Submitted by climaterealists on Mon, 31/05/2010 - 20:48
Telegraph.co.uk
Christopher Booker 29 May 2010
No one can explain how we cut emissions by four fifths without closing down virtually all of our economy, writes Christopher Booker.
Two events last week led me to muse on the links between the man who is now our Energy and Climate Change Secretary, Chris Huhne, and the extinction of the woolly mammoth. A team of scientists suggest in Nature Geoscience that the sudden extinction of the mammoths some 12,000 years ago, as the world emerged from the last ice age, may have had a dramatic effect on the Earth’s climate. They argue that the emission by these giant herbivores of nine million tons a year of methane, a greenhouse gas 25 times more powerful than CO2, was so significant that their disappearance led to a sharp drop in global temperatures, and the world temporarily froze over again in the re-glaciation known as the Younger Dryas.
Submitted by climaterealists on Mon, 31/05/2010 - 20:45
From Times Online
Ben Webster, Environment Editor May 29, 2010
Britain's premier scientific institution is being forced to review its
statements on climate change after a rebellion by members who question
mankind's contribution to rising temperatures.
The Royal Society has appointed a panel to rewrite the 350-year-old
institution's official position on global warming. It will publish a new
"guide to the science of climate change" this summer. The society has been
accused by 43 of its Fellows of refusing to accept dissenting views on
climate change and exaggerating the degree of certainty that man-made
emissions are the main cause.
Submitted by climaterealists on Fri, 28/05/2010 - 21:38
telegraph.co.uk
James Delingpole 25 May 2010
IPCC lies, cheats, distorts again. Yes, all right, it is a bit of a “dog bites man” or “pizza found to contain mozzarella and tomato resting on dough base” kind of story. But on the day in which Britain’s new Prime Minister announced in the Queen’s speech that one of his government’s main goals is to “combat climate change”, it’s perhaps just as well to remind ourselves of the kind of junk science and misinformation that is inspiring his green policies. (Hat tip: Barry Woods)
This one comes from the great Canadian blogger Donna Laframboise, who has noticed that the most recent report (2007) by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change liberally cited a scientific paper which wasn’t published until 29 months after the cut off date for submissions.
“Ah what’s 29 months between friends?” you might say. But as Laframbroise rightly observes it strips the process of its integrity.
Submitted by climaterealists on Fri, 28/05/2010 - 21:32
telegraph.co.uk
James Delingpole 27 May 2010
Just been reading Climate: The Counter Consensus (Stacey International) the new book by Bob Carter – that’s New Zealand’s Professor Robert M Carter to you, mate: he’s one of the world’s leading palaeoclimatologists – and it’s a cracker. By the end, you’re left feeling rather as I did after the Heartland Conference, that the scientific case against AGW is so overwhelming that you wonder how anyone can still speak up for so discredited a theory without dying of embarrassment.
All the same, it’s good to be reminded now and again why the “consensus” thinking on AGW simply doesn’t stand up. There are so many excellent examples from Prof Carter’s book, I might be forced to spread them out over several blogs.
Take his chapter on the oceans. The other day some troll or other was brandishing a figure he’d got from NOAA, showing that the sea was warming. Well bully for you troll, but if you understand at all how climate works that fact does precisely zilch to support the case for AGW. Why?
Submitted by climaterealists on Fri, 28/05/2010 - 21:31
telegraph.co.uk
James Delingpole 26 May 2010
Can’t you find something else to talk about?” someone (a nice, sympathetic person, not one of my house herd of festering libtard trolls) commented below one of my previous blogs.
So let me explain, briefly, why I rarely can – with reference to the ludicrous story which was given the front page of today’s Times (formerly a newspaper of some note).
The story, enthusiastically headlined EU SETS TOUGHEST TARGETS TO FIGHT GLOBAL WARMING goes like this:
Europe will introduce a surprise new plan today to combat global warming, committing Britain and the rest of the EU to the most ambitious targets in the world. The plan proposes a massive increase in the target for cutting greenhouse gas emissions in this decade.
The European Commission is determined to press ahead with the cuts despite the financial turmoil gripping the bloc, even though it would require Britain and other EU member states to impose far tougher financial penalties on their industries than are being considered by other large economies.
The plan, to cut emissions by 30 per cent on 1990 levels by 2020, would cost the EU an extra £33 billion a year by 2020, according to a draft of the Commission’s communication leaked to The Times.
The existing target of a 20 per cent cut is already due to cost £48 billion. The Commission will argue that the lower target has become much easier to meet because of the recession, which resulted in the EU’s emissions falling more than 10 per cent last year as thousands of factories closed or cut production. Emissions last year were already 14 per cent below 1990 levels.
Submitted by climaterealists on Thu, 27/05/2010 - 13:15
nzherald.co.nz
Garth George 27 May 2010
With New Zealand the only countyr with an all-encompassing ETS, what good will it do us?
So, it's started already. Mercury Energy this week announced it was raising its prices as of July 1, the day our ridiculous emissions trading scheme (ETS) comes into effect.
This, the company said, will mean an extra $5 a month to average residential electricity bills and $1.75 a month to average residential gas bills.
Thus do the meagre tax reductions for low-income earners and beneficiaries begin to be eroded before they even start, for you can be sure that other power companies will only too readily follow suit.
And it will get worse. On July 1, too, petrol prices will go up by 4c a litre. Not only will that further cancel out the Budget's wee tax cuts for those earning little, but it will be reflected throughout the economy in increased prices for goods and services, to which increased GST will be applied.
Submitted by climaterealists on Wed, 26/05/2010 - 22:06
Telegraph.co.uk
James Delingpole 19 May 2010
Well of course I would write a headline like that having just spent the last three days in Chicago at the Heartland Institute’s 4th International Conference on Climate Change. This is the event the cackling, cloak-wearing, befanged AGW-denying community attends every year to glorify in their own evil. And naturally, in the wake of Climategate, a mood of uproarious triumphalism has prevailed as distinguished skeptical scientists, economists, and policymakers from around the world – Pat Michaels, Richard Lindzen, Ian Plimer, Bob Carter, Fred Singer.. you name them, they’re here – have gathered to dance on the smouldering ashes of the mythical beast ManBearPig.
Except we shouldn’t use that word “sceptic” any more. Richard Lindzen – Godfather of Climate Realism – told us so in one of the keynote addresses.
Submitted by climaterealists on Wed, 26/05/2010 - 21:39
stuff.co.nz by Tracy Watkins 26 May 2010
National's grassroots supporters are joining a chorus of opposition as price rises caused by the Emissions Trading Scheme begin to kick in.
Prime Minister John Key confirmed there was an ETS protest vote at a party conference last weekend. "There certainly was a remit and they certainly did vote against wanting the ETS, they did vote to delay it."
Agriculture Minister David Carter has sought to stem caucus concerns by emailing MPs to assure them that claims by ACT about the ETS were just "misinformation".
ACT leader Rodney Hide said yesterday that the ETS, which begins on July 1, would eat up any gains from tax cuts for 550,000 households earning between $45,000 and $85,000 a year.
Submitted by climaterealists on Wed, 26/05/2010 - 21:11
Oxford Union Debate on Climate Catastrophe- SPPI blog
For what is believed to be the first time ever in England, an audience of university undergraduates has decisively rejected the notion that “global warming” is or could become a global crisis. The only previous defeat for climate extremism among an undergraduate audience was at St. Andrew’s University, Scotland, in the spring of 2009, when the climate extremists were defeated by three votes.
Last week, members of the historic Oxford Union Society, the world’s premier debating society, carried the motion “That this House would put economic growth before combating climate change” by 135 votes to 110. The debate was sponsored by the Science and Public Policy Institute, Washington DC.
Serious observers are interpreting this shock result as a sign that students are now impatiently rejecting the relentless extremist propaganda taught under the guise of compulsory environmental-studies classes in British schools, confirming opinion-poll findings that the voters are no longer frightened by “global warming” scare stories, if they ever were.
Submitted by climaterealists on Sun, 23/05/2010 - 21:54
Quadrant Online
by Barry Brill
May 15, 2010
The warming that wasn't
The official archivist of New Zealand’s climate records, the National Institute of Water and Atmospheric Research (NIWA), offers top billing to its 147-year-old national mean temperature series (the “NIWA Seven-station Series” or NSS). This series shows that New Zealand experienced a twentieth-century warming trend of 0.92°C.
The official temperature record is wrong. The instrumental raw data correctly show that New Zealand average temperatures have remained remarkably steady at 12.6°C +/- 0.5°C for a century and a half. NIWA’s doctoring of that data is indefensible.
The NSS is the outcome of a subjective data series produced by a single Government scientist, whose work has never been peer-reviewed or subjected to proper quality checking. It was smuggled into the official archive without any formal process. It is undocumented and sans metadata, and it could not be defended in any court of law. Yet the full line-up of NIWA climate scientists has gone to extraordinary lengths to support this falsified warming and to fiercely attack its critics.
Pages
