In the recent UK budget the Chancellor agreed to build four new coal-fired power stations, but then added a billion pounds to the cost of each by insisting they be built to enable "carbon-capture" to be retro-fitted. Read the full report Here at the EU Referendum blog.
Thursday, 30 April 2009
Wednesday, 29 April 2009
This article in the Australian gives a very readable account of why the current theory of CO2 causing GW is not settled science, and why we should not be putting all our money on reducing CO2 emissions. These kind of articles are beginning to become more mainstream as the planet's climate fails to live up to the alarmist predictions.
Tuesday, 28 April 2009
Monday, 27 April 2009
As the Copenhagen climate conference gets closer the developing world gets more and more demanding as this article shows. I doubt that the West would be mad enough to give in to these demands, but after the UK Climate Change Act and the recent announcement in the USA to declare CO2 to be a pollutant I cannot rule anything out. By swallowing all this CO2 climate theory nonsense the West has got itself in a hole and it will now be hard to get out. Pleading poverty as a result of the recession will buy us time. Maybe by then the planet will have cooled enough to allow us to re-visit the science.
Sunday, 26 April 2009
This article explains the extreme folly of the recent decision to define CO2 as a pollutant. This, if confirmed, will lead to price increase across the board and the US ecnomy becoming uncompetitive in relation to China and India who are not introducing any similar scheme.
Saturday, 25 April 2009
Friday, 24 April 2009
Thursday, 23 April 2009
This report gives details. It seems the fact that the warming trend at the end of the last century has ended is now becoming more obvious. The cat is out of the alarmists bag, and they are left with no alternative other than to shout "disaster imminent!" louder and louder.
Wednesday, 22 April 2009
This report gives details. Once again the alarmists are caught out peddling their doom-laden false statistics. Here is an excellent account of further alarmism about the Antarctic exposed. Those who have put their reputation on the theory of global warming due to CO2 are desparate to keep up the tales of doom - a last throw of the dice.
Tuesday, 21 April 2009
Top Australian geologist, Ian Plimer, has just written a new book in which he sets out his views on the current theory of global warming. With 40 years experience, he is one of the leading scientists in his field, and so his views carry a lot of weight. Also see this review in the Australian.
Monday, 20 April 2009
Despite the alarmist mantra that we are living way beyond our planets capacity, Bjorn Lomborg, in this article from the Australian supplies convincing arguments which say they are wrong. Even though Lomborg believes the CO2 theory, he shows that green groups like Friends of the Earth and WWF are exaggerating their case to cause alarm.
Sunday, 19 April 2009
This pronouncement was made in a television interview. These people really believe that our CO2 emissions are controlling the climate. Where are the men in white coats?
Saturday, 18 April 2009
This report explains that tests have shown that although most CO2 is emitted in the northern hemisphere measurements have shown that levels in the atmosphere are broadly similar in both north and south. This leads to the conclusion that the source of the CO2 must be from more than just burning fossil fuels. It is clear that this is a more complex matter than alarmists would have us believe.
Friday, 17 April 2009
This Reuters story is typical of how the global warming narrative is being hyped up, when, in fact, there is no real evidence to back it. The excellent EU Referendum blog has dissected the story here. The public are being duped by an unholy alliance of greens and other government-funded quangos.
Thursday, 16 April 2009
This article is fundamental to understanding why CO2 is not a problem and why the world is wrong to spend trillions of dollars in trying to decarbonise the economy. Here is scientific proof that it is wrong and yet it is being ignored. The problem is that some scientists who have staked their reputation on this theory are prepared to ignore anything, however powerful, in order to avoid admitting they are wrong. The bandwaggon of global warming and all the policy which flows from it has gained such momentum that only a dramatic downturn in temperature is likely to halt it. It is important that we all ask the awkward question of the missing hotspot at every opportunity.
Wednesday, 15 April 2009
Here is the story - yes I found it hard to believe too. One or two hot summers a few years ago and they're off. Last summer was cool and very wet, but I bet it won't tempt them back.
Tuesday, 14 April 2009
This article explains how the Dutch have realised that the flight tax to cut CO2 emissions was going to cost their economy far more than the revenue it raised. Just the start of governments realising this, I suspect. Reality is dawning fast, and it will be intersting to see what kind of fudge will come out of "climate change" negotiations leading up to a successor to the Kyoto Treaty.
Monday, 13 April 2009
This press release gives the details of another attempt to influence young people. This is not about education, but is about the indoctrination of young minds to one belief, with no possibility of them being presented with a true picture of the science. While in Australia yet yet more of the same.
Sunday, 12 April 2009
As far As I am aware Australia is the first country to form a political party primarily based on opposition to climate change policies. This link explains their opposition to indoctrination taking place in schools there. Their whole website is excellent and worth reading.If mainstream parties continue to ignore the weakness of the science and pile on extra taxes in a vain attempt to stop the climate changing then it is likely that other nations will follow suit.
Saturday, 11 April 2009
So says the government funded "Energy Saving Trust" according to ,this report in the Telegraph. This isn't a late April Fool's joke, they are being serious apparently; in which case - they have no chance!
How can they expect wealthy westerners to live as though they were living in war-time? Not only that, but the schizophrenic government is desparate to get people spending to get us out of the recession. People will only behave as though there are shortages if there are actual shortages. Most people have never darned a sock in their life and would not know where to start. These kind of suggestions are futile and pointless.
Meanwhile back in the real world people are rushing to buy good value 4x4's. See this story from the Mail They certainly do not believe the messages of doom that appear regularly on the news. There is clearly a reality gulf between those who have swallowed the GW mantra and the majority of the public who use their eyes to see reality. The government will have to increase its propaganda!
Friday, 10 April 2009
Conservative MP, Peter Lilley has written to the Secretary of State For Energy and Climate Change to challenge the validity of the "Alice in Wonderland" revised economic forecast in respect of the Climate Change Act. I look forward to seeing the answers he gets. Peter is one of a very few MPs to scrutinise the massive cost being inflicted on the UK. Read the letter, below, to see the fantasy world of government financial planning. Are these people fit to run a country?
To view the government's "impact assessment" trying to justify its figures go to this link
Dear Secretary of State,
You recently slipped out, without notifying Parliament, a massive revision of the estimated costs and benefits of the Climate Change Act.
I hope that on consideration, you will agree that changes amounting to nearly £1 trillion require both discussion in, and explanation to, Parliament. This is particularly important given the extraordinary way the government treated its own original estimates of the costs and benefits of the Climate Change Bill during the Bill’s passage through Parliament.
You will recall that your original estimates of costs and benefits of the Climate Change Bill showed that its potential costs (1) at some £205 billion were almost twice the maximum benefits of £110 billion. This was embarrassing for you because the reason governments are required to publish an Impact Assessment giving estimates of costs and benefits of any Bill is to enable Parliament to “determine whether the benefits justify the costs” (2).
In this case, on the basis of your figures, they clearly did not. Moreover, your initial calculations were based on the original target of reducing emissions by 60%, which was increased to 80% during the passage of the Bill. Normally each extra percentage reduction will require increasing marginal costs and generate declining marginal benefits. So the higher target was likely to make the disparity between costs and benefits even worse.
You nonetheless ignored your own department’s figures, refused to discuss them and proceeded to drive the Bill through – surely the first time any government has recommended Parliament to vote for a Bill which its own Assessment showed could cost far more than the maximum benefits?
However, you promised to produce revised estimates though, rather bizarrely, not in time for Parliament to consider them but after Royal Assent.
Five months have passed since then. Inevitably such a lengthy delay arouses suspicions – aggravated by the scale of the changes – that the figures have had to be heavily massaged to remove the original embarrassment.
The new figures for both costs and benefits have indeed been changed dramatically. As so often in the debate on Global Warming – when the facts don’t fit the theory they change the facts.
As recently as your last departmental question time on 5th March your Minister of State, Joan Ruddock, suggested to me that the original estimate of potential costs of up to £205 billion might be too high. She said “We are likely to find that the costs, which covered a very large range, were exaggerated…” Yet despite correcting for any previous downward bias the revised figures you have now published are not lower but substantially higher. The bottom of the new range for costs is in fact £324 billion – nearly 60% higher than the highest figure I have been quoting. And the top of the range is now £404 billion.
In other words the government now estimates that the Climate Change Act will cost every household in the country between £16,000 and £20,000 each.
When it comes to your revised estimates of the benefits, however, we enter Alice in Wonderland territory. Even though costs have broadly doubled, the embarrassment of them exceeding your own estimate of the maximum benefits has been eliminated. The benefits have been dramatically increased tenfold from £105 billion to over £1 trillion. I congratulate you on finding nearly £1 trillion of benefits which had previously escaped your notice.
But surely such an astounding discovery merits explanation? The one element of the revision which is mentioned appears, of itself, to justify doubling estimates based on the previous methodology. But where did the rest of the newly discovered benefits arise from?
As you know, having studied physics at Cambridge, I do not dispute the existence of a greenhouse effect, though I am sceptical about the model building which seeks to amplify it. I support sensible measures to reduce CO2 emissions, economise on hydrocarbon use and help the poorest countries adapt to adverse climate change whatever it cause – as long as the measures we adopt are sensible and cost effective. But we cannot judge what is sensible and cost effective if we do not have reliable figures, and subject them to proper parliamentary scrutiny.
When the Department slips out figures which it appears to be unable to explain, unwilling to debate and which are so flaky they vary by a factor of ten - it can only provoke scepticism.
I should be grateful if you could answer the following questions:
1) When will Parliament be given an opportunity to discuss these new figures?
2) What is the explanation of the huge revisions in costs and, more particularly, benefits?
3) Why has it taken five months to produce these revised figures?
4) What is the purpose of publishing Impact Assessments which are ignored or not available until after Parliament has considered a Bill?
5) Which minister signed off the required declaration that the original Impact Assessment “represented a reasonable view of the likely costs, benefits and impact”?
6) Can you confirm that the costs of the Climate Change Act amount to between £16,000 and £20,000 for every UK household?
7) Can you confirm that the revised cost estimates still exclude transitional costs (which could amount to 1% of GDP up to 2020), ignore the cost of driving British firms overseas, and assume that all businesses identify and immediately apply the most carbon efficient technology available?
8) Can you confirm that although the costs of the Act will fall on UK households the benefits will largely accrue to the rest of the world?
9) Can you confirm that the Climate Change Act binds UK governments to pursue the targets regardless of whether other countries follow our lead (or indeed whether the climate warms or not)?
(1) Cost estimates exclude transitional costs which were put at about 1% of GDP until 2020, omit the cost of driving carbon intensive UK industries abroad which was said to be significantly likely, and assume that businesses will identify and implement immediately the optimum new carbon efficient technologies.
(2) Impact Assessment Guidance - BERR
Thursday, 9 April 2009
Here is a great article from the Joanne Nova Blog which is taken from a presentation at the recent conference in Manhattan. The graph illustrates the true picture of how the temperature is changing, and it lays bare all the alarmism given by the IPCC. I also recommend Joanne's Skeptic's Handbook which summarises the nub of the argument concisely.
Wednesday, 8 April 2009
This article describes the dilemma facing them. It looks as though the legislation is unlikely to get an easy passage. A watered-down compromise is most likely, which will end up satisfying no one. It will nevertheless still cause damage to the economy.
Tuesday, 7 April 2009
This article spells out the reasons why Western nations will not be able to make significant short term reductions in CO2 emissions. It explains how the US Senate passed an amendment by a huge majority from both parties, which said that their emission reduction policy must not raise the price of energy. Amazing! It was always, in my opinion the most likely outcome, despite all the rhetoric and posturing. I actually wonder whether many politicians around the world actually still believe in the so-called science behind all the alarmism; or whether, in fact, they are simply negotiating as a gesture, to avoid admitting that they were simply duped in the first place.
Monday, 6 April 2009
Sunday, 5 April 2009
This article highlights the real politics of "climate change", but it's the economic climate that will drive decisions by governments, rather than the idealism of the environmentalists, cheered on by the developing world looking for handouts.
Saturday, 4 April 2009
This BBC news report gives the details of a new fusion technology that has been successfully tested. This could be the answer to future generations once fossil fuels start to decline. It is the mad rush to decarbonise now that is so damaging, when new technology could be along later in the century.
Friday, 3 April 2009
Only a few extreme environmental fanatics and anoraks were aware, but apparently we have just had something called Earth Hour, which was meant to be an hour when we switched off our lights to show we are serious about "combatting global warming". According to this article the event passed largely unnoticed, which just shows the general lack of interest.
For another take on this look at this article on "Carbon-sense" website. It makes the good point that without all the fossil fuel generated power we should find ourselves cold and dark for much more than one hour. Maybe it would be good to remind ourselves of what we could lose if power becomes too costly and unreliable.
Thursday, 2 April 2009
This article by the redoubtable Christopher Booker looks at the current expedition to the Arctic to measure the ice thickness. It seems to have been a triumph - in so far as it has high-lighted the intense coldness being experienced(-40C). No doubt if the ice does not prove to be thin enough the results will be buried out of sight.