Newsbytes: Britain Blocks Climate Change From G8 Agenda

From the GWPF and Dr. Benny Peiser

Climate Sceptics Promoted To Key Government Positions

The UK’s lead G8 negotiator rejected moves from Germany and France to make climate change a key talking point. Officials from the two countries are said to be disappointed their suggestions were rebuffed. There appears to be a view within Whitehall that a limited agenda has a better chance of success, and that focusing on the economy amidst an increasingly bleak financial landscape is a sensible ambition. Blocking climate change from the main agenda appears an odd move given the profile it has had at previous meetings. –Ed King, The Guardian, 26 March 2013

Two significant announcements from No 10 this morning that should give the carpers something to cheer quietly about. John Hayes is leaving the energy brief to become the Prime Minister’s senior parliamentary adviser. The appointment of Michael Fallon to the energy brief will delight everyone. He shares the climate change scepticism of his predecessor, but will keep his focus on the point George Osborne keeps making: how to keep costs down for consumers, and how to secure long-term cheap energy. –Benedict Brogan, The Daily Telegraph, 28 March 2013

It was Georges Pompidou, the most neglected of president of the 5th Republic and perhaps the most interesting, who said: ‘There are 3 roads to ruin. Women, gambling and technicians. The most pleasant is with women. The quickest is with gambling. But the surest is with technicians.’ I wonder what he would have said if he had met a climate scientist. For what distinguishes the age of global warming is that scientists — particularly climate scientists — had more impact on public policy and on the destiny of nations than in any other era. –Rupert Darwall, The Global Warming Policy Foundation, 27 March 2013

The Committee on Climate Change has given its view on the much-discussed recent article on global warming predictions in the Mail on Sunday, written by David Rose. However, Professor Sir Brian Hoskins and Dr Steve Smith misuse statistics. If this kind of data were from a drugs trial it would have been stopped long ago, even allowing for the little understood stopping bias effect which occurs when looking for the first signs of effectiveness or harm in such trials. –David Whitehouse, The Global Warming Policy Foundation, 27 March 2013

Over the past 15 years air temperatures at the Earth’s surface have been flat while greenhouse-gas emissions have continued to soar. The mismatch between rising greenhouse-gas emissions and not-rising temperatures is among the biggest puzzles in climate science just now. The mismatch might mean that—for some unexplained reason—there has been a temporary lag between more carbon dioxide and higher temperatures in 2000-10. Or it might be that the 1990s, when temperatures were rising fast, was the anomalous period. Or, as an increasing body of research is suggesting, it may be that the climate is responding to higher concentrations of carbon dioxide in ways that had not been properly understood before. This possibility, if true, could have profound significance both for climate science and for environmental and social policy. –The Economist, 28 March 2013

A paper published today by James Hansen has some startling admissions, including: the effect [forcing] of man-made greenhouse gas emissions has fallen below IPCC projections, despite an increase in man-made CO2 emissions exceeding IPCC projections; the growth rate of the greenhouse gas forcing has “remained below the peak values reached in the 1970s and early 1980s, has been relatively stable for about 20 years, and is falling below IPCC (2001) scenarios.” Hansen believes the explanation for this conundrum is CO2 fertilization of the biosphere from “the surge of fossil fuel use, mainly coal.” –The Hockey Schtick, 27 March 2013

About these ads
This entry was posted in Newsbytes and tagged , , , , , , . Bookmark the permalink.

63 Responses to Newsbytes: Britain Blocks Climate Change From G8 Agenda

  1. Fred from Canuckistan says:

    The looooong walk back is starting.

    Too bad about the $Trillions of public dollars wasted on useless feel good Eco projects and filched by Greenie Grifters, con artist level university professors and main stream meds desperate for a good fear mongering cause to sell their advertising space.

    Could have provided a lot of health care and public education, fixed a lot of bad roads and supported a large amount of real scientists doing real science instead of the Team messing around with upside down sediments, fraudulent statistical techniques and “necessary data adjustments”

  2. Rart Fipper says:

    Uh-oh. Climate Crock of the Week is going off on Anthony.

  3. jbutzi says:

    Glad to hear some politicians are getting the news and are finally able to slow the alarmists agenda. Has the tide turned? Admission be Hanson is shocking. Is this some confirmation of the coming end of the tyrannical rule of the climate agenda?

  4. Newminster says:

    Hansen believes the explanation for this conundrum is CO2 fertilization of the biosphere from “the surge of fossil fuel use, mainly coal.”

    Is it all right if I bang my head off the wall now?
    W.T.F.!

  5. Mike Haseler says:

    If any government came afresh to this subject and looked at the evidence as it is now.

    They wouldn’t give this policy a second thought.

    This is not a policy … it’s an excuse … for not doing the right thing and scrapping it right now. (Unless, until, … some time in the way distant future … after thorough comprehensive review by competent scientists and not the current bunch of idiots … if there really was anything to be concerned about …. if there were any economic advantage to active … if all the things that should have been done now were done … perhaps there might come a time, but right now the right thing to do is scrap this idiotic policy).

  6. Congratulations!
    They might still have time to save the nation?

  7. Mark Bofill says:

    Somebody needs to get with Dr. Hansen on this and rework it. Fertilizing the biosphere doesn’t sound scary at all. Maybe John Abrahams time would be better spent explaining to Dr. Hansen that he’s ignoring 150 years of climate science and is disagreeing with his own prior research, rather than hassling Anthony Watts.

  8. Resourceguy says:

    Once again this small island nation stands up to the unstable, collective madness coming from mainland Europe. Thank you for standing tall in the midst of a chill wind.

  9. rilfeld says:

    Observers might see some delicious irony in the fact that the UK economy is the dying canary in Global Warming’s/Climate Change’s “Coal Mine” of remedial prescriptions. Freezing in a home one cannot afford to heat, or going broke in a business that can no longer afford the energy to run, like hanging, does concentrate the mind wonderfully.

  10. KevinM says:

    Clearer heads begin to prevail. Refreshing

  11. AlecM says:

    The explanation is that ‘back radiation’ is a failure to understand that the Stefan-Boltzmann equation predict a potential energy flux t a sink at absolute zero. For 70 years, Meteorologists now Climate Alchemists have assumed that it is a real energy flow. thus the models are a perpetual motion machine of the 2nd kind driven by a 6.85 increase of real GHG energy absorption, none of which is by CO2 so the claimed CO2 warming and positive feedback needed to predict 33 K GHE is imaginary.

    The real GHE is ~9 K and is set by constant water vapour, no CO2 effect. Real climate change has been mostly solar driven.

  12. jayhd says:

    Given the weather (or is it climate?) Great Britain has experienced lately, it’s no wonder they’ve decided to remove CAGW/Climate Change from the agenda.

  13. tgmccoy says:

    Beautiful-made my AM..

  14. Jazznick says:

    I don’t think we should get too exited about this – Delingpole’s title to his piece
    sums it up nicely.

    http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/jamesdelingpole/100209502/hayes-fallon-deckchairs-titanic/

  15. Tony Berry says:

    I suppose I should be happy. However I think two cheers only. I would be really happy if the government would stop all ridiculous expenditure on wind farms and kill the subsidies for ” green energy”. The money would be better spent on new ,none green, generating capacity to keep the lights on. Two fingers to the Brussels and the EU.

  16. AlecM says:

    What readers should realise is that this is a fight between the people and the carbon traders operating behind the Pagan CO2/windmill religion which has replaced Christianity, including deep in the Church of England.

    This new religion wants to kill the unbelievers. The windmills are a cross between The Windmill in Orwell’s ‘Animal Farm’, the Easter Island Statue Cult and the Swastika, the latter the ever-present symbol of EU totalitarian domination.

    Shell leads the carbon traders, followed by major banks. They intend to profit from killing off the poor and disadvantaged.

  17. mwhite says:

    Would love to know where the data for this graph came from

    http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2013/mar/27/climate-change-model-global-warming

    “Analysis of climate change modelling for past 15 years reveal accurate forecasts of rising global temperatures”

    You don’t even see that at GISS

  18. Dodgy Geezer says:

    @Resourceguy
    e again this small island nation stands up to the unstable, collective madness coming from mainland Europe. Thank you for standing tall in the midst of a chill wind.

    Um… not exactly. It’s probably that there’s a limit to the lies a negotiator can utter at a conference and get away with….

  19. JohnG says:

    Or is the UK government afraid that the other G8ers are likely to decide that climate change is no-longer a threat and leave them isolated?

  20. miscgamingllc says:

    I don’t think much will ever happen. The worlds economies run on oil, not clean energy. Until then, we’re fairly screwed.

  21. Rats, ship, sinking!

  22. Eliza says:

    I don’t think anyone here will have the satisfaction of seeing any quick demise of AGW (like arrests of ASW fraudsters LOL). It will be a slow death just as we are witnessing now. I think Singer gave it 10 years from this year to completely shut down.The really ONLY ONLY interesting phenomenom are the changes in solar activity. It is the ONLY variable that is apparently changing and may be beginning to affect weather/climate.

  23. MC says:

    I postulate there is a direct correlation between goose bumps on the testicals and the formation of global warming policy herewith being the bigger the goose bumps the waning of the policy

  24. Don says:

    It appears that he Brits’ cool-aid has frozen into popsicles.

  25. dp says:

    Britain appears to be headed toward climate water boarding by torturing us with smaller jabs of regulation. A stream of small offenses against society, each below the radar, but with a horrific cumulative effect. Rather like a cone snail, I think.

    http://gizmodo.com/cone-snail/

  26. Gil Russell says:

    Michael Crichton was right…,

  27. jonnie26 says:

    This has always been a ”GREEN SMOKE SCREEN”. to hide the wholesale dumping of ” Workers rights”,”CLEAN AIR” legislation and ”POLLUTION” control. not to mention jobs.

  28. Theo Goodwin says:

    Now is the time to call out the modelers for what they are. Now is the time to call out the “paleo” people for what they are. Insist that climate science must adhere strictly to scientific method so that it can begin the decades long climb toward maturity. Climate science must take as its goal a genuine understanding of the climate that includes natural variation over the ages. A “science” focused on CO2 and its effects alone will prove to be no science at all.

  29. cosmic says:

    There are some slight signs of a realisation that climate change policy in the UK is a disaster, but only slight. The recent budget gave some encouragement to fracking but shoved money into CCS. A few MPs such as John Redwood and Douglas Carswell are stirring, but the upper echelons of the three main parties in Westminster show no signs of anything but full commitment to decarbonising the economy.

    It’s a case of seeing a few shoots of useful plants pushing through the soil in a field full of well established weeds which are getting bigger by the day.

    When there’s a serious movement to repeal the Climate Change Act (2008), there’ll be progress.

    I certainly wouldn’t attach much importance to Fallon’s appointment or the G8 agenda.

  30. It is a major pity CC won’t be on G8 agenda. It may have been an opportunity to kill some of the nonsense around the issue. With Germany suffering its coldest March on record it is difficult to understand why Merkel wanted to raise the issue unless it was to reexamine it. After the rush from nuclear and the recognition of the failure of wind, German electricity production is switching back to coal. The EU has a daft directive that member states generate 40% of electricity from renewable sources by 2020. The sychophantic Irish Government is determined to build 1,000′s of monster bird killers to satisfy their Lords and Master in the Brussels Eurocracy.
    The Economist, an organ with supposedly intelligent writers, has only just started to see the light. How long will it take for bureaucrats, politicians and climate scientists with a strong vested interest in perpetuation of the myth?

  31. richard verney says:

    But what did Germany and France want to say?

    Everyone is assuming that the UK are being a little more agnostic on CAGW, but it may be just may be that other countries wanted to apply the brakes, but the UK does not wish to do so at this stage. The UK’ s energy minister is a Liberal Democrat who believes in CAGW and green renewables.

    Germany is presently building 20 to 23 new coal fired generators without CCS. They are using amongst the dirtiest (brown coal) on the market to power these. Germany has found green energy to be unreliable and the German economy is being strangled by green energy costs. The German economy is shrinking and it may be that Germany wishes for economic reasons to pull back from the green dream (or rather nightmare).

    The good thing is that with increased energy costs and a lengthy spell of cold weather and the growing realisation that the present energy policy in the UK may lead to the lights going out within the next few years, that there have been a number of articles in MSM questioning the cost of energy and the UK energy policy. The fact that there has been no warming for the past 15 or so years is slowly coming out of the bag. I doubt that the average person in the UK knows this, but they do know that the past few winters have been cold and that the past few summers have been poor. So there has yet to be a significant public mood shift. It will happen, and could happen quickly if there are brown outs next winter.

    Presently, UK Government scientists are in denial over the significance of the hiatus in warming. But this cannot continue for ever. The UK Met Office predict that there will be no return to warming before 2017. If there is no further rise in warming by 2017, it is likely that real observational data will show that temperatures have dropped below even that of Hansen’s scenario C projection! That will eb a turning point and if temperatures continue to stall latest by 2020, the UK Government’s scientific advisors will have to acknowledge the significance of the temperature hiatus.

    Over the next few years expect to see more on natural variation is greater than ‘we’ thought and climate sensitivity is weaker than we thought.

    As to Hansen’s discovery of a greening feedback, surely, since CO2 is plant food, everyone would have appreciated that the more CO2 in the atmosphere the more green plants, thus the greater the CO2 sink. If only, as a kid, Hansen had read some books about the dinosaurs and the green lushious world they inhabited. Oh well, never too late to learn.

  32. philjourdan says:

    A step in the right direction. But is it a blip or a trend?

  33. Theo Goodwin says:

    “The appointment of Michael Fallon to the energy brief will delight everyone. He shares the climate change scepticism of his predecessor, but will keep his focus on the point George Osborne keeps making: how to keep costs down for consumers, and how to secure long-term cheap energy. –Benedict Brogan, The Daily Telegraph, 28 March 2013.”

    The US desperately needs similar changes. All the CAGW people need to go. That includes Holdren, Hansen, Gina McCarthy, and the whole lot of them. In addition, government funding agencies need to clean house. In particular, the head of the NSF must go.

  34. TomR,Worc,MA,USA says:

    I can only see this as good news. Thank you UK. It would seem the sleeping giant of common sense is begining to awaken.

  35. Richard M says:

    Mwhite, that Guardian graph appears to be similar to the sks graphs where they try to smear the warming from previous years and pretend that is the present. Whenever you see averages being used (especially GISS) instead of the actual satellite data, you know they are trying to pull the wool over your eyes.

    Of course, since this is the Guardian they are simply feeding their readers what they want to believe. Comically, the fallacy of the representation is so obvious a cave man could see it and get a good laugh.

  36. richard verney says:

    Further to: JohnG says:
    March 28, 2013 at 8:16 am
    ////////////////////////////////

    Your comment had not been posted at the time when I submitted my comment. You note that I agree that this is one possible explanation for the UK’s stance.

    Given the size of the UK deficit, as soon as the coalition came into power, the most obvious cut to make would have been the immediate suspension of the Climate Change Act and the rolling out of the green economy. This would have been an annual saving of more than £10 billion, some commentators put the cost nearer the £15 billion mark. Just imagine how that one saving alone would have reduced the deficit. If the Chancellor ever had a worthwhile economic stratergy, that should have been a major pillar of his stratergy.

    There were many studies which showed that for every green job created up to 4.5 jobs in the real economy is lost. Hence the green ‘dream’ leads to less tax take, and greater welfare costs as unemployment rises. Any analysis of industrial output would have showed that energy costs are a key component of industrial competitiveness and hence success and that rising energy prices puts a strain on industry and in extreme case leading to its closure. Again, the green ‘dream’ leads to less tax take, and greater welfare costs as unemployment rises. Further, the high energy costs associated with the green ‘dream’ puts a strain on personal finance and less money in the pocket of the consumer leads to a drop in consumer spending; a drop in consumer spending throttles a consumer led recovery and in extreme cases leads to job losses in the high street/consumer sales environment again leading to a smaller tax take, and greater welfare costs as unemployment rises.

    If CAGW turns out to be nothing more than a bad game played out in computer models, and all or most of the late 1970s to 1990s warming was nothing more than either an artefact of the basterdisation of the land based thermometer record and failure to properly take account of siting issues, station drop outs and UHI (don’t forget that the satellite data sets do not show any significant warming between 1979 and say 1996) and/or nothing more than multidecadel natural variation, huge questions will be asked about the wasteed trillions. It is difficult to see what excuse can legitimise the so patently bad action taken by successive governments and the lack of scientific rigour by the ‘scientists’ who promulgated the scare.

  37. Gail Combs says:

    Maybe just Maybe the idiotic politicians trying to shove Interdependance and Global Governance down the world’s throat via CAGW and a manufactured financial crisis have just realized the World Bank is going to be hit with a BRIC and while they were pursuing the glorious images of Neo-feudalism Agenda 21, the Chinese Dragon and the Russian Bear had other ideas.

    Anyone who actually though China (or Russia) was changing their outlook and would willingly give up their national sovereignty to become a vassal states of the World Banksters United Nations needs to be locked up and medicated.

    Now watch the scramble as the EU and the USA after intentionally crippling their countries economically, and after Clinton’s Technology Transfer to China including US military technology finally wake up to the possible ramifications of arming a potential enemy.

    MORE POPCORN

    I suggest you write, call, fax or e-mail all the politicians you can think of and drive this point home. We might just be able to scare them into doing the right thing for our countries and our people getting our economies back on track.

  38. michael hart says:

    Actually, that Hansen paper is quite funny. It gets back into the rut with:

    “What is clear is that most of the remaining fossil fuels must be left in the ground if we are to avoid dangerous human-made interference with climate.”

    and also:

    the ‘devil’s payment’ will be extracted from humanity via increased global warming.

    However the most notable quote is the repeated repetition of the word

    Hansen

    That should bump it up the self-citation index.

  39. Owen in GA says:

    I’ll believe the UK government has turned a corner when a couple of coal fire generators and nuclear plants go into production. Also when plans for new reservoirs go into rapid planning mode. Until then it is all posturing for public consumption.

  40. AlecM says:

    The UK government has known for over 2 years that the IPCC ‘consensus’ is based on fake science. The way it was done was first to show Hansen’s claim that the cloud part of global dimming was exactly masking AGW is based on fake science put out by NASA in 2004 to replace partially correct physics by Twomey.

    He warned that the Mie scattering theory he had developed could not be applied to thicker clouds. NASA simply claimed that small droplets reflect more light because of higher surface area: this is completely false. The reality as can be seen from looking at any rain cloud is that these have highest albedo so are darkest underneath: it’s a large droplet phenomenon for thicker clouds. In reality, aerosols inhibiting droplet coarsening is the real AGW, but self limits.

    More recently, UK Government has been told that the heat generation and heat transfer in the models is completely wrong and they are fudged in the hind casting to match the past by more false cloud data. The fake physics means they can’t predict the future. So, we have a fight between the carbon traders, Marxists and corrupt politicians against the pragmatists and patriots.

    The bottom line is that UK policy has really been driven by Shell, Grantham, Soros, Deutsche etc through their control of DECC via the CCC. Davey is told what to do by his carbon trader masters – big oil and big money wanting to feast off the corpses of the poor and feeble as they freeze in the new LIA.

  41. Gail Combs says:

    mwhite says:
    March 28, 2013 at 8:06 am

    Would love to know where the data for this graph came from….
    >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
    At this point we know they just make the numbers up. They probably used the new improved BOM Mystery black-box method

  42. policycritic says:

    Hansen’s public reputation saving effort is interesting. There has to be a reason for this. Did Alex Rawl’s leaking have this effect? Is the fact that uber-Climate Change leader Germany is now burning more coal, quite apart from the Fukushima accident and their brutal winter, waking policymakers up, and Hansen is smart enough to read the tea-leaves? (They’re still broadcasting climateone.org talks with Hansen and Hayhoe is my neck of the woods…all scaremongering, and Hansen’s predictions about CO2 veer wildly from this paper.)

    How long before the web climate porn commenters get the message?

  43. _Jim says:

    Rart Fipper says March 28, 2013 at 7:12 am

    Uh-oh. Climate Crock of the Week is going off on Anthony.

    Ginormous readership over there; all of 3 posts in that thread so far … no telling how many snipped completely, deep-sixed, etc, including mine.

  44. RS says:

    The sad part here is that the UK is virtually locked into blackouts and incredible hardships, perhaps even widespread deaths over the next decade due to incredibly inept green policies which have destroyed its reliable energy production base and replaced it with junk..

  45. Chad Wozniak says:

    @Theo Goodwin -

    Let’s hope we can get rid of Gina McCarthy – she is saying that if Congress doesn’t make the necessaary laws to jam CAGW down our throats, she will make them (as EPA administrator). See the comment on CFACT about Obully’s cabinet nominees.

    Interesting experiment in democracy, yes? An unelected bureaucrat making the laws? Methinks the meaning of the name of the “Democratic” Party is coming closer to its meaning in the name “Democrartic People’s Republic of [North] Korea.”

  46. jc says:

    Consideration of Hansen’s remarks or apparent position on anything tends to be drawn into any process that he himself initiates. This is understandable coming from those whose basis is primarily rational in this issue, and whose active interest and engagement with the issue relies on the observable and calculable.

    It does however assume that Hansen himself is fundamentally attached to the same precepts, and that any position he has taken or process he has undertaken that is seen to be flawed, at the time or subsequently, is derived from misjudgement or mistakes in interpretation, and if these are beyond what might normally be expected to occur, this is because he is overly committed to a particular starting point or overarching theory.

    But this is not the case with Hansen. His core impulse, which some may mistakenly see as having an association with religious thought or sensibility, is actually primaeval.

    It is established that he, in relation to how this issue should be perceived, acts in a manner calculated to manipulate at a level, and in a manner, that is at odds – is diametrically opposed – to rationality, the sincerity of honest intent in any human relation, and even religious commitment or influence.

    Thus his “the oceans will boil” to purloin Old Testament imagery for his purposes, and his more prosaic manipulation shown in altering the temperature regime when extracting commitments from Congress in 1988. Neither of these, or other comments and actions, are based on what might be called higher, or human, function.

    His recent public comments, such as the above, and his acknowledgement that temperatures have leveled and may continue to do so or fall, are introduced by him to attempt to confirm that his motivations and involvements are in fact related to the proper method of inquiry that he has sought to gain from by association. In doing so, he seeks to immunize himself from the perception that his actions have been a calculated affront to this.

    To observe this is not difficult, if able to be viewed from a position that has not been suborned by his actions playing on ready assumptions in others. The brief (relative to time of prior commitment and recent other extreme statements) period between his “oceans will boil” utterance and this apparently more measured mien, illustrate this. This is a strategic repositioning.

    This repositioning is NOT primarily based on advancing the cause of AGW in itself, although this is ideally the result as it not only vindicates but elevates. It is about him.

    To allow him to reposition in this way is wrong. Nothing could be more wrong. Literally to be complicit in the deaths of many people Wrong. To be complicit in the degradation of the capacity for people to be fully human Wrong.

    For a being like Hansen, the foundational requirement is to sniff the wind, and to a degree greater than most others who have found these same instincts drawing them to this area, he has been very successful at it until now.

    The question for him, and those who have been effected, is whether he can continue to show adeptness in adjusting to the changes in conditions he perceives. He will aim to be somewhat ahead of other visible promoters and participants in order to leave them more exposed and to therefore to accrue any retributions enacted; on character, reputation, finances, or liberty.

    Having been a core part in constructing this he understands that it is not certain that it will prevail. He also has the habit and instinct to reposition because of that. Others, who have not done this to the same degree will take the construction to be more absolute and resilient than it is and will not be so nimble.

    From the pragmatic viewpoint of measuring how this issue is progressing as a societal reality, Hansen’s responses are of interest. Being in effect a leading indicator at this point in the process, and reliably attuned to his own self-interest as having primacy over anything else, he reflects changes that others involved may not be readily aware of. Of course, he is not infallible and may well take missteps, but anyone can be assured that he will be giving acute attention and calculation to these matters.

  47. jeanparisot says:

    Ghân-buri-Ghân, the wind is changing

  48. Gail Combs:

    In your post at March 28, 2013 at 9:34 am you write

    Now watch the scramble as the EU and the USA after intentionally crippling their countries economically, and after Clinton’s Technology Transfer to China including US military technology finally wake up to the possible ramifications of arming a potential enemy.

    As you know, my being a British Subject, I think it would be improper of me to comment on US politics and I don’t.

    I write to inform of a similar situation which happened in the 1980s during the Cold War.

    The UK had accepted a contract to sell artillery shells to the USSR. During Defence Questions in the Commons the Shadow Defence Secretary asked

    Can the Minister say what he would expect to happen if hostilities were to arise between the UK and the Soviet Union and we asked them to send our shells back?

    Richard

  49. jc says:

    @ Gail Combs says: March 28, 2013 at 9:34 am

    You raise an interesting and important point. And a very valid one.

    Leaving aside specifics such as Agenda 21 (the raising of which can be certain to trigger a Pavlovian cultural and political response, thereby possibly clouding the issue), your basic point that the imposition of CAGW alone, or as part of a more general agenda, can only find resistance in powerful countervailing interests is central to what happens not just with CAGW but generally.

    And it does vividly illustrate that there is an underlying supposition by those promoting this that what they think should occur will by definition prevail. And as you say, it won’t.

    To the typical functionary of the commentariat, this is discussed, dissected, analyised and judged in what they would like to see as geo-political terms. Changing in balance of power and the like.

    It is however much more basic than that. Just because those who would be the dominant orthodoxy of the world either conceive of things in this way, or use this to advance their particular agenda, or both, does not mean that others will not just be subject to this, but will also share the outlook necessary to accept it.

    They wont. They don’t. And in this they demonstrate a superior capacity for judgement of reality.

    As such, they will prevail more generally unless the diminished and degraded cultures that have given succor to this expression of collapse in human standards can be revived and rejuvenated.

  50. 3x2 says:

    rilfeld

    Observers might see some delicious irony in the fact that the UK economy is the dying canary in Global Warming’s/Climate Change’s “Coal Mine” of remedial prescriptions. Freezing in a home one cannot afford to heat, or going broke in a business that can no longer afford the energy to run, like hanging, does concentrate the mind wonderfully.

    Canary in the coal mine – couldn’t agree more. Should US readers wish to glimpse their ‘low carbon future’ then keeping an eye on the UK and the ‘pigs breakfast’ our politicians have made of ‘energy policy’ should have you all very worried. Huge tankers with 12 hours worth of LNG diverted to our ports (attracted by fantastic prices) in order that the heating, in homes currently under many feet of Snow, doesn’t flicker and die out. Electricity black outs are next up. It is exactly what one would expect when FoE design your energy policy.

    Just to put the UK green genocide project into context 3000 people died on 9/11 and 5000 died, preventably, for want of affordable fuel, in the UK over the last few weeks.If ‘Iran’ had murdered 5000 brits in a month we would be levelling their cities right now.

  51. anthony holmes says:

    In the newspaper i have read today they state that instead of Spring being the end of cold related UK winter deaths – the deaths are increasing at one every five minutes due to the coldest March in 50 years !!! literally millions of Brits are starting to scoff at the idea that climate change will cause us to overheat . A long southerly aircraft flight is needed to ‘endure’ the effects of the sun , one and a half million frozen brits are due to fly south this coming weekend – thats how scared the brits now are of global warming – they are afraid they are missing out and do not mind spending a fortune to get some of it !!

  52. Chris R. says:

    Maybe there’s hope for Hansen after all–the admission contained in:

    ….Hansen believes the explanation for this conundrum is CO2 fertilization of the biosphere from “the surge of fossil fuel use, mainly coal.

    Must have hurt his throat to say.

  53. GingerZilla says:

    “Officials from the two countries are said to be disappointed their suggestions were rebuffed” whilst farmers/growers in the NHemisphere may want officials ‘disjointed’ after telling them to grow crops for warmer climates

    /sarc

  54. BLACK PEARL says:

    So now can I apply for compensation for being unfairly Miss Sold C02 based Vehicle Excise Duty on my Jeep of £475 for using the roads, where the guy next door only pays £30

  55. DirkH says:

    Chris R. says:
    March 28, 2013 at 1:41 pm

    “Maybe there’s hope for Hansen after all–the admission contained in:

    “….Hansen believes the explanation for this conundrum is CO2 fertilization of the biosphere from “the surge of fossil fuel use, mainly coal.”

    Must have hurt his throat to say.

    As the example of Lovelock shows, wildly successfull warmist propagandists can change their spots in an instant when they feel they have siphoned off enough cash. It’s a simple business decision. The moment European aristocracy stops giving Hansen cash prices or American foundations stop buying his books by the trainload he might just do a U-turn. No problem when what you’re doing is not constrained by truthfulness. He’d just reverse his temperature adjustments under some pretense; GISTEMP would show cooling and he’d sell a new book warning of the coming glaciation.
    He’s an experienced trickster who accidentally was mistaken for a scientist way back in the 70ies when he made false theories about the Venusian atmosphere and found that you can get very far indeed with false theories.
    He reminds me of the man who sold the Eiffel tower… twice.
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Victor_Lustig

  56. Chris Edwards says:

    Didnt the last wirthwhile PM of the UK at first get worried about CO2 then look at it and decide AGW was a crock? mind you she was a scientist I believe, sadly she has dementia now so might believe it! . Dont be impressed by Cameron he is just being political and after the Conservative mayor of London called AGW a crock the cat was out of the bag! I think AGW becoming a religion was my fault, a few years ago I posted that any politician or scientist who supported it should loose their job, their wealth and all qualifications and be banned from earning more than minimum wage!

  57. Robert of Ottawa says:

    Fred in Canukistan.

    The Shiney Pony running for the Liberal leadership coronation had this to say:
    “The economy is too important to neglect the environment”
    so we had better be on alert here in Canada.

  58. Robert of Ottawa says:

    Gail Combs March 28, 2013 at 9:34 am

    have just realized the World Bank is going to be hit with a BRIC and while they were pursuing the glorious images of Neo-feudalism Agenda 21, the Chinese Dragon and the Russian Bear had other ideas.

    Not to mention the Brazillian Tucan.

  59. Jeffrey Wiita says:

    Here in the United States, we have not won, nor will we win, until the truth about CAGW is discussed in social media (i.e. Facebook, Twitter, …), the Comedy Channel (John Stewart), and in our schools and universities. But every little bit is encouraging.

  60. Phil's Dad says:

    Apparently “the increasing atmospheric CO2 level is…limiting the growth of atmospheric CO2″
    Thus spake Hansen.

    I wish Tim well in his new role. He is solid as a rock, bright as a button and first worked in energy 25 years ago. John is well shot of the truly awful Ed Davey but if anyone can keep this SELF SNIP away from anywhere he can do damage it’s our Tim. (I just hope his health holds up).

  61. William Astley says:

    UK Climate Change Bill
    It is interesting although observations and scientific analysis does not support the extreme AGW paradigm, the British parliament in 2008 signed the ‘Climate Change Bill’ which will be implemented by the new ‘Department of Energy and Climate Change’.
    The opening words of the new bill explain the essence of the bill:

    “the duty of the Secretary of State to ensure that the net UK carbon account for the year 2050 is at least 80% less than the 1990 baseline”

    Due to economic reality and limitations (the UK is running a deficit, UK unemployment is high indicating the UK is having competition issues, the policy is absurd, due to the cost to implement an 80% reduction in UK carbon dioxide emissions the limitations of the UK tax base and industrial base, a massive increase in spending on energy infrastructure will result in an astonishing reduction in the UK living standards and return to 90% taxation, industry and wealthy individuals will leave the UK) and engineering limits (wind farms do not significantly reduce CO2 emissions when unbiased carbon analysis is done, the UK public will not accept a massive conversion to nuclear power, US research on fourth generation nuclear power stopped in 1994 due to green followers public pressure, if nuclear fourth generation nuclear power is taken off the table there appears to be no viable option for massive reduction of carbon dioxide emission for any modern state), it appears it is not possible for the UK to reduce carbon dioxide emissions by 80% of the 1990 level.

    What motivated the UK parliamentarians to pass such a bill? At what point will reality and reason stop what appears to be collective madness?

    Madness of Crowds – The extreme AGW paradigm.
    It is helpful when trying to predict the future response of masses of people to define the high level paradigm they believe and follow. Has anyone in this forum tried to describe the beliefs of those who follow the extreme AGW paradigm?

    Comment:
    For those who interested in government and government collapses related the extreme AGW paradigm, I would highly recommend reading Christopher Booker’s ‘The Real Global Warming Disaster: Is the obsession with ‘Climate Change’ becoming turning out to be the most costly scientific blunder in history?’

  62. Paul Vaughan says:

    UN calls Canada’s pullout from drought convention ‘regrettable’
    http://www.ctvnews.ca/politics/un-calls-canada-s-pullout-from-drought-convention-regrettable-1.1216174

    “The decision would make Canada the only country in the world not part of the convention.”

    “The federal cabinet last week ordered the unannounced withdrawal [...]”

    “The government’s decision also caught the UN secretariat that administers the convention off guard [...]”

    “Prime Minister Stephen Harper has said Canada was withdrawing from the United Nations Convention to Combat Desertification because the program has proven too bureaucratic [...]“

  63. Tim Lawrence says:

    Perhaps all politicians should be compelled to read, mark, learn, and inwardly digest the PNAS paper by Tung and Zhou in Jan 2013 before being allowed to pontificate on global temperatures. Wouldn’t the world then become silent for a few decades?

Comments are closed.