CHINA RAMPS UP COAL PRODUCTION - NOT BOTHERED BY CO2 EMISSIONS

While the West frets about CO2 emissions China goes full steam ahead to use as much coal as it likes. If it wasn't clear already that we are being taken for fools, this piece should convince any doubters.

As I wrote in a recent letter to the local paper, why do all the climate change protestors attack the UK government and no one makes any protest against the Chinese?

GERMAN NEW CAR EMISSIONS INCREASING DESPITE ELECTRIC VEHICLES

Here are the details. It seems the public are just not interested in cutting emissions, as many choose to buy large SUVs which more than offset the rise in electric vehicle sales.

SCOTTISH PARLIAMENT VOTES AGAINST A CALL TO TREAT CLIMATE CHANGE AS AN EMERGENCY

This piece explains how the Scottish parliament vote by a large majority against a proposal to treat climate change as an emergency and shut down all fossil fuel industries. It shows that even a supposedly climate change-obsessed government knows that such a proposition would be catastrophic. 

GREENLAND GLACIER STARTS GROWING AGAIN - SHOCK TO SCIENTISTS

This article explains that the Greenland glacier in question is affected by the cooler ocean currents that are in turn a result of a change in the North Atlantic Oscillation (NAO). This is a reminder that much of our climate goes in natural cycles that are driven by the ocean currents such as the NAO. We are only just beginning to understand their behaviour, which is why computer climate models are so unreliable, but the scientists who construct them don't want to admit this for obvious reasons.

THE "CONVERSATION" MISSES THE POINT ABOUT CLIMATE CHANGE

This article is typical of how climate alarmists think. It is based on the new deep coal mine that has just been given the go-ahead in the UK, and it is basically saying that it should not have been given permission, so no surprise there. But when you read it you can see that they start by assuming that no one thinks that climate change is not a problem. They just assume that everyone automatically believes it is serious and just needs to be shown how to articulate or promote it.

The article also misses the very important point that the coal from this mine is to be used to make steel and that if it wasn't used we would either have to  import the coal, or give up making steel and lose those jobs. The thing about these climate alarmists is they don't seem to care about real jobs, instead they talk blithely about green jobs which don't actually exist. 

ATTENBOROUGH TO PRESENT "UNFLINCHING" CLIMATE CHANGE DOCUMENTARY

This Daily Mail article explains that David Attenborough is to present a one-off programme in the spring. By "unflinching" they probably mean a major piece of one-sided propaganda in which we will be shown as much footage of extreme weather events as possible while being told it's all the fault of humans emitting CO2. 

What the programme makers are hoping is that viewers hold David Attenborough in such high regard that they will not question his words and so more people will simply accept the proposition and so accept the higher costs of fuel and travel that are to come. 

While some will do so, I believe that many will see this for the brain-washing that it is and start thinking for themselves.

DUTCH GO CLIMATE LOOPY AND START TO BAN GAS HEATING

This article looks at the decision of the Dutch government to phase out gas from 2018. This is an amazing decision considering the enormous cost, much of which will be born by the people. I wonder how long they will support this when they actually see the huge personal cost of it.

In fact this policy is already back-firing and when we consider the yellow vest protests in France, it is becoming clear that the public will not stand for their energy costs being driven up and up just to make political leaders feel good strutting on the international stage. 

EXCELLENT LETTER IN SUPPORT OF PRESIDENT'S COMMISSION ON CLIMATE SECURITY

Letter in support of President’s Commission on Climate Security and Dr. Will Happer

The Honorable Donald J. Trump

President of the United States

The White House

1600 Pennsylvania Avenue, N. W.

Washington, DC 20500

Via e-mail

Dear President Trump,

The undersigned organizations and individuals write to express our strong support for

the proposed President’s Commission on Climate Security. It is our understanding that

this commission, which is being planned and would be directed by Dr. William Happer

of the National Security Council staff, is currently being considered by your senior

White House staff and relevant Cabinet secretaries and agency heads. The commission

would consist of a small number of distinguished experts on climate-related science and

national security. It would be charged with conducting an independent, high-level

review of the Fourth National Climate Assessment and other official reports relating to

climate and its implications for national security. Its deliberations would be subject to

the transparency requirements of the Federal Advisory Committees Act.

In our view, an independent review of these reports is long overdue. Serious problems

and shortcomings have been raised repeatedly in the past by highly-qualified scientists

only to be ignored or dismissed by the federal agencies in charge of producing the

reports. Among major issues that have been raised and that we hope the commission

will scrutinize: the models used have assumed climate sensitivities to CO2

concentrations significantly higher than recent research warrants; the models used have

predicted much more warming than has actually occurred; predictions of the negative

impacts of global warming have been made based on implausible high-end emissions

scenarios; the positive impacts of warming have been ignored or minimized; and surface

temperature data sets have been manipulated to show more rapid warming than has

actually occurred. An underlying issue that we hope the commission will also address is

the fact that so many of the scientific claims made in these reports and by many

climate scientists are not falsifiable, that is, they cannot be tested by the scientific

method.

The conclusions and predictions made by these reports are the basis for proposed

energy policies that could cost trillions of dollars in less than a decade and tens of

trillions of dollars over several decades. Given the magnitude of the potential costs

involved, we think that taking the insular processes of official, consensus science on

trust, as has been the case for the past three decades, is negligent and imprudent. In

contrast, major engineering projects are regularly subjected to the most rigorous and

exhaustive adversarial review. We suggest that climate science requires at least the

same level of scrutiny as the engineering employed in building a bridge or a new

airplane.

We note that defenders of the climate consensus have already mounted a public

campaign against the proposed commission. We find this opposition curious. If the

defenders are confident that the science contained in official reports is robust, then they

should welcome a review that would finally put to rest the doubts that have been

raised. On the other hand, their opposition could be taken as evidence that the

scientific basis of the climate consensus is in fact highly suspect and cannot withstand

critical review.

We further note that opponents of the proposed commission have already stooped to

making personal attacks on Dr. Happer. Many signers of this letter know Dr. Happer

personally and all are familiar with his scientific career. We know him to be a man of

high capabilities, high achievements, and the highest integrity.

It has been reported that some officials within your administration have proposed an

internal working group as an alternative to an independent commission subject to

FACA. Insofar as an internal working group would consist of federal career scientists

reviewing their own work, we think this alternative would be worse than doing

nothing.

Although an independent commission of distinguished scientists would have high

credibility, we do not mean to imply that its report should be the end of the

matter. We therefore suggest that the National Academies of Science and Engineering

would be appropriate bodies to conduct an initial review of the commission’s report.

Mr. President, you have made a number of comments in recent years expressing doubts

about the global warming consensus. Many of the signers of this letter have been

similarly skeptical. Without prejudging the results, we think that a review of climate

science produced by an independent, high-level commission would be a fair test for

your views (and ours): either it would provide a sound basis for revising your views or it

would confirm your views and confound your critics.

For these reasons, we urge you to create by Executive Order a President’s Commission

on Climate Security. Thank you for considering our views.

Sincerely,

Craig Rucker

President, CFACT

KING COAL STILL THRIVING IN THE UK

GWPF Welcomes New-Found Energy Realism Of Cumbrian Councillors

• Date: 20/03/19
• Press Release, Global Warming Policy Forum

London, 20 March: The Global Warming Policy Forum welcomes the decision by councillors of Cumbria County Council to unanimously approve a new coal mine near Whitehaven.

The first deep coal mine in the UK for more than 30 years was given the go-ahead on Tuesday by Cumbria county councillors.

Woodhouse Colliery is expected to employ 500 people, with an estimated 2,000 more in its supply chain

This coal mine will bring many new jobs and £180m of investment to Cumbria, and does not require the job-destroying subsidies enjoyed by the renewables industry.

It goes without saying that local politicians should put the livelihoods of their residents first, but this basic duty is becoming more and more difficult to fulfil in the hyper-politicised and over-heated atmosphere of climate alarmism. So the councillors of all three mainstream parties deserve particular recognition for their energy realism.

The new coal mine will produce higher-value coking coal, which is a key ingredient in steel-making. Steel is used to produce many things, not least wind-turbine blades which cannot be produced cost effectively by renewable energy.

Despite the so-called coal ‘phase-out’, the UK continues to need coal for industrial uses, and to supply back-up power stations which keep the lights on and the national grid stable. During the first nine months of 2018, 37% of our coal came from Russia.

Offshoring our coal production to countries with lower environmental controls will only increase global CO2 emissions due to transportation and further degradation of natural environments.

The GWPF hopes that politicians at all levels of government will take heed of the decision that councillors in Cumbria have made, recognising that the needs of people both at the local and national level should always come before non-sensical demands by climate activists.

WHO'S AFRAID OF 2 DEGREES - WE'VE ALREADY DONE IT

This article looks at the temperature record for Europe which extends back to 1750. What it shows is that between 1890 and 2013 the average temperature across Europe has risen by 2 degrees C. And yet none of the apocalyptic predictions have occurred; no increase in floods or heatwaves, droughts or storms. Sea level has continued to rise at the same rate as the previous few hundred years. True, summers are a tiny bit warmer an winters, on average are less cold, but that is hardly an apocalypse!

Of course alarmists will say, that's not global, and of course they are right, but there are serious doubts as to whether the current coverage is truly global with large gaps in Africa as well as the Polar regions. All the hype is based on computer models that are themselves based on human input of very incomplete data.

CLIMATE EMERGENCY - WHAT EMERGENCY?

Have you noticed that just recently the media seem to be giving a lot of publicity to these school children's "climate strikes" and the disruption caused by the anarchist group Extinction Rebellion? Also we have a number of councils passing motions proclaiming that there is a "climate emergency". This is a bit odd as the actual scientific case for global warming seems to be getting weaker.

Here is an interesting piece about the actual rate of warming compared with IPCC predictions.

Here is an up-to-date piece on the trends in extreme weather events. They are not suggesting any sort of climate emergency.

Those claiming a climate emergency are unable to provide any actual evidence to back up their claims. It is no good simply pointing out extreme weather events, as these have always occurred and there is no evidence to show that they are either becoming more frequent or more severe. UK Environment Minister, Michael Gove, says he supports the children's climate strikes as he claims they pressurise governments to do more. This is totally irresponsible of him. The main organisation behind this activity is called Extinction Rebellion. Their stated aim is to "fundamentally change the political and economic system" of the country. Does Gove really support those aims? 

The adult climate-change activists and other  left-wing extremists are hiding behind—and exploiting—all of these doubtless sincere young people whose heads have been filled for years with frightening tales of climate disaster. Children are innocent, but innocence goes with inexperience, naiveté and lack of wisdom. Children tend to make bad choices, which is why we don’t let them run things—or vote, consume alcohol, drive cars or enter into contracts. 

If the media wanted to give an honest assessment of whether current climate policies to reduce CO2 emissions was likely to succeed in making a large reduction in world CO2 emissions, they would have to conclude that they cannot unless all the major CO2 emitting nations were to take the same strong action. We know that is not going to happen because China and India are not being asked to do so. If there really was a climate emergency then all nations would have to act. It is simply useless for Western nations to make themselves less competitive by carrying out costly CO2 reduction policies, while China and India are left to continue increasing their emissions. If protestors really wanted to make a useful point then that is what they should be protesting about. But, of course they know this would be ignored. Far easier for them to wave a few general slogans and make a pointless gesture. This is also true for councils, who should pass a motion demanding that all nations should have to reduce their emissions simultaneously - if they really believed there was a "climate emergency".

BRAINWASHED AT THE BLACKBOARD AGAINST THE GOVERNMENT

This piece by Dominic Lawson makes some very pertinent points concerning the recent children's strikes and marches to alert us to the so-called Climate Emergency. Here are some highlights:

"They (children) have been led to believe that British politicians have been doing ‘nothing’ to reduce emissions of CO2. Whoever taught them that is either ignorant, or deliberately covering up the fact that UK CO2 emissions have fallen consistently in each of the past six years (the result of government-mandated action to shut coal-powered power stations).

Last year, or so scientists tell us, UK CO2 emissions were at the lowest levels in more than 120 years, despite the fact that our population and output is vastly higher.

Add to this that the UK contributes little more than one per cent of global CO2 emissions, and you wonder — again — what these children have been told by their teachers. 

Have they been told, for example, that China is building almost 260 gigawatts of new coal-fired power generating capacity (equivalent to roughly the entire U.S. coal power station fleet)?

Have they been told that last year China also financed more than a quarter of worldwide coal plant construction (to the tune of $36bn)?

If these ‘striking’ school-children were at all informed on the matter that exercises them so much, they would be demonstrating not in Parliament Square but outside the London embassy of the People’s Republic of China."

CHILDREN USED AS PAWNS IN MASSIVE CLIMATE STRATEGY TO KILL OFF FOSSIL FUELS

This article reveals the massive collusion between very rich organisations to use the courts and children to push their objective which is to cripple the fossil fuel industry. The links and the strategy make scary but fascinating reading. What it shows is the extent and the power of this climate change movement. The only way to stop it is with government legislation, but is there the will to even attempt to do it?

SCENTED CANDLES ARE AS BAD FOR AIR QUALITY AS A DIESEL CAR

That is according to this article in the Daily Mail. Surely this must lead to a ban on candles? Or at the very least a hefty candle tax to cover all the medical costs of treating these candle users, not to mention those who visit them and thereby breathe in their toxic candle fumes. Why isn't this story all over the news? At least there is a simple solution for those who don't want to breathe the toxic air - stop using them.

CHIDREN BEING USED BY LEFT WING EXTREMISTS

The climate protest is simply a front to entrap children to carry out an extreme left wing agenda.
The Real Agenda: Skiving Kids Chant “Theresa May’s A F***Ing Wh*Re”
Today schoolchildren are bunking off school again to protest the changing climate. Guido Fawkes has obtained footage of the chant they were shouting outside Number 10: “One Two Three Four, Theresa May’s a f***ing wh*re.” 

And this is what Michael Gove is tacitly supporting when he says that he believes it is a good thing that children are protesting. I despair!

See the video here

MORE TROUBLE BEING STORED UP AS THE GOVERNMENT IGNORE WARNINGS ON THE GRID

This piece explains the view of one expert on the way our electricity grid is becoming less stable. This is just the latest warning as we become increasingly dependent on unreliable wind and solar power. Will anyone actually do anything to improve the situation? Or is it a case of hoping the problem does not manifest itself until someone else is in power? There have been warnings for years now - are they crying wolf?

UNPOPULAR CLIMATE POLICIES ANNOUNCED YEARS AHEAD

The following is from an article in the Sun dated 21 February. The Chancellor of the Exchequer, Philip Hammond mentioned in his Spring Statement that the Government was going to implement these proposals. Of course he is unlikely to be in power in six years, and it still seems quite a long way off, so no one is paying much attention to it. However it will not be popular when it comes in and whoever is in government then will get the flack, just like the diesel car fiasco and the increase in wind power.

HOUSE ABOUT THAT

Gas hobs and boilers could be BANNED in new homes within six years due to carbon emissions targets

The Committee on Climate Change, which advises the Government and monitors the UK's carbon emissions, has made the recommendations in its new report

By Helen Knapman, Digital Deputy Consumer Editor

In the UK, the Government has a target to reduce carbon emissions by 80 per cent compared to 1990 levels by 2050.

But the committee says the Government isn't doing enough to combat the issue. It says that around 4.5million homes now overheat, even in cool summers.

It adds that making homes more energy efficient could save households in new homes between £70 and £260 on their energy bills each year.

Baroness Brown, chair of the committee's adaptation committee, said: “This report confirms what we have long-suspected: UK homes are largely unprepared for climate change.

"The Government now has an opportunity to act. There must be compliance with stated building designs and standards. We need housing with low-carbon sources of heating.

"And we must finally grasp the challenge of improving our poor levels of home energy efficiency. As the climate continues to change, our homes are becoming increasingly uncomfortable and unsafe."

But trade body the Home Builders Federation - whose members account for 80 per cent of all new homes built in England and Wales - warns that these energy efficiency measures will bump up prices.

Building experts estimate that it could add around £5,000 to the cost of a new build.

This is because low carbon heating includes pricey underfloor heating and more costly, larger low grade heat radiators - the look of which may also put of home buyers.

A spokesperson said: “Developers have demonstrated a clear commitment to this agenda and new homes are considerably more energy efficient than older ones.

"But builders need to sell homes and so alternative energy sources have to be attractive to consumers and commercially viable.

"Gas boiler systems are currently the most attractive option for consumers and so what builders tend to install, and limitations remain with the alternatives available."

PRESIDENT'S NEW COMMITTEE ON CLIMATE SECURITY IS A VITAL STEP

This article explains what is at stake here. Here is one very pertinent point:

Point D.5.3 of the summary for policymakers gives an estimate of the cost: “Global model pathways limiting global warming to 1.5°C are projected to involve the annual average investment needs in the energy system of around 2.4 trillion USD2010 between 2016 and 2035.” - That's 2.4 trillion dollars a year! Need I say more.

PUBLIC REJECT CARBON TAXES ONCE THEY KNOW ABOUT THEM

This article explains what is happening. It seems that the public are becoming aware of these attempts to impose extra taxes on them and they do not like it. Politicians are being forced to listen and then realise that to go ahead will likely lead to them getting removed from office. The quiet majority are finding their voice.

WORLD FAILING TO KEEP THEIR PARIS COMMITMENTS

This lecture gives a good overview of the political situation regarding attempts by nations of the world to keep to their Paris climate commitments. It shows that most nations are failing and that it is unlikely that they will be able to improve on this without becoming unpopular with their people.

AUSSIES LEFT UP THE CREEK BY ENVIRONMENTAL "ADVISORS"

Here is the article which explains how the poor Western Australians are being forced to follow the advice of their EPA (Environment Protection Agency) and cut emissions to fall in line with their Paris commitments. It's all a man made vicious circle that is repeated in country after country. Unless and until the citizens protest by voting out the governments that bring in these high cost measures, or take to the streets like the French, this is what will happen. The Meek will not win, but the Bolshy can.

GLOBAL WARMING PAUSE IS REAL SAY CHINESE CLIMATE SCIENTISTS.

This report tells us that Chinese scientists accept the pause in global warming was real, in opposition to many Western scientists who have tried hard to discredit it.

THE PHONEY CLIMATE CRISIS - NEW VIDEO FROM TONY HELLER

This video is a full 49 minutes in which Tony looks at all the false scares put forward during the past century, some of them by the same people. When viewed together it builds a strong picture of how we are constantly being duped by so-called experts, who actually have no real evidence for their claims.

ARCTIC REGION WAS 4-6c WARMER IN 1930'S

This piece refers to a new study which shows the figures. This extract gives a few details:

"during the 1930/31 expedition, it was 4.6 °C warmer than the present day in CB [Calm Bay]. Such a high thermal anomaly was influenced by a warm autumn and winter, especially February 1931, when the average monthly temperature was 10.7 °C higher than in the modern period.”

IS THIS THE END OF RECYCLING?

After decades of earnest public-information campaigns, Americans are finally recycling. Airports, malls, schools, and office buildings across the country have bins for plastic bottles and aluminum cans and newspapers. In some cities, you can be fined if inspectors discover that you haven’t recycled appropriately.

But now much of that carefully sorted recycling is ending up in the trash.

For decades, we were sending the bulk of our recycling to China—tons and tons of it, sent over on ships to be made into goods such as shoes and bags and new plastic products. But last year, the country restricted imports of certain recyclables, including mixed paper—magazines, office paper, junk mail—and most plastics. Waste-management companies across the country are telling towns, cities, and counties that there is no longer a market for their recycling. These municipalities have two choices: pay much higher rates to get rid of recycling, or throw it all away.

Most are choosing the latter. “We are doing our best to be environmentally responsible, but we can’t afford it,” said Judie Milner, the city manager of Franklin, New Hampshire. Since 2010, Franklin has offered curbside recycling and encouraged residents to put paper, metal, and plastic in their green bins. When the program launched, Franklin could break even on recycling by selling it for $6 a ton. Now, Milner told me, the transfer station is charging the town $125 a ton to recycle, or $68 a ton to incinerate. One-fifth of Franklin’s residents live below the poverty line, and the city government didn’t want to ask them to pay more to recycle, so all those carefully sorted bottles and cans are being burned. Milner hates knowing that Franklin is releasing toxins into the environment, but there’s not much she can do. “Plastic is just not one of the things we have a market for,” she said.

The same thing is happening across the country. Broadway, Virginia, had a recycling program for 22 years, but recently suspended it after Waste Management told the town that prices would increase by 63 percent, and then stopped offering recycling pickup as a service. “It almost feels illegal, to throw plastic bottles away,” the town manager, Kyle O’Brien, told me.

Without a market for mixed paper, bales of the stuff started to pile up in Blaine County, Idaho; the county eventually stopped collecting it and took the 35 bales it had hoped to recycle to a landfill. The town of Fort Edward, New York, suspended its recycling program in July and admitted it had actually been taking recycling to an incinerator for months. Determined to hold out until the market turns around, the nonprofit Keep Northern Illinois Beautiful has collected 400,000 tons of plastic. But for now, it is piling the bales behind the facility where it collects plastic.

This end of recycling comes at a time when the United States is creating more waste than ever.

Full story

CLIMATE CHANGE AND THE VAST WASTE OF MONEY

This article looks at the vast sums of money being used to promote climate alarm and the "cure" of reducing CO2 emissions. There are so many good points made in the article that it needs to be read throughout. This passage gives a flavour:

Nothing that is required to harness breezes and sunshine to power civilization is clean, green, renewable, climate-friendly or sustainable. Tens of billions of tons of rock would have to be removed, to extract billions of tons of ores, to create millions of tons of metals, concrete and other materials, to manufacture millions of wind turbines and solar panels, and install them on millions of acres of wildlife habitats – to generate expensive, intermittent energy that would be grossly insufficient for humanity’s needs. Every step in this process requires fossil fuels – and some of the mining involves child labor.

WHEN ENVIRONMENTALISM STOPS PROGRESS A NATION IS IN DEEP TROUBLE

Of course there must be a balance between the needs of humans and the needs of natural creatures and plants, but from reading this article it looks as though the USA has got it too far towards nature. Time for a re-think before the country becomes paralysed by legal activists.

NEW "GOLD STANDARD" CLIMATE PAPER DECLARED TO BE JUNK

This article explains how the supposed gold standard paper was soon reduced to junk by a number of experts. Once again we see the battle to win over the public result in each side claiming the others are cheating, and the trouble is that for the layman it is impossible to see who is right. 

TONY HELLER ON THE NEW GREEN DEAL

This video gives Tony's thoughts on the latest major policy from the US Democrats. 

BBC FORCED TO RETRACT FAKE EXTREME WEATHER CLAIM

Thanks to Paul Homewood and the GWPF another piece of fake news has been retracted by the BBC, but only after the initial falsehood had been propagated. Read the details here. On many issues the BBC is trusted to give accurate and impartial material, and yet on numerous occasions it has published manifestly inaccurate and exaggerated claims on climate change and been caught out. Surely it must be concerned that when this becomes more widely known its whole reputation will be tarnished. Yet it never seems to learn.

COSMIC RAYS INCREASE AS SUN GOES QUIET

This article looks at the data which are most convincing. We will see whether the extra cosmic rays cause an increase in cloud cover, in turn reducing the solar radiation that reaches and warms the surface of the Earth. 

CLIMATE CHANGE BELIEVERS STOOP TO EVER MORE DESPERATE SELF-DECEPTION

This article looks at exceptionally high temperatures back in March 1948 and compares them to the recent temperatures now in 2019. For anyone with an independent mind the comparison is obvious, both are examples of unusual weather. Then there is Green MP, Caroline Lucas who believes the recent example is "climate breakdown", desperate stuff indeed!