Newsbytes from Dr. Benny Peiser, The GWPF
Europe’s Durban Plan Kaput
Europe’s attempt to formulate a ‘coalition of the willing’ seems doomed. The BASIC countries – China, India, South Africa and Brazil — have already taken a position that any decision on climate change actions beyond 2020 must be based on the next report of UN’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change which will be submitted in 2014, and a review of the fulfilment of commitments under the UN climate convention to be done in 2015. –Nitin Sethi, The Times of India, 15 November 2011
In all likelihood we will see a big change in energy policy and a downgrading of the EU’s ‘20/20/20’ obsession. The targets won’t be changed; they will no longer be taken that seriously. For the first time, the Greens were voted down in the European Parliament, so the mood has changed. The reality is, climate policy isn’t a big agenda item and there are other economic concerns, which are taking higher precedence. This is the attitude and mood swing that I’m witnessing in the UK. –Benny Peiser, Natural Gas Europe, 15 November 2011
For the mechanism of global warming, the IPCC report emphasizes the impact of human activities and the correlation between the CO2 concentration and temperature increase. However, the Earth is a complex dynamic system with various factors affecting each other; great uncertainties exist regarding causes and effects of the climate changes. Therefore, the claims of the IPCC AR4 have been largely questioned. The IPCC report is no longer the most authoritative document on climate changes, as it is restricted by its political tendencies and some errors and flaws. –Fang et al., SCIENCE CHINA, Earth Sciences • October 2011 Vol.54 No.10: 1458–1468
An investigation by the Independent has caught the BBC red-handed selling airtime for millions of pounds. They are trying to spin it as “nominal fees”, but a look at the numbers and content involved is pretty shocking. Perhaps most damning is the fact that a BBC World documentary about climate change was sponsored by green crusaders Envirotrade. And of course “Envirotrade was featured in a positive light in the programme but viewers were unaware that there was a funding arrangement in place.” So remember that next time you swallow the Beeb’s “the debate is over” climate change line… –Guido Fawkes, Order-Order, 15 November 2011
Spain’s likely new centre-right government plans a major overhaul of the energy sector, possibly axing subsidies for wind and solar power as the euro zone debt crisis makes funding very costly. –Jonathan Gleave, Reuters, 15 November 2011
When the Confederation of British Industry and the big Trade Unions are in policy agreement, it amounts to reliable circumstantial evidence for taking the opposite view. Energy Minister Greg Barker’s decision to cut solar subsidies by 50% is one-nil to the public against the forces of corporatism, the conspiracy of big capital and big labour against the consumer. It was an outrage that the scheme was ever implemented in the first place – with the support of all three main political parties. –Dominic Lawson, The Independent, 15 November 2011
Hugh Davis says:
November 16, 2011 at 12:18 pm
Hugh Pepper
Isn’t it time you read “The Delinquent Teenager Who Was Mistaken for the World’s Top Climate Expert” by Donna Laframboise?
————————————————————
Hugh, I agree. Hugh great read. Ya gotta do it.
Hugh Pepper –
For a readable, well-referenced, and comprehensive summary, I recommend “Climate Change Reconsidered” published by the Heartland Institute.
http://www.nipccreport.org/reports/2011/pdf/FrontMatter.pdf
Assembled by the Nongovernmental International Panel on Climate Change (NIPCC), it is a much more thorough and balanced evaluation of the scientific literature. And it’s organized just like the IPCC ARs, so you can compare and contrast. You won’t find any WWF or Greenpeace stuff.
When I see what the IPCC has presented “front and centre” in its reports I am simply astounded they still receive funding !
The “Hockey Stick” – even though their previous reports showed warm periods followed by cold periods. Obviously the IPCC had adopted an agenda by this time as there always plenty of historical data to show the “Hockey Stick” was incorrect.
The Energy Budget – I have little idea why this is seen as reasonable – it is clearly deceptive. How does it happen that the solar constant ~1368 W/sq m suddenly becomes ~342 W/sq m insolation ? I know averaging over the sphere of the globe versus the illuminated disk but this is deceptive if you try to calculate the sun’s power to heat the Earth from a low value – it doesn’t reflect reality.
In the ’70s when I went to Uni we were taught that the insolation at the Earth’s surface was ~ 1000 W/sq m in latitudes with the sun overhead on a clear day. Even today you can find NASA pages with references to this.
So why is it now that we have so much deception over this issue ?
Never mind the litany of failed alarmist predictions – sorry “story lines” with confidence ratings – where is ANY reliable data and why, if scientists had any, do they take legal action to defy court orders to supply what is after all publically funded information ?
Until there is some honesty in the field I will continue to believe the theory is wrong – CO2 cannot trap heat – it may alter the pathways but cannot trap it. I am by no means an expert in radiative physics but some of the junk being taught in University simply seems to be junk to me.
If NASA are correct and the sun can heat the moon to ~120 degrees C why can’t it heat the Earth to more than minus 18 degrees C on average.
I don’t believe them – I think they are either deluded or dishonest – I like the double D analogy.
Your tips and notes page takes so long to load I gave up(too many links, u tubes, etc to load) and will post it here!
Climate change episode of Frozen Planet won’t be shown in the U.S. as viewers don’t believe in global warming
Climate change particularly sensitive during presidential race
BBC says Attenborough features heavily on final episode, and he is not famous outside UK
Environment groups brand decision ‘unhelpful’
By Daily Mail Reporter
Last updated at 1:46 PM on 15th November 2011
Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2061663/Frozen-Planet-Climate-change-episode-wont-shown-US.html#ixzz1duBgf9vh
Highley7 and Smokey: Gentlemen, as you should know, the IPCC collates researched data from hundreds of scientists and agencies around the world. They review research which has been screened in the peer review process. Summaries are then submitted to NAtional Academies of Science in participating countries for a final adjudication. Is this not thorough enough for you? How else would you perform this process? If Lindzen, Christy, and Ball have research they know how to enter the process and their work will add to our collective knowledge.
REPLY: And if it that research doesn’t agree with the consensus position, it is kept out. IPCC does not publish a minority report. I wonder some days, are you under the influence of political money and are you a paid disruptor to constantly spout nonsense here? Or, you are naive. -Anthony
When you are up to your armpits in debt, when your economy is in collapse, when salaries are being cut, retirement age being extended, hospitals are closing and general strikes are as common as out of work government lifers, it will be difficult, probably even impossible to give a Flying Fig about Glowball Warming or any other Greenie scheme or scam designed to guilt money out of your pocket.
It is an ex-Ponzi scheme.
Hugh Pepper says:
If the IPCC is “not the most authoritative document on climate changes” as your corespondent claims, then what is?
My vote goes to the Old Farmer’s Almanac. It is at least as reliable as anything published by the IPCC, and the Astrology chapter is honestly labeled as such.
Bruce Cobb says:
November 16, 2011 at 11:37 am
It seems they’ll be rounding up street beggars beforehand, who have a nasty habit of mugging tourists, thereby sullying Durban’s image…..
_________________________-
I imagine the smarter ones have gone “Underground” to wait for the big opportunity about to come….
OH, that is right the smarter ones will be ATTENDING the conference.
Hugh Pepper says:
November 16, 2011 at 10:14 am
“[…] Who else assembles data from around the world and then makes this available to the world’s governments? […]”
=============================================
Ya’ got a point there, Hugh. They’re so good at it that they can issue the Summary for Policy Makers before the report is written.
I propose a “Hugh Pepper Award”.
The award for the least aware in a bad drama goes to…
Wayne Delbeke says:
November 16, 2011 at 12:17 pm
One thing the commenter didn’t reference is the closing of the Rio Tinto Alcan smelter in Lynemouth due to rising energy costs….
How long before governments come to realize what they are doing? When the greens can no longer get food and clothing or soda cans?
_________________________________
Doreen Hannes had a comment on that after the same bunch helped pass a USA law.
LET THEM EAT GRASS http://www.newswithviews.com/Hannes/doreen110.htm
I am very much afraid the law of unintended consequences are going to catch up with the “Useful Innocents” one of these days and it may be sooner than we like.
Well thank God they weren’t able to hurry up and pass it, before we could read what’s in it………..
First, you’re starting from an assumption that I question. That such a task needs to be done at all. No one has ever proven to me that there is any need, whatsoever, for the IPCC or UNFCC to exist at all.
Second, the IPCC is not a scientific organization. It is a political one. Were there to be a truly scientific body devoted to this task I might pay it some mind.
Third, it has been proven that the claim that the IPCC “assembles data from around the world” is false. The IPCC assembles confirmational data, from whatever source necessary, to come to a predetermined conclusion.
Hugh Pepper says: “If the IPCC is “not the most authoritative document on fairies” as your corespondent claims, then what is? Who else assembles fables from around the world and then makes this available to the world’s gullible? These are rhetorical questions, because the answers are fantasy. No one else is corrupt enough to be caught performing this function.”
Translations in bold by Jorge.
Wayne Delbeke asks: “…How long before governments come to realize what they are doing? When the greens can no longer get food and clothing or soda cans?”
Somehow, the solution to failed leftist agendas is always another leftist agenda. Like the “Occupy”: mobocracy that is promoting class warfare via Farcebook and the MSM.
Hey Hugh:
“If the IPCC is “not the most authoritative document on climate changes” as your corespondent claims, then what is? Who else assembles data from around the world and then makes this available to the world’s governments? These are rhetorical questions, because the answers are obvious. No one else is performing this function.”
Sorry, this is “who bought your soul” party line loyalty. Evidently you have NOT been paying attention. Aside from 1/2 of the “official reports” in the IPPC annual report being from “Activist Sources” and NOT “peer (or PAL) reviewed science”, to say that everything from NOAA (Bloated with $2,000,000,000 worth of ilgotten taxpayer funded gains, to the European Space Agency, to the “Met Office” in Britain, there are DOZENS of groups “assembling data from around the world”.
I fail to see where the completely adgenda driven, politicized body called the IPPC, should continue to be puffed up by their sychophants. Thank you very much!
Ignoring the funny Hugh Pepper for a moment, and back to Durban:
“Europe’s attempt to formulate a ‘coalition of the willing’ seems doomed. ”
It looks like the EU has other cats to whip anyway… basically no Eurozone country is permitted to abandon the Euro! So if one chooses to do so, it must EXIT THE EU.
Spread of Eurozone country yields 1995 to Oct 2011
http://www.thetrader.se/2011/10/09/tic-tac-tic-tac-euro-bomb/
Latest development is that France’s yields grew dramatically. The wheels are coming off the wagon! Santa Claus will bring new currencies – and the EU in its current form will no longer exist.
Are you by any chance, just 12 years old? Please be honest as we will address a very young person differently.
Otherwise, we must assume, you are fully aware of IPCC’s use of so called “Grey” material especially from WWF and Greenpeace. This logically indicates you are purposely attempting to deceive naive innocents. Please stop! GK
Boy, I come in late and find a HughPepperFest in progress. Pretty good disruption, I’d say. Regardless, with the world economy on the implode, it should come as no surprise that the Euro sector would be circling the wagons. An unpopular decision at this point would be disastrous for the politicos. I haven’t had the heart to watch CNN’s “Road to Durban”…Anybody? Hugh perhaps?
time to plan for up to 7.2 degree rise in global average temps, says a “highly-regarded science panel”. no recommendation to cut back on warring though:
14 Nov: USA Today: Defense science panel: climate a national security threat
The Defense Department’s highly-regarded science panel is calling for the U.S. military to improve intelligence-gathering related to climate change…
The report, “Trends and Implications of Climate Change for National and International Security,” was first noted by the Federation of American Scientists’ “Secrecy News” website. The DSB makes recommendations for the White House, Defense Department and other agencies including:
•Creating an intelligence group to address climate under the Director of National Intelligence
•Support civilian satellites to monitor climate change
•Decision making that assumes a 5.4 to 7.2-degree rise in global average temperatures by the end of the century…
The report concludes in an appendix by assessing various “tipping point” events, such as the melting of the West Antarctic ice sheet and the potential for other nations, mentioning China, to attempt unilateral geoengineering schemes for staving off climate effects.
http://content.usatoday.com/communities/sciencefair/post/2011/11/defense-science-panel-climate-a-national-security-threat/1?csp=34news
G. Karst says:
November 16, 2011 at 2:28 pm
“Are you by any chance, just 12 years old? Please be honest as we will address a very young person differently.”
………………………………….
Hey! don’t give him to us…………… LOL
“The report concludes in an appendix by assessing various “tipping point” events, such as the melting of the West Antarctic ice sheet and the potential for other nations, mentioning China, to attempt unilateral geoengineering schemes for staving off climate effects.”
They’re crazy. The only group of nutniks in the world who believe they have a crystal ball, and are going to implement (“attempt”) prohibitively expensive “guess experiments”. My Gawd. And the MSM just gobbles it up.
After listening and reading some journalists and politicians…. I’m of a firm belief that it isn’t kids that say dumb stuff 🙂
The only way someone attending Durban could have a worse carbon footprint is to circumnavigate the globe before landing there. Heck, do it twice if necessary. Or return home for your camera and double the trip distance (at a minimum).
Honestly, can’t they find any place FARTHER afield to hold this charade??
Hugh Pepper;
If the IPCC is “not the most authoritative document on climate changes” as your corespondent claims, then what is? Who else assembles data from around the world and then makes this available to the world’s governments?>>>
Actually, I’m sort of on Hugh’s side on this one. He just misworded it a bit. I think what he meant was if the IPCC is not the most authoritative source on CAGW, then who is? Fair question, is it not?
Follow up question would be, if the most authoritative source on CAGW can’t convince the masses that it is real, would that not raise the suspicion that it is a fairy tail? If the most authoritative source relies on misquotes known to be erroneous, studies with hidden declines, marketing documents from lobby organizations, references so convoluted that confirming the source of the numbers quotes is nearly impossible, and vague language that implies everything but states nothing, does that not pretty much sum up the CAGW position?
The most authoritative source on fairy tails is the collection by the Brother’s Grimm. Sorry, but I didn’t believe anything they documented either. But they are the authority!
Keep ’em coming Hugh. I’ve got your back!