THE REAL REASON FOR OUR ENERGY DISASTER

Below is a great essay explaining why the West is in such a disastrous situation with energy. As the author says, it is not simply down to Putin's war - it is a foolish policy of trying to do away with fossil fuels which has been a long term descent into the disaster of today. Do read it yourself. 

How governments and the cult of net zero wrecked the energy market | NOT A LOT OF PEOPLE KNOW THAT (wordpress.com)

CLIMATE SCEPTIC SCIENTISTS RAISE THEIR VOICES

 Declaration saying “There is no climate emergency” trends on Twitter – Greenies have meltdown

Chris Morrison, Daily Sceptic, 23 August 2022



The increasing numbers of scientists prepared to break ranks with the ‘settled’ politicised science of climate change would suggest various causes for their scepticism other than bungs from oil companies.

Professor Dr. Knut Loschke studied crystallography, chemistry, physics, mathematics and computer science. In the course of a long career he founded an IT company, and is an honorary professor at the University of Technology, Economics and Culture in Leipzig. As part of his work at the University, he deals with the energy industry and climate change. He served the German Bundestag as an expert in ‘Artificial Intelligence’. But Professor Loschke is annoyed, very annoyed, as he demonstrated in this recent Facebook post.
 
I’m sick. Or, to put it even more clearly: I’m fed up with permanent and increasingly religious climate ramblings, fantasies about the energy transition, worship of electric cars, horror stories and doomsday scenarios from Corona to conflagrations and weather disasters. I can’t stand the people who shout into microphones and cameras, or print it in newspapers every day. I suffer from having to see how science is turned into a whore of politics.
 
It seems that scientists like Professor Loschke are fighting back, tired of being abused and often ignored for scientific work that fails to conform to a fashionable political narrative. Last week, the Daily Sceptic highlighted the ongoing World Climate Declaration (WCD), now signed by over 1,100 scientists and professionals. Headed by the Norwegian physics Nobel Prize laureate Professor Ivar Giaever, the WCD says there is no climate emergency. Climate science is said to have degenerated into a discussion based on beliefs, not on sound science. Our story about the WCD attracted enormous interest on social media and is one of the most widely read articles we have ever published. Enormous efforts were made to trash the Declaration, and many of the people who signed have been personally abused.

The WCD is signed by no less than 235 professors drawn from a wide variety of scientific and other academic disciplines. Thirteen of the 28 WCD lead supporters are professors, seven out of the 10 Greek signatories likewise, and 11 out of the 24 from Norway. The climate scientist and writer Willie Soon recently listed a number of the academic disciplines that are helpful in studying the changing climate. They include: astronomy, solar physics, geology, geochemistry, paleoclimatology, glaciology, oceanography, ecology and history. It was not a complete lists, he added. The breadth of experience from scientists and non-scientists found in the WCD list encompasses most, if not all of these areas of study. People with thousands of years of cumulative practical experience are calling for the study of climate science to be less political and for governments’ climate policies to be more scientific.

Another German scientist, the distinguished experimental physics specialist Professor Hermann Harde, recently dismissed the idea that humans control the climate via carbon dioxide emissions as an “absolute delusion”. He warned politicians that it would be an irresponsible energy policy to continue to ignore more serious peer-reviewed scientific publications that show a much smaller human impact on climate than previously thought.

We recently reported Harde’s comments and referred to the fact that for years German politicians have been able to make virtuous green noises by banning nuclear and fossil fuel production, while relying on an unstable Russia to make up the energy short fall. The sheer stupidity of that policy is likely to become apparent in Germany this winter. Already problems are mounting, with the German newspaper Handlesblatt reporting that the megawatt price of electricity jumped last week to a new high in daily trading. A megawatt hour cost €563, compared to just €23 a year ago. Of course, the ruinous policies behind Net Zero are responsible for this.
 
In the U.K., the spike in international gas prices, and an increasing reliance on unreliable renewables, means the consumer energy price cap could be raised to £6,000, an amount that is almost certainly beyond the means of a significant portion of the population. Under these conditions, a cold winter could kill thousands of people.

Before he died, the acclaimed physicist Professor Freeman Dyson – a signatory of the CWD – noted that the “people who are supposed to be the experts and claim to understand the science, are precisely the people who are blind to the evidence”. Professor Richard Lindzen, a WCD lead signatory, evidently agrees, having said that the current climate narrative is “absurd”, even though trillions of dollars currently says it is not. It remains to be seen what will run out first – the money, or the tolerance of citizens to become poor under command-and-control, hard-left Net Zero regimes.

For years, green activists and journalists have been able to hide behind the obvious canards that the science surrounding the human involvement in climate change is ‘settled’, and that 99% of scientists agree with that statement. The arrogance behind this political stance is on display with a tweet from the Guardian writer George – “Don’t mention the coral!” – Monbiot, who made an oblique reference to the recent WCD article.

As we have reported before, 48 Italian science professors recently wrote to their Government, stating that human responsibility for climate change is “unjustifiably exaggerated and catastrophic predictions are not realistic”.
 
Activists such as Monbiot regularly traduce ‘deniers’ for their supposed links to funding from oil companies (although he recently dismissed the suggestion that the Guardian’s lavish funding by the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation influences its coverage in the slightest). Particular ire is often reserved for geologists, since they are much in employment demand from companies that seek to extract mineral riches from the Earth. Geology also provides an important insight into the paleoclimatic record. Geologists are often sceptical about claims that humans are causing sudden changes in the climate. One might say that they have seen it all before. The only scientist who went to the moon on Apollo was a geologist called Harrison Schmitt, and his position is that there is “no evidence” that humans cause climate change.

The increasing numbers of scientists prepared to break ranks with the ‘settled’ politicised science of climate change would suggest various causes for their scepticism other than bungs from oil companies.

THIS IS WHAT NET ZERO LOOKS LIKE

 

Take a look at the day-ahead market prices across Europe for 23 August 2022  and see who has the most costly electricity.

MAP OF THE DAY: Day-ahead electricity prices in Europe are eye-watering, with lots of countries setting record highs for today. Notable to see the Nordics close to €400 per MWh, and Germany at €600. Before 2020, anything above €75-100 was considered expensive - @JavierBlas 

A VERY CONVENIENT CRISIS

 I have thought for some time that the steep rise in fuel and energy prices actually provides the government with the ideal conditions for bringing about changes in consumer behaviour that would have been extremely difficult otherwise. The Russian invasion of Ukraine has provided an ideal cover which can be blamed for all the rise when actually quite a lot of it is down to the increasing cost of changing over to intermittent renewables with all the back up and extra grid connections.

Notice how the price increase predictions are getting more and more outrageous. It would not surprise me if the actual rises are a bit lower with people thinking they are not quite as bad as feared, even though they will still be very significant, with the government even getting praise for keeping them down. Such increase will lead to the public being ready to accept the new high-priced renewables as seeming relatively reasonable. 

I will confidently predict that we will never return to the prices of a few years ago. The new normal will be of costly energy, which is just what the government would have liked to impose, but dare not, without a really good reason. Putin has provided it.  

Had the government backed fracking and encouraged more development of the North Sea reserves we would now have self-sufficient sources. We could even have agreed a gas price with the drilling companies in return for a long term commitment to purchase the gas, just as we do for new nuclear powered electricity, or wind farms. Instead we have become obsessed with achieving Net Zero, a policy that will have no measurable benefit at all, only a huge cost.  

NO SIGN OF A CLIMATE CRISIS SAYS LATEST REPORT

 Empirical observations show no sign of ‘climate crisis’ 

Global Warming Policy Foundation, 14 April 2022



A systematic review of climate trends and observational data by an eminent climate scientist has found no evidence to support the claim of a climate crisis.

In his annual State of the Climate report, Ole Humlum, emeritus professor at the University of Oslo, examined detailed patterns in temperature changes in the atmosphere and oceans together with trends in climate impacts. Many of these show no significant trends and suggest that poorly understood natural cycles are involved.
 
And while the report finds gentle warming, there is no evidence of dramatic changes, with snow cover stable, sea ice levels recovering, and no change in storm activity.
 
Professor Humlum said:
 
“A year ago, I warned that there was great risk in using computer modelling and immature science to make extraordinary claims. The empirical observations I have reviewed show very gentle warming and no evidence of a climate crisis.”
 
GWPF director, Dr Benny Peiser said:
 
“It’s extraordinary that anyone should think there is a climate crisis. Year after year our annual assessment of climate trends document just how little has been  changing in the last 30 years.
 
The habitual climate alarmism is mainly driven by scientists’ computer modelling rather than observational evidence.”
 
Ole Humlum: State of the Climate 2021 (pdf)

WHY HAS SCIENCE COME TO THIS?

I have read some propaganda dressed as science many times, but when this story figured prominently on the main ITV news (Thursday 18th August), I simply could not believe that such weak evidence was presented as though it was undisputable fact. Of course, as usual, there was no opportunity for anyone to make any challenge. Here is the link to the story:  

Bees getting stressed by climate change, London research suggests | ITV News London

Just look at the reasoning. First they look at museum specimens of bumblebees and notice that their wings exhibit high asymmetry – very differently shaped right and left wings and conclude that this must be due to the creatures having experienced stress during development which affected their normal growth. 

This could have been due to any number of factors, but amazingly (and I think you may be ahead of me here!) they decide to look at climate change as a possible cause. And yes, they find a connection!! They found that in hotter and wetter years bees showed higher wing asymmetry. (They don't seem to have decided whether it was the heat or the rain. Was it always hotter and wetter in the same years?) 

Just in case this reasoning was flawed they also did a second study, published in Methods in Ecology & Evolution, in which they sequenced the genomes of more than a hundred bumblebee museum specimens dating back more than 130 years in the hope of finding a link between genetic changes and climate change.

DROUGHT IN 2022 - IS IT A RESULT OF CLIMATE CHANGE?

  Roger Pielke Jr: What the media won't tell you about drought in Europe

Roger Pielke Jr., 15 August 2022
 

[...] Europe is in the midst of what has been called the worst drought in 500 years. According to a drought expert with the European Commission in comments last week:

"We haven't analysed fully the event (this year's drought), because it is still ongoing, but based on my experience I think that this is perhaps even more extreme than 2018. Just to give you an idea the 2018 drought was so extreme that, looking back at least the last 500 years, there were no other events similar to the drought of 2018, but this year I think it is really worse than 2018."
 
While a full analysis of the ongoing 2022 European drought remains to be completed, so too the drought itself, it is clearly exceptional if not unprecedented. In this post I take a close look at the state of understanding the possible role of climate change n this year’s drought.
 
Specifically, I report on what the most recent assessment report (AR6) of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) and underlying literature and data say about the detection of trends in Western and Central European drought and the attribution of those trends to greenhouse gas emissions. The figure below shows the specific region that is the focus of this post, which includes all of Germany, most of France, Hungary, Poland, Ukraine, and western Russia among other nations.


 
In general, for the other three regions in the above map the IPCC expects with varying levels of confidence at at different levels of warming by 2100 drought to decrease in Northern Europe (NEU, which includes the UK), increase in the Mediterranean (MED) and to be highly uncertain in Eastern Europe (EEU). I will be happy to explore these other regions in depth in a future post. (See IPCC AR6 Chapter 11 if you’d like to explore for yourself.)
 
For Western and Central Europe, and especially for Germany and Northern France which are the subject of considerable news coverage right now, accurate representations of the current state of scientific understandings of drought are typically absent. Instead, we see many confident claims by journalists and some scientists of that this year’s drought is a signal of (or, if you prefer — fueled by, linked to, evidence of) human-caused climate change.

Let’s take a look at what the peer-reviewed literature and the IPCC actually say about drought trends in this region and their possible attribution to climate change.
 
One recent study — Vincente-Serrano et al. 2020 — looked at long-term trends in drought in Western Europe from 1851 to 2018, with a focus on precipitation deficits. (Note that their geographical definition of Western Europe differs slightly from that of the IPCC). The figure below shows trends aggregated for the region as a whole. They conclude: “Our study stresses that from the long-term (1851–2018) perspective there are no generally consistent trends in droughts across Western Europe.”

Source: Vincente-Serrano et al. 2020

 
The paper goes through a number of different metrics of drought for various subregions across Europe. The authors are careful to note that there are other metrics of drought which may show different results:
 
"We emphasize that our findings should be seen in the context of the drought metric applied. Our assessment of drought characteristics is based on SPI, which is a precipitation-based metric. For a long-term assessment of drought in the region, it is not possible to use metrics that employ other important variables (e.g., streamflow, soil moisture, or AED)."

Another recent study — Oikonomou et al. 2020 — looked at more recent trends, from 1969 to 2018, and inclusive of all four of the IPCC European sub-regions. They found overall:
 
"Seemingly, one of the central outcomes of this research is that there is little change in drought characteristics for 1969–2018. It also seems, no particular tendencies for more or less frequent droughts in the two major geographical domains of Europe are present. This reinforces the stochastic nature of the drought natural hazard."

Of course, as the studies above acknowledge, trend analyses can be sensitive to start and end dates. One reason for this sensitivity is the fact that climate varies a great deal even without the presence of human forcings — and this variability is of course one of the challenges facing the detection of long-term trends, especially for rare events.
 
For its part, the IPCC AR6 — which summarizes a much broader literature than the two papers cited above — classifies drought into three categories: meteorological, hydrological and agricultural/ecological which emphasize respectively precipitation, streamflow and soil moisture.

With respect to hydrological drought in Western and Central Europe the IPCC could not be stronger in its conclusion:
 
"in areas of Western and Central Europe and Northern Europe, there is no evidence of changes in the severity of hydrological droughts since 1950"
 
For hydrological drought the IPCC is also quite strong in its conclusions:
 
"Low confidence: Weak or insignificant trends"
 
The IPCC lumps WCE in with many other global regions in its conclusion that, “Past increases in agricultural and ecological droughts are found on all continents and several regions” which it expresses with medium confidence, a qualitative judgment which is typically interpreted as about a 50-50 chance of being true.
 
Looking to the future the IPCC is quite clear that we should not expect to be able to attribute trends in drought to climate change today. The IPCC projects only medium confidence for increases in hydrological agricultural/ecological drought at 2 and 4 degrees C increases in temperature and low confidence for increases in meteorological drought at 2C. In short, the IPCC does not expect that either detection or attribution should occur in 2022, when we are still well below 2C and suggests that it may be many decades before detection and attribution claims can be more strongly supported.
 
I have stitched together the summary table from IPCC AR6 Chapter 11 on the various metrics of drought and reproduced that below (alternatively, flip to pp. 1689-90 in Chapter 11 of IPCC AR6).

IPCC AR6 summary of it conclusions for various metrics of drought for Western and Central Europe. Source: Chapter 11, 1689-90
 
The bottom line:
 
In Western and Central Europe — basically Atlantic France all the way to Moscow, north of the Mediterranean region and south of the North Sea region — the IPCC and the underlying peer reviewed research on which it assesses has concluded that drought has not increased and, logically, that increased drought cannot be attributed to human-caused climate change. The only exception here is that the IPCC has medium confidence in an increasing trend of soil moisture deficits in some subregions, however the IPCC has low confidence that this trend can be attributed to human-caused climate change. Looking to future, at temperature changes of 2C and more, at present the IPCC does not expect the current state of scientific understandings to change. But stay tuned — that’s why we do science.

CLIMATE SCEPTICS WIN ANOTHER DEBATE WITH TOP CLIMATE SCIENTIST

No wonder that those who support the hypothesis that we are facing a "climate emergency" do not normally agree to a debate with a well-informed person who disagrees with them. In virtually every case the audience votes with the sceptic point of view. Here is a link to the notes on the latest debate between Steve Koonin, a former adviser to President Obama (a sceptic) and Andy Dessler (climate scientist). 

 Koonin wins debate with Dessler - Clintel

OUR ELECTRIC FUTURE HIGHLIGHTED - BEWARE!

Here is the link to the article which contains some alarming results of changing from gas power stations to relying on renewable wind and solar. None of these issues is ever mentioned in the mass media. It also should be clear that this new power supply will also be much more expensive.

 We'll turn off your electricity when we feel like it - Clintel

HEAT PUMPS, THE INSIDE STORY OF A "FRAIL TECHNOLOGY"

The following link has a 45 minute video of an interview with a gas boiler expert who gives his honest assessment of heat pumps as well as discussing the replacement of natural gas with hydrogen. It comes across as a very honest and genuine opinion. Well worth watching. 

Heat Pumps Are A “Frail Technology” | NOT A LOT OF PEOPLE KNOW THAT (wordpress.com)

What I took away from this was that heat pumps were most unsatisfactory and that the lesser of two evils was the hydrogen gas replacement, though even that is going to come at a high price for us all.

THIRD MOST FRAUDULENT JULY ON RECORD

Climate fraud exposed again by Tony Heller:

 Third Most Fraudulent July On Record | Real Climate Science

How do they get away with it?

SCOTTISH GREEN MP LIVING IN A DREAM WORLD

Below is a summary of what this chap said. 

The Scottish Greens co-leader said: “Our homes and workplaces account for around a fifth of Scotland’s total greenhouse gas emissions. Our statutory target for 2030 means that we need to reduce emissions from heating buildings by 68% below their level in 2020.

 

“This is a monumental but essential task. Our building stock is relatively old, and wasn’t always built to high energy standards. This legacy of poor energy efficiency has contributed to emissions and fuel poverty, so we need to start drastically improving that standard.

 

“By 2030, we want to see a large majority of homes achieving a level of energy efficiency at least equivalent to an EPC C – with all homes meeting that standard by 2033, where feasible and cost effective. This will reduce emissions from our buildings, but it will also help make our energy more affordable, by removing poor energy efficiency as a driver of fuel poverty.”

 

Mr Harvie, who is MSP for the Glasgow region, also warned that, as well as improving energy efficiency, Scotland needs to switch to zero direct emissions heating.

 

He said: “Meeting our 2030 target means that we need over a million homes and the equivalent of 50,000 non-domestic buildings to switch from fossil fuels. This is a huge transition, affecting communities, businesses and homes across Scotland.

 

“Getting there will need a much faster installation rate for these zero direct emissions heating systems. In recent years that rate has been around 3,000 homes annually, but we need to reach around 200,000 each year in the latter part of this decade.”  (some hope!)

 

Mr Harvie also said that the cost of living crisis and unprecedented surges in energy prices make the challenge even harder and the government can’t foot the bill on its own.

 

He said: “Our funding will make a huge difference to the heat transition. But the cost of transforming our building stock – around £33 billion to 2045 – can’t be met by government alone. (so true!)

 

“Our Green Heat Finance Task Force is now working on innovative solutions to maximise private sector investment, and to find new ways to help spread the upfront cost of making properties warmer, greener and more energy efficient.” (ie so that residents can be made to pay!)

 

Mr Harvie concluded: “We know there will be more issues to resolve and we intend to tackle these collaboratively, drawing on the best knowledge and ideas from across society.

 

“The climate emergency is already here. But if we adopt many of the actions and ideas being discussed at this week-long Green Home Festival, they will stand us in good stead to mitigate its worst consequences.”  ( don't expect it to make any noticeable difference!)  

CHINA NOT CO-OPERATING ON CLIMATE POLICY - OFFICIAL!

The mask has finally slipped to reveal that China will not be co-operating on climate policy. I am hardly surprised, as they only agreed to reduce their emissions ten years later than the West. Easy to renege on after the West has jumped first. How could we be so naïve? 

 Chinese Threat: Renounce Taiwan, or the Global Climate Gets It – Watts Up With That?

AFRICANS EXPECTED TO INCREASE FOSSIL FUEL USE AND OUTPUT

Here is the article to explain what is happening:

 African nations expected to make case for big rise in fossil fuel output | NOT A LOT OF PEOPLE KNOW THAT (wordpress.com)

Yet another reason why CO2 emissions will not be controlled, no matter how many times the Western governments claim otherwise. But the people are well aware of what is going on, which is why they will not be prepared to make the huge sacrifice of paying massive energy and fuel bills for no tangible gain.

GREAT BARRIER REEF IN EXCELLENT HEALTH SAYS NEW REPORT

 

Great Barrier Reef breaks coral cover record again

Press Release

 

Official data confirms reef in rude good heath

London, 4 August -- Official data released today reveals that Australia’s Great Barrier Reef is in excellent health, with coral cover reaching record levels for the second consecutive year. 
 

Aggregate GBR coral cover 1986–2022

 

The increase will be surprising to members of the public, who are regularly hit with scare stories about coral bleaching and false tales about a reef in long-term decline.

A new note, published today by the Global Warming Policy Foundation, explains that the data shows clearly how a handful of coral bleaching events that have affected the reef since 2016 have had very limited impact on overall coral cover.

Dr Peter Ridd says:

“In recent years, the media around the world has been reporting coral bleaching events in increasingly apocalyptic terms. This data proves that they are simply scaremongering.”

GWPF director, Dr Benny Peiser said:

“This is just the latest example of empirical data making a mockery of the catastrophists. For how much longer do they think they can get away with it?” 


Dr Ridd’s paper, entitled The Good News on Coral Reefs can be downloaded here (pdf)

UK ENERGY SUPPLIES TO BUSINESS BECOMING MORE UNRELIABLE

Read this article to see what is going on:

 British Gas to stop supplying energy to its biggest business customers - Energy Live News

Germany is experiencing similar problems, which is no consolation to us in the UK. Had the government had the courage to develop fracking we could now have a reliable supply of our own gas. We could have even done a deal with the fracking firms to supply at a fixed price for a fixed time, as has been done for the new nuclear power stations. But sadly no, we have instead put our eggs into wind turbines in a vain attempt to control the climate. Complete madness!