GERMAN STATES PUT JOBS BEFORE CLIMATE TARGET

Breaking News, 18 July 2017

Germany is at risk of tacitly joining Donald Trump in turning its back on the Paris climate change deal. Two of the country’s regional governments have decided to put preserving jobs in coal mines and power plants ahead of cutting carbon emissions.

If Europe’s largest economy misses its targets, Chancellor Angela Merkel’s environmental credentials – and the global accord itself – would suffer a big setback.

Officially, Germany is fully committed to the Paris accord. At the G20 summit in Hamburg earlier this month, Merkel said she “deplored” Trump’s decision to withdraw the United States from the treaty. She led an alliance of world leaders who unsuccessfully tried to persuade the U.S. President to reconsider.

Yet two important German states are undermining Merkel’s position. North Rhine-Westphalia (NRW) and Brandenburg are home to many mines which extract brown coal and power plants that burn the carbon-intensive fuel. Their governments have vowed to protect an industry that provides more than 70,000 jobs, many of them in economically deprived regions in the country’s east.

That’s bad news for Germany’s promise to reduce overall emissions by at least 55 percent, relative to 1990, by 2030. Per unit of electricity generated, brown coal produces twice as much carbon as gas-fired power plants. In 2016, the fuel accounted for 23 percent of Germany’s electricity but emitted 50 percent of the sector’s carbon dioxide. Brown coal reserves are expected to last for several decades, and utilities even have permission to open several new mines.

NRW’s new government, which is led by Merkel’s conservative Christian Democratic Union, in late June decided to stick to the current mining plans in the region. In mid-June, Brandenburg’s government said it wanted to soften its 2030 reduction targets. A study commissioned by the World Wildlife Fund environmental group shows that NRW’s plans alone would bust Germany’s Paris targets.

Unless Merkel can rein in the brown coal enthusiasts at home, she risks sending a devastating message to the world. If a country as rich and ecologically conscious as Germany prioritises coal mining jobs over the fight against global warming, others will also find it easier to turn their back on the treaty.

UK GOVERNMENT ELECTRIC CAR POLICY STARTS TO UNRAVEL

The Daily Telegraph, 26 July 2017

Plans to ban the sale of new diesel and petrol cars by 2040 in a bid to encourage people to buy electric vehicles are a “tall order” and will place unprecedented strain on the National Grid, motoring experts have warned.

Michael Gove, the Environment Secretary, has warned that Britain “can’t carry on” with petrol and diesel cars because of the damage that they are doing to people’s health and the planet. “There is no alternative to embracing new technology,” he said.

However the AA warned that the National Grid would be under pressure to “cope with a mass switch-on after the evening rush hour”, while Which? Car magazine warned that electric cars are currently more expensive and less practical.

According to a National Grid report, peak demand for electricity will add around 30 gigawatts to the current peak of 61GW – an increase of 50 per cent.

The extra electricity needed will be the equivalent of almost 10 times the total power output of the new Hinckley Point C nuclear power station being built in Somerset.

National Grid predicts Britain will become increasingly reliant on imported electricity, which will rise from around 10 per cent of total electricity to around one third, raising questions about energy security.

Just 4 per cent of new car sales are for electric vehicles, and concerns have also been raised about whether Britain will have enough charging points for the new generation of cars.

HOW WILL THE GOVERNMENT SOLVE THE PROBLEM OF GAS HEATING?

Another excellent piece by Paul Homewood examines a gaping hole in the government's pointless effort to decarbonise the UK. The only alternatives they have to gas are either electric heating or convert methane to hydrogen. Both are much more expensive than our current use of gas and in the case of electricity, likely to be much less reliable, that is if the huge increase in electricity required can be delivered at all. We are living in a mad era. All self-inflicted and utterly pointless. I would love to know what future historians will make of it all.

PARIS AGREEMENT IS JUST HOT AIR AND HYPOCRITICAL NONSENSE

Read this and you will understand what I mean. While the leading nations of the world go to these lavish conferences and solemnly pledge to do all they can to "fight climate change", the moment it is over they quietly carry on just as before. I am sure that they don't actually believe a word of all this guff about "saving the planet". They give lip-service to it so as to appear like good boys, and  hope to get any handouts from the slush funds if they get the chance. Surely the people can see through the pretence by now, or are some blind?

HALF HOUR ELECTRICITY BILLING TO COME IN 2019 - BIG BROTHER IS COMING!

This news item may not get wide coverage but it is an indication that there is a lot going on that will eventually catch up with us when it has already been decided.

This article shows us how it is being presented. A lot of people will see it as Big Brother watching us closely and turning our appliances on and off when it suits them. Those with Smart Meters will be rewarded and the rest will be punished with higher bills. Resistance is useless - you will obey!

NEW DIESEL AND PETROL VEHICLES TO BE BANNED IN UK FROM 2040

This report says so. Of course 2040 is still a long way off and they still have the problem of the millions of cars that will already be on the road at that time. It is still an intriguing prospect and I would love to see if it actually happens, or will it be rescinded by some future government nearer the time. Or will some new technology make electric cars redundant? It is just too far into the future to speculate - but that is what the government seems to be doing.

HYPOCRISY AND THE LEADING GLOBAL WARMING PROPAGANDA MERCHANTS

Global warming propaganda merchants and hypocrisy go hand in hand.

• Hillary Clinton promised to buy carbon offsets to atone for her private jets, but never bothered;
• Al Gore thinks cashing in on climate and Lincoln freeing the slaves are the same thing; and
• Bill Nye (the politicized science guy) wants those of us who correct the record on climate dead.

Could they be any more selfish, self-aggrandizing and false?

Bill Nye can't wait for greying Americans to shuffle off.  Think he's eager to go himself?

CFACT's Marc Morano explained on Fox that Nye is "confident he can convert the young people to climate action but he is having trouble with anyone his age and older because frankly they’re wiser and they have experienced a lot, so they are less susceptible to his propaganda.”

RECENTLY PUBLISHED LETTER ON CLIMATE CHANGE

The following letter was published in the Southern Daily Echo on 20 July 2017:

This letter was written in response to a reader (Jock Macdonald) who quoted Professor Stephen Hawking who claimed the Earth would end up like Venus with runaway warming and surface temperatures in hundreds of degrees C.

Professor Got It Wrong

I see that Jock Macdonald quoted professor Hawking as though the words of a renowned professor must be true.

As far as I am aware professor Hawing has never studied climate science and his words should be given as much scrutiny as anyone else's

I found it extraordinary that he should make such alarming pronouncements about the Earth becoming like Venus, without being asked to provide a shred of evidence. No credible climate scientist has ever made such a claim to  my knowledge.

The Venusian atmosphere has 96% CO2 whereas Earth has 0.04%.

If Jock Macdonald did a little more research he would find that far from disappearing, Arctic ice has halted its decline over the last few years. In fact none of the so-called tipping points ever seem to happen.

A few years ago we were told that global warming would lead to long hot summers. When this failed to happen we were told that it's the climate which would suddenly become unstable.

The fact is that heatwaves, floods and hurricanes are now happening at about the same rate as they always have. Don't take my word for it, check out the facts with the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change.  

HINKLEY POINT NUCLEAR POWER PLANT - A LOUSY DEAL FOR THE UK

This article looks at the figures and finds that they are awful for the UK and yet the government is now in so deep that they cannot get out without massive damage to their credibility and reputation. Of course this whole deal would be completely unnecessary if it were not for the fact that the government is determined to cut CO2 emissions in a vain and pointless attempt to save the planet while all around them the rest of the world are carrying on regardless. Future generations will look back on this in the same way as we view the Southsea Bubble.

50 SOLAR PV COMPANIES GO BUST IN JAPAN IN 2017

This article explains the reason, which is simply that they could not compete without subsidies. With all the talk about theses renewables being able to compete and even being cheaper than fossil fuels, this gives a definitive answer to those who doubted it was true.

WHY RENEWABLE ENERGY IS A DEAD END

Here is a very good article to explain why renewable energy will not power the future. Just read it to see how our government has been fooled into spending billions of pounds just to make a very expensive gesture to appease the green fanatics. It's time the public were told the truth so they can talk to the politicians, but the TV companies would never broadcast this truth. They would rather continue the deception and feel good about themselves.

ANOTHER ALARMIST CLIMATE SCIENTIST THREATENS TO SUE THOSE WHO DISAGREE WITH HIM

This piece explains how Mark Jacobson, the Stanford engineering professor who became the darling of the green Left by repeatedly claiming the U.S. economy can run solely on renewable energy, has threatened to take legal action against the authors of an article that demolished his claims last month in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences.

CAN WE DO WITHOUT FOSSIL FUELS? HERE'S WHY NOT

Here's a thought-provoking piece from the Scientific Alliance on the question of what happens when we try to do away with fossil fuels. The article has a lot of interesting statistics to show that we currently do not have a good enough strategy and unless we go for nuclear energy we are basically stuffed.  There is simply no point in doing away with the internal combustion engine or gas central heating if the electricity that is used to replace it has to be generated by using fossil fuels as we would actually end up using more of them than we do at present. Wind and solar will never be available on a big enough scale ( or at the required reliability). We must either wait for totally new technology or go for nuclear at increased cost.

SURFACE TEMPERATURE CHANGES MIGHT BE SIMPLY DUE TO CHANGES IN CLOUD COVER

Here is a good article that discusses this idea. I am sure there are other factors involved, but it is obvious to anyone who has been outside on a warm sunny day that as soon as clouds block off the sun for a few minutes this has a great effect on the temperature. Even though all recorded temperatures are taken in shade I believe that clouds will have an overall effect, not just on the temperature in direct sunlight. One other consideration is that increased cloud cover at night will raise the temperature by reflecting some of the outgoing long wave infra red radiation back down to earth, thus slowing the cooling. On balance I am not sure of the total effect, but it must be considered.

SURVEY ON PUBLIC KNOWLEDGE AND ATTITUDE TO CLIMATE CHANGE AND THE SEA

This large survey looks at how the public perceives the effect of man's behaviour on the sea. Having read it I believe it goes beyond "climate change", as it lumps together pollution (such as effluent etc.) along with CO2. I am not convinced that surveys like this are very accurate, but they are still interesting in a general way. Worth reading in full if you have the time.

It throws up some positives such as "54% of European citizens believe that humans play only a partial role or no role in climate change."

Many who thought that they were well informed on the impacts of climate change on the ocean believe scenarios that may happen by 2100 if we do not reduce greenhouse gas emissions have already occurred e.g. loss of Arctic sea-ice in the summer (26% of respondents) and sea temperature increases of more than 2°C (30% of respondents). I am not surprised given the media coverage.

TURKEY DECIDES NOT TO SAVE THE PLANET - AS USA CASH NO LONGER AVAILABLE

This article explains the situation. So much for a "planetary emergency". This confirms what we always knew - that this is all about the money.

THE PERILS OF GROUPTHINK - AS PRACTICED BY THE BANK OF ENGLAND

Here is a very thoughtful piece from James Delingpole.  He is a very good writer and makes an excellent case for the requirement of balance in official reports by institutions like the Bank of England. This is nothing new, of course. It is simply one more example where only one side of the argument is considered, ie that fossil fuels are bad and will be phased out soon. It is both a lazy and foolish conclusion and one that is unlikely to be fulfilled (certainly not in the developing world). 

BATTLE OF THE SATELLITE DATA SETS - RSS v UAH

This piece summarises what is happening. As a simple introduction, there are two different data sets of the temperature of the troposphere. One is produced by Remote Sensing Systems (RSS), and the other is produced by the University of Alabama Huntsville (UAH). Both data sets have been updated at various times to improve their results. The linked article is by Jo Nova and it shows why UAH seems to be the most reliable of the two. 

THE GRENFELL DISASTER CAUSED BY INFERIOR EU REGULATIONS PUTTING CLIMATE CHANGE ABOVE SAFETY

This piece from Christopher Booker exposes the whole shambles in a clear concise manner. When will our political masters learn to stop compromising and do the right thing?

ARE TINY PARTICLES IN OUR AIR A DANGER TO US?

This is a very important question as the quest to make our air ever cleaner gets ever harder and more expensive - very expensive indeed. We are constantly bombarded with very scary stories about this, and quite rightly we are very concerned. Of course by far the biggest polluter of our lungs is smoking and most of us now believe that this is a very harmful activity, and yet around 20% of us still light up. Compared with smoking, the amount of small particles we breathe in our city air here in the West is much lower and yet we are being warned that "there is no safe level" of these particles. As the fear of climate change is declining it is becoming very important to the alarmists that the public believe that removing these particles is essential at any cost. So here is an interesting article on this subject.

EXPOSED - A LACK OF INTEGRITY IN SCIENTIFIC RESEARCH INTO NEONICS

This article is mainly about the recent trials into the possible damage to bee colonies from exposure to neonicotenoids (neonics) used to treat seeds and prevent pests from attacking crops. It is, of course very relevant to the climate change hypothesis, as the first part of the article alludes to some studies into the effects of fine particulates and claims the effects have been exaggerated.  

RAMPANT ALARMISM BEING TAUGHT IN USA SCHOOLS

This is the finding of one investigative journalist. The problem is that there is such a low understanding of this subject among teachers that it is all too easy for misinformation to be taught to unsuspecting students whose parents may also be uninformed. Fortunately many students are resistant to accepting the establishment position and are only too keen to argue over any controversial subject.

AUSSIE ELECTRIC PRICES GO THROUGH THE ROOF

This piece explains. Here in the UK we seem to be heading in the same direction and one would hope that our politicians would sit up and take notice, but sadly there is no evidence of this happening. Theresa May, when asked about climate change at the G-20 summit, mouthed some platitudes about wanting the USA to get back into the Paris Accord. Jeremy Corbyn (Labour leader) is of the same opinion, even though his brother Piers is a confirmed sceptic.

TRUMP ADMINISTRATION PLANS TO CHALLENGE CLIMATE SCIENCE IN SERIES OF DEBATES

Here is an article that explains the situation. I think this will be a revelation to the public and could well spell the end for this massive scare story. I wonder if the climate alarmists will actually put someone forward to represent them.

BREAKING NEWS - MANN REFUSES TO GIVE HIS DATA TO COURT AND FACES RUIN

This article gives the details of the latest twist in the long-running libel case involving scientists Dr Tim Ball and Dr Michael Mann (who was responsible for the infamous hockey stick graph of world temperatures. 

ALL THE DOOM LADEN PREDICTIONS OVER THE PAST 45 YEARS HAVE FAILED

This piece looks at the predictions of doom made over the past 45 years. Noto one of them actually came true, you will not be surprised to learn.

PROF. HAWKING GETS OUT OF HIS DEPTH ON CLIMATE CHANGE

Professor Stephen Hawking is probably the most famous living scientist, so when he speaks, his words are given a much greater significance than those of less well known scientists. He may be an expert on black holes and cosmic radiation, but how much has he studied climate? Here is his latest pronouncement on the subject of climate change:

His main concern during his latest interview was the future of our species. A particular worry was President Trump's decision to withdraw from the Paris climate agreement to reduce CO2 levels.

"We are close to the tipping point where global warming becomes irreversible. Trump's action could push the Earth over the brink, to become like Venus, with a temperature of two hundred and fifty degrees, and raining sulphuric acid," he told BBC News.
"Climate change is one of the great dangers we face, and it's one we can prevent if we act now. By denying the evidence for climate change, and pulling out of the Paris Climate Agreement, Donald Trump will cause avoidable environmental damage to our beautiful planet, endangering the natural world, for us and our children."

For such an intelligent man I am surprised that he has so readily bought in to the alarmist meme. As with many such articles it leaves me wishing I could ask him to really justify his pronouncements. How does he know "we are close to a tipping point"? He is allowed to make the claim without any challenge. His other claims are equally bizarre. He gets away with parroting the alarmist lines without any justification. As for Earth becoming like Venus, that is an extraordinary claim that even pro-alarmist climate scientists have not made. He gives not one shred of evidence for it and nor was it challenged. Propaganda, pure and simple. I would really like to see him rebut something like this article, for example. But this he would never do.

I wonder if he has given much serious study of the science. He is just a well known person, like Prince Charles and the Pope who has a following among the public and as many of the public know nothing of the science either they will be likely to take notice of someone that they believe will know more than they do.

THE BLEAK FUTURE FOR UK MOTORISTS

Is this the future for motorists in the UK? Regular readers of this blog will know that the UK government are trying to drive people off the roads in a number of ways if they are using fossil-fuelled cars. The linked article refers to a new report by NICE, a worthy organisation, but who seem to be getting rather OTT in protecting us from even the smallest risk. 

IS OUR AIR WORSE THAN IN THE 1950'S?

Daily Telegraph 17/04/17

Michael Fitzpatrick GP

As somebody who groped his way to school through winter smogs in
Sheffield in the Fifties and Sixties, I have always been sceptical
about the claims of environmental campaigners that air pollution in
British cities is now reaching critical levels of toxicity. I recall
playing football on pitches where neither goal was visible from the
halfway line. No doubt any therapeutic benefits were outweighed by the
damage to our youthful lungs.

Yet recent headlines proclaim that our children are being exposed to
illegal levels of toxic air, and London mayor Sadiq Khan has declared
a public health emergency. He quotes epidemiological studies claiming
9,000 Londoners are dying prematurely each year due to poor air
quality. Estimates of national fatalities have increased from 40,000
to 60,000 per year.

It is worth recalling that the Great Smog of December 1952, widely
regarded as an environmental catastrophe, killed only 4,000 people in
London. Can it really be true that air pollution is now killing more
than twice that number every year in the capital, and 10 to 15 times
as many nationwide?

Well, no. On closer inspection, it turns out that these are not actual
deaths, but estimates, produced by mathematical modelling, of the
number of premature deaths that can be attributed to air pollution.
The figures are derived from calculations of the "years of life" lost
across the whole population resulting from the increased risks
associated with particular pollutants. According to Cambridge risk
statistician Prof David Spiegelhalter, another way of presenting the
same data would be to state that the average loss of life expectancy
over the whole adult population is... three days.

It is true that the character of air pollution has changed. Whereas we
inhaled soot and sulphur oxides as the by-products of burning coal,
our children are now inhaling particulates and nitrogen oxides, partly
because of the last Labour government's "green" incentives to persuade
us all to switch to diesel-fuelled cars.

However, levels of particulates and nitrogen oxides have been falling
steadily for decades - they are now about a quarter of what they were
in 1970. It is also worth noting that air pollution in London is about
one eighth of that in Delhi, a quarter of that in Beijing, and lower
than that in Paris.

In the words of Brighton respiratory physician Prof Anthony Frew, who
served on the original Royal College of Physicians' working party on
air pollution, the claim of 9,000 deaths in London is a "zombie
statistic - however much you try to kill it, it comes back and it's
simply not true".

Further reference H/T Paul Withrington.

http://www.transport-watch.co.uk/topic-34-great-dirty-diesel-scare-0

TRUMP TO UNLEASH THE VAST ENERGY WEALTH OF THE USA

Bloomberg, 29 June 2017

Jennifer A Dlouhy

• President reorients energy policy away from climate change
• Trump Says U.S. Is on the Cusp of an 'Energy Revolution'

President Donald Trump said he is lifting an Obama-era policy that curtailed the financing of coal-fired power plants overseas, as he seeks to reorient the U.S. government away from fighting climate change and toward American "energy dominance."

"We are now on the cusp of a true energy revolution," Trump told a crowd of executives, lobbyists and laborers at the Energy Department on Thursday. "We are a top producer of petroleum and the No. 1 producer of natural gas. We have so much more than we ever thought possible. We are really in the driver’s seat."

Trump is celebrating growing U.S. energy exports he says are leading to "millions and millions of jobs" and acting as a force for peace around the world. After decades of dependence on foreign oil, the U.S. is on the verge of becoming a net exporter of energy resources.

"The United States’ big competitive advantage today is low energy prices," White House economic adviser Gary Cohn said in a discussion with other Trump administration officials before the president’s address. "We are no longer a victim of having to import our hydrocarbons; having to import our oil."

As part of the White House “Energy Week,” Trump highlighted growing U.S. energy production and reversals of environmental regulations issued under former President Barack Obama’s tenure. In place of major policy announcements Thursday, Trump emphasized how cutting regulation and encouraging domestic fossil fuel producers will help the American economy and benefit American foreign policy.

Trump detailed the previous steps he has taken to lift regulations curbing domestic energy production, including moving to rescind rules throttling greenhouse gas emissions from power plants. He also is pulling the U.S. out of the landmark Paris climate accord, in which nearly 200 countries pledged to slash carbon dioxide emissions.

The biggest change he revealed is a reversal on restrictions by the World Bank and other multilateral development banks for financing coal plants in developing nations. The policy was implemented under President Barack Obama. Supporters of the restrictions say they helped combat climate change, while critics say they thwarted the development of advanced coal plants that produce fewer emissions.

Trump also announced a comprehensive review of U.S. nuclear power policy, which could lead to an interagency assessment of how to solve some of the industry’s biggest challenges, including storing spent radioactive waste and competing against low-cost natural gas and wind power.

And Trump described new deals aimed at sending U.S. liquefied natural gas to customers in Asia. For instance, Energy Transfer Partners and Royal Dutch Shell Plc on Wednesday signed a memorandum of understanding to evaluate collaborating on a liquefied natural gas export project in Louisiana. Trump also touted Sempra Energy’s decision to sign an agreement to begin negotiations over selling more liquefied natural gas to South Korea.

He also described U.S. exports of coal to Ukraine, where power plants are built to handle anthracite mined in areas fraught with conflict. Coal exports to Ukraine "will have more to do with keeping our allies free and building their confidence in us than anything I’ve seen," said Energy Secretary Rick Perry.

WILL UK TAKE UP ELECTRIC VEHICLES? - IF SO, THE GOVERNMENT WILL LOSE TAX REVENUE

It appears that the Treasury is banking on increasing revenues from road users, whereas the Climate Change department expect us to take up electric vehicles in large numbers. This article explains this odd conundrum. Who is going to be right? I tend to agree with Paul Homewood who favours the Treasury, but time will tell.