Friday 30 June 2017


This short film clip from NASA gives a very informative look at what is happening. As the sun changes it allows more comic rays to penetrate the Earth's atmosphere, which some scientists believe will lead to greater cloud cover and a slight cooling of the Earth.

Thursday 29 June 2017


New paper shows that the pause in global temperature rise is real and continues while CO2 continues to rise.  All climate models project that temperatures should not be levelling off, but should be increasing (despite interannual variability).

Wednesday 28 June 2017


This article Looks at some of the scary predictions made by climate alarmists. Here is a flavour of the article:

"It's summer 2017 and the Arctic was supposed to be ice-free, hurricanes were going to be more frequent and more deadly, and sea levels should be rising alarmingly. Al Gore swore in his 2006 science fiction movie, "An Inconvenient Truth," that within a decade there would be a "true planetary emergency."

Each failed prediction weakens the case for alarmist climate change, but there is still a long way to go before the issue goes away.

Tuesday 27 June 2017


This article explains how thorough research failed to find that the steadily rising atmospheric CO2 concentrations have had a statistically significant impact on any of the 14 temperature data sets that were analysed. The tropospheric and surface temperature data measurements that were analysed were taken by many different entities using balloons, satellites, buoys and various land based techniques. Needless to say, if regardless of data source, the analysis results are the same, the analysis findings should be considered highly credible.

These research results clearly demonstrate that once the solar, volcanic and oceanic activity, that is natural factor impacts on temperature data are accounted for, there is no “record setting” warming to be concerned about. In fact, there is no Natural Factor Adjusted Warming at all.


The Goracle speaks truth unto humanity in his crusade against the evil CO2 emitters. This has all the hallmarks of a religion, where everything has to be taken on trust with no questioning of core beliefs. I think the slaves themselves would want to tell Mr Gore of a few differences. For a start slavery could be seen happening and there was no doubt that people were being oppressed.  Global warming is so small and benign that no one has seen it and no one is being oppressed. Perhaps someone should tell him. 

Monday 26 June 2017


Here's a great look at what's going on in the energy world . I found this website to be most informative. The piece about whether the USA electricity grid could go over to 100% renewables by 2050 is particularly fascinating. One professor says "yes", while another group says "no". What do you think?

Sunday 25 June 2017


This article shows that CO2 follows temperature with highly variable time lags depending upon whether the climate is warming or cooling. At the onset of the last glaciation the time lag was 8,000 years and the world was cast into the depths of an ice age with CO2 variance evidently contributing little to the large fall in temperature.

Saturday 24 June 2017


One of the pillars of the current climate change phenomenon is the government, complete with the opposition and even the third and fourth parties in parliament. All these politicians, with the exception of a very small number of honourable dissenters, are constantly telling us that "the science is settled", we face an emergency (or crisis) due to emissions of CO2. And yet time and time again these same politicians are found wanting. They were sure it was a good idea to invade Afghanistan, Iraq, Libya, even Syria, though in the latter case there was sufficient dissent to stop them. We were told to buy diesel cars. We also trusted that they could protect us from fires with ever stricter fire regulations.  Now we know better.

But have we learnt anything from their mistakes? I think those of us who have lived through all the mistakes have, but young voters who have not lived through probably have not.  Hence the large number of young voters who voted for extreme socialist policies at our recent election.

Once the public have seen the political class to be deeply flawed they may become even more cynical about their extreme adherence to what look like very dubious and extremely costly climate change policies.

Friday 23 June 2017


This article explains that by focusing only on risks to carbon intensive assets, whilst ignoring the possibility that current climate policies may be causing poor investment opportunities in renewable energy technologies, the Bank of England is failing in its statutory duty to identify and address risks to the resilience of the UK financial system.  Nowhere in the Bank's document looking at risks tot the UK economy is there any evidence that they recognises that the very large investments in renewables, the Bank itself mentions “tens of trillions of dollars”, are themselves risky. Like the rest of the debate on climate change there can be no room for doubt.

The Bank of England writes that: "The allocation of capital and labour to projects not aligned with climate policies and technological changes could be a drag on productivity and economic growth. Conversely, allocating capital and labour to green technologies can be growth-enhancing".

Then again it might, and not at all improbably, be quite the other way around. Failing to allocate resources to projects not aligned with climate policies may destroy wealth, and directing them instead to green technologies could well reduce productivity and suppress growth. There is, no doubt, a real possibility that the policy driven commitment of capital resources to renewable energy generation is malinvestment that will have to be written off within a decade or two. This especially true if new technology emerges such as nuclear fusion, or other yet unknown methods of energy production.

Much will depend on what the rest of the world does (not what it says it will do).  

Thursday 22 June 2017


This piece puts the present climate debate into its long term context. This is essential for all of us if we are to learn the full picture of where we are. It is what is missing from all the alarmist headlines that we read about in the news and the pronouncements of the "true believers" in Greenpeace or the Friends of the Earth etc.

Wednesday 21 June 2017


This piece shows how a very plausible article written by a climate scientist can be debunked easily by someone with a good understanding of the facts - something very few members of the public have. It is very instructive to read the linked piece right through to see how the facts can be misrepresented.

Tuesday 20 June 2017


This report puts the recent spate of floods in the UK into context over a much longer period. That is the only way to assess weather or climate.  The study proves that though the past decade was wetter than many recent decades it was no wetter than many other periods going further back. The trouble is that we humans have relatively short lives and even shorter memories. The only reliable thing is data.

Monday 19 June 2017


This data-packed essay looks at the full implications of the Paris climate accord. When you read it you can see the logic behind President Trump's decision to pull the USA out. Princeton physicist Will Happer wrote of this essay, "Most of your essays are very good, but this one is especially so.  Many thanks for all you are doing for our country." I agree.

Sunday 18 June 2017


This paper explains that the association between air quality and acute deaths is not causally related, contrary to the popular belief that is constantly being put out by mainstream media. Of course the public are far more concerned about the affects of air quality on health than they are on some vague assertion that emissions of CO2 will in some way affect the climate at an unspecified time in the distant future. This paper should give some reassurance on the health issues related to air quality.

Saturday 17 June 2017


The UK government had been encouraging us to drive diesel vehicles since the early 2000's. The reason was to reduce our emissions of CO2, as they claim this will improve the climate, or prevent it deteriorating at some point in the future. Now they have been told by the EU that our vehicles are emitting too much nitrogen oxides (NOx) and to reduce this they are now trying to reduce the number of diesel vehicles. However they already knew that diesels produced more NOx gases (which are bad for those with lung problems like asthma). They claim they were duped by the car manufacturers who claimed that these emissions were being controlled. That is a poor excuse, as surely they ought to have tested these vehicles independently? What this shows is how easily the government can be fooled by accepting the word of others and go on to put in place very costly policies which they then discover are completely wrong.

In order to comply with their own Climate Change Act, the government would like to get us all to drive electric vehicles, or at least hybrid electric/petrol. They cannot do this straight away, as it would cause massive opposition from the public and massive costs to the government, so they are starting to "nudge" us in this direction by mandating councils to set up Clean Air Zones. They do not say what these zones will require, but it seems obvious that they will ban diesels - but will they go much further than that and only allow electric/hybrids? If so then they are going beyond what is necessary to make the air clean enough to be safe. They would be effectively banning diesel and petrol engines from our town centres in order to comply with their so-called climate change commitments.

Regular readers may have noticed that I have recently put the cost of the UK Climate Change Act on the top right of the blog. It is an eye-watering figure of £300 to 400 billion up to 2050. It is rarely stated publically but should be shown as often as possible. The benefits to the public of this massive spend I have said are NONE.

Friday 16 June 2017


New Study: Large CO2 Emissions From Batteries Of Electric Cars
New Technology, 29 May 2017

Johan Kristensson
Enormous hope rests on electric cars as the solution by the motor industry to climate change. However the batteries of electric cars are not environmentally friendly when manufactured. Several tonnes of carbon dioxide are being released, even before electric batteries leave the factory.

IVL, the Swedish Environment Institute has, on behalf of the Swedish Transport Administration and the Swedish Energy Agency, investigated the climate impact of lithium-ion batteries from a life-cycle perspective. Batteries for electric cars were included in the study. Lisbeth Dahllöf and Mia Romare have produced a meta-analysis, that is, a review and compilation of existing studies.
The report shows that battery manufacturing leads to high CO2 emissions. For each kilowatt-hour storage capacity in the battery, emissions of 150 to 200 kilograms of carbon dioxide equivalent are generated, already in the factory.

The researchers have not studied individual car brand’s batteries, just how they were produced or what electrical mix they used. But to understand the importance of battery size here’s one example: Two standard electric cars on the market, Nissan Leaf and Tesla Model S, have batteries of approximately 30 kWh and 100 kWh respectively.

As soon as you buy the car, CO2 emissions of approximately 5.3 tonnes and 17.5 tonnes, respectively, have been released for batteries of these sizes. The numbers may be difficult to relate to. By way of comparison, a trip for a person returning from Stockholm to New York by air causes emissions of more than 600 kilograms of carbon dioxide, according to the UN organization ICAO’s calculation model.

Another conclusion of the study is that about half of the emissions occur during the production of raw materials and half during the production of the battery in the factory. The mining itself accounts for only a small part of between 10-20 percent.
The calculation is based on the assumption that the electricity mix used by the battery plant is based on more than half the power  being generated by fossil fuels. In Sweden, power generation predominantly consists of zero-carbon nuclear and hydropower, as a result of which lower emissions can be achieved.

The study also reveals that CO2 emissions rise almost linearly with battery size, even though data is scarcer in this area. This means that a Tesla-size battery contributes more than three times as much CO2 as Nissan Leaf’s battery. It is a result that surprised Mia Romare.

“It should have been less linear because the electronics used do not increase to the same extent. But the battery cells themselves are as influential as the production looks today, she says.

“One conclusion is that you should not drive unnecessarily cars with large batteries,” says Mia Romare.

The authors emphasise that a large part of their study was about finding out what data was available and finding out what information they hold. In many cases they found that it was difficult to compare existing studies with each other.

“We have been frustrated, but it is also part of the result,” says Lisbeth Dahllöf.
Mats-Ola Larsson, their colleague at IVL, has calculated how long you need to drive a petrol or diesel car before it has released as much carbon dioxide as an electric car battery. The result was 2.7 years for a battery of the same size as Nissan Leaf and 8.2 years for a battery of Tesla size, based on a series of assumptions.

“It’s great for companies and government to embark on ambitious environmental policies and to buy climate-smart cars. But these results show that one should not think of choosing an electric car with a larger battery than necessary, he says, and points out that politicians should also address this in the design of instruments.

An obvious part to look at in life cycle analyses is recovery. The authors of the report note that what characterises batteries is the lack of the same as there is no financial incentive to send the batteries for recycling and that the volumes are still small.

Cobalt, nickel and copper are recycled, but not the energy required to make the electrodes, says Mia Romare, pointing out that recycling points are resource conservation rather than carbon dioxide emissions.

Peter Kasche from the Energy Agency, the publishers of the report, stresses the importance of the close relationship between the size of the electric battery and CO2 emissions.

One really needs to make sure to optimise electric batteries. One should not drive around with a lot of kilowatt hours unnecessarily. In some cases, a plug in-hybrid may be the optimum, in other cases a clean battery device.

Thursday 15 June 2017


In this article we see how a short term trend can be easily used to make quite wrong predictions for the longer term. This kind of thing is all too prevalent in the eagerness of climate alarmists to make out their case. But when the trend ends or changes they are left with egg on their faces.

Not long ago California was in drought.
Senator Barbara Boxer famously told us, “In California, we can just look out the window to see climate change’s impacts.”
Sorry, Senator, science doesn’t work that way.
Since then, of course, El Niño / La Niña current and weather patterns kept right on naturally doing their thing and California and the West experienced tremendous precipitation and replenished reservoirs from deep snow melt.
Our weather, extreme or otherwise, remains well within the range of historic norms.
According to a NASA study released Monday, climate computer models have been predicting a drier Earth than real-world observations show.
details at
“NASA and four universities compared climate data from 1995 to 2005 to 23 climate model simulations for the same period. More than 70 percent of the climate models underestimated the amount of rain compared to real world observations.”
Although far from perfect, computer simulations can be very valuable for short-term meteorology, including such important applications as forecasting hurricane tracks.
The climate, however, is incredibly chaotic and complex.
Long-term climate simulations have never come close to being accurate.
Global warming politics makes them worse.
Computer simulations are currently not sufficiently reliable to be the main determinant of energy, economic or climate policy.
They may never be.

Wednesday 14 June 2017


 As Donald Trump pulls out of the Paris deal on climate change, questions are being asked about aid money to build solar plants in countries that export the electricity

At the end of May, Zimbabwe’s state monopoly, ZESA, reached a last-minute deal to continue importing electricity.
ZESA owed $43m to South Africa and Mozambique and, with part-payment and terms agreed for clearing the debt, neither country turned off the flow.
South Africa is a continental giant, but one might ask why Mozambique is selling to anyone, given 80 per cent of her own people are not connected to the grid and, even in Maputo or Beira, supply is so unreliable that homes and shops have their own generators.

But Mozambique ranks among the world's 20 largest exporters of electricity, chiefly from Cabora Basa dam on the Zambesi River, a short way from Kariba. And here's the irony. Not far east of Cabora

But Uganda is the biggest external supplier of power to Kenya, East Africa’s largest economy, while at home only one-in-five Ugandans have the lights on.
Even the Democratic Republic of Congo, one of the world’s poorest countries, exports electricity to Zambia and South Africa while local supply languishes around 15 per cent. Kinshasa receives billions in aid from the US, Britain and Europe, much of it for “green” projects.

“A matter of shame”
When it comes to numbers, India has more people than all of Africa, squashed into about 10 per cent of the space. And, here, electricity is political.
In Delhi, the minister for power, Piyush Goyal says it’s “a matter of shame”, that after nearly seven decades of independence from Britain, “we have not been able to provide a basic amenity like electricity.”
In truth, they’ve done better than many former colonies, but out of 1.2 billion Indians, an estimated 300 million (more than the SADC countries combined) are yet to be connected.
At the 2014 election, prime minister Narendra Modi promised to end this within his term, and with the next vote less than two years away, he’s been racing to make it happen.
The government has also rolled out a record number of solar plants with a pledge that, by 2022, three per cent of power will come from renewables. Last year the World Bank assigned more than $600m to the plan.
But connecting just a million homes needs an estimated 10 000 acres of solar panels and, in a country where land is scarce, this has become an issue.
Former Irish president Mary Robinson who served as UN high commissioner for human rights and now heads a foundation on climate issues, sounded a caution after a rise in complaints by indigenous groups.
“Recent experience shows that renewable energy installations can result in human rights being undermined if local communities are not consulted,” she said.
India only signed the Paris Accord, “contingent on receiving billions and billions and billions of dollars in foreign aid”. This was Donald Trump in full throttle recently as he withdrew America from the Paris deal on climate change.
True, Delhi does receive vast amounts of aid, and solar farms and wind turbines have become the new chic for donors and NGOs.
But with no sun at night, and the monsoon season when it rains for weeks, solar will provide less than one per cent of the country’s needs over the next five years. Instead, like South Africa and Zimbabwe, most of the power comes from coal.
And, like Mozambique, in spite of a shortfall, India sells electricity to neighbouring states, including Bangladesh.
In London, Dr Benny Peiser, director of the Global Warming Policy Foundation, a non-partisan think-tank on energy and climate, said it was, “hard to imagine a case for any kind of aid where the receiving government is exporting power while their own people go without.”
But he said “prioritising green energy schemes” was also a problem.
“Donors and NGOs may feel good installing millions of solar panels across Asia and Africa, but they ignore the fact that renewable energy is unable to provide much needed electricity when the sun isn’t shining.”
“Cheap and reliable power”
Kenya, Tanzania and Botswana are building new coal-fired power stations, Zimbabwe, Nigeria, Ghana and India are upping their use, South Africa relies on it for 93% of Eskom’s output, but if a single mine is reopened in Wyoming the green lobby treats it like an act of war.
This upsets Donald Trump who rode to office on a promise of jobs, including along the coal belt that runs through the centre and east of America.
His bombast and choice of words, attacks on other countries and endless tweets — often contradicting his own policy — have made him a target for comedians.
But it’s hard to counter his claim that, under the Paris Accord, countries like USA are expected to cut emissions now, while Africa, Asia and Latin America can go on polluting until 2030, then trim their footprint.
The president’s ire was not so much for the main agreement, but a $100bn “Green Climate Fund” that’s part of the deal. The plan is for wealthy countries to finance projects in the developing world, especially solar and wind power.
But the fact that many poor countries are exporting power while capacity remains short at home has been seized on by lobbyists in Washington.
Mr Trump’s defenders say he has not walked away from Paris, merely asked for a better treaty.
And they point to his speech: “We will start to negotiate, and we will see if we can make a deal that’s fair,” he said.
In or out of a global pact, Washington looks unlikely to pay for new generating plants that don’t maximize output and serve local communities.
Dr Peiser said it was important to remember that aid “comes from taxpayers’ money donated principally from the US, Britain and the rest of Europe.”
It could not be used, he said, “to generate costly and unreliable electricity in countries where hundreds of millions need the exact opposite: cheap and reliable power”
This, he said, had to include the latest gas and clean-coal technology.
Dr Peiser called on the US administration to review all aid linked to energy.
“That way, the most cost-effective projects can be selected to achieve their objective of helping poor nations to power their people and economies.”

Tuesday 13 June 2017


Here is the proof that electric vehicles are not attractive to buyers without the big subsidies provided by government.  As soon as the subsidies were withdrawn the sales plummeted. The government then decided to extend the subsides to 2020. Will they ever be able to compete in a free market?  

Monday 12 June 2017


This report explains that the new EPA chief, Scott Pruitt is considering setting up an adversarial system with "teams" of experts on both sides of the debate grilling one another publicly. Apparently those who in favour of the theory are strongly against such a move. I wonder why - are they afraid that their hypothesis will be undermined by such a process? I say bring it on!

Sunday 11 June 2017

Saturday 10 June 2017


This post reminds us of the policies of the UK political parties put before the people on Thursday. Of course these will have had little direct impact on the result, but it gives an idea of where the main parties stand. Unfortunately only UKIP has a really sound policy and they have no influence at all, however the Conservatives are at least better than Labour and in reality they are not really in favour of the awful Climate Change Act and many members of it would repeal it tomorrow if it were politically possible, but they fear the so-called consensus.

Friday 9 June 2017


NIGEL LAWSON  Daily Tel. 3rd June 2017

Our low-carbon obsession is costing us dear

The next government must prioritise energy that is cheap and reliable
if it is to mend public trust

Donald Trump‘s decision to withdraw the United States from the Paris
Agreement has dealt a hammer blow to an elite consensus which has
built up around the issue of climate change. That consensus has placed
cutting carbon dioxide emissions above people‘s jobs and protecting
the environment. With US industry already enjoying a substantial
competitive advantage over European firms, this decision will make
European climate policies all the more unsustainable. If Britain is to
keep up with the rest of the world, it is essential that the next
government rethinks energy policy to prioritise competitiveness and

The 2017 Conservative manifesto has promised to do just that, and sets
a target for Britain to have the lowest energy prices in Europe. This
is a striking change of tone compared with previous manifestos, but
this objective will only be achieved through extensive reforms to
existing policies, alongside the political will to fight powerful
vested interests.

The next government will first need to acknowledge what has gone
wrong. Britain‘s obsession with unilateral decarbonisation has taken
precedence over relieving fuel poverty and keeping prices competitive.
It is inconceivable how political parties can reconcile being on the
side of working people while at the same time driving up their cost of
living. The Climate Change Act is set to cost the UK economy
approximately £320 billion by 2030 - equivalent to funding the NHS in
England for three years.

Existing energy policies that claim to be ”environmental• are nothing
of the sort. Bjorn Lomborg, the head of the Copenhagen Consensus
Centre, has estimated that even if every nation meets its pledges
under the Paris climate change agreement, the total reduction in the
planet‘s temperature will only be 0.17C by 2100. With America‘s exit,
even this paltry figure may not be achieved.

By contrast, the bad environmental consequences of energy policies
have been tangible and significant. Commitments to bioenergy are
damaging biodiversity and have distorted international food markets.
The rare earth metals used in wind turbines come from poorly regulated
mines in China which leak toxic and radioactive waste into nearby
lakes on an industrial scale, perfectly illustrating the vacuity of
the ”out of sight, out of mind• attitude of virtue-signalling ”clean•
energy advocates.

But the harmful consequences of low-carbon policies are harder to
ignore when they are right on your doorstep, or even inside your home.
Britain‘s air pollution crisis is the result of misguided low-carbon
policies that incentivised diesel cars. People have died because
politicians couldn‘t resist the desire to ”save the planet•. Recent
research also suggests that biomass power stations may not have lower
CO2 emissions than coal and gas. What will it take for politicians to
question the wisdom of spending hundreds of billions on failing
policies instead of putting the needs of ordinary families first?

Flexibility will be crucial to a more competitive approach. The
current programme of five-yearly decarbonisation targets guarantees
prohibitive costs for consumers today, and prevents the UK from taking
full advantage of the falling costs of various technologies. Renewable
energy lobbyists often claim that costs have come down to competitive
levels; this should be put to the test by the removal of subsidies
after 2020.

The manifesto also described ”the discovery and extraction of shale
gas in the US• as ”a revolution•. As a result, US manufacturers have
done even better and investors are flocking back to North America;
perhaps $160 billion has been earmarked for petrochemical plants alone
since 2012. Proposals to change the planning law for shale
applications could not come soon enough.

Energy policy in recent years has been marked out by an unhealthy
relationship between government and lobbyists from large renewable
energy firms. After leaving office, former energy secretary Ed Davey
walked into three advisory roles with firms with links to renewable
energy companies: unmistakable evidence of a ”revolving door• between
big business and government, even if no rules were broken. The power
of lobbying interests can be seen clearly in the fiasco surrounding
the Swansea Bay tidal lagoon. This project, promoted by another former
energy minister, is expected to be formally rubber-stamped by
government in the next few weeks despite being a completely uneconomic
technology. If expensive projects like this continue to get the green
light, the full benefits of the shale gas revolution are unlikely to
be realised. Stronger safeguards against corporate lobbying will lead
to better value for the taxpayer and a more competitive energy sector.

Britain‘s decision to leave the EU has illustrated a deep disconnect
between the political elite and many people in the rest of the country
who feel ignored and left behind. By leaving the Paris Agreement,
Trump has delivered on his pledge to the left-behind in America. We
too must now look beyond a narrow obsession with renewables to a
fairer alternative that prioritises cheap and reliable energy. This
will help mend broken public trust, boost the economy and put Britain
on a secure footing as we look outward to trade with the rest of the

Thursday 8 June 2017


John Constable: Energy Cost Is Why We Disagree About Climate PolicyGWPF Energy, 4 June 2017

Dr John Constable: GWPF Energy Editor

By withdrawing the United States from the Paris Agreement President Trump has put the burden of proof on those private investors and nation states that believe renewable energy is economically beneficial. Far from being a disaster, this is a step towards a reasonable and spontaneously attractive climate change policy.

Like many of those vilified for their views on the subject of climate change, President Trump is more of an energy policy sceptic than an anti-rational “denier” of atmospheric science. He senses, and with good reason, that the aggregate of energy policies proposed to mitigate climate change brings with it the threat of major wealth destruction and a reversal of several centuries of exponential increases in human well-being.

Mr Trump sees this from his own national perspective, believing, again with good reason, that the policies are extremely and comparatively disadvantageous to the United States. However, this narrow view is a subset of and entirely compatible with the broader conclusion that renewable energy policies will be damaging to human prospects at the global level, however much they may favour certain countries in the short term.

Those who disagree with him are, for the most part, either explicitly or implicitly affirming the contrary proposition, namely that the renewable energy transition envisioned is already economic and will bring enhanced global prosperity.

That is the black and white of the matter; you either think that the low carbon energy policies make sense, or you don’t, and it is this root level division that provides the most profound explanation of why we disagree to any extent about climate change. If there were no differences of opinion about energy, there would be hardly any disagreement about climate change policy.

Furthermore, this account not only explains the fact of the quarrel, but also the haut en bas and moralising tone of Mr Trump’s critics. If you believe that economic, low-emitting renewable energy is already available, then it will also seem to you that only ill-will and stupidity prevents its adoption, and thus that President Trump’s decision to withdraw from the Paris Agreement is ignorant at best and probably malign.

But his views are neither of these things. The reasoning is certainly elliptical, and the manner is brusque, to say the least, but in the last analysis he simply has a different view about the economic consequences of renewable energy, views that are in fact widely held amongst both specialists and the general public.

The case for renewables is not proven, and in spite of a rolling barrage of positive PR round the industry there are still very good grounds for reserving judgment. Even if the claimed equipment cost reductions are real, and this is extremely dubious in the case of wind power, the economic lifetimes remain deeply uncertain, and the electricity system integration costs for uncontrollable generators are without doubt extremely high. Upbeat babble about electricity storage, smart metering and ingenious demand management cannot conceal the fact that these “solutions” all tend towards increasing the capitalization of the electricity sector, thus greatly reducing its productivity, a clear recipe for higher consumer costs and for deeply unpleasant macroeconomic impacts.

As with many problems in technology and commerce, a resolution to this matter cannot be delivered politically or administratively. It is, to use Easterly’s convenient phrase, not a matter of administrative deployment, but a research question, the answer to which can only be discovered by free experiment and the taking of risks. Indeed, the President’s de facto rejection of state support for alternative energy actually brings this discovery closer.

A number of US corporates and other interests are now declaring that they will continue to invest in low carbon technologies in spite of the President’s decision to withdraw from the Paris Agreement. Fine. Let them do so. If the enthusiasts are right, then renewable technologies will sweep the board through fundamental and real advantage, bringing general benefit. If they are wrong, the lesson will be learned painfully and in full public view but with limited malinvestment.

So in pursuit of truth, let us remove all the deep market coercions that are currently feeding the suspicions of President Trump, amongst others. Delete the portfolio standards, abolish the tax credits and income support subsidies, and make the ‘alternative’ technologies pay their costs on the system and earn their their place in the wholesale markets through normal competition. And by all means do the same for equivalent subsidies to fossil fuels, though green campaigners will be disappointed to find that these are not nearly as common as they think.

Many “Parisians” are now consoling themselves with the thought that a Trump presidency cannot last more than eight years at the most. That is an evasion. The reality to which Mr Trump has given voice is enduring. It can be temporarily suppressed, but it will not go away. The disagreement about energy is not trivial. Cheap energy is the cause of prosperity. Climate policies grounded in anything other than cheap energy will not be sustainable.

Wednesday 7 June 2017


This article confirms that Bjorn Lomborg, the self-styled Skeptical Environmentalist, believes that it is foolhardy and foolish for world leaders to stay fixated on Paris – not only will it likely falter, but it will be hugely costly and do almost nothing to fix climate change.

Here is a good piece on Lomborg's calculations (peer-reviewed) on the actual effectiveness of the Paris accord on limiting future temperature rises.

Tuesday 6 June 2017


This piece looks at this week's article by Christopher Booker in the Sunday Telegraph in which he expresses the view that President Trump's speech on withdrawal of the USA from the Paris agreement shows it to be a meaningless fraud. This is the dirty secret at the heart of the Paris accord. 

Monday 5 June 2017


This piece records some light-hearted banter by the Russian president. It doesn't appear that Putin takes the global warming meme all that seriously, just like most of the public.

Sunday 4 June 2017


This post looks at the behaviour of investors to the announcement by Donald Trump to take the USA out of the Paris climate accord. It seems clear that the investors think it will be good for business, despite all the negative responses of other political leaders. Interesting!

Saturday 3 June 2017


UKIP energy spokesman, Roger Helmer gave a short radio interview on his views of the USA pulling out of the Paris Accord. It was encouraging to hear such sensible views being aired. Listen here.


You can read his speech here. and view it here (it starts at about 60 minutes in) This announcement has been predicted and hinted at for some time, but there were always other rumours that he would back-peddle and not deliver. So this is tremendous news. It must have taken a lot of courage for him to ignore all those telling him not to do it. For the USA this is a great boost for jobs and the cost of living. For us in the UK it is a ray of hope that we could follow his lead if we had a political leader with similar courage - especially when we leave the EU, probably in 2019. By then it will become much clearer how the gulf between the USA and Europe is widening as far as living costs and jobs are concerned.

Friday 2 June 2017


This article explains the mad idea which would impoverish us all based on the unsupported claim that increase in CO2 would lead to significant changes in global surface temperatures. In reality it is the carbon tax which would cause the more serious change - in the economy and our ability to afford to use electricity.

Thursday 1 June 2017


This piece looks at the president's potential scientific advisor's views. His decision is said to be due in the next few days and pulling out will be a very courageous decision which could spell the beginning of the end for the climate scare. I wish him well.