Tuesday, 22 August 2017

USA CLIMATE REPORT REHASHES AND EXAGGERATES IPCC REPORT

U.S. Climate Policy -- Get Ready For The Next Round Of HypeFox News, 15 August 2017

W. David Montgomery

Preparations are well underway in the liberal media to make August 18 a milestone in the history of climate policy.  That is the date when a special U.S. government report on the state of climate science by authors from 13 federal agencies, known as the U.S. Global Change Research Program, is due to be released. 

But if August 18 does become a day to be remembered, it will be as a much-hyped political event, not a scientific one. The substance of the USGCRP report apparently only rehashes, at great length, research that was assessed even more exhaustively in the Fifth Assessment Report or FAR, published in 2013 by the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change.

The report’s claim of progress is supported by lists of advances in climate science since 2013, but the major conclusions of the report are no different from the FAR and are based on the same materials.  Over and over, the report states that support for its conclusions comes from the FAR.

What is different is that the well-known research findings -- well known to experts, anyway -- are summarized in the USGCRP document in a way that makes them appear newer, stronger and more alarmist than they really are.

The New York Times stoked the hype by claiming on August 7 that it had unearthed the report from where it was being hidden by Trump Administration doubters, when in truth drafts of the report were readily available and posted for public comment.

In summary, there is little new about climate science in the report, and nothing at all new about attribution of past warming and extreme weather events to human activity, projections of future warming and its effects, or potential for catastrophic changes.

Then the Times became excited about how the report would finally force the administration to admit the reality of climate change.  The Times even embedded a video of EPA Administrator Scott Pruitt in one article, with the heading “A draft report by scientists from 13 federal agencies directly contradicts statements by Scott Pruitt, the E.P.A. administrator, that human contribution to climate change is uncertain.” But the USGCRP report itself recognizes and describes the uncertainty of climate science, which all involved except the Times editors understand.

The headline and editorial writers are having a wonderful time inventing claims about how novel and definitive the report will be. They are aided and abetted by selective summarizing of key sections of the report.

For example: “Attribution” is the term applied to efforts to determine how much of the observed increase in global average temperature since 1950 is caused by human activity, principally carbon dioxide emissions and land use change.

The upcoming report claims there has been substantial progress in attribution research since the IPCC covered this topic extensively in 2013.  At that time, the IPCC declined to give a single number for the share attributable to human activity.  The definitive statement of the IPCC was that more than half of observed warming was attributable to human activity.

In contrast, the USGCRP report claims that human activity was responsible for 100 percent of observed warming.

This major rewording comes despite the fact that the USGCRP report relies exclusively on the FAR for its calculations of the human share of warming.   Nor does the report cite new evidence that would justify its shock-value conclusion.
The new summary judgments are made subjectively by the authors of the report, who are all government employees working on climate research or academics supported by government climate funding.  I question why these authors chose to make the scarier statement when they could have relied on the IPCC report to settle the attribution question.

This pattern is repeated through the major findings.  Summary statements are phrased to give the impression of greater certainty and larger impacts than either the text of the report or the earlier FAR support.

For example, the report highlights a statement about decreases in surface soil moisture in the United States but leaves for the reader to unearth the statement that “Little evidence is found for a human influence on observed precipitation deficits.”

In other words, the report admits that there is low confidence in attribution of drought on a global scale to human influence on climate.

As another example, the report discusses how changes in the El Nino weather phenomenon and in ocean currents have contributed to recent extreme weather events. But then the USGCRP report admits that there is little evidence of human influence on past changes in either El Nino or ocean currents.

The discussion of projected impacts of warming is wide open to selective quotation because it frequently starts with a broad statement of a tendency and then admits that it is impossible to say how large the effect will be.   For example, the statement that sea level rise will increase flooding due to coastal storms is later qualified by the statement that there is “low confidence in the magnitude” of the increase in flood risk.

Likewise, the upcoming report highlights a statement that extreme temperatures in the U.S. are likely to increase “even more” than average temperatures, but a description of the beneficial effect of fewer severely cold days and fewer cold waves is left hidden in the text.

The agencies’ report also gives emphasis to the possibility of unanticipated and impossible-to-manage changes in the climate system in the next century.   This is a topic likely to attract editorial attention, but a closer reading of the text reveals that highlighted risk is only speculation about a physical possibility.

In its discussion of specific examples, such as a catastrophic change in ocean circulation patterns, the report emphasizes predicted risks that the FAR concluded were minimal through the rest of the century.

Given the uproar over President Trump’s decision to withdraw from the Paris Agreement, statements in the report about that topic are also likely to be widely quoted.  Here the report is subtle in how it summarizes findings about the importance of that agreement.

It states that “successful implementation of the first round of Nationally Determined Contributions associated with the Paris Agreement will provide some likelihood of meeting the long-term temperature goal [of] 2oC.”

That could suggest to a reader that the Paris Agreement was well on its way to achieving the goal, but the study cited in the report concludes that the Paris Agreement only increases the probability of achieving the target from zero to eight percent.

In other words, the odds of global temperature increases staying below 2oC remain at 12 to 1 against, even with the Paris Agreement.

The report raises the stakes for the Paris Agreement by describing the 2oC goal as “what scientists have referred to as the guardrail beyond which changes become catastrophic.”

Nothing in the USGCRP report or the FAR supports calling 2oC a guarantee of no harmful effects or a trigger that ensures catastrophe if it is exceeded.  Moreover, the very study cited in the discussion of the Paris Agreement found that there was no scenario for the Paris Agreement that gave better than a 50-50 chance of staying below 2oC.

One claim in the USGCRP report is not about climate but about research activities, and it is quite understandable.  It is that there have been major advances in climate science since 2013.  The USGCRP is a target in the 2018 budget, and reporting recent achievements sends the message that cutting the USGCRP budget will shut off the progress.

Monday, 21 August 2017

GLOBAL OCEAN COOLING CONTINUES


Science Matters, 10 August 2017

Ron Clutz

July Sea Surface Temperatures (SSTs) are now available, and we can see further ocean cooling led by plummeting temps in the  Tropics and SH, continuing the downward trajectory from the previous 12 months.
 

 
HadSST is generally regarded as the best of the global SST data sets, and so the temperature story here comes from that source, the latest version being HadSST3.

The chart below shows the last two years of SST monthly anomalies as reported in HadSST3 including July 2017.
 

 
In May despite a slight rise in the Tropics, declines in both hemispheres and globally caused SST cooling to resume after an upward bump in April.  Now in July a large drop is showing both in the Tropics and in SH, declining the last 4 months.  Meanwhile the NH is peaking in July as usual, but well down from the previous July.  The net of all this is a slightly lower Global anomaly but with likely additional future cooling led by the Tropics and also SH hitting new lows for this period.

Note that higher temps in 2015 and 2016 were first of all due to a sharp rise in Tropical SST, beginning in March 2015, peaking in January 2016, and steadily declining back to its beginning level. Secondly, the Northern Hemisphere added two bumps on the shoulders of Tropical warming, with peaks in August of each year. Also, note that the global release of heat was not dramatic, due to the Southern Hemisphere offsetting the Northern one. Note that Global anomaly for July 2017 matches closely to April 2015.  However,  SH and the Tropics are lower now and trending down compared to an upward trend in 2015.

We have seen lots of claims about the temperature records for 2016 and 2015 proving dangerous man made warming.  At least one senator stated that in a confirmation hearing.  Yet HadSST3 data for the last two years show how obvious is the ocean’s governing of global average temperatures.

The best context for understanding these two years comes from the world’s sea surface temperatures (SST), for several reasons:
  • The ocean covers 71% of the globe and drives average temperatures;
  • SSTs have a constant water content, (unlike air temperatures), so give a better reading of heat content variations;
  • A major El Nino was the dominant climate feature these years.

Sunday, 20 August 2017

DEATHS FROM AIR POLLUTION GREATLY EXAGGERATED IN NEW REPORT

Here is a most interesting and informative piece on the subject of air pollution and the number of deaths attributed to it. I have referred to this subject several times recently as it seems it is being used in place of climate change as an issue to get the public on side for the proposed ban on fossil fuels. The reality is that today's engines have far lower emissions of harmful pollutants than any that preceded them and so it is certain that deaths would be coming down to very low levels.

Of course that is not the story that the government want to put out and so they spin the facts to give exactly the opposite picture. Today scientists are able to measure levels so low that we would have been unable to detect them in the past and so they are able to set maximum limits at these levels and so use this as an excuse to persuade the public to support a ban on the fossil fuel engines and heating systems that have served us so well and cheaply for the past century. Instead they propose that we rely on electricity from wind and solar energy. This is nothing more than a pipe dream - a very expensive and unreliable one. When will they wake up?

Further reading on this here. And what about power stations that burn wood instead of coal? This report says they are as bad as millions of diesel cars.

Saturday, 19 August 2017

WORLD'S LARGEST NON POLAR GLACIERS EXPANDING OR STABLE - NEW STUDY

This article gives the details. Clearly this demonstrates another failure of computer climate models, as they are unable to replicate this. For all their bluster climate scientists must admit that they do not understand the Earth's climate. A lot more humility on their part is needed. Is it any wonder the public are still sceptical. 

Friday, 18 August 2017

IMPACT OF CO2 ON CLIMATE IS NEGLIGIBLE, SAY SCIENTISTS

This article explains why some scientists are now convinced that the temperature of the Earth (and other planets) is determined by a phenomenon called the lapse rate, and that CO2 only plays a minor part. 

Thursday, 17 August 2017

IT'S TIME TO FOLLOW THE USA AND NOT GIVE OUR TAXPAYERS MONEY TO TYRANTS

Here is the reason why President Trump was right to leave the Paris Agreement. The climate change meme is a vehicle for many opportunists to latch on to and it is also a way for ordinary citizens to be fleeced by collusion between big government and supranational organisations such as the EU and the UN. The climate fund is said to be a slush fund for the world's tyrants, in which case why is the UK not following the USA lead?

Wednesday, 16 August 2017

THE CONSENSUS MYTH

We are constantly bombarded with the statements that climate change is "a fact", "the debate is over" 97% of scientists agree". These statements are designed to shut down any doubts and make people believe that it is pointless to argue. Here is the article to debunk this nonsense. We must not allow these statements to go unchallenged. Most people who use them are politicians who do not understand what poor data  underpins them. Once they are challenged with the facts their bluster is exposed as woefully weak.

Tuesday, 15 August 2017

THE SCOTTISH WIND POWER RACKET

This is the true story of how the British public are being shafted by a policy that would have looked too bizarre even for the Soviet Union. The headline to this article will not surprise regular readers of this blog, but the article referred here deserves a wider audience, as until the majority of the public are aware of the true extent of this, the government will be able to carry on getting away with it.

The truly mind-boggling sums of money involved in all this are just a part of the price the public are being asked to pay to reduce our CO2 emissions by an insignificant amount that will make no observable change either to world CO2 emissions or to the global surface temperature or to the climate. It is, quite simply an astronomically expensive, utterly pointless exercise.

Monday, 14 August 2017

THE 5 KEY CLIMATE CYCLES EXPLAIN EARTH'S CLIMATIC CHANGES

This article gives a very clear explanation of how these key cycles can explain the many past changes in climate, as well as forecasting what future changes are likely to come

Sunday, 13 August 2017

CUT YOUR EMISSIONS OR THE CAT GETS IT!

This is where the climate alarmists will run into trouble. Humans can be made to suffer a little, but attacking people's pets is not likely to increase support for this or any other cause. I once pondered that the government ought, if it was serious and there really was a planetary emergency,  to ban Christmas lights. But, of course, they would not dare, as they know that people would rise up against such a proposal.

Politicians know the public are, mostly, only marginally prepared to go along with policies to reduce CO2. The public have to know as little as possible about the details of the actual costs of these policies, and they need to be led gently into the new CO2 reduced world. Only when this has happened and we have become fully brain-washed, will the pets be led away and the Christmas lights turned off.  Welcome to the brave new world. 

Saturday, 12 August 2017

MANIPULATING SURFACE TEMPERATURE DATA MAY HAVE ADDED 0.4 DEGREES C

Data Quality – Surface Temperatures: Writing in Energy Matters, Roger Andrews has begun an examination of efforts to adjust measurements to a preconceived idea. His first part deals with land-based, surface-air temperatures (SAT). Ideally, these are taken roughly at 5 feet +/- one foot (1.5 to 2 meters) above the ground, in the shade, over a grassy or dirt field, 100 feet from pavement, buildings, trees, etc. A Stevenson screen is the standard to provide shade and protection from precipitation. As research by Anthony Watts has shown, relatively few official measuring devises in the US meet these criteria, which have not been moved.

Adding to the difficulty of maintaining a database of proper measurements, NOAA (National Centers for Environmental Information (NCEI) in Ashville, NC, (formerly the National Climatic Data Center), which is entrusted to keep records, has frequently changed them. Thus, their database and the databases of other entities using them, such as NASA-GISS and Climatic Research Unit (CRU), are questionable.

Andrews explains that he has spent about 20 years reconstructing and analysing the SAT data, He has addressed a number of individual examples where it appears that data were adjusted to match theory. In this systematic effort, he focuses on the SAT from NASA’s Goddard Institute for Space Studies (NASA-GISS, on Broadway). He compares the old GISS with the new GISS temperatures globally, and by northern and southern hemisphere. Subtracting the old from the new produces a warming trend – indicating a bias. He found that a large part of this trend came from elaborate procedures under the guise of homogeneity adjustments. Even the Berkeley Earth Surface Temperature (BEST) dataset was infected, as Andrews shows for South America where cooling areas became warming areas.

The conclusions by Andrews give pause for any value of the use of the NOAA, NASA, CRU datasets in establishing climate models for predictions / forecasts. Andrews writes:

“The conclusions? In previous posts and comments I had said that adjustments had added only about 0.2°C of spurious warming to the global SAT record over the last 100 years or so – not enough to make much difference. But after further review it now appears that they may have added as much as 0.4°C.”

“…and that global surface air temperatures have increased by only about 0.7°C over this period, not by the ~1.1°C shown by the published SAT series.”

None of this is new. Joe D’Aleo has been sounding the alarm for years, alienating colleagues at the American Meteorological Society, where he is a fellow. However, it is important to have different people familiar with high standards of data quality to review the work of others. No doubt some will challenge this analysis stating that Andrews is not a climate scientist. That approach is used against Steve McIntyre who is a consultant for mining companies. McIntyre along with Ross McKitrick exposed Mr. Mann’s faulty “hockey-stick.”

Andrews has a response to such criticisms.

“In my previous incarnation as a consultant in the mining industry I spent a lot of time verifying assay data bases (copper, gold, silver, lead, zinc etc.), and in doing so I learned all about the sanctity of raw data. You don’t adjust your raw data unless you have ironclad reasons for doing so. You either verify them or throw them out. Too many widows and orphans have been ruined by unscrupulous miners peddling bogus assays to do it any other way. The stock exchange regulators who ride herd on the public announcements of mining companies are very insistent about this, and woe betide anyone who tries to put one across on them and gets caught doing it.” [Boldface added.]

There are no penalties for manipulating climate data; perhaps there should be. From the attitudes expressed by Andrews and McIntyre, mining consultants are very scrupulous about details – data. Since many are concerned about climate change, it should be so for all climate scientists. If those who build mathematical models describing climate use poor data, then the models will describe the climate poorly.

That said, Andrews tests whether the warming trend is a result of the urban heat island effect (UHI). He concludes it is not. Though, in part it may be due to a shift in location of instruments to airports, as Fred Singer has suggested. Andrews writes further:

“There is no grand conspiracy to foist non-existent global warming onto a gullible public. The reason some think there is one is that the data adjusters are under intense pressure to come up with the “right” results, which inevitably makes their findings somewhat less than objective. Global warming, AKA climate change, is a major growth industry that already gives employment to hundreds of thousands of people, including some very influential ones, and the bandwagon has to be kept rolling.”

No doubt, the bandwagon effect is highly influential among national scientific organizations. But, if carbon dioxide emissions are causing dangerous global warming / climate change, we need credible data. It appears that by their data manipulations, NOAA and NASA-GISS are undermining their own credibility.

The difference of 0.4°C between the old and new data that Andrews calculates, is significant when one considers that NOAA, NASA, etc. recently proclaimed that 2016 was the hottest year ever – by 0.04°C.

Amazingly, in addition to its National Centers for Environmental Information, NOAA has “National Centers for Environmental Prediction” which proclaims its core values are Personal Accountability, Scientific Integrity, Honesty, and Trust.

Friday, 11 August 2017

MET OFFICE MISLEADS BBC AUDIENCE OVER EXTREME WEATHER CLAIMS

This report gives the details of the broadcasts. It reveals  a clear case of political answers being given by climate scientists. Science has been pushed aside by politics.

MET OFFICE'S COMPUTER CLIMATE MODELS NO BETTER THAN OBSERVATIONAL RECORDS

This study reveals that the Met Office’s model-based rainfall forecasts have not stood up to empirical tests, and do not seem to give better advice than observational records.  It is time we moved away from using computer simulations and returned to actual evidence of observed records.

Thursday, 10 August 2017

ENERGY COST REVIEW TOLD TO IGNORE THE ELEPHANT

This piece explains the terms of the government's new review into energy prices must not recommend change to green energy taxes. So much for an independent review then. 

Wednesday, 9 August 2017

ANOTHER DAY, ANOTHER SCARY CLIMATE STORY

How to deal with scare stories like this. The media love scary climate stories and so they give them prominence and the public, for the most part, are taken in as they know very little about it. The first thing to say is that the figures are arrived at by no more than computer-modelled guesswork. How do they know that there are currently 3,000 deaths a year related to heat? They do not. There are very few deaths where the cause of death is stated as "heat". They have simply used and manipulated some data to obtain results that confirm what they wish to find. Confirmation bias, it is called.

The comments below the article offer some sound opinion. I liked this one from Eric Simpson:
"I’m tired of the leftist Chicken Littles constantly crying wolf.
Their predictions, going back decades, have NEVER come true. In fact they haven’t even come close to coming true. They’re just way off the mark, every time. So why are we to believe them now?
Here’s some of their failed predictions:
“Entire nations could be wiped off the face of the Earth by rising sea levels if the global warming trend is not reversed by the year 2000.” -Noel Brown, ex UNEP Director, 1989
“A billion people could die from global warming by 2020.” -John Holdren (Obama’s Science Czar), 1986
“European cities will be plunged beneath rising seas as Britain is plunged into a Siberian climate by 2020.” -Paul Harris, UK Ecojournalist, 2004
“[Inaction will cause]… by the turn of the century [2000], an ecological catastrophe which will witness devastation as complete, as irreversible as any nuclear holocaust.” -Mustafa Tolba, 1982, former Executive Director of the United Nations Environment Program

What’s more, they have, over and over again, EXPLICITLY said that they should make up bs predictions of doom:
“We have to offer up scary scenarios… each of us has to decide the right balance between being effective and being honest.” -Stephen Schneider, lead ipcc author, 1989
“It doesn’t matter what is true, it only matters what people believe is true.” -Paul Watson, Co-Founder of Greenpeace
“Unless we announce disasters no one will listen.” -Sir John Houghton, first ipcc chair
“The only way to get our society to truly change is to frighten people with the possibility of a catastrophe.” -Daniel Botkin, ex Chair of Environmental Studies, UCSB
Their never ending crying wolf fear-mongering should be considered an absolute joke. But no, the leftist MSM takes them seriously and continues to give the laughable Prophets of Doom credibility."   

Tuesday, 8 August 2017

IS GW DUE TO ELECTRONIC THERMOMETERS READING WARMER THAN MERCURY ONES?

Could much of the global warming measured over recent decades be due to the changeover from traditional mercury thermometers to modern electronic thermometers? this article provides data that  shows that it is quite possible. This could explain why data that could prove this is being destroyed.

While I don't believe in grand conspiracy theories, there is no doubt that there is a kind of "political correctness" that has enveloped much of the mainstream of society throughout the West regarding climate among other things (such as immigration, homosexuality etc.).  As far as climate is concerned it works  to keep the CO2 danger alive and to suppress evidence that could undermine it. Climate change, or global warming has become very political and for many it represents an opportunity to usher in a kind of world socialism in which the world becomes a "fairer place" as they see it. Others, of course see it as an opportunity to make money. 

Monday, 7 August 2017

LETTER TO THE LOCAL PAPER - STUDENTS BEING GIVEN ONESIDED INFORMATION ON CLIMATE

The following letter from me was published in the local paper the Advertiser and Times (A&T) on 4 August 2017 in response to an article in the paper about school essays from students about what the climate might be in 2050:-

"The evidence for rapid increase in Earth's surface temperature leading to damaging changes in climate are looking  weaker as each passing year goes by. Here in the UK climate records prove that nothing we have experienced is outside  the range of events that have happened in the past and extreme events are not increasing in frequency. Sea level  continues to rise at 1 to 3 mm. a year as it has for the past hundred years or more.

Despite this, the government ploughs on with its policy of banning the sale of new internal combustion engine cars  from 2040 despite expected problems of coping with the extra surge in demand for charging the batteries of electric  vehicles due to predicted power shortages.

From what I read in the A & T (21 July p.23) young students appear to be given only a one-sided story about our future climate. They need to be told that the scary predictions they are writing about are only the product of computer  models. These models are so basic that they are unable to consider, for example,  the effect of changes in clouds.   Models have predicted double the amount of warming that has actually occurred, which gives little confidence in their  predictions further into the future.

President Trump should be congratulated for having the courage to quit the pointless and damaging Paris climate accord,  and having another close look at what lies behind it. It is time for the UK government to do the same".

I wonder what the reaction of readers will be, if any?

Sunday, 6 August 2017

SIX IMPORTANT REASONS TO BE A CLIMATE SCEPTIC

This article lists six good reasons to be a climate sceptic and explains why each of them is valid. Well worth a read.

Saturday, 5 August 2017

USA COAL EXPORTS SOAR TO BOOST TRUMP ENERGY AGENDA


Reuters, 28 July 2017

WASHINGTON/LONDON (Reuters) – U.S. coal exports have jumped more than 60 percent this year due to soaring demand from Europe and Asia, according to a Reuters review of government data, allowing President Donald Trump’s administration to claim that efforts to revive the battered industry are working.



The increased shipments came as the European Union and other U.S. allies heaped criticism on the Trump administration for its rejection of the Paris Climate Accord, a deal agreed by nearly 200 countries to cut carbon emissions from the burning of fossil fuels like coal.

The previously unpublished figures provided to Reuters by the U.S. Energy Information Administration showed exports of the fuel from January through May totalled 36.79 million tons, up 60.3 percent from 22.94 million tons in the same period in 2016. While reflecting a bounce from 2016, the shipments remained well-below volumes recorded in equivalent periods the previous five years.

They included a surge to several European countries during the 2017 period, including a 175 percent increase in shipments to the United Kingdom, and a doubling to France – which had suffered a series of nuclear power plant outages that required it and regional neighbours to rely more heavily on coal.

“If Europe wants to lecture Trump on climate then EU member states need transition plans to phase out polluting coal,” said Laurence Watson, a data scientist working on coal at independent think tank Carbon Tracker Initiative in London.

Nicole Bockstaller, a spokeswoman at the EU Commission’s Energy and Climate Action department, said that the EU’s coal imports have generally been on a downward trend since 2006, albeit with seasonable variations like high demand during cold snaps in the winter.

Overall exports to European nations totalled 16 million tons in the first five months of this year, up from 10.5 million in the same period last year, according to the figures. Exports to Asia meanwhile, totalled 12.3 million tons, compared to 6.2 million tons in the year-earlier period.

Trump had campaigned on a promise to “cancel” the Paris deal and sweep away Obama-era environmental regulations to help coal miners, whose output last year sank to the lowest level since 1978. The industry has been battered for years by surging supplies of cheaper natural gas, brought on by better drilling technologies, and increased use of natural gas to fuel power plants.

His administration has since sought to kill scores of pending regulations he said threatened industries like coal mining, and reversed a ban on new coal leasing on federal lands.

Taking Credit

Both the coal industry and the Trump administration said the rising exports of both steam coal, used to generate electricity, and metallurgical coal, used in heavy industry, were evidence that Trump’s agenda was having a positive impact.

“Simply to know that coal no longer has to fight the government – that has to have some effect on investment decisions and in the outlook by companies, producers and utilities that use coal,” said Luke Popovich, a spokesman for the National Mining Association.

Shaylyn Hynes, a spokeswoman at the U.S. Energy Department, said: “These numbers clearly show that the Trump Administration’s policies are helping to revive an industry that was the target of costly and job killing overregulation from Washington for far too long.”

Friday, 4 August 2017

UK'S FIRST COMMERCIAL SHALE WELL TO BE DRILLED


Financial Times, 27 July 2017

The first commercial fracking well in the UK is set to be drilled within weeks in spite of strong opposition from protesters at the site near Blackpool.

Image result for frack on gwpf

Lorries brought a drilling rig to the Lancashire site of shale gas explorer Cuadrilla during the early hours of Thursday under police escort, before anti-fracking activists could block the company’s main gate.

But in an indication of how protesters are determined to try to disrupt Cuadrilla’s operations, later in the day four activists from environmental group Reclaim the Power locked themselves inside cars at the site entrance and placed their arms in concrete so they could not be moved without being injured.

Cuadrilla has had to wait six years to frack again after causing a minor earthquake near Blackpool during a test in 2011.

After securing planning permission from the government last year to frack at a different site in Lancashire, Cuadrilla now hopes to start a long-awaited shale gas revolution in the UK similar to that witnessed in the US.

Britain has an estimated 1,300tn cubic feet of shale gas reserves, mainly in the north of England and the Midlands, according to the British Geological Survey. If 10 per cent could be extracted, it could satisfy the UK’s total gas needs for 50 years, based on current consumption levels, the government has calculated.

Thursday, 3 August 2017

DOES THE PAST MASSIVE SUPPORT FOR EUGENICS HAVE A LESSON FOR TODAY'S GW ALARMISM?

Imagine that there is a new scientific theory that warns of an impending crisis, and points to a way out.
This theory quickly draws support from leading scientists, politicians and celebrities around the world. Research is funded by distinguished philanthropies, and carried out at prestigious universities. The crisis is reported frequently in the media. The science is taught in college and high school classrooms.
I don’t mean global warming. I’m talking about another theory, which rose to prominence a century ago.
Its supporters included Theodore Roosevelt, Woodrow Wilson, and Winston Churchill. It was approved by Supreme Court justices Oliver Wendell Holmes and Louis Brandeis, who ruled in its favour. The famous names who supported it included Alexander Graham Bell, inventor of the telephone; activist Margaret Sanger; botanist Luther Burbank; Leland Stanford, founder of Stanford University; the novelist H. G. Wells; the playwright George Bernard Shaw; and hundreds of others. Nobel Prize winners gave support. Research was backed by the Carnegie and Rockefeller Foundations. The Cold Springs Harbour Institute was built to carry out this research, but important work was also done at Harvard, Yale, Princeton, Stanford and Johns Hopkins. Legislation to address the crisis was passed in states from New York to California.
These efforts had the support of the National Academy of Sciences, the American Medical Association, and the National Research Council. It was said that if Jesus were alive, he would have supported this effort.
All in all, the research, legislation and moulding of public opinion surrounding the theory went on for almost half a century. Those who opposed the theory were shouted down and called reactionary, blind to reality, or just plain ignorant. But in hindsight, what is surprising is that so few people objected. Today, we know that this famous theory that gained so much support was actually pseudoscience. The crisis it claimed was non existent. And the actions taken in the name of theory were morally and criminally wrong. Ultimately, they led to the deaths of millions of people. [...]
I am not arguing that global warming is the same as eugenics. But the similarities are not superficial. And I do claim that open and frank discussion of the data, and of the issues, is being suppressed. Leading scientific journals have taken strong editorial positions of the side of global warming, which, I argue, they have no business doing. Under the circumstances, any scientist who has doubts understands clearly that they will be wise to mute their expression.
One proof of this suppression is the fact that so many of the outspoken critics of global warming are retired professors. These individuals are not longer seeking grants, and no longer have to face colleagues whose grant applications and career advancement may be jeopardized by their criticisms.
In science, the old men are usually wrong. But in politics, the old men are wise, counsel caution, and in the end are often right.
The past history of human belief is a cautionary tale. We have killed thousands of our fellow human beings because we believed they had signed a contract with the devil, and had become witches. We still kill more than a thousand people each year for witchcraft. In my view, there is only one hope for humankind to emerge from what Carl Sagan called “the demon-haunted world” of our past. That hope is science.
But as Alston Chase put it, “when the search for truth is confused with political advocacy, the pursuit of knowledge is reduced to the quest for power.”
That is the danger we now face. And this is why the intermixing of science and politics is a bad combination, with a bad history. We must remember the history, and be certain that what we present to the world as knowledge is disinterested and honest.

Full essay

Wednesday, 2 August 2017

CAN THERE BE A COMPROMISE ON CLIMATE POLICY?

Have you viewed the recent talk given to the GWPF by Roger Pielke Jr? You can access it here. It is quite a lengthy video including about an hour of questions. I found it irrelevant as it was about reaching a "consensus" on how to deal with climate policy, and so Pielke presumed that it was necessary to deal with a problem, whereas I do not accept that there is a problem. Yes I accept that CO2 may cause slight warming as its concentration in the atmosphere doubles from 0.03% to 0.06%, but as that is predicted to be around 1 degree C, and that other factors may even reduce that or even eliminate it, there is no reason for a policy at this time.

I found it hard to hear the questions from the audience as they were not given a microphone and many of them did not seem to have good diction. From the answers given I do not think any of them put forward my point above, which I found a little surprising as I would have thought that among climate sceptics a lot would share my view. No one also suggested that the political "solutions" put forward, such as the Paris accord, were not fair and neither did they work in terms of preventing future increase in CO2 world-wide.

In fact the world's governments can never reach a total agreement on any issue, which is bad news if it were imperative that they did in order to save us from any real threat. Mr Pielke tries to be reasonable by wanting to reach a consensus, but it is no surprise to me that he is disliked by the main protagonists from both sides. He reminds me of the UK prime minister who tried to reach agreement with Hitler just before the start of the second world war, Neville Chamberlain. He was a decent man who wanted to avoid war, but it could not be avoided.   

Tuesday, 1 August 2017

ROADS POLLUTION HEALTH ISSUE IS JUST A COVER FOR THE CO2 REDUCTION NONSENSE

Look at this chart showing which vehicles produce the most nitrogen oxides and you can see clearly that petrol vehicles (8%) produce far less than diesels (37%), and yet the government want to phase out both at the same time. They know the public are much more concerned by possible health issues and so they hope they will think that petrol and diesel are both equally bad.

Air pollution
The announcement to ban the sale of new petrol and diesel engine cars in 2040 is going to hang over future governments with increasing fear as the date draws nearer. What if electric car sales fail to take off, what next? Will they increases tax on petrol and diesel to give people a nudge? And what if there is an early big uptake of electric vehicles? Then we will find the electricity grid under increasing strain as more and more home charging goes on. We might well find the lights start going out and power cuts become the norm. Then we may find that our batteries are not charged for work - in fact they may even remove charge from them to "balance out" the grid. Motorists will not be very happy, to put it mildly. But this government need not worry. They will be long gone before all this could happen. 

Monday, 31 July 2017

GERMAN STATES PUT JOBS BEFORE CLIMATE TARGET


Breaking News, 18 July 2017

Germany is at risk of tacitly joining Donald Trump in turning its back on the Paris climate change deal. Two of the country’s regional governments have decided to put preserving jobs in coal mines and power plants ahead of cutting carbon emissions.

If Europe’s largest economy misses its targets, Chancellor Angela Merkel’s environmental credentials – and the global accord itself – would suffer a big setback.

Officially, Germany is fully committed to the Paris accord. At the G20 summit in Hamburg earlier this month, Merkel said she “deplored” Trump’s decision to withdraw the United States from the treaty. She led an alliance of world leaders who unsuccessfully tried to persuade the U.S. President to reconsider.

Yet two important German states are undermining Merkel’s position. North Rhine-Westphalia (NRW) and Brandenburg are home to many mines which extract brown coal and power plants that burn the carbon-intensive fuel. Their governments have vowed to protect an industry that provides more than 70,000 jobs, many of them in economically deprived regions in the country’s east.

That’s bad news for Germany’s promise to reduce overall emissions by at least 55 percent, relative to 1990, by 2030. Per unit of electricity generated, brown coal produces twice as much carbon as gas-fired power plants. In 2016, the fuel accounted for 23 percent of Germany’s electricity but emitted 50 percent of the sector’s carbon dioxide. Brown coal reserves are expected to last for several decades, and utilities even have permission to open several new mines.

NRW’s new government, which is led by Merkel’s conservative Christian Democratic Union, in late June decided to stick to the current mining plans in the region. In mid-June, Brandenburg’s government said it wanted to soften its 2030 reduction targets. A study commissioned by the World Wildlife Fund environmental group shows that NRW’s plans alone would bust Germany’s Paris targets.

Unless Merkel can rein in the brown coal enthusiasts at home, she risks sending a devastating message to the world. If a country as rich and ecologically conscious as Germany prioritises coal mining jobs over the fight against global warming, others will also find it easier to turn their back on the treaty.



Sunday, 30 July 2017

UK GOVERNMENT ELECTRIC CAR POLICY STARTS TO UNRAVEL


The Daily Telegraph, 26 July 2017

Plans to ban the sale of new diesel and petrol cars by 2040 in a bid to encourage people to buy electric vehicles are a “tall order” and will place unprecedented strain on the National Grid, motoring experts have warned.

Michael Gove, the Environment Secretary, has warned that Britain “can’t carry on” with petrol and diesel cars because of the damage that they are doing to people’s health and the planet. “There is no alternative to embracing new technology,” he said.

However the AA warned that the National Grid would be under pressure to “cope with a mass switch-on after the evening rush hour”, while Which? Car magazine warned that electric cars are currently more expensive and less practical.

According to a National Grid report, peak demand for electricity will add around 30 gigawatts to the current peak of 61GW – an increase of 50 per cent.

The extra electricity needed will be the equivalent of almost 10 times the total power output of the new Hinckley Point C nuclear power station being built in Somerset.

National Grid predicts Britain will become increasingly reliant on imported electricity, which will rise from around 10 per cent of total electricity to around one third, raising questions about energy security.

Just 4 per cent of new car sales are for electric vehicles, and concerns have also been raised about whether Britain will have enough charging points for the new generation of cars.

Saturday, 29 July 2017

HOW WILL THE GOVERNMENT SOLVE THE PROBLEM OF GAS HEATING?

Another excellent piece by Paul Homewood examines a gaping hole in the government's pointless effort to decarbonise the UK. The only alternatives they have to gas are either electric heating or convert methane to hydrogen. Both are much more expensive than our current use of gas and in the case of electricity, likely to be much less reliable, that is if the huge increase in electricity required can be delivered at all. We are living in a mad era. All self-inflicted and utterly pointless. I would love to know what future historians will make of it all.

Friday, 28 July 2017

PARIS AGREEMENT IS JUST HOT AIR AND HYPOCRITICAL NONSENSE

Read this and you will understand what I mean. While the leading nations of the world go to these lavish conferences and solemnly pledge to do all they can to "fight climate change", the moment it is over they quietly carry on just as before. I am sure that they don't actually believe a word of all this guff about "saving the planet". They give lip-service to it so as to appear like good boys, and  hope to get any handouts from the slush funds if they get the chance. Surely the people can see through the pretence by now, or are some blind?

Thursday, 27 July 2017

HALF HOUR ELECTRICITY BILLING TO COME IN 2019 - BIG BROTHER IS COMING!

This news item may not get wide coverage but it is an indication that there is a lot going on that will eventually catch up with us when it has already been decided.

This article shows us how it is being presented. A lot of people will see it as Big Brother watching us closely and turning our appliances on and off when it suits them. Those with Smart Meters will be rewarded and the rest will be punished with higher bills. Resistance is useless - you will obey!

Wednesday, 26 July 2017

NEW DIESEL AND PETROL VEHICLES TO BE BANNED IN UK FROM 2040

This report says so. Of course 2040 is still a long way off and they still have the problem of the millions of cars that will already be on the road at that time. It is still an intriguing prospect and I would love to see if it actually happens, or will it be rescinded by some future government nearer the time. Or will some new technology make electric cars redundant? It is just too far into the future to speculate - but that is what the government seems to be doing.

Tuesday, 25 July 2017

HYPOCRISY AND THE LEADING GLOBAL WARMING PROPAGANDA MERCHANTS

Global warming propaganda merchants and hypocrisy go hand in hand.
  • Hillary Clinton promised to buy carbon offsets to atone for her private jets, but never bothered;
  • Al Gore thinks cashing in on climate and Lincoln freeing the slaves are the same thing; and
  • Bill Nye (the politicized science guy) wants those of us who correct the record on climate dead.
Could they be any more selfish, self-aggrandizing and false?

Bill Nye can't wait for greying Americans to shuffle off.  Think he's eager to go himself?

CFACT's Marc Morano explained on Fox that Nye is "confident he can convert the young people to climate action but he is having trouble with anyone his age and older because frankly they’re wiser and they have experienced a lot, so they are less susceptible to his propaganda.”

Monday, 24 July 2017

RECENTLY PUBLISHED LETTER ON CLIMATE CHANGE

The following letter was published in the Southern Daily Echo on 20 July 2017:

This letter was written in response to a reader (Jock Macdonald) who quoted Professor Stephen Hawking who claimed the Earth would end up like Venus with runaway warming and surface temperatures in hundreds of degrees C.

Professor Got It Wrong

I see that Jock Macdonald quoted professor Hawking as though the words of a renowned professor must be true.

As far as I am aware professor Hawing has never studied climate science and his words should be given as much scrutiny as anyone else's

I found it extraordinary that he should make such alarming pronouncements about the Earth becoming like Venus, without being asked to provide a shred of evidence. No credible climate scientist has ever made such a claim to  my knowledge.

The Venusian atmosphere has 96% CO2 whereas Earth has 0.04%.

If Jock Macdonald did a little more research he would find that far from disappearing, Arctic ice has halted its decline over the last few years. In fact none of the so-called tipping points ever seem to happen.

A few years ago we were told that global warming would lead to long hot summers. When this failed to happen we were told that it's the climate which would suddenly become unstable.

The fact is that heatwaves, floods and hurricanes are now happening at about the same rate as they always have. Don't take my word for it, check out the facts with the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change.  

Sunday, 23 July 2017

HINKLEY POINT NUCLEAR POWER PLANT - A LOUSY DEAL FOR THE UK

This article looks at the figures and finds that they are awful for the UK and yet the government is now in so deep that they cannot get out without massive damage to their credibility and reputation. Of course this whole deal would be completely unnecessary if it were not for the fact that the government is determined to cut CO2 emissions in a vain and pointless attempt to save the planet while all around them the rest of the world are carrying on regardless. Future generations will look back on this in the same way as we view the Southsea Bubble.

Saturday, 22 July 2017

50 SOLAR PV COMPANIES GO BUST IN JAPAN IN 2017

This article explains the reason, which is simply that they could not compete without subsidies. With all the talk about theses renewables being able to compete and even being cheaper than fossil fuels, this gives a definitive answer to those who doubted it was true.

Friday, 21 July 2017

WHY RENEWABLE ENERGY IS A DEAD END

Here is a very good article to explain why renewable energy will not power the future. Just read it to see how our government has been fooled into spending billions of pounds just to make a very expensive gesture to appease the green fanatics. It's time the public were told the truth so they can talk to the politicians, but the TV companies would never broadcast this truth. They would rather continue the deception and feel good about themselves.

Thursday, 20 July 2017

ANOTHER ALARMIST CLIMATE SCIENTIST THREATENS TO SUE THOSE WHO DISAGREE WITH HIM

This piece explains how Mark Jacobson, the Stanford engineering professor who became the darling of the green Left by repeatedly claiming the U.S. economy can run solely on renewable energy, has threatened to take legal action against the authors of an article that demolished his claims last month in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences.


Wednesday, 19 July 2017

CAN WE DO WITHOUT FOSSIL FUELS? HERE'S WHY NOT

Here's a thought-provoking piece from the Scientific Alliance on the question of what happens when we try to do away with fossil fuels. The article has a lot of interesting statistics to show that we currently do not have a good enough strategy and unless we go for nuclear energy we are basically stuffed.  There is simply no point in doing away with the internal combustion engine or gas central heating if the electricity that is used to replace it has to be generated by using fossil fuels as we would actually end up using more of them than we do at present. Wind and solar will never be available on a big enough scale ( or at the required reliability). We must either wait for totally new technology or go for nuclear at increased cost.

Tuesday, 18 July 2017

SURFACE TEMPERATURE CHANGES MIGHT BE SIMPLY DUE TO CHANGES IN CLOUD COVER

Here is a good article that discusses this idea. I am sure there are other factors involved, but it is obvious to anyone who has been outside on a warm sunny day that as soon as clouds block off the sun for a few minutes this has a great effect on the temperature. Even though all recorded temperatures are taken in shade I believe that clouds will have an overall effect, not just on the temperature in direct sunlight. One other consideration is that increased cloud cover at night will raise the temperature by reflecting some of the outgoing long wave infra red radiation back down to earth, thus slowing the cooling. On balance I am not sure of the total effect, but it must be considered.

Monday, 17 July 2017

SURVEY ON PUBLIC KNOWLEDGE AND ATTITUDE TO CLIMATE CHANGE AND THE SEA

This large survey looks at how the public perceives the effect of man's behaviour on the sea. Having read it I believe it goes beyond "climate change", as it lumps together pollution (such as effluent etc.) along with CO2. I am not convinced that surveys like this are very accurate, but they are still interesting in a general way. Worth reading in full if you have the time.

It throws up some positives such as "54% of European citizens believe that humans play only a partial role or no role in climate change."

Many who thought that they were well informed on the impacts of climate change on the ocean believe scenarios that may happen by 2100 if we do not reduce greenhouse gas emissions have already occurred e.g. loss of Arctic sea-ice in the summer (26% of respondents) and sea temperature increases of more than 2°C (30% of respondents). I am not surprised given the media coverage.

Sunday, 16 July 2017

TURKEY DECIDES NOT TO SAVE THE PLANET - AS USA CASH NO LONGER AVAILABLE

This article explains the situation. So much for a "planetary emergency". This confirms what we always knew - that this is all about the money.

Saturday, 15 July 2017

THE PERILS OF GROUPTHINK - AS PRACTICED BY THE BANK OF ENGLAND

Here is a very thoughtful piece from James Delingpole.  He is a very good writer and makes an excellent case for the requirement of balance in official reports by institutions like the Bank of England. This is nothing new, of course. It is simply one more example where only one side of the argument is considered, ie that fossil fuels are bad and will be phased out soon. It is both a lazy and foolish conclusion and one that is unlikely to be fulfilled (certainly not in the developing world). 

Friday, 14 July 2017

BATTLE OF THE SATELLITE DATA SETS - RSS v UAH

This piece summarises what is happening. As a simple introduction, there are two different data sets of the temperature of the troposphere. One is produced by Remote Sensing Systems (RSS), and the other is produced by the University of Alabama Huntsville (UAH). Both data sets have been updated at various times to improve their results. The linked article is by Jo Nova and it shows why UAH seems to be the most reliable of the two. 

Thursday, 13 July 2017

THE GRENFELL DISASTER CAUSED BY INFERIOR EU REGULATIONS PUTTING CLIMATE CHANGE ABOVE SAFETY

This piece from Christopher Booker exposes the whole shambles in a clear concise manner. When will our political masters learn to stop compromising and do the right thing?

Wednesday, 12 July 2017

ARE TINY PARTICLES IN OUR AIR A DANGER TO US?

This is a very important question as the quest to make our air ever cleaner gets ever harder and more expensive - very expensive indeed. We are constantly bombarded with very scary stories about this, and quite rightly we are very concerned. Of course by far the biggest polluter of our lungs is smoking and most of us now believe that this is a very harmful activity, and yet around 20% of us still light up. Compared with smoking, the amount of small particles we breathe in our city air here in the West is much lower and yet we are being warned that "there is no safe level" of these particles. As the fear of climate change is declining it is becoming very important to the alarmists that the public believe that removing these particles is essential at any cost. So here is an interesting article on this subject.

Tuesday, 11 July 2017

EXPOSED - A LACK OF INTEGRITY IN SCIENTIFIC RESEARCH INTO NEONICS

This article is mainly about the recent trials into the possible damage to bee colonies from exposure to neonicotenoids (neonics) used to treat seeds and prevent pests from attacking crops. It is, of course very relevant to the climate change hypothesis, as the first part of the article alludes to some studies into the effects of fine particulates and claims the effects have been exaggerated.  

Monday, 10 July 2017

RAMPANT ALARMISM BEING TAUGHT IN USA SCHOOLS

This is the finding of one investigative journalist. The problem is that there is such a low understanding of this subject among teachers that it is all too easy for misinformation to be taught to unsuspecting students whose parents may also be uninformed. Fortunately many students are resistant to accepting the establishment position and are only too keen to argue over any controversial subject.

Sunday, 9 July 2017

AUSSIE ELECTRIC PRICES GO THROUGH THE ROOF

This piece explains. Here in the UK we seem to be heading in the same direction and one would hope that our politicians would sit up and take notice, but sadly there is no evidence of this happening. Theresa May, when asked about climate change at the G-20 summit, mouthed some platitudes about wanting the USA to get back into the Paris Accord. Jeremy Corbyn (Labour leader) is of the same opinion, even though his brother Piers is a confirmed sceptic.

Saturday, 8 July 2017

TRUMP ADMINISTRATION PLANS TO CHALLENGE CLIMATE SCIENCE IN SERIES OF DEBATES

Here is an article that explains the situation. I think this will be a revelation to the public and could well spell the end for this massive scare story. I wonder if the climate alarmists will actually put someone forward to represent them.

Friday, 7 July 2017

BREAKING NEWS - MANN REFUSES TO GIVE HIS DATA TO COURT AND FACES RUIN

This article gives the details of the latest twist in the long-running libel case involving scientists Dr Tim Ball and Dr Michael Mann (who was responsible for the infamous hockey stick graph of world temperatures. 

Thursday, 6 July 2017

ALL THE DOOM LADEN PREDICTIONS OVER THE PAST 45 YEARS HAVE FAILED

This piece looks at the predictions of doom made over the past 45 years. Noto one of them actually came true, you will not be surprised to learn.

Wednesday, 5 July 2017

PROF. HAWKING GETS OUT OF HIS DEPTH ON CLIMATE CHANGE

Professor Stephen Hawking is probably the most famous living scientist, so when he speaks, his words are given a much greater significance than those of less well known scientists. He may be an expert on black holes and cosmic radiation, but how much has he studied climate? Here is his latest pronouncement on the subject of climate change:

His main concern during his latest interview was the future of our species. A particular worry was President Trump's decision to withdraw from the Paris climate agreement to reduce CO2 levels.

"We are close to the tipping point where global warming becomes irreversible. Trump's action could push the Earth over the brink, to become like Venus, with a temperature of two hundred and fifty degrees, and raining sulphuric acid," he told BBC News.
"Climate change is one of the great dangers we face, and it's one we can prevent if we act now. By denying the evidence for climate change, and pulling out of the Paris Climate Agreement, Donald Trump will cause avoidable environmental damage to our beautiful planet, endangering the natural world, for us and our children."

For such an intelligent man I am surprised that he has so readily bought in to the alarmist meme. As with many such articles it leaves me wishing I could ask him to really justify his pronouncements. How does he know "we are close to a tipping point"? He is allowed to make the claim without any challenge. His other claims are equally bizarre. He gets away with parroting the alarmist lines without any justification. As for Earth becoming like Venus, that is an extraordinary claim that even pro-alarmist climate scientists have not made. He gives not one shred of evidence for it and nor was it challenged. Propaganda, pure and simple. I would really like to see him rebut something like this article, for example. But this he would never do.

I wonder if he has given much serious study of the science. He is just a well known person, like Prince Charles and the Pope who has a following among the public and as many of the public know nothing of the science either they will be likely to take notice of someone that they believe will know more than they do.

Tuesday, 4 July 2017

THE BLEAK FUTURE FOR UK MOTORISTS

Is this the future for motorists in the UK? Regular readers of this blog will know that the UK government are trying to drive people off the roads in a number of ways if they are using fossil-fuelled cars. The linked article refers to a new report by NICE, a worthy organisation, but who seem to be getting rather OTT in protecting us from even the smallest risk. 

Monday, 3 July 2017

IS OUR AIR WORSE THAN IN THE 1950'S?

Daily Telegraph 17/04/17

Michael Fitzpatrick GP

As somebody who groped his way to school through winter smogs in
Sheffield in the Fifties and Sixties, I have always been sceptical
about the claims of environmental campaigners that air pollution in
British cities is now reaching critical levels of toxicity. I recall
playing football on pitches where neither goal was visible from the
halfway line. No doubt any therapeutic benefits were outweighed by the
damage to our youthful lungs.

Yet recent headlines proclaim that our children are being exposed to
illegal levels of toxic air, and London mayor Sadiq Khan has declared
a public health emergency. He quotes epidemiological studies claiming
9,000 Londoners are dying prematurely each year due to poor air
quality. Estimates of national fatalities have increased from 40,000
to 60,000 per year.

It is worth recalling that the Great Smog of December 1952, widely
regarded as an environmental catastrophe, killed only 4,000 people in
London. Can it really be true that air pollution is now killing more
than twice that number every year in the capital, and 10 to 15 times
as many nationwide?

Well, no. On closer inspection, it turns out that these are not actual
deaths, but estimates, produced by mathematical modelling, of the
number of premature deaths that can be attributed to air pollution.
The figures are derived from calculations of the "years of life" lost
across the whole population resulting from the increased risks
associated with particular pollutants. According to Cambridge risk
statistician Prof David Spiegelhalter, another way of presenting the
same data would be to state that the average loss of life expectancy
over the whole adult population is... three days.

It is true that the character of air pollution has changed. Whereas we
inhaled soot and sulphur oxides as the by-products of burning coal,
our children are now inhaling particulates and nitrogen oxides, partly
because of the last Labour government's "green" incentives to persuade
us all to switch to diesel-fuelled cars.

However, levels of particulates and nitrogen oxides have been falling
steadily for decades - they are now about a quarter of what they were
in 1970. It is also worth noting that air pollution in London is about
one eighth of that in Delhi, a quarter of that in Beijing, and lower
than that in Paris.

In the words of Brighton respiratory physician Prof Anthony Frew, who
served on the original Royal College of Physicians' working party on
air pollution, the claim of 9,000 deaths in London is a "zombie
statistic - however much you try to kill it, it comes back and it's
simply not true".

Further reference H/T Paul Withrington.

http://www.transport-watch.co.uk/topic-34-great-dirty-diesel-scare-0

Sunday, 2 July 2017

TRUMP TO UNLEASH THE VAST ENERGY WEALTH OF THE USA


Bloomberg, 29 June 2017

Jennifer A Dlouhy

  • President reorients energy policy away from climate change
  • Trump Says U.S. Is on the Cusp of an 'Energy Revolution'



President Donald Trump said he is lifting an Obama-era policy that curtailed the financing of coal-fired power plants overseas, as he seeks to reorient the U.S. government away from fighting climate change and toward American "energy dominance."

"We are now on the cusp of a true energy revolution," Trump told a crowd of executives, lobbyists and laborers at the Energy Department on Thursday. "We are a top producer of petroleum and the No. 1 producer of natural gas. We have so much more than we ever thought possible. We are really in the driver’s seat."

Trump is celebrating growing U.S. energy exports he says are leading to "millions and millions of jobs" and acting as a force for peace around the world. After decades of dependence on foreign oil, the U.S. is on the verge of becoming a net exporter of energy resources.

"The United States’ big competitive advantage today is low energy prices," White House economic adviser Gary Cohn said in a discussion with other Trump administration officials before the president’s address. "We are no longer a victim of having to import our hydrocarbons; having to import our oil."

As part of the White House “Energy Week,” Trump highlighted growing U.S. energy production and reversals of environmental regulations issued under former President Barack Obama’s tenure. In place of major policy announcements Thursday, Trump emphasized how cutting regulation and encouraging domestic fossil fuel producers will help the American economy and benefit American foreign policy.

Trump detailed the previous steps he has taken to lift regulations curbing domestic energy production, including moving to rescind rules throttling greenhouse gas emissions from power plants. He also is pulling the U.S. out of the landmark Paris climate accord, in which nearly 200 countries pledged to slash carbon dioxide emissions.

The biggest change he revealed is a reversal on restrictions by the World Bank and other multilateral development banks for financing coal plants in developing nations. The policy was implemented under President Barack Obama. Supporters of the restrictions say they helped combat climate change, while critics say they thwarted the development of advanced coal plants that produce fewer emissions.

Trump also announced a comprehensive review of U.S. nuclear power policy, which could lead to an interagency assessment of how to solve some of the industry’s biggest challenges, including storing spent radioactive waste and competing against low-cost natural gas and wind power.

And Trump described new deals aimed at sending U.S. liquefied natural gas to customers in Asia. For instance, Energy Transfer Partners and Royal Dutch Shell Plc on Wednesday signed a memorandum of understanding to evaluate collaborating on a liquefied natural gas export project in Louisiana. Trump also touted Sempra Energy’s decision to sign an agreement to begin negotiations over selling more liquefied natural gas to South Korea.

He also described U.S. exports of coal to Ukraine, where power plants are built to handle anthracite mined in areas fraught with conflict. Coal exports to Ukraine "will have more to do with keeping our allies free and building their confidence in us than anything I’ve seen," said Energy Secretary Rick Perry.

Saturday, 1 July 2017

WILL UK TAKE UP ELECTRIC VEHICLES? - IF SO, THE GOVERNMENT WILL LOSE TAX REVENUE

It appears that the Treasury is banking on increasing revenues from road users, whereas the Climate Change department expect us to take up electric vehicles in large numbers. This article explains this odd conundrum. Who is going to be right? I tend to agree with Paul Homewood who favours the Treasury, but time will tell.

Friday, 30 June 2017

SOLAR MINIMUM IS COMING

This short film clip from NASA gives a very informative look at what is happening. As the sun changes it allows more comic rays to penetrate the Earth's atmosphere, which some scientists believe will lead to greater cloud cover and a slight cooling of the Earth.

Thursday, 29 June 2017

LINK BETWEEN CO2 RISE AND SURFACE TEMPERATURE GETTING WEAKER AS PAUSE CONTINUES

New paper shows that the pause in global temperature rise is real and continues while CO2 continues to rise.  All climate models project that temperatures should not be levelling off, but should be increasing (despite interannual variability).

Wednesday, 28 June 2017

GLOBAL WARMING ALARM PREDICTIONS FAIL TO MATERIALISE

This article Looks at some of the scary predictions made by climate alarmists. Here is a flavour of the article:

"It's summer 2017 and the Arctic was supposed to be ice-free, hurricanes were going to be more frequent and more deadly, and sea levels should be rising alarmingly. Al Gore swore in his 2006 science fiction movie, "An Inconvenient Truth," that within a decade there would be a "true planetary emergency."

Each failed prediction weakens the case for alarmist climate change, but there is still a long way to go before the issue goes away.

Tuesday, 27 June 2017

RESEARCH ANALYSIS PROVES THAT CO2 DOES NOT CONTROL THE CLIMATE

This article explains how thorough research failed to find that the steadily rising atmospheric CO2 concentrations have had a statistically significant impact on any of the 14 temperature data sets that were analysed. The tropospheric and surface temperature data measurements that were analysed were taken by many different entities using balloons, satellites, buoys and various land based techniques. Needless to say, if regardless of data source, the analysis results are the same, the analysis findings should be considered highly credible.

These research results clearly demonstrate that once the solar, volcanic and oceanic activity, that is natural factor impacts on temperature data are accounted for, there is no “record setting” warming to be concerned about. In fact, there is no Natural Factor Adjusted Warming at all.

"THE BATTLE AGAINST CLIMATE CHANGE IS LIKE THE FIGHT AGAINST SLAVERY", SAYS AL

The Goracle speaks truth unto humanity in his crusade against the evil CO2 emitters. This has all the hallmarks of a religion, where everything has to be taken on trust with no questioning of core beliefs. I think the slaves themselves would want to tell Mr Gore of a few differences. For a start slavery could be seen happening and there was no doubt that people were being oppressed.  Global warming is so small and benign that no one has seen it and no one is being oppressed. Perhaps someone should tell him. 

Monday, 26 June 2017

IS IT POSSIBLE TO POWER THE USA GRID WITH 100% RENEWABLES?

Here's a great look at what's going on in the energy world . I found this website to be most informative. The piece about whether the USA electricity grid could go over to 100% renewables by 2050 is particularly fascinating. One professor says "yes", while another group says "no". What do you think?

Sunday, 25 June 2017

HOW ICE DATA PROVES CO2 DOES NOT CONTROL THE CLIMATE

This article shows that CO2 follows temperature with highly variable time lags depending upon whether the climate is warming or cooling. At the onset of the last glaciation the time lag was 8,000 years and the world was cast into the depths of an ice age with CO2 variance evidently contributing little to the large fall in temperature.

Saturday, 24 June 2017

WHY SHOULD WE TRUST THE GOVERNMENT?

One of the pillars of the current climate change phenomenon is the government, complete with the opposition and even the third and fourth parties in parliament. All these politicians, with the exception of a very small number of honourable dissenters, are constantly telling us that "the science is settled", we face an emergency (or crisis) due to emissions of CO2. And yet time and time again these same politicians are found wanting. They were sure it was a good idea to invade Afghanistan, Iraq, Libya, even Syria, though in the latter case there was sufficient dissent to stop them. We were told to buy diesel cars. We also trusted that they could protect us from fires with ever stricter fire regulations.  Now we know better.

But have we learnt anything from their mistakes? I think those of us who have lived through all the mistakes have, but young voters who have not lived through probably have not.  Hence the large number of young voters who voted for extreme socialist policies at our recent election.

Once the public have seen the political class to be deeply flawed they may become even more cynical about their extreme adherence to what look like very dubious and extremely costly climate change policies.

Friday, 23 June 2017

BANK OF ENGLAND BIASED RESPONSE TO CLIMATE CHANGE POLICIES

This article explains that by focusing only on risks to carbon intensive assets, whilst ignoring the possibility that current climate policies may be causing poor investment opportunities in renewable energy technologies, the Bank of England is failing in its statutory duty to identify and address risks to the resilience of the UK financial system.  Nowhere in the Bank's document looking at risks tot the UK economy is there any evidence that they recognises that the very large investments in renewables, the Bank itself mentions “tens of trillions of dollars”, are themselves risky. Like the rest of the debate on climate change there can be no room for doubt.

The Bank of England writes that: "The allocation of capital and labour to projects not aligned with climate policies and technological changes could be a drag on productivity and economic growth. Conversely, allocating capital and labour to green technologies can be growth-enhancing".

Then again it might, and not at all improbably, be quite the other way around. Failing to allocate resources to projects not aligned with climate policies may destroy wealth, and directing them instead to green technologies could well reduce productivity and suppress growth. There is, no doubt, a real possibility that the policy driven commitment of capital resources to renewable energy generation is malinvestment that will have to be written off within a decade or two. This especially true if new technology emerges such as nuclear fusion, or other yet unknown methods of energy production.

Much will depend on what the rest of the world does (not what it says it will do).  

Thursday, 22 June 2017

EARTH'S SURFACE TEMPERATURE - A LOOK AT THE HISTORICAL CONTEXT

This piece puts the present climate debate into its long term context. This is essential for all of us if we are to learn the full picture of where we are. It is what is missing from all the alarmist headlines that we read about in the news and the pronouncements of the "true believers" in Greenpeace or the Friends of the Earth etc.

Wednesday, 21 June 2017

THE TWO SIDES OF THE CLIMATE DEBATE SIDE BY SIDE

This piece shows how a very plausible article written by a climate scientist can be debunked easily by someone with a good understanding of the facts - something very few members of the public have. It is very instructive to read the linked piece right through to see how the facts can be misrepresented.

Tuesday, 20 June 2017

RECENT UK FLOODING NOT UNPRECEDENTED SAYS NEW STUDY

This report puts the recent spate of floods in the UK into context over a much longer period. That is the only way to assess weather or climate.  The study proves that though the past decade was wetter than many recent decades it was no wetter than many other periods going further back. The trouble is that we humans have relatively short lives and even shorter memories. The only reliable thing is data.

Monday, 19 June 2017

WHAT THE PARIS ACCORD WOULD REALLY MEAN (AND COST!)

This data-packed essay looks at the full implications of the Paris climate accord. When you read it you can see the logic behind President Trump's decision to pull the USA out. Princeton physicist Will Happer wrote of this essay, "Most of your essays are very good, but this one is especially so.  Many thanks for all you are doing for our country." I agree.

Sunday, 18 June 2017

NO LINK BETWEEN AIR QUALITY AND ACUTE DEATHS, SAYS STUDY

This paper explains that the association between air quality and acute deaths is not causally related, contrary to the popular belief that is constantly being put out by mainstream media. Of course the public are far more concerned about the affects of air quality on health than they are on some vague assertion that emissions of CO2 will in some way affect the climate at an unspecified time in the distant future. This paper should give some reassurance on the health issues related to air quality.

Saturday, 17 June 2017

UK GOVERNMENT U-TURNS ON DIESEL CARS, BUT WHY DID THEY GET IT WRONG?

The UK government had been encouraging us to drive diesel vehicles since the early 2000's. The reason was to reduce our emissions of CO2, as they claim this will improve the climate, or prevent it deteriorating at some point in the future. Now they have been told by the EU that our vehicles are emitting too much nitrogen oxides (NOx) and to reduce this they are now trying to reduce the number of diesel vehicles. However they already knew that diesels produced more NOx gases (which are bad for those with lung problems like asthma). They claim they were duped by the car manufacturers who claimed that these emissions were being controlled. That is a poor excuse, as surely they ought to have tested these vehicles independently? What this shows is how easily the government can be fooled by accepting the word of others and go on to put in place very costly policies which they then discover are completely wrong.

In order to comply with their own Climate Change Act, the government would like to get us all to drive electric vehicles, or at least hybrid electric/petrol. They cannot do this straight away, as it would cause massive opposition from the public and massive costs to the government, so they are starting to "nudge" us in this direction by mandating councils to set up Clean Air Zones. They do not say what these zones will require, but it seems obvious that they will ban diesels - but will they go much further than that and only allow electric/hybrids? If so then they are going beyond what is necessary to make the air clean enough to be safe. They would be effectively banning diesel and petrol engines from our town centres in order to comply with their so-called climate change commitments.

Regular readers may have noticed that I have recently put the cost of the UK Climate Change Act on the top right of the blog. It is an eye-watering figure of £300 to 400 billion up to 2050. It is rarely stated publically but should be shown as often as possible. The benefits to the public of this massive spend I have said are NONE.