Greenery - Global cooling moves on apace

Telegraph

Spring to be coldest for 50 years

The UK is on track for its coldest spring for more than 50 years following another fortnight of below average temperatures, according to provisional figures from the Met Office.

Spring will be the coldest we've had for 50 years
 
Image 1 of 2
This May has also had lower than average temperatures at times Photo: Getty Images
 
 
 
By Press Association
3:07PM BST 30 May 2013
 
The average temperature for the three spring months of March, April and May is 6C (43F), making it the fifth coldest spring in records dating back for more than a century to 1910, and the chilliest since 1962.
Earlier figures up to mid-May had suggested this spring was on track to be the 6th coldest on record, and the coldest since 1979, but another cooler than average period in the second half of the month has pushed the spring temperatures down.
The main reason for the cold spring was the exceptionally cold March which registered average temperatures of 2.2C (36F), some 3.3C (38F) below the long-term average, making it the coldest March since 1962, the Met Office said.
This May has also had lower than average temperatures at times, and if there is no change once figures for the last three days have been included, it will be the coldest May since 1996.
Spring 2013 bucks the trend of recent years, which has seen eight of the last 10 springs recording warmer than normal seasons, with temperatures above the 7.7C (46F) long-term average.
The Met Office said: "The colder than average conditions have been caused by different weather patterns at certain times, but generally this season has seen frequent easterly and northerly winds which have brought cold air to the UK from polar and northern European regions."
The season is also on track to be drier than normal, but not as dry as the springs of 2010 and 2011 which contributed to drought conditions earlier in 2012, before deluges led to flooding.
But May is already wetter than average for the month, having notched up 86mm of rainfall up to March 28, compared to an average of 70mm, the provisional figures from the Met Office revealed.
 

Telegraph

Coalition braced for MPs' rebellion over new 2030 carbon energy target

Ministers are braced for a rebellion in the Commons over when to bring in strict new carbon-free targets for Britain’s power companies.

The Coalition is braced for a rebellion over the new 2030 carbon energy target.
The Coalition is braced for a rebellion over the new 2030 carbon energy target. Photo: GETTY IMAGES
 
 
By Christopher Hope, Senior Political Correspondent
3:49PM BST 03 Jun 2013
 
MPs will vote on Tuesday on whether to introduce an amendment to the Energy Bill which would commit the UK to have a “near carbon-free power sector” by 2030.
The MPs’ amendment would bring in the requirement almost immediately, whereas the Government is proposing separately to agree the target in 2016.
The backbench amendment would remove coal-fire and gas-fired power stations from their network unless they can capture and store their emissions.
Backers have said that cutting carbon emissions is needed to check changes in global weather conditions.
Many scientists believe that human activity that releases carbon into the atmosphere contributes to climate change.
Westminster watchers said the vote could be close with the Government’s working majority of 32 slashed to just a single MP, by some calculations.
Lib Dem MPs are particularly likely to rebel because setting a 2030 target is party policy and is due to be discussed at a party policy meeting on Monday.
Shadow Chancellor Ed Balls used a speech on Monday to call on Lib Dems to back the amendment.
He said: “I call on every Liberal Democrat who supports a low carbon future to join us and vote with us to make this change happen.”
Duncan Brack MP, vice chairman of the federal policy committee, told PoliticsHome.com: “Many of us would like to see our MPs back the Yeo amendment because we believe the Chancellor’s stance on renewables has undermined the investment that’s needed. The Government needs to send a positive signal that it is committed to a low carbon future.”
Ed Davey, the Lib Dem Energy and Climate Change secretary, said that the amendment was not necessary to hit climate targets.
He said: “Everything in this Bill is based on the premise that we need to significantly decarbonise our power sector in order to meet climate targets.
“We secured a landmark agreement across the Coalition to treble support for low-carbon investment to £7.6 billion in 2020. And we are reforming the market to provide the certainty required to attract investment in renewables, new nuclear, CCS and demand reduction.
“We have listened to views and added a clause to enable us to set a decarbonisation target for the power sector in 2016.
“No political party had this issue in their manifesto, and this will be a world first, an issue that this Coalition Government has addressed head on.”
Earlier Mr Davey used a speech at the Met Office to say newspapers were wrong to give a “platform” for campaigners and groups that question whether climate change is caused by human activity.
Mr Davey attacked “destructive and loudly clamouring scepticism” about climate change, and criticise parts of the media for the way they report that scepticism.
Mr Davey said: “But some sections of the press are giving an uncritical campaigning platform to individuals and lobby groups who reject outright the fact that climate change is a result of human activity.
“Some who even deny the reality of climate change itself. This is not the serious science of challenging, checking and probing.
“This is destructive and loudly clamouring scepticism born of vested interest, nimbyism, publicity seeking contraversialism or sheer blinkered, dogmatic, political bloody-mindedness.
“This tendency will seize upon the normal expression of scientific uncertainty and portray it as proof that all climate change policy is all hopelessly misguided – from pursuing renewable energy to emissions targets themselves.
“By selectively misreading the evidence, they seek to suggest that climate change has stopped so we can all relax and burn all the dirty fuel we want without a care. This is a superficially seductive message, but it is absolutely wrong and really quite dangerous.”
Many scientists believe that human activity that releases carbon into the atmosphere contributes to climate change.
One recent survey of 12,000 academic papers on climate change found 97 per cent agree human activities are causing the planet to warm.
But last week Mr Yeo said it was possible that “natural phases” in the climate may explain warming, and not human activity.
Lord Lawson of Blaby, a former Chancellor, has also questioned the consensus on climate change.
 

Telegraph

Ed Davey attacks papers who report 'destructive' climate sceptics

Newspapers are wrong to give a “platform” for campaigners and groups that question whether climate change is caused by human activity, Ed Davey, the energy secretary, will say.

James Kirkup

8:20AM BST 03 Jun 2013
 
Mr Davey will attack “destructive and loudly clamouring scepticism” about climate change, and criticise parts of the media for the way they report that scepticism.
The minister’s comments come as MPs prepare to vote on a new legal target to cut carbon emissions from Britain’s power plants.
An amendment to the Energy Bill would commit the UK to have a “near carbon-free power sector” by 2030.
Backers of the amendment say that cutting carbon emissions is needed to check changes in global weather conditions.
Many scientists believe that human activity that releases carbon into the atmosphere contributes to climate change.
Some scientists and politicians question that consensus.
Last week, Tim Yeo, the chairman of the Commons Energy and Climate Change committee, said it was possible that “natural phases” in the climate may explain warming, and not human activity.
Lord Lawson of Blaby, a former Chancellor, has also questioned the consensus on climate change.
According to a speech text given to the BBC before its delivery, Mr Davey will attack newspapers who give what he says is undue space to reporting those who are sceptical about the climate consensus.
"Of course there will always be uncertainties within climate science and the need for research to continue.
"But some sections of the press are giving an uncritical campaigning platform to individuals and lobby groups,” the minister will say.
"This is not the serious science of challenging, checking and probing.
"This is destructive and loudly clamouring scepticism born of vested interest, nimbyism, publicity seeking contraversialism or sheer blinkered, dogmatic, political bloody-mindedness.
"This tendency will seize upon the normal expression of scientific uncertainty and portray it as proof that all climate change policy is hopelessly misguided.
He will add: "By selectively misreading the evidence, they seek to suggest that climate change has stopped so we can all relax and burn all the dirty fuel we want without a care.
"Those who argue against all the actions we are taking to reduce emissions, without any serious and viable alternative, are asking us to take a massive gamble with the planet our children will inherit, in the face of all the evidence, against overwhelming odds."
Some Conservative MPs say that the most important change required in energy policy is to allow more “fracking”, the extraction of shale gas from the earth.
Shale gas has transformed the energy market in the US, reducing American dependency on imported oil and gas, and some MPs say Britain could follow suit.
IGas, a company licensed to explore for shale gas in northern England, today claimed that reserves in the area are much larger than previously thought.
The company said there may be up to 170 trillion cubic feet of gas in the area. That is almost 20 times more than previously thought, and equal to more than 50 years of the UK’s current annual gas consumption.
Read the latest news from Westminster at telegraph.co.uk/politics
 
 

Telegraph 

'Trougher' Yeo recants on global warming

By James Delingpole Last updated: May 29th, 2013
Yeo: "Even though I'm wrong I'm totally right".
So even Tim "Trougher" Yeo admits he was wrong about climate change. (Well done young Matthew Holehouse for screwing this admission out of him.)
Here's what he said in 2009:
"The dying gasps of the deniers will be put to bed. In five years time, no one will argue about a man-made contribution to climate change.”
And here, less than five years on, is what he is saying now:
“Although I think the evidence that the climate is changing is now overwhelming, the causes are not absolutely clear. There could be natural causes, natural phases that are taking place.”
We're going to see a lot of this in the coming weeks and months: "the even though I've been proved completely wrong, I was right all along really" non-apologetic retraction from all those former full-time climate alarmists – eg the Met Office; Oxford's Professor Myles Allen; even certain of my Telegraph blogging colleagues – who are now trying to escape from the collapsing edifice of the great AGW scam while trying to salvage as much professional dignity as they can muster.
Notice that weasel phrase "I think the evidence that the climate is changing is now overwhelming…" It's the sort of technique you might learn in an advanced NLP class as a way of pulling wool over the eyes of the unwary. What the phrase implies is that there has been a long-running debate as to whether "climate is changing", that Yeo has always been on the right side of it and that now he has been vindicated. Truly this a slimy trick worthy of the man they sometimes call "Trougher" and sometimes "Ebola". As we all know here, there has never been a debate about whether the "climate is changing". Not even Mr Thick the Thickest person on the planet; not even Mr Fossil Fuel, the most lavishly Big-Oil-funded denialist denialista; not a single person anywhere on earth ever in our lifetime has ever suggested that climate doesn't change. Indeed, that has been the whole point that those of us on the right (ie my) side of the argument have been making all along. Climate change is a normal, natural and perpetual process which occurs, and has always occurred, with sublime indifference to man's puny input.
Still, it's good to see Yeo taking at least the first tentative step on the path to redemption. Admitting you were totally wrong about something, that you've been made to look an utterly despicable, greedy fool, that even the Conservatives in your constituency hate you, that no one trusts you as far as they can spit, that you've done immeasurable damage to your country's landscape and economy with the abysmally counterproductive environmental policies you not only helped promote but from which you may have benefited financially: these are things no man would ever wish to admit to himself.
But it's OK Tim. I can help. In the last two years, for example, you have earned getting on for £250,000 on top of your MP's salary, from your various green interests. Imagine how much happier you'd be in your skin if you could divest yourself of that money which you have now realised is tainted money. Imagine if you'd been given a blood diamond by Charles Taylor; imagine if you'd produced a DVD called "Now Then, Now Then: the Very Best of Jimmy Savile": you couldn't, in all conscience, keep the profits from that, could you?
Well, Trougher, me old mucker, I'm afraid the same rules apply with your green business interests. Here's the thing: that industry you've profited from simply WOULD NOT EXIST had it not been for that toxic combination of junk science and hysterical fearmongering to which you have made such a vocal contribution.
I know quarter of a million quid is small beer next to the profits being raked in by your mates in the renewables industry. But for some people out there it would make a real difference, especially the victims of the wind industry which the Committee for Climate Change (Prop: Tim Yeo) has done so much to encourage.
£50 buys someone a decent night's sleep in a B & B away from the insomnia-inducing low frequency noise of a wind farm
£500 buys a sporting rifle which – not that I'm recommending such illegal behaviour, heaven forfend! – might be used to blast away at the nacelle of the nearest wind turbine
£30,000 pays for a QC to represent a local community at the wind farm planning appeal to which, of course, by rights they should never have had to be subjected. After all, it's not as though the planning committee of their district council didn't already turn down this application to plonk an industrial turbine in the middle of their cherished beauty spot on two occasions, once by 11 to 1 and second time by 11 to 0. But hey, that's the situation we've got at the moment with Dave's Greenest Government Ever: still committed to building more of the turbines which no one save scrounging landowners and principle-free renewable energy companies actually wants….
£50,000 pays for the subsequent judicial review.

£250,000 buys a bespoke resignation speech, written by top author James Delingpole, for when you finally realise that being a decent Tory MP doesn't fit comfortably within your skillset and that there are careers more closely aligned to your moral outlook. I'm thinking, maybe rare-earth mineral mining in China. Growth industry. Really green!

 

Telegraph

Tim Yeo: humans may not be to blame for global warming

Humans may not be responsible for global warming, according to Tim Yeo, the MP who oversees government policy on climate change.

 
3:17PM BST 29 May 2013
 
The chairman of the Commons Energy and Climate Change committee said he accepts the earth’s temperature is increasing but said “natural phases” may be to blame.
Such a suggestion sits at odds with the scientific consensus. One recent survey of 12,000 academic papers on climate change found 97 per cent agree human activities are causing the planet to warm.
Mr Yeo, an environment minister under John Major, is one of the Conservative Party’s strongest advocates of radical action to cut carbon emissions. His comments are significant as he was one of the first senior figures to urge the party to take the issue of environmental change seriously.
He insisted such action is “prudent” given the threat climate change poses to living standards worldwide. But, he said, human action is merely a “possible cause”.
Asked on Tuesday night whether it was better to take action to mitigate the effects of climate change than to prevent it in the first place, he said: “The first thing to say is it does not represent any threat to the survival of the planet. None at all. The planet has survived much bigger changes than any climate change that is happening now.
He went on: “Although I think the evidence that the climate is changing is now overwhelming, the causes are not absolutely clear. There could be natural causes, natural phases that are taking place.”
“But there is at least a risk that the increased concentration of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere is a possible cause. We’ve just gone through the 400 parts per million [a measure of the atmospheric concentration of CO2] this year. I think a prudent policy would say if we can do things about that which are no-regrets polices like being efficient in the use of energy, looking at none-fossil fuel sources, I think that’s prudent to do so."
Mr Yeo has previously spoken with great certainty about the science of climate change. He said in 2009: "A significant number of core Conservative voters – mostly among older people – are reluctant to accept the evidence. I don’t think they [doubting Tory MPs] will be a significant influence in the next parliament and will gradually diminish in the population.
"The dying gasps of the deniers will be put to bed. In five years time, no one will argue about a man-made contribution to climate change.”
Mr Yeo, who was speaking to an audience of energy industry representatives and diplomats at the Westminster Russia Forum, renewed his call for the Government to build a third runway at Heathrow. He said waiting for Sir Howard Davies’ report on aviation capacity which is due after the next election was a “ludicrous response to a clear national need.”
He said without better air links to east Asia, Europe risks becoming a “sort of third world backwater quite quickly.”
Asked about the comments this afternoon, Mr Yeo said: "It is possible there are natural causes as well, but my view has always been that – for twenty years – I have thought the scientific evidence has been very convincing. The strong probability is that it is man-made causes contributing to greenhouse gas concentrations."
 

Set carbon target or face power cuts, says Yeo

Power cuts will be more likely if Britain does not commit to cleaning up its electricity supply, a leading politician has claimed ahead of a key parliamentary vote this week.

Carbon emissions reach new high
The plan, which Mr Yeo has proposed in a parliamentary amendment to be voted on this week, would require new wind farms and nuclear power stations and would limit the role of gas and coal. Photo: ALAMY
 
 
10:00PM BST 01 Jun 2013
 
Tim Yeo, the Conservative head of the Commons’ energy committee, argued that consumers will also face higher energy bills unless MPs commit to a target for drastically cutting carbon emissions in the power sector by 2030.
The plan, which Mr Yeo has proposed in a parliamentary amendment to be voted on this week, would require new wind farms and nuclear power stations and would limit the role of gas and coal.
The proposal is backed by the Government’s advisory body, the Committee on Climate Change, which says it is the best way to meet Britain’s legally-binding, long-term green goals and could help save energy consumers between £25bn and £45bn.
While the Energy Bill is progressing plans to offer green energy projects billions of pounds in subsidies, the 2030 target has been left out of the legislation, which instead states one may be set in 2016.
The omission is seen as the result of opposition from George Osborne, the Chancellor, who favours a greater role for gas and has unnerved some investors in renewables, who fear it means support for their sector may not last.
“It’s an important amendment because it will reassure investors. That will bring down the cost of capital, which in turn helps to minimise increases in electricity prices.”
The proposal has divided the energy industry. SSE and EDF, which are major renewable and nuclear companies, support it, while RWE npower, which has invested heavily in gas, is leading opposition.
Paul Massara, RWE’s chief executive, claimed the proposal may “result in uncompetitive electricity prices” for consumers. He said debate over the target distracted from the key issues of whether the planned subsidy schemes “are robust enough to attract the necessary investment, at least cost to consumers and businesses”.
 

Telegraph

 Spitfire Heritage Trust fights to save WWII airfield

Spitfire enthusiasts are engaged in a race against time to save Britain’s best preserved Second World War airfield from being turned into a wind farm.

Serving RAF pilot Charlie Brown flies a Spitfire BM597 over Kent (Stuart Wilson/Getty)
 
6:41PM BST 02 Jun 2013
 
 
Perranporth, home to 24 RAF squadrons between 1941 and 1944, was put on the market by former mobile phone magnate John George with an asking price of £1.5million.
Members of the Spitfire Society immediately reacted by forming the Spitfire Heritage Trust in order to raise the required funds and preserve its future as a living piece of history.
However, with just days to go before the mid-June deadline, it remains £200,000 short of the sum needed.
The trust is believed to be the preferred bidder, but if it cannot raise the required amount the 330-acre site in West Cornwall will be sold to a solar energy company which is believed to be planning to develop the airfield as a wind farm.
David Spencer Evans, chairman of the trust, said: “We understand there is only one other serious offer on the table, from a solar energy farm, after a lower bid was discounted.
“When this is gone, it’s gone and lost forever; it’s the last one.”
Mr Evans said Britain owed the Spitfire, and the men who flew it, a great debt.
“The owner, who is himself a pilot and Spitfire enthusiast, has made it clear that his preference is to sell to us,” he added. “But it comes down to us being able to meet the deadline to secure the deal.
“We know people connect with the Spitfire. We’d urge people to help and be a part of saving a national icon.”
If the trust can raise the remaining funds, it said it would enable people to be able to see, touch and experience Spitfires for generations to come.
A major heritage investor has already pledged “a significant sum” to back the purchase, while an entrepreneur looking to run pleasure flights in vintage aircraft from the site has also donated funding.
The land, on cliffs at Perranporth, boasts one of the finest views in Cornwall and is one of the best preserved wartime airfields.
The site features the original control tower, underground bunkers, fighter shelters and a battle centre.
Hangars there have been used by The Spitfire Society for the last 30 years for work housing and restoring original planes, some of which were located by its team of Spitfire hunters.
The trust also has further plans to restore original Spitfires.
 

Telegraph

Climate Change: we really don't need to waste all this money

By James Delingpole Environment Last updated: May 27th, 2013
Yeah, yeah. Whatever
"Don't just do something: stand there!" Ronald Reagan was fond of telling overactive functionaries. The same rules apply to the climate change industry: trillions of dollars squandered, vast forces mobilised, public anxieties worked up to fever pitch – all to no useful purpose whatsoever.
That's why – belatedly: there really isn't much time left – I'm urging you to support this hugely worthwhile new film project being organised by Lord Monckton. The aim of the 50 to 1 project is to raise enough money to collate a series of interviews with the likes of Jo Nova, Anthony Watts, David Evans, Fred Singer and Vaclav Klaus, which will then be edited into a short, punchy film. It will demonstrate that no matter where you stand on the "science" of climate change the measures currently being used to deal with the "problem"  are hugely expensive and counterproductive.
Even if the IPCC is right, and even if climate change IS happening and it IS caused by man, we are STILL better off adapting to it as it happens than we are trying to 'stop' it.  'Action' is 50 times more expensive than 'adaptation', and that's a conclusion which is derived directly from the IPCC's own predictions and formulae!
There's so much rubbish out there on the internet produced by lavishly funded Greenpeace, Friends of the Earth and WWF activists, junk scientists, rent-seeking corporatists and EU- and UN-funded environmental bodies.
Time we hit back with the thing these eco-loons hate most: cold hard facts.
 
 
    

Telegraph 

Climate change: we’re not doomed quite yet

By Tom Chivers Science Last updated: May 27th, 2013
Glacier
The planet may be warming more slowly than previously believed
From Tuesday's Daily Telegraph: New research suggesting that carbon dioxide affects the climate less than we believed gives us more time to reassess our strategy
Have we been granted a reprieve in the battle against global warming? If research by Alexander Otto and colleagues at Oxford University is to be believed, the climate is less sensitive to carbon emissions than we believed. Climate change is by no means over, but we may have more of a breathing space to do something about it.
The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change’s previous best estimate put “climate sensitivity” at 3C; that is, for every doubling of carbon dioxide concentrations in the atmosphere, the mean global temperature would go up by three degrees centigrade. Otto’s research suggests that figure is closer to 2C.
The news has been greeted with surprise and relief by climate scientists. Piers Forster, of the University of Leeds, told New Scientist this week that it’s given him greater resolve. “If [previous estimates] were true, keeping the world below 2C [above pre-industrial temperatures, as the world’s governments have pledged to do] would have been almost impossible… Now it looks like we have a chance.” Previously, the environmental news had been dominated by CO2 concentrations in the atmosphere passing 400ppm.
The question that has arisen is: how should policymakers respond to the new information? Professor Julia Slingo, the Met Office’s chief scientist, cautions that they must treat the new figures with caution. “We need to be very careful not to suggest that this downgrades the danger of climate change that we might face,” she says.
But the new findings may add weight to the argument of those who argue that there are better responses than making grandiose pledges to cut emissions.
Most importantly, says Prof Bjørn Lomborg, the economist and author of The Skeptical Environmentalist, rich countries are better placed to deal with the problems of climate change than poor ones are, so encouraging economic growth is key.
“I’m surprised that people focus on helping Bangladesh avoid a couple of centimetres of sea level rise, instead of realising that if Bangladesh was as rich as Holland, they’d be much more able to deal with the effects of that rise,” he says. And specific adaptations are important: “It drives me out of my skull when people say that Hurricane Katrina showed we need to cut greenhouse emissions. No, it showed you need to build better levees.”
Prof Roger Pielke Jr, author of The Climate Fix, agrees: “We’re always being reminded of our vulnerability to nature. It makes sense to adapt, especially in poor countries, which are the most vulnerable. It’s also the most politically acceptable route, because it doesn’t matter whether you think humanity is causing warming: it’s simple prudence.”
The extra heat trapped by greenhouse gases is not, as once imagined, simply warming the atmosphere: the story is more subtle and complex than that. The heat is still there, but in the short term we don’t see it: it mostly warms the ocean. But eventually, the result will be the same: the extra heat will be released, but more slowly. This may be what is buying more time.
As interesting as the Otto paper is, it is still only one paper. “The most likely value of climate sensitivity hasn’t changed much,” says Slingo. “And we know that heat is being held in the oceans, so we know that faster warming will return.” Pielke agrees. “No single paper fundamentally changes the landscape. We shouldn’t be basing policies on a crystal ball telling us what the future holds, whether it’s one degree or six.”
We don’t know what the long term holds. That doesn’t mean the long term isn’t important, says Lomborg, but it’s important to find climate policies that do good regardless of exactly what the temperature is going to be in 2050. “For 20 years, the tone of the climate conversation has been panic. 'We’re doomed, we gotta do something,’ ” says Lomborg. “But what we’ve done is expensive and does very little good.”
He suggests investing in green technology innovation, which, he says, is much more cost-effective at reducing climate damage than carbon taxes. “If green energy continues to be more expensive than fossil fuels, we will never cut a lot,” he says. “And we’re not going to get the Chinese and the Indians on board. But if we can get technology to reduce the price of green energy below fossil fuels, everyone will want to buy it.”
Lomborg  points to the US, where controversial “fracking” for shale gas has reduced carbon emissions far more than green policies have in Europe, simply because the gas is cheaper and cleaner than coal, without it being in any way intended as a green technology.
Whatever the true figure for climate sensitivity is, our current approach is failing, he says. “Europe has been paying maybe $30-$40 billion a year on climate policies that aren’t working. They make us feel good, but our children and grandchildren aren’t going to care if we felt good. They’re going to care whether we fixed the problem.”