Originally posted at Breitbart London by James Delingpole
SHOCK U.S. SENATE REPORT: LEFT-WING ‘BILLIONAIRE’S CLUB’ USING ENVIRONMENTALISM TO CONTROL THE US ECONOMY AND SUBVERT DEMOCRACY (Senate Minority report)
Carbon Capture and Storage (CCS)
“CCS is the only way we can reduce carbon dioxide emissions and keep fossil fuels (coal and gas) in the UK’s electricity supply mix” (DECC), and so say many other countries around the globe. Catch the CO2 and push it back underground. Just like waste water from fracking, but on an epic scale, so where are all the protests?
Oh dear. Roger Harrabin, the well known BBC climate mouthpiece, has been unable to take a home truth on the chin. I got into a short twitter row about the EPA’s ‘pollution’ controls with him and the outcome is below the break.
Owen Patterson was, until last week, the Secretary of State for the Department of Environment Food and Rural Affairs (UK). He lost his job in the reshuffle, apparently for a number of reasons, which will not be gone into here and now.
He has now written an article for the Telegraph newspaper. The GWPF to which Mr Paterson is to deliver the Annual Lecture, has produced a slightly abbreviated version Read Here. His article is directed, not at the Prime Minister and those within the Government that lobbied for his removal. The target is what he calls “The Green Blob”.
It is not very often that a Policy Maker expresses an opinion of their own, as they are bound by the rules of the Cabinet “Tent”. To express such strong opinion so soon is rarer still. It seems unlikely that Mr Paterson go quietly and even (pure speculation on my part) opens the possibility that he may eventually replace Nigel Lawson.
“You can judge a man by the quality of his enemies” said Oscar Wilde. They cannot resist gloating at his downfall. Friends of the Earth & George Monbiot, amongst many others were quick to react. While Greenpeace did not openly celebrate, a Press release earlier this year, shows how much they wanted to have him removed.
(Reuters) – Coastal flooding along the densely populated Eastern Seaboard of the United States has surged in recent years, a Reuters analysis has found.
The analysis was undertaken as part of a broader examination of rising sea levels Reuters plans to publish later this year.
For its analysis, Reuters collected more than 25 million hourly tide-gauge readings from nearly 70 sites on the Atlantic, Gulf and Pacific coasts and compared them to NOAA flood thresholds.
As many Americans question the causes and even the reality of climate change, increased flooding is already posing a major challenge for local governments in much of the United States.
[sure will in landlocked States!]
And goes on about climate change and sea level rise and probably being wound up by vested interests.
The Spectator has a good analysis on the BBC climate reporting bias debacle which coins a new phrase – ‘Climate Correctness’. A few excerpts:
It is only a matter of time before Nigel Lawson — if he is allowed on the BBC at all — has to have his words spoken by an actor in the manner of Gerry Adams at the height of the IRA’s bombing campaign during the 1980s. In the case of Mr Adams, whose voice was banned from the airwaves by the government, the BBC stood up for free speech. But it is quite a different story with Lord Lawson. The BBC has effectively banned the former chancellor (and former editor of this magazine) from appearing on its programmes to debate climate change, unless he is introduced with a statement discrediting his views.
When people try to close down debate rather than engage with it, there is a pretty clear conclusion to be drawn: they lack confidence in their own case. The suppression of debate was shown again this week when Vladimir Semonov, a climate scientist at the Geomar Institute in Kiel, Germany, revealed that a paper he wrote in 2009 questioning the accuracy of climate models used by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change was effectively censored by the scientist to whom it was sent for review.
Warwick Hughes has a lovely story of belief shattered by actually looking, although I suppose the qudos goes to actually owning up.
The article he cites includes
An international team of experts has found evidence there is 100 times less plastic on ocean surfaces than expected.
The plastic particles that are missing might be ingested by fish. That one possibility is… the most likely one.”
To which a commenter at Hugh’s ripostes
I ran a fish factory for 8 years, processing thousands of tonnes of fish. I found 1 plastic bag in a fish stomach, a cod caught half way between Australia and Indonesia in over 100 metres deep water.
I had a brief chat with a journalist friend yesterday whose sister is a QC. He’s going to sound her out for me about the possibility of a class action against the BBC for breaking its charter. This from the Telegraph:
BBC staff told to stop inviting cranks onto science programmes
By Sarah Knapton, Science Correspondent – 04 Jul 2014
The BBC Trust on Thursday published a progress report into the corporation’s science coverage which was criticised in 2012 for giving too much air-time to critics who oppose non-contentious issues.
The report found that there was still an ‘over-rigid application of editorial guidelines on impartiality’ which sought to give the ‘other side’ of the argument, even if that viewpoint was widely dismissed.
Some 200 staff have already attended seminars and workshops and more will be invited on courses in the coming months to stop them giving ‘undue attention to marginal opinion.’
“The Trust wishes to emphasise the importance of attempting to establish where the weight of scientific agreement may be found and make that clear to audiences,” wrote the report authors.
Excerpts from David Rose’s Mail on Sunday article, plus a couple of tweets from Richard Betts:
BBC spends £500k to ask 33,000 Asians 5,000 miles from UK what they think of climate change: Corporation savaged for ‘astonishing’ campaign survey on global warming
David Rose – Sun 29th June 2014
The £519,000 campaigning survey by little-known BBC Media Action is designed to persuade the world to adopt more hard-line policies to combat global warming.
It was immediately condemned yesterday as a flagrant abuse of the Corporation’s rules on impartiality and ‘a spectacular waste of money’ by a top academic expert.
Every year, BBC Media Action gets £22.2 million from the taxpayer via the Foreign Office and Department for International Development.
BBC Media Action has a £40 million annual budget, and the proportion not funded by the taxpayer is paid by the European Union, the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation, and the US government.
A few years ago, I started a wikipedia page on the Gore Effect; the uncanny phenomenon which unleashes snow, hail, torrential rain, icy winds and sleet on the venues where Al Gore is speaking about global warming. The instances are too numerous to list. My page got deleted within a few months by the usual suspects. But it was reborn when another wiki user put up a much more detailed and better referenced version, and I thought it unassailable. But no, the usual suspects are at it again:
Maybe big Al has been armtwisting Jimmy Wales with the promise of a big donation on condition it goes. Who knows.
Contributor ‘Aussie’ notes this morning that the Gore Effect continues undiminished:
David Archibald’s post at Quadrant.org.au has stirred some interesting debate here at the talkshop. David predicts an imminent and steep drop in regional temperatures as a result of the slowdown in solar activity seen since the descent of solar cycle 23 in 2003. It’s not the first time he has made such predictions. As Nick Stokes pointed out in discussion, Archibald told the Australian senate committee in 2009 that temperature was about to go down at a scary 0.2C per annum. It didn’t happen. But David says it’s different this time, because a decade has passed since solar cycle 23 dropped towards a long minimum, followed by the weak cycle 24 we are currently in. The decadal lag is implied by David Evan’s new hypothesis which identifies a ‘notch filter’ which points to a cycle-long lag between changes in solar activity and the effect becoming visible in the terrestrial response. David goes on to predict that due to Penn and Livingstone’s prediction of a very low sunspot number in cycle 25, we are headed for drastic cooling.
There are several points on which I disagree with David’s analysis, and I’ll cover them below the break.
David Archibald has some form for making dire predictions of imminent global cooling. His latest, including a forecast he claims uses David Evans’ ‘Notch delay climate model’ has just been published online at Quadrant.org.au and makes scary reading. At one level, you could be forgiven for thinking that his doom laden prognosis is as alarmist as those of Al Gore or James Hansen. However, it behoves us to remember that unlike the global warming alarmist’s fear of frying, history backs up the existence and dire effects of sudden cooling events. Personally, I think the coming cooling is unlikely to be as sudden or deep as David fears, but I’ll leave my reasoning for that opinion for the comments section. Strap in and read on.
The edge of a cold, deep abyss?
David Archibald 25-6-2014
One of the best predictions of climate ever made (weighted for distance and accuracy) was by two Californian researchers, Leona Libby and Louis Pandolfi. In 1979, they used tree ring data from redwoods in Kings Canyon to make a remarkably accurate forecast1. From a Los Angeles Times interview of that year,
When she and Pandolfi project their curves into the future, they show lower average temperatures from now through the mid-1980s. “Then,” Dr. Libby added, “we see a warming trend (by about a quarter of 1 degree Fahrenheit) globally to around the year 2000. And then it will get really cold—if we believe our projections. This has to be tested.”
How cold? “Easily one or two degrees,” she replied, “and maybe even three or four degrees.”
Climate science – calling it wrong since 19??
Originally posted on Real Science:
Ten climate forecasts which demonstrate that the world’s leading government climate experts have absolutely no clue what they are talking about.
NASA’s top experts said that burning fossil fuels would trigger an ice age.
Snow is a thing of the past.
Arctic ice free by 2000
New ice age coming
Manhattan underwater by 2008
Arctic ice free by 2013
Antarctica will soon be the only place to live.
Skiing is doomed
View original 55 more words
Academic economist Richard Tol has been on the receiving end of some nasty misrepresentation published by notoriously alarmist UK small circulation newspaper ‘The Guardian’. One of it’s ‘columnists’, Dana Nuccitelli, an employee of a big oil and gas outfit called Tetra-Tech, has been writing inaccurate and scurrilous pieces on Tol since he decided to check the quality and accuracy of a paper Dana co-authored with cartoonist John Cook.
Cook runs a parody website called ‘Skeptical science’ which sends up the climate debate with a collection of joke impressions of climate-sceptical talking points and ‘mainstream climate science responses’ to them. Somehow, the Guardian, a self important and supposedly highbrow newspaper, mistook Dana for a real commentator on science and gave him a job as a blogger. Richard writes:
The Guardian has published six hatchet jobs impugning me and my work. The first four are under investigation by the Press Complaints Commission.
For hatchet job #5 and #6, the Guardian granted me the right to reply by return email. They were published together, without a clear structure and in the wrong order, with the first piece heavily edited. Here are the originals.
No-shows are the order of the day. Reporting on the non-event continues though.
So sad ;-)
Readers of this blog will be familiar with the antics of Christine Lagarde, the IMF chief who told us we’d all be “roasted toasted, fried and grilled” by global warming. She’s been in a bit of hot water herself in the recent past, being hauled before the beak in connection with a 270 million euro taxpayer swindle which favoured Bernard Tapie, a wheeler-dealer pal of ex-French president Nicolas Sarkozy. A letter from Lagarde to Sarkozy indicates how cozy the european elite are.
Anyhow, it seems Angela Merkel doesn’t worry about such things, as she has been making some background moves to sound out the possibility of elevating the teflon coated Lagarde to the EU presidency. Perhaps she sees the idea of taking Ms Lagarde off the IMF cashier’s desk and installing her in Rumpy’s big leather chair in Brussels as a neat way of gaining more control over European finance and simultaneously obtaining a channel through which she can influence France’s revolting right wing.
Whatever the motivations, it is becoming ever clearer that the EU elite is circling the wagons and entrenching for a last stand against the vast horde of European citizens who clearly want an end to the federalist aspect of the misbegotten project.
German Chancellor Angela Merkel has asked France whether it would be willing to put forward International Monetary Fund chief Christine Lagarde as president of the European Commission, two French sources briefed on the exchanges said.
On Saturday My lady and I travelled with friends Ian and Susan down the Scott Polar Research Institute to a talk given by Rich Pancost, the professor at the head of the Cabot Institute at the University of Bristol. This outfit is comprised of a small team which co-ordinates cross disciplinary effort from other faculties at the University to help address the university’s ‘two big themes’ of environment and health.
Guess the number of bears in the freezer
Jun 1, 2014
About a year ago I had to endure a fairly unpleasant interview on the subject of polar bears with the BBC’s Shelagh Fogerty (transcript here, my contemporaneous post here). Ms Fogerty was fine, but I was constantly interrupted by Greenpeace bigwig John Sauven who objected to my pointing out that estimates of polar bear numbers were in essence hypotheses, being based on computer simulations. This position was flatly denied by Sauven, who accused me of being a flat-earther for my temerity in doubting what he was telling me.
I was therefore amused when a reader pointed me to a recent post by Susan Crockford which reveals that I was being far too polite in dignifying estimates of polar bear numbers as “hypotheses”. She has learned that the IUCN Polar Bear Specialist Group has been playing a game of “guess the number of bears in the freezer”.