Many people have been seduced into parting with £10 - 12,000 for solar panels under the impression that the very generous feed-in tariffs were to remain fixed for years to come. Now, according to this Financial Times article, it seems that the government are already having second thoughts. Quite right too - we simply cannot afford these absurdly high subsidies.
Wednesday, 29 September 2010
Tuesday, 28 September 2010
This article highlights new evidence that some climatologists have underestimated the role of the ocean currents in affecting our climate. The idea that CO2 has a major influence is unravelling by the day, but will it be given any prominence in the media?
Monday, 27 September 2010
Sunday, 26 September 2010
When the queen starts to notice the cost of fuel it must be really obvious to the rest of us. If Her Majesty needs support then it's time to stop putting up prices by government taxes and subsidies. Perhaps her son, Prince Charles will put in a good word, instead of making his mission to save the planet his main priority
Saturday, 25 September 2010
Friday, 24 September 2010
This report reveals how our Climate Change Minister, Lib Dem Chris Huhne, is trying to frighten us into accepting a huge rise in fossil fuels, hoping that this will lead to acceptance of his huge cost of decarbonising the energy and transport sector. Of course if there was a general shift away from fossil fuels this would lead to a surplus of supply and prices would not rise as he anticipates, whereas in reality this will not happen as it must be perfectly clear that we will still rely on fossil fuels for the forseeable future, despite the best efforts of Mr Huhne. What is driving price increases is the increase in government taxes coupled with the huge subsidies given to so-called 'green energy' such as the inefficient wind farms.
Thursday, 23 September 2010
I like to call myself a climate realist, meaning that I believe myself to be a person who looks at the evidence and tries to weigh it up and come to a logical conclusion. From my point of view it seems as though the alarmists have had a great deal of influence on the behaviour of governments resulting in massive expenditure and taxation. It is therefore very interesting to read this viewpoint from George Monbiot in which he insists that the global warming prevention campaign has ended in failure. Much of what he says does make sense, in that all government carbon reduction schemes are in reality a fraud. Putting up the costs of energy simply adds to the cost of living while emissions remain broadly the same, or else it results in industry closing and jobs and emissions going abroad while world emissions go on rising.
As I have said many times before, what we are getting is all pain for no gain. Despite the failure of governments, we are fortunate in this case that the runaway warming shows no signs of happening and even if it did there is no evidence that CO2 is likely to be the cause.
Wednesday, 22 September 2010
Tuesday, 21 September 2010
Monday, 20 September 2010
This statement by Caroline Spelman MP, our Environment Minister, shows the government is still wedded to drastic (and expensive) measures to mitigate and adapt to global warming - in spite of the mounting evidence that our climate is still well within the range that it has always been in and even Prof Phil Jones (Head of CRU) was forced to admit that we have had no significant global warming for the past 15 years. The government would rather 'go with the flow' than look closely at the science. How very sad!
Sunday, 19 September 2010
Saturday, 18 September 2010
If the establishment thought they could get away with weak, one-sided inquiries into the climategate affair, then they must be getting a little anxious as more media coverage opens up their short-comings. Parliament, it appears, has realised that more needs to be done. The truth will out!
Friday, 17 September 2010
No, it's not a new disaster movie (yet!), but a new name for global warming (or climate change as some call it). Apparently the alarmists are not winning hearts and minds because they chose the wrong name, according to this article. The trouble is that when you resort to too many name changes people begin to notice and credibility is lost. This seems a desperate measure by some important but desperate people. If only they understood - it's the FACTS WHICH COUNT!
Thursday, 16 September 2010
Tuesday, 14 September 2010
This report in the Scoteman tells the sorry tale of how the Scots are being bled by their oh so Green government to the tume of £8 billion. It will result in cuts to front-line services. Let's hope the people let them know what they think at the next election.
Monday, 13 September 2010
Sunday, 12 September 2010
Here is a link to a video showing a young person who appears to be brain-washed into believing the most exaggerated claims of climate alarmism. It makes you think just how malleable the minds of young people are to propaganda. Even if these are only a small minority of young people they may well be the extremists of tomorrow. When we see the behaviour of muslim extremists today it is a chilling thought that we may find a new form of extremism is being created today.
Saturday, 11 September 2010
Friday, 10 September 2010
This report on the House of Commons Science Committee interview with Lord Oxburgh reveals what a feeble inquiry it was. What is needed is a full public inquiry into the whole state of our knowledge of global warming, but of course, the government would not want that, as it would be likely to reveal the truth - which is that the science is patchy and incomplete with very little certainty at all.
If anyone is interested in seeing the Science Select Committee interviewing Lord Oxburgh - Here is a link.
Thursday, 9 September 2010
Wednesday, 8 September 2010
Tuesday, 7 September 2010
Monday, 6 September 2010
Below is a very interesting report by Matt Ridley in the Times. His "journey" is both interesting and instructive.
September 04, 2010
This month, after a three-year investigation, Harvard University suspended
a prominent professor of psychology for scandalously overinterpreting
videos of monkey behaviour.
The incident has sent shock waves through science because it suggests a
body of data is unreliable. The professor, Marc Hauser, is now a pariah in
his field and his papers have been withdrawn. But the implications for
society are not great; no policy had been based on his research.
This week, after a four-month review, a committee of scientists concluded
that the Nobel prizewinning UN Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change
has "assigned high confidence to statements for which there is very little
evidence, has failed to enforce its own guidelines, has been guilty of too
little transparency, has ignored critical review comments and has had no
policies on conflict of interest".
Enormous and expensive policy changes have been based on the flawed work
of these scientists. Yet there is apparently to be no investigation,
blame, suspension or withdrawal of papers, just a gentle bureaucratic
fattening of the organisation with new full-time posts.
IPCC reports are supposed to be the gold standard account of what is - and
is not - known about global warming. The panel boasts that it uses only
peer-reviewed scientific literature.
But its claims about mountain ice turned out to be anecdotes from a
climbing magazine, its claims on the Amazon's vulnerability to drought
from a Brazilian pressure group's website and 42 per cent of the
references in one chapter proved to be to reports by Greenpeace, World
Wildlife Fund and other "grey" literature.
This week's review finds guidelines on the use of this grey literature
"are vague and have not always been followed".
For instance, the claim that glaciers in the Himalayas would disappear by
2035 seems to have been based on a misprint (for 2350) in a document
issued by a pressure group. When several reviewers challenged the
assertion in draft, they were ignored.
When Indian scientists challenged it after publication, they were not just
dismissed but vilified and accused of "voodoo science" by IPCC chairman
By contrast, when two academics, Ross McKitrick and Pat Michaels, found a
strong link between temperature rise and local economic development -
implying that recent warming is partly down to local, not global factors -
their paper was ignored for two drafts, despite many review comments
drawing attention to the omission. It was finally given a grudging
reference, with a false assertion that the data was rebutted by other data
that turned out to be nonexistent.
We now know the back story of this episode: the emails leaked from the
University of East Anglia include this from professor Phil Jones,
referring to exactly this paper: "I can't see either of these papers being
in the next IPCC report. Kevin and I will keep them out somehow - even if
we have to redefine what the peer-review literature is!"
(Note that the IPCC had appointed Jones as co-ordinating lead author to
pass judgment on his own papers as well as those of his critics. Learning
nothing, it has appointed one of Jones's closest colleagues for the next
report. This is asking not to be taken seriously.)
These are not merely procedural issues. They have real consequences for
science and society. All the errors and biases that have come to light in
recent months swerve in the direction of exaggerating the likely effect of
According to economist Richard Tol, one part of the 2007 report (produced
by Working Group 2) systematically overstated the adverse effects of
climate change, while another section (written by Working Group 3)
systematically understated the costs of emissions reduction. Indur
Goklany, an independent science scholar, likewise noticed that the report
had quoted a study that estimated the number of people at increased risk
of (reduced? BB) water shortage in the future as a result of climate
change, but omitted to mention the same source's estimate of the number of
people at decreased risk.
The latter number was larger in all cases, so that "by the 2080s the net
global population at risk declines by up to 2.1 billion people".
This is not a new problem. The unilateral redrafting of IPCC reports by
lead authors after reviewers had agreed them, and the writing of a
sexed-up "summary for policymakers" before the report was complete, have
discomfited many scientists since the first report. It is no great
surprise that the experts who compiled one part of the 2007 report
included three from Greenpeace, two Friends of the Earth representatives,
two Climate Action Network representatives and a person each from the
activist organisations WWF, Environmental Defence Fund and the David
Frankly, the whole process, not just the discredited Pachauri (in
shut-eyed denial at a press conference this week), needs purging or it
will drag down the reputation of science with it.
One of the most shocking things for those who champion science, as I do,
has been the sight of the science establishment reacting to each scandal
in climate science with indifference or contempt. The contrast with the
thorough investigation of the Hauser affair is striking.
Three years ago, not having paid much attention, I thought IPCC reports
were reliable, fair and transparent. No longer.
Despite coming from a long line of coalmining entrepreneurs, I'm not a
denier: I think carbon dioxide is a greenhouse gas. I'm not even a sceptic
(yet): I think the climate has warmed and will warm further.
But I am now a "lukewarmer" who has yet to see any evidence saying that
the present warming is, or is likely to be, unprecedented, fast or tending
So I have concluded that global warming will most probably be a fairly
minor problem - at least compared with others such as poverty and habitat
loss - for nature as well as people.
After watching the ecologically and economically destructive policies
enacted in its name (biofuels, wind power), I think we run the risk of
putting a tourniquet around our collective necks to stop a nosebleed.
Matt Ridley is the author of The Rational Optimist: How Prosperity Evolves
Sunday, 5 September 2010
Saturday, 4 September 2010
Friday, 3 September 2010
Here is the link to the House of Commons Science and Technology Committee giving the details of an interview with Lord Oxburgh. They should ask him why he claimed he was not tasked to look at the science (- see this post on Climate Audit) when his inquiry was described as an "inquiry into the science".