"Carbon (Dioxide) trading is now the fastest growing commodities market on earth.....And here’s the great thing about it. Unlike traditional commodities markets, which will eventually involve delivery to someone in physical form, the carbon (dioxide) market is based on lack of delivery of an invisible substance to no-one. Since the market revolves around creating carbon (dioxide) credits, or finding carbon (dioxide) reduction projects whose benefits can then be sold to those with a surplus of emissions, it is entirely intangible." (Telegraph)
This blog has been tracking the 'Global Warming Scam' for over four years now. There are a very large number of articles being published in blogs and more in the MSM who are waking up to the fact the public refuse to be conned any more and are objecting to the 'green madness' of governments and the artificially high price of energy. This blog will now be concentrating on the major stories as we move to the pragmatic view of 'not if, but when' and how the situation is managed back to reality. To quote Professor Lindzen, "a lot of people are going to look pretty silly"
PS: If you have arrived here on a page link, then click on the HOME link...
Saturday, 21 March 2015
In the real world, Antarctic ice is growing at a ferocious rate, hitting a new record extent every other year. But on planet Green, Antarctic ice is melting at a dangerous rate. ......The sad thing about this kind of hysterical group think, is that every so often a group of greens become so convinced the ice has melted away, that they sail down to the Antarctic to take a look, without proper preparation. A few of them get lucky – but in at least some cases, ordinary people have to risk their lives and disrupt fragile scientific schedules, to rescue groups of idiots who think it is sensible to sail to Antarctica without proper preparation and equipment."
Gone are apolitical scientists who once told the whole story. In their place are activists who distort, omit crucial facts, cherry-pick and torment data contrary to common science ethics. I was initially prepared to write it off as incompetence, but we’ve seen so much of it, time and time again, not to grasp that some darker influence must be at work. The Climategate emails pulled back the curtain on a cabal of scientists who “hide the decline”; select a small subset of, in one infamous instance, tree ring-data that supports their claim while ignoring a broader base of survey findings; conspire to have scientific journals’ editors sacked, and discuss how to stall and stymie perfectly legal Freedom of Information requests. As those emails showed, the climate cabal even expressed joy over the death of a persistent critic."
They claim that Pam was “the most powerful cyclone to hit the South Pacific since records began”.
This is categorically not true. Based on 1-minute windspeeds, we know that, just since 1989, there have been three stronger cyclones in the South Pacific, and Pam also ties with Ron."
Sunday, 15 March 2015
Why my own Royal Society is wrong on climate change: A devastating critique of world's leading scientific organisation by one of its Fellows
- The Royal Society's motto is 'Nullius in verba' or don't take another's word
- It is the world's first scientific organisation in the world
- Prof Michael Kelly fears that on climate change, it is ignoring the science
- He accuses the organisation of becoming dogmatic about climate change
Saturday, 14 March 2015
The must read article this morning is Matt Ridley in the Wall Street Journal, who points out that little-mentioned but rather critical point about fossil fuels - we can't do without them. ......I don't think the greens are going to like it."
The two fundamental problems that renewables face are that they take up too much space and produce too little energy. Consider Solar Impulse, the solar-powered airplane now flying around the world. Despite its huge wingspan (similar to a 747), slow speed and frequent stops, the only cargo that it can carry is the pilots themselves. That is a good metaphor for the limitations of renewables.
To run the U.S. economy entirely on wind would require a wind farm the size of Texas, California and New Mexico combined—backed up by gas on windless days. To power it on wood would require a forest covering two-thirds of the U.S., heavily and continually harvested."
March 13, 2015 5:33 p.m. ET
The environmental movement has advanced three arguments in recent years for giving up fossil fuels: (1) that we will soon run out of them anyway; (2) that alternative sources of energy will price them out of the marketplace; and (3) that we cannot afford the climate consequences of burning them.
These days, not one of the three arguments is looking very healthy. In fact, a more realistic assessment of our energy and environmental situation suggests that, for decades to come, we will continue to rely overwhelmingly on the fossil fuels that have contributed so dramatically to the world’s prosperity and progress. ..........
Wind power, for all the public money spent on its expansion, has inched up to—wait for it—1% of world energy consumption in 2013. Solar, for all the hype, has not even managed that: If we round to the nearest whole number, it accounts for 0% of world energy consumption.
Both wind and solar are entirely reliant on subsidies for such economic viability as they have. World-wide, the subsidies given to renewable energy currently amount to roughly $10 per gigajoule: These sums are paid by consumers to producers, so they tend to go from the poor to the rich, often to landowners (I am a landowner and can testify that I receive and refuse many offers of risk-free wind and solar subsidies). .............The one thing that will not work is the one thing that the environmental movement insists upon: subsidizing wealthy crony capitalists to build low-density, low-output, capital-intensive, land-hungry renewable energy schemes, while telling the poor to give up the dream of getting richer through fossil fuels."
Bad News for Trenberth’s Missing Heat – New Study Finds the Deep Oceans Cooled from 1992 to 2011 and…
"Furthermore the ocean, far from being a passive reservoir filled and emptied by the atmosphere, is a dynamically active, turbulent element of a coupled system."
Monday, 9 March 2015
Here was a programme so lamentably biased, so completely uninterested in counterarguments, so blatantly determined to pull the wool over its viewers’ eyes with straw men, false analogies and calculated misrepresentations of the real points at issue, that it constituted a flagrant breach of the BBC’s statutory obligations to accuracy and impartiality. In short, this programme broke the law.
Under the BBC Charter 2006, the BBC is legally obliged to “do all it can to ensure that controversial subjects are treated with due accuracy and impartiality in all relevant output.” Not only did the BBC fail to do this with Climate Change By Numbers but it has also failed to do this with every single documentary it has made on the subject for well over a decade. What’s more, as Booker noted in his 2011 report for the Global Warming Policy Foundation – called The BBC and Climate Change: A Triple Betrayal – the BBC has been doing so quite deliberately."
I was updating a U.S. Corn Belt summer temperature and precipitation dataset from the NCDC website, and all of a sudden the no-warming-trend-since-1900 turned into a significant warming trend. .....I know others have commented on the tendency of thermometer data adjustments by NOAA always leading to greater warming. As Dick Lindzen has noted, it seems highly improbable that successive revisions to the very same data would lead to ever greater warming trends. Being the co-developer of a climate dataset (UAH satellite temperatures) I understand the need to make adjustments for known errors in the data…when you can quantitatively demonstrate an error exists."
You would therefore expect that these members of Congress would send similar letters to researchers and institutions on the other side of this contentious climate controversy. But they did not, even though climate alarmism is embroiled in serious financial, scientific, ethical and conflict of interest disputes.
As Dr. Richard Lindzen, MIT atmospheric sciences professor emeritus and one of Grijalva’s targets, has pointed out: “Billions of dollars have been poured into studies supporting climate alarm, and trillions of dollars have been involved in overthrowing the energy economy” – and replacing it with expensive, inefficient, insufficient, job-killing, environmentally harmful wind, solar and biofuel sources.
Their 1090 forms reveal that, during the 2010-2012 period, six environmentalist groups received a whopping $332 million from six federal agencies! That is 270 times what Dr. Willie Soon and Harvard-Smithsonian’s Center for Astrophysics received from fossil fuel companies in a decade – the funding that supposedly triggered the lawmakers’ letters, mere days after Greenpeace launched its attack on Dr. Soon.
The EPA, Fish & Wildlife Service, NOAA, USAID, Army and State Department transferred this taxpayer money to Environmental Defense, Friends of the Earth, Nature Conservancy, Natural Resource Defense Council, National Wildlife Fund and Clean Air Council, for research, reports, press releases and other activities that support and promote federal programs and agendas on air quality, climate change, climate impacts on wildlife, and many similar topics related to the Obama war on fossil fuels. The activists also testified before Congress and lobbied intensively behind the scenes on these issues.
Between 2000 and 2013, EPA also paid the American Lung Association well over $20 million, and lavished over $180 million on its Clean Air Scientific Advisory Committee members, to support agency positions. Chesapeake energy gave the Sierra Club $26 million to advance its Beyond Coal campaign. Russia gave generously to anti-fracking, climate change and related “green” efforts.
Government agencies and laboratories, universities and other organizations have received billions of taxpayer dollars, to develop computer models, data and reports confirming alarmist claims. Abundant corporate money has also flowed to researchers who promote climate alarms and keep any doubts to themselves. Hundreds of billions went to renewable energy companies, many of which went bankrupt. Wind and solar companies have been exempted from endangered species laws, to protect them against legal actions for destroying wildlife habitats, birds and bats. Full disclosure? Rarely, if ever."
Friday, 6 March 2015
Dr. Wei-Hock “Willie” Soon has been a research physicist at the Harvard-Smithsonian Center for Astrophysics (CfA) for 25 years. Dr. Soon’s research specialty is the influence of changes in solar activity on the Earth’s climate and the study of solar-type stars. Since 1994, together with co-authors, he has written more than 60 peer-reviewed articles and two scholarly books on these and related topics. In 2003 the Smithsonian presented Dr. Soon with an institutional award in “official recognition of work performance reflecting a high standard of accomplishment”.
Recently, articles appearing in the Boston Globe, The New York Times, the Guardian, and other media outlets have claimed that Dr. Soon failed to disclose that some of the funding for research described in several of his recent scientific papers came from “fossil fuel interests”.
These attacks appear to be calculated to damage Dr. Soon’s reputation, to undermine the credibility of his research results, and to threaten his employment at the Center for Astrophysics by improperly suggesting that he has acted unethically and dishonestly. In my opinion, these allegations are malicious and should be retracted. .....
The controversy involving Dr. Willie Soon and his coauthors is manufactured and the partisan accusations levelled against them are false. In particular, the editors of the Science Bulletin paper by Monckton et al. have expressed no concern about any undeclared conflict of interest.
The Smithsonian Institution should therefore stand firmly behind its “Statement of Values and Code of Ethics” in general and Dr. Soon in particular. Regrettably, its public statements suggest that instead it may be trying to distance itself from a courageous scientist from whose outstanding research reputation the Institution has benefitted for 25 years. Any credible investigation that is made into the allegations against Dr. Soon must therefore be chaired by a genuinely independent authority and not by any of the persons so far suggested by the Smithsonian.
As an experienced academic manager, independent scientist and colleague of Dr. Soon, the information available to me indicates that by reporting his affiliation with the Harvard-Smithsonian Center for Astrophysics he followed all applicable rules regarding conflict of interest disclosure. Furthermore, this disclosure adequately conveys the independence and high quality of research that editors, readers and the general public can expect to see from scientists who work for such an esteemed research institution.
The criticism of Dr. Soon is false, mean-spirited, insulting and potentially libelous. Allowing such attacks to stand, and to allow politics and fear tactics to silence Dr. Soon or any other scientist, or to censor scientific publications, would be a personal calumny and a blow against scientific freedom of expression the world over. "
Religion brings with it unbelievers, apostates, and radicals. The debate on climate policy has long been polarized. Asking an utterly sensible question – which of the many options is the best course of action – is met with howls of derision from both sides. Some protest the idea of taking climate change at all serious. Others are convinced that the maximum action is not enough.
Polarization is not conducive to sound policy. In Europe, the alarmed have the upper hand, climate policy is hardly scrutinized, and special interest groups are gorging on subsidies and rents. Anyone who questions this is put on par with those who deny the Holocaust. The consensus police patrol the media to isolate, ridicule and smear anyone who dares to raise a question. The Royal Observatory and the London School of Economics employ people, Ken Rice and Bob Ward, whose day job it is, or so it seems, to attack others for their climate heresy.
Every movement has its nutters. Climate warriors have long ago stopped being civil. But we seem to be entering a new level of radicalisation."