The Great Global Warming Swindle!!!

Marcus's picture
Submitted by Marcus on Sat, 2007-03-10 19:12

Surprise, surprise.

You can watch the entire thing now - for free - already on Google Video.
Watch it while you can, here is the link below.

The Great Global Warming Swindle

The Great Global Warming Swindle.

This astounding documentary was aired last Thursday night (8th of March) in the UK.
What it illustrates both clearly and definitively is that global warming through human activity is the most contrived pseudo-science of the last 30 years. The scale of the swindle is both frightening. As the film narrator boldly states:

“Everywhere you are told that man-made climate change is proved beyond doubt, but you are being told lies. Each day the news reports grow more fantastically apocalyptic. Politicians no longer dare to express any doubt about climate change.
This is the story of how a theory about climate turned into a political ideology.
It is the story of the distortion of a whole area of science. It is the story of how a political campaign turned into a bureaucratic band-wagon. This is a story of censorship and intimidation. It is a story about westerners invoking the threat of climatic disaster to hinder vital industrial progress in the developing world. The global warming story is a cautionary tale of how a media scare became the defining idea of a generation.”

This film proceeds to completely strip away the emperor clothes of the theory of global warming caused by man-made CO2. It’s main points against the theory are that:

1) “We are told that the earth’s climate is changing, but the earth’s climate is always changing. In earth’s history there have been countless periods when it was much warmer and much cooler that it is today. When much of the world was covered by tropical forests or else vast ice sheets. The climate has always changed, and changed without any help from us humans.”

“The polar bears obviously survived that period, they are with us today, they are very adaptable and these warm periods in the past posed no problem for them.” Says Professor John Clark – Dept of Earth Sciences – University of Ottawa.

2) If you take the percentage of CO2 in the atmosphere of all gases, it is 0.054%. The proportions that human are adding is even smaller, the main source in fact coming from the world’s oceans. CO2 is a relatively minor greenhouse gas. The geological records show that in fact CO2 does not precede warming, but lags behind it by some 300 years. So as Gore rightly says in his film “An Inconvenient Truth” that there is a correlation between CO2 and temperature. However it is not a positive one, but a negative one, in fact often an inverse correlation.

3) The atmosphere is made up of a multitude of gases and a small percentage of them are the greenhouse gases. And of that small percentage, 95% of it is water vapour, and that is by far the most important greenhouse gas often in the form of clouds. Further, solar activity is the most accurate way of predicting climate changes on earth. The interplay between water vapour and solar activity being the main determinants of earth’s climate and human beings have almost no influence upon.

4) If greenhouse warming were presently occurring you would get more warming in the troposphere, because greenhouse gases trap heat from escaping the atmosphere in the troposphere. However, that is just not the case. The data collected from satellites and weather balloons show that the earth is in fact warmer than the atmosphere. This evidence damns the theory of greenhouse effect upon climate through CO2.

Surprising is the origins of this political scandal. Apparently it originated from a desire of Margaret Thatcher in the eighties to discredit fossil fuels in favour of nuclear power.

Even more shocking is that the entire present global warming lobby, hijacked from Thatcher by neo-Marxists and Environmentalists, has become in the hands of politicians and bureaucrats an evil “gravy train” of the millions of tax dollars pocketed in this disgusting “global warming” industry which is based upon a lie.

“Fact of the matter is that tens of thousands of jobs depend on Global Warming right now. It’s a big business.” Says Professor Patrick Michaels – Dept of Environmental Sciences – University of Virginia.

“Climate scientists need there to be a problem in order to get funding.” Says Dr Roy Spencer – Weather Satellite Team Leader – NASA.

As the film spells out for us:

Man-made global warming is no ordinary theory. It is presented in the media as having the stamp of authority of an impressive international organisation. The UN’s intergovernmental panel on climate change or IPCC.

“The IPCC like any UN body is political. The final conclusions are politically driven. It’s become a great industry in itself and if the whole global warming farrago collapsed, there would an awful lot of people out of jobs and looking for work.” Says Professor Philip Scott – Dept of Biogeography – University of London.

“This claim that the IPCC is the worlds top 1500 or 2500 scientists: you look at the bibliographies of the people and it is simply not true. There are quite a number of non-scientists. Those people that are specialists but don’t agree with the polemic and resign, and there are a number of them I know of, they are simply put on the author list and become part of this “2500 of the worlds top scientists”. We have a vested interest in causing panic, because then, money will flow to climate science.” Says Professor Paul Reiter – IPCC and Pasteur Institute of Paris.

“And to build up the number to 2500 they have to start taking reviewers and Government people and so on, anyone who has been close to them. And none of these people are asked if they agree, many of them disagree. People have decided that you have to convince other people that since no scientist disagrees - you shouldn’t disagree either. But whenever you hear that in science you know that it is pure propaganda.” Says Professor Richard Lindzen – IPCC and M.I.T.

Unfortunately as the Times notes, the whole Global Warming bandwagon has evolved into “less an issue and more a doom-laden religion demanding sacrifice to Gaia for our wicked fossil fuel-driven ways.”

“There is such intolerance. This is most politically incorrect thing possible to doubt this climate change orthodoxy.” Says Lord Lawson of Blaby (In 2005 a House of Lords enquiry was set up to examine the scientific evidence of man-made cause of Global Warming and Lord Lawson was a member of it.) He goes on to comment - "We had a very thorough enquiry and took evidence from a whole lot of people expert in this area and we produced a report. What surprised me was to discover how weak and uncertain the science was. In fact there are more and more thoughtful people, some of them a little bit frightened to come out in the open. But who quietly privately and some of them publicly are saying ‘hang on, wait a moment, this simply just does not add up’."

“I often heard it said that there is a consensus of thousands of scientists on the global warming issue and that humans are causing a catastrophic change to the climate system. Well I am one scientist and there are many that simply think that is not true.” Says Professor John Christy – Lead Author IPCC

And finally the definitive comment of the documentary must belong to Nigel Calder – the Former Editor of the New Scientist.

“I have seen and heard their spitting fury at anybody that might disagree with them, which is not the scientific way. The whole global warming business has become like a religion and people who disagree are called heretics. I am a heretic. The makers of this programme are all heretics.”

After this documentary and more publicity, hopefully not heretics for much longer!!!

( categories: )

The Exploding Carbon Tax

Marcus's picture

The Weekly Standard

The Exploding Carbon Tax

The costs imposed by the cap and trade system are equivalent to raising a family of four's income tax by 50 percent.
by Martin Feldstein
06/22/2009, Volume 014, Issue 38

The cap and trade legislation supported by the Obama administration is a stealth strategy for a massive long-term tax increase. It is a large tax on all American households, and the tax burden rises in future years without any need for further legislation. It will evolve into an enormous new source of tax revenue for the government.

A cap and trade system is supposed to reduce carbon dioxide (CO2) emissions by raising the price of CO2-intensive goods and services like gasoline, electricity, and a wide range of industrial products. This, in theory, will induce consumers to shift their spending to services and products that involve lower levels of CO2 emissions. It achieves these price increases by requiring firms that create CO2 in their production process, or sell goods like gasoline that create CO2 when used, to have a permit per ton of CO2 emission.

The Congressional Budget Office estimates that reducing the level of CO2 to 15 percent less than the total level of U.S. emissions in 2005 would require permit prices that would increase the cost of living of a typical household by $1,600 a year. To put that $1,600 carbon tax in perspective, a typical family of four with earnings of $50,000 now pays an income tax of about $3,000. The tax imposed by the cap and trade system is therefore equivalent to raising the family's income tax by about 50 percent...

BA boss: Airline passengers will have to pay for pollution

Willie Walsh, British Airways chief, says airline emissions trading scheme will mean fares rises

Dan Milmo, Thursday 11 June 2009

...Under one version the industry would be limited to an amount of carbon dioxide emissions – for instance, 97% of 2005 emissions in 2005 – and would receive free carbon permits equating to 85% of its permitted emissions, and would bid for the rest. A proportion of those auction proceeds would go to developing countries.

The group made the proposal amid mounting frustration over negotiations for the Copenhagen climate change conference in December, which will thrash out a sequel to the Kyoto agreement. Airlines are concerned their representative body, the International Civil Aviation Organisation, will not produce a robust proposal in time and could expose them to measures such as an international air travel levy.

Walsh said fares would "have to" rise in order to cover the cost of a global trading scheme. Walsh added that the sector's "unsustainable" financial state, with a total loss of $9bn forecast this year, made fare rises inevitable. "This is going to add billions to the industry's cost base and the industry is unlikely to be able to absorb the cost. For the industry to play its part the people who benefit from that industry will have to pay for it as well."...

Our politicians haven't noticed the world is not warming

Marcus's picture

Daily Telegraph

Crops under stress as temperatures fall

Our politicians haven't noticed that the problem may be that the world is not warming but cooling, observes Christopher Booker.

By Christopher Booker
13 Jun 2009

For the second time in little over a year, it looks as though the world may be heading for a serious food crisis, thanks to our old friend "climate change". In many parts of the world recently the weather has not been too brilliant for farmers. After a fearsomely cold winter, June brought heavy snowfall across large parts of western Canada and the northern states of the American Midwest. In Manitoba last week, it was -4ºC. North Dakota had its first June snow for 60 years.

There was midsummer snow not just in Norway and the Cairngorms, but even in Saudi Arabia. At least in the southern hemisphere it is winter, but snowfalls in New Zealand and Australia have been abnormal. There have been frosts in Brazil, elsewhere in South America they have had prolonged droughts, while in China they have had to cope with abnormal rain and freak hailstorms, which in one province killed 20 people.

None of this has given much cheer to farmers. In Canada and northern America summer planting of corn and soybeans has been way behind schedule, with the prospect of reduced yields and lower quality. Grain stocks are predicted to be down 15 per cent next year. US reserves of soya – used in animal feed and in many processed foods – are expected to fall to a 32-year low...

Agas and Bentleys: slow-tech solutions for an 'overwound world'

Aga cookers and Bentley cars, derided by environmentalists, could be perfect "slow-tech" solutions for a world obsessed by efficiency, a leading academic has claimed.

By Harry Wallop, Consumer Affairs Editor
12 Jun 2009

Both are gas guzzlers, but their reputation should be reconsidered, along with other "slow-tech" ideas because they are "robust" and able to last for decades, according to Andrew Price, a professor of biosciences at Warwick University.

He argues in his book, Slow-Tech, just published, that engineers and politicians prize efficiency over robustness and in doing so discard many successful ideas.

He admits both Agas and Bentleys are luxuries that only a few can afford, but they should not be seen as "dinosaurs".

"A Formula One car now lasts just two race weekends if they are lucky. Their engines are effectively disposable. Our family has managed to keep the same Bentley on the road for 80 years...

Another ‘Green’ Policy That Leads to Death

Marcus's picture

Another ‘Green’ Policy That Leads to Death

by Paul Chesser, Heartland Institute Correspondent

June 11, 2009

Looks like public hospitals in British Columbia, Canada, will have to cut patient services in order to comply with global warming laws established by the provincial government.

The Surrey Leader reports:

The Lower Mainland’s health authorities will have to dig more than $4 million a year out of their already stretched budgets to pay B.C.’s carbon tax and offset their carbon footprints...

Major report debunking climate catastrophism, Environment Minister capitulates to political correctness with cap and trade announcements

Offset System for Greenhouse Gases shows Government Unconcerned with Reality.

By Tom Harris Friday, June 12, 2009
One of the most significant climate science documents ever produced was released in Washington, DC last week. Coming to conclusions diametrically opposed to those of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), the new Non-governmental International Panel on Climate Change (NIPCC) is essential reading for all politicians, or at least those who want to develop policies that actually benefit their countries and the environment.

This week’s carbon dioxide cap and trade announcement by Canadian Environment Minister Jim Prentice clearly demonstrates that he does not fall into that category. By totally ignoring the NIPCC and, instead, announcing policies that are, according to economist Professor Ross McKitrick of Guelph University, “like a carbon tax, only far more costly to administer, more volatile for the economy and more economically burdensome to households,” Prentice reveals that real science and economics play no roles in the file...

US says it will not demand binding carbon cuts from China

Developing nations will be expected to commit to action on energy efficiency and renewables, says US delegation in Bonn

David Adam in Bonn and Suzanne Goldenberg in Washington, Friday 12 June 2009

Progress towards a global treaty to fight climate change took an important step forward today when the US said it would not demand that China commits to binding cuts of its greenhouse gas emissions.

The move came on the last day of the latest round of UN climate change talks involving 183 nations, which aim to produce a deal in Copenhagen in December.

Jonathan Pershing, head of the US delegation in Bonn, said developing nations – seeking to grow their economies and alleviate poverty – would instead be asked to commit to other actions. These include boosting energy efficiency standards and improving the take-up of renewable energy, but would not deliver specific reductions. He said: "We're saying that the actions of developing countries should be binding, not the outcomes of those actions."

Only developed nations, including the US, would be expected to guarantee cuts. The pledge was included in a US blueprint for a climate change deal submitted to the Bonn meeting, which Pershing said was based on the need for the rich nations to cut greenhouse gases 80% by 2050...

Daily Telegraph

These green shoots mean business

In his debut article for The Daily Telegraph, Geoffrey Lean says environmental campaigners are no longer anti-growth

By Geoffrey Lean
12 Jun 2009

Here's a starter for ten. Which party pinched Bill Clinton's slogan "It's the economy, stupid!" for the title of its manifesto for this month's European elections? Was it the Conservatives, traditionally the party of business? Or Labour, led by the longest serving chancellor since the 1820s, the man who believes he "saved the world" from financial meltdown? Or the Liberal Democrats, whose Treasury spokesman, Vince Cable, has emerged as Parliament's most respected voice on the crisis?

The answer? None of the above. The contenders who eschewed the other parties' vapid generalities ("Vote for Change", "Winning the Fight for Britain's Future" etc.) to emblazon the primacy of the economy were none other than the Greens, the very bunch who have to date demanded it came a distant second to environmental concerns. Indeed the party which once ideologically opposed the very idea of economic growth set out to sell itself to electors – in Britain and across the continent – as the one with the best programme to revive it.

That's quite a turn-around, even by the standards of the often topsy-turvy world of green politics. But there's something even stranger. For the Greens' pitch is plausible, so much so that decidedly brown Governments around the world have endorsed similar programmes of their own...

Green agenda delivered body blow! Again!

Marcus's picture

From The Times
June 12, 2009

Climate pact in jeopardy as China refuses to cut carbon emissions

Carl Mortished, World Business Editor

China will not make a binding commitment to reduce carbon emissions, putting in jeopardy the prospects for a global pact on climate change.

Officials from Beijing told a UN conference in Bonn yesterday that China would increase its emissions to develop its economy rather than sign up to mandatory cuts.

The refusal is a setback for President Obama’s efforts to drum up support for an agreement at Copenhagen in December on a successor treaty to the Kyoto Protocol. As argument erupted between rich and poor nations at the Bonn talks, Yvo de Boer, the UN climate change chief, said that a worldwide pact to prevent global warming was “physically impossible”.

Hopes that Copenhagen might deliver tougher carbon reduction targets were dashed further when Japan failed to make a significant commitment to reduce emissions. Taro Aso, the Japanese Prime Minister, said on Wednesday that Japan would cut greenhouse gas emissions by 15 per cent by 2020 from levels in 2005. The Japanese commitment is a mere 2 per cent improvement on its commitment under Kyoto...

US nuclear industry tries to hijack Obama's climate change bill

Republicans seek federal financing for 100 new reactors despite huge capital costs and unsolved problems of storing waste

Suzanne Goldenberg, US environment correspondent, Thursday 11 June 2009

America's nuclear industry and its supporters in Congress have moved to hijack Barack Obama's agenda for greening the economy by producing a rival plan to build 100 new reactors in 20 years, and staking a claim for the money to come from a proposed clean energy development bank.

Republicans in the House of Representatives produced a spoiler version of the Democrats' climate change bill this week, calling for a doubling of the number of nuclear reactors in the US by 2030. The 152-page Republican bill contains just one reference to climate change, and proposes easing controls for new nuclear plants.

In the Senate, Republican leaders, including the former presidential candidate John McCain, also called this week for loan guarantees for building new reactors to rise from $18.5bn (£11.2bn) to $38bn. Other Republicans have called on the administration to underwrite the $122bn start-up costs of 19 nuclear reactors, whose applications are now under review by the department of energy.

"If you care about climate change ... 100 new nuclear power plants is the place to start," said Lamar Alexander, a Republican from Tennessee who is the strongest proponent of nuclear power in the Senate...

Green agenda delivered body blow!

Marcus's picture

Gore sent to NK and now this! Smiling

US green agenda delivered blow as ban on drilling off Florida overturned

Senate committee vote runs counter to Obama's push to steer clean energy laws through Congress

Suzanne Goldenberg, US environment correspondent, Wednesday 10 June 2009

A Senate committee delivered a rebuff to Barack Obama's clean energy agenda yesterday by voting to overturn a ban on oil and gas drilling off the Florida coast.

The 13-10 vote in the Senate's energy and natural resources committee to lift the drilling ban off Florida's coast runs counter to the push by the White House and Democrats in Congress to steer clean energy laws through Congress.

Democratic leaders in the House of Representatives are pushing for a vote on the first US bill to cut carbon emissions by the end of this month. Meanwhile, a Senate committee is close to approving a bill to encourage the use of renewable energy.

Tuesday's drilling measure was brought as an amendment to that bill — already criticised by environmentalists by setting low targets for renewable energy development.

The vote would put oil and gas rigs within 10 miles of the Florida panhandle, and within 45 miles of Tampa.

Congress allowed a 25-year ban on offshore drilling along much of the Atlantic and Pacific coasts to lapse last year. But the ban remained in force in Florida, restricting exploration to within 125 miles of the Florida coast, and 235 miles from Tampa...

Japan's 15% target to cut emissions condemned as 'disaster'

Target is 'weakest any country has pledged so far' and threatens agreement in Copenhagen, say critics

David Adam, environment correspondent, Wednesday 10 June 2009

Japan's target to cut its greenhouse gas emissions by 15% by 2020 was immediately condemned by environmentalists as "appalling" and unambitious after it was announced today. The Japanese government defended the target as comparable to European efforts because it does not permit offset schemes such as carbon trading, which allow cuts to be bought from other countries.

Taro Aso, Japan's prime minister, announced the target in Tokyo while UN talks on a draft climate agreement are continuing in Bonn. The talks, which finish on Friday, aim to lay foundations for a a meeting in Copenhagen in December when a new global treaty on global warming to succeed the Kyoto protocol will be agreed.

Observers said Japan's target was only slightly more ambitious than already required under Kyoto - a cut of 6% on 1990 levels by 2012. Japan's emissions have actually risen 7% since 1990. Its new 15% reduction commitment uses a 2005 baseline, equating to a 8% cut on 1990 levels by 2020...

Daily Telegraph

Climate change failure 'immoral' – Oxfam

The UK needs to cut greenhouse gases by 45 per cent by 2020 to prevent the world "lurching into climate disaster", according to a new report from Oxfam.

By Louise Gray, Environment Correspondent
11 Jun 2009

The international aid agency said the developed world has a moral duty to lead the way in cutting carbon emissions in order to slow global warming.

This would mean the UK would have to increase its current target to cut greenhouse gases from 34 per cent on 1990 levels to 45.3 per cent by further improving energy efficiency and relying more on renewable energy.

Both Europe and the US would need to cut emissions by 45 per cent by 2020 – almost double the current EU target of 20 per cent and more than three times the most likely target to be set by the US of 14 per cent. Japan would have to deliver a 56 per cent reduction, although the country recently announced it would not commit to more than eight per cent.

At the same time it will be necessary to pump more than £90 billion into helping poorer countries cut carbon emissions and adapt to climate change to prevent "climate catastrophe".

The report was launched at the ongoing UN talks in Bonn, Germany, where Governments from around the world are discussing an international deal on climate change...

'Global warming is hoax': the world according to Nick Griffin

Marcus's picture

'Global warming is hoax': the world according to Nick Griffin

BNP leader Nick Griffin launches into peak oil and climate change argument

Leo Hickman,
Tuesday 9 June 2009

Here's something that we're presumably going to have to listen to a lot more of as a result of the BNP's success in the European elections – Nick Griffin's views on climate change. As he was touring the radio studios yesterday morning, he popped in on BBC Radio 5 Live's Breakfast programme for a chat with Nicky Campbell. After a few minutes of fairly gentle jousting, Griffin interrupted Campbell as he tried to read out another text from a listener…

Griffin: The BBC is obsessed with race and immigration. It would be great to talk about something else for once.

Nicky Campbell: What would you like to talk about? What's the thing you'd like to say given this platform to speak to the nation this morning?

Nick Griffin: OK, how about the fact that I believe, along with the Czech politician [Vaclav Klaus] everyone is berating, that global warming is essentially a hoax. It is being exploited by the liberal elite as a means of taxing and controlling us and the real crisis is peak oil. We're running out of proper, real energy. And it is something with an immediate and catastrophic effect in a few years' time potentially — not worrying about floating polar bears in a 150 years...

Listen here (starts at 1h 47m):

Daily Telegraph

Tim Berners-Lee: internet could help combat climate change and cancer

Sir Tim Berners-Lee, the man credited with inventing the world wide web said he hoped the internet may help combat climate change and incurable diseases.

09 Jun 2009

Sir Tim said the increasing mass of online information could help experts to spot breakthroughs in the battles against illnesses like cancer and Alzheimer's, as well as global warming.

The Oxford University-educated professor was speaking in New York after receiving a lifetime achievement prize at the Webby awards, which honour internet excellence.

Sir Tim told the BBC: "The internet explodes when somebody has the creativity to look at a piece of data that's put there for one reason and realise they can connect it with something else.

"Like cure a disease or figure out something to do with Alzheimer's...or cancer...or realise something about global warming because we managed to get all the data about the state of the world out there on the web."...

New Scientist

Train can be worse for climate than plane
08 June 2009 by Catherine Brahic

A new study compares the "full life-cycle" emissions generated by 11 different modes of transportation in the US. Unlike previous studies on transport emissions, Mikhail Chester and Arpad Horvath of the University of California, Berkeley, looked beyond what is emitted by different types of car, train, bus or plane while their engines are running and includes emissions from building and maintaining the vehicles and their infrastructure, as well as generating the fuel to run them.

Transport studies expert Abigail Bristow of Loughborough University, UK, who was not involved in the study, says it is valuable because it attempts to compare transport on equal terms. To do this, Chester and Horvath calculated how many passengers each train, plane, bus or car would carry in its lifetime and how many kilometres it would cover. The pair took into account how much each infrastructure component – such as tracks, roads and airports – is used in its lifetime.

Including these additional sources of pollution more than doubles the greenhouse gas emissions of train travel. The emissions generated by car travel increase by nearly one third when manufacturing and infrastructure are taken into account. In comparison to cars on roads and trains on tracks, air travel requires little infrastructure. As a result, full life-cycle emissions are between 10 and 20 per cent higher than "tailpipe" emissions...

Airlines reject new tax to fight global warming

Marcus's picture

Airlines reject new tax to fight global warming

International Air Transport Association chief objects to proposed $10bn levy to help developing countries fight climate change

Dan Milmo in Kuala Lumpur, Monday 8 June 2009

The airline industry has rejected calls for a compulsory tax on international flights to help the world's poorest countries fight global warming.

The chief executive of the International Air Transport Association, Giovanni Bisignani, said carriers were "absolutely against" another levy in a year that the industry is expected to lose $9bn (£5.65bn).

"We are absolutely against," he said. "We have seen so many taxes that we are fed up. We are serious about what we pay in emissions [taxes] going towards the environment in a serious way."

The world's 50 least developed countries have proposed a levy on all international fares that would raise $10bn a year, increasing the cost of tickets by about 1%. The idea has been raised as the second week in the latest round of UN climate talks gets under way in Bonn, where 192 countries are negotiating an agreement to reduce greenhouse gas emissions.

Speaking at the IATA annual general meeting in Kuala Lumpur, Bisignani said airlines were already heavily committed to tackling climate change. Iata today set a target of carbon-neutral growth in the airline industry by 2020, driven by 1.5% cuts in fuel consumption every year over the next decade. The industry's carbon footprint is also expected to shrink by 7% this year, largely because of the recession, although IATA credits two percentage points of that reduction to efficiency gains such as better air traffic control...

From The Sunday Times
June 7, 2009

Here is the weather ... for July 2080

Jonathan Leake, Environment Editor

ANYONE for a drop of Château d’Exeter? Farmers in Devon and Cornwall could be challenging vintners in France by 2080 as climate change transforms the southwest into a balmy wine-growing region.

Forecasters predict that temperatures could rise by 3C to 4C, making the West Country ideal for growing crops such as grapes, sweetcorn and sunflowers.

Meanwhile, commuters in London will be left sweltering as peak temperatures spiral as high as 41C.

The projections are part of the first national study on how climate change might affect different parts of Britain.

Some may question how the Met Office can make predictions a lifetime into the future, when it struggles to produce forecasts for the next few months. However, climate change impacts are predicted to be so strong that, over decades, they are easier to predict than short-term changes...

Yet more Global Wanking!

Marcus's picture

Daily Telegraph

Global warming to push London temperatures up to 105F

London could regularly see temperatures of 105F (41C) and south-west England could be hot enough to grow grapes and sunflowers, according to a map of how climate change will affect Britain in 2080.

by Alastair Jamieson
07 Jun 2009

Winters in Scotland and the north of England could be up to six degrees warmer while East Anglia could see up to 60 per cent less rainfall in summer, turning it from an agricultural heartland into an arid zone.

The changes mean homes in Devon, Cornwall or south Wales could rise in value as temperatures rise and cloud cover decreases – but London could become less attractive as it would get unbearably hot durring summer months...

From The Times
June 8, 2009

Todd Stern to press China on climate change in run-up to Copenhagen
Tim Reid in Washington

America’s leading climate change negotiator will urge China to make a commitment to cutting greenhouse gas emissions during meetings in Beijing this week, as the US seeks to avoid the collapse of the next global warming treaty.

Todd Stern and a number of the Obama Administration’s senior climate experts travelling with him are intent on boosting co-operation between the US and China to convince developing countries to back a new global climate treaty due to be approved in Copenhagen in December. More than 180 nations are working to endorse a successor to the Kyoto Protocol, which expires in 2012.

Mr Stern travelled to Beijing with the White House science adviser John Holdren and David Sandalow, the Assistant Energy Secretary. Last week Mr Stern said that he did not expect a written agreement from the trip, but he wanted the visit to help to set the tone with the developing world.

Together, China and the US are responsible for 40 per cent of the world’s greenhouse gas emissions. China’s contribution has skyrocketed in the past two decades and is expected to be twice that of the US by 2030...

Global warming and a tale of two planets

Marcus's picture

Daily Telegraph

Global warming and a tale of two planets

Kofi Annan claims that global warming is already "killing 300,000 people a year". The situation looks a little different in the real world, says Christopher Booker.

By Christopher Booker
06 Jun 2009

It might well be called "the tale of two planets". On one planet live all the Great and Good who have recently been trying to whip up an ever greater panic over global warming, as the clock ticks down to next December's UN conference in Copenhagen when they plan a new treaty to follow the Kyoto Protocol of 1997.

There was, for instance, the three-day gathering organised by Prince Charles at St James's Palace, at which 20 Nobel laureates (including two African winners of the Peace and Literature prizes) listened to speeches from Lord Stern and Prince Charles, before issuing a declaration which compared the threat of global warming to that of all-out nuclear war. They also heard President Obama's Energy Secretary, Stephen Chu, solemnly telling them that if all buildings and pavements were painted white, to reflect the sun's rays back into space, this would be equivalent to taking all vehicles off the world's roads for 11 years.

Then there was the 103-page report launched by Kofi Annan, former UN Secretary-General, on behalf of something called the Global Humanitarian Forum, claiming, without a shred of hard evidence, that global warming is already "killing 300,000 people a year". But Mr Annan himself had to admit that this report, drawn up by a firm of consultants, was not "a scientific study" but was "the most plausible account of the current impact of climate change".

Even this was topped by a report from the Massachusetts Institute of Technology claiming that world temperatures could rise this century by 7 degrees C, "killing billions of people worldwide and leaving the world on the brink of total collapse". According to MIT, these projections are based on new evidence which has come to light since 2003.

Now for the other planet, the one the rest of us live on. Here all the accepted measures of global temperatures show that their trend has been downwards since 2002, declining at a rate that averages to about 0.25 degree per decade. Yet such a fall was predicted by none of those 25 computer models on which the UN's Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change and the rest of the Great and the Good rely for their theory of runaway global warming. Their computers are programmed to assume that as CO2 goes up, temperatures inevitably follow. But the graph below, where the variation of global temperatures from a 30-year mean is plotted against CO2 levels, shows the two lines clearly diverging, contrary to the theory. In this century, temperatures have fallen as CO2 has risen...


JUNE 6, 2009

'Worse Than Fiction'

...But the Annan report deserves even closer scrutiny as an example of the sleight of hand that so often goes with the politics of global warming. Unlike starvation, climate change does not usually kill anyone directly. Instead, the study's authors assume a four-step chain of causation, beginning with increased emissions, moving to climate-change effects, thence to physical changes like melting glaciers and desertification, and finally arriving at human effects like malnutrition and "risk of instability and armed conflicts."

This is a heroic set of assumptions, even if you agree that emissions are causing adverse changes in climate. Take the supposedly heightened risk of conflict: The authors suggest that "inter-clan fighting in Somalia" is a product of climate change. A likelier explanation is the collapse of a functioning Somali government and the rise of jihadists in the region.

Enter Mr. Pielke, who, we hasten to add, does not speak for us (nor we for him). But given the headlines the Annan report has garnered, his views deserve amplification. Writing in the Prometheus science policy blog, Mr. Pielke calls the report a "methodological embarrassment" and a "poster child for how to lie with statistics" that "does a disservice" to those who take climate change issues seriously.

Mr. Pielke's critique begins by citing a recent peer-reviewed paper by three German researchers that "it is generally difficult to obtain valid quantitative findings about the role of socioeconomics and climate change in loss increases." Reasons for this, the researchers explain, include "the stochastic [random] nature of weather extremes, a shortage of quality data, and the role of various other potential factors that act in parallel and interact."

The report does admit to a "significant margin of error," but this hardly excuses the sloppiness of its methodology. "To get around the fact that there has been no attribution of the relationship of GHG [greenhouse gas] emissions and disasters," Mr. Pielke notes, the Annan "report engages in a very strange comparison of earthquake and weather disasters in 1980 and 2005. The first question that comes to mind is, why? They are comparing phenomena with many 'moving parts' over a short time frame, and attributing 100% of the resulting difference to human-caused climate change. This boggles the mind."

It gets worse. The Annan report cites Hurricane Katrina as a case study in the economic consequences of climate change. Yet there's not even remotely conclusive evidence that temperature increases have any effect on the intensity or frequency of hurricanes. The authors also claim that global warming is aggravating the El Niño effect, which has "ruined livelihoods, led to lost lives and impaired national economies." Yet new research "questions the notion that El Niños have been getting stronger because of global warming," according to Ben Giese of Texas A&M.

We could go on, except we're worried about the blood pressure of readers who are climate-change true believers. Our only question is, if the case for global warming is so open and shut, why the need for a report as disingenuous as Mr. Annan's?

Leo Hickman grills the Burger King franchise

Marcus's picture

The Guardian has a masturbatory moment.

Have it your way: Burger King franchise cites cockroaches and Oz in defence of 'global warming is baloney' signs

Leo Hickman grills the Burger King franchise that put up signs saying global warming is 'baloney'

Suzanne Goldenberg, US environment correspondent, Thursday 4 June 2009

Earlier this week we were, ahem, relishing the story about how some Burger King restaurants in Tennessee had been displaying signs saying "global warming is baloney"....

And here, for your delectation, is the full transcript of the call I had with the soon-to-be-legendary J.J. McNelis. As another well-known burger chain would probably say, we're lovin' it:

Me: How does your company react to this story?

McNelis: We've certainly observed what's been going on. A quick answer to what our reaction is would most accurately be described as amusement.

Me: Why do you say that?

McNelis: It's pretty amusing the amount of fervour that some of the people bring to their arguments on this issue.

Me: People who believe in global warming?

McNelis: No, people on all sides.

Me: Where did these signs come from? Was it the managers in each restaurant that put them up?

McNelis: I don't have those details.

Me: Have they all come down now?

McNelis: I think so. It's the best I can tell.

Me: BK Corp issued a statement saying that 'global warming is baloney' wasn't their view and that they had asked you to take them down. Is that your understanding of it?

McNelis: I can't speak for them. I would think they would run from any form of controversy kinda like cockroaches when the lights get turned on. I'm not aware of any direction that they gave the franchisee and I don't think they have the authority to do it. The franchisee can put on a sign whatever he wants.

Me: They're saying that within the terms of the franchisee contract it says something along the lines that signs outside a restaurant can't be used to express any political or religious views.

McNelis: Well, it maybe a religious belief for some folks, but it's certainly not for the franchisee here and I don't think that it's necessarily political either. But I have to tell you that I don't read the franchise agreement with regularity or else I would have a bad case of insomnia.

Me: There have been some comments made about how MIC-owned Burger Kings all have Fox News playing inside them on TV sets. Is that correct?

McNelis: I can't say that it's correct. I do know that there are TV sets in a lot of the restaurants. In fact, they very well maybe on Fox News but if you are asking me that's a mandate of some sort I would think that's not true.

Me: So your reaction to this whole story that's now gone around the world is bemusement and amusement?

McNelis: It certainly shows the power of internet communications and the society we live in, that it would even get played over across the pond.

Me: Apparently, it even featured on MSNBC....

McNelis: I heard it even made that Keith Olbermann show which is, gosh, a real coup. A small franchisee over in Memphis, Tennessee, can be the "Worst Person in the World". If that's the case then we've got a pretty good damn thing going.

Me: Are you not a fan of the show?

McNelis: Well, the technology now allows that anyone with a microphone can make a complete idiot of themselves and I'm sure given the opportunity I might do it myself. No, we don't pay any attention to that. The corollary to the comment I've just made is that obviously this is today's news and tomorrow they'll be talking about something else whether it's what Barack Obama is apologising for over in Cairo, or any other number of things, and we'll look at this in the rear-view mirror and be movin' on.

Me: So to clarify, it wasn't MIC policy to put up these signs? It was just down to individual managers in each restaurant?

McNelis: I don't know. Sometimes it's like a wild fire in the west – things spread around and all kinds of stuff goes on. But it certainly got some folks' attention.

Me: Some people have been telling Memphis papers that they've seen the signs at a dozen or so sites.

McNelis: Well, they're 40-odd restaurants in the franchise so that wouldn't surprise me at all.

Me: But that suggests that it might have come from some sort of central memo to put these signs up?

McNelis: It's kinda like the old movie the Wizard of Oz; there's somebody back there behind the curtain turning the dials or something. I haven't had a chance because I don't have a little dog pulling on it.

Me: So, there's wasn't a memo?

McNelis: I don't know that. I'm just not privy to that kind of discussion. I grew up in the Watergate era so there may have been some guys in the back room scheming and plotting but I don't think any one is trying to take over the world with this thing.

Me: BK Corp are saying that they've demanded that these signs get taken down and that they have now been taken down...

McNelis: Burger King can tell me to use my left hand when I scratch my nose instead of my right but that doesn't mean I'm going to use my right. They can say whatever they want. The management team can put the message up there if they want to. It is private property and over here in the US we do have some rights, not withstanding a franchise agreement that I could load a Brinks vehicle with I've got so many of them. By the time the BK lawyers work out how to make that stick we'd be in the year 2020. I don't think the franchisees are particularly concerned about that. BK can bluster all they want about what they can tell the franchisee to do but we have free speech rights in this country so I don't think there's any concerns. Don't come away from this conversation with the impression that the franchisee did anything because the BK Corporation told him he had to. They're only printed words on paper. The contract is only as strong as the ability to enforce it. Some things can be enforced, other things can't. I know BK would like to have you believe they have the authority and the willingness to make us do all kinds of different things, but that's not how the world works.

Me: Have you been using these road-side signs for years to display such messages?

McNelis: I think that just about any restaurant that gets opened that has the ability to have one of these signs has one as they are used for marketing messages and any number of different things – new promotions, say, or "Happy Birthday George Bush", or "Open Christmas Day".

Me: But "Global Warming is Baloney" is certainly a different sort of message, a more political viewpoint?

McNelis: I would agree that it's a viewpoint, but not necessarily a political one. But we're not sheeple around here, and while Barack Obama would like to have you believe that no one is entitled to have a view other than his, if someone wants to stand up and say "Global Warming is Baloney", then I'm all for it. It doesn't matter to me, whether I believe in it or not. They have first amendment rights to say whatever's on their mind. And nobody dictates otherwise.

Barack Obama seeks US-Chinese deal on global warming

Suzanne Goldenberg, US environment correspondent, Thursday 4 June 2009

The Obama administration said yesterday that it was pursuing a joint US-Chinese deal on action against global warming to help push the rest of the world towards a global agreement on cutting greenhouse gas emissions.

Todd Stern, the US climate change envoy, said a deal between the two countries – the world's largest polluters – would boost efforts to secure a crucial accord to avoid dangerous climate change. Those UN talks are just six months away.

"China may not be the alpha and omega of the international negotiations, but it is close," Stern said in a speech to the Centre for American Progress, a liberal thinktank. "No deal will be possible if we don't find a way forward with China."

Stern's remarks represent the clearest acknowledgement yet that the Obama administration has taken on board a blueprint for US-Chinese action to address global warming. The plan is the product of secret back-channel negotiations between US and Chinese officials that were revealed in the Guardian last month.

Stern, who leaves for China on Saturday, will be accompanied by two experts who were involved in those back-channel efforts, and are now officials in the Obama administration. Obama's science adviser, John Holdren, visited China last year and David Sandalow, now an energy department official, produced a report advocating partnership with China...

The modern heresy of true science

Marcus's picture

The Spectator

Melanie Phillips

The modern heresy of true science

Monday, 1st June 2009

Every so often, a book is published which, it is instantly clear, is the definitive last word on the subject. Such a book has just appeared on the global lunacy of anthropogenic global warming (AGW). In his devastating study Heaven and Earth. Global Warming: The Missing Science (Quartet) Ian Plimer, Professor of Mining Geology at the University of Adelaide and previously Professor of Earth Sciences at the Universities of Melbourne and Newcastle systematically shreds the theory and the hallucinatory propaganda industry it has spawned. There is simply nothing left of it when he has finished – and he does so from the perspective of real science which the theory has so shockingly betrayed.

Having painstakingly out the actual scientific facts and evidence involved in the study of climate, he concludes his book with a sustained peroration of fury and contempt at the way such scientific evidence has been dismissed in a breathtaking campaign of ‘cognitive dissonance’. As he says, there is not one shred of actual scientific evidence to sustain the claim of AGW, which rests in its entirety upon charlatanry, fraud, ignorance and ideology. Here are some tasters of this invaluable book...

China promises economic stimulus plan will protect environment

China's environment ministry says it will monitor government's stimulus package for projects that cause pollution,
Friday 5 June 2009

China's environment ministry said today it would strictly monitor the government's economic stimulus package for projects that cause pollution, addressing worries that officials would ignore the environment in an effort to maintain China's high economic growth rates.

The stimulus will not damage the environment, the vice-minister of the ministry of environmental protection, Zhang Lijun, told a news conference. China's 4tn yuan (£365bn) stimulus package was unveiled last November to boost domestic demand during the global financial crisis.

Zhang said only projects concerning infrastructure and improving public welfare will get approval for fast-track environmental assessments – meaning everything else will be subject to a more rigorous assessment. The environmental ministry has approved 365 projects related to the stimulus since last year and rejected or postponed 29 high-energy ones, such as petrochemical plants, steel factories and coal-powered power plants, he said.

A total of 210bn yuan of the stimulus money is earmarked for environmental protection projects and improving energy efficiency...

Aussie Senator Fielding at Washington Heartland Conference

Marcus's picture


Daily Telegraph

Fat people causing climate change, says Sir Jonathan Porritt

Fat people are harming the planet by contributing to climate change, according to Sir Jonathan Porritt, the Government's chief green adviser.

By Louise Gray, Environment Correspondent
03 Jun 2009

Echoing the famous slogan "fat is a feminist issue", Sir Jonathan, Chair of the Sustainable Development Commission, said "fat is a climate change issue".

He pointed out overweight people eat more protein-rich food such as beef or lamb, which is responsible for producing greenhouse gases because of the toxic methane livestock emits. He also said obese people are more likely to use cars rather than walk or cycle, therefore producing more carbon emissions.

The former Green Party politician, who has caused controversy before by suggesting people should not have more than two children to prevent over-population, said the Government should be encouraging people who are above the recommended body mass index to lose weight not only to improve their health but to help the environment...

Warning: brain overload

Marcus's picture

More from the Obama-Airhead generation!

From The Times
June 2, 2009

Warning: brain overload

Scientists fear that a digital flood of 24-hour rolling news and infotainment is putting our primitive grey matter under such stress that we can no longer think wisely or empathise with others

John Naish

Every day, just to keep up to date, that grey lump between your ears has to shovel ever bigger piles of infotainment — tottering jumbles of global-warming updates, web gossip, refugee crises, e-mails, fashion alerts, Twitters and advertisements. Now research suggests that we may have reached an historic point in human evolution, where the digital world we have created has begun to outpace our neurons’ processing abilities...

Daily Telegraph

Climate change could kill your pet, warns the RSPCA

Climate change could kill pets, according to the Royal Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals (RSPCA), as warmer temperatures cause an increase in exotic diseases among cats and dogs.

By Louise Gray, Environment Correspondent
02 Jun 2009

In the first conference to be called on pets and climate change, scientists warned that the small heartworm, that kills dogs, cats and foxes, is already on the rise in the UK with more cases appearing in the north of the country and Scotland because of warmer wetter summers.

Furthermore because of the increased numbers of pets coming into the country from abroad without quarantine, there is a greater threat of exotic diseases that can become established in warmer temperatures and may even pose a threat to humans.

The RSPCA are so worried about the affect of climate change on cats and dogs, the charity is calling on pet-owners to take preventive measures against exotic diseases especially when travelling abroad...

Funding plea to help poor tackle climate change

The Government must provide extra funding to help poor countries tackle climate change, which threatens to destroy attempts to reduce poverty, a committee of MPs has urged.

03 Jun 2009

The International Development Committee said the issue of global warming should be central to the Government's work in developing countries.

And more funding - on top of existing budgets - needs to be committed to tackle problems caused by climate change.

A report by the MPs said that in Africa, changes to rainfall were already affecting food production, while rising temperatures are increasing exposure to malaria.

Existing aid and national budgets are not enough to meet the challenge, they warned...

Climate change Reconsidered

Marcus's picture


"As Congress debates global warming legislation that would raise energy costs to consumers by hundreds of billions of dollars, the Nongovernmental International Panel on Climate Change (NIPCC) has released an 880-page book challenging the scientific basis of concerns that global warming is either man-made or would have harmful effects.

In “Climate Change Reconsidered: The 2009 Report of the Nongovernmental International Panel on Climate Change (NIPCC),” coauthors Dr. S. Fred Singer and Dr. Craig Idso and 35 contributors and reviewers present an authoritative and detailed rebuttal of the findings of the United Nations’ Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), on which the Obama Administration and Democrats in Congress rely for their regulatory proposals..."

Nancy Sutley: Obama to stake political prestige on passing US climate bill

Congressional leaders working against a six-month deadline to pass a sweeping package of environmental legislation before global climate change talks begin in Copenhagen in December

Suzanne Goldenberg, US environment correspondent, Tuesday 2 June 2009

Barack Obama is prepared to stake his own political prestige on getting climate change legislation through Congress, and would be willing to intervene directly to ensure passage of America's first law to reduce the carbon emissions that cause global warming.

Nancy Sutley, who is pivotal in setting Obama's green agenda as the chairwoman of the White House Council on Environmental Quality, told the Guardian that the president is ready to use his considerable personal popularity to rally Congress behind a sweeping climate change bill.

"When the bill is further along in the legislative process there are some things where it may make a difference in expressing a strong view," Sutley said in an interview. "What [Obama] has been saying consistently is that he wants a bill and that this represents a very important step forward. "

Congress is now working against a six-month deadline to pass a sweeping package of environmental legislation through both houses before the world gathers at Copenhagen in December for talks on a global climate change treaty...

Anti-gay, climate change deniers: meet David Cameron's new friends

Ian Traynor in Warsaw
The Guardian, Wednesday 3 June 2009

Global warming is a lie, homosexuality is a "pathology" and Europe is becoming a "neo-totalitarian" regime, according to one of David Cameron's new European allies.

Tory headquarters may never have heard of Urszula Krupa, a militant Roman Catholic and strong Polish nationalist, but at the weekend in Warsaw, Cameron sealed his new alliance in Europe with Krupa's rightwing party in Poland, the opposition Law and Justice party (PiS) run by twin brothers Jaroslaw and Lech Kaczy´nski.

Cameron went to the city's Palladium cinema to stand alongside Jaroslaw Kaczy´nski, the PiS leader, and Mirek Topolánek, leader of the Civic Democratic party (ODS) in the Czech Republic, to celebrate the foundation of a new league of Eurosceptics to be established in the European parliament after elections for the assembly this weekend.

The Tory leader waxed lyrical about the Battle of Britain and how Czech and Polish pilots did their bit in the blitz with the RAF.

"Together we fought for freedom," Cameron said.

"We are the modern conservatives," added Kaczy´nski.

Paranoia towards the outside world, ingrained prejudice and discrimination towards homosexuals, fundamentalist Roman Catholicism, climate change denial and hostility towards Germany are some of the views espoused by the Kaczy´nskis' party, which is out of sync with a dynamic, modernising Poland where 80% of people like the EU...

Right conclusion, wrong reasoning

Marcus's picture

From Times Online
June 2, 2009

Friends of the Earth: Carbon off-sets 'add to climate change'

Joanna Sugden

Carbon off-setting will do nothing to prevent climate change and is increasing rather than reducing carbon emissions, a leading environmental charity warns today.

The Government’s scheme to buy carbon quotas from developing countries in order to reduce global emissions should be scrapped and developed countries made to cut their own carbon output, a report by Friends of the Earth says.

“Offsetting is a having a disastrous impact on the prospects for averting catastrophic climate change,” Andy Atkins, executive director of Friends of the Earth said.

The Government will lobby other nations to increase the use of carbon off-setting at UN Climate Change talks in Bonn next week.

But campaigners say the practice is a dangerous distraction that allows rich nations to disguise rising greenhouse gas production...

Burger chain's climate change whopper

Leo Hickman
Monday 1 June 2009

Tennessee outlets ended up eating humble pie after a local reporter spotted 'rogue' signs outside Burger King outlets

Would you like a side order of climate denial with your flame-broiled Triple Whopper? If so, then you need to get yourself over to Tennessee where a number of Burger King franchises in the US state that gave us Al Gore have been displaying "Global Warming is Baloney" signs outside their fast-food restaurants.

Chris Davis, a staff writer for the Memphis Flyer, a local newsweekly, noticed the signs outside two Burger Kings in the city last week and decided to put in a call to one of the restaurants to inquire whether such a view was now official Burger King policy...

Lighten up? Only if you want skin cancer

Marcus's picture

From The Times
June 1, 2009

Lighten up? Only if you want skin cancer

Reflective surfaces good for climate but not for skin

...We would point out that along with such changes there is a risk of increasing the incidence of skin cancers. Reflective surfaces may help to “save our planet” but there will be a need for increased use of protecting measures to “save our skin”.

Jennifer Wright

Andrew Wright, FRCP

Consultant dermatologist,

Ilkley, W Yorks

Herald Sun

Name 10 of the people global warmed to death

Andrew Bolt
Friday, May 29, 2009

Which people were killed directly by global warming? Where? Name, say, 10:

CLIMATE change kills about 315,000 people a year through hunger, sickness and weather disasters, and the annual death toll is expected to rise to half a million by 2030.

Not a single reputable climate scientist, I’d wager, would guarantee the truth of that wild claim. So who actually made it?

A study commissioned by the Geneva-based Global Humanitarian Forum...

Oh, and which reputable climate scientist fronts it?

“Climate change is the greatest emerging humanitarian challenge of our time, causing suffering to hundreds of millions of people worldwide,” Kofi Annan, former UN secretary-general and GHF president, said.

Oh dear. And what does Annan want, as if I couldn’t already guess?

To avoid the worst outcomes, the report says efforts to adapt to the effects of climate change must be scaled up 100 times in developing countries. International funds pledged for this purpose amount to only $400 million ($510 miilion), compared with an average estimated cost of $32 billion ($40 billion) annually, it notes.

For $40 billion, even I might be tempted to peddle such despicable nonsense....


Lindsay Perigo's picture

Where do you suppose Matty Sullivan is hiding? Eye

It is worse than that Linz...

Marcus's picture

"Chu is not a climate scientist, and won his Nobel for his work on lasers."

I also read that another of Obama's advisors predicted in 1989, that in 20 years time there would be severe droughts and flooding with people being evacuated from Los Angeles due to Global Warming.

Making stupid predictions like that and being a complete loon, almost entitles them to become Presidential advisors to Obama!

Galt help us indeed!

Dear Galt!

Lindsay Perigo's picture

I didn't realise that nutter who suggested we all paint our houses white was Obama's Energy Secretary. Oh Jesus! Marcus, I'm going to pop your thread back up the top for a bit.

Vitriolic climate in academic hothouse

Marcus's picture

Vitriolic climate in academic hothouse

Ian Plimer | May 29, 2009
Article from: The Australian

IT is well known that many university staff list to port and try to engineer a brave new world. The cash cow climate institutes now seem to be drowning in their own self-importance.

In a wonderful gesture of public spiritedness, seven academics who include three lead authors of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change and a former director of the World Climate Research Program wrote to Australian power generating companies on April 29 instructing them to cease and desist creating electricity from coal.

In their final paragraph, they state with breathtaking arrogance: "The unfortunate reality is that genuine action on climate change will require the existing coal-fired power stations to cease operating in the near future.

"We feel it is vital that you understand this and we are happy to work with you and with governments to begin planning for this transition immediately.

"The warming of the atmosphere, driven by human-induced emissions of greenhouse gases, is already causing unacceptable damage and suffering around the world."

No evidence is provided for this statement and no signatory to this letter has published anything to support this claim...


Leaders called to special climate talks

Unprecedented number of summits as world struggles to hammer out agreement before vital meeting in December

By Geoffrey Lean, Environment Editor

Sunday, 31 May 2009

World leaders are to meet for an unprecedented second summit on climate change this year to try to get agreement on a tough new treaty by December, and may even get together for a third time before the end of the year.

The UN Secretary-General, Ban Ki-Moon, is to call the world's heads of government to New York in September to "galvanise political will" about what he describes as "the defining issue of our time". And there are plans for another G20 summit to discuss the issue in the autumn.

These will follow a meeting of 17 key world leaders convened at the initiative of President Barack Obama immediately after the annual G8 summit in July. Observers cannot remember any similar progression of top-level meetings to address any issue over such a short period of time...

Daily Telegraph

By Christopher Booker
30 May 2009

...On the roofs of the world

Someone who came up with the bright idea of helping to save the planet from global warming by making us all paint our roofs white – to reflect the sun’s heat back into space – would, you might think, be laughingly dismissed as a harmless nutter.

But Stephen Chu, who was seriously suggesting this last week, is not only a scientist – and one of the 20 Nobel Prize-winners invited by Prince Charles to St James’s Palace to spend three days discussing how to save the planet – he is also, God help us, President Obama’s energy secretary, in charge of US energy policy. As I say, God help us.

Alarmists take scare up a notch! Can there be any notches left?

Marcus's picture

Global warming causes 300,000 deaths a year, says Kofi Annan thinktank

Climate change is greatest humanitarian challenge facing the world as heatwaves, floods and forest fires become more severe

John Vidal, environment editor, Friday 29 May 2009

Climate change is already responsible for 300,000 deaths a year and is affecting 300m people, according to the first comprehensive study of the human impact of global warming.

It projects that increasingly severe heatwaves, floods, storms and forest fires will be responsible for as many as 500,000 deaths a year by 2030, making it the greatest humanitarian challenge the world faces.

Economic losses due to climate change today amount to more than $125bn a year — more than all the present world aid. The report comes from former UN secretary general Kofi Annan's thinktank, the Global Humanitarian Forum. By 2030, the report says, climate change could cost $600bn a year.

Civil unrest may also increase because of weather-related events, the report says: "Four billion people are vulnerable now and 500m are now at extreme risk. Weather-related disasters ... bring hunger, disease, poverty and lost livelihoods. They pose a threat to social and political stability"...


Climate crisis equal to nuclear arms threat

By Emily Beament

Friday, 29 May 2009

Climate change poses as great a threat to the world as the nuclear arms race, scientists warned yesterday as they called on leaders to take urgent action to tackle the problem.

The scientists and Nobel laureates attending a three-day conference hosted by St James's Palace drew up a memorandum calling for global greenhouse gas emissions to peak by 2015. The memorandum from the experts, who included the US energy secretary Steven Chu, said a new global deal on emissions expected at the UN conference on climate change in Copenhagen in December was urgently needed.

It must undertake to cut greenhouse gases by half by 2050, the document urged. And while developed countries should take the lead, with cuts of 25 per cent to 40 per cent by 2020, every nation must act, on the "firm assumption that all others will also act".

Professor Hans Schellnhuber, director of the Potsdam Institute for Climate Impact Research in Germany, said that with "probably the biggest concentration of brains on the planet" drawing up the memorandum, it could be more vital than many mass protests on climate change. "We are in a crisis as deep as the times of the arms race," he added...

From The Times
May 28, 2009

Global warming must stay below 2C or world faces ruin, scientists declare

Mark Henderson, Science Editor

World carbon emissions must start to decline in only six years if humanity is to stand a chance of preventing dangerous global warming, a group of 20 Nobel prize-winning scientists, economists and writers declared today.

The United Nations climate summit in Copenhagen in December must agree to halve greenhouse-gas emissions by 2050 to stop temperatures from increasing by more than 2C (3.6F), the St James’s Palace Nobel Laureate Symposium concluded.

While even a 2C temperature rise will have adverse consequences, a bigger increase would create “unmanageable climate risks”, according to the St James’s Palace memorandum, signed today by 20 Nobel laureates in physics, chemistry, economics, peace and literature.

The temperature target “can only be achieved with a peak of global emissions of all greenhouse gases by 2015”, the document said. If emissions continue to rise after that date, the required cuts would become unachievable. Professor Hans Joachim Schellnhuber, director of the Postdam Institute for Climate Impact Research, a convenor of the symposium, likened the urgency for action on climate change to the threat of thermonuclear weapons during the Cold War.

“We are facing a crisis as deep as the arms race of the 1950s and 1960s and the Cold War notion of mutually assured destruction,” he said. “Today we have mutually assured increases in greenhouse gases.” ...

Video interview with Professor Plimer....

Marcus's picture

Aussie Ian Plimer KASSes in this interview with ABN Newswire's Brian Carlton.

In polar opposite to the above, the face of evil...

More from the Obama-Airhead generation

A true scientist in government? Quelle scandale!

Marcus's picture

"Mon dieu! Are the French about to lead Europe into a second Enlightenment and a new age of reason?"

Financial Times

Sarkozy in climate row over reshuffle
By Ben Hall in Paris

May 27 2009

President Nicolas Sarkozy's desire to appoint an outspoken climate-change sceptic to a new French super-ministry of industry and innovation has drawn strong protests from party colleagues and environmentalists.

Claude Allègre argues that global warming is not necessarily caused by human activity. Putting him in charge of scientific research would be tantamount to "giving the finger to scientists", said Nicolas Hulot, France's best-known environmental activist.

Mr Sarkozy wants to bring Mr Allègre, 72, a freethinking, former socialist education minister, into the government in a reshuffle after next month's European parliamentary elections. The president appears to reckon that appointing someone from outside his own centre-right party will help to counter perceptions that he is a polarising, sectarian leader who decides everything himself. Several portfolios are already held by figures from the left and centre.

Alain Juppé, the former centre-right prime minister, said the appointment would send a "terribly bad signal" ahead of international negotiations to secure a successor to the Kyoto treaty on cuts to carbon emissions.

One critic said that associating Mr Allègre with the government's ambitious environmental policy was like putting "organic farming alongside Chernobyl".

Mr Sarkozy is said to value Mr Allègre's experience, his plain speaking and his convictions on the need to free up the economy and shake up the public sector - particularly the university research establishment...



Wednesday, 27 May 2009

Prince urges action over climate

Hesitation over tackling climate change could be catastrophic, Prince Charles has told global warming experts.

Speaking at St James' Palace, in London, the prince said: "It seems to me that in many ways we already have some of the answers to hand.

"We know about energy efficiency, renewable energy, and how to reduce deforestation... but we seem strangely reluctant to apply them," he went on.

He said he hoped the scientists could influence a conference in Copenhagen.

It is hoped nations can agree to a deal on cutting carbon emissions at the climate change conference in the Danish capital in December. The prince said he hoped it would be a "historic occasion"...

Obama's Gimp: paint the world white to fight global warming

Marcus's picture

From The Times
May 27, 2009

Professor Steven Chu: paint the world white to fight global warming

Mark Henderson, Science Editor

As a weapon against global warming, it sounds so simple and low-tech that it could not possibly work. But the idea of using millions of buckets of whitewash to avert climate catastrophe has won the backing of one of the world’s most influential scientists.

Steven Chu, the Nobel prize-winning physicist appointed by President Obama as Energy Secretary, wants to paint the world white. A global initiative to change the colour of roofs, roads and pavements so that they reflect more sunlight and heat could play a big part in containing global warming, he said yesterday.

Speaking at the opening of the St James’s Palace Nobel Laureate Symposium, for which The Times is media partner, Professor Chu said that this approach could have a vast impact. By lightening paved surfaces and roofs to the colour of cement, it would be possible to cut carbon emissions by as much as taking all the world’s cars off the roads for 11 years, he said.

Building regulations should insist that all flat roofs were painted white, and visible tilted roofs could be painted with “cool-coloured” paints that looked normal, but which absorbed much less heat than conventional dark surfaces. Roads could be lightened to a concrete colour so they would not dazzle drivers in bright sunlight. “I think with flat-type roofs you can’t even see, yes, I think you should regulate,” Professor Chu said...


The Register

Ex-BBC science man slams corp: 'Evangelical, shallow and sparse'

By Andrew Orlowski • Get more from this author

22nd May 2009

The BBC's environmental coverage has come under fire from a former science correspondent. Award-winning author and journalist David Whitehouse says the corporation risks public ridicule - or worse - with what he calls "an evangelical, inconsistent climate change reporting and its narrow, shallow and sparse reporting on other scientific issues."...

Whitehouse is a former astronomer who became a BBC science correspondent and Science Editor at BBC Online.

The threshold for introducing a climate change angle into an unrelated story can be pretty low - have a look at this example involving a fossilized giant snake. While activists have discovered that getting a story changed can be relatively easy - it just needs a little bullying by email.

More than two years ago we criticized how the BBC's TV science flagship Horizon had abandoned explaining science in preference to fantasy. Many of you agreed.

As Whitehouse explains, an epidemic or a natural catastrophe is a compelling and dramatic narrative, too good to be spoiled by contradictory facts. So perhaps all the producers want to do is make movies - disaster movies. And so reporting the catastrophe turns the reporter into a dramatic actor in the narrative: one who's guaranteed to be top of the billing, as long as the story lives...


gregster's picture

I'm getting a wee bit tired of conservationists. After the UN and Osama they're next for my firing squad.

"Conservationists fear that rapid climate change could see animals and plants "trapped" in homes that become too hot or dry for them,"

And then relocate the critters back when the ice comes?!


Marcus's picture


26 May 2009


Extract from a talk to Portsea Branch of the Liberal Party by Des Moore

The [Australian] Liberal Party appears to be reluctant to challenge what is popularly regarded as the current status quo: it is almost as though it does not want to be seen as an advocate of major change. This is particularly true in regard to the environmental movement. Fear of losing votes to the Green movement has been allowed to prevent the advocacy of a major program of building new dams or of much greater clearing and burning off arrangements to reduce the risk of fire damage. It should be possible to identify the disadvantages of the kind of environmental policies advocated by the Greens while still presenting a balanced environmental policy yourself.

Mention of the environmental movement provides the opportunity for moving to discuss the assertion that the most dangerous threat to humans comes from increased temperatures caused by increasing emissions of greenhouse gases. So that you know where I’m coming from I want to give you the essence of my view right at the start.

My position is that, even though the temperature threat danger has come to be accepted by all major political parties both here and overseas as requiring urgent action to save the planet, this view has no substantive justification, and certainly none in regard to the alleged need for urgent action. By contrast, the threat from extremist Islamic terrorism is a very real and increasing danger that could cause enormous damage to lives and property in the near future and governments need to take additional preventative measures.

Let me take first the supposed environmental threat. There is sufficient time to make only some brief responses to the usual claims made by those claiming dangerously rising temperatures...

Carbon plan will cause jobs carnage

Mitch Hooke | May 22, 2009
Article from: The Australian

THERE is a surreal aspect to the present debate about the accuracy of short to mid-term economic growth forecasts contained in the recent budget. As this debate plays out, the 76 members of the Australian Senate are preparing for a crucial vote next month on the Carbon Pollution Reduction Scheme, a policy initiative the Government has described as the most substantial economic reform of the Australian economy for decades.

Yet those 76 senators will have to make their decisions on this once-in-a-generation reform without the benefit of any detailed forecasts of the scheme's short and medium-term impact. While the Government describes its Treasury modelling as the most comprehensive ever attempted, the analysis provides no forecasts on the sectoral or regional employment impacts over the first decade of the CPRS. None at all. The Treasury analysis provides intricate detail about the shift in employment shares between sectors in 2050, but nothing about what the scheme will mean for jobs in key Australian sectors between now and 2020.

Senior Treasury officials admitted this week that a limitation of its modelling is that it "doesn't capture all the transitional elements". For those unfamiliar with bureaucratic eco-jargon, a "transitional element" means someone losing their job.

In other words, the Government's premier economic agency officially has no clear sense about the near-term employment impact. This is economic policy-making with a blindfold on...

Rare animals 'to be moved from native habitats because of climate change'

Endangered animals from wildcats to butterflies and fish could be transported from their native habitats to other countries under controversial plans being developed by scientists to help them cope with climate change.

By Daily Telegraph Reporter
25 May 2009

Conservationists fear that rapid climate change could see animals and plants "trapped" in homes that become too hot or dry for them, raising the possibility of extinction.

But now for the first time experts have been evaluating ways to help species adapt to rapid climate change.

They are considering a controversial strategy called "managed relocation".

The project, partly funded by the National Science Foundation (NSF), involves humans stepping in to move species into more accommodating habitats...

Why I am a Climate Realist

Marcus's picture

NZCPR Guest Forum

Why I am a Climate Realist
Dr Willem de Lange
23 May 2009

In 1996 the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change’s (IPCC) Second Assessment Report was released, and I was listed as one of approximately 3000 “scientists” who agreed that there was a discernable human influence on climate.

I was an invited reviewer for a chapter dealing with the economic impact of sea level rise on small island nations. In keeping with IPCC procedures, the chapter was written and reviewed in isolation from the rest of the report, and I had no input into the process after my review of the chapter draft. I was not asked if I supported the view expressed in my name, and my understanding at the time was that no evidence of a discernable human influence on global climate existed.

The chapter I reviewed dealt primarily with the economic consequences of an assumed sea level rise of 1 m causing extensive inundation. My response was that I could not comment on the economic analysis, however, I disagreed with the initial assumptions, particularly the assumed sea level rise in the stated time period. Further, there was good evidence at the time that sea level rise would not necessarily result in flooding of small island nations, because natural processes on coral atolls were likely to raise island levels.

The IPCC Second Assessment Report assessed sea level rise by AD 2100 as being in the range 0.20-0.86 m, with a most likely value of 0.49 m (less than half the rate assumed for the economic analysis). Subsequent research has demonstrated that coral atolls and associated islands are likely to increase in elevation as sea level rises. Hence, the assumptions were invalid, and I was convinced that IPCC projections were unrealistic and exaggerated the problem.

Following the release of IPCC Second Assessment Report I also co-authored the sea level rise section of the New Zealand impact report, and same section for a revised report following the release of IPCC Third Assessment Report (2001). The third report followed the trend of decreasing sea level rise projections evident in sea level rise literature, with a most likely projection of 0.44 m. However, some extreme scenarios were added at a late stage of the review process to give a wider range of projections from 0.09-0.88 m. There was little support in the literature for these extremes, and my view was that a range of 0.31-0.49 m was more reasonable. I also expected future projections to be lower.

For the New Zealand 2001 report, I was asked to state that sea level rise was accelerating, or at least could be accelerating. However, my own research and published literature shows that sea level fluctuates at decadal time scales. Therefore, although there was an increase in the rate of sea level rise around 1998, I expected sea level rise to slow and reverse early in the 21st Century. The underlying long-term trend, however, was likely to decrease, and there were some tide gauge data to indicate that it had started to do so. In the 1980s, the New Zealand rate was 1.8 mm per year. By 1990, it was 1.7 mm per year, and by 2001 it was 1.6 mm per year. These changes are small, and were not enough to prove that sea level rise was slowing. However, they clearly did not show that sea level rise was accelerating...

Is man-made global warming real?

By Nigel Hannaford, Calgary Herald
May 23, 2009

After the Narnian winter we've just had, a reasonable person could easily agree with controversial Friends of Science spokesman Dr. Tim Ball on this much: Global warming is just another unfulfilled government promise.

So, why are we still preparing to spend money on it? Good question.

Ball is controversial because the retired science professor bucks the prevailing wisdom on global warming, calls the science behind it wrong, and questions the good faith of the governmental agencies promoting it. He gets flak. He also gives it, as he did Thursday to a crowd of 400 at Calgary's Metropolitan Centre, in an event sponsored by a reinvigorated Friends of Science, and the Frontier Centre for Public Policy. For instance, the idea that carbon dioxide generated by human activity is unnaturally warming the atmosphere through some supposed greenhouse effect is not (and never was) supported by facts that were reasonably easy to obtain. Want to know where the problem is? It's cycles related to solar activity.

At the risk of bastardizing a sophisticated presentation, the dots join like this. The sun is constantly emitting cosmic rays: Those that reach the Earth stimulate cloud creation, which has a cooling effect. But, when the sunspot cycle is active, the flow of cosmic rays is disrupted, fewer reach Earth's atmosphere, cloud cover is diminished, and the Earth warms...

Obama climate change bill defies Republicans to pass key committee

Bill weakened on its way to full House of Representatives, but still regarded as tough on fossil fuel emissions

Damian Carrington and agencies, Friday 22 May 2009

New laws to impose the first limits on US greenhouse gas emissions took a significant step forwards late on Thursday, clearing a key House of Representatives committee in the face of strong Republican opposition.

The Energy and Commerce Committee approved the sweeping climate change bill 33-25 after repeatedly turning back Republican attempts to kill or weaken the measures during four days of debate.

After the vote on the legislation, President Barack Obama said: "We are now one step closer to delivering on the promise of a new clean energy economy that will make America less dependent on foreign oil, crack down on polluters, and create millions of new jobs all across America."

Henry Waxman, the panel's Democratic chairman, said the bill represents "decisive and historic action".

The panel's action boosts the likelihood that President Barack Obama will succeed in his wish that the US can attend crucial international climate talks in Copenhagen in December, having taken concrete action at home to fight global warming. Such action is widely seen as an essential act of good faith to drawing China, India and other developing nations into a global deal to succeed the Kyoto protocol.

The bill will now be considered by the full house, with the Senate yet to take up the issue...

The rise of the Eco-anals

Marcus's picture

The Independent

Eco-vandals take on the gas-guzzlers

Spate of attacks on 4x4 vehicles in Manchester

By James Mann

Saturday, 23 May 2009

Police are searching for a gang of radical environmental activists after a series of attacks on 4x4 vehicles.

The gang, who claim to have targeted up to 80 vehicles across South Manchester, let down tyres and leave notes accusing the owners of adding to global warming and increasing the chances of road deaths.

In the last week tyres on 20 vehicles were slashed or deflated in the Ladybarn and Withington of the city. This follows similar attacks on 11 cars last month. Police classify the deliberate acts as criminal damage.

A statement from the activists said tyres were deflated rather than slashed. It added: "Given the threat of climate change and the Government's inaction, direct action such as this is, unfortunately, necessary. Large SUVs (Sports Utility Vehicles) emit substantially more greenhouse gases."...

Daily Telegraph

'Stop eating lamb and drinking beer if you want to save the planet'
Eating less lamb and drinking fewer pints of beer will help save the planet, according to a Government adviser.

By Chris Irvine
24 May 2009

Diners are being encouraged to eat more pork and chicken instead, as they produce fewer carbon emissions.

A Government-sponsored study into greenhouse gases has found that producing 2.2lbs of lamb was the equivalent of releasing 37lbs of carbon dioxide.

Other foods such as tomatoes only produce 20lbs of CO2 while potatoes release about 1lb of CO2 for each 2.2lbs of food.

Lamb produces so much carbon dioxide because sheep belch so much methane, which is a potent greenhouse gas. Cows are also damaging, releasing the equivalent of 35lbs of CO2 per 2.2lbs. Previous studies have shown that a herd of 200 cows can produce annual emissions of methane - roughly equivalent to driving a family car more than 100,000 miles on more than four gallons of petrol.

The study also found that alcoholic drinks contribute significantly to emissions, with the growing and processing of hops and malt into beer and whisky producing 1.5 per cent of Britain's greenhouse gases.

"Changing our lifestyles, including our diets, is going to be one of the crucial elements in cutting carbon emissions," said David Kennedy, chief executive of the Committee on Climate Change...

Nuns arrive at eco-convent and leave behind high-carbon habit

Move sees convent swap fuel-hungry abbey for new home with solar panels, grass-covered roof and reedbed sewage system

Alok Jha, Thursday 21 May 2009

It is not often that the Benedictine nuns of the Conventus of Our Lady of Consolation leave their monastery. It is even rarer for them to move monasteries entirely.

But today, the nuns left their Worcestershire home of 171 years to take possession of their new residence in the North York Moors national park – a new building that they insisted must remain as environmentally-friendly as possible as they lead their quiet life of prayer.

Among the £4.7 million building's green features are solar panels to provide hot water, a woodchip boiler that will be fuelled by locally-sourced trees and a roof covered in sedum grass to better insulate the buildings and attract local wildlife.

Rainwater from some of the roofs will be collected and used to flush the toilets and, instead of an electrically-driven waste water treatment plant, the architects have installed a reedbed sewage system. The effluent from the monastery will filter through the reedbed and, after it is processed through natural anaerobic digestion, the resulting water will trickle out onto the surrounding land...

Daily Mail

Now Government wants us to paint our houses white to cope with climate change heatwaves
By Fiona Macrae

20th May 2009

It's a tried and tested way of keeping homes cool in Mediterranean countries.

But many might feel the latest official advice is just a little bit over the top for Britain, where summer downpours seem more common than heatwaves.

Health chiefs advised yesterday that homes should be painted white to reflect the heat.

Carpets should also be replaced with tiles or wood, and metal blinds swapped for curtains with light linings, to keep rooms cool as temperatures rise.

The Department of Health's Heatwave Plan for England, which is designed to counter the effects of climate change, reports that painting brickwork white will cost a homeowner around £3,750.

Changing flooring comes in at a touch over £2,000, while installing ceiling fans can cost £545...

Carbon dioxide cuts will harm the world’s poorest

Marcus's picture

Tapei Times

Carbon dioxide cuts will harm the world’s poorest

by Philip Stevens

Wednesday, May 20, 2009

A major new report from doctors at University College, London, and medical journal The Lancet claims that climate change “is the biggest global health threat of the 21st century.” Their solution means permanent recession, more famine and more disease.

Killer heatwaves, insect-borne “tropical” diseases, flooding and hurricanes will affect billions over the next 100 years as global temperatures soar, they say. With this report published last Thursday, doctors are adding their powerful voice to calls for deep cuts in carbon emissions to stabilize global temperatures. But if their aim is actually to improve health — particularly in poor countries — they could hardly be more wrong.

For starters, the relationship between climate and disease is weaker than claimed. The Lancet report details at length how warmer temperatures will lead to so-called tropical diseases such as malaria moving northwards and to higher altitudes. But this ignores the vast range of human and ecological factors that surround disease...

Cutting greenhouse gas emissions, however, would be very bad for human health.

According to calculations by Lombard Street Research in the UK, any global treaty that would stabilize the climate at today’s temperatures would cost a total of £8 trillion (US$12.4 trillion) — 45 percent of the world’s current annual economic output, causing permanent economic depression.

Economic growth is an absolute pre-requisite for improved health. One study has shown that if economic growth in the developing world had been a mere 1.5 percent higher in the 1980s, at least 500,000 child deaths could have been prevented.

This is because much of the disease burden in developing countries is a direct result of poverty. Diarrhea, chest infections from burning wood and dung indoors, water-borne infections and malnutrition are the biggest killers of children, killing millions regardless of any changes in the climate.

Britain eliminated malaria as a side-effect of increasing prosperity: glass windows, separate barns for cattle and better land management, depriving the mosquito of feeding and breeding opportunities. It is no coincidence that malaria is currently confined to the poorest parts of the world, because they are the least able to afford such improvements.

The doctors’ call for cutting carbon emissions would be a betrayal of the sick in the world’s poorest regions, because it would undermine the one mechanism — economic growth — that allows people to move beyond the primitive living conditions that encourage disease.

Prosperity also removes the doctors’ apocalyptic vision of social turmoil and mass migration as millions flee flood or drought: growth allows adaptation and protection.

If doctors are concerned about the effect of climate on health, they should not advocate hobbling the global economy and preventing the poor from getting richer.

Philip Stevens is director of policy at International Policy Network, a development think tank based in London.

Daily Telegraph

Climate Change Act: Now the world faces its biggest ever bill

One of the mysteries of our time is how impossible it is to interest people in the mind-boggling sums cited by governments all over the world as the cost of the measures they wish to see taken to "stop climate change", observes Christopher Booker.

By Christopher Booker
23 May 2009

One measure of the fantasy world now inhabited by our sad MPs was the mindless way that they nodded through, last October, by 463 votes to three, by far the most expensive piece of legislation ever to go through Parliament. This was the Climate Change Act, obliging the Secretary of State for Energy and Climate Change to reduce Britain's "carbon emissions" by 2050 to 20 per cent of what they were in 1990 – a target achievable only by shutting down most of the economy.

Such is the zombie state of our MPs that they agreed to this lunatic measure without the Government giving any idea of what this might cost. Only one, Peter Lilley, raised this question, and it was he who, last month, alerted me to the fact that the minister, Ed Miliband, had at last slipped out a figure on his website (without bothering to tell Parliament). The Government's estimate was £404 billion, or £18 billion a year, or £760 per household every year for four decades.

Such figures, produced by a computer model, are, of course, meaningless. But one of the mysteries of our time is how impossible it is to interest people in the mind-boggling sums cited by governments all over the world as the cost of the measures they wish to see taken to "stop climate change".

Last week I dined with Professor Bob Carter, a distinguished Australian paleoclimatologist, who has been trying to alert politicians in Scandinavia, Australia and New Zealand to the scarcely believable cost of these proposals. He gave me a paper he presented to a committee of New Zealand MPs. China and India, as the price of their participating in the UN's planned "Kyoto Two" deal to be agreed in Copenhagen next December, are demanding that developed countries, including Britain, should pay them 1 per cent of their GDP, totalling up to more than $300 billion every year...

The Climate-Industrial Complex

Marcus's picture


The Climate-Industrial Complex

Some businesses see nothing but profits in the green movement.


Some business leaders are cozying up with politicians and scientists to demand swift, drastic action on global warming. This is a new twist on a very old practice: companies using public policy to line their own pockets.

The tight relationship between the groups echoes the relationship among weapons makers, researchers and the U.S. military during the Cold War. President Dwight Eisenhower famously warned about the might of the "military-industrial complex," cautioning that "the potential for the disastrous rise of misplaced power exists and will persist." He worried that "there is a recurring temptation to feel that some spectacular and costly action could become the miraculous solution to all current difficulties."

This is certainly true of climate change. We are told that very expensive carbon regulations are the only way to respond to global warming, despite ample evidence that this approach does not pass a basic cost-benefit test. We must ask whether a "climate-industrial complex" is emerging, pressing taxpayers to fork over money to please those who stand to gain...


US CO2 goals 'to be compromised'

By Roger Harrabin
Environment analyst, BBC News

Thursday, 21 May 2009

US Energy Secretary Steven Chu says the US will not be able to cut greenhouse emissions as much as it should due to domestic political opposition.

Prof Chu told BBC News he feared the world might be heading towards a tipping point on climate change.

This meant the US had to cut emissions urgently - even if compromises were needed to get new laws approved.

Environmentalists said Prof Chu, a Nobel physicist, should be guided by science not politics.

The American political system is in the throes of a fierce battle over climate policy. President Barack Obama says he wants cuts in greenhouse gases but has left it to Congress to make the political running.

The House of Representatives is debating a climate and energy bill but even if it passes it may be rejected by senators, many of whom are funded by the energy industry...

US car emissions targets: Stupid in the USA?

Marcus's picture


Wednesday, 20 May 2009

US car emissions targets: Your views

US President Barack Obama has announced tough targets for new fuel-efficient vehicles in order to cut pollution and lower dependence on oil imports...

Motorists in the US have been sending their views on the plans. Here is a selection of their emails.


I applaud President Obama's plans. I drive a hybrid that averages 40 miles per gallon. I think the US car manufacturers spent too many years ignoring both fuel efficiency and emissions improvement technologies in order to make profit - this was a bad decision. I have long wished that the US could match or even exceed European and Asian efficiency levels.
Margaret Driscoll, Camarillo, CA

I am thankful! It is about time in the US that we got out of the stone age and got our standards higher. We've had the technology for decades, so let us get our cars up to par with the rest of the world. With old man Bush no longer in office, let's reduce our dependence on foreign oil and start thinking seriously about our planet.
Austin, North Carolina....


...I believe President Obama's plan is a wonderful way to limit competition, increase the size of the federal government and carry on the myth of global warming. The president and his new "car czar" will gain control of the major car companies through lending from the Fed, quash the development of smaller car companies through regulation, and subject the people to driving small cars proven unsafe in crash tests all the while continuing to purchase foreign oil instead of developing new, clean energy sources.
Walker Stemmons, New York

...I am a US motorist and I don't think much of Obama's plans. The Climate has been changing since there was a climate, and will continue to do so in spite of any human efforts. Raising the fuel efficiency is a laudable goal but there are fundamental problems in this approach. We will be driving lighter, underpowered cars, which raises safety concerns - less mass means more damage. Trucks will not be able to transport as much weight of goods, so it will take more trucks to move less goods. Let us not forget that global warming is an unproven theory, which has not been established as fact.
Michael P. Koryciak, Flint, Michigan

Drivers express enthusiasm for Obama's proposed efficiency standards

Daniel Nasaw in Washington, Tuesday 19 May 2009

..."It's about time we started taking a stand," said James Smalley, a US patent office worker who said he commutes 20 miles a day in his Honda Civic from Alexandria, Virginia, just outside Washington.

Smalley said the US had enjoyed a decades long stretch of relatively low fuel prices but could no longer rely on Opec nations to keep prices down.

"It's long overdue," he said. "I do think it's a good step. I'm on that side of the aisle, in terms of environmental policy."

Francisco Carvallo, a restaurant manager heading home to Orlando, Florida, 850 miles south of Washington, said the responsibility to care for the environment falls on everybody, but said he would prefer if the government would offer a rebate to offset the extra cost.

"That's a considerable amount of money," Carvallo said. "It's a good thing, but I think the government is the one who should come up with the funds for that."

One customer merely said he trusted the president to handle the matter.
"Whatever he does, I support," the man said...

Daily Express


Tuesday May 19,2009

The world can fight global warming in a way that makes sense economically, and the battle can even help countries overcome the ongoing economic crisis, former US President Bill Clinton has said.

Clinton stressed during an international climate change summit that it is possible today for economies to grow without emitting greenhouse gases, and the world must act now to cut emissions before it is too late.

"We know that if we don't reduce greenhouse gases by somewhere in the range of 80% by 2050, bad things are going to happen," Clinton said in a keynote speech at the third C40 Large Cities Climate Summit, held this year in Seoul.

Organisers say cities bear a significant responsibility to address climate change because they cover less than 2% of the Earth's surface but are overwhelmingly responsible for polluting it, generating 80% of heat-trapping greenhouse gases.

Global warming could lead to a drop in food production and access to water, creating new dangers to public health, Clinton warned.

"It is absolutely certain if we let the worst happen, then the consequences will be so severe that we won't be able to save the planet for our grandchildren," Clinton said...

Obama sets strict limits on car exhaust emissions

Marcus's picture

Obama sets strict limits on car exhaust emissions

Policy requires US automakers to produce cars and trucks that get an average 35.5mpg by 2016

Suzanne Goldenberg, US environment correspondent, Wednesday 20 May 2009

America's gas-guzzling automobiles were heading towards extinction yesterday as Barack Obama set strict limits on car exhaust emissions and directed producers to make a more fuel-efficient vehicle fleet. The policy requires US auto makers to produce cars and trucks that achieve an average 35.5mpg by 2016, and will reduce America's carbon dioxide emissions by 30%.

"For the first time in history we have set in motion a national policy aimed at increasing gas mileage and decreasing greenhouse gas pollution for all new trucks and cars sold in the United States," Obama told state governors, including California's Arnold Schwarzenegger, car industry executives and environmentalists in the White House rose garden.

Obama said America had paid a high price for its dependence on imported oil, and the change was long overdue. "What is all the more tragic is that we've known about these costs in one way or another since the gas shortages of the 1970s. And yet all too little has been done. Calls for action rise and fall with the price of a barrel of oil," he said.

Environmentalists said the policy, which will be put in force by the Environmental Protection Agency and the Department of Transport, would do more to reduce global warming pollution than any of the other measures taken by Obama so far. It would also lead to the overhaul of the US car industry. Cars and trucks are responsible for about a quarter of America's greenhouse gas emissions.

Obama said the change, which will improve today's average 25mpg performance, was the equivalent of shutting down 194 coal plants or taking 58m cars off the roads for a year. It will cut greenhouse gas emissions by 900m metric tonnes, and save the equivalent of last year's imports of oil from Saudi Arabia, Venezuela, Libya and Nigeria combined.

The plan is the product of months of negotiations between the White House, struggling vehicle makers and the state of California. America's auto makers had spent years resisting efforts by California and 13 other states to set more stringent rules on car emissions. The Bush -administration had also blocked California's efforts to regulate car exhaust.

Schwarzenegger hailed yesterday's deal as an historic compromise. "Three or four other presidential administrations have tried to do this and weren't successful," he said. "This president, after 120 days in office, has created the action that brought everyone together." The deal was also a measure of the weakened state of America's auto industry. GM and Chrysler took a $25bn (£16bn) bailout last year...

Daily Telegraph

Gadgets ‘killing the planet’, warns energy watchdog

Our modern obsession with iPods, mobile phones and large-screen televisions is causing a surge in energy use that’s damaging the environment, according to the International Energy Agency.

By Urmee Khan and Claudine Beaumont
15 May 2009

The group estimates that 200 new nuclear power plants would be required to provide electricity for all the computers, televisions and music players that will be plugged in by 2030.

By then, gadgets will need around 1,700 terawatt hours of power to run, which is three times today’s amount, and equal to the current combined domestic energy consumption of the United States and Japan.

The IEA, which advises 28 industrialised countries, estimates that the bill to power these devices will be around $200 billion a year (£130bn), with developing nations one of the fastest growing markets for consumer electronics devices.

Paul Waide, a senior policy analyst for the International Energy Agency, said that the consumer electronics sector had very few policies in place to control energy efficiency. “This will jeopardise efforts to increase energy security and reduce the emission of greenhouse gases,” he said.

Gadgets currently account for around 15 per cent of global domestic electrical consumption, said the agency. In the UK, the Energy Savings Trust has projected that by 2020, gadgets will account for about 45 per cent of electricity used in British homes, with flat-screen televisions and digital radios among the most power-hungry devices.

Last year, global spend on electricity to power household gadgets and appliances exceeded $80 billion dollars. By 2030, the total greenhouse gas emissions from household gadgets could double to around one billion tons of carbon dioxide a year, the International Energy Agency warned...

Prince of Wales's green record to be reviewed

More accustomed to winning plaudits from environmentalists, the Prince of Wales is about to find out whether he must defend his record before a judge.

Tim Walker. Edited by Richard Eden
17 May 2009

On Tuesday, a High Court hearing in London will decide whether there is a case against the Prince for allegedly breaching European environment laws.

Mandrake disclosed in March that Michael Bruton, a retired Cornish businessman, was granted leave for a judicial review into the activities of the Duchy of Cornwall's oyster farm and fishery. Bruton claims that the Duchy broke conservation laws and the EU habitats directive by allowing its operation in the Lower Fal and Helford special area of conservation.

He alleges that the fishery plans to cultivate mostly non-native Pacific oysters, which could affect biodiversity.

"It is very disappointing to see the Duchy demonstrating such blatant disregard for the environment by supporting this operation," said Burton. "Non-native oyster cultivation poses a serious threat to the local habitat and the decision to allow it to take place needs to be revisited before it is, simply, too late."...

'Getting into space has a very low environmental impact'

Marcus's picture

Virgin Galactic: 'Getting into space has a very low environmental impact'

Virgin Galactic's assertion that space flight can be 'green' will never get off the ground, Leo Hickman said last week.

Here Virgin Galactic's president, Will Whitehorn, responds.

Let's put science ahead of emotion in discussing Virgin Galactic. The company is developing a 21st-century space launch system based on the principles of an entirely carbon composite construction, a unique benign hybrid rocket motor, biofuels where permissible and very high-altitude air launch and firing of the benign rocket rather than launching it from the ground.

The air launch negates the need to use dirty carbon-intensive solid chemical fuelled rocket boosters. The result is a very low-energy and low environmental impact approach to getting humans, scientific payload and eventually even small satellites into space.

Experimental test flying is now under way and early experience indicates the system will live up to all Virgin's hopes for it. Many leading environmental scientists such as Professor James Lovelock believe it will be a genuine breakthrough in human and scientific access to space in the future...

Space tourism is just the beginning in developing this. The highly efficient human and payload space launch systems will lead to an overdue industrial revolution in space. The alternative would be government funding of these new, less polluting systems – which is not an idea one can anticipate any public enthusiasm for.

• Will Whitehorn is the president of Virgin Galactic

Time Magazine

Environmentalists Attack House Global Warming Deal
By Michael Weisskopf / Washington Saturday, May. 16, 2009

If it's this hard for Democrats to agree on tough global warming curbs, polar icecaps beware.

With the greenest lawmakers in charge and the President cheering them on, the prospects of sweeping controls on greenhouse gases seemed rosy. After a month of fighting among themselves, however, House Democrats announced an agreement Thursday that reflects more about the legislative process than the need to stop the planet from heating up.

The announcement indicates that sponsors have enough Democratic votes to push a bill past its first legislative hurdle, the House Energy and Commerce Committee, as early as next week. But the patchwork of concessions necessary to win over champions of industrial and regional interests weakened the initiative, leaving it far short of the global warming gas reductions that scientists insist are necessary to stave off catastrophic climate change.

"It's unacceptable to base this bill on politics, instead of good science," said Greenpeace's Damon Moglen...

What if global-warming fears are overblown?

Marcus's picture

What if global-warming fears are overblown?

In a Fortune interview, noted climatologist John Christy contends the green crusade to fight climate change is "all cost and no benefit."

By Jon Birger, senior writer
May 14, 2009

NEW YORK (Fortune) -- With Congress about to take up sweeping climate-change legislation, expect to hear more in coming weeks from John Christy, director of the Earth System Science Center at University of Alabama-Huntsville.

A veteran climatologist who refuses to accept any research funding from the oil or auto industries, Christy was a lead author of the 2001 Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change report as well as one of the three authors of the American Geophysical Union's landmark 2003 statement on climate change.

Yet despite those green-sounding credentials, Christy is not calling for draconian cuts in carbon emissions. Quite the contrary. Christy is actually the environmental lobby's worst nightmare - an accomplished climate scientist with no ties to Big Oil who has produced reams and reams of data that undermine arguments that the earth's atmosphere is warming at an unusual rate and question whether the remedies being talked about in Congress will actually do any good...


Marcus's picture

The Third International Conference on Climate Change, Washington, DC, U.S.A.

An international conference calling attention to widespread dissent to the asserted “consensus” on the causes, consequences, and proper responses to climate change.

"The Third International Conference on Climate Change will be held in Washington, DC on June 2, 2009 at the Washington Court Hotel, 525 New Jersey Avenue NW. It will call attention to widespread dissent to the asserted “consensus” on various aspects of climate change and global warming.

The first conference, which took place in March 2008 in New York, dramatized the view that global warming is not a crisis, that it is probably natural and not caused by human activity, and that computer models are unreliable guides to future temperature change. The second conference, which took place in March 2009 in New York, focused on areas where alarmists have lost credibility and where skeptics have gained ground during the past year.

The purpose of the event is to expose Congressional staff and journalists to leading scientists and economists in the nation’s capital. Senators and Representatives will be invited to speak side-by-side with leading scientists and economists. Allied organizations have been invited to be cosponsors, to help supply speakers and promote the event to their members and supporters.

The conference’s theme will be “Climate Change: Scientific Debate and Economic Analysis.” The theme reflects the fact that the scientific debate is not over and that economic analysis is more important than ever, now that legislation is being seriously considered. The real science and economics of climate change support the view that global warming is not a crisis and that immediate action to reduce emissions is not necessary. This is, in fact, the emerging consensus view of scientists outside the IPCC and most economists outside environmental advocacy groups."

Daily Telegraph

MPs' expenses: Allowance system was founded on deception

MPs are told they can claim their "allowances" as an automatic right, so long as they go through the charade of handing in largely meaningless invoices, says Christopher Booker.

...Infantilised by their lack of a proper grown-up job to do, it is hardly surprising that, with honourable exceptions, the army of ciphers making up our political class speak almost entirely in clichés, bristle with moralistic self-righteousness, have little idea of how we are actually governed and resort to fiddling their expenses. (I was, incidentally, interested to see Mr Elliot Morley fingered for claiming his non-existent mortgage, since more than once he has gone out of his way to speak abusively about this column in Parliament.) Having given away their powers and lost their self-respect, they have now lost ours. This is the real message of the squalid spectacle to which we have all been treated in recent days.

Just one of countless examples of how our MPs now fail in their true responsibilities was glaringly on view on April 23. Our Climate Change Secretary, Ed Miliband, announced to MPs that, to keep Britain’s lights on, he will graciously permit us to have a new generation of coal-fired power stations. But this is only on the condition that they can in future be fitted with “carbon capture”, extracting the CO2 to bury it in holes in the ground. To pave the way for this, Mr Miliband is insisting on four pilot schemes in different parts of the country, each of which, although he didn’t admit it, is to cost £1 billion, paid for by all of us through our electricity bills.

So far, there is not a single commercial carbon-capture scheme anywhere in the world. The technological problems in creating one may well be insuperable. Even if they could be made to work, they would, in effect, double the price of electricity and require us to double our already huge imports of coal, mainly from Russia.

In other words, Mr Miliband was announcing to the Commons a completely mad, quixotic proposition. But instead of pointing this out, the handful of MPs present, led by the Tories’ energy spokesman, Greg Clark, and John Gummer, fell over themselves to welcome it. If we had grown-up MPs with the remotest understanding of the real world, they could simply have laughed this totally absurd measure out of court, and saved us all £4 billion – 40 times as much as they cost us each year, including their allowances.

Caitlin expedition finds Arctic distinctly nippy

So the farce of the Catlin Arctic expedition last week finally ended, when the hapless trio led by Pen Hadow was airlifted to safety, less than half way to the North Pole. Everything about this absurd publicity stunt, named after a Lloyd’s insurance syndicate heavily into “climate change”, was a parable of our times. Even the adoring BBC was hard put to claim that the ice measurements they took with an old tape measure served any scientific purpose. All proper evidence shows that the ice has significantly recovered from its September 2007 low and is fast converging with its 30-year average. But at least Mr Hadow and his colleagues, having discovered that the Arctic is a very cold place, got home safely...

Indiana Says 'No Thanks' to Cap and Trade

Marcus's picture


Indiana Says 'No Thanks' to Cap and Trade
No honest person thinks this will make a dent in climate change.


This week Congress is set to release the details of the Waxman-Markey American Clean Energy and Security Act, a bill that purports to combat global warming by setting strict limits on carbon emissions. I'm not a candidate for any office -- now or ever again -- and I've approached the "climate change" debate with an open-mind. But it's clear to me that the nation, and in particular Indiana, my home state, will be terribly disserved by this cap-and-trade policy on the verge of passage in the House.

The largest scientific and economic questions are being addressed by others, so I will confine myself to reporting about how all this looks from the receiving end of the taxes, restrictions and mandates Congress is now proposing.

Quite simply, it looks like imperialism. This bill would impose enormous taxes and restrictions on free commerce by wealthy but faltering powers -- California, Massachusetts and New York -- seeking to exploit politically weaker colonies in order to prop up their own decaying economies. Because proceeds from their new taxes, levied mostly on us, will be spent on their social programs while negatively impacting our economy, we Hoosiers decline to submit meekly.

The Waxman-Markey legislation would more than double electricity bills in Indiana. Years of reform in taxation, regulation and infrastructure-building would be largely erased at a stroke. In recent years, Indiana has led the nation in capturing international investment, repatriating dollars spent on foreign goods or oil and employing Americans with them. Waxman-Markey seems designed to reverse that flow. "Closed: Gone to China" signs would cover Indiana's stores and factories.

Our state's share of national income has been slipping for decades, but it is offset in part by living costs some 8% lower than the national average. Doubled utility bills for low-income Hoosiers would be an especially cruel consequence of the Waxman bill. Forgive us for not being impressed at danglings of welfare-like repayments to some of those still employed, with some fraction of the dollars extracted from our state.

And for what? No honest estimate pretends to suggest that a U.S. cap-and-trade regime will move the world's thermometer by so much as a tenth of a degree a half century from now. My fellow citizens are being ordered to accept impoverishment for a policy that won't save a single polar bear...

Daily Telegraph

James Delingpole

Global warming explorers in Arctic get nasty shock: polar ice caps blooming freezing
Posted By: James Delingpole at May 15, 2009

Hurrah! Intrepid explorer Pen Hadow and his Catlin Arctic Survey team are off the polar ice cap and safe and well. This is a huge relief to those many of us well-wishers concerned that they were doomed to die either by frostbite, attack by one of the numerous killer polar bears that stalk the region, or shame that their expedition had turned out to be such a Scott-tastic flop...

"For the sake of our children and grandchildren, I pray that we will heed the findings of the Catlin arctic survey," said the Prince of Wales when he launched what he called this "remarkably important project."

For once HRH and I are in complete agreement. Thanks to this expedition's selfless heroism, we now know that:

1. The Arctic is extremely parky.

2. Even parkier in fact than we could ever have suspected.

3. We can put our melting ice cap terror on hold for a while.

4. And our fears about melting polar bears.

5. Drinks all round, I say. Creme de Menthe frappe, anyone?

Sceptics now compared to 18th-century slave traders!

Marcus's picture

Gaia! Where will it all end?

Daily Mail

Climate change is biggest health threat of 21st century, claims report into global warming

By David Derbyshire
14th May 2009

Climate change is the biggest health threat of the 21st century, leading academics claimed last night.

Those who fail to take the issue seriously are as morally reprehensible as 18th-century slave traders, they said.

A British report said rising global temperatures will trigger food shortages, droughts, wars and floods over the next 100 years, pushing billions into ill-health, disease and poverty.

If the world fails to act, future historians will view the current generation with 'similar moral outrage to how we today look back on those who brought in and did nothing to stop slavery', the authors said.

The report - commissioned by the Lancet medical journal and University College London - calls on doctors and health experts to take the threat of climate change more seriously.

Report author Professor Anthony Costello, of UCL, said: 'The big message of this report is that climate change is a health issue affecting billions of people, not just an environmental issue about polar bears and deforestation.' ...

From The Sunday Times
May 10, 2009

Apocalypse now. Is the end of the world nigh?

Historian Richard Overy's book, The Morbid Age: Britain Between the Wars, suggests we are addicted to fear of disaster

Bryan Appleyard

...Our biggest contemporary apocalypse, however, is the environment. Overy is not a sceptic about global warming, but he is certainly no catastrophist. “In the long run, I don’t think there’s much human beings can do about it, any more than the dinosaurs could. That doesn’t mean we shouldn’t try to adopt greener policies. But over thousands of years, human beings have been remarkably adaptable and, unless we disappear in a methane gas explosion, I think we will continue to be inventive. The issue should be approached with a less catastrophist vocabulary.” The big message of this book is: “Democracies are no more immune from the distortion of reality or from the dangerous power of popular fear that provokes it, either then or now.”

Overy left the Labour party in 1997, when Blair was elected prime minister, and now describes himself as a nonaligned member of the (nonexistent) sceptical party. His central political position — which is not really right or left — is that we need to resist the overweening claims of the state. “We are rapidly moving towards a society that is dominated by people in uniform. The state’s claims are increasingly absolute. That’s happened in a very, very brief period of time. We are in danger of creating a worse situation than the one we are fearful about.”

He wants to see a return of the public intellectuals — not, this time, to propose crazy schemes or put the fear of God into us, but to explain that the human world is complex, that science’s findings are ambiguous in their implications and that there is, amid all the tendentious babble, room for legitimate discussion. He also wants to see ideas and culture given their proper place in history. Not much to ask of a crazed, therapeutic, panicky, materialist, multiply distracted culture, is it? I’m afraid so. But go for it, Richard.



I don’t bait greens only for fun. I do it because they’re public enemy number one

James Delingpole
Wednesday, 13th May 2009

...Maybe you’ll have chanced upon jottings in which I have been less than respectful towards Al Gore, George Monbiot and the NASA scientist Dr James Hansen. Perhaps you’ll have heard how I gave up recycling for Lent and found the penance so bracing I’ve decided to carry on till next Easter at the very earliest. Maybe you’ve caught me on talk radio pooh-poohing ‘cap-and-trade’ or promising that if I sell enough copies of Welcome To Obamaland I’ll buy a 4x4 and run over a baby polar bear. ‘Monster!’ you may have decided. ‘Heretic! Climate-change denier!’

Obviously there’s a part of me that kind of enjoys this. As Americans love Coca-Cola and Islamists love death, so I love baiting greens and liberals and most especially liberal greens. But I don’t do it just for fun, you know. In fact I don’t even do it mainly for fun. The reason I rail so often against so many tenets of the green faith — from biofuels to carbon trading to the ludicrous attempts to get polar bears designated as an endangered species — is because I sincerely believe they are among the greatest current threats to the advancement of humankind. Yes, that’s right: greens aren’t the solution. They’re public enemy number one...

Barack Obama's climate change bill is weakened, but still intact

Marcus's picture

Barack Obama's climate change bill is weakened, but still intact

The ambitious agenda introduced to Congress six weeks ago has been compromised by hold-outs and it now seems clear that the US will come nowhere close to European targets

Suzanne Goldenberg, US environment correspondent, Thursday 14 May 2009

Barack Obama's plans to move America towards a cleaner energy economy have survived – but not unscathed.

Democratic leaders in Congress said late yesterday they were confident of getting enough support from about a dozen Democratic hold-outs – conservatives, and members from oil and coal producing states – to move forward on a climate change bill.

But the ambitious global warming and energy agenda introduced to Congress six weeks ago, has been weakened in a number of key areas by the compromises with the Democratic hold-outs.

Further details of the draft are expected today. But it now seems clear that America will come nowhere close to European targets for cutting carbon emissions – a shortfall that could provoke a backlash in the international community looking to Obama to provide leadership on climate change. Significant US commitment to greenhouse gas cuts is seen as essential to sealing a global deal to fight global warming at a UN summit in Copenhagen in December.

The bill, which began to take shape yesterday, bears the imprint of a fierce PR offensive by the oil and gas industry against Obama's green agenda. The lobbying and advertisement campaign is set to intensify next week as Congress begins the formal drafting process...

Climate Depot

Arctic Comedy: Global warming trek 'makes it less than half way' to North Pole due to temps dropping below -40C!
Wednesday, May 13, 2009By Marc Morano – Climate Depot

Global warming trek 'makes it less than half way' to North Pole due to temps dropping below -40C! – UK Guardian – May 13, 2009

Excerpt: The team of four trekked more than 269 miles for 73 days but were unable to make it to the North Pole because of extreme weather, with temperatures dropping below -40 degrees Celsius. The Catlin Arctic Survey, the first Polar expedition to monitor the affects of climate change on sea ice, was also unable to measure the ice using state-of-the art equipment because of the freezing conditions.

Pysicist Dr. Lubos Motl: Warming explorers learned 'Nature is in charge of the atmosphere' – May 13, 2009

Excerpt: The three explorers have learned that the Arctic Ocean is pretty cold! They saw all their advanced scientific gadgets freeze and break. They have survived frozen-solid clothes, a frost-bitten and stinky toe, a needle in a buttock, and an anti-septic cream pretending to be a toothpaste. The expedition has showed that the Arctic Ocean is cool enough for the airplanes to safely land in the middle of May, much later than what used to be considered as the limit back in 2003 (April 30th). They learned that there are places without any multi-year ice and the new ice can still be very thick. Most importantly, they have learned that Nature, and not arrogant or other humans, is in charge of the atmosphere. When it comes to millions of squared kilometers of ice, the human civilization is pretty weak and impotent.

North Pole trek mapping Arctic sea ice ends early – AFP - May 13, 2009

Excerpt: There was also "a lot less open water" than expected, Hadow said, noting the team was prepared to swim in the frigid Arctic waters up to two hours each day, but only had to get wet once during the trip. [...] Hadow said a hot shower awaited them upon their arrival at Eureka station in Canada's far north. [...] Daniels said she looked forward to drinking a glass of "full-bodied red wine" in front of a roaring fire and sleeping in a bed with fresh sheets, after discarding her smelly sleeping bag.

Arctic global warming explorers 'battered by wind, bitten by frost, bruised from falls on the ice' – BBC – March 12, 2009

Excerpt: A team of polar explorers has travelled to the Arctic in a bid to discover how quickly the sea-ice is melting and how long it might take for the ocean to become ice-free in summers. Pen Hadow, Ann Daniels and Martin Hartley will be using a mobile radar unit to record an accurate measurement of ice thickness as they trek to the North Pole. The trio will be sending in regular diary entries, videos and photographs to BBC News throughout their expedition. The Catlin Arctic Survey team started its gruelling trek on 28 February. WEDNESDAY 11 MARCH - DAY 12 - FEELING THE ARCTIC CHILL - From Pen Hadow: Conditions have been hard. We have been battered by wind, bitten by frost and bruised from falls on the ice. Occasionally it's disheartening too when you've slogged for a day and then wake up the next morning having drifted back to where you started.

Ad for Arctic trek prompts meteorologist to declare: 'I weep for science' - April 23, 2009

Excerpt: Catlin Arctic Ice Survey: paid advertising of results before they are even off the ice! - Either they just don't care that they are running ads for “results” prior to any hard data being published or this is some sort of advertising scheduling slipup. Given how sloppy this laughable facade of a scientific expedition has been so far, publishing “live” biometric readings that were actually 30 days old, I'm guessing the latter...

Dozen Democrats determine fate of crucial climate change bill

Marcus's picture

Dozen wavering Democrats hold key to fate of crucial climate change bill

2,500 lobbyists, $45m on PR – but just 12 views could make or break global carbon deal

Suzanne Goldenberg, US environment correspondent, Tuesday 12 May 2009

It is one of the few visible growth ­industries of the recession: the lobbying and PR offensive aimed at influencing how, when and even whether Barack Obama moves America towards a new low ­carbon economy.

The battle for control over that ­generational shift is being waged as fiercely in the committee rooms of ­Congress – where the crucial climate change and energy law will be written – as in the heartland states where the changes will be felt the most.

Turn on the radio in a blighted town in America's rust belt, and a new ­advertisement paid for by a lobbying group with close ties to oil industry giants claims that ordinary families could be worse off by thousands of ­dollars if Congress passes the draft ­global warming law, which sets a limit on greenhouse gas emissions and makes polluters pay. "Some in Congress are now pushing an energy tax that would be the largest hike in history," it threatens. "This tax will further cripple our already struggling economy."

Surf the cable news channels and an advert paid for by Al Gore's Alliance for Climate Protection claims the opposite. "I don't know about you, but I'm getting tired of the big oil companies always bellyaching that we can't afford clean energy," says a grizzled old man in a faded checked work shirt.

The outcome of the PR wars is seen as critical not just to Obama's promise of building a clean energy future, but to the prospects of agreeing a global climate change treaty at UN talks in Copenhagen later this year. International negotiators have bluntly told US diplomats there is little prospect of a deal to avert dangerous global warming unless Congress makes serious progress on energy legislation.

That means passage in the house, if not the Senate, by the end of this year...

During today's EPW Committee hearing, Senator Barrasso asked EPA administrator Lisa Jackson about a "smoking gun" memo concerning her new CO2 regulatory powers.

SUBMISSION to the ETS Review Select Committee by NZCSC

Marcus's picture

To the: ETS Review Select Committee


The submission is made on behalf of the New Zealand Climate Science
Coalition, a group of people with a strong interest in the well-being of New
Zealand and a wide range of expertise in matters relating to the emissions
trading scheme such as climate science, meteorology, earth sciences, geology,
oceanography, chemistry and economics.

...2. Consider the prospects for an international agreement on climate
change post Kyoto 1, and the form such an agreement might take

2.1 There appears to be a growing feeling that the meeting in Copenhagen in
December will not bring any agreement for concerted effective international
action to reduce greenhouse gases.

2.2 It is very important that the Select Committee keep up to date with this
rapidly changing scene. A combination of the economic crisis and the fact that
the world has not got any warmer since 1998 and has been cooling steadily
since 2002, increases the probability that Copenhagen will not achieve anything
definite. It would be foolish of New Zealand to commit itself to a comprehensive
and economically damaging emissions trading scheme only to find that none --
or a very few - other countries follow in our lead...


Presented by Terence John Dunleavy MBE, honorary secretary

1. As a journalist brought up in the old school with the credo that comment is free but facts are sacred, I am
appalled at the level of hypocrisy and hysteria that has been built up around claims that the tiny contributions
of humans and animals to the 3.6% that carbon dioxide represents of total greenhouse gases (Appendix1)
will cause dangerous “global warming”...


Carbon Reality, Again
Australia's prime minister discovers how much an emissions trading policy will cost.

It's turning out that the biggest problem with carbon taxes is political reality. Australian Prime Minister Kevin Rudd has just announced he will delay implementing his trademark cap-and-trade emissions trading proposal until at least 2011. Mr. Rudd's March proposal would have imposed total carbon permit costs (taxes) of 11.5 billion Australian dollars (US$8.5 billion) in the first two years, starting in 2010. This would have increased consumer prices by about 1.1% and shaved 0.1% off annual GDP growth until at least 2050, according to Australia's Treasury. Support has fallen among business groups and individuals who earlier professed enthusiasm for Aussie cap and trade. Green gains were negligible; Australia accounts for only 1.5% of global greenhouse gas emissions.

The reversal, or "backflip," has caused Mr. Rudd much embarrassment...

Newsnight hit in BBC News cuts

Two specialist BBC News science and environment jobs to be lost, and Newsnight's budget to be reduced by 15%

Ben Dowell, Monday 11 May 2009

Newsnight is facing a 15% budget cut and two BBC environment and science reporters will also lose their jobs as part of BBC News's latest round of job losses.

BBC News insiders are said to be "horrified" by the proposals, which were put to the Newsnight and science and environment teams along with the rest of the division's staff earlier this week.

Newsnight is expected to make a 15% budget reduction as part of the cuts.

The BBC2 programme's culture correspondents, Madeleine Holt and Steve Smith, will become general reporters. One general reporter will then be lost from the programme's pool of around seven in total.

The two science and environment jobs will disappear as part of a plan to cut 88.5 posts from BBC News by next April as part of the corporation's five-year saving plan announced in 2007 aiming to save £155m.

BBC News's team of science and environment correspondents includes Roger Harrabin, David Shukman, Christine McGourty, Pallab Ghosh, Sarah Mukherjee and Jeremy Cooke, all of whom report for various news programmes across BBC TV and radio services.

"The science and environment beat is a massive growth area and the reporting team are pre-eminent so many there are puzzled to say the very least about it," said a BBC source.

"It needs expertise for these stories, a lot of preparation needs to be put in, and to lose two reporters in one go is madness."

The source also pointed at the "huge irony" of the decision given the "importance the organisation places on climate change as part of the news agenda"...

Cap and trade = tax

Marcus's picture

Chairman Emeritus of Energy and Commerce Committee, John Dingell (D-MI), calls cap and trade what it is.


Daily Telegraph

Frosted light bulbs to be banned by EU

Frosted light bulbs are to be phased out under new EU plans to force people to use more energy-efficient bulbs.

By Chris Jefferies
09 May 2009

From September, retailers will not be able to buy in new stock of any type of opaque 'incandescent' bulb.

This includes the conventional 100 and 60 watt 'pearl' bulbs, as well as the more specialised frosted 25 watt and 40 watt bulbs which are shaped like candles and golf balls.

Clear 100 watt bulbs will also disappear from stores at the same time and shoppers will be forced to buy low energy compact fluorescent lamps (CFL) or low energy halogen bulbs.

Other clear bulbs which have low energy-efficient ratings will be phased out by 2012...

Climate change: The elements conspire against the warmists

Marcus's picture

Daily Telegraph

Climate change: The elements conspire against the warmists

An international team of scientists has used the latest electro-magnetic induction equipment to discover that the Arctic ice is in fact "twice as thick" as they had expected, says Christopher Booker.

By Christopher Booker
09 May 2009

As the clock ticks down towards December's historic UN Copenhagen conference on climate change, the frenzied efforts of the warmists to panic us over all that vanishing Arctic and Antarctic ice are degenerating into farce.

That great authority Ban Ki-moon, the UN's Secretary-General, solemnly tells us that the polar ice caps are "melting far faster than was expected just two years ago". Yet the latest satellite information from the US National Snow and Ice Data Center (passed on by the Watts Up With That blog) shows that, after the third slowest melt of April Arctic ice in 30 years, the world's polar sea ice is in fact slightly above its average extent for early May since satellite records began in 1979.

This news came as the website was reporting "It's snowing all over the world". Snow was still falling in the Alps after a record winter, while in the southern hemisphere the skiing season was starting "five weeks early".

Meanwhile, up in the Arctic, after yet another delay for bad weather, the hapless Catlin trio, sponsored by an insurance firm which hopes to make money out of alarm over global warming, continue their painful progress towards the distant North Pole, measuring the ice with an old tape measure and assuring Prince Charles by satellite telephone that it is "thinner than expected".

When the trio heard a passing aircraft, which they hoped was bringing much-needed supplies, they little realised it was a DC-3 carrying an international team of scientists, using the latest electro-magnetic induction equipment to discover rather more efficiently that the ice was in fact "twice as thick" as they had expected...

From The Sunday Times
May 10, 2009

Cities to sizzle as islands of heat

Jonathan Leake, Environment Editor

LONDON and other cities could see summer temperatures rise to more than 10C above those in the surrounding countryside, according to Met Office research being used to help devise the first official climate change map of Britain.

Scientists have been studying a phenomenon known as the urban heat island effect, in which cities become significantly hotter than the areas around them because of the heat they generate themselves.

Big cities such as London, Birmingham, Manchester and Glasgow already reach temperatures 2C - 3C above their surroundings in the summer. Scientists fear that difference could grow four to fivefold as hotter weather combines with soaring energy use and population growth, making such temperature gaps more frequent and more extreme.

The research is linked to a wider project aimed at helping scientists predict the impact rising temperatures will have on different parts of the country. The full results will be released next month by Hilary Benn, the environment secretary.

Vicky Pope, the head of climate change advice at the Met Office, said: “As the climate gets warmer, sweltering summer temperatures will combine with rising energy use, the heat-retaining properties of buildings, and the sheer volume of people, to push temperatures higher and higher.

“It may sometimes make life in the metropolis intolerable. Imagine the scorching conditions that commuters will face on London’s Tube network.”

The warning follows the disclosure by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change that global temperatures have risen by almost 1C since preindustrial times.

The panel predicts global temperatures will have risen by 2C by 2050 with total warming of up to 5-6C possible by 2100.''...

Emission plan disaster for New Zealand

Marcus's picture

Emission plan disaster for New Zealand
The Dominion Post


Far from cutting farm emissions, we should raise them if it feeds more people, says Frank Brenmuhl.

The road to hell is proverbially paved with good intention. If anything proves this right, it is the emissions trading scheme, or ETS.

Rushed into law before the last election, the scheme is like some evil twin of the unlamented Electoral Finance Act.

While the latter brought civil libertarians on to the streets, who could oppose the ETS? It's like condemning the polar bear to extinction or being party to the genocide of island civilisations. The ETS will save the planet, or so we were told.

The Climate Change Response (Emissions Trading) Amendment Act was not the finest achievement of the 48th Parliament.

The ETS is uncosted tokenism that, though born of laudable intent, became a political fix. Tokenism isn't a great start for a major piece of public policy.

Today, we can ill afford to further weaken the economy unless we wish to replace recession with depression. Research by the New Zealand Institute of Economic Research shows that the ETS could lead to 22,000 job losses.

The Agriculture and Forestry Ministry says the ETS will progressively reduce farm profitability and viability by 61.6 per cent for the average dairy farm and 80.3 per cent for the average sheep and beef farm. That is an economic implosion.

All of this will be taken from a sector that has outperformed the rest of the economy for 25 of the past 27 years.

The ETS over-reaches itself by putting a price of carbon on all emissions, whereas Kyoto requires New Zealand to account only for emissions above 1990 levels. We don't need an ETS to meet our Kyoto obligations.

Worse, the ETS takes us where no other country has gone and applies a price of carbon to emissions arising from food production. It also prevents productive land being used for farming if it has trees on it. Forests are best planted on marginal land unsuited to food production, so we need pragmatism not dogmatism.

Therefore, we must ask, where is the global upside if New Zealand artificially throttles back its agricultural production, allowing less efficient producers to fill the void?

New Zealand doesn't produce cars or televisions any more because we were bad at it. In fact, the planet would be better off if New Zealand increased its production of food. A global solution means countries doing what they do best - and for New Zealand that is agriculture...

The Register

Top British boffin: Time to ditch the climate consensus
Don't use science to get round politics, says Hulme

By Stuart Blackman

Just two years ago, Mike Hulme would have been about the last person you'd expect to hear criticising conventional climate change wisdom. Back then, he was the founding director of the Tyndall Centre for Climate Change Research, an organisation so revered by environmentalists that it could be mistaken for the academic wing of the green movement. Since leaving Tyndall - and as we found out in a telephone interview - he has come out of the climate change closet as an outspoken critic of such sacred cows as the UN's IPCC, the "consensus", the over-emphasis on scientific evidence in political debates about climate change, and to defend the rights of so-called "deniers" to contribute to those debates.

As Professor of Climate Change at the University of East Anglia, Hulme remains one of the UK's most distinguished and high-profile climate scientists. In his new book, Why We Disagree About Climate Change, he explores how the issue of climate change has come to be such a dominant issue in modern politics. He treats climate change not as a problem that we need to solve – indeed, he believes that the complexity of the issue means that it cannot be solved, only lived with – and instead considers it as much of a cultural idea as a physical phenomenon."

Perhaps the most surprising thing to hear from a climate scientist writing about climate change is that climate science has for too long had the monopoly in climate change debates. When we spoke to him on the phone, Hulme cited as evidence the 2007 protests against Heathrow’s third runway, where marchers made their case by waving a research paper at the TV cameras under a banner bearing the slogan “We are armed only with peer reviewed science”. [The paper wasn't actually peer-reviewed science - see Bootnote]

“To me, that's the most dispiriting position,” says Hulme. “For these people who feel so passionately about this, their ultimate authority is a report from a group of scientists, and they’re saying ‘this is where we stand, forget about our moral concerns, forget about our ethical positions, forget about whether we are Right, Left or centre, forget about whether we are Christians or Buddists, no, none of that matters.’ The only thing that matters is that they’re holding a report from peer-reviewed science that in itself justifies their position."

And it’s not just protesters who are hiding behind the authority of science. World leaders are doing it, too...

US declares polar bears threatened

Elana Schor in Washington, Wednesday 14 May 2008

Polar bears were declared a threatened species by the US government today, ending a court battle over protecting the animals from melting sea ice caused by climate change.

The Bush administration was given a deadline of tomorrow to decide on protecting the bears after environmental campaigners filed a lawsuit. Yet US officials remained defiant in warning that the bears' status was not intended to help regulate emissions in the Arctic.

"Listing the polar bear as threatened … should not open the door to use [endangered species laws] to regulate greenhouse gas emissions from automobiles, power plants, and other sources," Dirk Kempthorne, the US interior secretary, told reporters.

The sea ice that polar bears use for habitat and hunting has receded significantly in recent years. While the polar bear population has doubled since the 1960s, US government computer models now predict they will be endangered by 2050...

Green fantasies won't save us

Marcus's picture

NZ Dominion Post

Green fantasies won't save us

By Vaclav Klaus

As New Zealand considers an emissions trading scheme, Vaclav Klaus warns against following Europe's hysterical example.

I AM SURPRISED at how so many people nowadays in Europe, the United States and elsewhere have come to support policies underpinned by hysteria over global warming. particularly cap-and-trade legislation to reduce greenhouse gas emissions and subsidies for "green" energy sources.

I am convinced that this is a misguided strategy - not only because of the uncertainty about the dangers that global warming might pose, but also because of the certainty of the damage that these proposed policies aimed at mitigation will impose.

I was invited to address this issue at a recent conference in Santa Barbara, California. My audience included business leaders who hope to profit from cap-and-trade policies and from subsidies for renewable energy and green jobs. My advice to them was to not get caught up in the hysteria.

Europe is several years ahead of the US in implementing policies intended to mitigate global warming. All of the European Union's member countries have ratified the Kyoto protocol and adopted a wide range of policies to lower their emissions and meet their Kyoto targets.

These policies include a cap-and-trade initiative known as the emissions trading scheme, steep fuel taxes and ambitious programmes to build windmills and other renewable energy projects. These policies were undertaken at a time when the EU economy was doing well and - one hopes - with full knowledge that they would have significant costs...

From Times Online
May 8, 2009

Fears of global decline in bees dismissed as demand for honey grows

Chris Smyth

The threat of a world without bees has been described as more serious than climate change. But world honeybee colonies have actually increased by almost half over the past 50 years, according to an analysis of UN figures.

While bees have been dying out in Britain, Europe and the US, managed bee numbers worldwide having been thriving because of global demand for honey, biologists suggest in the journal Current Biology. They also say that the bulk of agriculture, including wheat and rice, does not rely on pollination.

However, the growing popularity of expensive crops which need to be pollinated by bees has outstripped the growth in bee numbers, they find. This could lead to shortages in fruits like raspberries, plums, cherries and mangoes as well as Brazil and cashew nuts, they suggest.

“The honeybee decline observed in the USA and in other European countries including Great Britain, which has been attributed in part to parasitic mites and more recently to colony collapse disorder, could be misguiding us to think that this is a global phenomenon,” said Marcelo Aizen, of Universidad Nacional del Comahue in Argentina. “We found here that is not the case.” ...

Emissions scheme may face further delays

gregster's picture

"New Zealand Emissions Trade Scheme (ETS) may face further delays as Australia puts off the start date of its related legislation.

Prime Minister John Key told reporters it made sense for the New Zealand and Australian schemes to be aligned."


"Labour leader Phil Goff said National would use Australia's position as an excuse for further delay, when certainty was needed. The forestry sector, which had already lost money and jobs, needed certainty, he said.

"We need certainty around the changes that are being made. We have uncertainty because of a political dispute between ACT and the National Party," he said.

He said there were many areas where New Zealand and Australian legislation did not align.

"We have a different situation, obviously agriculture is a much bigger proportion of our emissions than they are in Australia, therefore we need to approach them in different way."

As a former trade minister Goff said New Zealand would suffer if it did hold up strong environmental credentials."

[Fuck Phil Goff]

1:26PM Tuesday May 05, 2009
Source: NZPA

Emissions retreat is just like Napoleon's retreat from Moscow

Marcus's picture

Emissions retreat just so Napoleon

Alan Moran | May 06, 2009

The Australian

DESPITE the Government announcing it has backed away from early action to reduce carbon emissions, the Prime Minister's website continues to say, "The cost of inaction on climate change will be much greater than the cost of taking action now."

Like others working for Kevin Rudd, his website managers can't keep up with his policy changes. Costs of "inaction on climate change" have just assumed a new meaning. At the very least the PM, in postponing the carbon trading tax, is acknowledging that immediate measures to reduce emissions would be costlier than doing nothing.

But his proposed watering down of the already diluted proposals has all the hallmarks of Napoleon's retreat from Moscow.

Ross Garnaut, Rudd's hand-picked consultant on global warming policy, had already said that the white paper was irresponsible in proposing a free supply of emissions to electricity producers and energy intensive firms. Now Rudd plans to increase that supply further.

Garnaut, Rudd and Penny Wong all talked about failure of a meaningful international agreement on emission reduction at Copenhagen later this year as being unlikely. Now that such failure is a certainty, the costs of Australian action to the economy are becoming clearer even to mystics who see only evil in production. Hence the PM's humiliating backdown. But, never one to acknowledge his own misjudgments, Rudd is spinning this as a means to buying the Opposition's support and as some sort of hiatus to remain in place only while the global economic crisis runs its course.

Doubtless Rudd's postponement of the planned new carbon tax is a prelude to an attempt to replace it with a tax on households to help defray some of the costs of his reckless cash giveaways.

What is increasingly clear is that there will not be a carbon emissions trading scheme...

Daily Mail

Ed Miliband's global warming law 'could cost £20,000 per family'
By Ian Drury

05th May 2009

Laws aimed at tackling global warming could cost every family in Britain a staggering £20,000 - double the original forecast.

Climate Change Secretary Ed Miliband admitted the bill for introducing legislation to cut greenhouse gases had soared from £205billion to £404billion between now and 2050.

But in figures quietly released to Parliament, the Cabinet minister claimed the benefits to the UK would be more than £1trillion - a tenfold increase on the £110billion predicted last year.

Last night Mr Miliband was accused of entering 'Alice in Wonderland territory' with the figures in an attempt to stifle concern about the price of bringing in the Climate Change Act.

Senior Tory MP Peter Lilley said Mr Miliband 'heavily massaged' the statistics to 'remove embarrassment' that the laws represented poor value for money.

Barack Obama's $1.8bn vision of greener biofuel

• President takes on the powerful farming lobby
• Switch from food crops to fight climate change

Suzanne Goldenberg, US environment correspondent
The Guardian, Wednesday 6 May 2009

The Obama administration took on the powerful farming interests in America's heartland today, making clear it does not see corn-based ethanol as part of the long-term solution to climate change.

The new proposals on the biofuel – in the face of intense pressure from agricultural companies and members of Congress from corn-growing states – were seen as the first test of Barack Obama's promise to put science above politics in deciding America's energy future.

Ethanol had once appeared to provide a transport fuel which did not increase carbon dioxide. But studies have suggested that the fuel needed to process the corn meant the ethanol could be more polluting than the fossil fuel it was meant to replace. Furthermore, the use of food crops for biofuel was blamed for a substantial part of the large price rises seen in 2008.

Administration officials set out a $1.8bn (£1.19bn) plan to develop a new generation of more environmentally-friendly biofuels that are not made from food crops and have a lower carbon footprint, while also providing an immediate bail-out of existing corn ethanol producers, which are suffering in the global economic crisis: falling petrol prices have undercut demand for ethanol at the pump...

The Prince and the Frog are both green and slimey!

Marcus's picture

Daily Telegraph

The Princes and the Frog: William and Harry appear in YouTube video

Princes William and Harry are to make cameo appearances alongside a large frog in a star-studded YouTube film made for the Prince of Wales's environmental crusades.

05 May 2009

The Dalai Lama, Daniel Craig, Harrison Ford and Pele form an unlikely line-up alongside The Prince of Wales in the 90-second clip to boost awareness of the Prince's Rainforest Project.

They all appear with a digitally-created amphibian in the film which will be broadcast on several websites, including MySpace, tonight.

In the clip, William and Harry, sitting side by side, say they are trying to save the environment "for all of us".

Royal spokesman Paddy Harverson said the video was an "unprecedented" move by The Prince.

The video – which also features comedian Robin Williams and singer Joss Stone – is the latest mission in his ongoing bid to save the world's rainforests.

The Prince said the internet provided the opportunity for "global determination for change on a vitally important issue".

He added: "Our aim, with your help, is to build an online community to call, from the bottom up, for urgent action to protect the rainforests, without which we will most certainly lose the battle against catastrophic climate change.

"One of the internet's strengths is that it can enable diverse communities to come together to ensure that everybody's views and actions can really be made to count." ...


US climate change denier James Inhofe joins Al Gore in fight against soot

In a surprise U-turn, the Republican senator has put forward a bill to review the dangers of black carbon to health and the environment

Suzanne Goldenberg, US environment correspondent, Tuesday 5 May 2009

He has called global warming a hoax, compared the Environmental Protection Agency with the Gestapo, and over the years dismissed Al Gore as desperate and "full of crap". So it was startling when America's arch climate change denier came out ahead of the green curve in the fight to save the Arctic and other icy regions.

Could James Inhofe, a conservative Republican senator from Oklahoma, be the newest recruit to Barack Obama's green revolution?

Inhofe, in a surprise move, joined Democratic senators in putting forward a bill for an official review of the dangers of soot or "black carbon" to public health and the environment late last month.

"Black carbon ... is thought to be the second largest contributor to global warming after carbon dioxide," the bill said. It gave experts from the Environmental Protection Agency a year to make suggestions to Congress on reducing the pollutant, caused by old diesel engines and burning wood...

Hot-air doomsayers

Marcus's picture

Hot-air doomsayers

Ian Plimer | May 05, 2009

The Australian

IN Heaven and Earth - Global Warming: The Missing Science, I predicted that the critics would play the man and not discuss the science. Initial criticism appeared before the book was released three weeks ago.

Well-known catastrophists criticised the book before they actually received a review copy. Critics, who have everything to gain by frightening us witless with politicised science, have now shown their true colours. No critic has argued science with me. I have just enjoyed a fortnight of being thrashed with a feather.

Despite having four review copies, ABC's Lateline photocopied parts of chapters and sent them to an expert on gravity, a biologist and one who produces computer models. These critics did not read the book in its entirety. The compere of Lateline claimed that he had read the book yet his questions showed the opposite. When uncritical journalists have no science training, then it is little wonder doomsday scenarios can seduce them.

In The Age (Insight, May 2), David Karoly claims that my book "does not support the answers with sources". Considering that the book has 2311 footnotes as sources, Karoly clearly had not read the book. Maybe Karoly just read up to page 21, which showed that his published selective use of data showed warming but, when the complete set of data was used, no such warming was seen.

Robert Manne (The Weekend Australian, Inquirer, April 25-26) claims to be a great democrat yet demonises dissent on a matter of science. He is not a scientist. The gains made in the Enlightenment, the scientific method, history and integrated interdisciplinary science are all ignored in an ideological push to remodel the economy.

Primary producers should be very worried about an emissions trading scheme underpinned by incomplete science. Unions in industrial centres may even make conditional financial support of the ALP because the workforce they represent will be lambs to the slaughter with an ETS.

Capital city ABC and newspaper media outlets have treated the public with disdain. They have used arrogant pompous scientists who talk down to the public and yet these scientists forget that the public employs them. My critics are never asked: Who funds them? What have they to gain by following their party line? Why have they ignored a huge body of contrary science? What are their political associations? What unelected groups support them? Yet I am constantly asked these questions.

The huge number of recent letters tell me that there are winds of change. The average punter has been told for more than two decades that we are all going to fry. He is not stupid and is blessed with a rare commodity missing in many academic circles: common sense...

Obama's green promise

The US president's most important climate change initiative deals with gases far more powerful than carbon dioxide – HFCs

Oliver Tickell, Monday 4 May 2009

President Obama was elected on a promise to act decisively on global warming. Today he is on the verge of his first major executive act to this end – to seek a global ban on an entire family of powerful industrial greenhouse gases used in refrigeration, many of them thosands of times more powerful than carbon dioxide. These are the HFCs or hydrofluorocarbons, the chemical industry's current replacement for the ozone-eating CFCs or chlorofluorocarbons, now almost entirely phased out under the 1987 Montreal protocol (pdf).

This initiative to combat global warming will take place not under the Kyoto protocol or its parent Climate Convention (UNFCCC), but under the Montreal protocol – even though it, and its parent, the Vienna Convention for the Protection of the Ozone Layer (pdf), have no mandate to act on climate issues. The choice of treaty is based on two simple truths. The UNFCCC climate negotiations are bogged down in fine print, square brackets, political posturing and general mistrust. The Montreal protocol has an enviable track record of environmental achievement and international co-operation, and contains proven mechanisms to make a ban on HFCs effective.

Not only is the Montreal protocol succeeding in saving the ozone layer, with a 97% reduction in emissions of gases, it has also achieved far more for the climate than the Kyoto protocol because the CFCs it has nearly eliminated are such powerful greenhouse gases. By 2012 the Montreal protocol will have reduced emissions by the equivalent of 8bn tonnes (Gt) of CO2, compared to estimates of 2Gt for the Kyoto protocol by the same time.

And over coming decades the accelerated phase-out of HCFC gases, the first generation of CFC replacements, is expected to produce further emissions reductions worth at least 18Gt CO2, and perhaps as much as 38Gt...

A load of hot air

Marcus's picture


A load of hot air
Book review by Nigel Lawson

Wednesday, 29th April 2009

A Blueprint for a Safer Planet: How to Manage Climate Change and Create a new Era of Progress and Prosperity
Nicholas Stern
Bodley Head, 246pp, £16.99

As a general rule, I do not believe in reviewing bad books. Review space is limited, and the many good books that are published deserve first claim on it. But climate change is such an important subject, and — thanks to heavy promotion by that great publicist, Tony Blair — the Stern Review of the economics of climate change has become so well known (not least to the vast majority who have never read it, among whom in all probability is Mr Blair), that anything from Lord Stern deserves some attention...

The only significant economic support for Stern’s prescription has come from Professor Weitzman, of Harvard, who accepts that Stern’s cost-benefit analysis is all wrong, but maintains that this is an issue where cost benefit analysis is inapplicable: there is an outside chance of a disaster so great that it needs to be averted irrespective of cost. One obvious problem with this approach, however, is that there is an outside chance of all manner of disasters, and we cannot spend unlimited resources on seeking to avert them all. Moreover, one of them is a new ice age, which would be very much worse; and indeed the formidably eminent scientist, Professor Freeman Dyson of Princeton, believes that any warming that might occur might well be helpful in forestalling a new ice age.

Not that there has been any global warming lately. The recorded global temperature trend so far this century (2001-2008 inclusive) has been completely flat, despite the predicted warming of all the computer models in which Stern places uncritical faith and despite (until the onset of the current world recession) a much faster than predicted growth in carbon emissions. This unexpected development, which at the very least demonstrates that the whole issue is both more complex and less certain than he would have us believe, is blithely ignored by Stern, who assures us that ‘the [temperature] trend is clearly upwards’, and that ‘rapid climate change’ is on the way — although he subsequently defines ‘rapid’ as ‘within the next century or two’. His ability to foretell the distant future is remarkable...

Clearly concerned that there is still less than total acceptance of his message, Stern warmly commends direct action by Greenpeace and the like, and warns, mafia style, that ‘there are fewer and fewer hiding places for firms wanting to conceal dubious, unsafe or irresponsible practices’. Even the media are blamed for giving ‘similar time to scientists and deniers of the science, when the balance of argument in logic and evidence is 99 (or more) to 1, not 50-50’.

In fact, the media give far from equal time to the two sides in this debate. As I know from my own experience, it is virtually impossible for a dissenting voice to be given a hearing on any flagship BBC programme, either on radio or on television. But what is truly mind-boggling is Stern’s assertion, without adducing a scrap of supporting evidence, that informed opinion is 99 per cent (or more) on his side. The most thorough survey of the views of climate scientists was conducted by Dr Dennis Bray, a social scientist, and Professor Hans von Storch of the Meteorological Institute at Hamburg University, and published in 2007. Asked whether they agreed with the proposition that ‘climate change is mostly the result of anthropogenic [ie man-made] causes’, 66 per cent agreed, of whom 38 per cent ‘strongly agreed’. In other words, a majority well short of Stern’s 99 per cent agreed, and only a minority ‘strongly agreed’...

Australia's carbon emissions trading scheme victim of recession

Marcus's picture

Daily Telegraph

Australia's carbon emissions trading scheme falls victim to recession

Australia will delay a planned carbon emissions trading scheme by one year, bowing to pressure from the opposition and major polluters to put off the project while the country fights to recover from the global recession.

04 May 2009

The scheme, which was supposed to start on July 1 2010, will now begin on the same date in 2011.

The government will keep the country's interim 2020 emissions reduction target, currently for a cut of between 5 and 15 per cent based on 2000 levels, but would increase it to 25 per cent if the world agreed to similar reductions, Kevin Rudd, the prime minister, said.

"The worst global recession since the Great Depression means we must adapt our climate change measures, but not abandon them," he said.

"Our objective of course is to provide business certainty for the future."

The fixed carbon price has also been cut from $40 to $10 for the first year of the scheme.

The Australian scheme is the world's most sweeping cap and trade project outside of Europe.

Major emissions industries and political opponents had complained about the planned July 1 2010 start, saying it would hamper an economic recovery and destroy jobs as Australia teeters on the edge of recession...

World 'unlikely to stop global warming reaching critical levels'

The world is unlikely to stop global warming rising above critical levels claim scientists in studies that calculate we could exceed safe emission targets in under 20 years.

By Richard Alleyne, Science Correspondent
29 Apr 2009

Two studies on climate change have concluded that rises in global temperatures are unlikely to remain below a critical threshold deemed by the world's governments to be safe.

Policy-makers have adopted a goal of keeping the average global rise in surface temperatures to no more than 3.6F (2C) above pre-industrial revolution levels.

This will mean stabilising CO2 emissions immediately and then substantially after 2015 to avoid the kind of levels in the atmosphere which will accelerate global warming.

But two studies from Oxford University and Potsdam Institute for Climate Impacts Research, published in Nature, claim that current levels of carbon emission – actually increasing at three per cent a year – will mean the temperature rise will be exceeded. There is now only a 50 per cent chance of avoiding it even if drastic measures are taken.

Rises above 3.6F (2C) are expected to lead to deforestation, flooding and droughts across the world...

Gores Graft - Laura Ingraham exposes the bogus bastard

HWH's picture

Everyone suspects Gore is in it for the money.. but to go from $2 Million to $100 Million and with $1 Billion invested in Greentech due to go ballistic soon thanks to government protectionism, who can still doubt this frauds motive?

Watch this video and hear that there are now 4 climate lobbyists for every member of parliament and you will see that Madoff was small change compared to this protection racket.

As Rand said in "The aristocracy of pull"

Such looters believe it safe to rob defenseless men, once they've passed a law to disarm them. But their loot becomes the magnet for other looters, who get it from them as they got it. Then the race goes, not to the ablest at production, but to those most ruthless at brutality. When force is the standard, the murderer wins over the pickpocket. And then that society vanishes, in a spread of ruins and slaughter.
"Do you wish to know whether that day is coming? Watch money. Money is the barometer of a society's virtue. When you see that trading is done, not by consent, but by compulsion—when you see that in order to produce, you need to obtain permission from men who produce nothing—when you see that money is flowing to those who deal, not in goods, but in favors—when you see that men get richer by graft and by pull than by work, and your laws don't protect you against them, but protect them against you—when you see corruption being rewarded and honesty becoming a self-sacrifice—you may know that your society is doomed.

More here

See the video here

Obama's climate change claims refuted

Marcus's picture

Excerpts from the panel discussion at the 33rd International Geological Congress in 2008 have been used to refute President Obama's climate change assertions.

We're living in a culture of fear!!!

Marcus's picture

Daily Telegraph

Swine flu, climate change, terrorism: we're living in a culture of fear

Our lives have begun to resemble an especially crummy B-movie, complete with killer pigs, and we're all probably doomed, says Bryony Gordon.

By Bryony Gordon
02 May 2009

...Oh, how we love to be afraid. Years ago we had to pay for the privilege by watching a horror film or going on a ghost train, but now we need only switch on the television or log on to the internet – or step out of the front door – to scare ourselves witless. Forget about the possibility of a swine flu pandemic: we are currently in the grips of a fear one.

Actually, it isn't a sudden thing. Over the past decade or so, being made to feel really, really frightened has become endemic. From the Millennium Bug to the threat of bird flu to Sars to global warming to anthrax, the 21st century has been all about fear. It is, after all, the century that has brought us a war on terror.

As a result, we have become so conditioned to be scared that we are probably most frightened when we are not. It is as if we come alive only when there are lots of nasty things trying to make us die – which is why we seemed to greet the possibility of a killer flu from another species with something approaching glee.

People have rushed out to buy face masks as if they were the latest fashion fad. A man who sneezed several times on the Tube the other day disappointed his fellow commuters when he announced he merely had hay fever. The first two British victims of swine flu, Iain and Dawn Askham, have become celebrities, signing up Max Clifford to help sell their story to the highest bidder.

The news has become a weird version of entertainment. It is as if every report is willing the World Health Organisation to nudge the alert status from five to six and then through to 11. "A quarter of the population of the UK could die!" said one breathless "expert" on the radio the other day, forgetting that the entire population will most definitely die eventually, be it of swine flu or forgetting to eat their five a day or any of the other threats we are bombarded with.

Five years ago, the brilliant documentary-maker Adam Curtis produced a series of films called The Power of Nightmares: The Rise of the Politics of Fear. He argued that the threat of Islamic terrorism had been largely exaggerated by Western politicians who wanted to frighten their people into submission. It would be foolish to suggest that swine flu has been created by governments keen to do the same, but Curtis's central point – that scared people are more likely to do what you want – remains...

Greenhouse gases raise temperatures online

I am sorry to have misread some of Lord Stern’s figures on CO2, says Christopher Booker, but I'm still concerned that our Government’s leading adviser on climate change has such a wildly optimistic view of the supposed benefits of wind power.

By Christopher Booker
02 May 2009

I owe readers a correction of one or two points in my item last week criticising Lord Stern as one of our “scaremongers in chief” over global warming. When I claimed that Lord Stern was wrong in the figure he gave for the level of CO2 in the atmosphere, I was relying on a newspaper article which appeared to attribute to Lord Stern a claim that “carbon dioxide levels in the atmosphere are already at 430 parts per million (ppm)”; and also on an interview in which he said that “carbon” levels in the atmosphere are now “430ppm”.

When I pointed out that the actual figure for CO2 is currently 388.79ppm, this provoked a storm of irate comments on the Telegraph website from Lord Stern’s defenders. He was not referring to CO2, they pointed out, but to “CO2 equivalent” (CO2e). From his new book, A Blueprint for a Safer Planet, it appears that he does indeed mean “430 ppm of CO2e” but this was not apparent in either of the articles I cited. It seems the pushers of the global warming scare now prefer to use “CO2 equivalent”, lumping in CO2 with other greenhouse gases, because it makes the figures look more alarming. Yet Stern himself admits in his book that “figures for CO2e are patchy”...

I'm surprised you missed that Linz...

Marcus's picture

The whole "Michelle Obama starts White House organic vegetable patch" story was laid on with a trowel over here in the UK!

New edict from the White House: "eat up your greens you naughty children!"

Yuk! Barf!


Lindsay Perigo's picture

March 20: Michelle Obama digs up a patch of ground behind the White House to plant the first presidential vegetable garden since the second world war. The Obamas plan to put in lettuce, spinach, herbs such as coriander, and hot peppers – but no beets because the president does not like them.

I missed that! Was Matty Sullivan there to dig up a sod as well?

Wottabout the greenhouse emissions from the flatulence caused by excessive vegetable ingestion?

Chris de Freitas: We need to be listening to science

Marcus's picture

NZ Herald

Chris de Freitas: We need to be listening to science

Friday May 01, 2009
Chris de Freitas

We are often told we must cut carbon dioxide emissions drastically and without delay. The first urgent call came over 15 years ago at the Earth Summit in Rio de Janeiro.

But despite innumerable international meetings since then, each one producing promises and agreements, emissions from almost every country in the world have continued to rise.

Given the potentially serious risks posed by human-caused global warming, it is a curious fact that almost everyone promises to make drastic cuts in emissions that no one will live up to. There are signs that this is set to continue.

A growing number of people believe that stopping global warming has become their lowest priority, according to a Pew Research Centre survey in the United States earlier this year. The same conclusion can be drawn from a recent opinion poll by the AA in New Zealand of 1300 of its members.

One reason for this trend could be the difficulty many have in reconciling apparently conflicting evidence put before them. For instance, according to the United Nation's World Meteorological Organisation, the official climate record shows there has been no global warming for the past decade, despite steadily rising carbon dioxide concentrations in the atmosphere....

Green hysteria shackles our economic growth

Emissions legislation and excessive fear of global warming are the last thing we need when the world economy is in recession

Václav Klaus, Friday 1 May 2009

...With the global financial crisis and the sudden economic downturn, two things are becoming clear. First, it will be difficult to afford these expensive new sources of energy. Second, energy rationing policies like cap-and-trade will be a permanent drag on economic activity. Ironically, emissions have not decreased as a result of these policies, but are doing so now as the world economy moves into recession.

This is not a surprise to someone like me, having been actively involved in my country's transition from communism to a free society and market economy. The old, outmoded heavy industries that were the pride of our communist regime were shut down - almost overnight - because they could not survive the opening of the economy. The result was a dramatic decline in CO2 emissions.

As the economies of the Czech Republic and other central and eastern European countries were rebuilt, emissions have naturally started to increase. It should be clear to everyone that there is a strong correlation between economic growth and energy use.

So I am amazed to see people going along with the currently fashionable political argument that policies such as cap-and-trade, government mandates and subsidies for renewable energy can actually benefit an economy. It is claimed that government, working together with business, will create "a new energy economy", that the businesses involved will profit and that everyone will be better off.

This is a fantasy. Cap-and-trade can only work by raising energy prices. Consumers who are forced to pay higher prices for energy will have less money to spend on other things. While the individual companies that provide the higher-priced "green" energy may do well, the net economic effect will be negative.

It is necessary to look at the bigger picture. Profits can be made when energy is rationed or subsidised, but only within an economy operating at lower, or even negative, growth rates. This means that over the longer term, everyone will be competing for a piece of a pie that is smaller than it would have been without energy rationing.

This does not auger well either for growth or working our way out of today's crisis.

In recycling we trust

Marcus's picture

In recycling we trust

Is our evangelical approach to recycling about saving the planet or salving our consciences?

Harry Phibbs, Wednesday 29 April 2009

There is a terrible gap left in people's lives now that the habit of going to church has ceased among a large part of the population. As GK Chesterton argued, "The problem when people don't believe in God is not that they believe in nothing, it is that they believe anything."

Amid the array of dotty fads available, if people choose not merely to recycle but to "believe" in recycling, this is surely one of the less harmful manifestations of Chesterton's dictum.

The difficulty comes, however, that if recycling is treated as a matter of faith, then there is a lack of scrutiny and objectivity. Those who want to believe they are doing something good do not take kindly to the harsh rigours of a cost-benefit analysis.

Peter Jones, an environmental adviser to government ministers, has questioned the recycling orthodoxy with courage equivalent to Galileo's suggestion that the Earth goes round the sun: "It might be that the global warming impact of putting material through an incinerator five miles down the road is actually less than recycling it 3,000 miles away," said Jones. He was quickly denounced by the modern day popes at Friends of the Earth...

Fox News

Obama Administration to Push For Major Initiative to Fight Global Warming

The Obama administration, in a major environmental policy shift, is leaning toward asking 195 nations that ratified the U.N. ozone treaty to enact mandatory reductions in hydrofluorocarbons.

Thursday, April 30, 2009

UNITED NATIONS -- The Obama administration, in a major environmental policy shift, is leaning toward asking 195 nations that ratified the U.N. ozone treaty to enact mandatory reductions in hydrofluorocarbons, according to U.S. officials and documents obtained by The Associated Press.

"We're considering this as an option," Environmental Protection Agency spokeswoman Adora Andy said Wednesday, emphasizing that while a final decision has not been made it was accurate to describe this as the administration's "preferred option."

The change -- the first U.S.-proposed mandatory global cut in greenhouse gases -- would transform the ozone treaty into a strong tool for fighting global warming.

"Now it's going to be a climate treaty, with no ozone-depleting materials, if this goes forward," an EPA technical expert said Wednesday, speaking on condition of anonymity because a final decision is pending.

The expert said the 21-year-old ozone treaty known as the Montreal Protocol created virtually the entire market for hydrofluorocarbons, or HFCs, so including them in the treaty would take care of a problem of its own making.

It's uncertain how that would work in conjunction with the Kyoto Protocol, the world's climate treaty, which now regulates HFCs and was rejected by the Bush administration. Negotiations to replace Kyoto, which expires in 2012, are to be concluded in December in Denmark.

The Montreal Protocol is widely viewed as one of the most successful environmental treaties because it essentially eliminated the use of chlorofluorocarbons, or CFCs, blamed for damaging the ozone layer over Antarctica.

Because they do not affect the ozone layer, HFCs broadly replaced CFCs as coolants in everything from refrigerators, air conditioners and fire extinguishers to aerosol sprays, medical devices and semiconductors.

But experts say the solution to one problem is now worsening another...

World already halfway to 2C rise, say scientists

David Adam and Alok Jha
The Guardian, Thursday 30 April 2009

...The new study in effect reframes such targets as an available budget - to avoid dangerous climate change of 2C the world can only burn another half a trillion tonnes of carbon. Writing in this week's Nature magazine, Allen and colleagues say a trillion tonnes of carbon burned would be likely to produce a warming of between 1.6C and 2.6C.

Chris Huntingford of the NERC Centre for Ecology and Hydrology said: "Research often reveals new complexities, but this analysis could actually simplify matters for policymakers. The relationship between total emissions and future warming can be inferred largely from quantities we can observe, and is remarkably insensitive to the timing of future emissions."

The key implication of the research, the scientists say, is that access to fossil fuels must somehow be rationed and eventually turned off, if the 2C target is to be met. "If country A burns it then country B can't," said Bill Hare, a climate expert with the Potsdam Institute in Germany.

The research also highlights that continued high rates of fossil fuel use in the next decade will demand extraordinary cuts in emissions in future decades to hit the 2C target. Allen said: "If you use too much [carbon] this year, it doesn't mean the planet will come to an end. It means you have to work harder the next year."

Thanks gregster...

Marcus's picture when is the Select Committee to present its findings? Has Key yet given an indication of what his climate change policies or strategy for Copenhagen will be?

Do you think he cares what the rest of the world will make of any resistance from NZ?

Global warming alarmists out in cold

Marcus's picture

Herald Sun

Global warming alarmists out in cold

Andrew Bolt

April 29, 2009

IT'S snowing in April. Ice is spreading in Antarctica. The Great Barrier Reef is as healthy as ever.

And that's just the news of the past week. Truly, it never rains but it pours - and all over our global warming alarmists.

Time's up for this absurd scaremongering. The fears are being contradicted by the facts, and more so by the week.

Doubt it? Then here's a test.

Name just three clear signs the planet is warming as the alarmists claim it should. Just three. Chances are your "proofs" are in fact on my list of 10 Top Myths about global warming.
And if your "proofs" indeed turn out to be false, don't get angry with me.

Just ask yourself: Why do you still believe that man is heating the planet to hell? What evidence do you have?

So let's see if facts matter more to you than faith, and observations more than predictions.



Wrong. It is true the world did warm between 1975 and 1998, but even Professor David Karoly, one of our leading alarmists, admitted this week "temperatures have dropped" since - "both in surface temperatures and in atmospheric temperatures measured from satellites". In fact, the fall in temperatures from just 2002 has already wiped out half the warming our planet experienced last century. (Check data from Britain's Hadley Centre, NASA's Aqua satellite and the US National Climatic Data Centre.)...

From The Times
April 30, 2009

Yes, the planet’s future is a worry, but we’ll carry on flying, consumers tell opinion poll

Marcus Leroux

Even consumers who care about the environment are not willing to fly less and are sceptical about the benefits of carbon-offsetting, a poll for The Times has found.

Only 38 per cent of concerned consumers said that they would take fewer flights in the next 12 months, down from 46 per cent last year, while just 10 per cent believe that offsetting is an effective way to tackle climate change, according to the Populus poll.

The findings will hearten the aviation industry as it faces the combined challenge of a global economic downturn, amid which passenger numbers fell by 11 per cent last month, and concern about the environmental impact of the growth in air travel in the past decade.

Cynicism about carbon-offsetting, by which a passenger or a company pays a premium for carbon-saving measures elsewhere, has convinced people that it is merely a “sticking plaster”, David Lourie, an analyst from Good Business, said...

Budget airlines, such as Ryanair, fare poorly in the survey on perceptions of ethical and environmental behaviour, even though they tend to use newer aircraft than larger rivals, and to fly with fewer empty seats...

Mr Lourie suggested that Ryanair’s bad showing may be related to Michael O’Leary, its outspoken chief executive, who has said: “We will take [passengers] off British Airways and the other old carriers who are flying gas-guzzling, ancient aircraft and pack them into fuel-efficient planes. So Ryanair will be saving the environment – not that we care much.” Mr O’Leary has also said: “I listen to all this drivel about turning down the central heating, going back to candles, returning to the Dark Ages. You do that if you want to. But none of it will make any difference. It just panders to your middle-class, middle-aged angst and guilt.”...

Barack Obama's first 100 days of green terror!

Marcus's picture

Barack Obama's 100 days: Green measures

Environmentalists in general have been impressed by the speed and sheer sweep of Obama's efforts to leave behind the George Bush era of climate change denial

Suzanne Goldenberg, US environment correspondent, Wednesday 29 April 2009

...January 20: Only hours after Obama takes the oath of office, the White House issues a memo staying a number of Bush's "midnight regulations". The regulations, issued in the final hours of the Bush administration, had sought to do away with a generation of environmental protections imposed on polluters from factory farms to the burning of hazardous waste and oil shales development. Obama orders a review of the measures, which had been deplored by conservationists.

January 26: The president signs a pair of executive orders intended to set stricter limits on car exhaust emissions. Obama directs the Environmental Protection Agency to reconsider its refusal, under George Bush, to allow California to cut car exhaust by 30%. The president also calls on the Transportation Department to draw up new fuel 35 MPG fuel standard for all cars rolling off the assembly lines from 2012.

February 17: Obama signs a $787bn economic recovery plan. The rescue package contained historic levels of green investment – well over $100bn by some estimates. There were billions for refitting existing buildings to make them more energy efficiency, high-speed rail lines and commuter transit and updating the electric grid.

"In a lot of respects the stimulus package was a gigantic climate and energy bill by itself in a very positive way," said David Gardiner, a senior adviser at the Energy Future Coalition. "We have never had a president who has focused on this ... with [that] intensity."

March 19: He pledges $2.4bn for the development of hybrid cars and advanced batteries.

March 20: Michelle Obama digs up a patch of ground behind the White House to plant the first presidential vegetable garden since the second world war. The Obamas plan to put in lettuce, spinach, herbs such as coriander, and hot peppers – but no beets because the president does not like them.

March 30: Obama sets aside 2m acres of public land spread across nine states as wilderness, from California's Sierra Nevada to Virginia's Jefferson forest, shielding it from mining, logging and other operations. Another provision protects 1,000 miles of river.

April 17: The Environmental Protection Agency formally declares that carbon dioxide and five other greenhouse gases are a danger to public health and welfare. The so-called endangerment finding is a first step towards regulating coal-fired power plants and to forcing US car manufacturers to make cleaner and more fuel-efficient vehicles.

April 27: The US hosts a two-day forum for 17 of the world's most polluting economies to try to get closer to a deal before the international climate change summit at Copenhagen in December. The secretary of state, Hillary Clinton, declares the US, after eight years of going missing under George Bush, is now committed to helping lead the world towards a planet-saving deal. She also makes a direct pitch to India and China, saying that a move towards a greener economy will not hold back development, but could help them reach greater prosperity.

From The Times
April 30, 2009

Climate change remains agenda priority for Obama
Tom Baldwin in Washington

Ed Miliband, the British Energy Secretary, has praised the Obama Administration for transforming America’s position on climate change but questioned its ability to overcome powerful opponents.

After three days of talks on global warming in Washington Mr Miliband said: “There is no question about the change of direction and the change in terms of political will. The question is how far can they go — and how quickly?”

The conference was intended to start talks before a meeting in Copenhagen in December at which the international community will discuss a successor to the Kyoto Protocol, which expires in 2012. China and India are unwilling to impose carbon use restrictions unless the developed world, and the US in particular, does more.

Mr Obama pledged to bring US emissions down to 1990 levels by 2020 — a cut of roughly 15 per cent. He said: “Our future on this planet depends on our willingness to address the challenge posed by carbon pollution.”

This is short of the 20 per cent reduction below 1990 levels that the European Union has identified as its minimum target for the next decade...

Zombie Science, Zombie Politics

gregster's picture

From Dr Muriel Newman at NZCPR.

"Dr Horner reaffirms that an emissions trading scheme is simply a tax-grab: “All of this makes the government’s stance ever more puzzling and, inescapably, gives more fodder to those who argue that Kyoto and its domestic implementation schemes are mere opportunities for revenue- and authority-grabs”. To read the full article.

Most politicians who bought into the movement against man-made global warming may have thought it was the right thing to do – others probably thought it was the easy thing to do. But when the evidence shows that the basic premise is wrong, they must surely turn their attention to that evidence and reflect upon their previously held beliefs.

The current President of the European Union, the Hon Vaclav Klaus, President of the Czech Republic, has lamented the fact that no other leaders will stand up against what is effectively socialism in drag. He has always regarded the attempts of the environmental movement to use climate alarmism to restrict economic progress as a direct attack on the freedom and prosperity of free societies. For that is what it is.

There was some hope after the election that a Select Committee review into the Emissions Trading Scheme would take a fresh look at the issue. Sadly that does not appear to be the case.

Further, given that the Review was such a crucial part of the National/ACT Coalition Agreement, it has been extremely disappointing to hear that submitters have been culled liked sheep through a political quota system. Some, like an energy policy expert and former Minister of the Crown who asked to present his evidence, have been denied that opportunity in what must surely be one of the most blatant and outrageous violations of the publics’ right to be heard."

Questions for the climate change brigade to answer

Marcus's picture

The Spectator

Questions for the climate change brigade to answer
Fraser Nelson

Why are so many intelligent people taken in by the climate change argument? I have long (and genuinely) suspected I'm missing something. So I tuned in to Start The Week to hear Sir Nicholas Stern back with a new book on climate change - which (surprise, surprise) he says has grown far worse since he came out with his review in Oct 06. Andrew Marr asked him why he, with a "flip of the wrist," dismisses the argument of those who do not believe it is man-made. (There is a "yearning," Marr says, to believe that it's not really our fault). Stern (who has zero scientific expertise) replied that the "status of that argument now is like that between HIV and Aids or smoking and lung cancer." Note a key characteristic of the climate change brigade: refusal even to recognise the opposing argument. And it is this which makes me so suspicious.

Stern's report was based on a fake juxtasposition. Climate change will cost 20% of world GDP, he says, and he proposes a course of action that will cost 1% of world GDP. But what he doesn't say in his 700-page report is just what we would get for that 1%. Would the potential damage be whittled down from 20% to 0% of GDP? Would it halve? Where is the bang for the buck? Stern never says. He fails to make a basic cost-benefit analysis.

In any other sphere of life, we would never accept this logical trick. Say a guy tells me my house is subsiding: sure, I'm worried. It won't hit the property for 100 years, but I'd like to get it fixed. He suggests I pay him £10,000 to put matchsticks under the house. Would I go for it? Unlikely: I'd want a solution that remedies the problem. Yet this calculus seems to be entirely absent from the global warming argument. No one seems to ask that, if we reduce our carbon footprint by 80% as Stern proposes, how it would affect the trajectory of global warming. It is a fairly basic question, and I'm sure an answer is out there. But I've never seen one, and would be genuinely grateful if anyone out there can help.

Also, the man-made argument is not the binary choice that Marr suggests: ie, is it man made or not. The issue is how much of global warming is created by man-made activity. Are there any studies seeking to quantify this? I haven't seen any: just the assertion that it's man-made and a Stern-like refusal to enter debate about it. Again, there must be studies - but they're certainly not the the Stern review. Can anyone help?...

The bra-burners are back as Prince Charles ushers in Dark Ages

Marcus's picture

Daily Telegraph

Climate change protesters arrested after gluing themselves to statue in Houses of Parliament

A group of protesters have been arrested after they glued themselves to a statue inside the Houses of Parliament.

By Murray Wardrop
27 Apr 2009

The four climate change demonstrators attached themselves to the effigy of Viscount Falkland by smearing super glue onto their hands and forming a human chain around it.

The three women and one man wore white clothing and red sashes in tribute to a suffragette who chained herself to the same statue 100 years ago, and were chanting slogans...

The Independent

Climate change protesters target Tesco with paint campaign

By Jerome Taylor

Monday, 27 April 2009

Environmental activists made a series of early morning guerrilla raids on more than 20 Tesco stores today to protest against an in-store promotion that offered airmiles to people who bought energy saving lightbulbs.

Campaigners from the “Climate Suffrajets”, a women-led direct action group, used stencils and green paint to daub the words “Every Little Hurts” on 27 stores across central London. Above the slogan was a picture of two energy saving light bulbs and the Tesco brand name.

The activists were protesting against a newspaper advertisement which offered customers extra clubcard points for switching to energy efficient light bulbs. The points could then be exchanged for air miles and was advertised as a “Flights for Lights” promotion.

The Climate Suffrajets phoned The Independent earlier today to claim responsibility for the attack and for a recent assault on the Department of Transport where a brick was thrown through a window.

A spokeswoman said: “Tesco was targeted today because offering airmiles in exchange for efficient lightbulbs is completely counter-productive.” ...

Daily Telegraph

Prince Charles warns of 'new Dark Age'

Prince Charles warned that the world risked plunging into a "new Dark Age" unless urgent action was taken on climate change, during his first meeting with Pope Benedict XVI at the Vatican.

By Nick Squires in Rome
27 Apr 2009

The heir to the throne said the global economic crisis was "nothing" compared with the "horror" of global warming.

Flanked by Swiss Guards in ceremonial uniforms, the Prince of Wales met Benedict for a 15 minute reception in the Pontiff's private apartments – his first Papal audience since his divorce from Princess Diana and subsequent remarriage...

Earlier the Prince addressed the Italian parliament, telling deputies in a mix of English and Italian that time is running out in the fight against climate change and calling for a "Renaissance" of sustainable living.

Global efforts to halt the damage to the environment would define the present era, he said. "Do we want our children and grandchildren to ... see this as the time we allowed a new Dark Age to sprawl across our future?" he asked.

Daily Mail

'Green initiative' by Charles will cost £80,000 and leave 53-ton carbon footprint as he flies in 12-seat private jet

By Christopher Leake
25th April 2009

Prince Charles is being accused of hypocrisy after it was revealed that he is chartering a luxury private jet for a five-day tour of Europe to promote environmental issues.

The Prince and the Duchess of Cornwall, plus ten Clarence House staff, will fly from London to Rome this evening. Then they will fly on to Venice and Berlin, before returning to Britain.

Clarence House aides stress that the trip is at the request of the Government to promote its climate change policies.
But instead of using scheduled flights, the Royal party has hired a private plane, thought to be an Airbus A319.

According to experts from the Carbon Managers company, which carries out environmental audits, the aircraft's four European flights over 2,200 miles will leave a carbon footprint of 52.95 tons - nearly five times the average person's 11-ton footprint for an entire year...

US says sorry for existing (yet again)

Marcus's picture

US admits responsibility for emissions to bring big polluters together

Hillary Clinton offers admission to ease obstacles towards reaching agreement at climate change summit in Copenhagen

Suzanne Goldenberg, US environment correspondent, Monday 27 April 2009

The Obama administration issued a mea culpa today on America's role in causing climate change, in a move to get the major economies working together on a global warming treaty.

The admission by Hillary Clinton at a two-day meeting of the world's biggest polluters was intended to ease some of the obstacles towards a deal at UN talks in Copenhagen in December. She placed the gathering of officials from 17 countries, the European Union and the United Nations on a par with the G20 meeting on the economic crisis earlier this month.

As the secretary of state opened the meeting, the Greenpeace US executive director, Phil Radford, was arrested in his first day in the job. He and six other climbers unfurled a banner from a construction crane near the state department with a message for the environment ministers: "Stop Global Warming. Rescue the Planet." Radford called for the industrialised world to commit to deeper cuts in emissions and provide assistance to developing countries.

Clinton addressed the complaints of developing countries such as India and China that America and the EU, by demanding binding emissions cuts, want to saddle them with the burden of climate change; they argue they did not cause the problem and must prioritise growth. She said the US recognised industrialised countries bore a responsibility: "Some countries like mine are responsible for past emissions." She wanted China and India to grow their economies: "We want people to have a higher standard of living."

Obama had broken with eight years of denial under George Bush, Clinton said. "The United States is fully engaged and ready to lead and determined to make up for lost time both at home and abroad … the US is no longer absent without leave."...

The missing sunspots: Is this the big chill?

Marcus's picture

Thanks for that gregster, but eveyone knows Gore is a crook and a fraud in more ways than one.

The Independent

The missing sunspots: Is this the big chill?

Scientists are baffled by what they’re seeing on the Sun’s surface – nothing at all. And this lack of activity could have a major impact on global warming. David Whitehouse investigates

Monday, 27 April 2009

Could the Sun play a greater role in recent climate change than has been believed? Climatologists had dismissed the idea and some solar scientists have been reticent about it because of its connections with those who those who deny climate change. But now the speculation has grown louder because of what is happening to our Sun. No living scientist has seen it behave this way. There are no sunspots.

The disappearance of sunspots happens every few years, but this time it’s gone on far longer than anyone expected – and there is no sign of the Sun waking up. “This is the lowest we’ve ever seen. We thought we’d be out of it by now, but we’re not,” says Marc Hairston of the University of Texas. And it’s not just the sunspots that are causing concern. There is also the so-called solar wind – streams of particles the Sun pours out – that is at its weakest since records began. In addition, the Sun’s magnetic axis is tilted to an unusual degree. “This is the quietest Sun we’ve seen in almost a century,” says NASA solar scientist David Hathaway. But this is not just a scientific curiosity. It could affect everyone on Earth and force what for many is the unthinkable: a reappraisal of the science behind recent global warming.

Our Sun is the primary force of the Earth’s climate system, driving atmospheric and oceanic circulation patterns. It lies behind every aspect of the Earth’s climate and is, of course, a key component of the greenhouse effect. But there is another factor to be considered. When the Sun has gone quiet like this before, it coincided with the earth cooling slightly and there is speculation that a similar thing could happen now. If so, it could alter all our predictions of climate change, and show that our understanding of climate change might not be anywhere near as good as we thought...

The sun's cooling down - so what does that mean for us?

Laura Spinney
The Guardian, Thursday 23 April 2009

The sun's activity is winding down, triggering fevered debate among scientists about how low it will go, and what it means for Earth's climate. Nasa recorded no sunspots on 266 days in 2008 - a level of inactivity not seen since 1913 - and 2009 looks set to be even quieter. Solar wind pressure is at a 50-year low and our local star is ever so slightly dimmer than it was 10 years ago.

Sunspots are the most visible sign of an active sun - islands of magnetism on the sun's surface where convection is inhibited, making the gas cooler and darker when seen from Earth - and the fact that they're vanishing means we're heading into a period of solar lethargy.

Where will it all end? Solar activity varies over an 11-year cycle, but it experiences longer-term variations, highs and lows that can last around a century.

"A new 11-year cycle started a year or two ago, and so far it's been extremely feeble," says Nigel Weiss of the University of Cambridge. With Jose Abreu of the Swiss Federal Institute of Aquatic Science and Technology in Dübendorf and others, Weiss recently predicted that the long-term solar high we've been enjoying since before the second world war is over, and the decline now under way will reach its lowest point around 2020. Their prediction is based on levels of rare isotopes that accumulate in the Earth's crust when weak solar winds allow cosmic rays to penetrate the Earth's atmosphere.

There's even a chance, says Weiss, that we might be heading for a low as deep as the Maunder minimum of the 17th century. Either side of that trough, Europe shivered through the Little Ice Age, when frost fairs were held on the Thames and whole Swiss villages disappeared under glaciers. So should we expect another freeze?...

Gore Says He's Not Taking The Profits!!

gregster's picture

We'll see the chief snake-oil salesman's comeuppance any time soon.

'Scaremonger in chief' exposed by simple blunders

Marcus's picture

Daily Telegraph

Lord Stern, 'Scaremonger in chief', exposed by simple blunders

How come "the world's leading expert on climate change" doesn't even know how much carbon dioxide there currently is in the air, wonders Christopher Booker.

By Christopher Booker
25 Apr 2009

Confronted last week with the unfolding horror story of the Budget, we might have been grateful for the light relief provided by Lord Stern of Brentford, who told us how, unless we halt global warming, we can look forward to the sight of alligators gambolling at the North Pole, and Florida and Bangladesh sinking beneath the sea.

Since he produced the 570-page Stern Review in 2006, which Tony Blair described as “the most important report on the future ever produced by this Government”, this former Treasury official and chief economist to the World Bank has won extraordinary adulation. In the US Congress he is acclaimed as “the world’s leading expert on climate change”, vying with Al Gore to be the world’s Scaremonger-in-Chief.

Today Lord Stern is head of the LSE's Grantham Research Institute for Climate Change and the Environment, launched by a billionaire investment manager to advise on the fast-burgeoning global market in every kind of "low carbon technology", "emissions trading" and all the other growth areas associated with the climate change industry. Last week he was in the news for launching his new book, A Blueprint for a Safer Planet: How to Manage Climate Change and Create a New Era of Progress and Prosperity.

Unsurprisingly, there is no one for whom Lord Stern has more contempt than those he calls the "deniers" of man-made global warming. He told The Daily Telegraph last week that they "look more and more like those who denied the association between HIV and Aids, or smoking and cancer". In his book, he criticises the media for giving any space at all to such people, when "the balance of logic and evidence is 99 per cent or more to one".

But for a man whose whole case rests on the damage supposedly being done to the planet by carbon dioxide, it was somewhat disconcerting to see him quoted as saying that CO2 levels in the atmosphere have now reached "430 parts per million [ppm]". He said exactly the same last year in an interview with Prospect. The actual level is 388.97 ppm. It may seem a tiny point, but one might have expected "the world's leading expert on climate change" to have a rather surer grasp of a fact so central to his case...

Climate Depot

Geologist Chides Revkin of New York Times for 'Strange, Silly' Climate Article
Thursday, April 23, 2009By Marc Morano
Revkin 'is starting to really feel the weight of the evidence showing that dangerous AGW is a myth'

Washington, DC -- Australian Paleoclimate researcher Dr. Robert M. “Bob” Carter dismissed New York Times reporter Andrew Revkin's April 23, 2009 article “Industry Ignored Its Scientists on Climate” as “strange, silly even.” Revkin wrote about the now defunct Global Climate Coalition and documents that suggest the group had scientists on board in the 1990's who claimed “the science backing the role of greenhouse gases in global warming could not be refuted.”

Paleoclimate scientist Dr. Bob Carter of Australia's James Cook University and former chairman of the earth science panel of the Australian Research Council told Climate Depot his thoughts on Revkin's article on Friday April 24, 2009. Dr. Carter also testified before the U.S. Senate Committee on Environment & Public Works on December 6, 2006...

Miliband calls for populist push in battle against climate change

Gaby Hinsliff and John Vidal
The Observer, Sunday 26 April 2009

Ed Miliband, the climate change secretary, warns today that he is "fearful" that the world may miss the opportunity to halt global warming and is calling for a Make Poverty History-style popular movement to push for a breakthrough at this year's Copenhagen summit.

He will travel to Washington this week for preliminary talks, amid concerns that Barack Obama's ability to back genuinely ambitious cuts in carbon emissions could be hindered by domestic political opposition.

"We do need to be pushed. Political change doesn't happen simply because leaders want it to happen, but because people make it happen," Miliband told the Observer. "I don't think it's just about protesting, although people are welcome to protest against me.

"We live in a world where this kind of campaigning can spread across the world - Susan Boyle appears on Britain's Got Talent and a week later 50 million people have watched it on YouTube."...

Washington Examiner

To get votes, Waxman offers cap-and-trade breaks
By: Susan Ferrechio
Chief Congressional Correspondent

In exchange for votes to pass a controversial global warming package, Democratic leaders are offering some lawmakers generous emission “allowances” to protect their districts from the economic pain of pollution restrictions.

Rep. Gene Green, D-Texas, represents a district with several oil refineries, a huge source of greenhouse gas emissions. He also serves on the House Energy and Commerce Committee, which must approve the global warming plan backed by President Barack Obama.

Green says Rep. Henry Waxman, D-Calif., who heads the panel, is trying to entice him into voting for the bill by giving some refineries favorable treatment in the administration’s “cap and trade” system, which is expected to generate hundreds of billions of dollars over the coming years. Under the plan, companies would pay for the right to emit carbon dioxide, but Green and other lawmakers are angling to get a free pass for refineries in their districts...


Obama's Exhalation Tax!

gregster's picture

"The Obama Administration has until now preferred a system of “cap and trade” as the means of limiting CO2 emissions, rather than any direct tax on emissions. Under that system, the Federal Government will limit the overall total amount of permissible emissions but allow individuals to emit as much they wish by buying the emission rights of others. A high official in the New York City government, who spoke on condition of anonymity, said that the Mayor and the Governor have arranged for a joint task force, financed at the Mayor’s expense, out of his personal fortune, to study the feasibility of adapting this system to human exhalations. A particularly troubling aspect of any adaptation, the source explained, is how to combine it with plans by the Federal Government gradually to reduce the overall total of permissible emissions.

Among the task-force’s assignments are determining the extent to which people might use the oxygen they breath in more efficiently (oxygen-efficiency option), so that they would be able to correspondingly reduce their exhalations of CO2. Another potential solution under study is the possibility of sequestering the exhalations in jars and various other containers, so as to reduce the overall release of CO2 into the atmosphere (CO2 sequestration option).

No official estimates have been released as to what the average person might expect to have to pay in order to exhale in compliance with the law, but some insiders place it initially as working out to as little as 50 cents per day. According to polls conducted among individuals who identify themselves as environmentalists or as political moderates, the general consensus is that “we can live with that” and “it’s a small price to pay, to keep the planet safe.”

"The Federal Government, they say, will provide whatever financial subsidies as may be necessary to assure everyone’s right to exhale on terms that he can afford."

From Mr Reisman's blog.

Jan Veizer

gregster's picture

Great geezer.

Climate change science isn't settled

Marcus's picture

Climate change science isn't settled

Jan Veizer | April 24, 2009
Article from: The Australian
MANY people think the science of climate change is settled. It isn't. And the issue is not whether there has been an overall warming during the past century. There has, although it was not uniform and none was observed during the past decade. The geologic record provides us with abundant evidence for such perpetual natural climate variability, from icecaps reaching almost to the equator to none at all, even at the poles.

The climate debate is, in reality, about a 1.6 watts per square metre or 0.5 per cent discrepancy in the poorly known planetary energy balance.

Let me explain.

Without our atmosphere, the Earth would be a frozen ice ball. Natural greenhouse warming, due to atmospheric blanket, raises the temperature by about 33C. At least two-thirds of this warming is attributed to the greenhouse effect of water vapour.

Water vapour, not carbon dioxide, is by far the most important greenhouse gas. Yet the models treat the global water cycle as just being there, relegating it to a passive agent in the climate system. Energy that is required to drive the water cycle and generate more water vapour must therefore come from somewhere else: the sun, man-made greenhouse gases, other factors or any combination of the above.

Note, however, that because of the overwhelming importance of water vapour for the greenhouse effect, existing climate models are unlikely to yield a definitive answer about the role of carbon dioxide v the sun, for example, and the answer must be sought in past records.

The past climate record does indeed resemble the trend in solar output. However, because three decades of satellite data show only limited variability, the solar output would have to be somehow amplified to explain the entire magnitude of the centennial warming. The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change argues that because no amplifier is known, and because the atmospheric concentrations of carbon dioxide did increase from 280 parts per million to 370ppm, man-made greenhouse gases must be responsible for most of the energy imbalance.

But this is an assumption, an attribution by default, not an actual empirical or experimental proof that carbon dioxide is the driver. Yet such attribution is then taken as a fact in the subsequent complex model calibrations of climate sensitivity to CO2.

If, however, an amplifier to solar output does exist, and empirical observations detailed below argue for its existence, the need to attribute the energy input to man-made greenhouse gases would diminish accordingly...

Daily Mail

Going green to cost families £600 every year
By David Derbyshire
22nd April 2009

Tough new targets to tackle climate change will cost every household at least £600 a year, push more than a million people into poverty and send fuel bills soaring, experts warned yesterday.

The Chancellor announced the UK is to become the only country in the world to set legally binding 'carbon budgets' to combat global warming.

Under the scheme, ministers must slash Britain's greenhouse gas emissions by a third within the next 11 years - or face legal action and hefty fines.

The targets will be legally binding, even if every other country in the world continues to increase carbon emissions.

Critics said the targets, which include a drive to build more windfarms, would cost the economy £14billion a year by 2020 and would have only a negligible impact on climate change.

And green campaigners said the Government had squandered a chance to set
even tougher targets and help millions of households slash their fuel bills with improved energy efficiency.

The Government hopes it will set an example to other countries in the run-up to climate change talks in Copenhagen in December.

Environmental sceptic and author Bjorn Lomberg, of Copenhagen University, said: 'This is pure wishful thinking...

Polluters save the world while Government fiddles!

Marcus's picture

Daily Telegraph

Global warming 'slowed by pollution'

Pollution is protecting the world from climate change, according to two new studies.

By Louise Gray, Environment Correspondent
23 Apr 2009

The first study found that the hole in the ozone layer, caused by the use of CFCs, has prevented the melting of Antarctica even as the rest of the world warms.

A separate study found that plants absorb more carbon dioxide under polluted skies, therefore slowing global warming.

Scientists said the findings made it even more important to cut carbon emissions in the future as pollution from CFCs and other sources is expected to decrease.

The survey of Antarctica by the British Antarctic Survey and Nasa found sea ice in the South Pole has increased at a rate of 100,000 square kilometres (38,601 square miles) a decade over the last 40 years even as the ice cap in the North Pole melts.

The scientists said the reason was the hole in the ozone layer, caused by the use of CFCs. The ozone layer absorbs heat in the atmosphere, but the emergence of the hole – almost the size of North America – has cooled temperatures, resulting in more ice.

However following a ban on CFCs the hole in the ozone layer is expected to repair, causing temperatures in the South Pole to rise again...

Clean coal push marks reversal of UK energy policy

Decision not to allow any new coal-powered plants to be built in Britain without carbon capture represents a major victory for the new Department for Energy and Climate Change and green pressure groups

John Vidal, environment editor, Thursday 23 April 2009

No new coal-fired power stations will be built in Britain from now on unless they capture and bury at least 25% of greenhouse gases immediately and 100% by 2025, the climate change secretary, Ed Miliband, announced today.

In a reversal of energy policy which represents a major victory for the new Department for Energy and Climate Change and green pressure groups, the government will direct the building of four energy "clusters", generating a total of 2.5GW of electricity, on the east coast of Britain.

Each cluster will have at least one major new coal-fired power station able to collect carbon emissions and transport them out to sea, where they will be buried in redundant oil or gas fields.

The new power stations, the first to be built in over 30 years, are not expected to come onstream until 2015. They will be sited in the Thames Gateway, on the rivers Humber and Tees and in the Firth of Forth in Scotland, with a possible fifth on Merseyside. The government envisages oil and coal companies linking to reduce emissions from coal-powered electricity generation by up to 60% by 2025.

Demanding carbon capture and storage (CCS) on all new coal plants is expected to cost around £1bn for each plant and increase energy bills. Government and energy companies are in talks over how these will be funded but it is expected to come from a levy on all fossil fuel electricity generation in Britain. This could put 2%, or roughly £8 per household a year, on a consumer's electricity bills by 2020. Other funding alternatives being considered are to pay the energy companies according to how much carbon they store underground...

Get you green sick buckets ready!

Marcus's picture

Everyone in the UK consumes too much – not only the fat people

It's not fair to blame obese people for climate change because it's whole populations who are responsible for high emissions

Posted by
George Monbiot
Tuesday 21 April 2009

Here's an intriguing story: a link between obesity and climate change.

A paper in the International Journal of Epidemiology by Phil Edwards and Ian Roberts shows that heavier populations increase emissions for two reasons: they consume more food and they require more energy to transport.

This became "Fatties cause global warming" on the front page of the Sun today.

I'm sure it's true: the more we consume of anything, the greater the impact will be. But it's not clear that there's anything that can be done about it: hardly anyone is overweight by choice. If people can't stop themselves from overeating for the sake of their health, they won't be able to stop for the sake of the biosphere.

A more realistic approach is to persuade people to switch more of their consumption from animal to plant-based food: that way you can eat just as much, with a smaller impact on both the environment and food security.

In fact the paper wasn't about individual fat people, but populations. Most people in the rich world carry more weight than they need. Many of those who aren't overweight still consume more calories than they need, but burn them off in the gym. Almost everyone in countries like the UK consumes too much of everything, including food...

Daily Telegraph

Tackling climate change is like trying to lose weight, Hillary Clinton says

Hillary Clinton, the US Secretary of State, has compared the challenge of fighting climate change to her own struggle to lose weight.

23 Apr 2009

Speaking to State Department staff on Earth Day, Mrs Clinton said more must be done to reduce the department's environmental footprint and conceded this was a big challenge, much like one of her personal battles.

"Often times when you face such an overwhelming challenge as global climate change, it can be somewhat daunting - it's kind of like trying to lose weight, which I know something about," she said to laughter.

"You think, oh I only have to lose X numbers of pounds but it seems like such a far away goal," she added.

"It's kind of like world peace and so therefore why even try? Well, because we are called to try. That's who we are as human beings and that's especially how we think of ourselves as Americans."...

Budget 2009: £1.4bn package to create low-carbon economy is inadequate, campaigners say

Chancellor, Alistair Darling has allocated £375m for home energy efficiency, £525m support for offshore wind power and £405m to develop low-carbon technologies

John Vidal, Terry Macalister and Juliette Jowit, Wednesday 22 April 2009

A £1.4bn package to reduce UK carbon emissions and create a low-carbon economy was criticised by environment and business groups as inadequate in delivering the huge greenhouse gas cuts the government embraced in the budget, though they welcomed support for renewable energy.

Funding announced by the chancellor, Alistair Darling, included £375m for home energy efficiency, £525m support for offshore wind power and £405m for the development of low-carbon technologies.

Initial analysis of actual government spending – rather than support – for green measures suggests it totals £510m over the next two years - 9.6% of the chancellor's total spending commitments. This appears to be a higher proportion than in November's pre-budget report, but Wednesday's budget was widely viewed as a missed opportunity to match other countries' multibillion dollar "green new deals" designed to create millions of new jobs and significantly reduce emissions. As part of the budget, the government accepted a recommendation to cut 34 % of UK emissions by 2020.

"This budget fails to include an ambitious green economic stimulus that would have supported job creation, economic development and environmental protection. The extra £1.4bn ... is timid and inadequate – and puts the UK at a competitive disadvantage," said Adrian Wilkes, chief executive of the Environmental Industries Commission, a grouping of 200 environmental technology and services companies.

The economist Lord Nicholas Stern, who has recommended 20% of all new spending be devoted to green measures, said. "The additional expenditure ... must be the initial step along the path towards a major structural shift in policy which we trust will follow over the coming decade."

Friends of the Earth's director Andy Atkins said: "The government has squandered a historic opportunity to kick-start a green industrial revolution and slash UK carbon dioxide emissions."...

From The Times
April 21, 2009

Lamps are going out (but only one resident has taken a dim view)

Jack Malvern

The pose of leaning on a lamppost at the corner of the street, as celebrated by the late George Formby, will be increasingly difficult to pull off in Gloucestershire as the county dims 10,000 of its street lights.

Attempts by The Times to avoid looking sinister beneath the pale glow of lights on the outskirts of Gloucester, where a pilot scheme is under way, appeared to have little effect. If residents wondered why a photographer and a man with a notepad were arguing, chins aloft, over whether a bulb had been dimmer a few moments earlier, they did not stop to ask.

The dimming of the lights in Ermin Street, a Roman road in Brockworth, is a subtle event. Barry Greenaway, of Gloucestershire County Council, gave directions to find the lamps, which go from full-on to 60 per cent in ten minutes from 10pm. “I should warn you,” he said, “it’s not terribly significant. We took some before and after photographs to show to people, and they couldn’t tell the difference.”

The council, which estimates that it will save £210,000 and cut carbon emissions by 28 per cent by dimming or turning off one in six lamps, kept its pilot scheme on the residential road a secret. Only one man noticed...

Getting a rise out of us

Marcus's picture

Washington Times

LETTER TO THE EDITOR: Getting a rise out of us
By | Tuesday, April 21, 2009

The Washington Times' front-page story "Rising sea levels in Pacific create wave of migrants" (Page 1, Sunday) outrageously peddles a talking point circulated by activists such as former Vice President Al Gore. The article's claim that human-induced climate change and sea-level rise spawned a migration of refugees from South Pacific island nations was found unsupportable by the only court to examine its merits (Dimmock v. Secretary of State (UK) for Education and Skills, UK High Court, Oct. 10, 2007).

This claim is a rehash of assertions made in Mr. Gore's movie, "An Inconvenient Truth." In its Dimmock ruling, the High Court stated: "In scene 20, Mr. Gore states 'that's why the citizens of these Pacific nations have all had to evacuate to New Zealand.' There is no evidence of any such evacuation having yet happened." Even the defendant UK government admitted, "It is not clear that there is any evidence of evacuations in the Pacific due to human-induced climate change." Refugees seeking generous New Zealand and Canadian welfare regimes do exist, but they are not driven by sea-level rise...


Counsel and senior fellow


Stormont facing a climate change rift

By David Gordon

Tuesday, 21 April 2009

Stormont First Ministers Peter Robinson and Martin McGuinness have told Members of the Legislative Assembly (MLAs) that climate change is “one of the most serious problems” facing the planet.

But their Northern Ireland Executive colleague Sammy Wilson — the man in charge of the Department of the Environment — has declared himself to be “not exercised” by his own carbon footprint...

Mr Wilson’s newly-published reply stated: “I have not studied my carbon footprint because I am not exercised about it.

“I was simply giving the information to members who seem to be deeply concerned by the matter.”

In one of his repeated strongly-worded defences of his position, the Environment Minister said late last year: “I’ll not be stopped saying what I believe needs to be said about climate change.

“Most of the people who shout about climate change have not read one article about it.”

The DUP’s manifesto for the 2007 Assembly election stated: “It is important that we in Northern Ireland not only look after our own environment but also play our part in global issues such as tackling climate change.”

NY Times

Use Energy, Get Rich and Save the Planet

Published: April 20, 2009

When the first Earth Day took place in 1970, American environmentalists had good reason to feel guilty. The nation’s affluence and advanced technology seemed so obviously bad for the planet that they were featured in a famous equation developed by the ecologist Paul Ehrlich and the physicist John P. Holdren, who is now President Obama’s science adviser.

Their equation was I=PAT, which means that environmental impact is equal to population multiplied by affluence multiplied by technology. Protecting the planet seemed to require fewer people, less wealth and simpler technology — the same sort of social transformation and energy revolution that will be advocated at many Earth Day rallies on Wednesday.

But among researchers who analyze environmental data, a lot has changed since the 1970s. With the benefit of their hindsight and improved equations, I’ll make a couple of predictions:

1. There will be no green revolution in energy or anything else. No leader or law or treaty will radically change the energy sources for people and industries in the United States or other countries. No recession or depression will make a lasting change in consumers’ passions to use energy, make money and buy new technology — and that, believe it or not, is good news, because...

2. The richer everyone gets, the greener the planet will be in the long run.

I realize this second prediction seems hard to believe when you consider the carbon being dumped into the atmosphere today by Americans, and the projections for increasing emissions from India and China as they get richer...

Budget to include £500m spending on reducing carbon emissions

• Package includes £40m top-up for renewable energy grants
• Britain's renewable energy performance second-worst in EU

Ashley Seager, Monday 20 April 2009

Alistair Darling will use this week's budget to announce an extra £500m of government spending on reducing carbon emissions, including a pledge of £40m to top up and keep open a grants programme for renewable-energy technologies.

The chancellor has been coming under increasing pressure from Britain's fledgling renewables industry not to allow a key part of the controversial low carbon buildings programme to come to an end this summer, nearly a year before a new support system offering a feed-in tariff kicks in.

The industry has been warning that many small companies that install solar panels, wind turbines or biomass boilers would go out of business if the LCBP were closed. In any case, the programme's budget was significantly underspent and firms were worried that the unspent money – over £20m – would be reallocated elsewhere.

Firms have already been laying off staff due to the recession and the fact that grants for the LCBP's most popular technology – solar photovoltaics – have already been suspended because the PV part of the grant pot had been spent.

But Darling is understood to be determined to make good on the government's rhetoric that it wants a "green jobs revolution" and will make money available on Wednesday despite the dire state of public finances...

Planet doomsayers need a cold shower

Marcus's picture

Sydney Morning Herald

Planet doomsayers need a cold shower
Miranda Devine
April 18, 2009

The global warming scare campaign is reaching fever pitch. We have had one eminent Australian scientist claim this week to the senate inquiry on climate policy that global warming has already killed people in Australia.

We have had another four CSIRO scientists at the inquiry arguing for Australian emissions reduction targets up to six times greater than planned, 90 per cent by 2050, and warning of catastrophic consequences otherwise.

We have also had the Environment Minister, Peter Garrett, agree on ABC's Lateline program this month that sea levels would rise as much as six metres due to human-caused global warming this century. Yet even the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), the United Nations body dedicated to discovering evidence of human-caused climate change, forecasts less than half a metre rise in the century to 2090.

It seems that when it comes to convincing the Government to take drastic, jobs-killing, economy-crushing and ultimately futile unilateral action on climate change, the ends justify the means. "How we get there matters much less than the fact that [emissions] are very low by 2050," CSIRO's Dr Michael Raupach, told the inquiry....

Daily Telegraph

Climate change sceptics likened to those who denied HIV Aids link by Lord Stern

Climate change sceptics have been compared to those who denied the link between smoking and cancer or HIV and Aids by Government environmental adviser Lord Stern.

By Louise Gray, Environment Correspondent
20 Apr 2009

The respected economist first highlighted the social and economic costs of global warming in his 2006 report for the UK Government the Stern Review.

Now in a new book, the World Bank's former chief economist has warned the science he based his predictions on is out of date. He said levels of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere are already at 430 parts per million (ppm) and the world has "probably missed the chance" of keeping emissions below 450 ppm.

This means temperatures are likely to rise by at least two degrees Celsius by the end of the century - even if measures are taken to keep the levels of carbon dioxide below 500 ppm - causing a rise in sea levels, greater frequency of storms and a "high chance that the rainforests will collapse".

If nothing is done to keep emissions low, he warned that temperatures may rise by up to six degrees with catastrophic consquences.

Lord Stern warned that Florida and Bangladesh could disappear, alligators could survive at the North Pole and millions of people would have to migrate.

"The location of many species, including humans, would be radically different and many would not survive," he added.

Lord Stern, who is to launch his book - A Blueprint for a Safer Planet - at a public lecture at LSE on Tuesday, said in the face of such evidence those who continue to deny climate change are "ignorant and reckless."

"The greenhouse effect is simple and sound science: greenhouse gases trap heat, and humans are emitting more greenhouse gases. There will be oscillations, there will be uncertainties. But the logic of the greenhouse effect is rock solid and the long-term trends associated with the effects of human emissions are clear in the data," he writes.

"The arguments from those who deny the science look more and more like those who denied the association between HIV and Aids or smoking and cancer." ...

Global warming disasters will affect 375 million every year by 2015 – Oxfam

Natural disasters caused by climate change will affect up to 400 million people within six years, Oxfam has warned.

By Louise Gray, Environment Correspondent
20 Apr 2009

The charity examined more than 6,000 climate-related disasters in the last 20 years in order to calculate how many people on average suffer as a result of floods, droughts and other catastrophes.

At the moment around 252 million people are affected by "natural disasters" - not including earthquakes, volcanic eruptions and other emergencies unrelated to the weather.

However this number is set to increase by 54 per cent to 375 million every year by 2015 as the number of people living in vulnerable areas like Bangladesh increases and levels of poverty mean more die. Densely populated slums in coastal cities like Mumbai mean millions more people are living in flimsy shacks and are at risk of water-born disease caused by rising temperatures.

Oxfam said the current humanitarian aid system is not "fit for purpose" to deal with the predicted levels of suffering. It warned that unless spending is almost doubled the international community will be unable to cope. This would mean at least $25 billion (£17 billion) a year compared to $14.2 billion (£9.7 billion) in 2006 but, the charity says, it is a tiny fraction of what has already been spent on the banks.

In addition, the aid agency wants the world to commit at least $50 billion (£34 billion) every year to helping poorer countries adapt to global warming as part of any international agreement decided at the end of the year to tackle climate change...

Stop the EPA Before it Destroys America!

Marcus's picture

Hilton, you´re quite the Aussie poet. Have you heard your true calling now? Smiling

Stop the EPA Before it Destroys America!

By Alan Caruba

If the Environmental Protection Agency were some benign government unit tucked away in the corner of some massive federal government building, we could safely conclude it was doing its job to keep the nation’s air and water clean.

It is the very antithesis of that. It is a Green Gestapo that has wreaked havoc with all aspects of the nation’s industrial and agricultural communities, run roughshod over property rights, declared puddles to be navigable waters, and removed invaluable, beneficial chemicals from use to protect the lives and property of all Americans...


The Independent

Emissions targets to be part of the Budget

Ed Miliband, the climate change minister, tells Andrew Grice how the Government will make Britain a greener country

Saturday, 18 April 2009

The Government will next week announce a groundbreaking, legally-binding target to cut Britain's carbon emissions by at least 34 per cent by 2020 to combat climate change.

Ed Miliband, the Energy and Climate Change Secretary, told The Independent yesterday that the Government would not achieve the target by buying large amounts of "offsetting" credits – effectively paying poor countries to cut carbon on Britain's behalf. Instead, it will cap the proportion of the target that can be achieved by offsetting.

"I want to achieve as much as we can through domestic action," he said. "There will be a cap on credits from overseas. We are going to be sending a strong signal about that."

The world's first "carbon budgets" for the next 15 years will be unveiled by the Chancellor Alistair Darling in his Budget next Wednesday. He will embrace proposals by the Independent Committee on Climate Change, chaired by Lord Turner of Ecchinswell, which called in December for an interim 34 per cut in emissions from 1900 levels by 2020. Lord Turner said the figure should rise to 42 per cent if a new global deal on emissions was signed at crucial talks in Copenhagen this December.

Ministers are also likely to implement Lord Turner's proposals to ensure "deep domestic emissions cuts" by limiting the amount that could be achieved through offsetting. He proposed that less than 10 per cent be met by offsets outside the European Union if the target is a 34 per cent cut, rising to 20 per cent after a global agreement. Previously, the Government had planned to "buy" up to half of its carbon credits.

The Government is already committed to reducing carbon emissions by 80 per cent by 2050 but has not yet fixed a target for 2020. The 34 to 42 per cent target range recommended by the Turner committee was higher than expected and Mr Miliband admitted it would be "challenging".

He said: "If you are going to have the radical decarbonising of 80 per cent by 2050, we need to take action early. There are industrial opportunities to taking action early."....

China considers setting targets for carbon emissions

Government's decision could help negotiations on a Kyoto successor treaty in Copenhagen

Jonathan Watts, Asia environment correspondent, Sunday 19 April 2009

The Chinese government is for the first time considering setting targets for carbon emissions, a significant development that could help negotiations on a Kyoto successor treaty at Copenhagen later this year, the Guardian has learned.

Su Wei, a leading figure in China's climate change negotiating team, said that officials were considering introducing a national target that would limit emissions relative to economic growth in the country's next five-year plan from 2011.

"It is an option. We can very easily translate our [existing] energy reduction targets to carbon dioxide limitation" said Su. "China hasn't reached the stage where we can reduce overall emissions, but we can reduce energy intensity and carbon intensity."

A second government adviser, Hu Angang, has said China should start cutting overall emissions from 2020.

While that is a minority view and final decisions are some way off, the proposals are striking because they are at odds with China's official negotiating stance.

Beijing has hitherto rejected carbon emission caps or cuts, arguing that its priority is to improve its people's living standards – and that the west caused the global warming problem and should fix it. But developed nations argue that they cannot commit to deep cuts and to substantial funding for developing nations to fight climate change unless those countries embrace emissions targets.

Environmental groups and foreign diplomats said a carbon intensity target would be a significant step forward. Any move by China, the world's fastest expanding major economy, biggest emitter of greenhouse gases and most influential developing nation, would have an enormous impact on the outcome of the Copenhagen summit in December...

Only 34% now?

HWH's picture

Small wonder Garnaut, Rudd's "Canis familiaris lapdoggo" was briefed to renege on his faux admonishments of the last 2 years.

If Oz had a clue as to his traitorous mottle they would have uniformly calumniated him with an apropriate contumely as he cabbaged off to Parliament house to collect his last retainer cheque

"I'll be back", he said as he nervously eyed the waning sun while reaching for his scarf and Drizabone.

Rasmussen: Only 34% Now Blame Humans for Global Warming

Marcus's picture

Energy Update

Only 34% Now Blame Humans for Global Warming

Friday, April 17, 2009

Just one-out-of-three voters (34%) now believe global warming is caused by human activity, the lowest finding yet in Rasmussen Reports national surveying. However, a plurality (48%) of the Political Class believes humans are to blame.

Forty-eight percent (48%) of all likely voters attribute climate change to long-term planetary trends, while seven percent (7%) blame some other reason. Eleven percent (11%) aren’t sure.

These numbers reflect a reversal from a year ago when 47% blamed human activity while 34% said long-term planetary trends...

From The Sunday Times
April 19, 2009

PM stokes row with ‘clean’ coal plan
Jonathan Leake, Environment Editor

GORDON BROWN is to risk a clash with the green movement by throwing the government’s weight behind the construction of a new generation of coal-fired power stations.

Ministers intend to give power companies permission to construct at least two new coal-fired stations, with more to follow.

The move will anger climate change scientists and campaigners because coal produces more CO2 for each unit of energy generated than any other fuel.

Brown and Ed Miliband, his energy secretary, will argue that Britain urgently needs more coal-fired generating plants to prevent future power shortages as old plants are shut down...

Revealed: Antarctic ice growing, not shrinking

Marcus's picture

Revealed: Antarctic ice growing, not shrinking

Greg Roberts | April 18, 2009
Article from: The Australian
ICE is expanding in much of Antarctica, contrary to the widespread public belief that global warming is melting the continental ice cap.

The results of ice-core drilling and sea ice monitoring indicate there is no large-scale melting of ice over most of Antarctica, although experts are concerned at ice losses on the continent's western coast.

Antarctica has 90 per cent of the Earth's ice and 80 per cent of its fresh water. Extensive melting of Antarctic ice sheets would be required to raise sea levels substantially, and ice is melting in parts of west Antarctica. The destabilisation of the Wilkins ice shelf generated international headlines this month.

However, the picture is very different in east Antarctica, which includes the territory claimed by Australia.

East Antarctica is four times the size of west Antarctica and parts of it are cooling. The Scientific Committee on Antarctic Research report prepared for last week's meeting of Antarctic Treaty nations in Washington noted the South Pole had shown "significant cooling in recent decades".

Australian Antarctic Division glaciology program head Ian Allison said sea ice losses in west Antarctica over the past 30 years had been more than offset by increases in the Ross Sea region, just one sector of east Antarctica.

"Sea ice conditions have remained stable in Antarctica generally," Dr Allison said...

Daily Telegraph

'Save the planet' rhetoric soars to crazy new heights

The terrifying threat of global warming is beginning to turn people's minds, observes Christopher Booker.

By Christopher Booker
18 Apr 2009

How would you cope if faced with a GCSE physics paper? Have no fear. You don’t need to know anything about physics. As can be seen from the adjacent question from last year’s paper on physics and electricity, so long as you’ve listened to enough environmentalist propaganda to know what answers are expected (eg that most of the sources of the electricity we use are creating global warming), you could get 100 per cent. But if, of course, you don’t agree with the Government on these matters, you will fail.

Doubtless one of the teaching aids which might have guided you to the right answers would have been Al Gore’s famous Oscar-winning movie An Inconvenient Truth, which in 2007 our then environment secretary, David Miliband, ordered to be sent to every secondary school in the country. It was obviously inconvenient that in October that year a High Court judge should have ruled that nine of the claims made in that film were so scientifically absurd that the Government would be in breach of the law against teaching propaganda in schools unless the film was accompanied by material correcting its errors. But when last week I asked the Department for Children, Skills and Lifelong Learning (or whatever they now call the old ministry of education) for sight of that corrective material they never came back with an answer.

Does one not get the feeling that all this propaganda over the terrifying threat of global warming is beginning ever so slightly to turn people’s minds? Caroline Lucas MEP, the leader of the Green Party, last week agreed on television that flying to Spain was “as bad as knifing a person in the street”, because air travel like this is causing people to die “from climate change”.

Dr Richard Dixon, director of the Scottish WWF, was at the same time claiming that failing to ensure one’s home is “energy efficient” was a “moral crime”, as “anti-social as drink driving”, and “we should be having a discussion as to whether it should become an actual crime”.

This echoed the recent observation of Ed Miliband, our Energy and Climate Change Secretary, that opposing wind farms should be as “socially unacceptable” as not wearing a seatbelt. Meanwhile, no doubt encouraged by this kind of talk from ministers, 100 “climate campaigners” were arrested by the police, who feared they were planning to put out of action a coal-fired power station in Nottinghamshire, to stop it continuously contributing to the National Grid 1,000 megawatts of electricity – considerably more than the average output of all the 2,400 wind turbines in the country...

US declares greenhouse gases are threat to public health

America has signalled a fundamental shift in its stance on global warming with a declaration from the Obama administration that greenhouse gases are a threat to public health.

By Tom Leonard in New York
17 Apr 2009

The statement issued by the US Environmental Protection Agency is expected to pave the way for new regulations of cars, power plants, building sites and factories by identifying carbon dioxide and five other gases as pollutants.

Environmental groups applauded it as a landmark decision that would allow Barack Obama to meet his call for a low carbon economy but industry groups warned that the so-called "endangerment finding" could cripple the struggling US economy.

America is the world's biggest producer of greenhouse gases but, under the Bush administration, Washington consistently downplayed the threat from global warming and stalled the EPA finding.

The EPA decision, which is subject to a 60-day public review, does not automatically trigger new carbon rules but will allow the government to push ahead with regulating greenhouse gases under federal clear air laws.

The EPA said rising levels of greenhouse gases "are the unambiguous result of human emissions, and are very likely the cause of the observed increase in average temperatures and other climatic changes".

It described the science pointing to man-made pollution as a cause of global warming as "compelling and overwhelming". The EPA also said that exhaust emissions from motor vehicles contribute to climate change.

The agency's action was prompted by a Supreme Court decision in 2007 in which the court said the government could restrict heat-trapping gases under the Clean Air Act if the EPA found them to be a danger to public health and welfare.

The White House has said would prefer for Congress to pass a bill that caps carbon emissions and requires companies to acquire permits to release carbon into the atmosphere.

However, the EPA finding would allow possible tougher regulatory action if Congress fails to act.

Environmentalists said the finding set the way for a new era of US policy on climate change...

Catastrophic droughts in Africa not due to human activity

Marcus's picture

Daily Telegraph

Catastrophic droughts in Africa are the norm, claim scientists

Catastrophic droughts in Africa such as the those which devastated the Continent in the late 20th century are the norm and not due to human activity, claim scientists.

By Richard Alleyne, Science Correspondent
16 Apr 2009

Researchers believe the drought that struck parts of Northern Africa in the 1970s and 1980s, killing hundreds of thousands and displacing millions more, may have been the result of a natural climate cycle.

In the past, many scientists thought the drought in the Sahel zone – a band that runs just below the Sahara – was caused by humans overusing natural resources in the region.

But a new study in the journal Science shows that they are a natural part of weather pattern of the area for the last 3,000 years.

If anything the droughts were less severe than those seen historically, with previous periods without rain lasting more than a century...

From The Times
April 16, 2009

All-clear for nuclear plants ‘too late to plug power gap’

Robin Pagnamenta, Energy and Environment Editor

The rebirth of Britain’s nuclear power industry moved closer yesterday after the Government announced a list of sites for new reactors.

Each of the 11 proposed nuclear power stations, which will be built on sites from West Cumbria to the Kent coast, will cost nearly £4.5 billion and have a capacity of up to 1,600 megawatts of electricity, enough to supply two million homes for up to 60 years.

But energy experts warned that the first plant would not be operational before 2017 at the earliest, too late to plug a gap opening up in Britain’s energy supplies as ageing coal and nuclear power stations close.

The gap is likely to be filled by the rapid construction of gas-fired power stations, which are powerful and relatively quick and cheap to build...

Emissions reduction now a 'gospel'!

Marcus's picture

The emissions reductions gospel is failing – we need something moreNGOs who oppose geo-engineering are running the risk of climatic catastrophe

Peter Read, Wednesday 15 April 2009

...Amazing though it may seem, these apparently hopeful options are opposed by NGOs that seem more willing to run the risk of climatic catastrophe than deviate from the emissions reductions gospel. Their concern seems to be that geo-engineering will result in relaxed pressure to reduce emissions, which neglects the reality that more ambitious commitments will obviously go with increased capability to mitigate. They even oppose research, unlike Holdren's "it's got to be looked at".

The British researcher Tim Lenton uses the term geo-engineering to mean any way of cooling the earth that is not emissions reductions (even growing trees, which is included under the Kyoto protocol). His definition puts me – somewhat to my surprise – among the ranks of geo-engineers, as I have long advocated widespread tree-planting programmes, such as those initiated by the Nobel Peace laureate Wangari Muta Maathai, founder of the Green Belt Movement, which has planted more than 30m trees across Kenya...

Peter Read is an honorary research fellow at the Centre for Energy Research, Massey University, New Zealand.

From The Times
April 14, 2009

David Attenborough to be patron of Optimum Population Trust

Parminder Bahra, Poverty and Development Correspondent

Sir David Attenborough said yesterday that the growth in global population was frightening, as he became a patron of an organisation that campaigns to limit the number of people in the world.

The television presenter and naturalist said that the increase in population was having devastating effects on ecology, pollution and food production.

“There are three times as many people in the world as when I started making television programmes only a mere 56 years ago,” he said, after becoming a patron of the Optimum Population Trust (OPT) think-tank.

“It is frightening. We can’t go on as we have been. We are seeing the consequences in terms of ecology, atmospheric pollution and in terms of the space and food production...

However, Sir David’s appointment has already been criticised. Austin Williams, author of The Enemies of Progress, said: “Experts can still be stupid when they speak on subjects of which they know little. Sir David may know a sight more than I do about remote species but that does not give him the intelligence to speak on global politics.

“I have a problem with the line that people are a problem. More people are a good thing. People are the source of creativity, intelligence, analysis and problem-solving. If we see people as just simple things that consume and excrete carbon, then the OPT may have a point, but people are more than this and they will be the ones to find the solutions.”...

Beware the climate of conformity

Marcus's picture

Sydney Morning Herald

Beware the climate of conformity
Paul Sheehan
April 13, 2009

What I am about to write questions much of what I have written in this space, in numerous columns, over the past five years. Perhaps what I have written can withstand this questioning. Perhaps not. The greater question is, am I - and you - capable of questioning our own orthodoxies and intellectual habits? Let's see.

The subject of this column is not small. It is a book entitled Heaven And Earth, which will be published tomorrow. It has been written by one of Australia's foremost Earth scientists, Professor Ian Plimer. He is a confronting sort of individual, polite but gruff, courteous but combative. He can write extremely well, and Heaven And Earth is a brilliantly argued book by someone not intimidated by hostile majorities or intellectual fashions.

The book's 500 pages and 230,000 words and 2311 footnotes are the product of 40 years' research and a depth and breadth of scholarship. As Plimer writes: "An understanding of climate requires an amalgamation of astronomy, solar physics, geology, geochronology, geochemistry, sedimentology, tectonics, palaeontology, palaeoecology, glaciology, climatology, meteorology, oceanography, ecology, archaeology and history."

The most important point to remember about Plimer is that he is Australia's most eminent geologist. As such, he thinks about time very differently from most of us. He takes the long, long view. He looks at climate over geological, archaeological, historical and modern time. He writes: "Past climate changes, sea-level changes and catastrophes are written in stone."

Much of what we have read about climate change, he argues, is rubbish, especially the computer modelling on which much current scientific opinion is based, which he describes as "primitive". Errors and distortions in computer modelling will be exposed in time. (As if on cue, the United Nations' peak scientific body on climate change was obliged to make an embarrassing admission last week that some of its computers models were wrong.)...

Chasing hot stories

April 09, 2009
Article from: The Australian
Global warming beat-ups threaten scientific credibility

PETER Garrett understands the advantage of telling people what they want to hear. On Monday night, the Environment Minister appeared on ABC TV's Lateline program in what was less an interview than a yes-fest. When Tony Jones made a statement in the form of a question, that an Antarctic ice shelf had collapsed because of global warming, Mr Garrett replied that while he had no advice on the issue, he was sure this was right. When Jones mentioned sceptics suggested this was no big deal, the minister delivered the expected answer, that global warming was to blame. And when Jones referred to a forthcoming report from the Scientific Committee on Antarctic Research, which warns that melting Antarctic ice could cause sea levels to increase by 6m by the end of the century, Mr Garrett said he had not seen the report but he was sure global warming was responsible. They then went on to agree about other issues.

Mr Garrett's performance shows the way "global warming" has become shorthand for whatever environmentalists want to attribute to humanity...

Daily Telegraph

Green fuels produce twice as much carbon as fossil fuels

Green fuels could produce twice the carbon emissions of the fossil fuels they replace, environmentalists claim.

14 Apr 2009

Friends of the Earth said rules introduced a year ago which require a certain percentage of UK transport fuels to be made up of the "green" fuels could, instead of cutting emissions, have created an extra 1.3 million tonnes of CO2.

The emissions could have come from the "indirect" impacts of biofuels, for example the cutting down of forests for food production which had been displaced from land turned to growing crops to make ethanol or biodiesel.

But supporters of biofuels said that in the first year of the Renewable Transport Fuels Obligation (RTFO), the industry had shown it was possible to produce sustainable fuels in the UK.

The Renewable Energy Association also warned against the Government's policy of slowing down the planned increases in the levels of biofuels in the fuel supply over concerns about their impact - as it must meet an EU target of 10 per cent renewables in transport by 2020...

Gordon Green throws voters a bone, but police save the day!

Marcus's picture

Daily Telegraph

More than 100 campaigners arrested over 'power station plot'

More than 100 people are in custody after police smashed a major plot to sabotage one of Britain's biggest power-stations.

13 Apr 2009

Officers swooped on environmental protesters as they prepared a mass raid that could have disrupted supplies to tens of thousands of homes.

The demonstrators are thought to have gathered at night in readiness to move on Ratcliffe-on-Soar power-station, Nottinghamshire.

They were rounded up shortly after midnight on Sunday at the Bakersfield Community Centre in Sneinton, Notts, by scores of officers.

Detectives later revealed they recovered specialist equipment that suggested the group represented a "serious threat" to the station's safety.

Supt Mike Manley, of the Nottinghamshire force, said 114 men and women from across the UK were detained during the dramatic swoop.

They were being questioned on suspicion of conspiracy to commit aggravated trespass and criminal damage at Ratcliffe-on-Soar.

Supt Manley said: "In view of specialist equipment recovered by police, those arrested posed a serious threat to the safe running of the site.

"This was a significant operation, with large-scale arrests. There were no injuries during the arrests, and the police investigation is ongoing."...

From The Times
April 14, 2009

Gordon Brown to make decision on £2,000 new car incentive scheme within days

Gordon Brown will make the final decision within days on whether to offer motorists a taxpayer-funded incentive to trade old cars for new.

Lord Mandelson, the Business Secretary, supports proposals to give owners of old cars about £2,000 towards the cost of greener models. At a meeting last week of senior ministers Alistair Darling, the Chancellor, refused to give the scheme the all-clear for inclusion in next week’s Budget. Instead he insisted that Lord Mandelson’s department do more to prove it would work.

The car industry wants Britain to match other so-called scrappage schemes undertaken in Europe. It cites Germany where sales of new cars have soared after owners were offered incentives of about £2,250.

It is resisting attempts to halve the bounty placed on cars more than nine years old and to restrict the scheme to more expensive, British-made cars...

Greenpeace claims about ice shelf "ignore reality"

Marcus's picture


Greenpeace claims about ice shelf "ignore reality"

Monday, 13 April 2009, 10:16 am
Press Release: New Zealand Climate Science Coalition

“Greenpeace has yet again ignored scientific reality in the recent misleading claims by its political advisor Geoff Keey about the threatened collapse of the Wilkins Ice Shelf on the Antarctic Peninsula,” says Terry Dunleavy of the New Zealand Climate Science Coalition.

“Even while climate campaigners such as Greenpeace, Al Gore and David Suzuki become increasingly shrill in their demands for action on the part of Governments towards the impossible goal of ‘stopping climate change’, the science that supposedly supports such actions is falling apart,” said Mr Dunleavy. “Greenpeace’s citation of the threatened collapse of the Wilkins Ice Shelf on the Antarctic Peninsula is a case in point. There is little evidence that such an event is abnormal or unnatural when seen in a significant time perspective and there is even less evidence that human greenhouse gas emissions have anything whatsoever to do with events in the Antarctic.”

Leading Canadian climatologist Dr Tim Ball agrees. “Relating the ice shelf deterioration to human activities is an illogical, unsubstantiated, public relations link typical of Greenpeace. As they are always doing, they are taking natural events and presenting them as unnatural.

“Keey’s concerns about the speed with which change is occurring in some parts of the Antarctic speaks to the false premise underlying the mistaken view called uniformitarianism - the idea that natural change is gradual over long period of time. In reality, climate change occurs all the time and is often quite rapid, the sudden cooling and then equally sudden warming during the Younger Dryas period ten millennia ago is a case in point. In the space of only about a decade, the Earth cooled as much as five degrees Celsius (perhaps more in some locations such as Greenland), stayed that way for about a millennium and then warmed equally quickly. That warming was about 100 times faster than the modest temperature rise that many believe occurred during the 20th century. Younger Dryas cooling and warming was, of course, entirely natural, occurring before civilization even started, but ignorance of such events allows Greenpeace, Gore and others to claim that sudden climate change today is unnatural. It is not”, said Dr Ball...

Climate change 'own goal'!

Marcus's picture

Daily Mail

Climate change 'own goal': Laws to combat acid rain are DRIVING Arctic warming, claims Nasa
By Cher Thornhill

10th April 2009

It is widely recognised that humans are their own worst enemies when it comes to global warming.
But the latest research from Nasa suggests laws created to preserve the environment are causing much of the damage.

Legislation to improve air quality and cut acid rain has accounted for a shocking half of Arctic warming over the past three decades, the space agency reports.

Climate scientist Drew Shindell of the NASA Goddard Institute for Space Studies in New York found that declines in solid 'aerosol' particles brought in under laws to improve air quality likely triggered 45 per cent of temperature rises.

Aerosols - including the man-made particles sulfates and soot - have a direct impact on climate change by reflecting and absorbing the sun's radiation, Nasa explains.

But laws brought in by the U.S. and European countries over the past three decades have slashed emissions of sulfates, and with them atmospheric cooling...

The environment is too important to be left to the green movement

Will Hutton
The Observer, Sunday 12 April 2009

The green movement as it stands should receive the last rites. Its only hope is for a complete overhaul. Its mystic, utopian view of nature and its attachment to meaningless notions such as sustainable development or the precautionary principle should be done away with. It is time to move on...

The vast majority are unmoved. Worse, many mainstream environmental intellectuals drop rigour when it comes to the environment, climate change and risk. Under the precautionary principle, almost nothing should be done that endangers the climate, just in case the worst scientific warnings are right. The aim should be sustainable development - to grow economically in a way that passes the globe on to the next generation in the same condition in which we found it.

Giddens joins Lawson in dismissing this thinking as wretchedly woolly. Are we really going to risk nothing? This is a refutation of our very risk-taking humanity. In any case, there is little chance of building a consensus over which risks matter and to what degree. Instead, the percentage principle should rule - taking risks in proportion to the probable good and bad outcomes. Moreover, sustainable and development should not be used together so loosely. Development is a dynamic concept that necessarily depletes resources. Poor countries such as China or India can only develop unsustainably. They must burn coal. To ask the entire world to commit to sustainable development is to damn the less developed world to poverty. Those countries will never agree...

Daily Telegraph

Gordon Brown shows how green he really is

Our Prime Minister's obsession with electric cars is farcical, says Christopher Booker. Where will the power for these planet-saving vehicles come from?

By Christopher Booker
11 Apr 2009

Our leaders on both sides of the Atlantic seem to be in the grip of an uncannily similar and very dangerous fixation. Gordon Brown and President Obama are each obsessed with two problems. One, understandably, is the world financial crisis, which threatens their national economies with meltdown. The other is their political determination to "fight climate change", which has led each to commit his country within 40 years to cutting back "carbon emissions" to a level 80 per cent below where it was in 1990 (which would put America back to its CO2 emission level in 1905).

What is really disturbing is how each of these men has been persuaded to see the second of these problems as the answer to the first. Last week, in a budget leak so serious that in former times it would have been a cause for resignation, Mr Brown revealed that a "major part" of the plan to revive our economy to be announced by Alistair Darling in his budget on 22 April will be the creation of "400,000 green jobs" by switching to a "low carbon economy".

Mr Brown seems particularly excited by the idea that we should all drive electric cars, and inevitably everyone has been piling in to point out what a farce this is. Last year sales of all-electric cars in Britain fell to just 179. The Indian G-Wiz, much fancied by Mr Brown and Boris Johnson, costs up to £15,795 for a vehicle which can only travel rather slowly for 75 miles before its battery needs several hours of recharging.

Astonishingly, Mr Brown does not seem to have asked himself where all this planet-saving electricity is to come from. As Professor Stanley Fieldman explained in a letter in Friday's Daily Telegraph, it comes of course from the National Grid, 75 per cent powered by fossil fuels. Taking account of transmission losses, by the time the electricity gets to one of those 25,000 charging points Boris plans to provide all over London, its CO2 emissions would be nearly twice those of the equivalent amount of diesel...

Thursday earliest, WSS

Ellen Stuttle's picture


I'd like to say something about the creationist/anti-AGWAist conjunction -- which is a real phenomenon, unfortunately, and for which mainstream scientists who have remained silent despite knowing that the alarmism is wrong have themselves to blame. But I won't have time before Thursday earliest.

Meanwhile, thanks re the Control-U hint for getting code using Firefox (on my browser, it's Command-U).


PS: Brendan, the supposed warming over the last century is less than would be expected given the standard notion of what happens with doubling CO2 -- which idea is the whole linchpin basis for the alarm to begin with.

EDIT: Less than the rate which would be expected (etc.)

Paleoclimate and creationism

Brendan Hutching's picture

Ellen: “Brendan H. doesn't seem to notice that none of the three statements in the CATO ad refers to events prior to the last century.”

One of the statements implies a long-term view of climate. Keep reading the thread Ellen, and you’ll come across a further post of mine at (17:50:50) in reply to a Mark T:

Mark T: “Again, can you cite any specific failure of Blick’s GW work?”

BH: “If Blick is a young-earth creationist he is not qualified to offer an opinion on some major aspects of climate science, since the background to today’s climate involves an understanding of paleoclimate. Someone who denies an old earth cannot credibly comment on matters that assume an old earth.

For example, take the Cato ad’s first point:

“Surface temperature changes over the past century have been episodic and modest and there has been no net global warming for over a decade now.”

In terms of geological time, the speed of the current warming is very fast. To know that you would have to know the rate of warming from previous eras, going back thousands and millions of years. A young-earth creationist cannot bring that sort of understanding to the issue.”

So the point is covered. As to why Cato didn’t exercise more quality control, it may be that they were pushed for time, or they wanted ‘new faces’, or maybe they thought most people would not enquire much past the PhD.

Whatever the reason, publishing lists of names in support of certain statements implies a claim to the credibility of those names.

No doyen he . . .

William Scott Scherk's picture

Right, Ellen, Spencer may not be the doyen. He's certainly respected and cited in the anti-AGWA community, but giving the title to Richard Lindzen is more apropos.

Re his creationist views (or support of Intelligent Design), no big issue for me beyond the 'Huh? You believe What?' reaction.

Spencer sets himself up for queries on his religiosity though, when he takes to task AGWAlarmists for their faith/paganism. He is free with his claims about other people's bad faith[s]. Evolution is a faith, worry about increasing atmospheric CO₂ is faith, concern for the environment is mostly suspect pagan religion -- yet he himself came to believe in ID based on the science alone.

I was struck by his repetition of the 'AGWA religion' meme in his disappointing book -- he lays out a lot of claims and suspicions of bad faith. No references, no footnotes, however, not much to follow besides his opinions. The one that sticks in my mind is his claim that alarmists blamed the Boxing Day tsunami on global warming. Who? Where? No cite. Another one I folded the page back on was this: "A number of scientists, apparently frustrated historians, have created a discipline called 'paleoclimatology.'" Oh, really?

What sources to trust for data (analyses, summaries, conclusions, prescriptions, reportage) . . . ? Exactly.

I know we needn't trust Spencer on evolutionary theory, so I struggle to understand how we grant him trust on claims of, say, a natural climate thermostat, or that the pagan warmists have vastly overstated climate sensitivity.

You might be interested in (another!) long RealClimate thread on Spencer's arguments against climate sensitivity, the fascinating and snarky How to cook a graph in three easy lessons. Though the post author moderated out several comments that raised irrelevant issues of Spencer's support of Intelligent Design, he let a couple through, including this one from Ray Ladbury that I thought raised an interesting idea:

Dhogoza, I don’t think you can point the finger at
religion–conservative or otherwise–but I have noticed a tendency of
many advocates of Intelligent Design to adopt a strong version of
the Anthropic Principle in arguments against climate change. In
effect they argue that a world designed for human habitation must
include negative feedbacks that maintain the state of the planet
against our malign influences. This really isn’t a “Christian” idea.
Indeed, you get similar arguments from the loons on the left, as
well. We have no way of knowing what motivates Spencer. However,
such an ideé fixe has poisoned the mind of more than one scientist.

On the subject of the CATO ad, I guess they took what they could get. I don't at all wonder about Spencer's inclusion -- but it's too bad they included the Orgone pusher deMeo and the HIV denialist Ferreyra I noted. On what authority do we trust them to be right about their warming conclusions? All we have is their names and their (sometimes) PhDs . . .


(Ellen, re viewing HTML source code on your laptop, no need for a mouse. Control-U also works in Firefox)


** I think there might some overlap between evolution skepticism and global warming skepticism, but it's hardly robust correlation and easily refuted by reference to the many Objectivish folks who are at once sternly pro-evolution and sternly anti-warming -- and the evangelicals who have opted for alarmist 'Stewardship' positions (which group Spencer disdains in his book).

Still, the overlap has been batted about a bit . . . see here, here and here. If there is a religiosity that forms a 'forcing' of the climate of Oists towards anti-AGWA positions it is more likely because of the anti-human bias seen in kook environmentalism, and the built-in abhorrence to collectivist/government actions like Kyoto and its ilk. Moreover, how many libertarians are anti-AGWA? Maybe the forging of a movement to oppose the excesses of the AGWA zombies just makes for strange bedfellows at times. I bet there would be no surprises at the next Heartland Conference if they took a headcount for acceptance of evolution. It is America, land of the free and gawdly, after all.

The doyen of intelligent Design, William Dembski, on global warming:

People sometimes ask me why I encourage posts on global warming here at UD, whose focus is ID. The reason is that global warming exhibits many of the same abuses of science that we see in the ID debate. Science has become a wonderful tool for social control. This role of science in modern secular culture is destructive and needs to be broken. [link]

"Oops, this ice shelf just snapped off. Is that Bad?"

William Scott Scherk's picture

I'd say Ben Sandilands was referring to the story in the Sydney Morning Herald and to the scientists quoted in its April 7 story ( Australian Neal Young and American Ted Scambos). He said "It is embarrassing to see scientists and newspapers prostitute themselves in this manner."

There certainly has been a spurt of stories on the Wilkins ice shelf in worldwide news over the past week, according to the standard media guidelines of 'if it bleeds, it leads,' and some accompanied by veddy skeddy headlines. The climate blogosphere has been full of it, too -- though strangely not at WUWT. Indeed, not a lot of action on the Wilkins story in the usual anti-AGWA places. Ellen's link shows only one 2009 Wilkins story on Icecap, and that a mere one-liner calling it a "non story." Is it a non-story? Sandilands thinks so, and so does the editorialist of the Australian (Chasing hot stories). Who knows?

Who knows if Sandilands reads Gavin Schmidt of RealClimate? He certainly doesn't name him in his blog item. The Realclimate story and thread Ellen referenced does not quite fit the alarmist zombie rampage adduced by Sandilands, as can be seen by Schmidt's introduction, below, and by the earlier guest article on ice shelves by Mauri S. Pelto. The Pelto article is highly recommended. The more recent thread on RC is also a good one, with much relatively civil give and take and many questions answered.

In any case, Sandilands offers his sense to the readers of another Crikey blog, Rooted:

Ice shelves are dynamic in that they are fed by glacial flows, and discharge mass when the shelf becomes for a variety of reasons too tenuous or weak or extended. The extent of an ice shelf may remain similar very long periods of time but just like glaciers on the land, or a river, its contents are constantly renewed.

Structural failure in ice shelves has very little to do in some locations with environmental temperatures. In fact the Amery Ice Shelf in some recent studies was found to be thickening in places where the ice discharge was so cold that sea water froze to the underside, an additional structural burden that did not diminish until that point in the flow went further seawards.

Some good questions and answers follow that passage. Sandilands also offers this:

I’m not participating in this truly important discussion to argue against anthropogenic climate forcing, which I firmly believe is proven and serious. Rather I’m concerned that the real science is prostituted in some quarters by those who want to engineer the message to serve an agenda, which may not actually deliver the focus on the core issues of greenhouse gas reductions which deserves to dominate our attention.

The general debate about climate change in these times is too much like a circus and not enough about real action. The lunatic fringe of climate change denial isn’t worth pursuing. But the reasoned, closely argued and empirically validated pursuit of research and action is of critical importance to us all.

I wish Sandilands weren't quite so busy as a reporter, so his understanding of the issues could be put to the test in the RC bearpit. He seems to know about ice-shelf discharge dynamics and would probably benefit from a roundelay with those folks working inside the ring . . . bashing around the question -- is the Wilkins collapse an important indicator of warming or a regularly-occurring, 'natural,' local event?

He might even meet up with the scientists/prostitutes Scambos and Young!

To put the event and zombie doom and mud-slinging in perspective, a paragraph from the European Space Agency's site:

Prof. David Vaughan of the British Antarctic Survey (BAS) said: "Wilkins Ice Shelf is the most recent in a long, and growing, list of ice shelves on the Antarctic Peninsula that are responding to the rapid warming that has occurred in this area over the last fifty years.

"Current events are showing that we were being too conservative, when we made the prediction in the early 1990s that Wilkins Ice Shelf would be lost within thirty years - the truth is it is going more quickly than we guessed."

The Wilkins Ice Shelf, a broad plate of floating ice south of South America on the Antarctic Peninsula that is connected to Charcot and Latady Islands, had been stable for most of the last century before it began retreating in the 1990s.

By studying ESA ERS SAR satellite images since the 1990s, [Dr Matthias] Braun and his colleague Dr Angelika Humbert from the Institute of Geophysics, Münster University, have found the Wilkins Ice Shelf has break-up events with loss of large areas rather than underlying ordinary, continuous calving.



RealClimate Wilkins thread introduction:

6 April 2009
Wilkins ice shelf collapse

Since people are wanting to talk about the latest events on the Antarctic Peninsula, this is a post for that discussion.

The imagery from ESA (animation here) tells the recent story quite clearly - the last sliver of ice between the main Wilkins ice shelf and Charcot Island is currently collapsing in a very interesting way (from a materials science point of view). For some of the history of the collapse, see our previous post [the Pelto article, cited above]. This is the tenth major ice shelf to collapse in recent times.

Maybe we can get some updates and discussion of potential implications from the people working on this in the comments….?

WSS: CATO ad, etc.

Ellen Stuttle's picture


"Blick the creationist is not the only one of the CATO ad signatories to be mocked in the AGWA blogosphere."


Oh, I know that. He's just the only one in regard to whom I wondered why he'd been chosen. (I'm assuming it's because of his work on thermodynamics but haven't had time yet to look into what he's done there.)


Personal addition to Taylor's reply to the (paraphrased) common objection:

"So-and-so lacks sufficient credentials to be deemed an expert on this matter and we should only be listening to the experts"...

What people should be doing is learning enough science to be able to make informed judgments themselves. Eye (Tall order, I know; and even then there's an issue of what sources to trust for data, but the people who keep repeating the mantra about only listening to certain approved scientists remind me of nothing more than those who ask, "What did the priest say?")


Point of curiosity: Why did you describe Roy Spencer as "the doyen of AGW skepticism"? By no means intending by the question any slur on his importance, but the description is weird. (Spencer, btw, I know to be very sharp on the science; his creationist views might be unfortunate for "public image," but they aren't in the way of his relevant work.)


Thanks for the info about how to link from WattsUpWithThat. Since I'm using a laptop, I can't right click to get the code.


The Wilkins ice shelf flap

Ellen Stuttle's picture

Search screen for items on IceCap.

Sandilands article in Crickey.

Sandilands believes there is a global-warming climate crisis, but nonetheless objects to, negative descriptions deleted...being hyped, e.g., by Gavin Schmidt on RealClimate -- Link to a currently active thread titled "Wilkins ice shelf collapse."


Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.