Sunday, 31 July 2016


This article refers to a new scientific paper which concludes that the Antarctic Peninsula has been cooling for the last 20 years - the opposite of what we were all told was happening. But did you hear this on the main TV news? Or was it headlines in the main national papers? No, it has hardly been mentioned and yet it is a truly extraordinary finding which contradicts the very foundations of the so-called 'evidence' of dangerous warming. How long will it be before someone puts a documentary on mainstream TV to point out all the contradictions that have emerged over the past decade that pour cold water on the hypothesis of catastrophic anthropogenic global warming (CAGW)?  

Saturday, 30 July 2016


This article explains why belief in global warming and policies to tackle greenhouse gas emissions are becoming a key dividing line ahead of the 2016 election. My fear is that Donald Trump does not win the presidency due to his stance on other issues, and that Hillary Clinton entrenches the climate change mantra into the USA government. That would spell disaster for the West. On the other hand if Trump were to win we might get a lot more common sense on this important issue.

Friday, 29 July 2016


And it's nothing to do with reducing CO2 emissions. Matt Ridley has a lot of very sound opinions and so he is always worth reading. In this linked article he is explaining how a genetically modified mosquito could be the way to eradicate the spread of several very nasty viruses, including the zika virus. This work is of much greater importance than the pointless attempts to control the climate.

Thursday, 28 July 2016


Here is the text of the two speeches, with a link to the whole debate for those with the time and interest. As I read the debate I could not help wondering how the government minister and her supporters could be so naïve as to believe that reducing our CO2 emissions so drastically could actually be without cost. The details of the actual policies that will lead to the latest reductions are to be announced later. I can't wait!

Wednesday, 27 July 2016


This paper by Dr Roy Spencer is well worth reading as it puts into perspective the various factors that lead to errors in measuring temperatures and the value of those errors compared to the warming that has been measured. Most people simply read the headlines in the papers about "the warmest ever" temperatures, without understanding the errors associated with those measurements. 

Tuesday, 26 July 2016


This article explains the issue very well. It is now propaganda that is being fed to our young people and not the true scientific method. The problem for alarmists is that the brightest young people can see this for what it is and so they will then arrive in the sceptic camp.

Monday, 25 July 2016


Christopher Booker is stating the truth when he forecasts trouble ahead for the UK energy sector. Here is the latest newsletter from the excellent Scientific Alliance which confirms that Booker is right.

A reliable energy supply has always been a prerequisite for a modern industrial society. Lenin – certainly interested in power in all its forms – once said “Communism is Soviet power plus electrification of the whole country”. In today’s world, there seems to be a move towards the second aim, although hopefully not the first.

Electrification is a large part of the proposed plan to reduce carbon dioxide emissions and mitigate future climate changes in many countries. Enthusiasts see a future where cars are battery powered and domestic gas heating systems have been replaced by electric radiators of some description, or heat pumps. As a possible route to radical decarbonisation, it has some conceptual attractions, but there are some pretty big obstacles to overcome if this vision is ever to become a reality.

Leaving aside for now the thorny issue of cost – both to the consumer and the public purse – the two major points that have to be addressed are the extra generating capacity that has to be added to the system, and the primary fuel used in the new power stations. Since the aim of the whole exercise would be to reduce carbon emissions, this point about the fuel is critical, so more about this later.

But first, how much generating capacity would be needed? The 2015 edition of the official Digest of UK Energy Statistics (DUKES) reports a total generating capacity of 85 GW in 2014, and it is this figure that is the key one in terms of meeting peak demand. Not all of this capacity is necessarily available at any one time and, in particular, the output of the increasing amount of wind and solar capacity may be out of phase with actual demand. This is one reason why the country is a net importer of electricity via its system of interconnectors to the near continent.

The same source reports a total amount of 339 TWh of electricity generated, supplemented by imports. To illustrate the difficulty of matching supply and demand, the total consumption was just 303 TWh, meaning that at least 36 TWh of electricity was either generated when it was not needed or lost in the system. To put these figures into context, the theoretical output from 85 GW of capacity running flat out every hour of the year is 744 TWh, so the overall capacity factor of the UK system in 2014 was just 45.6%.

That is what we have to supply current demand. Now let’s look at the energy used for transport and heating. Looking only at road transport (rail is a minor sector and aircraft are unlikely to go electric any time soon), energy consumption in 2014 was 40 Mtoe (million tonnes of oil equivalent), 63% used for passenger transport and 37% for freight (DECC: Energy consumption in the UK chapter 2).

On the domestic front, total consumption of fossil fuels (primarily gas) was 27 Mtoe (Energy consumption in the UK chapter 3). Interestingly, despite the historically poor standard of house insulation, total energy consumption per household has fallen significantly in recent decades, due to a combination of increased insulation and more efficient boilers and other appliances. Despite some bad publicity, energy efficiency measures seem to be at least partially successful.

What would be the impact of conversion of the transport and domestic sectors to electricity? One million tonne of oil equivalent represents 11.6 TWh of electricity. So, if we assume that overall energy consumption by all sectors remains the same, converting road transport to electricity would consume a further 464 TWh, while domestic consumption would rise by 313 TWh. Total electricity demand would be 1080 TWh, three and a half times the current total.

Actually, demand would be even higher, as a terawatt hour generated does not all reach the consumer. The DUKES 2015 report gives a figure of 27.5 TWh lost in the previous year in the high-voltage transmission system and the final distribution network; that’s about 9% of electricity generated. That would increase total demand on the generating system by a about another 70 TWh.

The energy needing to be generated for transport would also be significantly higher than the bald figures suggest. In simple terms, using a tonne of oil to power a car directly is more efficient than using it to generate electricity, distributing that to car batteries and drawing on those batteries to drive the car. Each stage of this chain incurs losses. A diesel engine can be 45% efficient. Electric motors can be much more efficient, but generating, transmission, distribution and storage losses more than offset this.

Overall, we can expect that electrification of homes and road transport would require at least four to five times the current generating capacity. However, some would argue that much of the transport load could be supplied by overnight charging. If we assume that this does in fact take care of a significant proportion of demand, then let’s be optimistic and say that UK generating capacity has to be just tripled.

Even if there were to be a crash programme to build dozens of new gas-powered stations, this would be difficult to do in a reasonable timescale and, more importantly in the context of the raison d’être of the whole project, would not decarbonise the system. There are those who say that this can be done by a massive expansion of renewable energy, but this seems barely credible. Even if sufficient sites could be found for wind farms (we have to accept that solar can only make a very modest contribution at northern European latitudes) enormous amounts of conventional backup capacity would be needed to guarantee security of supply.

The only viable alternative would be a vast expansion of nuclear capacity, which seems unlikely to happen in the near future, given the Hinkley Point C debacle. There are alternatives to the Areva design, and Small Modular Reactors could have a bright future, but we are unlikely to see any new nuclear on stream in this country before the late 2020s.

This rough analysis strongly suggests that ambitious national emissions reduction targets are going to be increasingly difficult to meet and that essentially complete decarbonisation of the economy by 2050 is currently an unrealisable vision. However, the political earthquake the UK has experienced over the last four weeks (yes, just four weeks since the referendum!) gives a golden opportunity to revisit existing policy and turn it into something realistic, achievable and worthwhile.

Sunday, 24 July 2016


Yes it's true, they are looking at hydrogen to replace the natural gas in order to lower our CO2 emissions. Here is the article that explains the idea. Clearly this is going to be an expensive option, as they intend to convert the methane into hydrogen via a chemical reaction. It is typical of the kind of mad thinking required if we believe that saving a tiny amount of CO2 emissions is going to improve the climate. Unfortunately the government does seem to believe this. Oh dear!

Saturday, 23 July 2016


If you think that you live in an independent state (provided you are not a member of the EU) then you may have to think again when you have read this article. If you have the time I also recommend that you read the comments underneath as some of them are very enlightening. One thing before you start - the article contains a number of acronyms which you may or may not be familiar with. Here are some explanations:
TPTB - the powers that be
TPP - Trans Pacific Partnership (an FTA)
TTIP - Transatlantic Trade and Investment Partnership (another FTA between USA and EU)
FTA - Free Trade Agreement
It is quite a long post, but it demonstrates just how much other stuff, including a raft of environmental regulation, gets put into something that most 'laymen' would expect to focus simply on trade.

While no doubt the EU is an extreme example of a trans-national organisation which aims to exercise a lot of control over its member states, these so-called free trade agreements, drawn up by international lawyers immersed in all aspects of these kind of things, also purport to cover as many areas as they can fit in.

Of course we all know that some (many) nations will minimise and even ignore many of the aspects of these agreements, and get away with it, but others, including, unfortunately, the UK, seem to observe every bit, even embellishing some aspects for good measure, ably assisted by an over zealous judiciary. Who needs enemies when our government signs us up to these kind of agreements?

Friday, 22 July 2016


This article looks at the pressure being put on to business leaders not to challenge the climate change hypothesis. And it works, as hardly any business leaders will speak out for fear of either losing business or losing their job. 

Thursday, 21 July 2016


This article refers to a report on the BBC which claimed that June 2016 was the hottest ever June. The article demonstrates that this claim is not backed by the evidence of the satellite temperature record. How those trying to perpetrate the global warming fear thesis must rue the fact that these satellite records exist.

Wednesday, 20 July 2016


Peggy Hollinger, Financial Times


Ineos, the $50bn petrochemicals giant controlled by British billionaire Jim Ratcliffe, aims to accelerate shale gas development in the UK by lodging as many as 30 planning applications to drill test wells in the next six months.

Tom Crotty, a director at Ineos, said the company hoped to start drilling in the north of England early next year and could begin extracting gas in about 18 months through the controversial technique known as fracking.
The move comes as the group this year ends a six-year tax exile with the opening of a new headquarters in London for its mainly UK-based upstream oil and gas businesses. [...]
The group, which owns the Grangemouth refinery in Scotland, has ambitions to become a substantial oil and gas producer, particularly in shale gas. Ineos has backed a highly public campaign to convince the Scottish government to lift its moratorium on fracking over the past year.
Full story (subscription required)

Tuesday, 19 July 2016


This report by Tony Heller looks at a whole range of data and compares the latest data with earlier versions.  The conclusion is that there has been significant tampering to produce warming where none existed before. It is time that the scientists responsible for this were forced to account for what they have done. 

Monday, 18 July 2016


Starting now, but becoming increasingly noticeable by 2020, a new mini ice age, similar to the one between 1645 and 1715 when the Thames regularly froze, is confidently predicted. The details are to be found in this article. If true it raises a number of questions including - what will governments do to keep people warm by providing cheap forms of heating? Having abandoned fossil fuels (at least partially) will we see a U-turn in policy? It looks like we have interesting times ahead.

Sunday, 17 July 2016


This article gives the details of the difficulties they face as the German government attempts to reduce its level of CO2 emissions as well as phasing out nuclear power. If they persist they may well cause the collapse of the once mighty German economy. The danger for the German people is that once they have gone so far down the road it is very difficult to go back, without incurring even more costs to get back to where they were. It is rather like walking into boggy ground - once you have taken the decision to keep going you are bound to get stuck! 

Saturday, 16 July 2016


What fantastic news, so we can now relax and not worry about any cities going beneath the waves. Low lying atolls will be safe for the future. Here is the report. 

Friday, 15 July 2016


This piece from Jo Nova looks at the views of the newly appointed UK government on climate alarmism, and concludes that there might be some hope of optimism. I suspect it is nothing more than hope, as politicians have a habit of conforming to convention once they are given power. However this piece suggests that our new Prime Minister may be getting some sensible advice, but will she take it?

Thursday, 14 July 2016


This piece gives the details of a new 'scary' report on what to expect in the next few decades from climate change. However our good friend Paul Homewood soon debunks it all using the climate data already available which shows that up to now there has been no weather changes that have not happened in the past. It is simply all hype using cherry-picked data.

Wednesday, 13 July 2016


Some alarmist scientists had been predicting a massive rate of extinction of species as a result of global warming. Of course we now know that the ate of global warming has been negligible over recent years and this report confirms that the rate of species extinction has also been negligible. So yet another scare story comes to nothing. No wonder the public are tiring of the whole thing. If only the governments would do the same.

This excerpt from the report gives a flavour of it "It is possible to count the number of species known to be extinct. The International Union for Conservation of Nature (IUCN) does just that. It has listed 801 animal and plant species (mostly animal) known to have gone extinct since 1500.” So that’s a few more than 800 species extinctions since 1500. Of those, just 3 have occurred since rapid global warming resumed in the 1970s (following the 1940s to 1970s cooling period), or since CO2 concentrations have risen from about 325 ppm (1970s) to over 400 ppm (2016)."

Tuesday, 12 July 2016


This piece explains what is going on in the strange Alice in Wonderland world of the UK energy market today. The government, having tried to show their 'green' credentials by closing coal-fired electricity generating plants early, are now waking up to the reality that they will not have sufficient generating capacity to keep the lights on in the depths of a cold snap, so they are paying these same coal-fired generating plants to stand by to add their supply to the grid. You just could not make it up, as they say!

Monday, 11 July 2016


Here is a very good piece about the claims by some alarmists that the 'pause' in global warming has ended. Christopher Monckton uses the scientific data to prove that nothing has really changed and the changes that have and are taking place can all be explained by natural processes that have always taken place. Very reassuring.

Sunday, 10 July 2016


Here are some details of a most interesting lecture by Professor Murry Salby, entitled  "Atmospheric Carbon: Why It’s Not Pollution and Why Humans Cannot Regulate It"
No, it’s not for the reasons you have heard. The ultimate reason that emitted carbon dioxide (CO2) is not a pollutant is far more fundamental. In its light, energy sources that circumvent CO2 emission are neither cleaner nor greener. They’re just different.
New research (not previously released) establishes that, even if CO2 was a pollutant, humans’ capacity to regulate its concentration in the atmosphere is extremely limited.
It reveals why a three-fold increase in the growth of fossil fuel emission at the turn of the century, which led to far more CO2 being emitted in the subsequent decade than was emitted in the preceding decade, resulted in no increase in the growth of atmospheric CO2. The research demonstrates that, even if fossil fuel emission was eliminated entirely, it would scarcely alter how much CO2 is in the atmosphere.
Changes of the Earth’s temperature, along with the myriad of environmental disasters that have been speculated would follow from fossil fuel emission, are then not merely beyond human control. They are irrelevant.
The lecture is being held on 18th July 6.45pm for 7.15pm, in the Large Lecture theatre (GO6), Roberts Building, University College, London -  Entrance from Torrington Place WC1E 7HB (opposite Waterstones bookshop) Nearest Tube stations: Euston Square, Goodge St. Free admission (donations accepted!) Contact: Philip Foster 01480 399098

Saturday, 9 July 2016


This post looks at a recent study carried out with farmers showing that they are more sceptical of the GW scare than the general population. Clearly they have much more intimate knowledge of the climate than others and so the finding is very understandable. The linked article explains that they are right to be so.

Friday, 8 July 2016


How can we trust what we read in the press or even in research papers?

Have 1 In 5 UK Academics Fabricated Data?

  • Date: 02/07/16
  • Retraction Watch

A small survey of UK academics suggests misconduct such as faking data and plagiarism is occurring surprisingly often. The survey — of 215 UK academics — estimated that 1 in 7 had plagiarized from someone else’s work, and nearly 1 in 5 had fabricated data.

Here’s how Joanna Williams and David Roberts at the University of Kent summarize the results in their full report, published by the Society for Research into Higher Education:
-Using references to support predetermined arguments rather than illuminate debate was undertaken by 38.1% (± 5.1%) respondents. This was the most frequently reported incidence of malpractice.
-36.0% (± 7.6%) of respondents reported self-plagiarising. This is more than one in three researchers.
-17.9% (± 6.1%) of academics surveyed reported having fabricated (entirely invented) research data. This is almost 1 in 5 researchers.
-13.6% (± 7.5%) of respondents reported having engaged in plagiarism.
Although these findings suggest there is cause for concern, they are higher than many of those reported by previous studies — including a 2014 paper by Roberts, which used similar survey methods and showed a fabrication rate of 0% among UK academics in biology.

Thursday, 7 July 2016


This article looks at the predictions made by the UK government about the future use of electric motor vehicles. They sound very impressive, but what are they really based on? On reading the article linked to we can see that it appears to be mainly wishful thinking on their part. However if the government are going to meet their own targets they are probably planning to 'encourage' us to take up electric vehicles, no with a carrot, but with some sticks in the shape of  penalties for using fossil fuels. That will make them very unpopular and they won't like that!

Wednesday, 6 July 2016


This report gives an update of the Australian election that has just taken place. It is possible the result could be very close, with counting still going on. It is interesting to note the re-emergence of Pauline Hanson's One Nation Party that could be very influential in a close result. The One Nation Party has a good sceptic policy on climate change. 

Tuesday, 5 July 2016


UK Gas and Electricity Prices in International Context

  • Date: 02/07/16
  • From the GWPF
  • On the 30th of June, the Department of Energy and Climate Change approved the 5th Carbon Budget and also released a large number of updates to its statistical data sets, including information on gas and electricity prices in the UK and other countries, data that underlines how unwise is the unilateral approach to climate change as embodied by the 5th Carbon Budget.
DECC reports that in 2015 UK domestic electricity prices including taxes were:
Seventh highest in the International Energy Agency member countries (of which there are 29), and 21% above the IEA country median.
In other words, UK domestic electricity prices are comparatively very expensive.
The figures for industrial electricity prices are also unfavourable. In 2015, average UK industrial electricity prices including taxes were:
Fourth highest in the IEA, and 43% above the IEA country median.
In other words, UK industrial electricity prices are comparatively expensive.
The situation with regard to gas prices is fortunately better. In 2015, average UK industrial gas prices, including taxes where not refunded, were:
Eighth lowest in the IEA, and 9% below the IEA country median.
Domestic gas prices including taxes where not refunded, were:
Thirteenth lowest in the IEA, and 1% lower than the IEA country median.
The general asymmetry between gas and electricity is easily explained. The UK’s climate policies, particularly subsidies to renewables such as wind and solar power and biomass bear very heavily on electricity, and less so on gas.
The tables also provide very helpful country price tables that allow quick comparisons. These can be remarkably illuminating. For example, in 2015 domestic electricity prices in the UK were about 15.5p/kWh, whereas in the United States the price was 8.3p/kWh, and in Korea a remarkable 6.7p/kWh.
The highest domestic electricity prices are found in Germany (22p/kWh and Denmark (21p/kWh, both countries with very aggressive renewables policies and extensive deployment, as well as policies that share the burden of renewables unevenly between industrial and domestic consumers. German industrial prices are about 9.5p/kWh, which though high by European standards (only Italy is higher in the EU 15), is only a fraction over that in the UK (9.36p/kWh). To put this another way, domestic electricity prices in the UK are 6p/kWh more than industrial prices; but in Germany the difference is 12p/kWh. Doubtless this helps to protect jobs in export based industries, but one wonders how much further the German household’s Willingness To Pay can be stretched.

Monday, 4 July 2016


Fifth Carbon Budget Based On The Assumption That The UK Remains In The EU

London 30 June: The British government has set its 5th Carbon Budget with a 2030 target of forcing CO2 emissions down by 57% on 1990 levels. In contrast, the EU-wide target is 40%.

The new Budget is the most ambitious climate policy in the world. As a result it puts the UK at a damaging competitive disadvantage compared with its European neighbours and all other major economies around the world.
Remarkably, the budget’s and government’s own Impact Assessement was drawn up weeks ago, and is based on the now incorrect assumption that the United Kingdom will still be in the EU by 2030, active in the EU Emissions Trading Scheme and covered by the EU’s Paris Agreement terms. In fact, the Impact Assessment refers to the EU more than 150 times.
It is our view that the government has behaved unreasonably, and should have delayed approval of the Budget and reassessed the impacts in the light of the far-reaching changes flowing from the referendum result.
Indeed, there was every reason to pass this extremely important decision on to the next government, allowing time for reconsideration.
The hasty, rubber-stamping of a Budget designed for very different circumstances is dangerous in itself and may be unlawful. The incoming Prime Minister should review this decision as a matter of priority. UK prosperity depends on it.

Sunday, 3 July 2016


Further to yesterday's post I predict that an early election here in the UK will be a tough task for the pollsters. Analysing the EU referendum vote shows that there was an alliance between many voters in northern towns, who would traditionally vote labour and the voters in the southern counties who would be more likely to vote conservative. Now that these voters have 'gone native' they may decide to do so again. This could be a huge opportunity for Nigel Farage and his UKIP party. Nigel is the one man who is identified with Brexit, as that has been the main aim of his party since its formation over 20 years ago. If you have not heard Nigel's victory speech then it is something you need to see. I am a Conservative and even though a few of my council colleagues have left the Conservative Party and joined UKIP I have not followed them. One reason for this is that our local MP, Julian Lewis is a conviction politician who has always taken a very sceptical line on the EU and in the recent campaign strongly supported the Leave side. Secondly I believed that I could achieve more by campaigning within the Conservative Party, which contains many who share my views, than by joining a small party that has much less influence. It is instructive to note that those colleagues who joined UKIP have since been voted off the Council and so have no position at all.

Even though I am not a member of UKIP, I agree with many of their policies, particularly on Climate Change, where the excellent Roger Helmer, MEP (a former Conservative) has drawn up a sensible policy on energy. A snap election could see many voters, particularly Labour ones, decide that UKIP's immigration policy is much more to their liking than the 'open doors' policy of the current Labour party. If that happens it would be seismic here in the UK.

Maybe there won't be a snap election. The new Conservative leader may get cold feet like Gordon Brown did when he inherited the leadership from Tony Blair. Brown lived to regret his decision, as the polls went against him and he never recovered, losing the 2010 election to David Cameron. The new Conservative leader may calculate that he need not bother as Labour will still be unelectable in 2020, when the next UK election is due. 


Saturday, 2 July 2016


Continuing on from yesterday's post I am suggesting that Brexit has changed the political climate. The voters have flexed their muscles in a way that they simply haven't done before. When they take stock of this they will become more militant, more willing to take risk, particularly when the result of leaving the EU does not turn out to lead to the apocalyptic vision conjured up by the political elite. Not only will this be true here in the UK, but it will resonate with voters all over the world.

In recent decades we have seen those in charge make a number of massive errors, such as the invasion of Iraq (again with no strategic follow up plan). This was sold to the public by a dossier that turned out to be untrue and grossly exaggerated. Then there was the financial crisis due to a lack of control of the banks; gambling that no one should have allowed to go on. We are still suffering the consequences today. The implosion of the Middle East dictatorships has led to uncontrolled migration with no plan as to how to deal with it.

Our leaders have been found wanting. They have let us down and the people are fed up. Here in the UK this is absolutely clear. The Conservative government is now without an effective leader and the opposition Labour Party is in total disarray. Their is talk of calling a general election within months. That will be a most interesting election, if it takes place. More on this tomorrow.    

Friday, 1 July 2016


Today I want to broaden the perspective of this blog and do so formally. Regular readers will have noticed that I have given a lot of coverage to Brexit, the UK's vote to leave the European Union. It is obviously a hot topic and has resulted in increasing visitors to the blog. I will continue to cover the climate topic, but with increasing focus on the politics. It is something that I have always been interested in and I am involved in local politics as a district councillor. I have been campaigning for the UK to leave the EU for a number of years and during this recent referendum campaign I have personally delivery several thousand leaflets to the residents of my ward and organised others to deliver more as well as putting up a number of posters in prominent places and urged all my family and friends to vote to leave. As I did so I wondered if it would be enough. I hoped that there would be thousands of others doing the same. In the end, as we all know it was enough and we won!

In these early days since victory many people are still dazed here. We are only just beginning to take in the magnitude of what we did. Some are fearful; some even regret voting 'leave'. It is an extraordinary result as previous posts have said. The nation seems so unprepared as though they never thought about what would happen next. Even the Prime Minister, David Cameron, who clearly thought he would win a vote to remain. He has resigned and not done what he said he would do, which was to trigger Article 50 (the notice to the EU that the country is leaving). I don't believe he wanted to be the one to do it, or be associated with it. But, of course he is, and he will always be remembered as the man who gave us the vote that led to our exit. Of course he never expected to have to give us a referendum as he did not expect to win the last election outright. He was convinced that he would, at best, form another coalition with the Liberal Democrats, who would not have supported a referendum. But he ought to have considered the outcome of a leave vote, in which case he ought to have had a plan to follow through. I think he simply didn't think it through. He is a gambler and has huge confidence in his ability to convince the people of his case. Like all gamblers he eventually lost.

We are now hearing from some of the leading 'Leave' politicians that they don't accept that people voted to leave in order to reduce immigration. I am sure they are completely wrong and if they do not reduce immigration drastically then they will find a very angry electorate who will turn them out.  We are now living (post brexit) in a new kind of politics. I will expand on this tomorrow.