Sunday, 18 August 2019


The following article was sent to me by CFact

People with the temerity to correct the record on climate change must be silenced.

That's the outrageous point of a new study published in the journal Nature Communication

"The time has arrived for professional journalists and editors to ameliorate the disproportionate attention given to (climate change contrarians) by focusing instead on career experts and relevant calls to action,” the authors said.

While the study’s goal is severely off base, it nonetheless produced two mathematical rankings CFACT is more than a little tickled by.

According to a ranking of how often "contrarians," as the study labels us, are cited in the media, CFACT's Marc Morano is far and away the world's most effective climate communicator. 

Marc is number one, with 4,171 media references, nearly double Senator James Inhofe's 2,628 and Secretary Rick Perry's 1,903.  Marc appeared in many multiples of media references compared to anyone else as you proceed down the rankings

Steven Hayward of the Powerline Blog wrote, "Morano is truly the Pete Rose and Hank Aaron of climate contrarians."

The study also ranks our website,, on its list of the  top 100 "most prolific media sources" for articles skeptical of the global warming narrative and ranks Climate Depot number 1!   See, figure 2b.

The list of 386 people on the climate blacklist reads like an honor roll.  Here's a sample:

  • Apollo Astronaut Harrison Schmitt – the only scientist to walk on the moon;
  • Apollo Astronaut Walt Cunningham –  from the first crew to ride the Saturn V rocket;
  • Freeman Dyson – The eminent Princeton physicist who postulated the Dyson sphere;
  • Ross McKitrick and Steven McIntyre – the Canadian researchers whose meticulous mathematical audit debunked Michael Mann's infamous hockey stick graph;
  • Anthony Watts – The prominent meteorologist and creator of Watts Up With That;
  • Rick Perry – The U.S. Secretary of Energy;
  • Judith Curry – A climate scientist with over 130 peer-reviewed papers;
  • Roy Spencer and John Christy – Scientists who manage temperature satellites and developed the first successful satellite temperature record;
  • Fred Singer – The genius scientist who established the weather satellite network;
  • Roger Pielke, Jr. – The professor who showed that extreme weather hasn't worsened and disaster costs declined;
  • Richard Lindzen – The MIT scientist known for his brilliant work on atmospheric physics and author of over 200 papers;
  • Will Happer – The Princeton atomic physicist and pioneer in optics;
  • Rudy Giuliani – America's Mayor;
  • Mike Pence – Merely the Vice President of the United States (V.P. Gore's OK?)
While the rankings appear to be genuine in terms of the amount of media individuals garnered, the study's black and white, unnuanced choice of whom to include on its contrarian list is bush league.  It actually used DeSmog Blog as a major source!  It's mathematical comparison showing that people who debate climate policy in the public policy arena have greater media exposure than researchers who are cited in academic journals is an apples and oranges comparison, lacking scientific validity, that yields a no-brainer.  It's decision to not rank the amount of media garnered by warming campaigners,  which would have yielded a useful comparison, reveals this for a bogus and offensive propaganda hit piece. 

We are each exposed to a mountain of media every day.  Peruse the headlines and media coverage of climate for yourself.  Do you need a mathematical analysis to determine which way the coverage is skewed?  Wouldn't you love to see those hard numbers?

Shame on study authors, Alexander Michael Petersen, Emmanuel M. Vincent, and Anthony LeRoy Westerling.

Saturday, 17 August 2019


This article looks at the development of modern transport and its huge dependence on fossil fuels. The figures quoted in the article show that battery power is not in the same league.

Friday, 16 August 2019


Food-guilt is becoming the eco-zealots’ weapon of choice 

By Charles Moore, Daily Telegraph 10 August.

The headlines said things like “Eat less meat to save the earth, urges UN”. So naturally the public will believe this is what the UN’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) is saying in its latest report.

But is it, really? The report’s wording is guarded, preferring to speak about how “diversification in the food system”, including things like “coarse grains, legumes, fruits and vegetables, nuts and seeds”, might help, rather than telling people to drop meat. Indeed, the title of the report is Climate Change and Land, with no mention of meat. If you google it under its correct name, up it comes, and no headlines about the eco-wickedness of meat appear.
Why is this? I think it is because of the power of those who set themselves up of what they call "the science". The most powerful of these in Britain is Roger Harrabin. e is called the BBC's Environmental Analyst, but really he is their in-house evangelical preacher. Each day the Reverend Roger announces the environmental news, turning it into a covert sermon.
On Thursday morning at six o'clock on Radio 4, the BBC news led with the IPCC story. Having quickly mentioned that the report was about land use, Harrabin then explained that because the panel is made up of scientists and government representatives and has a need for UN consensus, it delivers messages in a lower common denominator. The Reverend Roger, as keeper of the sacred mysteries, then explained what the boffins really meant: "Privately, some of the scientists say over-consumption of meat and dairy products in the West can't go on." Thus can some careful colourless words be turned into something we can all argue about. Farmers are disgusting saith the preacher, stop eating beef and sheep!
In the Guardian, the green George Monbiot, who is not constrained by the thin veil of objectivity which Harrabin is forced to wear, was furious with the IPCC. It had been "nobbled", he shouted. Its report was "pathetic". He wanted us to know that "one kilo of beef protein has a carbon opportunity cost of 1,250 kg: that incredibly is roughly equal to driving a new car for a year."
I do not know the inner workings of the IPCC. I cannot say whether the Revd Mr Harrabin is giving an authentic account of its true thoughts, or whether he is preaching a more personal message, trying to shove the IPCC (and BBC viewers) in the direction which he favours. Are he and Monbiot a soft cop/hard cop act in which Harrabin floats Monbiotic ideas in sanitised form and Monbiot is freer to rave? I am not sure. But what is visible here is how climate-change stories are constructed.
It goes roughly like this. On rolls the vast bureaucracy of the IPCC, predicting ever since its first report in 1990, that the end of the world is nigh, or nigh-ish. With that comes the super-bureaucracy of the Kyoto/Copenhagen/Paris accords that purport - but fail - to control the amount of CO2 the world produces. Running beside them always is a stream of stories - or rather exhortations - about what we must be stopped from doing to avert the catastrophe which we are promised in a century, or twelve months time or - if you want to be the greenest in 18 months.
  The essential theme of these stories is that it is axiomatically right for government to intervene to prevent people doing whatever is considered bad  - driving, flying, burning coal, lighting fires, using plastic bags and now eating meat and dairy.
Perhaps because there is some consumer resistance, these interventions are not yet, except on the margins, outright bans. They take the form of punitive taxes, subsidies to make otherwise uneconomic forms of energy look viable, recycling obligations, codes of practice in industry, in schools and in the public services. Sometimes they cause environmental problems of their own, such as the pollution produced by the switch to diesel cars or the strain on scarce land from the growing of biofuels (an issue discussed in the IPCC report). The green evangelicals slide past these contradictions.
It is almost useless to raise objections to the narrative of doom, such as the fact that, according to a study in Nature last year, global tree cover has increased by 7% since 1982. Useless too to point out that the efforts of green activists to turn countries like Britain vegan will, even if successful, will make almost no difference to the planet because world meat production will, the UN food and Agriculture Organisation believes, have doubled by 2050. Once-poor countries where people could only dream of eating meat are catching up with us fast and naturally want the pleasures and health benefits which we long ago secured for ourselves. Such wider considerations are irrelevant to the mission in which one must e seen to want to love the planet and hate the West.
The Harrabin classes have brilliantly grasped the climate change is the best means since the decline of religion to make people feel that they are bad or good. People who ask questions about the accuracy of climate change predictions, or who raise doubts about whether government control, rather than technological development, is the best answer, are not people to be engaged with. They are bad people, often associated with bad organisations like "big oil", "big pharma" and "big agro". They must be stigmatised by good people, who recycle everything and never eat steak.
Food will soon become the biggest development in the crusade to purify the West from its prosperity and its pleasures. It is a good subject to choose because, as religious fanatics have always understood, people can easily be made to feel guilty about food. Greens will be increasingly able to dictate their equivalents of the Muslim distinction between what is halal (permissible) and haram (forbidden).
They will do this through a culture war. Steakhouses will be picketed. Planning permission for shops selling meat will be objected to. Schoolchildren from carnivore homes will be re-educated. The Church Commissioners, the National Trust and Oxbridge Colleges will gradually agree to stop dairy, beef and sheep farming on all their land holdings. No  one will be allowed to sit on rural public bodies such as Natural England, unless he or she is untainted by a connection with red meat. Jesus will no longer be the Good Shepherd, since the phrase will be seen as a contradiction in terms.
The planet will derive no benefit of course, but the Revd Roger Harrabin and his flock (- no - sorry wrong word ) will feel righteous and most of the rest of us will feel dirty.       

Thursday, 15 August 2019


Battery Power Costly? Energy expert Donn Dears did a simple calculation of the cost of operating a battery-electric vehicle (BEV) as compared with a comparable vehicle with an internal combustion engine (ICE). He used an expected life of 11 years with the BEV requiring a replacement of the battery pack after 8 years or 80,000 miles. He made three sets of estimates for electricity costs and three sets for gasoline costs.

Dears concluded that the cost of ownership for a BEV is never competitive with an ICE vehicle when the cost for electricity is high, even if the cost of gasoline is high, such as in California.

Wednesday, 14 August 2019


Green Power – Concrete and Steel and Mining Too: Mark Mills has been skeptical of claims by green advocates about yet to be demonstrated improvements, such as greatly increased efficiency of wind turbines. In the Wall Street Journal, he discusses the need of concrete and steel and for mining to meet the envisioned “needs” for “green energy”, so-called “renewables.” Some of the specifics include:

“Building one wind turbine requires 900 tons of steel, 2,500 tons of concrete and 45 tons of nonrecyclable plastic. [Size not specified.] Solar power requires steel and glass—not to mention other metals. Global silver and indium mining will jump 250% and 1,200% respectively over the next couple of decades to provide the materials necessary to build the number of solar panels, the International Energy Agency forecasts. World demand for rare-earth elements—which aren’t rare but are rarely mined in America—will rise 300% to 1,000% by 2050 to meet the Paris green goals. If electric vehicles replace conventional cars, demand for cobalt and lithium, will rise more than 20-fold. That doesn’t count batteries to back up wind and solar grids.

The demand for minerals likely won’t be met by mines in Europe or the U.S. Instead, much of the mining will take place in nations with oppressive labor practices. The Democratic Republic of the Congo produces 70% of the world’s raw cobalt, and China controls 90% of cobalt refining. The Sydney-based Institute for a Sustainable Future cautions that a global ‘gold’ rush for minerals could take miners into ‘some remote wilderness areas [that] have maintained high biodiversity because they haven’t yet been disturbed.’

The enormous environmental damage done in China and the Congo from mining for lithium and cobalt needed for batteries is largely ignored by the western press and the green industry.

Tuesday, 13 August 2019


This piece tells us what is actually happening in terms of extinction. It is nowhere near as bad as the alarmists make out. 

Monday, 12 August 2019


It looks likely that meat eating is going to become more expensive if governments adopt the new advice from the UN. Watch this short interview to find out more.  I doubt if enough people will give up meat voluntarily so I expect the same tactics that were applied to smokers will start to target meat eaters. 

Sunday, 11 August 2019


This article looks at the recent major power disruption in the UK. There has been no definitive explanation for it, but some are speculating that it was due to a sudden shut-down of a major off-shore wind farm which was running at full capacity and then had to be stopped to prevent over-heating due to the very strong winds at the time. If so, it is a timely warning of what could be in store for us as we increase the amount of wind power in the grid. 

More on this in the Mail here.

Saturday, 10 August 2019


Greta Walks Out: Apocalyptic Climate Cult Shows First Signs Of Division
BuzzFeed News, 7 August 2019

Greta Thunberg was among a group of young activists who protested over a disagreement about the Fridays for Future movement’s demands.

LAUSANNE, Switzerland — Greta Thunberg was among 30 young activists who walked out of a major European meeting of more than 400 students who have spent the last nine months boycotting school on Fridays to demand action on climate change.
Thunberg, 16, has become the most visible spokesperson of the Fridays for Future movement after launching a solitary school strike in Stockholm in Stockholm. But during an emotional meeting Wednesday morning, the group left the main hall and sat down outside the front door, which BuzzFeed News witnessed, just before the conference was due to take up a draft platform of the movement’s demands.
“We’re on strike,” said Janine O’Keeffe, an adult activist who lives in Sweden and has been active with the strike movement since its early days, and who had been participating in a committee drafting the movement’s demands. Multiple other participants also described the walkout as a “strike” to BuzzFeed News.
Thunberg did not respond to requests to comment before this story was first published. But she said in a text message to BuzzFeed News after publication that she did not personally view the gathering as a protest.
“I did not ‘join a walk out’ or ‘join a sit in.’ We are going in and out of meetings all the time,” she wrote.
“In this case I sat down outside the auditorium to comfort a friend of mine who was sad and upset at the time.” […]
The split began to emerge in meetings that BuzzFeed News sat in on Tuesday, but came to a head Wednesday as the conference was preparing to take up a list of demands. A committee had met the day before to revise a draft that outlined more than 20 specific policy recommendations, covering everything from reforming agriculture to curbing carbon emissions from boats.

Thunberg and group of others recommended scrapping these proposals in favor of much broader principles like “follow the science” and “climate justice for everyone.”
“Not one of us agreed to all these demands, because they’re too specific,” Thunberg said in making the recommendation. Saoi O’Connor, a 16-year-old from Ireland, was even more emphatic in arguing against specific demands as the meeting broke up. “Our movement is strong because we haven’t had to do this,” BuzzFeed News heard them say to another participant.
Full story

Friday, 9 August 2019


Fraser Myers: An Establishment Rebellion
Spiked, 8 August 2019

Why the elite loves the eco-warriors.

London’s Victoria and Albert Museum has acquired a number of artefacts associated with Extinction Rebellion (XR), the protest group campaigning to reduce Britain’s carbon emissions to ‘net zero’ by 2025. Apparently, just nine months since Extinction Rebellion’s first public stunt, its paraphernalia deserves to be housed alongside some of the world’s best art and design works of the past 5,000 years. 
It is hard to think of any supposedly radical protest movement in history that has been so readily embraced by the establishment as Extinction Rebellion. And the love-bombing isn’t just coming from the usual luvvies like Dame Emma Thompson and activist celebs like Lily Cole and Charlotte Church. Recently, XR attracted the attention of wealthy philanthropists. Last month, three wealthy Americans (one of whose family wealth comes from the oil industry) donated nearly £500,000 to XR and vowed to raise millions more. Other wealthy backers include a hedge-fund manager, who remains anonymous. 
Then, there is the literary establishment – from heavyweight authors like Margaret Atwood and Phillip Pullman to big-name publishers like Penguin, it has thrown its weight behind Extinction Rebellion, too. This Is Not A Drill, XR’s protest handbook, was recently rushed out for release by Penguin. Penguin’s editor breathlessly declared that climate change was so pressing that XR’s book needed to be published several months before its initial release date: ‘This is an emergency, and we have to react like it’s an emergency.’ The book even features a contribution from Rowan Williams, former archbishop of Canterbury – the former head of the established church
The reason for this establishment love-in is that Extinction Rebellion represents no rebellion at all. It has the appearance of a rebellion, certainly – protesters glue their hands to buildings, block roads and get themselves arrested. But the message is one that affirms and flatters establishment opinion rather than challenging it. 
Parliament, for instance, was quick to heed XR’s demand to declare a ‘climate emergency’. More significantly, the group’s main aim of reducing UK emissions to ‘net zero’ is one that is shared not only by the Conservative government, but also by MPs of all stripes. The ‘net zero’ target for 2050 was nodded through parliament with just an hour and a half of debate and without a single vote needing to be cast. XR is only more impatient in its demand, calling for a 2025 deadline.
Many have tried to compare Extinction Rebellion’s climate crusade with past movements for progressive change. Justifying the V&A’s decision to acquire Extinction Rebellion artefacts, senior curator Corinna Gardner compared their punchy colour palette to that of the Suffragettes. Similarly, XR leader Roger Hallam claims his protesting is in the ‘tradition of Gandhi and Martin Luther King’.
These comparisons are delusional, pretentious and insulting. But they unwittingly highlight something important. Whether it was the Chartists, the Suffragettes, the civil-rights movement, or the gay-rights movement, these genuinely progressive campaigns were all despised by the elite at the time. These were campaigns that sought to expand human freedom, to wrest rights and resources from the establishment.
By contrast, environmentalist campaigns like Extinction Rebellion are, by their very nature, against freedom. They seek to place new limits on human activity: on industry, on economic growth, on our travel, on our diets, and on childbirth.
Full Post

Thursday, 8 August 2019


If proof were needed that the Urban Heat Island was a true effect then the photos in this article are clear enough. The effect may not affect world temperatures, but it must affect the thermometers that are placed in our cities and so give an impression that the world is warming up faster. If these measurements are so important you would think that it should be possible to place the crucial thermometers in ideal country locations. This is why the best record must come from the satellite measurements with truly global coverage. 

Wednesday, 7 August 2019


India expects coal capacity to swell by a fifth in three years - from energy live news

Chief Engineer at the country’s Federal Power Ministry, Ghanshyam Prasad, said coal capacity is likely to reach 238GW by 2022
India expects coal-fired power capacity to grow by 22% in three years.
That’s according to the Chief Engineer at the country’s Federal Power Ministry, Ghanshyam Prasad, who Reuters reported as stating coal capacity is likely to reach 238GW by 2022.
India’s Coal Minister, Pralhad Joshi previously said annual coal demand rose by 9.1% during the year ending March 2019, noting the figure hit 991.35 million tonnes, driven primarily by utilities, which accounted for three-quarters of total demand.
The anticipated growth is likely to affect efforts to cut emissions and could risk worsening already poor air quality.
India’s electricity demand rose by 36% in the seven years up to April 2019, while coal-fired generation capacity during the period rose by three-quarters to 194.44GW.
Pralhad Joshi said despite the growth rate in thermal capacity outpacing electricity consumption in the last few years, more coal-fired plants will still be needed in the future to meet growth.
He added: “If we have to meet demand and address the intermittencies we have with solar and wind, we have no choice but to keep depending on coal-based generation in the near future.”

Tuesday, 6 August 2019


This graph of winter temperatures in Central England from 1659 to 2018 reveals that our winters have got milder over the time and this is what has driven our average annual temperatures. The whole article by Paul Homewood is worth reading - here.

Whereas this graph of summer temperatures shows little warming trend at all. 

Monday, 5 August 2019


This piece looks at the recent problem at Whaley Bridge and the heavy rainfall that has been blamed for causing it. The finding is that, although the rain was heavy, it was in no way unprecedented. It was the condition of the dam which was the real cause. 

Sunday, 4 August 2019


This article explains why the headlines proclaiming July 2019 to be the "hottest ever" were wrong. Once again we see exaggeration at work to try to persuade us that global warming is getting worse, when they should be getting the true picture from our media which is that the warming is very modest.

Saturday, 3 August 2019


While governments devise costly schemes to "save us" from imagined disasters such as global warming, there are scientists coming up with ideas which could solve the problem simply and efficiently.

this piece debunks this as yet another costly scheme. I should have known. 

Friday, 2 August 2019


Sanjeev Sabhlok: Why Should We Subsidise Tomorrow’s Rich In The Name Of The Climate?
The Times of India, 28 July 2019

As a liberal party, our default position is to reject any government intervention in the lives of people unless it is thoroughly justified. In particular, we reject the wishy-washy precautionary principle. Real harm must be proven before even the thought of government intervention is entertained.

It is a matter of concern to us that Indian governments have been dumping scarce taxpayer resources into renewable energy and other inefficient technologies in the name of “climate change”. Instead of acting as the voice of reason, governments world-wide are having a picnic, feasting on our panic. When people are scared, it is much easier to raid their pockets. 
We are the only party in India (and possibly in the world) that stands for reason. We believe that everything must be questioned. In this case, IPCC’s own analysis shows there is no harm from climate change. 
Yes, you’ve read correctly: the IPCC itself has said that there is no harm from climate change. Of course, you won’t be told about this unless you dig deep. 
The IPCC’s 2014 AR5 report (see the chart at p.690 of Chapter 10 of the Working Group II’s contribution) makes note of 20 studies by economists about the welfare impacts of climate change. Three of these conclude that doing nothing may improve things. Most of the remaining 17 studies suggest a very modest loss of future income, of less than three per cent. The IPCC summarises: estimates of global annual economic losses for an additional temperature increase of 2°C are between 0.2 and 2.0 per cent of income. These are its precise words. Check them out for yourself. 
Thus, the IPCC is telling us that if global temperature increases by 2 degrees, future generations would lose a pitiable 2 per cent of their (hugely greater) income. 
Let’s pause to digest this further. The IPCC is saying that instead of being 6 times richer by the end of the century (the historic performance of economies for the past 200 years) our future generations will be only 5.6 times richer. I am sure tears are starting to roll down your cheeks by now. 
Policy makers hide this fact very carefully from us. Instead, they drum up panic and ask us to price carbon and subsidise renewable energy so we can make the rich future generations even richer. 
This 2014 IPCC conclusion was confirmed by a 2018 study in Nature by Marshall Burke, Matthew Davis and Noah Diffenbaugh which found that future generations could lose a cumulative $20 trillion worth of income (at a low 3 per cent discount rate) if the temperature rose by 2 degrees. So these super-rich people would have a mere $380 trillion in global income instead of the $400 trillion they would have had otherwise. How truly sad!
The study also suggests that if the temperature went up further, to say 3 degrees, these future rich have up to 25 per cent less income than they would otherwise have. And if it went to 4 degrees, they would have 30 per cent less income than they would, otherwise. In all cases they would be insanely richer than us. 
In contrast to CO2, though, socialism causes real harm – but don’t expect Nature or grant-sucking scientists and economists to tell us that. India could easily become $125 trillion economy by 2100 if it dumps socialism. Instead, if India continues with Mr Modi’s socialism, it will struggle to become even a $20 trillion economy. But Nature won’t ever publish my article that spells this out for India and the world. These anti-poor communists would rather peddle the Green New Deal.
In brief, economists and scientists have comprehensively failed to prove that CO2 causes any harm. No case has been made whatsoever for any government intervention.
Moreover, the economic models currently used are deeply flawed. I’ll touch upon some technical matters separately. But we should note here that these models greatly exaggerate the (miniscule) harm from CO2. They contain strong but dangerous hidden assumptions, such as: (a) the current temperature is optimal, and (b) CO2 causes a significant increase in temperature. 
I have refuted the second assumption in previous articles, so let me make some observations about the first of these two assumptions – regarding the current temperature being optimal.
There is no basis to suggest that today’s temperature or sea level is optimal for life on earth. The climate has constantly changed, sometimes massively. A few degrees up and down, a few tens of metres of sea level up and down, is par for the course for life on Earth. 
Just a thousand years ago, the global temperature was very warm. The IPCC’s first report had a chart that showed temperatures far in excess of current temperatures during the Medieval Warming (MW) period. But the IPCC soon realised that people wouldn’t cough up their money unless the MW was erased. Since then, these “scientists” have been making strenuous efforts to get rid of it. 
A recent study published in Nature rejects MW. But I’d be reluctant to embrace it, at least not so fast. It needs to be thoroughly scrutinised by scientists whose hundreds of previous studies confirmed the MW. The weight of evidence is still with the MW. And then the temperatures cooled, leading to a Little Ice Age from which we emerged around two hundred years ago. All this variation occurred without man-made CO2 emissions.
Full Post