THE BATTLE FOR A NEW WORLD BANK PRESIDENT

Terence Corcoran
Financial Post, 12 January 2019

The surprise early resignation of World Bank President Jim Yong Kim on Monday has produced a flurry of reactions from the bank’s supporters and critics, although none have come close to outlining the best option for a post-Second World War institution that long ago outlived its original purposes.

Does a 21st-century world economy awash in massive flows of investment cash really need a meddling, bureaucratic, multi-tentacled, government-backed fake financial institution that has, under Kim, been transformed into (among other things) a raging green lending machine that aims to deny developing countries poverty-relieving investment in fossil fuels and other resources in favour of windmills and solar panels?

The most radical idea circulating through the media portals in the wake of Kim’s announcement is that it is time to end the United States’ “stranglehold” on the presidency of the institution. All of the bank’s 12 presidents to date have been U.S. nationals, the result of a complicated history of global power alignments and the fact that America is the bank’s largest funder.

Kim, however, was hardly one to accuse of putting the bank in an America First stranglehold. His 2012 nomination by former president Barack Obama was heralded particularly by the moderate left, from Bill Clinton to development economist Jeffrey Sachs, who congratulated Obama for “nominating a world-class development leader.” 

While some developing nation’s objected that it was time to let a non-American lead the bank, Kim sailed through to unanimous approval by the board of directors. He breezed on to a second-term extension in 2016, despite some objections about continued U.S. domination.

But that was then. With Donald Trump in the Oval Office, a more aggressive movement to overturn five decades of U.S. domination is underway. “The U.S shouldn’t get to pick the head of the World Bank. And not just because Trump is president,” said a Slate commentary by Charles Kenny, senior fellow at the Center for Global Development. Media reports warn that Kim’s departure, three years before the end of his term, “tees up a battle between the Trump administration… and critics seeking to break the U.S. stranglehold” on the bank’s presidency.

Maybe the critics of U.S. domination should be granted their wish. 

Under Kim, the World Bank accelerated its transformation from a do-gooding financial institution nominally dedicated to fighting poverty by aiding development in Third World countries, into an environmental crusader. No more loans for coal projects, Kim decreed — even as China, India and others were expanding coal production. In 2016, the World Bank introduced a “fundamental shift” in policy from fighting poverty to fighting fossil fuels. In 2017, the bank announced it would end financial support for oil and gas extraction by 2019.

Kim was not the first bank president to overturn the World Bank’s objectives. He was merely an extension of a policy drift introduced years earlier under previous leaders selected by Washington.

Back in 2003, the bank produced a review of “extractive industries” and concluded that it should get out of all funding of investments in petroleum and coal. The bank’s then president was James Wolfensohn, a Bill Clinton nominee and a global operator who — as FP Comment columnist Peter Foster has previously pointed out — was an associate of the late Canadian Maurice Strong, mastermind of modern United Nations green globalism.

When he took over, Wolfensohn began squeezing the bank into his and Strong’s extreme-green stranglehold. One journalist would later describe how “Wolfensohn was critical of Bank projects he considered environmentally harmful … Strong watched approvingly as Wolfensohn instituted environmentalist-friendly policies, including the appointment of environmental NGOs to World Bank advisory committees.”

Ah, those ugly Americans. They gotta be stopped. Get them out of there.

The global political scramble to replace Kim promises to be an ideological free-for-all. Politicians in developing countries want more control over the bank, radicals on the left and right want to shut it down, while Western globalists and an army of crawling bureaucrats and UN operatives are keen to keep the operation going. Meanwhile, some of the bank’s former supporters — including former World Bank research administrator Deepak Lal — believe the bank has become an obstacle to growth in developing countries.

As for Trump, he may or may not want to shake the place up. Some members of his team have in the past suggested closing the World Bank down. John Bolton, the president’s national security adviser, has suggested it should be scaled back, if not shuttered completely.
 


 

THE IMAGINARY CLIMATE CONSENSUS

Here is another excellent video from Tony Heller in which he debunks the so-called "climate consensus".  Tony seems to have perfected the you tube video with his distinctive laid-back style and packed full of information, including the old clips from newspapers etc. All in a length of around ten minutes. A devastating demolition of climate alarmist dogma. 

BP JUST DISCOVERED A BILLION BARRELS OF OIL IN THE GULF OF MEXICO

So much for the decline in the use of fossil fuels. This is the reality on the ground (or should I say under it) 
CNBC, 8 January 2019

BP discovers 1 billion barrels of oil at its Thunder Horse field in the Gulf of Mexico.

The oil giant also says it will spend $1.3 billion to develop a third phase of its Atlantis offshore field south of New Orleans.

BP credits its investment in advanced seismic technology for speeding up its ability to confirm the discoveries.

BP’s investment in next-generation technology just paid off to the tune of a billion barrels of oil.

The British energy company has discovered 1 billion barrels of crude at an existing oilfield in the Gulf of Mexico. BP also announced two new offshore oil discoveries and a major new investment in a nearby field.

BP is the Gulf of Mexico’s biggest producer, and it’s making strides to hold that title.

BP now expects its fossil fuel output from the region to reach 400,000 barrels of oil equivalent per day by the middle of the next decade. Today, it produces about 300,000 boepd, up from less than 200,000 boepd about five years ago.

Executives are crediting their investment in advanced seismic technology and data processing for speeding up the company’s ability to confirm the discoveries at Atlantis and Thunder Horse. BP says it once would have taken a year to analyze the Thunder Horse data, but it now takes just weeks.

UK CONSUMERS GROSSLY OVERPAYING FOR ELECTRICITY SAYS NEW REPORT

This report finds that consumers are grossly overpaying for a very unreliable system As a result of the effect of intermittent renewables on the grid the gas fleet is much less efficient than it should be and the situation is only going to get worse.

WHY NO ONE SHOULD TRUST THE GOVERNMENT ON GREEN DEALS

This piece explains how the UK public has been conned by their government on Green Deals which have ended up costing them dearly.  While the majority of the pubic have avoided the useless scheme a few unlucky ones have paid the price for trusting them. Hopefully they have learnt the lesson.

SO WHAT IF AIR POLLUTION MAY HAVE CONTRIBUTED TO SOMEONE'S DEATH?

Of course, in an ideal world, our air should be as pure and clean as we can make it, but in practice we know that transport and industry will put out exhaust gases and particles that can irritate our lungs. Nature too can make our air very uncomfortable for those who are susceptible, for example pollen.

Now, according to this report we may be about to see a legal judgment as to whether air pollution was a significant factor in someone's death. Presumably, if the case succeeds, the Government will be found guilty of manslaughter by allowing the levels of pollutants to go above the maximum permitted level and then we will have some level of fine imposed on them, possibly some compensation to the victim's family.

But what next? How many other cases will emerge? For a start how is it possible, with any certainty, to decide to what extent, if any, the presence of low levels of pollutants could contribute to death?

In this case the victim was a child and if their parents were so concerned that traffic pollution was seriously affecting their child's life then why did they not move to a less polluting area? (They lived beside a very busy traffic area.)  

In reality the Government has to reach a compromise between  on the one hand keeping the air as clean as possible, and on the other hand allowing us all to use transport in order to go about our daily lives freely. The idea of attaching blame is purely a political exercise.

UPDATE This article looks at the figures for alleged deaths from traffic pollution.

CLIMATE PROFESSOR RETIRES AND BECOMES A CLIMATE SCEPTIC

This piece explains that Anastasios Tsonis, emeritus distinguished professor at the University of Wisconsin-Milwaukee, who is the author of more than 130 peer reviewed papers and nine books, has just retired, and is finally able to speak his mind. He is now able to announce he is a climate sceptic.

THE DEEP OCEAN IS COOLER NOW THAN 200 YEARS AGO

This piece  discusses a new paper which indicates that the deep ocean in the Pacific has continued cooling in recent decades, extending the long-term cooling trend that commenced after the warmer-than-today Medieval Warm Period ended.

WORLD BANK PUTS CLIMATE POLICY BEFORE HELPING WORLD'S POOR

This article highlights the behaviour of the World Bank. Their mission is supposed to end poverty using aid and loans. Critics, including Donald Trump, say it is now following such a narrow agenda - with billions tied up in green projects - there's a danger of losing the plot.

ANOTHER WESTERN LEADER HOLDS BACK ON CLIMATE TAX INCREASE

This article explains what the Irish PM has decided in the light of protests such as those in France.  So the message seems to be getting through. Here in the UK they have succeeded in hiding the taxes by adding them to energy bills, but I wonder how long they will be able to get away with this. So far the media has been fairly compliant, but if a few protests were to happen all that would change. I expect all Western leaders are looking closely at public opinion, and that is what will ultimately limit their ability to control their CO2 emissions.

LATEST DATA SHOWS THAT UK TEMPERATURE AND RAINFALL IS STABLE OVER PAST DECADE

This article looks at the data for the UK over the past decade and the facts show hardly any change in contrast to the hype suggesting that it is warming rapidly.  Why won't the media publish the true records instead of the hype? The only answer must be that it is in their interest to conceal it. There are a lot of people in authority who have much to gain by persuading the public to support the current policy of cutting CO2 emissions. Once authorities reach such a position it is very difficult to fight against it.

MORE ON REAL (NATURAL) CLIMATE CHANGE

This piece was an earlier piece from this blog. Now I read another article on the same subject here. It all goes to show that natural climate change is a real threat to us and there is nothing to stop it. We simply have to accept it and work to live with it as best we can.

THE SINGLE USE PLASTIC BAG IS BEST FOR SAVING US FROM GLOBAL WARMING SAYS REPORT

According to Dominic Lawson, in a Times article on 30 December 2018, the amount of plastic being used in the from of plastic bags has actually increased, even though the number of bags issued by supermarkets has reduced. This is because people are opting to pay 10 pence for the stronger and thicker "bags for life" rather than pay 5 pence for the thin single use bags.

Dominic continues his article by referring to a UK government report into the subject in which it compares the overall carbon dioxide emissions required to produce a bag, taking into account the number of times it is used. The conclusions showed that a paper bag had to be used 3 times to be better for the environment than a single use plastic bag used only once. A cotton bag had to be used 173 times to achieve the same result.  

In fact the problem with plastic is not that it causes global warming, but that it is not being disposed of safely, and that is an issue for law enforcement. Until all nations have proper control of waste disposal there will be problems of dumping waste in rivers and the sea.   

WILL ENERGY COMPANIES TELL US HOW MUCH CLIMATE POLICIES ARE ADDING TO BILLS NOW THE PRICE CAP IS COMING IN?

Now Will Energy Firms Tell The Truth On Subsidies?
The Conservative Woman, 3 January 2019

By John Constable, GWPF Energy Editor

This article was first published in a longer version by the Global Warming Policy Forum and is republished by kind permission. The full article can be found here.

Britain’s electricity suppliers are reported to be considering further increases in prices to consumers. Climate policies are largely responsible for such price increases, yet government is more than content to let private energy companies and their shareholders take the blame. Intoxicated with subsidies, the electricity sector has hitherto colluded in this obfuscation of causes, but the introduction of the domestic electricity price cap may change this situation, encouraging energy suppliers and indeed all businesses to name government as the guilty party.

History provides very few clear lessons, but the records are tolerably clear that revenue collectors and tax farmers are always and everywhere loathed without reservation. This may be unfair, but it is a fact, a human universal. Why then did Britain’s energy supply companies willingly accept the task of raising the necessary subsidies for renewable energy directly from their customers’ bills? This in effect made these private companies covert revenue agents for the state, and so allowed government to hide the costs of energy and climate policies.

Anyone familiar with the industry will know there is no doubt that energy and climate policies are and have been for some time to blame for rising electricity prices, but the point bears repeating. The following chart, drawn from data in the government’s regrettably discontinued Estimated Impacts of Energy and Climate Change Policies on Energy Prices and Bills (2014), shows the components of electricity prices to domestic consumers in 2014, and the projected change in those components in 2020 and 2030 in the Central Fossil Fuel Price scenario. Energy and climate policy impacts are indicated by the green section of the stacked bar.


Figure 1: UK electricity price component estimates (£/MWh) prepared by The Department of Energy and Climate Change (DECC) in 2014. Source: Chart drawn by the author from data published as part of DECC Estimated Impacts of Energy and Climate Change Policies on Energy Prices and Bills (2014).

It is obvious that energy and climate policies already accounted for a large fraction of the price in 2014, prices being 17 per cent higher than they would have been in the absence of policies. By 2020 policies were predicted to make prices 37 per cent higher, and 41 per cent higher in 2030. In fact, DECC’s method of presentation somewhat understates the impact since a significant part of the Network Costs are actually due to renewables, because of system balancing actions and grid expansion, and a slice of the VAT element also, of course, results from the policy costs. This is, then, a conservative presentation. Furthermore, the Central Fossil Fuel Price scenario is not necessarily the most probable. In the Low Fossil Price scenario, which appears to be materialising at present and may very well apply in 2030, energy and climate policies cause prices to be 42 per cent higher in 2020 and 62 per cent higher in 2030.

But even in this understated, conservative central scenario, where fossil fuel energy costs are actually expected to rise, policies are the dominant causal factor in the overall price increase up to 2030. Put more precisely, in the absence of policies, electricity prices would have been stable to 2020, rising from about 14p/kWh (£140/MWh) in 2014 to about 14.1p/kWh (£141/MWh). In actual fact prices stood at 16.4p/kWh in 2014 because of policies, and were expected to rise to about 19.4p/kWh (£194/MWh) in 2020. We appear to be on track.

While uncontroversial amongst specialists, these facts are sometimes obfuscated even by authoritative sources, such as the Committee on Climate Change (see for example, theEnergy Prices and Bills Report 2017), and it has been a brave energy company that takes the risk of candour about the in-effect-tax component, as for example Ovo energy was last year (see this blog’s discussion: ‘Policies are to Blame for Rising UK Electricity Prices’). Unfortunately, though perfectly correct, they have not been widely believed.
This is ideal for government, and is proving disastrous for electricity suppliers. Indeed, a very large part of the public perception that energy companies are greedy and ruthless results from the industry’s short-sighted decision to allow itself to be used as the cat’s-paw of climate policy.

The hazards of this must have been obvious to the main board directors concerned, but the temptation to collude was certainly extreme. The express-service renewables target timetable required subsidies so large that the increased turnover and de-risked profit made the danger of bad public relations seem tolerable. The industry may well come to regret this lack of caution. A market sector debauched by subsidies, and already held in contempt by the public, will be in a very weak position to resist nationalisation by a radical socialist government.

However, government may have unwittingly forestalled this outcome, by introducing the domestic electricity price cap, a decision that could force an otherwise anaesthetised and lethargic industry into action. The uncertain, medium-term risks of a toxic public image and possible nationalisation may be pushed to one side by preoccupied executives, but an immediate crisis in revenue has to be addressed without delay. And the price cap genuinely does present a problem to the electricity supply industry. Having accepted the task of delivering the renewables policies, the industry is now being inhibited from passing the consequent additional costs on to domestic consumers via rising prices. The sums are not small. The Office for Budget Responsibility estimates that the renewables subsidy costs already amount to about £8.6billion per year in 2018/19 and will rise to about £11billion a year by the end of the current price cap period in 2023.

Such steadily increasing policy costs can be recovered only from consumers, and it is therefore probable that, blocked in one direction, suppliers will and must start to increase prices where the cap does not apply, for example prices charged to households choosing fixed-term deals, and, much more probably, prices to industrial and commercial consumers.

Full post

DO VOTERS KNOWINGLY VOTE FOR 25 TIMES HIGHER ELECTRICITY COSTS?

This piece  seems to confirm that they do.  I find this extremely hard to believe. Perhaps they are simply ignorant of the costs, or have been convinced that this is not the case.  It is often said that, in politics, "the bigger the lie the more it is believed", provided the propaganda is repeated sufficiently.  

CLIMATE, GLACIERS AND THE TREE TRUNK CONUNDRUM

This piece explains how the presence of tree remains under melted glaciers is proving that past temperatures of the earth were warmer than the present, even though CO2 levels at the time were much lower than at the present time. It all points to a climate system that is much more complicated than climate alarmists care to admit.

POLAR BEAR DECLINE DUE TO CLIMATE CHANGE EXPOSED AS A MYTH

This article from the Mail on Sunday in a double page spread exposes the phoney propaganda surrounding the "polar bears are threatened by global warming" myth.  

This quote from the end of a long article sums up the truth: "Climate computer models say sea ice will continue to decline. Yet polar bears have been around for some 400,000 years, some of them warmer than today: about 100,000 years ago birch trees grew on Baffin Island, and summer temperatures, scientists say, were 4C to 5C warmer than at present. 

Activists claim that polar bears are ‘the canary in the coalmine’ that proves how dangerous climate change is, not only to bears but humans. But what if they chose the wrong species? 

And if the scientists are wrong about the bears, will it be only the Inuit who become more sceptical?"

A FREE ONLINE BOOK FOR ALL THOSE WANTING AN INDEPENDENT VIEW OF GLOBAL WARMING

A happy New Year to all readers. As a New Year gift Here's the link to this excellent and thorough, readable book. If you read it and agree, then pass this link on to your friends and family (far better than simply wishing them a happy New Year). It is hard to find anything other than the doom-laden stuff that is put out regularly by the TV and print media.

EXTREME WEATHER NOT INCREASING

This video shows the testimony given to a Senate committee by Dr Roy Spencer and  Dr Roger Pielke on the lack of increase in extreme weather events in recent times compared with all the projections made by climate scientists.  

PROFESSOR JORDAN PETERSON DISMISSES CLIMATE CHANGE

Professor Peterson is a Canadian psychologist and a noted speaker whose outspoken views have attracted a lot of attention from the media. In this short video he answers a question on whether people should unite to fight climate change. He answers by dismissing the issue's importance and praising Bjorn Lomborg's work on it. It is good to see someone in the public eye who is prepared to say what he thinks, rather than what he thinks others expect to hear. 

LABOUR'S MAD CLIMATE POLICIES WOULD BANKRUPT THE UK

This article gives the details of the extent of Labour's lunacy. Of course it has no chance of being achieved, but even attempting it would cause severe hardship to business and individuals. The Conservatives also claim to be following the nonsense in the Climate Change Act, but at least they are not completely mad activists. I keep hoping that they might, to some extent, be paying lip-service to it, rather than actually be re-ordering the economy to try and achieve it. The public must be warned that Labour is dangerous and unelectable.  

DANGEROUS DEVELOPMENTS IN THE POLITICS OF THE CLIMATE DEBATE

This report covers a potentially very dangerous development in the climate change debate. It is one that needs to be resisted by all leaders of the developed world. If the developing nations are allowed to get compensation for any extreme weather then we will all be much poorer. There can be no justification for any such claim. See this piece for the evidence that weather disasters are declining in terms of world GDP. 

The fact is that some poor countries have always been more exposed to extreme weather and the extent of this has not changed. Therefore it cannot be due to emissions of CO2. I fear that the supine Western governments will allow themselves to get mugged over this, which means our taxes will have to increase to pay for it. They should be looking very carefully at the statistics and proving it is a scam.

These natural disasters are often random events caused by a chaotic weather system. No single cause can ever be proved.

OCEAN ACIDIFICATION - WHY IT IS NOT A PROBLEM

This article gives a clear and simple explanation why ocean acidification is not a problem that should cause concern.  

For more of the science This article is for those with a deeper knowledge of chemistry.

CHILD EXPLOITATION AND PROPAGANDA AS THE CLIMATE ALARMISTS GET DESPERATE

This piece looks at a speech made by a 15 year old girl who has clearly become obsessed with climate change fears. We don't know why she has reached this state. What role has her parents had? I wonder if she has ever seriously looked at any views contrary to those she now espouses? In her speech she mentions that she has Asperger's syndrome, which causes her to see things in black and white - something that is a serious hindrance to understanding the nuances in any complex subject. 

I must be generous and say that she did a great job of delivering the speech. It was an impassioned plea to the World's leaders done in a simplistic way that one would expect of a child. At one point she asks the question, why don't our leaders just ban all fossil fuels when faced with such an urgent matter as climate change?  What a pity someone could not give her an honest answer.  

There are a large number of comments under the article, a few liken her behaviour to that of children in the Nazi Youth of the 1930's. They could also liken it to those in a religious cult, which is what the Church of Climatology is. It is quite easy for children to be convinced by adults in authority over them, a small proportion of them are more susceptible than others, just as some subjects can be hypnotised more easily.  Despite her willingness to take part, it seems to me that she is nevertheless being exploited by adults who, having brain-washed her, are using her in a propaganda exercise.   
Update on this here

BIG GROWTH IN UK FLIGHTS PLANNED BY GOVERNMENT

First a happy Christmas to all readers. If you like flying, this piece will be welcome news.

This article looks at the details.  It is hard to see how this fits in with the big reduction in CO2 emissions planned by the government's Climate Change Act. I wonder when they will admit that this Act is not going to be fulfilled. They will probably leave it to their successors. 

ANTARCTIC PENINSULA GLACIERS GAINING MASS

This article looks at glaciers on the Antarctic peninsula, the only part of the Antarctic where some warming has taken place.  So it is all the more surprising to find that glaciers in this region have been gaining mass in recent years. It certainly shows that it is far from a picture of continuous warming, though that is what is presented to the world by the news media.

ARCTIC GLACIERS ADVANCE 16 KM DURING 2008-2016

This piece explains that the Svalbard/Barents sea region of the Arctic where this occurred was 6 degrees C warmer 9000 years ago when glaciers were much smaller or non-existent. I wonder why this has received no coverage in the mainstream media?

THE COST OF CLIMATE PROTESTORS ACTIONS

This article gives an idea of the huge number of dollars lost in the USA as a result of these fairly low level protests. They are indeed a very destructive force costing hundreds of thousands of jobs and billions of dollars. Time for the mass of the people to make their voices heard. 

TONY HELLER DEBUNKS THE ARCTIC ICE MELT SCARE

This new video from Tony is a must watch, as he shows the past records of Arctic sea ice to show just how much is being kept from us by proponents of the global warming scare. 

TRUMP SPOILS THE PARTY AT THE LATEST UN CLIMATE JUNKET

This piece gives a good overview of the latest climate conference. It was hailed as a great success at the close of the conference and then a day later it all began to unravel.

LARGEST NOVEMBER INCREASE IN SEA ICE ON RECORD

This article explains just how the media is putting out false information, this time about sea ice. Just look at the data and graphs to back up this headline and yet the media are putting out the complete opposite, as the article shows.

CHINA'S CLIMATE U-TURN

This piece introduces a new paper which exposes the double standards of the Chinese attitude to global warming and reducing its CO2 emissions.  “Many in the environmental community look to China to assume the role of global climate leader. But Patricia Adams questions China’s interest in assuming this role as the need for continued economic growth means securing new energy supplies will take priority over climate change concerns".

CLIMATE FRAUD UNCOVERED IN RECENT USA CLIMATE ASSESSMENT

This short video by the splendid Tony Heller highlights the obviously deliberate attempts to make the climate data tell a story of rapid warming, even though it does no such thing. Tony has such a wealth of historical data and press cuttings that he can put together a very thorough debunking.

CRYING WOLF OVER THE GREAT BARRIER REEF

This piece explains the findings of a group of scientists examining the Great Barrier Reef  that the death rate of coral was less than they expected because of the adaptability of corals to changing temperatures.

ARCTIC RAPID MELTING EXPOSED AS FAKE

This piece is a complete refutation of the fake news alleging that the Arctic ice is "rapidly melting". The truth is that overall, Arctic volume has been stable, slightly on the rise over the past 12 years,

"CHEAP RENEWABLES" EXPOSED AS NONSENSE

Joanne Nova in this brilliant article exposes the fraudulent arguments being made in support of renewable energy.  I love her ironic sense of humour with which she lays waste to the nonsense that is being peddled by so-called experts who are trying to prove the impossible to the ordinary folk who have no idea what is going on.

DAILY MAIL REDUCED TO PUBLISHING RUBBISH ON GW

This article is one of the silliest claims made about rising CO2 levels. The fact that it was published by what is normally rated as a serious paper is rather worrying. Since they got a new editor I have noticed a distinct change of views expressed both on Brexit where they have softened their stance from staunch support for Brexit to now supporting Mrs May in an unquestioning fashion and now this tripe on climate change.

TAKING A LOOK INTO THE WORLD OF THE LATEST COP CLIMATE CONFERENCE

Here is a very revealing look at what goes on inside the current climate change conference organised by the UNIPCC. It includes links to video footage of some very bizarre goings on. Learn about how Gender Day and Indigenous Peoples Day are connected to the climate change hypothesis. 

NEW PREDICTION SAYS THE SUN WILL NOT GIVE US GLOBAL COOLING

This piece explains the new thinking on the subject of the solar cycle. It is the opposite of what others have been predicting.

YELLOW VEST PROTESTS MAKE LEADERS NERVOUS ABOUT CLIMATE CHANGE POLICIES

This article explains the dilemma now facing Western leaders over enacting tough measures to reduce CO2 emissions. Apparently it is casting a shadow over the latest climate change conference in Poland.

THE FACTS ABOUT WIND TURBINES YOU NEVER HEAR IN THE MEDIA

Decommissioning (removing) wind turbines is enormously difficult and hugely expensive. Natural gas plants have 30-40 year lifetimes; nuclear plants can operate for 60 years or more. Wind turbines last 15-20 years, and often far less for offshore leviathans. Off Virginia, salt corrosion is compounded by 50-80 foot storm waves and category 1-3 hurricanes.

Maintenance and removal require huge derrick barges and can be done only during near-perfect weather, with minimal wave height. Actual removal costs depend on the size and type of project, distance from shore, whether monopolies and electrical cables must be fully removed, and whether the seabed must be returned to its original condition.

The cost of removing any industrial-scale “wind farm” could run into the billions, and could double the cost of wind power.

Oil, mining, logging, construction and other projects are typically required to post sizable bonds, before they are permitted to operate. Wind turbine projects are generally exempt. That means billion-dollar decommissioning costs will likely bring corporate insolvency - and state taxpayers and ratepayers will get stuck with the bills.

Demolition has begun for one of Europe’s earliest offshore wind projects, off Denmark. The blades, nacelle and tower must be dismantled and individually removed by big mobile cranes on enormous barges. The concrete foundations must be dismantled on-site by hydraulic demolition shears, then hauled ashore.

By 2023 more than 10,000 of Germany’s 28,000 wind turbines must be decommissioned. Their concrete and rebar bases can be 100 feet in the ground. Rotor blades are fiberglass, carbon fibers and petroleum resins; burning them releases dust and toxic gases, and thus is prohibited. Nor can they be recycled. The same facts apply to U.S. turbines.

Imagine putting 115-foot turbine blades in landfills - or 245-foot blades from the new monster turbines. One study estimates that it will cost $565,000 per megawatt to decommission Europe’s offshore turbines - or about $3.4 million for each new generation 6-MW turbine.

From an economic, environmental or energy perspective, this is simply unsustainable. And it’s all being justified by climate change hyperbole and hysteria. 

MISLEADING PROPAGADA FROM THE MET OFFICE

This article explains why it is wrong and very misleading to say that this summers heatwave was 30 times more likely due to climate change. The more ridiculous and exaggerated the claims are the more they turn people against believing any of the climate change arguments.

SEA LEVEL RISE - LET'S COMPARE COMPUTER MODELS TO THE REAL WORLD

This piece takes another look at the sea level rise issue and shows how much lower actual sea level has behaved compared to the predictions of computer models. The results are pretty clear, we are being misled by the computers.

FRENCH PRESIDENT (MACRON) LEARNS AN IMPORTANT CLIMATE CHANGE LESSON

What irony that the president of the country whose capital hosted the much lauded conference that lead to the Paris Climate Accord now finds himself under attack from his own people for trying to coerce them into using less fossil fuels. I hope the other leaders of the West are taking note. When the going gets tough for the people their willingness to sacrifice their comfort for the future of humanity is quickly reduced, or disappears altogether. This piece sums it up very well.

ELECTRIC CAR SALES FLOP IN UK

Oh dear! Electric vehicle sales don't seem too strong according to this article despite the government's best efforts to try and persuade us to buy them. Just like Mrs May's Brexit deal, they are a poor substitute for a proper car. Who will trust the government when they get it wrong so often?

CLIMATE CHANGE TALKS RENDERED POINTLESS

USA and China both snub the latest climate change talks.  Read the details here.  This renders the talks pointless and no meaningful decision is likely to be taken.  With the rioting in France against taxes imposed to cut the use of fossil fuels we can see that the utopia based on climate change policies is in serious trouble.
  

WMO CHERRY-PICKS DATA IN DESPERATE BID TO FOOL US ALL

Global Temperature Drops By 0.4°C In Three Years
The GWPF Observatory, 30 November 2018

Dr David Whitehouse, GWPF Science Editor

It is said that a picture is worth a thousand words. In science communication however, a simple graph can be worth far more than pictures particularly when the main point is that the last four years have been the hottest on record.

In a press release the World Meteorological Organisation said,

‘The long-term warming trend has continued in 2018, with the average global temperature set to be the fourth highest on record. The 20 warmest years on record have been in the past 22 years, with the top four in the past four years.’

The main message was echoed by others, such as the BBC.:

"Climate change: Last four years are world’s hottest"

Likewise the Guardian:

"Past four years hottest on record, data shows"
It all goes to show how temperature data can be misrepresented if you don’t show the temperature data itself.

 Fig 1 is the HadCRUT4 monthly global temperature from the UK Met Office.



As you can see a graph tells a very different story. What elevates the past four years above the previous ones is an El Nino event, the strongest one on record.

As we have said many time before an El Nino is not a climatic phenomenon, it is weather. What’s more, after its peak in 2016 the global temperature has fallen by around 0.4° C. The past four years being the warmest on record is true, but it has been primarily due to the 2015/16 super El Nino.

Fig 2 shows the same data with error bars from which it can be seen that 2018 is statistically equivalent to some years before the El Nino event.



The WMO statement is grossly misleading. It mixes climate with weather. For example in its ‘Highlights of the provisional statement on the state of the climate,’ it states;

‘Temperatures: 2018 started with a weak La Niña event, which continued until March. By October, however, sea-surface temperatures in the eastern Tropical Pacific were showing signs of a return to El Niño conditions, although the atmosphere as yet shows little response. If El Niño develops, 2019 is likely to be warmer than 2018.’

If 2019 develops an El Nino and is warmer than 2018 then this it has nothing to do with the ‘State of the Climate,’ but everything to do with annual weather variations.

It is sad to see the WMO descend into ‘Fake News’ territory, but sadder still to see science reporters regurgitating it without any form of analysis or critical thinking. A decade ago most financial journalists did the same. Thankfully many are much better now and they would never take an alarmist report from the Bank of England, for example, at face value without digging into the figures.

Feedback: david.whitehouse@thegwpf.com


 
 

BREXIT - "HARD BORDER" ARGUMENT DEMOLISHED BY DETAILED QUESTIONING OF UK PM

I hope readers will forgive me for posting an article not directly relevant to climate change but in my view there are some parallels. To start with, the piece I am going to link to shows the importance of forensic questioning of people who are responsible for key policies, and this applies equally to those proposing the CAGW (catastrophic anthropogenic global warming) hypothesis.

Here is the link. To view the exchange you can try this link and go to 9.35. You will see that my MP, Julian Lewis, was able to ask a total of nine questions to the PM on the one issue of the Irish border, and it was only by doing so that he was able to establish, or rather infer an answer, in spite of her prevarication.  This style of questioning is rarely seen in UK politics, which is why ministers are able to brush off questions so easily under the single question and response method.

You might think that the media would pick up on this event as it of such vital importance to the Brexit debate, but alas it has not. I only found out about it myself when I attended a meeting where Julian showed it to me in answer to a question. The Irish "hard border" issue is fundamental to the Brexit deal and, as Julian has shown, it is a nonsense as no one is actually going to create one. In other words the EU, with the connivance of the UK civil servants, are using "straw man" arguments to try to ensnare the UK into remaining perpetually tied in with the EU.

In similar ways the proponents of CAGW are creating false data and statements to keep governments tied to the policy of reducing CO2 emissions to keep the world to some mythical ideal temperature. These arguments could also be debunked by forensic questioning by a knowledgeable person.  

ARE COAL, OIL AND GAS RENEWABLE SOURCES OF ENERGY?

This article says there is growing evidence that they may be. If so it gives a whole new classification of so-called fossil fuels. They would of course become renewable fuels and as such could be used sustainably. Whatever would the green activists say about that?