Archive for the ‘Global Warming’ Category

Royal Procession

September 16, 2010

Prince Charles and his warmist colleague Al Gore are the highest energy consumers on the planet and their carbon-footprints are the only ones visible from outer space. Yet the Crown Prince is on his two week extravaganza to demand that lesser mortals “lead more sustainable lives”, touring the country in the Royal Train. It is reminiscent of Elizabeth Tudor’s Royal Progress with her 400 carts and carriages to carry her staff and stuff.  He will then host a nine-day summit of business and industry “thought” leaders to discuss what should be done to enforce “economic, environmental and societal sustainability”. It is touching to see this obscenely wealthy man with three vast homes and four large cars endlessly touring the world by private jet to urge the plebs to live modestly.

Advertisements

Bashing the IPCC

September 16, 2010

An international committee of senior scientists was asked by the United Nations to review the performance of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). In a scathingly critical report it found that the IPCC had “assigned high confidence to statements for which there is very little evidence”. It had failed to enforce its own guidelines, been guilty of a total lack of transparency, ignored critical review comments, and was open to accusations of racketeering. IPCC reports are supposed to be the gold standard account of global warming based on scientific research but it is clear that much of it is actually based on Green propaganda. Any scientist who dared to challenge its gross mistakes was not just dismissed but vilified and accused of “voodoo science” by the IPCC chairman, Rajendra Pachauri. When McKitrick and Michaels showed conclusively that recent warming is partly due to local rather than global factors, their paper was ignored for years. When it was finally given a grudging reference the false assertion was added that their data had been rebutted by other data – which  turned out to be non-existent. It was this work to which Professor Phil Jones, an IPCC coordinating lead author,  was referring in the e-mails outed by the whistleblower at the Climate Research Unit: “Kevin and I will keep these papers out of the next IPCC report even if we have to redefine what peer-reviewed literature is!” These are not merely procedural issues but have real consequences for science and society since all the errors and biases wildly exaggerate any impact of climate change. IPCC reports were unilaterally redrafted by “lead authors” after they had been agreed and a sexed-up “summary for policy makers” written before the report was even complete. It is clear the whole process needs purging as does the science Establishment since it has demeaned itself by reacting to each climate scandal with indifference or contempt. I have yet to see any evidence that the current warming is unprecedented or tending to accelerate and it will likely be a fairly minor problem for nature as well as people. This discredited branch of science should certainly not be allowed to drive ecologically and economically destructive policies such as biofuels and wind power.

Review of the IPCC

September 15, 2010

 The United Nations Climate Committee has been under intense scrutiny since its 2007 report was found to be full of errors and exaggerations based on propaganda from environmental lobby groups, magazine articles and student dissertations. Now a review of IPCC practices has been conducted by a committee of representatives from the world’s leading scientific bodies for UN Secretary General Ban Ki-moon. Professor Robert Watson, the former chairman of the IPCC, told the review committee that the way the UN body handled mistakes was “totally and utterly atrocious”. Mike Hulme, Professor of Climate Change at East Anglia also admitted in a keynote lecture to the Royal Geographical Society Annual conference that, “The IPCC has obscured and constricted all scientific and economic debate about the uncertainty inherent in climate change.” The review also ordered the disclosure of the outside financial interests of senior officials. Many in the “warmist” camp have long been suspected of profiting from the IPCC reports. The demand that Western governments spend billions in controversial efforts to prevent climate change presented an obvious opportunity for racketeering. New controls will also be introduced to ensure that claims made in future reports are actually based on science and not propaganda from Green lobby groups. It finally recommends that the IPCC be overseen by a new, more balanced, executive committee from outside the organisation including scientists with a wider range of opinions.

Latest Green Scam

September 15, 2010

The latest “global warming” scam is known as the Clean Development Mechanism, set up under the 1997 Kyoto Protocol, and administered by the usual suspects at the UN. In essence, Chinese and Indian firms deliberately produce large quantities of powerful “greenhouse” gases which the West then pays them billions of dollars to destroy. Last year, destruction of these gases accounted for more than half the CDM credits issued, in a market estimated to be worth $17 billion. Even Green activists are outraged by this ridiculous racket and the Environmental Investigation Agency has described it as the “biggest environment scandal in history”. The CDM’s chief source of revenue is the EU’s $100-billion-a-year Emissions Trade Scheme which we pay for in various ways, not least through our electricity bills.

Unstable Antarctica

September 8, 2010

The climate of Antarctica has never been stable, and proxy indicators from ice cores show abrupt alterations in atmospheric circulation and temperature over the millennia. One of the most dramatic changes was the intensification of the circumpolar westerly winds between 6000 and 5000 years ago and again between 1200 and 1000 years ago. The ice core temperature records show a much warmer period than today, between 12 and 9 thousand years ago, known as the early Holocene climatic optimum. In recent centuries there have been major changes, in particular a significant cooling between 1700 and 1850 associated with altered atmospheric circulation above the region. Yet over the past 50 years surface temperature and snowfall have barely changed while the atmospheric circulation and total sea ice cover have remained virtually the same.

Stalled Jet Stream

September 8, 2010

The Russian heat wave and Pakistan floods have been caused by the northern hemisphere jet stream grinding to a halt, keeping weather patterns stationery. Over Pakistan, the monsoon and its drenching rains are stationary whereas dry air from eastern Africa is blowing right up into Russia causing the continuous heat wave. The spinning wind currents, known as Rossby waves, that give the jet stream its wavy form by pushing it north and south are responsible for this prolonged halt. The waves, working against the jet stream, have been stronger this year, but the reasons for this abnormal activity are not fully understood. The usual suspects want to blame man-made global warming but Gerald Meehl of the National Centre for Atmospheric Research says it is more likely to be solar activity.

Giant Green Jolly in Germany

September 7, 2010

The latest Giant Green Jolly in Bonn was a repeat performance of the disarray seen last year at Copenhagen and a foretaste if what is expected later this year in Cancun. The cause this time was not dodgy science but economic blackmail as developing nations demanded $400 billion per annum as “compensation” from the West. Even the most fashionably green among the Western leaders baulked at making such a wealth transfer, especially to competitors such as China, India and Brazil. Climate policies and green taxes, once considered so trendy, have turned into major liabilities for the West and are now being dumped in response to public backlash. People now see that “green” simply means “more expensive” and surveys suggest 80% of British voters are sceptical of the alarmism and are not willing to pay higher taxes.

Reviewing the Reviewers

September 4, 2010

Recent controversies such “Climategate” and embarrassing errors in its Climate Change reports promoted the United Nations to launch an investigation.

Its Secretary-General, Ban Ki-moon, asked an international committee of senior scientists to review the performance of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC).

In a scathingly critical report it found that the IPCC had “assigned high confidence to statements for which there is very little evidence”.

It had failed to enforce its own guidelines, been guilty of a total lack of transparency, ignored critical review comments, and was open to accusations of racketeering.

IPCC reports are supposed to be the gold standard account of global warming based on scientific research but it is clear that much of it relies on Green propaganda.

Any scientist who dared to challenge its gross mistakes was not just dismissed but vilified and accused of “voodoo science” by the IPCC chairman, Rajendra Pachauri.

When McKitrick and Michaels showed conclusively that recent warming had been driven more by local than global factors, their paper was ignored for years.

When it was finally given a grudging reference the false assertion was added that their data had been rebutted by other data – which turned out to be non-existent.

It was this work to which Professor Phil Jones, an IPCC coordinating lead author, was referring in the e-mails outed by the whistleblower at the Climate Research Unit:

“Kevin and I will keep these papers out of the next IPCC report even if we have to redefine what peer-reviewed literature is!”

These are not merely procedural issues but have real consequences for science and society since all the errors and biases wildly exaggerate any impact of climate change.

IPCC reports were unilaterally redrafted by “lead authors” after they had been agreed and a sexed-up “summary for policy makers” written before the report was even complete.

It is clear the whole process needs purging as does the Science Establishment since it has demeaned itself by reacting to each climate scandal with indifference or contempt.

I have yet to see any evidence that the current warming is unprecedented or tending to accelerate and it will likely be a fairly minor problem for nature as well as people.

This discredited branch of science should certainly not be allowed to drive ecologically and economically destructive policies such as biofuels and wind power.

What Consensus?

August 21, 2010

David Miliband was greeted by cries of “Rubbish!” when he told a conference on climate change at the Holy See that the science of climate change was simple and settled. Yet Miliband was merely reciting a mantra that has been widely peddled by politicians such as Al Gore and political news media such as the BBC.

There is a consensus that we have put large quantities of greenhouse gases into the atmosphere; that some warming may have resulted and further may be expected. However, there is no consensus that most of the past half-century’s warming is anthropogenic.

Nor is there any agreement on how much the world has warmed or will warm; how much of the warming is natural; how much impact greenhouse gases have on temperature; how sea level, storms, droughts, floods, flora, and fauna will respond to warmer temperature; what mitigative steps we should take; whether such steps would be sufficient; or even whether we should take any steps at all.

Al Gore, for instance, devoted a long segment of his film ‘An Inconvenient Truth’ to predicting the imminent meltdown of the Greenland and West Antarctic ice-sheets, with a consequent global increase of 20 feet in sea level that would flood Manhattan, Shanghai, Bangladesh, and other coastal settlements. He falsely claimed that all credible climate scientists were agreed on his alarmist notions.

Even the UN’s much derided latest report on climate change, which also claimed to be representing and summarizing the state of the scientific “consensus”, says that the total contribution of ice-melt from Greenland and Antarctica to the rise in sea level over the whole of the coming century will not be the 20 feet luridly illustrated by Al Gore in his movie, but just 2 inches. The BBC, of course, has not headlined, or even reported, the UN’s “counter-consensual” findings. Every time the BBC mentions “climate change”, it shows the same tired footage of a glacier calving into the sea – which is what glaciers do every summer.

What countless research papers actually show is that global temperatures were higher than today’s during the Holocene Climate Optimum and the Medieval Warm Period, when atmospheric CO2 levels were much lower than at present. There are also many papers showing that solar variability is a key driver of recent climate change and that in the past 70 years the Sun has been more active, for longer, than at almost any comparable period in the past 11,400 years. Others echo Lorenz (1963), who, in the paper that founded chaos theory, demonstrated his famous theorem that the climate is a mathematically-chaotic object that is by its nature unpredictable unless one fully understands not only all the relevant evolutionary processes but also the initial state of the global climate to a precision that is in practice altogether unattainable.

The stifling of dissent and the curtailing of scientific skepticism has brought climate research into disrepute and provoked the whistle blower into outing the e-mails of the Climategate scandal. Science is supposed to work by critical evaluation, open-mindedness and self-correction. Clearly there is a fear among climate alarmists that the very existence of scientific skepticism and doubts about their gloomy predictions will make politicians hesitate before spending the countless billions demanded by the Stern Report. But if political considerations dictate what gets published, the future for science is bleak.

Green Decline

August 19, 2010

The latest Giant Green Jolly in Bonn was a repeat performance of the disarray seen last year at Copenhagen and a foretaste if what is expected later this year in Cancun. The cause this time was not dodgy science but economic blackmail as developing nations demanded $400 billion per annum as “compensation” from the West. Even the most fashionably green among the Western leaders baulked at making such a wealth transfer, especially to competitors such as China, India and Brazil. Climate policies and green taxes, once considered so trendy, have turned into major liabilities for the West and are now being dumped in response to public backlash. People now see that “green” simply means “more expensive” and surveys suggest 80% of British voters are sceptical of the alarmism and are not willing to pay higher taxes.