"Carbon (Dioxide) trading is now the fastest growing commodities market on earth.....And here’s the great thing about it. Unlike traditional commodities markets, which will eventually involve delivery to someone in physical form, the carbon (dioxide) market is based on lack of delivery of an invisible substance to no-one. Since the market revolves around creating carbon (dioxide) credits, or finding carbon (dioxide) reduction projects whose benefits can then be sold to those with a surplus of emissions, it is entirely intangible." (Telegraph)
This blog has been tracking the 'Global Warming Scam' for over five years now. There are a very large number of articles being published in blogs and more in the MSM who are waking up to the fact the public refuse to be conned any more and are objecting to the 'green madness' of governments and the artificially high price of energy. This blog will now be concentrating on the major stories as we move to the pragmatic view of 'not if, but when' and how the situation is managed back to reality. To quote Professor Lindzen, "a lot of people are going to look pretty silly"
PS: If you have arrived here on a page link, then click on the HOME link...
Sunday, 30 June 2013
Dirty tricks of the the fracking deniers: How Green zealots peddle cynical propaganda to stop Britain mining £3trillion of shale gas...enough to keep the lights on for 141 YEARS
"Green pressure group Friends of the Earth is preparing a bitter legal battle to try to block Britain’s trillion-pound shale gas bonanza. It wants to prevent any exploitation of this vast new reserve of cheap, clean energy forever and is already fighting to stop all exploratory test drilling. But an investigation by The Mail on Sunday suggests that the group’s campaign is based on alarmism, spreading highly misleading claims about shale gas’s supposed dangers. Last week the organisation issued an ‘action guide’ for activists, advising them how to stop shale gas extraction – known as ‘fracking’ – by manipulating the planning system. It leaves no doubt as to its purpose: ‘The ultimate aim of our fracking campaign is that we stop it!’
Saturday, 29 June 2013
" Then, just as they have cobbled this crazy joke of a policy together, we discover that we are sitting on what is potentially the world’s largest resource of a fuel so cheap that it has halved the price of gas across the Atlantic in just five years. The last time I observed that the Almighty must have a sense of humour was in October 2008 when, just as our MPs were voting almost unanimously for Ed Miliband’s Climate Change Act, committing us to economic suicide by cutting CO2 emissions by 80 per cent in 40 years, the first October snow was falling in London for 74 years. We will not see an end to this insanity until our politicians recover their senses, struggle back into the real world and strike that Act from the statute book."
Thursday, 27 June 2013
"The President of the United States stepped up to the podium and announced to the land that he was hereby officially declaring climate science settled and the debate as ended. Unfortunately, science is never settled, and the remarks will go down in history as being among the most naïve ever expressed by the office of the President."
"A British Geological Survey (BGS) report estimates that there could be 1,300 trillion cubic feet (tcf) of shale gas trapped in the Bowland shale basin alone. In fact, the BGS’s upper estimate is almost twice that figure, 2,281 tcf. This would make it by far the biggest shale basin in the world. 10% of Bowland Shale would equal 130 trillion cubic feet – or about 50 years of total UK consumption."
"Surely it must be embarrassing for the White House that a “flat earther” blogger like me has to point these factual errors out to them."
The Whitehouse releases a laughable state by state climate impact report.
Wednesday, 26 June 2013
"The economy, after all, is everything. Without an economy you can't afford a domestic policy, let alone a foreign policy. So you'd think the very last thing any president would do as his country began to show the first vague signs of slow – and quite possibly illusory – recovery after a long recession would be to jeopardise it with a whole new raft of utterly pointless regulation and wasteful government expenditure. Why it would be like seeing a man drowning and, instead of throwing him a life line tossing him a lead weight. But that's just what President Obama has done with today's Climate Action Plan.."
Tuesday, 25 June 2013
"I’m not impressed at all with the Obama plan. It lacks real vision, and seems written mainly to appease activist groups. While there are some glimmers of positive things in it, the lack of a real way forward (solar, biofuels, and wind aren’t it) combined with new restrictions can only mean higher energy prices in our future, most of it due to government meddling in the free market. Like most everything from this president, it is likely to be mostly lip service and tied up in legal battles for years. By that time Obama will no longer be President, and we’ll be left to wrestle with the consequences."
Monday, 24 June 2013
"WSJ.COM 6/24/13: WASHINGTON—When President Barack Obama lays out plans to tackle climate change in a speech Tuesday, including the first effort to curb greenhouse-gas emissions from existing power plants, he will unleash a yearslong battle that has little assurance of being resolved during his time in office."
"This makes you wonder what the white house sees as threatening about this information"
New York Times Andrew Revkin Shocked: “…Disturbing To See White House Delete Factual Tweet On Hurricane History”
"New York Times environment reporter and believer of potentially catastrophic AGW Andrew Revkin is stunned at Twitter by the behavior of the White House. Apparently blogger Steve Goddard had left a very factual tweet at the WhiteHouse Twitter page:"
Saturday, 22 June 2013
If its implications were not so serious, it might have seemed hilarious that the Met Office’s scentists last week staged a conference to discuss why, in recent years, Britain’s weather has apparently gone off the rails. What they meant, without admitting it, was: why have they got their forecasts so spectacularly wrong in 12 years out of the past 13? Why in 2009 did they predict a “barbecue summer” when the summer was a washout? Why, in 2010, did they predict a “milder-than-average winter” just before we had one of the coldest-ever Decembers? Why in 2012 did they forecast a “drier-than-average” spring and early summer just before we enjoyed one of the wettest summers on record?
The explanation, of course, is that the Met Office’s experts have been so obsessed with global warming that their computers were programmed to predict “hotter, drier summers” and “warmer, wetter winters” for decades to come. Tellingly, they last week went out of their way to discount man-made global warming as the cause of all this “climate disruption”, ascribing it instead to various natural factors, from changes in solar radiation to shifts in ocean currents: in other words, precisely the arguments less blinkered scientists have been urging in vain for years. The significance of this retreat from their former mindset is that the influence of our Met Office in driving the man-made warming scare has been second to none, not least through the prestige it has enjoyed with the UN’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change ever since it was launched in 1988 under the Met Office’s then-director, Dr John Houghton,
Only two clear messages emerged from last week’s conference. The first was that the Met Office experts seem, at last, to be admitting that they really have no idea what is driving the changes in our weather. The other was their call for more research funding to help them to find out.
But as the Met Office and its much-vaunted “super-computer” is already costing us £200 million a year, I suppose that it is good to see them conceding that, so far, we haven’t really had much value for our money.
Friday, 21 June 2013
"The plain fact is that installing solar panels, especially in the northern hemisphere, makes about as much economic sense as Iran heading up a UN Human Rights Commission (which it has done by the way). Equally, the viability of windfarms has always been the renewables industry’s worst kept secret."
‘If things continue as they have been, in five years, at the latest, we will need to acknowledge that something is fundamentally wrong with our climate models. ‘
"Climate experts have long predicted that temperatures would rise in parallel with greenhouse gas emissions. But, for 15 years, they haven’t. In a SPIEGEL interview, meteorologist Hans von Storch discusses how this “puzzle” might force scientists to alter what could be “fundamentally wrong” models."
Thursday, 20 June 2013
"Boehner hits the nail on the head President Obama’s soon-to-be-revealed second-term climate change proposal is “absolutely crazy,” Speaker John Boehner said Thursday. The Ohio Republican was incredulous when asked to react to reports that the White House plans to regulate carbon emissions from power plants as part of its climate change strategy. “I think this is absolutely crazy,” Boehner said at his weekly press conference. “Why would you want to increase the cost of energy and kill more American jobs at a time when American people are asking, ‘Where are the jobs.’ “
"Not so long back, Deutsche Bank were writing 50 page reports on the science of climate change. They paid for giant 70 foot high towers of doom counting carbon emissions near Madison Square Gardens. They were so concerned about the planet they had a division called Deutsche Bank Climate Change Advisors (DBCCA). They weren’t driven by money, of course, only by the science. ........But the science must have changed for DB because now they don’t even turn up:"
Tuesday, 18 June 2013
Monday, 17 June 2013
"These facts speak for themselves and should be front page news. They are not. That fact should also be front page news."
Sunday, 16 June 2013
"British households forked out a massive £1.2billion in subsidies to wind farm operators last year - a sector that creates 12,000 jobs for the economy. That means every job in the industry is effectively costing £100,000 a year in handouts from inflated domestic energy bills, according to a report today."
Saturday, 15 June 2013
Friday, 14 June 2013
Thursday, 13 June 2013
Okla. congressman wants Obama apology for spending 30x more on global warming than weather forecasting and warning
"Even climate change alarmists admit the number of hurricanes hitting the U.S. and the number of tornado touchdowns have been on a slow decline for over 100 years. “But here is what we absolutely know. We know that Oklahoma will have tornadoes when the cold jet stream meets the warm Gulf air, and we also know that this president spends 30 times as much money on global warming research as he does on weather forecasting and warning. For this gross misallocation, the people of Oklahoma are ready to accept the president’s apology and I intend to submit legislation to fix this.”
"As Anthony and others have pointed out, even the Washington Post has at last been constrained to admit what Dr. Pachauri of the IPCC was constrained to admit some months ago. There has been no global warming statistically distinguishable from zero for getting on for two decades."
Wednesday, 12 June 2013
"The absence of any significant change in the global annual average temperature over the past 16 years has become one of the most discussed topics in climate science. It has certainly focused the debate about the relative importance of greenhouse gas forcing of the climate versus natural variability. In all this discussion what happened to global temperature immediately before the standstill is often neglected. Many assume that since the recent warming period commenced – about 1980 – global temperature rose until 1998 and then the surface temperature at least got stuck. Things are however not that simple, and far more interesting."
Monday, 10 June 2013
"The secret email accounts the EPA used to eschew transparency are only the tip of the iceberg compared to the 'Sue and Settle' tactic, whereby environmental groups sue a sympathetic administration with the hopes of settling the lawsuit without the need for the administration to go through the regular regulatory process. A settlement that allows the EPA to quickly enact new regulations while claiming that it was forced to do so by the terms of the lawsuit. In nearly 60 of these lawsuits, EPA chose not to defend itself. EPA simply agreed with the terms set forth by the environmentalist groups. In nearly all of these proceedings, EPA also did not disclose to Congress, stakeholders or the Office of Management and Budget that it was even being sued until the consent decree had already been agreed to."
"Climate scientist Dr. Murry Salby, Professor and Climate Chair at Macquarie University, Australia explains in a recent, highly-recommended lecture presented at Helmut Schmidt University, Hamburg, Germany, why man-made CO2 is not the driver of atmospheric CO2 or climate change. Dr. Salby demonstrates: ..."
Sunday, 9 June 2013
"The great Climate Change hoax has cost the UK not just the odd thousand here and there. It has cost it billions. Thousands of old people have been condemned to miserable deaths in fuel poverty; good businesses have been crippled by layers of environmental regulation; bad businesses have gorged themselves on free money they simply don't deserve by sucking on the teat of the subsidised renewables sector; property rights have been confiscated, views ruined, sleep disturbed, people's health damage, birds and bats chopped to pieces by wind turbines; our economic recovery has been held back by idiot green taxes and the idiot ongoing attempt by DECC and its allies to stop us exploiting our abundant shale gas reserves.
And where has alleged Tory MP Tim Yeo MP been in all this? Has been carefully scrutinising the scientific evidence for this alleged climate change threat? Has been overseeing DECC's policies to be absolutely damn sure they're not doing more harm than good?
Er, not exactly, no. Instead, he's been doing everything in his power to keep the green gravy train going – long after the evidence to justify its existence has lost all credibility – in order, it would seem on the first casual glance, to benefit from it financially."
Saturday, 8 June 2013
" Last Tuesday something happened in the House of Commons so weird that it must be counted as one of the more terrifying episodes in the entire history of our Parliament. Towards the end of a seven-hour debate on its virtually incomprehensible, 200-page Energy Bill, the Government slipped in a new amendment proposing something so utterly mad that, if anyone present had understood its implications, it might have made front-page news. What MPs were being asked to endorse was that, within just six years, we should all be forced by law to make a mind-boggling cut in how much electricity we are allowed to use. The reason why no one seemed to grasp this was that the amendment was so opaquely dressed up that only an MP with some knowledge of the basics of electricity might have twigged the enormity of what was being proposed. By 2020, it said, Britain must reduce its electricity use by “103 terawatt hours”, rising by 2030 to “154 terawatt hours”. This could have been understood only by someone aware that we currently use each year some 378 “terawatt hours”. So what was being proposed was that this must be cut down in six years by 27 per cent – more than a quarter – rising 10 years later to a cut of more than 40 per cent, or two fifths. In the course of his mind-numbing speech, Greg Barker, the minister proposing this, carefully avoided any explanation of what it was all about. Not one MP picked him up on it. At the end of a vacuous debate, during much of which the House was virtually empty, MPs dutifully poured in from all over Westminster to nod the Bill through by 396 votes to eight."
Friday, 7 June 2013
"On one side you had the alarmists, who had all the politicians in their pocket, a massive PR budget which was usually and still is replenished by governments grants, all the mainstream media including the crypto-state television channels like ABC, CBC, PBS and BBC, pretty much the whole of the journalistic establishment, all the activist prominenti of climate science, the EU, NASA, NOAA, BOM, EPA, IPCC, pretty much anything you can think of which has an acronym, the seamier side of the investment industry, every environmental organisation right down to the smallest fruit loop loony tune outfit, all the major science journals, presidents, prime ministers, the world, his brother, his sister, their dawg and even the frigging cat, never mind their bloody hamster.
On the other side you had us and we had, umm, well, as a matter of fact we’d bugger all beyond the wit to point out the teensy-weensy cracks, nay yawning crevasses, in the science, and in a political sense, sound the alarm bell about the sort of Armageddon the hysterical bandwagon was slouching towards. Given that match up, the obvious question has to be – how the hell did they ever manage to lose and why are we doing so well, while their once soaring ambitions now lay in smoking ruins?" (h/t Bishop Hill)
Wednesday, 5 June 2013
A dangerously deluded energy policy and why the greens want to hide the truth about your soaring bills
"Mr Davey suggested that journalists who doubt the wisdom of his policy only do so through ‘sheer blinkered, dogmatic, political bloody-mindedness’ — probably because they are being paid to do so by nameless ‘vested interests’. So angry does this make him that he seemed to suggest that any questioning of his policy cannot be tolerated. In other words, he will brook no opposition — at a time, we should remind ourselves, when free speech in Britain seems under threat as never before. I should say at this point that if this remarkable attack was simply a detached assault on writers like me who are critical of the Government’s green policies, then I might let it pass. But there are bigger issues in play here, for the decisions the Energy Secretary makes are having a direct and damaging effect on the finances of millions of households across the country, who find themselves paying ever-higher bills as a result of green subsidies. .......But the most disturbing part of Mr Davey’s speech came towards the end, where he came up with that only too familiar boast that the European Union is leading the world in the fight against the carbon dioxide that is causing all this global warming, and that Britain is leading the EU with its Climate Change Act, committing us — uniquely in the world — to reducing our ‘carbon emissions’ by 80 per cent in fewer than 40 years.
Mr Davey seems quite oblivious to the fact that the rest of the world is no longer taking any notice of what we are up to, and that China and India between them are now building more than 800 new coal-fired power stations, so that China alone is now generating more carbon dioxide every year via its new power stations than the total emitted by Britain. Even the EU is at last waking up to the fact that ‘decarbonising’ its economy is making electricity so expensive that ever more firms are moving their operations overseas — not least to America, where the shale gas revolution has more than halved the price of gas and electricity in just five years. So poor little Britain is left increasingly alone, with an energy policy deliberately designed to price out of the market those very much cheaper fuels which still provide most of the electricity we need to keep our homes lit and warm, and our economy running."
Monday, 3 June 2013
"What's unusual about the Energy Secretary's latest attack is that he's saying that sceptics shouldn't be given the same opportunities as warmists to make their case. "Of course there will always be uncertainties within climate science and the need for research to continue," he says. "But some sections of the press are giving an uncritical campaigning platform to individuals and lobby groups."
That's an odd thing for Davey to say on several levels. To begin with, it's a charge that could be made equally well by climate change sceptics about the Guardian and the Independent. Indeed, if you substitute the word "media" for "press", it could also be made about the BBC. As every sceptic knows, the BBC held a famous meeting in 2006 in which the corporation assembled 28 of "the best scientific experts" to discuss global warming and concluded that "the weight of evidence no longer justifies equal space being given to the opponents of the consensus on anthropogenic climate change". What Ed Davey appears to be saying is that it's perfectly acceptable for some sections of the media to endorse one side in this debate, but not for other sections to endorse the other.
More importantly, it's completely inappropriate for a senior politician to criticise the editorial policy of any newspaper, however much he or she disagrees with it."
Ed Davey, the UK’s Energy Bully, Donna Laframboise (Canada)
10 times as much gas lies under the North of England than expected - and it could make the UK self sufficient for at least 15 years
- IGas has carried out technical studies which suggest the quantity of shale gas in parts of the UK have been vastly underestimated
- A 300 sq mile area contains up to 172.3 trillion cubic feet of shale gas, the company says
- The UK uses 3 trillion cubic feet of gas a year, of which half is imported
Sunday, 2 June 2013
“Men, it has been well said, think in herds; it will be seen that they go mad in herds, while they only recover their senses slowly, and one by one.”That is from Charles Mackay in his book, Extraordinary Popular Delusions and the Madness of Crowds first published in 1841.
I think it is an apt description of the process that led to Cook et al. (2013) Quantifying the consensus on anthropogenic global warming in the scientific literature because that paper is in fact, a product of a crowd evaluating a crowd. As an example, Dr. Richard Tol has just discovered that using Cook’s own data, the consensus number Cook should have published is 98%, rather than 97%.
Dr. Tol writes in a critique of the Cook et al. paper:
In fact, the paper by Cook et al. may strengthen the belief that all is not well in climate research. For starters, their headline conclusion is wrong. According to their data and their definition, 98%, rather than 97%, of papers endorse anthropogenic climate change. While the difference between 97% and 98% may be dismissed as insubstantial, it is indicative of the quality of manuscript preparation and review."
"Scientists believe a rise in carbon dioxide levels have increased the amount of vegetation in some parts of the world. After studying satellite images taken between 1982 and 2010, researchers found there has been a dramatic rise in plant growth in the world's most driest regions including parts of Africa, North America, the Middle East and the Australian outback. The research was carried out by Randall Donohue and his team at the Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organisation (CSIRO) in Canberra, Australia."
ED: What a surprise, C02 makes plants grow!
Saturday, 1 June 2013
Climate Depot’s Marc Morano Routs Warming Movement…”Suffering The Scientific Death Of A Thousand Cuts”
"Marc Morano of Climate Depot presents his written testimony at the Congressional Hearing on Climate Change in Fairview, West VA of May 30, 2013. This represents just the latest milestone on how far the global warming science has collapsed in the face of growing scientific skepticism over the recent years."
- Popular scare stories that weather extremes – hurricanes, tornadoes, droughts, floods — are getting worse are not based on fact.
- In the U.S., high temperature records are not becoming more numerous.
- Climate models significantly overestimated warming during the past 15 years.
- Even if climate models were correct, a 50% reduction in U.S. CO2 emissions by 2050 would avert only 0.07°C of warming by 2100.
- If a policy is not economically sustainable, it’s not politically sustainable.
- The climate change impact of enhancing CO2 concentrations has so far been small compared to the public health and biospheric benefits provided by affordable, carbon-based energy.
"Dr. Richard Tol has been tweeting a statistical destruction of the “97% consensus” study, Cook et al. (2013) by educating co-author Dana Nuccitelli as to why his “sample” is not representative.
From the comments: "Thanks. In lay terms, Cook cooked his books. Nice debunking by Tol."