Here is yet another example of how carbon credits are being abused. It is both shocking yet so predictable. When will governments wake up and scrap this nonsense?
Tuesday, 29 June 2010
Monday, 28 June 2010
Sunday, 27 June 2010
This report gives the details of how a school board has heeded the complaints of a few informed parents and removed a book and video with blatant false claims and political dogma. How many schools are using this type of material which goes unchallenged, I wonder?
Saturday, 26 June 2010
This report tells us that Ms Gillard is a'pragmatic' political leader (aren't they all today?). Her policy is determined by what gives her the votes.
This piece in The Australian should be a warning to all leaders that if a good opposition stands up against these emission trading schemes then governments can quickly lose their popularity. The new Aussie PM is between a rock and a hard place as this article suggests.
Friday, 25 June 2010
In a case very similar to the Kingsnorth Power Station case, this article explains how the jury are being given lectures in climate change, presumably so that the defendants can claim that their actions were necessary. So the madness continues. What I cannot understand is why the prosecution do not bring in some "experts" to refute this "evidence". I expect the reason is that no one wants to be seen to be "off message".
This article from the Financial Post explains how the Spanish government are considering reneging on the over-generous subsidies given to producers of solar electricity. The result, according to those in the industry will be mass bankruptcy of many firms. When will they ever learn?
Thursday, 24 June 2010
This article gives the thinking of the new coalition government in the UK on how to encourage new nuclear power plants. Instead of offering them a subsidy they will guarantee a dearer price for electricity by putting a lower limit on the price of carbon. This is not great news for consumers or industry, as we can look forward to an exodus of industry and more expensive electricity. I think the public should be told.
Wednesday, 23 June 2010
Tuesday, 22 June 2010
Monday, 21 June 2010
Sunday, 20 June 2010
Saturday, 19 June 2010
Friday, 18 June 2010
Thursday, 17 June 2010
This link is to an audio recording of the testimony. Of particular interest is the tesimony of Prof. John Christy which can be found by going to the first session and looking from just over half way through it. Prof. Christy's forthright views would, if adopted, lead to a much more realistic assessment of climate science.
More details of the review here.
Wednesday, 16 June 2010
Tuesday, 15 June 2010
Monday, 14 June 2010
Sunday, 13 June 2010
If, like me, you would love to see the chief advocates of the global warming theory cross examined thoroughly in a public inquiry, then you can read this paper by a university law professor. At around 80 pages it is a serious piece of work, but as I don't expect James Hansen, Al Gore and co to submit themselves anytime soon it is the best we'll get.
Saturday, 12 June 2010
This article in the Toronto Sun makes a fair point about the massive cost of staging these global summits, such as the current one in Canada. Are they simply a gigantic bean-fest for leaders to strut about making out they are doing things, when in fact these things could be done at a fraction of the cost using video-conferencing? Will the mdia also condemn the 'climate conferences' for the same reason?
Friday, 11 June 2010
Thursday, 10 June 2010
This story in the Scotsman gives the details of comments made by TV maths and science presenter Johnny Ball ahead of his talk on the subject.
Wednesday, 9 June 2010
Tuesday, 8 June 2010
Monday, 7 June 2010
When it comes to going green, Mr Cameron could do no better than read this piece from the Washington Post. It points out with great clarity that inefficient forms of energy can only ever be taken up by using large carrots or big sticks with which to bribe or beat us. In our current financial plight we can afford neither.
Sunday, 6 June 2010
The next time you meet someone who says that scientists have a good level of understanding of the causes of global warming you could refer them to this table (2.11) from the 4th IPCC Report, Working Group 2. You will need to scroll down to page 200 (chapter 2) to see the table which displays sideways. This table lists 16 factors which the IPCC identify as contributing to global warming (they use the term 'radiative forcing' to describe this). The interesting thing about the table is that out of these 16, for only one of them does the IPCC claim to have a high level of scientific understanding (LOSU). For two of them there is a 'medium' LOSU, another two 'medium/low', six have a 'low' LOSU, and five 'very low'. It should be noted that the 16 factors are only the ones known to the IPCC; there are probably several others as yet unknown altogether. It is from these 'forcings that they feed in the information into the computers to give their predictions of future temperatures over the coming century.It seems extraordinary that the science which world governments put so much faith in is based on such meagre understanding.
Saturday, 5 June 2010
This discovery is yet more evidence that man has still much to learn about our climate. How is it that any scientist can claim that we understand enough to know how to control our climate when we are still learning so much of the basics?
Friday, 4 June 2010
This is the second time recently that climate alarmists have been defeated in university debates - see here. It would appear that, despite the relentless propaganda in schools in favour of the alarmists, intelligent young people remain unconvinced. This is very encouraging news.
Thursday, 3 June 2010
Wednesday, 2 June 2010
This report refers to a recent BBC radio programme in which the idea of suspending democracy in order to implement draconian CO2 emission controls was discussed. While the BBC must be free to have editorial control over its output, it must also have due regard to 'balance' as a public service broadcaster. It seems to have failed that test here, and James Delingpole is right to draw our attention to it.