Sunday, 24 September 2017


This article attempts to explain the contradictions at the heart of the climate change hypothesis. What I want to know is, how long can they keep this pretence going?

Saturday, 23 September 2017


This article looks at how the Germans are paying three times the price of USA electricity and yet 40% of it comes from coal. At a cost of $800 billion it's a wonder that Merkel has any chance of getting re-elected, yet she has. Clearly the opposition are missing something

Friday, 22 September 2017


This article is by UK Labour MP, Graham Stringer, who as a trained scientist has long been sceptical of the climate change hypothesis. He has been attacked for his stance and even though the climate scientists have revised their opinion on the need for immediate action (slightly), he does not expect any change of direction.

Thursday, 21 September 2017


Patrick Moore was a leading figure in the Greenpeace organisation and he now gives talks where he opposes many of the things they now advocate. In this lecture he explains his journey and why he now believes that banning fossil fuels is wrong. It is a very interesting lecture, well delivered. A real tour-de-force.

Wednesday, 20 September 2017


This piece looks at the reality of the introduction of electric vehicles in the UK. In short it will take a lot longer than the 2040 year announced by the government, otherwise we will have chaos. For a start there are nowhere near enough charging points available, and even if there were there is insufficient capacity in the grid to power them. Also there is a lot of resistance by the public to buy them for a whole number of reasons including cost, fear of being left stranded with a flat battery being two.

The public will need a lot of persuading. I expect we will see a gradual ban on non-electric cars being allowed into cities as well as increased taxes on petrol and diesel. That will change hearts and minds, as well as a gradual drop in the number of petrol stations. Bu I still think it will be at least 2050 before fossil fuelled cars become a rare sight - that is if the government does not change its mind before then as global warming becomes even more of a sick joke.  

Tuesday, 19 September 2017


This piece in today's Mail explains the latest thinking of these climate alarmist scientists. Are they getting their excuses in early, knowing that their previous predictions are now so way out that they know they will be rumbled? I note they seem to think that China is slowing down its emissions much faster than predicted. The sounds like a pretty weak excuse as world emissions are still continuing to rise. How long before they have to admit they were completely wrong? Perhaps another decade will force their hand.

More comment on this story at the GWPF

And a good summary on JoNova's website

Monday, 18 September 2017


This piece gives a good overview of the issues. Basically the government are desperate to get the public to install these meters. They claim it's to "help them cut their bills", but the truth is that the likely savings are minimal, whereas the cost of installing them is £420 per house.

This article gives more details. At the end of the article is a piece about the smart meters project being way behind target. The article mentions "an end to estimated billing" and "real-time information" being sent from these meters. What they don't say is that this is likely (almost certain) to lead to real-time pricing and automatic switching off of smart appliances. These meters will lead to customers finding it virtually impossible to check their bills and lay them open to being over-charged. Before this can happen the government need the majority of people to sign up. Let's hope they continue to be wary of this "big brother" project, disguised as a money-saving scheme.  

Sunday, 17 September 2017


This headline may seem as though he is changing his mind on quitting the Paris climate accord, but in reality nothing has changed. He always said he would look at substantial renegotiation to give the USA much better terms, but this was never a realistic option. Donald Trump has proved himself to be a man of his word and I believe he will see this through, despite the enormous pressure he is under to change his mind.


This report gives us the evidence for this hypothesis. It is a serious alternative to the tenuous idea of human induced climate change.

Saturday, 16 September 2017


This video sounds a very alarmist tone, but not for global warming. It is giving us all the signals for the opposite. If he is right it will not be pleasant for us, but at least it should see the end of talk of an impending disaster from global warming. It would be interesting to see the warmist alarmists eating humble pie.

Friday, 15 September 2017


This article from the Mail reports  a worrying (though not surprising) development in the slowly unfolding electric car fiasco. Energy companies are now wanting to use "smart technology" to be able to switch off the home car charging system in times of high demand, and/or the introduction of high tariffs at times of high demand. No doubt the government will also use this technology to add new taxes to recoup the losses from falling petrol and diesel sales.

Thursday, 14 September 2017


This video is very well presented and makes a convincing case.  

Wednesday, 13 September 2017


Bias and intolerance - from the Scientific Alliance

While many people pay lip service to objectivity and provide evidence in support of their assertions, true objectivity is very rare. Science is supposedly a body of knowledge assembled dispassionately by researchers looking at all available evidence in a totally unbiased way. This, at least, is the utopian vision encapsulated by Karl Popper, who argued that any scientific hypothesis should only be regarded as valid until falsified (for which even a single verifiable piece of evidence is sufficient).

All very straightforward, but such a purist view of science ignores the facts that scientists are human and evidence is often open to interpretation. Despite the attraction of Popper’s views, the philosopher who surely more clearly covers the reality of scientific progress is Thomas Kuhn, who argued that knowledge advances via a series of paradigm shifts. In simple terms, one version of received wisdom is replaced by another only when a sufficient body of evidence has accumulated for a change in the consensus view to occur.

The unfortunate downside of this reality is that dissent is often not tolerated by the scientific establishment until new evidence or a different interpretation of existing evidence becomes simply too compelling to ignore. Influential scientists build their reputations by breaking new ground when they are young but, by and large, plough the same furrow for the rest of their careers while entrenching themselves as experts in their field (with apologies to anyone who thinks that is an extended metaphor too far…).

A new paradigm may take decades to become established, needing the expert arbiters of the old one to retire before the next generation acquire the status of defenders of the new truth. Having spent one’s life researching and promoting one view of reality, it goes against human nature to give in gracefully and – in effect – admit that your career was spent going down a blind alley.

With this in mind, it becomes more and more difficult to defend science as the path to true knowledge but, even as practised by researchers with all the normal human frailties, the scientific method remains the best guide we have. The alternative is to promote personal theories based on no evidence at all or, at best, supported by the flimsiest of correlation or circumstantial evidence (beware the weasel words ‘linked to’, for example).

The problem with some hypotheses is that they are difficult to falsify, largely because solid evidence is hard to come by. A classic case is climate change. Trying to be objective (while recognising the difficulty of this), the current paradigm is that average global temperature is rising at an unprecedented rate because the increasing level of greenhouse gases (primarily carbon dioxide) in the atmosphere (mainly driven by human use of fossil fuels and agriculture) is causing a positive feedback process. Unless drastic action is taken, the argument goes, this will cause temperatures to increase to a level that will have dire consequences for our species and others.

In fact, very few people would argue with the fact that, all things being equal, the steady increase in atmospheric CO2 will tend to increase average temperatures. The crux of the controversy on the issue is the extent of this rise and the knock-on effect on weather extremes, sea level etc. Put like that, it sounds a bit like the modern equivalent of the apocryphal theological argument about how many angels could dance on the head of a pin, but with rather more serious real world consequences.

The dispute has become bitter indeed, with defenders of the current paradigm tarring anyone who questions the received wisdom with the brush of ‘denialism’. Their influence is such that, in the case of the BBC, anyone critical of the paradigm is effectively banned. Of course, as the defender of free speech and balanced argument, the Beeb would beg to differ with this interpretation: they argue that what has become known as the Catastrophic Anthropogenic Global Warming hypothesis (CAGW) is, in effect, now unassailable truth.

To be fair to this venerable institution, they share this view with most of what can be called the Establishment, which these days is overwhelming Left-leaning and liberal. For whatever reason, there are very few people in this part of the political map who question the paradigm or, indeed, will tolerate others who do the questioning. For many who may have their doubts, the power of groupthink is often enough to steer them back towards the straight and narrow. After all, who wants to be ostracised from the group?

In August Al Gore (oh so nearly 43rd President of the United States) gave an interview on BBC Radio 4 to promote his new film, An Inconvenient Sequel. In this, he is apparently guilty of claiming that record temperatures, flooding and rising sea levels were proof of the argument he made in An Inconvenient Truth that climate change would bring an increase in extreme weather events. For this, he was taken to task by Lord Lawson, erstwhile Chancellor of the Exchequer under Margaret Thatcher and now chairman of the Global Warming Policy Foundation.

This air time for a known sceptic of the extent and impact of warming predicted by proponents of the CAGW hypothesis was a welcome sign of tolerance of alternative positions, albeit a rather rare one. However, the BBC chose to follow this up with a report on its website about Anger over ‘untrue’ climate claims. Lord Lawson was hauled over the coals in particular for questioning Mr Gore’s claim that "climate-related extreme weather events have grown far more numerous and far more destructive".

Two high-profile scientists who broadcast on the Beeb made strong criticisms. Professor Brian Cox said it was "irresponsible and highly misleading to give the impression that there is a meaningful debate about the science", while Jim al-Khalili said via Twitter "For @BBCr4today to bring on Lord Lawson 'in the name of balance' on climate change is both ignorant and irresponsible. Shame on you. There should be NO debate anymore about climate change. We (the world minus Trump/Lawson et al) have moved on."

I have to say that I find this very worrying. We should expect false arguments to be exposed by debate and questioning rather than simply suppressed in a way akin to the ‘no platforming’ of people in other fields whose views may be controversial. Unfortunately, in the case of climate change, there is a danger that the Scientific Establishment might be seen to be censoring critics because their own arguments are not as watertight as they say.

This should only encourage dissenters to make their voices heard. At the end of the day, free debate, backed up by credible arguments, is the only way to advance our understanding, and those brave enough to put their heads above the parapet should be praised rather than condemned and ignored. Without a good understanding of the problem, we cannot develop an optimal solution.

Tuesday, 12 September 2017


Here are the details of the many incidents of errors in the Australian climate data compiled by their Bureau of Meteorology. It is amazing that all the errors are in one direction - to make the warming seem higher. 

Monday, 11 September 2017


This article explains what is happening with our star.

Sunday, 10 September 2017


This article puts the current hurricane season in the context of past years and finds that it is not even in the top ten. Any strong hurricane is a deadly phenomenon, but the idea that reducing CO2 will reduce them in numbers or severity is mere fiction, a foolish pipe-dream,

This article on WattsUpWithThat gives some good points to show how much climate alarmists like Michael Mann have distorted the evidence.

Also This piece explains the reasons why these hurricanes behaved as they did, and why there is nothing unique about them.

Saturday, 9 September 2017


Below is a letter which proposes that students should think for themselves, to which we should all add "here, here".

Sixteen college professors signed a letter urging students to respect everyone’s right to think and speak for themselves.
August 29, 2017
We are scholars and teachers at Princeton, Harvard, and Yale who have some thoughts to share and advice to offer students who are headed off to colleges around the country. Our advice can be distilled to three words:
Think for yourself.
Now, that might sound easy. But you will find—as you may have discovered already in high school—that thinking for yourself can be a challenge. It always demands self-discipline and these days can require courage.
In today’s climate, it’s all-too-easy to allow your views and outlook to be shaped by dominant opinion on your campus or in the broader academic culture. The danger any student—or faculty member—faces today is falling into the vice of conformism, yielding to groupthink.
At many colleges and universities what John Stuart Mill called “the tyranny of public opinion” does more than merely discourage students from dissenting from prevailing views on moral, political, and other types of questions. It leads them to suppose that dominant views are so obviously correct that only a bigot or a crank could question them.
Since no one wants to be, or be thought of as, a bigot or a crank, the easy, lazy way to proceed is simply by falling into line with campus orthodoxies.
Don’t do that. Think for yourself.
Thinking for yourself means questioning dominant ideas even when others insist on their being treated as unquestionable. It means deciding what one believes not by conforming to fashionable opinions, but by taking the trouble to learn and honestly consider the strongest arguments to be advanced on both or all sides of questions—including arguments for positions that others revile and want to stigmatize and against positions others seek to immunize from critical scrutiny.
The love of truth and the desire to attain it should motivate you to think for yourself. The central point of a college education is to seek truth and to learn the skills and acquire the virtues necessary to be a lifelong truth-seeker. Open-mindedness, critical thinking, and debate are essential to discovering the truth. Moreover, they are our best antidotes to bigotry.
Merriam-Webster’s first definition of the word “bigot” is a person “who is obstinately or intolerantly devoted to his or her own opinions and prejudices.” The only people who need fear open-minded inquiry and robust debate are the actual bigots, including those on campuses or in the broader society who seek to protect the hegemony of their opinions by claiming that to question those opinions is itself bigotry.
So don’t be tyrannized by public opinion. Don’t get trapped in an echo chamber. Whether you in the end reject or embrace a view, make sure you decide where you stand by critically assessing the arguments for the competing positions.
Think for yourself.
Good luck to you in college!
Paul Bloom
Brooks and Suzanne Ragen Professor of Psychology
Yale University
Nicholas Christakis
Sol Goldman Family Professor of Social and Natural Science
Yale University
Carlos Eire
T. Lawrason Riggs Professor of History and Religious Studies
Yale University
Maria E. Garlock
Professor of Civil and Environmental Engineering and Co-Director of the Program in Architecture and Engineering
Princeton University
David Gelernter
Professor of Computer Science
Yale University
Robert P. George
McCormick Professor of Jurisprudence and Director of the James Madison Program in American Ideals and Institutions
Princeton University
Mary Ann Glendon
Learned Hand Professor of Law
Harvard University
Joshua Katz
Cotsen Professor in the Humanities and Professor of Classics
Princeton University
Thomas P. Kelly
Professor of Philosophy
Princeton University
Jon Levenson
Albert A. List Professor of Jewish Studies
Harvard University
John B. Londregan
Professor of Politics and International Affairs
Princeton University
Michael A. Reynolds
Associate Professor of Near Eastern Studies
Princeton University
Jacqueline C. Rivers
Lecturer in Sociology and African and African-American Studies
Harvard University
Noël Valis
Professor of Spanish
Yale University
Tyler VanderWeele
Professor of Epidemiology and Biostatistics and Director of the Program on Integrative Knowledge and Human Flourishing
Harvard University
Adrian Vermeule
Ralph S. Tyler, Jr. Professor of Constitutional Law
Harvard University

Friday, 8 September 2017


This post gives the details of the problem, which is that although many of the public claim to believe that climate change is a problem, they are not prepared to pay much to have renewable energy. So, as soon as the cost of energy starts to hurt them in the pocket they are likely to turn out the politicians who caused this. It must be a real dilemma for them.

Thursday, 7 September 2017


This article gives the details of this study. The good news is that fish seem able to cope with any likely changes that might occur to pH. This is no great surprise as the pH of sea water varies by quite a wide margin across the various seas and oceans and even within them.

Wednesday, 6 September 2017


Here is an interesting article that attempts to equate a period of rapid warming in the past (56 million years ago) with the situation today where CO2 levels are increasing, as they apparently were then. The article does not give all the details needed to prove their case, in fact it raises quite a few questions. The first is, how can they be certain that it was not the warming which caused the CO2 level to rise rather than the CO2 which caused the warming? The article states that the ocean temperature was 10 degrees C warmer than now, which would mean that the oceans would dissolve much less CO2, meaning that atmospheric levels would be much higher. Also the level of CO2 at that time was believed to be much higher than now and the temperature was also much higher and yet there was no runaway warming. It peaked at about 5 degrees of increase and then reduced.   

Tuesday, 5 September 2017


This article looks at the idea and the drawbacks. The main drawback is the enormous cost which the government will be reluctant to admit. Another concern is the added risk of leaks and explosions. All this to save a relatively small amount of CO2 emissions which would make an undetectable change to global temperatures.

Monday, 4 September 2017


This article discusses this important question. It is important because it is implied in a huge number of articles and new items, almost subliminally. In fact we have been so sensitised to this that many will instinctively think it even if nothing is said. Those that "believe" in climate change automatically link every episode of severe weather to it in their mind. This is just what the promoters of this hope for. Luckily the IPCC have explicitly said there is not sufficient evidence for a link, but I would not be surprised to find them shifting their position by the time of the next report. If only the press and the TV would report the evidence and not just the hype. Sadly hype sells papers. 

Sunday, 3 September 2017


This article gives the details to show that in recent years the trend of ice retreat has changed.  We now appear to be seeing signs to back up the hypothesis of a new cooling trend, possibly linked to a sunspot minimum like the earlier Maunder Minimum between 1645 and 1715 which was linked to the mini ice age. 

Saturday, 2 September 2017


This article looks at what is happening. At last people are seeing what is happening and doing things to stop it.

Friday, 1 September 2017


G.A. Hodgkins et al., Journal of Hydrology, September 2017

“The results of this study, for North America and Europe, provide a firmer foundation and support the conclusion of the IPCC that compelling evidence for increased flooding at a global scale is lacking.” 

Fig. 2. Monthly distribution of floods with ≥25 year return periods for 1204 study gauges from 1961 to 2010, by major Köppen-Geiger climate for North America on the left in green and Europe on the right in blue. Monthly values are percent of total number of floods with > 25 year return periods for each Köppen-Geiger climate.

G.A. Hodgkins et al., Climate-driven variability in the occurrence of major floods across North America and Europe, Journal of Hydrology, Volume 552, September 2017, Pages 704-717


Concern over the potential impact of anthropogenic climate change on flooding has led to a proliferation of studies examining past flood trends. Many studies have analysed annual-maximum flow trends but few have quantified changes in major (25–100 year return period) floods, i.e. those that have the greatest societal impacts. Existing major-flood studies used a limited number of very large catchments affected to varying degrees by alterations such as reservoirs and urbanisation. In the current study, trends in major-flood occurrence from 1961 to 2010 and from 1931 to 2010 were assessed using a very large dataset (>1200 gauges) of diverse catchments from North America and Europe; only minimally altered catchments were used, to focus on climate-driven changes rather than changes due to catchment alterations. Trend testing of major floods was based on counting the number of exceedances of a given flood threshold within a group of gauges. Evidence for significant trends varied between groups of gauges that were defined by catchment size, location, climate, flood threshold and period of record, indicating that generalizations about flood trends across large domains or a diversity of catchment types are ungrounded. Overall, the number of significant trends in major-flood occurrence across North America and Europe was approximately the number expected due to chance alone. Changes over time in the occurrence of major floods were dominated by multidecadal variability rather than by long-term trends. There were more than three times as many significant relationships between major-flood occurrence and the Atlantic Multidecadal Oscillation than significant long-term trends. […]

5. Conclusions

Reference hydrologic networks isolate catchments where climate has been the principal driver of streamflow change by minimizing other drivers, such as regulation, diversions and urbanisation. The relationship between floods and climate change is more difficult to discern where catchments have been altered, making attribution to any single driver uncertain.

Trends over time in the occurrence of major floods (exceeding 25, 50, and 100 year return periods) in North America and Europe were evaluated for 1961–2010 and 1931–2010. All gauges drain catchments that are considered by local and national experts to be minimally affected by catchment alterations. Trend testing of major floods required the grouping of gauges. The 1204 gauges that met study criteria for 1961–2010 and the 322 gauges for 1931–2010 were grouped by continent, Köppen-Geiger climate and catchment size. The number of significant trends for 246 groups of gauges was approximately the same as would be expected by chance alone.

There were more than three times as many groups of gauges with significant relationships between the number of annual major floods and annual values of the Atlantic Multidecadal Oscillation than expected due to chance. Catchment size was important to the results; there were significant negative relations between floods and the AMO at large (>1000 km2) North American catchments and significant positive relations at medium (100–1000 km2) European catchments. The opposite relations between European and North American major flood occurrence and the AMO are consistent with previous work on general wetness and dryness related to the AMO. There were no significant relationships, for any group of catchments, between major flood occurrence and the Pacific Decadal Oscillation.

The results of this study, for North America and Europe, provide a firmer foundation and support the conclusion of the IPCC (Hartmann et al., 2013) that compelling evidence for increased flooding at a global scale is lacking.

Generalizations about climate-driven changes in floods across large domains or diverse catchment types that are based upon small samples of catchments or short periods of record are ungrounded. Networks of streamflow data from minimally altered catchments will provide an essential foundation for future efforts to understand the complex temporal and spatial dynamics of major floods.

Full paper