Monday, 18 November 2019

CHINA'S NEW AGENDA - COAL POWER TO BE TOP PRIORITY

China has signalled that coal power will be a top priority within national energy policy as the government prepares its next Five Year Plan (2021-25).

On 11 October, Premier Li Keqiang chaired a meeting of the National Energy Commission in Beijing that emphasised China’s energy security and coal utilisation and downplayed the importance of a rapid transition away from fossil fuels.

Each meeting of the commission, which was established in 2010 and has met only four times, has had a significant impact on policymaking. Chaired by Premier Li and attended by more than 20 chiefs of China’s ministries and bureaus, the commission is the top body for coordinating energy policy.

Why is energy security back at the top of the agenda?

Li told the conference: “The government should diversify energy supply to improve energy security… enhance domestic oil and gas exploration and development efforts, and promote oil and gas reserves and production, in order to improve oil and gas self-sufficiency”.

The renewed focus on energy security comes amid an increase in domestic consumption of oil and gas, which is largely being met through imports. China’s dependence on energy imports rose from 9% in 2014 to more than 20% in 2018.

China’s domestic crude oil production has declined and efforts to tap unconventional sources of natural gas, such as shale gas and coalbed methane, have faltered.

Other causes for concern lie outside China. The ongoing trade dispute with the US is a threat to the energy trade between the two superpowers, and supplies from the Middle East are at risk from mounting instability in the region.
 
The green transition loses ‘acceleration’

The government’s concern over energy security is positive for coal given that China has lots of it. At the meeting, Li Keqiang spoke of speeding up the construction of large-scale coal transportation and electricity transmission infrastructure. He wants to promote “safe and green coal mining”, the “clean and efficient development of coal-fired power”, and to “develop and utilise coalbed methane”.  

Li also downplayed China’s low-carbon energy transition. At the same meeting in 2016, Li called on China to: “increase the proportion of renewables in the energy mix” and “accelerate” such a transition. This year, there was no mention of renewable energy’s share of the energy mix and “acceleration” was replaced by the blander term “development”. The change of tone was hard to miss….
 
Although China is under international pressure to increase its climate ambition in 2020 and accelerate its energy transition, Chinese policymakers still see coal as the bedrock of the country’s energy security, playing a major role in the 14th Five Year Plan.
 
Full story
 

Told you so:  The Road From Paris: China's Climate U-Turn

Sunday, 17 November 2019

PROPAGANDA POLLING ON CLIMATE MAKES ASTONISHING CLAIMS

Yet more climate propaganda reported in the Guardian.
"A majority of the UK public and almost half of Conservative voters support a radical plan to transform the economy and tackle the climate crisis, a poll suggests."

YouGov found that 56% of people back the total decarbonisation of the UK economy by 2030 and just under half support public spending to make large swathes of public transport free to use. Without knowing the cost, or who pays.
But, below is the crucial question asked. It might as well say "do you want to carry on living as you do now but with more trees?" "The UK Government has committed to a target of bringing all greenhouse gas emissions to net zero by 2050. This means making efforts to lower carbon emissions and off-setting any emissions with schemes such as tree-planting or using technology like carbon capture and storage. When do you think the Government should aim to be net zero by?"

2025 or earlier                                               32

2030                                                              24

2045                                                                8

2050 or later                                                    8

This should not be a Government target        8

Don't know                                                    19

As Julia Hartley-Brewer suggests, let’s try asking this question again: "Would you agree to give up your car, your central heating, foreign holidays and pay thousands more in tax to deliver an energy policy that will have ZERO effect on climate change?" I wonder what the answer would be then...

Read the full report here.at Breitbart.

Saturday, 16 November 2019

TIME FOR GOVERNMENTS TO BRING IN CONTROLS ON DEMONSTRATIONS

This piece highlights the words of the Australian PM who is suggesting that protestors, in this case on climate change, should be reined in so that they cannot disrupt the lives of ordinary people. It sounds like common sense to me. omeone should ask our party leaders about this during the general election.

Protesting has always been a part of life in a democracy and it must be allowed but with the rise of huge movements as a result of the internet its nature has changed. It's time these mass demos were confined to one area of a city. We had the same problems with strikes back in the 1980's until new laws were brought in to limit them. Now it is generally felt that things are much better. Unions are subject to large fines if they breach the rules. The same should apply to well-funded organisations who cause mass demonstrations.

Friday, 15 November 2019

SCEPTICS v ALARMISTS - THE CLIMATE WAR

There seems to be a game of seeing who has the biggest and best group of scientists. Is it this group or maybe it's this one. The alarmist list is bigger but the sceptic one seems more realistic. As one  well known scientist once said "if just one scientist can disprove my theory it is wrong"

Thursday, 14 November 2019

HERE'S WHY TRUMP HAS DITCHED PARIS AGREEMENT

Reality Check: Paris Agreement -- A Blank Cheque For CO2 Emissions By China And India
Global Warming Policy Foundation,

 
The Paris Climate Agreement, far from securing a reduction in global CO2 emissions, is fundamentally a blank cheque that allows China and India to increase their emissions as they see fit in pursuit of economic growth.


 
This is the conclusion of a paper by Law Professor David Campbell (Lancaster University Law School) and published by the Global Warming Policy Foundation.
 
For the last 25 years, international climate change law has failed to agree a programme of global emissions reductions. Indeed this law grants a permission to major emitters such as China and India to emit as much as they see fit. Global emissions reductions therefore have always been impossible and since 1992 global emissions have enormously increased.
 
Indeed, the Paris Agreement contains a categorical statement that countries such as China and India will not be obliged to undertake any reductions.
 
The UK Government proposes to continue with decarbonisation even though Britain’s unilateral decarbonisation is utterly pointless and thus wholly irrational.
 
Full paper (PDF)
 
 


 Meeting Paris Climate Goals 'Looks Unrealistic' As Energy Consumption Grows
Edie News, 4 November 2019

 
Global energy demand rose by 2.3% year-on-year in 2018 - a trajectory which, if sustained, will leave the world unable to meet international and national climate goals including the Paris Agreement.
 
That is the key finding of Capgemini’s new World Energy Markets Observatory report (WEMO), published today (4 November).
 
Developed in partnership with research and advisory firm VaasaETT and French law firm De Pardieu Brocas Maffei, the report tracks key climate and energy-related trends on an annual basis, taking into account national and international data surrounding policy frameworks, emissions and energy investment.
 
The report states that globally, progress towards key climate goals is “under threat” due to growing energy consumption – partly due to population growth and industry expansion, particularly in nations such as China and India.
 
Full story
 
 
 

Lawsuit Says Obama Entered Paris Climate Agreement Illegally, Cites Mysterious Legal Memo
Daily Caller, 4 November 2019

 
Former President Barack Obama illegally entered into the Paris climate agreement, a lawsuit filed Monday says, citing a legal memo the Obama administration allegedly used to justify the deal.
 
The lawsuit asserts that the Obama administration argued the agreement could be signed without Senate approval because it does not set “legally binding targets and timetables.” Such justifications are a misrepresentation of the law, according to the lawsuit.
 
“This memo demonstrates the Obama administration’s unlawful entry into the Paris treaty,” Chris Horner, a former senior fellow at the Competitive Enterprise Institute, noted in a press statement attached to the lawsuit. The memo “represents a major political and legal scandal,” he added. Horner left CEI in April.
 
The lawsuit seeks documents related to the memo from the U.S. State Department through a Freedom of Information Act request.
 
Horner is an attorney at the Government Accountability & Oversight (GAO) in April. The nonprofit group filed the lawsuit on behalf of Energy Policy Advocates. He cited a legal memo that allegedly justifies Obama’s decision to enter the climate deal, which compels the U.S. and 200 other countries to cut greenhouse gas emissions 26% to 28% by 2025.
 
Senate approval is required for any international deal that seeks “to adopt 1 targets and timetables,” not merely those that are “legally binding,” Horner noted in the lawsuit, referring to a referendum produced by the Senate in 1992 after the Kyoto Protocol, an international climate agreement designed to reduce greenhouse gas emissions. The U.S. never ratified Kyoto.
 
Full story
 
 
  

Wednesday, 13 November 2019

PHASE TWO OF THE PROPAGANDA CLIMATE WAR BEGINS

GWPF TV – Death of a Climate Icon
 
The suggested shift what “journalists” should focus on when covering the so-called “climate emergency” comes from The Guardian’s picture editor Fiona Shields, who argues “we need new imagery for new narratives.”
 
There’s one other convenient benefit: Polar bears are thriving in the changing climate, an inconvenient truth that contradicts the doom-and-gloom narrative promoted by climate alarmists.
 
“We know, from years of experience, that people love polar bears and pandas, so it is easy to see how these appealing creatures have become the emblems for the topics of endangered species and what we previously termed as global warming,” Shields wrote.
 
“Often, when signaling environmental stories to our readers, selecting an image of a polar bear on melting ice has been the obvious – though not necessarily appropriate – choice,” she continued. “These images tell a certain story about the climate crisis but can seem remote and abstract – a problem that is not a human one, nor one that is particularly urgent.”
 
The idea to focus instead on pictures of Chinese with smog masks and piles of plastic trash in developing countries comes from a group called Climate Visuals, an arm of the UK Climate Outreach lobbying group.
 
Climate Outreach bills itself as “a team of social scientists & communications specialists passionate about helping organisations communicate climate change beyond the green bubble.”
 
Shields is all in.
 
She’s convinced photos of folks basking in the sun at the beach or enjoying a snowy day sledding with their children are an injustice to climate change, and journalists should focus on “getting the emotional tone of imagery in line with the issue.” She wants other climate “journalists” to “join the conversation,” as well.
 
Full story

Tuesday, 12 November 2019

FROM A COOLING SCARE TO WARMING IN JUST TWO YEARS

This short video really makes the point about how strongly the issue of global cooling was pushed in the 1970's. The video is by the brilliant Tony Heller and features numerous news clips and cuttings to back up the point. He also demonstrates how quickly the issue switched from a cooling scare to a warming scare. It was only a matter of two years between cooling and warming. This video makes the case far more powerfully than words alone.

Monday, 11 November 2019

COOLER OCEAN CAUSES DROUGHTS, NOT WARMING

Paul Noel
Paul Noel, former Research Scientist 6 Level 2 UAH Huntsville Al. (2009-2014)
My fair question is why on earth do you believe that they are even related to global warming? Really why? Because someone told you there would be more fires? The same people told us in 2004 that there would be lots more hurricanes. They don’t know what they are talking about.
Let's get real here. The fires you are talking about are all the result of droughts. In every case these droughts are the product of the ocean being cooler than usual. In the case of the Canary Islands, Brazil and Yucatan this is about 15 F cooler than usual. This isn’t evidence for global warming it is evidence for global cooling.
The reason you are seeing this drought is the same reason you are not seeing hurricanes in the Atlantic either. You are completely mistaken as to causes here. This is very evident on satellite or global weather plots.
The BBC is lying to you. They know this fact they are just Hoaxing you!
The Caribbean and Canary Islands are between 5F and 10F colder than usual. Much of Africa is in chill too. This has the winds of the Atlantic going to Africa instead of to South America.
When I say hoaxing they have what are called “Style Sheets” that tell them the words to use to describe things. All weather events are demanded to be some sort of “Climate Crisis” or “Climate Emergency” or “Climate Apocalypse” This is a political manipulation going on.

Sunday, 10 November 2019

LUDICROUS CLIMATE EXAGGERATIONS SHOWN TO BE FALSE

This article is an excellent debunk of the latest scare stories to be published in a compliant media which seems ever more set on perpetuating the unsubstantiated climate scare.

The article by Naomi Oreskes and Nicholas Stern presents no economic data or analysis, but merely asserts that global warming is worse than previously thought, so therefore the costs to deal with it will be more than previously thought too. In fact the opposite is true.    

Saturday, 9 November 2019

AT LAST A TRUE CONSERVATIVE NOT AFRAID TO SPEAK OUT

Craig Morley, campaigning in Reading, says that: scientific models have “over-exaggerated” the trend of warming (TRUE); that “dangerous climate change theory relies on shaky evidence” (TRUE); that “the alarmism and lexicon of emergency used in the current debate has lost sense of reality and proportion” (TRUE); that “Stripped of the theatre of hype, cheerleading rent-seekers, alarmist headlines, Extinction Rebellion stunts, climate emergencies and even Greta Thunberg’s lectures, the stark truth is that the modern ‘climate emergency’ movement is about politics and wealth redistribution, not science” (TRUE); that “It is a socialist Trojan horse for delivering failed socialist economic policies through using the emotive lexicon of ‘emergency’, disaster, and doom-mongering.” (TRUE)

I hope every reader in his constituency will give Morley their vote (that is if he is still allowed to stand!). The Conservative party desperately needs MPs who understand what conservatism actually means.
He will need to overcome a Labour majority of 3749 in order to win. He is a brave politician to speak out. I will report his result here after December 12th.

MUCH MORE SCRUTINY REQUIRED OVER UK ENERGY POLICY

This article is from the Bishop Hill website. It highlights an apparent flaw in the UK Government's policy to keep the lights on in 2050, when they have removed almost all fossil fuel use. The article says that spending £0.2 trillion on wind turbines would be unlikely to be enough as they have used some very optimistic figures for the output of these turbines. At the same time they think we will only use 40% as much electricity as we do now, while driving our cars with it as well. Unbelievable!    Energy rationing seems to be the only answer and I don't think that will go down well with the populus. Is there any scrutiny being done in parliament these days?

Friday, 8 November 2019

ALL GLOBAL WARMING SINCE 1979 CAN BE EXPLAINED BY NATURAL CHANGES

This post explains that all the global warming for the last 40 years can be explained by changes in cloud cover.  The reduction in cloud cover and positive shortwave forcing trend can also explain the post-1995 ice melt pattern for the Greenland ice sheet.

More on this here.

Thursday, 7 November 2019

COLLATERAL DAMAGE BY THE CLIMATE CHANGE FANATICS

This piece explains how the disastrous Boeing 737 crash may have been caused by a rush to bring in lower emission aircraft. Governments must not allow themselves to be pressured by these activists.

Wednesday, 6 November 2019

TOMMY ROBINSON - VILLAIN OR HERO? YOU JUDGE

Climate change is a very controversial subject and we have seen how those high profile people who speak out against the so-called consensus are vilified and even lose their jobs. Immigration and the behaviour of those of minority religions is even more controversial and those who dare to speak out risk even more extreme treatment. I greatly admire those who do so in a fair but firm manor.

This address by Tommy Robinson shows the former leader of the English Defence League in a quite different light to that portrayed in the media. I must be clear that I cannot condone everything he has said or done as I have not followed him closely, but in this speech he appears to be very moderate and well-reasoned in what he says. I note the video has been viewed over 1.7 million times. His video evidence is very clear and what it shows is behaviour that most fair-minded people would condemn.

Tuesday, 5 November 2019

MAN'S CONTRIBUTION TO GLOBAL WARMING IS LIKELY TO BE 0.6 DEGREES C. PER CENTURY

I was doing a bit of research on Watts up With That (WUWT) to find a credible estimate of how much of the observed 1degree C of warming that has occurred since 1880 is attributable to man. I found this article which is quite lengthy, as many are on WUWT, but it seems to apply scientific logic and, just as I suspected, it comes up with a very small fraction of the 1 degree to be caused by man. Below are some key extracts from the article which compares the warming from around 1910 to 1940 with that from around 1976 to 2009. Both these warmings can be seen on a graph to have very similar slopes:


"The warming in the early 20th century has always been a bit of a mystery. Attempts to model this warming event have mostly failed Generally it is considered to be natural and roughly equivalent to the warming since 1950, at least in the northern hemisphere and particularly north of 60°N. "

"We can speculate that the natural forces causing the warming trend in the early 20th century are about the same as those acting on us from 1975 to roughly 2009. If this is true, then the increase in warming rate (roughly 30% or 28%-33%) might be due to man’s influence. The extra radiative forcing estimated by the IPCC (bottom of Figure 4, 1950 to 2011) is about 1.72 Watts/m2. They have also estimated that more than half of the warming since 1951 was due to man. No warming occurred between 1945 and 1975, so we are really talking about 1975 to 2009.   The increase in the rate of warming from the HadCRUT record is 35 years x 0.0048°C or 0.168°C. The NASA GISS dataset gives us a virtually identical 0.0046°C increase in slope. We assume that the natural influences from 1910 to 1945 were the same as those from 1975 to 2009. We further assume that difference in the two slopes is due to man’s influence. The actual temperature increase from 1975 to 2009, from the best fit line to the HadCRUT record, is 0.672°C. So using our estimate of man’s contribution of 0.168°C, we can estimate that man’s contribution is 25%, much less than half."

So what this article is suggesting is that man's total contribution to global warming is 0.168 degrees C. over the period from 1975 to 2009. This is probably artificially precise so let's be generous and push it up to 0.2 That is over a period of 35 years so it is approximately 0.6 degrees per century. This is supposed to be an emergency. 

Monday, 4 November 2019

HALF OF 21st CENTURY WARMING IS DUE TO EL NINO

Reposted from Dr Roy Spencer’s Blog

May 13th, 2019 by Roy W. Spencer, Ph. D.
A major uncertainty in figuring out how much of recent warming has been human-caused is knowing how much nature has caused. The IPCC is quite sure that nature is responsible for less than half of the warming since the mid-1900s , but politicians, activists, and various green energy pundits go even further, behaving as if warming is 100% human-caused.
The fact is we really don’t understand the causes of natural climate change on the time scale of an individual lifetime, although theories abound. For example, there is plenty of evidence that the Little Ice Age was real, and so some of the warming over the last 150 years (especially prior to 1940) was natural — but how much?
The answer makes as huge difference to energy policy. If global warming is only 50% as large as is predicted by the IPCC (which would make it only 20% of the problem portrayed by the media and politicians), then the immense cost of renewable energy can be avoided until we have new cost-competitive energy technologies.
The recently published paper Recent Global Warming as Confirmed by AIRS used 15 years of infrared satellite data to obtain a rather strong global surface warming trend of +0.24 C/decade. Objections have been made to that study by me (e.g. here) and others, not the least of which is the fact that the 2003-2017 period addressed had a record warm El Nino near the end (2015-16), which means the computed warming trend over that period is not entirely human-caused warming.
If we look at the warming over the 19-year period 2000-2018, we see the record El Nino event during 2015-16 (all monthly anomalies are relative to the 2001-2017 average seasonal cycle):
21st-century-warming-2000-2018-550x733
Fig. 1. 21st Century global-average temperature trends (top) averaged across all CMIP5 climate models (gray), HadCRUT4 observations (green), and UAH tropospheric temperature (purple). The Multivariate ENSO Index (MEI, bottom) shows the upward trend in El Nino activity over the same period, which causes a natural enhancement of the observed warming trend.
We also see that the average of all of the CMIP5 models’ surface temperature trend projections (in which natural variability in the many models is averaged out) has a warmer trend than the observations, despite the trend-enhancing effect of the 2015-16 El Nino event.
So, how much of an influence did that warm event have on the computed trends? The simplest way to address that is to use only the data before that event. To be somewhat objective about it, we can take the period over which there is no trend in El Nino (and La Nina) activity, which happens to be 2000 through June, 2015 (15.5 years):
Fig. 2. As in Fig. 1, but for the 15.5 year period 2000 to June 2015, which is the period over which there was no trend in El Nino and La Nina activity.
Fig. 2. As in Fig. 1, but for the 15.5 year period 2000 to June 2015, which is the period over which there was no trend in El Nino and La Nina activity
Note that the observed trend in HadCRUT4 surface temperatures is nearly cut in half compared to the CMIP5 model average warming over the same period, and the UAH tropospheric temperature trend is almost zero.
One might wonder why the UAH LT trend is so low for this period, even though in Fig. 1 it is not that far below the surface temperature observations (+0.12 C/decade versus +0.16 C/decade for the full period through 2018). So, I examined the RSS version of LT for 2000 through June 2015, which had a +0.10 C/decade trend. For a more apples-to-apples comparison, the CMIP5 surface-to-500 hPa layer average temperature averaged across all models is +0.20 C/decade, so even RSS LT (which usually has a warmer trend than UAH LT) has only one-half the warming trend as the average CMIP5 model during this period.
So, once again, we see that the observed rate of warming — when we ignore the natural fluctuations in the climate system (which, along with severe weather events dominate “climate change” news) — is only about one-half of that projected by climate models at this point in the 21st Century. This fraction is consistent with the global energy budget study of Lewis & Curry (2018) which analyzed 100 years of global temperatures and ocean heat content changes, and also found that the climate system is only about 1/2 as sensitive to increasing CO2 as climate models assume.
It will be interesting to see if the new climate model assessment (CMIP6) produces warming more in line with the observations. From what I have heard so far, this appears unlikely. If history is any guide, this means the observations will continue to need adjustments to fit the models, rather than the other way around.