Wednesday, 30 November 2016


At this moment the current Conservative government is sticking with the Climate Change Act (CCA) which was passed by a previous Labour government, but, as I have said several times on this blog it is simply impossible to see how the later stages of "decarbonisation" of our nation's fuel and energy needs can be carried out without crippling our industry and causing massive pain to the citizens of the UK.

This is brought out very clearly in a series of blog posts over at NALOPKT (that's Not a Lot of People Know That, to those who didn't guess it). This is the first and the previous two develop the theme further.

What it says, in summary, is that whilst electricity demand currently peaks at around 50GW, gas demand frequently peaks at over 300GW. If this demand for gas had to be replaced by electricity, as required to meet the demands of the CCA, it would not only need massive increases in generating capacity, it would also necessitate a complete rebuild of the grid and transmission network as the current system would be overwhelmed. All this is still a few years away, so our present lot of politicians can still say they will do it, but the questions they will soon have to answer is - how? and equally important - who is going to pay?

Tuesday, 29 November 2016


Here is his latest post, which I recommend to all. I have known Roger over many years and he has always been consistent and uses measured words in favour of common sense. Sometimes he has caused controversy, but he does not let this prevent him from speaking his mind. If only we had more politicians of his calibre and with his courage.

Monday, 28 November 2016


This article in the widely read Mail on Sunday confirms what most people expected - that the recent warming was mainly due to the strong El Nino, not CO2 induced warming. Now that the El Nino is over land temperatures have already fallen by a whole degree Celsius in just a few months.  If Donald Trump wants to show that climate alarm is exaggerated nonsense he may find that this is going to make it even easier for him.

Sunday, 27 November 2016


This piece looks at the recent thinking of the UK regulator and the government on the cost of renewable subsidies to the consumer, which pose a significant cost to consumers, both citizens and business.

Saturday, 26 November 2016


This piece looks at a possible future where Google decides what is "the truth". Were such a thing to happen I suspect that users would simply avoid Google and use another search engine.

Friday, 25 November 2016


Never heard of Doggerland? Blame it on climate change 20,000 years ago. Rising waters have forced populations to relocate since the dawn of early man. Consider that 20,000 years ago, at the end of the last ice age, the North Sea didn't exist. Global sea levels were as much as 400 feet lower than today, Britain was part of continental Europe and Scotland linked by land to Norway. A natural climate shift began to melt the glaciers of Scandinavia. Seismic surveys and ice cores from Greenland suggest that sea level rose as much as 6 feet per century during a series of melting events. Gradually the North Sea formed and then the southern area inundated more land forming islands.

Those rising oceans created new ports for Greek and Roman naval and trade vessels. But today many of those structures and ruins are inland, out in the open, making them popular tourist destinations. How did that happen? The Little Ice Age once again turned substantial ocean water into ice, lowering sea levels, and leaving former ports stranded. Not enough ice has melted since 1850 to make them harbors again.
The ancient city of Ephesus was an important port city and commercial hub from the Bronze Age to the Minoan Warm period, and continuing through the Roman Empire. An historic map shows its location right on the sea. But today, in modern-day Turkey, Ephesus is 5 km from the Mediterranean. Some historians erroneously claim “river silting” caused the change, but the real “culprit” was sea level change.
Ruins of the old Roman port Ostia Antica, are extremely well preserved – with intact frescoes, maps, and plans. Maps from the time show the port located at the mouth of the Tiber River, where it emptied into the Tyrrhenian Sea. The Battle of Ostia in 849, depicted in a painting attributed to Raphael, shows sea level high enough for warships to assemble at the mouth of the Tiber. However, today this modern-day tourist destination is 2 miles up-river from the mouth of the Tiber.

Just imagine if we were living at that time and we had climate alarmists speaking authoritatively about this warming being caused by mankind emitting CO2?  Think how convincing they would seem as the sea level kept on rising, even though the cause of this was entirely natural we would fall under their spell.   

Thursday, 24 November 2016


This article makes the case for fossil fuels and undermines the social cost of carbon being put forward by the climate alarmists. Government agencies claim fossil fuels and carbon dioxide emissions cause “dangerous global warming.” Their latest strategy for advancing this thesis involves estimating the “social cost of carbon” (SCC) – monetized damages associated with alleged climate risks.

Wednesday, 23 November 2016


This piece looks at the hard road ahead for the new Trump administration in the USA to roll back all the punitive energy and climate change regulations that the Obama people put in. They must suspend and defund any initiatives and orders issued under the Paris climate treaty. And also carry out a truly independent review of the assertions, models, “homogenized” data, science, and research that underpins the whole alarmist agenda, thus exposing the whole charade for what it is.

But, this article suggests he is softening his stance, which is worrying for those of us who wanted to see a realistic approach. The climate alarmists are very powerful and even Donald Trump is subject to pressure.

Tuesday, 22 November 2016


Here is an interesting post on what is happening in the Arctic. It is quite a detailed post with lots of visual aids and charts, but quite readable. In fact the blog that it comes from contains a lot of interesting musings about the climate and so I have linked to it via the sidebar. 

Monday, 21 November 2016


This piece looks at the expectation of the third world nations.  There is widespread unease about finance at the Nov. 7-18 talks on climate change among almost 200 nations being held in Marrakesh, Morocco.                   
"My only worry is the money," said Tosi Mpanu Mpanu of Democratic Republic of Congo, who heads a group of the 48 least developed nations. "It's worrying when you know that Trump is a climate change skeptic," he told Reuters. In fact it is ALL about the money!

Sunday, 20 November 2016


This report explains the find which is worth $900 billion and ensures the USA will have supplies for many decades to come. So much for peak oil! On top of the Trump presidency surely this means the end of any possibility that the USA will reduce its use of fossil fuels. It will be a terrific boost to the economy and jobs. The best possible start for the Trump government.

Saturday, 19 November 2016


This paper gives a clear look into the evidence for CO2 caused global warming. It finds no evidence of any tropical hotspot, which is the one clear signal that the planet is warming due to CO2 emissions. This result means that there is no risk from increasing levels of CO2 up to the present, hence any effect from it is likely to be small.  

Friday, 18 November 2016


This article refers to a letter written to the various "scientific societies" in the USA in response to their  Consensus Scientific View of Climate Change letter to the USA Congress. Below is the letter, which ought to be adapted and sent to all scientific institutions that subscribe to and perpetuate global climate alarm. The Research Report referred to as a link in the letter requires a good knowledge of statistics, but it the statistical arguments it makes which lead to its clear conclusion that the link between CO2 levels in the atmosphere and any rapid rise in global average temperatures is not proven.


This letter is written with respect to the June 28 Letter, subscribed by your organization and some thirty other U.S.-based scientific societies.  I attach a copy of that June 28 Letter for your reference.  Besides this letter to you, we are addressing letters similar to this one to each of those other societies.
On September 21, 2016 a major new Research Report was published on the ICECAP website and at other locations.  The Research Report was undertaken by its authors because they were unable to find anywhere in the literature of climate change a mathematically rigorous validation of a statistically significant, quantitative relationship between rising atmospheric greenhouse gas concentrations and surface as well as tropospheric temperatures.
The Research Report provides the methodology and findings of a definitive study designed to validate or invalidate the principal scientific hypotheses underlying the EPA’s December 2009 Endangerment Finding with respect to so-called “greenhouse gases,” including the hypothesis that rising greenhouse gas concentrations are likely to be associated with harmful or dangerous increases in surface temperatures.  The results of the Research Report apply equally well to the Physical Science reports issued by the UN Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change over the last few decades.  In accordance with the scientific method, the Research Report used the best available temperature data from multiple sources, each of them structurally independent from the others, for the validation/invalidation exercise.  The data used in the Research Report are fully available via links in the Report itself, and came from sources including satellites, weather balloons, ocean buoys, and also surface thermometer records.
The principal conclusions of the Research Report are as follows:
* “These analysis results would appear to leave very, very little doubt but that EPA’s claim of a Tropical Hot Spot (THS), caused by rising atmospheric CO2 levels, simply does not exist in the real world.”
* “Once EPA’s THS assumption is invalidated, then EPA’s climate models that rely upon the THS assumption are also invalid.
* “[T]his analysis failed to find that the steadily rising Atmospheric CO2 Concentrations have had a statistically significant impact on any of the 13 critically important temperature time series data analyzed.”
* “[T]hese results clearly demonstrate – 13 times in fact – that once just the ENSO [El Nino/La Nina] impacts on temperature data are accounted for, there is no “record setting” warming to be concerned about. In fact, there is no ENSO-Adjusted Warming at all.”
The June 28 Letter to which you subscribed contains statements strongly implying that there had previously been some sort of empirical validation of a quantitative causal relationship between increasing atmospheric greenhouse gas concentrations and increasing global average surface temperatures.  For example, you state:  “Observations throughout the world make it clear that climate change is occurring, and rigorous scientific research concludes that the greenhouse gases emitted by human activities are the primary driver.” Later in the June 28 Letter, you state:  “There is strong evidence that ongoing climate change is having broad negative impacts on society, including the global economy, natural resources, and human health.”
However, as noted above, the authors of the Research Report have been unable to find in any scientific study a rigorous empirical validation of a statistically significant quantitative relationship between rising greenhouse gas concentrations and tropical, contiguous U.S. or global temperatures.  Indeed we can find no paper that actually provides mathematically rigorous empirical proof that the effect of increasing atmospheric greenhouse gas concentrations on world temperatures is different from zero with statistical significance.
As you might realize, we are concerned that prestigious scientific societies, including your own, have subscribed to a letter to Members of Congress purporting to convey scientific propositions as having been definitively established, when in fact there has never been a mathematically rigorous empirical validation of the propositions stated, and indeed there now appears to be a definitive scientific invalidation of those propositions.
Obviously, the June 28 Letter preceded the September 21 Research Report.  We therefore ask you to reconsider your June 28 Letter in light of the Research Report.  Alternatively, could you kindly:
* Refer us to the research study or studies that, in a mathematically proper and rigorous fashion, empirically validate a quantitative relationship between rising atmospheric greenhouse gas concentrations and global temperatures as reflected in all thirteen major data sets as used in the Research Report.  Such a study must be very clear as to the analysis process and data utilized and must be able to be replicated.
* Refer us to the research study or studies that definitively empirically validate the so-called Tropical Hot Spot that is a critical underpinning of the “lines of evidence” on which EPA says it relies for its Endangerment Finding.  (The term “Tropical Hot Spot” refers to the hypothesized warming pattern whereby increasing greenhouse gas concentrations cause the tropical mid-troposphere to warm more rapidly than the lower troposphere, which in turn warms more rapidly than the surface.)
* Refer us to the research study or studies that definitively empirically demonstrates that there is statistically significant warming to account for in the global troposphere after controlling for ENSO [El Nino/La Nina] effects.
In closing, we wish to remind you of the well-known quote from noted physicist Richard Feynman:
“It doesn’t matter how beautiful your theory is, it doesn’t matter how smart you are.  If it doesn’t agree with experiment, it’s wrong.”
As a leader of a major scientific society, you of course realize that Feynman’s aphorism captures the essence of the scientific method that underlies the entire project of science, including all of the work of your organization and its members.  If you as a scientific society are going to use your authority to advocate for a government policy agenda, the American people are entitled to know the specific empirical work that validates your scientific hypothesis that greenhouse gases are warming the planet. Also, if there is apparently definitive empirical research, such as the Research Report, that would seem to invalidate the principal hypotheses that underlie your policy advocacy, the American people are entitled to your definitive refutation of that work before you continue your policy advocacy.
In short, if you have mathematically rigorous empirical validation of the hypotheses that underlie your advocacy, kindly provide it.  If you do not, kindly say so.
Very truly yours,
Francis Menton
Law Office of Francis Menton
85 Broad Street, 18th Floor
New York, New York 10004
Alan Carlin

Thursday, 17 November 2016


Dansgaard-Oeschger Events: Writing in No Tricks Zone, Kenneth Richard discusses papers on Dansgaard-Oeschger cycles, or D-O cycles, which indicate that: “Unlike the relatively stable climate Earth has experienced over the last 10,000 years, Earth’s climate system underwent a series of abrupt oscillations and reorganizations during the last ice age between 18,000 and 80,000 years ago (Dansgaard 1984, Bond et al. 1997, 1999). …There are twenty-five of these distinct warming-cooling oscillations. These include up to 10°C (in the Greenland region) were reached within as little as 50 years or about 2°C per decade.”

One can assert that D-O events apply only to the Arctic, or to Greenland, specifically. However, alarmists claim that a warming of the Arctic and of Greenland are the result of CO2 caused warming. The alarmists have generally failed to discuss D-O Events and to separate this natural variability from the influence of CO2. 

Wednesday, 16 November 2016


This article gives the details, which fly in the face of the pronouncements of the climate alarmist lobby. For every alarmist story there is another to say the opposite. Is it any wonder that the public are cynical?

Tuesday, 15 November 2016


This article explains what is happening.  A 15-YEAR long mini ice age could be due to hit the Northern hemisphere in just FOUR years as the sun prepares for 'hibernation' - triggering a barrage of cataclysmic events.  A team of experts have warned that huge seismic events, including volcanic eruptions, plunging global temperatures and destabilisation of the Earth's crust will become more common after worrying changes to the surface of the Sun were recorded.

Monday, 14 November 2016


This piece makes a very interesting observation about the surface temperature of earth. The GHE hypothesis has a testable result which is well-accepted by its proponents.  It is that if there were no greenhouse gases capable of absorbing the radiation being emitted by the earth’s surface due to its temperature, the earth’s average temperature would be about 33oC less than its observed average temperature.  So, all one has to do to prove the GHE hypothesis to be false is to refer to observations of the earth’s natural system which demonstrate that the earth’s average temperature cannot be less than that which is observed. You can click on the link and read the article to follow the argument which I found interesting.

Sunday, 13 November 2016


This article looks at the controversial science of low energy nuclear reactions (LENR), also called cold fusion. Whether you believe in the man made global warming scare or not, we will have to look at new forms of energy at some stage and this is one candidate that could play a part, perhaps?

For more information watch this video.

Saturday, 12 November 2016


After Paris: Greece Set To Win €1.75 Billion From EU Climate Scheme To Build Two Coal PlantsThe Guardian, 3 November 2016

Arthur Neslen
  Public funds from Europe’s carbon trading programme – set up to help poorer countries reduce emissions – will help build two plants that will emit about 7m tonnes of CO2 a year
Image result for paris agreement GWPF

Image result for paris agreement GWPF

Greece appears on track to win access to a controversial EU programme that could earmark up to €1.75bn (£1.56bn) in free carbon allowances for the building of two massive coal-fired power plants.
The 1100MW coal stations will cost an estimated €2.4bn, and emit around 7m tonnes of CO2 a year, casting doubt on their viability without a cash injection from an exemption under Europe’s carbon trading market.

The European parliament’s industry committee last month approved a rule change allowing Greece to join the scheme, the ‘10c derogation’ of the emissions trading system (ETS). Now, positive votes in the environment committee next month and at a plenary in February could set wheels in motion for the coal plants.

Gerben-Jan Gerbrandy, a Dutch Liberal MEP on the environment committee, said: “Lignite [coal] has no future and should not be stimulated in any way. Greece’s intention of using public funds to revive its lignite-based model should not be allowed. Article 10C is there to help poor countries towards a sustainable energy future. Lignite does not fit these criteria.”

“You couldn’t make this up,” added Imke Lübbeke, WWF Europe’s head climate and energy policy. “The ETS was intended to reduce greenhouse gas emissions but it now risks being abused to facilitate investments in the new coal plants, which would operate well within the 2060s.

Friday, 11 November 2016


UK Court Rules Unwinding Of Renewable Energy Subsidies is allowed
Global Warming Policy Forum, 6 November 2016

John Constable, GWPF Energy Editor
The Court of Appeal recently upheld the government’s right to cancel the Climate Change Levy (CCL) exemption for renewable generators. In effect this is a retrospective removal of subsidy entitlement, and should remind investors that even a seemingly secure economic rent will collapse when push comes to shove. This has significant implications for the Carbon Price Floor (CPF) and also the value of certificates issued under the Renewables Obligation (RO). The Renewable Heat Incentive (RHI) may also be affected. For the time being the Feed-in Tariff (FiT) and Contracts for Difference (CfD) are probably safe, but anyone in the electricity sector relying on subsidies and handouts has been given fair warning: The government giveth, and the government taketh away.

The main flaws with current energy policies as they relate to climate revolve around their inflexibility. Broadly speaking, the policies simply assume that the premises driving their motivation cannot change, except to require still more urgent action to reduce emissions. This was clearly an error. A full gearbox, including a reverse gear, is a necessary feature of any legislation whatsoever, principally because errare humanum est. This is still so even when the policy is grounded in area designed to minimise such errors, scientific research. Indeed, both the history and the philosophy of science tell us that scientific propositions are without exception provisional and subject to change. There simply are no absolute truths in any scientific field, even at a very fundamental level, a point that Schrödinger famously noted in What is Life? (1944) when he reminded his audience that “the laws of physics and chemistry are statistical throughout”.

Scientists should never forget, though in the heat of policy debate they sometimes do, that their propositions are reasoned abstractions from observations, and those observations are necessarily finite. There is always more to learn, even in areas that seem rock solid. We may not expect the clock to suddenly go backwards and wind its own spring, but, as Schrödinger puts it, this infinitesimal probability “always remains the background”. In many cases, particularly those relevant to policy, the probability of change is far from infinitesimal.

This sceptical point has from time to time been apparent to political leaders. It is over three hundred years since Oliver Cromwell, with a mighty puritan oath, “in the bowels of Christ”, asked the Synod of the Church of Scotland to “think it possible that ye may be mistaken”. But legislatures become overconfident, and the necessity for provisions for flexibility in law-making is neglected. The Climate Change Act of 2008, for example, is designed as a one-shot rocket, quite without steering and with precious little provision for deceleration.

Paradoxically, this lack of flexibility makes the legislation fragile, and investors relying on such law should be extremely cautious. What cannot go on, will not go on, and if a change of pace is not possible, abrupt termination becomes inevitable. Precisely because the legislation contains no obvious means of control and reversal, government, being under the pressure of force majeure itself, may simply apply overwhelming legal pressure to adjust the vehicle’s direction, and even turn it around. A recent ruling in the Court of Appeal reminds us that government is entitled to act robustly in the public interest.

In the July 2015 budget, the then Chancellor George Osborne removed the exemption from the Climate Change Levy (CCL) applying since 2001 to renewable generators. At the time of removal this exemption was worth approximately £5/MWh to all existing generators, so in that sense was retrospective. While the CCL subsidy was small in comparison to those available under the Renewables Obligation (for example £45/MWh for onshore wind and £90/MWh for offshore wind), it was a very welcome extra layer of jam, £381m thick in 2014/15, and its removal much resented. Infinis Energy Holdings Ltd, owner of one of the larger renewable generation portfolios in the UK, and Drax Power Ltd, one of the largest single producers of renewable energy, both attempted to challenge the decision in the courts, arguing, in essence, that they had reasonable expectations that the exemption would continue, and that the government had acted unfairly and unreasonably. The High Court rejected their challenge. Drax then, sensibly, withdrew; but Infinis took the case to the Court of Appeal, which, in the persons of Sir Terence Etherton MR, Lord Justice Lloyd Jones and Lord Justice Sales, delivered its judgment this week, and firmly rejected the arguments that Infinis had presented. It seems unlikely that this judgment will be reversed.

The Court of Appeal summarised the case thus:

The central issues in dispute between the parties are as to what standards of foreseeability and legal certainty EU law requires in the context of changes to the tax regime and what requirements have to be satisfied to generate a legally protected legitimate expectation.  (Para 42)

The Court concluded, from a broad review of jurisprudence and other cases, that the standard applicable was rigorous not loose. The relevant state authorities must have given “precise assurances” and “actively promoted” these expectations. “Vague indications” are not enough. The Court observed:

In our judgment, the Appellant in the present case cannot bring itself within the principle of protection of legitimate expectations according to this test. The Respondents had made no promise and given no assurance that the RSE Exemption would be maintained indefinitely, nor that it would be subject to the giving of a period of notice before being changed. In the context of establishing and changing the rules of a national tax regime, a prudent and circumspect economic operator would appreciate that the tax authorities and the national legislature might change the tax code without giving notice. They are entitled to do so, as it is their function in a democratic society to manage the public finances by weighing up all the competing demands on the public purse against all the possible, conflicting ways of raising tax revenue and adjusting the elements on both sides of the equation as they see fit, in accordance with the policy they think should be pursued. Further, the Appellant was not entitled to expect that the existing situation involving having the RSE Exemption in place would continue, because, absent any precise assurance given to the contrary, the tax authorities and Parliament had a general discretion to alter the tax regime as they saw fit. (Para 55)

In the absence of precise assurances, by which Parliament might bind itself, there is a “general discretion” to make such changes as are required in the public interest.

The significance of this point for other renewable subsidies, for example the Renewables Obligation, is substantial. Of course, it is perfectly true that the RO is not a tax exemption, and may not at first glance appear to be a tax. The revenue is not collected by the Treasury from consumers and disbursed to the renewable generators, instead it passes from consumers to generators via electricity suppliers. However, and unsurprisingly since the imposition on consumers is both unavoidable and unrequited, the Treasury does, for accounting purposes, regard it as public expenditure, and has consequently asserted its authority over this spending through the Levy Control Framework (LCF).

In principle, then, the RO is indeed a tax, though of a special kind, and as a result no one should assume that this judgment is irrelevant to the continued value of Renewable Obligation certificates. Indeed, the RO system was designed explicitly so that the value of the certificates would fall as the targets were met, a fact that may become relevant in the years to come.

In other areas the judgment has a straightforward relevance. The Renewable Heat Incentive (RHI)  is funded via the Treasury, and anyone relying on this income may wish to hedge immediately. The Carbon Price Floor is straightforwardly a tax, and rumours are already in circulation that government is considering making major changes, perhaps even cancellation.

The status of the Feed-in Tariff, and that of the new Contracts for Difference, seems more secure. These are both contractual entitlements, “precise assurances” regarding particular prices, though doubtless everyone will now be reading these contracts extremely carefully to see whether there is any room left in which Parliament’s “general discretion” might be exercised.

In this context the numerous and at first sight vacuous government statements on the need to respect the burden placed on the consumer may now seem rather more important. However, and in spite of the discretion that this important judgment outlines, governments have been and will continue to be quite properly reluctant to achieve flexibility in legislation by abrupt or forceful means. The state would prefer to be regarded as trustworthy. That said, no one will respect a government for persisting in obviously foolish or economically dangerous policies, as the climate policies very probably are, and when in a tight corner the government will do what it must, even if specific undertakings have been given.

Investors should recognise this as a normal business risk. Machiavelli had neither a Harvard MBA nor a degree in PPE from Oxford, but his advice is nonetheless sound: “A ruler will never be short of reasons to explain away a broken promise”.

Thursday, 10 November 2016


Ten Thousand Fly In For Doomed UN Climate Talks
The Times, 5 November 2016

Ben Webster

More than 10,000 people are flying to Marrakesh for a UN climate change conference despite officials admitting that they will make little or no progress on key issues.

The two-week meeting, which begins in the Moroccan city on Monday, was declared as the “conference of action”, where 195 countries were supposed to reveal how they will fulfil pledges made a year ago to cut their emissions. Instead, they are likely to agree to suspend talks until 2018.

Previous conferences have produced communiqués with grand titles named after their location, including last year’s Paris Agreement. A UK government source said: “Will there be a Marrakesh Something? There will have to be a decision that basically says we agree to reconvene with a date.”

However, delegates will be able to stay busy thanks to a Michelin guide to the conference supplied by the UN. It lists top hotels, “beauty and wellness spas”, as well as the best beaches.

Wednesday, 9 November 2016


This list of things that Donald Trump intends to do includes "Cancellation of all payments to UN climate change programmes". So I say all power to Donald - now let's see if he lives up to that promise, and if he does how will the world react? Will they stump up the shortfall or will they just scale back on all this spending. My guess is the latter.

Trump’s victory “will be unfavourable for the global pollution fight, though the trend to combat climate change may not change worldwide,” said Zheng Xinye, associate dean at the School of Economics at the Renmin University of China in Beijing.
Trump has questioned the science of climate change, vowed to pull out of the landmark Paris agreement reached last year and pledged to stimulate production of coal, the "dirtiest" fossil fuel.


Here it is, though with all the caveats I'm not sure it's really much use. They seem to be veering slightly towards a colder winter, which is what we have experienced over the last few days.

Tuesday, 8 November 2016


Here is a link to the short video. I think this kind of stuff will back-fire on to those climate alarmists who use it. There is no doubt that these children have been indoctrinated with these scare stories in the video. They could not possibly understand the complexities of climate science and so be aware of the strong possibility that what they are saying is wrong.

Monday, 7 November 2016


A Reality Check On U.S. Energy ConsumptionU.S. Energy Information Administration, 1 November 2016

Despite the changes in fuel sources, fossil fuels have continued to make up a large percentage of U.S. energy consumption. In 1908, fossil fuels accounted for 85% of total consumption. 107 years later it’s more or less the same: fossil fuels still account for 81% of total energy consumption in 2015.


Sunday, 6 November 2016


This report explains how the global temperature is likely to pan out once the El Nino has subsided. If temperatures do drop back as predicted it will leave alarmists with some explaining to do.

Saturday, 5 November 2016


This article gives the details. There have been many articles in the press and on TV which try to pin the blame on a "warmer ocean" caused by CO2. Most people who read such articles have no way of knowing that there is volcanic activity, which is deliberately not mentioned.

Friday, 4 November 2016


This piece explains what is happening. What is certain is that all climate scientists still have a great deal to learn in order to understand why these anomalies occur, let alone predict them. It is rather like volcanic activity, though much less devastating.

Thursday, 3 November 2016


This article gives the details. For all their very costly efforts so far, the EU has a long way to go to keep up with its CO2 reduction promises. The hard bits are still to come and as soon as they attempt to tackle such things as home heating and cars they will face a public backlash and they know it. 

Wednesday, 2 November 2016


Another top climate scientist has joined the well-respected Global Warming Policy Foundation's academic advisory board. Just look at the list of senior climate scientists who are now prepared to publicly align themselves with this organisation. If alarmists say that there are no respected scientists in the UK who are sceptical of alarmism, they need to be pointed to this group.

Tuesday, 1 November 2016


As Warren Buffet famously observed, if it weren't for the subsidies, wind projects would never be built.

Here are CFACT's conclusions about "Ice Breaker:"
"Simply put, the danger is not climate change – which will always be with us. The real, immediate danger is renewable energy programs implemented in the name of controlling Earth’s perpetually fickle climate.
The 5,000 megawatt wind energy system being discussed for Lake Erie – and even more so, the absurdly ambitious 4,000,000 megawatt wind energy 'vision' for U.S. lake and ocean areas – will harm human health and welfare, job creation and preservation, wildlife and environmental quality, while doing nothing to reduce or prevent climate change: man-made, 'dangerous' or otherwise."

See the entire detailed comment at  They make an excellent resource of the facts about wind.  The turbine industry paints a pretty picture about free energy from the wind.  Sadly, there is nothing "free" about it.  Every new turbine means higher costs for ratepayers and a higher burden for taxpayers.

We should build no new wind turbines unless and until they become genuinely economically viable in a competitive market.  They must also be subjected to the same environmental standards as proven, efficient sources of energy.

At the present wind energy is nothing more than a get rich scheme that generates subsidies for its investors, but is of little meaningful use toward keeping our lights on.

Don't look to the wind to reset the world's thermostat either.