Wednesday, 19 March 2014
The EU's Green Taliban Are Another Reason for Britain to Quit Europe
HuffPost
"Green Party Leader Natalie Bennett called for all government ministers and advisors who question man's contribution to climate change (even those without an environment brief) to be sacked.
Nailing his authoritarian credentials firmly to the mast, Labour Leader Ed Miliband followed suit to announce during PMQs that if he were in charge, anyone who dared to question man-made climate change (or presumably, anything else in his 'Little Ed Book') will be banished for eternity into political exile.
Australia's John Howard noted that climate change has become a "substitute" for religion. This is true for many on the Left who aggressively denounce those who question their belief as "deniers", a vicious and cynical political ploy adopted to associate those who question man-made climate change with those who deny the genocide of the Jews during World War II. Well, I've been to Auschwitz/Birkenhau and seen the hard and appalling evidence there, but how can this be equated in any way with the mass scientific uncertainties over man-made climate change?
Some of the most active disciples in the religion for climate change are the unelected EU bureaucrats who currently rule over the UK. With the EU environmental coffers standing at a rather generous 20 per cent slice of the seven-year €960 billion EU budget, you can understand their eagerness to promote Doomsday climate change predictions."
"Green Party Leader Natalie Bennett called for all government ministers and advisors who question man's contribution to climate change (even those without an environment brief) to be sacked.
Nailing his authoritarian credentials firmly to the mast, Labour Leader Ed Miliband followed suit to announce during PMQs that if he were in charge, anyone who dared to question man-made climate change (or presumably, anything else in his 'Little Ed Book') will be banished for eternity into political exile.
Australia's John Howard noted that climate change has become a "substitute" for religion. This is true for many on the Left who aggressively denounce those who question their belief as "deniers", a vicious and cynical political ploy adopted to associate those who question man-made climate change with those who deny the genocide of the Jews during World War II. Well, I've been to Auschwitz/Birkenhau and seen the hard and appalling evidence there, but how can this be equated in any way with the mass scientific uncertainties over man-made climate change?
Some of the most active disciples in the religion for climate change are the unelected EU bureaucrats who currently rule over the UK. With the EU environmental coffers standing at a rather generous 20 per cent slice of the seven-year €960 billion EU budget, you can understand their eagerness to promote Doomsday climate change predictions."
Tuesday, 18 March 2014
The one-sided Conversation
WUWT
At The Conversation, a taxpayer-funded propaganda website based in Australia, Dr Rod Lamberts has suggested that in the climate debate those pushing the Party Line should disregard the mere facts and should advance their invaluable opinions instead.
He writes that Tony Abbott, Australia’s prime minister, Andrew Bolt, Australia’s chief sceptic, and one Monckton, Australia’s honorary visiting sceptic, should not be heeded, for we are mere “deniers” (that hate-speech word again).
I wrote the following article in reply, but The Conversation refused to publish it........
..............In the meantime, here is the article The Conversation dared not print."
At The Conversation, a taxpayer-funded propaganda website based in Australia, Dr Rod Lamberts has suggested that in the climate debate those pushing the Party Line should disregard the mere facts and should advance their invaluable opinions instead.
He writes that Tony Abbott, Australia’s prime minister, Andrew Bolt, Australia’s chief sceptic, and one Monckton, Australia’s honorary visiting sceptic, should not be heeded, for we are mere “deniers” (that hate-speech word again).
I wrote the following article in reply, but The Conversation refused to publish it........
..............In the meantime, here is the article The Conversation dared not print."
Monday, 17 March 2014
Statement of Patrick Moore, Ph.D. Before the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee
After 15 years in the top committee I had to leave as Greenpeace took a sharp turn to the political left, and began to adopt policies that I could not accept from my scientific perspective. Climate change was not an issue when I abandoned Greenpeace, but it certainly is now.
There is no scientific proof that human emissions of carbon dioxide (CO2) are the dominant cause of the minor warming of the Earth’s atmosphere over the past 100 years. If there were such a proof it would be written down for all to see. No actual proof, as it is understood in science, exists.
The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) states: “It is extremely likely that human influence has been the dominant cause of the observed warming since the mid-20th century.” (My emphasis)
“Extremely likely” is not a scientific term but rather a judgment, as in a court of law. The IPCC defines “extremely likely” as a “95-100% probability”. But upon further examination it is clear that these numbers are not the result of any mathematical calculation or statistical analysis. They have been “invented” as a construct within the IPCC report to express “expert judgment”, as determined by the IPCC contributors.
These judgments are based, almost entirely, on the results of sophisticated computer models designed to predict the future of global climate. As noted by many observers, including Dr. Freeman Dyson of the Princeton Institute for Advanced Studies, a computer model is not a crystal ball. We may think it sophisticated, but we cannot predict the future with a computer model any more than we can make predictions with crystal balls, throwing bones, or by appealing to the Gods."
Download here
Sunday, 16 March 2014
Inhofe: Obama Wasted $120 Billion on Global Warming Which Could Buy 1400 F-35s
CNSNews
Sen. James Inhofe (R-Okla.), ranking member of the Senate Armed Services Committee, said Wednesday at a hearing on the Defense Department’s Fiscal Year 2015 budget that President Barack Obama has wasted $120 billion on global warming over the past five years – money that would be better spent on the military.
“I've been working on this for quite some time ... In the last five years, between 2009 and 2014, the president has spent $120 billion on the environmental agenda, mostly global warming, climate and that type of thing,” said Inhofe. “And in that respect, if you'll just take the amount that was not authorized by Congress -- and I'm talking about the environmental agenda, you could actually buy 1,400 F-35s.”
Sen. James Inhofe (R-Okla.), ranking member of the Senate Armed Services Committee, said Wednesday at a hearing on the Defense Department’s Fiscal Year 2015 budget that President Barack Obama has wasted $120 billion on global warming over the past five years – money that would be better spent on the military.
“I've been working on this for quite some time ... In the last five years, between 2009 and 2014, the president has spent $120 billion on the environmental agenda, mostly global warming, climate and that type of thing,” said Inhofe. “And in that respect, if you'll just take the amount that was not authorized by Congress -- and I'm talking about the environmental agenda, you could actually buy 1,400 F-35s.”
The bonfire of insanity: Woodland is shipped 3,800 miles and burned in Drax power station. It belches out more CO2 than coal at a huge cost YOU pay for... and all for a cleaner, greener Britain!
Daily Mail
"In fact, Burdett admits, Drax’s wood-fuelled furnaces actually produce three per cent more carbon dioxide (CO2) than coal – and well over twice as much as gas: 870g per megawatt hour (MW/hr) is belched out by wood, compared to just 400g for gas. Then there’s the extra CO2 produced by manufacturing the pellets and transporting them 3,800 miles. According to Burdett, when all that is taken into account, using biomass for generating power produces 20 per cent more greenhouse gas emissions than coal. And meanwhile, say the environmentalists, the forest’s precious wildlife habitat is being placed in jeopardy. ......
All this has required an investment of £700 million. Thanks to the green subsidies, this will soon be paid off. Even if all Britain’s forests were devoted to Drax, they could not keep its furnaces going. ‘We need areas with lots of wood, a reliable supply chain,’ Mr Burdett said. As well as Enviva, Drax buys wood from other firms such as Georgia Biomass, which supplies mainly pine. It is building new pellet-making plants in Mississippi and Louisiana. Last month, the Department of Energy and Climate Change issued new rules on biomass sourcing, and will insist on strict monitoring to ensure there really is ‘sustainability’. In North Carolina, this will not be easy: as Carter points out, there is very little local regulation. But wouldn’t a much more effective and cheaper way of cutting emissions be to shut down Drax altogether, and replace it with clean new gas plants – which need no subsidy at all? Mr Burdett said: ‘We develop our business plan in light of what the Government wants – not what might be nice.’
-----------------------------------
Matt Ridley (June 2013)
"In fact, Burdett admits, Drax’s wood-fuelled furnaces actually produce three per cent more carbon dioxide (CO2) than coal – and well over twice as much as gas: 870g per megawatt hour (MW/hr) is belched out by wood, compared to just 400g for gas. Then there’s the extra CO2 produced by manufacturing the pellets and transporting them 3,800 miles. According to Burdett, when all that is taken into account, using biomass for generating power produces 20 per cent more greenhouse gas emissions than coal. And meanwhile, say the environmentalists, the forest’s precious wildlife habitat is being placed in jeopardy. ......
All this has required an investment of £700 million. Thanks to the green subsidies, this will soon be paid off. Even if all Britain’s forests were devoted to Drax, they could not keep its furnaces going. ‘We need areas with lots of wood, a reliable supply chain,’ Mr Burdett said. As well as Enviva, Drax buys wood from other firms such as Georgia Biomass, which supplies mainly pine. It is building new pellet-making plants in Mississippi and Louisiana. Last month, the Department of Energy and Climate Change issued new rules on biomass sourcing, and will insist on strict monitoring to ensure there really is ‘sustainability’. In North Carolina, this will not be easy: as Carter points out, there is very little local regulation. But wouldn’t a much more effective and cheaper way of cutting emissions be to shut down Drax altogether, and replace it with clean new gas plants – which need no subsidy at all? Mr Burdett said: ‘We develop our business plan in light of what the Government wants – not what might be nice.’
-----------------------------------
Matt Ridley (June 2013)
Making electricity from burning wood is bad for the economy and the environment
BBC puzzles viewers on energy
Christopher Booker of The Sunday Telegraph
"We have long been aware, of course, that the BBC displays quite shameless bias whenever it covers energy or climate issues. But rarely do we see such a demonstrably dishonest example of this as the programme with which on Monday it opened its new Bang Goes The Theory series. .....What the programme-makers must have known, since they were so heavily featuring KiWi Power, is that this firm is not just into “demand management”. It is also, as its website shows, one of those many firms signing up with the National Grid to provide instantly available back-up power from thousands of diesel generators, hidden discreetly in old quarries and industrial premises across the land. That is the real “secret weapon” whereby the grid hopes, at a potential cost of billions, to keep our lights on whenever those windmills cease to turn. The BBC must have known this. But, of course, any mention of all those “dirty” generators, pumping out CO2, would not have fitted the silly propaganda narrative they were so shamelessly trying to sell us."
"We have long been aware, of course, that the BBC displays quite shameless bias whenever it covers energy or climate issues. But rarely do we see such a demonstrably dishonest example of this as the programme with which on Monday it opened its new Bang Goes The Theory series. .....What the programme-makers must have known, since they were so heavily featuring KiWi Power, is that this firm is not just into “demand management”. It is also, as its website shows, one of those many firms signing up with the National Grid to provide instantly available back-up power from thousands of diesel generators, hidden discreetly in old quarries and industrial premises across the land. That is the real “secret weapon” whereby the grid hopes, at a potential cost of billions, to keep our lights on whenever those windmills cease to turn. The BBC must have known this. But, of course, any mention of all those “dirty” generators, pumping out CO2, would not have fitted the silly propaganda narrative they were so shamelessly trying to sell us."
Friday, 14 March 2014
Removing 90% Of Stations Affects The Trend
Real Science
"I tried an experiment to randomly remove 90% of GHCN US stations three times, using different random seeds. One run produced cooling and others produced warming. Blue is the full data set. ....The 90% removed leaves approximately 100 US stations, showing that amount isn’t enough for the US – much less the world."
"I tried an experiment to randomly remove 90% of GHCN US stations three times, using different random seeds. One run produced cooling and others produced warming. Blue is the full data set. ....The 90% removed leaves approximately 100 US stations, showing that amount isn’t enough for the US – much less the world."
Documentary: How the Global Warming Scare Began
WUWT
"A great scientist named Roger Revelle had Al Gore in his class at Harvard and the Global Warming campaign was born. Revelle tried to calm things down years later, but Gore said Revelle was Senile and refused to debate. John Coleman documents the entire story and shows how our tax dollars are perpetuating the Global Warming alarmist campaign even though temperatures have not risen in years."
"A great scientist named Roger Revelle had Al Gore in his class at Harvard and the Global Warming campaign was born. Revelle tried to calm things down years later, but Gore said Revelle was Senile and refused to debate. John Coleman documents the entire story and shows how our tax dollars are perpetuating the Global Warming alarmist campaign even though temperatures have not risen in years."
Wednesday, 12 March 2014
Where’s the Science at the IPCC?
Donna Laframboise (Canada)
"The IPCC admits that it does not conduct any research. It’s in the business of writing reports. Reports that are thousands of pages long. Five of those reports have been written over the past 25 years. IPCC personnel are expected to survey the scientific literature and write a report about what that literature says about climate change. In the process, these people make thousands of judgment calls. They decide that some studies are worth paying attention to – and that others belong in the dustbin. Some – still unproven – assumptions are taken seriously at the IPCC. Others are dismissed.
Judgment calls are not science. They’re relying on their knowledge of scientific matters, but IPCC personnel are actually playing a role similar to jurors at a trial. When a jury evaluates evidence and draws conclusions no one calls that ‘science.’So where, exactly does ‘science’ happen at the IPCC? Is this really a ‘scientific body?’
"The IPCC admits that it does not conduct any research. It’s in the business of writing reports. Reports that are thousands of pages long. Five of those reports have been written over the past 25 years. IPCC personnel are expected to survey the scientific literature and write a report about what that literature says about climate change. In the process, these people make thousands of judgment calls. They decide that some studies are worth paying attention to – and that others belong in the dustbin. Some – still unproven – assumptions are taken seriously at the IPCC. Others are dismissed.
Judgment calls are not science. They’re relying on their knowledge of scientific matters, but IPCC personnel are actually playing a role similar to jurors at a trial. When a jury evaluates evidence and draws conclusions no one calls that ‘science.’So where, exactly does ‘science’ happen at the IPCC? Is this really a ‘scientific body?’
Every home paying £25 each year for wind farms: MPs criticise 'Klondike-style' gold rush as £1.2billion subsidies revealed
Daily Mail
"Wind farms are being handed £1.2billion a year in subsidies paid for by a supplement on consumer electricity bills.
That works out at £25 for each household and business, in what one Conservative MP criticised as a Klondike-type gold rush.
Ministers told Parliament that onshore wind farms received £557million last year, and offshore turbines £699million. The figures will add to fears that big business is planning to erect hundreds more turbines in order to claim the generous handouts."
"Wind farms are being handed £1.2billion a year in subsidies paid for by a supplement on consumer electricity bills.
That works out at £25 for each household and business, in what one Conservative MP criticised as a Klondike-type gold rush.
Ministers told Parliament that onshore wind farms received £557million last year, and offshore turbines £699million. The figures will add to fears that big business is planning to erect hundreds more turbines in order to claim the generous handouts."
Monday, 10 March 2014
95% Of Australia Is Drought Free
Real Science
"Now that the fraudulent temperature statistic push is over, alarmists are planning another big save the carbon tax push in Australia, by making up fraudulent drought statistics.
95% of the country is drought free. Better than average."
"Now that the fraudulent temperature statistic push is over, alarmists are planning another big save the carbon tax push in Australia, by making up fraudulent drought statistics.
95% of the country is drought free. Better than average."
Obama Administration to Insert Global Warming Activism into Dietary Guidelines Mandated by Congress
WUWT
In the past, says Stier, the federal government’s dietary guidelines were intended exclusively to “promote health and reduce risk for major chronic diseases.”
No more, says Stier: “For the first time in the history of the guidelines, ‘sustainability’ is part of the agenda. Actual items on their Dietary Guidelines working group agenda include ‘immigration,’ ‘global climate change’ and ‘agriculture/aquaculture sustainability.’”
What’s more, says Stier, these new guidelines will cost the public money: “By favoring foods which activists think have a smaller carbon footprint, the new guidelines will increase the prices you pay for your food. It will also increase the cost to all taxpayers, since the Dietary Guidelines are used to set policy for food stamps (SNAP) and military diets,” he says.
“The food guidelines, by law, are supposed to be based on a ‘preponderance of scientific and medical knowledge,’” said Amy Ridenour, chairman of the National Center for Public Policy Research, who has studied climate change polices for over a quarter century. “Science can say with authority that eating green vegetables is good for you. It can’t say that humans are causing catastrophic global warming with any more certainty than it can explain why the planet hasn’t warmed since the Clinton Administration. Moms and Dads across America deserve — and, as taxpayers, have paid for — dietary guidelines they can use to help them feed their families wisely. No one benefits from causing people to wonder if the nutritional advice they are getting from their government isn’t focused on nutrition at all, but has been polluted by environmental activists.”
In the past, says Stier, the federal government’s dietary guidelines were intended exclusively to “promote health and reduce risk for major chronic diseases.”
No more, says Stier: “For the first time in the history of the guidelines, ‘sustainability’ is part of the agenda. Actual items on their Dietary Guidelines working group agenda include ‘immigration,’ ‘global climate change’ and ‘agriculture/aquaculture sustainability.’”
What’s more, says Stier, these new guidelines will cost the public money: “By favoring foods which activists think have a smaller carbon footprint, the new guidelines will increase the prices you pay for your food. It will also increase the cost to all taxpayers, since the Dietary Guidelines are used to set policy for food stamps (SNAP) and military diets,” he says.
“The food guidelines, by law, are supposed to be based on a ‘preponderance of scientific and medical knowledge,’” said Amy Ridenour, chairman of the National Center for Public Policy Research, who has studied climate change polices for over a quarter century. “Science can say with authority that eating green vegetables is good for you. It can’t say that humans are causing catastrophic global warming with any more certainty than it can explain why the planet hasn’t warmed since the Clinton Administration. Moms and Dads across America deserve — and, as taxpayers, have paid for — dietary guidelines they can use to help them feed their families wisely. No one benefits from causing people to wonder if the nutritional advice they are getting from their government isn’t focused on nutrition at all, but has been polluted by environmental activists.”
Al Gore’s 10-Year “Scorching” Prophesy Emerging As A Grand Hoax…Global Temperatures Declined Over Last Decade
NoTricksZone
" Conclusion:
Al Gore’s prophesy has been nothing but a hoax. And because Al Gore continues to claim to the contrary, despite what the data show, and continues to profit by perpetuating the scare, he stands accused defrauding the public."
" Conclusion:
Al Gore’s prophesy has been nothing but a hoax. And because Al Gore continues to claim to the contrary, despite what the data show, and continues to profit by perpetuating the scare, he stands accused defrauding the public."
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
“The science linking human activities to climate change is analogous to the science linking
smoking to lung and cardiovascular diseases.”
show that this report is just political theater.
There are no health benefits from smoking, only health risks. CO2 is required for life on Earth including plant growth and function."