Tuesday, 24 January 2017

UK GOVERNMENT BLOWS £160 MILLION ON CANCELLED CO2 CAPTURE PROJECT

This post looks at the phenomenal waste of money by the UK in trying to get a "carbon" capture power plant going. In the end you cannot buck the market (unless the government is prepared to spend huge amounts of taxpayers money).  We have to spend around 60% more to build every new power station and then throw away 40% the electricity it makes in order to capture the CO2.

Monday, 23 January 2017

TEMPERATURE DATA - SURFACE v SATELLITE, WHICH IS BEST?

There is a lot of argument over this issue. This article looks at the question and declares why the satellite is far superior. And yet some climate scientists try to make out the reverse is true. There is a lot of faith put into the surface data by alarmists which might be because the surface data show a larger warming effect. 

Sunday, 22 January 2017

OBAMA SENDS FINAL CHEQUE TO HIS FAVOURITE CHARITY

USA taxpayers waved goodbye to another $500 Million, sent by the outgoing president to the UN's Green Climate Fund. This piece gives the details. It will be interesting to see how Trump deals with similar requests in the future.

Saturday, 21 January 2017

PROF TIM BALL MEETS TEAM TRUMP

This piece comes from an interesting website called "The Rebel Media" and there looks to be some interesting stuff on it. Meanwhile climate alarmists are hopeful that Trump can be persuaded to change his views according to the BBC. 

Friday, 20 January 2017

STEPS TRUMP SHOULD TAKE TO END INTERNATIONAL ENERGY POVERTY

Trump And International Energy Poverty: Five Steps
Watts Up With That, 17 January 2017
 By Caleb Stewart Rossiter, School of International Service and Department of Mathematics and Statistics, American University.

 
Primum non nocere — above all, do no harm, says the medical maxim. In public policy, where every action has different effects on different people, the maxim becomes “above all, do no net harm.” That means that the benefits of a policy should outweigh its costs. For example, it’s all well and good for the government to start a jobs program, but we also have to estimate how many other jobs would never exist because raising taxes to pay for the program reduces private investment and consumption. What, we properly ask, will be the net effect of the program on employment?

Consider the Obama administration’s efforts to avoid fossil-fueled climate catastrophes. While well-intentioned, these efforts to reduce industrial emissions of carbon dioxide and other “greenhouse” gasses did a lot of net harm to the people of the formerly colonized countries in Africa, Asia, and Latin America.

Indeed, Obama’s policies were reminiscent of colonialism’s attempt to make these regions producers of raw materials rather than industrial competitors. Obama’s climate alarmists discouraged poor countries from building power plants and modern transmission grids, and instead offered foreign aid to help them stay “off the grid” with small-scale wind and solar projects. The administration also drove up the price of food in poor countries by diverting crops to meet “green” fuels quotas, and stood by while the European Union punished these countries for exporting “carbon-intensive” products. The moral issue here is that the costs of the predicted climate catastrophes are hypothetical, meager, and in the distant future, while the health and economic benefits of fossil-fueled growth for poor countries are real, massive, and available right now.

In terms of health, people need reliable power in their homes, factories, and offices. If they cannot get it from electricity they will get it by burning wood, dung, and charcoal and firing up their personal diesel generators. In Africa, where only 25 percent of homes have reliable electricity and most factories and office suffer from frequent black-outs, the particulate matter emitted by these inefficient energy sources pose a constant crisis in respiratory disease. In terms of economic growth and the increase in life expectancy that it creates, we can simply note that since embracing fossil-fueled capitalism with a vengeance China has nearly eliminated its 20-year gap with the 80-year life expectancy of developed countries, while Africa lags at 59 years.

Here are five steps President Trump can take to stop us from doing harm, and maybe even start us doing some good, in the developing world’s quest for the better and longer life that reliable electric power can bring.

Generate Power: Instruct U.S. representatives at the World Bank and the regional development banks, as well as officials of the Agency for International Development (the State Department’s foreign aid office) to support rather than oppose, as we currently do, loans and grants for power plants that rely on coal, gas, or oil. By helping countries build modern, efficient plants outfitted with “scrubbers” we can dramatically cut emissions of sulfur dioxide and other particulates. Unlike carbon dioxide, which is a beneficial trace gas that increases crop yields as a fertilizer, these are real pollutants, and need to be controlled.

Support the Grid: The Obama administration’s Power Africa campaign is biased in favor of “off-grid” solutions such as small-scale, local wind and solar farms. This is colonialist to the core in a continent that is still “under-developing” by exporting raw materials to its former masters in return for imports of finished goods. Africa needs to have consistent power for factories and offices, or it will never be able to compete in the global economy. The only way to have consistent power is with a modern grid. Period. The grid can develop slowly, so that it can be maintained, but in the long run, as the success of China shows, you can’t get there without it.

Aid only sustainable infrastructure projects: Developing countries, and African ones in particular, are littered with abandoned “White Elephants” – high-technology factories, dams, processing plants, wells, and tractors provided by well-meaning foreign aid donors. They fell into disuse because recipient governments lacked the political will and the economic environment needed to sustain them.

Bringing technology in from a different country that is at a different stage of economic development is tricky in the best of circumstances. It is a waste of money and time if the recipient government is undemocratic, corrupt, or repressive. American diplomats and foreign aid officials need to be rewarded rather than punished, as they inevitably are in the foreign aid game, for properly assessing the likelihood of sustainability and cancelling projects. Most economic development comes when the local conditions permit it. Foreign aid can do little when dictatorship and corruption prevail, as they do in most African countries.

End biofuel requirements: “Biofuel starvation” is what Africans call it when companies from developed countries take over villages’ crop lands so they can make a profit meeting “green” fuel requirements. The Trump administration should drop our own ethanol minimums, and make it a principal point of trade and diplomacy talks with European countries to get them to drop theirs.

Oppose “carbon-content” rules: In their never-ending quest to find phony “carbon off-sets” that allow them to claim reductions in carbon dioxide without closing their own power plants, European countries have made a mess out of the simple act of importing goods from developing countries. Flowers from Kenya, for example, pay a carbon tax because they are transported on airplanes, which use more fossil-fuel per flower than a slower ship. As part of an international consortium on air travel, the United States can object to and reverse such rules, leading to more trade, and jobs, in developing countries. Congress enacted legislation in 2011 that blocked the consortium’s scheme to place a carbon tax on all air travel. As we protect our travel rights we should also look out for those of exporters in developing countries.

Thursday, 19 January 2017

CLIMATE EXTREMISTS GOING FOR BROKE

These are the aims of an organisation called Avaaz according to an email sent out to their supporters:

In the next 2 years, our community has voted to drive forward 3 more game changers -- things we don't need Trump* for:
  • Push 10 major countries and corporations to switch to 100% clean energy.
  • Pass laws in the 5 major car-manufacturing countries requiring all new vehicles to be electric.
  • Eliminate $1 trillion in taxpayer subsidies for big oil and coal, and invest it clean energy.
*Obama couldn't achieve this either.
    I would suggest this is a tiny bit ambitious, going much further than even the UK Climate Change Act. I hear there is a new film out called "La La Land". Maybe this is the sequel!

    Wednesday, 18 January 2017

    THE LAST ICE AGE ARRIVED IN SIX MONTHS ACCORDING TO NEW RESEARCH

    Well actually it's seven years old research, but I only just caught up with it!

    Here is the detail from the Daily Mail article back in November 2009. I thought it was interesting and still relevant. What it implies is that an ice age is still something to be concerned about, despite all the hype and exaggeration about warming. It's the unexpected that is likely to cause us the worst problems despite all the best endeavours of scientists.

    Tuesday, 17 January 2017

    UK FUTURE ELECTRICITY SUPPLY LOOKS INSECURE AND COSTLY

    The two papers below are from the Scientific Alliance. They make worrying reading for citizens, businesses and government. The authors are people with impressive credentials in the field.

    National Grid, in its 2016 study Future Energy Scenarios, considered four alternative views of UK energy supply and demand up to 2040. While these may be useful as a framework within which to plan, they say nothing about one essential factor, security of supply. For each of the scenarios, we estimate the possibility of meeting an established risk baseline: a grid supply failure occurring in no more than four winters every hundred years (as used prior to privatization).
    The security of supply under future energy scenarios

    Despite having installed more than 38GW of renewable energy generating capacity in the last decade, The UK has reached a capacity crisis. There is no hard evidence that this push for renewables has been an effective way to reduce CO2 emissions, and the cost has certainly been very large. The analysis presented in these two papers makes a strong case for a radical review of energy policy from an engineering perspective, placing equal weight on cost, security and environmental impacts. 
    The cost of supply under future energy scenarios

    Monday, 16 January 2017

    WHY TIDAL POWER IS NOT FOR THE UK

    Here is a good and balanced piece on the tidal power debate which is currently going on here fuelled by a new report in favour by an ex MP Charles Hendry.  The final analysis leads to the conclusion that it is too expensive.

    Sunday, 15 January 2017

    CENSORSHIP GROWS IN THE CLIMATE DEBATE

    This piece illustrates what is going on. In the end such action is counter-productive to those who do it as it re-enforces in the public mind that they have things to hide - as they have.

    Saturday, 14 January 2017

    GERMANY'S SELF-INFLICTED DECLINE

    Here is a most interesting article by Fritz Vahrenholt who was one of the founders of the environmental movement in Germany. He holds a PhD in chemistry and is Honorary Professor at the Department of Chemistry at the University of Hamburg. Since 1969 he has been a member of the Social Democratic Party (SPD). From 1976 until 1997 he served in several public positions with environmental agencies such as the Federal Environment Agency, the Hessian Ministry of Environment and as Deputy Environment Minister and Senator of the City of Hamburg. In 2001, he founded the wind energy company REpower and was director of RWE’s renewable energy division Innogy, one of Europe’s largest renewable energy companies. His 2012 book The Neglected Sun sparked a broad public discussion in Germany about the dogmatism in climate science. He is the chairman of the German Wildlife Foundation and a member of the GWPF’s Academic Advisory Council. As you can see he is a man of considerable achievement. When he says Germany is in trouble it is clearly something to take note of.

    Friday, 13 January 2017

    TRUMP'S GOLDEN OPPORTUNITY TO MAKE AMERICA GREAT AGAIN

    This article takes a look at the opportunity missed by President Obama in going full out to support the USA fracking industry. It goes on to suggest that Obama's missed opportunity is now President Trump's chance to take and make America great again.

    Thursday, 12 January 2017

    FULL PAGE ARTICLE IN DAILY MAIL ON HOW CLIMATE SCAMS ARE COSTING THE EARTH

    Only the Irish, you might think, could come up with a scheme where the more energy you used the more money you made. Yet this is only one of the many stupid schemes that politicians have planned to "save the planet".
    Here is the article by James Delingpole who has encapsulated many of the scams and rip-offs in an excellent summary which will be read by millions. Thanks to writers like Delingpole (and Booker and David Rose) the public are becoming increasingly aware of the growing costs of policies that are also failing in their primary objective of "saving the climate".  

    Wednesday, 11 January 2017

    FRIENDS OF THE EARTH PROMISE TO STOP LYING

    This piece explains the background to this, which was a leaflet they have been putting out stating the negatives of fracking. Unfortunately for them they were reported to the ASA (advertising standards authority) and they were unable to substantiate their highly contentious claims. From what is said in the article it does not look like they are likely to keep their promise. 

    Tuesday, 10 January 2017

    YELLOWSTONE PARK, WHERE GW IS ALLEGEDLY CAUSING PROBLEMS

    I have been watching a new series on the wildlife of Yellowstone Park with presenter Kate Humble. It was not long before I discovered that she was pushing the effects of global warming as having bad effects on the flora and fauna. You can watch an episode here. The global warming narrative is slipped in as though it is taken for granted, with no ifs or buts. I have no doubt that this is part of a concerted effort by the leadership at the BBC to persuade the public that this is the case, with the unspoken caveat that we are all responsible. There is an excellent debunk of the proposition here by our good friend Paul Homewood. I don't know if Kate Humble has any views other than those expressed in the film, though I doubt it, but even if she had she knows that to express doubts would be likely to end her career, as it did for David Bellamy.

    Monday, 9 January 2017

    WHY IS THE UK GOVERNMENT GOING SO QUIET OVER THE "SOCIAL COST OF CARBON"?

    Could it be because they know that it is actually lower than the cost of their policies to reduce CO2 emissions? That is the conclusion of this report which looks at the sums, including those carried out by the US Environmental Protection Agency.

    If it is true that the costs outweigh the benefits then surely the public should be told?

    Sunday, 8 January 2017

    THERE IS MORE JOY WHEN ONE CLIMATE ALARMIST REPENTS....

    This post looks in detail at the gradual conversion of Judith Curry from being a full supporter of the IPCC to becoming a climate sceptic. This will have much greater traction with the public than someone simply taking up a position on one side or the other and then sticking to it steadfastly. In particular someone as qualified and thoughtful as Professor Curry. Her "journey" is one that many others may have taken and many more will take.

    Saturday, 7 January 2017

    MARK STEYN ON JUDITH CURRY AND THE CRAZY CLIMATE SCIENCE ECHO CHAMBER

    This piece from Mark Steyn's blog pulls no punches as usual. His anecdotes of how Judith was treated when giving testimony to Congress as well as the disgraceful comments of Michael Mann make this an article worth reading. 

    Friday, 6 January 2017

    UK £18 MILLION TIDAL ENERGY SCHEME BREAKS DOWN AFTER 3 MONTHS

    This article explains the details of this modern white elephant that is pushing up our energy costs.

    Thursday, 5 January 2017

    JUDITH CURRY TO RETIRE

    One of the most high-profile sceptical climate scientists, Professor Judith Curry, has announced that she is to retire from academic life. This article gives the details. Her common sense approach has been a breath of fresh air. We need more scientists to speak out in this way, but such is the intimidation that they face that it is understandable that few do.

    Wednesday, 4 January 2017

    ANOTHER UK MP GETS IT ON THE CLIMATE CHANGE ACT

    This post by the UK's only UKIP MP, Douglas Carswell, shows that he understands the damage being caused by the UK's climate change policy, and he is not the only one, though sadly he is still in a minority.

    Tuesday, 3 January 2017

    RUBBISH DUMP POLAR BEARS ARE "CLIMATE REFUGEES"

    This piece makes the claim in the title, which is designed to persuade us that the bears are in trouble when the evidence is that they are doing fine. Just one more small piece of propaganda. 

    Monday, 2 January 2017

    SCEPTICAL CLIMATE SCIENTISTS

    This article explains that in the USA there are now quite a few sceptical climate scientists who are optimistic that they will get an opportunity to research natural climate change as well as so-called man made change. The incoming Trump administration may allow their views to be developed and heard. I certainly hope this will happen.

    Sunday, 1 January 2017

    SCIENTIST SACKED FOR TOO MUCH HONESTY

    Read about it here - Scientist fired for being too open and honest. What a strange and twisted world we live in. Happy New Year!

    Saturday, 31 December 2016

    UK NATIONAL TRUST IN CLIMATE CHANGE MYTH PROPAGANDA EXERCISE

    This article by the indefatigable Paul Homewood looks at a climate review carried out by the National Trust in Britain and he points out how each of the climate impacts they select is either incorrect or cherry-picked. Paul's work is invaluable, as without it we would have no evidence with which to rebut this kind of propaganda.

    NO SCIENTIST SHOULD BELIEVE THAT COMPLICATED MODELS CAN PREDICT THE FUTURE

    This article poses the idea that  no scientist really believes that complicated models with lots of variables can reliably predict the future. It goes on to suggest that no non-scientist can evaluate the claims of climate science because BOTH sides look 100% convincing to the under-informed. In a detailed argument the writer's  assessment is that a bright, well-informed non-scientist has no realistic chance of reaching an independent opinion on climate change that is better than a guess.

    I can see where he is coming from, but what is his definition of a non-scientist? Does he mean someone with no scientific understanding at all, or does he mean someone who is not a climate scientist? I could go further than the writer and say that even an expert climate scientist is guessing when he makes claims about the future because the known science to make such predictions simply does not exist, as the writer himself states at the beginning when he states "no scientist really believes that complicated models with lots of variables can reliably predict the future".

    Of course we make lots of decisions based on guesswork, though to make it sound more respectable we don't use that word, preferring to use "balance of probabilities", or "best estimate", etc. to give an illusion of greater knowledge. In the end if that is all we've got then we have no choice, as decisions have to be made. Even deciding to do nothing is a decision, and often it is the best decision as it is the least expensive.

    Friday, 30 December 2016

    BAH HUMBUG - ALARMIST PURITANS WANT TO BAN YOUR CHRISTMAS LIGHTS

    At last, here is an article telling us that climate alarmists want to ban Christmas lighting. This is a logical view if you really believe that we must do all we can to reduce CO2 emissions, but of course it is not the view shared by most of the public, so I do not expect it will be announced by any serious political party. Perhaps we should put these alarmist politicians on the spot and ask them if they would support such a proposition.

    Thursday, 29 December 2016

    US STATE GOVERNMENTS ISSUE HUGE INCREASE IN FRACKING PERMITS

    Production of natural gas is set to hit new heights as state governments issue a large number of new permits. See here for details. This is bringing new wealth to those areas with gas deposits that are now recoverable. Here in the UK we could be having similar success if only the government would get on with it.

    Wednesday, 28 December 2016

    THE CURRENT ARCTIC "HEATWAVE" IS QUITE COMMON

    This piece explains how Arctic weather can change quite frequently with a wide range of temperatures possible, depending on the jet stream among other factors. So there is no need to panic if there is a warmer spell up there. 

    Tuesday, 27 December 2016

    WHY DO CLIMATE "ACTIVISTS" GET SPECIAL TREATMENT UNDER THE LAW?

    This case is just the latest example of how the courts seem to view those who flout the law for so-called ethical reasons seem to get off very lightly. This only encourages more of the same. I can only assume that the judges and magistrates must sympathise with them. Time to sack them and replace them with others who will uphold the law.

    Monday, 26 December 2016

    JUST LOOK AT WHAT THE ALARMISTS CONSIST OF

    This article looks in depth at how the myriad climate alarmist groups are inter-linked and also how they are funded. When you see the whole lot it looks very impressive, and it is not surprising that some of their messages have got through to the public consciousness. In fact you could be forgiven for thinking that they are unstoppable - except for one thing - the facts are beginning to show that their predictions are way over the top. Donald Trump has come to power not a moment too soon. If his time in office coincides with a downturn in global temperature it will be a perfect storm for the alarmists and give him the perfect reason to turn off the funding taps.

    Sunday, 25 December 2016

    SEASONS GREETINGS TO MY DEAR READERS

    I guess some of you must visit here a number of times through the year and though I don't know most of you, I feel we have an affinity in our mutual interest and scepticism about climate alarm. Do let me know if you have any comments about the blog, likes or dislikes. Next year I will be celebrating the 10th anniversary of this blog and also 500,000 visits, small compared with the major blogs, but still quite a big number.

    Meanwhile enjoy the festive season. 

    OBAMAS LAST MINUTE OFFSHORE DRILLING BAN COULD BE OVERTURNED

    This article explains the reasons why. There is a massive boost for the economy if drilling were to be allowed, so that alone is enough for this to be looked at closely by the Trump administration.  

    Saturday, 24 December 2016

    GREAT CLIMATE CHANGE DEBATE - SCOTT DENNING v ROY SPENCER

    Here is the link to a great debate on the issue of whether climate change is a problem or not. This debate is good because it is conducted with good humour between two leading experts, whose views differ in certain respects, but who agree on the fundamental issues. If you find the scientific details hard to grasp, this debate will mostly be one you can understand, so if you have an hour to spare give it a try.

    Friday, 23 December 2016

    NEVER MIND THE HEATWAVES, IT'S THE COLD THAT KILLS

    This piece gives the details. What is happening as our fuel and power becomes more expensive, is that many people are cutting back on heating and leaving themselves more vulnerable to cold. If the government really cared for us they would give us cheap power, but they are much more fixated on looking good in the CO2 reduction tables, even though in reality all they are doing is exporting the CO2 emissions to China and India.

    Thursday, 22 December 2016

    CLIMATE DATA TAMPERING - HOW IT WAS AND IS BEING DONE

    This article puts the issue into context and shows how it is being done slowly bit by bit. Recent reports indicate that some climate scientists are now concerned that President Trump may try to destroy the data (- that would be the data that has already been altered?)

    Wednesday, 21 December 2016

    UK SHALE GAS GETS APPROVAL FROM HIGH COURT

    This article explains the news that the High Court case brought by climate change activist groups has been rejected and that fracking can go ahead. Maybe we can now look forward to seeing some actual gas extracted sometime in 2017.

    Tuesday, 20 December 2016

    TRUMP OPENS THE DOOR TO USA ENERGY INDEPENDENCE

    Here are the details of how Donald may herald a new golden age for the USA, if he can have the courage to take on the climate alarmists.

    Monday, 19 December 2016

    USA OIL PRODUCERS TAKE ADVANTAGE OF OPEC PRODUCTION CUT

    This piece explains how the gamble by OPEC to cut production does not seem to be working, and in the worst of all worlds (for OPEC) the shale producers have upped their production to supply the shortfall. This, of course, is how free markets are supposed to work. So much for oil running out - no one factored in man's ingenuity. How the climate alarmists must be wringing their hands.

    Sunday, 18 December 2016

    THE SIMPLE WAY TO UNDO OBAMA'S CLIMATE REGULATIONS

    Here's the idea that is allegedly being considered. It sounds like an effective response. Trump's team will have to work smart and avoid long drawn out battles. Softly, softly catchey monkey. 

    Saturday, 17 December 2016

    WILL THE AUSSIES FOLLOW THE EU INTO DECLINE, OR FOLLOW TRUMP?

    This article poses the question and it looks as though the Australian government is split on how to respond to the changed world. The UK is in a similar quandary, though my hunch is that we will see a softening of the policies on CO2 abatement, both in Australia and the UK. 

    Friday, 16 December 2016

    £274MILLION OF TAXPAYERS MONEY GIVEN TO CLIMATE ACTION GROUP AND "LOST"

    Here is the detail. This is what happens when the government is set targets to give away huge amounts of money in overseas aid - inadequate checks and balances are carried out. The Daily Mail are running a big campaign on this and the public are furious to see such waste while those at home are struggling, particularly the care system. Is it any wonder that governments become unpopular?

    Thursday, 15 December 2016

    CLIMATE ALARMISTS PANIC AS THEY AWAIT TRUMP'S ARRIVAL

    I just can't help but smile as I imagine those leading climate alarmists starting to panic as they contemplate the future president's arrival. They have had  it largely their own way for the past eight years or more, but it looks as though it is over for the days of unlimited spending on conferences and so forth. This piece gives a flavour of their fears. I must admit I had great doubts as to whether Donald would be able to overcome all the opposition, but he did, and now he has to make it count for all those who stood by him. What a great Christmas present that would be. A clean environment, cheap plentiful fossil fuels and lower taxes with a more productive economy.

    Wednesday, 14 December 2016

    DONALD TRUMP SET TO MAKE ANOTHER GREAT CHOICE AS SECRETARY OF STATE

    This piece explains how Lex Tillerson, ex CEO of Exxon, was not only working closely with Russia, but also he allowed Exxon to fund climate sceptic groups. At last it seems that true climate scepticism will get a hearing at the top level. Things may be about to take a turn for the better.

    Additional comment - I wonder why our TV news seems to think that working with Russia is such a bad thing? It is not that Rex Tillerson has ever said he approves of Russia's foreign policy. I detect an underlying anti-Trump message coming out here. As with brexit and climate change we get a message with bias here. Important facts are buried.

    Tuesday, 13 December 2016

    CO2 FOUND GUILTY IN US SUPREME COURT DECISION

    This case was decided back in 2007 and yet it appears, so far, not to have led to any significant change.  Here is an article explaining the decision with links to more detail for those of a legal disposition. Readers of this blog will be aware that the EPA (Environmental Protection Agency) seems to be very pro-active in recent years to control power station emissions, so it seems strange that it defended this case at all. However it did not appear to do a very good job. I wonder if the new president will do anything to rein in the EPA?

    Monday, 12 December 2016

    HUGE ARTICLE IN MAIL ON SUNDAY HIGHLIGHTS THE RECENT FALL IN GLOBAL TEMPS

    This is the second week that David Rose has published this story. This time he has added it to a new report written by Peter Lilley, MP, and published by the GWPF (Global Warming Policy Foundation). Here  is a link to yesterday's piece. Peter  Lilley's report looks at the cost of the Climate Change Act using the government's own figures, to reveal the massive burden on the economy and on individual energy costs. How long can the government go on with its pretence that this isn't happening?  

    Sunday, 11 December 2016

    WHAT EXACTLY DO 97% OF CLIMATE SCIENTISTS AGREE ON?

    This short video gives an excellent summary of the truth about the 97% of scientists agreeing that climate change is caused by man and is dangerous. It simply isn't true and yet it is constantly being quoted by politicians to end any arguments and justify their massively expensive decarbonisation policies. This short video from Richard Lindzen is also well worth viewing. 

    Saturday, 10 December 2016

    OUR KNOWLEDGE OF THE ARCTIC IS SO LOW WE SIMPLY CANNOT MAKE PREDICTIONS

    This article explains how incomplete our knowledge of the Arctic is, and how climate alarmists have been much too quick to predict and end to summer ice in the Arctic.

    Friday, 9 December 2016

    TRUMP PICKS CLIMATE SCEPTIC TO RUN THE EPA

    Here is the essence of the story and what a great choice he has made. This man has been fighting against the regulations which have been currently coming from the present Environmental Protection Agency leadership. This must surely signal a complete change. More on this here.  And listen to the interview about this here

    LYING ABOUT THE CLIMATE IS NOW THE NORM

    This article puts the case forward, using the example of forest fires in Tennessee being blamed on global warming, despite the evidence not backing this at all. Just one example among so many where the weather is confused with climate and used to bolster a very weak case for man made alarming global warming/climate change. But the public are growing weary of this and we are hoping that Donald Trump will stand firm and bring in a dose of reality. The time is right for it.

    Thursday, 8 December 2016

    UK LABOUR PEER URGES PARTY RE-THINK ON CLIMATE POLICY

    This article by Labour peer, Lord Donoughue, in which he makes a strong case for his party to change its alarmist stance on climate change. I doubt that they will take his sensible advice. The article was published in the magazine for UK politicians "The House". This magazine is distributed to all British MPs and I often get to read it free, as I have it passed to me from my local MP. This is just as well as an annual subscription costs £195. The Lord Donoughue article is in the 2 December edition alongside the pro-alarmist case put by Lord Deben and others. It is good to see the case for climate scepticism put forward yet again.

    Wednesday, 7 December 2016

    FIRST THERE WAS FRACKING, NOW ITS MICROWAVES TO EXTRACT OIL

    Here's the story of this new technology that is about to make oil even more widely available. Any climate alarmists will now be having palpitations at the thought of a whole new raft of fossil fuel coming on stream. So much for peak oil! What a good job that climate alarm has been exaggerated and we can cope with the climate by using technology. 

    Tuesday, 6 December 2016

    NY STATE ATTORNEY GENERAL IN RETREAT OVER ATTEMPT TO SILENCE FREE SPEECH ON GW

    This article explains how Eric Schneiderman, the New York State Attorney General has found his attempt to attack the Competitive Enterprise Institute has back-fired as his case unravelled. Well done to the CEI for defending freedom of speech and standing up to this state official.

    Monday, 5 December 2016

    CLIMATE CHANGE WRITER, DAVID ROSE, TAKES THE FLACK FOR GIVING THE FACTS ON GW

    Poor David Rose, the Mail on Sunday writer who dared to inform us that global land temperatures had fallen by record amounts over the last few months, has been called all sorts of bad names by the climate alarmists. This article gives some details of the row, which highlights how much courage it takes to inform the public about facts to do with our climate (or weather) that don't fit the alarmist narrative.

    Sunday, 4 December 2016

    NEW REPORT FINDS THAT THE CHEAPEST OPTION IS TO ADAPT TO GW, NOT FIGHT IT

    This report gives the evidence to support the proposition that fighting global warming is way more costly than letting it happen and then adapting to it using technology. It's a no-brainer.

    Saturday, 3 December 2016

    SUN GOES QUIET AGAIN AS SCIENTISTS PREDICT MINI ICE AGE COULD BE IMMINENT

    This Mail article gives the details of what is happening to our nearest star. It seems intuitive that it must have a significant effect on our climate. 

    Friday, 2 December 2016

    THE UK SMART METER FIASCO

    Here's the sad tale of the UK government's smart meter fiasco, and a very costly fiasco it is. Once again Paul Homewood has highlighted something which both parliament and the mainstream media seem to have ignored.

    "The government  have just released their long overdue assessment of the cost of the country’s smart metering program.  Hidden among the figures is the amount of money that they have spent.  So far, they have squandered £450 million on the project, despite the fact that not a single compliant smart meter [which conforms to their specifications] has been installed in any house.  By a strange coincidence, that’s exactly the same amount as the shortfall in BHS’ pension fund which occurred when Philip Green flogged off BHS."

    The government  were aiming to install 53 million new gas and electricity meters in British homes by 2020.  Half of these were expected to be installed by 2017, when there would be a project review. The estimated cost of £10.98bn has been underestimated by at least £1.6bn, because they have forgotten to include the cost of smart gas meters. The true cost could amount to at least £14.67bn, which  equates to about £560 per household.

    The design of smart meters in Britain means that if they are hacked, power could be turned off for large chunks of the country, causing massive damage to the grid.  When questioned on the sense of this design in meetings at DECC the reply from utilities is “why would anyone ever do that”. You can read the whole saga at the link at the start of this post.

    Thursday, 1 December 2016

    THE LESSONS OF LYSENKO FOR CLIMATE SCIENCE

    The Lessons of Lysenko
    By Roger Helmer MEP
     
    Image result for lysenkoism
     
    Following the death of Fidel Castro, it's perhaps a good time to think about the malign impacts of totalitarian government, and the damage that political agendas can do to science.
     
    "The term Lysenkoism can also be used metaphorically to describe the manipulation or distortion of the scientific process as a way to reach a predetermined conclusion as dictated by an ideological bias, often related to social or political objectives". https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lysenkoism
     
    Dear Reader, you're way ahead of me.  Yes of course, I was struck immediately by the read-across to climate science.  The parallels are remarkable.
     
    You'll be familiar with the story of Lysenko. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trofim_Lysenko  He was a Russian biologist and agronomist who rejected Darwinian evolution and the rôle of genes, and preferred instead the Lamarckian concept of "inheritance of acquired characteristics".  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lamarckism Of course that concept is difficult to accept – especially when you reflect that a man who has lost a leg is perfectly capable of fathering a child with two legs.  With the benefit of hindsight, it is difficult to believe that Lamarckism was once regarded as a credible alternative to Darwinian theory – but so it was.
     
    And Lysenko, in the late 1920s, took that view, and built a whole theory of plant breeding on it.  More than that, he had the ear of Stalin, and Lysenkoism became official Soviet doctrine.  The theory was imposed rigidly.  More than 3000 mainstream biologists were fired, imprisoned or executed for challenging it.  
     
    Lysenkoism held sway in the USSR until the sixties, with dire consequences for Soviet agriculture.  Again with hindsight it is difficult to credit the fact that it survived so long, when it plainly did not work.  But worse than that, not only did it fail in the field (literally), it also totally blocked proper academic study and research in Russia in the area of plant breeding and Mendelian genetics for decades.
     
    So how close are the parallels with climate theory?  Of course Lysenkoism was restricted to the USSR.  And it was imposed by a totalitarian régime that could, and did, shoot dissenters.  Climate alarmism, on the other hand is broadly speaking global (even if some countries merely pay lip-service to the orthodoxy).  It is imposed not by a violent autocracy, but by an intolerant and often vindictive establishment – scientific, media and political.  It threatens not imprisonment and murder, but the destruction of careers.  Scientists who dare to challenge the prevailing view are denied tenure, and publication, and perhaps worst of all grant funding.  As a result, those who do dare to challenge the orthodoxy tend to be older scientists secure in their careers (and their pension funds).
     
    In fact the parallels with the Soviet Union go further.  On the outer fringes of the Warmism movement we see demands for "Nuremberg-style trials" of "climate deniers", http://www.climatedepot.com/2014/02/26/are-you-a-climate-denier-nazi-warmists-declare-nuremberg-style-trials-must-be-held-for-senior-corporate-and-political-executives-responsible-for-crimes-against-humanity-and-planet-that-almost/ and the imprisonment of directors of fossil fuel companies.
     
    Nor is it just scientists and company directors in the firing line.  The BBC, for example (always achingly, painfully "on message") seeks to exclude climate sceptics, and it famously dropped David Bellamy, who was once nearly as popular a presenter on nature and wildlife issues as Attenborough, merely because he dared to express doubts about Global Warming. http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2266188/David-Bellamy-The-BBC-froze-I-dont-believe-global-warming.html
     
    We saw with the ClimateGate scandal how leading IPCC scientists engaged in "the manipulation or distortion of the scientific process as a way to reach a predetermined conclusion as dictated by an ideological bias", just as Lysenkoism does.  http://www.telegraph.co.uk/comment/columnists/christopherbooker/6679082/Climate-change-this-is-the-worst-scientific-scandal-of-our-generation.html
     
    We see that their prescriptions are utterly failing.  Björn Lomborg famously demonstrated (for example) that all the hundreds of millions of dollars invested in solar panels by Germany would have the effect (on the IPCC's own estimates) of delaying the trajectory of global warming by only a few hours -- by 2100.  http://notrickszone.com/2014/03/08/lomborg-congratulates-germany-for-e100-million-climate-change-delayed-37-seconds/#sthash.ebkF2miL.dpbs An utter waste of money and misallocation of resources.
     
    And just as Lysenkoism prevented Russian agriculture from doing the right things, so Warmism, by focusing on mitigation, blinds us to the possible need for adaptation (in the unlikely event that warming becomes a significant problem).
     
    Wealthy economies and societies are far more resilient to adverse conditions.  But prosperity depends critically on the availability of secure and affordable energy – which mitigation and greenery militate against.  Warmism prescribes vast up-front investment to guard against highly speculative and uncertain long-term outcomes.  By the time you realise you're wrong, you've blown billions.  Adaptation on the other hand is proportionate, and involves spending money on targeted projects only as and when (and if) circumstances justify it.
     
    The main difference between Lysenkoism and Warmism, as I see it, is that the damage done by Warmism is on a far larger scale and will be far more difficult to reverse.

    Wednesday, 30 November 2016

    WHY THE UK CLIMATE CHANGE ACT WILL HAVE TO BE REPEALED

    At this moment the current Conservative government is sticking with the Climate Change Act (CCA) which was passed by a previous Labour government, but, as I have said several times on this blog it is simply impossible to see how the later stages of "decarbonisation" of our nation's fuel and energy needs can be carried out without crippling our industry and causing massive pain to the citizens of the UK.

    This is brought out very clearly in a series of blog posts over at NALOPKT (that's Not a Lot of People Know That, to those who didn't guess it). This is the first and the previous two develop the theme further.

    What it says, in summary, is that whilst electricity demand currently peaks at around 50GW, gas demand frequently peaks at over 300GW. If this demand for gas had to be replaced by electricity, as required to meet the demands of the CCA, it would not only need massive increases in generating capacity, it would also necessitate a complete rebuild of the grid and transmission network as the current system would be overwhelmed. All this is still a few years away, so our present lot of politicians can still say they will do it, but the questions they will soon have to answer is - how? and equally important - who is going to pay?

    Tuesday, 29 November 2016

    ROGER HELMER SUMS UP THE CLIMATE CHANGE DEBATE VERY WELL

    Here is his latest post, which I recommend to all. I have known Roger over many years and he has always been consistent and uses measured words in favour of common sense. Sometimes he has caused controversy, but he does not let this prevent him from speaking his mind. If only we had more politicians of his calibre and with his courage.

    Monday, 28 November 2016

    HUGE DROP IN LAND TEMPERATURES CONFIRMS EL NINO CAUSED RECENT HIGHS

    This article in the widely read Mail on Sunday confirms what most people expected - that the recent warming was mainly due to the strong El Nino, not CO2 induced warming. Now that the El Nino is over land temperatures have already fallen by a whole degree Celsius in just a few months.  If Donald Trump wants to show that climate alarm is exaggerated nonsense he may find that this is going to make it even easier for him.

    Sunday, 27 November 2016

    CURRENT POLICIES POSE A SIGNIFICANT THREAT TO ELECTRICITY CONSUMERS

    This piece looks at the recent thinking of the UK regulator and the government on the cost of renewable subsidies to the consumer, which pose a significant cost to consumers, both citizens and business.

    Saturday, 26 November 2016

    COULD THE INTERNET BE CONTROLLED IN AN ORWELLIAN MANNER?

    This piece looks at a possible future where Google decides what is "the truth". Were such a thing to happen I suspect that users would simply avoid Google and use another search engine.

    Friday, 25 November 2016

    DOGGERLAND - PROOF THAT CLIMATE CHANGE HAS ALWAYS BEEN HAPPENING

    Never heard of Doggerland? Blame it on climate change 20,000 years ago. Rising waters have forced populations to relocate since the dawn of early man. Consider that 20,000 years ago, at the end of the last ice age, the North Sea didn't exist. Global sea levels were as much as 400 feet lower than today, Britain was part of continental Europe and Scotland linked by land to Norway. A natural climate shift began to melt the glaciers of Scandinavia. Seismic surveys and ice cores from Greenland suggest that sea level rose as much as 6 feet per century during a series of melting events. Gradually the North Sea formed and then the southern area inundated more land forming islands.

    Those rising oceans created new ports for Greek and Roman naval and trade vessels. But today many of those structures and ruins are inland, out in the open, making them popular tourist destinations. How did that happen? The Little Ice Age once again turned substantial ocean water into ice, lowering sea levels, and leaving former ports stranded. Not enough ice has melted since 1850 to make them harbors again.
    The ancient city of Ephesus was an important port city and commercial hub from the Bronze Age to the Minoan Warm period, and continuing through the Roman Empire. An historic map shows its location right on the sea. But today, in modern-day Turkey, Ephesus is 5 km from the Mediterranean. Some historians erroneously claim “river silting” caused the change, but the real “culprit” was sea level change.
    Ruins of the old Roman port Ostia Antica, are extremely well preserved – with intact frescoes, maps, and plans. Maps from the time show the port located at the mouth of the Tiber River, where it emptied into the Tyrrhenian Sea. The Battle of Ostia in 849, depicted in a painting attributed to Raphael, shows sea level high enough for warships to assemble at the mouth of the Tiber. However, today this modern-day tourist destination is 2 miles up-river from the mouth of the Tiber.

    Just imagine if we were living at that time and we had climate alarmists speaking authoritatively about this warming being caused by mankind emitting CO2?  Think how convincing they would seem as the sea level kept on rising, even though the cause of this was entirely natural we would fall under their spell.   

    Thursday, 24 November 2016

    LET'S CELEBRATE THE BENEFITS OF FOSSIL FUELS

    This article makes the case for fossil fuels and undermines the social cost of carbon being put forward by the climate alarmists. Government agencies claim fossil fuels and carbon dioxide emissions cause “dangerous global warming.” Their latest strategy for advancing this thesis involves estimating the “social cost of carbon” (SCC) – monetized damages associated with alleged climate risks.

    Wednesday, 23 November 2016

    AFTER THE TRUMP WIN, WILL HE FOLLOW THROUGH ON HIS STATED PROMISES?

    This piece looks at the hard road ahead for the new Trump administration in the USA to roll back all the punitive energy and climate change regulations that the Obama people put in. They must suspend and defund any initiatives and orders issued under the Paris climate treaty. And also carry out a truly independent review of the assertions, models, “homogenized” data, science, and research that underpins the whole alarmist agenda, thus exposing the whole charade for what it is.

    But, this article suggests he is softening his stance, which is worrying for those of us who wanted to see a realistic approach. The climate alarmists are very powerful and even Donald Trump is subject to pressure.

    Tuesday, 22 November 2016

    THE ARCTIC ICE SAGA

    Here is an interesting post on what is happening in the Arctic. It is quite a detailed post with lots of visual aids and charts, but quite readable. In fact the blog that it comes from contains a lot of interesting musings about the climate and so I have linked to it via the sidebar. 

    Monday, 21 November 2016

    WILL TRUMP TURN OFF THE FLOW OF MONEY FOR CLIMATE FUNDS?

    This piece looks at the expectation of the third world nations.  There is widespread unease about finance at the Nov. 7-18 talks on climate change among almost 200 nations being held in Marrakesh, Morocco.                   
    "My only worry is the money," said Tosi Mpanu Mpanu of Democratic Republic of Congo, who heads a group of the 48 least developed nations. "It's worrying when you know that Trump is a climate change skeptic," he told Reuters. In fact it is ALL about the money!

    Sunday, 20 November 2016

    MASSIVE NEW OIL AND GAS DEPOSIT FOUND IN TEXAS

    This report explains the find which is worth $900 billion and ensures the USA will have supplies for many decades to come. So much for peak oil! On top of the Trump presidency surely this means the end of any possibility that the USA will reduce its use of fossil fuels. It will be a terrific boost to the economy and jobs. The best possible start for the Trump government.

    Saturday, 19 November 2016

    NO TROPICAL HOTSPOT MEANS CO2 CAUSED WARMING IS HIGHLY EXAGGERATED

    This paper gives a clear look into the evidence for CO2 caused global warming. It finds no evidence of any tropical hotspot, which is the one clear signal that the planet is warming due to CO2 emissions. This result means that there is no risk from increasing levels of CO2 up to the present, hence any effect from it is likely to be small.  

    Friday, 18 November 2016

    A LETTER TO ALL SCIENTIFIC SOCIETIES THAT PERPETUATE GLOBAL CLIMATE ALARM

    This article refers to a letter written to the various "scientific societies" in the USA in response to their  Consensus Scientific View of Climate Change letter to the USA Congress. Below is the letter, which ought to be adapted and sent to all scientific institutions that subscribe to and perpetuate global climate alarm. The Research Report referred to as a link in the letter requires a good knowledge of statistics, but it the statistical arguments it makes which lead to its clear conclusion that the link between CO2 levels in the atmosphere and any rapid rise in global average temperatures is not proven.

    Dear---------,

    This letter is written with respect to the June 28 Letter, subscribed by your organization and some thirty other U.S.-based scientific societies.  I attach a copy of that June 28 Letter for your reference.  Besides this letter to you, we are addressing letters similar to this one to each of those other societies.
    On September 21, 2016 a major new Research Report was published on the ICECAP website and at other locations.  The Research Report was undertaken by its authors because they were unable to find anywhere in the literature of climate change a mathematically rigorous validation of a statistically significant, quantitative relationship between rising atmospheric greenhouse gas concentrations and surface as well as tropospheric temperatures.
    The Research Report provides the methodology and findings of a definitive study designed to validate or invalidate the principal scientific hypotheses underlying the EPA’s December 2009 Endangerment Finding with respect to so-called “greenhouse gases,” including the hypothesis that rising greenhouse gas concentrations are likely to be associated with harmful or dangerous increases in surface temperatures.  The results of the Research Report apply equally well to the Physical Science reports issued by the UN Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change over the last few decades.  In accordance with the scientific method, the Research Report used the best available temperature data from multiple sources, each of them structurally independent from the others, for the validation/invalidation exercise.  The data used in the Research Report are fully available via links in the Report itself, and came from sources including satellites, weather balloons, ocean buoys, and also surface thermometer records.
    hotspot
    The principal conclusions of the Research Report are as follows:
    * “These analysis results would appear to leave very, very little doubt but that EPA’s claim of a Tropical Hot Spot (THS), caused by rising atmospheric CO2 levels, simply does not exist in the real world.”
    * “Once EPA’s THS assumption is invalidated, then EPA’s climate models that rely upon the THS assumption are also invalid.
    * “[T]his analysis failed to find that the steadily rising Atmospheric CO2 Concentrations have had a statistically significant impact on any of the 13 critically important temperature time series data analyzed.”
    * “[T]hese results clearly demonstrate – 13 times in fact – that once just the ENSO [El Nino/La Nina] impacts on temperature data are accounted for, there is no “record setting” warming to be concerned about. In fact, there is no ENSO-Adjusted Warming at all.”
    The June 28 Letter to which you subscribed contains statements strongly implying that there had previously been some sort of empirical validation of a quantitative causal relationship between increasing atmospheric greenhouse gas concentrations and increasing global average surface temperatures.  For example, you state:  “Observations throughout the world make it clear that climate change is occurring, and rigorous scientific research concludes that the greenhouse gases emitted by human activities are the primary driver.” Later in the June 28 Letter, you state:  “There is strong evidence that ongoing climate change is having broad negative impacts on society, including the global economy, natural resources, and human health.”
    However, as noted above, the authors of the Research Report have been unable to find in any scientific study a rigorous empirical validation of a statistically significant quantitative relationship between rising greenhouse gas concentrations and tropical, contiguous U.S. or global temperatures.  Indeed we can find no paper that actually provides mathematically rigorous empirical proof that the effect of increasing atmospheric greenhouse gas concentrations on world temperatures is different from zero with statistical significance.
    As you might realize, we are concerned that prestigious scientific societies, including your own, have subscribed to a letter to Members of Congress purporting to convey scientific propositions as having been definitively established, when in fact there has never been a mathematically rigorous empirical validation of the propositions stated, and indeed there now appears to be a definitive scientific invalidation of those propositions.
    Obviously, the June 28 Letter preceded the September 21 Research Report.  We therefore ask you to reconsider your June 28 Letter in light of the Research Report.  Alternatively, could you kindly:
    * Refer us to the research study or studies that, in a mathematically proper and rigorous fashion, empirically validate a quantitative relationship between rising atmospheric greenhouse gas concentrations and global temperatures as reflected in all thirteen major data sets as used in the Research Report.  Such a study must be very clear as to the analysis process and data utilized and must be able to be replicated.
    * Refer us to the research study or studies that definitively empirically validate the so-called Tropical Hot Spot that is a critical underpinning of the “lines of evidence” on which EPA says it relies for its Endangerment Finding.  (The term “Tropical Hot Spot” refers to the hypothesized warming pattern whereby increasing greenhouse gas concentrations cause the tropical mid-troposphere to warm more rapidly than the lower troposphere, which in turn warms more rapidly than the surface.)
    * Refer us to the research study or studies that definitively empirically demonstrates that there is statistically significant warming to account for in the global troposphere after controlling for ENSO [El Nino/La Nina] effects.
    In closing, we wish to remind you of the well-known quote from noted physicist Richard Feynman:
    “It doesn’t matter how beautiful your theory is, it doesn’t matter how smart you are.  If it doesn’t agree with experiment, it’s wrong.”
    As a leader of a major scientific society, you of course realize that Feynman’s aphorism captures the essence of the scientific method that underlies the entire project of science, including all of the work of your organization and its members.  If you as a scientific society are going to use your authority to advocate for a government policy agenda, the American people are entitled to know the specific empirical work that validates your scientific hypothesis that greenhouse gases are warming the planet. Also, if there is apparently definitive empirical research, such as the Research Report, that would seem to invalidate the principal hypotheses that underlie your policy advocacy, the American people are entitled to your definitive refutation of that work before you continue your policy advocacy.
    In short, if you have mathematically rigorous empirical validation of the hypotheses that underlie your advocacy, kindly provide it.  If you do not, kindly say so.
    Very truly yours,
    Francis Menton
    Law Office of Francis Menton
    85 Broad Street, 18th Floor
    New York, New York 10004
    fmenton@manhattancontrarian.com
    Alan Carlin
    Webmaster: carlineconomics.co
    carlineconomics@gmail.com

    Thursday, 17 November 2016

    DANSGAARD-OESCHGER EVENTS, ANOTHER WELL KEPT CLIMATE SCIENCE SECRET

    Dansgaard-Oeschger Events: Writing in No Tricks Zone, Kenneth Richard discusses papers on Dansgaard-Oeschger cycles, or D-O cycles, which indicate that: “Unlike the relatively stable climate Earth has experienced over the last 10,000 years, Earth’s climate system underwent a series of abrupt oscillations and reorganizations during the last ice age between 18,000 and 80,000 years ago (Dansgaard 1984, Bond et al. 1997, 1999). …There are twenty-five of these distinct warming-cooling oscillations. These include up to 10°C (in the Greenland region) were reached within as little as 50 years or about 2°C per decade.”

    One can assert that D-O events apply only to the Arctic, or to Greenland, specifically. However, alarmists claim that a warming of the Arctic and of Greenland are the result of CO2 caused warming. The alarmists have generally failed to discuss D-O Events and to separate this natural variability from the influence of CO2. 

    Wednesday, 16 November 2016

    GREENLAND ICE GROWTH AT RECORD LEVEL

    This article gives the details, which fly in the face of the pronouncements of the climate alarmist lobby. For every alarmist story there is another to say the opposite. Is it any wonder that the public are cynical?

    Tuesday, 15 November 2016

    NEW MINI ICE AGE IN 4 YEARS SAY CLIMATE EXPERTS

    This article explains what is happening.  A 15-YEAR long mini ice age could be due to hit the Northern hemisphere in just FOUR years as the sun prepares for 'hibernation' - triggering a barrage of cataclysmic events.  A team of experts have warned that huge seismic events, including volcanic eruptions, plunging global temperatures and destabilisation of the Earth's crust will become more common after worrying changes to the surface of the Sun were recorded.

    Monday, 14 November 2016

    DOES THIS OBSERVATION REFUTE THE GREENHOUSE EFFECT?

    This piece makes a very interesting observation about the surface temperature of earth. The GHE hypothesis has a testable result which is well-accepted by its proponents.  It is that if there were no greenhouse gases capable of absorbing the radiation being emitted by the earth’s surface due to its temperature, the earth’s average temperature would be about 33oC less than its observed average temperature.  So, all one has to do to prove the GHE hypothesis to be false is to refer to observations of the earth’s natural system which demonstrate that the earth’s average temperature cannot be less than that which is observed. You can click on the link and read the article to follow the argument which I found interesting.

    Sunday, 13 November 2016

    COULD LENR BE AN ENERGY SOURCE OF THE FUTURE?

    This article looks at the controversial science of low energy nuclear reactions (LENR), also called cold fusion. Whether you believe in the man made global warming scare or not, we will have to look at new forms of energy at some stage and this is one candidate that could play a part, perhaps?

    For more information watch this video.

    Saturday, 12 November 2016

    EU CLIMATE FUND TO BE USED TO BUILD GREEK COAL PLANTS

    After Paris: Greece Set To Win €1.75 Billion From EU Climate Scheme To Build Two Coal PlantsThe Guardian, 3 November 2016

    Arthur Neslen
     
      Public funds from Europe’s carbon trading programme – set up to help poorer countries reduce emissions – will help build two plants that will emit about 7m tonnes of CO2 a year
    Image result for paris agreement GWPF

    Image result for paris agreement GWPF

    Greece appears on track to win access to a controversial EU programme that could earmark up to €1.75bn (£1.56bn) in free carbon allowances for the building of two massive coal-fired power plants.
    The 1100MW coal stations will cost an estimated €2.4bn, and emit around 7m tonnes of CO2 a year, casting doubt on their viability without a cash injection from an exemption under Europe’s carbon trading market.

    The European parliament’s industry committee last month approved a rule change allowing Greece to join the scheme, the ‘10c derogation’ of the emissions trading system (ETS). Now, positive votes in the environment committee next month and at a plenary in February could set wheels in motion for the coal plants.

    Gerben-Jan Gerbrandy, a Dutch Liberal MEP on the environment committee, said: “Lignite [coal] has no future and should not be stimulated in any way. Greece’s intention of using public funds to revive its lignite-based model should not be allowed. Article 10C is there to help poor countries towards a sustainable energy future. Lignite does not fit these criteria.”

    “You couldn’t make this up,” added Imke Lübbeke, WWF Europe’s head climate and energy policy. “The ETS was intended to reduce greenhouse gas emissions but it now risks being abused to facilitate investments in the new coal plants, which would operate well within the 2060s.

    Friday, 11 November 2016

    GOVERNMENT WINS LEGAL CASE TO REMOVE CLIMATE SUBSIDIES

    UK Court Rules Unwinding Of Renewable Energy Subsidies is allowed
    Global Warming Policy Forum, 6 November 2016

    John Constable, GWPF Energy Editor
     
    The Court of Appeal recently upheld the government’s right to cancel the Climate Change Levy (CCL) exemption for renewable generators. In effect this is a retrospective removal of subsidy entitlement, and should remind investors that even a seemingly secure economic rent will collapse when push comes to shove. This has significant implications for the Carbon Price Floor (CPF) and also the value of certificates issued under the Renewables Obligation (RO). The Renewable Heat Incentive (RHI) may also be affected. For the time being the Feed-in Tariff (FiT) and Contracts for Difference (CfD) are probably safe, but anyone in the electricity sector relying on subsidies and handouts has been given fair warning: The government giveth, and the government taketh away.

    The main flaws with current energy policies as they relate to climate revolve around their inflexibility. Broadly speaking, the policies simply assume that the premises driving their motivation cannot change, except to require still more urgent action to reduce emissions. This was clearly an error. A full gearbox, including a reverse gear, is a necessary feature of any legislation whatsoever, principally because errare humanum est. This is still so even when the policy is grounded in area designed to minimise such errors, scientific research. Indeed, both the history and the philosophy of science tell us that scientific propositions are without exception provisional and subject to change. There simply are no absolute truths in any scientific field, even at a very fundamental level, a point that Schrödinger famously noted in What is Life? (1944) when he reminded his audience that “the laws of physics and chemistry are statistical throughout”.

    Scientists should never forget, though in the heat of policy debate they sometimes do, that their propositions are reasoned abstractions from observations, and those observations are necessarily finite. There is always more to learn, even in areas that seem rock solid. We may not expect the clock to suddenly go backwards and wind its own spring, but, as Schrödinger puts it, this infinitesimal probability “always remains the background”. In many cases, particularly those relevant to policy, the probability of change is far from infinitesimal.

    This sceptical point has from time to time been apparent to political leaders. It is over three hundred years since Oliver Cromwell, with a mighty puritan oath, “in the bowels of Christ”, asked the Synod of the Church of Scotland to “think it possible that ye may be mistaken”. But legislatures become overconfident, and the necessity for provisions for flexibility in law-making is neglected. The Climate Change Act of 2008, for example, is designed as a one-shot rocket, quite without steering and with precious little provision for deceleration.

    Paradoxically, this lack of flexibility makes the legislation fragile, and investors relying on such law should be extremely cautious. What cannot go on, will not go on, and if a change of pace is not possible, abrupt termination becomes inevitable. Precisely because the legislation contains no obvious means of control and reversal, government, being under the pressure of force majeure itself, may simply apply overwhelming legal pressure to adjust the vehicle’s direction, and even turn it around. A recent ruling in the Court of Appeal reminds us that government is entitled to act robustly in the public interest.

    In the July 2015 budget, the then Chancellor George Osborne removed the exemption from the Climate Change Levy (CCL) applying since 2001 to renewable generators. At the time of removal this exemption was worth approximately £5/MWh to all existing generators, so in that sense was retrospective. While the CCL subsidy was small in comparison to those available under the Renewables Obligation (for example £45/MWh for onshore wind and £90/MWh for offshore wind), it was a very welcome extra layer of jam, £381m thick in 2014/15, and its removal much resented. Infinis Energy Holdings Ltd, owner of one of the larger renewable generation portfolios in the UK, and Drax Power Ltd, one of the largest single producers of renewable energy, both attempted to challenge the decision in the courts, arguing, in essence, that they had reasonable expectations that the exemption would continue, and that the government had acted unfairly and unreasonably. The High Court rejected their challenge. Drax then, sensibly, withdrew; but Infinis took the case to the Court of Appeal, which, in the persons of Sir Terence Etherton MR, Lord Justice Lloyd Jones and Lord Justice Sales, delivered its judgment this week, and firmly rejected the arguments that Infinis had presented. It seems unlikely that this judgment will be reversed.

    The Court of Appeal summarised the case thus:

    The central issues in dispute between the parties are as to what standards of foreseeability and legal certainty EU law requires in the context of changes to the tax regime and what requirements have to be satisfied to generate a legally protected legitimate expectation.  (Para 42)

    The Court concluded, from a broad review of jurisprudence and other cases, that the standard applicable was rigorous not loose. The relevant state authorities must have given “precise assurances” and “actively promoted” these expectations. “Vague indications” are not enough. The Court observed:

    In our judgment, the Appellant in the present case cannot bring itself within the principle of protection of legitimate expectations according to this test. The Respondents had made no promise and given no assurance that the RSE Exemption would be maintained indefinitely, nor that it would be subject to the giving of a period of notice before being changed. In the context of establishing and changing the rules of a national tax regime, a prudent and circumspect economic operator would appreciate that the tax authorities and the national legislature might change the tax code without giving notice. They are entitled to do so, as it is their function in a democratic society to manage the public finances by weighing up all the competing demands on the public purse against all the possible, conflicting ways of raising tax revenue and adjusting the elements on both sides of the equation as they see fit, in accordance with the policy they think should be pursued. Further, the Appellant was not entitled to expect that the existing situation involving having the RSE Exemption in place would continue, because, absent any precise assurance given to the contrary, the tax authorities and Parliament had a general discretion to alter the tax regime as they saw fit. (Para 55)

    In the absence of precise assurances, by which Parliament might bind itself, there is a “general discretion” to make such changes as are required in the public interest.

    The significance of this point for other renewable subsidies, for example the Renewables Obligation, is substantial. Of course, it is perfectly true that the RO is not a tax exemption, and may not at first glance appear to be a tax. The revenue is not collected by the Treasury from consumers and disbursed to the renewable generators, instead it passes from consumers to generators via electricity suppliers. However, and unsurprisingly since the imposition on consumers is both unavoidable and unrequited, the Treasury does, for accounting purposes, regard it as public expenditure, and has consequently asserted its authority over this spending through the Levy Control Framework (LCF).

    In principle, then, the RO is indeed a tax, though of a special kind, and as a result no one should assume that this judgment is irrelevant to the continued value of Renewable Obligation certificates. Indeed, the RO system was designed explicitly so that the value of the certificates would fall as the targets were met, a fact that may become relevant in the years to come.

    In other areas the judgment has a straightforward relevance. The Renewable Heat Incentive (RHI)  is funded via the Treasury, and anyone relying on this income may wish to hedge immediately. The Carbon Price Floor is straightforwardly a tax, and rumours are already in circulation that government is considering making major changes, perhaps even cancellation.

    The status of the Feed-in Tariff, and that of the new Contracts for Difference, seems more secure. These are both contractual entitlements, “precise assurances” regarding particular prices, though doubtless everyone will now be reading these contracts extremely carefully to see whether there is any room left in which Parliament’s “general discretion” might be exercised.

    In this context the numerous and at first sight vacuous government statements on the need to respect the burden placed on the consumer may now seem rather more important. However, and in spite of the discretion that this important judgment outlines, governments have been and will continue to be quite properly reluctant to achieve flexibility in legislation by abrupt or forceful means. The state would prefer to be regarded as trustworthy. That said, no one will respect a government for persisting in obviously foolish or economically dangerous policies, as the climate policies very probably are, and when in a tight corner the government will do what it must, even if specific undertakings have been given.

    Investors should recognise this as a normal business risk. Machiavelli had neither a Harvard MBA nor a degree in PPE from Oxford, but his advice is nonetheless sound: “A ruler will never be short of reasons to explain away a broken promise”.