Middle classes "bear brunt of liberal elite's obsession with climate change"

25 May, 2010 by

The green economy myth

We knew this already, but it’s refreshing to see it stated so bluntly, in the UK Telegraph. The governing intelligentsia, sitting in their ivory tower, insulated from reality, can pontificate about “sustainable lifestyles” as much as they like, without ever having to suffer the consequences of their actions. And this is also why wealthy celebrities are so quick to climb on any passing environmental bandwagon, safe in the knowledge that nothing they say or do will have the slightest effect on their cosy way of life, or their seven houses (yes, I’m talking about you, Jeremy Irons).

Joel Kotkin, an American expert in social trends, said environmental policies were being used as an excuse to restrict the expansion of the suburbs on the edge of towns and cities.

The result was “a direct assault on the quality of life for millions of working and middle class families“.

Mr Kotkin argued that working and middle class people suffered the most from well intentioned yet-ill thought out policies of liberal and urban elites.

Mr Kotkin said: “Long-term aesthetic arguments against suburbia have now evolved into a new emphasis on ‘sustainability’, largely in terms of greenhouse gas emissions.”

And the best bit of all:

Mr Kotkin argued that plans to build a new “green economy” in the UK were a myth that would never replace the economic and social benefits of traditional manufacturing.

We’ve said so all along.

Read it here.

Filed Under: Climate Tagged With: ,

UK: Cameron agrees to "low-carbon economy" for Lib Dem deal

9 May, 2010 by

Cameron and Clegg

Cameron and Clegg

The UK Conservatives are still stuck in the past on climate change, and desperate as they are to form a government, they are abandoning yet more of their principles by giving in to a Liberal Democrat demand for a “low-carbon economy” as part of any deal with the Conservatives. James Delingpole sums it up under the headline “Cameron’s first stupid mistake”:

I hate to tell you this but committing Britain to a low-carbon economy is not like committing yourself to keeping all phone boxes painted red or promising Britain will never join a currency it was never going to join in a million years anyway.

A low carbon economy is virtually the same thing as NO economy.

It means:

1. Committing your country – at the enormous expense of at least £18 billion a year – to combatting an entirely imaginary problem called CO2, which is plant food, and which makes no serious contribution to [Anthropogenic] Global Warming.

2. Losing 2.2 real jobs for every “Green job” you subsidise with taxpayers’ money.

3. Crippling industry with higher fuel costs and greater tax and regulation at the very moment in the economic cycle when what it needs is cheap, reliable energy, a slashing of red tape and lower taxation.

4. Squandering still more money on “alternative energy” sources, all of which are enormously expensive, none of which work.

If Cameron tries to push this sort of legislation through, our only hope is that he will be torn apart by the Furies within his party, many of whom are as AGW-sceptical as they are Euro-sceptical.

We can count ourselves lucky that at least here in Australia we have one party that is as sceptical as it’s possible to be in the current politically correct climate change environment.

Read it here.

Filed Under: Climate Tagged With:

Sanity returns to the London Science Museum

25 March, 2010 by

Climate sanity

All I can say is “bravo” to the Science Museum for having the guts to stand up to alarmism, to abandon propaganda and instead champion impartial science (see original story here):

The Science Museum is revising the contents of its new climate science gallery to reflect the wave of scepticism that has engulfed the issue in recent months.

The decision by the 100-year-old London museum reveals how deeply scientific institutions have been shaken by the public’s reaction to revelations of malpractice by climate scientists.

The museum is abandoning its previous practice of trying to persuade visitors of the dangers of global warming. It is instead adopting a neutral position, acknowledging that there are legitimate doubts about the impact of man-made emissions on the climate.

Even the title of the £4 million gallery has been changed to reflect the museum’s more circumspect approach. The museum had intended to call it the Climate Change Gallery, but has decided to change this to Climate Science Gallery to avoid being accused of presuming that emissions would change the temperature.

…

Chris Rapley, the museum’s director, told The Times that it was taking a different approach after observing how the climate debate had been affected by leaked e-mails and overstatements of the dangers of global warming. He said: “We have come to realise, given the way this subject has become so polarised over the past three to four months, that we need to be respectful and welcoming of all views on it.” [ACM editor falls of chair in shock – Ed]

…

“You can argue about how much effect the carbon in the atmosphere will have on the system and what we should do about it,” he said. “The role of the museum should be to lay out honestly and fairly what the climate science community has found out about the science.

“There are areas of uncertainty which are perfectly reasonable to raise and we will present those. For example, the extent to which the climate is as sensitive to the CO2-loading that humans have put in or not.”

I almost cannot believe I am reading that. This is all the sceptics are really concerned about. All we want is to see a balanced, honest and fair portrayal of climate science: what we know and what we don’t. ACM is very, very impressed. Now we wait for the inevitable backlash of alarmists crying foul.

Read it here. (h/t Andrew Bolt)

Filed Under: Climate Tagged With:

EU proposal to bind itself to 30% cuts by 2020

16 March, 2010 by

What the EU has been doing?

And the precondition for an international agreement is gone. What are the EU smoking? Whatever it is, it has so addled their collective brains that they are prepared to sacrifice the economies of dozens of countries, force energy bills through the roof, and send millions of jobs offshore just to pander to the enviro-extremists. But hang on, it’s all OK, because that kick in the guts to the EU economy will create thousands of “green jobs” – yeah, like I was born yesterday:

The [UK] Government will today support a proposal tabled in Brussels for a new, much more onerous EU target for cutting carbon dioxide even though other nations with higher emissions have failed to commit to reciprocal action.

Ministers have abandoned their previous condition that the world must agree a legally binding treaty on emissions before the EU commits to a tougher target.

The EU has already gone farther than the rest of the world by making a legally binding commitment to cut emissions by 20 per cent on 1990 levels by 2020. It is now preparing to raise the target to 30 per cent despite the failure of December’s climate change summit in Copenhagen.

By contrast, the US is debating whether to cut emissions by 4 per cent on 1990 levels by 2020 but is unlikely to make a decision this year.

The Department of Energy and Climate Change (DECC) has calculated the cost to Britain of its contribution to the 30 per cent target but is refusing to publish the research.

A European Commission policy document, being debated today by EU environment ministers, says the EU should adopt the 30 per cent target “if the conditions are right”.

The EU had previously said it would only adopt the higher target “if an international agreement on emissions reductions is secured”.

I can’t believe what my home country has come to: Fool Britannia.

Read it here. (h/t EU Referendum)

Filed Under: Climate Tagged With: , ,

UK government ads "exaggerated global warming"

15 March, 2010 by

Giving kids nightmares

Really? Why would they do that? Maybe because as the generally intelligent British public becomes more fed up with having the wool pulled over its eyes, that the government has to spin and mislead even more to keep the message going:

Two nursery rhyme adverts commissioned by the Government to raise awareness of climate change have been banned for overstating the risks.

The Advertising Standards Authority (ASA) ruled that the adverts – which were based on the children’s poems Jack and Jill and Rub-A-Dub-Dub – made exaggerated claims about the threat to Britain from global warming.

In definitely asserting that climate change would cause flooding and drought the adverts went beyond mainstream scientific consensus, the watchdog said.

It noted that predictions about the potential global impact of global warming made by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) “involved uncertainties” that the adverts failed to reflect.

The two posters created on behalf of the Department of Energy and Climate Change juxtaposed adapted extracts from the nursery rhymes with prose warnings about the dangers of global warning.

One began: “Jack and Jill went up the hill to fetch a pail of water. There was none as extreme weather due to climate change had caused a drought.” Beneath was written: “Extreme weather conditions such as flooding, heat waves and storms will become more frequent and intense.”

The second advert read: “Rub a dub dub, three men in a tub — a necessary course of action due to flash flooding caused by climate change.” It was captioned: “Climate change is happening. Temperature and sea levels are rising. Extreme weather events such as storms, floods and heat waves will become more frequent and intense. If we carry on at this rate, life in 25 years could be very different.”

Upholding complaints from members of the public, the ASA said that in both instances the text accompanying the rhymes should have been couched in softer language.

After the UK government’s despicable “bedtime story” advert, now they are defiling nursery rhymes in order to advance their extreme green agenda. Nothing is sacred to these people.

And this week’s best “yeah, right” moment:

Ed Miliband promised to better reflect scientific uncertainty about global warming in future campaigns.

My aching sides, I think not.

Read it here.

Filed Under: Climate Tagged With: ,

Phil Jones hid data because it was "standard practice"

2 March, 2010 by

In the hot seat

And, more importantly, it also shows the peer-review process is meaningless in alarmist climate science. That’s the ludicrous quote from Jones’ appearance before a Parliamentary committee. From The Daily Mail, via WUWT:

The scientist at the heart of the ‘Climategate’ row over global warming hid data ‘because it was standard practice’, it emerged today.

Professor Phil Jones, director of the University of East Anglia’s prestigious climatic research unit, today admitted to MPs that the centre withheld raw station data about global temperatures from around the world.

The world-renowned research unit has been under fire since private emails, which sceptics claimed showed evidence of scientists manipulating climate data, were hacked from the university’s server and posted online.

Now, an independent probe is examining allegations stemming from the emails that scientists hid, manipulated or deleted data to exaggerate the case for man-made global warming.

Prof Jones today said it was not ‘standard practice’ in climate science to release data and methodology for scientific findings so that other scientists could check and challenge the research.

He also said the scientific journals which had published his papers had never asked to see it.

The journals never asked to see it? Well of course, they wouldn’t would they? The peer-review process for alarmist climate science is non-existent. As long as a paper supports the consensus, it will be waived through without any scrutiny – and now we have the evidence to prove it: journals never asked to see the original data.

So the next time anyone says the peer-review process ensures that only decent research gets published, you know how to respond.

Read it here.

Filed Under: Climate Tagged With: , ,

UK: belief in climate change plummets

25 February, 2010 by

© Guardian

All change

A poll in the UK Guardian shows that belief in man-made global warming is disappearing faster than a Himalayan glacier, thanks to Climategate and daily revelations of IPCC blunders:

Public conviction about the threat of climate change has declined sharply after months of questions over the science and growing disillusionment with government action, a leading British poll has found.

The proportion of adults who believe climate change is “definitely” a reality dropped by 30% over the last year, from 44% to 31%, in the latest survey by Ipsos Mori.

Overall around nine out of 10 people questioned still appear to accept some degree of global warming. But the steep drop in those without doubts will raise fears that it will be harder to persuade the public to support actions to curb the problem, particularly higher prices for energy and other goods.

The true level of doubt is also probably underestimated because the poll only questioned 16 to 64-year-olds. People over 65 are more likely to be sceptical, the researchers [Because they have been around long enough to recognise a tax-grabbing scam when they see one – Ed].

“It’s going to be a hard sell to make people make changes to their [people’s] behaviours unless there’s something else in it for them – [such as] energy efficiency measures saving money on fuel bills,” said Edward Langley, Ipsos Mori’s head of environment research. “It’s a hard sell to tell people not to fly off for weekends away if you’re not wholly convinced by the links. Even people who are [convinced] still do it.”

Read it here.

Filed Under: Climate Tagged With: ,

UK Telegraph's hysterical alarmism

22 February, 2010 by

Still there?

The Telegraph is the home of those formidable sceptics Christopher Booker and James Delingpole. Unfortunately, it is also the home of some moonbat environmental reporters who will regurgitate any old rubbish that flops onto their desks. This is an example of the latter:

Climate change could be accelerated by ‘methane time bomb’

Climate change could be accelerated dramatically by rising levels of methane in the Earth’s atmosphere, scientists will warn today.

Atmospheric levels of the greenhouse gas, which is as much as 60 times more potent than carbon dioxide, appear to have risen significantly for the past three years running, scientists say.

Experts have long feared that vast amounts of the natural gas trapped in the frozen tundra of the Arctic could be unlocked as the permafrost is melted by rising temperatures, triggering a “methane time bomb” that could cause temperatures to soar.

More melting of the Arctic ice caused by accelerating warming would release further gases, setting off a “feedback” mechanism which could send climate change spinning out of control.

A brilliant example of irresponsible, hysterical, unfounded scaremongering, especially considering the final sentence:

Professor Nisbet told The Independent at the weekend that the new figures did not necessarily mark a departure from the trend. “It may just be a couple of years of high growth, and it may drop back to what it was,” he said.

Shame on the Telegraph for printing it.

Read it here.

Filed Under: Climate Tagged With: , ,

Aussie weather data "discarded or misused" by Met Office

16 February, 2010 by

More errors?

Another diligent blogger spots yet more “minor” errors in the Met Office data:

A science blogger has uncovered a catalogue of errors in Met Office records that form a central part of the scientific evidence for global warming.

The mistakes, which led to the data from a large number of weather stations being discarded or misused, had been overlooked by professional scientists and were only discovered when the Met Office’s Hadley Centre made data publicly available in December after the “climategate” e-mail row.

Although the errors do not alter the bigger picture on climate change, they have been seized upon as a further sign that scientific institutions have not been sufficiently transparent. “It makes you wonder how many other problems there are in the data,” said John Graham-Cumming, the programmer who spotted the mistakes. “The whole idea of doing science without releasing your data is quite worrying.

…

After trying to reproduce figures shown in scientific publications and on the Met Office website, Dr Graham-Cumming identified a number of problems with the way measurements from Australian weather stations were being averaged. He found that data from seven stations were being accidentally discarded. Data from a further 112 Australian stations, 28 per cent of the total, were not being fully included in calculations of year-on-year temperature differences.

“I’m not a climate sceptic, I think it’s pretty sure that the world is warming up, but this does show why the raw data and not just the results should be available,” said Dr Graham-Cumming.

During the checking procedure Met Office officials discovered further problems with US temperature calculations. They realised that 121 of the US stations did not have unique identifier codes, meaning that data for these stations was either being overwritten or assigned to the wrong location.

Hardly instils a feeling of confidence. Especially when we’re about to spend trillions of dollars “tackling climate change” based on this data…

Read it here.

Filed Under: Climate Tagged With: ,

UK Parliament in investigate Climategate

24 January, 2010 by

CRU investigation

The terms of reference are certainly wide:

The Science and Technology Committee today announces an inquiry into the unauthorised publication of data, emails and documents relating to the work of the Climatic Research Unit (CRU) at the University of East Anglia (UEA). The Committee has agreed to examine and invite written submissions on three questions:

—What are the implications of the disclosures for the integrity of scientific research?

—Are the terms of reference and scope of the Independent Review announced on 3 December 2009 by UEA adequate?

—How independent are the other two international data sets?

The Committee intends to hold an oral evidence session in March 2010.

There are some very encouraging words there: “integrity of scientific research” stands out, plus a look at the other temperature sets! Let’s see if the UK Parliament can live up to our expectations.

Read the press release here. (h/t WUWT)

Filed Under: Climate Tagged With: ,
«Previous Page
Next Page»