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
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 !!
Maybe there’s hope for Hansen after all–the admission contained in:
Must have hurt his throat to say.
“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
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
Chris R. says:
March 28, 2013 at 1:41 pm
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
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!
Fred in Canukistan.
The Shiney Pony running for the Liberal
leadershipcoronation had this to say:“The economy is too important to neglect the environment”
so we had better be on alert here in Canada.
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.
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.
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).
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?’
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 […]”
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?