Environment

Where has all the warming gone?

People are starting to wake up to the fraud that is global warming.

A massive fraud perpetrated by vested scientific interests and busy body global politicians.

But it is a fraud nonetheless.

When the climate scientist and geologist Bob Carter of James Cook University in Australia wrote an¬†article¬†in 2006 saying that there had been no global warming since 1998 according to the most widely used measure of average global air temperatures, there was an outcry. A year later, when David Whitehouse of the Global Warming Policy Foundation in London made the same¬†point, the environmentalist and journalist Mark Lynas¬†said¬†in the New Statesman that Mr. Whitehouse was “wrong, completely wrong,” and was “deliberately, or otherwise, misleading the public.”

We know now that it was Mr. Lynas who was wrong. Two years before Mr. Whitehouse’s article, climate scientists were already admitting in¬†emails¬†among themselves that there had been no warming since the late 1990s. “The scientific community would come down on me in no uncertain terms if I said the world had cooled from 1998,” wrote Phil Jones of the University of East Anglia in Britain in 2005. He went on: “Okay it has but it is only seven years of data and it isn’t statistically significant.”

If the pause lasted 15 years, they conceded, then it would be so significant that it would invalidate the climate-change models upon which policy was being built. Areport¬†from the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) written in 2008 made this clear: “The simulations rule out (at the 95% level) zero trends for intervals of 15 yr or more.”

Well, the pause has now lasted for 16, 19 or 26 years‚ÄĒdepending on whether you choose the surface temperature record or one of two satellite records of the lower atmosphere. That’s according to a new statistical¬†calculation¬†by Ross McKitrick, a professor of economics at the University of Guelph in Canada.

It has been roughly two decades since there was a trend in temperature significantly different from zero. The burst of warming that preceded the millennium lasted about 20 years and was preceded by 30 years of slight cooling after 1940.

Read more »

The words ‚Äúboy‚ÄĚ and ‚Äúwolf‚ÄĚ come to mind

Karl du Fresne discusses the world’s calamities that never were and the propensity of dissenters to be silenced when their truths become uncomfortable.

FOR ALMOST as long as I can remember, experts have been warning us to brace ourselves for catastrophe.

For decades it was the Cold War and the threat of nuclear obliteration that threatened us. In the 1970s we shuddered at the prospect of a nuclear winter, in which soot and smoke from nuclear warfare would condemn the planet to decades of frigid semi-darkness.

And who can forget the alarm generated by predictions that acid rain would denude vast areas of forest, kill marine life and even cause buildings to collapse?

Other recurring doomsday predictions revolved around over-population and famine. As it turns out, the world now has more obese people than malnourished ‚Äď a fact that has given the experts something new to harangue us about.¬†

There have been other scares, too, including Aids and the Millennium Bug. It was seriously predicted that the latter would create universal chaos the moment the clocks ticked past December 31, 1999.

We’re still waiting for the grotesque mutations foreseen by opponents of genetic modification. And then there was peak oil, though the dismalists seem to have gone quiet on that too.

There are always experts loudly predicting the worst. But none of the above prophecies came to pass, either because they were scientifically unsound or greatly exaggerated to start with, or because human ingenuity and good sense intervened.

Even when terrible things¬†have¬†happened ‚Äď such as Chernobyl and the Deepwater Horizon oil spill ‚Äď the eventual outcome has almost invariably been less apocalyptic than the prophets of doom foresaw. ¬†¬†

Read more »

Perhaps we could do the same for NIWA

Meteorologists with the Canadian government aren’t allowed to speak publicly about climate change.

A spokesperson said the policy is because meteorologists are not climate experts and the ban extends to other federal scientists who must seek permission to speak to media.

What a good idea…perhaps the government could do the same with NIWA scientists.

Meteorologists working for the Canadian government’s weather and meteorological body Environment Canada have been forbidden from publicly discussing climate change.

A government spokesperson said this week that the policy exists because its meteorologists aren’t qualified to answer questions related to climate change. ¬† Read more »

Why is Len Brown’s council setting up a bike market?

You really do have to wonder at Len Brown’s Auckland Council.

It seems if they aren’t trying to control where you spread your ashes of loved ones and charge you for the privilege, they are trying to undermine Auckland’s bike retailers by setting up their own bike market.

I’m not kidding…look at this email:

From:¬†Anja Vroegop (AT)¬†<[email protected]>
Date: Wed, Jun 4, 2014 at 11:30 AM
Subject: Auckland Transport Community Bike Market
To: [redacted]

Hi [redacted]

I was wondering if you are interested in being involved in our Bike Market?

We will be running a trial ‚ÄėBike Market‚Äô event in Auckland. At the event the public will have access to inexpensive bikes for sale (under $500 ONLY) and free bike mechanics will be on hand to tell them of any potential issues or hazards.

We are getting the final details of the bike market sorted out now. We are planning to run it in the stadium at Mt Albert YMCA¬†on Saturday¬†the 12th¬†of July. Our media schedule will be targeting Trademe and Google ads as well as local newspapers, so we plan to really generate some interest.¬† Read more »

Is Labour looking at taxing polluters to pay for tax cuts for everyone else?

via the tipline

It would seem so, their polling company, the multinational UMR, is asking people some very leading questions.

Our tipster says:

Hi Cam,

I occasionally get sent invitations from UMR to fill out online surveys. I thought maybe some of your readers would be interested in some of the questions they have been asking recently. Could the ‚Äėcarbon tax on polluters‚Äô be Labour‚Äôs next big election bribe?

I also find it rather amusing how loaded some of the questions are. Are they trying to influence my vote through their surveys?

How likely are you to support a carbon tax on polluters with the money raised by the tax returned to all New Zealanders by making up to $10,000 of your earnings tax free?

If a political party proposed a personal tax cut funded by a charge on climate polluters, what impact would that have on your vote?

o   Much more likely to vote for that party
o   A little more likely to vote for that party
o   No difference
o   A little less likely to vote for that party
o   Much less likely to vote for that party

Read more »

The seppos are looking at fart taxes now

We managed to defeat Helen Clark’s plans to impose fart taxes on the nations cattle.

The battle is only beginning in the US where a wider ranging fart tax is being proposed.

Last month, the President released a climate action plan designed to cut methane emissions.

If you are a cow, be afraid. Be very afraid.

The same goes for humans.

The plan outlines voluntary measures, such as a ‚ÄúBiogas Roadmap,‚ÄĚ to reduce dairy sector greenhouse gas emissions by 25 percent by 2020. There‚Äôs concern though that these measures merely represent the tip of the iceberg.

Agriculture accounts for only about¬†8 percent¬†of all greenhouse gas emissions from human activities. Within that 8 percent, the¬†second largest¬†source of agriculture emissions is enteric fermentation‚ÄĒthe digestive process that leads to cow methane emissions, which are¬†emittedin ways that are not appreciated at dinner parties. Methane emissions from enteric fermentation, while covering numerous livestock animals, are¬†overwhelmingly¬†from cows. Read more »

Want to combat global warming? You need to agree to fracking and nuclear power

I wonder if Gareth Hughes would care to comment on this news.

To be consistent with the MSM breathlessly reporting all doomsday IPCC predictions (most of which never eventuate) will we see headlines of fracking saving the environment and insightful comment from global warmists backing the IPCC findings ?

I think probably not.

Climate¬†scientists have backed Britain‚Äôs shale gas revolution ‚Äď saying it could help to slow¬† global warming.

The world’s leading experts on climate change say fracking will cut greenhouse gas emissions and should be made central to the country’s energy production.

It will help the UK move away from ‚Äėdirty‚Äô coal and contribute to saving the environment, according to a report by the influential Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC).

The report says it is ‚Äėquite clear‚Äô that fracking is ‚Äėvery consistent with low-carbon development‚Äô and the technology could ‚Äėsignificantly‚Äô reduce emissions.

The unexpected endorsement from 235 eminent United Nations scientists and economists will be a welcome boost to David Cameron, who is a keen advocate of the new technology.

It is also a blow to green activists, who seek cuts in greenhouse gas emissions but are concerned about the effects of fracking.¬† Read more »

Which political party supports this sort of ecological damage?

Massive man made scar across mountain side

Massive man made scar across a mountain side in a designated wilderness areas

A political party supports and is promoting this sort of ecological damage to pristine mountainsides in designated wilderness areas?¬† Read more »

How are the Germans getting on with green energy? …Not so well it turns out

The German economy is almost on its knees as a result of green energy policies that are failing to deliver.

Germany is in the middle of one of the most audacious and ambitious experiments a major industrial economy has ever attempted: To swear off nuclear power and run Europe’s largest economy essentially on wind and solar power.

There’s just one problem — it’s not really working.

The energy transformation, known as “Energiewende,” was meant to give Germany an energy sector that would be cleaner and more competitive, fueling an export-driven economy and helping to slash greenhouse-gas emissions. On that count, the policy has floundered: German emissions are¬†rising, not falling, because the country is burning increasing amounts of dirty coal. And electricity costs, already high, have kept¬†rising, making life difficult for small and medium-sized businesses that compete against rivals with cheaper energy.¬† Read more »

Mitigation or adaptation, choices with Climate Change

The left wing wants to push ahead with mitigation policies for climate change, it is their unerring belief that the state and governments can control the climate through control and taxes.

The other side says that the climate will always change and we should look at adaptation rather than expend vast quantities of cash on ultimately futile efforts.

Las Vegas couldn’t exist without air conditioning, neither could Dubai or other cities in the middle east. Human beings are great at adaptation, it is why we are top of the food chain.

Still there is no evidence yet presented that the predicted climate changes have actually happened, or if they are happening at the rates the alarmist have stated. In fact he opposite is true.

So what is it to be? Mitigation and huge costs, or adaptation?

The latest report from the UN‚Äôs Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) is due out next week. If the leaked draft is reflected in the published report, it will constitute the formal moving on of the debate from the past, futile focus upon “mitigation” to a new debate about resilience and adaptation.

The new report will apparently tell us that the global GDP costs of an expected global average temperature increase of 2.5 degrees Celsius over the 21st century will be between 0.2 and 2 per cent. To place that in context, the well-known Stern Review of 2006 estimated the costs as 5-20 per cent of GDP. Stern estimates the costs of his recommended policies for mitigating climate change at 2 per cent of GDP ‚Äď and his estimates are widely regarded as relatively optimistic (others estimate mitigation costs as high as 10 per cent of global GDP). Achieving material mitigation, at a cost of 2 per cent and more of global GDP, would require international co-ordination that we have known since the failure of the Copenhagen conference on climate change simply was not going to happen. Even if it did happen, and were conducted optimally, it would mitigate only a fraction of the total rise, and might create its own risks.

And to add to all this, now we are told that the cost might be as low as 0.2 per cent of GDP. At a 2.4 per cent annual GDP growth rate, the global economy increases 0.2 per cent every month.

Those are massive costs…I doubt the world could sustain them, let alone have them work at all.¬† Read more »