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.

Sunday, 8 November 2015


Mongabay, 6 November 2015

Shreya Dasgupta
On November 4, the Indian government cancelled Greenpeace India Society’s registration. The Society was registered in the southern state of Tamil Nadu in India.

“This is an extension of the deep intolerance for differing viewpoints that sections of this government seem to harbor,” Vinuta Gopal, Interim Executive Director of Greenpeace India, said in a statement.

According to the notice issued by the Tamil Nadu Registrar of Societies, Greenpeace India society’s registration was cancelled for “fraudulently” conducting their business by falsifying balance sheets, and other violations of the Tamil Nadu Societies Registration Act of 1975.

“The Registrar has passed this order without granting Greenpeace a hearing, and without complying with the Madras High Court order to address each of our points and queries,” Gopal said in the statement. “This is a blatant attempt to circumvent the legal process and shows no respect for the law.

For over a year, the government of India and Greenpeace India have been at loggerheads. In September, for example, India’s Ministry of Home Affairs (MHA) issued an order cancelling Greenpeace India’s FCRA (Foreign Contribution Regulation Act) registration, which allows the NGO to receive foreign donations.

Saturday, 7 November 2015


This piece includes the letter with detailed criticism of David King who is attending the Paris climate conference on behalf of the UK. Although it is rather long it is a very thorough job and shows just how foolish the UK policy on climate change is. The report at the bottom is well worth reading.

Friday, 6 November 2015


The draft agreement for the upcoming UN climate summit in Paris grew again.

Here's the latest draft.

CFACT recently analyzed the text and uncovered the inclusion of an "International Tribunal of Climate Justice."  That research has been picked up and is making news, including the Drudge Report.  Drudge also carried Marc Morano's report on the popular French meteorologist who was fired for writing a book which questions the UN's climate change regime.

The UN's prior language tried to sell the tribunal by qualifying it as "non-judicial."  The latest draft removes the qualifier and concedes the obvious.

This is a climate court modeled after the UN International Court of Justice at The Hague.

The Court of Justice is established by the UN Charter, however, its decisions are subject to veto by the UN Security Council.

In the past, the U.S. has used its veto power to prevent the Court from imposing anti-American rulings.  The Court became so bad that the U.S. removed itself from the Court's permanent jurisdiction and now only comes before the Court when it opts in.

The UN climate agreement contains no such veto power or ability for nations to opt in or out of the climate tribunal's jurisdiction.

How bad an agreement will the President sign?

Would President Obama enable developing nations to pursue an anti-U.S. agenda before a UN international climate tribunal with no means of escape?

More on this here

Thursday, 5 November 2015


This piece from Christopher Booker looks at the run up to the conference including the pledges from the big CO2 emitters, or as they are called “Intended Nationally Determined Contributions”. It appears that they are all well short of what they need to be, with the one exception of the EU, and particularly the UK with its unique Climate Change Act. When will our government get the message that we are cutting our own throats and the rest of the world is not going to help us.

Wednesday, 4 November 2015


This piece looks at a few of the other "last chances" that have come and gone. The public are beginning to notice that, as the rhetoric gets shriller, the climate continues to do what it has always done - vary, with some extremes and much of it is run-of-the-mill. If it wasn't for all hose important politicians and scientists who have invested so much in it, it would be quietly moved to the backburner, or kicked into the long grass. Some UK politicians would like to do this with the Chilcott Report into the Iraq war, but that isn't going to go away; whereas climate change has yet to start. 

Tuesday, 3 November 2015


I am not naturally drawn to Vladimir Putin, but on the issue of global warming he seems to understand what so many other leaders do not (or at least pretend they do not). This article in the New York Times gives a full explanation of Putin's position. It also looks at the Russian media's coverage of the issue. They seem to take their lead from their leader and are much more sceptical than much of the EU and USA media.

The article is interesting in that it is written by someone who is clearly a climate alarmist and it is amusing to see how they portray Putin as being "in denial". For example it says: " Wildfires crackled across Siberia this summer, turning skies ochre and sending up enough smoke from burning pines to blot out satellite views of the 400-mile-long Lake Baikal. To many climate scientists, the worsening fires are a consequence of Siberia getting hotter."

Yes, that is the view that those attempting to promote the global warming meme try to push forward, but on Russian TV they said, "the villains were locals who routinely but carelessly burn off tall grasses every year, and the sometimes incompetent crews struggling to put the fires out." I don't know about you, but I actually think the Russian TV have probably got it right.

Monday, 2 November 2015


 Philippe Verdier has announced that he has been dismissed by France Télévisions
In a video, the Head of Weather Service France 2 staged the opening of the letter in which he learnt of his final dismissal, following the publication of his controversial book. A text on the screen said that Philippe Verdier was “dismissed one month before COP21”, the climate conference to be held in Paris in December.  The petition launched on the Internet, as well as the support of many Republican deputies were not enough to save him.

In his book published at the beginning of October, the journalist-presenter shared his scepticism about climate change. Moreover, he sent an open letter to Francois Hollande in which he denounced the government’s behaviour. With the approach of COP 21, this position has caused great controversy.

In the columns of Paris Match, the new president of France Télévisions had commented on the matter: “When you are an employee of a company such as France Télévisions, it is necessary to distinguish between personal opinion and what is said in the name of the company. There was confusion, and it’s my problem."

Initially France Télévisions had preferred to extend his leave taken for the promotion of his book. Asked on RTL at that time, Verdier said he was shocked: “It touches me deeply. This is not a decision for me.“ At that time he did not know that he was to be dismissed.
The next day, on Europe 1, he considered it “entirely possible” that his dismissal was ordered by the government. “Inevitably, when someone gets in the road of the COP 21, it is no fun at the Elysee,” he said when interviewed by Jean-Marc Morandini.

Philippe has given an interview here it is.


*Climate Fools Day, for those not familiar with it, is the date that the UK passed its notorious Climate Change Act.

I came across this while looking for something else and then found myself on it (at about 8 minutes in). I recall the day, when I went up to the House of Commons for the conference, to be told that it had been cancelled only to bump into Roger Helmer who, like me, had not been told about the cancellation. By sheer luck I had one of Piers Corbyn's cards in my pocket and on phoning him we discovered that he had managed to book an alternative venue several miles away. By now a couple of other would-be attendees had arrived so we all shared a taxi and eventually about twenty of us had a much smaller do somewhere else. Although many others did not make it, the event was for me very enjoyable as it provided the opportunity of having a good discussion with a small group of very interesting people, including Piers and Roger who I have the greatest respect for. The question I raised of how to get the message out to the public that they are being misled by propaganda, is still one I cannot answer, other than to get out good literature directly into people's letter boxes.

If you want to see the whole conference here is the link.

Sunday, 1 November 2015


Here is their latest prediction. It is interesting to see what factors they take into account, even though, as they readily admit, it is by no means certain that they will be right when forecasting months ahead. It is of no practical use, other than to see how close they get (or not!) Read it to learn about the Quasi-Biennial Oscillation and Sudden Stratospheric Warming.