Take Your Pick

A Remarkable Escape

Thinking about thorium

stopgreensuicide.com (leaked draft of latest IPCC report)

Been There, Done That

Who's afraid of being fat?

The Inside Story Of The Dog Who Saved My Life

Extremely normal

Tweet

Flawed Science Costs Us Dearly

The average annual household energy bill is £1,330 - twice what it was five years ago.

The 'big six' energy companies are claiming that aside from the wholesale gas price, the biggest factor in rising tariffs is the raft of subsidies for wind farms and other low-carbon technologies.

British Gas, the country's biggest utility, said green charges account for £150 of the overall bill - a 50% increase from 2007, when they accounted for £94.

Energy UK, the industry body, will publish a report within the next few days, which is expected to say that a new scheme designed to slash household energy use will add as much as another £50.

Politicians blame the huge increases on the greed of the 'big six' but never mention the increasing 'green' tax on bills.  They substantiate imposing these green taxes on every household and business because they want us to believe that without them these islands will shortly lose all power and we will be back to living as they did in the 1800s.

But I suspect few noticed the Met Office report (graphic above) which was released recently. According to the Mail on Sunday it states the world stopped getting warmer almost 16 years ago and that from the beginning of 1997 until August 2012 there was no discernible rise in aggregate global temperature.  I never heard that on the main BBC or Sky news - mainly because it the report was issued quietly on the internet.

This means that the 'plateau' in global warming has now lasted for about the same time as the previous period when temperatures rose, 1980 to 1996.  Before that temperatures had been stable or declining for about 40 years.

Naturally there's disagreement with the pro and anti groups, with Phil Jones, of the University of East Anglia saying 16 years is too short a period from which to draw conclusions.  Others disagree. Judith Curry, who is the head of the climate science department at America's George Tech university, said it was clear that the computer models used to predict future warming were 'deeply flawed'.

The Guardian rubbishes the Mail article and insists the journalist has misinterpreted the report. (Unfortunately I can't find it on their site now).  The Guardian's summary is dependent on 'global surface temperatures have most likely increased since 1997'.  Don't they know?  How can they insist others are wrong when they themselves have no proof they are right?  The last point in their summary shows the prime concern of  the Guardian's view - money. 'Carbon pricing will result in a net benefit [to] the economy as compared to doing nothing and trying to adapt to the consequences'.

Joe Bastardi, a meteorologist and chief forecaster to Weatherbell Analytics (a respected company) has questioned Barack Obama's climate change plans.

Anthony Watts has an interesting article entitled Carbon dioxide - our salvation from a future ice age? which suggest peatlands could contribute towards global cooling.

For the first time in 18 years the IPCC will not be attending the upcoming United Nations Climate Change conference.  Why?  Because they haven't been invited.

Are other countries waking up to the cost of green taxes which have evolved from flawed science?

Tweet

Dear Santa

A post by Tedious Tantrums

Dear Santa,

Hello Santa. It’s been a few years since I last corresponded with you. I say corresponded although in reality it was all one-way traffic. I wrote and asked and you delivered, up to a point anyway.

I enjoyed the red and yellow fixed wheel Triang tricycle with the solid tyres you brought for my 4^th Xmas. I was also particularly keen on the huge crane for my 7^th, the gun that shot round corners for my 8^th and Tommy Gun (down market version of Action Man) although his orange facial colouring may well have been ahead of it’s time.

There were many other presents, which I also enjoyed. The pretend shop with it’s own wee till and the pretend post office with it’s stamper could be enjoyed for hours at a time. Meccano and Lego were equally splendid as was plasticine. Spirograph had it’s moments along colouring in books, sticker book rub on transfer book thingies, painting by numbers and plastic moulds for making plaster of paris figures could also be entertaining but probably only the once. Other oddities, included bagatelle, home knitted jumpers or socks or gloves, pyjamas, slippers etc. didn’t quite hit the spot.

The Broons, Oor Wullie, The Beano, The Dandy, The Victor and The Rothmans Football Year Book were all very acceptable for reading material. And the copious amounts of chocolate from selection boxes.

All in all Xmas presents were pretty damn fine. Well done you Santa.

In later years things became a tad more sophisticated. My Timex watch, which showed numbers rather than having hands and a face, was a wow moment. I didn’t realise that buses didn’t run exactly to the timetable until I had that watch. There was also a pen, which could produce about ten colours of ink although it was fairly bulky. A full size drawing board complete with set square, those clear plastic triangles and a proper compass and dividers was used for years.

Music albums, cassettes CDs, music players of varying sizes and sound quality, cameras of varying size and quality although it was rare that the films were ever developed because it wasn’t cheap.

Yes Santa you did me proud.

I’m offering a deal here. I’ll not write to you again, ever, if you deliver the following requests? I’m sure this would save you and the elves time since it would reduce the metal bashing, wood turning and electronic soldering which modern day elves have to be experts on.

My list this year is –

1. Reduce the size of the BBC as suggested by Peter Jay.
2. Make the Guardian cease to exist or have it move right by a few degrees.
3. Shut the IPCC down.
4. Begin criminal prosecutions against all those scientists, journalists, politicians and general gobby warmists who have been responsible for presenting information in a misleading and biased form, which have resulted in policy development detrimental to the wider population.
5. Disband the EU instantly.

I have many other similar requests Santa but I think these five should “hit the spot as it were”.

I shall ensure that a drink, a cake and a carrot or two are left out for you and the reindeers when you make good the delivery of the aforementioned items.

All that is left to say is “have a restful time following your busy evening on the 25^th. I hope your New Year is jolly good and all the better for knowing you will have one less delivery to make from now on.

Bah humbug!  

Tweet

A Small Victory for Common Sense

The US House of Representatives have voted, by 244 to 179 largely along partisan lines, to strip the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change of its funding for the remainder of 2011.

Some climate scientists aren't happy.

Asked about the vote, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration head Jane Lubchenco said she disagreed with the House’s action. “Science should not be partisan. It is highly unfortunate that in many cases it is,” she said. The spending measure, which would fund the government for the rest of 2011, now goes to the Senate, which disagrees with many portions of the bill.

“It’s a real tragedy that the issue is so poorly understood that it doesn’t have the support I think it deserves given how important it is,” says Stanford ecologist Chris Field, the lead author on one of three IPCC working groups. The House doesn't "like the message so they are killing the messenger," says climate scientist Mike MacCracken, former director of the U.S. Global Change Research Program. source

Dr Roy Spencer's research work has been entirely supported by US government agencies and he has written a post On the House Vote to Defund the IPCC.  A wee taster for you:

Politicians formed the IPCC over 20 years ago with an endgame in mind: to regulate CO2 emissions. I know, because I witnessed some of the behind-the-scenes planning. It is not a scientific organization. It was organized to use the government-funded scientific research establishment to achieve policy goals.

Now, that’s not necessarily a bad thing... 

The rest can be read here.

This is a small victory for common sense.  I've said all along if humans are responsible for polluting the atmosphere we should take responsibility for our actions, but to impoverish hundreds of thousands by claiming green taxes on our basic need for heat and light, on a science which is proving to be inaccurate, is robbery.

The IPCC has shown its bias with the exposure of their methods.  It can no longer be trusted even by those who do consider humans are responsible for the destruction of the planet.

Tweet

Forget Big Oil the New World Power is Big Carbon

Al Gore, the man who invented carbon emissions. It wasn't so long ago Mr Gore and his Gorelets were telling us if we wanted to fly anywhere then we would have to buy carbon offsets, preferably from a Government Approved scheme. It was also suggested that we walk more often, use public transport instead of driving and turning down your thermostat at home. This obviously only applies to city folks because in rural areas public transport leaves a great deal to be desired and sensible people heat their homes to a temperature which ensure the occupiers are comfortable.

Now all this is unravelling. The air's out of the bag and the bag's deflating, yet Gore and his Gorelets are backing stiffer pan-globe governmental legislation on carbon emissions.

Picture courtesy of the Filthy Engineer

No wonder this man's smiling. He is Dr Rajendra Pachauri, the part-time head of the IPCC.

Richard North continues his excellent research into Climategate and shows us what a tight-knit set-up the selling of air has become.

James Delingpole is one of the few journalists who has spoken out against climate change, particularly since the leak of the UEA emails and documents. His Telegraph article today also addresses the Big Carbon Scam Corus have used against the NE of England. It is a worthwhile read.

If anyone had said to me 20 years ago that the ultimate non-product of carbon trading would be the biggest scam of the 21st century I would have thought them mad. Yet it has happened. Just in European terms, the European Climate Exchange (ECX) and Bluenext accounted for 92% of exchange-traded EU carbon permits and so far in 2009, the value of the carbon permits traded through both exchanges is €86,304,050,227 or €364,547,223 a day.

The irony of it all is, as James Hansen admits, this money making 'business' will have no overall effect on emission levels, but it's not intended to. As Richard North states "This is a money-making scam on a colossal scale, a confidence trick perpetrated in plain sight, giving endless opportunities to rip off the public."

Tweet