As is becoming usual these days a new study shows up the sanctimony and hypocrisy of those who say they care very much about climate change.
People who claim to worry about climate change use more electricity than those who do not, a Government study has found.
Those who say they are concerned about the prospect of climate change consume more energy than those who say it is “too far into the future to worry about,” the study commissioned by the Department for Energy and Climate Change found.
That is in part due to age, as people over 65 are more frugal with electricity but much less concerned about global warming.
However, even when pensioners are discounted, there is only a “weak trend” to show that people who profess to care about climate change do much to cut their energy use.
The findings were based on the Household Electricity Survey, which closely monitored the electricity use and views of 250 families over a year. The report, by experts from Loughborough University and Cambridge Architectural Research, was commissioned and published by DECC. Read more »
Taj Mahal: Zoomed Out Tells a Bigger Story
NIWA is seeking amateur scientists….snigger.
Jamie Morton reports:
Fancy yourself as a climate scientist?
A new climate science experiment, launched online today, is allowing weather enthusiasts to be part of the picture by lending their computers’ processing power.
Volunteers are being sought for the [email protected] ANZ project, launched today by the National Institute for Water and Atmosphere in collaboration with researchers from the UK and Australia.
It will enable the public to contribute to scientists’ understanding of how climate change might be affecting weather in New Zealand and Australia – and a desktop computer and internet connection is all that’s needed.
NIWA climate scientist and New Zealand programme leader Dr Suzanne Rosier said the initial aim of the project was to improve understanding of how extreme weather conditions such as heatwaves and drought may be changing. Read more »
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’s 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 – 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 »
The warmist claim, every time there is a severe weather event, that it has been caused by the ever increasing global temperature. They use extreme weather events to force people to believe their manufactured liesa bout catastrophic human induced global warming.
Never mind that the planet hasn’t warmed a bit in over 17 years. Ignore the fact that all of the computer models predicting massive temperature rises have failed to come remotely close to actuality.
And never mind that in 1974 scientists were warning that ever worsening global cooling would lead to more catastrophic extreme weather events.
Steve Goddard tips me to this article in the Canberra Times on May 16th, 1974:
SUPPORT FOR A THEORY OF A COOLING WORLD Read more »
Anyone who stands up the the “settled science” crowd and global warming adherents are these days more than likely labelled “deniers”. For daring to question, demanding to see evidence, and the code of the models with which these charlatans are bashing us in their march towards state control and taxes we are called “deniers”.
Roy Spencer has decided to fight back.
Yeah, somebody pushed my button.
When politicians and scientists started calling people like me “deniers”, they crossed the line. They are still doing it.
They indirectly equate (1) the skeptics’ view that global warming is not necessarily all manmade nor a serious problem, with (2) the denial that the Nazi’s extermination of millions of Jews ever happened.
Too many of us for too long have ignored the repulsive, extremist nature of the comparison. It’s time to push back.
I’m now going to start calling these people “global warming Nazis”.
The pseudo-scientific ramblings by their leaders have falsely warned of mass starvation, ecological collapse, agricultural collapse, overpopulation…all so that the masses would support their radical policies. Policies that would not voluntarily be supported by a majority of freedom-loving people.
They are just as guilty as the person who cries “fire!” in a crowded theater when no fire exists. Except they threaten the lives of millions of people in the process.
Like the Nazis, they advocate the supreme authority of the state (fascism), which in turn supports their scientific research to support their cause (in the 1930s, it was superiority of the white race). Read more »
This map shows current worldwide carbon dioxide(CO₂) emissions per person from the consumption of energy. Data includes emissions due to the consumption of petroleum, natural gas, and coal, and also from natural gas flaring. These emissions lead to the greenhouse effect when heat energy is trapped by gases in the atmosphere, raising temperatures and producing global warming.
60 Minutes in the US aired this story on January 5 about failed “cleantech” companies and their fast burn of taxpayer cash.
About a decade ago, the smart people who funded the Internet turned their attention to the energy sector, rallying tech engineers to invent ways to get us off fossil fuels, devise powerful solar panels, clean cars, and futuristic batteries. The idea got a catchy name: “Cleantech.”
Silicon Valley got Washington excited about it. President Bush was an early supporter, but the federal purse strings truly loosened under President Obama. Hoping to create innovation and jobs, he committed north of a $100 billion in loans, grants and tax breaks to Cleantech. But instead of breakthroughs, the sector suffered a string of expensive tax-funded flops. Suddenly Cleantech was a dirty word.
The bloke from Kiribati has lost his rather specious claim that he is climate change refugee in a brazen attempt to stay in NZ.
The NZ Herald reports:
A New Zealand judge on Tuesday rejected a Kiribati man’s claim that he should be granted refugee status because of climate change.
Ioane Teitiota and his wife moved to New Zealand from the low-lying Pacific island nation in 2007. He argued that rising sea levels make it too dangerous for him and his family to return to Kiribati.
Immigration authorities twice rejected his claims, so he appealed to the High Court. Read more »