Tuesday, 22 January 2019


‘Secret’ Pentagon Report: Climate Catastrophe Due Next Year
Paul Matthews, Climate Scepticism, 18 January 2019

Is it not rather worrying that the defence of the USA is in the hands of people who produce such garbage?

A classic from the Guardian/Observer archives, from February 2004:

"Now the Pentagon tells Bush "Climate change will destroy us""

The article is so absurd that it hardly needs any commentary. After explaining that Britain will be Siberian by next year according to a suppressed report, it goes on to claim that the ‘findings’ of the report will embarrass the climate-denying president:
The findings will prove humiliating to the Bush administration, which has repeatedly denied that climate change even exists. Experts said that they will also make unsettling reading for a President who has insisted national defence is a priority.

The report was commissioned by influential Pentagon defence adviser Andrew Marshall, who has held considerable sway on US military thinking over the past three decades. He was the man behind a sweeping recent review aimed at transforming the American military under Defence Secretary Donald Rumsfeld.

Climate change ‘should be elevated beyond a scientific debate to a US national security concern’, say the authors, Peter Schwartz, CIA consultant and former head of planning at Royal Dutch/Shell Group, and Doug Randall of the California-based Global Business Network.

An imminent scenario of catastrophic climate change is ‘plausible and would challenge United States national security in ways that should be considered immediately’, they conclude. As early as next year widespread flooding by a rise in sea levels will create major upheaval for millions.

Later on we are told more details of the catastrophes that will occur by 2020:
Already, according to Randall and Schwartz, the planet is carrying a higher population than it can sustain. By 2020 ‘catastrophic’ shortages of water and energy supply will become increasingly harder to overcome, plunging the planet into war. They warn that 8,200 years ago climatic conditions brought widespread crop failure, famine, disease and mass migration of populations that could soon be repeated.

Randall told The Observer that the potential ramifications of rapid climate change would create global chaos. ‘This is depressing stuff,’ he said. ‘It is a national security threat that is unique because there is no enemy to point your guns at and we have no control over the threat.’

Randall added that it was already possibly too late to prevent a disaster happening. ‘We don’t know exactly where we are in the process. It could start tomorrow and we would not know for another five years,’ he said.

Of course the authors of the report, Randall and Schwartz, aren’t climate scientists. But their report gets the glowing endorsement of two leading UK climate scientists — Sir John Houghton, former boss of the Met Office and IPCC co-chair, and former IPCC chair Bob Watson:
Sir John Houghton, former chief executive of the Meteorological Office – and the first senior figure to liken the threat of climate change to that of terrorism – said: ‘If the Pentagon is sending out that sort of message, then this is an important document indeed.’

Bob Watson, chief scientist for the World Bank and former chair of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, added that the Pentagon’s dire warnings could no longer be ignored.

‘Can Bush ignore the Pentagon? It’s going be hard to blow off this sort of document. Its hugely embarrassing. After all, Bush’s single highest priority is national defence. The Pentagon is no wacko, liberal group, generally speaking it is conservative. If climate change is a threat to national security and the economy, then he has to act. There are two groups the Bush Administration tend to listen to, the oil lobby and the Pentagon,’ added Watson.

Hugely embarrassing indeed, but for Watson, not Bush. Why would a senior scientist like Bob Watson say that a report claiming global catastrophe by 2020 is non-wacko and should be taken seriously? Well there’s a hint that politics may be a factor, later on in the article:
So dramatic are the report’s scenarios, Watson said, that they may prove vital in the US elections. Democratic frontrunner John Kerry is known to accept climate change as a real problem. Scientists disillusioned with Bush’s stance are threatening to make sure Kerry uses the Pentagon report in his campaign.

The fact that Marshall is behind its scathing findings will aid Kerry’s cause. Marshall, 82, is a Pentagon legend who heads a secretive think-tank dedicated to weighing risks to national security called the Office of Net Assessment. Dubbed ‘Yoda’ by Pentagon insiders who respect his vast experience, he is credited with being behind the Department of Defence’s push on ballistic-missile defence.

Is it not rather worrying that the defence of the USA is in the hands of people who produce such garbage?
This Pentagon report was cited in a recent article Climate Change and National Security, Part II: How Big a Threat is the Climate?
The consequences of abrupt, severe warming for national security are obvious in general, if unclear in the specifics. In 2003, the Defense Department asked a contractor to explore such a scenario. The resulting report outlined the offensive and defensive national security strategies countries may adopt if faced with abrupt climate change, and highlighted the increased risk of inter- and intra-state conflict over natural resources and immigration. Although the report may be off in its imagined timeframe (positing abrupt climate change by 2020), the world it conjures is improbable but not outlandish.
This is a bit like the doomsday cults that say that the world is going to end this year, and then when that doesn’t happen, say it’s going to happen next year.
Even more comically, a few paragraphs before acknowledging that the 2003 report got it wrong, the article claims that “Scientists can predict the consequences of climate change to 2050 with some measure of certainty”.
Full post & comments

Monday, 21 January 2019


This article highlights yet another example of weak science being allowed to get through the peer review process and taint the whole area. How can it be allowed to happen? 

Sunday, 20 January 2019


This article looks at the reasons for doing so. Of course it can only be done in a major way if someone with a desire to do it is in an important enough position to order it to happen. That person, of course, is President Donald Trump, but he needs to act quickly. 

Saturday, 19 January 2019


This article explains how the nuclear power plans in the UK are failing. The consequences of this are serious for the UK's energy and climate change policies, both of which are in big trouble.

Friday, 18 January 2019


Terence Corcoran
Financial Post, 12 January 2019

The surprise early resignation of World Bank President Jim Yong Kim on Monday has produced a flurry of reactions from the bank’s supporters and critics, although none have come close to outlining the best option for a post-Second World War institution that long ago outlived its original purposes.

Does a 21st-century world economy awash in massive flows of investment cash really need a meddling, bureaucratic, multi-tentacled, government-backed fake financial institution that has, under Kim, been transformed into (among other things) a raging green lending machine that aims to deny developing countries poverty-relieving investment in fossil fuels and other resources in favour of windmills and solar panels?

The most radical idea circulating through the media portals in the wake of Kim’s announcement is that it is time to end the United States’ “stranglehold” on the presidency of the institution. All of the bank’s 12 presidents to date have been U.S. nationals, the result of a complicated history of global power alignments and the fact that America is the bank’s largest funder.

Kim, however, was hardly one to accuse of putting the bank in an America First stranglehold. His 2012 nomination by former president Barack Obama was heralded particularly by the moderate left, from Bill Clinton to development economist Jeffrey Sachs, who congratulated Obama for “nominating a world-class development leader.” 

While some developing nation’s objected that it was time to let a non-American lead the bank, Kim sailed through to unanimous approval by the board of directors. He breezed on to a second-term extension in 2016, despite some objections about continued U.S. domination.

But that was then. With Donald Trump in the Oval Office, a more aggressive movement to overturn five decades of U.S. domination is underway. “The U.S shouldn’t get to pick the head of the World Bank. And not just because Trump is president,” said a Slate commentary by Charles Kenny, senior fellow at the Center for Global Development. Media reports warn that Kim’s departure, three years before the end of his term, “tees up a battle between the Trump administration… and critics seeking to break the U.S. stranglehold” on the bank’s presidency.

Maybe the critics of U.S. domination should be granted their wish. 

Under Kim, the World Bank accelerated its transformation from a do-gooding financial institution nominally dedicated to fighting poverty by aiding development in Third World countries, into an environmental crusader. No more loans for coal projects, Kim decreed — even as China, India and others were expanding coal production. In 2016, the World Bank introduced a “fundamental shift” in policy from fighting poverty to fighting fossil fuels. In 2017, the bank announced it would end financial support for oil and gas extraction by 2019.

Kim was not the first bank president to overturn the World Bank’s objectives. He was merely an extension of a policy drift introduced years earlier under previous leaders selected by Washington.

Back in 2003, the bank produced a review of “extractive industries” and concluded that it should get out of all funding of investments in petroleum and coal. The bank’s then president was James Wolfensohn, a Bill Clinton nominee and a global operator who — as FP Comment columnist Peter Foster has previously pointed out — was an associate of the late Canadian Maurice Strong, mastermind of modern United Nations green globalism.

When he took over, Wolfensohn began squeezing the bank into his and Strong’s extreme-green stranglehold. One journalist would later describe how “Wolfensohn was critical of Bank projects he considered environmentally harmful … Strong watched approvingly as Wolfensohn instituted environmentalist-friendly policies, including the appointment of environmental NGOs to World Bank advisory committees.”

Ah, those ugly Americans. They gotta be stopped. Get them out of there.

The global political scramble to replace Kim promises to be an ideological free-for-all. Politicians in developing countries want more control over the bank, radicals on the left and right want to shut it down, while Western globalists and an army of crawling bureaucrats and UN operatives are keen to keep the operation going. Meanwhile, some of the bank’s former supporters — including former World Bank research administrator Deepak Lal — believe the bank has become an obstacle to growth in developing countries.

As for Trump, he may or may not want to shake the place up. Some members of his team have in the past suggested closing the World Bank down. John Bolton, the president’s national security adviser, has suggested it should be scaled back, if not shuttered completely.


Thursday, 17 January 2019


Here is another excellent video from Tony Heller in which he debunks the so-called "climate consensus".  Tony seems to have perfected the you tube video with his distinctive laid-back style and packed full of information, including the old clips from newspapers etc. All in a length of around ten minutes. A devastating demolition of climate alarmist dogma. 

Wednesday, 16 January 2019


So much for the decline in the use of fossil fuels. This is the reality on the ground (or should I say under it) 
CNBC, 8 January 2019

BP discovers 1 billion barrels of oil at its Thunder Horse field in the Gulf of Mexico.

The oil giant also says it will spend $1.3 billion to develop a third phase of its Atlantis offshore field south of New Orleans.

BP credits its investment in advanced seismic technology for speeding up its ability to confirm the discoveries.

BP’s investment in next-generation technology just paid off to the tune of a billion barrels of oil.

The British energy company has discovered 1 billion barrels of crude at an existing oilfield in the Gulf of Mexico. BP also announced two new offshore oil discoveries and a major new investment in a nearby field.

BP is the Gulf of Mexico’s biggest producer, and it’s making strides to hold that title.

BP now expects its fossil fuel output from the region to reach 400,000 barrels of oil equivalent per day by the middle of the next decade. Today, it produces about 300,000 boepd, up from less than 200,000 boepd about five years ago.

Executives are crediting their investment in advanced seismic technology and data processing for speeding up the company’s ability to confirm the discoveries at Atlantis and Thunder Horse. BP says it once would have taken a year to analyze the Thunder Horse data, but it now takes just weeks.

Tuesday, 15 January 2019


This report finds that consumers are grossly overpaying for a very unreliable system As a result of the effect of intermittent renewables on the grid the gas fleet is much less efficient than it should be and the situation is only going to get worse.

Monday, 14 January 2019


This piece explains how the UK public has been conned by their government on Green Deals which have ended up costing them dearly.  While the majority of the pubic have avoided the useless scheme a few unlucky ones have paid the price for trusting them. Hopefully they have learnt the lesson.

Sunday, 13 January 2019


Of course, in an ideal world, our air should be as pure and clean as we can make it, but in practice we know that transport and industry will put out exhaust gases and particles that can irritate our lungs. Nature too can make our air very uncomfortable for those who are susceptible, for example pollen.

Now, according to this report we may be about to see a legal judgment as to whether air pollution was a significant factor in someone's death. Presumably, if the case succeeds, the Government will be found guilty of manslaughter by allowing the levels of pollutants to go above the maximum permitted level and then we will have some level of fine imposed on them, possibly some compensation to the victim's family.

But what next? How many other cases will emerge? For a start how is it possible, with any certainty, to decide to what extent, if any, the presence of low levels of pollutants could contribute to death?

In this case the victim was a child and if their parents were so concerned that traffic pollution was seriously affecting their child's life then why did they not move to a less polluting area? (They lived beside a very busy traffic area.)  

In reality the Government has to reach a compromise between  on the one hand keeping the air as clean as possible, and on the other hand allowing us all to use transport in order to go about our daily lives freely. The idea of attaching blame is purely a political exercise.

Saturday, 12 January 2019


This piece explains that Anastasios Tsonis, emeritus distinguished professor at the University of Wisconsin-Milwaukee, who is the author of more than 130 peer reviewed papers and nine books, has just retired, and is finally able to speak his mind. He is now able to announce he is a climate sceptic.

Friday, 11 January 2019


This piece  discusses a new paper which indicates that the deep ocean in the Pacific has continued cooling in recent decades, extending the long-term cooling trend that commenced after the warmer-than-today Medieval Warm Period ended.

Thursday, 10 January 2019


This article highlights the behaviour of the World Bank. Their mission is supposed to end poverty using aid and loans. Critics, including Donald Trump, say it is now following such a narrow agenda - with billions tied up in green projects - there's a danger of losing the plot.

Wednesday, 9 January 2019


This article explains what the Irish PM has decided in the light of protests such as those in France.  So the message seems to be getting through. Here in the UK they have succeeded in hiding the taxes by adding them to energy bills, but I wonder how long they will be able to get away with this. So far the media has been fairly compliant, but if a few protests were to happen all that would change. I expect all Western leaders are looking closely at public opinion, and that is what will ultimately limit their ability to control their CO2 emissions.

Tuesday, 8 January 2019


This article looks at the data for the UK over the past decade and the facts show hardly any change in contrast to the hype suggesting that it is warming rapidly.  Why won't the media publish the true records instead of the hype? The only answer must be that it is in their interest to conceal it. There are a lot of people in authority who have much to gain by persuading the public to support the current policy of cutting CO2 emissions. Once authorities reach such a position it is very difficult to fight against it.

Monday, 7 January 2019


This piece was an earlier piece from this blog. Now I read another article on the same subject here. It all goes to show that natural climate change is a real threat to us and there is nothing to stop it. We simply have to accept it and work to live with it as best we can.

Sunday, 6 January 2019


According to Dominic Lawson, in a Times article on 30 December 2018, the amount of plastic being used in the from of plastic bags has actually increased, even though the number of bags issued by supermarkets has reduced. This is because people are opting to pay 10 pence for the stronger and thicker "bags for life" rather than pay 5 pence for the thin single use bags.

Dominic continues his article by referring to a UK government report into the subject in which it compares the overall carbon dioxide emissions required to produce a bag, taking into account the number of times it is used. The conclusions showed that a paper bag had to be used 3 times to be better for the environment than a single use plastic bag used only once. A cotton bag had to be used 173 times to achieve the same result.  

In fact the problem with plastic is not that it causes global warming, but that it is not being disposed of safely, and that is an issue for law enforcement. Until all nations have proper control of waste disposal there will be problems of dumping waste in rivers and the sea.   

Saturday, 5 January 2019


Now Will Energy Firms Tell The Truth On Subsidies?
The Conservative Woman, 3 January 2019

By John Constable, GWPF Energy Editor

This article was first published in a longer version by the Global Warming Policy Forum and is republished by kind permission. The full article can be found here.

Britain’s electricity suppliers are reported to be considering further increases in prices to consumers. Climate policies are largely responsible for such price increases, yet government is more than content to let private energy companies and their shareholders take the blame. Intoxicated with subsidies, the electricity sector has hitherto colluded in this obfuscation of causes, but the introduction of the domestic electricity price cap may change this situation, encouraging energy suppliers and indeed all businesses to name government as the guilty party.

History provides very few clear lessons, but the records are tolerably clear that revenue collectors and tax farmers are always and everywhere loathed without reservation. This may be unfair, but it is a fact, a human universal. Why then did Britain’s energy supply companies willingly accept the task of raising the necessary subsidies for renewable energy directly from their customers’ bills? This in effect made these private companies covert revenue agents for the state, and so allowed government to hide the costs of energy and climate policies.

Anyone familiar with the industry will know there is no doubt that energy and climate policies are and have been for some time to blame for rising electricity prices, but the point bears repeating. The following chart, drawn from data in the government’s regrettably discontinued Estimated Impacts of Energy and Climate Change Policies on Energy Prices and Bills (2014), shows the components of electricity prices to domestic consumers in 2014, and the projected change in those components in 2020 and 2030 in the Central Fossil Fuel Price scenario. Energy and climate policy impacts are indicated by the green section of the stacked bar.

Figure 1: UK electricity price component estimates (£/MWh) prepared by The Department of Energy and Climate Change (DECC) in 2014. Source: Chart drawn by the author from data published as part of DECC Estimated Impacts of Energy and Climate Change Policies on Energy Prices and Bills (2014).

It is obvious that energy and climate policies already accounted for a large fraction of the price in 2014, prices being 17 per cent higher than they would have been in the absence of policies. By 2020 policies were predicted to make prices 37 per cent higher, and 41 per cent higher in 2030. In fact, DECC’s method of presentation somewhat understates the impact since a significant part of the Network Costs are actually due to renewables, because of system balancing actions and grid expansion, and a slice of the VAT element also, of course, results from the policy costs. This is, then, a conservative presentation. Furthermore, the Central Fossil Fuel Price scenario is not necessarily the most probable. In the Low Fossil Price scenario, which appears to be materialising at present and may very well apply in 2030, energy and climate policies cause prices to be 42 per cent higher in 2020 and 62 per cent higher in 2030.

But even in this understated, conservative central scenario, where fossil fuel energy costs are actually expected to rise, policies are the dominant causal factor in the overall price increase up to 2030. Put more precisely, in the absence of policies, electricity prices would have been stable to 2020, rising from about 14p/kWh (£140/MWh) in 2014 to about 14.1p/kWh (£141/MWh). In actual fact prices stood at 16.4p/kWh in 2014 because of policies, and were expected to rise to about 19.4p/kWh (£194/MWh) in 2020. We appear to be on track.

While uncontroversial amongst specialists, these facts are sometimes obfuscated even by authoritative sources, such as the Committee on Climate Change (see for example, theEnergy Prices and Bills Report 2017), and it has been a brave energy company that takes the risk of candour about the in-effect-tax component, as for example Ovo energy was last year (see this blog’s discussion: ‘Policies are to Blame for Rising UK Electricity Prices’). Unfortunately, though perfectly correct, they have not been widely believed.
This is ideal for government, and is proving disastrous for electricity suppliers. Indeed, a very large part of the public perception that energy companies are greedy and ruthless results from the industry’s short-sighted decision to allow itself to be used as the cat’s-paw of climate policy.

The hazards of this must have been obvious to the main board directors concerned, but the temptation to collude was certainly extreme. The express-service renewables target timetable required subsidies so large that the increased turnover and de-risked profit made the danger of bad public relations seem tolerable. The industry may well come to regret this lack of caution. A market sector debauched by subsidies, and already held in contempt by the public, will be in a very weak position to resist nationalisation by a radical socialist government.

However, government may have unwittingly forestalled this outcome, by introducing the domestic electricity price cap, a decision that could force an otherwise anaesthetised and lethargic industry into action. The uncertain, medium-term risks of a toxic public image and possible nationalisation may be pushed to one side by preoccupied executives, but an immediate crisis in revenue has to be addressed without delay. And the price cap genuinely does present a problem to the electricity supply industry. Having accepted the task of delivering the renewables policies, the industry is now being inhibited from passing the consequent additional costs on to domestic consumers via rising prices. The sums are not small. The Office for Budget Responsibility estimates that the renewables subsidy costs already amount to about £8.6billion per year in 2018/19 and will rise to about £11billion a year by the end of the current price cap period in 2023.

Such steadily increasing policy costs can be recovered only from consumers, and it is therefore probable that, blocked in one direction, suppliers will and must start to increase prices where the cap does not apply, for example prices charged to households choosing fixed-term deals, and, much more probably, prices to industrial and commercial consumers.

Full post