Climate Change

With the recent UK Met office predictions of Barbeque summers and mild winters that don’t materialise, the subject of ‘Global Warming’ never seems far from mind these days.

Belief in the theory influences may public decisions and where much public money is expended.

Possibly even Met office predictions, confounded by cool damp summers and frozen snowy winters. Predictions, it has been suggested, that are influenced by an evangelical conviction in Anthropocentric Global Warming of the Met offices boss and his hiring policy.

Lots of shorthand terms are bandied about. “Global warming”, “Climate change”, etc.

So lets examine the facts. Climate Change is an incontrovertible fact. There is overwhelming evidence accrued over years and over recorded history to back it up.

At various times the earth has lazed under balmy tropical temperatures over much of it’s surface, at others ice has covered vastly more of it’s surface than it does today. There is evidence that the climate has swung from warm to cold and back again countless times.

It did so before mankind existed and could not possibly have influenced it. It has continued to do so since he walked the earth, again before mankind could conceivably had any impact on it.

So then, climate change incontrovertibly exists - and would still exist if mankind had never existed, it will continue if we were to cease to exist.

What causes it? Well probably a complicated mix of many things. How far the earth is from the sun, cloud cover, the arrangements of the continents, sunspot activity, volcanic activity, how much dust and particulate matter is in the atmosphere to list a few.

Even Mars apparently undergoes variations, these must surely be entirely natural. It is difficult to imagine one or two solar powered rovers having much impact on climate.

It is questionable that we and so-called climate scientists have the definitive answer to all the causes of climate change and how they interact. To be honest I suspect if they are honest they are still trying to work it out.

Now currently all the evidence suggests we are in the middle of a series of coolings and warmings that fluctuate over millennia, with smaller fluctuations, or beats within the larger ones.

Most of recorded history happens to have taken place within a period of warming where the ice sheets retreated and vast amounts water, locked up in ice sheets on the land melted and the sea levels varied as water was added to them and some parts of the earth that had been squashed down under the weight of miles of ice rebounded and rose and surrounding areas that had been pushed up correspondingly sank.

One suspects we have been able to advance and support increasing numbers at least partly because warming of the climate has helped us survive and prosper.

So global warming? Yes that too must exist along with global cooling and the current warming has been going on since before the start of recorded history.

35,000 years ago, not so long in the grand scheme of things, There was ice sheet just north of where London is now. To the south tundra with caribou. There was no north sea or channel.

The ice began to melt, things began to get warmer. If that hadn’t happened then right now, where I am just now you could probably see a wall of ice.

This was not influenced by Cro-Magnon or Neanderthal four wheeled drive vehicles, or by the methane emitted by cows that went into their burger chains. Maybe planes full of teeming bison, caribou, wooly rhinoceros and mammoths are just as windy…

The logic is inescapable global warming can and does happen absolutely independent of the influence of mankind.

Left to it’s own devices it is overwhelmingly likely that some time in the next few thousand years things would have all changed round and started to get colder again.

The earth has seen much colder climate than it is now, but it has also seen much warmer, even in recorded history.

There have been little fluctuations over the last few thousand years that made things more or less comfortable for humans.

Most recently there was what is known as “The little ice age” a cooler period where the river Thames in London froze regularly enough for there to be annual ice fares held on it. When we regularly had snow.

Before that, around 1,000 years ago, there was what is known as “the little climatic optimum”, when the climate in Greenland was relatively balmy and vineyards did well in England.

So the real question is have our actions had any effect on top of all that? Over and above the large natural fluctuations that are incontrovertibly continuously taking place even now.

Can we really definitively spot anything we may have done to influence the climate amongst the complicated backdrop of what we know must be naturally varying the climate? Do we really know enough to be able to?

It seems we can’t really fully understand the natural mechanisms yet so we are left trying to spot trends in statistics and trying to work out if they correlate in any way and if any do is it direct or indirect. One suspects there is a lot of interpretation involved.

It is interesting to note even the UK’s Met Office, prominent proponents of the theory of manmade global warming doesn’t seem to be bale to get it right, having apparently got their long range forecasts wrong for the past decade by it seems inflating expected temperatures in line with theory and being consistently disappointed.

One thing that concerns me, as (I like to think) a reasonably educated and informed and logical layman are the instances of mistakes, exaggerations and possibly outright fraud in the so-called science of man made global warming. From sea level ‘adjustments’, to models that produce a hockey stick, no matter what data is input, to the scandal of the recently leaked emails.

Speaking of which it has now come out that Professor Phil Jones’ Climatic Research Unit according to the Deputy Information Commissioner Graham Smith committed offences from 2007 to 2008 under section 77 of the Freedom of Information Act in that they intentionally prevented the disclosure of requested information.

They have apparently only avoided prosecution because of the way the statute of limitations on the offences are being generously interpreted.

There is also now an independent review chaired by Sir Muir Russell attempting to establish if there is evidence that data was manipulated or suppressed in a way which was "at odds with acceptable scientific practice".

These are cutting edge so-called climate scientists of world renown who have committed offences by concealing or destroying data that they feel might me ‘misleading’ and who are apparently essentially suspected by the authorities of fiddling their results.
These same results are certainly still being used to bolster warmist claims/predictions.

Then there is the sheer vitriol, name calling and reflexive denigration heaped by all ‘believers’ (including the PM recently) on anyone who remotely seems to question the warmist agenda or theory. I don’t trust it.

That to me reeks of the rage and offence taken by a true believer when their deeply held religious or political beliefs are challenged.

It is my experience that the word of such people is not particularly reliable. There is a danger that their deeply held beliefs may make it seem ok to basically lie to bolster their case, especially if they are convinced they are right anyway.

The data in the IPCC reports is now revealed to be of extremely dubious merit, especially concerning dodgy claims of the rate of deglaciation. So dubious that scientists are daring to complain about a lack of proper peer review.

If these claims and it seems others as well are not to be trusted then just how much else that comes out of the IPCC can be?

So for myself I find myself in the position of being unable to trust the so-called data, those ‘climate scientists’ who earn a good living out of the theory and the politicians who find it such a good excuse to raise taxes and enact progressively draconian laws. I am also equally unsure of the motives of many deniers. I am left in a position of not knowing what to believe either way on the anthropocentric theory.

These are many of the same politicians who brought us WMD and the 45 minute deployment claim. It could be those claims were over egged too.

Of course the argument will probably be settled in 25 years time. Either the warmist predictions will have come to pass or not. If they are still arguing by then with nothing definitive to show then the theory is probably wrong in some way. I still wonder exactly what is responsible for the cycle of ice ages.

So meanwhile what to do?

Well it seems to me that we do need energy self sufficiency and it is desirable to avoid air pollution. We don’t want to be breathing smog, chemicals, particulate matter. It might also be good to avoid deforestation and the loss of species and complex habitat involved.

So in some respect it would seem to be desirable to proceed with developing green power generation and energy self sufficiency regardless of the accuracy of the theory of manmade global warming or not. I do feel strongly it would be very desirable to avoid crippling our economies with prohibitive taxes and red tape while doing it , especially after the recession has focussed our minds.

Maybe better if done with logic and honesty, without the largely unnecessary argument and without the quasi-religious zeal and vitriol. Done efficiently and cheaply. There could be manufacturing and employment benefits too.

Clearly the existing wind technology is not nearly as effective as is generally advertised by the warmist camp as it can only harvest energy when the wind actually blows and then only in proportion to how much it blows. It occurs to me that if it was used to pump water up a column or compress air it could at least be used to store energy from a windy day until it was needed.

Tidal energy is ever present unfailing and surrounds us. It would seem a far more reliable bet Unfortunately the energy harvesting technology seems much less developed and effective.

Finally there is the nuclear option. Personally I believe this can fill the looming energy gap, exacerbated by green Luddite resistance to the construction of new power stations, particularly nuclear. More effectively and efficiently and much sooner than anything else.

Currently the entire volume of high level nuclear waste from the entire life time energy use of a single individual takes up a lump of matter about the size of a household roll of duct tape.

The merits, benefits and dis-benefits of nuclear energy are material for another entire post.

All wind and no Substance?

An article in the Sunday Telegraph (Jan 10th) by Cristopher Booker made almost as a throw away aside, an excellent point about the relative merits of various forms of alternative energy.

Now before I go further I should make my own views on the matter clear. I believe the UK should have, as a matter of national policy, complete energy independence. Further I believe it makes sense that this should be as clean as possible. This reguardless as to weather the theory of man made global warming is right or not.

Mr Booker’s point concerned power generation by wind turbines. He pointed out that the recent cold snap had effectively been largely windless. The point being that wind generation is not necessarily to be relied upon. Even over an area as large as the UK you can suffer a massive drop off of the power wind generators are capable of delivering.

One wonders why those who promote wind turbines so often quote near maximum out put in their figures, it would be more honest and accurate to quote averages, andy one who ever tried to fly a kite as a child knows that some days you can and some days you can’t.

If we had been reliant on wind power this winter we would have been in deep trouble.

So what can be relied upon to deliver power?

Well there are the tides. They are driven by the sun and moon and unless there were a disaster of unimaginable proportions are regular and utterly reliable.

Then there is nuclear energy. This is the route the French took decades ago, French steely self interest being less inclined to wilt before short sighted nimbi left/green luddite foot dragging.

It is interesting to note that the main reason our power generation capacity is not effectively carbon free right now is because of the Greens.

That is why not only are we not carbon free - we are in danger of soon being in a position of being unable to service our full power needs. We already have to buy nuclear generated electrical power from France.

I have said before. Surely we can use existing defunct deep coal mines to sequester spent nuclear material?

What is to prevent us building nuclear power facilities underground near the top of such mines and sequestering the spent fuel deep in the geologically stable depths of the mines. If there were ever a leak it would be contained underground and no spent fuel would need to travel overland.

It is also worth noting that recent evidence suggests that low levels of radiation may be far less dangerous than originally supposed at the dawn of the atomic age, even Green Patriarch and possibly now former poster boyJames Lovelock is now in favour of generating electricity by means of nuclear energy

With enough spare power capacity the possibility opens up of generating hydrogen from seawater in sufficient quantities to substitute it for petrol in internal combustion engines. The technology to burn Hydrogen in an internal combustion engine is relatively simple and could easily be adopted.

The only emissions from vehicles running on hydrogen would be water vapour then those inclined to hate 4WD vehicles would need to find some other excuse to do so. I suspect we can be assured they would do so.

Predictably... Unpredictable

The met office is at it again predicting record highs that is. This time for Summer 2010.

Logically, sooner or later they may even turn out to be right if only by sheer chance and persistence .

But one can't help feeling that they are simply thinking... "Hmmnnn Global warming... Well it's bound to be hot isn't it? I Know! Lets just predict that. Not enough people will remember if we get it wrong again anyway."

I am sure we all remember the blistering "Barbecue summer" of 2009, with record highs predicted by the met office.

There was the recession and we were looking forward to being able to enjoy it in the UK for once. We had visions of Bournemouth being more like Niece. They coined the term Stay-cation in anticipation.

The Barbecue summer predictably failed to materialise and there was a last minute surge in Non European (Euro exchange rate being poor) bookings to escape the rain. Turkey anyone? Then it just kept raining with autumn seeing flood defences being overwhelmed... again.

Meteorologists if they are honest admit they can really only accurately predict the weather up to about five days ahead. Long term predictions about "big weather" effects, such as global warming for instance come from "Climatologists".

Also in line before the again predicted Barbecue summer is a mild winter

Interestingly the bookies, who make a good living out of calculating the odds - and getting it right - are shortening the odds on a white Christmas. More Turkey anyone?

One has to wonder about all these warm predictions. But some might not consider the Met Office boss John Hirst to be 100% disinterested and objective. He was reportedly leaning on his staff recently over the scandal at the Climatic research unit. He was very keen they all sign to "defend their profession" and state they had the "utmost confidence" in the evidence questioned. Without it seems looking too closely at the leaked emails.

Long range weather forecasts should not be simply Warmist propaganda. They should be as objectively accurate as possible. Even if the climate is warming it will surely be a trend but an average trend, not up every year.

Now if my boss leaned on me that way it would make me feel uncomfortable, Jobs are important in a recession.

It has apparently been suggested by some scientists that "The Met Office is a major employer of scientists and has long had a policy of only appointing and working with those who subscribe to their views on man-made global warming."

So it seems if you want to work you had better know what side your bread is buttered on.

Clearly the "Barbecue summer" side...

Alarmist predictions of 5 foot rise in sea level

According to a report from a UK/Finnish group sea levels could rise by up to almost 5 ft (4 ft 11 ½ inches) by the end of the century.

But ‘up to’ clearly includes any figure below that, including no discernable difference at all.

Apparently the team has built a computer model that can reflect the relationship between temperatures and sea level over the past 2000 years.

For the model’s predictions outside normal parameters to work it has to be accurate outside the parameters. It is simply not possible to test it against reality without data and many a model that accurately reflects relatively chaotic behaviour within certain bounds fails singularly when taken outside them.

It is an fact that global temperatures were significantly higher than current levels, between the 9th and 14th centuries. A period of some 500 years when temperatures were warmer than those today, what does the model say about sea level and ice cover during that period?

There is also the fact that the data on temperature predictions fed into such a model has to be accurate for it to be accurate. GIGO as they say.

The fact is that the global temperature of 2007 was statistically the same as 2006 and 2005 and every year since 2001. Unless the IPCC does a Robert Mugabe on the figures ‘global warming’ appears to have, for the moment at least, halted .

What happens next is anybody's guess - and that’s really what it is, a guess.

It could warm up to something more like it was back in the middle ages, it could remain stable, conceivably it could drop. Whatever happens it will sooner or later change, one way or the other.

That’s what climate does - and has done since long before humans learned to harness fire.

Maybe politicians on the AGW bandwagon should think twice about bio fuels and punitive taxes before they cause a crisis of their own, a food crisis.

Mind that’s no reason not to cut pollution, or build nuclear power stations, or develop compressed air or hydrogen powered transport. That makes sense anyway.

‘Natural England’ advocate abandoning large swathes of Norfolk to the sea.

Thanks to the cult of Anthropocentric Global Warming (AGW) the idiots at ‘Natural England’ are planning on abandoning huge swathes of Norfolk to the sea.

Why? Because they apparently believe some of the more alarmist predictions that proponents of the AGW theory make about possible huge rises in sea levels. They seem to have decided that they will be unable to defend against, or more likely to afford to defend against these possible rises. So they don’t even intend to try and are attempting to make a virtue out of this.

I don’t intend to get into if the theory of AGW is right or not, the fact is that some degree of climate change has been going on since long before the advent of humankind. It has been responsible for periods of greater cold and greater warmth than we currently take as normal, even within the last few thousand years.

The fact is that sea defences have protected these parts of Norfolk, the villages and broads and the unique environment they contain for centuries. There is no guarantee that sea levels will rise to such an extent they are impossible to defend against at all.

It is stupid, even bordering on criminally irresponsible, to just throw their hands in the air and just abandon large swathes of the country to the sea until we are absolutely forced to - and there is no guarantee that this will in fact happen.

If Natural England and the Environment Agency are unwilling to do their job and make a reasonable fist of maintaining our sea defences, as they are charged to do, then they should be divested of their authority and resources and these should be allocated to someone who will.

Global warming could produce sudden climate shifts later, rather than gradual evidence sooner

It seems that ‘climate scientists’ are now suggesting that ‘global warming’ may result in sudden climate shifts later in the century, rather than in a gradual process.

This would account for any problems in actually detecting, or measuring, a clear, real, obvious, linear change in climatic conditions and puts off the prospect of having to accept that their absence may put the theory into question - until long after the current passengers on the climatic gravy train have well and truly left the platform..

What will happen if the mothership never turns up? Right or wrong, it all has a worrying hint of a millennial religious belief.

Founder of weather channel says global warming is a scam

Some interesting comments on Global warming from the weather channel man John Coleman. Coleman, now the weather anchor on KUSI-TV, San Diego, California and the meteorologist who made it his business to be right about the weather founding the weather channel.

So presumably he must know a thing or two about the climate.

That is why it is so interesting when he says that manmade climate change is a scam. You can see him here if the video above does not work.

Getting Warmer?

The Devil’s Kitchen makes some interesting arguments concerning the methodologies of the Anthropomorphic Global Warming cheering section. I recommend you have a look at his post.

From what he quotes it sounds as if, effectively, they may be fiddling the figures and any rising temperature trend since the 60s may well be in their adjustments, or ‘corrections‘ ;-) to the actual figures.

Noted public figure notices that the UK Government does not deliver on it’s promises.

You would think that a seasoned pressure group campaigner would be a little less naive.

Sir Jonathon Porritt, a leading environmentalist, is complaining that ‘soaring’ speeches made by Gordon Broon Breeks, at the Nu-Lab party conference, about making the UK a global leader in fighting alleged anthropocentric Global Warming; "make Britain a world leader in tackling climate change", were not backed up by action.

Hello! Exactly what else was he expecting? This is a man who will not even honour his party’s manifesto pledges. This is a party that was promising to ‘save’ the NHS over a decade ago. That spoke of instant fines for antisocial behaviour where the police were going to march offenders to the nearest cash point – Yeah right.

That is exactly what this party does – make ‘soaring’ speeches and memorable sound bites.

Sir Jonathon should do the decent thing , not call them on it and let it get forgotten and buried, like previous ‘soaring’ speeches, under other, newer, ‘soaring’ speeches promising the earth. Just like the electorate is expected to do…

Al Gore nets Nobel Peace Prize.

OK I know this subject is going to get a hammering on the blogsphere so I’ll keep it brief…

But, Al Gore, Nobel Peace prize? Please…

This guy is a politician. He made a film promoting Anthropocentric Global Warming, spoiled by gilding the lily with OTT conclusions for the sake of drama. He has done some lectures.

Al Gore and Mother Theresa, not exactly a pair you would naturally put together in the same breath, like say, eggs and bacon, are they?

I guess the candidates must have been pretty thin on the ground. The committee might have demonstrated more integrity just to have given it a miss this year.

Now three bedroom home sellers in England to be forced to pay for HIPs

The UK Government is now feeling confident enough to start forcing sellers of three bedroom homes to pay for Home Information Packs from September, practically indistinguishable in effect from a new tax on offering a property for sale.

There was not too much fuss from four bedroom homeowners and now Nu-Lab are picking off the three bedroom property owners, having first allowed the impression it may not happen - once any objections to that have died down it is likely to be the rest of the market.

What they call defeat in detail.

Nu-Lab were probably mindful of rumblings of discontent from trained inspectors who had been expecting to milk the market for big bucks and were complaining about the poor return they were getting on their training so far. Having a whole new class of 3 bedroom cash cows to milk should sweeten them up.

NU-Lab’s Communities Minister Baroness Andrews is trying to claim that:

"HIPs and EPCs can help families to save hundreds of pounds off their fuel bills, and cut a million tonnes of carbon a year,"

Yeah - and a pair of scissors will help you ‘cut your electricity bills in half’ too.

HIPs could only actually save a purchaser money if the purchaser pulls out of a sale because they think the bills are too expensive and a purchaser can find out exactly the same thing, at no cost to anyone, by just asking to see the bills.

The government funded and created tool the Energy Saving Trust, claims the average consumer (weasel word) could cut their fuel bills by (more weasel words) as much as £300 a year if they follow the recommendations in the EPCs.

One wonders how much it might cost the average consumer to actually follow those recommendations and how long it would actually take to recover the expense in fuel savings…

The Baroness went on to try to claim HIPs, “have the potential” –

Weasel words that mean they might not actually do it at all then, like ‘Up to’ in a diet ad, prefacing ‘6 inches off your waist’

- “to reduce the millions of pounds wasted by consumers when buying and selling a home, by increasing transparency and competition in a process that hasn't changed for a generation.”

What is it about Nu-Lab? If anything is over a few years old they seem to think it needs to be junked and replaced - including the democratic process.

The fact is of course that EPCs are EU imposed requirement largely as a result of pressure by the green lobby - but much of the political elite would prefer the citizen didn’t dwell on that, or even know it.

They also probably would prefer it if you didn’t dwell on the fact that the EU only requires their subject states to ensure they are carried out every 10 years.

So why have Nu-Lab gone so far over the top? So much further than the EU required?

Well, apart from the fact that it will add to the client population dependant on the state, energy assessors will be required to log details of the properties into a central database that will hold records for 20 years.

Now the Valuation Office Agency, which is responsible for council tax valuations, has apparently applied for access to that database.

So crafty old Gordon Brown is effectively actually charging home owning sheeple something between £400 and £600, at current estimates (expect them to rise soon), to fund Government compliance with an expensive EU requirement - and also supply all the information required to reassess their council tax bills.

And he can claim green credentials for doing it!

No matter what you think of his morals or the reliability of his promises you have got to admire the man’s, truly breath taking, devious cunning…

Gore alleges anti climate change conspiracy

Al Gore is alleging there is a global conspiracy against him and the so-called ‘scientific consensus’ on anthropocentric global warming.

He claimed, at a forum in Singapore, that the Exxon Mobil Corp, together with other unnamed ‘carbon polluters’, are waging a secret campaign to dispute the theory.

He went on to claim that "In actuality, there is very little disagreement." and alleges that "the deniers” (the infra green luddites just love that term) ”offered a bounty of $10,000 for each article disputing the consensus that people could crank out and get published somewhere,". "They're trying to manipulate opinion and they are taking us for fools,", he bleated.

Get real!

I suspect it’s Mr Gore who is doing his level best trying to manipulate public opinion, there is ultimately probably a lot more money and power at stake for his side and him personally than for anyone else - and that when all is said and done he and his cronies will turn out to have been taking people for fools.

Has he listened to himself? I know he is probably preaching to the converted and that the faithful will not like to question his assertions - but he sounds just a little like a conspiracy theorist, not too far from the Islamist claims that the CIA and MOSSAD blew up the twin towers, or that the CIA, or some other US government agency, have a captured flying saucer tucked away at a secret base.

To really hook the suckers in with this one he needs to work the CIA into it, at least, big business is good, but it still needs a little something extra to really get the conspiracy nuts going…

Now what are my chances of getting $10K for this?

Zero, Zip, Zilch, Nil, None, Nought, Nowt - if I had to guess...

English Smoking ban likely to double Patio heater use

The Health Nazis seem to have accidentally shot their Green Brethren in the foot.

It seems that the use of patio heaters (the new 4X4 of the non wheeled domestic world) is set to double over the next year.

Why? The good old law of unintended consequences rearing it’s head again - that's why.

The pointless and unreasonable ban on smoking in English Pubs has meant that smokers must go outside to indulge. It seem that this in turn has led astute landlords to provide patio heaters to make the environment more pleasant for the smokers and thus retain business.

Philip Sellwood, of the (Government established and funded) Energy Saving Trust is complaining: "People are also influencing the larger, more damaging commercial sector, with a third of pub-goers choosing pubs where there is a patio heater.”

"Landlords are helping to make patio heaters desirable - which they are not.", he bemoans.

A survey the trust conducted indicated 31% of people indicated they actually enjoyed sitting outside pubs and would choose one with outdoor heating by preference.

There is also the suggestion that, having discovered the joys of sitting outside having a drink and a ciggy, may be leading to increased sales of the heaters to the private market even amongst non smokers. The number of patio heaters in gardens in the UK is expected to almost double over the next year, a report by the trust suggests.

The largest take up is expected to be in the Yorkshire and Humberside areas. It is not clear if this is because there are more smokers there, it is a little colder in the evenings there, a combination, or some other factor.

Mr Sellwood is calling for “responsible retailers to reconsider the sale of patio heaters in light of the substantial amount of carbon emissions they produce." and the rest of us to wear an extra jumper.

What next? Extra tax on patio heaters, restrict the sale to ‘deserving’ key individuals in the political patrician classes?

Even the Mayor of London ‘Red’ Ken Livingstone is echoing him, betraying his authoritarian leanings and calling for a halt in the spread of "wasteful" patio heaters and urged retailers not to promote them.

How long before he considers forcing a licensing system on Londoners? Maybe one with a sliding scale of costs based on emissions? Though probably entirely unnecessarily, as the expected lowest rate of heater take up was in the East of England.

BBC Pushes Anthropocentric Global Warming Theory

The self admittedly politically biased BBC is pushing the anthropocentric global warming theory again, with the built in assumption that it is a done deal. Even cold weather in the summer seems to be “evidence”.

Louise Batchelor of BBC Scotland said:

“only a handful of scientists now doubt that we're seeing a long-term trend and that humans are responsible for Earth's increased atmospheric temperatures.”

It is questionable if a string of cold years could shake the faith of this new religion's adherents now.