Thursday, 25 August 2016

GW DAMAGE TO CORAL - IS IT 5% OR 93%?

This article refers to a new report that completely contradicts an earlier report on the extent of damage to coral reefs caused by global warming. The contrast could not be starker one report says 5% of coral was damaged and the other 93%. Which to believe?

Wednesday, 24 August 2016

GREENHOUSE GAS CONTROVERSY, PART 2 OF "EARTH - OUR HABITABLE PLANET"

Here is the link to part 2 of the series. This part includes the section on Greenhouse Gases which, though much of it is accepted, contains some material that suggests that CO2 plays a more prominent part than it does. For example half way down there is a pie chart showing the amount that the various greenhouse gases contribute to the warming effect. It claims that CO2 contributes 50%, but the table omits water vapour which is by far the most important greenhouse gas and is responsible for at least 70% (and up to 90% at times). This is a common occurrence in teaching and it seems odd that well qualified lecturers should make such an error. If water vapour had been included then CO2 contribution would go down to around 5-10%.  I can only conclude that these lecturers are complicit in enhancing the part played by CO2, though why I am not sure.  Maybe it's just for a quiet life!

For Part 1 of the notes here is the link.

Tuesday, 23 August 2016

EXAGGERATED CLAIMS ABOUT CORAL SENSITIVITY FOUND TO BE WRONG


Giant Coral Reef That ‘Died’ In 2003 Teeming With Life AgainThe New York Times, 15 August 2016

Karen Weintraub

In 2003, researchers declared Coral Castles dead. Then in 2015, a team of marine biologists was stunned and overjoyed to find the giant coral reef once again teeming with life.
 

A giant clam in the Phoenix Islands Protected Area. Credit Craig Cook/Undersea Medical   
 
 
On the floor of a remote island lagoon halfway between Hawaii and Fiji, the giant reef site had been devastated by unusually warm water. Its remains looked like a pile of drab dinner plates tossed into the sea. Research dives in 2009 and 2012 had shown little improvement in the coral colonies.

Then in 2015, a team of marine biologists was stunned and overjoyed to find Coral Castles, genus Acropora, once again teeming with life. But the rebound came with a big question: Could the enormous and presumably still fragile coral survive what would be the hottest year on record?

This month, the Massachusetts-based research team finished a new exploration of the reefs in the secluded Phoenix Islands, a tiny Pacific archipelago, and were thrilled by what they saw. When they splashed out of an inflatable dinghy to examine Coral Castles closely, they were greeted with a vista of bright greens and purples — unmistakable signs of life.

“Everything looked just magnificent,” said Jan Witting, the expedition’s chief scientist and a researcher at Sea Education Association, based in Woods Hole, Mass.

 

Divers from the New England Aquarium surveying reefs in the Phoenix Islands Protected Area last September. Credit Craig Cook/Undersea Medical   

Global climate change is wreaking havoc on corals worldwide. Coral bleaching has caused extensive damage to regions extending from the Great Barrier Reef to the Caribbean and nearly everywhere in between.

“Threats to tropical coral reefs worldwide have escalated to a level that imperils the survival of these complex, diverse and beautiful ecosystems,” Janice M. Lough, an Australian researcher, wrote in a February opinion piece in Nature.

Coral can be severely damaged by rising water temperatures, which cause acidification, as well as by pollution and human activity like tourism, fishing and shipping – prompting some governments to restrict such activities.

If Coral Castles can continue to revive after years of apparent lifelessness, even as water temperatures rise, there might be hope for other reefs with similar damage, said another team member, Randi Rotjan, a research scientist who led and tracked the Phoenix Islands expedition from her base at the New England Aquarium in Boston.

No one actually knows what drives reef resilience or even what a coral reef looks like as it is rebounding. In remote, hard-to-get-to places, our understanding of coral is roughly akin to a doctor’s knowing only what a patient looks like in perfect health and after death, Dr. Rotjan said.

Coral Castles’s revival might be an isolated situation, a fluke in a faraway place. But Dr. Rotjan and her team are on a quest to find out why this coral and other reefs nearby came back to life.

Monday, 22 August 2016

AUSSIE TV SHOW WHERE SCIENTIST, BRIAN COX PUTS IMAGE OVER SUBSTANCE

This piece looks at a discussion programme on Australian TV where a panel of 'expert's give their answers to questions from the audience. TV scientist, Brian Cox seems unable to give a convincing answer as to the reality of global warming as he blusters with arguments from authority and dodgy graphs. See the clip for yourself at the link above 

Sunday, 21 August 2016

DECLINING TRUST IN SCIENCE

This article gives the details of why scientists are trusted less, and a lot of it is to do with them straying into the area of politics, in particular the issue of so-called climate change, or global warming.

Saturday, 20 August 2016

UK's CLIMATE CHANGE POLICY CAUSES TOXIC BUSINESS ENVIRONMENT

This report gives the details of the hidden dangers of the UK's climate change policy on business, at a time when we need to give business a boost to ensure our success, post leaving the EU.

Friday, 19 August 2016

UK GOVERNMENT GROSSLY UNDERESTIMATES THE COST OF THE CLIMATE CHANGE ACT

This article lays bare the deceit perpetrated on the British people. By artificially inflating the wholesale price of electricity the cost of subsidising renewables in years to come is grossly understated.  By 2030, the annual cost will be £15.6 billion, instead of the £8.0 billion claimed. Over the next fifteen years, the total cost will be £157 billion. Again, remember that this does not include the cost of providing standby capacity.

Thursday, 18 August 2016

SUPERB SET OF LECTURE NOTES

This blog has been going since 2007 and I have built up a long list of links on the right hand side which are very informative and I wonder how many readers use them? I have noticed a big increase in the number of readers in recent weeks from all over the world, including Russia and Eastern Europe as well as Asia. Welcome to everyone.

I thought it might be useful to highlight some of these links to you, so I will start with a superb set of lecture notes from the University of Indiana, Bloomington by Professor Schieber, on the topic "Earth - Our Habitable Planet". Here is a link to the first part of the series. One of the chapters has been on the links list for some years, but in such a long list it could easily get over-looked. I have re-titled it to give it a more relevant title. There is a lot of material there. It is more like a textbook and should be read in short chunks, but it is mainly easy to read, though some scientific knowledge is useful for a complete understanding.

The next set of lectures cannot be obtained from the link on the website, but I have a link from Professor Schieber and I will be looking at these in a later post, including his notes on the Greenhouse Gases, in which I fear he seems to take the alarmist line. But despite this one disappointment I still believe these are a good set of lecture notes.  

Wednesday, 17 August 2016

BIG CHILL: 'SUBSTANTIAL COOLING' PREDICTED WITHIN THE NEXT FEW YEARS

Here's a cheery thought for all UK readers:

Daily Star, 14 August 2016

Joshua Nevett
 
Climate boffins believe the UK’s topsy-turvy climate is in for a chilly twist within the next few years as three major forms of climate change trigger “substantial cooling”.
 

Drastic changes in ocean conditions, greenhouse gases and a weakening of the sun threaten increasingly worsening winters of blistering blizzards and severe snowstorms for years to come.

This cocktail of climate threats, paired with “hasty climate policies”, could mean “rolling blackouts” in the UK over the next few years, plunging the country into long period of darkness.

These “worse case scenario” climate threats will hit the elderly hardest, leaving “some pensioners alone in the dark” on a freezing nights resigned to a “lonely death”.
 


An intense La Nina weather front could wreak havoc on the UK’s climate, photo Getty

It is thought these will be brought about for the most part by a massive decrease in solar activity, meaning fewer “sunspots” and solar flares to warm up earth.

Scientists recently warned the sun’s activity is at its lowest for 100 years, meaning earth is experiencing eerily similar conditions to the period when the last mini ice age hit.

This drop in sunspot activity leads to a so-called Maunder Minimum, which is believed to be responsible for the cripplingly cold winters Europe experienced three centuries ago.

The last time Britain entered a Maunder minimum period was in the 1600s, when temperatures sunk so low, London’s river Thames froze over.

Drawing on 400 years of sunspot observations, experts believe we are heading for a similar temperature “minimum”.

However, Grahame Madge, meteorologist for the Met Office, told Daily Star Online although a “grand solar minimum” is expected, it will do little to counteract global warming caused by man-made change.

Another major factor in the predicted cool down could be the switch from an usually strong El Nino to a La Nina weather front in the pacific ocean.

Meteorologist for AccuWeather Tyler Roys told Daily Star Online La Nina could contribute to the chilly mix.

He said that the onset of La Nina – which is associated with cooler temperatures – has a much more drastic effect on weather in the British Isles and could spell a climate cool down.

He said: “Looking at the similarities of 1998 to last years El Nino event, one can assume there could be such a drop off.”

La Nina has more of an effect on the weather for the British Isles than El Nino does.

“A La Nina that is based over the eastern Pacific Ocean tends for favour a cooler and drier then normal weather pattern for much of western Europe.”

The Met Office said the onset of La Nina from 2017 is likely to “buck the trend” in terms of record breaking global temperature averages, predicting a cool down across the globe.

Tuesday, 16 August 2016

SUN AND OCEAN CYCLES ARE MAIN CLIMATE DRIVERS SAY 35 NEW PAPERS

Here is the article from the excellent No Tricks Zone which highlights all 35 papers. Even if you don't read all 35, you must agree that it represents a considerable body of evidence. So when those alarmists ask for "proof" that the science is not settled in favour of CO2 controlling our climate, this is some of that proof.

Monday, 15 August 2016

GERMANY HAS FROST IN AUGUST ICY BLAST

This piece explains how the Germans are faring. However I must balance this by saying that here in the UK we are being forecast to have very warm weather next Tuesday of around 30 degrees Celsius according to this forecast, though it is not expected to last. Overall we have had a mixed summer with very little hot weather so far. 

Sunday, 14 August 2016

HINKLEY NUCLEAR POWER CONTRACT - THE FIRST BIG TEST FOR NEW PM

This piece gives the scene. The new Prime Minister, Theresa May, cannot afford to look weak in her first big test. The more pressure she is put under the more difficult it will be for her to let this deal go through after she has called it in. Of course the £2.5 Billion already spent will be money down the drain if the project is cancelled, but this is still better than signing up to a bad deal costing £30 billion to the customers in excess electricity charges.   

Saturday, 13 August 2016

US SHALE GAS TO ARRIVE IN SCOTLAND FOR PROCESSING - EXPECT PROTESTS FROM GREENS

Here is the source of this story. Clearly these protestors, if they turn up, must be against Scottish jobs and industry in general. If the Scottish National Party give ground to these modern luddites then they are signalling that Scotland is not open for business.

Friday, 12 August 2016

MURRY SALBY LECTURE SUMMARY

This article summarises a lecture by physicist Murry Salby in which he gives a tour de force on why CO2 is not a problem. The whole lecture is available at the link. 

Thursday, 11 August 2016

A MILLION JOBS AND THE CHEAPEST ENERGY IN THE DEVELOPED WORLD

This article in the Mail highlights the success of fracking in the USA. We could enjoy a similar success here in the UK if only we could get on and start drilling. Perhaps we will do if this idea of giving people living near new fracking developments a reward is carried out.

Wednesday, 10 August 2016

IF CALIFORNIANS REPLACE THEIR LAWN WITH STONES AND CACTII CLIMATE MODEL GIVES SURPRISING RESULTS

This piece gives the details. I am not surprised that the model predicts that it may increase day-time temperatures due to less evaporation, but what did surprise me was that it predicted lower night temperatures. The explanation being that "reducing soil moisture decreases upward heat fluxes from the sub-surface to the surface at night". Are they suggesting that the heat is retained in the soil? In which case the soil will get hotter and hotter! Of course it doesn't have to be correct as it is only a model. 

Tuesday, 9 August 2016

WEST ANTARCTIC ICE STEADILY MELTING FOR THE LAST 7,500 YEARS, SAYS NEW STUDY

This article explains how this new in-depth scientific study has shown that the melting of the West Antarctic ice sheet, which has been put forward by alarmists as a prominent example of the effect of man on the climate, is in fact a natural occurrence. We must remember that the rest of the Antarctic is cooling which is undisputed. 

Monday, 8 August 2016

IRISH PUBLIC STUNG BY INCREASED SUPPORT FOR RENEWABLE ELECTRICITY

This article looks at the increased cost of support to renewable electricity in the Irish Republic. No doubt similar burdens are being put on to electricity bills in many other Western nations. It is of little satisfaction to learn that outside the UK there is similar cost increases to those imposed here.

Sunday, 7 August 2016

WHY IS THE ENTIRE ATLANTIC OCEAN COOLING?

This article tries to explain what is going on. Many noted and well-intentioned climate scientists and universities are now starting to publicly admit that overwhelming amounts of new research indicates that the theory of man-made global warming does not properly explain many observed climate trends. It certainly does not explain why the temperatures of Earth’s three most dominant fluid systems—the Pacific Ocean, the Atlantic Ocean and the atmosphere—are trending in different directions.

Saturday, 6 August 2016

GAZPROM BOWS TO GREEN PRESSURE TO CLAIM UK GOVERNMENT HANDOUTS

This piece gives the details. When subsidies are on offer, it's a no-brainer to do what is necessary to claim them. That is the law of business - follow the money (or subsidy).

Friday, 5 August 2016

CLEXIT, THE LATEST WAY TO UPSET THE CLIMATE CHANGE ESTABLISHMENT

Here are the details of the new movement set up to campaign for exiting the climate change alarmist boondoggle. I am not sure how they are planning to do it, but they deserve our full support. My personal view is that the climate change bandwagon can only be halted by the climate itself not only not warming but actually cooling for several years, thus putting to rest the idea that CO2 is controlling it.

Thursday, 4 August 2016

UK GOVERNMENT'S HOPELESS FORECAST (GUESS) AT THE FUTURE COST OF FOSSIL FUELS AND WHY HINKLEY NUCLEAR IS FAR TOO EXPENSIVE

This article by Matt Ridley contains so many important statistics that it is a must for anyone interested in the subject of renewable energy and the so-called 'cost' of carbon. For example  "In 2012 DECC forecast three scenarios for fossil fuel prices. In the “high” scenario, the oil price, per barrel, in 2016 was expected to be $137.2; in the medium scenario, $119.2 and in the “low” scenario, $98.8. The price today is $43". 

Our new PM, Theresa May is quite right to take a second look at the figures for the proposed new nuclear power plant at Hinkley. The article clearly shows that it is too expensive and the electricity it would produce would cost too much. Our government's obsession with reducing CO2 emissions is the root cause of the massive cost we are all having to bear.

Wednesday, 3 August 2016

VOLCANIC CO2 EMISSIONS COULD BE MUCH LARGER THAN THOSE OF MAN

The global warming alarmists readily dismiss any suggestion that CO2 emissions from volcanic activity could provide an amount anywhere near that of mankind. Here is a very detailed paper which argues the case that these alarmists may be completely wrong and that the contribution of CO2 from volcanism may actually be much higher than previous (very sketchy) estimates.

Tuesday, 2 August 2016

WHAT IS THE TRUE HISTORIC RECORD OF CO2 LEVELS IN OUR ATMOSPHERE?

There are many weak links in the chain that supports the catastrophic man made global warming hypothesis. One is that CO2 is now at record high levels in the atmosphere when compared with a very long period of tens of thousands of years. Here is an interesting article on Watts Up With That which looks at the evidence to support this idea. I recommend reading the comments as some of them seem to be well informed and add extra information to the subject. When you look at the evidence, one thing that jumps out is that it is certainly not strong, which is what is expected when trying to reconstruct the composition of our atmosphere such a long way back.

Monday, 1 August 2016

REPLACE FREE ENTERPRISE CAPITALISM AND REDISTRIBUTE THE WORLD'S WEALTH

That is the true purpose of the climate change bandwagon, according to this article. The question is, why would Western governments deliberately  try and wreck their economies to go along with such a scheme?

Sunday, 31 July 2016

NEW PAPER SHOWS ANTARCTIC PENINSULA HAS BEEN COOLING, NOT WARMING

This article refers to a new scientific paper which concludes that the Antarctic Peninsula has been cooling for the last 20 years - the opposite of what we were all told was happening. But did you hear this on the main TV news? Or was it headlines in the main national papers? No, it has hardly been mentioned and yet it is a truly extraordinary finding which contradicts the very foundations of the so-called 'evidence' of dangerous warming. How long will it be before someone puts a documentary on mainstream TV to point out all the contradictions that have emerged over the past decade that pour cold water on the hypothesis of catastrophic anthropogenic global warming (CAGW)?  

Saturday, 30 July 2016

TRUMP TALKS COMMON SENSE ON GLOBAL WARMING

This article explains why belief in global warming and policies to tackle greenhouse gas emissions are becoming a key dividing line ahead of the 2016 election. My fear is that Donald Trump does not win the presidency due to his stance on other issues, and that Hillary Clinton entrenches the climate change mantra into the USA government. That would spell disaster for the West. On the other hand if Trump were to win we might get a lot more common sense on this important issue.

Friday, 29 July 2016

HERE'S ONE THING THAT REALLY IS IMPORTANT TO SAVE LIVES

And it's nothing to do with reducing CO2 emissions. Matt Ridley has a lot of very sound opinions and so he is always worth reading. In this linked article he is explaining how a genetically modified mosquito could be the way to eradicate the spread of several very nasty viruses, including the zika virus. This work is of much greater importance than the pointless attempts to control the climate.

Thursday, 28 July 2016

UK's 5th CARBON BUDGET APPROVED, DESPITE GREAT SPEECHES FROM LORDS LAWSON AND RIDLEY

Here is the text of the two speeches, with a link to the whole debate for those with the time and interest. As I read the debate I could not help wondering how the government minister and her supporters could be so naïve as to believe that reducing our CO2 emissions so drastically could actually be without cost. The details of the actual policies that will lead to the latest reductions are to be announced later. I can't wait!

Wednesday, 27 July 2016

LOOKING AT THE ERRORS IN MEASURING GLOBAL TEMPERATURE

This paper by Dr Roy Spencer is well worth reading as it puts into perspective the various factors that lead to errors in measuring temperatures and the value of those errors compared to the warming that has been measured. Most people simply read the headlines in the papers about "the warmest ever" temperatures, without understanding the errors associated with those measurements. 

Tuesday, 26 July 2016

THE CLIMATE CHANGE FEAR MONGERING AGENDA IN OUR SCHOOLS AND UNIVERSITIES

This article explains the issue very well. It is now propaganda that is being fed to our young people and not the true scientific method. The problem for alarmists is that the brightest young people can see this for what it is and so they will then arrive in the sceptic camp.

Monday, 25 July 2016

UK ENERGY POLICY - ON COURSE FOR DISASTER

Christopher Booker is stating the truth when he forecasts trouble ahead for the UK energy sector. Here is the latest newsletter from the excellent Scientific Alliance which confirms that Booker is right.

A GREEN ELECTRIC FUTURE
A reliable energy supply has always been a prerequisite for a modern industrial society. Lenin – certainly interested in power in all its forms – once said “Communism is Soviet power plus electrification of the whole country”. In today’s world, there seems to be a move towards the second aim, although hopefully not the first.

Electrification is a large part of the proposed plan to reduce carbon dioxide emissions and mitigate future climate changes in many countries. Enthusiasts see a future where cars are battery powered and domestic gas heating systems have been replaced by electric radiators of some description, or heat pumps. As a possible route to radical decarbonisation, it has some conceptual attractions, but there are some pretty big obstacles to overcome if this vision is ever to become a reality.

Leaving aside for now the thorny issue of cost – both to the consumer and the public purse – the two major points that have to be addressed are the extra generating capacity that has to be added to the system, and the primary fuel used in the new power stations. Since the aim of the whole exercise would be to reduce carbon emissions, this point about the fuel is critical, so more about this later.

But first, how much generating capacity would be needed? The 2015 edition of the official Digest of UK Energy Statistics (DUKES) reports a total generating capacity of 85 GW in 2014, and it is this figure that is the key one in terms of meeting peak demand. Not all of this capacity is necessarily available at any one time and, in particular, the output of the increasing amount of wind and solar capacity may be out of phase with actual demand. This is one reason why the country is a net importer of electricity via its system of interconnectors to the near continent.

The same source reports a total amount of 339 TWh of electricity generated, supplemented by imports. To illustrate the difficulty of matching supply and demand, the total consumption was just 303 TWh, meaning that at least 36 TWh of electricity was either generated when it was not needed or lost in the system. To put these figures into context, the theoretical output from 85 GW of capacity running flat out every hour of the year is 744 TWh, so the overall capacity factor of the UK system in 2014 was just 45.6%.

That is what we have to supply current demand. Now let’s look at the energy used for transport and heating. Looking only at road transport (rail is a minor sector and aircraft are unlikely to go electric any time soon), energy consumption in 2014 was 40 Mtoe (million tonnes of oil equivalent), 63% used for passenger transport and 37% for freight (DECC: Energy consumption in the UK chapter 2).

On the domestic front, total consumption of fossil fuels (primarily gas) was 27 Mtoe (Energy consumption in the UK chapter 3). Interestingly, despite the historically poor standard of house insulation, total energy consumption per household has fallen significantly in recent decades, due to a combination of increased insulation and more efficient boilers and other appliances. Despite some bad publicity, energy efficiency measures seem to be at least partially successful.

What would be the impact of conversion of the transport and domestic sectors to electricity? One million tonne of oil equivalent represents 11.6 TWh of electricity. So, if we assume that overall energy consumption by all sectors remains the same, converting road transport to electricity would consume a further 464 TWh, while domestic consumption would rise by 313 TWh. Total electricity demand would be 1080 TWh, three and a half times the current total.

Actually, demand would be even higher, as a terawatt hour generated does not all reach the consumer. The DUKES 2015 report gives a figure of 27.5 TWh lost in the previous year in the high-voltage transmission system and the final distribution network; that’s about 9% of electricity generated. That would increase total demand on the generating system by a about another 70 TWh.

The energy needing to be generated for transport would also be significantly higher than the bald figures suggest. In simple terms, using a tonne of oil to power a car directly is more efficient than using it to generate electricity, distributing that to car batteries and drawing on those batteries to drive the car. Each stage of this chain incurs losses. A diesel engine can be 45% efficient. Electric motors can be much more efficient, but generating, transmission, distribution and storage losses more than offset this.

Overall, we can expect that electrification of homes and road transport would require at least four to five times the current generating capacity. However, some would argue that much of the transport load could be supplied by overnight charging. If we assume that this does in fact take care of a significant proportion of demand, then let’s be optimistic and say that UK generating capacity has to be just tripled.

Even if there were to be a crash programme to build dozens of new gas-powered stations, this would be difficult to do in a reasonable timescale and, more importantly in the context of the raison d’être of the whole project, would not decarbonise the system. There are those who say that this can be done by a massive expansion of renewable energy, but this seems barely credible. Even if sufficient sites could be found for wind farms (we have to accept that solar can only make a very modest contribution at northern European latitudes) enormous amounts of conventional backup capacity would be needed to guarantee security of supply.

The only viable alternative would be a vast expansion of nuclear capacity, which seems unlikely to happen in the near future, given the Hinkley Point C debacle. There are alternatives to the Areva design, and Small Modular Reactors could have a bright future, but we are unlikely to see any new nuclear on stream in this country before the late 2020s.

This rough analysis strongly suggests that ambitious national emissions reduction targets are going to be increasingly difficult to meet and that essentially complete decarbonisation of the economy by 2050 is currently an unrealisable vision. However, the political earthquake the UK has experienced over the last four weeks (yes, just four weeks since the referendum!) gives a golden opportunity to revisit existing policy and turn it into something realistic, achievable and worthwhile.

Sunday, 24 July 2016

UK ULTILITY COMPANY LOOKING AT HYDROGEN AS A REPLACEMENT FOR METHANE TO HEAT HOMES

Yes it's true, they are looking at hydrogen to replace the natural gas in order to lower our CO2 emissions. Here is the article that explains the idea. Clearly this is going to be an expensive option, as they intend to convert the methane into hydrogen via a chemical reaction. It is typical of the kind of mad thinking required if we believe that saving a tiny amount of CO2 emissions is going to improve the climate. Unfortunately the government does seem to believe this. Oh dear!

Saturday, 23 July 2016

GLOBAL WARMING ETC. GETS 'SLIPPED INTO' TRADE AGREEMENTS

If you think that you live in an independent state (provided you are not a member of the EU) then you may have to think again when you have read this article. If you have the time I also recommend that you read the comments underneath as some of them are very enlightening. One thing before you start - the article contains a number of acronyms which you may or may not be familiar with. Here are some explanations:
TPTB - the powers that be
TPP - Trans Pacific Partnership (an FTA)
TTIP - Transatlantic Trade and Investment Partnership (another FTA between USA and EU)
FTA - Free Trade Agreement
It is quite a long post, but it demonstrates just how much other stuff, including a raft of environmental regulation, gets put into something that most 'laymen' would expect to focus simply on trade.

While no doubt the EU is an extreme example of a trans-national organisation which aims to exercise a lot of control over its member states, these so-called free trade agreements, drawn up by international lawyers immersed in all aspects of these kind of things, also purport to cover as many areas as they can fit in.

Of course we all know that some (many) nations will minimise and even ignore many of the aspects of these agreements, and get away with it, but others, including, unfortunately, the UK, seem to observe every bit, even embellishing some aspects for good measure, ably assisted by an over zealous judiciary. Who needs enemies when our government signs us up to these kind of agreements?

Friday, 22 July 2016

"NO CEO COULD SURVIVE IF THEY TRIED TO SAY CLIMATE CHANGE ISN'T REAL,” SAID BLOOMBERG

This article looks at the pressure being put on to business leaders not to challenge the climate change hypothesis. And it works, as hardly any business leaders will speak out for fear of either losing business or losing their job. 

Thursday, 21 July 2016

SATELLITE TEMPERATURE RECORDS BETRAY THE DOCTORED LAND-BASED MEASUREMENTS

This article refers to a report on the BBC which claimed that June 2016 was the hottest ever June. The article demonstrates that this claim is not backed by the evidence of the satellite temperature record. How those trying to perpetrate the global warming fear thesis must rue the fact that these satellite records exist.

Wednesday, 20 July 2016

30 FRACKING APPLICATIONS TO BE LODGED BY INEOS IN THE UK

Peggy Hollinger, Financial Times

    

Ineos, the $50bn petrochemicals giant controlled by British billionaire Jim Ratcliffe, aims to accelerate shale gas development in the UK by lodging as many as 30 planning applications to drill test wells in the next six months.

Tom Crotty, a director at Ineos, said the company hoped to start drilling in the north of England early next year and could begin extracting gas in about 18 months through the controversial technique known as fracking.
The move comes as the group this year ends a six-year tax exile with the opening of a new headquarters in London for its mainly UK-based upstream oil and gas businesses. [...]
The group, which owns the Grangemouth refinery in Scotland, has ambitions to become a substantial oil and gas producer, particularly in shale gas. Ineos has backed a highly public campaign to convince the Scottish government to lift its moratorium on fracking over the past year.
Full story (subscription required)

Tuesday, 19 July 2016

EVALUATING THE INTEGRITY OF OFFICIAL CLIMATE RECORDS

This report by Tony Heller looks at a whole range of data and compares the latest data with earlier versions.  The conclusion is that there has been significant tampering to produce warming where none existed before. It is time that the scientists responsible for this were forced to account for what they have done. 

Monday, 18 July 2016

CONFIDENT PREDICTION OF A NEW MINI ICE AGE

Starting now, but becoming increasingly noticeable by 2020, a new mini ice age, similar to the one between 1645 and 1715 when the Thames regularly froze, is confidently predicted. The details are to be found in this article. If true it raises a number of questions including - what will governments do to keep people warm by providing cheap forms of heating? Having abandoned fossil fuels (at least partially) will we see a U-turn in policy? It looks like we have interesting times ahead.

Sunday, 17 July 2016

GERMAN POWER COMPANIES ARE IN FINANCIAL DIFFICULTY

This article gives the details of the difficulties they face as the German government attempts to reduce its level of CO2 emissions as well as phasing out nuclear power. If they persist they may well cause the collapse of the once mighty German economy. The danger for the German people is that once they have gone so far down the road it is very difficult to go back, without incurring even more costs to get back to where they were. It is rather like walking into boggy ground - once you have taken the decision to keep going you are bound to get stuck! 

Saturday, 16 July 2016

SEA LEVEL RISE - NEW ESTIMATE GIVES ONLY 6 INCHES PER CENTURY

What fantastic news, so we can now relax and not worry about any cities going beneath the waves. Low lying atolls will be safe for the future. Here is the report. 

Friday, 15 July 2016

THE RISE OF THE SCEPTICS IN THE UK?

This piece from Jo Nova looks at the views of the newly appointed UK government on climate alarmism, and concludes that there might be some hope of optimism. I suspect it is nothing more than hope, as politicians have a habit of conforming to convention once they are given power. However this piece suggests that our new Prime Minister may be getting some sensible advice, but will she take it?

Thursday, 14 July 2016

MORE CLIMATE SCARE STORIES ON THE NEWS

This piece gives the details of a new 'scary' report on what to expect in the next few decades from climate change. However our good friend Paul Homewood soon debunks it all using the climate data already available which shows that up to now there has been no weather changes that have not happened in the past. It is simply all hype using cherry-picked data.

Wednesday, 13 July 2016

SPECIES EXTINCTION RATE MUCH LOWER DURING THE PAST 50 YEARS

Some alarmist scientists had been predicting a massive rate of extinction of species as a result of global warming. Of course we now know that the ate of global warming has been negligible over recent years and this report confirms that the rate of species extinction has also been negligible. So yet another scare story comes to nothing. No wonder the public are tiring of the whole thing. If only the governments would do the same.

This excerpt from the report gives a flavour of it "It is possible to count the number of species known to be extinct. The International Union for Conservation of Nature (IUCN) does just that. It has listed 801 animal and plant species (mostly animal) known to have gone extinct since 1500.” So that’s a few more than 800 species extinctions since 1500. Of those, just 3 have occurred since rapid global warming resumed in the 1970s (following the 1940s to 1970s cooling period), or since CO2 concentrations have risen from about 325 ppm (1970s) to over 400 ppm (2016)."

Tuesday, 12 July 2016

HAVING FORCED COAL POWER STATIONS TO CLOSE THE UK GOVERNMENT IS NOW PAYING THEM TO STAY OPEN

This piece explains what is going on in the strange Alice in Wonderland world of the UK energy market today. The government, having tried to show their 'green' credentials by closing coal-fired electricity generating plants early, are now waking up to the reality that they will not have sufficient generating capacity to keep the lights on in the depths of a cold snap, so they are paying these same coal-fired generating plants to stand by to add their supply to the grid. You just could not make it up, as they say!

Monday, 11 July 2016

LORD MONCKTON SPEAKS OUT AGAINST THE CLIMATE ALARMISTS

Here is a very good piece about the claims by some alarmists that the 'pause' in global warming has ended. Christopher Monckton uses the scientific data to prove that nothing has really changed and the changes that have and are taking place can all be explained by natural processes that have always taken place. Very reassuring.

Sunday, 10 July 2016

MURRY SALBY LECTURE - CO2 NOT CONTROLLABLE BY HUMANS

Here are some details of a most interesting lecture by Professor Murry Salby, entitled  "Atmospheric Carbon: Why It’s Not Pollution and Why Humans Cannot Regulate It"
No, it’s not for the reasons you have heard. The ultimate reason that emitted carbon dioxide (CO2) is not a pollutant is far more fundamental. In its light, energy sources that circumvent CO2 emission are neither cleaner nor greener. They’re just different.
New research (not previously released) establishes that, even if CO2 was a pollutant, humans’ capacity to regulate its concentration in the atmosphere is extremely limited.
It reveals why a three-fold increase in the growth of fossil fuel emission at the turn of the century, which led to far more CO2 being emitted in the subsequent decade than was emitted in the preceding decade, resulted in no increase in the growth of atmospheric CO2. The research demonstrates that, even if fossil fuel emission was eliminated entirely, it would scarcely alter how much CO2 is in the atmosphere.
Changes of the Earth’s temperature, along with the myriad of environmental disasters that have been speculated would follow from fossil fuel emission, are then not merely beyond human control. They are irrelevant.
The lecture is being held on 18th July 6.45pm for 7.15pm, in the Large Lecture theatre (GO6), Roberts Building, University College, London -  Entrance from Torrington Place WC1E 7HB (opposite Waterstones bookshop) Nearest Tube stations: Euston Square, Goodge St. Free admission (donations accepted!) Contact: Philip Foster 01480 399098  philip.foster17@ntlworld.com

Saturday, 9 July 2016

FARMERS ARE RIGHT TO BE SCEPTICAL OF GLOBAL WARMING HYPOTHESIS

This post looks at a recent study carried out with farmers showing that they are more sceptical of the GW scare than the general population. Clearly they have much more intimate knowledge of the climate than others and so the finding is very understandable. The linked article explains that they are right to be so.

Friday, 8 July 2016

LYING AMONG ACADEMICS SEEMS TO BE INCREASING

How can we trust what we read in the press or even in research papers?

Have 1 In 5 UK Academics Fabricated Data?

  • Date: 02/07/16
  • Retraction Watch

A small survey of UK academics suggests misconduct such as faking data and plagiarism is occurring surprisingly often. The survey — of 215 UK academics — estimated that 1 in 7 had plagiarized from someone else’s work, and nearly 1 in 5 had fabricated data.

Here’s how Joanna Williams and David Roberts at the University of Kent summarize the results in their full report, published by the Society for Research into Higher Education:
-Using references to support predetermined arguments rather than illuminate debate was undertaken by 38.1% (± 5.1%) respondents. This was the most frequently reported incidence of malpractice.
-36.0% (± 7.6%) of respondents reported self-plagiarising. This is more than one in three researchers.
-17.9% (± 6.1%) of academics surveyed reported having fabricated (entirely invented) research data. This is almost 1 in 5 researchers.
-13.6% (± 7.5%) of respondents reported having engaged in plagiarism.
Although these findings suggest there is cause for concern, they are higher than many of those reported by previous studies — including a 2014 paper by Roberts, which used similar survey methods and showed a fabrication rate of 0% among UK academics in biology.

Thursday, 7 July 2016

GOVERNMENT EXAGGERATES THE RISE OF THE ELECTRIC CAR

This article looks at the predictions made by the UK government about the future use of electric motor vehicles. They sound very impressive, but what are they really based on? On reading the article linked to we can see that it appears to be mainly wishful thinking on their part. However if the government are going to meet their own targets they are probably planning to 'encourage' us to take up electric vehicles, no with a carrot, but with some sticks in the shape of  penalties for using fossil fuels. That will make them very unpopular and they won't like that!

Wednesday, 6 July 2016

AUSTRALIAN ELECTION ON A KNIFE EDGE

This report gives an update of the Australian election that has just taken place. It is possible the result could be very close, with counting still going on. It is interesting to note the re-emergence of Pauline Hanson's One Nation Party that could be very influential in a close result. The One Nation Party has a good sceptic policy on climate change. 

Tuesday, 5 July 2016

UK GAS AND ELECTRICITY PRICES IN TOP QUARTER OF INTERNATIONAL LIST

UK Gas and Electricity Prices in International Context

  • Date: 02/07/16
  • From the GWPF
  • On the 30th of June, the Department of Energy and Climate Change approved the 5th Carbon Budget and also released a large number of updates to its statistical data sets, including information on gas and electricity prices in the UK and other countries, data that underlines how unwise is the unilateral approach to climate change as embodied by the 5th Carbon Budget.
DECC reports that in 2015 UK domestic electricity prices including taxes were:
Seventh highest in the International Energy Agency member countries (of which there are 29), and 21% above the IEA country median.
In other words, UK domestic electricity prices are comparatively very expensive.
The figures for industrial electricity prices are also unfavourable. In 2015, average UK industrial electricity prices including taxes were:
Fourth highest in the IEA, and 43% above the IEA country median.
In other words, UK industrial electricity prices are comparatively expensive.
The situation with regard to gas prices is fortunately better. In 2015, average UK industrial gas prices, including taxes where not refunded, were:
Eighth lowest in the IEA, and 9% below the IEA country median.
Domestic gas prices including taxes where not refunded, were:
Thirteenth lowest in the IEA, and 1% lower than the IEA country median.
The general asymmetry between gas and electricity is easily explained. The UK’s climate policies, particularly subsidies to renewables such as wind and solar power and biomass bear very heavily on electricity, and less so on gas.
The tables also provide very helpful country price tables that allow quick comparisons. These can be remarkably illuminating. For example, in 2015 domestic electricity prices in the UK were about 15.5p/kWh, whereas in the United States the price was 8.3p/kWh, and in Korea a remarkable 6.7p/kWh.
The highest domestic electricity prices are found in Germany (22p/kWh and Denmark (21p/kWh, both countries with very aggressive renewables policies and extensive deployment, as well as policies that share the burden of renewables unevenly between industrial and domestic consumers. German industrial prices are about 9.5p/kWh, which though high by European standards (only Italy is higher in the EU 15), is only a fraction over that in the UK (9.36p/kWh). To put this another way, domestic electricity prices in the UK are 6p/kWh more than industrial prices; but in Germany the difference is 12p/kWh. Doubtless this helps to protect jobs in export based industries, but one wonders how much further the German household’s Willingness To Pay can be stretched.

Monday, 4 July 2016

BRITAIN'S NEW CARBON BUDGET MAY BE UNLAWFUL


Fifth Carbon Budget Based On The Assumption That The UK Remains In The EU


London 30 June: The British government has set its 5th Carbon Budget with a 2030 target of forcing CO2 emissions down by 57% on 1990 levels. In contrast, the EU-wide target is 40%.

The new Budget is the most ambitious climate policy in the world. As a result it puts the UK at a damaging competitive disadvantage compared with its European neighbours and all other major economies around the world.
 
Remarkably, the budget’s and government’s own Impact Assessement was drawn up weeks ago, and is based on the now incorrect assumption that the United Kingdom will still be in the EU by 2030, active in the EU Emissions Trading Scheme and covered by the EU’s Paris Agreement terms. In fact, the Impact Assessment refers to the EU more than 150 times.
 
It is our view that the government has behaved unreasonably, and should have delayed approval of the Budget and reassessed the impacts in the light of the far-reaching changes flowing from the referendum result.
 
Indeed, there was every reason to pass this extremely important decision on to the next government, allowing time for reconsideration.
 
The hasty, rubber-stamping of a Budget designed for very different circumstances is dangerous in itself and may be unlawful. The incoming Prime Minister should review this decision as a matter of priority. UK prosperity depends on it.

Sunday, 3 July 2016

STORMY POLITICAL WEATHER FORECAST FOR THE UK

Further to yesterday's post I predict that an early election here in the UK will be a tough task for the pollsters. Analysing the EU referendum vote shows that there was an alliance between many voters in northern towns, who would traditionally vote labour and the voters in the southern counties who would be more likely to vote conservative. Now that these voters have 'gone native' they may decide to do so again. This could be a huge opportunity for Nigel Farage and his UKIP party. Nigel is the one man who is identified with Brexit, as that has been the main aim of his party since its formation over 20 years ago. If you have not heard Nigel's victory speech then it is something you need to see. I am a Conservative and even though a few of my council colleagues have left the Conservative Party and joined UKIP I have not followed them. One reason for this is that our local MP, Julian Lewis is a conviction politician who has always taken a very sceptical line on the EU and in the recent campaign strongly supported the Leave side. Secondly I believed that I could achieve more by campaigning within the Conservative Party, which contains many who share my views, than by joining a small party that has much less influence. It is instructive to note that those colleagues who joined UKIP have since been voted off the Council and so have no position at all.

Even though I am not a member of UKIP, I agree with many of their policies, particularly on Climate Change, where the excellent Roger Helmer, MEP (a former Conservative) has drawn up a sensible policy on energy. A snap election could see many voters, particularly Labour ones, decide that UKIP's immigration policy is much more to their liking than the 'open doors' policy of the current Labour party. If that happens it would be seismic here in the UK.

Maybe there won't be a snap election. The new Conservative leader may get cold feet like Gordon Brown did when he inherited the leadership from Tony Blair. Brown lived to regret his decision, as the polls went against him and he never recovered, losing the 2010 election to David Cameron. The new Conservative leader may calculate that he need not bother as Labour will still be unelectable in 2020, when the next UK election is due. 

   

Saturday, 2 July 2016

A NEW POLITICAL CLIMATE

Continuing on from yesterday's post I am suggesting that Brexit has changed the political climate. The voters have flexed their muscles in a way that they simply haven't done before. When they take stock of this they will become more militant, more willing to take risk, particularly when the result of leaving the EU does not turn out to lead to the apocalyptic vision conjured up by the political elite. Not only will this be true here in the UK, but it will resonate with voters all over the world.

In recent decades we have seen those in charge make a number of massive errors, such as the invasion of Iraq (again with no strategic follow up plan). This was sold to the public by a dossier that turned out to be untrue and grossly exaggerated. Then there was the financial crisis due to a lack of control of the banks; gambling that no one should have allowed to go on. We are still suffering the consequences today. The implosion of the Middle East dictatorships has led to uncontrolled migration with no plan as to how to deal with it.

Our leaders have been found wanting. They have let us down and the people are fed up. Here in the UK this is absolutely clear. The Conservative government is now without an effective leader and the opposition Labour Party is in total disarray. Their is talk of calling a general election within months. That will be a most interesting election, if it takes place. More on this tomorrow.    

Friday, 1 July 2016

THE POLITICAL CLIMATE IS MORE THAN JUST THE WEATHER

Today I want to broaden the perspective of this blog and do so formally. Regular readers will have noticed that I have given a lot of coverage to Brexit, the UK's vote to leave the European Union. It is obviously a hot topic and has resulted in increasing visitors to the blog. I will continue to cover the climate topic, but with increasing focus on the politics. It is something that I have always been interested in and I am involved in local politics as a district councillor. I have been campaigning for the UK to leave the EU for a number of years and during this recent referendum campaign I have personally delivery several thousand leaflets to the residents of my ward and organised others to deliver more as well as putting up a number of posters in prominent places and urged all my family and friends to vote to leave. As I did so I wondered if it would be enough. I hoped that there would be thousands of others doing the same. In the end, as we all know it was enough and we won!

In these early days since victory many people are still dazed here. We are only just beginning to take in the magnitude of what we did. Some are fearful; some even regret voting 'leave'. It is an extraordinary result as previous posts have said. The nation seems so unprepared as though they never thought about what would happen next. Even the Prime Minister, David Cameron, who clearly thought he would win a vote to remain. He has resigned and not done what he said he would do, which was to trigger Article 50 (the notice to the EU that the country is leaving). I don't believe he wanted to be the one to do it, or be associated with it. But, of course he is, and he will always be remembered as the man who gave us the vote that led to our exit. Of course he never expected to have to give us a referendum as he did not expect to win the last election outright. He was convinced that he would, at best, form another coalition with the Liberal Democrats, who would not have supported a referendum. But he ought to have considered the outcome of a leave vote, in which case he ought to have had a plan to follow through. I think he simply didn't think it through. He is a gambler and has huge confidence in his ability to convince the people of his case. Like all gamblers he eventually lost.

We are now hearing from some of the leading 'Leave' politicians that they don't accept that people voted to leave in order to reduce immigration. I am sure they are completely wrong and if they do not reduce immigration drastically then they will find a very angry electorate who will turn them out.  We are now living (post brexit) in a new kind of politics. I will expand on this tomorrow.   

Thursday, 30 June 2016

BREXIT IS A MORE IMPRESSIVE ACHIEVEMENT THAN THE FRENCH REVOLUTION

The piece below is a fitting summary of the campaign to leave the EU. Please read it and relish the language that describes it. Let us hope that our politicians live up to its full aspirations.

The Daily Telegraph, 25 June 2016

Andrew Roberts
On Easter Sunday, May 6 1867, the Reform League pressure group had a difficult decision to make. Would they obey the diktat of the Home Secretary, Spencer Walpole, and not hold a huge meeting in Hyde Park to call for Reform, or would they defy him?

Founded only two years before, they campaigned for the franchise for all ratepayers, as well as secret ballots and an equal numerical distribution of seats in parliament, the basis of our modern democracy. Yet the police were padlocking the gates to the Park, which in those days was surrounded by high iron railings.

The Prime Minister and Cabinet urged caution and predicted dire consequences if the meeting went ahead; the police were called out en masse, and there was a run on the pound. With 200,000 supporters of Reform marching towards the park, the decision was nonetheless taken by the League’s leaders simply to pull down the railings and allow the vast surge of humanity to hold their (in the event, entirely peaceful) meeting.

The role of bloody-minded insurgents willing to do the opposite of what they’re told by the authorities has long been central to great political events in British history

Spencer Walpole burst into tears under the pressure and resigned; 10 speakers addressed the crowds, and the Second Reform Bill was passed later that same year. The railings never went back up.

The role of bloody-minded insurgents willing to do the opposite of what they’re told by the authorities has long been central to great political events in British history, and the 17,410,742 people who voted to leave the European Union can certainly be ranked among their number.


Almost every single agency of the international Establishment was deployed to thwart them – the CBI, IMF, Bank of England, OECD, big business, Goldman Sachs, all but one party leader, the World Bank, Presidents Obama, Hollande and Abe, the EU Commission, two-thirds of the cabinet, the Treasury, The Guardian, Davos, The Times, and so on – yet over 17.4 million people told them precisely what they could do with their expert opinion.

It is the British people who have now sent Obama “to the back of the queue”.

In Melvyn Bragg’s fine novel about the Peasant’s Revolt, Now is The Time, one sees a template for the uprising of ordinary people that resulted in the Brexit vote, much as the pro-EU Lord Bragg might like to deny it. The huge groundswell of ordinary people’s opinion led rather than followed their own leaders.

Today’s insurgent leaders were themselves a ragbag bunch: a half-albino Classicist whose friends called him “the truffle-pig”; a German-born female Labour MP; a beer-drinking, cigarette-smoking man of the people; and an infinitely courteous intellectual with a razor-sharp brain, who had nevertheless been sacked as education secretary a few years earlier. It wasn’t much to set against the combined forces of the Establishment, yet they won.

Just as the National Union of Women’s Suffrage Societies (founded in 1897) and its more militant offshoot the Women’s Social and Political Union (founded 1903) took on the Establishment and won, and as the Anti-Corn Law League had a generation earlier, so the Brexit movement enlisted armies of supporters across the country whose motives were traduced and posters defaced and supplications ignored, until the vote was taken and their voices finally had to be heard. 

The popular uprising campaign was therefore not like the Poll Tax riots of 1990 but much more firmly in the mainstream of the long British tradition of legitimate peaceful protest.

In this way, too, it was a more impressive achievement than the French Revolution, soaked as that was in blood. This popular uprising has toppled the established order without calling upon the tumbrel, the scaffold and the guillotine. It will secure its place in history as a result. 

And when that history of the Brexit movement comes to be written later this century, there will be a number of people who are by no means household names but who kept alight the torch of British independence ever since it was so nearly extinguished by Ted Heath in 1973.

Michael Ivens, Douglas Jay, Alan Sked, Patrick Robertson, Jimmy Goldsmith, Bill Cash, Robert Oulds, Nigel Lawson, Rodney Leach, the McWhirter twins, Bill Cash and many others did as much to keep the popular insurgency alive over more than four decades as Nigel Farage, Boris Johnson and Michael Gove, who had the honour of lighting the blue touchpaper this year.

Their contribution should not go unmarked, even though not all of them are famous

Wednesday, 29 June 2016

BREXIT CAMPAIGN LEADERSHIP DOMINATED BY CLIMATE REALISTS

Below is something to cheer readers up. Are we at last seeing a shift in the world-view of the climate change hypothesis and all that flows from it. We can only hope!

EurActiv, 24 May 2016

James Crisp
 

Boris Johnson, a leading Vote Leave politician who has cast doubt on global warming.

Leading figures in the Vote Leave referendum campaign to take Britain out of the EU have links to a controversial climate-sceptic think tank and question the science behind global warming.

The group’s three leaders Boris Johnson, Michael Gove and figurehead Lord Nigel Lawson have cast doubt over man-made climate change, which is backed by most of the world’s credible experts…

Gove – who tried to stop climate change being taught in schools – and in particular Johnson are seen as Conservative leadership frontrunners should a Brexit vote topple UK Prime Minister David Cameron, who backs Remain.

There are so many influential politicians and donors that are both euro and climate-sceptic that it has raised fears over the future of UK climate policy if the UK votes for Brexit on 23 June…

A spokesman for the Britain Stronger in Europe campaign said, “They deny the scientific evidence on climate change, just as they deny the economic evidence that leaving the EU would wreck the UK economy and cost around 820,000 jobs.”

Vote Leave didn’t return requests for comment yesterday (23 May). But the Global Warming Policy Foundation did.

Director Benny Peiser said the foundation had no view on the EU referendum and was not involved in any shape or form in referendum activities. “So far as I know, our trustees are divided on the referendum debate,” he added.

Peiser said the foundation and its members had a broad range of different scientific and economic viewpoints on climate change.

Tuesday, 28 June 2016

BREXIT HAS SIGNIFICANT IMPLICATIONS FOR ENERGY AND CLIMATE POLICIES

The Daily Caller, 24 June 2016

Michael Bastasch
 
When British voters chose to leave the European Union Thursday night, they weren’t just voting against Brussels’ immigration policies, they were also voting against Europe’s growing list of green mandates.
 
The EU’s allowance of millions of refugees and open borders policy did play a large role in the “Brexit” vote, but it was also a repudiation of global warming policies Brussels has imposed on the U.K.

“The decision by the British people to leave the European Union will have significant and long-term implications for energy and climate policies,” Dr. Benny Peiser, director of the Global Warming Policy Forum, told The Daily Caller News Foundation.

Conservative pollster Lord Michael Ashcroft surveyed 12,369 Brits voting in Thursday’s referendum and found 69 percent of those who voted to leave the EU saw the “green movement” as a “force for ill.”

“By large majorities, voters who saw multiculturalism, feminism, the Green movement, globalisation and immigration as forces for good voted to remain in the EU; those who saw them as a force for ill voted by even larger majorities to leave,” Ashcroft wrote.

Britons have been struggling under high energy prices for years, in part due to rules passed down from EU bureaucrats. Environmentalists opposed leaving the EU for precisely this reason. The Brexit vote signals the U.K. is lurching right, and will likely reject heavy-handed climate policies.

“It is highly unlikely that the party-political green consensus that has existed in Parliament for the last 10 years will survive the seismic changes that are now unfolding after Britain’s Independence Day,” Peiser said.

Prime Minister David Cameron announced his resignation after the vote, since he supported the staying in the EU. Cameron was one of the main forces behind the so-called “green consensus” in Parliament, which supported green energy subsidies and energy taxes to pay for them.

“The British people have voted to leave the European Union and their will must be respected,” Cameron said Friday. “The will of the British people is an instruction that must be delivered.”

Cameron’s government did begin to cut back subsidies for solar panels and push for hydraulic fracturing. Conservative Party lawmakers voted against more handouts for wind power as well as to bring down the costs of electricity. Green taxes cost U.K. residents $6.6 billion every year.

Brits also paid some of the highest energy costs in Europe, thanks in part to green taxes added to their electricity bills.

The man that may take Cameron’s place is not committed to keeping the U.K.’s “green” image.

Ex-London Mayor Boris Johnson, who was the face of the Brexit movement, could take Cameron’s place as prime minister in the coming months. Johnson is a global warming skeptic, and even criticized alarmist claims that human emissions caused England’s unseasonably warm winter.

“It is fantastic news that the world has agreed to cut pollution and help people save money, but I am sure that those global leaders were driven by a primitive fear that the present ambient warm weather is somehow caused by humanity; and that fear – as far as I understand the science – is equally without foundation,” he wrote in December.

“There may be all kinds of reasons why I was sweating at ping-pong – but they don’t include global warming,” he wrote.

Johnson is unlikely to revive the “green consensus” in Parliament. That doesn’t mean Johnson won’t keep in place some EU environmental rules, but the regulatory regime will probably be less onerous than the one Brussels had in mind.

“But perhaps the most important aspect of the EU referendum has been the astonishing self-determination and scepticism of the British people in face of an unprecedented fear campaign,” Peiser said.

Monday, 27 June 2016

REAL CLIMATE DATA DO NOT SUPPORT THE CLIMATE CHANGE HYPOTHESIS

One of the best blogs on climate data and trends is Paul Homewood's "Not A Lot of People Know That" and he has yet another excellent post here on snowfall trends in New York. While climate alarmists try to make out their case by picking out short term trends that are simply unrealistic Paul seeks out and publishes the full data and it invariably shows no such trend. When will the general public be told the truth? It is time for the government to undertake a thorough review of the evidence before wasting yet more billions of ponds on trying to prevent something which isn't happening.

Sunday, 26 June 2016

BREXIT WILL MEAN RE-WRITING PARIS CLIMATE AGREEMENT SAY TOP OFFICIALS

This article explains how this comes about. In short the EU and UN hierarchy don't like the result of our referendum - another reason to cheer. It seems there were more good reasons to vote for Brexit than most of us even realised. It feels good to be independent, though I have no doubt that our political masters are plotting at this moment to put us back in the pen, like some awkward sheep that has somehow eluded the shepherd.

Saturday, 25 June 2016

AUSSIE REACTION TO HISTORIC UK BREXIT VOTE

This post and the comments show how strong the support for the UK decision is (to leave the EU). I admit that I feel very proud of the voters who withstood a barrage of fear-mongering propaganda. I believe it will make us stronger as voters, if we now prove that this propaganda does not come true. Our political leaders will now have to make our decision work, or if they do not then they will lose the next election, and that would be catastrophic for the party and the country. 

Friday, 24 June 2016

ANTARCTIC TEMPERATURES FLATLINE AS CO2 LEVEL HITS 400 PPM

Here we see the link between rising CO2 and temperature - there isn't one at the south pole. Much of the temperature increase that has been observed in the parts of the world inhabited by man is caused by the urban heat island effect, which is due to man made cities having vast amounts of concrete and tarmac and buildings which act like a giant storage heater, plus all the heat from cars and heat put into buildings adding to the sun's heat. None of this applies to the Antarctic.

Thursday, 23 June 2016

GREEN MADNESS DESCENDS ON GERMANY

This report is a summary of a new report by Greenpeace of Germany into what requirements are needed to comply with the Paris climate change agreement. The requirements are so completely absurd that surely no one could take them seriously. Of course no one has costed this, as to do so would be to underline to its madness. I wonder when the people will rise up against this? I reckon it will be when the State starts to get nasty and demand they hand over their cars or their heating system.

Wednesday, 22 June 2016

EU IS TO BLAME FOR UK'S FAILING ENERGY POLICY

This article explains the case for leaving the EU in order to regain control of our energy policy. Of course even if we vote to leave the EU we can only benefit if our own government decide to do something different, and so far they have shown very little or no sign of doing so.

Tuesday, 21 June 2016

NEW CLOUD STUDY IS A BLOW TO CLIMATE EXTREMISM

This piece looks at how clouds are treated in the climate computer models compared with the new study revealing how they actually perform. The result means that the models are even worse than previously thought.

Monday, 20 June 2016

OBAMA'S ENERGY EFICIENCY REGULATIONS MAKE APPLIANCES WORSE

This article explains how the new rules to make appliances more energy efficient are also making them perform worse, with all sorts of unforeseen consequences. In some cases the rules do not even result in much savings in CO2 emissions at all, but they simply cost the consumer a lot of money for no purpose. The same thing is happening in the EU.

Sunday, 19 June 2016

INDIA'S U TURN ON THE PARIS CLIMATE AGREEMENT AND WHY IT IS RIGHT

This report explains the reason for the Indian government's decision which is based on the immediate need to alleviate poverty in the country. This can only be done by giving priority to increasing the supply of affordable energy throughout the country, which is simply not compatible with reducing CO2 emissions when burning coal is the best way to produce affordable energy. No sensible government would leave its people in poverty in order to combat something that is unproven and in any event not going to happen for many decades, if at all. 

Saturday, 18 June 2016

INVEST IN THE END OF GLOBAL WARMING

This article explains an ingenious new investment that some climate sceptics are putting together. It appears to rely on the eventual demise of the CO2 hypothesis and all that flows from it. While I remain convinced that it is greatly exaggerated, I suspect it still has some way to go before it is completely debunked and so I will not be investing myself as I need to get a reasonably quick return on my investment 

Friday, 17 June 2016

WARMISTS ADVISED TO LIE

This piece tell us the kind of people who are so desperate to convince us of their cause that they believe it is acceptable to lie.

Thursday, 16 June 2016

PARIS CLIMATE DEAL MAY UNRAVEL NEXT YEAR

Business Standard, 10 June 2016

Nitin Sethi, New Delhi
 
Neither the US nor India has committed to a formal ratification of the Paris agreement by the end of 2016 in the much-hyped joint statement on climate change. The political imperatives before outgoing US President Barack Obama, domestic legal requirements in India and the procedural complications of the Paris agreement collectively ensured that the two didn't.

The statement, issued during Prime Minister Narendra Modi’s visit to Washington, reads: “The United States reaffirms its commitment to join the Agreement as soon as possible this year.” The US has shied from using the word ‘ratification’, as it would require approval from the US senate, which President Obama is unlikely to secure from the Republican citadel.

During the negotiations between the two countries, preceding Modi’s tour, the US had insisted that India should commit to a joining the Paris agreement as well by 2016-end, India, however, stopped short of such a commitment in the bilateral statement.

Consequently, the joint statement reads, “India similarly has begun its processes to work toward this shared objective.” Indian negotiators insisted upon this insertion to replace the single and asymmetric sentence that the US had offered, binding only India to ratification by the end of this year, sources told Business Standard.

The Paris agreement provides four options for the countries to adopt the global deal. Article 21(1) of the pact permits countries to ratify, accept, approve or accede. Each term has different implications in different countries’ domestic, constitutional and legal framework. For the US, a ratification of a non-trade agreement necessarily requires approval from the Senate, which President Obama is keen to avoid. But other terms, which provide options for the US President to adopt the agreement through an executive order, also leave the door open for the future US Presidents to walk out.

The option available to the US, to easily walk out of the deal, worries many developing countries, including India. The fact that the US had kept out of the Kyoto Protocol after negotiating till the last moment, as well as the current election rhetoric by the Republican candidate Donald Trump, who has threatened to pull out of the Paris agreement, have impacted the negotiations between key developing countries and the US.

“President Obama is pushing hard to get the Paris agreement going as his legacy. But he can only join the agreement. He can’t ratify it. What if developing countries ratify it, helping the Paris agreement come into force by 2016-end, but the next US President walks out of it with a simple executive order? We have to be mindful of the possibilities,” said one of the negotiators.

The Paris agreement would come into force only when at least 55 countries — accounting for at least 55 per cent of the total greenhouse gas emissions — ratify, approve, accept or accede to the agreement. India accounts for only 4.01 per cent of total global emissions.

Domestically, India needs to undertake inter-ministerial consultations for ratifying any international agreement that has economy-wide implications. But the Modi government is not required to secure a Parliamentary approval before ratifying an international treaty.

“Broadly speaking, India would have to undertake inter-ministerial consultations, consult with states, and ensure that legislative requirements are in place for implementing the pact before the Union Cabinet ratifies the Paris agreement,” said J M Mauskar, member of the Prime Minister’s council on climate change and a former senior negotiator for India.

“I think it was a mature decision between the two allies, based on acknowledgement, appreciation and understanding of each other’s domestic and constitutional imperatives,” Mauskar said, referring to the India-US statement on climate change.

The process has already begun in India, Foreign Secretary S Jaishankar explained during his briefing in Washington. It will require the Union government to ensure that laws pertaining to environment, forests and energy are equipped with provisions to implement the various provisions of the Paris agreement.

A current Indian negotiator also noted the complexity that lies ahead in operationalising the Paris agreement. The crucial rules for transparency, reporting and verification under the Paris agreement and many other issues are yet to be negotiated in detail. These negotiations are to now take place between all 196 member countries of the over-arching UN climate convention. If the Paris agreement comes into force before these rules are finalised, then only those countries which join the pact would have the right to negotiate the rules. The others would be only observers — a clear disadvantage to developing countries with disparate capacities to come on board in time.

An option has been floated to bring the Paris agreement into force, permitting Obama to claim it as his legacy, and then allow all the 196 countries to negotiate the rules by putting the agreement in a technical suspension. But many developing countries, including India, are unsure of the consequence and worth of such an exercise, only to allow Obama his legacy gift.

“Do we want to sign an agreement we don’t know the full contours of? Do we want to be stuck in a situation where allied developing countries are not sitting on the table to negotiate these rules? These are questions we must address before we decide to ratify the agreement,” the Indian negotiator said.

Wednesday, 15 June 2016

UK GREENS FEAR BREXIT WILL RETURN DEMOCRACY

This article shows the attitude of the UK Green Party to democracy - they don't agree with it, preferring the rule by the EU which cannot be voted out.

Tuesday, 14 June 2016

MARINE SCIENTIST CENSURED FOR QUESTIONING MISLEADING CLAIMS BY COLLEAGUE

The Australian, 11 June 2016

Graham Lloyd
 
When marine scientist Peter Ridd suspected something was wrong with photographs being used to highlight the rapid decline of the Great Barrier Reef, he did what good scientists are supposed to do: he sent a team to check the facts.

James Cook University’s Professor Peter Ridd on Townsville’s Strand. Picture: Cameron Laird

After attempting to blow the whistle on what he found — healthy corals — Professor Ridd was censured by James Cook University and threatened with the sack. After a formal investigation, Professor Ridd — a renowned campaigner for quality assurance over coral research from JCU’s Marine Geophysics Laboratory — was found guilty of “failing to act in a collegial way and in the academic spirit of the institution”.

His crime was to encourage questioning of two of the nation’s leading reef institutions, the Centre of Excellence for Coral Studies and the Great Barrier Reef Marine Park Authority, on whether they knew that photographs they had published and claimed to show long-term collapse of reef health could be misleading and wrong.

“These photographs are a big deal as they are plastered right across the internet and used very widely to claim damage,” Professor Ridd told The Weekend Australian.

The photographs were taken near Stone Island off Bowen. A photograph taken in the late 19th century shows healthy coral. An accompanying picture supposedly of the same reef in 1994 is ­devoid of coral. When the before-and-after shots were used by GBRMPA in its 2014 report, the authority said: “Historical photographs of inshore coral reefs have been especially powerful in illustrating changes over time, and that the change illustrated is typical of many inshore reefs.”



A healthy Stone Island reef in 1890


The Stone Island reef in decline in 1994.


Stone Island reef in decline in 2012.


The Stone Island reef appears healthy again in 2015.

Professor Ridd said it was only possible to guess within a kilometre or two where the original photograph was taken and it would not be unusual to find great coral in one spot and nothing a kilometre away, as his researchers had done. Nor was it possible to say what had killed the coral in the 1994 picture.

“In fact, there are literally hundreds of square kilometres of dead reef-flat on the Great Barrier Reef which was killed due to the slow sea-level fall of about a meter that has occurred over the last 5000 years,” he said. “My point is not that they have probably got this completely wrong but rather what are the quality assurance measures they take to try to ensure they are not telling a misleading story?”

A GBRMPA spokesman said last night “the historical photos serve to demonstrate the vulnerability of nearshore coral reefs, rather than a specific cause for their decline.

“Ongoing monitoring shows coral growth in some locations, however this doesn’t detract from the bigger picture, which shows shallow inshore areas of the Great Barrier Reef south of Port Douglas have clearly degraded over a period of decades.” Centre of Excellence for Coral Studies chairman Terry Hughes did not respond to questions from The Weekend Australian.

Professor Ridd was disciplined for breaching principle 1 of JCU’s code of conduct by “not displaying responsibility in respecting the reputations of other colleagues”. He has been told that if he does it again he may be found guilty of ­serious misconduct.

A JCU spokesman said it was university policy not to comment on individual staff, but that the university’s marine science was subject to “the same quality assurance processes that govern the conduct of, and delivery of, ­science internationally”. [...]

About a quarter of the Great Barrier Reef has died and could take years to rebuild. The damage is concentrated in the northern section off Cape York. The scientific response to the bleaching has exposed a rift ­between GBRMPA and the JCU’s Coral Bleaching Taskforce led by Professor Hughes over how bleaching data should be treated and presented to the public. Conservation groups have run hard on the issue, with graphic ­images of dying corals. All sides of politics have responded with ­increased funding to reduce sediment flow and to combat crown of thorns starfish.

University of Western Australia marine biologist Carlos Duarte argued in BioScience last year that bias contributed to “perpetuating the perception of ocean calamities in the absence of robust evidence”.

A paper published this year claimed scientific journals had exaggerated bad news on ocean acidification and played down the doubts. Former GBRMPA chairman Ian McPhail accused activists of “exaggerating the impact of coral bleaching for political and financial gain”. Dr McPhail told The Weekend Australian it “seems that there is a group of researchers who begin with the premise that all is disaster”.