green haze of previous government thinking. While 2040 is still some way off it is already looking like a huge problem to anywhere near ready to move to electric vehicles by then. 

Tuesday, 19 June 2018

CHINESE PAY LIPSERVICE TO CARBON MARKET

This piece explains the cunning Chinese plan to try to fool us into believing they are doing something to "fight climate change" so we must continue to carry on with our expensive efforts, thus burdening ourselves with increasing energy costs. Aah so! Clever these Chinese.

Monday, 18 June 2018

BP ENERGY REVIEW

Here it is a good reference point. It clearly demonstrates the futility of the Paris agreement. While governments pay lip service to the climate change agenda it is merely a (very expensive) gesture.

Sunday, 17 June 2018

ANTARCTIC ICE MELT MAY BE INCREASING SLIGHTLY, BUT DON'T MENTION THE VOLCANOES

This piece tells us about the small changes occurring in Antarctica and how some alarmist scientists are producing one-sided data ignoring the factors that don't suit their hypothesis. What is needed is much more openness and humility to admit that there is much that we still don't know. 

Saturday, 16 June 2018

GERMANY'S ENERGY POLICY - A CAUTIONARY TALE FOR EUROPE


EU Reporter, 12 June 2018 


Colin Stevens

For all the bravado, Germany’s Energiewende may be more cautionary tale than success story for other nations looking to modernize their energy sectors. At the heart of the policy lies a fundamental hypocrisy: despite Germany’s commitment to expanding its renewable energy capacity to replace lost nuclear plants, the country’s carbon emissions are currently on the rise.



The hasty decision to close all 19 nuclear power stations in Germany by 2022 was made in the wake of the 2011 Fukushima disaster, only a year after Chancellor Angela Merkel had decided to extend the plants’ lifespan. This policy reversal was coupled with plans to eliminate the use of fossil fuels by bringing renewables’ share of the German energy mix up to 60 percent by 2050.

Despite its seemingly sensible foundations, the Energiewende’s first years have revealed the problems the model poses for both Germany and the rest of Europe. Energiewende is hardly just a domestic issue: one of its basic tenets is that the country has nine neighbours with whom it can exchange power, either selling surplus energy when renewables overproduce or importing it from Austrian, Polish, French and Czech power stations when German renewables underperform.

While Germany has managed to bring renewables’ share of electricity generation up to 30 percent, the previous steady decline in carbon emissions – 27 percent from 1999 to 2009 – has sharply reversed since Germany decided to phase out nuclear. Instead of falling, emissions have instead risen by four percent in the years since. Why the worrying uptick in emissions? Because renewable energy is still inherently intermittent.

Barring major advances in battery and storage technology, Germany will be forced to retain other domestic energy sources for decades to come. If nuclear power is ruled out, coal plants will continue to run in their place and pollute the atmosphere in the process. Even worse, many thermal power plants in Germany burn lignite, a specific type of hard coal which emits more CO2 than almost any other fossil fuel. Whereas natural gas exudes between 150 and 430g of CO2 per kilowatt-hour, lignite clocks in at a staggering 1100g of CO2. Nuclear power only gives off  16g of CO2 per kilowatt-hour.

Friday, 15 June 2018

OCEAN ACIDIFICATION THE HYPE AND THE REALITY

This article explores the subject in depth and explains why it is just another scare story.

Thursday, 14 June 2018

US HOUSE VOTES DOWN THE SOCIAL COST OF CARBON

This article explains what is happening. The Obama administration has been fighting climate change with a rogue wave of regulations whose legality comes from a very small base: The Social Cost of Carbon.

Wednesday, 13 June 2018

MORE DODGY SPECULATION ON THE DEMISE OF FOSSIL FUELS

This essay is a good rebuttal to a recent paper predicting the demise of the fossil fuel industry and all who invest in it. The paper appears to be yet another exercise in producing speculative numbers that fit a particular set of preconceptions without any willingness to make a meaningful commitment to the predictions. The authors of it seem to believe that they know better than the hundreds of thousands of well-informed  investors, who are putting real capital at risk might individually and certainly in aggregate actually have a clearer picture of the real prospects of fossil fuels. The authors are putting nothing at risk, except their reputations and only that by 2035 by which time their paper will be long forgotten.

Tuesday, 12 June 2018

ARE HYDROGEN POWERED TRAINS THE FUTURE AT 3X COST OF NATURAL GAS?

This piece explains the thinking. Hydrogen produced by steam reformation costs approximately three times the cost of natural gas per unit of energy produced. This means that if natural gas costs $6/million BTU, then hydrogen will be $18/million BTU. Also, producing hydrogen from electrolysis with electricity at 5 cents/kWh will cost $28/million BTU — slightly less than two times the cost of hydrogen from natural gas. Whichever way you look at it, it means that the energy is going to be much more expensive and we are going to pay for it including the new engines. I expect this means that more people will use their cars, though no doubt the cost of driving will also have to go up as we are forced to buy new electric vehicles and pay for all the new charging points.

Monday, 11 June 2018

THE WAR ON PLASTIC IS MIS-PLACED AND NAIVE

The green left has a new victim in its sights. This time it's plastic and everyone who uses it.
You may have already noticed an uptick in news stories about the evils of plastic, often followed by stories about well-meaning but naive government officials planning a ban.
Here is a good article at CFACT.org by Jason Hopkins about a study which reveals that bans on plastic tend to tend to do more harm to the environment than the so-called evils they intend to stop.
The costs and energy needed to replace convenient plastic products outweigh any benefits.
"For example, paper substitutes to polystyrene products typically produce more waste, causing greater water and air pollution."
Another important fact to know is that a huge proportion of the plastic that finds its way into the ocean originates in developing countries, much of it from just a few rivers in Asia.
Litter and reckless dumping were once major problems in America and the West.  We took action last century and cleaned up our act.  Now it's time for emerging economies to clean up theirs.
Meanwhile, depriving people in advanced nations of plastic spoons, straws, bottles, bags, etc. will do nothing meaningful to stem the tide of the developing world's plastic waste.
Government's role is to ensure plastic is handled in environmentally friendly ways.  After that let the market do its work.
The Green movement operates in cult-like ways. 
Offering up the plastic products that make life affordable for billions as a ritual sacrificial offering might make a spoiled few feel virtuous, but it turns out the folks banning plastic are more dunces than heroes.

Sunday, 10 June 2018

UP TO DATE VIEW OF CLIMATE CHANGE

This essay gives an up-to-date overview of what we know and what we don’t know about climate change. It is primarily meant for the millions of interested laymen who are desperate to hear a truthful story they can understand. These people have become suspicious of being misled by climate alarmists.

Saturday, 9 June 2018

MANY BIRDS ARE THRIVING DESPITE THE DOOM AND GLOOM

Here's a good news piece about the health of bird populations. It is a good news story, so it is unlikely to create many headlines in the main news media.

Friday, 8 June 2018

HOW WARM WILL 2018 BE?

David Whitehouse
GWPF Observatory, 6 June 2018 


The start of 2018 has been warm because of unusual weather which has already subsided.


As far as global temperature goes it’s been a warmish start to the year, though not exceptional. This has led Carbon Brief in its three-monthly “state of the climate” report to predict that this year “is likely” to be as warm as the fourth warmest year since records began about 150 years ago. They say it could be as high as the second or as low as the 12th warmest.

Carbon Brief says, “The first three months of 2018 can give some sense of what to expect for the entire year.” But being based on a quarter of this year’s monthly measurements it could be described as either bold or foolish. Because the prediction is made without a good understanding of what has been happening to the global temperature in the past months it is probably more of the latter.

Nowhere in the Carbon Brief prediction is there any analysis of why 2018 got off to a warm start. Look towards the  Tasman Sea that has been adding to global temperatures since late 2017.

The water temperature in the Tasman Sea is well above normal –  6° C more than average for the start of December. New Zealand’s summer was the hottest on record, Tasmania had its hottest November-January on record. It was exceptionally warm on both sides of the Tasman, more than two degrees above average in December and part of January.



The increase is not due to climate change but to a La Nina climate system. Globally La Nina events are associated with cooling but that is not true in some regions which, because of blocking high pressure regions and sometimes a lack of storms, allows sea temperature to increase. New Zealand’s National Institute of Water and Atmospheric Research  meteorologist Ben Noll told newshub nz that the “very impressive marine heatwave” has led to the largest deviation from normal temperatures in the world. “The sea surface temperatures in the Australia-New Zealand region are presently the most anomalous on the globe…typical La Nina signature, but intensity turned up many notches.” He added that there were other factors driving the temperature higher, “La Nina sits in the background as big driver of the change, but it’s at the top of a pyramid of other factors”.

It was so warm that the Australian Government Bureau of Meteorology and New Zealand’s National Institute of Water and Atmospheric Research teamed up to release a “special climate statement”. Though why this abnormal weather merits a climate statement seems strange. The hot spot off the Tasman Sea has not been the only one in the past few months.



Recently scientists at Australia’s Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organisation produced a framework for marine heatwaves. The new classification system ranks them by intensity using four levels. A Category 1 heatwave is the lowest intensity. Under the new system, a heatwave that hit the Mediterranean Sea in 1999 would be considered a Category 1 heatwave. The NE Pacific event of 2013 – 2015 the so-called Blob is a Category 3. A marine heatwave in Western Australia in 2011 would be a Category 4.

The study of marine heatwaves is in its infancy. It is possible they are increasing in frequency and they may be linked to rising sea temperatures. Much more work is needed.

2018 has been warm because of unusual weather which has already subsided. It is not representative of the global temperature for the remainder of the year. There is evidence the oceans are cooling. 

Thursday, 7 June 2018

IS THE UK ABOUT TO NATIONALISE PART OF THE ENERGY INDUSTRY?

This article explains what is going on. The reason for this is clearly because the energy market is now so rigged in order to reduce our CO2 emissions that no one in the private sector has the confidence to invest. Hence we are now getting a sort of nationalisation by the back door. 

Wednesday, 6 June 2018

IF A THEORY DOES NOT FIT THE EXPERIMENTAL FACTS THEN IT MUST BE MODIFIED

The following true story is a cautionary tale for scientists against making quick judgements about what seems impossible. Or indeed for any "experts" believing that they know best and ignoring any evidence contrary to what they believe. Does this ring any bells relating to the global warming hypothesis?

In 1963, aTanzanian schoolboy called Mpemba was making ice cream at school, which he did by mixing boiling milk with sugar.  He was supposed to wait for the milk to cool before placing it the refrigerator, but in a rush to get scarce refrigerator space, put his milk in without cooling it.  To his surprise, he found that his hot milk froze into ice cream before that of other pupils.  He asked his physics teacher for an explanation, but was told that he must have been confused, since his observation was impossible.

Mpemba believed his teacher at the time.  But later that year he met a friend of his who made and sold ice cream in Tanga town.  His friend told Mpemba that when making ice cream, he put the hot liquids in the refrigerator to make them freeze faster.  Mpemba found that other ice cream sellers in Tanga had the same practice.

Later, when in high school, Mpemba learned Newton's law of cooling, that describes how hot bodies are supposed to cool (under certain simplifying assumptions).  Mpemba asked his teacher why hot milk froze before cold milk when he put them in the freezer.  The teacher answered that Mpemba must have been confused.  When Mpemba kept arguing, the teacher said "All I can say is that is Mpemba's physics and not the universal physics" and from then on, the teacher and the class would criticize Mpemba's mistakes in mathematics and physics by saying "That is Mpemba's mathematics" or "That is Mpemba's physics." But when Mpemba later tried the experiment with hot and cold water in the biology laboratory of his school, he again found that the hot water froze sooner.

Earlier, Dr Osborne, a professor of physics, had visited Mpemba's high school.  Mpemba had asked him to explain why hot water would freeze before cold water.  Dr Osborne said that he could not think of any explanation, but would try the experiment later.  When back in his laboratory, he asked a young technician to test Mpemba's claim.  The technician later reported that the hot water froze first, and said "But we'll keep on repeating the experiment until we get the right result." However, repeated tests gave the same result, and in 1969 Mpemba and Osborne wrote up their results .

In the same year, in one of the coincidences so common in science, Dr Kell independently wrote a paper on hot water freezing sooner than cold water.  Kell showed that if one assumed that the water cooled primarily by evaporation, and maintained a uniform temperature, the hot water would lose enough mass to freeze first .  Kell thus argued that the phenomenon (then a common urban legend in Canada) was real and could be explained by evaporation.  However, he was unaware of Osborne's experiments, which had measured the mass lost to evaporation and found it insufficient to explain the effect.  Subsequent experiments were done with water in a closed container, eliminating the effects of evaporation, and still found that the hot water froze first.

Subsequent discussion of the effect has been inconclusive.  While quite a few experiments have replicated the effect, there has been no consensus on what causes the effect.  The different possible explanations are discussed .  The effect has repeatedly a topic of heated discussion in the "New Scientist", a popular science magazine.  The letters have revealed that the effect was known by laypeople around the world long before 1969.  Today, there is still no well-agreed explanation of the Mpemba effect.

Tuesday, 5 June 2018

REES-MOGG THE CLIMATE SCEPTIC

I have a great deal of respect for Jacob Rees-Mogg the man voted in polls as the front runner to succeed Theresa May as the leader of the Conservative party. But I had not read anything about his views on global warming - until I found this article.  How interesting it would be to see what he would do in practice to get rid of the dreaded climate change act. I am going to see him in a few weeks time and I will ask him.

Monday, 4 June 2018

WHY WIND AND SOLAR SHOULD BE REJECTED AS MAJOR ENERGY SOURCES

Here is a very thorough argument from Alan Carlin as to why wind and solar projects should be rejected. He is an American and so he is arguing his case in the USA, but his points are just as valid in other Western nations. 

Sunday, 3 June 2018

AUSSIE GOVERNMENT PROPOSES EMISSIONS TAX ON NEW CARS

This piece explains what is happening in Australia. According to a government statement the average annual cost of complying with the policy would be more than $2bn a year. What a waste of money. Unfortunately for the Australian people the Labour opposition are even more wedded to this kind of policy and so, as in the UK, there is no escape. Only if or when there is sufficient opposition from the people by voting for some new party will this change.

If there is one lesson to be learnt from the success of UKIP here, it is that if the big parties see their votes going to a new party in sufficient numbers then they will be likely to adopt a different policy. Hence the Conservatives offering the vote on leaving the EU. 

Saturday, 2 June 2018

UK NOW GOING FOR 100% CO2 EMISSIONS CUTS

This article explains vaguely how they hope to achieve this miracle. All I can say is that it is a lot easier to make rash promises now which others will have to fudge in the decades ahead.

There is an excellent debunk here by Paul Homewood. 

Friday, 1 June 2018

THE £2.5 BILLION WINDFARM

Here is the detail behind this headline. Roughly two thirds of the annual income of the project will be non-market public support. These massive subsidies are completely at odds with a free market economy. 

Thursday, 31 May 2018

AT LAST A JUDGE WITH COMMON SENSE ACTS ON CLIMATE CASE

This piece explains how a judge in a case brought against oil companies who are accused of causing climate disasters by selling their product, has asked the oil companies to tell him about the benefits of oil to humanity. It might be a good question to ask the activists too. While he's about it he could ask them if they are still availing themselves of them. What a two faced bunch of hypocrites.

Wednesday, 30 May 2018

MORE GW PROPAGANDA DRESSED UP AS SCIENCE FROM THE BBC

This piece exposes what is going on.  What is happening is that the global warming hype is becoming accepted the more it is publicised in this way without challenge. The BBC know this and are complicit along with all arms of government, national and local. The relentless one-sided propaganda has made the very strong scientific arguments against much of what is broadcast become lost. It is the very opposite of the balanced broadcasting that the public deserve and expect for the licence fee.     

Tuesday, 29 May 2018

THE NOT-SO-GREEN LEGACY FROM SOLAR PANELS

Environmentalist Sounds Alarm On Coming Wave Of Toxic Solar Panel Waste
The Daily Caller, 24 May 2018


Jason Hopkins

A leading activist has raised concerns over the ecological impact of solar panels — a renewable energy technology widely considered to be harmless to the environment.

Michael Shellenberger — the president of Environmental Progress, a nonprofit organization working to promote clean energy — detailed the real life impacts of discarded solar installation. Solar technology typically contains cadmium, lead and other toxic chemicals that can’t be extracted without taking apart the whole panel, resulting in entire solar panels being considered hazardous, Shellenberger noted in a Wednesday Forbes article.

More specifically, these toxic chemicals become an environmental threat when solar panels reach their end-of-life stage and need to be disposed. Panels left in landfills may break apart and release toxic waste into the ground or even enter bodies of water. Solar panel disposal in “regular landfills [is] not recommended in case modules break and toxic materials leach into the soil,” Electric Power Research Institute determined in a 2016 study.

There is growing concern over the possibility of rainwater washing cadmium out of panels and into the environment. In Virginia, for example, a group of locals are pushing back against a proposal to construct a 6,350 acre solar farm in Spotsylvania County. (RELATED: Here’s How Renewable Energy Actually Hurts The Environment)

“We estimate there are 100,000 pounds of cadmium contained in the 1.8 million panels,” Sean Fogarty of Concerned Citizens of Fawn Lake stated to Shellenberger. “Leaching from broken panels damaged during natural events — hail storms, tornadoes, hurricanes, earthquakes, etc. — and at decommissioning is a big concern.”

Instances can occur where severe weather — such as a tornado in California and a hurricane through Puerto Rico — decimate solar panel farms, potentially leaking chemicals into the ground.

Virtually no one in media cares to discuss the solar industry’s negative effects on the environment, Shellenger also noted. “With few environmental journalists willing to report on much of anything other than the good news about renewables, it’s been left to environmental scientists and solar industry leaders to raise the alarm.”

Monday, 28 May 2018

GREEN GROUPS CAUGHT OUT INVESTING IN FOSSIL FUELS


InsideSources, 22 May 2018


Divesting From Fossil Fuels Is Harder Than Green Groups, Liberal Cities Might Have Thought

Environmental groups, including the World Wildlife Fund (WWF), the American Museum of Natural History, and several left-leaning funds have investments in private equity firms specializing in oil and gas even as their public messaging hyped concerns about the role of fossil fuel use in climate change.

Over the last several years, divestment has become a more and more common goal for environmental protesters, who have tried to get cities, universities, and other groups to stop investing in fossil fuel production. What is more surprising is that nonprofits who loudly support these causes also invest in conventional energy, even as they encourage others to divest.

 

According to leaked documents, environmental groups, including the World Wildlife Fund (WWF), the American Museum of Natural History, and several left-leaning funds had investments in private equity firms specializing in oil and gas even as their public messaging hyped concerns about the role of fossil fuel use in climate change.

According to documents revealed in the Paradise Papers, a trove of 13 million documents detailing offshore investments, nonprofits including the American Museum of Natural History, the World Wildlife Fund, and the University of Washington invested in a fund known for its investments in oil, natural gas, and mining.

The papers show that the WWF invested $2 million with Denham Capital, an international private equity firm specializing in oil and gas investments. The WWF entered into an agreement with the firm in 2008 and which is not slated to expire until 2020. Getting out of the deal early would be difficult, say financial observers.

WWF was not the only environmental group to invest with Denham. The American Museum of Natural History in New York City committed $5 million to the fund even after putting on a series of exhibits highlighting the connection between fossil fuels and global warming.

The Museum has told reporters that it is working to both reduce its investments in fossil fuels and to consider opportunities for renewable energy investments. WWF says that it offset the proceeds of its fossil fuel investments through other financial instruments and that in the future, it will not invest in fossil fuels.

The University of Washington in Seattle also invested in the fund. The David and Lucile Packard Foundation and the William Penn Foundation, both groups which awarded grants to environmental projects, did not invest with Denham specifically, but still had fossil fuel investments.


Because the investments were through a private equity firm, their existence was hidden prior to the release of the Paradise Papers. Tax forms filed by nonprofits do not require a detailed list of these types of investments. Without the leak, most of the investments would likely not have been uncovered.

The papers are another example of the difficulty of severing all ties to fossil fuels when putting together an investment portfolio. Despite widespread pushes for divestment on the part of green groups, large institutions like cities and universities have found it next to impossible to cut all ties.

Sunday, 27 May 2018

CHURCH OF SCOTLAND VOTES FOR COMMON SENSE

This piece shows yet again that people are not persuaded that climate change poses any immediate threat. 

Andrew Montford: Did The Church Of Scotland Just Dodge A Climate Change Bullet?
Think Scotland, 24 May 2018


YESTERDAY, the General Assembly of the Church of Scotland debated a motion on the subject of climate change and, more specifically, how quickly to divest themselves of investments in fossil fuels. In the event, wisdom prevailed, the motion falling with only 24 per cent support, but it may be that the Assembly just dodged a bullet.






The harms that the motion’s proposers were seeking to avert are hypothetical, and pencilled in for a timeslot that is far in the future – but lack of access to fossil fuels causes harms that are immediate, and very, very ugly.

Here at the Global Warming Policy Foundation, we have recently published a pair of briefing papers written by Dr Mikko Paunio, an eminent Finnish epidemiologist. Paunio’s powerfully worded case is that for millions of people around the world, getting their hands on fossil fuels is their only hope of escape from lives that are nasty, polluted, and short.

For instance, one of the biggest causes of premature death in the developing world is diarrhoea, and the best way to fix this is to improve domestic hygiene. For that, you need convenient and abundant water supplies, which in turn depend on the availability of a reliable electricity supply. For the time being, that almost certainly means fossil fuels.

In the same countries, untold millions of lives are also blighted by indoor air pollution, mostly caused by having to cook on open stoves fuelled by crude biofuels – wood or animal dung – or by coal. The resulting death toll runs into millions every year. A decision to divest would have hindered these poor people’s chance of following the well-trodden path to cleaner air: from biofuels, to coal, to kerosene, and ultimately to grid-based energy, either electricity or natural gas.

Of course, some will object to this analysis. The other day, the BBC’s Roger Harrabin wondered why people like me don’t support the expansion of solar power in Africa. However, once you have considered the cost and the lack of availability at night, the idea becomes a bit silly. And once you further consider the cost of adding battery storage, it borders on the ridiculous.

Similarly, the “what about modern cookstoves” objection that is often bandied about is given short shrift by Mikko Paunio. In the second of his papers, he notes that “No large-scale cookstove program to date has achieved reductions in [indoor air pollution] or provided any health benefits”.

There are no simple choices here, but only a trade-off, between, on the one hand, deaths that are happening here and now, can be quantified, and for which there is a well-understood path to prevention, and on the other, a vague idea of future trouble that emerges from a series of computer simulations of the climate of the distant future.

A decision to sacrifice all those millions who are suffering in the here and now, in order to avert some hypothetical harm a century hence would have been nothing short of inhuman.


Fortunately, sanity – or rather humanity – prevailed.

Andrew Montford is deputy director of the Global Warming Policy Foundation



Saturday, 26 May 2018

FOUR DECADES OF GLACIER STABILITY IN EAST ANTARCTICA

This article gives the details of this study. Clearly there is evidence that the climate is not showing any signs of warming in this area where the proponents of the global warming hypothesis said it would be most sensitive to it.

Friday, 25 May 2018

94% OF SHELL SHAREHOLDERS REJECT CO2 EMISSION TARGET PROPOSALS

This piece explains this unsurprising rejection of a proposal which would effectively curtail the company's profitability.  When will the green activists realise that when it really matters people vote for what they really believe is in their own interest.

Thursday, 24 May 2018

USA MEETS CO2 REDUCTION TARGET DESPITE LACK OF REGULATION

This piece points out that the USA reduction are not due to wind or solar, but to a switch from coal to gas. This has come about as a result of the free market and the drop in price of gas due to fracking. If only UK and EU politicians would learn a lesson from this. 

Wednesday, 23 May 2018

USA ELECTRIC VEHICLE SALES STILL VERY LOW

This piece looks at electric vehicle sales in the USA and they are not good. Growth is slow and they are used less than conventional vehicles. Gasoline prices have remained relatively low in recent years, and the fuel economy of conventional vehicles has increased—factors that diminished the potential fuel savings of switching to electrified vehicles. Initial purchase prices for many electrified vehicles remain relatively high.

Tuesday, 22 May 2018

THE DRIVE TO CHANGE TO ELECTRIC VEHICLES

Below is an extract from a local authority planning document giving requirements for new dwellings.

"Within all dedicated off-street parking spaces that are within the curtilage of a dwelling the minimum requirement is the installation within the parking space of a dedicated fast charging unit. (With at least a 32 amp single phase power supply, or any subsequent higher minimum standard adopted nationally.)  In new developments where communal parking areas are provided, or where private parking is separate from the premises or dwelling, an electrical supply should be installed with sufficient power capacity to enable the convenient installation of fast charging points to all parking spaces in the future, without the need for significant re-wiring, structural or subsurface works. Some charging points should be provided unless it is demonstrably unfeasible to do so.
With continuing development in technology, new developments should install the latest method of charging that is accepted as an industry standard and cost effective for general use."

How much will this add to the cost of a new home and how much extra power will the grid need to supply if all these charging points were to be used together?

Monday, 21 May 2018

RATIONAL SCIENCE TELLS US THAT CLIMATE CHANGE IS NOT A CRISIS

That is my summary of this article which explores some of the hype whipped up by the media and certain politicians and activists. I guess the guy who wrote this article sums up my own view and expresses it well.

Sunday, 20 May 2018

PROFESSOR SACKED FOR SPEAKING OUT ON CLIMATE SCIENCE

This article explains how Professor Peter Ridd has been dismissed from his post at James Cook University in Australia for having the temerity to speak out against those who are saying the Great Barrier Reef is being decimated by climate change. He speaks with great knowledge and integrity, but because the universities leadership don't want him to speak out and he refuses to retract or cease they have sacked him. 

Saturday, 19 May 2018

AUSSIE ENERGY CHIEF IS A CLIMATE CHANGE ACTIVIST

Here is the background to this headline.  It is absolutely clear that these people are not appointed by accident. It is a political decision and most leaders in the Western world are convinced that they must stick to the policy of reducing CO2 emissions, despite the great uncertainty that it is necessary, and despite the damage that it will do to their economies.

Friday, 18 May 2018

WE'VE JUST HAD 2 YEARS OF RECORD-BREAKING GLOBAL COOLING

This article puts forward the evidence to show that record cooling has happened. This is not something that we will see or hear in the media. Interesting though it is. 

Thursday, 17 May 2018

UK SHALE BUREAUCRACY STIFLING OUR ABILTY TO ACCESS ESSENTIAL ENERGY

This piece explains what is going on, or rather what isn't happening but should be. "We are facing two to three years of planning applications to get a core well approved at the moment." says a representative from Ineos. How crazy is that? 

Wednesday, 16 May 2018

TOURISM, THE HIDDEN "ELEPHANT" OF HIGH CO2 EMISSIONS

Here is a delicious irony - the small island states that claim to be adversely affected by rising seas caused by CO2 emissions are the very same states that derive most of their incomes from the tourism which causes the CO2 emissions. So what are they campaigning for - a massive loss in income from reduced tourism, or what? This piece discusses this in more detail.

Tuesday, 15 May 2018

IS IT THE BEGINNING OF THE END FOR WIND FARMS?

This article looks at research which suggests that we may be past "peak wind farm", unless even more subsidies are given out. To quote from the article " the decision facing owners of ageing wind farms is extremely difficult, except to decommission. Repowering* is by no means a simple matter:"
*Repowering means replacing existing turbines with new more powerful ones.

Monday, 14 May 2018

SCOTTISH GOVERNMENT LIKE "ALICE IN WONDERLAND" SAYS QC IN COURT CASE

Jim Ratcliffe, owner of Ineos, a leading Petro-chemical company (and also the UK's richest person, worth £21 billion according to Forbes Rich List) is taking the Scottish SNP lead government to court over its declared policy to ban fracking in Scotland. Here is a link to the details. Apparently Mr Ratcliffe has bought licences to carry out fracking - so at the very least he must be due a refund! You really could not make up the stupidity that goes on north of the border.

Sunday, 13 May 2018

BOTH SIDES IN THE CLIMATE DEBATE IGNORE THE LATEST RESEARCH

So locked up in the traditional arguments of the past are the main protagonists that they are ignoring the new elephant that is now in the room according to  this article.  strong evidence that changes in atmospheric carbon dioxide levels have no significant effect on global temperatures in the real world over recent decades. The studies involved conclude that the minor increases in global temperatures during this period can be entirely explained using natural factors.