Thursday, 31 December 2015


This article explains what is being done to try to remove investments from fossil fuel companies and into renewable energy. Of course those attempting to do this will claim that it is being done to 'save the planet', but many people now realise that the evidence to back up this claim simply doesn't exist. It is also true that if they were successful (which is highly unlikely) they would cause financial hardship to many investors in what is a perfectly legal investment. Normally manipulating the market would be a criminal offence. Why should these people be exempt from this in a free market economy?

Wednesday, 30 December 2015


Scientist Mike Van Biezen  had for some years accepted the argument for reducing CO2 emissions to prevent global warming, but now after carrying out detailed research, he has come to the conclusion that it is massively exaggerated. He is part of a growing number of well qualified scientists who have reached the same conclusion. Read his detailed analysis here.

Tuesday, 29 December 2015


Here's a good piece from Roger Helmer MEP on the way those pushing the climate alarm issue try to make out that, despite evidence to the contrary, the polar bear is still under threat. It is an attempt to keep the alarm going. It would not be needed if there was real alarm.

Monday, 28 December 2015


This image highlights the irony of on the one hand the government's desperation to increase housebuilding in order to accommodate the huge influx of migrants, and on the other hand the futility of building on flood plains. The government continually go on about climate change and the increased risk of flooding, while at the same time urging planning authorities to grant permission to build where common sense says it is foolish to do so. At the same time the EU has all but banned the dredging of rivers in order to conserve the ecology of the river bed (but not the human inhabitants of the nearby towns and villages). Read more about it here.

The story is being told in the Mail. Read it here.

Sunday, 27 December 2015


Contrary to the doom and gloom you read a few days ago, see here
This report  shows that the world can relax and forget about all the emission reduction schemes, because the temperature record of the past 37 years shows that we are on track to have a warming of just 1.1C by the end of the century which is lower than the best target of 1.5C set by the recent Paris conference. So rejoice and turn up the central heating, or take a flight in your private jet, no need to feel guilty.

Saturday, 26 December 2015


Here is a piece referring to the new study. It is part of ongoing research into the siting of weather recording data including temperature measuring devices. Many of them are situated in quite unsuitable locations close to tarmac, concrete and devices like air-conditioning units and exhausts. So it is no wonder that many give inflated temperature readings. I wonder why no official seems to even recognise this, let alone make any compensation for it. Could it possibly be that it suits their purpose not to?

Friday, 25 December 2015


Here's something to make you chuckle during the festive season. I think Roy Spencer has it about right too. This may be the season of goodwill, but the developing world seem to be taking us for fools if they expect us to hand them $100 billion a year for the foreseeable future. Our politicians would do well to remember that charity begins at home, particularly as they are handling our money, not theirs. 

A merry Christmas to all readers.

Thursday, 24 December 2015


This report gives the details. Even this pace does not seem quick, but very little happens quickly in the UK these days, such are the layers of bureaucracy that have to be gone through. Gone are the days of Churchill and his "action this day", but then there was a war on! But does the government not realise that in a decade we will be phasing out gas? Someone will have to give way - will it be those in DECC (Department of Energy and Climate Change) or the Treasury? My money's on (and in) the Treasury. DECC will probably be renamed DE.

Wednesday, 23 December 2015


This article explains how, if we stick to the government's plan, we will have to say goodbye to our gas cooker, our gas fire and our gas central heating in the next couple of decades. It seems inconceivable that this could happen, after all at the same time the government are promising to go all out to get fracking. So is this merely scaremongering? It seems like it is. I just cannot imagine any elected government being able to do it. Who would bear the cost? The only thing remotely like it was the changeover from coal gas to natural gas in the 1970's, but this was on a different scale as it only required equipment to be modified, not scrapped. If the government covered the cost out of taxation it would cost billions and require extra taxes - not a popular move. And afterwards instead of relatively cheap reliable gas we would be left with very expensive and probably unreliable electricity. What a scenario.

Tuesday, 22 December 2015


This article explains that the Paris climate conference seems to have slipped up when insisting they work towards a 1.5C maximum temperature rise, because apparently using their own figures for equilibrium climate sensitivity it can be shown that (according to their own equations) we are already at the level of CO2 that they claim would give this much rise. Oh dear! On the other hand it could be argued that since this is unachievable we might as well forget the whole thing and hope for the best. 

Monday, 21 December 2015


This article shows an email from a leading IPCC scientist in which he expresses his delight at the outcome of the recent Paris climate change conference. It reveals clearly just how involved the scientist is in the politics of this science. His email, which is to his colleagues, also reveals that he is confident that all his colleagues will agree with him. So where is the objective science? It seems to have become overwhelmed and subsumed by the politics.

If the global warming hypothesis was treated objectively then it would now have to be set aside, since it is not in accord with the evidence in two key areas. First the lack of warming of the Earth's lower atmosphere, despite increasing emissions of CO2. Second the complete mismatch between the projections of the computer climate models and the real temperatures.

Sunday, 20 December 2015


What a farce we have here in the UK over so-called smart meters. As if the cost of electricity wasn't already high enough, we now have to add on the cost of bungling EU bureaucrats meddling to make it even higher. If the EU wanted to make itself unpopular they couldn't do a better job.

Saturday, 19 December 2015


This article reveals the quite extraordinary way that Australian schools have been taken over by green activists. It is so blatant that I am amazed that they can get away with it. Where are the teachers who have a sense of balance, or are they all in a trance under some sort of spell? I find it hard to believe that UK schools could go that far, though we know that activism is already here too. See here and here and here

Friday, 18 December 2015


Telegraph 12/12/15

 Now the Paris summit has ended, it's more important than ever to separate  energy and climate change policy

 By Owen Paterson

 What was the point of the Paris Climate  Change summit? Ostensibly the politicians and officials met to discuss  the effects of global warming and how to mitigate them.  Climate change is certainly a useful political tool. International  heads of state burnished their credentials as they spoke in Paris of  their intent to protect the world from rising temperatures.

Locally  too, the words "climate change" can be politically expedient. Indeed,  as Cumbria is left considering the aftermath of the floods - which  broke records in terms of river height and wrought havoc emotionally  and financially - politicians and officials have been quick to blame  climate change. It is, frankly, a cheap way to abdicate any  responsibility for the devastating effect of flooding.

I say this because last year, 17 senior climatologists published a  paper in which they said that blaming climate change for flood losses  turns the losses into a global issue - thereby putting them beyond the  control of national institutions. The evidence also suggests that  rainfall in Cumbria last weekend only marginally overtook much older  records, if at all. Indeed, the frequency of such floods in the past  three decades, according to scientists from Lancaster University, is  not unusual and has fallen markedly from the mid-20th century.  My point is that this dreadful flooding could easily have happened  even if the climate were not changing, since it is largely caused by  landscape changes. And the measures the world has taken against  climate change have not and will not significantly change the risk of  flooding in Cumbria.

So what, then, have these 21 years of exchanging hot air on the  subject actually achieved? Very little in terms of restricting global  emissions -just look at India and China - but as far as Britain is
concerned, they have had a devastating effect on our energy policy.  Back in 2011, the world pledged to produce binding legal targets on  emissions for all countries at this Paris meeting. But that ambition  has been abandoned in favour of vague "intended" national promises.  Each country must now set its own energy policy. So China and India -  in fact any country - can continue to burn fossil fuels at will.

Apart from Britain. We are left uniquely isolated and vulnerable as  the only country in the world with a legal target for reducing  emissions, thanks to our Climate Change Act of 2008. No other country  will be breaking its own law if it misses its target. But we have a  binding target to reduce emissions by 80 per cent by 2050. We have  repeatedly boasted that we are setting the world an example - but the  world seems disinclined to take notice.

Lucky for us, then, that Amber Rudd, the Secretary of State for Energy  and Climate Change, is beginning to dismantle the disgraceful legacy  of her three predecessors, Ed Miliband, Chris Huhne and Ed Davey,  which has delivered no significant cuts in emissions while risking  blackouts, killing jobs in the aluminium and steel industries, hugely  inflating cost and worsening fuel poverty.

Her recommendations make a good start, but there is much further to go  if she is to rescue the British economy from an impending energy  crisis.

The 2050 target commits us to decarbonising our electricity,  abolishing gas as a fuel for cooking and heating our homes, and  converting two thirds of our cars to electric. These aims come at an
astronomical cost. Since wind does not significantly reduce emissions  (because of the need for back-up when it is not blowing) and because  solar power is useless at night and in winter, it would mean a vast investment in nuclear power, equivalent to building a new Hinkley Point every three years for 35 years. That's neither feasible nor  affordable.

So while it is great news that the Government is killing wind  subsidies onshore and abandoning the costly pipe dream of carbon  capture and storage, we must go further and get rid of offshore wind
subsidies (the most costly of all) and "biomass" subsidies.

By calling for an acceleration of the development of shale gas and by  embracing the idea of small modular nuclear reactors, the Government  is insuring that gas will for many decades be the most affordable and  cleanest of the fuels available to the world. But our dash for wind  power so distorted the electricity market that it has actually  prevented the construction of efficient and cheap combined-cycle gas  turbines.

So, in the wake of the noncommittal Paris climate talks, we need to  make sure we decouple energy policy from climate change policy, and  restore resilience to the system. Specifically, it is vital that the  2008 Climate Change Act, Ed Miliband's most pernicious legacy, be  suspended and eventually repealed. Clause 2 enables the Secretary of  State to amend the 2050 target, which could have the immediate effect  of suspending it. To avoid failure in 10-20 years' time, that decision  must be taken now.

0wen Paterson MP was secretary of state for the environment from  2012-2014

Thursday, 17 December 2015


Here is Dr Christy's measured and very convincing testimony.  What a contrast to the style of Mark Steyn, though the sentiment is the same. Both are well worth reading and contain some important truths. Both men should be saluted as men of courage in highlighting the failings in the arguments for the current policies on global warming.

Wednesday, 16 December 2015


Here is the link to this extraordinary tour de force by this fearless writer. He naturally criticises Michael Mann, but then gives a damning indictment of the court system, the judges, and even the senators themselves.

Tuesday, 15 December 2015


Senate Hearing: Data or Dogma

by Judith Curry
The Senate Commerce Committee Hearing ‘Data or Dogma? Promoting Open Inquiry in the Debate Over the Magnitude of the Human Impact on Earth’s Climate‘ is about to begin.

The website for the Hearing is at the Commerce web site [link].  Witnesses:
  • Dr. John Christy
  • Dr. Judith Curry
  • Dr. William Happer
  • Mr. Mark Steyn
  • Dr. David Titley
It is my understanding that there will be a podcast on the web site, and that the Hearing will be televised on CSPAN, and that links to the testimonies will be available on the web site.
John Christy’s testimony [ChristyJR]
Mark Steyn’s testimony is a MUST READ [Steyn testimony]
My testimony is here [Curry Senate testimony 2015].  Below is the text of my verbal remarks.
JC verbal remarks
I thank the Chairman and the Committee for the opportunity to offer testimony today.
Prior to 2009, I felt that supporting the IPCC consensus on climate change was the responsible thing to do. I bought into the argument: “Don’t trust what one scientist says, trust what an international team of a thousand scientists has said, after years of careful deliberation.” That all changed for me in November 2009, following the leaked Climategate emails, that illustrated the sausage making and even bullying that went into building the consensus.
I starting speaking out, saying that scientists needed to do better at making the data and supporting information publicly available, being more transparent about how they reached conclusions, doing a better job of assessing uncertainties, and actively engaging with scientists having minority perspectives. The response of my colleagues to this is summed up by the title of a 2010 article in the Scientific American: Climate Heretic Judith Curry Turns on Her Colleagues.
I came to the growing realization that I had fallen into the trap of groupthink. I had accepted the consensus based on 2nd order evidence: the assertion that a consensus existed. I began making an independent assessment of topics in climate science that had the most relevance to policy.
What have I concluded from this assessment?
Human caused climate change is a theory in which the basic mechanism is well understood, but whose magnitude is highly uncertain. No one questions that surface temperatures have increased overall since 1880, or that humans are adding carbon dioxide to the atmosphere, or that carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases have a warming effect on the planet. However there is considerable uncertainty and disagreement about the most consequential issues: whether the warming has been dominated by human causes versus natural variability, how much the planet will warm in the 21st century, and whether warming is ‘dangerous’.
The central issue in the scientific debate on climate change is the extent to which the recent (and future) warming is caused by humans versus natural climate variability. Research effort and funding has focused on understanding human causes of climate change. However we have been misled in our quest to understand climate change, by not paying sufficient attention to natural causes of climate change, in particular from the sun and from the long-term oscillations in ocean circulations.
Why do scientists disagree about climate change? The historical data is sparse and inadequate. There is disagreement about the value of different classes of evidence, notably the value of global climate models. There is disagreement about the appropriate logical framework for linking and assessing the evidence. And scientists disagree over assessments of areas of ambiguity and ignorance.

Monday, 14 December 2015


Now we learn that Comic Relief, the charity set up to help the disadvantaged, is into climate change. Read about it here. These charities are now big businesses employing large numbers of people, some on high salaries. They are into a whole range of things (where the money can be found!).

Sunday, 13 December 2015


Here are the main points. It seems that none of it is legally binding, so it all depends on the willingness of the various nations to act on it. Unfortunately, in the case of the UK, we have both main parties fully signed up to follow it to the letter. Whereas in China, India, Japan, Russia, etc. etc. they will pay lip service to it and then fiddle their figures to show what good boys they are at best. In some cases they will just ignore it altogether while the Third World continues unabated, while moaning that they need more finance. What a farce!


Here is a link to an article giving details of the premiere of the new climate sceptic film Climate Hustle. I am hoping that there will soon be an opportunity to view the film. As soon as I find a link I will add it to the blog.

Saturday, 12 December 2015


This article by Roy Spencer looks at the reasons for this prediction. He also speculates about next year which depends on whether the El Nino continues strongly or fizzles out.

Friday, 11 December 2015


One after the other, developed nations took the floor demanding that developing countries should also pay for climate change. [What climate change, I would ask?]

“Kerry’s statement against differentiation and legal obligations was shocking. They (developed countries) see this is an opportunity to walk away from their obligations. At all costs the developed countries want the rules rewritten in departure from all the principles and provisions of the convention,” said Meena Raman of Third World Network, an observer group.

Read it all here.

It seems rather different to the TV news here in the UK, which talks about being "on the brink of a historic agreement."


new report about China and its attitude to controlling its CO2 emissions has just been published by the GWPF. It explains the rationale of the Chinese leadership to the West's call for CO2 emission reductions which the media seem to deliberately confuse with their pollution problem caused by oxides of nitrogen and sulphur. The report confirms what most of us already know - that China is only paying lip-service to CO2 reductions. We already know this from the ridiculous "deal" between the Chinese leadership and President Obama, whereby Obama pledged to reduce the USA emissions in return for China doing nothing until 2030, surely one of the most one-sided deals in history.

Thursday, 10 December 2015


Read a summary here. There appears to be a lot of room for changes before any agreement is signed. The developed nations would be mad to sign up to pay any damages for extreme weather events, but who says they aren't mad enough to do it?



Here is the article which gives the information put forward by the UK climate minister (Liz Truss). Most UK residents would be appalled to learn that their government is giving away so much of the taxpayers money to foreign countries when they are not spending nearly enough to protect UK residents from flooding in our own country.  Tackled over why money was being spent abroad rather than in the UK, Ms Truss claimed the cash was needed to combat the threat from brutal jihadists such as Islamic State (ISIS or ISIL). How this would affect them she did not elaborate. This is beyond parody.

What is astonishing is that this is not by a Labour government, but a Conservative one. What choice do UK citizens have? Answer - none.

Wednesday, 9 December 2015


Read all about it here. There is still a very long way to go, but it is heartening to know that when climate sceptics write good articles and letters to the press it has a good effect, according to the new study cited in the link. The evidence is on the side of the sceptics, so all we have to do is put it into the public domain. This is why alarmists want to close us down, because they know their arguments are weak. Even though they have all the big money and all the apparatus of the state, when people are confronted by the simple truth, which alarmists are desperate to keep hidden from them, it is more compelling than all their predictions.

So write those letters and tell the facts to those who are interested, specially to young people who are being brainwashed. We can open their eyes to information they may never have seen.

Tuesday, 8 December 2015


This article explains what has been going on. It really is extraordinary the lengths that the BBC is going to, to prevent any contrary point of view on climate change from reaching viewers. The programme concerned was meant to be light-hearted and yet even this was too much for the po-faced ideologues at the top of the BBC.  You could imagine this happening in some muslim fundamentalist regime, and yet here it is at the BBC. They are clearly afraid of the public even seeing the climate alarmists creed even being gently mocked.

Monday, 7 December 2015


Here is the article. Do they think we are completely mad? Unfortunately when it comes to our political leaders they might not be far wrong. Let's hope that there are still some sane people giving our leaders advice.

Sunday, 6 December 2015


Please indulge me while I take you on a flight of fancy. I want you to imagine that all the nations meeting in Paris agree to implement the climate pledges they have made, and then actually go on to implement those same pledges. "Ridiculous", I hear you say - but bear with me. What would the result of all that pain and cost (about a trillion dollars it is estimated) be in terms of lowering the planet's surface temperature from where it would be if no one bothered to change anything? Well the calculation has been done using the figures supplied and apparently it is 0.047 degrees Celsius. You can read the background here. Amazing isn't it that so much effort is going into something to achieve so little. BUT THEN THIS IS MUCH MORE ABOUT THE MONEY THAN IT IS ABOUT THE CLIMATE


Saturday, 5 December 2015


Sceptical views on climate change have been effectively banned on mainstream TV here in the UK, so I thought I must be dreaming when I saw this piece (starting around 6 minutes in) on Thursday's 'This Week By Election Special' politics show with Andrew Neil. True it was on at around 11.45pm, but it was on BBC 1. Piers is the man who has a track record of making good long range weather forecasts and has for a long time been staunchly sceptical of the theory of dangerous man made global warming. His brother, Jeremy, is the new leader of the UK Labour Party. Sadly he doesn't share Piers' views on global warming. What was also interesting was the sceptical view of Michael Portillo, the man on the right of screen, a one time cabinet minister in Margaret Thatcher's government. He is now a journalist and TV presenter who's views might be taken seriously. Piers is not very widely known to the general public, though his connection to the Labour leader is helping to enhance it.

Friday, 4 December 2015


Here is the poll and it is hard to believe that there are so many sceptics, considering all the hype and propaganda that has been put out in the media over the past weeks and months. Perhaps too much propaganda is actually having a negative effect.

Thursday, 3 December 2015


Charles MooreThe Daily Telegraph, 30 November 2015
 The reason that there will not be a legally binding agreement (or at least not a genuinely enforceable one) is the growth of something which the Left has always called for, but doesn’t quite like when it gets it – the power of the developing world.

Poor Paris. Less than three weeks ago, the scene of carnage; this week, the venue for saving the planet. Because of security after the Isil atrocities, the City of Light was spared a planned climate change march, but London had one on Sunday, attended by what the ever-Green BBC optimistically described as “tens of thousands”. One of the march’s leaders, the fashion designer Dame Vivienne Westwood, said: “Global warming is at a tipping point. If we go past it we can’t stop it. We are there right now.”

In this view, Dame Vivienne accords with the Prince of Wales, who predicted in Rio de Janeiro in March 2009, that there were “less than 100 months to act” to prevent “catastrophic climate change”. In other words, it’s all over by July 2017.

So there is a very real hope that the 21st UN Climate Change Conference (COP 21), which starts on Monday, will be the last. Either Prince Charles and Dame Vivienne will prevail, and COP 21 will rescue Mother Earth from destruction by agreeing worldwide legally binding carbon emission restraints; or they won’t, and then, by their own logic, it will be too late for any international conference to do anything ever again, so they might as well shut up. For those of a more sceptical cast of mind, there is a third possibility, which is that the Prince and the dressmaker will fail, no legally binding targets will be agreed, and the world will go on very much as before. I would bet His Royal Highness an enormous amount of money on this last outcome, secure in the knowledge that, if I am wrong, I will not be around to pay out, but if he is wrong, he will be.

The reason that there will not be a legally binding agreement (or at least not a genuinely enforceable one) is the growth of something which the Left has always called for, but doesn’t quite like when it gets it – the power of the developing world. India, for example, sees it as “carbon imperialism” for the West to deny it the fossil-fuelled industrialisation which gave us a more than 100 years’ start on the rest of the world. A great many formerly backward countries are at last getting rich and they will not sacrifice their new prosperity on the altar of eco-virtue.

Nearly seven years ago, at COP 15 in Copenhagen, Barack Obama, bearing his Nobel Prize and at the height of his moral prestige, pleaded with them, to no avail. What will make them listen to him now, in the twilight of his presidency?

Wednesday, 2 December 2015


Here's a new essay on this crucial subject by some well-informed people. There has been a lot written about the so-called "scientific consensus" by those who wish to promote the warmist cause, that this new essay is needed to redress the balance and set the record straight. There is no consensus. In fact there is a massive debate over the main issue, which is what effect on climate will an increase in CO2 caused by burning fossil fuels have. That is (quite literally!) the burning question.

Tuesday, 1 December 2015


On the main 6.30pm news on ITV I watched the massive hype over the start of the latest Climate Conference in Paris. The coverage was (predictably) entirely in support of efforts to cut CO2 emissions, but what was so wrong was that they showed shots of pollution in big cities in India and China caused by poor control of exhaust gases and effluent chimney stacks, combined with lack of wind to remove it. This was deliberately juxtaposed with the need to reduce CO2. In other words they were deliberately trying to tell viewers that this pollution was caused by CO2. It was shameless propaganda relying on the ignorance of a large part of their viewers. I hope they are wrong and that a significant number of viewers will see through this. In the end I hope that this will turn the intelligent people against them.

Here is another piece linking air pollution with CO2 emissions, this time in the Mail.


David Rose has come to the heart of the matter with this piece, scroll down past the piece on Prince Charles to reach the article on job losses in Scunthorpe. Here we see the cumulative effect of the government's attempt to cut CO2 emissions. This is only the start. This is small beer compared to what is coming down the tracks if we continue with unilateral action to reduce CO2 emissions. Will the government wake up soon or will they continue to waste millions on a hopeless quest to 'fix the climate'?

This is the face of climate change policies that its supporters simply don't get. Many of them don't even link the two. To them it's just another cuddly policy to 'save the planet'.

Monday, 30 November 2015


Here is a harmless-looking organisation that is active right near me. If you click on the link you will find the website full of pictures of New Forest ponies and trees. They also support many excellent initiatives such as encouraging recycling and healthy eating, exercise, etc. So far so good. But along with these uncontroversial campaigns they also, in common no doubt with many other similar organisations, encourage 'action on climate change'. You can see how this bit is just slipped in along with all the other bits.

Maybe the people running this just don't think there is any controversy in taking 'action on climate change' in which case they must be very blinkered in not seeing all the articles in the press and on-line referring to the pause in global temperature, the job losses due to high energy prices caused by green policies and the massive cost of reducing CO2 emissions. Alternatively they are aware but simply refuse to acknowledge them.

In either case they are quite intentionally encouraging children from as young as four to take part in a political campaign to influence political leaders to bring in stricter targets to control CO2 emissions. This campaign can be accessed by clicking the link near the bottom of their home page. It is entitled 'New Forest Postcard to Paris'.

I would never have heard about this, but for an article in our local paper the Advertiser and Times (A and T), which explained what was happening. I decided to write a letter to the paper outlining my objections. Here it is:

SIR - In last week's A and T we were informed that New Forest children, including those at pre-school, were being encouraged to write 'postcards to Paris' to try and influence the outcome of the UN Climate Conference.  This may seem like harmless fun, but what the children are unaware of is that this is a hugely controversial and highly political subject.  

It is therefore evident that the children are being encouraged by the adults in charge of them to promote a political campaign.  I am sure the adults believe that this is a simple case of supporting a good cause, like campaigns to eliminate poverty, hunger, etc. But this is not the case at all. There are serious issues over both the extent of the problem as well as the proposed solutions.

 To appreciate just how political this subject has become, just see what happened to Philip Verdier, a leading meteorologist on French television, when he wrote a book critical of some of the more alarming claims used to push the case for stricter controls on CO2 emissions. He was sacked. Others who have spoken out have had similar treatment in what has become a modern witch-hunt.

Let's be clear, the severe cuts in CO2 emissions being proposed would restrict the availability of cheap energy and condemn poor people in the Third World to cook on wood or dung-fuelled fires for many more years with all the attendant lung damage due to smoke inhalation that this causes.  Here in the UK some energy-intensive industries such as steel making and aluminium smelting have already been forced to close due to high energy costs. The jobs have simply moved to nations which are not prepared to sign up to cut CO2 emissions, such as India and China.

What next? Should children be writing postcards asking to raise the minimum wage or to ban the fur trade? It is vitally important that children should receive a balanced education free from political propaganda, however well-meaning. 

Yours faithfully,
Derek Tipp

If it gets published on Saturday (5 Dec) I will be interested to see what the public response is, if any, in the following edition (12 Dec) Also what  the participants in this project have to say. I will, of course, keep you posted with any updates.
The letter has been accepted for publication with two minor changes which the editor required. These were minor and did not detract from the message.
UPDATE 2 - 12 December
Surprisingly there were no letters objecting to mine, just one letter in reply to mine which was in support.

Sunday, 29 November 2015


Here are the details. It just shows to me how desperate they are to hype up the so-called danger of global warming, when respectable scientists are saying that these dangers do not actually exist at present. The so-called danger is all about the models of future climate. Perhaps they should re-write Dickens' Christmas Carol, with someone being visited by Climate Past, and then the scary Climate Future. I'd better not give them ideas!

Saturday, 28 November 2015


Financial Times, 25 November 2015

Ed Crooks
State officials in West Virginia and Texas are sending a letter to the governments of China, India and other countries, arguing that US President Barack Obama’s plan to cut greenhouse gas emissions is unlawful and likely to be struck down in court.

In an intervention aimed at the international climate talks that begin in Paris next Monday, the attorneys-general of the two states warn that there are “significant legal limits [on Mr Obama’s] ability either to carry out the promises he has made in advance of Paris 2015 or to enforce any agreement arising out of the summit.”

The letter is addressed to John Kerry, the US secretary of state, but is also being circulated to ministers from large economies that will be key participants in the Paris talks.

The attorneys-general argue that Mr Kerry has a duty to tell other countries that “the centrepiece of the president’s domestic [carbon dioxide emissions] reduction program is being challenged in court by a majority of states and will likely be struck down.”

The letter highlights the difficulties the US administration will face in the Paris negotiations because of the general opposition to a_ction on climate change among the Republican party, which controls Congress and over half the state governments.

West Virginia and Texas are leading the legal action, now joined by 27 states, against the Obama administration’s Clean Power Plan, its most significant climate policy.
Full story

Friday, 27 November 2015


Britain will permanently exclude energy-intensive industries such as steel and chemicals from extra costs to support green energy projects, Chancellor George Osborne said on Wednesday. Steelmakers in particular have been hit by heavy energy costs that make it harder for them to compete internationally, contributing to thousands of job cuts in the sector in recent weeks. "We're going to permanently exempt our energy intensive industries ... from the cost of environmental tariffs, so we keep their bills down, keep them competitive and keep them here," Osborne told Parliament in his autumn budget statement. --Reuters, 25 November 2015
In his Autumn Statement, or budgetary update, to the British Parliament on 25 November, Chancellor of the Exchequer George Osborne dropped yet another morsel for UK shale enthusiasts. “We are supporting the creation of the shale gas industry by ensuring that communities benefit from a Shale Wealth Fund (SWF), which could be worth of up to £1 billion ($1.6 billion).” Much of it is designed to win over people and local councils in zones impacted by shale exploration. It follows the British Department of Energy and Climate Change’s earlier announcement that the government’s energy policy will see natural gas play a “central role in the UK’s future power generation plans”. --Gaurav Sharma,
Forbes, 25 November 2015


Thursday, 26 November 2015


Going Orwell

Global warming radicals will stop at nothing to get control of the world's energy and prosperity at the UN global warming summit that opens in Paris next week.

In true Orwellian fashion they want history amended, or expunged.

It appears that they may have tampered with temperature records to cool the past and warm the present.

You probably remember Michael Mann's infamous "hockey stick" graph that tried to smooth the medieval and Roman warm periods and little ice age out of our understanding of past temperature.  The idea was to scare us by making it look as if temperature didn't start varying until the second half of the 20th century.  It has been thoroughly debunked.

You are probably also aware that temperature satellites can find no global warming since the last El Niño ocean event at the end of the 20th century.  (Watch for the warming crowd to try and attribute warmth from the current El Niño to human activity and then forget about it when it ends).

This two decade "pause" in world temperature is terribly inconvenient for the warming narrative.

With world leaders headed to Paris to try and lock us into a UN global warming pact, they badly want to get their story straight.

Now it appears as if researchers at NOAA tried to do it again.  With climate computer models projecting temperature increases that never occurred, they "adjusted" past temperature records to try and conjure up some warming.

Congressional investigators want to get to the bottom of this.  NOAA is stonewalling and refuses to turn over the records taxpayers paid for.

It is a rock solid rule of science that researchers must adjust their conclusions to conform with their data.  They must never adjust their data to fit their hoped-for conclusions.  To do so is a terrible transgression against science.

George Orwell wrote, "Who controls the past controls the future: who controls the present controls the past."

It appears we can no longer have confidence in the researchers who have been appointed to "control the present" at our scientific institutions.

Getting them functioning honestly again will be a monumental task.

Wednesday, 25 November 2015


If anyone thought that the United Nations was a neutral body that looked at climate science from a scientific stand-point then one look at this stuff should be enough to make you see otherwise. The statements in that piece are in direct contradiction with the IPCC reports, which are produced for the UN.

How about the first sentence:  "There is no country in the world that is not seeing first-hand the drastic effects of climate change." How is that compatible with the IPCC report which says it is not possible to attribute the cause of any individual climate event? Of course there are many extreme weather events around the world, but this is nothing new or unusual. Only a fool thinks these will be eradicated, and certainly not by controlling emissions of CO2.

And then there's:  "The annual average losses from just earthquakes, tsunamis, tropical cyclones and flooding count in the hundreds of billions of dollars." - So now they are grouping earthquakes and tsunamis in with weather. This is desperate stuff which even a school boy would spot.

When the UN writes such blatant propaganda which its own IPCC does not support then they must believe we are all stupid. I only hope they are wrong.

If you look at the UN website you can see that this piece is taken from the UN sustainable development goals of which there are a total of 17. Most of the others are uncontroversial, if a little hard to achieve in the world as it currently exists. The climate change has been "slipped in", perhaps in the hope that it will be accepted in the same way as "eradicating hunger and poverty", or "providing clean water and affordable energy". But it is not. It is a very controversial subject and we ought to say so at every opportunity. In fact the provision of affordable energy can only be achieved by the use of fossil fuels. A fact which the governments of India and China are well aware of.

Tuesday, 24 November 2015


Christopher Booker has been telling it like it is again in his Sunday Telegraph column. Things certainly don't look good for the future unless we get on with building some new fossil fuelled power plants very soon, and the only way that looks like happening is with big government subsidies. This is what happens when governments rig the market. You really could not make it up, as they say.

Monday, 23 November 2015


This article gives us a feel for the battle lines, though it suggests that both sides believe they have the upper hand. How strange that the USA constitution seems unclear on such an important issue. At least there is a battle over in the USA, unlike here in the UK where all the major parties agree on wasting millions without question.

Sunday, 22 November 2015


Here is the article which contains the words of a UN climate chief, Christiana Figueres, who said that the true purpose of the climate negotiations was to change from capitalism to some new (unspecified) financial structure. Luckily I don't think it is going to happen. If it did happen it looks certain that we would all be worse off.

Saturday, 21 November 2015


Astonishingly the changes are so massive that they change a cooling trend into a warming trend! Here are the details of this truly astonishing revelation. Why is this not getting any news coverage you might ask. But then we know that there are huge vested interests in keeping the climate bandwagon on track.

Friday, 20 November 2015


This piece looks at the recent programme by Roger Harrabin, and how a supposedly unbiased broadcast is subtly transformed by careful manipulation of the contributions. It is clever stuff, but it is shown up for what it is in the article.

Thursday, 19 November 2015


This article puts today's climate into context by looking at the period 1500 to 1700, when, although there were no measurements of wind speed etc. there were contemporary accounts with the degree of damage and loss of life etc. which show beyond doubt that the storms of that time were more severe than those of today

Wednesday, 18 November 2015


I am not recommending this conference, but I thought readers might be interested to see that (at last!) these climate conferences seem to be struggling to sell tickets. Considering the climate does not seem to be changing this is what you and I would expect. I wonder who would even pay the reduced rate for this kind of sophistry? I wonder what sort of reduction is available  for those who haggle?

London Planning for Climate Change Conference 21/12/15 ‎[]‎ 
17 November 2015 10:52
We are contacting you regarding the Planning for Climate Change Conference which we are running in London on 21/12/15.  Details can be found here, Facebook, and Twitter, and details of the current speaker line up can be found here.  
Delegate fees are as follows
Delegate - full rate: £180 plus VAT (total of £216).
Student/Researcher Delegate – reduced rate  : £90 plus VAT (total of £108).
Previous rate:
Delegate and/or Speaker full rate: £250 plus VAT (total of £300).
Reduced rate for students/researchers Delegate and/or Speaker: £125 plus VAT (total of £150).
(If you are interested but cost is an issue, then please let us know and hopefully we can come to an arrangement)

Another extra "enticement": 
For every place that is booked we are offering a FREE 12 month e-subscription to the Journal of Planning for Climate Change, details of which can be found here.
Alternatively if you are not available for the December Conference, we are beginning to plan for the next Climate Conference which will take place in London on Thursday 2nd June 2016.  If you would like to reserve a place at this conference all we ask at the moment is that you pay a refundable 20% deposit now and the rest of the amount before the event in June. 

Tuesday, 17 November 2015


This piece explains. Without all these green activists making a show there isn't going to be much to film, which is probably good news all round.

Monday, 16 November 2015


This piece looks at the foolish arguments being put forward for increasing the amount of renewable energy on the grid.  They call it sophistry.

Sophistry -  the clever use of arguments that seem true but are really false, in order to deceive people.
That sums it up the whole global warming industry nicely.

Sunday, 15 November 2015


Here is a link to the news that more Australians are sceptical of alarming global warming than those who believe it. This must be a severe blow to climate alarmists and the government who have spent so long pumping out propaganda.

Saturday, 14 November 2015


See This article shows the fallacy in the "CO2 damages corals" argument.  Ocean "acidification" is simply a second front used to back up the failing argument about dangerous global warming.

Friday, 13 November 2015


Yes, that is the total amount of temperature drop that the multi-billion dollar schemes will save, according to calculations using the figures.
Read this piece to see the result of all the pledges being made at the Paris climate conference.

"...if we measure the impact of every nation fulfilling every promise by 2030, the total temperature reduction will be 0.048°C (0.086°F) by 2100".

Thursday, 12 November 2015


Readers of this blog will not be surprised to learn that the UK is on course to miss its self-imposed renewable targets for 2020. See here for details.  Apparently we are due for huge fines by the European Court if we do, though I would have thought that this was another good reason to vote to leave in 2017.  Is there nothing too stupid for our politicians to entrap themselves in?

Wednesday, 11 November 2015


This essay by Matt Ridley is a brilliant encapsulation of the climate debate. Here is a short excerpt:

"At the heart of the debate about climate change is a simple scientific question: can a doubling of the concentration of a normally harmless, indeed moderately beneficial, gas, from 0.03% of the atmosphere to 0.06% of the atmosphere over the course of a century change the global climate sufficiently to require drastic and painful political action today? In the end, that’s what this is all about. Most scientists close enough to the topic say: possibly. Some say: definitely. Some say: highly unlikely. The ‘consensus’ answer is that the warming could be anything from mildly beneficial to dangerously harmful: that’s what the IPCC means when it quotes a range of plausible outcomes from 1.5 to 4 degrees of warming."

If only this was to be the discussion to be held in Paris at the end of the month, but it isn't. This discussion is not on the agenda at all. It is not allowed, which is why no meaningful conclusions can be found.

Tuesday, 10 November 2015


The following post is from the Scientific Alliance.

The run-up to the annual Conference of the Parties to the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change (or climate change summit, as it is more commonly known) sees plenty of reports, news stories and stunts designed to focus attention on the issue. The Paris event, due to start at the end of this month, is no exception. The latest story to hit the headlines is that the New York state attorney general has issued a subpoena to ExxonMobil – the world’s largest oil company – for emails and other documents issued over the last four decades to see whether the company adequately warned investors of the risks associated with the use of fossil fuels (NY probes ExxonMobil over climate change risk claims).
ExxonMobil is not the only company in the sights of the AG, Eric Schneiderman; Peabody Energy (a major coal producer) is under similar investigation, and other major energy companies could follow before long. But ExxonMobil is in a vulnerable position, not just as the world’s largest oil company, but because of its past known funding of groups critical of the official line on climate change. Also, in common with other major US oil and gas companies, it did not join a group of 81 companies in signing a White House-sponsored pledge to take more action on climate change as President Obama pushes for a binding deal in Paris (Obama gets climate change deal assist from Google, Coca-Cola and Walmart).
At issue is the argument by the climate change community that there is a ceiling on the total amount of fossil fuels which can be extracted and burnt (in the absence of large-scale carbon capture and storage) without risking dangerously high increases in average temperatures. Logic then dictates that energy companies are overstating the value of their (unsaleable) reserves and so artificially boosting their share prices.
The counter argument is that the world continues to need coal, oil and gas until reliable, secure and affordable alternatives are available. Assuming that investors make rational decisions (not always a given, of course) then the commercial world seems to have accepted the counter argument for the time being. Nevertheless, overtly political actions such as those initiated by Mr Schneiderman are designed both to put doubts in the minds of investors and put pressure on negotiators in Paris to come up with a deal.
Willingness to make a public commitment to action on climate change has become a black and white issue for many, with the sins of ‘good’ companies being forgiven (or forgotten) and the benefits provided by ‘bad’ companies completely overlooked. In a different context, the three headline acts supporting the Obama pledge all come in for intense criticism: Google for tax avoidance, Coca-Cola for contributing to the problem of obesity and Walmart for driving small shops out of business. Similarly, ExxonMobil may be criticised for its stance on climate change, but where did the public image of ‘Beyond Petroleum’ get BP when it caused the Gulf oil spill?
But as conventional energy companies are being criticised, green energy continues to be talked up. At issue is whether there is a ‘carbon bubble’ ready to burst as the world moves away from fossil fuels, or whether there is instead a green investment bubble. Investments in oil and gas companies are valued on the basis of current and projected demand, while any money put into solar, wind or similar green energy projects is essentially valued on the basis of the degree of public or consumer subsidy it receives.
At the moment, many EU member state governments are set on a path of subsidy reduction. There is a view that the cost of renewable energy is continuing to decline at such a rate that no subsidy will be needed in a few years’ time. However, this is a delusion, since the only meaningful figure is the overall system cost, which determines the price the consumer pays. As the amount of wind and solar capacity increases, so does the overall system cost as the need for backup generation capacity, transmission and increased grid resilience rises.
Financial realities dictate that fossil fuels will continue to dominate global energy until the technology is developed to allow a secure electricity supply to be provided from inherently intermittent sources (don’t hold your breath) or until nuclear generating capacity is greatly increased (and there is, unfortunately, little sign of that either). China and India in particular are becoming more rather than less dependent on coal to provide electricity and literally fuel their continued growth.
Despite these realities, some sort of deal will undoubtedly be reached next month in Paris. However, despite the rhetoric, it will do little to further the cause of emissions reduction in the absence of technological breakthroughs. And the scope of a deal is itself unclear, since developing countries have made their participation dependent on the promised $100bn annual funding promised via the Green Climate Fund. Only a fraction of this has been committed and it is difficult to see billions of dollars suddenly being put on the table in just a few weeks’ time.
Doubtless a rabbit of some description will be pulled out of the hat and a fudged deal put together, but progress towards a binding global mitigation policy will continue to be notional. 2016 could then see a turning point. Tired of banging their heads against a brick wall, we may finally see negotiators focus more effort on adaptation policies, which could bring short- and medium-term benefits to hundreds of millions of people however climate systems may develop over coming decades.
But, despite the hopes of some sceptics, the juggernaut of UNFCCC negotiations will continue in some form for the foreseeable future. The trick now will be for the more moderate participants to steer it on a path towards achieving some practical good rather than continue to focus on the increasingly illusory goal of trying to radically cutting emissions by decree alone.

There is more on this here at Paul Homewood's excellent blog.

Monday, 9 November 2015


Fox News, 5 November 2015

Judith Curry

The hottest topic in climate research is the observation that global average surface temperature, as well as satellite observations of temperatures in the atmosphere, has shown little or no warming during the 21st century.

Now the political climate is heating up over the same issue. Heated words began circulating last summer, when a team of government scientists from the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), led by Thomas Karl, published a paper in
Science titled “Possible Artifacts Of Data Biases In The Recent Global Surface Warming Hiatus.”

press release from NOAA included this statement from Karl, who is head of the National Centers for Environmental Information:   “Adding in the last two years of global surface temperature data and other improvements in the quality of the observed record provide evidence that contradict the notion of a hiatus in recent global warming trends.”

Media headlines quickly touted the Karl conclusion that science now shows the hiatus in warming never existed.

The significance of the hiatus is that it contradicted the 2007 assessment report from the
Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), which projected a rate of warming of 0.2oC per decade in the early part of the 21st century.  The discrepancy between the climate models and the observations raised serious questions about the climate models.

Scientists on both sides of the debate have been critical of Karl’s paper and temperature adjustments made in the new data set, particularly the ocean data analysis.

Some said that adjusting reliable ocean surface buoy data upwards to match much less reliable data from engine intake channels in ships causes an artificial upward trend in the readings.

Another recent paper used a different NOAA ocean surface temperature data set to find that since 2003 the global average ocean surface temperature has been rising at a rate that is an order of magnitude smaller than the rate of increase reported in Karl’s paper.

Clearly, scientists have much work to do to better understand the problems with historical ocean temperature data, adjust the biases among different types of measurements, and understand the differences among different data sets.

But the hiatus fuss is also telling us about the politicization of climate science.

The surface temperature data set plays a central role in the political debate over climate change. In his 2015  
State of the Union address, President Obama declared: “2014 was the planet’s warmest year on record.”

This statement followed a
joint press release from NOAA’s Karl and Gavin Schmidt, director of NASA’s Goddard Institute for Space Studies, that said the same thing. The release was widely criticized for failing to point out that 2014 was in a statistical tie with several other recent years.

NOAA’s press release in June for Karl’s paper on the hiatus also appeared just before a big event: EPA was getting ready to issue its very controversial Clean Power Plan. And the politics are heating up even more with the approach of the United Nations Conference on Climate Change in Paris at the end of this month.

Last month, the House Science Committee, chaired by Lamar Smith (R-Texas),
subpoenaed NOAA for data and communications relating to Karl’s article.  NOAA is refusing to give up the documents, citing confidentiality concerns and the integrity of the scientific process.

Rep. Eddie Bernice Johnson (D-Tex)
called the request “a serious misuse of Congressional oversight powers.”

Is the subpoena harassment or appropriate constitutional oversight?

There are two legitimate concerns here.

The first is data quality, an issue that needs to be resolved owing to the central role that this data set is playing in U.S. climate policy.

The second issue is arguably more worrisome and difficult to uncover: a potential alliance between NOAA scientists and Obama administration officials that might be biasing and spinning climate science to support a political agenda.

Rep. Smith
stated: “The American people have every right to be suspicious when NOAA alters data to get the politically correct results they want and then refuses to reveal how those decisions were made.”

The House Committee’s investigation should provide insight into the following questions that deserve answers.

To what extent did internal discussions occur about the more questionable choices made in adjusting the ocean temperature data?

Was any concern raised about the discrepancies of the new ocean temperature data set and NOAA’s other ocean temperature data set (OISST) that shows no warming since 2003?

Were any Obama administration officials communicating with NOAA about these statements prior to issuing press releases?

Was the release of the land and ocean temperature data sets, which were documented in papers previously published, delayed to follow Karl’s June press release?

Earlier this year, Rep. Raul Grijalva, D-Ariz., initiated an
investigation into possible industry funding of scientists (including myself) who had recently provided Congressional testimony for the Republicans.

While potentially undisclosed industrial funding of research is a legitimate concern, climate science research funding from government is many orders of magnitude larger than industrial funding of such work.

If the House Science Committee can work to minimize the political influence on government-funded research, and also help to resolve legitimate scientific issues, it will have done both science and the policies that depend on science a big favor.
Judith Curry is professor and former chairwoman of the School of Earth and Atmospheric Sciences at the Georgia Institute of Technology. She is president of the Climate Forecast Applications Network. Follow Judith Curry on Twitter @curryja.