Sunday, 30 June 2019


This piece contains a lot of good arguments and could equally apply to any other country. "First, established physics theories are precise and have a single set of equations but we have over a hundred different climate models. One can understand different parametric estimates for sensitivity analysis but when hundreds of different sets of equations purport to forecast the future we know that the science is not settled." When do we hear that in the mainstream media?

Saturday, 29 June 2019

Friday, 28 June 2019


This piece examines the proposition that heat will kill many more people if the world's temperature were to increase by 1.5 degrees C. Read it to see why it is such a weak argument,

Thursday, 27 June 2019


This article looks at the latest offering from Sky TV and finds it to consist of wild predictions and misinformation. How are the public to find the truth when faced with this barrage of propaganda day in and day out?  

Wednesday, 26 June 2019


Labour Party Promises Climate Communism
Gaia Fawkes, 25 June 2019

Not wanting to be left out as Theresa May succeeded in hobbling the UK economy yesterday with a trillion pound hit without MPs even voting on it, Labour's shadow Chancellor, John McDonnell doubled down with an even more aggressive green assault on business last night.

McDonnell told an incredulous City audience last night about his plans for legislation to de-list any company from the London Stock Exchange that failed to meet his environmental criteria. It’s hard to overstate just how bonkers this plan is…
One City financier branded it “financial totalitarianism” and said it would be a “catastrophe” for Britain’s economy if it was ever carried out. May’s desperate attempt to carve out some sort of meagre legacy for herself has started a bidding war with Labour over who can inflict more damage on the economy in the name of the “environment” which Corbyn and McDonnell are only too happy to go along with. Never mind the fact that Corbyn showed no signs of caring about it before posh protesters started holding yoga parties on London’s major thoroughfares. Puts “f*ck business” very much in context…
All this will mean is that companies will transfer their listing from the London Stock Exchange to the New York Stock Exchange. It will achieve nothing except to lessen the amount the City of London generates in tax revenues to fund public services. Kamikaze Communism…

Tuesday, 25 June 2019


Lord Lawson Urges MPs Not to Approve Net Zero

  • Date: 24/06/19
  • GWPF

Lord Lawson has written to all MPs and Peers, asking them to withhold their approval for a controversial Net Zero emissions target until there has been proper consideration of the significant impacts this might have on the British economy. 

In his letter of warning to MPs, Lord Lawson said:

The full economic impact cannot be understated, and yet ministers want to push this amendment through with little to no real scrutiny, in the form of a statutory instrument. Regardless of how you feel about the merits of decarbonisation, it is essential that Parliament has time to scrutinise new laws that are likely to result in astronomical costs.

The measure is being rushed through Parliament as part of Theresa May’s so-called ‘legacy’ in the form of a Statutory Instrument. This means it will only get cursory scrutiny and no impact assessment.

Both the Committee on Climate Change (CCC) and the Department of Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy have estimated that the cost could be well in excess of £1 trillion. 

The CCC had advised MPs that the costs would be within the range approved by Parliament when it voted for the previous 80% target in 2008. However, the impact assessment for that target was only published after MPs had already voted on the Climate Change Bill. So Parliament has never had a chance to consider the costs of the Climate Change Act properly.

The Bill had envisaged that Britain’s actions would be imitated by other nations, but instead the opposite has happened. Global emissions have continued to rise, and in 2018 they rose at their fastest rate for 7 years.
The problem is that our politicians appear to have gone, collectively, mad. They have lost all sense of reason. To them 2050 is, simply, a whole world away. None of them will be in office, many not even still alive, so why should they rock the boat by looking at their foolish decision. Someone else will have to do that.

Net Zero: How Much is a £trillion?

Monday, 24 June 2019


This piece highlights the shocking fall in the population of sea birds on the Isle of Man and suggests that this may be linked to the massive wind farm in the Irish Sea the size of 20,000 football pitches. Much more research needs to be done to prove whether or not the turbines are responsible - but who will fund it? I doubt if the government will. Maybe the bird charities will.

Sunday, 23 June 2019


This article makes the case that not only is the "Green New Deal" (GND) colossally expensive, but it would actually make no measurable difference to the climate. The GND authors relied on sources (the IPCC) which also got it wrong. Yet much of the left-wing of the Democratic Party has bet their future on the GND. 

Saturday, 22 June 2019


This piece explains what the sunspot cycle is doing and how scientists expect it will affect the climate. It will be interesting to see if there is any temporary drop in world temperatures.

Friday, 21 June 2019


The Futility Of Western De-Carbonisation
Ed Hoskins, 17 June 2019

It is clear that CO2 emissions are continuing to grow incrementally in the Developing World.  This should be anticipated to continue indefinitely.
2018 Global CO2 emissions

The following calculations and graphics are based on information on worldwide CO2 emissions published by BP in June 2019 for the period from 1965 up until the end of 2018.
The pie diagram above shows the proportion of CO2 emissions as of the end of 2018.
The previous post for the end of 2017 is available here

The data showing the progress of CO2 emissions by 2018 in the Developed and Developing worlds can be summarised as follows:
Some initial points arising from the BP data:
* Having been relatively stable overall for the last 7 years, global CO2 emissions grew by ~2.0% in 2018. 2.5% of this growth was in the Developing world whereas 1.1% of the growth was in the Developed world. This growth of ~650,000,000 tonnes in the year was despite all the international “commitments” arising from the Paris Climate Agreement.
* The contrast between the Developed and Developing worlds remains stark:
— developing world emissions overtook Developed world CO2 emissions in 2005
— they have been escalating ever since the likely prognosis of their CO2 emissions that they will continue to grow and accelerate.
* Since 1990 CO2 emissions from the Developed world have decreased, whereas the Developing world has shown a fourfold increase since 1985.  This change is mainly due to:
— the Off-shoring of major industries to parts of the world that have less rigorous environmental standards or who care less about CO2 emissions
— the use of natural gas for electricity generation as opposed to coal as in the USA
— the growing use of Coal firing for electricity generation in the Developing world supported by Chinese technology exports.
— Weather Dependent Renewables have made very little contribution to this reduction is at all: when looked at in the round, from manufacture to demolition they are nether CO2 nor energy neutral
* CO2 emissions in the Developing world are accelerating as the quality of the lives for people in the underdeveloped and developing worlds are progressively improving.  Even so at least 1.12 billion people in the Developing world still have no access to reliable electricity.
* As a result CO2 emissions/head for India and the rest of the world’s Underdeveloped nations (~53% of the world population) remains very low at ~1.8 tonnes / head, (~40% of the Global average) meaning that their state of serious human deprivation and underdevelopment is continuing but it is progressively being rectified.
* By 2018 CO2 emissions from the Developing world were some 62% of the global emissions.
* India and the underdeveloped world will certainly be continuing to promote their own development to attain comparable development levels to their other peer group developing nations.
* India’s growth in CO2 emissions 2017 – 2018 was by a further 7.0%
* China, (still considered here as a “Developing Nation”, according to its un-concerned attitude to the Paris climate accord),  showed domestic CO2 emission growth of 2.14% in 2018.  However China is also promoting the use of coal-firing for electricity generation domestically and across the developing world with some 300 new Coal-fired plants currently in the pipeline.
* At 6.7 tonnes / head China’s CO2 emissions for its population of some 1.42 billion has now approached the average CO2 emissions / head achieved in Europe.
* China’s CO2 emissions / head was already higher than most of the EU Nations other than Germany.
Full post

Thursday, 20 June 2019


This lecture by Professor John Christy is right up to date. Don't be put off by it appearing to be in French because it isn't, even though it was recorded in Paris. This video deserves a wide circulation as it cuts to the scientific basis for the current climate change hysteria, and is the ideal antidote to what is being put out in the mainstream media.
Here is the text of a lecture by Prof Christy to an audience at the House of Lords herein the UK. It covers very similar material to that in the video.

Wednesday, 19 June 2019

Tuesday, 18 June 2019


GWPF calls on Treasury to kill ill-considered “Smart Export Guarantee”



London, 16 June: In a briefing note published today by the Global Warming Policy Forum we show that the Smart Export Guarantee (SEG) shortly to be introduced by Greg Clark, Secretary of State for the Department of Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy (BEIS) is a disguised restart to subsidies for onshore wind, solar and other renewables, a restart that contravenes a Treasury ruling that there should be no new subsidies until the total burden of current subsidies starts to fall, which is not expected until the middle 2020s at the earliest.
The Smart Export Guarantee forces larger electricity retailers (suppliers) to provide guaranteed offtake tariffs to renewable generators up to a capacity of 5 MW, a ceiling that would permit solar farms up to about 20 acres and wind farms of two 150 metre turbines.
The SEG tariff rate is notionally left to the market, but will in fact be determined by the promised Ofgem “guidance” and by the Department’s own assessment of what is “reasonable”. Bullied in this way, suppliers will have little option except to provide expensive non-market rates, passing on the cost to their customers.
The total costs of this policy are impossible to calculate, since neither the tariffs nor the scale of adoption is or can be known. The government’s Impact Assessment is a hollow charade, and the truth is that the SEG policy is uncosted, and uncostable. 
Furthermore, no central registry of the tariffs will kept, meaning that no one, from Treasury to the general public, will be able to determine the full cost the SEG policy at any time.
And last, but not least, the SEG policy has no set closure date, meaning that unless cancelled it will apply in perpetuity.
Dr John Constable, the GWPF’s energy editor, said:
“The SEG policy is an underhand reintroduction of subsidies for renewables, apparently designed to prevent public audit, and seemingly indifferent to the potential for explosive development of locally harmful solar and wind schemes with high consumer costs. The Treasury should kill this ill-considered proposal without delay.”
Dr Constable added:
“Mr Clark, Secretary of State at BEIS, has made many questionable decisions during his tenure. The Smart Export Guarantee could easily prove to be one of his worst.”

Monday, 17 June 2019


The Times, 10 June 2019

Households trying to “go green” with their energy supply are being let down by misleading tariffs, a report states.

An analysis of 54 dual-fuel deals with a green component has found that only one in five comes from 100 per cent renewable sources. More than half have no renewable gas component at all and most of the rest offer only carbon offset schemes that have been criticised as ineffective and open to exploitation.
Two out of three tariffs offered by one company with the word “green” in the title include no renewables at all.
About one in seven households is on such a tariff and one million homes are supplied with “green” gas, an increase of 150 per cent in a year.
The study says that recent events, such as the Extinction Rebellion protests and Sir David Attenborough’s programme Climate Change — The Facts have increased demand for green energy deals. It says, however, that consumers wanting to switch are being let down by an industry lacking transparency.
Peter Earl, of, which conducted the study, said:
“The energy market clearly has a way to go before it is able to offer all consumers a truly green option. We can see customer appetite is there but in the majority of cases what is currently on offer doesn’t quite meet the mark for consumers and the current labelling of ‘green’ can be confusing. We need more renewable energy, more price competition and a greater array of green tariffs that are properly and transparently labelled. People want to change and it’s time the industry delivered.”
Full story

Sunday, 16 June 2019


There seems to be a manic frenzy to declare the earliest date to go net emissions free. In this insane world it seems Labour will take the crown. 
Financial Times, 14 June 2019

A Labour government would introduce an earlier net-zero carbon emissions deadline than the current 2050 target under plans being considered by the party leadership, according to shadow chancellor John McDonnell.

In an interview with the Financial Times, Mr McDonnell said he was talking to experts about whether it would be possible to hit the target as early as 2030, as demanded by many left-wing activists.
Theresa May on Wednesday sought Parliament’s assent to legislate for the 2050 target, as recommended by the official Committee on Climate Change.
“Net zero” means that any greenhouse gas emissions would be balanced by schemes to offset carbon from the atmosphere, such as planting trees or using carbon capture and storage schemes.
The 2050 target was the subject of a political row last week when Philip Hammond, chancellor, said that fulfilling the pledge would cost £1tn and lead to public spending cuts, a claim rejected by Downing Street.
Now Labour is under pressure from activists to adopt a much tougher target than the Conservative government.
Full story

Saturday, 15 June 2019


Regular readers may remember that a motion calling for a climate emergency was to be discussed by the Environment Panel at New Forest District Council on 13 June. I can report that the matter was discussed at a meeting with several members of Friends of the Earth in attendance. Their spokesman made a statement in which she asserted that the "there is the strongest scientific evidence that the world is warming rapidly and that human activity since the start of the industrial revolution is largely responsible" and that we must "act now for future generations". After the Motion was put there was a brief discussion with impassioned pleas in favour. However the proposer was unable to answer my questions which were 1. how much would it cost, and 2. what effect would this have on the climate, when China emits 26% of world emissions compared to our 1%? He claimed that his motion was not intended to be precise, but merely a statement of intent, which of course is not the case, as anyone reading it can see.

So after a brief discussion the chairman proposed that the motion should be looked at in more depth by a small group of councillors who will make a report back to the panel, which is expected to be in September. I am pleased to say that I will be on the group preparing the report, as will the proposer. I will update readers on future developments. 

I think our council's approach is a lot better than simply passing it without any serious thought or research, as some other councils appear to have done. Even our government has passed a "climate emergency" motion without even taking a vote. We are living in very strange times. At some point people will realise that the king really has no clothes! 

Friday, 14 June 2019


Germany's Greens Oust Merkel's Christian Democrats As Most Popular Party
The Daily Telegraph, 9 June 2019

Angela Merkel's successor as leader of Germany's ruling Christian Democrats (CDU) party is under growing pressure after polls showed the Green party has forced it into second place in the polls.
Three polls published in three days this week showed the Greens pulling ahead of the CDU, making them Germany's most popular party for the first time since they were founded.
The last poll, published on Saturday, put the Greens four points ahead of the CDU on 27 percent, marking a historical low for the traditional governing party of German politics.
Germany's Greens have been enjoying a surge in popularity recently and overtook the Social Democrats, their main left-wing rivals, earlier this year.
The environmentalist party's success has came as concern about climate change, biodiversity and plastic waste surged to the forefront of political debate over the last year.
 But critics within the CDU have blamed Annegret Kramp-Karrenbauer, who took over from Mrs Merkel as leader in December, for a string of tactical errors.
Particular criticism has been leveled at the party's chaotic performance during the campaign for the European elections last month, when a Youtube video attacking the party’s record on climate change and income inequality went viral.
The CDU were accused of panicking after they shot their own video in response, only to axe it before publication.  
Talk is already growing of whether Ms Kramp-Karrenbauer is the best person to lead the CDU into the next election.
The 56-year-old came out fighting on Sunday, warning that the Greens are too ideologically close to the radical left Die Linke party.
“People who dream of a new Green-led government need to know that they could wake up with Die Linke in power,” she told Bild am Sonntag newspaper.
Full story

Thursday, 13 June 2019


This article discusses the recent visit to Queensland, Australia by Al Gore the climate alarmist. Interestingly he was paid $320,000 by the government for the visit and, somehow, he managed to avoid mentioning the vast new coal mine that is about to open there. A case of he who pays the piper...

Wednesday, 12 June 2019


This paper makes a strong case that global warming has not caused extreme weather events to become any more common. 
"It is widely promulgated and believed that human-caused global warming comes with increases in both the intensity and frequency of extreme weather events. A survey of official weather sites and the scientific literature provides strong evidence that the first half of the 20th century had more extreme weather than the second half, when anthropogenic global warming is claimed to have been mainly responsible for observed climate change."

Tuesday, 11 June 2019


Mad Climate Policies Are Plunging Europe’s Car Industry Into Crisis
Alex Brummer, Daily Mail, 3 June 2019

The drive to become more energy-efficient amid concerns over climate change, and the rush to develop mass market electric cars, are key factors in the crisis of Europe’s car industry. Germany’s once all-powerful industry is struggling to make cars compliant with eco-rules and output has plummeted.

The drive to become more energy-efficient amid concerns over climate change, and the rush to develop mass market electric cars, are key factors behind the proposed merger of Fiat Chrysler with Renault.
The deal, which will create the third-largest force in global motor manufacturing behind Toyota and VW, is the direct result of a dramatic decline in demand for diesel cars, which are considered serious polluters.
The fallout for Nissan will be closely watched in Britain given the importance of its Sunderland plant, one of the most efficient motor manufacturers in Europe.
Concern about damage to the Earth’s environment, combined with public outrage over the Dieselgate scandal when the German firm Volkswagen was exposed for cheating on fuel emission figures, led Renault and Fiat into each other’s arms.
Whereas the Blair-Brown government, to curb [CO2 emissions], made huge efforts to persuade motorists to use diesel, subsequent governments advised about its dangers and then Environment Secretary Michael Gove said Britain’s roads must be cleared of all diesel and petrol vehicles by 2040. …
Car firms everywhere are being forced to accelerate the transition from fossil-fuel internal combustion engines to hybrids (half-electric, half-petrol), fully electric cars and engines fuelled by hydrogen.
The result is much pain. Jaguar Land Rover suffered a record loss of £3.6bn (R58.3bn) last year, having invested too much in diesel cars.
Volkswagen, the world’s second-largest car company, is hurting from the £26bn (R421bn), and rising, bill for cheating on its emissions figures. Former executives face criminal charges in the US.
It and other German manufacturers have struggled to meet the tougher EU rules on emissions from exhausts.
Germany’s once all-powerful industry is struggling to make cars compliant with eco-rules and output has plummeted.
Full post

Monday, 10 June 2019


This piece examines the records to show that in reality the climate is not breaking down, as we are being told by the climate alarmist brigade. In fact on the contrary, it seems to be actually getting better on some measures, while others there is no trend.

More here.

Sunday, 9 June 2019


Gautam Kalghatgi: Is There An ‘Existential Crisis’ And A ‘Climate Emergency’ & Can The World Be ‘Carbon Neutral’ By 2030?
Global Warming Policy Forum, 6 June 2019
Prof Gautam Kalghatgi FREng FSAE FIMechE FCI FISEES, Visiting Professor, Oxford University (Engineering Science), Imperial College (Mechanical Engineering)
There is widespread belief that unless “something is done”, the world will go through an “existential crisis” because of climate change. As a result, several initiatives calling for drastic cuts in greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions are gaining traction.

For instance, the Extinction Rebellion movement, which organized high-profile disruptions in central London recently, is demanding that U.K. GHG emissions should go to “net zero” by 2025. The New Green Deal (NGD) which is gaining increasing support amongst leading politicians in the U.S., is aiming to “eliminate the US’s carbon footprint by 2030 through a massive mobilization of renewable energy and energy-saving projects”. School strikes in support of drastic change in society are getting stronger. The U.K. and Scottish parliaments have passed resolutions declaring a “climate emergency”
1. The central premise appears to be that “science” says that the world is rapidly heading towards disaster and there is an “existential crisis” and a “climate emergency”. But is this true?
* All objective/empirical measures of human development (e.g., absolute poverty levels, life expectancy, share of the population that is undernourished, education…. ) have been improving consistently, particularly in poorer countries, over the past few decades
* World food production (and per capita food consumption, productivity per acre) has been increasing consistently over the past few decades ). India has just announced another bumper year for food production.

* A related point is that ‘From a quarter to half of Earth’s vegetated lands has shown significant greening over the last 35 years largely due to rising levels of atmospheric carbon dioxide.’  So this could repair the Earth’s climate since green plants would absorb CO2.
* According to the IPCC AR5, Ch4, the UN body which assesses the evidence for and about climate change, there is little or no empirical evidence to suggest that the incidence of tropical and extra-tropical storms, floods and droughts have increased in recent decades. The more recent IPCC report (on Global Warming of 1.5 C) does not alter these conclusions but says that there is evidence now of increased incidence of warm days and nights. However, this report also projects that such extreme weather events will increase based on model projections. To me this does not sound like an “existential crisis”, certainly not by 2030. The evidence is also discussed by Roger Pielke (see also Trends in Extreme Weather Events since 1900 An Enduring Conundrum for Wise Policy Advice)
* Though there are many claims that forest fires have been increasing, empirical evidence shows that there is no global trend. Increase of forest fires in the U.S. in the recent past has causes other than climate change
* Deaths attributed to natural disasters have declined drastically over the past century –  and    because of increased prosperity and development though the financial losses have increased for the same reason.
* There is a lot of concern about sea level rise. However, sea levels have been rising consistently for at least 150 years but there have been many reports that they are rising faster in recent years. However, there are very credible assessments of data that show that the current level of rise of 3 mm/year are not abnormal.
* Of course if there are catastrophic events like the melting of Antarctic ice, that would be a serious problem but human intervention could neither cause it nor prevent it. Anyway, how likely is this? The average annual temperature of Antarctica ranges from about −10°C on the Antarctic coast to −60°C at the highest parts of the interior.
* Incidentally, polar bear populations have been increasing or are stable apart from in a handful of locations.
* Again incidentally, I have heard many people talking about CO2 as a pollutant or even a poison but the concentration of CO2 in one’s nostril when one breathes out is around 40,000 ppm or 100 times that in the atmosphere; in a closed lecture room it is around 1000 ppm. So how can it be a poison? Without CO2, no photosynthesis and no green plants.
* Interested people might also want to read The Skeptical Environmentalist by Bjorn Lomborg and Factfulness: Ten Reasons We’re Wrong About The World – And Why Things Are Better Than You Think by Hans Rosling et al.
So in summary, there is no empirical evidence that there is an “existential threat”. The world is a far better place in almost all countries not affected by war, compared to the past. Of course, there will be some consequences of increasing temperature because of increasing greenhouse gases but as economies grow, they will be better able to cope with these changes and for growth, you need affordable energy.
Full post