The mask has finally slipped to reveal that China will not be co-operating on climate policy. I am hardly surprised, as they only agreed to reduce their emissions ten years later than the West. Easy to renege on after the West has jumped first. How could we be so naïve?
Saturday, 6 August 2022
Friday, 5 August 2022
Here is the article to explain what is happening:
Yet another reason why CO2 emissions will not be controlled, no matter how many times the Western governments claim otherwise. But the people are well aware of what is going on, which is why they will not be prepared to make the huge sacrifice of paying massive energy and fuel bills for no tangible gain.
Thursday, 4 August 2022
Great Barrier Reef breaks coral cover record again
Official data confirms reef in rude good heath
London, 4 August -- Official data released today reveals that Australia’s Great Barrier Reef is in excellent health, with coral cover reaching record levels for the second consecutive year.
The increase will be surprising to members of the public, who are regularly hit with scare stories about coral bleaching and false tales about a reef in long-term decline.
A new note, published today by the Global Warming Policy Foundation, explains that the data shows clearly how a handful of coral bleaching events that have affected the reef since 2016 have had very limited impact on overall coral cover.
Dr Peter Ridd says:
“In recent years, the media around the world has been reporting coral bleaching events in increasingly apocalyptic terms. This data proves that they are simply scaremongering.”
GWPF director, Dr Benny Peiser said:
“This is just the latest example of empirical data making a mockery of the catastrophists. For how much longer do they think they can get away with it?”
Dr Ridd’s paper, entitled The Good News on Coral Reefs can be downloaded here (pdf)
Wednesday, 3 August 2022
Read this article to see what is going on:
Germany is experiencing similar problems, which is no consolation to us in the UK. Had the government had the courage to develop fracking we could now have a reliable supply of our own gas. We could have even done a deal with the fracking firms to supply at a fixed price for a fixed time, as has been done for the new nuclear power stations. But sadly no, we have instead put our eggs into wind turbines in a vain attempt to control the climate. Complete madness!
Tuesday, 26 July 2022
Here is a link to this recent debate on the UK Energy Bill:
Of particular interest is the contribution by Lord Moylan. Here is a short exerpt:
"Net zero is not an energy strategy but a constraint on how we might achieve our energy strategy. Nobody seriously thinks that the UK’s commitment to achieve net zero by 2050 will have any significant effect on the heating of the planet, since we produce only 1% of global emissions. At best, it is setting an example to the world; its practical effect will be very small indeed. The core strategy for this Government has to remain abundant and affordable energy for the UK."
"One of the things the Bill does is encourage investment in wind power. Despite claims that the cost of wind power is constantly falling, that is simply not true. Although it has fallen from its early days, it is ceasing to fall; the fall is declining as a result of the maturity of the industry, as you would expect with any industry that matures. But even if the marginal cost of wind power can be brought down to something close to zero—in other words, that it is similar to nuclear power in that regard—none the less, the capital costs required would still require subsidies, in addition to the feed-in tariff, and these are very large indeed when it comes to offshore wind.
Sunday, 24 July 2022
It's important to remind ourselves of the fact that the whole global warming/climate change scare is based on data and just how flawed that data is. Read this report to refresh yourself:
I know there are one or two people who won't believe anything that is written on Watt's Up With That, but that is simply prejudice. This report was undertaken for a PhD thesis and was reviewed as part of the process.
Saturday, 23 July 2022
Here is an article I have only just come across on the BBC website:
It turned out to be a hatchet job, lumping all climate sceptics together with as many loony conspiracy theorists as possible, just as I suspected they would.
Here are a few of the arguments put forward:
1. Sceptics claim a grand solar minimum will reverse global warming. This claim is only made by a small number of people. It is certainly not the main argument used.
2. Global warming will make parts of the earth more habitable, and that cold kills more people than heat does. This argument is a valid one, depending on the degree of warming. But this nuanced argument is completely ignored by the BBC. Presumably because it would be much harder to refute.
3. Limiting fossil fuel use will inevitably stunt economic growth and increase the cost of living, hurting the poorest. The article then claims that renewable energy is now cheaper than fossil fuels, while not mentioning that they suffer from unreliability and so need back up. It then claims that increases in extreme weather events will cause more harm to the poor. Something which is not supported by the data.
While no doubt there are some "loonies" who say global warming is a hoax, there are also clearly many people with impressive qualifications who still remain sceptical of the predictions of doom and destruction put out by the climate extremists. Look at the list of people on the Global Warming Policy Foundation Advisory Council : Who We Are - The Global Warming Policy Foundation (thegwpf.org)
The BBC has made a big mistake by not admitting any slight doubt to any of the predictions, nor even to allow a proper discussion of the policies being enacted to deal with it. Such a stance will drive reasonable people to find that it's the BBC and the government who are the extremists.
Saturday, 16 July 2022
Here is a well-worded serious complaint made to the BBC by the Global Warming Policy Foundation. It highlights a typical situation where a programme seems to be used to further a political agenda, instead of providing balanced information. It is unusual for a so-called public service broadcaster to be so one-sided not only on the science, but also on the political policy where balance is normally taken for granted.
Tuesday, 12 July 2022
Be careful what you wish for is the message to give to those green zealots who want to go back to simple "chemical free" farming. it might sound attractive to many of the public who have been fed a constant diet of how wonderful organic farming is. So, before you go out and glue yourself to some "evil" chemical works read this:
Thursday, 7 July 2022
The following post contains an interesting video link showing how the ice cores were examined to reveal the past record of temperature. At the very least this shows that the past 10000 years have been warmer than the present - something that climate alarmists have tried to deny. Of course this does not mean that increased CO2 levels do not cause warming, but the unknown factor is how much of the current warming is cased by CO2 and how much is due to natural causes?
Wednesday, 6 July 2022
The control of CO2 emissions was always going to be very difficult in a democracy, as it involves people having to have restrictions placed on their rights and freedoms. It would require a lowering of the standard of living of the bulk of the population. For some time in the USA the government has relied un an unelected agency to bypass democracy and enforce some quite draconian regulations, but now this agency (EPA) has been stopped by the Supreme Court.
Monday, 4 July 2022
"Climate models are tuned, climate models are fudged Perhaps it is because of the complexity, or perhaps because of our relative lack of knowledge of the climate system, but when climate models are put together they rarely perform in a realistic manner, with too much or too little heat being retained by the virtual atmosphere. This results in the virtual temperatures rapidly drifting away from the observed ones. In order to address this problem, climate models are ‘tuned‘ – in other words some of the parameterisations are arbitrarily adjusted – so as to make the model warm at a more realistic rate. An example would be to adjust the way clouds are represented in the model. Clouds are one of the great areas of uncertainty in the climate system, so many of the possible parameterisations are plausible. Different combinations of input values could give a virtual global temperature record similar to the real one, but completely different estimates of future warming. Which climate future is the real one is, again, anyone’s guess, and is therefore possible to simply pick the one that gives a desired answer."
Wednesday, 29 June 2022
Take a look at the screen grab of the factsheet below and there is the following: "UK tide gauge records show substantial year-to-year changes in coastal water levels (typically several centimetres). We recommend that coastal decision makers account for this variability in risk assessments, particularly for shorter-term planning horizons."
You can enlarge the above screen grab for easier reading, or go to the link. I have written to the Met Office to ask if they believe this to be correct and am waiting for a response.
Below is the record for Portsmouth, and while it is true to say that there is year to year variability of several centimetres, this is both up and down and, when it is averaged out, the actual rise is much lower (only around 2mm). So what point are they trying to make? Could it be to give the impression that sea level is rising by "several centimetres" a year?
Sunday, 26 June 2022
Here is a recent article looking at the latest attempts to measure it using satellites: Sentinel-6: New International Sea Level Satellite – Watts Up With That?
There are two related measures of sea level, the absolute sea level, which is the increase in the sea level in an absolute reference frame, and relative sea level, which is the increase in sea level recorded by tide gauges. The first measure is a rather abstract computation, far from being reliable, and is preferred by activists and politicians for no scientific reason.
For local and global problems it is better to use local tide gauge data. Proper coastal management should be based on proved measurements of sea level. Tide gauges provide the most reliable measurements, and best data to assess the rate of change. We show as the naïve averaging of all the tide gauges included in the PSMSL surveys show “relative” rates of rise about +1.04 mm/year (570 tide gauges of any length). If we consider only 100 tide gauges with more than 80 years of recording the rise is only +0.25 mm/year.
This naïve averaging has been stable and shows that the sea levels are slowly rising but not accelerating. We also show as the additional information provided by GPS and satellite altimetry is of very little help. Computations of “absolute” sea levels suffer from inaccuracies with errors larger than the estimated trends.
The GPS is more reliable than satellite altimetry, but the accuracy of the estimation of the vertical velocity at GPS domes is still well above ±1 mm/year and the relative motion of tide gauges vs. GPS domes is mostly unassessed. The satellite altimetry returns a noisy signal so that a +3.2 mm/year trend is only achieved by arbitrary “corrections”.
We conclude that if the sea levels are only oscillating about constant trends everywhere as suggested by the tide gauges, then the effects of climate change are negligible, and the local patterns may be used for local coastal planning without any need of purely speculative global trends based on emission scenarios.
Ocean and coastal management should acknowledge all these facts. As the relative rates of rises are stable worldwide, coastal protection should be introduced only where the rate of rise of sea levels as determined from historical data show a tangible short term threat.
As the first signs the sea levels will rise catastrophically within few years are nowhere to be seen, people should start really thinking about the warnings not to demolish everything for a case nobody knows will indeed happen.
For further reading on this topic, try this link:
The latest update from the Met Office is discussed here: UK Sea Level Rise Speeding Up–Claim Met Office: Data Proves Otherwise | NOT A LOT OF PEOPLE KNOW THAT (wordpress.com)
Tuesday, 21 June 2022
Saturday, 18 June 2022
Below is an interesting link which looks at a range of factors which contribute to the highly complex subject of sea level. The fear of a large rise is one of the most powerful threats made by the climate change lobby, but is it credible that sea level could rise by 1 meter or more by 2100?
Meanwhile back in the real world below are several graphs of sea level rise around the UK as measured by tide gauges. There is no sign, so far, of any dramatic rise. [you can click on the image to enlarge it]
Wednesday, 15 June 2022
Take a look at the bias towards climate alarm from the BBC. Exaggeration and lies used to promote a one-sided propaganda campaign.
Tuesday, 14 June 2022
Sometimes it's useful to take a step back and look at the bigger picture in order to fully appreciate the scale of what it means to get to net zero CO2 emissions. We are constantly being told that we must all do our bit towards this great goal in order to save the planet. To find all the big statistics on this, one place to look is <a href=Global Energy Review: CO2 Emissions in 2021 – Analysis - IEA>here</a> on the International Energy Agency (IEA) website. This organisation is, of course, committed to phasing out fossil fuels, even though it was founded to ensure security of oil supplies to member nations in times of crisis.
Here is an interesting statistic for 2020:
306.32 Mt of CO2 was produced by the UK for energy. The whole world produced 40 Gt of CO2. So using those figures we can calculate the % of world energy related emissions from the UK. (Energy includes that used for electricity, heating, transport, industry.)
306.32x10^6x100 divided by 40x 10^9 = 0.77%
So we can see that our emissions have fallen well below the 1% of world emissions which is often quoted. However 306.32 Mt is still a very large amount, when you consider that all the simple ways of reducing it have already been implemented.
An example of a scheme to reduce emissions is the new waste strategy being proposed by the New Forest District Council. The proposed changes are calculated to save 1037 tonnes of CO2 per annum, which to many people would sound impressive. But, set against the UK annual emissions, it can be calculated as:
1037x100 divided by 306320000%, which is 0.0003%
This puts the true scale of the reductions required to reach zero. Of course net zero means that some emissions will still be allowed, but these figures do not even include emissions due to agriculture
Monday, 13 June 2022
Sunday, 12 June 2022
Take a look at the press release below by all these local government mayors. What extraordinary hubris by these people to claim that they can achieve net zero, some in as little as 8 years time. I just wonder what they actually mean by net zero. Of course they know it won't happen and they have the excuse right there where they say they "need to be backed by new powers and more resources". They don't say how much "more resources" they need, but it's a certainty that it will be far more than any government will give them. All sound and fury signifying nothing. Take a look at the list of net zero dates given for each council - all complete guesswork.
07 Jun 2022
Mayor of Greater Manchester, Andy Burnham has joined other metro mayors and leaders from across the UK to ask for greater powers and funding so they can lead the country to net zero carbon in a way that’s fair for everyone.
At the Decarbonisation Summit event at the Science and Industry Museum in Manchester on 7 June 2022, eight English metro mayors – including Mr Burnham -and the leader of Glasgow City Council, released the following joint statement:
Issued on behalf of:
Saturday, 11 June 2022
Read this report: Advanced Ultra-Supercritical Technology | GE Steam Power
When you look at the latest technology you can see why so many new coal plants are being built across the world. Whether the UK or Europe, or even the Western world choose to deprive themselves of cheap reliable energy, it will not stop India, China and many developing nations in Africa continuing to use coal. While we choose expensive less reliable electricity, they will choose coal.
Friday, 10 June 2022
Here is an interesting article which argues that it does:
Wednesday, 8 June 2022
Monday, 6 June 2022
Here's a new invention to collect the methane which cows emit when they belch: Climate madness: British startup releases masks for cows (freewestmedia.com) When you look at the cost of it, I can't see many farmers using it unless forced to do so, and if that were to happen it would drive up the cost of milk and beef. So what are the chances of this being a common sight in our fields?
Friday, 3 June 2022
Funny that there has been no mention of this on our TV news bulletins or even on the weather forecasts. Here is a link: Weather Books Rewritten Across South America As Antarctic Blast Intensifies; + Australia Smashed By Heavy Snows And All-Time Record-Breaking Lows - Electroverse
Omission of any reporting of this should make us all suspicious, particularly when they so prominently feature anything to do with excessive hot or dry weather, floods or hurricanes. Of course none of these extreme weather events is evidence of any climate change, as such extremes always have occurred and always will. However the news is a means of pushing a particular message, that we face a "climate emergency". Anything which reminds us that it is simply variable weather is not helpful to such propaganda and so is left out.
Monday, 30 May 2022
Have look and see the large numbers of qualified people signing this.
When you look at the mainstream TV broadcasts you could easily believe that no serious scientists disagree with the hypothesis that CO2 is causing a climate "emergency".
Friday, 27 May 2022
The writer of this piece explains why he thinks so.
The author, Ben Pile, has a video at the link where he goes into more detail. There is no doubt that a number of very rich people seem to have funded much of the pressure groups working to get fossil fuels banned. Their activities have resulted in the price of fossil fuels to rise, quite apart from the Ukraine war. On top of that the Bank of England has printed money to deal with the Covid crisis causing inflation.
Ben Pile asserts that there is a deliberate attempt by government to raise the price of fossil fuels. If so, I doubt that they would have wanted to go this far, but the trouble with tinkering with the economy is that things can get out of control and now that seems to have happened.
If the government does not get the price of fuel and energy to an affordable level they will be in deep trouble. Renewable energy is certainly not the answer, as it is both expensive and unreliable, so they must face the fact that unless they can build nuclear power stations fast (which they can't), they will have to make fossil fuels affordable, or face defeat in the next election.
Thursday, 26 May 2022
Has anyone told Mr Putin?
Here is the latest report: Climate Change: MPs say building demolitions must be reduced - BBC News
What will they come up with next? I wonder if this conflicts with the government's policy to build hundreds of thousands of new houses all over the country?
Monday, 16 May 2022
Is it any wonder that people are confused about global warming when the BBC puts out false information? See here: Insiders say Justin Rowlatt is more 'campaigner' than reporter | Daily Mail Online
Last week, it was reported that the BBC's Executive Complaints Unit (ECU) had upheld complaints about two claims made in the BBC's Panorama programme on November 3 last year by reporter Justin Rowlatt.
First, it wasn't true that the death toll from natural disasters is rising. In fact, the opposite is true.
According to ourworldindata.com, the number of deaths globally from natural disasters has tumbled each decade for the past century, apart from a small blip in the 2000s, from an average of 524,000 a year in the 1920s to just 45,000 in the 2010s — despite a booming global population.
The ECU also ruled that Rowlatt's claim that southern Madagascar was 'on the brink of the world's first climate-induced famine' was incorrect, as other factors were involved.
Thursday, 12 May 2022
Yes, the good news is that "the warming trend of the last 40 years is weakening”, says German expert.No Tricks Zone, 11 May 2022
By Professor Fritz Vahrenholt
During the energy crisis that has become visible in Germany and Europe over the past few months, things have gotten quieter about the supposedly imminent climate emergency. On the one hand, energy prices and security of supply have pushed the climate issue into the background. On the other hand, a weakening of the warming trend of the last 40 years is apparent.
The temperature curve of the satellite-based measurements of the University of Alabama UAH has been oscillating between -0.2 and 0.4 degrees for 20 years and seems to have remained stable since 2015, as shown in the next graph in the enlargement.
(Source: woodfortrees). The mean value is drawn in green- it shows a slightly decreasing trend since 2015. Why hasn’t this been reported?
What are the reasons for this stagnation?
CO2 concentrations in the air have continued to rise unabated. It is true that global annual CO2 emissions have been more or less constant for some years now, at 40 billion tons of CO2. Slightly more than half is absorbed by the oceans and plants, so that currently each year the equivalent of about 2.5 ppm CO2 is added to the air concentration. In 2015, there were 401 ppm of CO2 in the air; in 2021, there were 416 ppm. At this rate, by the way, we would never reach the IPCC’s scary scenarios of 800 to 1000 ppm in 2100.
No, the lack of warming must have other reason
What has been the amount of natural warming in the last 30 years?
And how big is the natural cooling in the next 30 years?
A change in global temperature can also happen naturally. We know that clouds have decreased by about 2% after the turn of the millennium, and that for the last ten years cloud cover has been stable at a low level. Second, there are oceanic temperature cycles such as the Atlantic Multidecadal Oscillation AMO, which increased sharply from 1980 to the beginning of this millennium (by 0.5 degrees, after all), has remained at maximum since then, and is now weakening slightly again (see next graph).
The United States Weather and Oceanographic Administration, NOAA, writes that the AMO can amplify anthropogenic warming in the warm phase and make it disappear in the cold phase. According to NOAA, the AMO is a naturally occurring change in North Atlantic temperatures that has occurred for at least 1000 years with alternating warm and cold phases of 20-40 years. Add to this the weakening solar radiation since 2008, and further significant warming beyond 1.5 degrees is unlikely in the next 30 years.
Sea ice melt has stalled
The stagnant trend of temperatures that has been observed for several years can also be seen in the halted decline in Arctic sea ice extent reported by the European Copernicus program in March (see next graph)
This is actually good news.
Wouldn’t it be time for climate researchers to bring these trends to the attention of politicians and the public? After all, politicians are currently readjusting the priorities of energy supply. While until last year’s price explosion and the aftermath of the Ukraine war it was apparently taken for granted that climate impacts would be the sole determining factor for energy policy, we are all now being made aware of the importance of security of supply and price trends.
However, German policymakers are still reacting inadequately. They believe they can solve the problem of self-generated energy shortages due to the double phase-out of coal and nuclear energy by simply building more wind farms and solar plants. It must always be remembered that in 2021 the share of wind and solar energy was just over 5% of primary energy supply (oil, gas, coal, nuclear, renewables). Even in a good windy year, it would not be much more than 6%.
Politicians do not have the necessary courage to repeal the coal phase-out law, to stop the nuclear phase-out, to lift the natural gas fracking ban and the ban on CO2 capture at coal-fired power plants. Not yet.
Gas-fired power plants like the one in Leipzig are still being built to replace coal-fired power plants with domestic lignite. Industry is already further ahead. Volkswagen has postponed the conversion of two of its own coal-fired power plants into gas-fired power plants indefinitely. This statement by CEO Diess was not widely reported in Germany, but it was abroad.
The U.S. government is also repositioning itself. John Kerry, the U.S. government’s climate envoy, for whom the 1.5-degree target was previously the sole political guideline, is now putting things into perspective and, in view of skyrocketing energy prices, saying that 1.8 degrees should be quite sufficient as a target. China, India and Southeast Asia, whose growth path is threatened by the price explosion, are practicing a renaissance of coal production.
That’s where we should listen when Jochem Marotzke of the Max Planck Institute for Meteorology in Hamburg says: “It’s unrealistic to bring global emissions to zero by 2050… a 2.5 degree world is still better than a 3.5 degree world.”
Let us reassure Mr. Marotzke: a 2.5 degree world will not be achieved in this century because natural variations in climate dampen anthropogenic warming. Had this been adequately accounted for in climate models, we would all have been spared much public panic and flawed policy decisions.
With best wishes
Professor Fritz Vahrenholt is a member of the GWPF's Board of Trustees.