UK NATIONAL TRUST IN CLIMATE CHANGE MYTH PROPAGANDA EXERCISE

This article by the indefatigable Paul Homewood looks at a climate review carried out by the National Trust in Britain and he points out how each of the climate impacts they select is either incorrect or cherry-picked. Paul's work is invaluable, as without it we would have no evidence with which to rebut this kind of propaganda.

NO SCIENTIST SHOULD BELIEVE THAT COMPLICATED MODELS CAN PREDICT THE FUTURE

This article poses the idea that  no scientist really believes that complicated models with lots of variables can reliably predict the future. It goes on to suggest that no non-scientist can evaluate the claims of climate science because BOTH sides look 100% convincing to the under-informed. In a detailed argument the writer's  assessment is that a bright, well-informed non-scientist has no realistic chance of reaching an independent opinion on climate change that is better than a guess.

I can see where he is coming from, but what is his definition of a non-scientist? Does he mean someone with no scientific understanding at all, or does he mean someone who is not a climate scientist? I could go further than the writer and say that even an expert climate scientist is guessing when he makes claims about the future because the known science to make such predictions simply does not exist, as the writer himself states at the beginning when he states "no scientist really believes that complicated models with lots of variables can reliably predict the future".

Of course we make lots of decisions based on guesswork, though to make it sound more respectable we don't use that word, preferring to use "balance of probabilities", or "best estimate", etc. to give an illusion of greater knowledge. In the end if that is all we've got then we have no choice, as decisions have to be made. Even deciding to do nothing is a decision, and often it is the best decision as it is the least expensive.

BAH HUMBUG - ALARMIST PURITANS WANT TO BAN YOUR CHRISTMAS LIGHTS

At last, here is an article telling us that climate alarmists want to ban Christmas lighting. This is a logical view if you really believe that we must do all we can to reduce CO2 emissions, but of course it is not the view shared by most of the public, so I do not expect it will be announced by any serious political party. Perhaps we should put these alarmist politicians on the spot and ask them if they would support such a proposition.

US STATE GOVERNMENTS ISSUE HUGE INCREASE IN FRACKING PERMITS

Production of natural gas is set to hit new heights as state governments issue a large number of new permits. See here for details. This is bringing new wealth to those areas with gas deposits that are now recoverable. Here in the UK we could be having similar success if only the government would get on with it.

THE CURRENT ARCTIC "HEATWAVE" IS QUITE COMMON

This piece explains how Arctic weather can change quite frequently with a wide range of temperatures possible, depending on the jet stream among other factors. So there is no need to panic if there is a warmer spell up there. 

WHY DO CLIMATE "ACTIVISTS" GET SPECIAL TREATMENT UNDER THE LAW?

This case is just the latest example of how the courts seem to view those who flout the law for so-called ethical reasons seem to get off very lightly. This only encourages more of the same. I can only assume that the judges and magistrates must sympathise with them. Time to sack them and replace them with others who will uphold the law.

JUST LOOK AT WHAT THE ALARMISTS CONSIST OF

This article looks in depth at how the myriad climate alarmist groups are inter-linked and also how they are funded. When you see the whole lot it looks very impressive, and it is not surprising that some of their messages have got through to the public consciousness. In fact you could be forgiven for thinking that they are unstoppable - except for one thing - the facts are beginning to show that their predictions are way over the top. Donald Trump has come to power not a moment too soon. If his time in office coincides with a downturn in global temperature it will be a perfect storm for the alarmists and give him the perfect reason to turn off the funding taps.

SEASONS GREETINGS TO MY DEAR READERS

I guess some of you must visit here a number of times through the year and though I don't know most of you, I feel we have an affinity in our mutual interest and scepticism about climate alarm. Do let me know if you have any comments about the blog, likes or dislikes. Next year I will be celebrating the 10th anniversary of this blog and also 500,000 visits, small compared with the major blogs, but still quite a big number.

Meanwhile enjoy the festive season. 

OBAMAS LAST MINUTE OFFSHORE DRILLING BAN COULD BE OVERTURNED

This article explains the reasons why. There is a massive boost for the economy if drilling were to be allowed, so that alone is enough for this to be looked at closely by the Trump administration.  

GREAT CLIMATE CHANGE DEBATE - SCOTT DENNING v ROY SPENCER

Here is the link to a great debate on the issue of whether climate change is a problem or not. This debate is good because it is conducted with good humour between two leading experts, whose views differ in certain respects, but who agree on the fundamental issues. If you find the scientific details hard to grasp, this debate will mostly be one you can understand, so if you have an hour to spare give it a try.

NEVER MIND THE HEATWAVES, IT'S THE COLD THAT KILLS

This piece gives the details. What is happening as our fuel and power becomes more expensive, is that many people are cutting back on heating and leaving themselves more vulnerable to cold. If the government really cared for us they would give us cheap power, but they are much more fixated on looking good in the CO2 reduction tables, even though in reality all they are doing is exporting the CO2 emissions to China and India.

CLIMATE DATA TAMPERING - HOW IT WAS AND IS BEING DONE

This article puts the issue into context and shows how it is being done slowly bit by bit. Recent reports indicate that some climate scientists are now concerned that President Trump may try to destroy the data (- that would be the data that has already been altered?)

UK SHALE GAS GETS APPROVAL FROM HIGH COURT

This article explains the news that the High Court case brought by climate change activist groups has been rejected and that fracking can go ahead. Maybe we can now look forward to seeing some actual gas extracted sometime in 2017.

TRUMP OPENS THE DOOR TO USA ENERGY INDEPENDENCE

Here are the details of how Donald may herald a new golden age for the USA, if he can have the courage to take on the climate alarmists.

USA OIL PRODUCERS TAKE ADVANTAGE OF OPEC PRODUCTION CUT

This piece explains how the gamble by OPEC to cut production does not seem to be working, and in the worst of all worlds (for OPEC) the shale producers have upped their production to supply the shortfall. This, of course, is how free markets are supposed to work. So much for oil running out - no one factored in man's ingenuity. How the climate alarmists must be wringing their hands.

THE SIMPLE WAY TO UNDO OBAMA'S CLIMATE REGULATIONS

Here's the idea that is allegedly being considered. It sounds like an effective response. Trump's team will have to work smart and avoid long drawn out battles. Softly, softly catchey monkey. 

WILL THE AUSSIES FOLLOW THE EU INTO DECLINE, OR FOLLOW TRUMP?

This article poses the question and it looks as though the Australian government is split on how to respond to the changed world. The UK is in a similar quandary, though my hunch is that we will see a softening of the policies on CO2 abatement, both in Australia and the UK. 

£274MILLION OF TAXPAYERS MONEY GIVEN TO CLIMATE ACTION GROUP AND "LOST"

Here is the detail. This is what happens when the government is set targets to give away huge amounts of money in overseas aid - inadequate checks and balances are carried out. The Daily Mail are running a big campaign on this and the public are furious to see such waste while those at home are struggling, particularly the care system. Is it any wonder that governments become unpopular?

CLIMATE ALARMISTS PANIC AS THEY AWAIT TRUMP'S ARRIVAL

I just can't help but smile as I imagine those leading climate alarmists starting to panic as they contemplate the future president's arrival. They have had  it largely their own way for the past eight years or more, but it looks as though it is over for the days of unlimited spending on conferences and so forth. This piece gives a flavour of their fears. I must admit I had great doubts as to whether Donald would be able to overcome all the opposition, but he did, and now he has to make it count for all those who stood by him. What a great Christmas present that would be. A clean environment, cheap plentiful fossil fuels and lower taxes with a more productive economy.

DONALD TRUMP SET TO MAKE ANOTHER GREAT CHOICE AS SECRETARY OF STATE

This piece explains how Lex Tillerson, ex CEO of Exxon, was not only working closely with Russia, but also he allowed Exxon to fund climate sceptic groups. At last it seems that true climate scepticism will get a hearing at the top level. Things may be about to take a turn for the better.

Additional comment - I wonder why our TV news seems to think that working with Russia is such a bad thing? It is not that Rex Tillerson has ever said he approves of Russia's foreign policy. I detect an underlying anti-Trump message coming out here. As with brexit and climate change we get a message with bias here. Important facts are buried.

CO2 FOUND GUILTY IN US SUPREME COURT DECISION

This case was decided back in 2007 and yet it appears, so far, not to have led to any significant change.  Here is an article explaining the decision with links to more detail for those of a legal disposition. Readers of this blog will be aware that the EPA (Environmental Protection Agency) seems to be very pro-active in recent years to control power station emissions, so it seems strange that it defended this case at all. However it did not appear to do a very good job. I wonder if the new president will do anything to rein in the EPA?

HUGE ARTICLE IN MAIL ON SUNDAY HIGHLIGHTS THE RECENT FALL IN GLOBAL TEMPS

This is the second week that David Rose has published this story. This time he has added it to a new report written by Peter Lilley, MP, and published by the GWPF (Global Warming Policy Foundation). Here  is a link to yesterday's piece. Peter  Lilley's report looks at the cost of the Climate Change Act using the government's own figures, to reveal the massive burden on the economy and on individual energy costs. How long can the government go on with its pretence that this isn't happening?  

WHAT EXACTLY DO 97% OF CLIMATE SCIENTISTS AGREE ON?

This short video gives an excellent summary of the truth about the 97% of scientists agreeing that climate change is caused by man and is dangerous. It simply isn't true and yet it is constantly being quoted by politicians to end any arguments and justify their massively expensive decarbonisation policies. This short video from Richard Lindzen is also well worth viewing. 

OUR KNOWLEDGE OF THE ARCTIC IS SO LOW WE SIMPLY CANNOT MAKE PREDICTIONS

This article explains how incomplete our knowledge of the Arctic is, and how climate alarmists have been much too quick to predict and end to summer ice in the Arctic.

TRUMP PICKS CLIMATE SCEPTIC TO RUN THE EPA

Here is the essence of the story and what a great choice he has made. This man has been fighting against the regulations which have been currently coming from the present Environmental Protection Agency leadership. This must surely signal a complete change. More on this here.  And listen to the interview about this here. 

LYING ABOUT THE CLIMATE IS NOW THE NORM

This article puts the case forward, using the example of forest fires in Tennessee being blamed on global warming, despite the evidence not backing this at all. Just one example among so many where the weather is confused with climate and used to bolster a very weak case for man made alarming global warming/climate change. But the public are growing weary of this and we are hoping that Donald Trump will stand firm and bring in a dose of reality. The time is right for it.

UK LABOUR PEER URGES PARTY RE-THINK ON CLIMATE POLICY

This article by Labour peer, Lord Donoughue, in which he makes a strong case for his party to change its alarmist stance on climate change. I doubt that they will take his sensible advice. The article was published in the magazine for UK politicians "The House". This magazine is distributed to all British MPs and I often get to read it free, as I have it passed to me from my local MP. This is just as well as an annual subscription costs £195. The Lord Donoughue article is in the 2 December edition alongside the pro-alarmist case put by Lord Deben and others. It is good to see the case for climate scepticism put forward yet again.

FIRST THERE WAS FRACKING, NOW ITS MICROWAVES TO EXTRACT OIL

Here's the story of this new technology that is about to make oil even more widely available. Any climate alarmists will now be having palpitations at the thought of a whole new raft of fossil fuel coming on stream. So much for peak oil! What a good job that climate alarm has been exaggerated and we can cope with the climate by using technology. 

NY STATE ATTORNEY GENERAL IN RETREAT OVER ATTEMPT TO SILENCE FREE SPEECH ON GW

This article explains how Eric Schneiderman, the New York State Attorney General has found his attempt to attack the Competitive Enterprise Institute has back-fired as his case unravelled. Well done to the CEI for defending freedom of speech and standing up to this state official.

CLIMATE CHANGE WRITER, DAVID ROSE, TAKES THE FLACK FOR GIVING THE FACTS ON GW

Poor David Rose, the Mail on Sunday writer who dared to inform us that global land temperatures had fallen by record amounts over the last few months, has been called all sorts of bad names by the climate alarmists. This article gives some details of the row, which highlights how much courage it takes to inform the public about facts to do with our climate (or weather) that don't fit the alarmist narrative.

NEW REPORT FINDS THAT THE CHEAPEST OPTION IS TO ADAPT TO GW, NOT FIGHT IT

This report gives the evidence to support the proposition that fighting global warming is way more costly than letting it happen and then adapting to it using technology. It's a no-brainer.

SUN GOES QUIET AGAIN AS SCIENTISTS PREDICT MINI ICE AGE COULD BE IMMINENT

This Mail article gives the details of what is happening to our nearest star. It seems intuitive that it must have a significant effect on our climate. 

THE UK SMART METER FIASCO

Here's the sad tale of the UK government's smart meter fiasco, and a very costly fiasco it is. Once again Paul Homewood has highlighted something which both parliament and the mainstream media seem to have ignored.

"The government  have just released their long overdue assessment of the cost of the country’s smart metering program.  Hidden among the figures is the amount of money that they have spent.  So far, they have squandered £450 million on the project, despite the fact that not a single compliant smart meter [which conforms to their specifications] has been installed in any house.  By a strange coincidence, that’s exactly the same amount as the shortfall in BHS’ pension fund which occurred when Philip Green flogged off BHS."

The government  were aiming to install 53 million new gas and electricity meters in British homes by 2020.  Half of these were expected to be installed by 2017, when there would be a project review. The estimated cost of £10.98bn has been underestimated by at least £1.6bn, because they have forgotten to include the cost of smart gas meters. The true cost could amount to at least £14.67bn, which  equates to about £560 per household.

The design of smart meters in Britain means that if they are hacked, power could be turned off for large chunks of the country, causing massive damage to the grid.  When questioned on the sense of this design in meetings at DECC the reply from utilities is “why would anyone ever do that”. You can read the whole saga at the link at the start of this post.

THE LESSONS OF LYSENKO FOR CLIMATE SCIENCE

The Lessons of Lysenko

By Roger Helmer MEP

 

https://www.google.co.uk/search?q=lysenkoism&biw=1280&bih=907&source=lnms&tbm=isch&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwjMj5btkMzQAhWCahoKHQlpBQsQ_AUIBygC#imgrc=3YVndnSmijFFZM%3A

 

Following the death of Fidel Castro, it's perhaps a good time to think about the malign impacts of totalitarian government, and the damage that political agendas can do to science.

 

"The term Lysenkoism can also be used metaphorically to describe the manipulation or distortion of the scientific process as a way to reach a predetermined conclusion as dictated by an ideological bias, often related to social or political objectives". https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lysenkoism

 

Dear Reader, you're way ahead of me.  Yes of course, I was struck immediately by the read-across to climate science.  The parallels are remarkable.

 

You'll be familiar with the story of Lysenko. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trofim_Lysenko  He was a Russian biologist and agronomist who rejected Darwinian evolution and the rôle of genes, and preferred instead the Lamarckian concept of "inheritance of acquired characteristics".  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lamarckism Of course that concept is difficult to accept – especially when you reflect that a man who has lost a leg is perfectly capable of fathering a child with two legs.  With the benefit of hindsight, it is difficult to believe that Lamarckism was once regarded as a credible alternative to Darwinian theory – but so it was.

 

And Lysenko, in the late 1920s, took that view, and built a whole theory of plant breeding on it.  More than that, he had the ear of Stalin, and Lysenkoism became official Soviet doctrine.  The theory was imposed rigidly.  More than 3000 mainstream biologists were fired, imprisoned or executed for challenging it.  

 

Lysenkoism held sway in the USSR until the sixties, with dire consequences for Soviet agriculture.  Again with hindsight it is difficult to credit the fact that it survived so long, when it plainly did not work.  But worse than that, not only did it fail in the field (literally), it also totally blocked proper academic study and research in Russia in the area of plant breeding and Mendelian genetics for decades.

 

So how close are the parallels with climate theory?  Of course Lysenkoism was restricted to the USSR.  And it was imposed by a totalitarian régime that could, and did, shoot dissenters.  Climate alarmism, on the other hand is broadly speaking global (even if some countries merely pay lip-service to the orthodoxy).  It is imposed not by a violent autocracy, but by an intolerant and often vindictive establishment – scientific, media and political.  It threatens not imprisonment and murder, but the destruction of careers.  Scientists who dare to challenge the prevailing view are denied tenure, and publication, and perhaps worst of all grant funding.  As a result, those who do dare to challenge the orthodoxy tend to be older scientists secure in their careers (and their pension funds).

 

In fact the parallels with the Soviet Union go further.  On the outer fringes of the Warmism movement we see demands for "Nuremberg-style trials" of "climate deniers", http://www.climatedepot.com/2014/02/26/are-you-a-climate-denier-nazi-warmists-declare-nuremberg-style-trials-must-be-held-for-senior-corporate-and-political-executives-responsible-for-crimes-against-humanity-and-planet-that-almost/ and the imprisonment of directors of fossil fuel companies.

 

Nor is it just scientists and company directors in the firing line.  The BBC, for example (always achingly, painfully "on message") seeks to exclude climate sceptics, and it famously dropped David Bellamy, who was once nearly as popular a presenter on nature and wildlife issues as Attenborough, merely because he dared to express doubts about Global Warming. http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2266188/David-Bellamy-The-BBC-froze-I-dont-believe-global-warming.html

 

We saw with the ClimateGate scandal how leading IPCC scientists engaged in "the manipulation or distortion of the scientific process as a way to reach a predetermined conclusion as dictated by an ideological bias", just as Lysenkoism does.  http://www.telegraph.co.uk/comment/columnists/christopherbooker/6679082/Climate-change-this-is-the-worst-scientific-scandal-of-our-generation.html

 

We see that their prescriptions are utterly failing.  Björn Lomborg famously demonstrated (for example) that all the hundreds of millions of dollars invested in solar panels by Germany would have the effect (on the IPCC's own estimates) of delaying the trajectory of global warming by only a few hours -- by 2100.  http://notrickszone.com/2014/03/08/lomborg-congratulates-germany-for-e100-million-climate-change-delayed-37-seconds/#sthash.ebkF2miL.dpbs An utter waste of money and misallocation of resources.

 

And just as Lysenkoism prevented Russian agriculture from doing the right things, so Warmism, by focusing on mitigation, blinds us to the possible need for adaptation (in the unlikely event that warming becomes a significant problem).

 

Wealthy economies and societies are far more resilient to adverse conditions.  But prosperity depends critically on the availability of secure and affordable energy – which mitigation and greenery militate against.  Warmism prescribes vast up-front investment to guard against highly speculative and uncertain long-term outcomes.  By the time you realise you're wrong, you've blown billions.  Adaptation on the other hand is proportionate, and involves spending money on targeted projects only as and when (and if) circumstances justify it.

 

The main difference between Lysenkoism and Warmism, as I see it, is that the damage done by Warmism is on a far larger scale and will be far more difficult to reverse.