Interesting piece by Christopher Booker in the Sunday Telegraph concerning the alarming global cooling trend which has confounded the apostles for global warming!

"The fact is that what has been happening to the world's climate in recent years, since global temperatures ceased to rise after 1998, was not predicted by any of those officially-sponsored models. The discrepancy between their predictions and observable data becomes more glaring with every month that passes.

 

It won't do for believers in warmist orthodoxy to claim that, although temperatures may be falling, this is only because they are "masking an underlying warming trend that is still continuing" - nor to fob us off with assurances that the "German model shows that higher temperatures than 1998, the warmest year on record, are likely to return after 2015".

He is right. The punch-line is that "even as the wretched politicians are committing us to spending unimaginable sums on wind farms, emissions trading schemes, absurdly ambitious biofuel targets, and every kind of tax and regulation designed to reduce our "carbon footprint" - the models on which this is all based are providing wholly inadequate data and assumptions - as is being confirmed by the behaviour of nature itself (not least the continuing non-arrival of sunspot cycle 24)".

The BBC leads with a story entitled that Polar bears are "at risk" in Canada. It alleges that these  bears are at risk from climate change but not threatened with extinction, a panel of experts has advised the Canadian government. Mmm.. but then again, maybe they are "at risk" because their population is INCREASING!! Funny how the BBC does not present that side of the argument, isn't it?

Oh dear! The campaign against reality "climate change" could be set back by the global food crisis, as foreign populations turn against measures to use foodstuffs as substitutes for fossil fuels.

Ethanol was initially promoted as a vehicle to cut back on foreign oil. In recent years, biofuels have also been touted as a way "to fight" climate change, but the food crisis does not augur well for ethanol’s prospects.  The environmentalists, led by the Rev Gore, have been adocating the increasing use of crops to produce ethanol. Problem is this is leading to massive hikes in food costs and food riots around the third world! Curiously, when asked to comment on this, Gore has remained silent. I wonder why? We are now beginning to see the folly of  listening to the environmental lobby as their imagined cures for global warming turn into global starving. 

The BBC seem to have missed this one! One of the most vocal scientists in the field of hurricane prediction has backed away from his earlier certainty of a link between global warming and stronger hurricanes after developing a new forecasting technique that suggests a moderate increase – or even decline – in storm activity over the next 200 years. Whoops!

"The models are telling us something quite different from what nature seems to be telling us," Emanuel told DotEarth, the New York Times science blog. "There are various interpretations possible, e.g. a) The big increase in hurricane power over the past 30 years or so may not have much to do with global warming, or b) The models are simply not faithfully reproducing what nature is doing. Hard to know which to believe yet." Emanuel was among the first to publish his belief global warming was responsible for the increased number of tropical storms making U.S. landfall during the 2004 and 2005 season. Mea culpa.

Bio-fuel production is seen as a "good thing" by many who embrace the green agenda. But the President of the World Bank doesn't think so! Robert Zoellick has criticised Europeans and Americans for diverting agricultural land away from growing food in order to pursue the elusive goal of saving energy and reducing greenhouse gas emissions. This is leading to rocketing food prices, causing food riots and horrendous scarcity. Land used to grow corn or other base bio-fuel crops could be used to grow wheat and some of that land could be used to grow rice. Clearly, the massive committment of America and Europe to bio fuels is having the effect of raising food prices to the point that real harm is being felt by poor people around the world.  He has a point, don't you think?

The "Greener Skies 2008" conference being held in Hong Kong (Very central location, eh?) has just heard from David Archibald, a solar scientist asserting that climate change is mostly dictated by solar cycles, not carbon dioxide levels, as conventional wisdom suggests. But Archibald didn't just tell the group not to worry about carbon dioxide emissions. He told those gathered they should figure out ways of increasing CO2 output. Hurray!

"In a few short years, we will have a reversal of the warming of the 20th century," Archibald warned, according to CargoNews Asia. "There will be significant cooling very soon. Our generation has known a warm, giving sun, but the new generation will suffer a sun that is less giving, and the earth will be less fruitful. Carbon dioxide is not even a little bit bad – it's wholly beneficial. Plant growth responds to atmospheric carbon dioxide enrichment In a world of higher atmospheric carbon dioxide, crops will use less water per unit of carbon dioxide uptake. Thus the productivity of semi-arid lands will increase the most. We will need this increase in agricultural productivity to offset the colder weather coming. It also follows that if the developed countries of the world want to be caring and sharing to the countries of the Third World, the best thing that could be done for them is to increase atmospheric carbon dioxide levels. It is the equivalent of giving them free phosphate fertilizer. Who would want to deny the Third World such a wonderful benefit?"

Where is Bono when you need him? We need to save Africa right now - so time to lift all the green taxes and stop the lowering of CO2 emissions right now. 

Whoops. Global temperatures will drop slightly this year as a result of the cooling effect of the La Nina current in the Pacific, UN meteorologists have said. The World Meteorological Organization's secretary-general, Michel Jarraud, told the BBC it was likely that La Nina would continue into the summer. This would mean global temperatures have not risen since 1998. An inconvenient truth?

Fascinating article here on global warming, or the lack of it...it's from an interview between journalist Michael Duffy and Jennifer Marohasy, a biologist and senior fellow of Melbourne-based think tank the Institute of Public Affairs

Duffy: "Can you tell us about NASA's Aqua satellite, because I understand some of the data we're now getting is quite important in our understanding of how climate works?"

Marohasy: "That's right. The satellite was only launched in 2002 and it enabled the collection of data, not just on temperature but also on cloud formation and water vapour. What all the climate models suggest is that, when you've got warming from additional carbon dioxide, this will result in increased water vapour, so you're going to get a positive feedback. That's what the models have been indicating. What this great data from the NASA Aqua satellite ... (is) actually showing is just the opposite, that with a little bit of warming, weather processes are compensating, so they're actually limiting the greenhouse effect and you're getting a negative rather than a positive feedback."

Duffy: "The climate is actually, in one way anyway, more robust than was assumed in the climate models?"

Marohasy: "That's right ... These findings actually aren't being disputed by the meteorological community. They're having trouble digesting the findings, they're acknowledging the findings, they're acknowledging that the data from NASA's Aqua satellite is not how the models predict, and I think they're about to recognise that the models really do need to be overhauled and that when they are overhauled they will probably show greatly reduced future warming projected as a consequence of carbon dioxide."

Time to scrap green taxes?

What do YOU think is the greatest threat to our planet? Might it be a rogue asteroid, could it be a huge solar flare up? How about a nuclear war? Maybe a vast plague? Sorry, it's none of these.

Apparently it is the humble cow.

Yes, Britain's finest scientific minds have turned their attention to a problem that they claim is threatening the future of the entire planet - farm animal flatulence. Experts at the Rowett Research Institute in Aberdeen say the average cow contributes as much to global warming as a family car that travels 12,000 miles. The scientists are now trying to produce new foodstuffs that result in livestock producing less methane. Professor Harry McArdle, of the institute, said: "Cattle and agriculture can be a very serious contributor towards the problem." Although vehicles produce a far larger volume of noxious gases, methane is 24 times more harmful to the environment than carbon dioxide. In total, methane is thought to contribute about 18 per cent towards the global warming effect.

Well then, I suppose anything to limit cattle flatulence is to be welcomed, but my own pet gripe is not the gases these creatures emit but the practise local farmers have of spreading foul-smelling slurry over local fields, much to my wife's extreme annoyance when she has the washing out! Can't Britain's finest find a way to have an alternative to slurry? I'm not so sure that it isn't farmers that pose the biggest threat to the planet....

Tony Blair is a man with seemingly unlimited skills. First he delivered peace to us warring tribes in Northern Ireland (by putting terrorists into power), then he moved on to solving the pesky problems in the Middle East (Work ongoing?) and NOW he  is to lead a new international team to tackle the intractable problem of securing a global deal on climate change which would have the backing of China and America. He believes he can help prepare a blueprint for an agreement to cut carbon emissions by 50% by 2050, and has the backing of the White House, the UN and Europe, including Gordon Brown.

Is there no end to his talents? Or no beginning?

I read that plans to lift the worldwide ban on whaling were presented to a secret meeting of more than 70 governments in London last week. The plans have been welcomed by both pro- and anti-whaling governments and seek to lift a long stalemate over hunting, enabling Japan officially to resume commercial whaling for the first time in more than 20 years. This is plain wrong. Whales are majestic and harmless creatures and ANY killing of them should be outlawed. The Japanese thirst for whalemeat is inexplicable to me, surely they can survive without wiping out these amazing creatures? Shame on any government which supports any acceptable level of Whale killing.

Look, I'm no fan of plastic bags and like other sane people I seek a tidy environment for us all. But some of the hyperbole in the British media this past week or so has really taken the biscuit - as Margaret Hodge might say. So I welcome the news that the widely stated accusation that the bags kill 100,000 animals and a million seabirds every year is false.They pose only a minimal threat to most marine species, including seals, whales, dolphins and seabirds. Gordon Brown announced last month that he would force supermarkets to charge for the bags, saying that they were “one of the most visible symbols of environmental waste”. Retailers and some pressure groups, including the Campaign to Protect Rural England, threw their support behind him. But scientists, politicians and marine experts attacked the Government for joining a “bandwagon” based on poor science. So, no change there then.

One of the things that does bother me is how some people show no concern whatsoever for the environment by dumping all  KINDS of rubbish at their heels. I'm at my seaside retreat this weekend and when you walk along the beach and see some of the debris that visitors leave, it is profoundly sickening. I think that these are the sorts of things that need address - it must be about encouraging citizenry and that DOES mean thinking before littering. I think people who litter are a menace and perhaps it is the people, not the bags etc, that we must focus on?

Nice non-work if you can get it!  The National Trust is giving its 170 employees in Northern Ireland the day off on Friday - but asking them to do something to improve the environment. In a campaign called "Leap forward for the climate", the charity wants its workers to use 29 February to help reduce their carbon footprint. It is also urging its 260 volunteers in Northern Ireland to take the day off and try to lead greener lives. All workers will be encouraged to switch to low-energy light bulbs and make other home improvements on their day off.

I wonder has anyone told the National Trust that the energy-saving, mercury-containing CFLs can cause health hazards, especially for children and pregnant women, suggesting use of the bulbs over carpeted areas should be avoided. If bulbs break over carpeted areas, the cleanup may require cutting out pieces of the carpet to avoid toxic exposures.Mercury is needed for the lamps to produce light, and there are currently no known substitutes. Small amounts of the toxic substance is vaporized when they break, which can happen if people screw them in holding the glass instead of the base or just drop them. Mercury is a naturally occurring metal that accumulates in the body and can harm the nervous system of a fetus or young child if ingested in sufficient quantity.

I wonder if NT workers could sue the NT for encouraging them to engage in such dangerous behaviour? Must remember not to give any more money to this organisation - if they can afford to give their employees time off for such indulgences.they clearly already must have enough cash.

Spot the lie in the first sentence...

"Every new building put up in Britain will have to be zero carbon, emitting none of the pollution that is the main cause of global warming, the Government will announce this week. Caroline Flint, the new housing minister, will commit herself on Wednesday to setting an "ambitious target" for eliminating carbon dioxide emissions from "non-domestic" buildings, ranging from schools to supermarkets, health centres to hotels, and from libraries to light manufacturing industry."

Since when has it been proven that carbon emissions are "the main cause" of "global warming"? This is pure propaganda masquerading as news. It is an article of faith for those on the political left that global warming is caused by human emissions and so they merely state this allegation as if it were a fact and then go to to legislate for it, adding cost to business across the UK.  Future generations will wonder what madness affected the current generation of AGW fanatics and how did we ever let them away with the nonsense they peddle...

It was Sir Edward Grey speaking to a friend one evening just before the outbreak of the First World War, as he watched the lights being lit on the street below his office who said:

 "The lamps are going out all over Europe; we shall not see them lit again in our lifetime"

 It carried a certain poignant resonance. Still does.

Well, the lights (lamps) are now going out across Buckinhamshire (An English county in which I lived for several years!)  Yes,  blackouts are being imposed by councils - urged on by the Governmenr - to cut energy bills and meet "climate change" targets. Buckinghamshire is carrying out one of the most radical trials of the new approach. More than 1,700 lights, which illuminate 25 miles of roads, will soon be switched off completely. So, out goes the lights and common sense is blackened out- but hey. we're saving the Earth. I wonder if this is a Conservative controlled Council, in which case it shows that they are every bad as deranged as Labour on this issue. I'm sure the criminal class will applaud this initiative and I feel sorry for the vulnerable who are (literally) being plunged into darkness by the little Hitler's in the council chamber. Even the Police are condemning it, but I reckon  this is just the thin end of th environmental-wedge.

The lack of reason that frequently characterises many within the Environmentalist movement (aka back to the Stone Age!) is evident in the news that environmental campaigners have threatened legal action to block plans to build Northern Ireland's first municipal incinerator.

Last month Belfast City Council agreed in principle to sell 17 acres to allow for the building of a household-waste incinerator - such as that pictured below - on the shores of Belfast Lough. If approved, the incinerator would burn thousands of tonnes of municipal waste every day from 11 local councils known collectively as Arc21. Good idea! During the 1990s plans to build two incinerators on Belfast's foreshore - also suggested as a site for a multi-sports stadium - were abandoned due to public opposition and legal challenges.

Declan Allison of Friends of the Earth said: 'We are opposed to an incinerator because it actually encourages an increase in waste rather than an effective waste-management policy. 'Incinerators need a minimum of rubbish to operate. To meet that demand local authorities are more likely to abandon recycling and waste-reduction plans."

Rubbish - literally. This sort of incinerator is a good idea and a way to obtain energy from waste. But to the fanatics in FOE, they are all about punishing us for DARING to create waste! Like their opposition to carbon zero nuclear power, we are dealing with the quasi-religious here and they will object to everything except fining us, taxing us, punishing us.

According to this latest study of the views of the British public, the British public is either stupid or gullible. Or both.

For example, it puts its trust in Environmental lobby groups, so hey, no bias there! I mean the environmentalists don't have an agenda to pursue, do they? 

It believes that aircraft emit more carbon emissions that cars. Factually wrong.

It believes air travel should be limited in the future. To save the planet, of course.

It believes spending more money on bus travel will reduce carbon emissions.

I wonder if this alleged group was actually the Cabinet?