Friday, 19 July 2019


This article explains, using simple chemistry, why the oceans cannot become acidic. It is often cited as another reason to stop burning fossil fuels. 

Thursday, 18 July 2019


New Report:

Energy From Biomass Is “Extreme Foolishness”



London, 17 July: A prominent scientist has condemned the generation of electricity through wood burning, branding it “a case of extreme foolishness”.

In a paper published today by the Global Warming Policy Foundation author Martin Livermore reviews the EU’s energy policies and criticises its decision to count biomass burning as renewable energy.
“It makes no sense”, says Livermore.

“You use so much energy processing trees into pellets, drying them, and transporting them that you end up with higher carbon dioxide emissions than burning gas, or even coal, and at a much higher price. Shipping wood pellets across the Atlantic to fuel European power stations is an ideological rather than a rational choice.”
It is claimed that tree-planting will absorb all the extra CO2, but as Livermore explains there is an obviously better approach: “Burning biomass simply puts off part of the reduction in emissions by several decades. We would get a better outcome from burning fossil fuels but still planting more trees”.
Nevertheless, biomass burning looks set to continue, and plays a central role in the plans for “Net Zero”, Livermore says.
“Whatever we may feel about the need to decarbonise our energy systems, it is important that any action taken is as cost-effective as possible. Making taxpayers and consumers foot the bill for an intervention that actually raises carbon dioxide emissions makes no sense whatsoever. It’s a terrible policy”.

Burnt Offering: The biomess of biomass (pdf)


Wednesday, 17 July 2019


This piece makes the case that the alarmists will cause real damage to the economy.  "The dictates of climate alarmism may eventually consume as much as half of the resources available and yield nothing but climate virtue signalling."

Tuesday, 16 July 2019


Finnish Scientists: Effect Of Human Activity On Climate Change Is Insignificant
Helsinki Times, 14 July 2019

A new paper published by researchers form the University of Turku in Finland suggests that even though observed changes in the climate are real, the effects of human activity on these changes are insignificant. 
Figure 2. [2] Global temperature anomaly (red) and the global low cloud cover changes (blue) according to the observations. The anomalies are between summer 1983 and summer 2008. The time resolution of the data is one month, but the seasonal signal is removed. Zero corresponds about 15°C for the temperature and 26 % for the low cloud cover
The team suggests that the idea of man made climate change is a mere miscalculation or skewing the formulas by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC).
Jyrki Kauppinen and Pekka Malmi, from the Department of Physics and Astronomy, University of Turku, in their paper published on 29th June 2019 claim to prove that the
“GCM-models used in IPCC report AR5 fail to calculate the influences of the low cloud cover changes on the global temperature. That is why those models give a very small natural temperature change leaving a very large change for the contribution of the green house gases in the observed temperature.” 
Thus, in order to come to the results matching the actual climate change the IPCC has to “use a very large sensitivity to compensate a too small natural component. Further they have to leave out the strong negative feedback due to the clouds in order to magnify the sensitivity.” In addition, Kauppinen and Malmi claim that their paper proves that “the changes in the low cloud cover fraction practically control the global temperature.”
The authors argue that the IPCC has used computational results which can not be considered experimental evidence, and site this as the reason for contradictory conclusions. 
“The IPCC climate sensitivity is about one order of magnitude (i.e. 10 times) too high, because a strong negative feedback of the clouds is missing in climate models. If we pay attention to the fact that only a small part of the increased CO2 concentration is anthropogenic, we have to recognise that the anthropogenic climate change does not exist in practice,” write Kauppinen and Malmi.
“The major part of the extra CO2 is emitted from oceans, according to Henry‘s law. The low clouds practically control the global average temperature. During the last hundred years the temperature is increased about 0.1℃ because of CO2. The human contribution was about 0.01℃.”
The paper has been criticised for not being peer reviewed and other climate scientists have refuted the conclusions reached by Kauppinen and Malmi. Critics have said that in addition to not being peer reviewed, Malmi and Kauppinen fail to provide correct physical explanation, have not linked to- or sited to enough sources to support their claims and although they denounce climate models, they use one themselves to prove their own points.
In a previous paper by the same scientists published last December, they discuss the effects of cloud cover and relative humidity on the climate change. In a separate study, Japanese scientists have also suggested a much more important role for low clouds cover caused by an increase in cosmic rays resulting form the weakening of the earths magnetic filed. 
Prof. Masayuki Hyodo and his team Yusuke UenoTianshui Yang and Shigehiro Katoh from the University of Kobe in Japan in their paper published this month in propose that the “umbrella effect” is the main factor behind climate change. 
“When galactic cosmic rays increased during the Earth’s last geomagnetic reversal transition 780,000 years ago, the umbrella effect of low-cloud cover led to high atmospheric pressure in Siberia, causing the East Asian winter monsoon to become stronger. This is evidence that galactic cosmic rays influence changes in the Earth’s climate.”
“The Intergovernmental IPCC has discussed the impact of cloud cover on climate in their evaluations, but this phenomenon has never been considered in climate predictions due to the insufficient physical understanding of it”, comments Professor Hyodo. “This study provides an opportunity to rethink the impact of clouds on climate. When galactic cosmic rays increase, so do low clouds, and when cosmic rays decrease clouds do as well, so climate warming may be caused by an opposite-umbrella effect. The umbrella effect caused by galactic cosmic rays is important when thinking about current global warming as well as the warm period of the medieval era.”
Full story

Monday, 15 July 2019


This article in the Mail on Sunday, July 14, Good to see them squirm as they try to justify their lavish travel in pursuit of 'zero emissions'. It neatly sums up the reality of the whole issue of the global warming debate. 'Don't do as I do, do as I say.'

Sunday, 14 July 2019


This link should take you to the video. It is a technical report and will need your full concentration, but is fairly straight forward and well thought out. The report it criticises was brought out in 2018. This report contained some highly alarming predictions which were widely published in the media, giving rise to the recent wave of extreme alarm, such as motions in councils claiming we are facing a "climate emergency".

Saturday, 13 July 2019


This report highlights an important issue that is being ignored, even by organisations that claim to support wildlife. How extraordinary that they remain silent about this.  There can only be one reason - that they are more committed to end the use of fossil fuels than protecting wildlife.

Friday, 12 July 2019


Here's an interesting look at Antarctica's climate. It's a complicated picture which reveals that Antarctica was warmer 1000 years ago during the Medieval Warm Period. Clearly this extra warmth did not lead to ant catastrophe. It is just another example of the natural variability of our planet's climate.

Thursday, 11 July 2019


This article looks at this unpublicised event. Funny how this news seems to have escaped the mass media. If it wasn't for the blogosphere this would remain largely unknown outside the actual nations experiencing it. It is not that it refutes the global warming hypothesis, but it should be mentioned to provide proper balance in reporting. Its absence only shows that this important balance is missing. Unbalanced reporting is a form of propaganda.

Wednesday, 10 July 2019


Here is a link to the hour long session. He is a highly revered figure and this can be seen in the way he is treated by the committee of MPs. Unfortunately he is therefore not given the tough questioning that he should have had. He was able to conflate a number of issues, such as plastic dumped in the oceans, deforestation and other habitat loss along with climate change. This allows for much less detailed look at the extent of man made global warming and much greater resonance with the public. We can all agree that allowing plastic to be dumped in the sea is disgraceful and that we need to retain more natural habitat, but we are not concentrating on these issues enough as we become obsessed with the fiction that we can control the climate. 

Update: The article below is from 'Not a lot of people know that'. It is taken from the Daily Telegraph and describes David Attenborough's appearance in parliament.

David Attenborough “A National Disgrace” – Telegraph

July 11, 2019

Is the Telegraph growing a backbone?
They have this piece by Matt Kilcoyne today:
For someone who purports to be a national treasure, Sir David Attenborough’s select committee performance yesterday was more of a national disgrace. He should be applauded for educating millions about the natural world, yet he now wants to control our lives, cut down our choices, and shut us out from experiencing these same wonders.
The broadcaster said that he wants people to pay more for airfares – removing the newly found opportunity to travel from millions of lower income families – and warned that other parts of life would have to be cut back for environmental reasons too. When asked about the greater effects of his proposals on poorer families he coldly responded: “Yes. I’m afraid that is the case.”
Rather than a hero of the conservation movement or smooth-voiced demigod, we should see Attenborough as the fallible and clearly flappable man he is. Just because he can describe the world beautifully does not make him an expert on public policy.
That has not stopped Attenborough from trying to control our lives, however. He is the patron of the 21st century Malthusian group Population Matters, who campaign for a lower world population. In the spirit of China’s one child policy, they want to halve the current birthrate, with a special emphasis on the developed world, while curtailing migration to keep those born in poverty in their place and not emitting much carbon.
We have been here before. In 1798, English scholar Thomas Malthus claimed that population growth would soon trigger mass starvation. Since then, the global population has grown seven-fold, yet fewer people are malnourished than ever before.
Just like Malthus, today’s apocalypse evangelists are deeply misguided. We’re not running out of the world’s resources. In fact, we have continuously developed technology to find more resources and use them more efficiently. Our market system helps us apportion cost to activity and, so as prices rise resources are put to their best use.
Nor can Sir David decide what is good and what is evil. His diatribe sought to assign all of us in the West, and particularly Britain, the cradle of the Industrial Revolution, the ‘original sin’ of carbon emissions – a sin for which there can be no redemption. He overlooked the billions lifted out of abject poverty over the last two centuries, the development of new technologies that have made our lives easier or medicines that have doubled the length of our lives.
Of course, Attenborough doesn’t believe what he says applies to him. When questioned about his own situation which involves considerably more flying than the average person, he simply described it as a “paradox”. It wasn’t of course. It was mere hypocrisy. This same hypocrisy was on view in the Noughties when Sting and Al Gore jetted around the world lecturing us about climate change. So too when Emma Thompson flew from LA to London to join Extinction Rebellion’s protests. Inevitably, there is one rule for the multimillionaires and another for the little people.
They have developed ways of dismissing such concerns, however. In the case of Extinction Rebellion flights are allowed in crisis situations. With the Guardian and now the Government branding climate change an “emergency”, they can travel whenever and wherever they want while trying to permanently ground the rest of us. Sadly though, our political system, and the luvvie-Left media, does little to persuade Attenborough and his fellow evangelists to abandon their insulting, overblown language and illiberal policy recommendations.
Hyperbole was certainly on display yesterday when Sir David compared concern for the environment to the turn away from slavery two centuries ago. This careless comparison may generate headlines but it also makes a mockery of the human suffering of that evil system. But a national treasure, who sides with the left on environmental issues, receives none of the hate that was directed at the likes of Ann Widdecombe when she used similarly careless language last week.
The trouble is that Attenborough and his ilk give a veneer of reasonableness to radical, authoritarian and impractical ideas. Young people, especially those of richer backgrounds, are indeed coming round to the opinion that throwing plastic into the ocean is unacceptable, that taking lots of foreign jaunts in jets has repercussions. That’s their prerogative. When the alternative to straining every sinew to survive is no food on your family’s table, however, then the environment tends to receive short shrift.
In reality, prosperity is the solution. As we get richer, we care about the rivers we live near, the air we breathe, the planet we share. By bringing nature directly into our homes, Attenborough’s documentaries can even make us care about plant and animal life all over the world. But if we start to control everyone else to fit our worldview, it’s hard to see how we’ll encourage anything other than poverty and resentment in their lives. Removing the vital freedom to choose the lifestyles environmentalists believe are so rational will simply cause people to turn away from the cause altogether.

Tuesday, 9 July 2019


This piece explains what is happening to some vulnerable people, including suicides and murders being due to excessive fear being stoked up by climate alarmists. This is made worse by the government who repeat this fear-mongering.

Monday, 8 July 2019


The Appalling Environmental Cost Of Wind Energy

A new publication from the Global Warming Policy Foundation reviews the impact of wind energy on the environment and finds that it is already doing great harm to wildlife.
“The Impact of Wind Energy on Wildlife and the Environment” contains contributions from both researchers and campaigners, with a focus on birdlife.
Professor Oliver Kr├╝ger describes his cutting-edge research, which has shown how birds of prey and ducks are being killed in their thousands in Germany. The risk to these species is so great that there is a possibility of whole populations being wiped out.
Klaus Richarz, the former head of a major bird reserve in Germany, describes how windfarm operators are evading strict compliance with the rules, to the detriment of both birds and bats.
Dr Peter Henderson, of the University of Oxford, reviews the effects of wind turbines on a wide variety of animals. He suggests that death toll on bats may already be ecologically significant:
“About 200,000 bats are annually killed at onshore wind turbines in Germany alone. These numbers are sufficient to produce concern for future populations, as bats are long-lived and reproduce slowly, so cannot quickly replace such losses.”
Lastly, Paula Byrne of WindAware Ireland describes how windfarms in her native country have desecrated landscapes, and have even threatened the endangered Nore Freshwater Pearl Mussel.
With an extraordinary expansion of renewable energy planned, there is potential for these serious environmental impacts to become catastrophic.

The Impact of Wind Energy on Wildlife and the Environment (pdf)

Sunday, 7 July 2019


This article makes some interesting connections between radical climate policies and the aims of socialism. Both radical climate policies and socialism are proven to cost us all dearly and it looks as though they will both prove to be disastrous.

Saturday, 6 July 2019


This piece looks at the recent sharp decline in sea ice around Antarctica and the response of the science community, which is they are baffled.

Friday, 5 July 2019


This post by Roy Spencer looks at the facts the media don't mention when attributing the cause of the recent high temperatures across western Europe. It is obvious that they don't want the public to learn that there is any alternative explanation other than man made global warming.

Thursday, 4 July 2019


Here is a good news story that you won't find in the mainstream media. It is such a shame that, such is the obsession with doom and gloom over climate, that we have this kind of story censored.

Wednesday, 3 July 2019


Below are a few that are not afraid to be different, though some only a little.

17th May

Worcestershire County Council reject climate emergency call

Hundreds of protesters turned up to County Hall and sat in a packed council chamber to hear whether the council would declare a climate emergency and set a target of making the authority carbon neutral by 2030.
An amended motion, put forward by cabinet member for environment Cllr Tony Miller and backed by the Conservatives, removed the plea to declare a climate emergency and pushed the carbon neutral target back to 2050. 
17 May 2019
Lincolnshire county councillors have rejected a call to declare a climate emergency
 but made a commitment to become carbon neutral by 2050.
A motion tabled by the Labour opposition group at a meeting today called on the council to commit the authority to being carbon neutral by 2030.
But, the authority turned down the motion and passed an amendment noting the declaration of a climate emergency and a new target date.

Surrey County Council reject Climate Change Motion

19 March 2019
Surrey County Council has rejected a Climate Emergency motion [1], which would have meant putting plans in place to reduce greenhouse gas emissions and make Surrey carbon neutral by 2030.
 Instead Surrey passed an amended motion which failed to commit them to any specific future action.

Derbyshire County Council Fails to Declare Climate Emergency

A motion calling on Derbyshire County Council to formally declare a climate change emergency and to set a target to become carbon neutral by 2030 was put forward by the Labour opposition.

Pitched by Labour group leader Cllr Anne Western, the motion said that “climate change is an existential threat”. After hours of debate, the motion was eventually altered by Conservative leader Cllr Barry Lewis to stop short of declaring an emergency and to remove a target date for carbon neutrality. It also states that “climate change may become an existential threat”.

The vote on the amended motion passed by 30 votes for, two against and 17 abstentions.

WARRINGTON Borough Council will not be declaring a climate emergency – despite calls from both of the town’s MPs.
Warrington South MP Faisal Rashid urged the authority to declare an environment and climate emergency last month. The politician wrote to leader Cllr Russ Bowden to advocate ‘urgent and concerted action’ to tackle the ‘escalating international ecological crisis’.
It followed a plea from Warrington North MP Helen Jones, who asked Town Hall chiefs to declare an emergency in line with a number of authorities across the country. She highlighted that such a declaration would commit it to becoming carbon neutral by 2030, while ensuring it would work with other bodies to drive down the town's carbon footprint
The council has responded to the pair. A spokesman said: "while we are not currently taking steps to declare a climate emergency, we are making the reduction of our carbon footprint a priority in many of the things we do. “These include using greener vehicles, solar projects, promoting public transport and active travel and simply switching off unnecessary lighting in council buildings.