Climate alarmists are also puritans who want to micro-manage our lives. That is the conclusion from reading this article. The more I read this kill-joy stuff, the more I realise that it is important to publicise the very weak evidence for the theory of CO2 causing global warming.
Saturday, 30 May 2009
Friday, 29 May 2009
Thursday, 28 May 2009
Wednesday, 27 May 2009
In an ironic twist two environmental activists who set off on a voyage in a boat fitted with solar cells and wind turbines found themselves in serious danger and this report explains how they were rescued by an oil tanker. Obviously not too proud to accept help from the "evil oil companies" they hopped on board!
Tuesday, 26 May 2009
Monday, 25 May 2009
Reality came a step closer when the US climate envoy gave this talk to the BBC. It seems that no politician wants to admit they are not going to reach their targets, so this announcement was a little bit of fresh air.
Further evidence to show the so-called Cap 'n Trade is mostly trade can be seen here. "Plus ca change", as the French say!
Sunday, 24 May 2009
This article in the Wall Street Journal points out the way big business has become the biggest supporter of "climate change" legislation to introduce a market for carbon. This is not a conspiracy but just simple straight forward opportunism on the part of business, who are making the assumption that since regulation is coming then they will try to use it to their advantage. Businessmen are not usually idealists, just opportunists.
Saturday, 23 May 2009
This open letter by a UK physics teacher highlights an important issue - the gradual dumbing down of "difficult" subjects. This seems to have now reached the point where the whole purpose of the subject is being lost. All very sad and damaging not only to the students, but ultimately to our society.
Friday, 22 May 2009
This is the latest pronouncement from the global warming scientists as can be seen from this article. The extraordinary thing is that in the 2007 IPCC report this was not mentioned. At that time they attributed all the warming to greenhouse gases. This suggests to me that these computer climate models may prove to be a tad inaccurate, which is what sceptices have been saying for some time.
Thursday, 21 May 2009
Wednesday, 20 May 2009
This report in the Guardian alerts us to the ideas being considered by the UK government to enforce any new treaty on "climate change". Clearly this issue is being used to further an agenda towards a world government, or at least a huge bureaucracy which will no doubt lead to massive costs and corruption.
Tuesday, 19 May 2009
If you think that all the government talk is simply "hot air" and that in the real world life will go on as normal just look here and here and here to see the implications of the new UK "Carbon Reduction Commitment" legislation which will affect all large councils from April 2010. This bureaucratic labyrinth will be very expensive to administer, (a lot more expense than any projected savings, I bet!). This is just the start as business will be next, driving up costs and prices for all citizens of the UK, no matter what happens to the climate - and of course we all know that it will not have any measurable effect whatsoever on that. But with all the mushrooming organisations clamouring to get involved in the bureaucracy no one actually cares about the end result - other than that a lot of bureaucrats will make a good living out of it. If you still have doubts about what I am saying, take a look at this piece to see all the wonderful ways of making money out of carbon. You can be certain that all the profits are coming out of our pockets.
Monday, 18 May 2009
This article in the Mail on Sunday shows that students are again being influenced to take a particular point of view on controversial matters. This is exactly what is happening with respect to the global warming issue, as highlighted by the showing of the Al Gore polemic in UK schools.
If this survey of sixth formers is anything to go by, the brainwashing is still not effective enough. No doubt more will be provided.
Sunday, 17 May 2009
Saturday, 16 May 2009
This compelling paper sets out a test by which the CO2 theory of global warming can be proven true or false. Here is one short extract from its findings:
"In brief, we know of no mechanism by which vast amounts of “missing” heat can be hidden, transferred, or absorbed within the earth’s system. The only reasonable conclusion-call it a null hypothesis-is that heat is no longer accumulating in the climate system and there is no longer a radiative imbalance caused by anthropogenic forcing. This not only demonstrates that the IPCC models are failing to accurately predict global warming, but also presents a serious challenge to the integrity of the AGW hypothesis."
Friday, 15 May 2009
Thursday, 14 May 2009
Wednesday, 13 May 2009
Tuesday, 12 May 2009
At last the penny is starting to drop if this report is anything to go by. Any government that agrees to put its own people at a disadvantage as a result of "climate change" negotiations will find itself getting a lot of flack - quite deservedly!
Monday, 11 May 2009
Sunday, 10 May 2009
I just love to read the predictions of so-called experts based on their utter certainty of their belief in the theory of global warming. This one is making a bold prediction about the change to UK gardens over the next decade. Their confidence is breathtaking, and I just hope someone will remember it if it all fails to materialise. After all it isn't as though we in the UK haven't had the occasional hot dry spells in the past.
Saturday, 9 May 2009
In the past scientists had the reputation for being thorough and honest, if perhaps a little dull! However all that reputation could be a thing of the past if the findings on this blog are anything to go by. The problem is that science is no longer the province of those with high ideals earnestly seeking out the truth. Like everything else it has become subject to big money. Today's scientists are forced to apply for lucrative research grants, and to attract such grants a scientist is expected to come up with the results their "masters" are wanting. Inevitably some are tempted to take shortcuts or even to falsify the results.
Friday, 8 May 2009
Yes, get out the Bar-B and the sun lounger and be ready to water the garden, in case there isn't a hose-pipe ban. Here is the good news for the UK from the Met Office, though unlike their forecast for the next century (where they claim 90% certainty), this forecast is only 50% likely to be right. There is a 30% chance it will be average and even a 20% chance it will be cool or wet. Now that's more like the real odds for a weather forecast - you could do almost as well using a bit of seaweed and a fircone!
Mind you this is the third forecast in a row of a hot dry summer. Maybe they are repeating the same forecast in the hope that eventually they will be right. See this report on Watts up with that.
Thursday, 7 May 2009
This article explains the business decision made by a wind turbine manufacturer. Other manufacturers will reach the same decision. It is cheaper to make things in the developing world anyway, but when you add on all the extra costs of reducing carbon emissions it is even clearer. When will the western governments wake up and realise that "saving the planet" is a slogan to beat them with? The irony is that the CO2 theory is unproven - relying on deeply flawed computer models as the only thing that keeps them alive.
Wednesday, 6 May 2009
When you read this report you realise that science is now carried out by feeding data into computers and then writing a paper on what comes out of it. The fact that such "modelling" as it is called is so readily accepted by our politicians and media is deeply worrying. Have they never heard of the saying "garbage in - garbage out"?
Tuesday, 5 May 2009
1. You are a partner in the venture capital firm of Kleiner-Perkins and a co-founder of the United Kingdom-based investment firm of Generation Investment Management, each of which stands to gain financially from greenhouse gas regulation. Please describe any other financial interests that you have in any other businesses that stand to profit from greenhouse gas regulation.
2. In October 2008, the New York Times Magazine featured a cover story on how Kleiner Perkins had invested $1 billion in 40 companies that would profit from new environmental and energy laws and regulations. What will be your share of any profits from these ventures?
3. How much of your own money have you contributed to Kleiner-Perkins, Generation Investment Management and other businesses that stand to profit from greenhouse gas regulation? If you have not contributed significant amounts of your own capital to these businesses, what, then, is your role in them? Are you a lobbyist? Are you the face of their public relations efforts? Is your job to run around scaring politicians and the public into enacting greenhouse gas regulation?
4. Is Kleiner-Perkins’ business plan to have you press for legislation and regulation favorable to its clients in order to make them more attractive and available for sale to the public, at which time Kleiner-Perkins would cash out, leaving the public invested in not-ready-for-prime-time companies that have dubious financial prospects and that are dependent on taxpayer subsidies?
5. Your co-founder with Generation Investment Management is former Goldman Sachs partner David Blood. Goldman Sachs is lobbying for global warming legislation and is a part owner of the Chicago Climate Exchange, where carbon credits from cap-and-trade legislation would be traded. Do you or Generation Investment Management stand to benefit in anyway from these relationships?
6. Generation Investment Management’s web site says the firm provides investment advice to clients. Who are Generation Investment Management’s clients and how do they stand to profit from upcoming environmental and energy legislation and regulation? Will these clients share their profits with you and/or Generation Investment Management?
7. When you left public service in January 2001, your personal net worth was perhaps $2 million. In 2007, your personal net worth was reported to be on the order of $100 million. How much of this fortune is related, directly or indirectly, to your advocacy of legislation to reduce “global warming”?
8. When you testified before the Senate Foreign Relations Committee in January, why did you not disclose to the Committee and to the public your relationships with Kleiner-Perkins and Generation Investment Management? Generation Investment Management’s web site says, “Integrity and honesty are the bedrock of our business. We demand the highest ethical standards in our work and in our personal lives.” In light of this statement, how to you explain your failure to inform the Senate Committee of your financial conflicts of interest?
9. You travel all over the world in jets and limos, own a houseboat, use 20 times more electricity than the average American, and stand to make a fortune that most millionaires would envy. Yet you tell Americans to downsize their lives, such as by limiting their travel, using less heat and air conditioning, and drying their clothes outside on a clothesline. Describe for us, in detail, your personal “carbon footprint.”
10. If you are wrong about humans causing catastrophic global warming, will you give all the money you “earned” from your alarmism back?
Monday, 4 May 2009
Sunday, 3 May 2009
You would think that the ice at the Arctic was dramatically different from anything in recent memory. However these archives from the 50's and 60's show that thin ice at the Arctic is a frequent occurrence. So next time you see on the TV news that we are facing "unprecedented melting" you know it simplt isn't true.
Saturday, 2 May 2009
The media are so far under the spell of the global warming alarmists that I have seen about as much coverage of the sun's recent unusual behaviour as there is current sunspot activity. But, as the saying goes "the truth will out", and it looks as though, through gritted teeth, we are beginning to see some coverage such as that in The Independent.
If the sun is the main driver of our climate, and logic would suggest it is much more likely than CO2, then as the earth starts to cool we can expect to see a few red-faced alarmist scientists, not to mention a lot of politicians embarrassed at having been taken in by them.
Further coverage here. And here.
Friday, 1 May 2009
Christopher Booker's latest article exposes the lack of understanding by Lord Stern, an economist, of the basic science of global warming. Stern focuses all his efforts on the economics of "tackling global warming", but does he really understand the science?
This is the problem, people like Stern and Gore lack the scientific knowledge, yet they still lecture us as if they know all the answers, while world renowned scientists who warn us that the science is far from clear are ignored.
MEP Roger Helmer has also written an excellent piece on Stern's new book here.