Thursday, 19 October 2017


This post looks at the letters sent to US EPA chief, Scott Pruitt, urging him to revoke the endangerment finding for carbon dioxide which underpins so many other policies to clamp down on uses of fossil fuels. 

Wednesday, 18 October 2017


This report gives the background to this headline. I am inclined to agree with commenter, jeandemeung, who writes of the Paris agreement to limit CO2 emissions:

"First, there were no binding commitments. This is a huge strike against it right there, the only way the commitments, such as they are, would have been met would have been if they were binding.

Second, the biggest and fastest growing emitters made no commitments to reduce, even within the voluntary and good will nature of the agreement.

Third, all the studies done since have come to the same conclusion, that the result of the agreement, even if fulfilled to the letter, will have no measurable effect on global warming. Tiny fractions of a degree C are usually quoted."

What he is saying makes sense, in that the Paris agreement will (if you believe that urgent and draconian action is essential to save the planet) be too little to have any effect.

Jean then goes on to say: "This may have had something to do with the fact that the world's biggest polluter (China) was not prepared to sign up to making any reductions. An example which will have encouraged the entire developing world, and which is a significant indicator that actually the Chinese political and intellectual establishment are not persuaded that there is any real problem. I don't think there is any evidence the Russians are either for that matter, nor the Indians.

Lets be more constructive, admit the failure, and ask what sort of international event it would take to reverse the public indifference.

Surely it would be a really draconian agreement? Surely it would be one where all governments signed up to binding, real tonnage reductions. And these should be very large, they should be ones that will only be possible with very big and visible lifestyle changes. Like, for instance, closing down the automobile industry and investing heavily creating an environment in which work and leisure can take place using public transport.

One in which the biggest emitter talks to its people, tells them that economic growth of the kind they have enjoyed so far has come to an end, and that they must all work together on a different kind of great leap forward, and go back to the bicycle."

So Jean believes a much more draconian agreement is needed. But this has no chance of happening as the leaders of these countries either do not believe it is a real or urgent problem, or they know that they could not sell such an agreement to their people.

All the surveys show that, even though a significant number of people claim to believe that urgent action is needed, they are not prepared to make major changes to their lives to achieve it. That is the reality.

Tuesday, 17 October 2017


This post explains the reasoning. This is excellent news on top of President Trump quitting the Paris agreement. It is, perhaps, the start of cracks appearing in this scientific fraud. There is still a long way to go, but it shows that when governments make decisions that adversely impact peoples lives by hiking electricity prices, for example, they soon find the pressure mounting to reverse those decisions. This is particularly true when there is an opposition party ready to offer an alternative.

Monday, 16 October 2017


This piece gives the details of the policy that gives a clear though only sketchy indication that electricity sector policy will move towards carbon taxation post 2020. £1.2 billion will be spent “to make cycling and walking the natural choices for shorter journeys”. The government is actually considering an annual “Green Great Britain Week” which will, the Strategy tells us:
Focus on climate and air quality issues across the UK
Share the latest climate science
Demonstrate our progress and successes on climate action
Highlight and promote economic opportunities arising from clean growth especially to international investors 

I think it may be that before long people will come out to protest as their energy price increases start to become more obviously due to government policy. 

Sunday, 15 October 2017


This article explains the details. Although progress in unravelling all this climate alarmist bureaucracy seems very slow, at least it is heading in the right direction. If only we in the UK had made half as much, but, sadly there is no one in a position of power here to stop the mad dash for high energy prices.

Saturday, 14 October 2017


Jo Nova has an excellent index on her blog and under the heading of "sea  level" there are a number of excellent posts which will bring you up to speed with this aspect of the global warming narrative. The general message is in the title of this post.

Friday, 13 October 2017


This article puts the case for major setbacks for climate alarmism. While no doubt these are serious setbacks, there is still some way to go. Nevertheless it is welcome news and it helps to stiffen the sinews of those in front-line politics who might otherwise be too timid to put their true views in the public domain. 

Thursday, 12 October 2017


This article gives the details. At last the EPA is on the side of the people.  My hope is that if this goes ahead other governments may follow, but it's not guaranteed.

More details here.

Wednesday, 11 October 2017


The following email came into my councillor's inbox on Monday, so, of course I took part.

Dear Councillor,

I am a PhD Student at Northumbria University, currently researching under the title of "Climate Change Perception, Reaction and Engagement in the United Kingdom and the Crown Dependencies: the case of youth participation”. My research would benefit greatly with input and opinions from councillors within the local government sector. I was hoping if you had some spare time you would be willing to complete a questionnaire. The questionnaire should only take roughly 10 minutes to complete, it follows all the Data Protection Laws, and only over 18 year olds can complete it.

The Questionnaire Link: here

If you are able to, why not help this research student with his PhD. I am sure he would welcome the views of others who are not councillors.

Looking at the title of his project I was surprised to see that it was about "the case of youth participation" in climate change (even though he says the survey is only open to those over 18) and yet he had asked the views of councillors, most of whom are far beyond the youth category, sadly. I suspect that my answers were not what he was expecting. I ticked the box at the end, saying that I would like to see his finished survey results. If I get them I will put them on the blog.

Tuesday, 10 October 2017


Here is the article giving this prediction which I am merely reporting. We will all be able to see how good a prediction this was in a few months time. 

Monday, 9 October 2017


This article highlights the dogged way in which climate sceptics in Australia are keeping up the pressure on the Bureau of Meteorology (BoM) to come clean over their data. Thanks to the campaigners and press backing, the BoM have been forced to answer some awkward questions. Progress is slow, but at least the public are beginning to see that there are serious issues over the integrity of the data. If only a similar light could be shone on our own Met Office. 

Sunday, 8 October 2017


This article gives the details of this little known phenomenon. "Stilling" as it is called has important effects, the article explains. Of course some suggest that climate change may be behind the drop due to changing patterns in the way air circulates around the planet. Others say it could be due to ageing wind speed instruments producing inaccurate results. It sounds like there is much more research to be done - requiring more government funding no doubt!

Saturday, 7 October 2017


This piece explains how the claims of a reduction in the price of electricity from offshore wind farms is untrue. In most cases the prices paid for electricity from the UK’s offshore wind fleet have not fallen at all, and though there were small cuts to subsidies for new offshore projects built from 2015 on, this amounted to a reduction of around 5%.  The ads at Westminster station are deliberately misleading MPs and the wider public into thinking that existing wind farms have been cutting their prices by 50%.

Friday, 6 October 2017


This piece provides the details. The Clean Power Plan, or CPP, was challenged in court by 27 states after Obama’s administration launched it in 2015. It is currently suspended by the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals, which set a deadline of Friday for a status report from the EPA on how it plans to proceed.

Thursday, 5 October 2017


This 30 minute video is delivered in a very understated manner but it contains a lot of simple truths.  It was delivered by Ivar Giaever , born in 1929, who is a Norwegian-American physicist who shared the Nobel Prize in Physics in 1973. He is not a climate scientist, but he raises a lot of issues that need to be given more consideration.

Tuesday, 3 October 2017


This article reveals yet more lunacy from a small group of climate alarmists here in the UK calling themselves "Plan B", including the former chief scientist to the government, Prof Sir David King. "Ministers should tighten the UK's official climate change target - or face the courts", the government's former chief scientist has said. I wish he could have his day in court, if only the government took a different view, but I fear they actually agree with him and so will probably simply amend the current 80% target to 100%. What could be easier than that? I particularly liked this: "The science has clearly hardened since the Climate Change Act was agreed," said Tim Crosland, a former government lawyer. Jonathan Crow, Attorney General to Prince Charles, and a former senior Treasury lawyer, would be the man to argue the case in court.

Perhaps some sceptics should take the government to court instead to try and get them to reduce the target. Let's abolish the target altogether and call it "Plan C" for common sense.  Far from the science hardening, the fact is the recent evidence is that warming has been a lot lower than predicted and the expected future warming is also expected to be lower. Not only that, but also other nations are not reducing their emissions in line with our present target. In fact the biggest emitters are planning to increase their emissions for the next decade or more. Any cuts that we make would be wiped out by the likes of China and India in one year. 

Monday, 2 October 2017


This article refers to the exaggerated statements by alarmists and how recent studies now contradict them. What we are seeing, yet again, is an attempt to get the public to support punitive measures to restrict the use of fossil fuels by making out that the damage they are causing is far worse than is the case. The more these attempts are found out the less support they will get. It is a classic story of the boy who cried wolf. 

Sunday, 1 October 2017


This piece sets out the reason why the President may have to act. Despite the 20-year non-warming, which clearly shows that the models are worthless for prediction, the Federal Appeals Court in Washington recently blocked a new natural gas pipeline’s regulatory approval. This ruling encourages Greens to keep thinking they can regulate gas and oil production and transport into oblivion.

Saturday, 30 September 2017


This article explains how particles of soot are increasing in UK cities as more people are switching to wood-burning stoves to heat their homes. Having encouraged the take-up of these stoves to cut emissions of CO2 our government is now waking up to the pollution they cause. Yet more foolishness in a pointless attempt to save the planet.

Friday, 29 September 2017


This piece looks at the alternative to spending $ billions on reducing CO2 emissions. It is making  our cities more resilient to extreme weather. It is a very important consideration and most people who were asked this question would (with a little forethought) select the one that offered real protection, as opposed to something that offered pie in the sky. I leave the reader to decide which is which!

Thursday, 28 September 2017


This Daily Mail article shows the behaviour of our power companies in their quest to get us to change over to smart meters. All this is so predictable. When the majority have been hooked the rest will become subject to even more coercive tactics. So don't give in.

Wednesday, 27 September 2017


This article explains how climate sceptics are beginning to win the scientific arguments against climate alarm. Gradually the alarmists are being forced to concede that their models have exaggerated the degree of warming. 

Tuesday, 26 September 2017


This piece looks at the increasingly desperate and dangerous methods being employed by eco-fanatics to try and disrupt the flow of fossil fuels in the USA. Lt us hope the forces of law and order can prevail as this is also a method that could be adopted by the Muslim fundamentalists crowd too. 

Monday, 25 September 2017


This piece shows the large "advertisement" in a major Australian newspaper paid for by climate sceptics. I wonder if or when we shall see anything similar in the British press? 

Sunday, 24 September 2017


This article attempts to explain the contradictions at the heart of the climate change hypothesis. What I want to know is, how long can they keep this pretence going?

Saturday, 23 September 2017


This article looks at how the Germans are paying three times the price of USA electricity and yet 40% of it comes from coal. At a cost of $800 billion it's a wonder that Merkel has any chance of getting re-elected, yet she has. Clearly the opposition are missing something

Friday, 22 September 2017


This article is by UK Labour MP, Graham Stringer, who as a trained scientist has long been sceptical of the climate change hypothesis. He has been attacked for his stance and even though the climate scientists have revised their opinion on the need for immediate action (slightly), he does not expect any change of direction.

Thursday, 21 September 2017


Patrick Moore was a leading figure in the Greenpeace organisation and he now gives talks where he opposes many of the things they now advocate. In this lecture he explains his journey and why he now believes that banning fossil fuels is wrong. It is a very interesting lecture, well delivered. A real tour-de-force.

Wednesday, 20 September 2017


This piece looks at the reality of the introduction of electric vehicles in the UK. In short it will take a lot longer than the 2040 year announced by the government, otherwise we will have chaos. For a start there are nowhere near enough charging points available, and even if there were there is insufficient capacity in the grid to power them. Also there is a lot of resistance by the public to buy them for a whole number of reasons including cost, fear of being left stranded with a flat battery being two.

The public will need a lot of persuading. I expect we will see a gradual ban on non-electric cars being allowed into cities as well as increased taxes on petrol and diesel. That will change hearts and minds, as well as a gradual drop in the number of petrol stations. Bu I still think it will be at least 2050 before fossil fuelled cars become a rare sight - that is if the government does not change its mind before then as global warming becomes even more of a sick joke.  

Tuesday, 19 September 2017


This piece in today's Mail explains the latest thinking of these climate alarmist scientists. Are they getting their excuses in early, knowing that their previous predictions are now so way out that they know they will be rumbled? I note they seem to think that China is slowing down its emissions much faster than predicted. The sounds like a pretty weak excuse as world emissions are still continuing to rise. How long before they have to admit they were completely wrong? Perhaps another decade will force their hand.

More comment on this story at the GWPF

And a good summary on JoNova's website

Monday, 18 September 2017


This piece gives a good overview of the issues. Basically the government are desperate to get the public to install these meters. They claim it's to "help them cut their bills", but the truth is that the likely savings are minimal, whereas the cost of installing them is £420 per house.

This article gives more details. At the end of the article is a piece about the smart meters project being way behind target. The article mentions "an end to estimated billing" and "real-time information" being sent from these meters. What they don't say is that this is likely (almost certain) to lead to real-time pricing and automatic switching off of smart appliances. These meters will lead to customers finding it virtually impossible to check their bills and lay them open to being over-charged. Before this can happen the government need the majority of people to sign up. Let's hope they continue to be wary of this "big brother" project, disguised as a money-saving scheme.  

Sunday, 17 September 2017


This headline may seem as though he is changing his mind on quitting the Paris climate accord, but in reality nothing has changed. He always said he would look at substantial renegotiation to give the USA much better terms, but this was never a realistic option. Donald Trump has proved himself to be a man of his word and I believe he will see this through, despite the enormous pressure he is under to change his mind.


This report gives us the evidence for this hypothesis. It is a serious alternative to the tenuous idea of human induced climate change.

Saturday, 16 September 2017


This video sounds a very alarmist tone, but not for global warming. It is giving us all the signals for the opposite. If he is right it will not be pleasant for us, but at least it should see the end of talk of an impending disaster from global warming. It would be interesting to see the warmist alarmists eating humble pie.

Friday, 15 September 2017


This article from the Mail reports  a worrying (though not surprising) development in the slowly unfolding electric car fiasco. Energy companies are now wanting to use "smart technology" to be able to switch off the home car charging system in times of high demand, and/or the introduction of high tariffs at times of high demand. No doubt the government will also use this technology to add new taxes to recoup the losses from falling petrol and diesel sales.

Thursday, 14 September 2017


This video is very well presented and makes a convincing case.  

Wednesday, 13 September 2017


Bias and intolerance - from the Scientific Alliance

While many people pay lip service to objectivity and provide evidence in support of their assertions, true objectivity is very rare. Science is supposedly a body of knowledge assembled dispassionately by researchers looking at all available evidence in a totally unbiased way. This, at least, is the utopian vision encapsulated by Karl Popper, who argued that any scientific hypothesis should only be regarded as valid until falsified (for which even a single verifiable piece of evidence is sufficient).

All very straightforward, but such a purist view of science ignores the facts that scientists are human and evidence is often open to interpretation. Despite the attraction of Popper’s views, the philosopher who surely more clearly covers the reality of scientific progress is Thomas Kuhn, who argued that knowledge advances via a series of paradigm shifts. In simple terms, one version of received wisdom is replaced by another only when a sufficient body of evidence has accumulated for a change in the consensus view to occur.

The unfortunate downside of this reality is that dissent is often not tolerated by the scientific establishment until new evidence or a different interpretation of existing evidence becomes simply too compelling to ignore. Influential scientists build their reputations by breaking new ground when they are young but, by and large, plough the same furrow for the rest of their careers while entrenching themselves as experts in their field (with apologies to anyone who thinks that is an extended metaphor too far…).

A new paradigm may take decades to become established, needing the expert arbiters of the old one to retire before the next generation acquire the status of defenders of the new truth. Having spent one’s life researching and promoting one view of reality, it goes against human nature to give in gracefully and – in effect – admit that your career was spent going down a blind alley.

With this in mind, it becomes more and more difficult to defend science as the path to true knowledge but, even as practised by researchers with all the normal human frailties, the scientific method remains the best guide we have. The alternative is to promote personal theories based on no evidence at all or, at best, supported by the flimsiest of correlation or circumstantial evidence (beware the weasel words ‘linked to’, for example).

The problem with some hypotheses is that they are difficult to falsify, largely because solid evidence is hard to come by. A classic case is climate change. Trying to be objective (while recognising the difficulty of this), the current paradigm is that average global temperature is rising at an unprecedented rate because the increasing level of greenhouse gases (primarily carbon dioxide) in the atmosphere (mainly driven by human use of fossil fuels and agriculture) is causing a positive feedback process. Unless drastic action is taken, the argument goes, this will cause temperatures to increase to a level that will have dire consequences for our species and others.

In fact, very few people would argue with the fact that, all things being equal, the steady increase in atmospheric CO2 will tend to increase average temperatures. The crux of the controversy on the issue is the extent of this rise and the knock-on effect on weather extremes, sea level etc. Put like that, it sounds a bit like the modern equivalent of the apocryphal theological argument about how many angels could dance on the head of a pin, but with rather more serious real world consequences.

The dispute has become bitter indeed, with defenders of the current paradigm tarring anyone who questions the received wisdom with the brush of ‘denialism’. Their influence is such that, in the case of the BBC, anyone critical of the paradigm is effectively banned. Of course, as the defender of free speech and balanced argument, the Beeb would beg to differ with this interpretation: they argue that what has become known as the Catastrophic Anthropogenic Global Warming hypothesis (CAGW) is, in effect, now unassailable truth.

To be fair to this venerable institution, they share this view with most of what can be called the Establishment, which these days is overwhelming Left-leaning and liberal. For whatever reason, there are very few people in this part of the political map who question the paradigm or, indeed, will tolerate others who do the questioning. For many who may have their doubts, the power of groupthink is often enough to steer them back towards the straight and narrow. After all, who wants to be ostracised from the group?

In August Al Gore (oh so nearly 43rd President of the United States) gave an interview on BBC Radio 4 to promote his new film, An Inconvenient Sequel. In this, he is apparently guilty of claiming that record temperatures, flooding and rising sea levels were proof of the argument he made in An Inconvenient Truth that climate change would bring an increase in extreme weather events. For this, he was taken to task by Lord Lawson, erstwhile Chancellor of the Exchequer under Margaret Thatcher and now chairman of the Global Warming Policy Foundation.

This air time for a known sceptic of the extent and impact of warming predicted by proponents of the CAGW hypothesis was a welcome sign of tolerance of alternative positions, albeit a rather rare one. However, the BBC chose to follow this up with a report on its website about Anger over ‘untrue’ climate claims. Lord Lawson was hauled over the coals in particular for questioning Mr Gore’s claim that "climate-related extreme weather events have grown far more numerous and far more destructive".

Two high-profile scientists who broadcast on the Beeb made strong criticisms. Professor Brian Cox said it was "irresponsible and highly misleading to give the impression that there is a meaningful debate about the science", while Jim al-Khalili said via Twitter "For @BBCr4today to bring on Lord Lawson 'in the name of balance' on climate change is both ignorant and irresponsible. Shame on you. There should be NO debate anymore about climate change. We (the world minus Trump/Lawson et al) have moved on."

I have to say that I find this very worrying. We should expect false arguments to be exposed by debate and questioning rather than simply suppressed in a way akin to the ‘no platforming’ of people in other fields whose views may be controversial. Unfortunately, in the case of climate change, there is a danger that the Scientific Establishment might be seen to be censoring critics because their own arguments are not as watertight as they say.

This should only encourage dissenters to make their voices heard. At the end of the day, free debate, backed up by credible arguments, is the only way to advance our understanding, and those brave enough to put their heads above the parapet should be praised rather than condemned and ignored. Without a good understanding of the problem, we cannot develop an optimal solution.

Tuesday, 12 September 2017


Here are the details of the many incidents of errors in the Australian climate data compiled by their Bureau of Meteorology. It is amazing that all the errors are in one direction - to make the warming seem higher. 

Monday, 11 September 2017


This article explains what is happening with our star.

Sunday, 10 September 2017


This article puts the current hurricane season in the context of past years and finds that it is not even in the top ten. Any strong hurricane is a deadly phenomenon, but the idea that reducing CO2 will reduce them in numbers or severity is mere fiction, a foolish pipe-dream,

This article on WattsUpWithThat gives some good points to show how much climate alarmists like Michael Mann have distorted the evidence.

Also This piece explains the reasons why these hurricanes behaved as they did, and why there is nothing unique about them.

Saturday, 9 September 2017


Below is a letter which proposes that students should think for themselves, to which we should all add "here, here".

Sixteen college professors signed a letter urging students to respect everyone’s right to think and speak for themselves.
August 29, 2017
We are scholars and teachers at Princeton, Harvard, and Yale who have some thoughts to share and advice to offer students who are headed off to colleges around the country. Our advice can be distilled to three words:
Think for yourself.
Now, that might sound easy. But you will find—as you may have discovered already in high school—that thinking for yourself can be a challenge. It always demands self-discipline and these days can require courage.
In today’s climate, it’s all-too-easy to allow your views and outlook to be shaped by dominant opinion on your campus or in the broader academic culture. The danger any student—or faculty member—faces today is falling into the vice of conformism, yielding to groupthink.
At many colleges and universities what John Stuart Mill called “the tyranny of public opinion” does more than merely discourage students from dissenting from prevailing views on moral, political, and other types of questions. It leads them to suppose that dominant views are so obviously correct that only a bigot or a crank could question them.
Since no one wants to be, or be thought of as, a bigot or a crank, the easy, lazy way to proceed is simply by falling into line with campus orthodoxies.
Don’t do that. Think for yourself.
Thinking for yourself means questioning dominant ideas even when others insist on their being treated as unquestionable. It means deciding what one believes not by conforming to fashionable opinions, but by taking the trouble to learn and honestly consider the strongest arguments to be advanced on both or all sides of questions—including arguments for positions that others revile and want to stigmatize and against positions others seek to immunize from critical scrutiny.
The love of truth and the desire to attain it should motivate you to think for yourself. The central point of a college education is to seek truth and to learn the skills and acquire the virtues necessary to be a lifelong truth-seeker. Open-mindedness, critical thinking, and debate are essential to discovering the truth. Moreover, they are our best antidotes to bigotry.
Merriam-Webster’s first definition of the word “bigot” is a person “who is obstinately or intolerantly devoted to his or her own opinions and prejudices.” The only people who need fear open-minded inquiry and robust debate are the actual bigots, including those on campuses or in the broader society who seek to protect the hegemony of their opinions by claiming that to question those opinions is itself bigotry.
So don’t be tyrannized by public opinion. Don’t get trapped in an echo chamber. Whether you in the end reject or embrace a view, make sure you decide where you stand by critically assessing the arguments for the competing positions.
Think for yourself.
Good luck to you in college!
Paul Bloom
Brooks and Suzanne Ragen Professor of Psychology
Yale University
Nicholas Christakis
Sol Goldman Family Professor of Social and Natural Science
Yale University
Carlos Eire
T. Lawrason Riggs Professor of History and Religious Studies
Yale University
Maria E. Garlock
Professor of Civil and Environmental Engineering and Co-Director of the Program in Architecture and Engineering
Princeton University
David Gelernter
Professor of Computer Science
Yale University
Robert P. George
McCormick Professor of Jurisprudence and Director of the James Madison Program in American Ideals and Institutions
Princeton University
Mary Ann Glendon
Learned Hand Professor of Law
Harvard University
Joshua Katz
Cotsen Professor in the Humanities and Professor of Classics
Princeton University
Thomas P. Kelly
Professor of Philosophy
Princeton University
Jon Levenson
Albert A. List Professor of Jewish Studies
Harvard University
John B. Londregan
Professor of Politics and International Affairs
Princeton University
Michael A. Reynolds
Associate Professor of Near Eastern Studies
Princeton University
Jacqueline C. Rivers
Lecturer in Sociology and African and African-American Studies
Harvard University
Noël Valis
Professor of Spanish
Yale University
Tyler VanderWeele
Professor of Epidemiology and Biostatistics and Director of the Program on Integrative Knowledge and Human Flourishing
Harvard University
Adrian Vermeule
Ralph S. Tyler, Jr. Professor of Constitutional Law
Harvard University

Friday, 8 September 2017


This post gives the details of the problem, which is that although many of the public claim to believe that climate change is a problem, they are not prepared to pay much to have renewable energy. So, as soon as the cost of energy starts to hurt them in the pocket they are likely to turn out the politicians who caused this. It must be a real dilemma for them.

Thursday, 7 September 2017


This article gives the details of this study. The good news is that fish seem able to cope with any likely changes that might occur to pH. This is no great surprise as the pH of sea water varies by quite a wide margin across the various seas and oceans and even within them.

Wednesday, 6 September 2017


Here is an interesting article that attempts to equate a period of rapid warming in the past (56 million years ago) with the situation today where CO2 levels are increasing, as they apparently were then. The article does not give all the details needed to prove their case, in fact it raises quite a few questions. The first is, how can they be certain that it was not the warming which caused the CO2 level to rise rather than the CO2 which caused the warming? The article states that the ocean temperature was 10 degrees C warmer than now, which would mean that the oceans would dissolve much less CO2, meaning that atmospheric levels would be much higher. Also the level of CO2 at that time was believed to be much higher than now and the temperature was also much higher and yet there was no runaway warming. It peaked at about 5 degrees of increase and then reduced.   

Tuesday, 5 September 2017


This article looks at the idea and the drawbacks. The main drawback is the enormous cost which the government will be reluctant to admit. Another concern is the added risk of leaks and explosions. All this to save a relatively small amount of CO2 emissions which would make an undetectable change to global temperatures.

Monday, 4 September 2017


This article discusses this important question. It is important because it is implied in a huge number of articles and new items, almost subliminally. In fact we have been so sensitised to this that many will instinctively think it even if nothing is said. Those that "believe" in climate change automatically link every episode of severe weather to it in their mind. This is just what the promoters of this hope for. Luckily the IPCC have explicitly said there is not sufficient evidence for a link, but I would not be surprised to find them shifting their position by the time of the next report. If only the press and the TV would report the evidence and not just the hype. Sadly hype sells papers. 

Sunday, 3 September 2017


This article gives the details to show that in recent years the trend of ice retreat has changed.  We now appear to be seeing signs to back up the hypothesis of a new cooling trend, possibly linked to a sunspot minimum like the earlier Maunder Minimum between 1645 and 1715 which was linked to the mini ice age. 

Saturday, 2 September 2017


This article looks at what is happening. At last people are seeing what is happening and doing things to stop it.

Friday, 1 September 2017


G.A. Hodgkins et al., Journal of Hydrology, September 2017

“The results of this study, for North America and Europe, provide a firmer foundation and support the conclusion of the IPCC that compelling evidence for increased flooding at a global scale is lacking.” 

Fig. 2. Monthly distribution of floods with ≥25 year return periods for 1204 study gauges from 1961 to 2010, by major Köppen-Geiger climate for North America on the left in green and Europe on the right in blue. Monthly values are percent of total number of floods with > 25 year return periods for each Köppen-Geiger climate.

G.A. Hodgkins et al., Climate-driven variability in the occurrence of major floods across North America and Europe, Journal of Hydrology, Volume 552, September 2017, Pages 704-717


Concern over the potential impact of anthropogenic climate change on flooding has led to a proliferation of studies examining past flood trends. Many studies have analysed annual-maximum flow trends but few have quantified changes in major (25–100 year return period) floods, i.e. those that have the greatest societal impacts. Existing major-flood studies used a limited number of very large catchments affected to varying degrees by alterations such as reservoirs and urbanisation. In the current study, trends in major-flood occurrence from 1961 to 2010 and from 1931 to 2010 were assessed using a very large dataset (>1200 gauges) of diverse catchments from North America and Europe; only minimally altered catchments were used, to focus on climate-driven changes rather than changes due to catchment alterations. Trend testing of major floods was based on counting the number of exceedances of a given flood threshold within a group of gauges. Evidence for significant trends varied between groups of gauges that were defined by catchment size, location, climate, flood threshold and period of record, indicating that generalizations about flood trends across large domains or a diversity of catchment types are ungrounded. Overall, the number of significant trends in major-flood occurrence across North America and Europe was approximately the number expected due to chance alone. Changes over time in the occurrence of major floods were dominated by multidecadal variability rather than by long-term trends. There were more than three times as many significant relationships between major-flood occurrence and the Atlantic Multidecadal Oscillation than significant long-term trends. […]

5. Conclusions

Reference hydrologic networks isolate catchments where climate has been the principal driver of streamflow change by minimizing other drivers, such as regulation, diversions and urbanisation. The relationship between floods and climate change is more difficult to discern where catchments have been altered, making attribution to any single driver uncertain.

Trends over time in the occurrence of major floods (exceeding 25, 50, and 100 year return periods) in North America and Europe were evaluated for 1961–2010 and 1931–2010. All gauges drain catchments that are considered by local and national experts to be minimally affected by catchment alterations. Trend testing of major floods required the grouping of gauges. The 1204 gauges that met study criteria for 1961–2010 and the 322 gauges for 1931–2010 were grouped by continent, Köppen-Geiger climate and catchment size. The number of significant trends for 246 groups of gauges was approximately the same as would be expected by chance alone.

There were more than three times as many groups of gauges with significant relationships between the number of annual major floods and annual values of the Atlantic Multidecadal Oscillation than expected due to chance. Catchment size was important to the results; there were significant negative relations between floods and the AMO at large (>1000 km2) North American catchments and significant positive relations at medium (100–1000 km2) European catchments. The opposite relations between European and North American major flood occurrence and the AMO are consistent with previous work on general wetness and dryness related to the AMO. There were no significant relationships, for any group of catchments, between major flood occurrence and the Pacific Decadal Oscillation.

The results of this study, for North America and Europe, provide a firmer foundation and support the conclusion of the IPCC (Hartmann et al., 2013) that compelling evidence for increased flooding at a global scale is lacking.

Generalizations about climate-driven changes in floods across large domains or diverse catchment types that are based upon small samples of catchments or short periods of record are ungrounded. Networks of streamflow data from minimally altered catchments will provide an essential foundation for future efforts to understand the complex temporal and spatial dynamics of major floods.

Full paper

Thursday, 31 August 2017


This post gives the details of a shocking revision of the temperature record by the UK Met Office in a blatant attempt to produce a new record temperature for the UK August Bank Holiday.  When one looks at the evidence there seems to be only one explanation which is that they want to produce "evidence" to back up the assertion that the planet is warming, however tenuous it is. This seems to be the cause celebre and it needs to be given prominence.

Wednesday, 30 August 2017


 This report suggests that it is very likely if we move to electric vehicles in large numbers over the next two decades. Personally I still think it is doubtful if this will happen unless the government bring in some extra "incentives", such as much higher taxes on petrol. 

Tuesday, 29 August 2017


This article gives the details and explains why they are going to use coal to get their electricity. How can very wealthy Westerners like Al Gore claim that climate change is the most dangerous threat when so many others in the world are living such a meagre existence is beyond me.

Monday, 28 August 2017


This article (which I only just came across) gives an insight into how education is being changed. It would appear that, in science, students are simply being fed with one-sided propaganda instead of being taught to look at the facts and come to their own conclusions. Very sad!

Sunday, 27 August 2017


This piece explains how the public have enthusiastically taken up wood-burning stoves, encouraged by the government, even though they give out far more pollution than cars. What is going on? 

Saturday, 26 August 2017


Here's a good rebuttal to Al Gore's new effort. It is by Roy Spencer who is one of the leading scientists working on the UAH satellite temperature data. The link is to an excellent summary by Paul Homewood who is, rightly, getting a lot of credit for his tireless work to combat the distortions and exaggerations put out by people such as Gore.

Friday, 25 August 2017


This piece explains how the rule changes made by president Trump have breathed new life into the USA coal industry. Even exports to the UK have more than doubled. 

Thursday, 24 August 2017


This post shows that our knowledge of the Arctic is very incomplete and that if we are able to look back beyond 1979 when the first satellite data became available we see that the ice quantity has varied much more than many people have assumed. Today's levels are far from being unique, or worrying.

Wednesday, 23 August 2017


This piece has comparison tables and explains why some nations have much higher prices than others. The ones which rely on wind and solar fare the worst, in general, though taxation also plays a part.

Tuesday, 22 August 2017


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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.


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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