UN ORGANISATION IN ATTEMPTED FUEL MARKET MANIPULATION

This article explains what is being done to try to remove investments from fossil fuel companies and into renewable energy. Of course those attempting to do this will claim that it is being done to 'save the planet', but many people now realise that the evidence to back up this claim simply doesn't exist. It is also true that if they were successful (which is highly unlikely) they would cause financial hardship to many investors in what is a perfectly legal investment. Normally manipulating the market would be a criminal offence. Why should these people be exempt from this in a free market economy?

ANOTHER SCIENTIST BECOMES A GLOBAL WARMING SCEPTIC

Scientist Mike Van Biezen  had for some years accepted the argument for reducing CO2 emissions to prevent global warming, but now after carrying out detailed research, he has come to the conclusion that it is massively exaggerated. He is part of a growing number of well qualified scientists who have reached the same conclusion. Read his detailed analysis here.

UPDATE ON POLAR BEARS

Here's a good piece from Roger Helmer MEP on the way those pushing the climate alarm issue try to make out that, despite evidence to the contrary, the polar bear is still under threat. It is an attempt to keep the alarm going. It would not be needed if there was real alarm.

THE UNTOLD STORY BEHIND THE UK FLOODING

This image highlights the irony of on the one hand the government's desperation to increase housebuilding in order to accommodate the huge influx of migrants, and on the other hand the futility of building on flood plains. The government continually go on about climate change and the increased risk of flooding, while at the same time urging planning authorities to grant permission to build where common sense says it is foolish to do so. At the same time the EU has all but banned the dredging of rivers in order to conserve the ecology of the river bed (but not the human inhabitants of the nearby towns and villages). Read more about it here.

UPDATE
The story is being told in the Mail. Read it here.

SATELLITE RECORDS SHOW WE'RE ON TRACK TO BEAT THE CLIMATE GOAL OF 1.5C

Contrary to the doom and gloom you read a few days ago, see here. 
This report  shows that the world can relax and forget about all the emission reduction schemes, because the temperature record of the past 37 years shows that we are on track to have a warming of just 1.1C by the end of the century which is lower than the best target of 1.5C set by the recent Paris conference. So rejoice and turn up the central heating, or take a flight in your private jet, no need to feel guilty.

NEW STUDY SHOWS USA WARMING IS OVER-ESTIMATED BY 50%

Here is a piece referring to the new study. It is part of ongoing research into the siting of weather recording data including temperature measuring devices. Many of them are situated in quite unsuitable locations close to tarmac, concrete and devices like air-conditioning units and exhausts. So it is no wonder that many give inflated temperature readings. I wonder why no official seems to even recognise this, let alone make any compensation for it. Could it possibly be that it suits their purpose not to?

PARIS POW WOW HEAP GOOD

Here's something to make you chuckle during the festive season. I think Roy Spencer has it about right too. This may be the season of goodwill, but the developing world seem to be taking us for fools if they expect us to hand them $100 billion a year for the foreseeable future. Our politicians would do well to remember that charity begins at home, particularly as they are handling our money, not theirs. 

A merry Christmas to all readers.

COMMERCIAL-SCALE UK FRACKING IN THE NEXT DECADE

This report gives the details. Even this pace does not seem quick, but very little happens quickly in the UK these days, such are the layers of bureaucracy that have to be gone through. Gone are the days of Churchill and his "action this day", but then there was a war on! But does the government not realise that in a decade we will be phasing out gas? Someone will have to give way - will it be those in DECC (Department of Energy and Climate Change) or the Treasury? My money's on (and in) the Treasury. DECC will probably be renamed DE.

COULD WE BE SAYING "GOODBYE TO GAS" IN THE NEXT TWENTY YEARS?

This article explains how, if we stick to the government's plan, we will have to say goodbye to our gas cooker, our gas fire and our gas central heating in the next couple of decades. It seems inconceivable that this could happen, after all at the same time the government are promising to go all out to get fracking. So is this merely scaremongering? It seems like it is. I just cannot imagine any elected government being able to do it. Who would bear the cost? The only thing remotely like it was the changeover from coal gas to natural gas in the 1970's, but this was on a different scale as it only required equipment to be modified, not scrapped. If the government covered the cost out of taxation it would cost billions and require extra taxes - not a popular move. And afterwards instead of relatively cheap reliable gas we would be left with very expensive and probably unreliable electricity. What a scenario.

STOP EVERYTHING - WE'RE ALREADY DOOMED

This article explains that the Paris climate conference seems to have slipped up when insisting they work towards a 1.5C maximum temperature rise, because apparently using their own figures for equilibrium climate sensitivity it can be shown that (according to their own equations) we are already at the level of CO2 that they claim would give this much rise. Oh dear! On the other hand it could be argued that since this is unachievable we might as well forget the whole thing and hope for the best. 

IPCC LEAD AUTHOR REJOICES AT THE PARIS AGREEMENT

This article shows an email from a leading IPCC scientist in which he expresses his delight at the outcome of the recent Paris climate change conference. It reveals clearly just how involved the scientist is in the politics of this science. His email, which is to his colleagues, also reveals that he is confident that all his colleagues will agree with him. So where is the objective science? It seems to have become overwhelmed and subsumed by the politics.

If the global warming hypothesis was treated objectively then it would now have to be set aside, since it is not in accord with the evidence in two key areas. First the lack of warming of the Earth's lower atmosphere, despite increasing emissions of CO2. Second the complete mismatch between the projections of the computer climate models and the real temperatures.

£11 BILLION SMART METER PROGRAMME IN CHAOS DUE TO EU

What a farce we have here in the UK over so-called smart meters. As if the cost of electricity wasn't already high enough, we now have to add on the cost of bungling EU bureaucrats meddling to make it even higher. If the EU wanted to make itself unpopular they couldn't do a better job.

AUSSIE SCHOOLS FALL PREY TO CLIMATE PROPAGANDA, WORSE THAN IN UK

This article reveals the quite extraordinary way that Australian schools have been taken over by green activists. It is so blatant that I am amazed that they can get away with it. Where are the teachers who have a sense of balance, or are they all in a trance under some sort of spell? I find it hard to believe that UK schools could go that far, though we know that activism is already here too. See here and here and here

WHY THE CLIMATE CHANGE ACT MUST BE SCRAPPED

Telegraph 12/12/15

 Now the Paris summit has ended, it's more important than ever to separate  energy and climate change policy

 By Owen Paterson

 What was the point of the Paris Climate  Change summit? Ostensibly the politicians and officials met to discuss  the effects of global warming and how to mitigate them.  Climate change is certainly a useful political tool. International  heads of state burnished their credentials as they spoke in Paris of  their intent to protect the world from rising temperatures.

Locally  too, the words "climate change" can be politically expedient. Indeed,  as Cumbria is left considering the aftermath of the floods - which  broke records in terms of river height and wrought havoc emotionally  and financially - politicians and officials have been quick to blame  climate change. It is, frankly, a cheap way to abdicate any  responsibility for the devastating effect of flooding.

I say this because last year, 17 senior climatologists published a  paper in which they said that blaming climate change for flood losses  turns the losses into a global issue - thereby putting them beyond the  control of national institutions. The evidence also suggests that  rainfall in Cumbria last weekend only marginally overtook much older  records, if at all. Indeed, the frequency of such floods in the past  three decades, according to scientists from Lancaster University, is  not unusual and has fallen markedly from the mid-20th century.  My point is that this dreadful flooding could easily have happened  even if the climate were not changing, since it is largely caused by  landscape changes. And the measures the world has taken against  climate change have not and will not significantly change the risk of  flooding in Cumbria.

So what, then, have these 21 years of exchanging hot air on the  subject actually achieved? Very little in terms of restricting global  emissions -just look at India and China - but as far as Britain is
concerned, they have had a devastating effect on our energy policy.  Back in 2011, the world pledged to produce binding legal targets on  emissions for all countries at this Paris meeting. But that ambition  has been abandoned in favour of vague "intended" national promises.  Each country must now set its own energy policy. So China and India -  in fact any country - can continue to burn fossil fuels at will.

Apart from Britain. We are left uniquely isolated and vulnerable as  the only country in the world with a legal target for reducing  emissions, thanks to our Climate Change Act of 2008. No other country  will be breaking its own law if it misses its target. But we have a  binding target to reduce emissions by 80 per cent by 2050. We have  repeatedly boasted that we are setting the world an example - but the  world seems disinclined to take notice.

Lucky for us, then, that Amber Rudd, the Secretary of State for Energy  and Climate Change, is beginning to dismantle the disgraceful legacy  of her three predecessors, Ed Miliband, Chris Huhne and Ed Davey,  which has delivered no significant cuts in emissions while risking  blackouts, killing jobs in the aluminium and steel industries, hugely  inflating cost and worsening fuel poverty.

Her recommendations make a good start, but there is much further to go  if she is to rescue the British economy from an impending energy  crisis.

The 2050 target commits us to decarbonising our electricity,  abolishing gas as a fuel for cooking and heating our homes, and  converting two thirds of our cars to electric. These aims come at an
astronomical cost. Since wind does not significantly reduce emissions  (because of the need for back-up when it is not blowing) and because  solar power is useless at night and in winter, it would mean a vast investment in nuclear power, equivalent to building a new Hinkley Point every three years for 35 years. That's neither feasible nor  affordable.

So while it is great news that the Government is killing wind  subsidies onshore and abandoning the costly pipe dream of carbon  capture and storage, we must go further and get rid of offshore wind
subsidies (the most costly of all) and "biomass" subsidies.

By calling for an acceleration of the development of shale gas and by  embracing the idea of small modular nuclear reactors, the Government  is insuring that gas will for many decades be the most affordable and  cleanest of the fuels available to the world. But our dash for wind  power so distorted the electricity market that it has actually  prevented the construction of efficient and cheap combined-cycle gas  turbines.

So, in the wake of the noncommittal Paris climate talks, we need to  make sure we decouple energy policy from climate change policy, and  restore resilience to the system. Specifically, it is vital that the  2008 Climate Change Act, Ed Miliband's most pernicious legacy, be  suspended and eventually repealed. Clause 2 enables the Secretary of  State to amend the 2050 target, which could have the immediate effect  of suspending it. To avoid failure in 10-20 years' time, that decision  must be taken now.

0wen Paterson MP was secretary of state for the environment from  2012-2014

JOHN CHRISTY TESTIMONY TO SENATE HEARING ON CLIMATE CHANGE

Here is Dr Christy's measured and very convincing testimony.  What a contrast to the style of Mark Steyn, though the sentiment is the same. Both are well worth reading and contain some important truths. Both men should be saluted as men of courage in highlighting the failings in the arguments for the current policies on global warming.

MARK STEYN SENATE TESTIMONY - MUST READ!

Here is the link to this extraordinary tour de force by this fearless writer. He naturally criticises Michael Mann, but then gives a damning indictment of the court system, the judges, and even the senators themselves.

USA SENATE HEARING INTO THE MAGNITUDE OF THE HUMAN IMPACT ON CLIMATE

Senate Hearing: Data or Dogma

    

by Judith Curry
The Senate Commerce Committee Hearing ‘Data or Dogma? Promoting Open Inquiry in the Debate Over the Magnitude of the Human Impact on Earth’s Climate‘ is about to begin.

The website for the Hearing is at the Commerce web site [link].  Witnesses:

• Dr. John Christy
• Dr. Judith Curry
• Dr. William Happer
• Mr. Mark Steyn
• Dr. David Titley

It is my understanding that there will be a podcast on the web site, and that the Hearing will be televised on CSPAN, and that links to the testimonies will be available on the web site.
John Christy’s testimony [ChristyJR]
Mark Steyn’s testimony is a MUST READ [Steyn testimony]
My testimony is here [Curry Senate testimony 2015].  Below is the text of my verbal remarks.
JC verbal remarks
I thank the Chairman and the Committee for the opportunity to offer testimony today.
Prior to 2009, I felt that supporting the IPCC consensus on climate change was the responsible thing to do. I bought into the argument: “Don’t trust what one scientist says, trust what an international team of a thousand scientists has said, after years of careful deliberation.” That all changed for me in November 2009, following the leaked Climategate emails, that illustrated the sausage making and even bullying that went into building the consensus.
I starting speaking out, saying that scientists needed to do better at making the data and supporting information publicly available, being more transparent about how they reached conclusions, doing a better job of assessing uncertainties, and actively engaging with scientists having minority perspectives. The response of my colleagues to this is summed up by the title of a 2010 article in the Scientific American: Climate Heretic Judith Curry Turns on Her Colleagues.
I came to the growing realization that I had fallen into the trap of groupthink. I had accepted the consensus based on 2^nd order evidence: the assertion that a consensus existed. I began making an independent assessment of topics in climate science that had the most relevance to policy.
What have I concluded from this assessment?
Human caused climate change is a theory in which the basic mechanism is well understood, but whose magnitude is highly uncertain. No one questions that surface temperatures have increased overall since 1880, or that humans are adding carbon dioxide to the atmosphere, or that carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases have a warming effect on the planet. However there is considerable uncertainty and disagreement about the most consequential issues: whether the warming has been dominated by human causes versus natural variability, how much the planet will warm in the 21^st century, and whether warming is ‘dangerous’.
The central issue in the scientific debate on climate change is the extent to which the recent (and future) warming is caused by humans versus natural climate variability. Research effort and funding has focused on understanding human causes of climate change. However we have been misled in our quest to understand climate change, by not paying sufficient attention to natural causes of climate change, in particular from the sun and from the long-term oscillations in ocean circulations.
Why do scientists disagree about climate change? The historical data is sparse and inadequate. There is disagreement about the value of different classes of evidence, notably the value of global climate models. There is disagreement about the appropriate logical framework for linking and assessing the evidence. And scientists disagree over assessments of areas of ambiguity and ignorance.

COMIC RELIEF INTO CLIMATE CHANGE

Now we learn that Comic Relief, the charity set up to help the disadvantaged, is into climate change. Read about it here. These charities are now big businesses employing large numbers of people, some on high salaries. They are into a whole range of things (where the money can be found!).

THE CLIMATE TREATY - WEAK AND FEEBLE, YET DEVASTATING FOR THOSE WHO OBEY IT

Here are the main points. It seems that none of it is legally binding, so it all depends on the willingness of the various nations to act on it. Unfortunately, in the case of the UK, we have both main parties fully signed up to follow it to the letter. Whereas in China, India, Japan, Russia, etc. etc. they will pay lip service to it and then fiddle their figures to show what good boys they are at best. In some cases they will just ignore it altogether while the Third World continues unabated, while moaning that they need more finance. What a farce!

PARIS HOSTS PREMIERE OF CLIMATE HUSTLE

Here is a link to an article giving details of the premiere of the new climate sceptic film Climate Hustle. I am hoping that there will soon be an opportunity to view the film. As soon as I find a link I will add it to the blog.

2015 NOT LIKELY TO BE THE WARMEST YEAR

This article by Roy Spencer looks at the reasons for this prediction. He also speculates about next year which depends on whether the El Nino continues strongly or fizzles out.

LATEST CLIMATE TALKS HEADING FOR STALEMATE

One after the other, developed nations took the floor demanding that developing countries should also pay for climate change. [What climate change, I would ask?]

“Kerry’s statement against differentiation and legal obligations was shocking. They (developed countries) see this is an opportunity to walk away from their obligations. At all costs the developed countries want the rules rewritten in departure from all the principles and provisions of the convention,” said Meena Raman of Third World Network, an observer group.

Read it all here.

It seems rather different to the TV news here in the UK, which talks about being "on the brink of a historic agreement."

THE TRUTH ABOUT CHINA AND CO2 EMISSIONS

A new report about China and its attitude to controlling its CO2 emissions has just been published by the GWPF. It explains the rationale of the Chinese leadership to the West's call for CO2 emission reductions which the media seem to deliberately confuse with their pollution problem caused by oxides of nitrogen and sulphur. The report confirms what most of us already know - that China is only paying lip-service to CO2 reductions. We already know this from the ridiculous "deal" between the Chinese leadership and President Obama, whereby Obama pledged to reduce the USA emissions in return for China doing nothing until 2030, surely one of the most one-sided deals in history.

LATEST DRAFT OF NEW CLIMATE AGREEMENT

Read a summary here. There appears to be a lot of room for changes before any agreement is signed. The developed nations would be mad to sign up to pay any damages for extreme weather events, but who says they aren't mad enough to do it?

 

UK GOVERNMENT SPENDS TWICE AS MUCH ON CLIMATE CHANGE ABROAD AS ON FLOOD PREVENTION IN THE UK

Here is the article which gives the information put forward by the UK climate minister (Liz Truss). Most UK residents would be appalled to learn that their government is giving away so much of the taxpayers money to foreign countries when they are not spending nearly enough to protect UK residents from flooding in our own country.  Tackled over why money was being spent abroad rather than in the UK, Ms Truss claimed the cash was needed to combat the threat from brutal jihadists such as Islamic State (ISIS or ISIL). How this would affect them she did not elaborate. This is beyond parody.

What is astonishing is that this is not by a Labour government, but a Conservative one. What choice do UK citizens have? Answer - none.

GET THE MESSAGE OUT - THE SCEPTICS ARE WINNING THE ARGUMENT

Read all about it here. There is still a very long way to go, but it is heartening to know that when climate sceptics write good articles and letters to the press it has a good effect, according to the new study cited in the link. The evidence is on the side of the sceptics, so all we have to do is put it into the public domain. This is why alarmists want to close us down, because they know their arguments are weak. Even though they have all the big money and all the apparatus of the state, when people are confronted by the simple truth, which alarmists are desperate to keep hidden from them, it is more compelling than all their predictions.

So write those letters and tell the facts to those who are interested, specially to young people who are being brainwashed. We can open their eyes to information they may never have seen.

BBC IN ORWELLIAN ATTEMPT TO SILENCE CLIMATE CHANGE SCEPTICS

This article explains what has been going on. It really is extraordinary the lengths that the BBC is going to, to prevent any contrary point of view on climate change from reaching viewers. The programme concerned was meant to be light-hearted and yet even this was too much for the po-faced ideologues at the top of the BBC.  You could imagine this happening in some muslim fundamentalist regime, and yet here it is at the BBC. They are clearly afraid of the public even seeing the climate alarmists creed even being gently mocked.

POOR NATIONS WANT A TRILLION $ TO FIX CLIMATE

Here is the article. Do they think we are completely mad? Unfortunately when it comes to our political leaders they might not be far wrong. Let's hope that there are still some sane people giving our leaders advice.

IF PARIS WERE TO SUCCEED IT WOULD SAVE A MEASLY 0.047 DEGREES

Please indulge me while I take you on a flight of fancy. I want you to imagine that all the nations meeting in Paris agree to implement the climate pledges they have made, and then actually go on to implement those same pledges. "Ridiculous", I hear you say - but bear with me. What would the result of all that pain and cost (about a trillion dollars it is estimated) be in terms of lowering the planet's surface temperature from where it would be if no one bothered to change anything? Well the calculation has been done using the figures supplied and apparently it is 0.047 degrees Celsius. You can read the background here. Amazing isn't it that so much effort is going into something to achieve so little. BUT THEN THIS IS MUCH MORE ABOUT THE MONEY THAN IT IS ABOUT THE CLIMATE

  

PIERS CORBYN ON BBC TO GIVE SCEPTIC VIEW ON CLIMATE CHANGE

Sceptical views on climate change have been effectively banned on mainstream TV here in the UK, so I thought I must be dreaming when I saw this piece (starting around 6 minutes in) on Thursday's 'This Week By Election Special' politics show with Andrew Neil. True it was on at around 11.45pm, but it was on BBC 1. Piers is the man who has a track record of making good long range weather forecasts and has for a long time been staunchly sceptical of the theory of dangerous man made global warming. His brother, Jeremy, is the new leader of the UK Labour Party. Sadly he doesn't share Piers' views on global warming. What was also interesting was the sceptical view of Michael Portillo, the man on the right of screen, a one time cabinet minister in Margaret Thatcher's government. He is now a journalist and TV presenter who's views might be taken seriously. Piers is not very widely known to the general public, though his connection to the Labour leader is helping to enhance it.

MAJORITY OF UK ARE CLIMATE CHANGE SCEPTICS SAYS POLL

Here is the poll and it is hard to believe that there are so many sceptics, considering all the hype and propaganda that has been put out in the media over the past weeks and months. Perhaps too much propaganda is actually having a negative effect.

THE END IS NIGH FOR CLIMATE ACTIVISTS

Charles MooreThe Daily Telegraph, 30 November 2015
 The reason that there will not be a legally binding agreement (or at least not a genuinely enforceable one) is the growth of something which the Left has always called for, but doesn’t quite like when it gets it – the power of the developing world.

Poor Paris. Less than three weeks ago, the scene of carnage; this week, the venue for saving the planet. Because of security after the Isil atrocities, the City of Light was spared a planned climate change march, but London had one on Sunday, attended by what the ever-Green BBC optimistically described as “tens of thousands”. One of the march’s leaders, the fashion designer Dame Vivienne Westwood, said: “Global warming is at a tipping point. If we go past it we can’t stop it. We are there right now.”

In this view, Dame Vivienne accords with the Prince of Wales, who predicted in Rio de Janeiro in March 2009, that there were “less than 100 months to act” to prevent “catastrophic climate change”. In other words, it’s all over by July 2017.

So there is a very real hope that the 21st UN Climate Change Conference (COP 21), which starts on Monday, will be the last. Either Prince Charles and Dame Vivienne will prevail, and COP 21 will rescue Mother Earth from destruction by agreeing worldwide legally binding carbon emission restraints; or they won’t, and then, by their own logic, it will be too late for any international conference to do anything ever again, so they might as well shut up. For those of a more sceptical cast of mind, there is a third possibility, which is that the Prince and the dressmaker will fail, no legally binding targets will be agreed, and the world will go on very much as before. I would bet His Royal Highness an enormous amount of money on this last outcome, secure in the knowledge that, if I am wrong, I will not be around to pay out, but if he is wrong, he will be.

The reason that there will not be a legally binding agreement (or at least not a genuinely enforceable one) is the growth of something which the Left has always called for, but doesn’t quite like when it gets it – the power of the developing world. India, for example, sees it as “carbon imperialism” for the West to deny it the fossil-fuelled industrialisation which gave us a more than 100 years’ start on the rest of the world. A great many formerly backward countries are at last getting rich and they will not sacrifice their new prosperity on the altar of eco-virtue.

Nearly seven years ago, at COP 15 in Copenhagen, Barack Obama, bearing his Nobel Prize and at the height of his moral prestige, pleaded with them, to no avail. What will make them listen to him now, in the twilight of his presidency?

WHY SCIENTISTS DISAGREE ABOUT GLOBAL WARMING

Here's a new essay on this crucial subject by some well-informed people. There has been a lot written about the so-called "scientific consensus" by those who wish to promote the warmist cause, that this new essay is needed to redress the balance and set the record straight. There is no consensus. In fact there is a massive debate over the main issue, which is what effect on climate will an increase in CO2 caused by burning fossil fuels have. That is (quite literally!) the burning question.

DESPARATE MEASURES TO GET US TO ACCEPT THE CLIMATE ALARMISTS

On the main 6.30pm news on ITV I watched the massive hype over the start of the latest Climate Conference in Paris. The coverage was (predictably) entirely in support of efforts to cut CO2 emissions, but what was so wrong was that they showed shots of pollution in big cities in India and China caused by poor control of exhaust gases and effluent chimney stacks, combined with lack of wind to remove it. This was deliberately juxtaposed with the need to reduce CO2. In other words they were deliberately trying to tell viewers that this pollution was caused by CO2. It was shameless propaganda relying on the ignorance of a large part of their viewers. I hope they are wrong and that a significant number of viewers will see through this. In the end I hope that this will turn the intelligent people against them.

Here is another piece linking air pollution with CO2 emissions, this time in the Mail.

THE REAL COST OF CLIMATE CHANGE POLICIES

David Rose has come to the heart of the matter with this piece, scroll down past the piece on Prince Charles to reach the article on job losses in Scunthorpe. Here we see the cumulative effect of the government's attempt to cut CO2 emissions. This is only the start. This is small beer compared to what is coming down the tracks if we continue with unilateral action to reduce CO2 emissions. Will the government wake up soon or will they continue to waste millions on a hopeless quest to 'fix the climate'?

This is the face of climate change policies that its supporters simply don't get. Many of them don't even link the two. To them it's just another cuddly policy to 'save the planet'.