Category Archives: Environment

The AGW Denialists ……..


The AGW arguments have become completely polarized, and in this situation we notice a familiar phenomenon: evangelization. Each side is so convinced of the rightness of its arguments that almost any means come to justify the ends and argumentation becomes increasingly colourful and/or insulting. Few are they who retain a scientific detachment. The following is a good example of a believer rubbishing a heretic:

Anyone who does not acknowledge the fact that humankind is causing global warming is anti-science, anti-intellectual and on the same level as a religious fundamentalist.

This is not condicive to intelligent debate. And a “wanting-to-believe” layman has problems.  IF the science is overwhelming, then why ARE there so many denialists? We want to trust scientists, but we are wary of PC officialdom, and I would suggest with good reason. The vast majority of the ruling elites of the past 20 years have completely failed their voters. They have lied about the benefits of the euro. They have connived at the totally-unmandated progression of the EU towards a giant federal superstate, for which NOBODY has voted. They have wildly over-borrowed, thanks to a complete gutlessness and inability to say to their people: “No, we can’t afford that.” or “Sorry, but you have to postpone retirement.” and so on. Others have gone further, becoming as in Greece and Spain utterly venal and colluding in blatant corruption in their countries. Most political elites are in hock to financial institutions and/or big industry in some form or other. Almost all are obsessed with short-term propagandizing and soundbites designed to fool the public into voting for them at the next election.

All this has led to a massive debt and financial crisis resulting of course in mass unemployment, deflation, recession and all the rest, of which there is currently no end in sight. In other words, the credibility of our ruling classes is at an extremely low point. So much so, that many people simply NO LONGER BELIEVE in most of what they say. The GW debate has become infected by this general revulsion at much of the information given out by our so-called leaders to the point where rational arguments and thought are thin on the ground. Millions of people are ready and willing to believe in conspiracies and hidden agendas by the elites – political, industrial and/or financial – or even by other nations.(“It’s all a scam by the poor nations to force us to give them money.”)

The solution to this is obvious – elect better and above all more honest representatives. But here the despair sets in. By any standards, the Greek political elite has led the country to ruin, but when given a chance to vote the Greeks managed to reelect a coalition of most of the familiar old and venal faces that have been troughing off the Greek people for decades. No different in Spain – the dinosaur parties still reign. Hope for more honesty in European politics is therefore fairly hard to summon up. The US staggers on alternating between the two big old parties; is it not astonishing in the US that other viewpoints either do not exist or cannot get a foot in the door?

After my previous two posts on GW – each reflecting the opposing sides of the argument, I trawled some blog comments in “The Daily Telegraph” to illustrate the depth of feeling on the part of some “denialists”.

Of course, the term “denialists” is in itself hugely propagandistic. It could in theory and obviously be equally as much applied to the GW believers as the non-believers (denying that GW is a myth).  But if one side can appropriate a catchy term and use it to rubbish the opposition, it is of course very powerful. I am reminded of the power of brand names and marketing!

Anyway, for what it is worth, here are some denialists’ comments! Once again,m it takes an “expert” to tell us if and where the flaws are in these apparently sincerely-held opinions. On both sides “facts” are presented as unchallengeable and statistics tossed around like confetti. I admit to being somewhat confused, especially as the science seems pretty complex.

  • With their report the IPCC promised to explain why they had failed to predict the 15-17 year pause and cooling in global temperatures, and then went on by failing to do so.  The scary scenarios they pedaled in their AR4 report have failed to come to pass, and the world is missing 0.6C of warming already.Meanwhile CO2 emissions are growing faster than ever. China has doubled their CO2 emissions, and are set to double it again, so that by 2020 they will account for 2/5 of all the world’s CO2 emissions.
  • I have already researched a number of so-called unprecedented AGW events and found in everyone I researched, there had been a similar or worse event in the immediate region, if not the exact same place, 60 or 70 or 80 years ago and probably periodically throughout history. Of course communications are better today and populations denser, so we know about events we might have never heard about 60 or 70 or 80 years ago, and more people are affected by such events.The most devastating hurricane to hit the U.S. in terms of loss of life was in Galveston, Texas in 1900. Between 5000 and 6000 were killed – and this was an actual hurricane event, unlike Katrina, where deaths came from a lake overflooding and going through a non-maintained levee and flooding a beneath sea-level city.Sandy was massive in size. But it was only a cat 1 storm – in hurricane season. Meteorologists said the actual impact wasn’t just because of the hurricane. It was that the hurricane hit a cold front. Surely cold fronts in the Northeast U.S. are not unusual in autumn. No one has explained why a cat 1 hurricane in hurricane season – which extends through autumn, hitting a cold front in a cold part of the U.S. would be an AGW event. An unfortunate coincidence, yes. But what makes it an AGW event? That the area was densely populated; much sea front with beaches which erode every year anyway and much built on flood plains which private insurers won’t insure and despite all, completely unprepared for the possibility of storms – well, I don’t think any of that can be called “AGW.”
  •  It is now a complete joke. The world is warming….somewhere, according to NASA and our trolls, but there has been a hiatus according to the MetOffice, Phil Jones, the IPCC and the New York Times. Yet the IPCC is 95% certain of all the things in which they have low confidence. And since the world is warming, that’s why it’s cooler in most places where people live and there are blizzards. Any fool would understand that. And there is more drought, which is why there are (supposedly unprecedented) rainfalls, even in the deserts. Any fool would also understand that. And the Arctic ice is melting, I think because of jet streams, which are at least 20,000 feet above earth and as much as 50,000 feet. Why jet streams, where it is very, very cold (anyone know of anyone climbing Everest in a bathing suit?) would melt ice on the surface of the earth, also obvious to anyone. (Not!).Is there even a pretence anymore that there is any science? What are the CRU people and Mann doing with their time (and our money) these days? Seriously? How are they spending their time?
  • Did my ears deceive me or, just before 2pm today, did I hear somebody on Radio 4 say that scientists were quietly tip-toeing away from the catastrophic predictions of global warming alarmism. Oh dear, the game really is up.
  • There has been no statistically significant warming for over 15 years (as acknowledged by the IPCC) and there has in fact been minor cooling since 2002 (but not yet statistically significant) according to UEA / Met Office HadCRU data. This is despite the fact that human emissions of plant food have been over a quarter of total human plant food emissions since 1750. So much for the hockey schtick.”Although the forcing uncertainties are substantial, there are no apparent incorrect or missing global-mean forcings in the CMIP5 models over the last 15 years that could explain the model–observations difference during the warming hiatus”i.e. they don’t know, except for explaining the divergence away with the loose term “natural variability”, something that was conveniently ignored with their hockey schtick before it all went wrong for them.
  • Warsaw COP-19 was the end for the warmists.  It showed that the global warming scam was never about science but about the Marxist distribution of wealth from the industrialised nations to the UN, so that they can use the money to buy influence over the poorer nations as part of the roll out of Global Governance and Agenda 21.The industrial nations have woken up to this, and the process of distancing themselves from the UN global warming, global governance scammers has begun.
  • On the night of 31st January -1st February 1953 one thousand eight hundred and fifty-five people died in The Great North Sea Storm which combined a viscous storm and high tide to create a storm surge which inundated parts of Holland, totally destroying ten thousand buildings, ruining four times that number and drowning thirty thousand farm animals, and also killed more than three hundred people in England and Scotland. Freak weather events have always happened, be that sixty years ago in this case or hundreds of years ago, long before the anthropogenic global warming idea caught on or could have happened.
  • Global warming is a massive scam. There can only be a very few people who find anything about making hoax calls to the police, ambulance or fire services in the least bit a joke. People can die as a result of these calls. Hoax calls seems to be the general term for these calls. In the same way pseudo-scientific hoaxes such as the global warming con trick can be just as deadly but on a scale of millions upon millions of deaths, just so a particular group of ‘scientists’ can claim vast amounts of government funding.These funds and the vast amount of time tied up in such a scientific con trick are diverted from deadly threats such as the Fukushima disaster.   It is beyond doubt that the human race is threatened by what is happening at Fukushima, especially the future generations being born after 2010.   Deformities and death on a massive scale are what is going to happen from now on and for thousands of years to come.A global effort of all the world’s scientists and engineers should at this moment be working out how to safely contain the core melt downs at Fukushima. Radiation is pouring into the atmosphere and the world’s oceans. The Northern hemisphere is bearing the brunt of the airborne radiation at the moment, but all the worlds oceans will be irradiated as the radiation spread from the waters of the Pacific Ocean.Humanity, although most people are not aware of it, is in a frightening race against time. The longer Fukushima goes on being ignored the more the horrific results are going to be bourne by our children and children’s children. Please watch this documentary. It is the first one I have found that shows just what is going on at Fukushima, and why the world’s governments want to project the reassuring picture to us that all is well, and everything is under control. Nothing is well, and nothing is under control. Please watch this documentary: – (See also this site)
  • The Climate Establishment is corrupt and is engaged in pedalling lies, fraudulent manipulation of data, ignoring inconvenient science that conflicts with their CO2 mantra, controlling the peer review and publishing process to keep out publications that disprove their CO2 fraud, control the media to create alarm and to publish lies which are not supported by the data, and claim a consensus while constantly making up new unsupported seance to explain away and fob off why the real climate is refuting their scam.It is about time every nation ignored this spurious rubbish. Headlines like this only suggest one thing,  the left-wing are rattled. Anything that stands on any of their pious beliefs is met with language that only squabbling alley cats can appreciate. Dangers to society may be mortal without being immediate.A great rift could easily occur as the prevailing social vision of our time is creeping upon us without many people realising it.. The expansion of the media has enabled intellectuals to control the agenda without any feedback. The principle of empirical study is ignored. Statistics are manipulated to fit the argument and are slewed to such an extent as to create a world that does not exist. The hockey stick graph on climate change proved that point beyond doubt.This is how the left-wing works. As one of the strongest adherents of climate change admitted that results did not matter. What mattered more than anything was to maintain the crisis at its peak thereby polarising public opinion at the same time. I often wandered why the left-wing had such thick skins and why there was so much insistence about particular concerns such as poverty when in actual fact the poverty is only relative. The truth of the matter is that regardless of which subject is chosen that is in the news at the time, declarations of the widening gap of rich and poor for example, could on closer inspection be proved to be totally false depending on the data sampling of the system.Many of the main bodies of thought have  been hijacked by the left-wing using misinformation or by just declaring their position as sacrosanct. Anybody that doesn’t agree with them ia a heretic. The climate change hysteria is typical of a process providing false information. Despite many incidents and admittance of irregularities, billions are being wasted. The bullying tactics used by the left to threaten officials who did not go along with the main agenda resulted in sackings of personal who refused to toe the line. After studying all of the deliberate attempts of the left-wing on the climate change agenda, it occurred to me that this is how they operate all the time regardless what the subject is.

Posted by on December 1, 2013 in Environment, Politics


NO. Apparently it is NOT a total myth!

John Gardner, an old schoolfriend, has sent me his reaction to the claims of the “denialists” quoted in my last post, and I append his comments below. As a layman I would not presume to make a definitive judgement on all this, but I do think it is important for us to try to follow what is going on – difficult though it is. After all, we will also suffer whatever consequences there may be and in any case we will be PAYING for and living through any measures taken! There is even a small chance that if we work together we might be able to INFLUENCE what measures are taken …….

This really is one instance where a reaction of “I’m not interested in politics.” or even “I’m not interested in science.” would be just dumb.

Thank you for these fascinating comments, John, who writes ……….

The interesting thing about the arguments from denialists is that they all come from totally different directions. One set say that CO2 doesn’t cause global warming, some say that anthropogenic CO2 doesn’t cause global warming, some say that CO2 does cause global warming but the oceans will sort it out, some say that global warming doesn’t exist, and others that global warming does exist but it’s all the sun’s fault.

They can’t all be right! It reminds me of the variation of arguments put forward by Creationists.

To get to the basic science of Greenhouse Gases:

1. Do you believe that CO2 is a greenhouse gas that serves to warm global temperatures?

Very simple models show that given the solar radiation received from the sun the Earth would have a temperature of 253K without CO2. The same simple model shows that with the current atmospheric CO2 the Earth should have a temperature of 303K. It actually has a temperature of 295K – and that is with a model that just includes solar radiation, a bare Earth with an albedo of 33%, and a layer of CO2.

The science of greenhouse gases is well understood. In essence, the sun’s radiation is absorbed by the Earth and re-emitted as black body radiation with the peak in the infrared. The CO2 absorbs a significant proportion of
this radiation, and re-emits it, much of which reaches the ground again.

2. Do you believe in Anthropogenic CO2 loading of the atmosphere?

There really is no reason not to. We oxidise fossil fuels and make CO2. CO2 levels have risen by 30% since the industrial revolution, and this increase matches the increase in economic production. We supply about 10 Gigatons of carbon to the atmosphere per annum, mainly in the form of  CO2, compared to about 0.1-0.2 emitted by volcanoes.

(Incidentally, there are about 700 Gigatons of carbon in the atmosphere, 2,000 Gton on the land, 3,800 Gton in the oceans, and 1,200,000 Gton as limestones and fossil fuels. And it cycles round the four reservoirs.)

3. How can CO2 be such a big factor in all this if it comprises only 0.0405% of the atmosphere?

A good question, but easily answered. Each molecule of CO2 can absorb radiation around the 667 cycles per second waveband, which warms it up. That’s 405 molecules out of one million. Now think how many billions of molecules there are in a column of the atmosphere (90% of them are in the troposphere within the bottom 15 km), and you’ll appreciate that 0.0405% amounts to a significant number.

Interestingly enough, there is a finite amount of energy being emitted by the planet at 667 cycles, so one would think that it would all be absorbed by a certain amount of CO2, and then there will nothing else to absorb. This is true, except that a phenomenon called ‘pressure broadening’ starts to take effect such that the range of IR frequencies absorbed by CO2 becomes broader. This is caused by the gas molecules interacting with each other. The result of this is that the Earth’s temperature rises in proportion to the number of CO2 doublings – i.e. if 4 dollops add 1K to the global temperature, it will take 8 dollops to raise it by 2K, and 16 to raise it by 3K.

4. The Earth has warmed over the last 150 years

The Earth has warmed about 0.5K over the past 150 years. This 0.5K is consistent with climatic models when run with the actual CO2 levels, and then run without the anthropogenic input.

5. Increasing CO2 will continue the trend. ->
Commonsense and modelling indicates that it will.

To me, all the above is all very clear and obvious. If it looks like a duck, and quacks like a duck, then it probably is a duck.


Some of the objections put forward are easily dismissed, and some of them have actually been withdrawn but are still being recycled.

1. The sea will soak it up.

The sea is actually soaking up about half our emissions. However, there are things to be aware of.

a) Given enough time, the CO2 in the atmosphere will be in equilibrium with that in the sea. The equilibrium used to be a given concentration in the sea, and 300 ppm in the atmosphere. Raise the CO2 in the atmosphere and the concentration in the sea will rise. But because it is in equilibrium it will not take it all.

b) Because there are relatively few windows between the surface and the sea and the depths of the oceans, it takes about 1,000 years to reach equilibrium.

c) Increasing the CO2 in the sea decreases the pH (it has decreased by 0.1 in the last 150 years), which will have a catastrophic effect on the marine ecosystem.

2. Increases in CO2 occur 700 years after the increase in temperatures
(Point 2).

This is obviously nonsense as a glance at any graph showing rising temperatures over the past 150 years with CO2 increase will confirm. It is actually referring to the fact that this is observed during the retreat of ice during
the last ice age. The main agent behind the ice ages is the variation of solar flux reaching the northern hemisphere during the course of the Milancovic Cycle. It seems that the retreat of ice from the landscape
results in CO2 being released as the biosphere re-established its hold. This does not stop the CO2 so released having a positive feedback on the rate of the decreasing ice.

3. Satellites show no increase in global temperatures.

This did puzzle climate scientists for some time, until they realised that the temperatures being measured were being affected by the temperature of the stratosphere which has been getting colder. This has now been taken into account, and the measurements now match those of other means.

4. Sea Levels aren’t rising

This is just crap. Sea levels are rising by about 3mm per year, and have risen by about 250 mm in the last 150 years. It does seem, however, that most of the islands currently seen to be at risk are suffering from increased tides due to El Nino, and increased erosion due to more energetic weather, rather than from rising sea-levels.

5. It’s all down to the Sun

There has been no changes in solar radiation measured in the past 150 years apart from that expected from the 11-year solar cycle.


The climate scientists do not know it all. There will always be unknowns which are not being modelled; there will always be errors in the modelling; and there will always be problems with things that can’t be properly modelled.

Having said that, if one accepts the basic science, it is clear that increasing the rate at which we inject CO2 into the atmosphere will be bad for those alive in a 100 years, and even if we steady reduce our CO2 output, it still won’t be good.

The good news, however, is that it will all sort itself out over the next 60 million years. We can’t do anything that will totally screw up the carbon cycle for ever.

1 Comment

Posted by on November 29, 2013 in Environment


Tags: , , , , , ,



I was a firm believer; I only had to sit on the cliffs at Dover gazing out over the Channel and watch ships belching out fumes, day after day, week after week and so on, and then think of the hundreds of thousands of factories and power-stations worldwide doing the same …. it seemed self-evident that we were damaging the atmosphere we breathe. This feeling must be much more evident in China for a start!

BUT ……… the pro-GW brigade has become so hysterically-PC that I am starting to wobble …. I am naturally suspicious of mass-hysteria …..

In today’s “Daily Telegraph” someone posted these statements from scientists involved in the IPCC. No doubt one could find contrary opinions from an equal number of other scientists, but the thing is, HOW THE HELL CAN THE LAYMAN BE CONFIDENT THAT HE HAS ANY IDEA OF THE TRUTH?

And it is really important, not only for the future of the planet. In the UK we are spending BILLIONS AND BILLIONS we can’t afford on “green measures”. Is it all a horrendous waste of time and money?

45 statements by IPCC experts against the IPCC

  1. Dr Robert Balling: “The IPCC notes that “No significant acceleration in the rate of sea level rise during the 20th century has been detected.” This did not appear in the IPCC Summary for Policymakers.

  2. Dr Lucka Bogataj: “Rising levels of airborne carbon dioxide don’t cause global temperatures to rise…. temperature changed first and some 700 years later a change in aerial content of carbon dioxide followed.”

  3. Dr John Christy: “Little known to the public is the fact that most of the scientists involved with the IPCC do not agree that global warming is occurring. Its findings have been consistently misrepresented and/or politicized with each succeeding report.”

  4. Dr Rosa Compagnucci: “Humans have only contributed a few tenths of a degree to warming on Earth. Solar activity is a key driver of climate.”

  5. Dr Richard Courtney: “The empirical evidence strongly indicates that the anthropogenic global warming hypothesis is wrong.”

  6. Dr Judith Curry: “I’m not going to just spout off and endorse the IPCC because I don’t have confidence in the process.”

  7. Dr Robert Davis: “Global temperatures have not been changing as state of the art climate models predicted they would. Not a single mention of satellite temperature observations appears in the IPCC Summary for Policymakers.”

  8. Dr Willem de Lange: “In 1996 the IPCC listed me as one of approximately 3000 “scientists” who agreed that there was a discernible human influence on climate. I didn’t. There is no evidence to support the hypothesis that runaway catastrophic climate change is due to human activities.”

  9. Dr Chris de Freitas: “Government decision-makers should have heard by now that the basis for the longstanding claim that carbon dioxide is a major driver of global climate is being questioned; along with it the hitherto assumed need for costly measures to restrict carbon dioxide emissions. If they have not heard, it is because of the din of global warming hysteria that relies on the logical fallacy of ‘argument from ignorance’ and predictions of computer models.”

  10. Dr Oliver Frauenfeld: “Much more progress is necessary regarding our current understanding of climate and our abilities to model it.”

  11. 1Dr Peter Dietze: “Using a flawed eddy diffusion model, the IPCC has grossly underestimated the future oceanic carbon dioxide uptake.”

  12. Dr John Everett: “It is time for a reality check. The oceans and coastal zones have been far warmer and colder than is projected in the present scenarios of climate change. I have reviewed the IPCC and more recent scientific literature and believe that there is not a problem with increased acidification, even up to the unlikely levels in the most-used IPCC scenarios.”1

  13. Dr Eigil Friis-Christensen: “The IPCC refused to consider the sun’s effect on the Earth’s climate as a topic worthy of investigation. The IPCC conceived its task only as investigating potential human causes of climate change.”

  14. Dr Lee Gerhard: “I never fully accepted or denied the anthropogenic global warming concept until the furore started after NASA’s James Hansen’s wild claims in the late 1980s. I went to the [scientific] literature to study the basis of the claim, starting with first principles. My studies then led me to believe that the claims were false.

  15. Dr Indur Goklany: “Climate change is unlikely to be the world’s most important environmental problem of the 21st century. There is no signal in the mortality data to indicate increases in the overall frequencies or severities of extreme weather events, despite large increases in the population at risk.”

  16. Dr Vincent Gray: “The [IPCC] climate change statement is an orchestrated litany of lies.”

  17. Dr Mike Hulme: “Claims such as ‘2500 of the world’s leading scientists have reached a consensus that human activities are having a significant influence on the climate’ are disingenuous … The actual number of scientists who backed that claim was only a few dozen.”

  18. Dr Kiminori Itoh: “There are many factors which cause climate change. Considering only greenhouse gases is nonsense and harmful.

  19. Dr Yuri Izrael: “There is no proven link between human activity and global warming. I think the panic over global warming is totally unjustified. There is no serious threat to the climate.”

  20. Dr Steven Japar: “Temperature measurements show that the climate model-predicted mid-troposphere hot zone is non-existent. This is more than sufficient to invalidate global climate models and projections made with them.”

  21. Dr Georg Kaser: “This number [of receding glaciers reported by the IPCC] is not just a little bit wrong, it is far out by any order of magnitude … It is so wrong that it is not even worth discussing.”

  22. Dr Aynsley Kellow: “I’m not holding my breath for criticism to be taken on board, which underscores a fault in the whole peer review process for the IPCC: there is no chance of a chapter [of the IPCC report] ever being rejected for publication, no matter how flawed it might be.”

  23. Dr Madhav Khandekar: “I have carefully analysed adverse impacts of climate change as projected by the IPCC and have discounted these claims as exaggerated and lacking any supporting evidence.”

  24. Dr Hans Labohm: “The alarmist passages in the IPCC Summary for Policymakers have been skewed through an elaborate and sophisticated process of spin-doctoring.”

  25. Dr Andrew Lacis: “There is no scientific merit to be found in the Executive Summary. The presentation sounds like something put together by Greenpeace activists and their legal department.”

  26. Dr Chris Landsea: “I cannot in good faith continue to contribute to a process that I view as both being motivated by pre-conceived agendas and being scientifically unsound.”

  27. Dr Richard Lindzen: “The IPCC process is driven by politics rather than science. It uses summaries to misrepresent what scientists say and exploits public ignorance.”

  28. Dr Harry Lins: “Surface temperature changes over the past century have been episodic and modest and there has been no net global warming for over a decade now. The case for alarm regarding climate change is grossly overstated.”

  29. Dr Philip Lloyd: “I am doing a detailed assessment of the IPCC reports and the Summaries for Policy Makers, identifying the way in which the Summaries have distorted the science. I have found examples of a summary saying precisely the opposite of what the scientists said.”

  30. Dr Martin Manning: “Some government delegates influencing the IPCC Summary for Policymakers misrepresent or contradict the lead authors.”

  31. Dr Stephen McIntyre: “The many references in the popular media to a ‘consensus of thousands of scientists’ are both a great exaggeration and also misleading.”

  32. Dr Patrick Michaels: “The rates of warming, on multiple time scales, have now invalidated the suite of IPCC climate models. No, the science is not settled.”

  33. Dr Nils-Axel Morner: “If you go around the globe, you find no sea level rise anywhere.”

  34. Dr Johannes Oerlemans: “The IPCC has become too political. Many scientists have not been able to resist the siren call of fame, research funding and meetings in exotic places that awaits them if they are willing to compromise scientific principles and integrity in support of the man-made global-warming doctrine.”

  35. Dr Roger Pielke: “All of my comments were ignored without even a rebuttal. At that point, I concluded that the IPCC Reports were actually intended to be advocacy documents designed to produce particular policy actions, but not a true and honest assessment of the understanding of the climate system.”

  36. Dr Paul Reiter: “As far as the science being ‘settled,’ I think that is an obscenity. The fact is the science is being distorted by people who are not scientists.”

  37. Dr Murray Salby: “I have an involuntary gag reflex whenever someone says the science is settled. Anyone who thinks the science is settled on this topic is in fantasia.”

  38. Dr Tom Segalstad: “The IPCC global warming model is not supported by the scientific data.”

  39. Dr Fred Singer: “Isn’t it remarkable that the Policymakers Summary of the IPCC report avoids mentioning the satellite data altogether, or even the existence of satellites — probably because the data show a slight cooling over the last 18 years, in direct contradiction of the calculations from climate models?”

  40. Dr Hajo Smit: “There is clear cut solar-climate coupling and a very strong natural variability of climate on all historical time scales. Currently I hardly believe anymore that there is any relevant relationship between human CO2 emissions and climate change.”

  41. Dr Richard Tol: “The IPCC attracted more people with political rather than academic motives. In AR4, green activists held key positions in the IPCC and they succeeded in excluding or neutralising opposite voices.”

  42. Dr Tom Tripp: “There is so much of a natural variability in weather it makes it difficult to come to a scientifically valid conclusion that global warming is man made.”

  43. Dr Gerd-Rainer Weber: “Most of the extremist views about climate change have little or no scientific basis.”

  44. Dr David Wojick: “The public is not well served by this constant drumbeat of alarms fed by computer models manipulated by advocates.”

  45. Dr Miklos Zagoni: “I am positively convinced that the anthropogenic global warming theory is wrong.”

1 Comment

Posted by on November 27, 2013 in Environment, Politics


Tags: , , ,


My gut instinct:

1) Whether Man is to blame or not is irrelevant. GW is almost certainly occurring and is too late to halt; stopping all emissions TOMORROW would not do enough to reverse the process. The Earth is going to heat up at LEAST 6̊C and maybe much more, leading to massive flooding, huge storms, immense devastation of crops, starvation, disease and horrendous wars as people fight for scarce resources and die in their hundreds of millions.

2) As for stopping emissions tomorrow or even slowing them down, it is pure fantasy. India and China are putting one new coal-fired power station online EACH WEEK even as a conference of worthies starts up somewhere, no doubt with plenty of caviar and champagne as millions in the Phillipines struggle to survive.

Most nations are desperately looking for new reserves of fossil fuels. Even those admirable Norwegians are still burning their oil. Do you notice any of the oil producers cutting back on their sales? I don’t; they are all selling as much as they can and there is in any case the eternal lust for growth, which means of course more industrial activity even if there is the occasional conscience-sopping gesture such as buses running on gas rather than oil.

Germany idiotically and knee-jerkedly has started to halt all nuclear generation, and is therefore importing and burning MORE coal as well as leaving itself open to the danger of running out of power in a few years. And you thought Merkel was clever??? Oh dear.

Humans are hard-wired from cave-man days to give priority to the short-term.We can pretend we are doing our bit by erecting fatuous wind-turbines, but they are only a sop to our pathetic consciences – besides being totally ineffective.

No, the end of the world approaches, as is also seen by the increasing examples of lunacy stalking the planet.

Speaking of which, I note that hundreds of people have been executed by firing-squad in North Korea, that great friend and ally of China and Cuba. Their crime? Watching foreign TV.

Until the NK regime is destroyed I shall always consider Man as collectively undeserving of survival. There are just not enough Mother Theresas to offset the appalling cruelty and suffering imposed by the dictators of our planet.

It is a great pity. Man is capable of such good things, but fatally flawed, above all because good people do not show enough collective resolve to defeat brutality and wipe out those carrying its odious gene (as of course we did in WWII – THANK YOU AMERICA).

The idea that I shall have lived my entire life hoping desperately for an end to the hideous NK regime and yet be disappointed is profoundly saddening.

1 Comment

Posted by on November 13, 2013 in Core Thought, Environment, Politics


Tags: , , , , ,

The Germans abandon Nuclear Power ….

Well, everyone goes through their potty cycle, and the Germans are certainly going through theirs at the moment:

A) They gave up the Deutschmark after a promise made by the EU that they’d NEVER have to bail out feckless over-borrowers AND that entry to the euro would ONLY go to those with smaller than 3% of GDP deficit AND that the rules would be strictly obeyed. Pretty stupid to fall for that load of lying tripe, eh? Hardly had the euro got under way when France went over 3% saying that the rule “was only intended for small countries”. Greece of course was never UNDER 3%.

B) They slagged off the Spanish for their infected cucumbers and caused them to lose MILLIONS in revenue when there was NO EVIDENCE WHATSOEVER that the Spanish were at fault. Now we’re told it’s German beansprouts that caused the problem … THANKS ….. I switched from cucumbers to a massive intake of German beansprouts thinking that they must be safe, being (1) German and (2) not cucumbers …… this could therefore be my last post ….. WHO CAN I SUE?

C) They have given up nuclear power ….. this DESPITE the fact that:

1) the last tsunami in Germany was around 90,000 BC and modern nuclear plants are vastly safer than the one that blew up in Japan, where they put the cooling generators BELOW the waterline of a possible tsunami. The Japanese are normally so clever, but nobody’s perfect ……

2) they CANNOT replace nuclear with bleedin’ wind turbines

3) the trillions of new wind turbines they’re going to build don’t WORK half the time because there’s no wind – and getting power from the North Sea down to the car factories in Stuttgart and Munich will mean vast power lines through pristine forest …….

4) the wind turbines they DO install will not be replacing CO2 emitting coal, but CLEAN nuclear fuel

5) they’ll need to import electricity from DIRTY power-stations in Eastern Europe and HA HA FRENCH NUCLEAR POWER STATIONS.

As I said, potty …… Oh, AND their increasingly-clearly-incompetent Chancelleress has agreed to bail out Greece AGAIN, despite the fact that it’s pointless. Greece WILL default eventually – I read today that the Boche are only doing it to put off the time when Greece defaults in the hope that the resulting hit on their own banks won’t be as bad as it would be today.

“I weep for the future.”

Leave a comment

Posted by on June 6, 2011 in Environment, German Diary


Tags: ,

Rising Oil Prices

You can’t have it both ways. Either carbon emissions are OK OR they are bad for our survival.

If they are BAD, then the higher oil prices rise the better. The US and other countries will only take alternatives AND economies in energy use seriously when they HAVE NO CHOICE. As soon as the oil price rises, there is a flurry of interest and investment in alternatives to high fossil-fuel consumption. As soon as the oil price sinks again, the incentive wanes once more.

To save the planet and to rid ourselves of dependence on fascist oil-producing states we need a change of lifestyle. Like any habit, the oil-consuming one won’t be easy to kick. In fact, we’ll only kick it when we have no choice, but then you’ll see human invention and flexibility as we evolve to survive, as we always have and as every organism does. Unless it dies, or – in our case – chooses to commit suicide.


Tags: , ,

Dam Folly?

Well, the Severn Barrage is shelved ….. the dream of endless free tidal power has been abandoned so that resources can be put into WIND TURBINES ….

One assumes that every scientific and economic aspect of this has been studied. After all, the government has many thousands of  advisors and experts to call on. And yet – on past experience – does one really trust the wisdom of government decisions? From where I sit, the following points need to be made and questions asked:

Against wind-turbines?

  • Wind-power is notoriously ineffective. I personally suspect it is a bit of a PC-greencoloured faddishness. Turbines only work when it is windy; they cost a lot to erect and maintain and their carbon footprint is very high. Apart from that they are a noisy eyesore.
  • Export? Every man and his uncle is making wind-turbines. Spain has taken a world lead. And how on earth are we going to compete against China once they start mass-producing them? The UK as major exporter of wind turbines? I don’t see it.

For the barrage?

  • A Severn barrage would cost a lot, of course. But the tidal power it would provide would be free and endless. It is exactly the sort of long-term infrastructure project that we should be building for the sake of future generations
  • The employment it would provide over a decade would be very high. This considerably reduces the cost through the taxes paid and unemployment and other benefits saved.
  • Massive cuts are being made in frivolities and current expenditure – great, but we should not cut major long-term infrastructure expenditure; our future depends on it.
  • It would reduce the dangers of severe flooding in the Severn, which has in the past caused devastating damage.
  • A Severn barrage would produce at least as much power as two nuclear power stations. I myself see the latter as essential if our current way of life is to be maintained, but anything that reduced their number in such a tiny country as the UK would be welcome.

Against the barrage?

  • It would be very expensive; we haven’t got the money now. But the money doesn’t all have to be spent at once. And in any case the start could be delayed a year or two.
  • The Greens have banged on about the ecological damage, but this is a red-herring. Wildlife is extremely tenacious; if the habitat along the barrier changed most species would just move on somewhere else. If you’re going to abandon every major building project because it would damage the environment then nothing would get built at all. No doubt if you razed London to the ground and returned it to nature then within a few years it would be teeming with wildlife. So what? In the end, we have to cut carbon emissions or our species will die, and a lot of other species with us. A Severn barrier would have produced a vast amount of power with almost ZERO carbon emissions.

My feeling is that this is the wrong decision, but I’d love to hear counter-arguments.

All in all, the government shows no sign at present of developing a coherent power-generation strategy for the UK. Existing nuclear power-stations are running down slowly, but the government has said there will be no public money for new ones. Yet everyone seems to agree that private industry could not build new ones WITHOUT public money and in any case the Lib-Dems are dead against nuclear. The boat is going round in circles as we approach the rapids, and I see no rabbit about to be pulled out of the hat.


Tags: , , ,