Category: Climate Change

Climate Change

Categories
Climate Change Global Warming

Monckton On His High Court Horse

[ UPDATE : Some of the propagandists of the Climategate non-scandal, an event, you may recall, that involved the purloining and publication of thousands of private e-mails, have complained that I published their private e-mail addresses…Oh, such delicious irony ! ]

Monckton’s on his High Court horse, doo dah, doo dah…. yes The Viscount Monckton of Brenchley, christen-named Christopher has had it with the BBC. Really had it. You can almost visualise cartoon steam exploding from his auricles, imagine a purple brow with veins a-popping.

And in the process of winging off a torrent of what feel like huffy-puffy blow-your-house-down e-mails, he has managed to send one to me, possibly by mistake, but who knows, really ? I mean, who really knows what is going on in his Viscountnesses’ mind ? Why has he not succumbed to the inevitable and graciously bowed out from the theatre of contention and meekly joined the Glorious House of Scientific Consensus ?

Let’s repeat it one more time – Climate Change is real and it’s happening now. The mid-range projection for average Global Warming is a rise of around about three degrees Celsius, which will be significant in its impacts on habitats around the world, and at the current three quarters of a degree is already causing major disruptions to rainfall and weather patterns and de-stabilisation of the frozen regions, with knock-on effects for plant and animal life and agriculture, as recognised and evidenced by all the world’s leading science academies.

Discounting a wide range of possible positive feedbacks, global warming to a first order calculation from basic Physics will be somewhat over one degree Celsius for a doubling of Carbon Dioxide; and then in addition, about the same again for the increased atmospheric water vapour, a direct result of the initial Carbon Dioxide-induced warming.

Christopher Monckton, is, in my view, wrong to assert that Climate Sensitivity to increasing greenhouse gases is low, when the basic Physics contradicts him.

=x=x=x=x=x=x=x=x=x=x=x=x=x=x=x=x=x=

From: Christopher Monckton (3rd Viscount of Brenchley)
Sent: 31 January 2011 20:40:47
Re: BBC 4
To: Rupert Wyndham
(R. C. E. Wyndham, ex-Company Secretary, Sage Group);
John Gahan (Farnham Geological Society, New Forest councillor)
Cc: John Gahan (Farnham Geological Society, New Forest councillor); Brice Bosnich (Australian National University, Research School of Chemistry); Christopher Booker (Daily Telegraph columnist), James Delingpole (Daily Telegraph columnist), John Christy (University of Alabama in Huntsville), Nigel Lawson (Global Warming Policy Foundation), Paul Reiter (Pasteur Institute), Richard S. Lindzen (MIT), S. Fred Singer (SEPP), Andrew Collins (BBC Radio Times editor), Benny Peiser (Global Warming Policy Foundation), Gabriel (Gabe) Rychert (Climate Realists), Sally Allix, Angela Kelly, jo abbess, Mark Thompson (BBC Director General), Caroline Thompson (BBC), Anthony Bright-Paul (author), Tony Nicholls, Andrew Montford (Bishop Hill weblog), Humphrey Morison, David Bellamy (naturalist, conservationist), Sonja A. Boehmer-Christiansen (Hull University), Charles Wyndham, Colin Bradshaw (Rowan Studios), Piers Corbyn (Weather Action), Peter Sissons (ex-BBC), Professor Philip Stott, Hans Schreuder (Tech Know), David Evans (Science Speak), Fred Pearce (journalist, The Guardian, New Scientist Magazine), “CWS”, James Naughtie (BBC), John Humphrys (BBC), John Brignell (Number Watch), Kenneth (Ken) Haapala (SEPP), Rodney Leach (Matheson & Co.), “Physics Services”, Melanie Phillips (Daily Mail journalist), Andrew Revkin (New York Times journalist), The Tablet (Catholic newspaper), Andrew Tyrie (UK Parliament), Martin Rees (ex-President, Royal Society), Anthony Watts (Watts Up With That weblog)

Actually it’s a boorish hatchet job of the traditional BBC kind, but I sued them and made them cut it by half an hour and alter or remove some 16 downright errors and unfairnesses in the programme. Pleasingly, they’re going to have to pay quite a large chunk of the court costs (though I’m going to have to pay some too, because although the Beeb had promised me a right of reply their promise meant nothing either to them or to the High Court). – M of B

The Viscount Monckton of Brenchley

—–Original Message—–
From: Rupert Wyndham (R. C. E. Wyndham, ex-Company Secretary, Sage Group)
To: John Gahan (Farnham Geological Society)
Cc: John Gahan (Farnham Geological Society, New Forest councillor); Brice Bosnich (Australian National University, Research School of Chemistry); Christopher Booker (Daily Telegraph columnist); James Delingpole (Daily Telegraph columnist); Christopher Monckton (3rd Viscount of Brenchley); John Christy (University of Alabama in Huntsville); Nigel Lawson (Global Warming Policy Foundation); Paul Reiter (Pasteur Institute); Richard S. Lindzen (MIT); S. Fred Singer (SEPP); Andrew Collins (BBC Radio Times editor); Benny Peiser (Global Warming Policy Foundation); Gabriel (Gabe) Rychert (Climate Realists); Sally Allix; Angela Kelly; jo abbess; Mark Thompson (BBC Director General); Caroline Thompson (BBC); Anthony Bright-Paul (author); Tony Nicholls; Andrew Montford (Bishop Hill weblog); Humphrey Morison; David Bellamy (naturalist, conservationist); Sonja A. Boehmer-Christiansen (Hull University); Charles Wyndham; Colin Bradshaw (Rowan Studios); Piers Corbyn (Weather Action); Peter Sissons (ex-BBC); Professor Philip Stott; Hans Schreuder (Tech Know); David Evans (Science Speak); Fred Pearce (journalist, The Guardian, New Scientist Magazine); “CWS”; James Naughtie (BBC); John Humphrys (BBC); John Brignell (Number Watch); Kenneth (Ken) Haapala (SEPP); Rodney Leach (Matheson & Co.); “Physics Services”; Melanie Phillips (Daily Mail journalist); Andrew Revkin (New York Times journalist); The Tablet (Catholic newspaper); Andrew Tyrie (UK Parliament); Martin Rees (ex-President, Royal Society); Anthony Watts (Watts Up With That weblog)

Sent: Mon, Jan 31, 2011 4:50 pm
Subject: BBC 4

John

Don’t know if you’ve noticed, but Monckton is the star turn tonight from 2200-2300 hrs. There’s the usual weasel worded lead-in within the pages of the Radio Times as, indeed, there was for last week’s Horizon. It’s also interesting to see the BBC going into contortions not to abandon the party line – note, Horizon for warmistas was at peak time (2100 hrs), but this evening’s ‘off message’ contribution is slotted an hour ahead, when Corporation spin doctors no doubt expect that fewer people will access it, by then very sensibly preferring instead their mug of Horlicks and an electric blanket. The BBC will, of course, laud the exercise as a conspicuous example of its vaunted impartiality.

It is noteable too that JS in the RT, whoever that turkey may be, states that: “The film’s impossible task is to be rigorous enough to unpick his arguments without giving sceptics the impression that any criticism is just part of the conspiracy.” Climategate in mind, with this as just a Freudian slip? What say you?

Well, on this subject if not his Petri dishes, you, I and many another could unpick Sir Paul Nurse faster than a puppy could a bog roll.

With him and his cronies ’tis but a matter of being able to read ‘FRAUD’, writ large in neon lights. In the case of attempting to unpick Monckton, one might just have to undergo the inconvenient preliminary of actually acquiring a little knowledge.

Anyway, I’ll record it. It’ll not say anything that’s unfamiliar, but it will, nonetheless, do so effectively and well. Plainly, JS is bothered,

as well he might be, given the evidence of crass ignorance.

ATB

R

=x=x=x=x=x=x=x=x=x=x=x=x=x=x=

From: Christopher Monckton
Sent: 31 January 2011 19:52:46
To: Hans Schreuder (Tech Know), Rupert Wyndham (R. C. E. Wyndham, ex-Company Secretary, Sage Group), John Gahan (Farnham Geological Society, New Forest councillor)
Cc: John Gahan (Farnham Geological Society, New Forest councillor), Brice Bosnich (Australian National University, Research School of Chemistry);, Christopher Booker (Daily Telegraph columnist), James Delingpole (Daily Telegraph columnist), John Christy (University of Alabama in Huntsville), Nigel Lawson (Global Warming Policy Foundation), Paul Reiter (Pasteur Institute), Richard S. Lindzen (MIT), S. Fred Singer (SEPP), Andrew Collins (BBC Radio Times editor), Benny Peiser (Global Warming Policy Foundation), Gabriel (Gabe) Rychert (Climate Realists), Sally Allix, Angela Kelly, jo abbess, Mark Thompson (BBC Director General), Caroline Thompson (BBC), Anthony Bright-Paul (author), Tony Nicholls, Andrew Montford (Bishop Hill weblog), Humphrey Morison, David Bellamy (naturalist, conservationist), Sonja A. Boehmer-Christiansen (Hull University), Charles Wyndham, Colin Bradshaw (Rowan Studios), Piers Corbyn (Weather Action), Peter Sissons (ex-BBC), Professor Philip Stott, David Evans (Science Speak), Fred Pearce \n (Journalist, The Guardian, New Scientist Magazine), “CWS”, James Naughtie (BBC), John Humphrys (BBC), John Brignell (Number Watch), Kenneth (Ken) Haapala (SEPP), Rodney Leach (Matheson & Co.), “Physics Services”, Melanie Phillips (Daily Mail journalist), Andrew Revkin (New York Times journalist), The Tablet (Catholic newspaper), Andrew Tyrie (UK Parliament), Martin Rees (ex-President, Royal Society), Anthony Watts (Watts Up With That weblog)

There is a greenhouse effect; increases in greenhouse-gas concentrations add to it; CO2 is a greenhouse gas; at the quantum level it mimics the dipole moment of a more complex molecule; accordingly at its characteristic absorption wavelengths a quantum resonance is established in the molecule, radiating heat that would otherwise have passed harmlessly out into space; and, therefore, adding CO2 to the atmosphere, as we are doing, will cause some warming. It is trivially correct to say that the climate object’s only method of losing heat is by radiation to outer space: however, if some of that heat is retained in the atmosphere, radiating here via the quantum resonance in CO2 molecules rather than radiating harmlessly out to space, warming will of course result. I have already set out, in the simplest terms, the half-page of not particularly difficult undergrad physical math that establishes the fact and magnitude of the greenhouse effect in the whole atmosphere. I sent it to Siddons some time ago, but he remains unconvinced by what is proven mathematics.

The question, therefore, is not whether our adding CO2 to the atmosphere causes warming, but how much warming will result. This is the central scientific question in the “global warming” debate. Broadly speaking, climate scientists who address that question by measurement and observation tend to favor low climate sensitivity (i.e. not much warming); those who address it by modeling lean toward high climate sensitivity. My own most recent calculations, currently under peer review, suggest lowish climate sensitivity, with the IPCC having perhaps exaggerated it by double (this is a rather more cautious estimate of the exaggeration than that of many climate scientists). Remove even a twofold exaggeration and the climate “problem” vanishes. Where science is proven, one should adhere to it unless there is evidence that the proof is wrong. Like it or not, the fundamental equation of radiative transport, which establishes inter alia that there is a greenhouse effect, is long and definitively proven by reference to Planck’s blackbody law. Nothing from the Slaying the Sky Dragon book provides any serious or credible basis for challenging that proof. Until a serious case is made and submitted for review in the usual way, suggestions to the effect that there is no greenhouse effect are not likely to be taken seriously – and nor should they be.

The Viscount Monckton of Brenchley

—–Original Message—–
From: Hans Schreuder (Tech Know)
To: Rupert Wyndham (R. C. E. Wyndham, ex-Company Secretary, Sage Group); John Gahan (Farnham Geological Society, New Forest councillor)
Cc: John Gahan (Farnham Geological Society, New Forest councillor); Brice Bosnich (Australian National University, Research School of Chemistry); Christopher Booker (Daily Telegraph columnist); James Delingpole (Daily Telegraph columnist); Christopher Monckton (3rd Viscount of Brenchley); John Christy (University of Alabama in Huntsville); Nigel Lawson (Global Warming Policy Foundation); Paul Reiter (Pasteur Institute); Richard S. Lindzen (MIT); S. Fred Singer (SEPP); Andrew Collins (BBC Radio Times editor); Benny Peiser Benny Peiser (Global Warming Policy Foundation); Gabriel (Gabe) Rychert (Climate Realists); Sally Allix; Angela Kelly; jo abbess; Mark Thompson (BBC Director General); Caroline Thompson (BBC); Anthony Bright-Paul (author); Tony Nicholls; Andrew Montford (Bishop Hill weblog); Humphrey Morison; David Bellamy (naturalist, conservationist); Sonja A Boehmer-Christiansen (Hull University); Charles Wyndham; Colin Bradshaw (Rowan Studios); Piers Corbyn (Weather Action); Peter Sissons (ex-BBC); Professor Philip Stott; David Evans (Science Speak); Fred Pearce (journalist, The Guardian, New Scientist Magazine); “CWS”; James Naughtie (BBC); John Humphrys (BBC); John Brignell (Number Watch); Kenneth (Ken) Haapala (SEPP); Rodney Leach (Matheson & Co.); “Physics Services”; Melanie Phillips (Daily Mail journalist); Andrew Revkin (New York Times journalist); The Tablet (Catholic newspaper); Andrew Tyrie (UK Parliament); Martin Rees (ex-President, Royal Society); Anthony Watts (Watts Up With That weblog)

Oh Dear!

Even more luke-warmers will be borne from this man’s incorrect views of reality.

Has he read the latest papers on the extra cooling that is the only logical effect that can be ascribed to atmospheric carbon dioxide?

Is he aware yet that his beloved “climate forcing parameter” is a phantasma like phlogiston ever was?

He has all the formulae but they are meaningless if the computed parameter does not exist in reality.

When oh when will they learn to add one plus one and make two, not 2.2 or even 3 ….?

Little wonder than that this man is heralded by the BBC as the “voice of climate scepticism” – it suits them well as his arguments are easy pickings.

We’ve tried in vain to make him see where he goes wrong. States that the “only debate in town is the degree of warming” when the harsh reality is that no warming at all can come from adding carbon dioxide to our atmosphere.

Consider just these few words by Alan Siddons:
Surrounded by a vacuum, the earth has only one means of losing heat: by radiation. Gosh, could it be that radiating CO2 assists that process?
Ever considered that the vacuum of space has no temperature and is in fact the best possible insulator we could wish for? Earth does not need a blanket to keep it warm, never mind the electric blanket that the beloved “greenhouse effect” is concocted to deliver us.

Our atmosphere in toto always acts as a cooling mechanism and as a delaying cooling mechanism when the sun doesn’t shine on it.

We’d be a darn side warmer if we had no “greenhouse gases” to help radiate solar heat away into the vacuum of space.

Best regards,

Hans Schreuder
www.ilovemycarbondioxide.com
www.slayingtheskydragon.com

=x=x=x=x=x=x=x=x=x=x=x=x=x=x=x=

Categories
Climate Change Emissions Impossible Energy Change Energy Revival Global Warming

Everything’s going to be just fine

Image Credit : Ulla Norup Milbrath

Really, we can all relax.

We already have all the Renewable Energy technologies we need to power the whole world without a single molecule of carbon dioxide being pumped into the warming sky.

The wildcat growth in clean energy is exploding out of the record books, and we can reach and easily surpass our tough greenhouse targets, all by 2030.

https://news.cnet.com/8301-11128_3-20029784-54.html

https://www.fastcompany.com/1721388/study-100-renewable-energy-for-world-in-40-years-yes-only-our-doubts-in-the-way

The catch ? We do need to convince a number of key energy players to shift gear, and that may take a little effort and time.

There are also changes that can be useful demand-side as well as supply-side :-

https://www.newscientist.com/article/dn20037-efficiency-could-cut-world-energy-use-over-70-per-cent.html

We can do it if we adopt Engineering Development Goals :-

https://www.imeche.org/knowledge/themes/environment/Population

Categories
Climate Change Emissions Impossible Global Warming Green Power Political Nightmare Regulatory Ultimatum Social Change

Values, Schmalues

Image Credit : Climate Safety

As an experiment with the notion of “common values”, I recently sat in a cinema with a bunch of my fellow citizens and inhaled the film “The King’s Speech”.

They laughed with the jokes (as in fact I did, right on cue), mourned with the pain (which gave me cause for reflection, too); and gave a huge round of applause at the end.

And you know what, I could have been swept along and joined them, apart from one observation.

The triumph of the central character over his physical disability, the applause he received, both at the time and in the cinema, this was all whilst giving a message that the country was about to commence widescale violence towards another country – the declaration of war.

Everybody was cheering for war. I couldn’t join in.

It is to the good memory of David Fleming that I recommend you read his last published work, co-written with Transition Towns’ Shaun Chamberlin, “Tradable Energy Quotas : A Policy Framework for Peak Oil and Climate Change” :-

https://teqs.net/report/

Amidst all the psycho-sociological arguments being waged by political theorists and campaigny people about changing peoples’ values, and whether that’s right/useful or not, one plain fact should emerge like a tree to clutch in a flash flood – people respond to rules.

If the rules of the game are that we should reduce our carbon dioxide emissions by 80% by 2050, and everybody, including the energy production companies, are required to play a significant role, this fact alone establishes “common cause” and creates a framework for action.

Although the Climate Change Act is the law – a piece of legislation – it has yet to be fleshed out. Until it becomes clear what the exact policies, measures and instruments will be, agreed and implemented, there will continue to be massive amounts of flailing and flapping about, scepticism, recalcitrance, dogma and complaining.

When it becomes clear what the framework for the energy industry, big business and social provision will be, then people will knuckle down and accept the inevitable.

I’m not arguing for eco-fascism – far from it. Mistakes in policy are all too possible, and so strong engagement is required, far beyond the token democracy we are currently permitted to take part in. Taking part in a government consultation on energy and carbon emissions is about as effective as waving a placard in the direction of Downing Street, except you don’t run the risk of getting arrested for it.

The only thing the public are currently permitted to do is cut their own domestic emissions. They’re not allowed to have a say about what business or government do about emissions.

Yet despite this complete absence of public involvement, there are signs of progress. Once we have managed to fight our way through the windstorm of nonsensical technological “fixes” that are worse than useless; once we have some educated people in the Government and the Civil Service – education on matters of engineering rather than humanities; then we can start to see sense from the top.

Urgent request from the floor : please can the Government and industry please stop alienating people with calls for consumers to change their behaviour. It’s producing resistance, and that is a threat to progress on reducing emissions.

What do I think about changing values ? I don’t believe “we” should try to change values or behaviour. That amounts to manipulation in my view.

Categories
Behaviour Changeling Climate Change Conflict of Interest Corporate Pressure Dead End Emissions Impossible Media Money Sings Political Nightmare Protest & Survive Public Relations Social Change Unutterably Useless Utter Futility Vain Hope Voluntary Behaviour Change Vote Loser

James Hansen’s Hate Mail

Image Credit : Earth Beat Radio

New Year, new hate campaign against Climate Change scientists :-

https://www.columbia.edu/~jeh1/mailings/2011/20110126_SingingInTheRain.pdf

“Singing in the Rain : 26 January 2011 : In the past 2 – 3 weels I received a deluge of nasty-language messages saying that I should be fired, deported, run over, etc. Such a sudden burst of malice seems unlikely to be spontaneous.”

“Perhaps recent articles and internet stories provided stimulation, e.g., an article by Pat Michaels in the Washington Times and a statement by Richard S. Courtney on a blog. Michaels distorts the facts and uses quotes out of context. The Courtney statement […] mischaracterizes my testimony.”

“…The essence of my testimony, in both trials, was that the evidence for human-caused climate change is clear. I emphasized that the UK government, the fossil fuel industry, and the utility EON were aware of the effect of continued coal-burning on the future of young people. But instead of addressing the problem effectively, they engaged in greenwash…”

Over at MediaLens, the two (three) Davids are blanking the “every little bit helps” approach :-

“Focusing on personal consumption, and each of us ‘doing our bit’, is what we mean by the ‘debate’ being stuck on square one.”

Asking the general public to kindly remember to switch off their lights has had about as much impact as a light dusting of sugar. Looks pretty, but causes coughing fits when eating the cake.

I can’t wait for their comments on Climate Week :-

https://www.climateweek.com/

“One week to show how we can combat climate change…inspiring millions to act.”

Supported by David Cameron ! Sponsored by Tesco (owners of a very large and unnecessary carbon footprint) !

A zero carbon supermarket ? I really cannot believe it :-

https://www.greenweblog.net/2010/02/03/tesco-opens-world%E2%80%99s-first-zero-carbon-supermarket/

Note in the following that Tesco don’t intend to carbon label their transport systems, warehousing or stores – only the products that consumers buy :-

https://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2010/oct/13/tesco-carbon-labels

Categories
Climate Change Delay and Deny Media

How Would You Have Phrased It ?

Media Lens Message Board

=x=x=x=x=x=x=x=x=x=x=x=x=

Posted by jo abbess on January 25, 2011, 5:51 pm

Complaint to the Daily Mail

https://www.joabbess.com/2011/01/25/whine-to-the-daily-mail/

https://www.joabbess.com

=x=x=x=x=x=x=x=x=x=x=x=x=x=

Re: Complaint to the Daily Mail
Posted by JMC on January 26, 2011, 4:45 am, in reply to “Complaint to the Daily Mail”

Hi Jo
You don’t actually state in specific terms what it is you object to in his piece or what you actually want them to correct. You mention in general terms that he has not consulted you on your motivations, your memory of events is somewhat different and he attributed motivations to you that were not accurate, but in asking for a correction, you don’t actually tell them what specifically they got wrong and what you want corrected. What do you expect them to say in a correction – Jo Abbess disagrees with what we said about her (but we aren’t sure which bits or what exactly we got wrong)? Just wondering if maybe including more specifics might have had a better chance of actually getting the correction. I know if I had received that letter I would be wondering what exactly your complaint was and what specifically you wanted corrected (just my impression from reading your letter). Cheers J

=x=x=x=x=x=x=x=x=x=x=x=x=x=

Posted by jo abbess on January 26, 2011, 11:15 am, in reply to “Re: Complaint to the Daily Mail”

I decided to try opening up a dialogue by asking if they would consider a correction, but…

…since I haven’t heard anything in response, I guess they don’t want to talk about it.

Maybe I should hire Max Clifford.

Except I can’t afford to (all senses of the word).

And anyway, I’m not trying to be confrontational here, just pointing out that I have been reported without being interviewed or researched, so it’s rather unfair.

Anybody with significant social status would never be treated like that.

Except they are, regularly (Caroline Lucas for example in the same piece).

Just crucify a random protester. Always works a treat. Keeps the rabble fairly quiet…

And besides all of that, I have agreed with Roger Harrabin and Richard Black that I won’t rake over the incident again and again as it detracts from the progress we are all making (optimistic tone).

That doesn’t mean I won’t be critical of their work, which I regularly am, it just means that going over and over a “sordid” incident in 2008 won’t get anyone anywhere. It won’t even sell copy.

Except it did for the Daily Mail.

If the Daily Mail were hoping for juicy snippets about a long-dead non-issue, with extremely dodgy “facts” having been spread about, they won’t get any. Particularly not in an opening gambit type e-mail.

In fact, that’s probably the “news” here, if anyone wanted to use that – “Roger Harrabin and eco-fascist agree not to tussle over trivia – for the sake of The Cause”.

jo.

=x=x=x=x=x=x=x=x=x=x=x=x=x=x=

Posted by JMC on January 26, 2011, 11:52 am, in reply to “I decided to try opening up a dialogue by asking if they would consider a correction, but…”

Re: I decided to try opening up a dialogue by asking if they would consider a correction, but…

Fair enough. Just thought I’d mention that on reading the letter it didn’t really come through to me exactly what you were asking for (whether that was engagement or a right of reply, or a written correction etc). Can understand you not wanting to rehash the whole thing again, despite the fact that it has all just been brought up again for you without you having any opportunity to put your side. But then, the piece that it was in didn’t strike me as having any attempt at balance – just read like one person’s opinionated rant to me.

=x=x=x=x=x=x=x=x=x=x=x=x=x=

Posted by jo abbess on January 26, 2011, 9:50 pm, in reply to “Re: I decided to try opening up a dialogue by asking if they would consider a correction, but…”

Some people appear to have taken the Daily Mail article factually….

…or at least significant enough for them to reproduce liberally all over the Internet. It doesn’t seem to matter to them if the piece was balanced or not. It also doesn’t appear to matter to them if the piece was factual or not.

The Daily Mail article contained a rationale for my behaviour that I believe is unsubstantiated. It also contains details of my behaviour that do not accord with my recollection of my behaviour at the time, and those unproven claims are now being propagated widely and could possibly cause a backlash against me. It was nasty enough in 2008. I kept details of the hate e-mails and threats and so on, just in case I needed to use them in a legal setting. I really don’t want a repeat.

Are the Daily Mail inciting hatred towards me ? Can the Daily Mail be held accountable for the propagation of a negative character judgement and poor re-interpretation of the facts ?

And do I want to use up precious time and energy in pursuing the channels which exist to rectify what I consider to be errors ?

Thanks for offering your opinion that you didn’t understand what I was asking for in my e-mail. I can’t really go back in time and edit the e-mail, but I shall try to stay aware that my clarity may need to sharpen up.

How would you have phrased it ?

Muchas.

=x=x=x=x=x=x=x=x=x=x=x=x=x=x=

Categories
Climate Change Climate Chaos Global Warming

It’s just La Nina #2

Data Credit : NASA GISS

As I said, the current year of unceasing rain is nothing to worry about – it’s just La Nina (according to the Independent’s Steve Connor, anyway) :-

https://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/australasia/this-isnt-about-climate-change-ndash-but-it-may-be-the-face-of-the-future-2185153.html

“Scientists have emphasised that none of the three extreme weather events occurring now can be linked directly to global warming. Two of them, the floods in Australia and Sri Lanka, may be connected with a naturally occurring climatic phenomenon in the Pacific Ocean, called La Niña, whereas the landslides in Brazil are the result of heavy, localised downpours falling on badly constructed homes built precariously on steep hillsides.”

“It is almost certain that La Niña is behind the Queensland floods. La Niña, which means “little girl”, is a change in the Pacific Ocean where a body of relatively cold water wells up over the equatorial region, causing a corresponding build-up of warm water in the western regions near Indonesia and Australia.”

“This warm water usually dissipates to the east in non-La Niña years. This year, however, is the strongest La Niña since 1974, and the warm water around Australia and Indonesia, with nowhere to escape, has generated heavy rain clouds that have burst over Queensland.”

“In 1974, when Queensland also suffered heavy flooding, La Niña was stronger then than at any time on record. Sri Lanka remained dry that time, but this time there is evidence that some of the warm moist air has blown further west, just nudging Sri Lanka into torrential downpours, according to Adam Scaife, head of long-range forecasting at the Met Office.”

“”Rainfall is expected to increase in a warmer world but in this case it’s linked with the La Niña cycle. It’s a natural cycle and we don’t expect it to change in the future. This is not a climate-change issue, it’s La Niña, and it’s happened before and will happen again,” Dr Scaife said.”

So, no discussion of how the El Niño Southern Oscillation (ENSO) is changing ?

It’s the overall ENSO pattern that counts. It shows both El Niño phases and La Niña phases, and it appears to be changing :-

https://www.cgd.ucar.edu/cas/catalog/climind/TNI_N34/index.html

https://www.azimuthproject.org/azimuth/show/ENSO

Just a few references :-

Matei et al. (2008). “Subtropical Forcing of Tropical Pacific Climate and Decadal ENSO Modulation”. Journal of Climate, DOI: 10.1175/2008JCLI2075.1

Ashok et al. (2007). “El Niño Modoki and its possible teleconnection”. Journal of Geophysical Research, 2007, vol. 112, no. C11″

And some notes :-

https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/hyp.7200/abstract

https://www.skepticalscience.com/el-nino-southern-oscillation.htm

https://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2008/07/global-trends-and-enso/

https://www.azimuthproject.org/azimuth/show/ENSO

https://sites.google.com/site/whythe2009winterissocold/

Categories
Climate Change Climate Chaos Extreme Weather Floodstorm Incalculable Disaster Landslide Mudslide Rainstorm The Data

It’s just La Nina #1

Categories
Climate Change Climate Chaos Energy Change Energy Revival Global Warming Meltdown Social Change

Tears like rain


OceanLab – Miracle (Official Music Video)

Oceanlab | Myspace Music Videos

Categories
Climate Change Climate Chaos Floodstorm Rainstorm

The Year of Unceasing Rain #5

On average, 2010 seems to have been as hot as 2005, which was probably the hottest year ever recorded, according to NOAA :-

https://www.noaanews.noaa.gov/stories2011/20110112_globalstats.html

Whatever the other datasets show, 2010 was certainly one unusually warm year, definitely in the warmest. Yet what interests me more is that it was also the wettest.

Rain got dumped around the world, in large, emptying-the-bath type events. The heavens really opened. Sheets of rain fell suddenly out of the skies.

One report of serious rainfall and flooding (or storms and flooding) was followed by another, and another. It was subjectively a year of unceasing rain, even before the objective records were counted.

There was Central America of course. And parts of deep Europe. Then Pakistan, which nobody could have missed. There were major Typhoons causing untold havoc in East Asia. The Caribbean was not spared. Parts of the United States of America became swampland.

Even though the BBC have only just woken up to the fact that the East Coast of Australia is suffering unusually high levels of precipitation, torrential rain and flooding have been going on there for at least a month :-

https://www.smh.com.au/environment/weather/hundreds-cut-off-by-deadly-floods-20101208-18pxi.html

It’s so significant, it’s even got its own Wikipedia page :-

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2010%E2%80%932011_Queensland_floods

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-asia-pacific-12173846

The BBC TV News anchormen and anchorwomen think that we can all breath a sigh of relief because the peak of the Brisbane flood wasn’t as bad as had been feared, but seriously, it’s laughable to try to find something positive about what’s happening.

Unfortunately, things could still continue to get worse, even in Brisbane.

Check the live satellite :-

Wake up, Ms and Mr BBC news correspondent ! This is a major, persisting crisis, and it’s not over yet.

Categories
Acid Ocean Climate Change Climate Chaos Global Warming Incalculable Disaster Major Shift Science Rules The Data Tree Family

This is how it is #4

Very long-lived trees tell the story of the last 5,000 years or so.

The gradual cooling of the Holocene interglacial is overtaken by a truly anomalous warming over the last few hundred years.

How unusual have conditions been in the last few hundred years ? The carbon 13 isotope can give us one point of view [ Boehm et al. (2002) ] :-

And the oxygen 18 isotope can add detail about climatic changes not readily apparent from the carbon isotope record [ Berkelhammer and Stott (2008) ] :-

The balance of oxygen isotopes in plants in this study provide some perspective on rainfall and storm patterns, which appear to have started changing before significant temperature changes came into view.

Depletion of oxygen from the atmosphere provides evidence that the accumulation of carbon dioxide is from the oxidation (burning) of fossil fuels :-

Shaffer et al. (2009)

But we’re going to have a carbon crisis in the oceans from a combination of acidification and thermal stress, long before we have an oceanic oxygen crisis :-

NOAA Weekly Coral Watch Forecast

Categories
Climate Change Climate Chaos Floodstorm

Australia : Inundation Nation

Music for a Wetter World : Pianochocolate, Birthday No. 1

Categories
Climate Change Climate Chaos

Ovaltine, rocking chairs and slippers

Image Credit : NASA Earth Observatory

There’s no retiring, if you are at all aware of Climate Change and you care about what it will mean for the world your grandchildren or somebody else’s grandchildren will inherit.

You can’t kick back and potter around with…oh, I don’t know, train sets, grunging away at Wii console matches with your nephew, running a local trainspotters club, wearing ever-decreasing woollen cardigans, tanking about the countryside in a dilapidated classic motor, tipping your hard-earned into Caribbean cruises, or Spanish golf, tartan trews and chunky gold bracelets, donning the regulation old-fogey slippers and having a malted drink in the evening before bedtime.

You can’t switch off when you fully grasp the implications of science such as this :-

https://www.newscientist.com/article/mg20927942.200-last-chance-to-hold-greenland-back-from-tipping-point.html?page=1

It’s behind a paywall, but I think it’s important, so I’m going to claim “fair use” and reproduce a little of the article here :-

PRINT EDITION HEADLINE : “Greenland poised on a knife edge : By 2040 it will be too late to save the ice sheets from catastrophic melting : we have to act now”

“Last chance to hold Greenland back from tipping point : 05 January 2011 by Anil Ananthaswamy : New data and models show that Greenland’s ice cap, the world’s second largest, is on track to hit a point of no return in 2040”

“ON 4 AUGUST 2010, the Petermann glacier in Greenland sounded a warning. A gigantic slab of ice broke off and the glacier retreated 15 kilometres, leaving it further inland than it has been since observations began a century ago.”

“That warning went unheeded at the UN climate talks in Cancún, Mexico, last month. Delegates left without agreeing drastic cuts in greenhouse gas emissions, leaving the planet on course for 3.2 degrees C of global warming, and Greenland – the world’s second largest ice cap – heading for a point of no return. The suggestion is that Greenland will reach a tipping point in the early 2040s. After that no amount of action on our part can save the ice sheet. Unless governments dramatically up their game, the only thing that will change that date is natural variations in the climate, which might either hasten or delay the tipping point.”

“Greenland’s ice sheet holds enough ice to raise global sea levels by 7 metres. Ice melting at the surface and breaking off at the margins of the ice sheet is already adding up to about 300 gigatonnes each year. That accounts for about 25 per cent of the annual, global rise in sea levels…”

And it just gets more dire as you carry on reading.

But who cares ? I mean, who really thinks about what this implies ? And who is prepared to take action ?

Sea level rise has been consistent throughout the modern era, and is going to accelerate if Greenland melts down at the rate projected from the science reported in this article.

Plus, losing ice in Greenland will add extra Greenhouse Effect as white reflective frozen water is replaced by dark, non-reflective heating-up ocean water (this is called the albedo effect for any non-aware reader). And a hotter world is a nastier world.

And then you can forget history, culture and tradition – within a hundred years all the world’s major well-established cities will have to re-locate. And anywhere near the Equator will become virtually uninhabitable. And major crop-producing regions won’t, any more.

How much agricultural land will be parched ? Or swamped ? Want your low-lying country of choice to look like some parts of Pakistan, the world’s first global warming-induced “inundation nation” ?

If you care about your species, Climate Change has to be your concern. Not just a once-a-month payment to an environmental charity. Not simply a walk in a park demonstration. Not merely a token turning down of things on special Earth Hour days.

You can try to ignore your responsibility to get involved. You can avoid learning as much as you can. You can take early retirement from intellectual inquiry. You can curl up with a box of chocs in front of your favourite DVD, and you are at liberty to relax your weekend away playing football, or following the football on the telly or the radio or the web, or whatever. You can burn up the sky visiting a nice rural place with a beach. You can distract yourself with things that have no lasting significance, but in the end you will be challenged by the changing climate.

And when you’re switched on, you will never turn your back on what you have learned. You won’t be able to forget the ever-present risks of major global instability, suffering, hunger, want and disease.

You can’t ignore the threats to the energy infrastructure and what that could mean for the whole industrialised world. You can’t marginalise the impact that Climate Change is already having on the least-developed countries (and some developed nations, too).

You can’t see a photograph of Pakistan under water without being concerned. Which nation will get a Global Warming wipeout next ?

It can be hard to know what to do. What to concentrate on ? How to be effective ? Which collaborations are the most productive ? Which struggles are critical to put energy into ? And yet any one of us who is mature enough to learn, and has the internal resources to put their learning to good use, can do something useful, even if it takes time to find out what that something useful is.

This is not a moment to despair at the overwhelming troubles that could come.

This is a time to start an epic journey.

You have been changed. You are changed. And you will be changed. And then you will be able to create change.

I don’t need to ask you where your humanity is.

Categories
Climate Change Climate Chaos

This is how it is #2

This is one calculation of the “resolved” average global temperature of the Earth.

We can explain all the pock marks (the little dips) of the core trend line in this chart.

What we cannot explain is the lack of response from the world’s governments, energy nations and energy companies to the very clear suggestion of an exponential rise in global temperatures.

Categories
Climate Change Global Warming

Il Est Né

Categories
Climate Change Climate Chaos Global Warming Media Political Nightmare

The Vortex of Chaos

Image Credit : Dr Martin Rodger, Take Global Warming Seriously

We are at the very cusp of the edge of the verge of a swirling vortex of Climate Chaos, and all the United States of America can think about is protecting their business interests at the Cancun United Nations talks.

Yes, there can be “technology transfer” from the US to “emerging economies” (read : China), but “intellectual property rights”, as owned by private companies, must be protected.

Yes, there can be “Climate finance” from the USA to the Least Developed Countries (read : Long Dirt-poor Colonies), but the banks need to get their pound of flesh profit, so the money will be in the form of loans.

Yes, there can be “Reduced Deforestation” (what ? Not “totally reduced deforestation” ?), as long as American firms can still import a certain amount of tropical and sub-tropical wood for making toilet paper and construction beams.

Yes, there can be commitments to reduce Greenhouse Gas emissions, but the paranoid Americanos want to enforce satellite verification and inspection teams for monitoring – yet more business opportunities.

China (and Russian and India and Brazil) are never going to agree all this. This is V. O. C. territory – on the Verge of Chaos.

From an exchange on the MediaLens Message Board :-

“Cancun Climate Talks : Get a grip or we are all V. O. C. K. D…You know – as in D. I. S. C. O.”

“Really, we are all seriously V. O. C. K. D. unless somehow the world’s energy companies are convinced to stop mining”

https://green.blogs.nytimes.com/2010/12/06/climate-change-igniting-deep-peatland-fires-study-says/”

“Climate Change Igniting Deep Peatland Fires, Study Says…Climate change is causing Alaskan wildfires to burn more fiercely, liberating vast stores of soil-based carbon dioxide that will further accelerate warming, a new study has found…“There is no way these systems are serving as a net carbon sink anymore”…”

“Personally, I blame the Americans. Well, there’s got to be *someone* to blame, hasn’t there ?”

To which there was this telling reply :-

“Why do people continue to believe international talks intended to develop meaningful treaties are the appropriate response to climate change?”

And so we tip into the grip of Vortex of Utter Chaos…

https://members5.boardhost.com/medialens/thread/1291727322.html

Categories
Be Prepared Big Picture Climate Change Coal Hell Emissions Impossible Energy Change Fossilised Fuels Global Warming Growth Paradigm Major Shift Media No Pressure Oil Change Peak Emissions Political Nightmare Regulatory Ultimatum Social Change Tarred Sands

Holy Mother Market !

Video Credit : Democracy Now

Of all the macroeconomic proposals put forward over the last two decades for consideration by the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change, the most ridiculous has to be Carbon Trading.

To imagine that a market can be created for something that the industrialised country economies are highly dependent on is an hallucination.

Carbon Dioxide emissions are in lock-step with economic growth, the creation of liquidity, if not wealth. To try to price Carbon Dioxide emissions would be to attempt to give a negative value to a positive commodity. It just won’t work. Nobody will want to buy it. And if they’re forced to buy it, they won’t want to pay much for it. And nobody can think of a way to force the developed countries to pay for their Carbon Dioxide emissions.

Even before the “serious” negotiating week of Cancun begins, the Kyoto Protocol has been pronounced dead on arrival :-

https://www.democracynow.org/2010/12/6/climate_talks_in_jeopardy_as_industrialized

Nobody ever said the “KP” was perfect – it only committed countries to a very small level of emissions cuts. Some commitment ! Few of the countries in the KP have taken their responsibilities to cut emissions seriously. And if they have, they’ve just outsourced them to China.

But the Son-of-Kyoto Post-Kyoto Protocol Protocol could have been something, you know, if the industrialised countries admitted they needed to back down significantly from rising and large emissions profiles – if developed nations had not tried to lean on the “flexible mechanisms” that effectively legalised offsetting their emissions with emissions reductions in other peoples’ countries.

But, no.

It appears from Wikileaks that the United States of America have been scuppering the United Nations’s best efforts :-

https://www.democracynow.org/2010/12/6/bolivian_un_ambassador_pablo_solon_reacts

“Secret diplomatic cables released by WikiLeaks have revealed new details about how the United States manipulated last year’s climate talks in Copenhagen. The cables show how the United States sought dirt on nations opposed to its approach to tackling global warming, how financial and other aid was used by countries to gain political backing, and how the United States mounted a secret global diplomatic offensive to overwhelm opposition to the “Copenhagen Accord.””

https://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2010/dec/03/wikileaks-us-manipulated-climate-accord
https://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2010/dec/03/us-basics-copenhagen-accord-tactics

It wasn’t China’s fault, (or only China’s fault) as Mark Lynas and many other commentators have asserted :-

https://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2009/dec/22/copenhagen-climate-change-mark-lynas

If, as reports state, the United States are continuing to use any leverage they can to push countries to accept the doomed Copenhagen Accord, there can be no progress on Climate Change.

We may have just found the real Climategate.

You cannot buy or sell the atmosphere.

There is only one solution – that is to displace High Carbon Energy with Low Carbon Energy and that means goodbye to Tar Sands, Shale Oil, Tight Gas, deepwater Petroleum, dirty Petroleum, Coal, Coal-to-Liquids, anything that you can dig out of the ground and burn.

We have to stop mining for energy.

And that has serious implications for a number of international energy corporations and state energy enterprises.

Unless this basic issue is addressed, we are all heading for hell and high water.

The Climate Change talks have been window dressing for unworkable hypothetical macroeconomic policies, and continue to reduce chair people to tears :-

Categories
Climate Change Faithful God Global Warming

Let Us Pray

Categories
Bait & Switch Climate Change Global Warming Media

Daily Exasperation

Scan Credit : Andrew Milligan

It appears that the editors of the Daily Express newspaper delight in selling units by being scandalously annoying.

“GLOBAL WARMING ? IF ONLY…”

Reads the line underneath the photograph of a posh Scottish gent in his snow-covered posh Scottish car (but probably made in Germany).

Inside on Page 6, we read, “Snow chaos…with worse to come”.

At the bottom of Page 6, just beside “ENERGY BILLS FACE HIKE”, with myths about the “cold snap” forcing prices upwards, we find, “But scientists claim world is ‘too warm'”

Indeed they do :-

“When could global warming reach 4°C ?”

The diagram shows a projection of global warming relative to the pre-industrial average for the emissions scenario we are currently following. The darker shading around the central line are the first statistical “standard deviation” range of uncertainty. The lighter shading shows the change in the uncertainty range when “carbon cycle climate feedbacks” are included.

Here’s what Joe Romm has to say about the research article :-

https://climateprogress.org/2010/11/29/royal-society-special-issue-4-degrees-world/

Categories
Advancing Africa Bait & Switch Big Picture Carbon Commodities China Syndrome Climate Change Contraction & Convergence Corporate Pressure Emissions Impossible Energy Change Financiers of the Apocalypse Global Warming Green Investment Money Sings No Pressure Peace not War Political Nightmare Regulatory Ultimatum Sustainable Deferment Technological Sideshow Tree Family Unutterably Useless Utter Futility Vain Hope

Cancun Day #2 : American Bullies

Image Credit : TF1

It’s not that developing countries and emerging economies are being picky. The problem lies with the United States of America, desperate to cling on to its geopolitical leverage :-

https://www.reuters.com/article/idUS273211516320101129

“U.S. Call to Preserve Copenhagen Accord Puts Climate Conference on Edge : By Stacy Feldman at SolveClimate : Mon Nov 29, 2010 : Many poor countries want to scrap the three-page Copenhagen agreement that the U.S. wants to preserve : CANCUN, MEXICO — The United States said Monday it would not back down on its plan to turn the unpopular Copenhagen Accord into a final global warming deal, setting the first day of already fragile UN climate talks in Cancun on edge. “What we’re seeking here in Cancun is a balanced package of decisions that would build on this agreement … [and] preserve the balance of the accord,” Jonathan Pershing, lead U.S. climate negotiator in Cancun, told reporters at the talks…”

https://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2010/nov/30/cancun-climate-change-summit-america

“Cancún climate change summit: America plays tough : US adopts all-or-nothing position in Cancún, fuelling speculation of a walk-out if developing countries do not meet its demands : Suzanne Goldenberg, US environment correspondent, guardian.co.uk, Tuesday 30 November 2010 : America has adopted a tough all-or-nothing position at the Cancún climate change summit, fuelling speculation of a walk-out if developing countries do not meet its demands. At the opening of the talks at Cancún, the US climate negotiator, Jonathan Pershing, made clear America wanted a “balanced package” from the summit. That’s diplomatic speak for a deal that would couple the core issues for the developing world – agreement on climate finance, technology, deforestation – with US demands for emissions actions from emerging economies and a verifiable system of accounting for those cuts. In a briefing with foreign journalists in Washington, the chief climate envoy, Todd Stern, was blunt. “We’re either going to see progress across the range of issues or we’re not going to see much progress,” said Stern. “We’re not going to race forward on three issues and take a first step on other important ones. We’re going to have to get them all moving at a similar pace.” In the run-up to the Cancún talks, Stern has said repeatedly that America will not budge from its insistence that fast-emerging economies such as India and China commit to reducing emissions and to an inspection process that will verify those actions. The hard line – which some in Washington have seen as ritual diplomatic posturing – has fuelled speculation that the Obama administration could be prepared to walk out of the Cancún talks…”

An “inspection process” ? Agreeing to the same use of satellite snooping and the threat of the penalties of economic sanctions as applied to the fabled Iraqi weapons of mass destruction, and the current pincer on Iran ?

I can’t quite see China agreeing to that.

If we’re thinking about paranoia, who should be monitoring whom ?

The Clean Development Mechanism should have been more closely monitored, but it wasn’t, and it’s collapsed in a big pile – fake credits, false accreditation, poor success rate. Where has the verification process been, there ?

New schemes for “climate finance” will essentially involve creating debt for Climate Change mitigation and adaptation projects in developing and emerging economies. Why more debt ? To prop up the ailing industrialised economies. And allow the Bank sharks to feed.

And “technology transfer” ? That’s all about intellectual property rights – America owning all the rights, and China and India and so on owning nothing, of course. What great technologies have parasitical American companies been keeping hidden away up their sleeves to sell to the Chinese under a Climate deal ? Or are they just rubbish deals, like expensive and untested Carbon Capture and Storage ?

“Deforestation” ? Virtually all proposed schemes under the REDD banner (Reduced Emissions from Deforestation and Forest Degradation) include an element of emissions trading – just the kind of offsetting that large, dirty American companies want to buy to justify carrying on with Business As Usual. Protecting the rainforests ? Nah – just finding another way to make money for the Carbon Traders, and protect the Oil, Gas and Coal industries of the industrialised regions.

What is needed is for the industrialised nations to commit to domestic emissions reductions, not continued attempts to coerce other countries to make cuts that can be traded.

Nobody has learned anything in the last year. The same ridiculous non-options are on the table, and nobody’s biting.

Categories
Advancing Africa Big Picture Burning Money Carbon Commodities Climate Change Corporate Pressure Divide & Rule Emissions Impossible Financiers of the Apocalypse Global Warming Money Sings Political Nightmare Social Chaos Tree Family Unutterably Useless Utter Futility Vain Hope

Cancun Day #1 : “Tapestry of Compromise”

The United Nations have gathered in Cancun, Mexico, for the annual Climate Change negotiations. It’s only the first day, but already the talk is of compromise :-

https://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/ca6a3e58-fbe8-11df-b7e9-00144feab49a.html?ftcamp=rss#axzz16i2D3k1V

“Cancún hears call for ‘tapestry of compromise’ : By Fiona Harvey in London : November 29 2010 : Governments meeting to negotiate an agreement on global warming this week must learn to compromise, the UN’s top official on climate change said. Christiana Figueres told the opening meeting of the talks, being held in Cancún, Mexico, that only through giving up entrenched positions could countries at the talks hope to find common ground. “A tapestry with holes will not work,” she told officials from more than 180 countries. “The holes can only be filled with compromise.” … For the UN, therefore, Cancún is a test of its ability to carry forward the negotiations, which have been taking place for two decades. Officials are also hoping to make progress on vital issues – such as financial assistance for poor countries to cut their emissions and adapt to the effects of global warming – and a possible deal on preserving the world’s forests…”

Hmm. Let’s take a quick look at what these two highlighted proposals are :-

1. “…financial assistance for poor countries to cut their emissions…”

This is being worked up in a bunch of vehicles, including the initiative that David Cameron writes so emotionally about, the Capital Markets Climate Initiative :-

https://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2010/nov/28/david-cameron-climate-change-cancun

“Use the profit motive to fight climate change : The prime minister argues that there are huge gains to be made from a green economy : David Cameron, The Observer, Sunday 28 November 2010 : …I passionately believe that by recasting the argument for action on climate change away from the language of threats and punishments and into positive, profit-making terms, we can have a much wider impact. That’s why this government has set up the Capital Markets Climate Initiative – to help trigger a new wave of green investment in emerging economies and make the City of London the global capital of the fast-growing green investment sector…”

So, it’s not donations, or even grants or other forms of aid – it’s debt – debt that’s no longer possible to create in the Credit Crunched developed nations.

It’s probably not quite what Nicholas Stern was thinking of when he said that $100 billion needs to be made available to the Global South in the next decade for Adaptation to Climate Change.

It’s certainly not the redistribution of global wealth that the rightwingers fear from the great “eco-socialist conspiracy”.

It’s an attempt to shore up the corroding economies of the Global North by putting the Global South into further debt.

Score : 0 out of 20.

2. “…a possible deal on preserving the world’s forests…”

This is the policy proposal known as REDD – Reducing Emissions from Deforestation and Forest Degradation, which most people translate as meaning (a) cut down some of the forest for economic purposes in order to (b) protect the rest.

I mean, how likely is that to work ?

https://www.greenpeace.org.uk/tags/redd

Plus, it could become a vehicle to justify the continued existence of the oil and gas industry :-

https://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2010/nov/28/redd-forest-protection-banks-oil

“Oil companies and banks will profit from UN forest protection scheme : Redd scheme designed to prevent deforestation but critics call it ‘privatisation’ of natural resources : John Vidal, environment editor, in Cancun, guardian.co.uk, Sunday 28 November 2010 : Some of the world’s largest oil, mining, car and gas corporations will make hundreds of millions of dollars from a UN-backed forest protection scheme, according to a new report from the Friends of the Earth International…”

Score : -40 out of a possible 20

With these kind of compromises on the table, do you think the Global South will be any more willing to sign onto any “Accord” any more than they were at Copenhagen ?

Unless and until corporate interests are removed from the United Nations Climate Change treaty, the world’s poorest, their habitats are our futures are being betrayed.

Categories
Bait & Switch Climate Change Delay and Deny Divide & Rule Fair Balance Global Warming Hide the Incline Media Science Rules Social Chaos The Data

Met Office Reports : Media Opinion Differs

Image Credit : Hobos 4 Life

Oo, it’s so hard knowing which version of reality to plump for, if you have to judge by the headlines alone.

These articles were published on the same day, based on the same report from the Meteorological Office, in different high quality newspapers :-

https://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2010/nov/26/global-warming-met-office

“World is warming quicker than thought in past decade, says Met Office : Report comes as scientists predict 2010 could be hottest year on record : Damian Carrington, The Guardian, Friday 26 November 2010 : The world warmed more rapidly than previously thought over the past decade, according to a Met Office report published today, which finds the evidence for man-made climate change has grown even stronger over the last year…”

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/earth/environment/climatechange/8159991/Global-warming-has-slowed-because-of-pollution.html

“Global warming has slowed because of pollution : Global warming has slowed in the last decade, according to the Met Office, as the world pumps out so much pollution it is reflecting the sun’s rays and causing a cooling effect. By Louise Gray, Environment Correspondent, 26 Nov 2010 : The latest figures from more than 20 scientific institutions around the world show that global temperatures are higher than ever. However the gradual rise in temperatures over the last 30 years is slowing slightly. Global warming since the 1970s has been 0.16C (0.3F) but the rise in the last decade was just 0.05C (0.09F), according to the Met Office. Sceptics claim this as evidence man made global warming is a myth…”

I think I’ll go with Damian Carrington’s version, because at least he mentions more than one possible reason for why Global Warming hasn’t been accelerating as much in the last decade as the ones immediately prior.

Despite the slow down in acceleration, the temperatures are still rising, so there’s no need to use the word “cooling” in Louise Gray’s sub-heading.

And there’s no reason at all for Louise to mention the anti-science so-called “sceptics”, who are actually deniers. They would deny the Moon was made of rock, if they could manipulate the tiniest piece of evidence, or twist the most innocent of words, to make it appear that there were uncertainties about the exact composition of the samples taken from Earth’s satellite by the NASA astronauts.

There is still an outside probability that the Moon could be made of cheese, folks, according to the type of argument put forward by the sceptic-deniers.

But as we all know, that’s impossible, because the Moon landings were faked, and in fact, the Moon is only painted onto the sky dome, as it isn’t actually there any more as it was removed during an undocumented altercation between nuclear states some time in the 1990s.

Categories
Bad Science Climate Change Climate Chaos Global Singeing Global Warming Green Investment Green Power Hide the Incline Media No Pressure Non-Science Political Nightmare Regulatory Ultimatum Renewable Resource Science Rules The Data Unqualified Opinion

A Fairy Castle of Froth

Well, it would seem the wheels have definitely come off the Climate Change sceptic-denier trolley bus, and the passengers are raving, and metaphorically drowning in their own pus-riddled intellectual bile, judging by the spluttered, splattered comments I am receiving on this web log.

Wegman is going down (the anti-science, anti-Hockey Stick Wegman Report, you understand, not the man himself) – and I mean down; down to the depths of dissmissal and reproach, and scorn mountains will be heaped, and his “strange scholarship” will be ribbed and ridiculed and his assertions and claims fobbed off for ever more, it seems, by those whose opinions really count :-

https://deepclimate.org/2010/11/16/replication-and-due-diligence-wegman-style/

https://deepclimate.org/2010/09/26/strange-scholarship-wegman-report/

https://climatechangepsychology.blogspot.com/2010/11/turns-out-climate-skeptics-favorite.html

“Turns out climate skeptics’ favorite report (the Wegman Report) might not be as scientific as Congressman Joe Barton claims…”

We’re talking pit-wise plumbing here, the nether reaches of the pile of tried-and-rejected hypotheses. We’re talking dearie-dearie-me, what a mess have we got here, then ? :-

https://climateprogress.org/2010/11/21/wegman-exposed-experts-find-shocking-plagiarism-in-2006-climate-report-requested-by-joe-barton-r-tx/

Michael Mann was right. You, dear sceptic-deniers, are wrong. Even the Daily Mail newspaper says so, and don’t retort that, of course, the Daily Maelstrom is not exactly the Source of All Validity, and testily question why I trust the Daily Maul when it agrees with me, and not otherwise :-

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1332347/Influential-climate-change-report-copied-Wikipedia.html?ito=feeds-newsxml

“Influential climate change report ‘was copied from Wikipedia’ : By DAILY MAIL REPORTER : 23rd November 2010 : Research questioning the validity of global warming was copied from Wikipedia and textbooks, it has been claimed. A report by statistician Edward Wegman criticised earlier research led by scientist Michael Mann that said global temperatures were highest in the last century than the previous 1,000 years. But according to plagiarism experts, ‘significant’ sections of the 91-page report were lifted from ‘textbooks, Wikipedia and the writings of one of the scientists criticised in the report’…”

You can take or leave your truth universe, and the Daily Mall certainly does that, but I’ll stick with the data, thanks, the hard-won, carefully-kept, un-fudged, un-compromised actual measurements…

Continue reading “A Fairy Castle of Froth”
Categories
Climate Change Global Warming Science Rules

Climate Science Rapid Response Team

Well, it has a different name than the one I suggested (CURRU – the Climate Unscience Rapid Response Unit), but it’s essentially the same thing – a fast-acting scientific response to your Climate Change questions :-

https://www.climaterapidresponse.org/

https://profmandia.wordpress.com/2010/11/22/official-launch-of-the-climate-science-rapid-response-team/

Whether you are a tired journalist late at night trying to piece together the jigsaw that is a Press Release to make some kind of news briefing out of it, or a tired scientist wanting to report a media failing in Climate Change communications, this is the service you need.

The Climate Science Rapid Response Team are the people you go to to confirm or deny the significance (statistical or otherwise) of new research papers, who, if you’re in the role of lawmaker or politician, the people you can approach to iron out your mental wrinkles of confusion.

We will take back trust in Science. We will restore the train engine to the front of the carriages – Climate Change science is going places – on track and at speed.

Join us.

Categories
Climate Change Economic Implosion Global Warming Oil Change Peak Oil

Post Carbon : Bleak House

A missive from Jeremy Leggett received via e-mail :-

=x=x=x=x=x=x=x=x=x=

Subject: New oil-crisis warning from British companies
Date: Sun, 21 Nov 2010
From: Jeremy Leggett

Folks

This week the UK Industry Taskforce on Peak Oil and Energy Security published a short update of its second report of February this year.

In the February report, we offered evidence for our concern that global oil production will begin to fall, against rising demand – and general expectation – by 2015 at the latest.

In the update, we argue that inevitable restrictions in deepwater oil production round the world, in the shakeout from the BP spill, has made our warning all the more pressing.

If you haven’t seen it, you can link to a pdf of the (4 page only) report and selected bits of the media coverage, off the home page of my website below.

The triple crunch log on the website is updated completely through 3rd November, and only partially beyond that. I am behind for day-job reasons, but will catch up in the month ahead. The financial-, climate- and energy crises all involve denialist group-think, or so I and my particular tribe of group-thinkers believe.

Yet the log of unfolding events shows the respective dramas ticking along like the three unexploded bombs they all are, for those with a mind to see.

For example, in finance we wait to see if fraud in the packaging of mortgage-backed securities will bring another wave of horror down on the banks, and hence on the rest of us.

In climate, America has elected a Congress where a blocking majority cannot or will not understand the dire warnings of climate scientists.

In energy, the IEA’s chief economist has added his name to the list professing that the age of cheap oil is over, and – as I have said – a cross section of UK industry believes a global oil crisis is coming, within five years.

We have to find a way, somehow, to defuse all three bombs.

Any one of them going off can ruin what remains of the vocational watches of the good folk on this e-mail list, and make our children and grandchildren really very irritated with us.

…I had a huge e-mail in-box after the last missive, concerning investment in coal. It seems that there are a lot of capitalists out there who have grave misgivings about the direction unreconstructed modern capitalism is taking.

I shall endeavour to write an article on that theme, without of course betraying any confidences, in the run up to the Cancun climate summit in a few weeks.

Best to all

J

Jeremy Leggett, Executive Chairman, Solarcentury
https://www.jeremyleggett.net for a log of the energy crunch as it unfolds

=x=x=x=x=x=x=x=x=

Interestingly, the BBC did not ignore the update of the UK Industry Taskforce on Peak Oil and Energy Security :-

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-11781533

Categories
Be Prepared Big Picture Carbon Army Climate Change Climate Chaos Emissions Impossible Global Warming Human Nurture Low Carbon Life Major Shift Peace not War Protest & Survive Social Change Wasted Resource

Green Peace

Peace would be truly green – besides eliminating a vast source of greenhouse emissions and environmental toxicity, the end to extensively militarised conflict would no doubt singlehandedly rescue the world’s major economies from the “double dip” or “permanent implosion”.

Thousands of marchers in London, England today repeated the public demands to de-escalate the “war on terror” :-

https://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2010/nov/20/protesters-march-against-afghanistan-war-london

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-11803918

https://news.sky.com/skynews/Article/201009115820164

Continue reading “Green Peace”