Tuesday, 9 February 2016

EU TO TAKE OVER UK's ENERGY POLICY

From Philip Foster:

Old Sparky
Private Eye 1411

Keeping the Lights on

THE prime minister's protracted negotiations on curbing benefits for
EU immigrants may be grabbing all the attention, but an issue of much
greater magnitude is gathering momentum in Brussels and going
unnoticed by even the most rabid Eurosceptics.

The European Commission's (EC) quiet but relentless drive to create a
"European energy union" is a brazen power (sic) grab - in the same way
it controls agriculture under the common agricultural policy ˜ for the
one big area of policy that's still largely a national prerogative.
Technically speaking energy union is still only on the commission's
wish-list, but it is determined "to bring the ideas of the Energy
Union closer to the member states" - ie, railroad them through - as
was made clear in documents published before Christmas.

Though they pay careful lip-service to the status quo - "While it is
for member states to determine their energy mix and while it is a
sovereign decision of each member state on how to decarbonise its
economy..." - you know there is a pretty big "but" coming. Thus: "EU
level coordination of [energy] policies is necessary... EU-level
policies are the most effective; a strong and reliable governance
process is needed to guarantee such coordination... National plans
should therefore from the outset build on regional consultations...
The [European] Commission will actively engage in the process."

How does the commission aim to override member states' existing
rights? "Governance of the Energy Union policies will be tackled. This
is necessary in order to make sure that both planning and reporting
reflects the integrated approach of the Energy Union... Will the
Energy Union governance be anchored in [new] EU legislation? Yes."

In addition "the commission will carry out a fitness check of the
energy acquis*" - the "acquis" being the growing list of powers the EU
has acquired from national governments. It will surprise no one when
the "fitness check" concludes that the commission needs to grab some
more.

The energy union "idea", meanwhile, is being expanded even before it
has become reality. "Energy Union entails negotiating with one voice
with third countries", says one document, which helpfully offers a
"suggestion a Common External Energy Policy"! The fact that it has
already been capitalised indicates that it is more than a mere
suggestion.

There is no sign yet of anyone applying the brakes to this latest
euro-juggernaut - or of anyone even noticing what is happening.
_____

*Note
The 'acquis' [short for 'Acquis Communautaire'] is a fundamental part
of the Treaty of Rome whereby any powers taken by/surrendered to the
Commission CANNOT be returned to individual States under any
circumstances. A fact that Mr Cameron clearly has no understanding of.

Monday, 8 February 2016

MET OFFICE PREDICTS GW TO RESUME

Here is an interesting prediction by the UK Met Office. It is only a five year prediction, but that is good as it will be quicker to see if they are right. Watch this space!


Sunday, 7 February 2016

GLOBAL WARMING CAUSING ANIMAL DEPRESSION SAYS "EXPERT"

This story from the Independent should have been saved for April 1st. I guess they couldn't wait. Actually these sort of stories are driving the average reader into the sceptic camp by making the global warming narrative into a laughing stock.


Saturday, 6 February 2016

60% OF ELECTRICITY COSTS ARE NON-ENERGY RELATED

Reuters, 1 February 2016

Karolin Schaps and Susanna Twidale


British households will not benefit from a fall in market electricity prices because their suppliers are facing rising costs elsewhere, such as green energy subsidies, which they say cancel out any wholesale price falls.

Electricity and gas prices traded on the open market have fallen 20-35 percent in recent months as milder-than-normal weather has curbed demand and falling commodity prices have added even more downward pressure.

Two of Britain’s ‘Big Six’ energy suppliers, E.ON and SSE, have so far announced price cuts of around 5 percent to household gas tariffs, but reductions to electricity prices are notably absent.

“Many of the other costs that make up an electricity bill and that we don’t control have increased or may increase,” said a spokeswoman for E.ON UK, whose gas prices will fall 5.1 percent from Monday.

“These include electricity network costs – transmission and distribution – as well as environmental levies, such as the renewable obligation and FiTs (feed-in-tariffs).”

Cornwall Energy data showed the costs of government policies, which also include discounts for low-income households and payments for energy efficiency measures, on energy suppliers have risen to the highest level ever.

This means non-energy costs now make up as much as 60 percent of the average British electricity bill, up from 45 percent four years ago, according to Cornwall Energy data.

The main drivers here are the increasing costs to help finance building renewable energy plants, such as solar panels or wind farms.

Suppliers’ cost of the Renewable Obligation, the outgoing mechanism to distribute green energy subsidies, is 12.86 pounds per megawatt-hour, up from 10.57 pounds a year ago, Cornwall Energy said.

“These utilities are not selling electricity, they’re passing through renewable subsidies,” said Mark Freshney, utilities equity analyst at Credit Suisse.

Friday, 5 February 2016

COMPUTER CLIMATE "RESEARCH" INTO UK WET WINTER - GIGO*

*GIGO - for anyone not familiar with this acronym, it stands for Garbage in -Garbage out.
Here's another excellent piece debunking some so-called research. Paul Homewood certainly does his homework, unlike the people who published this piece of pseudo-science. How easily Paul is able to show how extreme rainfall events not only occurred in the past, long before CO2 increases could have had any effect, but they were actually more frequent then. QED!

  

Thursday, 4 February 2016

ELECTRICITY COSTS - THE CONSUMER IS THE VICTIM OF "ADMINISTRATIVE PRICING"

This article explains what's happening to the electricity market in the UK, Germany and Denmark. As has been said before on this blog, it is a long way from a free market, and when markets are rigged they become very costly and they don't work. "Administrative pricing" is the phrase used by the author. In other words "rigged".


Wednesday, 3 February 2016

IOWA VOTES FOR THE MOST CLIMATE SCEPTIC REPUBLICAN CANDIDATE

This piece shows the result of the Iowa caucas. The winner was not the favourite, Donald Trump, but instead it went to Ted Cruze. Ted is well known for his sceptical views on global warming. He is a great speaker and maybe he could pull it off. Time will tell.

Tuesday, 2 February 2016

THE PRECAUTIONARY PRINCIPLE AND ITS ABUSE

Here's a good piece looking at the dreaded Precautionary Principle and its misuse to thwart progress by those who seek to control us.


Monday, 1 February 2016

PREDICTIONS FOR 2040 - OIL USE TO GROW BY 25% AND GAS BY 50%

This post gives the full picture as predicted by Exxon. They say that coal will slip by around 6%, but renewables will be producing only a tiny 4%. I particularly noted this piece, Rex Tillerson, CEO of Exxon, told his shareholders in May last year, that ‘his firm hadn’t invested in renewable energy because “We choose not to lose money on purpose.” So there we have it - follow the money.


Sunday, 31 January 2016

BIOMASS AND PRAWNS TO REPLACE ALUMINIUM SMELTING IN ANGLESEA

Here's the story. We are seeing the effects of the mad energy policy in the UK, when an aluminium smelting plant was forced to close due to high energy prices, and now we see a heavily subsidised biomass electricity generating plant is being combined with prawn production in order to provide the local jobs that were lost with the closure of the aluminium works. It has to be global warming madness.

Saturday, 30 January 2016

300 SCIENTISTS WANT NOAA TO RELEASE ITS GLOBAL WARMING DATA

This article gives the details. Why do these publicly funded bodies refuse to give out all their data if they have nothing to hide?


Friday, 29 January 2016

GERMANS PAY A HEAVY PRICE FOR GOING GREEN

This piece looks at the details. This huge cost would only be justified if it really made a significant difference to the climate, but we are becoming increasingly confident that it is not going to make the slightest difference.


Thursday, 28 January 2016

NO WARMING IN THE TROPOSPHERE SAY ALL DATA SETS

This article looks at the temperature changes in the troposphere, which the global warming hypothesis says should warm faster than the surface. The data from all the satellite measurements agree that this is not happening. Here is yet another reason to look again at the idea of dangerous warming of the Earth. In any other scientific hypothesis this would be happening, but not in this area. The politics now takes precedence over the science.

Wednesday, 27 January 2016

WHO'S AFRAID OF CHEAP OIL?

Well according to this article quite a few nations will be badly affected and it could lead to a financial crisis. One thing is certain - no one predicted the oil price fall correctly, just as no one predicted the banking crisis correctly back in 2008.  So how do we know what the result of cheap oil will be? It's as hard to predict the economic climate as it is to predict the atmospheric climate.


Tuesday, 26 January 2016

WARMIST PROPAGANDA SAYS THAT MELTING GLACIERS IS AN EARLY WARNING OF CLIMATE CHANGE

This piece looks at the early reports of melting glaciers from the beginning of the 20th century, making it quite clear that this was happening well before the rise in CO2 levels.

Monday, 25 January 2016

THE MYTH OF PEAK OIL

This piece from Roger Helmer MEP's excellent blog looks at the idea that oil will soon reach peak production and then become increasingly scarce leading to continuous price increase. This theory of "peak oil" has been speculated for a long time and is what the government were relying on to make renewable energy seem affordable. The reality now seems rather different as can be read in the linked article.


Sunday, 24 January 2016

RECORD TEMPERATURES - IT'S THE "BLOB" AND EL NINO, STUPID!

Here are the details which explain why it is foolish to claim that 2015 has anything to do with climate change. Media propaganda is saying otherwise, but in the end people will see through the propaganda and despise those who use it.


Saturday, 23 January 2016

HOTTEST YEAR? "WHY LEND CREDIBILITY TO THIS DISHONESTY", SAYS PROF. LINDZEN

Here is the article which looks at this. It is scandalous that the TV news bulletins report this "hottest year" stuff without reference to the satellite data that contradicts it. This is a clear example of reporting bias.


Friday, 22 January 2016

CLIMATE ALARMISTS JUMP THE GUN ON SURFACE TEMPERATURE RECORD

Here's the report which explains why we should treat the surface temperature for 2015 with caution, as it was a strong el nino year. We should look at subsequent years when there is likely to be a la nina event which has the opposite effect in cooling the surface. It is worth noting that the satellite temperature recordings did not produce a record. It was the third warmest - see here.


Thursday, 21 January 2016

FRACKING FIRMS TO CARRY OUT TESTS WITHOUT PLANNING PERMISSION

This article from the BBC gives the details. At last it seems the government are making an effort to get some fracking underway, much to the horror of the green activists. At this rate we will just get a decent amount of gas by the time the Climate Change Act declares we must stop using it.

Wednesday, 20 January 2016

BOB CARTER R.I.P. A SCHOLAR AND GENTLEMAN

It was with great sadness that I learnt of the death of one of the climate sceptic greats, Professor Bob Carter. He has so often been the face of reason in the debate about global warming. He had an image of great integrity combined with a deep knowledge of the subject. Always calm and considered in his response to interviewers, he will be greatly missed. Here is a good account of Bob's achievements. I particularly remember his role as an expert witness in the court case to keep Al Gore's film out of UK schools. It was his testimony that undoubtedly persuaded a high court judge to rule that Gore's film was full of errors and exaggerations. His work is testimony to his lifetime achievements.

What is also true is that we will not find people of his calibre to replace him. No young scientist today would dare to express the views that Bob did.


UK STILL SET TO GO OVER THE CLIMATE CLIFF

Here is Christopher Booker's latest article exposing the madness at the heart of the UK's energy policy. Sadly there is no end of this in sight as the Labour opposition would be just as mad, and in other areas they would be far worse.


Tuesday, 19 January 2016

JUDGE RULES "NECESSITY" IS NO DEFENCE FOR CLIMATE VANDALS

Read it here. At least judges in the USA seem to uphold the law, unlike those over here who bend over backwards to assist the green activists in their activities, such as here.

Monday, 18 January 2016

UK MOTORISTS FACE DEARER AND LESS EFFICIENT PETROL TO "FIGHT CLIMATE CHANGE"

That is the essence of the proposals in this article from the Telegraph. So this is what we have come to - making an inferior and yet more expensive fuel in order to "fight (non-existent) global warming". It is hard to imagine that governments could do such things, but it is sadly only too real in today's world.

Sunday, 17 January 2016

GERMANS TO PUT 2 BILLION EUROS TO SUBSIDISE ELECTRIC VEHICLES

Here is the article explaining the massive attempt at getting the public to buy electric vehicles. It just shows how desperate the government is, but why should the public buy an inferior vehicle that has a limited range even with the subsidy?


Saturday, 16 January 2016

FOSSIL FUELS ARE NOT SUBSIDISED

This article discusses the controversial suggestion made by climate alarmists that fossil fuels are somehow subsidised by governments and if this was not so then renewables would be cheaper than them. It is a complete nonsense.


Friday, 15 January 2016

AT LAST SOMEONE IS LOOKING AT THE REAL THREATS TO MANKIND

This article looks at the threat posed by large volcanic eruptions and sooner or later one will happen according to experts and I don't doubt they are right. When one does all this talk of climate change will disappear completely as we struggle for survival. I hope I never see it, but if it happens the world will change immediately and there is nothing we can do about it.


Thursday, 14 January 2016

THE OCEAN ACIDIFICATION SCARE IS DEBUNKED

This piece rebuts the extreme alarmism that is being put out about the subject of so-called ocean acidification. The very small effect of dissolved CO2 on the pH of sea water is not nearly enough to make it acidic, which is why I write 'so-called' effect. When you read the article you will see why it is in fact a massive exaggeration.


Wednesday, 13 January 2016

MORE ON AUSTRALIAN SCHOOL CLIMATE INDOCTRINATION

Here is the astonishing level of propaganda being pushed into Australian schools. You would imagine that exposing this would cause a furore in the media and an inquiry into what is going on, but I do not believe this has happened. In a way that is even more shocking than the extent of the indoctrination itself.


Tuesday, 12 January 2016

WATCH OUT FOR FLYING WIND TURBINES

Here is a scary account of wind turbine failure all over the world. Next time you go past a wind farm look out just in case, especially if it's windy.  If it wasn't for the fear of CO2 emissions we would not need these things, and certainly not in the numbers in which they are being put up.




Monday, 11 January 2016

GREENLAND ICE LOSS - NOT A PROBLEM!

Here are two headlines about Greenland's ice:

Greenland has lost 9 trillion tons of ice in the past 115 years.

Greenland has lost just 0.3% of its ice over the past 115 years.

In fact these two statements are both compatible with one another, according to the best available data. The first one is ideal for scaring the public into believing in climate alarm. The second one is very reassuring for climate sceptics. (In fact it is doubtful if such accuracy is possible)

Read all about it here


Sunday, 10 January 2016

THE IPCC STUFFED WITH THIRD WORLD STOOGES

This article explains the IPCC set up and how it is biased towards the large number of third world countries, all of which are hoping (expecting) to benefit from the hoped for large climate fund into which all the developed nations are expected to contribute. So what possible interest would all these place men have in declaring that CO2 induced global warming was exaggerated, or not a problem? None is the answer.

Saturday, 9 January 2016

MET OFFICE IN PROPAGANDA ATTEMPT OVER RAINFALL FIGURES

Here is a complete rebuttal of the latest Met Office claim that December 2015 was the wettest on record. If you read the link you can see that it is simply not true. Not even if, like the Met Office you only start at 1910. Go back into the 19th century and there is even more extreme wet weather. Unfortunately the TV news people don't bother to check these things and simply repeat what the Met Office tell them. Most of the papers are just as bad and so these untrue assertions go unchallenged, except for the bloggers who do the research like Paul Homewood, of Not A Lot Of People Know That. (I wish his blog had a shorter title)


Friday, 8 January 2016

CORRUPTION AT THE UN?

Here is an interesting article on the various goings on at the United Nations, the body behind the IPCC and its attempts to control CO2 emissions and from that the climate. It is interested to see how it appears to be mired in corruption.


Thursday, 7 January 2016

RAGING PROPAGANDA ON OCEAN ACIDIFICATION EXPOSED IN EMAILS

Here is the article showing the shameless way in which science is completely distorted. What is interesting is how the email correspondence between the authors and their scientific advisors reveals how they ignored advice that didn't suit their alarmist mission, so they went ahead and exaggerated anyway.

Wednesday, 6 January 2016

UK MP SPEAKS FOR COMMON SENSE ON GLOBAL WARMING

Here is a video clip from the UK House of Commons debate on the recent flooding in North England. Of course many MP's want to link this to 'climate change. The clip shows David TC Davis MP who has spoken out before for common sense on this issue. Of course he is one of a tiny minority who takes this position, but it is still an improvement on the past when only Peter Lilley and Philip Davis seemed to put their heads above the parapet. I look forward to 2016 when hopefully other MP's will join them.


Tuesday, 5 January 2016

THREE STORIES THE WARMISTS DON'T WANT TO SEE IN THE MEDIA

Here are the stories. Some of them have already been aired on this website, but it is worth looking at the article to remind ourselves.


Monday, 4 January 2016

ELECTRIC CARS - NO SIGN OF A BREAKTHROUGH

If the government are serious about reducing CO2 emissions they are soon going to have to get to grips with moving us on to electric cars. If this piece is anything to go by they will have an almighty battle to persuade us. I reckon they may think again when the time comes. 


Sunday, 3 January 2016

IS THE NEW CLIMATE TREATY SIMPLY A FLOP, OR A WOLF IN SHEEP'S CLOTHING?

That is the discussion in this article where the argument for the latter is made. This particularly applies in the USA where the president is trying to prevent the Senate from giving its verdict on the treaty.

Here's Matt Ridley's view of it. As you will read he thinks it a flop.

Saturday, 2 January 2016

PIERS CORBYN'S LETTER TO THE PRIME MINISTER


Delta House, 175-177 Borough High St, London SE1 1HR Tel +44(0)20 7939 9946. www.WeatherAction.com 

Mobile +44(0)7958713320; twitter @Piers_Corbyn




31 December 2015



To The Prime Minister Rt Hon David Cameron MP chair of ‘Cobra’ (Cabinet Office Briefing Room)

and UK Floods Minister Rory Stewart MP

copies to The Leader of the Opposition Rt Hon Jeremy Corbyn MP

and The Shadow Minister of Environment, Food and Rural Affairs Kerry McCarthy MP.



Dear Prime Minister,

WeatherAction offer of help in long range warning of further extreme weather (storms, floods and blizzards) in the UK this winter and advice on weather / climate changes over next 20 years

You may be aware that the end of year dangerous extreme storm (“Frank”) was predicted to the day 10 weeks ahead by WeatherAction’s solar-activity based forecasting technique along with simultaneous storms and blizzards including very cold blasts in USA  - See Download pdf: http://bit.ly/1Uheea5 and reportage on www.WeatherAction.com

The last storm of comparable extreme power to hit the UK, namely late October 2013, was also long-range predicted by WeatherAction’s solar-based technique (in that case 6 months ahead).

WeatherAction long range forecasts for the rest of the winter expect further extreme damaging storms, floods and cold blasts with blizzards in certain time periods all specified to a few days.  We would be happy to make these available with any updates to assist in preparedness.

Extreme weather prospects for the next 20 years

It is important to understand that all these - recent and over the last 7 years - extreme weather events in Britain & Ireland and home waters (1/600th of the global area) and around the world confirm the solar-activity based origins (and predictability) of these extremes and negate completely the CO2 hypothesis – the predictions of which have failed comprehensively (see WANews15No28PiersCorbynTheClimateChangeAct7yearsOn-NewUnderstandings & the fight to save UKSteel ).

Apart from the failure of the CO2 theory in its ‘confident’ prediction of more and more blazing hot summers in the UK and the end-of-snow in the UK and other temperate regions the problem with the actual dangerous weather events of this and recent years is they are the wrong type of extremes for the CO2 hypothesis and totally confirm the solar-based theory both in terms of event types and associated solar-activity.

The extremes in the northern hemisphere come from huge wild North-South swings in the elongated Jet stream (which is generally in average position shifted further South) which make both very mild/warm weather at times and also corresponding extreme cold blasts – such as the very recent astounding ‘unprecedented’ blizzards and cold in Texas and New Mexico, the likes of which the BBC’s woefully biased reportage consistently understates.  This “wild-Jet-stream” is exactly as predicted by our solar-based (with lunar modulation) theory.  The CO2-based hypothesis on the other hand requires a north-shifted shorter generally benign jet stream (which being shorter cannot wave much) giving (eg in UK) ongoing hot summers and mild snow-free winters; without wild contrasts.

The prospects for the UK in the next 20 years under the successful solar-lunar understanding of climate is more very extreme events in a generally colder climate – as happened in the two previous famous periods of generally low solar activity (the Maunder minimum and the Dalton minimum).  The events will include unimaginable, by recent standards, storms, like The Tempest of 1703 which came in the later part of the Maunder Minimum and which we expect in future to be able to predict in useful detail many months and possibly years ahead.  The CO2 hypothesis, on the other hand, will depart more and more from reality – eg as the Graph I showed on BBC (Andrew Neil interview), see http://www.bbc.co.uk/iplayer/episode/b06rjqh1/this-week-byelection-special  or visit www.WeatherAction.com  

Given the new scientific information the weather observations represent there should now be new discussion as provided for under The Climate Change Act Section 6 part 2 to consider appropriate changes to the ‘carbon taxing’ measure of the Act. The certainty (under solar-lunar understanding) of more weather extremes in the next two decades and the failure of the CO2 theory means that all anti-carbon measures, taxes and money-wasting schemes such as wind-farms should cease and instead more resources be diverted to emergency services and practical water and flood management safety schemes.

Yours in application of evidence-based science for the public good,

Piers Corbyn, ARCS (1st class Physics), FRAS, FRMetS, MSc (astrophysics).

Friday, 1 January 2016

WHAT IS THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN BELIEF IN SANTA AND IN CLIMATE ALARMISM?

In my analogy I equate the developed nations with parents and the developing nations with children. In both cases the 'children' are told they have to be good and then they will receive something they want. In both cases the story is amazingly far-fetched. Santa visits every house on a flying sleigh pulled by reindeer, the nations leaders are told that they can create a better climate by reducing CO2 emissions. I would also suggest that many children over around 6 years old really do not believe in Santa, but they continue to claim they do in the hope that the presents will keep coming. I also suspect that many politicians in the developing world do not believe that reducing CO2 will make any difference to the climate, but they continue to claim publicly that they do because they want to receive a share of the money from the promised climate fund.

And what about the developed nations, you ask, what do they get out of it? For that matter what do parents get out of the Santa story? The answer is nothing really. It has simply become a ritual and most people follow it simply because everyone else does it. Can anyone think of a better explanation?

Happy New Year to everyone.

THE LONGEST RUNNING PANTOMIME IN TOWN

Christopher Booker gets us into the panto spirit by invoking his list of the climate pantomime villains and dames. See if you agree with him and join in with the boos and "oh no he isn't" etc. Booker's weekly column is the longest running thorn in the side of the warmist brigade and long may he continue to be so. At 78 years of age he still seems to have a lot of energy.


Thursday, 31 December 2015

UN ORGANISATION IN ATTEMPTED FUEL MARKET MANIPULATION

This article explains what is being done to try to remove investments from fossil fuel companies and into renewable energy. Of course those attempting to do this will claim that it is being done to 'save the planet', but many people now realise that the evidence to back up this claim simply doesn't exist. It is also true that if they were successful (which is highly unlikely) they would cause financial hardship to many investors in what is a perfectly legal investment. Normally manipulating the market would be a criminal offence. Why should these people be exempt from this in a free market economy?


Wednesday, 30 December 2015

ANOTHER SCIENTIST BECOMES A GLOBAL WARMING SCEPTIC

Scientist Mike Van Biezen  had for some years accepted the argument for reducing CO2 emissions to prevent global warming, but now after carrying out detailed research, he has come to the conclusion that it is massively exaggerated. He is part of a growing number of well qualified scientists who have reached the same conclusion. Read his detailed analysis here.


Tuesday, 29 December 2015

UPDATE ON POLAR BEARS

Here's a good piece from Roger Helmer MEP on the way those pushing the climate alarm issue try to make out that, despite evidence to the contrary, the polar bear is still under threat. It is an attempt to keep the alarm going. It would not be needed if there was real alarm.


Monday, 28 December 2015

THE UNTOLD STORY BEHIND THE UK FLOODING

This image highlights the irony of on the one hand the government's desperation to increase housebuilding in order to accommodate the huge influx of migrants, and on the other hand the futility of building on flood plains. The government continually go on about climate change and the increased risk of flooding, while at the same time urging planning authorities to grant permission to build where common sense says it is foolish to do so. At the same time the EU has all but banned the dredging of rivers in order to conserve the ecology of the river bed (but not the human inhabitants of the nearby towns and villages). Read more about it here.

UPDATE
The story is being told in the Mail. Read it here.



Sunday, 27 December 2015

SATELLITE RECORDS SHOW WE'RE ON TRACK TO BEAT THE CLIMATE GOAL OF 1.5C

Contrary to the doom and gloom you read a few days ago, see here
This report  shows that the world can relax and forget about all the emission reduction schemes, because the temperature record of the past 37 years shows that we are on track to have a warming of just 1.1C by the end of the century which is lower than the best target of 1.5C set by the recent Paris conference. So rejoice and turn up the central heating, or take a flight in your private jet, no need to feel guilty.

Saturday, 26 December 2015

NEW STUDY SHOWS USA WARMING IS OVER-ESTIMATED BY 50%

Here is a piece referring to the new study. It is part of ongoing research into the siting of weather recording data including temperature measuring devices. Many of them are situated in quite unsuitable locations close to tarmac, concrete and devices like air-conditioning units and exhausts. So it is no wonder that many give inflated temperature readings. I wonder why no official seems to even recognise this, let alone make any compensation for it. Could it possibly be that it suits their purpose not to?




Friday, 25 December 2015

PARIS POW WOW HEAP GOOD

Here's something to make you chuckle during the festive season. I think Roy Spencer has it about right too. This may be the season of goodwill, but the developing world seem to be taking us for fools if they expect us to hand them $100 billion a year for the foreseeable future. Our politicians would do well to remember that charity begins at home, particularly as they are handling our money, not theirs. 

A merry Christmas to all readers.

Thursday, 24 December 2015

COMMERCIAL-SCALE UK FRACKING IN THE NEXT DECADE

This report gives the details. Even this pace does not seem quick, but very little happens quickly in the UK these days, such are the layers of bureaucracy that have to be gone through. Gone are the days of Churchill and his "action this day", but then there was a war on! But does the government not realise that in a decade we will be phasing out gas? Someone will have to give way - will it be those in DECC (Department of Energy and Climate Change) or the Treasury? My money's on (and in) the Treasury. DECC will probably be renamed DE.


Wednesday, 23 December 2015

COULD WE BE SAYING "GOODBYE TO GAS" IN THE NEXT TWENTY YEARS?

This article explains how, if we stick to the government's plan, we will have to say goodbye to our gas cooker, our gas fire and our gas central heating in the next couple of decades. It seems inconceivable that this could happen, after all at the same time the government are promising to go all out to get fracking. So is this merely scaremongering? It seems like it is. I just cannot imagine any elected government being able to do it. Who would bear the cost? The only thing remotely like it was the changeover from coal gas to natural gas in the 1970's, but this was on a different scale as it only required equipment to be modified, not scrapped. If the government covered the cost out of taxation it would cost billions and require extra taxes - not a popular move. And afterwards instead of relatively cheap reliable gas we would be left with very expensive and probably unreliable electricity. What a scenario.

Tuesday, 22 December 2015

STOP EVERYTHING - WE'RE ALREADY DOOMED

This article explains that the Paris climate conference seems to have slipped up when insisting they work towards a 1.5C maximum temperature rise, because apparently using their own figures for equilibrium climate sensitivity it can be shown that (according to their own equations) we are already at the level of CO2 that they claim would give this much rise. Oh dear! On the other hand it could be argued that since this is unachievable we might as well forget the whole thing and hope for the best. 

Monday, 21 December 2015

IPCC LEAD AUTHOR REJOICES AT THE PARIS AGREEMENT

This article shows an email from a leading IPCC scientist in which he expresses his delight at the outcome of the recent Paris climate change conference. It reveals clearly just how involved the scientist is in the politics of this science. His email, which is to his colleagues, also reveals that he is confident that all his colleagues will agree with him. So where is the objective science? It seems to have become overwhelmed and subsumed by the politics.

If the global warming hypothesis was treated objectively then it would now have to be set aside, since it is not in accord with the evidence in two key areas. First the lack of warming of the Earth's lower atmosphere, despite increasing emissions of CO2. Second the complete mismatch between the projections of the computer climate models and the real temperatures.

Sunday, 20 December 2015

£11 BILLION SMART METER PROGRAMME IN CHAOS DUE TO EU

What a farce we have here in the UK over so-called smart meters. As if the cost of electricity wasn't already high enough, we now have to add on the cost of bungling EU bureaucrats meddling to make it even higher. If the EU wanted to make itself unpopular they couldn't do a better job.



Saturday, 19 December 2015

AUSSIE SCHOOLS FALL PREY TO CLIMATE PROPAGANDA, WORSE THAN IN UK

This article reveals the quite extraordinary way that Australian schools have been taken over by green activists. It is so blatant that I am amazed that they can get away with it. Where are the teachers who have a sense of balance, or are they all in a trance under some sort of spell? I find it hard to believe that UK schools could go that far, though we know that activism is already here too. See here and here and here

Friday, 18 December 2015

WHY THE CLIMATE CHANGE ACT MUST BE SCRAPPED

Telegraph 12/12/15

 Now the Paris summit has ended, it's more important than ever to separate  energy and climate change policy

 By Owen Paterson

 What was the point of the Paris Climate  Change summit? Ostensibly the politicians and officials met to discuss  the effects of global warming and how to mitigate them.  Climate change is certainly a useful political tool. International  heads of state burnished their credentials as they spoke in Paris of  their intent to protect the world from rising temperatures.

Locally  too, the words "climate change" can be politically expedient. Indeed,  as Cumbria is left considering the aftermath of the floods - which  broke records in terms of river height and wrought havoc emotionally  and financially - politicians and officials have been quick to blame  climate change. It is, frankly, a cheap way to abdicate any  responsibility for the devastating effect of flooding.

I say this because last year, 17 senior climatologists published a  paper in which they said that blaming climate change for flood losses  turns the losses into a global issue - thereby putting them beyond the  control of national institutions. The evidence also suggests that  rainfall in Cumbria last weekend only marginally overtook much older  records, if at all. Indeed, the frequency of such floods in the past  three decades, according to scientists from Lancaster University, is  not unusual and has fallen markedly from the mid-20th century.  My point is that this dreadful flooding could easily have happened  even if the climate were not changing, since it is largely caused by  landscape changes. And the measures the world has taken against  climate change have not and will not significantly change the risk of  flooding in Cumbria.

So what, then, have these 21 years of exchanging hot air on the  subject actually achieved? Very little in terms of restricting global  emissions -just look at India and China - but as far as Britain is
concerned, they have had a devastating effect on our energy policy.  Back in 2011, the world pledged to produce binding legal targets on  emissions for all countries at this Paris meeting. But that ambition  has been abandoned in favour of vague "intended" national promises.  Each country must now set its own energy policy. So China and India -  in fact any country - can continue to burn fossil fuels at will.

Apart from Britain. We are left uniquely isolated and vulnerable as  the only country in the world with a legal target for reducing  emissions, thanks to our Climate Change Act of 2008. No other country  will be breaking its own law if it misses its target. But we have a  binding target to reduce emissions by 80 per cent by 2050. We have  repeatedly boasted that we are setting the world an example - but the  world seems disinclined to take notice.

Lucky for us, then, that Amber Rudd, the Secretary of State for Energy  and Climate Change, is beginning to dismantle the disgraceful legacy  of her three predecessors, Ed Miliband, Chris Huhne and Ed Davey,  which has delivered no significant cuts in emissions while risking  blackouts, killing jobs in the aluminium and steel industries, hugely  inflating cost and worsening fuel poverty.

Her recommendations make a good start, but there is much further to go  if she is to rescue the British economy from an impending energy  crisis.

The 2050 target commits us to decarbonising our electricity,  abolishing gas as a fuel for cooking and heating our homes, and  converting two thirds of our cars to electric. These aims come at an
astronomical cost. Since wind does not significantly reduce emissions  (because of the need for back-up when it is not blowing) and because  solar power is useless at night and in winter, it would mean a vast investment in nuclear power, equivalent to building a new Hinkley Point every three years for 35 years. That's neither feasible nor  affordable.

So while it is great news that the Government is killing wind  subsidies onshore and abandoning the costly pipe dream of carbon  capture and storage, we must go further and get rid of offshore wind
subsidies (the most costly of all) and "biomass" subsidies.

By calling for an acceleration of the development of shale gas and by  embracing the idea of small modular nuclear reactors, the Government  is insuring that gas will for many decades be the most affordable and  cleanest of the fuels available to the world. But our dash for wind  power so distorted the electricity market that it has actually  prevented the construction of efficient and cheap combined-cycle gas  turbines.

So, in the wake of the noncommittal Paris climate talks, we need to  make sure we decouple energy policy from climate change policy, and  restore resilience to the system. Specifically, it is vital that the  2008 Climate Change Act, Ed Miliband's most pernicious legacy, be  suspended and eventually repealed. Clause 2 enables the Secretary of  State to amend the 2050 target, which could have the immediate effect  of suspending it. To avoid failure in 10-20 years' time, that decision  must be taken now.

0wen Paterson MP was secretary of state for the environment from  2012-2014

Thursday, 17 December 2015

JOHN CHRISTY TESTIMONY TO SENATE HEARING ON CLIMATE CHANGE

Here is Dr Christy's measured and very convincing testimony.  What a contrast to the style of Mark Steyn, though the sentiment is the same. Both are well worth reading and contain some important truths. Both men should be saluted as men of courage in highlighting the failings in the arguments for the current policies on global warming.


Wednesday, 16 December 2015

MARK STEYN SENATE TESTIMONY - MUST READ!

Here is the link to this extraordinary tour de force by this fearless writer. He naturally criticises Michael Mann, but then gives a damning indictment of the court system, the judges, and even the senators themselves.

Tuesday, 15 December 2015

USA SENATE HEARING INTO THE MAGNITUDE OF THE HUMAN IMPACT ON CLIMATE

Senate Hearing: Data or Dogma


by Judith Curry
The Senate Commerce Committee Hearing ‘Data or Dogma? Promoting Open Inquiry in the Debate Over the Magnitude of the Human Impact on Earth’s Climate‘ is about to begin.

The website for the Hearing is at the Commerce web site [link].  Witnesses:
  • Dr. John Christy
  • Dr. Judith Curry
  • Dr. William Happer
  • Mr. Mark Steyn
  • Dr. David Titley
It is my understanding that there will be a podcast on the web site, and that the Hearing will be televised on CSPAN, and that links to the testimonies will be available on the web site.
John Christy’s testimony [ChristyJR]
Mark Steyn’s testimony is a MUST READ [Steyn testimony]
My testimony is here [Curry Senate testimony 2015].  Below is the text of my verbal remarks.
JC verbal remarks
I thank the Chairman and the Committee for the opportunity to offer testimony today.
Prior to 2009, I felt that supporting the IPCC consensus on climate change was the responsible thing to do. I bought into the argument: “Don’t trust what one scientist says, trust what an international team of a thousand scientists has said, after years of careful deliberation.” That all changed for me in November 2009, following the leaked Climategate emails, that illustrated the sausage making and even bullying that went into building the consensus.
I starting speaking out, saying that scientists needed to do better at making the data and supporting information publicly available, being more transparent about how they reached conclusions, doing a better job of assessing uncertainties, and actively engaging with scientists having minority perspectives. The response of my colleagues to this is summed up by the title of a 2010 article in the Scientific American: Climate Heretic Judith Curry Turns on Her Colleagues.
I came to the growing realization that I had fallen into the trap of groupthink. I had accepted the consensus based on 2nd order evidence: the assertion that a consensus existed. I began making an independent assessment of topics in climate science that had the most relevance to policy.
What have I concluded from this assessment?
Human caused climate change is a theory in which the basic mechanism is well understood, but whose magnitude is highly uncertain. No one questions that surface temperatures have increased overall since 1880, or that humans are adding carbon dioxide to the atmosphere, or that carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases have a warming effect on the planet. However there is considerable uncertainty and disagreement about the most consequential issues: whether the warming has been dominated by human causes versus natural variability, how much the planet will warm in the 21st century, and whether warming is ‘dangerous’.
The central issue in the scientific debate on climate change is the extent to which the recent (and future) warming is caused by humans versus natural climate variability. Research effort and funding has focused on understanding human causes of climate change. However we have been misled in our quest to understand climate change, by not paying sufficient attention to natural causes of climate change, in particular from the sun and from the long-term oscillations in ocean circulations.
Why do scientists disagree about climate change? The historical data is sparse and inadequate. There is disagreement about the value of different classes of evidence, notably the value of global climate models. There is disagreement about the appropriate logical framework for linking and assessing the evidence. And scientists disagree over assessments of areas of ambiguity and ignorance.

Monday, 14 December 2015

COMIC RELIEF INTO CLIMATE CHANGE

Now we learn that Comic Relief, the charity set up to help the disadvantaged, is into climate change. Read about it here. These charities are now big businesses employing large numbers of people, some on high salaries. They are into a whole range of things (where the money can be found!).

Sunday, 13 December 2015

THE CLIMATE TREATY - WEAK AND FEEBLE, YET DEVASTATING FOR THOSE WHO OBEY IT

Here are the main points. It seems that none of it is legally binding, so it all depends on the willingness of the various nations to act on it. Unfortunately, in the case of the UK, we have both main parties fully signed up to follow it to the letter. Whereas in China, India, Japan, Russia, etc. etc. they will pay lip service to it and then fiddle their figures to show what good boys they are at best. In some cases they will just ignore it altogether while the Third World continues unabated, while moaning that they need more finance. What a farce!


PARIS HOSTS PREMIERE OF CLIMATE HUSTLE

Here is a link to an article giving details of the premiere of the new climate sceptic film Climate Hustle. I am hoping that there will soon be an opportunity to view the film. As soon as I find a link I will add it to the blog.

Saturday, 12 December 2015

2015 NOT LIKELY TO BE THE WARMEST YEAR

This article by Roy Spencer looks at the reasons for this prediction. He also speculates about next year which depends on whether the El Nino continues strongly or fizzles out.


Friday, 11 December 2015

LATEST CLIMATE TALKS HEADING FOR STALEMATE

One after the other, developed nations took the floor demanding that developing countries should also pay for climate change. [What climate change, I would ask?]

“Kerry’s statement against differentiation and legal obligations was shocking. They (developed countries) see this is an opportunity to walk away from their obligations. At all costs the developed countries want the rules rewritten in departure from all the principles and provisions of the convention,” said Meena Raman of Third World Network, an observer group.

Read it all here.

It seems rather different to the TV news here in the UK, which talks about being "on the brink of a historic agreement."





THE TRUTH ABOUT CHINA AND CO2 EMISSIONS

new report about China and its attitude to controlling its CO2 emissions has just been published by the GWPF. It explains the rationale of the Chinese leadership to the West's call for CO2 emission reductions which the media seem to deliberately confuse with their pollution problem caused by oxides of nitrogen and sulphur. The report confirms what most of us already know - that China is only paying lip-service to CO2 reductions. We already know this from the ridiculous "deal" between the Chinese leadership and President Obama, whereby Obama pledged to reduce the USA emissions in return for China doing nothing until 2030, surely one of the most one-sided deals in history.


Thursday, 10 December 2015

LATEST DRAFT OF NEW CLIMATE AGREEMENT

Read a summary here. There appears to be a lot of room for changes before any agreement is signed. The developed nations would be mad to sign up to pay any damages for extreme weather events, but who says they aren't mad enough to do it?

 

UK GOVERNMENT SPENDS TWICE AS MUCH ON CLIMATE CHANGE ABROAD AS ON FLOOD PREVENTION IN THE UK

Here is the article which gives the information put forward by the UK climate minister (Liz Truss). Most UK residents would be appalled to learn that their government is giving away so much of the taxpayers money to foreign countries when they are not spending nearly enough to protect UK residents from flooding in our own country.  Tackled over why money was being spent abroad rather than in the UK, Ms Truss claimed the cash was needed to combat the threat from brutal jihadists such as Islamic State (ISIS or ISIL). How this would affect them she did not elaborate. This is beyond parody.

What is astonishing is that this is not by a Labour government, but a Conservative one. What choice do UK citizens have? Answer - none.


Wednesday, 9 December 2015

GET THE MESSAGE OUT - THE SCEPTICS ARE WINNING THE ARGUMENT

Read all about it here. There is still a very long way to go, but it is heartening to know that when climate sceptics write good articles and letters to the press it has a good effect, according to the new study cited in the link. The evidence is on the side of the sceptics, so all we have to do is put it into the public domain. This is why alarmists want to close us down, because they know their arguments are weak. Even though they have all the big money and all the apparatus of the state, when people are confronted by the simple truth, which alarmists are desperate to keep hidden from them, it is more compelling than all their predictions.

So write those letters and tell the facts to those who are interested, specially to young people who are being brainwashed. We can open their eyes to information they may never have seen.


Tuesday, 8 December 2015

BBC IN ORWELLIAN ATTEMPT TO SILENCE CLIMATE CHANGE SCEPTICS

This article explains what has been going on. It really is extraordinary the lengths that the BBC is going to, to prevent any contrary point of view on climate change from reaching viewers. The programme concerned was meant to be light-hearted and yet even this was too much for the po-faced ideologues at the top of the BBC.  You could imagine this happening in some muslim fundamentalist regime, and yet here it is at the BBC. They are clearly afraid of the public even seeing the climate alarmists creed even being gently mocked.


Monday, 7 December 2015

POOR NATIONS WANT A TRILLION $ TO FIX CLIMATE

Here is the article. Do they think we are completely mad? Unfortunately when it comes to our political leaders they might not be far wrong. Let's hope that there are still some sane people giving our leaders advice.

Sunday, 6 December 2015

IF PARIS WERE TO SUCCEED IT WOULD SAVE A MEASLY 0.047 DEGREES

Please indulge me while I take you on a flight of fancy. I want you to imagine that all the nations meeting in Paris agree to implement the climate pledges they have made, and then actually go on to implement those same pledges. "Ridiculous", I hear you say - but bear with me. What would the result of all that pain and cost (about a trillion dollars it is estimated) be in terms of lowering the planet's surface temperature from where it would be if no one bothered to change anything? Well the calculation has been done using the figures supplied and apparently it is 0.047 degrees Celsius. You can read the background here. Amazing isn't it that so much effort is going into something to achieve so little. BUT THEN THIS IS MUCH MORE ABOUT THE MONEY THAN IT IS ABOUT THE CLIMATE

  

Saturday, 5 December 2015

PIERS CORBYN ON BBC TO GIVE SCEPTIC VIEW ON CLIMATE CHANGE

Sceptical views on climate change have been effectively banned on mainstream TV here in the UK, so I thought I must be dreaming when I saw this piece (starting around 6 minutes in) on Thursday's 'This Week By Election Special' politics show with Andrew Neil. True it was on at around 11.45pm, but it was on BBC 1. Piers is the man who has a track record of making good long range weather forecasts and has for a long time been staunchly sceptical of the theory of dangerous man made global warming. His brother, Jeremy, is the new leader of the UK Labour Party. Sadly he doesn't share Piers' views on global warming. What was also interesting was the sceptical view of Michael Portillo, the man on the right of screen, a one time cabinet minister in Margaret Thatcher's government. He is now a journalist and TV presenter who's views might be taken seriously. Piers is not very widely known to the general public, though his connection to the Labour leader is helping to enhance it.


Friday, 4 December 2015

MAJORITY OF UK ARE CLIMATE CHANGE SCEPTICS SAYS POLL

Here is the poll and it is hard to believe that there are so many sceptics, considering all the hype and propaganda that has been put out in the media over the past weeks and months. Perhaps too much propaganda is actually having a negative effect.


Thursday, 3 December 2015

THE END IS NIGH FOR CLIMATE ACTIVISTS

Charles MooreThe Daily Telegraph, 30 November 2015
 The reason that there will not be a legally binding agreement (or at least not a genuinely enforceable one) is the growth of something which the Left has always called for, but doesn’t quite like when it gets it – the power of the developing world.

Poor Paris. Less than three weeks ago, the scene of carnage; this week, the venue for saving the planet. Because of security after the Isil atrocities, the City of Light was spared a planned climate change march, but London had one on Sunday, attended by what the ever-Green BBC optimistically described as “tens of thousands”. One of the march’s leaders, the fashion designer Dame Vivienne Westwood, said: “Global warming is at a tipping point. If we go past it we can’t stop it. We are there right now.”

In this view, Dame Vivienne accords with the Prince of Wales, who predicted in Rio de Janeiro in March 2009, that there were “less than 100 months to act” to prevent “catastrophic climate change”. In other words, it’s all over by July 2017.

So there is a very real hope that the 21st UN Climate Change Conference (COP 21), which starts on Monday, will be the last. Either Prince Charles and Dame Vivienne will prevail, and COP 21 will rescue Mother Earth from destruction by agreeing worldwide legally binding carbon emission restraints; or they won’t, and then, by their own logic, it will be too late for any international conference to do anything ever again, so they might as well shut up. For those of a more sceptical cast of mind, there is a third possibility, which is that the Prince and the dressmaker will fail, no legally binding targets will be agreed, and the world will go on very much as before. I would bet His Royal Highness an enormous amount of money on this last outcome, secure in the knowledge that, if I am wrong, I will not be around to pay out, but if he is wrong, he will be.

The reason that there will not be a legally binding agreement (or at least not a genuinely enforceable one) is the growth of something which the Left has always called for, but doesn’t quite like when it gets it – the power of the developing world. India, for example, sees it as “carbon imperialism” for the West to deny it the fossil-fuelled industrialisation which gave us a more than 100 years’ start on the rest of the world. A great many formerly backward countries are at last getting rich and they will not sacrifice their new prosperity on the altar of eco-virtue.

Nearly seven years ago, at COP 15 in Copenhagen, Barack Obama, bearing his Nobel Prize and at the height of his moral prestige, pleaded with them, to no avail. What will make them listen to him now, in the twilight of his presidency?

Wednesday, 2 December 2015

WHY SCIENTISTS DISAGREE ABOUT GLOBAL WARMING

Here's a new essay on this crucial subject by some well-informed people. There has been a lot written about the so-called "scientific consensus" by those who wish to promote the warmist cause, that this new essay is needed to redress the balance and set the record straight. There is no consensus. In fact there is a massive debate over the main issue, which is what effect on climate will an increase in CO2 caused by burning fossil fuels have. That is (quite literally!) the burning question.

Tuesday, 1 December 2015

DESPARATE MEASURES TO GET US TO ACCEPT THE CLIMATE ALARMISTS

On the main 6.30pm news on ITV I watched the massive hype over the start of the latest Climate Conference in Paris. The coverage was (predictably) entirely in support of efforts to cut CO2 emissions, but what was so wrong was that they showed shots of pollution in big cities in India and China caused by poor control of exhaust gases and effluent chimney stacks, combined with lack of wind to remove it. This was deliberately juxtaposed with the need to reduce CO2. In other words they were deliberately trying to tell viewers that this pollution was caused by CO2. It was shameless propaganda relying on the ignorance of a large part of their viewers. I hope they are wrong and that a significant number of viewers will see through this. In the end I hope that this will turn the intelligent people against them.

Here is another piece linking air pollution with CO2 emissions, this time in the Mail.

THE REAL COST OF CLIMATE CHANGE POLICIES

David Rose has come to the heart of the matter with this piece, scroll down past the piece on Prince Charles to reach the article on job losses in Scunthorpe. Here we see the cumulative effect of the government's attempt to cut CO2 emissions. This is only the start. This is small beer compared to what is coming down the tracks if we continue with unilateral action to reduce CO2 emissions. Will the government wake up soon or will they continue to waste millions on a hopeless quest to 'fix the climate'?

This is the face of climate change policies that its supporters simply don't get. Many of them don't even link the two. To them it's just another cuddly policy to 'save the planet'.

Monday, 30 November 2015

HOW CHILDREN ARE USED FOR POLITICAL CAMPAIGNING ON CLIMATE CHANGE

Here is a harmless-looking organisation that is active right near me. If you click on the link you will find the website full of pictures of New Forest ponies and trees. They also support many excellent initiatives such as encouraging recycling and healthy eating, exercise, etc. So far so good. But along with these uncontroversial campaigns they also, in common no doubt with many other similar organisations, encourage 'action on climate change'. You can see how this bit is just slipped in along with all the other bits.

Maybe the people running this just don't think there is any controversy in taking 'action on climate change' in which case they must be very blinkered in not seeing all the articles in the press and on-line referring to the pause in global temperature, the job losses due to high energy prices caused by green policies and the massive cost of reducing CO2 emissions. Alternatively they are aware but simply refuse to acknowledge them.

In either case they are quite intentionally encouraging children from as young as four to take part in a political campaign to influence political leaders to bring in stricter targets to control CO2 emissions. This campaign can be accessed by clicking the link near the bottom of their home page. It is entitled 'New Forest Postcard to Paris'.

I would never have heard about this, but for an article in our local paper the Advertiser and Times (A and T), which explained what was happening. I decided to write a letter to the paper outlining my objections. Here it is:

SIR - In last week's A and T we were informed that New Forest children, including those at pre-school, were being encouraged to write 'postcards to Paris' to try and influence the outcome of the UN Climate Conference.  This may seem like harmless fun, but what the children are unaware of is that this is a hugely controversial and highly political subject.  


It is therefore evident that the children are being encouraged by the adults in charge of them to promote a political campaign.  I am sure the adults believe that this is a simple case of supporting a good cause, like campaigns to eliminate poverty, hunger, etc. But this is not the case at all. There are serious issues over both the extent of the problem as well as the proposed solutions.

 To appreciate just how political this subject has become, just see what happened to Philip Verdier, a leading meteorologist on French television, when he wrote a book critical of some of the more alarming claims used to push the case for stricter controls on CO2 emissions. He was sacked. Others who have spoken out have had similar treatment in what has become a modern witch-hunt.


Let's be clear, the severe cuts in CO2 emissions being proposed would restrict the availability of cheap energy and condemn poor people in the Third World to cook on wood or dung-fuelled fires for many more years with all the attendant lung damage due to smoke inhalation that this causes.  Here in the UK some energy-intensive industries such as steel making and aluminium smelting have already been forced to close due to high energy costs. The jobs have simply moved to nations which are not prepared to sign up to cut CO2 emissions, such as India and China.


What next? Should children be writing postcards asking to raise the minimum wage or to ban the fur trade? It is vitally important that children should receive a balanced education free from political propaganda, however well-meaning. 

Yours faithfully,
Derek Tipp

If it gets published on Saturday (5 Dec) I will be interested to see what the public response is, if any, in the following edition (12 Dec) Also what  the participants in this project have to say. I will, of course, keep you posted with any updates.
UPDATE 1
The letter has been accepted for publication with two minor changes which the editor required. These were minor and did not detract from the message.
UPDATE 2 - 12 December
Surprisingly there were no letters objecting to mine, just one letter in reply to mine which was in support.



Sunday, 29 November 2015

UN AT LOGGERHEADS WITH ITSELF OVER CLIMATE

Here are the details. It just shows to me how desperate they are to hype up the so-called danger of global warming, when respectable scientists are saying that these dangers do not actually exist at present. The so-called danger is all about the models of future climate. Perhaps they should re-write Dickens' Christmas Carol, with someone being visited by Climate Past, and then the scary Climate Future. I'd better not give them ideas!


Saturday, 28 November 2015

US STATES WARN CHINA, INDIA THAT OBAMA'S CLIMATE PLAN IS ILLEGAL

Financial Times, 25 November 2015

Ed Crooks
 
State officials in West Virginia and Texas are sending a letter to the governments of China, India and other countries, arguing that US President Barack Obama’s plan to cut greenhouse gas emissions is unlawful and likely to be struck down in court.

In an intervention aimed at the international climate talks that begin in Paris next Monday, the attorneys-general of the two states warn that there are “significant legal limits [on Mr Obama’s] ability either to carry out the promises he has made in advance of Paris 2015 or to enforce any agreement arising out of the summit.”

The letter is addressed to John Kerry, the US secretary of state, but is also being circulated to ministers from large economies that will be key participants in the Paris talks.

The attorneys-general argue that Mr Kerry has a duty to tell other countries that “the centrepiece of the president’s domestic [carbon dioxide emissions] reduction program is being challenged in court by a majority of states and will likely be struck down.”

The letter highlights the difficulties the US administration will face in the Paris negotiations because of the general opposition to a_ction on climate change among the Republican party, which controls Congress and over half the state governments.

West Virginia and Texas are leading the legal action, now joined by 27 states, against the Obama administration’s Clean Power Plan, its most significant climate policy.
 
Full story

Friday, 27 November 2015

ENERGY INTENSIVE INDUSTRIES IN UK EXEMPT FROM GREEN TAXES

Britain will permanently exclude energy-intensive industries such as steel and chemicals from extra costs to support green energy projects, Chancellor George Osborne said on Wednesday. Steelmakers in particular have been hit by heavy energy costs that make it harder for them to compete internationally, contributing to thousands of job cuts in the sector in recent weeks. "We're going to permanently exempt our energy intensive industries ... from the cost of environmental tariffs, so we keep their bills down, keep them competitive and keep them here," Osborne told Parliament in his autumn budget statement. --Reuters, 25 November 2015
  
In his Autumn Statement, or budgetary update, to the British Parliament on 25 November, Chancellor of the Exchequer George Osborne dropped yet another morsel for UK shale enthusiasts. “We are supporting the creation of the shale gas industry by ensuring that communities benefit from a Shale Wealth Fund (SWF), which could be worth of up to £1 billion ($1.6 billion).” Much of it is designed to win over people and local councils in zones impacted by shale exploration. It follows the British Department of Energy and Climate Change’s earlier announcement that the government’s energy policy will see natural gas play a “central role in the UK’s future power generation plans”. --Gaurav Sharma,
Forbes, 25 November 2015

 

Thursday, 26 November 2015

THE ORWELLIAN SCIENTISTS CONTROLLING THE PAST

Going Orwell

Global warming radicals will stop at nothing to get control of the world's energy and prosperity at the UN global warming summit that opens in Paris next week.

In true Orwellian fashion they want history amended, or expunged.

It appears that they may have tampered with temperature records to cool the past and warm the present.

You probably remember Michael Mann's infamous "hockey stick" graph that tried to smooth the medieval and Roman warm periods and little ice age out of our understanding of past temperature.  The idea was to scare us by making it look as if temperature didn't start varying until the second half of the 20th century.  It has been thoroughly debunked.

You are probably also aware that temperature satellites can find no global warming since the last El Niño ocean event at the end of the 20th century.  (Watch for the warming crowd to try and attribute warmth from the current El Niño to human activity and then forget about it when it ends).

This two decade "pause" in world temperature is terribly inconvenient for the warming narrative.

With world leaders headed to Paris to try and lock us into a UN global warming pact, they badly want to get their story straight.

Now it appears as if researchers at NOAA tried to do it again.  With climate computer models projecting temperature increases that never occurred, they "adjusted" past temperature records to try and conjure up some warming.

Congressional investigators want to get to the bottom of this.  NOAA is stonewalling and refuses to turn over the records taxpayers paid for.

It is a rock solid rule of science that researchers must adjust their conclusions to conform with their data.  They must never adjust their data to fit their hoped-for conclusions.  To do so is a terrible transgression against science.

George Orwell wrote, "Who controls the past controls the future: who controls the present controls the past."

It appears we can no longer have confidence in the researchers who have been appointed to "control the present" at our scientific institutions.

Getting them functioning honestly again will be a monumental task.