Monday, 17 December 2018


This short video by the splendid Tony Heller highlights the obviously deliberate attempts to make the climate data tell a story of rapid warming, even though it does no such thing. Tony has such a wealth of historical data and press cuttings that he can put together a very thorough debunking.

Sunday, 16 December 2018


This piece explains the findings of a group of scientists examining the Great Barrier Reef  that the death rate of coral was less than they expected because of the adaptability of corals to changing temperatures.

Saturday, 15 December 2018


This piece is a complete refutation of the fake news alleging that the Arctic ice is "rapidly melting". The truth is that overall, Arctic volume has been stable, slightly on the rise over the past 12 years,

Friday, 14 December 2018


Joanne Nova in this brilliant article exposes the fraudulent arguments being made in support of renewable energy.  I love her ironic sense of humour with which she lays waste to the nonsense that is being peddled by so-called experts who are trying to prove the impossible to the ordinary folk who have no idea what is going on.

Thursday, 13 December 2018


This article is one of the silliest claims made about rising CO2 levels. The fact that it was published by what is normally rated as a serious paper is rather worrying. Since they got a new editor I have noticed a distinct change of views expressed both on Brexit where they have softened their stance from staunch support for Brexit to now supporting Mrs May in an unquestioning fashion and now this tripe on climate change.

Wednesday, 12 December 2018


Here is a very revealing look at what goes on inside the current climate change conference organised by the UNIPCC. It includes links to video footage of some very bizarre goings on. Learn about how Gender Day and Indigenous Peoples Day are connected to the climate change hypothesis. 

Tuesday, 11 December 2018


This piece explains the new thinking on the subject of the solar cycle. It is the opposite of what others have been predicting.

Monday, 10 December 2018


This article explains the dilemma now facing Western leaders over enacting tough measures to reduce CO2 emissions. Apparently it is casting a shadow over the latest climate change conference in Poland.

Sunday, 9 December 2018


Decommissioning (removing) wind turbines is enormously difficult and hugely expensive. Natural gas plants have 30-40 year lifetimes; nuclear plants can operate for 60 years or more. Wind turbines last 15-20 years, and often far less for offshore leviathans. Off Virginia, salt corrosion is compounded by 50-80 foot storm waves and category 1-3 hurricanes.
Maintenance and removal require huge derrick barges and can be done only during near-perfect weather, with minimal wave height. Actual removal costs depend on the size and type of project, distance from shore, whether monopolies and electrical cables must be fully removed, and whether the seabed must be returned to its original condition.
The cost of removing any industrial-scale “wind farm” could run into the billions, and could double the cost of wind power.
Oil, mining, logging, construction and other projects are typically required to post sizable bonds, before they are permitted to operate. Wind turbine projects are generally exempt. That means billion-dollar decommissioning costs will likely bring corporate insolvency - and state taxpayers and ratepayers will get stuck with the bills.
Demolition has begun for one of Europe’s earliest offshore wind projects, off Denmark. The blades, nacelle and tower must be dismantled and individually removed by big mobile cranes on enormous barges. The concrete foundations must be dismantled on-site by hydraulic demolition shears, then hauled ashore.
By 2023 more than 10,000 of Germany’s 28,000 wind turbines must be decommissioned. Their concrete and rebar bases can be 100 feet in the ground. Rotor blades are fiberglass, carbon fibers and petroleum resins; burning them releases dust and toxic gases, and thus is prohibited. Nor can they be recycled. The same facts apply to U.S. turbines.
Imagine putting 115-foot turbine blades in landfills - or 245-foot blades from the new monster turbines. One study estimates that it will cost $565,000 per megawatt to decommission Europe’s offshore turbines - or about $3.4 million for each new generation 6-MW turbine.
From an economic, environmental or energy perspective, this is simply unsustainable. And it’s all being justified by climate change hyperbole and hysteria. 

Saturday, 8 December 2018


This article explains why it is wrong and very misleading to say that this summers heatwave was 30 times more likely due to climate change. The more ridiculous and exaggerated the claims are the more they turn people against believing any of the climate change arguments.

Friday, 7 December 2018


This piece takes another look at the sea level rise issue and shows how much lower actual sea level has behaved compared to the predictions of computer models. The results are pretty clear, we are being misled by the computers.

Thursday, 6 December 2018


What irony that the president of the country whose capital hosted the much lauded conference that lead to the Paris Climate Accord now finds himself under attack from his own people for trying to coerce them into using less fossil fuels. I hope the other leaders of the West are taking note. When the going gets tough for the people their willingness to sacrifice their comfort for the future of humanity is quickly reduced, or disappears altogether. This piece sums it up very well.

Wednesday, 5 December 2018


Oh dear! Electric vehicle sales don't seem too strong according to this article despite the government's best efforts to try and persuade us to buy them. Just like Mrs May's Brexit deal, they are a poor substitute for a proper car. Who will trust the government when they get it wrong so often?

Tuesday, 4 December 2018


USA and China both snub the latest climate change talks.  Read the details here.  This renders the talks pointless and no meaningful decision is likely to be taken.  With the rioting in France against taxes imposed to cut the use of fossil fuels we can see that the utopia based on climate change policies is in serious trouble.

Monday, 3 December 2018


Global Temperature Drops By 0.4°C In Three Years
The GWPF Observatory, 30 November 2018

Dr David Whitehouse, GWPF Science Editor

It is said that a picture is worth a thousand words. In science communication however, a simple graph can be worth far more than pictures particularly when the main point is that the last four years have been the hottest on record.

In a press release the World Meteorological Organisation said,

‘The long-term warming trend has continued in 2018, with the average global temperature set to be the fourth highest on record. The 20 warmest years on record have been in the past 22 years, with the top four in the past four years.’

The main message was echoed by others, such as the BBC.:

"Climate change: Last four years are world’s hottest"

Likewise the Guardian:

"Past four years hottest on record, data shows"
It all goes to show how temperature data can be misrepresented if you don’t show the temperature data itself.

Fig 1 is the HadCRUT4 monthly global temperature from the UK Met Office.

As you can see a graph tells a very different story. What elevates the past four years above the previous ones is an El Nino event, the strongest one on record.

As we have said many time before an El Nino is not a climatic phenomenon, it is weather. What’s more, after its peak in 2016 the global temperature has fallen by around 0.4° C. The past four years being the warmest on record is true, but it has been primarily due to the 2015/16 super El Nino.

Fig 2 shows the same data with error bars from which it can be seen that 2018 is statistically equivalent to some years before the El Nino event.

The WMO statement is grossly misleading. It mixes climate with weather. For example in its ‘Highlights of the provisional statement on the state of the climate,’ it states;

‘Temperatures: 2018 started with a weak La Niña event, which continued until March. By October, however, sea-surface temperatures in the eastern Tropical Pacific were showing signs of a return to El Niño conditions, although the atmosphere as yet shows little response. If El Niño develops, 2019 is likely to be warmer than 2018.’

If 2019 develops an El Nino and is warmer than 2018 then this it has nothing to do with the ‘State of the Climate,’ but everything to do with annual weather variations.

It is sad to see the WMO descend into ‘Fake News’ territory, but sadder still to see science reporters regurgitating it without any form of analysis or critical thinking. A decade ago most financial journalists did the same. Thankfully many are much better now and they would never take an alarmist report from the Bank of England, for example, at face value without digging into the figures.




Sunday, 2 December 2018


I hope readers will forgive me for posting an article not directly relevant to climate change but in my view there are some parallels. To start with, the piece I am going to link to shows the importance of forensic questioning of people who are responsible for key policies, and this applies equally to those proposing the CAGW (catastrophic anthropogenic global warming) hypothesis.

Here is the link. To view the exchange you can try this link and go to 9.35. You will see that my MP, Julian Lewis, was able to ask a total of nine questions to the PM on the one issue of the Irish border, and it was only by doing so that he was able to establish, or rather infer an answer, in spite of her prevarication.  This style of questioning is rarely seen in UK politics, which is why ministers are able to brush off questions so easily under the single question and response method.

You might think that the media would pick up on this event as it of such vital importance to the Brexit debate, but alas it has not. I only found out about it myself when I attended a meeting where Julian showed it to me in answer to a question. The Irish "hard border" issue is fundamental to the Brexit deal and, as Julian has shown, it is a nonsense as no one is actually going to create one. In other words the EU, with the connivance of the UK civil servants, are using "straw man" arguments to try to ensnare the UK into remaining perpetually tied in with the EU.

In similar ways the proponents of CAGW are creating false data and statements to keep governments tied to the policy of reducing CO2 emissions to keep the world to some mythical ideal temperature. These arguments could also be debunked by forensic questioning by a knowledgeable person.  

Saturday, 1 December 2018


This article says there is growing evidence that they may be. If so it gives a whole new classification of so-called fossil fuels. They would of course become renewable fuels and as such could be used sustainably. Whatever would the green activists say about that?

Friday, 30 November 2018


This piece explains what probably lies behind the UK government's renewed enthusiasm for carbon capture and storage. It is bioenergy and CCS (BECCS), and in recent weeks this rather crazy scheme* has been pushed in reports from (among others) the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, the Royal Society, and the UK’s Committee on Climate Change. These were all neatly timed to arrive in time to be digested ahead of the big climate meeting in Katowice in December. It all therefore looks as though Claire Perry, the energy minister, has simply decided to bung a few hundred thousand quid at CCS projects so that the UK can parade its green credentials on the big international stage. The money is just a rather expensive way to virtue signal.

*The idea is to convert a significant proportion of the world’s agricultural land (perhaps a quarter or more) into forest and energy crops to be burnt in power stations, with the emissions captured using CCS. It would probably lead to mass starvation and would undoubtedly be an environmental disaster.

Thursday, 29 November 2018


If only we had the courage to leave the EU and scrap the ridiculous Climate Change Act we could be a very wealthy country, with help from the oil under the sea off the Shetlands.
Is A Shale-Sized Oil Boom Hiding In Britain’s Atlantic Bedrock?
Bloomberg, 22 November 2018

Maverick geologist Robert Trice believes there are billions of barrels of crude ready to drill from granite rock buried under the ocean floor

On a sunny October morning, members of the The Geological Society pack an ornate lecture theater at their imposing headquarters on London’s Piccadilly. One of their number introduces a scientist who “needs no introduction,” the man people had come to see.

Taking to the podium, Dr. Robert Trice, a lifelong rock obsessive who’s also chief executive officer of independent oil company Hurricane Energy Plc, adjusts his glasses and shakes his mop of pale hair. Then he explains his billion-dollar idea.

From inside a ship, sloshing around the 65-foot waves off the coast of the Scottish isles, he plans to poke a diamond-tipped drill-bit into the sea bed. He’ll take it past layers of once-oil-soaked sandstone rocks straight into a strata of solid granite — what geologists call the basement. Then the drill will turn sideways and hopefully intersect a bunch of naturally formed cracks.

If his science is correct, there will be enough oil pooled in those cracks to make him a very rich man.

For more than a decade, people in the industry have excoriated his idea for being too expensive, too technically challenging and even geologically ridiculous.

“I’ve stopped arguing with them,” he said over lunch the day before his speech, sipping on a glass of red wine. “They’ll see.”

Trice, 57, a geology PhD who’s worked in the oil industry for three decades and founded Hurricane in his garden shed in 2005, likes to compare himself to another maverick who went from voice in the wilderness to billionaire prophet: George Mitchell, the father of shale drilling.

Mitchell started experimenting with the idea of hydraulic fracturing, or “fracking,” into shale rock in the 1980s. It took thousands of wells and 30 years for the American oil industry to widely adopt the practices he pioneered. When it did, the U.S. became the largest fossil fuel producer on the planet, permanently altering the global energy trade. Mitchell died in 2013 at 94 with a $2 billion fortune.

While the granite under under the Atlantic Ocean west of the Shetland island isn’t likely to be another Permian, if Trice is right about the geology it will prove billions barrels of undrilled oil. Success would be a significant shot in the arm for Britain’s beleaguered oil industry, where drilling is at its lowest level since the birth of the North Sea in the 1970s.

“Fractured basement isn’t a myth,” said John Browne, the former chief executive officer of BP Plc, who spent part of his early career working in the North Sea. “But it’s difficult to drill.”

We’re about to get a clearer picture of how well it will work. A floating production vessel specially modified for harsh conditions is now sailing through the English Channel to the North Sea. In the first half of 2019, Hurricane plans to use it to produce from two wells.

The test of a good result? Hurricane needs the pressure underground to stay as high as Trice’s models predict, showing the cracks in the granite are interlinked and the pooled crude can flow freely to the surface for a sustained period.

A report commissioned by Hurricane concludes one of its fields, called Lancaster, likely has half a billion barrels of recoverable oil. That’s worth almost $33 billion at $65 a barrel Brent crude, much of which would go to the British government in taxes. Hurricane is also exploring another two fields thought to hold billions of barrels more.

Full story

Wednesday, 28 November 2018


Rupert Darwall: The Failure Of The Climate Change Act: Ten Years On
The Spectator, 23 November 2018

The Climate Change Act is ten years old. It was passed in a different age. David Cameron had been hugging huskies to de-toxify the Tories. It was a year before the Copenhagen Climate Conference. ‘Fifty days to set the course for the next 50 years,’ Gordon Brown declared. China and India’s veto put paid to that, but Britain is still lumbered with a law that puts huge economic power into the hands of an unaccountable body, the Committee on Climate Change, which entrenches climate policy unilateralism. However much greenhouse gases the rest of the world puts into the atmosphere, the Climate Change Act compels Britain to almost completely decarbonise.

Jim Callaghan once told his policy chief Bernard Donoghue that the one thing he’d learnt from his years in politics was that when the two front benches agree, you can be sure they’re wrong. Snow fell gently from the sky as 465 MPs voted in favour of the third reading of the Climate Change Bill. Only five MPs voted against: Andrew Tyrie, punished by David Cameron with the chance of any frontbench job, but now chairing the Competition and Markets Authority, Ann Widdecombe, Peter Lilley, Christopher Chope and Philip Davies.

Looking back ten years on, the Climate Change Act is a threefold failure. It fails the national interest. The case for the Act assumed global action – Britain leads, the rest of the world follows. Of course that didn’t happen. According to the government’s cost benefit assessment, Britain would contribute nearly half of the total global benefit. Why do anything if you’re going to get very nearly half the benefit at zero cost?

None of the cost benefit analysis accompanying the Act took into account Britain fully participating in the European Union’s Emissions Trading Scheme. Unless the EU’s emissions target changes in line with Britain’s, every tonne of carbon dioxide Britain is forced to cut because of the Climate Change Act enables other EU members to emit an extra tonne – all at Britain’s expense. That is to say, 100 per cent carbon leakage. The net effect on overall emissions is zero. There are no climate benefits from the Act – only costs. To Britain.

If this sounds unnervingly similar to Theresa May’s Brexit, it is somewhat ironic that the backers of the Climate Change Act were and remain strong supporters of Britain’s EU membership. Yet when it came to the Climate Change Act, they were all afflicted by ‘fog-in-the-channel’ syndrome. They simply hadn’t taken account Britain’s participation in EU’s Emissions Trading Scheme.

The Climate Change Act is a failure of politics. Politics requires debate and disagreement. With the exception of the five dissident MPs voting against, there was stifling conformity. Politics also requires a degree of honesty, something also absent from this government’s defence of its Brexit deal. Responding to a letter from Peter Lilley on the government’s estimated £404bn of costs, Ed Miliband, the energy and climate secretary, falsely asserted:

‘The impact statement shows that the benefits to UK society of successful action on climate change will be far higher than the costs.’

The impact assessment showed no such thing. Indeed, the assessment was absolutely clear this was not the case. ‘The benefits of UK action will be distributed across the globe,’ it categorically states.

In fact there has not yet been any credible official study on the overall costs and benefits of global warming to Britain, which, it is plausible to believe, could benefit from some modest warming.

Above all, the Climate Change Act is a moral failure. In the 2005 general election, the Labour party pledged to abolish fuel poverty. By 2015, fuel poverty was to have been a thing of the past. By the 2017 election, any thought of abolishing it had vanished. The impact of climate policies means that fuel poverty is here to stay.

When he was energy and climate secretary, Ed Davey admitted that fuel poverty was not something that ‘can be eradicated in any meaningful way.’ Neither did he like the way fuel poverty was measured, complaining it was ‘unhelpful’ because it was too sensitive to rising energy costs. Something had to be done.

So the definition of fuel poverty was changed. The focus was shifted from affordability to the potential to insulate properties. Overnight, the new measure nearly halved the number of households officially defined as living in fuel poverty. Cynical? The interests of the least well off were sacrificed to the powerful interests of the climate change lobby.

The treatment of the economics provides the one glaring contrast with Brexit. The government’s whole negotiating position on Brexit has been driven by maintaining frictionless trade and just-in-time supply chains for manufacturing industry. The Treasury produces forecasts predicting an economic Armageddon if these are in the slightest way interrupted.

But when it comes to decarbonising the economy, the government is entirely indifferent to the impact on economic competitiveness. If decarbonisation is so good for the economy, why is the European Union insisting on maintaining the so-called level playing field and requiring Britain write its decarbonisation commitments into a future trade agreement with the EU?

If the government genuinely wanted to improve competitiveness, raise living standards and abolish fuel poverty, there is a straightforward way. It could repeal, or at the very least, amend the Climate Change Act and remove its blind unilateralism. This is still something that, for the time being, it doesn’t need the EU’s permission to do. But don’t hold your breath.

Rupert Darwall is author of  The Climate Change Act at Ten: History’s Most Expensive Virtue Signal published by the GWPF.

Tuesday, 27 November 2018


This article sums up the complete futility of the UK Climate Change Act. It is the most expensive virtue signal in history. As the article says:

"The reason for this is simple: before signing the Act, Britain was already signed up to the EU’s Emissions Trading System (ETS), designed to encourage EU member states to reduce their CO2 emissions on a collective basis. This is achieved via Emissions Allowances (EAs), a type of carbon credit. Member states reluctant to cut their carbon emissions too drastically can buy EAs instead. So long as the total number of EAs in circulation remains the same, it means that when one country cuts its emissions by a lot, other countries are able to reduce their emissions by less. " 

So the Act will not save the planet at all - merely cost everyone in the UK a great deal of money for nothing.

Monday, 26 November 2018


The Irish Times, 21 November 2018

Kevin O'Sullivan Environment & Science Editor App

Carbon tax will have to increase substantially – from €100 per person a year to €1,500 a year – if Ireland is to meet legally-binding targets on reducing greenhouse gas emissions by 2030, according to ESRI projections.

A new computational model developed by the institute that factors in economic data, environmental trends and energy consumption, has found carbon tax on fossil fuels will need to increase to €300 per tonne of carbon dioxide emitted over the coming decade to avoid substantial fines in the form of compliance costs.

The current rate of €20 per tonne was not increased in the budget as had been widely anticipated, although Taoiseach Leo Varadkar and Minister for Climate Action Richard Bruton have confirmed it is set to increase in coming years.

A rise to €30 a tonne as was envisaged would have added about €1 to a bag of coal and about 25 cent to a bale of briquettes, as well as increasing the price of oil and gas.

Full story




Sunday, 25 November 2018


The Threat To The Environment That The Green Lobby Tries To Ignore
Andrew Montford, The Spectator, 20 November 2018

It’s not like the green blob to keep quiet when there’s a threat to the environment in the offing. Even the smallest hint of a problem is usually enough to work a tree-hugger into a frenzy. So it’s worth taking a look at their decision to keep shtum over the recent appearance of what may be one of the greatest threats to the natural world we have seen.

Over the last few weeks, scientists and campaigners alike have been turning their attention to the question of how land can be used to tackle global warming.

Their interest was prompted by the appearance of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change’s (IPCC) special report on how the increase in global temperatures might be kept below 1.5°C. One of the panel’s ideas was to propose a massive expansion of forestry, allowing excess carbon dioxide to be converted into wood. This wood could then be burnt to generate electricity, with the resulting carbon dioxide emissions captured and stored deep underground. The alternative is to use all this extra wood as building materials. This would, the theory goes, keep the carbon locked in. The IPCC paper was followed up by twin reports from the committee on climate change (CCC), the government’s advisers on climate policy.

One of these papers was on the subject of biofuels; the other one was on land use. Like the IPCC, the CCC sees lots more forests and energy crops as the way forward.

But there is a problem with all these ideas, namely that if they ever came to fruition, they would do great harm to the natural world.

The use of afforestation for carbon capture will necessarily involve chopping forests down on a regular basis and replanting with the fastest growing species; it’s fairly clear that few woods would be spared. The CCC talks obliquely about all the broadleaved woodlands in England that are not “actively managed” and appears to suggest that these could be sacrificed to Gaia. So forget beautiful, leafy oaks in Sherwood Forest and start thinking sitka spruce and willow monocultures.

It’s also worth remembering that, as well as wanting something like a quarter of the UK’s land area devoted to biofuels of one kind or another, the CCC makes the case for more wind turbines. They have apparently tried to obscure this inconvenient fact in their report by lumping windfarms and urban areas in a land category called ‘settlements’. But the worry is that up to 10,000 square kilometres of land – twice the area of the Cairngorms National Park – is potentially being earmarked as part of a wider rollout of wind industrialisation.

It’s fair to say that all this amounts to an ecological catastrophe in the planning. Yet there has not been a squeak from environmentalists in response.

Full post

Saturday, 24 November 2018


Another green hypocrite bites the dust!

UN Environment Chief Erik Solheim Quits Amid Expenses Row
BBC News, 20 November 2018

UN environment chief Erik Solheim has resigned amid a row over his travel expenses.

A recent draft internal audit, obtained by Britain's Guardian newspaper and seen by the BBC, said he had incurred costs of $488,518 (£382,111) while travelling for 529 out of 668 days.

It said this harmed the reputation of UN Environment - a body that highlights green issues and sustainability.

There was "no oversight or accountability" to monitor this travel.

Mr Solheim, a Norwegian former environment minister, says he has paid back the money where "instances of oversight" occurred.

On Tuesday, Mr Solheim himself confirmed his resignation, Norway's NRK broadcaster reported.

A formal UN announcement is expected shortly.

Full post

Friday, 23 November 2018


Here's the most one-sided debate you are likely to find. In fact it is not a debate - just a few climate change alarmists trying to outdo each other on who can tell the scariest story on extreme weather events and blame it all on the 1 degree Celsius rise in global temperatures over the past 140 years (without referring to the tiny rise, of course).  Of course I realise that the tiny number of MPs who speak out publicly against this cannot always be there to represent the voice of reason. It is tedious to keep wasting your breath when speaking to those who are as likely to change their minds as a Jehovah's Witness on your doorstep.  

Thursday, 22 November 2018


Read this article and understand the bias in reporting of global warming stories here in the UK

UK Media Refuses To Correct The Record On Flawed Climate Paper

Mainstream media is silent on Errors in flawed climate scare story 

London, 19 November: The Global Warming Policy Forum today slammed the UK media for its failure to tell readers about errors in a widely reported global warming story.

Media outlets around the world reported new findings that suggested that the world’s oceans were warming faster than previously thought. However, within days serious errors were found in the underlying scientific paper, prompting its authors to issue a correction.

Several newspapers in the USA, including Science magazine, the Washington Post and the Washington Times have published follow-up stories, outlining the discovery of the error, which entirely negates the earlier headlines.

To date, no UK newspaper, nor the BBC has reported the story, or even issued a correction.

By failing to report these developments and setting the record straight, the BBC is breaking its own guidelines on corrections.

GWPF director, Dr Benny Peiser said:

“It is an indictment of the UK press that they are keen to disseminate stories that promote global warming fears, but refuse to correct them when they are shown to be incorrect. The failure to report accurately is undermining the credibility of climate news reporting.” 

The flawed ocean paper was covered by:

· Matt McGrath at the BBC
· Harry Pettitt at the Mail on Sunday
· Harry Cockburn at the Independent 


Dr Benny Peiser
tel: 0207 3406038
mob: 07553 361718

Wednesday, 21 November 2018


This piece gives the details. Just as we are supposedly leaving the EU up comes this judgement which basically says that the UK government is not allowed to give any subsidies to energy companies for having generating capacity on stand by to back up the renewables. Of course we now know that we aren't really leaving the EU so we will continue to have to obey their rules, the result of which means that our electricity prices will have to rise significantly, due to our having to follow the Climate Change Act. What a complete farce!

Tuesday, 20 November 2018


This article explains the simple truth that green activists and politicians simply ignore or somehow overlook. In a word - storage - in other words, batteries! With intermittent renewables vast amounts of battery storage are required and it is simply unfeasible. 
Why aren’t the politicians talking about batteries, when they are a bigger deal than wind and solar? Where will all these batteries come from, and where will they go?
Perhaps it is because batteries are nasty chemical systems that create lots of toxic waste. They tarnish the sublime image of “clean energy” even though they are fundamental to it.
We should start asking the politicians and the green activists about the batteries.

Monday, 19 November 2018


By focusing on insulating homes to save energy, the UK government have inadvertently caused some householders to live in damp and mouldy conditions according to this piece. The point is that unless there is circulation of air, and therefore some loss of heat, this is the inevitable result.  

Sunday, 18 November 2018


Read this article below  By Francis Menton 

Don’t be too surprised that you’re not reading much recently about the impending climate apocalypse and the supposed “hottest year,” “hottest month,” or “hottest day” ever.  The reason is that global lower troposphere temperatures, as measured by satellites and published by UAH, are down by more than 0.7 deg C since early 2016.  That’s well more than half of what was thought to be the temperature increase since the satellite record began in 1979.  September 2018 turned out to be the coolest September in ten years.
But inquiring minds are still eager to get to the bottom of the temperature adjustment scandal that has created a fake warming trend in the so-called “surface temperature” record that goes back into the mid-1800s.  For those unfamiliar with this field, the “surface temperature” record comes from a totally different source from the satellite record, namely a network of conventional thermometers, each located a few feet above the ground, scattered around the world.  The data from the surface thermometers is collected and published by three entities, two in the U.S. (NASA and NOAA) and one in England (the Hadley Center at the Climatic Research Unit of the University of East Anglia).  Those three use somewhat different but substantially overlapping surface thermometers to compile their records.  All three show a noticeable warming trend in the range of 1.5 deg C since the late 19th century.
But is the warming trend real, or is all or most of it an artifact of temperature adjustments made to the record over time?  Many have noticed that substantial downward adjustments have been made to raw temperatures recorded at many of the stations in the surface thermometer networks during the earlier part of the record, mainly from the mid-1800s through 1950s.  This issue has been the principal focus of my series The Greatest Scientific Fraud Of All Time.  This is now Part XIX of that series.
Here’s the new development:  A guy named John McLean has just (October 2018) published a big Report via John Boyle Publishing, essentially consisting of an expanded and updated version of his 2017 Ph.D. thesis for James Cook University in Australia.  For his thesis, McLean elected to conduct an “audit” of one of the surface temperature records, that of the Hadley Center at UEA, a series known as HadCRUT4.  The HadCRUT4 series is the main series relied on by the IPCC for its warnings of climate alarm propounded to the governments of the world.  The full McLean Report is behind a pay wall, where it can be purchased for $8.  I have purchased a copy.  The Executive Summary and some other excerpts can be found at Watts Up With That here
McLean’s audit is scathing in many respects.  He covers everything from impossibly crazy temperature readings that nobody bothers to examine or correct (one town in Colombia records a three-month period with an average temperature over 80 deg C, which is 176 deg F) to ridiculous sparsity of data (in some of the early years, the entire southern hemisphere has only one land-based weather station), and so on.  The overall conclusion:
Governments and the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) rely heavily on the IPCC reports so ultimately the temperature data needs to be accurate and reliable.  This audit shows that it is neither of those things.
By all means buy the Report and read it if you have the time.  In this post I’m going to focus mainly on one portion of it, which is the part that addresses the issue of the early-year downward temperature adjustments.
For extensive background on this temperature-adjustment issue, you can read the previous posts in this series.  To make it a little easier to grasp, I’ll throw in this graph from Part XVIII of the series, posted in January of this year.  This graph shows current and earlier versions of temperature data from the station at Geneva in upstate New York.  Note that this data is from GISS (NASA) rather than HadCRUT, but the adjustment issues are comparable:
Somehow temperatures prior to 1950 have been adjusted downward by in excess of 2 deg C; and between 1950 and 1970 by in excess of 1 deg C.  That’s one way to create a strong warming trend!  But how has that been done, and how do we know that the adjustments are appropriate?  None of NASA, NOAA or Hadley/CRU have been forthcoming with anything approaching an adequate explanation.
Now McLean weighs in with some insights.  From the Executive Summary:
Another important finding of this audit is that many temperatures have been incorrectly adjusted. The adjustment of data aims to create a temperature record that would have resulted if the current observation stations and equipment had always measured the local temperature. Adjustments are typically made when station is relocated or its instruments or their housing replaced.
The typical method of adjusting data is to alter all previous values by the same amount. Applying this to situations that changed gradually (such as a growing city increasingly distorting the true temperature) is very wrong and it leaves the earlier data adjusted by more than it should have been. Observation stations might be relocated multiple times and with all previous data adjusted each time the very earliest data might be far below its correct value and the complete data record show an exaggerated warming trend.
There is much more on this subject in the body of the Report, particularly pages 82 to 86.  McLean asserts that something like the following is a frequent occurrence:  A measuring site, originally located in an undisturbed rural area, gradually becomes surrounded by urban build-up, and becomes subject to the urban heat island effect.  Thus, the temperatures it is recording are “too high” at least as compared to some theoretical un-affected “true” temperature.  At some point, the station is appropriately moved to a new location without the urbanization.  The difference between the temperatures recorded at the new and old locations is calculated.  And then - and here is the key error - the temperatures at the old location are adjusted downward by the amount of that difference, for all times going back to the beginning of the station.  But here’s the error: in its early years, the station was not affected by an urban heat island, so temperatures from that period should not be adjusted downward.  Yet they are.  From page 84 of the Report:
It is incorrect but seemingly common to apply a constant adjustment to all data from the first site according the calculated difference between it and the second site when the data at the first site has been distorted by gradual changes in the local environment. It defies logic that a location that was abandoned because it was contaminated by external influences was equally contaminated when the observation station was first established there and throughout the entire time that the station was at that site, but this is what a constant data adjustment implies. 
So, can an independent researcher at least be given the adjustment methodology so that the process can be reverse-engineered and corrected?  From page 82:
Much of the observation station data used in HadCRUT4 is likely to have been adjusted but there is no record of the method used or the amount of the adjustment, which makes the data impossible to independently audit.
In short, there is no getting to the bottom of the temperature-adjustment scandal, because the perpetrators have created no record to make it possible to figure out what they have done or to attempt to reproduce their work. 
Final question:  Is there any possibility that this is done innocently, as opposed to an intentional effort to engineer a fake record to support the cause of climate alarm?
OK, this is just one young guy doing some due diligence.  But the fact is, he has nailed the grand pooh-bahs with obvious data manipulation to achieve their desired result.  Do you expect any kind of response from the in crowd?  I don’t.
I’ll end with some conclusions from the Executive Summary:
The primary conclusion of the audit is however that the dataset shows exaggerated warming and that global averages are far less certain than have been claimed.
One implication of the audit is that climate models have been tuned to match incorrect data, which would render incorrect their predictions of future temperatures and estimates of the human influence of temperatures.
Another implication is that the proposal that the Paris Climate Agreement adopt 1850-1899 averages as “indicative” of pre-industrial temperatures is fatally flawed. During that period global coverage is low - it averages 30% across that time - and many land-based temperatures are very likely to be excessively adjusted and therefore incorrect.
A third implication is that even if the IPCC’s claim that mankind has caused the majority of warming since 1950 is correct then the amount of such warming over what is almost 70 years could well be negligible. The question then arises as to whether the effort and cost of addressing it make any sense.
Ultimately it is the opinion of this author that the HadCRUT4 data, and any reports or claims based on it, do not form a credible basis for government policy on climate or for international agreements about supposed causes of climate change.