Bird shredders to blight "one in six beauty spots" in UK

17 January, 2010 by

Bird shredders at work

Gotta love them wind turbines. The moonbat Labour government of Gordon “On the Way Out” Brown is planning to spend GBP 10 billion on wind farms in order to “tackle global warming,” despoiling the British countryside in the process:

One in six of the UK’s officially-designated beauty spots could soon be blighted by wind farms, an investigation has found.

Out of 89 sites given special protection due to the quality of their landscape, planning permission for turbines has been approved or sought at 14.

Affected areas range from Cornwall and the Isle of Wight to the Lake District, the Outer Hebrides and the Shetland Islands. Campaigners claimed that the projects would spoil much-loved views and called for clearer rules on where wind farms can and cannot be built.

In England, out of 35 Areas of Outstanding Natural Beauty (AONBs), four are the subject of a planning application for turbines. In one case the development would be within the AONB boundaries, in the other three it would be just outside but close enough to have a dramatic impact on the view enjoyed by visitors.

Among Scotland’s 40 designated National Scenic Areas (NSAs), six have already had turbines approved, one inside its boundaries and five just outside. One more is the subject of a planning application for a development inside its boundaries.

Out of nine AONBs in Northern Ireland, three are the subject of planning applications to build turbines within their boundaries.

Another kind of “dark satanic mills” on England’s green and pleasant land.

Read it here.

Filed Under: Climate Tagged With: ,

UK: Taxpayers' millions "paid to Pachauri's institute"

17 January, 2010 by

Pachauri - conflicts?

More on IPCC chief Rajendra Pachauri’s conflicts of interest, as reported previously in The Telegraph (see here and here). Despite Pachauri’s protestations of innocence, this story just won’t go away, and the Telegraph is starting to get its teeth into it:

Millions of pounds of British taxpayers’ money is being paid to an organisation in India run by Dr Rajendra Pachauri, the controversial chairman of the UN climate change panel, despite growing concern over its accounts.

A research institute headed by Dr Pachauri will receive up to £10 million funding over the next five years from the Department for International Development (DfID).

The grant comes amid question marks over the finances of The Energy and Resources Institute’s (TERI) London operation. Last week its UK head called in independent accountants after admitting ‘anomalies’ – described as ‘unintentional’ – in its accounts that have prompted demands for the Charity Commission to investigate.

The decision to resubmit accounts follows a Sunday Telegraph investigation into the finances of TERI Europe, which has benefited from funding from other branches of the British Government including the Foreign Office and the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs.

Dr Pachauri, TERI’s director-general, has built up a worldwide network of business interests since his appointment as chairman of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) in 2002. The post, argue critics, has given him huge prestige and influence as the world’s most powerful climate official.

The decision by DfID to fund Dr Pachauri’s institute, based in Delhi, will add to growing concern over allegations of conflict of interest with critics accusing Dr Pachauri and TERI of gaining financially from policies which are formulated as a result of the work he carries out as IPCC chairman – a suggestion he strongly denies.

But Lord Lawson, the former Chancellor who now chairs the Global Warming Policy Foundation, a think tank which challenges the prevailing scientific view on climate change, said: “It is now a wholly legitimate concern to ask questions about possible conflicts of interests. The IPCC is a very influential body and he is obviously very involved in its leadership.”

The plot thickens.

Read it here.

Filed Under: Climate Tagged With: , ,

30 years of global cooling?

12 January, 2010 by

Natural cycles

The UK Daily Mail reports that Mojib Latif, an IPCC scientist, has again predicted a long period of cooling, in defiance of the climate models which indicate steady warming with increasing CO2:

According to the U.S. National Snow and Ice Data Centre in Colorado, the warming of the Earth since 1900 is due to natural oceanic cycles, and not man-made greenhouse gases.

It occurred because the world was in a ‘warm mode’, and would have happened regardless of mankind’s rising carbon dioxide production.

And now oceanic cycles have switched to a ‘cold mode’, where data shows that the amount of Arctic summer sea ice has increased by more than a quarter since 2007.

The research has been carried out by eminent climate scientists, including Professor Mojib Latif. He is a leading member of the UN’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change.

He and his colleagues predicted the cooling trend in a 2008 paper, and warned of it again at an IPCC conference in Geneva in September.

Working at the prestigious Leibniz Institute in Kiel University in Germany, he has developed methods for measuring ocean temperatures 3,000ft under the surface, where the cooling and warming cycles start.

For Europe, the crucial factor is the temperature in the middle of the North Atlantic Ocean. He said such ocean cycles – known as multi-decadal oscillations or MDOs – could account for up to half of the rise in global warming in recent years.

Professor Latif said: ‘A significant share of the warming we saw from 1980 to 2000 and at earlier periods in the 20th century was due to these cycles – as much as 50 per cent.

‘They have now gone into reverse, so winters like this one will become much more likely. All this may well last two decades or longer.

‘The extreme retreats that we have seen in glaciers and sea ice will come to a halt. For the time being, global warming has paused, and there may well be some cooling.’

As WUWT says, “Now watch the warmists throw Latif under the bus.”

Read it here (h/t WUWT)

Filed Under: Climate Tagged With: ,

Andrew Neil grills Met Office head over forecasts

8 January, 2010 by

(H/t Climate Change Fraud)

The boss of the Met Office, who recently got a 25% performance related bonus, gets minced by Andrew Neil on the BBC:

Filed Under: Climate Tagged With: , ,

BBC to be investigated over climate science bias

7 January, 2010 by

BBC: impartial climate reporting

And not a moment too soon. The Daily Mail reports that the BBC Trust, the broadcaster’s governing body, has launched a major review of its science coverage after complaints about bias, especially on climate matters:

The BBC Trust today announced it would carry out the probe into the ‘accuracy and impartiality’ of its output in this increasingly controversial area.

The review comes after repeated criticism of the broadcaster’s handling of green issues. It has been accused of acting like a cheerleader for the theory that climate change is a man-made phenomenon.

Critics have claimed that it has not fairly represented the views of sceptics of the widely-held belief that humans are responsible for environmental changes such as global warming.

…

Last year a leading climate change sceptic claimed his views had been deliberately misrepresented by the BBC.

Lord Monckton, a former adviser to Margaret Thatcher, said he had been made to look like a ‘potty peer’ on a TV programme that ‘was a one-sided polemic for the new religion of global warming’.

In 2007 the then editor of Newsnight hit out at the BBC’s stance on climate change.

Peter Barron said it was ‘not the corporation’s job to save the planet’. His comments were backed up by other senior news executives who feared the BBC was ‘leading’ the audience, rather than giving them ‘information’.

Mr Barron had claimed the BBC had gone beyond its remit by planning an entire day of programmes dedicated to highlighting environmental fears.

His comments had come after the broadcaster had already been accused of not being objective on green issues and of handing over the airwaves to campaigners. In 2007 it had devoted a whole day of programming to the Live Earth concerts.

I wouldn’t hold your breath (except to reduce your carbon footprint, of course).

Read it here. (h/t Climate Realists)

Filed Under: Climate Tagged With: , , ,

UK: Times adverts on "climate change" inaccurate

7 January, 2010 by

Wrong.

Last year, The Times ran a series of advertisements showing a ship passing through icy waters and claiming:

“Climate change has allowed the Northeast Passage to be used as a commercial shipping route for the first time.”

Unfortunately, it isn’t true, as The Register points out:

In fact, the North East Passage opened in 1934, and was opened to overseas traffic after the fall of the Soviet Union. Modern technology, specifically radar, has permitted a safer passage in recent years.

The UK Advertising Standards Authority received 29 complaints, and slapped down The Times, which agreed to change the wording:

“Climate change has allowed the Northeast passage to be more accessible as a viable commercial shipping route.”

Just another in a long line of examples of climate change spin, and a rare occasion on which it has been actually called out.

Read it here.

PS. This was an informal ruling, so unfortunately there is no adjudication on the ASA web site (although you can find the details here, under the Informal Resolved Cases tab)

Filed Under: Climate Tagged With: ,

UK: Record snow "doesn't undermine global warming science"

6 January, 2010 by

Brass monkeys

Just this morning I wondered how long it would be before some rent-a-quote scientist would come out and say that the record snow in the UK (plus record cold elsewhere in the Northern hemisphere) could not be used to question the religion of “global warming”. Well, it’s taken just a few hours:

Stephen Dorling, of the University of East Anglia’s school of environmental sciences, said it was not surprising the cold period raised questions over climate change – but the snowy weather should not be used as evidence against it.

He said: ”It’s no surprise that people look out of their window at the snow and find it hard to rationalise what’s going on with the longer term trend.”

But he said it was wrong to focus on single events – whether they were cold snaps or heat waves – which were the product of natural variability.

Instead they should look at the underlying, longer term trends for the climate which were more ”robust” evidence of the changes which are happening.

Dr Dorling said: ”There is no doubt we will continue to have unusually warm and unusually cold Decembers and Januarys but it will be superimposed on what the background climate is doing.” (source)

It cuts both ways: if record cold and snow don’t negate global warming theory (which they obviously don’t), then heatwaves and droughts don’t support it either. So I wait with bated breath for The Sydney Morning Herald or The Age to run the following headlines in the next hot spell: “Don’t jump to conclusions: heatwave does not prove global warming theory”, or “Drought ‘entirely consistent’ with global cooling, says scientist.” I think I’ll be waiting a very, very long time…

Filed Under: Climate Tagged With: ,

UK: Heaviest snowfall in 50 years forecast

6 January, 2010 by

Global warming at work

From the Weather Isn’t Climate Department. This global warming sure is tricky. While the papers here are full to bursting about the last decade being the “hottest” on record (never “warmest” or “mildest”, you will note, but “hottest” – and we’re talking a few tenths of one degree here) I guess there will be some scientist, somewhere, who will attribute record snowfall in the UK to changing weather patterns caused by “global warming”. Here’s a recap from last year, when the UK had the worst snow for 30 years:

Even though this is quite a cold winter by recent standards it is still perfectly consistent with predictions for global warming,” said Dr Myles Allen, head of the Climate Dynamics group at Department of Physics, University of Oxford.

“If it wasn’t for global warming this cold snap would happen much more regularly. What is interesting is that we are now surprised by this kind of weather. I doubt we would have been in the 1950s because it was much more common. (source)

So there you have it. And again in 2010, my home country is frozen:

As the country was plunged into one of its worst winters for decades, the Met Office issued an emergency weather warning for all counties of the UK. The South, including London and the Home Counties, were expected to bear the brunt of the snowfall with emergency services warning they are already struggling to cope with the increasingly bitter conditions.

Forecasters predicted that more than one foot of snow could fall in less than 24 hours in most southern areas leading to widespread chaos and disruption for millions. The residents of Hampshire and Wiltshire were expected to be the worst hit, with as much as 16 inches likely to be dumped by the end of tomorrow. Residents and commuters in London, which ground to a halt last February following heavy falls, were warned to expect a covering of several inches by the morning rush hour.

On the roads drivers were advised not to venture out unless their journey was absolutely essential, as councils warned they could run out of grit if the conditions failed to improve.

The Met Office claimed the amount of snow forecast could be the biggest single fall since the notorious winter of 1962-63, when some areas of the country were blighted by snow and ice for more than three months. During that winter the south saw more than a foot of snow, while blizzards in some parts of Wales led to drifts of over 18 feet. (source)

And fuel will start running out pretty soon:

Figures obtained by the Tories suggested that if the icy weather conditions continue, storage supplies [of gas] could begin to run out early next week. Greg Clark, the Shadow Energy Secretary, accused the Government of negligence over the issue, claiming they had ignored repeated warnings over potential shortages. For only the second time ever, the National Grid on Monday issued a warning to energy providers that demand for gas is threatening to outstrip supply.

The ultimatum comes after a 30 per cent rise on normal seasonal demand as snow and freezing conditions continued their stranglehold on Britain. But the Conservatives claimed the Government had failed to put contingency plans in place for more than a decade.

Mr Clark said: ”This alert is just a taste of what’s to come as a result of Labour’s negligence. Gas supply shortages are already being predicted in the North West and East Midlands and at today’s level of demand we only have enough stored gas for another eight days worth of supply.

“I have repeatedly warned that Britain lacks the essential back-up plans needed for situations like this one. The Government has had its head in the sand on this issue for 12 years. (source)

Good job they don’t have an emissions trading scheme that will push up prices of fuel for the poorest in society. Oh, wait, they already have. They’ll have to start burning books soon. Oh, wait, they already are. (h/t Daily Bayonet)

Filed Under: Climate Tagged With:

Christopher Booker: Met Office gives us the warmist weather

3 January, 2010 by

Alarmism

Christopher Booker lifts the lid on the alarmism at the UK Met Office:

The reason the Met Office so persistently gets its seasonal forecasts wrong is that it has been hi-jacked from the role for which we pay it nearly £200 million a year, to become one of the world’s major propaganda engines for the belief in man-made global warming. Over the past three years, it has become a laughing stock for forecasts which are invariably wrong in the same direction.

The year 2007, it predicted, would be “the warmest ever” – just before global tempratures plunged by more than the entire net warming of the 20th century, Three years running it predicted warmer than average winters – as large parts of the northern hemisphere endured record cold and snowfalls. Last year’s “barbecue summer” was the third time running that predictions of a summer drier and warmer than average prefaced weeks of rain and cold. Last week the Met Office was again predicting that 2010 will be the “warmest year” on record, while Europe and the US look to be facing further weeks of intense cold.

What is not generally realised is that the UK Met Office has been, since 1990, at the very centre of the campaign to convince the world that it faces catastrophe through global warming. (Its website now proclaims it to be “the Met Office for Weather and Climate Change”.) Its then-director, Dr John Houghton, was the single most influential figure in setting up the UN’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) as the chief driver of climate alarmism. Its Hadley Centre for Climate Change, along with the East Anglia Climatic Research Unit (CRU), was put in charge of the most prestigious of the four official global temperature records. In line with IPCC theory, its computers were programmed to predict that, as CO2 levels rose, temperatures would inevitably follow. From 1990 to 2007, the Department of the Environment gave the Met Office no less than £146 million for its “climate predictions programme”.

Read it here.

Filed Under: Climate Tagged With: , ,

Questions Pachauri still has to answer…

27 December, 2009 by

Way more questions than answers…

You will recall that Christopher Booker in the UK Telegraph wrote about IPCC head Rajendra Pachauri’s financial interests in the global warming scare (see here). Pachauri responded almost immediately, but now Booker has written a follow up, which is well worth a read:

A first point to emerge from these responses is how much of what we wrote they do not contradict. Dr Pachauri does not deny that he holds all the positions referred to in our article, such as giving advice on climate change to bodies ranging from major banks such as Credit Suisse and Deutsche Bank to the Chicago Climate Change, the worlds’s largest dealer in buying and selling the right to emit CO2.

He and Teri insist, however, that all the money he receives for his services, such as 100,000 euros from Deutsche Bank and $80,000 from Toyota Motors are paid not to him personally but to his institute (and that he receives no fee from the Chicago Climate Exchange). Teri denies that it does not publish its accounts simply by stating that its accounts are supplied to the relevant tax authorities.

Dr Pachauri repeatedly denied that Teri still has any links with the Tata Group, India’s largest privately-owned business empire, with interests ranging from coal and steel to renewable energy, and which set up Teri as the Tata Energy Research Institute in 1974. He now claims that Teri has had no “direct links” with Tata since 1999 (or, in another interview, 2001). But it was not until 2003 that the name changed to The Energy and Resources Institute, and then a Teri spokesman explained that “we have not severed our links with the Tatas” and that the change of name was “only for convenience”.

Indeed one of the Tata group of companies is still listed among Teri’s corporate sponsors, several directors of Tata serve on Teri’s Business Council for Sustainable Development, and one senior director serves on Teri’s Advisory Board. Other links include the fact that Dr Pachauri and Ratan Tata, the head of the group, both serve on the Indian Prime Minister’s Council on Climate Change, advising on all aspects of national climate policy.

In short, these initial responses to our article leave many questions unanswered. At the least it seems that Dr Pachauri’s position as the world’s “top climate official” has been earning a very substantial income for the institute of which he is director-general; and the only way to avoid further questioning must now be for both Dr Pachauri and Teri to come out into the open over all those issues that remain obscure.

Read it here.

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