Thursday, 30 June 2016


The piece below is a fitting summary of the campaign to leave the EU. Please read it and relish the language that describes it. Let us hope that our politicians live up to its full aspirations.

The Daily Telegraph, 25 June 2016

Andrew Roberts
On Easter Sunday, May 6 1867, the Reform League pressure group had a difficult decision to make. Would they obey the diktat of the Home Secretary, Spencer Walpole, and not hold a huge meeting in Hyde Park to call for Reform, or would they defy him?

Founded only two years before, they campaigned for the franchise for all ratepayers, as well as secret ballots and an equal numerical distribution of seats in parliament, the basis of our modern democracy. Yet the police were padlocking the gates to the Park, which in those days was surrounded by high iron railings.

The Prime Minister and Cabinet urged caution and predicted dire consequences if the meeting went ahead; the police were called out en masse, and there was a run on the pound. With 200,000 supporters of Reform marching towards the park, the decision was nonetheless taken by the League’s leaders simply to pull down the railings and allow the vast surge of humanity to hold their (in the event, entirely peaceful) meeting.

The role of bloody-minded insurgents willing to do the opposite of what they’re told by the authorities has long been central to great political events in British history

Spencer Walpole burst into tears under the pressure and resigned; 10 speakers addressed the crowds, and the Second Reform Bill was passed later that same year. The railings never went back up.

The role of bloody-minded insurgents willing to do the opposite of what they’re told by the authorities has long been central to great political events in British history, and the 17,410,742 people who voted to leave the European Union can certainly be ranked among their number.

Almost every single agency of the international Establishment was deployed to thwart them – the CBI, IMF, Bank of England, OECD, big business, Goldman Sachs, all but one party leader, the World Bank, Presidents Obama, Hollande and Abe, the EU Commission, two-thirds of the cabinet, the Treasury, The Guardian, Davos, The Times, and so on – yet over 17.4 million people told them precisely what they could do with their expert opinion.

It is the British people who have now sent Obama “to the back of the queue”.

In Melvyn Bragg’s fine novel about the Peasant’s Revolt, Now is The Time, one sees a template for the uprising of ordinary people that resulted in the Brexit vote, much as the pro-EU Lord Bragg might like to deny it. The huge groundswell of ordinary people’s opinion led rather than followed their own leaders.

Today’s insurgent leaders were themselves a ragbag bunch: a half-albino Classicist whose friends called him “the truffle-pig”; a German-born female Labour MP; a beer-drinking, cigarette-smoking man of the people; and an infinitely courteous intellectual with a razor-sharp brain, who had nevertheless been sacked as education secretary a few years earlier. It wasn’t much to set against the combined forces of the Establishment, yet they won.

Just as the National Union of Women’s Suffrage Societies (founded in 1897) and its more militant offshoot the Women’s Social and Political Union (founded 1903) took on the Establishment and won, and as the Anti-Corn Law League had a generation earlier, so the Brexit movement enlisted armies of supporters across the country whose motives were traduced and posters defaced and supplications ignored, until the vote was taken and their voices finally had to be heard. 

The popular uprising campaign was therefore not like the Poll Tax riots of 1990 but much more firmly in the mainstream of the long British tradition of legitimate peaceful protest.

In this way, too, it was a more impressive achievement than the French Revolution, soaked as that was in blood. This popular uprising has toppled the established order without calling upon the tumbrel, the scaffold and the guillotine. It will secure its place in history as a result. 

And when that history of the Brexit movement comes to be written later this century, there will be a number of people who are by no means household names but who kept alight the torch of British independence ever since it was so nearly extinguished by Ted Heath in 1973.

Michael Ivens, Douglas Jay, Alan Sked, Patrick Robertson, Jimmy Goldsmith, Bill Cash, Robert Oulds, Nigel Lawson, Rodney Leach, the McWhirter twins, Bill Cash and many others did as much to keep the popular insurgency alive over more than four decades as Nigel Farage, Boris Johnson and Michael Gove, who had the honour of lighting the blue touchpaper this year.

Their contribution should not go unmarked, even though not all of them are famous

Wednesday, 29 June 2016


Below is something to cheer readers up. Are we at last seeing a shift in the world-view of the climate change hypothesis and all that flows from it. We can only hope!

EurActiv, 24 May 2016

James Crisp

Boris Johnson, a leading Vote Leave politician who has cast doubt on global warming.

Leading figures in the Vote Leave referendum campaign to take Britain out of the EU have links to a controversial climate-sceptic think tank and question the science behind global warming.

The group’s three leaders Boris Johnson, Michael Gove and figurehead Lord Nigel Lawson have cast doubt over man-made climate change, which is backed by most of the world’s credible experts…

Gove – who tried to stop climate change being taught in schools – and in particular Johnson are seen as Conservative leadership frontrunners should a Brexit vote topple UK Prime Minister David Cameron, who backs Remain.

There are so many influential politicians and donors that are both euro and climate-sceptic that it has raised fears over the future of UK climate policy if the UK votes for Brexit on 23 June…

A spokesman for the Britain Stronger in Europe campaign said, “They deny the scientific evidence on climate change, just as they deny the economic evidence that leaving the EU would wreck the UK economy and cost around 820,000 jobs.”

Vote Leave didn’t return requests for comment yesterday (23 May). But the Global Warming Policy Foundation did.

Director Benny Peiser said the foundation had no view on the EU referendum and was not involved in any shape or form in referendum activities. “So far as I know, our trustees are divided on the referendum debate,” he added.

Peiser said the foundation and its members had a broad range of different scientific and economic viewpoints on climate change.

Tuesday, 28 June 2016


The Daily Caller, 24 June 2016

Michael Bastasch
When British voters chose to leave the European Union Thursday night, they weren’t just voting against Brussels’ immigration policies, they were also voting against Europe’s growing list of green mandates.
The EU’s allowance of millions of refugees and open borders policy did play a large role in the “Brexit” vote, but it was also a repudiation of global warming policies Brussels has imposed on the U.K.

“The decision by the British people to leave the European Union will have significant and long-term implications for energy and climate policies,” Dr. Benny Peiser, director of the Global Warming Policy Forum, told The Daily Caller News Foundation.

Conservative pollster Lord Michael Ashcroft surveyed 12,369 Brits voting in Thursday’s referendum and found 69 percent of those who voted to leave the EU saw the “green movement” as a “force for ill.”

“By large majorities, voters who saw multiculturalism, feminism, the Green movement, globalisation and immigration as forces for good voted to remain in the EU; those who saw them as a force for ill voted by even larger majorities to leave,” Ashcroft wrote.

Britons have been struggling under high energy prices for years, in part due to rules passed down from EU bureaucrats. Environmentalists opposed leaving the EU for precisely this reason. The Brexit vote signals the U.K. is lurching right, and will likely reject heavy-handed climate policies.

“It is highly unlikely that the party-political green consensus that has existed in Parliament for the last 10 years will survive the seismic changes that are now unfolding after Britain’s Independence Day,” Peiser said.

Prime Minister David Cameron announced his resignation after the vote, since he supported the staying in the EU. Cameron was one of the main forces behind the so-called “green consensus” in Parliament, which supported green energy subsidies and energy taxes to pay for them.

“The British people have voted to leave the European Union and their will must be respected,” Cameron said Friday. “The will of the British people is an instruction that must be delivered.”

Cameron’s government did begin to cut back subsidies for solar panels and push for hydraulic fracturing. Conservative Party lawmakers voted against more handouts for wind power as well as to bring down the costs of electricity. Green taxes cost U.K. residents $6.6 billion every year.

Brits also paid some of the highest energy costs in Europe, thanks in part to green taxes added to their electricity bills.

The man that may take Cameron’s place is not committed to keeping the U.K.’s “green” image.

Ex-London Mayor Boris Johnson, who was the face of the Brexit movement, could take Cameron’s place as prime minister in the coming months. Johnson is a global warming skeptic, and even criticized alarmist claims that human emissions caused England’s unseasonably warm winter.

“It is fantastic news that the world has agreed to cut pollution and help people save money, but I am sure that those global leaders were driven by a primitive fear that the present ambient warm weather is somehow caused by humanity; and that fear – as far as I understand the science – is equally without foundation,” he wrote in December.

“There may be all kinds of reasons why I was sweating at ping-pong – but they don’t include global warming,” he wrote.

Johnson is unlikely to revive the “green consensus” in Parliament. That doesn’t mean Johnson won’t keep in place some EU environmental rules, but the regulatory regime will probably be less onerous than the one Brussels had in mind.

“But perhaps the most important aspect of the EU referendum has been the astonishing self-determination and scepticism of the British people in face of an unprecedented fear campaign,” Peiser said.

Monday, 27 June 2016


One of the best blogs on climate data and trends is Paul Homewood's "Not A Lot of People Know That" and he has yet another excellent post here on snowfall trends in New York. While climate alarmists try to make out their case by picking out short term trends that are simply unrealistic Paul seeks out and publishes the full data and it invariably shows no such trend. When will the general public be told the truth? It is time for the government to undertake a thorough review of the evidence before wasting yet more billions of ponds on trying to prevent something which isn't happening.

Sunday, 26 June 2016


This article explains how this comes about. In short the EU and UN hierarchy don't like the result of our referendum - another reason to cheer. It seems there were more good reasons to vote for Brexit than most of us even realised. It feels good to be independent, though I have no doubt that our political masters are plotting at this moment to put us back in the pen, like some awkward sheep that has somehow eluded the shepherd.

Saturday, 25 June 2016


This post and the comments show how strong the support for the UK decision is (to leave the EU). I admit that I feel very proud of the voters who withstood a barrage of fear-mongering propaganda. I believe it will make us stronger as voters, if we now prove that this propaganda does not come true. Our political leaders will now have to make our decision work, or if they do not then they will lose the next election, and that would be catastrophic for the party and the country. 

Friday, 24 June 2016


Here we see the link between rising CO2 and temperature - there isn't one at the south pole. Much of the temperature increase that has been observed in the parts of the world inhabited by man is caused by the urban heat island effect, which is due to man made cities having vast amounts of concrete and tarmac and buildings which act like a giant storage heater, plus all the heat from cars and heat put into buildings adding to the sun's heat. None of this applies to the Antarctic.

Thursday, 23 June 2016


This report is a summary of a new report by Greenpeace of Germany into what requirements are needed to comply with the Paris climate change agreement. The requirements are so completely absurd that surely no one could take them seriously. Of course no one has costed this, as to do so would be to underline to its madness. I wonder when the people will rise up against this? I reckon it will be when the State starts to get nasty and demand they hand over their cars or their heating system.

Wednesday, 22 June 2016


This article explains the case for leaving the EU in order to regain control of our energy policy. Of course even if we vote to leave the EU we can only benefit if our own government decide to do something different, and so far they have shown very little or no sign of doing so.

Tuesday, 21 June 2016


This piece looks at how clouds are treated in the climate computer models compared with the new study revealing how they actually perform. The result means that the models are even worse than previously thought.

Monday, 20 June 2016


This article explains how the new rules to make appliances more energy efficient are also making them perform worse, with all sorts of unforeseen consequences. In some cases the rules do not even result in much savings in CO2 emissions at all, but they simply cost the consumer a lot of money for no purpose. The same thing is happening in the EU.

Sunday, 19 June 2016


This report explains the reason for the Indian government's decision which is based on the immediate need to alleviate poverty in the country. This can only be done by giving priority to increasing the supply of affordable energy throughout the country, which is simply not compatible with reducing CO2 emissions when burning coal is the best way to produce affordable energy. No sensible government would leave its people in poverty in order to combat something that is unproven and in any event not going to happen for many decades, if at all. 

Saturday, 18 June 2016


This article explains an ingenious new investment that some climate sceptics are putting together. It appears to rely on the eventual demise of the CO2 hypothesis and all that flows from it. While I remain convinced that it is greatly exaggerated, I suspect it still has some way to go before it is completely debunked and so I will not be investing myself as I need to get a reasonably quick return on my investment 

Friday, 17 June 2016


This piece tell us the kind of people who are so desperate to convince us of their cause that they believe it is acceptable to lie.

Thursday, 16 June 2016


Business Standard, 10 June 2016

Nitin Sethi, New Delhi
Neither the US nor India has committed to a formal ratification of the Paris agreement by the end of 2016 in the much-hyped joint statement on climate change. The political imperatives before outgoing US President Barack Obama, domestic legal requirements in India and the procedural complications of the Paris agreement collectively ensured that the two didn't.

The statement, issued during Prime Minister Narendra Modi’s visit to Washington, reads: “The United States reaffirms its commitment to join the Agreement as soon as possible this year.” The US has shied from using the word ‘ratification’, as it would require approval from the US senate, which President Obama is unlikely to secure from the Republican citadel.

During the negotiations between the two countries, preceding Modi’s tour, the US had insisted that India should commit to a joining the Paris agreement as well by 2016-end, India, however, stopped short of such a commitment in the bilateral statement.

Consequently, the joint statement reads, “India similarly has begun its processes to work toward this shared objective.” Indian negotiators insisted upon this insertion to replace the single and asymmetric sentence that the US had offered, binding only India to ratification by the end of this year, sources told Business Standard.

The Paris agreement provides four options for the countries to adopt the global deal. Article 21(1) of the pact permits countries to ratify, accept, approve or accede. Each term has different implications in different countries’ domestic, constitutional and legal framework. For the US, a ratification of a non-trade agreement necessarily requires approval from the Senate, which President Obama is keen to avoid. But other terms, which provide options for the US President to adopt the agreement through an executive order, also leave the door open for the future US Presidents to walk out.

The option available to the US, to easily walk out of the deal, worries many developing countries, including India. The fact that the US had kept out of the Kyoto Protocol after negotiating till the last moment, as well as the current election rhetoric by the Republican candidate Donald Trump, who has threatened to pull out of the Paris agreement, have impacted the negotiations between key developing countries and the US.

“President Obama is pushing hard to get the Paris agreement going as his legacy. But he can only join the agreement. He can’t ratify it. What if developing countries ratify it, helping the Paris agreement come into force by 2016-end, but the next US President walks out of it with a simple executive order? We have to be mindful of the possibilities,” said one of the negotiators.

The Paris agreement would come into force only when at least 55 countries — accounting for at least 55 per cent of the total greenhouse gas emissions — ratify, approve, accept or accede to the agreement. India accounts for only 4.01 per cent of total global emissions.

Domestically, India needs to undertake inter-ministerial consultations for ratifying any international agreement that has economy-wide implications. But the Modi government is not required to secure a Parliamentary approval before ratifying an international treaty.

“Broadly speaking, India would have to undertake inter-ministerial consultations, consult with states, and ensure that legislative requirements are in place for implementing the pact before the Union Cabinet ratifies the Paris agreement,” said J M Mauskar, member of the Prime Minister’s council on climate change and a former senior negotiator for India.

“I think it was a mature decision between the two allies, based on acknowledgement, appreciation and understanding of each other’s domestic and constitutional imperatives,” Mauskar said, referring to the India-US statement on climate change.

The process has already begun in India, Foreign Secretary S Jaishankar explained during his briefing in Washington. It will require the Union government to ensure that laws pertaining to environment, forests and energy are equipped with provisions to implement the various provisions of the Paris agreement.

A current Indian negotiator also noted the complexity that lies ahead in operationalising the Paris agreement. The crucial rules for transparency, reporting and verification under the Paris agreement and many other issues are yet to be negotiated in detail. These negotiations are to now take place between all 196 member countries of the over-arching UN climate convention. If the Paris agreement comes into force before these rules are finalised, then only those countries which join the pact would have the right to negotiate the rules. The others would be only observers — a clear disadvantage to developing countries with disparate capacities to come on board in time.

An option has been floated to bring the Paris agreement into force, permitting Obama to claim it as his legacy, and then allow all the 196 countries to negotiate the rules by putting the agreement in a technical suspension. But many developing countries, including India, are unsure of the consequence and worth of such an exercise, only to allow Obama his legacy gift.

“Do we want to sign an agreement we don’t know the full contours of? Do we want to be stuck in a situation where allied developing countries are not sitting on the table to negotiate these rules? These are questions we must address before we decide to ratify the agreement,” the Indian negotiator said.

Wednesday, 15 June 2016


This article shows the attitude of the UK Green Party to democracy - they don't agree with it, preferring the rule by the EU which cannot be voted out.

Tuesday, 14 June 2016


The Australian, 11 June 2016

Graham Lloyd
When marine scientist Peter Ridd suspected something was wrong with photographs being used to highlight the rapid decline of the Great Barrier Reef, he did what good scientists are supposed to do: he sent a team to check the facts.

James Cook University’s Professor Peter Ridd on Townsville’s Strand. Picture: Cameron Laird

After attempting to blow the whistle on what he found — healthy corals — Professor Ridd was censured by James Cook University and threatened with the sack. After a formal investigation, Professor Ridd — a renowned campaigner for quality assurance over coral research from JCU’s Marine Geophysics Laboratory — was found guilty of “failing to act in a collegial way and in the academic spirit of the institution”.

His crime was to encourage questioning of two of the nation’s leading reef institutions, the Centre of Excellence for Coral Studies and the Great Barrier Reef Marine Park Authority, on whether they knew that photographs they had published and claimed to show long-term collapse of reef health could be misleading and wrong.

“These photographs are a big deal as they are plastered right across the internet and used very widely to claim damage,” Professor Ridd told The Weekend Australian.

The photographs were taken near Stone Island off Bowen. A photograph taken in the late 19th century shows healthy coral. An accompanying picture supposedly of the same reef in 1994 is ­devoid of coral. When the before-and-after shots were used by GBRMPA in its 2014 report, the authority said: “Historical photographs of inshore coral reefs have been especially powerful in illustrating changes over time, and that the change illustrated is typical of many inshore reefs.”

A healthy Stone Island reef in 1890

The Stone Island reef in decline in 1994.

Stone Island reef in decline in 2012.

The Stone Island reef appears healthy again in 2015.

Professor Ridd said it was only possible to guess within a kilometre or two where the original photograph was taken and it would not be unusual to find great coral in one spot and nothing a kilometre away, as his researchers had done. Nor was it possible to say what had killed the coral in the 1994 picture.

“In fact, there are literally hundreds of square kilometres of dead reef-flat on the Great Barrier Reef which was killed due to the slow sea-level fall of about a meter that has occurred over the last 5000 years,” he said. “My point is not that they have probably got this completely wrong but rather what are the quality assurance measures they take to try to ensure they are not telling a misleading story?”

A GBRMPA spokesman said last night “the historical photos serve to demonstrate the vulnerability of nearshore coral reefs, rather than a specific cause for their decline.

“Ongoing monitoring shows coral growth in some locations, however this doesn’t detract from the bigger picture, which shows shallow inshore areas of the Great Barrier Reef south of Port Douglas have clearly degraded over a period of decades.” Centre of Excellence for Coral Studies chairman Terry Hughes did not respond to questions from The Weekend Australian.

Professor Ridd was disciplined for breaching principle 1 of JCU’s code of conduct by “not displaying responsibility in respecting the reputations of other colleagues”. He has been told that if he does it again he may be found guilty of ­serious misconduct.

A JCU spokesman said it was university policy not to comment on individual staff, but that the university’s marine science was subject to “the same quality assurance processes that govern the conduct of, and delivery of, ­science internationally”. [...]

About a quarter of the Great Barrier Reef has died and could take years to rebuild. The damage is concentrated in the northern section off Cape York. The scientific response to the bleaching has exposed a rift ­between GBRMPA and the JCU’s Coral Bleaching Taskforce led by Professor Hughes over how bleaching data should be treated and presented to the public. Conservation groups have run hard on the issue, with graphic ­images of dying corals. All sides of politics have responded with ­increased funding to reduce sediment flow and to combat crown of thorns starfish.

University of Western Australia marine biologist Carlos Duarte argued in BioScience last year that bias contributed to “perpetuating the perception of ocean calamities in the absence of robust evidence”.

A paper published this year claimed scientific journals had exaggerated bad news on ocean acidification and played down the doubts. Former GBRMPA chairman Ian McPhail accused activists of “exaggerating the impact of coral bleaching for political and financial gain”. Dr McPhail told The Weekend Australian it “seems that there is a group of researchers who begin with the premise that all is disaster”.

Monday, 13 June 2016


This article by Christopher Booker explains why we are heading for disaster unless we change the policy.

Sunday, 12 June 2016


Financial Times, 29 May 2016

Barney Jopson and Pilita Clark
Donald Trump is sowing doubt over the Paris climate change pact as his hostility towards the deal and the growing swagger of his campaign focus attention on how he could undermine it as president.

The Republican candidate last week vowed to “cancel” the painstakingly negotiated agreement, a threat experts said was unrealistic. But his comments put a spotlight on its slow ratification and weak spots in President Barack Obama’s climate legacy.

While Mr Trump could not single-handedly scrap the agreement — which Washington and Beijing had rallied more than 190 countries to join — he could withdraw the US, the second largest greenhouse gas emitter after China, or block the action needed to cut emissions to the levels promised by Mr Obama.

But if Mr Trump used the presidency to cast doubt on the need for climate action, he could weaken the resolve of other leaders sceptical about the deal.

Attacks on the Paris agreement could occur at three different levels under a Trump presidency.

No single country can “cancel” the deal because it would require each of the nearly 200 nations that negotiated it to agree to abandon it. Once the agreement is in force it is also impossible for a country to withdraw overnight…

The Paris accord cannot take effect until it is formally ratified or joined by 55 countries accounting for 55 per cent of global emissions. So far, only 17 countries representing 0.04 per cent of emissions have ratified it.

China and the US have said they plan to join this year but they account for only about 40 per cent of emissions. Even under the most optimistic scenarios, the agreement may not start until 2018.

Saturday, 11 June 2016


This piece looks at the investigation by Rep. Lamar Smith into the research methods of the taxpayer-funded National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA).  He has been vilified for doing this, but it seems that he has good grounds for his investigation.

Friday, 10 June 2016


This article gives the details. It would seem that India is holding back in the hope that the West will give it more finance to induce it to sign. I expect Western leaders will fall for this as they seem to have done in the past. What it shows is how the image of getting India on board is much more important than actually cutting emissions of CO2, since the Paris agreement will not lead to that anyway.

Thursday, 9 June 2016


This article on Joanne Nova's blog shows how the international interest in the UK's EU Referendum is building, as the momentum swings towards voting to leave. So many last minute voters were trying to register that the website collapsed as midnight approached. Were they surging to vote remain or leave? We cannot be sure, but with just over two weeks to go it may be very close. If we vote leave, which I am hoping we will, then it will cause panic within the EU, as the UK is the second largest economy in there, and contributes a significant amount of money, not to mention the trade. They would like to punish us, but could they afford it?  Freed from EU constraints the UK could, if it chose the right government, cut back on its ridiculous climate change policies.

Wednesday, 8 June 2016


Windfarms Chief Admits England Is Not Windy Enough For More TurbinesDaily Mail, 6 June 2016

Liz Hull
ENGLAND is simply not windy enough to justify more onshore wind turbines, the head of the industry’s trade body admitted yesterday.

Hugh McNeal, the chief executive of RenewableUK, said that – while there was still a case for more onshore farms elsewhere in the UK – wind speeds in England were just not strong enough for new turbines to make economic sense.

Critics said his comments proved what they have argued all along – that wind farms are an expensive and ineffective power source.

Dubbing wind power a ‘failed medieval technology’, they said that Mr McNeal’s remarks called into question the viability of ‘several thousand’ new turbines currently in the planning stages which are still set to go ahead – as well as England’s existing 1,200 turbines.

Mr McNeal, who joined the industry body from the Department of Energy and Climate Change two months ago, said that new wind farms in England would not be able to compete with the price of electricity produced from gas plants. ‘We are almost certainly not talking about the possibility of new [onshore] plants in England,’ he said.

‘The project economics wouldn’t work; the wind speeds don’t allow for it.’ His comments came after the Government’s decision that from this month wind farms will no longer be eligible for generous taxpayer-funded subsidies – know as Renewable Obligation Certificates – which are offered to renewable energy projects. Britain has invested £1.25 billion in wind power, making it the country’s biggest renewable energy source.

But opponents point to figures which reveal that on some days wind farms meet as little as 0.5 per cent of the nation’s electricity demand – and are only profitable because of massive subsidies paid to operators.

Last year the UK’s 5,300 onshore wind turbines cost taxpayers £800 million – equivalent to an extra £10 a year on energy bills – in Government handouts, but generated less than 10 per cent of all the country’s energy.

Benny Peiser, director of the Global Warming Policy Forum, said Mr McNeal’s comments were a ‘cry by a desperate lobbyist who is conceding that wind turbines can only survive if the Government continues to hand out the cash’. He added:

‘But it is ordinary families that are paying for these subsidies and they continue to rise – renewables are predicted to cost us £8billion in subsidies by 2020.’

Despite the subsidy scrappage, ‘several thousand’ turbines that have been granted planning permission will still qualify. And ministers remain committed to wind as part of their green energy strategy, which aims to produce 15 per cent of all energy from renewables by 2020. [....]

Tuesday, 7 June 2016


The Sun Has Gone Completely BlankVencore Weather, 4 June 2016

Paul Dorian
The sun has gone completely blank. There are currently no visible sunspots – a sure sign of an approaching solar minimum – and this is the first spotless day on the sun since 2014. In fact, there has been only one spotless day on the sun since 2011 – until today that is.

There are no visible sunspots on the most current solar image; courtesy NASA/SDO,

The current solar cycle is the 24th since 1755 when extensive recording of solar sunspot activity began. Solar cycle number 24 is the weakest solar cycle in more than a century with the fewest sunspots since cycle 14 peaked in February 1906.

Sunspot numbers for solar cycles 22, 23 and 24 which shows a clear weakening trend; courtesy Dr. David Hathaway, NASA/MSFC
Sunspot numbers for solar cycles 22, 23 and 24 which shows a clear weakening trend; courtesy Dr. David Hathaway, NASA/MSFC

Info on the maximum phase
We are currently more than seven years into Solar Cycle 24 and it appears the solar maximum of this cycle was reached in April 2014 during a spike in activity (current location indicated by arrow above). Going back to 1755, there have been only a few solar cycles in the previous 23 that have had a lower number of sunspots during its maximum phase. The peak of activity in April 2014 was actually a second peak in solar cycle 24 that surpassed the level of an earlier peak which occurred in March 2012. While many solar cycles are double-peaked, this is the first one in which the second peak in sunspot number was larger than the first peak. The sunspot number plot (above) shows a clear weakening trend in solar cycles since solar cycle 22 peaked around 1990. The last solar minimum phase lasted from 2007 to 2009 and it was historically weak. In fact, it produced three of the most spotless days on the sun since the middle 1800’s (bar graph below).

Top "sunspotless" days since 1849; last solar minimum produced 3 of these years
Top “sunspotless” days since 1849; last solar minimum produced 3 of these years

Consequences of a solar minimum
Contrary to popular belief, solar minimum is not a period of complete quiet and inactivity as it is associated with numerous interesting changes. First, cosmic rays surge into the inner solar system with relative ease during periods of solar minimum. Galactic cosmic rays coming from outside the solar system must propagate upstream against the solar wind and a thicket of solar magnetic fields.

Solar wind decreases and sun’s magnetic field weakens during solar minimums making it easier for cosmic rays to reach the Earth. This is a more dangerous time for astronauts as the increase in potent cosmic rays can easily shatter a strand of human DNA. Also, during years of lower sunspot number, the sun’s extreme ultraviolet radiation (EUV) drops and the Earth’s upper atmosphere cools and contracts. With sharply lower aerodynamic drag, satellites have less trouble staying in orbit— a good thing. On the other hand, space junk tends to accumulate, making the space around Earth a more dangerous place for astronauts.

Consequences of weak solar cycles
There can be important consequences from weak solar cycles; especially, if they are part of a long-term pattern. First, this particular weak solar cycle has resulted in rather benign “space weather” in recent times with generally weaker-than-normal geomagnetic storms. By all Earth-based measures of geomagnetic and geoeffective solar activity, this cycle has been extremely quiet. However, while a weak solar cycle does suggest strong solar storms will occur less often than during stronger and more active cycles, it does not rule them out entirely. In fact, the famous “superstorm” Carrington Event of 1859 occurred during a weak solar cycle (number 10). In addition, there is some evidence that most large events such as strong solar flares and significant geomagnetic storms tend to occur in the declining phase of the solar cycle. In other words, there is still a chance for significant solar activity in the months and years ahead.

Second, it is pretty well understood that solar activity has a direct impact on temperatures at very high altitudes in a part of the Earth’s atmosphere called the thermosphere. This is the biggest layer of the Earth’s atmosphere which lies directly above the mesosphere and below the exosphere. Thermospheric temperatures increase with altitude due to absorption of highly energetic solar radiation and are highly dependent on solar activity.

Monday, 6 June 2016


This article by Christopher Booker highlights the bias of the BBC towards renewable energy. The broadcaster fails to report the subject in an even-handed way, instead trying to make out that renewables play a much more important part in the total energy output than they actually do. Is it any wonder the public are so badly informed when given such information?

Sunday, 5 June 2016


This post looks at the latest announcement from the Republican presidential candidate, and as far as global warming policy is concerned he appears to have come up with the most sensible approach I have seen. Let us hope he has a good campaign and gets elected so he can put his policy into action.

Saturday, 4 June 2016


This post gives the details of how the Shell shareholders were asked to vote on the company becoming based on 100% renewables. The result was as emphatic as it was predictable. Shell shareholders will vote for the best profits for the company, giving the best dividend for shareholders. They are not idealistic fools. If only our governments were equally fixed on giving the voters the best deal instead of paying lip service to the powerful green lobby.

Thursday, 2 June 2016


This article grabbed my attention when reading my copy of the Mail on Tuesday. Although it relates to Scotland, the idea behind it could easily be taken up by other nations. The worrying aspect of this is that a government could easily use this method of spying to try to control the views and attitudes of those such as parents and that could easily include sceptical views on climate change.

Personally I doubt if there are enough people willing to undertake this role of Named Person to cover all children, though there will always be some willing to act in this way.

Wednesday, 1 June 2016


This report gives the details which demolish the myth put forward by some alarmists that this is due to global warming. It is in fact part of a natural cycle as the report explains.

Tuesday, 31 May 2016


This piece gives the details of the situation. The voters may think again about the SNP if fracking in England starts to create the jobs that could have gone to Scotland.

Monday, 30 May 2016


This article attests to a new discovery that shows that there is a natural mechanism that makes clouds which suggests that the computer climate models are likely to have  underestimated the degree of cloudiness in the preindustrial atmosphere. The result of this is that the models have overestimated the future warming from CO2 emissions.

Sunday, 29 May 2016


This report links to the new paper with a summary. Of course readers of this blog will not be a bit surprised by this as it has been clear from the start that this was the case. This means that any savings in CO2 emissions by the UK are merely a pointless gesture - at great cost!

Saturday, 28 May 2016


I have no idea, but for those who like predictions here are a couple for you to choose from. One is the Met Office and the other is an amateur. Take your pick!

Friday, 27 May 2016


This article explains. So they seem to be saying that it is already too late to stop it. In that case why is there all the fuss? We might as well go down in comfort and keep warm or cool using cheap coal fired electricity. Of course they don't make that point, how odd! 

Thursday, 26 May 2016


This article explains. It seems the politicians  are ashamed of putting on these new charges, but feel obliged to do so in order to please their "friends in the UN".

Wednesday, 25 May 2016


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

Tuesday, 24 May 2016


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

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

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

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

Monday, 23 May 2016


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

Sunday, 22 May 2016


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

Saturday, 21 May 2016


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

Friday, 20 May 2016


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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Thursday, 19 May 2016


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

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

The truth of the matter was presented by Elizabeth May:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Wednesday, 18 May 2016


Reuters, 17 May 2016

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


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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Tuesday, 17 May 2016


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

Monday, 16 May 2016


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

Sunday, 15 May 2016


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

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

Saturday, 14 May 2016


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

Friday, 13 May 2016


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

Thursday, 12 May 2016


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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Kilimanjaro Still Has Snow

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The Weather Hasn’t Gotten Worse

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

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

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

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

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

The North Pole Still Has Ice

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

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

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

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

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