27th October 2015 - 'Oops! This wasn't supposed to
happen' - see below.
'Oops! This wasn't supposed to happen'
Further reports and updates are not really worth making. So unless
something major comes up, like the BBC admitting that they are talking a
load of lefty-liberal-claptrap, then I will not update this site.
A Climate Glasnost - The Spectator 21 September 2013
Next week, those who made dire predictions of ruinous climate change face their own inconvenient truth. The summary of the fifth assessment report by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) will be published, showing that global temperatures are refusing to follow the path which was predicted for them by almost all climatic models. Since its first report in 1990, the IPCC has been predicting that global temperatures would be rising at an average of 0.2° Celsius per decade. Now, the IPCC acknowledges that there has been no statistically significant rise at all over the past 16 years.
It is difficult to over-emphasise the significance of this report. The IPCC is not simply a research body making reports and declarations which are merely absorbed into political debate. Its word has been taken as gospel, and its research has been used to justify all manner of schemes to make carbon-based energy more expensive while subsidising renewable energy.
The failure of its predictions undermines the certainties which have been placed upon the science of climate change. Previous IPCC reports — and much of the debate over how to react to them — have appeared to treat the Earth's climate as if it were a domestic central heating system, with carbon emissions analogous to the dial on the thermostat: a small tweak here will result in a temperature rise of precisely 0.2°C and so on. What is clear from the new IPCC report is that the science is not nearly advanced enough to make useful predictions on the future rise of global temperatures. Perhaps it never will be.
Some climate scientists themselves, to give them credit, have admitted as much. Their papers now incorporate a degree of caution, as you would expect from genuine scientists. The problems arise when the non-scientists leap upon the climate change bandwagon and assume that anything marked 'science' must be the final word. As the chemist and novelist C. P. Snow once warned in his lecture about the 'two cultures', you end up in a situation where non-scientists use half-understood reports to silence debate — not realising that proper science welcomes refutation and is wary of the notion of absolute truths.
And while we are constantly reminded that 'most scientists are agreed on climate change', it is remarkable how many of the most prominent figures warning of climatic Armageddon are not themselves scientists. The chairman of the IPCC, Rajendra Pachauri, is a railway engineer. Al Gore, who shared a Nobel prize with the IPCC for his film of
climate change, An Inconvenient Truth, is a failed US presidential candidate. Lord Stern, whose 2006 report provoked the then environment secretary David Miliband to say 'the science is settled', is an economist. Few scientists would make such a claim.
As Lord Lawson, former editor of this
magazine, once pointed out, the time to be most fearful in politics is when a
consensus emerges. It usually means that an argument is not properly probed, and
desire to sign up to a fashionable cause supplants the proper rigour which
policymaking requires. We certainly saw this with the Climate Change Act, which
committed future governments unilaterally to slashing Britain's carbon emissions
to a fifth of what they had been in 1990. The bill was passed in an atmosphere
in which sceptics were likened to flat-earthers, with no one stopping to ask what it would achieve for the environment, and at what cost to Britain. Those were the days when Gordon Brown solemnly declared he had 50 days to save the world before the Copenhagen Climate Change Conference. The deadline passed and the world survived — but our understanding of this complex planet has improved. And perhaps we are moving towards a 'climate glasnost'; a time in which, finally, the science can be debated rationally and we can study the decisions made in those days, and see that the Climate Change Act was, in fact, a deeply irresponsible piece of legislation which will hit poor homeowners with huge energy bills at a time when other countries (especially the US) are following a policy of low energy prices.
Long before his 'two cultures' lecture, C. P. Snow explained that science is a work in progress. The scientific mission is to take the best information available, 'take some pointer readings, make a mental construction from them in order to predict some more'. If the prediction turns out to be right, he said, 'the mental construction is, for the moment, a good one. If it is wrong, another mental construction has to be tried.' So it is with climate change science. There is not much doubt that the planet is warming, and man is at least partially responsible. But the failure of the old prediction models make it clear that there is not a simple relationship between carbon emissions and global warming.
As things have worked out, carbon emissions in the rich world have been falling anyway — not due to green taxes but to better technology, like fracking. Global warming is still a monumental challenge, but one that does not necessarily have to be met by taxing the poor off the roads and out of the sky. Sanity is returning to the environmental debate. Let us hope that, before too long, it also returns to British energy policy.
The images below says it all, so why
are they not plastered all over the media?
Even if CO2 was responsible for climate change, shutting down the UK's entire energy usage would make no difference whatsoever!
Are you listening Mr. Cameron? Pigs might fly!!
The next image shows just how little CO2 there is in the atmosphere.
Look at it. Think about it and Answermethis - what is the Carbon Footprint alarmism all about?
Most of what needs to be said about the myth of man-made global warming/climate change has been said.
Unfortunately politicians are still in denial about the obvious fraud and continue to believe in AGW regardless of the weight of the overwhelming
scientific evidence continually showing that it just ain't so.
As Dr. Richard Lindzen, one of the world’s most respected climatologists and a Massachusetts Institute of Technology Professor of
Atmospheric Science said :- “Future generations will wonder in bemused amazement that the early 21st century’s developed world went
into hysterical panic over a globally averaged temperature increase of a few tenths of a degree, and, on the basis of gross
exaggerations of highly uncertain computer projections combined into implausible chains of inference, proceeded to contemplate a
roll-back of the industrial age.”
Below is an interesting expose of the way science has been abused to promote the cause of catastrophic global warming.
- 11th March 2013
Nullius in verba -
'Take no mans word for it.' The motto of The Royal Society
“In questions of science, the authority of a thousand is not worth the humble reasoning of a
single individual.”
Galileo Galilei
“First they ignore you, then they mock you, then they fight you, then you win.”
Mahatma Ghandi
“The left doesn’t much like to engage in rational,
fact-based arguments as it knows it’s going to lose. That’s why it is always so much more comfortable in the realm of the emotive
slogan, the glib one-liner, the cheap shot and the ad-hominem attack.”
James Delingpole, The Spectator, 29th October 2011.
From Jack Black’s Climate Change Dictionary:- PEER REVIEW: The act of banding together a group of like-minded academics with a funding conflict of interest, for the purpose of squeezing
out any research voices that threaten the multi-million dollar government grant gravy train. SETTLED SCIENCE: Betrayal of the scientific method for politics or money or both. DENIER: Anyone who suspects the truth. CLIMATE CHANGE: What has been happening for billions of years, but should now be flogged to produce ‘panic for profit.’ NOBEL PEACE PRIZE: Leftist Nutcase Prize, unrelated to “Peace” in any meaningful way. DATA, EVIDENCE: Unnecessary details. If anyone asks for this, see “DENIER,” above. CLIMATE SCIENTIST: A person skilled in spouting obscure, scientific-sounding jargon that has the effect of deflecting requests for
“DATA” by “DENIERS.’ Also skilled at affecting an aura of “Smartest Person in the Room” to buffalo gullible legislators and journalists. JUNK SCIENCE: The use of invalid scientific evidence resulting in findings of causation which simply cannot be justified or understood from
the standpoint of the current state of credible scientific or medical knowledge.
Richard Feynman said it all! Wouldn't it be nice if all science was still conducted by these methods?
As Wogan says, ‘Is it me?’, or is there a general feeling out there that the leaders of this once great country are paying far too much
attention to over-powerful minority-interest lobbyists and ignoring the legitimate views of 'the silent majority'?
I BELIEVE THIS TO BE THE CASE!
The news often contains items that make me fume.
Our laws, or the application of our laws, often do the same.
In Britain the main perpetrator of this biased reporting is of course the BBC
but there are many others.
One topic that fits this perfectly is 'Global Warming' - or 'Climate
Change' as they now call it since, clearly, no warming is happening.
For example, a couple of years ago I saw a BBC news report where the reporter
stood in front of an electricity generating station and he pointed behind him to the water cooling towers. The towers were belching out white plumes. He said "I used to believe that that white stuff coming out of those
towers was smoke and fumes. I now know that it is just water vapour." I thought to myself "You won't stay on air if you keep
saying things like that, young man." Sure enough, he hasn't been seen since.
However, the intent of this site is not to attack the BBC but to bring together
information and reports from around the world to demonstrate that the truth is not on the global warmers side. Few of the words on this site
are my own since I am not qualified to lecture. So I have copied the words of those of people who ARE qualified to speak on the subject -
scientists, physicists and meteorologists etc., instead of politicians, computer programmers and office administrators like Al Gore,
Michael Mann, James Hanson and George Monbiot etc. You may not be so convinced by the words that you turn against the warmers hysterical
pronunciations but, if you have a half-way open mind, I'm sure it will make you see that it is more than likely that we are being manipulated
for political means.
Politicians and the 'environmentalists' have, for years, been telling us that
carbon dioxide is bad, that we must reduce our 'carbon footprint', that our planet is in danger from our continued and increasing use of fossil
fuels. We must cut down on burning coal and oil and drive smaller 'green' cars and stop taking holidays that involve using air travel.
But what is the truth? Is CO2 responsible for global warming/climate change? Is it? Don't just accept what you are told by the likes of Al Gore
and his followers. Challenge what they say. Tell them not to make such rash statements! Demand that they show you the scientific evidence that
backs up what they are saying. Let me tell you right now, they won't be able to because there is none.
As you will discover, if you have the good sense to read and digest what
follows, mankinds CO2 emissions do not cause global warming. CO2 is not bad. Furthermore, the furore about CO2 is political not environmental.
Do not misunderstand me, I believe in looking after the environment.
I detest litter and pollution, I rail against waste. I encourage recycling. I have followed these views all my life. Indeed, every person
I know and those whose papers/articles I read who believes that anthropogenic global warming is rubbish, are also environmentalists.
Being anti anthropogenic global warming doesn't mean that we do not care for our planet. That's what the warmers want you to believe but
it just ain't so.
What I will not put up with is being told lies by politically motivated
eco-loonies who are destroying our society in the name of protecting the planet. These people know that they are telling us lies but they
have got the attention of the politicians and they will not let go, no matter what damage they do to our well being.
Alexander Illarionov, advisor to Vladimir Putin, got it about right when
he said that the AGW lobby had 'an ideological base comparable to the man-hating totalitarian ideology that we had the bad fortune to
deal with during the 20th century such as National Socialism, Marxism, Eugenics, Lysenkoism and so on. All methods of distorting information
existing in the world have been committed to prove the alleged validity of these theories. Misinformation, falsification, fabrication,
mythology, propaganda. Because what is offered cannot be qualified in any other way than myth, nonsense and absurdity.'
"
For a theory to be scientific, it must be testable and falsifiable. The theory of global warming is being tested and data proves it is
coming up short. Worldwide, thousands of scientists testify to its falsehood, both in theory and in practice."
“Before impugning an opponent’s motives, answer his arguments” Sidney Hook’s rule of controversy.
28 Dec, 2011 Michael Buerk: The BBC Is Scared Of Climate Debate
BBC Fifth Column, 16 December 2011
The latest so-called Climate Summit, that’s been taking place in Durban, hasn’t made many waves. It could be because
global warming seems less daunting if you can no longer afford heating bills. It could also be that we’re getting fed up with the bogus certainties
and quasi-religious tone of the great climate change non-debate.
Now, I don’t know for certain that man’s activities are causing the planet to heat up. Nobody does. We simply cannot construct a theoretical model
that can cope with all the variables. For what it’s worth, I think anthropogenic warming is taking place, and, anyway, it would be a good thing
to stop chucking so much bad stuff into the atmosphere.
What gets up my nose is being infantilized by governments, by the BBC, by the Guardian that there is no argument, that all scientists who aren’t
cranks and charlatans are agreed on all this, that the consequences are uniformly negative, the issues beyond doubt and the steps to be taken
beyond dispute.
You’re not necessarily a crank to point out that global temperatures change a great deal anyway. A thousand years ago we had a Mediterranean
climate in this country; 200 years ago we were skating every winter on the Thames. And actually there has been no significant rise in global
temperatures for more than a decade now.
We hear a lot about how the Arctic is shrinking, but scarcely anything about how the Antarctic is spreading, and the South Pole is getting colder.
Droughts aren’t increasing. There are fewer of them, and less severe, than a hundred years ago. The number of hurricanes hasn’t changed.
The number of cyclones and typhoons has actually fallen over the last 30 years. And so on.
There may be answers to all these quibbles. I think there probably are and I would like to hear them. I don’t want the media to make up my mind
up for me. I don’t need to be told things by officialdom in all its forms, that are not true, or not the whole truth, for my own good. I resent
the implication that the exercise of my reason is “inappropriate”, an act of generational selfishness, a heresy. I want a genuine debate about
the assumptions behind the more apocalyptic forecasts.
As recently as 2005, for instance, the UN said there would be 50 million climate refugees by 2010. That was last year. OK – so where are they?
I would like to hear a clash of informed opinion about what would actually be better if it got warmer as well as worse. Where do you see reported
the extraordinary greening of the Sahel, and shrinking of the Sahara that’s been going on for 30 years now – the regeneration of vegetation across
a huge, formerly arid swathe of dirt poor Africa. More warming means more rainfall. More CO2 means plants grow bigger, stronger, faster.
I would like a real argument over climate change policy, if only to rid myself of the nagging feeling that sometimes it’s a really good excuse
for banging up taxes and public-sector job creation.
It’s not happening. It’s a secular issue but scepticism is heresy. They talk the language
of science, but it is really a post-God religion that rejects relativist materialism. Its imperative is moral. It looks to a society where some
choices are obviously, and universally, held to be better than others. A life where having what we want is not a right and nature puts constraints
on the free play of desires. To reinvent, in short, a life where there is good and bad, right and wrong. As with all religions, whether the
underlying narrative is true, has become beside the point.
"Last years volcanic eruption in Iceland took just 4 days to negate every effort mankind has made to control CO2 emissions during the past
five years. There are about 200 active volcanoes spewing out this crud every day. When Mount Pinatubo erupted in the Philippines in 1991 it
discharged more greenhouse gases into the atmosphere than the human race has emitted throughout its entire existence. I could mention the
effect of solar and cosmic activity and the well-recognised 800 year global heating and cooling cycle. Then there are the bushfire seasons
in certain parts of the world each year… The government tried to impose a whopping carbon tax on us on the basis of bogus human-related
climate change. It’s interesting that they don’t mention ‘global warming’ anymore but that’s probably because the planet has cooled by 0.7°C during the past century."
It really is nice to see this kind of thing in the national press. Unfortunately it rarely gets printed. It was however
the reply from Honest John that really caught my eye:-
"Now the car must be responsible for a different kind of climate change, global cooling, and we’re heading for another ice age.
It’s time we stopped listening to environmentalist claptrap (my emphasis). But it makes sense to be more frugal with a diminishing resource."
How nice it is that published columnists recognise ‘environmentalist claptrap’ when they see it, but when are we going to
hear our political representatives come clean on this too?
Another quote from a Daily Telegraph columnist of some days ago summed up the problem. He was writing about the Euro fiasco but the comment
stands for global warming/climate change too.
“Once set on a particular course it becomes very difficult for the architects of that strategy to admit they were
wrong. They’ll wriggle and squirm and find any number of excuses for not changing course.”
Yep! That's about right!
12th September 2011
NIPCC report: Rising CO2 is beneficial
For those who want science and not politics, the enormous scientific compendium known as the NIPCC reports has been updated to incorporate
new results. There are hundreds of references to peer reviewed research. It is as always, thorough, professional and comprehensive.
The authors of the new NIPCC report conclude that “the net effect of continued warming and rising carbon dioxide concentrations in the
atmosphere is most likely to be beneficial to humans, plants, and wildlife.”
To summarize the executive summary:-
• The models overestimate the warming and do not include chemical and biological process that may be as important as the physical ones.
• Plants love CO2, which helps them grow faster, and the green biomass of the Earth tends to counteract the warming effects of CO2.
• New evidence shows the Medieval Warm Period was real, global and warmer than the present, while CO2 was 28% lower.
• The ice is not melting as much as people expected. Sea levels are not accelerating and there is no change in rain or river flows that
you can blame on CO2.
• Life on Earth likes warmth. Amphibians, birds, butterflies, other insects, lizards, mammals and even worms do better with a bit of
global warming.
• Warmth and CO2 increases crops and global food. It’s good for hungry people.
• The latest research shows corals and marine life can adapt to climate change and flourish.
• Warming improves human health. It reduces winter deaths more than it increases summer ones.
• Even in the worst scenarios, mankind will be much better off in the year 2100 than it is today and therefore able to adapt to
whatever challenges climate change presents.
The 430-page report was co-authored and edited by:- Craig D. Idso, Ph.D., Robert M. Carter, Ph.D., S. Fred Singer, Ph.D.,
amongst others.
The book is titled Climate Change Reconsidered: 2011 Interim Report because it precedes a comprehensive volume that is
expected to be released in 2013. It focuses on scientific research released since publication of Climate Change Reconsidered:
The 2009 Report of the Nongovernmental International Panel on Climate Change (NIPCC).”
The report was produced by The Heartland Institute, Center for the Study of Carbon Dioxide
and Global Change, and
Science and Environmental Policy Project (SEPP), three national nonprofit organizations based in Chicago, Illinois; Tempe, Arizona; and
Arlington, Virginia; respectively.
29th August 2011
Read a transcript of a speech made by Prof. Bob Carter in Canberra,
Australia at the Convoy of No Confidence protest. Never heard of
it? Of course not! Our left wing liberal clap trap media, especially the
BBC, don't want you to know that there is mass scientific
dissent across the world. Go to the Comment
page.
25th May 2011 A GREEN DARK AGE.
The government's new emissions target will despoil the countryside, rob the poor - and enrich landowners.
See Matt Ridleys article from the Spectator magazine - 21st May - on the Comment page
17th May 2011
On the day that our Coalition ministers are expected to commit the country to a stupid
'climate change' policy I put a copy of Andrew Turnbulls article from the Daily Telegraph on the
Comment page
NIPCC report: Rising CO2 is beneficial