Global Warming Is Good

This blog is moth-balled!

2007-09-26T13:54:00.001+01:00

For the time being I am going to post all entries on the main focalplane blog. A sort of KISS thing which will essentially destroy my "hub and spokes" concept.

Different Points of View

2007-08-21T14:19:00.000+01:00

I have lifted the following two letters from today's Daily Telegraph. I trust they won't mind. If they do, they'll be removed.

Meantime, consider the diversity of opinion between an expert, Philip Stott and a protester (and, to be cruel, NIMBY). They sum up the problem with the climate change debate. Cold facts versus warm fuzzy feelings.

Sir - Last week rain fell not only on the rag-bag of climate-change activists camped outside Heathrow, it also poured on the whole global-warming parade.

First, new research indicates that our climate may be only one third as sensitive to C02 as has been assumed.

Secondly, corrected temperature figures for America from Nasa indicate that the hottest year in the 20th century was 1934, not in the 1990s.

Thirdly, recent satellite figures from the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration demonstrate no mean global warming since 1998. Indeed, the curve has flattened to below 1998 levels.

And finally, our British weather continues to contradict all predictions.

When will our politicians, especially David Cameron, recognise that carbon claptrap, not global warming, is the danger for our economic future?

Philip Stott, Emeritus Professor of Biogeography in the University of London, Gravesend, Kent

Sir - Camping at the "Camp for Climate Action" over the past six days has been surreal but exhilarating. Lying in a tent at sunset, next to my daughter, and watching the planes - so beautiful, and yet so destructive - land and take off has been especially disturbing.

We know from the latest science (Hansen et al, "Climate Change and Trace Gases", Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society, May 18) that "recent greenhouse gas emissions place the Earth perilously close to dramatic climate change that could run out of control".

If we continue along our current path we risk triggering a situation "out of humanity's control, such that devastating sea-level rise will inevitably occur". Indeed, the impact would "probably exceed" that which occurred 3.5 million years ago, when temperatures increased by no more than three degrees above today's levels, but sea levels rose by some 25 metres.

Control of greenhouse gases must, therefore, "play a critical role in preserving a planet resembling the one in which civilisation developed".

By permitting a third runway at Heathrow - and the dramatic rise in carbon dioxide emissions that will inevitably accompany it - the Government is effectively committing itself to the destruction of the world as we know it.

Gabriel Carlyle, Heathrow, Middlesex

An interesting thread

2007-08-16T21:13:00.001+01:00

Here.

Climate Change errors "not significant"

2007-08-16T17:15:00.000+01:00

So a climate change sceptic points out a significant error in data management and the believers dismiss his argument as "making a fuss over nothing".

That's interesting because any error in science cannot be insignificant, not only to the immediate result but also to the ongoing methodology being used.

Ten Year Models

2007-08-09T21:25:00.000+01:00

I am sorry, but this is simply going in the wrong direction. Being pleased that they have designed a model that works over ten years instead of 100 years is missing the point. Clearly there are no geologists on the team!

Even the Greens don't want bio-fuels!

2007-08-06T12:18:00.000+01:00

This PDF leaflet from the "Network for Climate Change Action" rather neatly jumps across the debate lines.

Too bad that most of their other downloadable pdfs are firmly rooted in the doom and gloom scenario that we will end the planet in as little as 10 years.

I look forward to meeting some of them at Heathrow in ten days time when they camp outside the airport to protest cheap flights for the masses.

Public Perception of Bio-fuels

2007-08-06T10:37:00.000+01:00

According to the NFU, the UK public answered a survey on Bio-fuel Crops as follows:

Question: Should farmers grow crops to provide bio-fuels?

Agree Strongly: 19%
Agree: 41%
Neither Agree or Disagree: 34%
Disagree: 5%
Disagree Strongly 1%

Public opinion is clearly skewed in favor of bio-fuels. I wonder if the answers would be the same if the question had been:

Question: Should farmers grow bio-fuel crops at the expense of self-sufficiency in food production?

The Biofuel Economy

2007-08-04T16:26:00.000+01:00

This heart rending article from the BBC gives the side of the story the "greens" don't want to know about. Driven by nonsensical European policies, Dayak tribesmen are losing their land to avaricious palm oil plantations.

Back in Europe, biofuel plantings are reducing the land available for self-sufficient food crops, forcing more and more foreign imports.

What to do? Boycott biofuel products.

A Bumper Sticker

2007-08-03T21:48:00.000+01:00

Bumper Stickers are rare in the UK, common in the USA. Here is my GWIG design:

The Climate is Changing: Adapt or Become Extinct.

Brown Blames "Climate Change" for flooding

2007-07-23T14:12:00.000+01:00

It's so easy for the politicians to deflect criticism for ill-preparedness when global warming is waiting in the wings to be used to explain their short-comings.

"We must now all do our bit to combat climate change"

Phooey. How about doing something to help the poor people flooded out of their homes?

Oh yes, Gordon Brown has promised to "study the problem". Gawd help us. We need more than studies.

Accuweather.com

2007-07-18T17:43:00.000+01:00

I know, it's almost two months since the last post. Well, we moved house and, anyway, the climate continues to change whether I post or not!

But here is an excellent weather forecasting blog from Joe Bastardi of accuweather.com. It looks as though the link will change with time, so, having given full credit to the man, here is what he has to say about the present climate situation. It makes for interesting reading.

INNNNCOMMMMMMMINNNNNNNGGGGG!!!!!!!

It's been a warm summer so far across Europe and that is par for the course given the warm cycle of the AMO that is occurring. The amount of rain across the north has been something that has made news headlines, specifically in England. But there is a reason for that... the atmosphere is fighting back, in other words this cycle of warming is starting to get countered, as it always has been in these warm cycles and it always will be. The question on this day of "live earth" is whether the counter is something that will ignore the sins of man like it always had, or have become the power we think we are that can change what is infinite compared to us. I am fascinated by the whole debate here, for it crosses all sorts of lines.. scientific, political, economical, moral and spiritual.

What fascinates me most is that the leading spokesmen for the human induced sides have very little long term weather background. You can have all the degrees in climatology you want, but how long have you studied and loved the weather. The actual nuts and bolts of what happened when the details of periods of weather and the change in the course of the weather, which is all the climate is. There is one person I am convinced that has the WEATHER background, not the background in anthropology or politics or chemistry or math or physics that evolved into the weather, but the WEATHER, who over the years in my association with him has led me to believe that yes, man could have some affect and that is our own Jim Andrews here at AccuWeather.com. You see, I would love to debate most of the spokespeople I have seen that are arguing that we are the cause, for they don't know what I know, but Jim does and that would be an interesting debate. In fact, we talk about it all the time. However, Jim knows all that I know too, so he sees my points. If I get a climate scientist with a background in anthropology or chemistry or physics, what they do know penalizes them, because they see things through their backgrounds. In other words, the climate is causing the changes in what they see, not the idea that the changes may be occurring because of some other process (evolution). A bug shows up someplace where its never been before and its because the climate is changing. Well, a) Climate always changes and b) Maybe the bug is getting tougher so it can live there. But it then comes back to man messing around and causing everything to go haywire.

Lets take this summer of global warming being blamed for everything from floods to drought. Guess what, there have always been floods, there has always been drought. The idea that the Earth is Eden and that the climate should be perfect everywhere is trying to be something bigger than what we are. But the fact there is so much rain going on in places that we see it, all near bodies of water, is another sign of the reversal that nature has planned starting to develop. In the case of Europe, it's because the water in the warm cycle of the AMO is very warm. But guess what, the upper levels aren't and in fact have been cooler than normal over northwestern Europe all summer. So it creates a warmer, more moist lower level relative to averages, but with it cooler in the upper levels, a pattern much more conducive to heavy rain near and north of the main jet axis. The same thing has been going on in India. The warmth of the low to midlevels and the pulling north of the monsoonal jet a bit stronger than normal, because of the heating of the high ground of Asia has resulted in more rain there. The Alps in Europe in times like this are a giant vacuum, pulling air toward them. So, if it's warmer and more moist northwest of there, guess what happens, that air is pulled toward them. In the south and east of Europe, the action of the Alps being heated is pulling air from the southwest toward the Alps, so Italy and Greece are warm. Guess what happens to that air once it comes over the Alps and turns east and north. Bingo, big time warmth over much of eastern and northeastern Europe. But if it was a rout, in other words no fight back, it would just be warm all the time, instead we do see the ebb and flow of the pattern, though it is biased warm. Why? THE OCEAN WEST OF US, THE ATLANTIC IS WARM!!!! ITS SUPPOSED TO BE BECAUSE WE ARE BACK IN THE 30S, 40S, 50S AGAIN.

Now there is another twist, which of course, if you are looking to discover the missing link, you sometimes will not see the log your own eye while searching for the speck in another. To me the most obvious culprit is the sun. It is stronger then it has ever been over a longer term, and the last cycle of the warm AMO it was not as strong as it has been in this. Now, which is easier to warm up, a body or water or a mass of land? Well if you have ever been to the ocean, you know it's slow to warm and slow to cool, but the deserts, well you get my point. Now here is the next question. Which is easier to warm from below, dense air or dry air. Well now lets think about that. Why is it so hot on Mars when the sun is out, and so cold at night? Why is the average temperature change where it's dry here on earth, (day to night variance) greater then where its not? Because the air is less dense. So with a stronger sun than normal, which would heat up more and have a bigger feedback on the warm side during the summer? The mountains. Hence the reasons glaciers are on the INCREASE in the Himalayas's more precipitation because its warmer. They are twice as high as the Alps or Rockies, which warm up. So the oceans are warmer because of the cycle we are in, the continents warm more since most of the land mass is in the Northern Hemisphere and the warm AMO means a colder equatorial Pacific, but warmer in the northern Pacific. Surround land with warm water and increase the amount of radiation and guess what happens. You are seeing it. This is not much different from the 30s through 50s, (example: the Asian subcontinent where winter chill last year and the rain this year were near the records set in the 30s), but there is a twist, the sun is stronger and one does not need that big an increase to cause extra reaction to a blackbody, which is what the earth is.

However, there is another twist. The CO2, which is probably because of the warming, not the cause of the warming, is greater, but guess what is much less now??? The amount of Sulfuric compounds in the air. This means that the air is clearer and more radiation can do its job. This of course would really have an affect on the high ground since a brighter sun would mean more heating there in the summer.

Now this seems like a viscous cycle with no way out. Except that there is a way out, though be careful for what you wish for. The sun, like all things in nature, is cyclical. There are 11 year sunspot cycles, but there is also a much longer term cycle that we have reached a peak in now and that fits almost glove in hand with the measured temperature of the earth and the CO2 pulses. The danger here is that if the natural fight back of the earth, which all things equal would lead to a leveling off and temporary reversal of the warming occurred as the sun started its lessening process, it could launch the earth into a mini ice age again. One of the theories of that has to do with the amount of incoming solar radiation, but its like a double whammy here, the earth naturally fighting back and then the thing its fighting back from suddenly no longer being there. It's almost like being in a penalty situation in a hockey game, where not only are 2 people forced to sit, but they are your two stars.

Has anyone gone back and looked at the SOI during the last period of warming. Interesting, for though we did not have reputable measurements of the ocean then (another problem I have, comparing data today with yesterday and assuming we would not be measuring even wilder things then when the weather was wild. For Europeans the storm that preceded the D-DAY invasion should be an example of what the weather is capable of even in the summer season, and that was back in the 40s!) It was very tough to get an El Nino going. Now why is that? Well if we notice now the El Nino's that are occurring are weak-ish and don't last long, the last one was classic with people screaming it would go to the '97-'98 levels and then it fell apart. The fact is without a reason (volcanic activity in the tropics) to get these things cranking up, it is very tough to sustain them. The reason is because of the weather over the Asian subcontinent and the melting of the northern ice cap FROM BELOW because of the warming of the North Atlantic. That releases fresh cold water to the bottom of the Atlantic, which comes under the warmer water as it flows south and around South America, then turns north up the South American coast and then west out into the equatorial Pacific. Has anyone noticed how cold the waters have gotten relative to averages off South Africa and South America. In any case when the Pacific is in its cold cycle of the PDO, the Atlantic is in its warm cycle and the results are what we see now. The lack of the warm Pacific then leads to feedback that starts to turn things around also. This is known as the thermohaline cycle and is part and parcel of the climate and has been since South America separated from Antarctica and the Panama closed the Pacific from the Atlantic.

Now here is what I want you to think about. 1) How many of the front people for the humans are to blame crowd for everything that goes wrong know about this, and if they do, why don't they acknowledge it. You know what is interesting. If you only talk to people that agree with you, then you don't know something else exists. So what happens is, for some, the debate is over because they refuse to listen to anyone that may be bringing up other points. 2) My views on this are driven by weather and the pursuit of the truth here. As far as the earth goes. I look at it as a garden we have been given. There are compelling reasons that have nothing to do with the blame game now for taking the best care of that garden, some of them having to do with issues of our way of life surviving because we have to figure out other ways to advance without reliance on things that can be taken away by other people. As far as worrying about what we are doing to nature, I think that nature, if it was personified would laugh at some of our visions of grandeur that we have about ourselves. We are tenants, not the owners of the earth, the earth owns us!

So on this day of live earth, here is a lively little piece of prose (some may say its a piece of something else) that may help you understand the euro weather picture in terms of the picture and perhaps expose you to a canvas you may not have seen before.

thanks for reading, ciao for now ***

UK Energy Policy - the Key points and Counter-Points

2007-05-24T14:37:00.000+01:00

The BBC has assembled a brief summary of the Government's latest paper on energy policy. Here I add (in italics) my counter-points where appropriate:

Mr Darling said the government had reached a preliminary view that it would be in the public interest to allow energy companies to invest in nuclear power. Preliminary? Plenty of weasel room there for a sea change in policy!

He said the government would consult further, in a process which will run until October, before making the final decision. More of the above. . .

He said the government wanted low-carbon sources of energy and would do everything it could to encourage renewables. But Mr Darling added they alone would not be enough to minimise the "cost and risks". Because renewables are not reliable, does he actually mean the costs and risks associated with that unreliability? Probably not.

The government would consult on the "significant role" new nuclear power stations could play in cutting emissions and diversifying power supplies. Again, enough weasel language here to stall the anti-nuclear lobby into thinking they actually will have a say.

Mr Darling said it would be for the private sector to initiate, fund, and construct and operate new nuclear plants. There were also important issues to consider, including waste. New Labour's way of saying, someone else can carry the can should things go wrong.

The amount of electricity from renewable energy will triple to 15% by the year 2015, he told MPs as he published the Energy White Paper. But the back up generating capability will have to be increased to compensate for potential black outs, he didn't mention.

Mr Darling said a decision was required this year because new nuclear stations took a long time to build. Duh!

New electricity meters will come with a real-time displays showing energy use from 2008 and there will be a short term offer of free displays from energy suppliers for households to 2010. Short term? Oh, yes, just like the short-lived subsidy on energy saving lightbulbs while they were being made mandatory in new homes. Oh, such political BS!

The government says it expects everyone to have a smart meter within 10 years. And they expect we will continually monitor them, hidden as they are under the stairs or wherever.

A mandatory carbon trading scheme for large organisations such as banks, supermarkets and central government departments. The new Carbon Reduction Commitment "will be a cost-effective scheme that will save over a million tonnes of carbon per year by 2020". But will it save money? If not, it is the consumer who will pay.

More support for wind, wave, tidal and other emerging technologies. Support?

Legislation to allow storage of natural gas under the seabed and the "unloading of liquefied natural gas at sea. Out of sight, out of mind?

Mr Darling said the government was in talks with a "half a dozen" companies about Carbon Capture and Storage technology. He said it would "take time" to set up a CCS system but Britain was at the "forefront" of developing such technology. The use of quotation marks here signifies that neither the Government nor the BBC actually means any of this to be factually true.

White Paper gives more details on competition to build the first CCS plant to be up and running by 2014. By which time the plant will be under water due to sea level rise?

£20m for public procurement of low carbon vehicles and extra £235m for green transport research. Peanuts. But come to think of it, why not use peanut oil?

He said he had changed his mind on nuclear power, saying "I used to be sceptical" but had been persuaded by the need to cut carbon emissions as "nuclear is low carbon". It was also needed as Britain was running out of oil and gas, he said. Convenient changes of mind here.

He said he was reluctant to say "let's abandon nuclear" because Carbon Capture and Storage "may never work" or be available. But he also said the first CCS plant should be up and running by 2014!

He said tidal power was "in its infancy" but the government wanted to encourage its development. The Morecombe Bay Barrage was already in the planning stage in 1968 and will be a 40 year old concept next year. Some infant!

He said there had not been enough research done on the benefits of reducing carbon emissions using tidal power, with all the emphasis placed on the negative impact on the immediate environment on the River Severn and other areas where wave power could be harnessed. An honest assessment. Wow!

He said "there is a lot coal still available to me mined" in the UK but he could not force energy suppliers to buy it instead of imported coal. Strange in that the population is being forced into using other forms of energy supply.

He said he wanted to "encourage" the extraction of UK coal where it was economically and environmentally viable. Sorry, mate, few miners left who know how to mine coal underground, which means all UK coal will likely be from opencast sites, potentially environmentally unviable.

So there it is, and I have not even tried to be cynical. Wake up, wake up to the new post petroleum era of black outs.

Seen at the Re-cycling Center

2007-05-23T02:54:00.000+01:00

Honestly! A man drives into the re-cycling center and empties a shoe box of cardboard into the huge skip marked "CARD". A shoe box! Such is the politics of re-cycling.

Gazumping and Climate Change

2007-05-23T02:45:00.000+01:00

Yes, there is a connection - read about it here if you like, but at the end of the report you will probably not be much the wiser unless your name is Ruth Kelly.

The Home Information Pack (HIP) was touted ten years ago as the ideal remedy to stop "gazumping". Now it is the way forward in the fight against global warming, supposedly insuring that home buyers know just how energy efficient the property of their dreams may be.

Whatever you may think about the HIP concept, the change of the UK Government's tack towards implementing what is yet another financial burden on home ownership is nothing short of hypocritical.

(As an aside, the once socialist Labour Party states that large houses are less energy efficient than small houses. This is basically not true if the large house is simply a larger form of the same shape as a smaller house. Heat loss from a warm body (i.e. house) is dependant upon the ratio of its surface area to its volume. Small children and toy dogs both run the risk of hypothermia before their larger counterparts simply because the body mass is small compared to the surface area. The same applies to heat loss from buildings. End of lesson in basic science for politicians.)

Hungry for Numbers

2007-05-18T06:09:00.000+01:00

So, the oceans are not acting as they are predicted to. The implications of this are none too clear and there may even be an interesting corollary to be made regarding CO2 concentrations and sunspot activity, so I bring to your attention this comment:

"We have been way behind the modellers, who are hungry for numbers. But now we are starting to catch up because of the new tools and instruments available."

Once again, climate change science stands accused of putting the cart before the horse - and by one of its collaborators, not one of its detractors.

Is the IPCC Doing Harm to Science?

2007-05-08T16:53:00.000+01:00

There is an excellent article with this title in Speigel Online. It tries to be objective and pulls it off, raising more questions than answers, which is close to the norm in scientific debate.

In short, the emotionalization of climate change is seen to be a collaboration between vested scientists and politicians, with neither group fully understanding the other's modus operandi. I recommend the entire article.

Energy "Saving" Lightbulbs

2007-05-08T14:51:00.000+01:00

The UK Government seems hell bent on introducing the Home Information Package very soon. A part of this basically useless piece of government interference in the free market place is that "experts" will assess the environmental value of the property and any energy saving light bulbs and fittings will be rated.

The UK is basically a cold country. We heat our homes and very few have air-conditioning. So if the home is well insulated, any heat generated in the building will be a welcome addition. In fact, any additional heat will reduce the need to have the central heating on, thus saving oil, gas or electricity.

Old-fashioned light bulbs give of light and heat. Energy efficient light bulbs only give off light and then with certain limitations. On the face of it, this seems good, but if we were to add up all the heat sources in a home:

Central heating + lighting + oven + hob + stereo + TV + hair dryer + computer + add-your-additional-items-here

Then it can be seen that any additional heat merely reduces the central heating requirement. The system's thermostat will switch off more often if there are other appliances switched on.

So if and when the Government trained inspector assesses your home, remember this post!

Climate Change "can be tackled"

2007-05-04T09:33:00.000+01:00

This the the BBC's headline today reporting from the latest IPCC junket in Bangkok (oh, the carbon footprint of it all).

Putting phrases in "quotes" has a significant new meaning these days - signifying that what is "said" isn't really meant to be taken as "totally" true. And this is basically what the IPPC, via the BBC, is telling us.

Note also the comment about renewable energy - Renewable energy generally has a positive impact on energy security, employment and air quality. Generally? What does "that" mean!

The message being received is basically a sound one - save energy and we can all benefit - clothed in the guile of a terrible outcome if we don't. Otherwise known as the politics of climate change.

Let's wrangle!

2007-05-03T20:34:00.000+01:00

Ah! The politics of climate change. Worth a good few first class seats on flights to Bangkok. Oops, more carbon footprints for the hairshirts to offset.

"450, 550, 650 ppm CO2

You haven't a clue!

Then just when you think you do -

Along comes Pinatubu!"

My god, poetry comes to "Global Warming is Good". Maybe I should stop while I'm ahead? (that should generate a few comments!)

Global Warming isn't Good. . . .

2007-05-02T14:12:00.000+01:00

. . . it's great!

Modbury and the plastic bag

2007-05-01T09:22:00.000+01:00

The small town of Modbury in the South Hams of Devon has come up with an interesting ban - on plastic bags.

This makes for interesting reading. It also shows how cuckoo some people have become. A few facts for the people of Modbury:

Plastic bags take up very, very little space in landfills. Analysis of landfills after they have been filled and compacted shows that plastic occupies a very small part of the bulk of the fill. Therefore, if plastic bags are used, their impact on the size and need for landfills is marginal.

Ah, yes, but plastic isn't biodegradable, you, the gentle people of Modbury, posit to support your argument.

Well, I'm sorry to deflate your plastic bag but there is such a thing as a biodegradable plastic bag. Here is an example:

Mountain Equipment Coop.

Note their comment about paper bags:

"At first glance, paper bags seem to be the solution: they're made from a renewable resource, and they're biodegradable and recyclable. But paper bags consume many times more energy to create and transport than plastic bags. Manufacturing paper also puts out a considerable amount of air pollution and consumes a lot of water. In addition, paper bags are not as durable as plastic in wet weather"

Blair on rubbish collection

2007-05-01T09:18:00.000+01:00

The man who is "shortly" to leave office has doubts on fortnightly trash collection.

It is interesting that the entire concept of cutting down on trash collection frequency is in order to promote recycling. This is so much bulls**t. Trash collection frequency should be determined by more important issues, such as public health, risk of increased fly-tipping, etc.

The only better way to cut down on waste is to generate less of it in the first place.

Refuse Collection Frequency

2007-04-25T07:56:00.000+01:00

How often should refuse (trash) be collected? Good question. I suppose it depends what the refuse consists of. The only way to find out is to examine it, something few people would want to do*. But one thing is clear, if the climate continues to change in an upward direction, bins are going to get hotter, not just because they are excellent absorbers of heat from the sun, but because their contents are increasingly prone to fermentation, decay and rot.

Today's society is geared to throwing things away - scraps of meals, babies' diapirs, packaging - all of which has to be put somewhere. The expense of doing this has driven many local governments in the UK to reduce the frequency of refuse collection to once every two weeks. And now we read a a study which shows that people recycle more when the period between collections is extended. This study misses the point completely. Without writing a thesis on the subject, here are the high points:

1. Two weeks is a long time in a hot summer - bins get very hot and high. This is a health issue, not one for the climate change experts. Rats should not be encouraged. In hot climates the collections can be daily and this is for good reason.

2. If governments are sincere about this problem, then they should be finding ways to reduce the amount of packaging.

3. Everyone should be encouraged to install either a composter, or a waste disposal unit if composting is out of the question.

*There have been studies into what people put into trash cans - the US Drug Enforcement Agency does it all the time, as do identity thieves. But the best example I know of was the study undertaken for the "Don't Mess with Texas" litter campaign. The researchers examined highway trash and were able to recommend where the State should place advertisements to persuade people not to mess with Texas - a favorite was the country radio station with Willie Nelson hired as the spokesman. No more beer cans out the window! Well, a few less, anyways.

On Political Manifestos

2007-04-25T06:59:00.000+01:00

So the BBC commissions an expert to examine the Welsh political parties' election manifestos and he finds them lacking. Why on Earth should we be surprised by this non-news event!

Politicians are introducing draconian rules based on "saving the planet" when and where it suits them, not because they necessarily believe in their aims. To some extent, this is all window dressing, so they can be seen to be concerned. The truth is, of course, that election manifestos are written to get votes - what happens afterwards is anyone's guess. As to those draconian rules, invariably they are seen to be tax revenue measures, hitting the populace in the under belly they have previously softened up for the purpose of making us all feel so very guilty about "the planet".

On Biodiesel

2007-04-23T13:59:00.000+01:00

This is a useful article that poses the question "if biodiesel is so good why aren't we getting the whole story?

I have to admit that driving past bright yellow fields of rapeseed can certainly brighten a dull morning but couldn't, shouldn't the land be used to grow food crops, particularly in a country that imports food? I mean, what about the transport costs of bringing food in from faraway places when much more of it could be grown here?

There are also vexing questions (rarely brought up) about the negative effects of biodiesel. Is it all right if your engine won't last so long? Of course it isn't, so why aren't we thinking about the extra cost (to us and the environment) of having to replace that engine before its time?

Coring Antarctica

2007-04-19T20:19:00.000+01:00

This BBC report makes for fascinating reading for a geologist. What is interesting is the spin placed on the data by both researchers and the BBC reporter. The main reason for doing the research is purported to be studies on climate change but in reality this is likely to have been initiated more as a pure research project that got waylaid by the global warming community.

The cores show us that the Pliocene in Antarctica was warmer than today and it is anticipated that next year's core into the older Miocene sediments will provide evidence of even warmer climes. This is generally known from studies elsewhere on the planet but it is always useful to have another control point.

So, none of the work is revealing anything geologists would not have expected. Routine research with a twist!

Question marks are important!

2007-04-18T21:20:00.000+01:00

First Post carries a two page article that makes for interesting reading. It appears Nature dropped a question mark from the title of a research paper that presented spurious data on the Gulf Steam slowing down and which would have serious implications for Europe if it was true. Two facts emerge. One, the researchers miscalculated their results, and two, Nature dropped the question mark that provided the correct measure of uncertainty, despite the mistakes they failed to catch. The media latched on to the "certainty" and their conclusions are for all to see. Unfortunately the errata won't be.

This is Important!

2007-04-18T20:39:00.000+01:00

Here is an important report on the move by parents to take legal action against the Government for forcing Al Gore's "An Inconvenient Truth" on unsuspecting children.

I am reminded of one of the rare moments when I really agreed with Rush Limbaugh. "Schools" he stated, "have this propensity to fill young skulls with mush".

The bad aspect of the Education Ministry sending this video to every school in the land is that there is no opportunity for an opposite point of veiw, no opportunity for debate, no opportunity for science to be introduced as a subject that requires proper testing for a theory to become accepted. School teachers are likely to be conned by Al Gore in the same way he has conned Hollywood (I bet that was difficult!) and many of his politician friends. Without ammunition to counter this propaganda, teachers are defenseless and students vulnerable.

How to Sell Oak Trees

2007-04-18T10:50:00.000+01:00

One of the Google Adsense advertisers demonstrates how to make a fortune on the back of your carbon footprint conscience!

I made up the entry to show what a "gas guzzler" I could be. Even with a minimal life style, however, the company still says that I would need to buy 7 oak trees a year!

Whatever Happened to Simply Saving Energy?

2007-04-18T10:22:00.000+01:00

Every page of the newspapers these days carries an ad exhorting people to be green, save the planet, reduce their carbon footprints, etc. etc.

I have no doubt that a similar spate of "green" ads also pervades the broadcast media (tho' I wouldn't know as I rarely watch TV).

It seems to me that ever since Jimmy Carter's failed exercise in exhorting the American public to save energy, saving energy has become synonymous with his reputation. Which is absurd. Why on Earth wouldn't an individual want to save energy if it also saves money (which it does!)? The simple economics of Carter's idea appears to have been lost on advertisers, who, after all, are not really interested in us saving anything when we can spend it on their products!

So the politicians have come up with a nice scam. Don't save yourself your hard earned money - save the planet instead. And in the process pay more taxes to the politicians.

Two examples of how to save energy and how not to:

First, ground source heat pumps. Good idea. Although there is an initial cost of installing the system this is not so high for new builds and is a genuine way to save energy costs for raising the temperature of water. What is more, it is effectively a solar energy heat source which has no adverse effect on the environment.

Second, wind farms and personal wind mills. Bad idea. The initial cost of wind mills has been shown to be uneconomic without high energy prices and subsidies. The proof of this is the fact that many "greens" are happy to pay more for "green" electricity! Second, when the wind isn't blowing the wind mills don't make electricity. But consumers (even the "greens") still expect to have an uninterrupted supply, so back up generators are needed. These cannot be switched on the moment the wind drops and so must use energy even when they are not needed. Wind mills, whether large or small, are visible, noisy and a danger to bird life. Though the latter two criticisms only apply when the rotors are moving!

Wind Farms

2007-04-13T22:34:00.000+01:00

Recently I have come across wind farms in strange places. The first was while flying from Calgary to London. Clear skies over Scotland and Northern England allowed some photography from my window seat and I was busy recognizing old haunts from my Ph.D. fieldwork when I saw the strangest thing:

An offshore wind farm in the Irish Sea!

Not one rotor was rotating. Not one! Which means that somewhere in the UK a steam generator (nuclear, natural gas or coal-fired) was busy making up the deficiency. The problem with this "back up" for wind energy is that you cannot simply switch on a conventional or nuclear power station when the wind drops.

The second occurrence was in a horrendous traffic jam on the A5 trunk road near Oswestry. Fortunately I was moving in the opposite direction but the tail back behind two advance warning police cars, a white van, four huge rotor blade carrying pantechnicons and a rearguard white van was about six miles long. This convoy was, presumably, heading for the Welsh Mountains where similar structures pollute the landscape and drive nearby residents crazy with their noise.

The strange thing about the convoy was that there were four blades when wind turbines normally have three. Perhaps the turbines need an extra back up?

Stifling Debate

2007-03-30T08:01:00.000+01:00

The Channel 4 documentary, The Great Global Warming Swindle, has stirred up a measure of indignation from those who find it difficult to have scientific debate, no doubt because they are convinced they are absolutely right. Right wing commentator Walter Williams has written this measured piece that notes how the so called "heretics" have received death threats, have had funding reduced or limited and have therefore been denied access to the normal channels of scientific debate.

The reaction against the Channel 4 program has been swift and predictable. We are told that the program's scientists "have an axe to grind", "use out of date data" and "are not in the mainstream of opinion". Such statements are hypocritical, to say the least. They are the sort of invectives that are spouted when the speaker knows his/her own scientific foundations are built on sand.

To give an example, the awkward evidence that increased carbon dioxide concentrations lag higher levels of sunspot activity and therefore cannot be the cause of global warming, but rather a result of it, is "explained" by suggesting that the oceans initially absorb some carbon dioxide so the CO2 peak is delayed.

There may be some truth in this - I have not seen the full account of research into CO2 absorption by the oceans - but even so, this doesn't answer the question, it merely pours doubt on the original thesis. We still have the evidence that peaks in CO2 concentration are directly related to, and are always slightly later than, periods of high sunspot activity. There is, in other words, a strong correlation between the two that cannot be explained by coincidence. Therefore we should rightly invoke a "cause and effect" relationship and begin to test it for validity.

Gore and Congress

2007-03-23T14:25:00.000Z

The New York Post is never likely to be sympathetic to Al Gore but this article treats him reasonably well even though their satire is in every paragraph. The religious aspect of global warming comes in to the description of his statements to Congress; he is the "goracle" of global warming!

However, his message stops short of advocacy for nuclear energy. Not surprising, given his constituency of support!

Some real Earth Science!

2007-03-23T09:53:00.000Z

After entry after entry on the politically motivated science of climate change, it is a welcome relief to read a BBC article that covers a topic (close to my heart) without all the mumbo jumbo, scare tactics and politicization of an Al Gore presentation.

If only all science could be reported in the same way. But it isn't.

There is a link between this research and modern day climate change science, however. By demonstrating that processes we see today also existed 3.8 billion years ago, geologists are able to demonstrate the incredible staying power of the physical processes that underpin everything about this planet. In so many ways the biological imprint on this incredibly strong foundation is seen to be transitory. Humankind worries about "saving the planet" when what they really mean is "saving the biota on the planet".

Caution

2007-03-17T06:22:00.000Z

It's good to see a couple of scientists use the word "caution" at a climate conference. They also condemn the "hollywoodization" of the message and hit out at the AAAS' prognostications on severe weather.

Refuse Collection and Global Warming

2007-03-16T08:43:00.000Z

It seems everything in life can now be given the global warming spin. Today the BBC carries two news stories about waste and refuse collection.

The first concerns a study that says that the UK is throwing away vast amounts of food that goes to landfills from where greenhouse gases are emitted.

The second reports that government research indicates that refuse collections every two weeks would not consitute a health hazard if the "food is wrapped properly".

I hate to see food wasted but I am not surprised that this has become an issue in society at large. Scraps used to be incorporated in meals. Now, with packaged dinners, there is no way in which scraps can be used. No stock pot, no pasties, no hot pots.

The twice weekly refuse collection idea is a bit more scary. People do not wrap their food when disposing of it! And rats have a way with opening up such tidbits anyway. Disposable diapers (nappies in the UK) are often jettisoned in garbage cans (dustbins in the UK) so you can imagine what a two week wait would do to to them. Having lived in hot climates where garbage collection was daily (Singapore) there must be a good reason for such a policy. Houston has weekly collection and thriving rat populations living around those huge skips will the ill-fitting lids. Even during a long hot summer in the UK like last year the trash containers did take on a fermentation that was rank.

To put it mildly.

By the way, my solution to all this is a waste disposal unit in the kitchen sink. Grind it up and send it off to the sanitation experts for re-cycling!

BBC - Balanced Broadcasting Corporation?

2007-03-13T19:40:00.000Z

I don't think so!

Airline Carbon Credits - redux

2007-03-13T19:34:00.000Z

Just a day after my essay on carbon trading comes this piece from the BBC. Apparently British Airways isn't very good at selling trees! Why should they be, they are in the transport business, not forestry.

Those busy body MPs - don't they have something better to do?

"Cool the Hype"

2007-03-13T19:03:00.000Z

So says this reasoned article in the New York Times. This is good reporting in that it attempts to tell more than one side of the story and does so without becoming pedantic. Scientists are named and sources can be sought and checked.

Al Gore doesn't come out of it all that well. There is a general admittance that he has selected evidence (for example the time scale of evidence goes back only 400 years which would mean excluding a lot of geologically meaningful data). But perhaps worse is the criticism that he is too alarmist in his assertions that there is an impending crisis.

Huricane Katrina figures large in Al Gore's documentary with the prediction that such storms will be more frequent and more powerful. Using Gore's own short term statistics (such as saying that 2005 was the hottest year) we can judge his predictions and say they have failed. 2006 was a quiet hurricane year although he says it should not have been.

(Of course, from a geologist's point of view such annual statistics mean very little little so we would discount 2006 hurricane intensity anyway.)

The major problem with Gore's thesis remains this: the evidence that says it is entirely man-made is far from conclusive and there is good evidence that cycles of global warming are unrelated to man-made CO2 sources - sunspot activity studies are rarely mentioned yet they point to a strong correlation that CO2 increases in step with but after periods of sunspot activity.

So it is possible to predict that any attempts by man to modify climate change could lead to catastrophes that Gore has not imagined. That is not to say that we should do nothing but whatever we do decide to do must be the result of well-balanced research based on models that work. That there is so much funding still pouring in to climate research is indicative that the working models are still a long way off.

Al Gore, the Archbishop of Climate Change?

2007-03-13T10:42:00.000Z

Last night I watched the Guardian's interview with Al Gore, referred to here. I have to admit it was tough going.

What struck me about Al Gore's answers to several questions was that he prefaced a statement with the words "I believe that. . ."

Now what is wrong with that?

Well, he could just as easily have said "I have looked at the scientific evidence and I am drawn to the conclusion that. . ."

There is is difference here in the way the information is presented.

Many commentators have likened global warming to a religion, a belief system that goes beyond reasoned thinking that ultimately cannot conceive that there might be a different answer to fundamental questions.

If this is the case, then Gore could qualify to be the Archbishop of Climate Change!

On Carbon Credits

2007-03-12T16:25:00.000Z

Part of the Al Gore utility bill furore focuses on his excuse that he invests in "carbon credits" (though the investment turns out to be in a company of which he is an owner/officer). Many people wonder what exactly a carbon credit might be. Cynical heretical deniers have suggested that a carbon credit is not unlike the old Catholic indulgence whereby a sinner pays off God with a bribe to clear a list of sins and thereby start off with a clean sheet until the next time an indulgence is required.

So what is a carbon credit? Here are some examples.

Tom and Jane go on vacation. The airplane they fly in will burn fossil fuels and create an exhaust of carbon dioxide which will (so it is said) do untold damage to the Earth's temperature. Tom and Jane feel guilty about this but find out that they can easily assuage their feelings by investing in the planting of a tree in a wilderness area. This tree will absorb their carbon dioxide and so save the planet.

Smoggy Air Foundry (SAF) Inc. has a large factory which desperately needs upgrading to give off less pollution. But the upgrade would likely render the foundry unprofitable, forcing closure and the loss of jobs. Rather than allowing for a tax incentive to make the upgrade economically feasible, the government initiative suggests that SAF inc. would do better to continue to run the foundry as it is. However, an ongoing penalty for running an inefficient factory would be to buy a carbon credit for each tonne of carbon dioxide, etc. lost to the atmosphere. The carbon credit would be traded from a company that has invested in efficiency via a carbon credit exchange.

Carbon credits could also become a feature of national economies - Country A (say Euroland) might pay Country B (say Africania) to allow it to be more profligate with its CO2 emissions. Note that this concept makes the most of the difference between the developed world and the undeveloped world. The unfortunate side effect is that the undeveloped world would get cash subsidies but no means to use that cash to become industrialized.

So, three examples on personal, institutional and national levels. They've thought of everything!

But let's look a little closer.

That tree, for example. Tom and Jane sent off the $50 to buy the tree. They receive a certificate in return. They feel good about what they've done, but do they actually know there is a tree planted in their name? Worse, if there is one, who is looking after it, watering it, making sure it grows? Hmm.

SAF Inc. is continuing to pollute the skies and provide poor working conditions for its employees. The carbon credits don't come cheap and soon it is apparent that the much needed improvements will always be financially out of reach. Then a government policy change demands the closure of such factories with little compensation. The site is closed down and sold off for building land and the workers lose their jobs.

Euroland continues to operate its carbon-rich economy, turning out goods that it in turn sells in Africania. Goods the people in Africania cannot make themselves because they have sold the right to build factories, make electricity or generally improve their standard of living.

Now, I do recognize that these outcomes might seem a little extreme. But they are possible and in all probability they will happen in a real world of smoke and mirror politics.

There is another angle to this subject that should not be allowed to pass without mention. That is, the trading of carbon credits (on whichever scale) requires a huge bureaucracy. Moreover, entrepreneurs can see ways to get in on the action. And public relations officers also see ways to make a lot of mileage out of a little investment in the right green strategy (if you want an example of this, look no further than a company that likes to call itself "Beyond Petroleum"). Carbon trading is becoming an industry, a big business opportunity, an element of bloated government bureaucracy.

Yet in the end, the best it could ever be is the equivalent of a zero sum game. Doesn't sound like a winner to me!

A Very Good Question!

2007-03-12T11:38:00.000Z

"Exactly what is the correct temperature for the Earth?"

Answers?

The Other Side's Point of View

2007-03-11T15:11:00.000Z

Some would suggest that there is no need to do this here. After all, there are plenty of sources for the dissemination of information and opinions about man-made global warming. Fair debate requires the presentation of evidence for the individual to be able to determine the "truth" about a situation. So here is a program from the other side with a documentary about and interview with Al Gore.

I do not endorse it, I only make it available.

Oh that others could do likewise and open their minds and websites to contrarian views.

The Great Global Warming Swindle

2007-03-11T10:35:00.000Z

I don't watch TV. I know, that makes me a very wierd person, doesn't it! As a result I missed Channel 4's airing of the Great Global Warming Swindle last week. However, this article makes up for it.

At the same time, the opposition Conservative party is heading straight for those windmills in Don Quixote's mind. David Cameron has lost my vote. I have no idea who I would vote for in a UK election.

Death Threats if you criticize Al Gore?

2007-03-07T14:58:00.000Z

Apparently this has happened - the Washington Times reports that the group who exposed Al Gore's utility bills to be 20 times the US average have received all manner of threats from (funda)mental(ist) (environ)mental(ist) supporters of Al Gore's documentary An Inconvenient Truth.

Of course, Al Gore's famous comeback was that he buys carbon credits to offset the utility usage at his mansion. Trouble is, he pays the credit offsets to his own company! That's just way too hypocritical!

A Culture of Opinions over Knowledge

2007-03-02T04:28:00.000Z

This phrase came up in a recent on-line discussion, referring to what drives the media these days. If blogging is part of the media then this is certainly true. You want opinions? The Internet has them! What I think the writer of this phrase means (and of course what I think is an opinion!) is that many statements are made as opinion without the basis of knowledge to provide a solid foundation to the argument offered.

The key to this blog is simple: there are strong indications that the issues are not being debated openly even though the information is out there. Despite what Al Gore may think (see the previous post) there is little balance within the political science community and this is further exacerbated by the media. Links from this blog go some way to providing the balance. My own observations serve to assist but not demand the conclusions each reader may derive from the information out there.

Debate is healthy. Knowledge inspires healthy debate.

On Balanced Reporting - Al Gore's View

2007-03-01T14:56:00.000Z

This article from the Tennessean is interesting. Al Gore is so convinced that his premise on global warming is right that he is accusing the media of using "balance" to introduce contrarian views. I guess he is saying "the media should not be publishing points of view that differ from my own, because, damn it, I know I am right!"

So remember: Balance is Bias!

Martin Livermore in the Telegraph

2007-03-01T07:49:00.000Z

This is a rare piece of writing. Recommended reading for its lucid approach to analyzing the science of global warming. Required reading for all the carbon traders of this world so busy jumping on the bandwagon they haven't time to consider that they may be barking up the wrong tree.

[later in the day: The comments attached to this article are astounding! Elitists beware, your number is up!]

Utility Bills and Global Warming

2007-02-27T18:41:00.000Z

This just in. Al Gore, the "president of the Whole Earth (Catalog)", suggests that Americans reduce their energy usage to help the fight against global warming. Meantime, his own utility bills for his mansion in Tennessee are on the rise. $30,000 a year for gas and electricity, apparently 20 times the average American home's utility bill. Hey! Give the man an oscar!

[a day later: It's disappointing that a copy of Gore's annual utility bill has been posted for all to see. I consider that an unnecessary invasion of privacy. However, every assertion should be backed up with solid data, so at least those that exposed this piece of news are also providing the evidence.]

The Blame Game

2007-02-24T07:56:00.000Z

Latin American politics have always been interesting. The new breed of left wing leaders are no exception. So it is no surprise that Bolivia's Evo Morales has blamed recent flooding on global warming and therefore has accused the developed countries of causing the deaths and damage.

Countries that straddle the Andes have too often experienced natural disasters, simply due to the nature of the terrain, but now there is a new scapegoat.

And a side effect. While it is very likely, almost 100% certain, that international aid would be forthcoming anyway, Morales puts a new sense of moral urgency into the equation. Global warming blackmail has been used before (in the Maldives, for example) and we can expect to hear about it a lot more in the future.

When Environmentalists' agendas do more harm than good

2007-02-22T15:33:00.000Z

The Washington Times' The Inconvenient Truth offers an interesting take on a number of issues within a theme that is partially humorous - imagine Al Gore as President of the Whole Earth, or at least the Whole Earth Catalog!

But read on and it turns out that environmentalists objected to having the steel framework of the Twin Towers coated in asbestos - an omission that may have been responsible for the rapid collapse of the towers. They also managed to defeat a plan to provide New Orleans with sea gates that would have probably prevented major loss of life during Hurricane Katrina - just so that fish could more easily mate.

Neither of these outcomes are amusing. In fact you have to wonder why it has taken so long for this information to get out into the mainstream.

Global Warming would have been good for the Neanderthals!

2007-02-20T23:56:00.000Z

For, as reported here, they were probably killed off by global cooling.

Warm the Globe on a Light Bulb!

2007-02-20T18:15:00.000Z

The Australian Government has joined Cuba, Venezuela and possibly California in introducing a ban of incandescent light bulbs in favor of fluorescent light bulbs. This plan will apparently lop a whacking 0.7% off Australian greenhouse gas emissions!

We must all do our bit!

I am surprised the Ozzies are starting to think "hairshirt" politics. This move will affect quality of life - just think, no more dimmer switches providing that warm orange incandescent glow to enhance a romantic evening. . . .

Steam portrayed as pollution

2007-02-20T14:41:00.000Z

The recent BBC article on the European Environmental Ministers' decision to cut emissions by 20% by 2020 contains the usual political nonsense that is hardly worth bringing to anyone's attention. For one thing, what they say they will do won't happen. It hasn't happened in the past so why expect it to happen in the future. These people are the planet's greatest hypocrits.

But what I found interesting is the Getty Image used by the BBC to paint the appropriate picture, numerous "smokestacks", presumably in an oil refinery or petrochemicals plant, belching out what look like white clouds of steam.

Steam is water vapor. It's not pollution. But it kinda looks like it could be, so why not use it to sway people's emotive reactions? Just in case you didn't know, the BBC has an agenda!

A lesson for the global warming researchers?

2007-02-18T00:04:00.000Z

I was listening to a recent Engines of our Ingenuity podcast this evening and was fascinated by this episode on Plate Tectonic Theory (the link is to the text of the podcast). Being somewhat close to my heart I was listening to every word. Then it came to me. This short podcast sums up what is wrong with the current global warming debate.

Let me explain. In the late 19th Century most geologists believed that sections of the crust simply moved up and down to create the mountains and the deeps. Then, in 1912, Alfred Wegener, a meteorologist, noted that the continents appear to "fit" together, suggesting that they had once moved apart or along side of each other. He also examined the rocks on each side of the Atlantic and noted similarities that could only be explained by the continents having drifted.

For decades the 19th Century theory of vertical movement held sway and geologists continued to look for evidence to support their notions of mountain and ocean deep formation. Of course they could find lots of evidence as long as they ignored what they didn't want to see! Whole tomes and text books were written on the subject and during the years I studied geology many of the standard texts were still espousing various theories (such as Van Bemmelen's Undation Theory, published in 1931).

Then, several major advances in the way geologists could better measure the planet came into being and these techniques began to erode away the old thinking, providing more and more evidence that individual plates moved around the surface (at incredibly slow speeds, of course) and collided with each other or separated from each other to create the mountain chains and ocean deeps. Finally, around 1968, a number of key papers were presented that placed the theory of plate tectonics at the forefront of geological thinking. Today the theory is adopted universally (well, almost) and provides a working basis for most ongoing geological research.

Many geologists, wedded as they were to the old theory, had sought out selective evidence. They failed to use a basic test in science, that we must continue to test a theory, assuming it has flaws and could be wrong. The more we test the stronger the theory can become.

OK, let's segue to climate change. It seems to me that a great number of climatologists may have fallen into the same chasm as those vertical movement theory geologists. It is so easy to produce a piece of evidence that supports the popular theory. It is much harder to go after the evidence that pokes holes in that same theory. And when people do, they are, of course, treated like heretics!

Wind Shifts and Ocean Currents

2007-02-17T18:21:00.000Z

This article on the BBC website suggests that some point in time is a status quo and that any variation from that status quo is a negative result.

First question: How do you fix the reference point?

Answer: Simple, it is likely to be the point in time when data gathering starts (or, in many global warming scenario studies where "reliable" data can be dug up from historical records). In other words, wherever the reference point is picked, it is arbitrary.

Second question: How do you interpret the variation from that status quo?

Answer: In negative language (cycnically because that will prompt further research funding).

Graveyards of dead crab shells reminds me of numerous examples in the fossil record. Such fossil records are rarely preserved well so the fact that so many do exist implies that localized mass near-extinctions are more common that we would suppose. And that is the point. These are local extinctions. This is all quite normal!

The impact of ongoing climate change is not always going to be positive (we hear enough on this!) and is not always going to be negative (we rarely hear about this!) The truth is, of course, somewhere in the middle. Nature will provide winners and losers. It really is that simple.

Once again, the unsung problem we are not facing up to is that, with climate change, we can expect mass migrations of all species from one area to another. This process is, basically, how homo sapiens came to have a global distribution, as drought in East Africa caused by the Toba Volcanic explosion created a mass migration into North Africa, the Middle East, Europe, Asia and finally the Americas.

The Toba explosion was a far more devastating phenomenon than anything the wildest imagination could dream up about man-made global warming.

Kyoto II

2007-02-17T12:58:00.000Z

Well, this week has seen a "sea change" in world opinion on tackling climate change. Using typical BBC rhetoric this report suggests that Kyoto will have a successor in 2009 (or is it going to be 2002?).

May I stress that there is nothing wrong, in my opinion, with attempts to cut emissions. Anyone who has lived in a polluted area would want for emissions to be cut. The smoggy cities of Industrial Britain were not healthy places. All we have done, apparently, is move the factories of, say, Birmingham UK to somewhere else, primarily China and India. So a protocol to cut emissions is logical. However, the touted reason for doing so is not. Politicians cannot control climate change and if they attempt to do so they will have no degree of certainty as to the outcome. Meantime they will put into law expensive measures that will have a damaging effect on humankind.

Politicians have a life span measured in years - the typical range may be as little as four, the maximum maybe 35. Nature operates on a much grander scale and also with far more nuances than the average politician will ever be capable of understanding. Nature has no vested interests, no local constituency, no "irons in the fire". Politicians do.

The idea that a significant portion of the planet's GDP be spent to attempt to do something that has no guaranteed outcome - a risky planet-wide experiment - is more scary to me than the alternative of not doing anything.

If we can cut emissions without wasting valuable resources, so be it. If not, let's treat the whole subject of managing climate change for what it is - a questionable, short term solution designed to please those who refuse to examine available evidence on a geological time scale.

No-one seems to be challenging the politicians on this. It's time we did.

The Welsh First Minister gets it right!

2007-02-13T18:08:00.000Z

I just saw this report on the BBC website. The headline will make you cringe but at least Welsh First Minister Rhodri Morgan refuses to retract on his statement that a little bit of warming would do Wales no harm. More important, though, is his acknowledgment that climate change is inevitable. Possibly a first for a politician. Bravo Mr. Morgan! We need more like you.

Coastlines Erode!

2007-02-13T05:58:00.000Z

This doomsday type story is all too typical of the modern media approach and everybody is cashing in on it, even the National Trust, who should know better.

We read how the Welsh coastline is being eroded and, because of rising sea levels and increased storm activity, the coast will erode faster in the future. Well, I am sorry to disappoint people but coastal erosion is the status quo around most of Wales. It's all part and parcel of coming out of several major Ice Ages; there is an imbalance that has to be balanced and Nature will take her course regardless of what people, including the BBC and the National Trust might wish otherwise. Sea levels rise and fall and storm activity increases and decreases whether we think we cause them or think we can control them.

The Politics of Global Warming

2007-02-11T17:44:00.000Z

The mass hysteria that has been generated by politicians and the media knows no boundaries. Generally, it would appear that those of us over 50 years old are more likely to be quizzical about the entire global warming phenomenon. After all, we've had a lot more experience in dealing with "those who believe they know better and tell us so repeatedly".

The Stern Report is a fine example of the genre. To be absolutely cynical about the entire thing, here is my scenario of what happened.

Gordon Brown sits in his office, wondering what new taxes he can foist on an unsuspecting nation. He needs more money because he is wasting so much of what he already garners from a public that has long since laid down and played dead to taxation (and inheritance taxes are the biggest scam of all, by the way). He calls an economist friend and asks him if he will dream up a report to support a carbon tax.

Sir Nicholas Stern writes the report, making sure that it contradicts just about everything in the Copenhagen Consensus (a "deniers study"). As a "leading economist and knight of the realm", Stern makes the necessary banner headlines.

Brown takes the report and with the help of colleagues such as David Milliband hits the airwaves and print media. The public are convinced. Carbon taxes are introduced, even retrospectively in the case of advance purchase airline tickets, and off the Treasury goes again. Another Stealth Tax, this one literally founded on hot air.

The Deniers

2007-02-06T20:56:00.000Z

This article, or series of articles is about the "other camp" in the global warming debate. If an individual wholeheartedly and blindly follows the rhetoric of bodies such as the IPCC then anyone who does not must be a denier. What this article makes clear, however, is that many of the "certainties" brought to our attention by the IPCC are often distortions of work done originally by careful scientists, mathematicians and statisticians, twisted to fit the message that global warming is not only man-made but also must be un-made by man at whatever cost. When these same upright individuals go to print to defend their work, they are told they are denying the "truth". How very ironic.

Once again we see evidence that Global Warming is nothing more than a religion. To be on the IPCC you must have faith. Faith to believe what you want to believe in the face of evidence to the contrary.

Public Opinion

2007-02-04T17:30:00.000Z

Reactions to the IPCC's report on Global Warming make for interesting reading. Try this as an example.

Al Gore's nemesis!

2007-02-02T22:39:00.000Z

Baffin Island in winter sunshine. I heard recently, while listening to an NPR podcast, that every time Al Gore gives one of his special presentations of the global warming scare movie "An Inconvenient Truth" the weather turns several degrees colder at the venue. Not that he has given a presentation at this location!

Industrial vs. Agricultural - the albedo factor

2007-02-02T11:02:00.000Z

When the "global warmers" tell the rest of us that man made pollution is having a dire effect on climate change, they always mean industrial pollution. Why so?

The industrial revolution started relatively recently and the industrial era actually coincides quite well with the period of time through which modern temperature measurements have been taken. So it has been a temporal coincidence that has allowed such inferences to be made about global warming.

But if we are going to blame current climate change on man-made influences (and I do not necessarily subscribe to this) then I believe we must embrace another far more important man-made influence on the planet. And that is agriculture.

Ever since mankind started to roam the planet and either graze or farm, the surface of the planet has been modified. The result of this modification has been a change in the planet's albedo or reflectivity to electromagnetic radiation. The net change in the planet's albedo probably can't be quantified through time but when you think of deforestation and the massive change in farming practices over several thousands of years, it is "very likely" that agricultural modification of the planet will have had a huge effect on the ability of the planet's surface to absorb or reflect radiation. Ah! Note the "very likely" qualification and how similar it is to the IPCC's recent statement about man-made pollution and global warming effects!

But there's more! Agriculture has also had a major effect on greenhouse gas generation. Cattle are known to be a major contributor of greenhouse gases!

So why do I bring all this up?

Well, the problem with the global warming thesis is that the scientists involved believe that they can isolate one cause and effect from among multiple causes and effects. They also seem to subscribe to the belief that climate change is abnormal and this is clearly incorrect. The one thing we can be sure of is that the climate on this planet of ours is always changing and the change is due to an inter-action of many, many variables.

Taking a look at the history of agriculture, it seems strange to me that no-one has tried to calculate the global effects of albedo change. And as far as I know there have been no models constructed to see what might happen with major albedo change. But then perhaps no-one wants to try?

So, I will end this entry on a cautionary note. For all the warm air emanating from the IPCC, consider where their interests lie and what they haven't done to rule out other considerably important potential effects on the planet's climate. But if you go too far down this slippery path, it soon becomes apparent that there are so many variables (many of them canceling each other out) to climate change that man has only nibbled at the edges. And any expensive effort to modify climate change will also be nibbling at the edges, perhaps with direr consequences.

And that is why we should not allow politicians to dominate the debate.

We're back and hotter than ever!

2007-02-01T22:40:00.000Z

We're hotter than ever about what has been going on, despite the progress made in education of the "general public" about climate change.

So, back comes "Global Warming is Good" after an short absence. The number of respondents complaining at the cessation of this blog surprised me but I felt that their level of understanding was so refreshingly questioning of the powers that be that I still considered the job was done. But, a look at the media today tells a different story.

It was this story that got me hotter than a globally warmed (sunny side up) egg on a rock in the Sahara desert! The IPCC has come out with its "definitive" report that states that present day global warming is "most likely" to be the response to human activity. This translates into a guesswork statistic - "most likely" apparently means a "90% probability".

Now, two things immediately come to my mind. The first is the source of this report. The IPCC consists of a huge group of people who have a strong vested interest in the entire concept of man-made global warming. Heretics to their way of thinking are discredited and sent to scientific oblivion. Don't expect to be invited to speak at a climate change debate if you disagree with the IPCC's findings!

The second is the airy fairy way that the media reports the "official" findings. "Most likely" is an opinion, not a factual statement. Then, to say this means 90% probability, does little to confirm anything of their rationale for using anything else than "I don't really know".

OK, there's more. IPCC studied data all the way back to 1990. In geological time scale terms that is nothing, nada, zip. We are emerging from an Ice Age! We also know that sunspot activity has a strong control on climate and that nearly all the greenhouse gases are of natural origin.

And finally, one expert is quoted as saying "there is no doubt that for this period, the climate has been changing faster than the IPCC predicted." Think about that one!

Global Warming is Goodbye!

2006-10-23T19:16:00.000+01:00

This blog is about to become history. It was initiated to combat an increasing flow of poor scientific writing about climate change. There is still a lot of poor journalism out there but I do believe the tide is changing. The lay public seems to have become a lot more discerning about the fears being raised by eco-warriors, politicians and the like. Most journalists now prefer to use "Climate Change" instead of "Global Warming" and this is a major breakthrough.

Just remember that this planet continues to emerge from a major Ice Age. Climate changes all the time. Climates change all the time. Not all climate change has a negative impact whether the temperature is rising or falling; adaptation is the key. Carbon dioxide may not be an important driver in the climate change debate, water vapor may be far more important.

So, although these posts will remain up on the internet and the RSS feed will still be available, I will be removing the link from the focalplane hub. Soon.

Hottest in 12,000 years! But wait. . . .

2006-09-26T19:07:00.000+01:00

As is not unusual, the BBC website loves to stress what serves its politics and enjoys ignoring, or embedding, the details that muddy the water of its pure train of thought. Here is a good example. First of all, geological time is not on their side - the past 12,000 years have indeed been a warming period. But scroll down and you will see that the BBC mentions but does not stress the fact that proxy data present significant problems in calibration. But this important qualification never gets stressed, and never gets into the mainstream of lay thought on the subject. Simply put, sets of data should not be mixed in scientific analysis without this being fully explained and the limitations recognized.

Virgin Green

2006-09-25T09:21:00.000+01:00

So, Sir Richard Branson is to pledge $3 billion (i.e. all) profits from his travel firms to "fight global warming". What might this headline really mean? A clue can be found in the photo of Branson with Bill Clinton - Ol' Bill seems to be doubting the sincerity of the pledge even as it is made!

This type of PR media stunt goes on all the time. BP (that's British Petroleum) frequently touts it's massive investment into alternative energy, yet, as Lord Brown admitted to Sue Lawley on a recent Desert Island Discs, the company is actually moving very carefully into the unknown arena called Beyond Petroleum with only a very small percentage of total company investment. Not that this statement is included in the summary of the program!

In many ways, this type of thing is designed to fend off criticism, preferably on to someone else (in Virgin's case it will almost certainly be British Airways and the competitors for Virgin Train's franchises). Why else do it? But then again, why do it at all? Think how else that $3 billion could be re-invested in better train services (more space between the seats, please!) that can have a finite influence on every day lives.

Perhaps Virgin's cheap flights need to be curtailed?

Green taxes are in - at what cost?

2006-09-17T20:26:00.000+01:00

All the UK political parties are scrambling to garner the green vote. The Tories (Conservatives) have changed their logo to a green tree scribble while the Lib Dems are touting yet more green taxes. You might be right in thinking that eco-friendly voters may be up for grabs!

But what do green taxes really mean. Does this policy actually make sense? That's a difficult question but it is not necessarily difficult if you simply state that less taxation is better than more taxation! As several nations are proving these days (from the US to Australia to some Eastern European countries) a policy of reducing taxation actually generates more tax revenue through stimulation of the economy.

In Europe, ever higher gasoline taxes are designed to kerb drivers' appetites for using their vehicles. Does it work? No! Simply more of the personal budget goes toward the idea of personal mobility. And now the Government sees higher gasline taxes as a necessary fund raiser for almost anything other than providing a better road system!

Does the Government own tax revenue? Most people think so. But in reality, tax payers should think of their taxes being invested in the government for the government to provide those services the tax payer cannot provide as an individual. Basically, we should be able to trust our governments with our taxes and this does not necessarily mean that those taxes are given to the government to spend for its own self-aggrandisement. This concept is better understood in America than in Europe. But the understanding is far from perfect!

Yesterday's Weather was. . . . .......

2006-09-15T17:45:00.000+01:00

The Daily Telegraph prints out a list of yesterday's temperatures and hours of sun for a range of locations in Britain. Today (Sept. 15) the list was prefaced by the fact that the readings from the day before were not available so the readings from September 13 were shown instead. So, for whatever reason, we can't even accurately report on yesterday's weather, never mind run computer models to accurately predict what tomorrow's weather will be. Never mind about the climate change we can expect in 30 years time!

Why are there so many doomsayers?

2006-09-15T17:42:00.000+01:00

The BBC web pages carry nothing but bad news about climate change. Al Gore's movie is making the rounds and being highly rated by environmentalists and policy wonks. Is there really no good news about climate change? Of course there is, but it simply isn't going to have us quaking in our boots like all the doomsday scenarios that make the headlines.

Rich vs Poor and Global Warming

2006-09-13T20:35:00.000+01:00

There has been a flurry of activity recently from those who want us to "feel our pain" when it comes to the impact the rich nations are making on the Third World. Here is a good example.

Note that European governments love to spend "their" money on studies to make the people who pay them their funds (a.k.a. the taxpayer) tow an imaginary line. The logic behind much of what is said is bogus at least, tenuous at most. Why? Simply to make us (taxpayers) guilty and therefore more inclined to sign off on our taxes.

The vested interests at play here are rarely mentioned. Not surprising really, given the stakes. Developing countries want funding to assist them in survival, socialist countries need to exert the control they have to have to survive, scientists need funding for white elephant projects, etc. etc.

More on the Sea Change

2006-09-04T12:22:00.000+01:00

Even the BBC is getting in on the act. But you cannot expect the Beeb to take it all lying down without some doomsaying!

The concept of scientific numeracy is good, of course, but rather than focus just on education of the next generation in school, perhaps we should start with the politicians?

The Sea Change?

2006-09-04T07:48:00.000+01:00

Once in a while something is written or said that, usually in hindsight, is seen to have been a pivotal point in a society's thinking. This may be one such moment in the history of the "science" of global warming.

I don't think the topic goes far enough, mind you, but with any luck others will take up the baton and run with it. As an example, the author is concerned that species migration should be helped along with the inevitable climate change. What Homo sapiens needs to understand is that as a species it will have its own migration needs which must also be addressed. Far easier to allow butterflies to migrate than people from the Third World to the First World.

It important for lay people to understand that the politicians can do precious little (if anything) to stop climate change. Once we all begin to understand this, reasonable science will have achieved a major success and we can then get on with coping with climate change (and my suspicion is that there will be many more positive aspects than negative).

AAPG Position on Global Warming

2006-08-31T12:06:00.000+01:00

A few caveats to begin with:

First of all, I am not a member of the AAPG (American Association of Petroleum Geologists). I used to be, from around 1980 to 1996. One of the reasons I discontinued membership was that the association did not desire to be seen to be political and I felt this was detrimental to the profession. As it turns out, I think I was right, in that, by ignoring the politics of science the AAPG gave the upper hand to others who now basically control the media. Coming into the fray at this late stage is definitely going to be an uphill struggle.

Because I am not a member, I should not have access to some of the information that I am using in this entry. However, the members' only data is already freely circulating on the internet and it contains some fine material in graphic form that really demonstrates the problems we are facing in getting the true message across about global warming. As many of the graphics are drawn from the public domain, I feel it is OK to reproduce those graphics here.

The actual document the AAPG has published on the internet for all to see is dry, factual and not something that will ever impress the media. So bear with me on this, when I give you the link. By the way, do consider downloading the Word document, it reads well and can easily be attached to an e-mail!

So. To begin.

This graph is based on data gathered from atmosphere trapped in Antarctic ice and sampled from core. Note the span of human civilization is very small compared with 400,000 years of data. Note also the very large CO2 and temperature swings during the four Ice Ages. Basically, we can easily infer from this that the "massive increases in CO2 and rising temperature" that drives the modern climate change debate are nothing by comparison with natural history.

These graphs and the selected straight line trends derived from them show that scientists and politicians can very easily use fundamental data to whatever advantage they feel necessary. The data reflect carbon 18 isotope measurements from Greenland and Antarctic ice cores and these directly relate to temperatures at the time the carbon was trapped in the ice. Five trends have been drawn using various segments of the data.
Trend 1 uses the entire 16,000 years of data gathering and shows a general upward increase in temperature, as should be expected as we in an inter-glacial period, emerging from the last great Ice Age.
Trend 2 uses the period from 10,000 before present (BP) to the present and shows a gradual decline in temperature.
Trend 3 focuses on the most recent 2,000 years and this confirms Trend 2. Both these lines could be interpreted (by comparison with the 400,000 year chart above) that we entered a cooling trend about 10,000 years ago and that we may already be heading toward a fifth great Ice Age!
Trend 4 now looks only at the past 700 years and here the data is inconclusive, temperature appears to be quite stable within a relative narrow range of up and down spikes.
Trend 5 mirrors what we like to perceive as the era of rapidly changing human civilization - the past 50 years. The slight upward rise in temperature could be significant if taken without context to what has happened before but in fact there are been far greater swings in temperature that could only have resulted from purely natural events.

The big scary "fact" we are bombarded with is that increasing CO2 in the atmosphere is directly related to climate change. Yet this graph suggests that there is no real correlation between temperature changes observed in recent history and the increasing amount of CO2 in the atmosphere. If anything, temperature changes take on a distinct cyclical appearance through time in contrast with the rising levels of CO2.

So what does cause the temperature changes? Look no further than the sun, our neighborhood star. When more heat arrives on the surface of the planet, the temperature rises! Heat variations from the sun may be due to a number of causes, including sunspot activity, changes in the axis of rotation of the Earth and variations in the elliptical axis of the Earth's orbit.

With all this emphasis on increasing CO2 and the greenhouse gas effect, it is interesting to note just how important CO2 really is and, when the human element is separated from natural CO2 causes, just how insignificant the entire anthropogenic global warming debate is.

Finally, the AAPG document notes that, without the greenhouse effect we basically couldn't exist and that any small changes we are now experiencing are likely to have a positive effect (side note: totally validating the title of this blog!) in that in most parts of the globe rising temperatures and increasing CO2 concentrations would have a tremendous positive effect on plant and crop growth.

Global Warming - the Evidence

2006-08-31T10:22:00.000+01:00

The exact origin of this spoof is unknown but I hope to reveal even more on the subject very soon!

A "Damp Squib"

2006-08-30T08:25:00.000+01:00

So say the media about Hurricane Ernesto. After all their hype on the anniversary of Katrina I guess they were sorely disappointed that Ernesto faded fast in the Gulf of Mexico. But no news is good news for residents.

Katrina + 1 year

2006-08-30T06:52:00.000+01:00

As might be expected, the environment police were on the war path on the first anniversary of Hurricane Katrina. This article on the BBC website is a companion to a feature on the "Today" program yesterday morning.

What bothers me most about this automatic coupling of "man-made global warming" to bad hurricane seasons is that there is little evidence for the connection. Severe hurricane seasons randomly come and go (Galveston in 1900 had a far greater loss of life than New Orleans in 2005). Too bad that no-one was allowed into the BBC's studios to point this out during the very "earnest" plug by Mr. Simms for his political views.

Thirty Year Studies

2006-08-28T06:45:00.000+01:00

This article is one of many that recently reported the findings of a group of scientists who claim that, by studying data starting in 1971, it can be proved that spring is arriving earlier and autumn is lasting longer.

Also in the Daily Telegraph, weather expert Philip Eden noted on Saturday that this study might have used 1971 as a start date because this and the following years were unusually cool. He doesn't accuse the scientists of anything but points out the dangerous precedent they may have unknowingly introduced.

The problem is that few will consider this normal and uncynical observation and the majority will jump on the bandwagon, claiming yet more short term evidence to prove long term hypothesis.

Well, of course, we can expect our springs to start earlier as we are still emerging from an Ice Age. But to measure this over a period of only 30 years is rather pointless. The fact that this study caused headline news is very disappointing.

56% of students believe in Darwinism

2006-08-16T20:35:00.000+01:00

But that's not how the report is presented here.

August = Global Cooling?

2006-08-13T20:49:00.000+01:00

You, know, just when the media and the politicians were ready to cash in on a really hot follow on to July, Nature fools the lot of them with a cool spell! Wake up, people, and understand that short term observations mean precious little.

Tax tax and tax - it's the only way to sustain the government

2006-08-07T08:05:00.000+01:00

This report sums up most poloticians' attitudes to solving a "problem".

We have seen the water companies fined hundreds of million of pounds for failing the public. This is a tax, not a fine. The money goes to the Treasury instead of toward relieving the very problems the fine is aimed at.

Now the move is on to raise taxes to cut carbon emssions in air travel and large vehicles. You know, we are soon going to come to a time when we will be paying out more in tax than we bring in in earnings. This possibility is a lot more certain than the conundrum of global warming. So we'll all work as bureaucrats for the government. Just how long that scenario could be "sustained" I leave to your imagination.

Enjoying "Global Warming"

2006-08-07T08:02:00.000+01:00

Every summer in the northern hemisphere the globe we call Earth warms up. Without fail. This is such a constant, amazing phenomenon that scientists have stopped requesting funds to study it.

Like most other sane people, we have been enjoying an unusually pleasant early summer. Long may it continue, not only this year but the next!

2,000 years is a long time in politics!

2006-06-23T10:03:00.000+01:00

This report typifies the problem that politicians have when it comes to grappling with global warming issues. And because, unfortunately, most politicians are lawyers, they deal with anything but reality.

The bottom line with this report, however, still remains clouded in uncertainty and, as all geologists know, the evidence is far from conclusive when taken over such a small time scale.

If there's no water in the Southeast of England....

2006-06-01T15:50:00.000+01:00

....then why would I see a full-to-the-brim reservoir while flying from London Heathrow to Paris Charles de Gaulle on Tuesday afternoon? As best I can tell, the reservoir in question is Bewl Bridge Reservoir, southeast of Tunbridge Wells.

Of course, there may be a good reason why this reservoir remains full - the water company may be saving it for last while using up underground supplies from deep wells. As a possibly hot, dry summer approaches this may not make a lot of sense as it is during the warm season (even in England) when the most evaporation will take place. Did I say a good reason?

Photo Explained

2006-06-01T11:00:00.000+01:00

The picture of your host on this site needs an explanation:

I am standing by an abandoned well head in the El Santo Field, Eastern Venezuela, taking a GPS reading of its location. This well flowed uncommercial heavy oil and the field remains undeveloped at the present time. It represents the vast remaining resources available to us (long after the doomsayers will tell us we will have run out of oil).

In the background the plantation of California Pines has burned. Although by association with the oil well it would be easy to conclude that the two are related, in fact the fire was started by a lightning strike during the dry season when fires are extremely common.

Control Global Warming - that's a (tall) order

2006-05-30T12:10:00.000+01:00

The good Professor hits the nail on the head by invoking history in the form of King Canute (he who knew he could not control the tides despite the advice of his courtiers). A wonderful analog.

"We must all do our bit" - But why?

2006-05-29T04:59:00.000+01:00

The largest, most wasteful bureaucracy on the planet has once again come up with a nonsensical policy, as reported here by the BBC.

We can all do our bit to fight climate change, the EU will say at a new policy lauch by the Manneken Pis statue in Brussels. Stop a leaking tap, turn off unnecessary lights. But not because we might save money, but so we can save the planet.

Not really. The truth behind this new policy is reflected in the woeful and wasteful policies the EU has foisted on its member countries as well as the many thoughtless policies that individual countries have introduced. The water shortage in the the southeast of England is a typical example. Poor planning, privatization of a key utility and bad management have conspired to make water resources scarce in a country blessed with abundant rainfall. This directive from Brussels is simply too little too late. The bureaucrats are shifting the blame from their incompetent shoulders onto the public's. Don't be taken in by it.

A musical aside

2006-05-28T10:14:00.000+01:00

This post has little to do with the politics of global warming but everything to do with Professor Emeritis Philip Stott, a.k.a. Envirospin. Not only is he on the right side of the climate change debate (and a very important component in the battle formation, both worldwide and in the UK) but he is also an avid Mac user. This came out in a discussion on his new web site devoted to his love for music. Now be warned, when you click on Philip Stott's Music Box several large files begin to download. But it will only take a minute or so on broadband, so go ahead, try out the music box!

Other Mac enterprises the good professor has worked with recently include using the app Comic Life to drive home some inane work being done by our good "friends-of-the-earth" BBC. The results are on Envirospin.

So it's the sun that causes global warming!

2006-05-26T13:27:00.000+01:00

This article pitches a new twist into the global warming debate. Researchers have found a correlation between the energy the sun puts out (measured by sunspot activity) and the temperature on Earth. Another Homer Simpson "Doh!" is justified.

But the highlight of the article comes at the end when David Bellamy is quoted (and I quote):

"Global warming - at least the modern nightmare version - is a myth," he said. "I am sure of it and so are a growing number of scientists. But what is really worrying is that the world's politicians and policy-makers are not.

"Instead, they have an unshakeable faith in what has, unfortunately, become one of the central credos of the environmental movement: humans burn fossil fuels, which release increased levels of carbon dioxide - the principal so-called greenhouse gas - into the atmosphere, causing the atmosphere to heat up. They say this is global warming: I say this is poppycock."

By the way, David Bellamy is introduced as "the conservationist". How interesting, because you can be sure he got that moniker way before he spoke out against the religion of global warming!

Canada and Kyoto

2006-05-20T16:00:00.000+01:00

Today's Calgary Globe and Mail carries a front page piece that suggests the Conservative government of Canada is going to pull the plug on Kyoto. "Concerned activists" (see previous post) see this as the beginning of the end of Kyoto, for if Canada were to join the dark side then Kyoto is indeed on its deathbed. Long live Canada!

Please may I be an activist?

2006-05-20T15:57:00.000+01:00

Why is it that only the bleeding heart liberals can be called "activists"? I think you might agree that this blog is "active" (it certainly isn't passive) so does that make me an activist? Probably not. It's not important anyway but I do find it interesting that the media always preface a Greenpeace or Friends of the Earth spokesperson as a "concerned acrtivist" or some similar gratuitous moniker.

Vote Blue, Go Green, See Red!

2006-04-28T15:24:00.000+01:00

David Cameron's greenery is sprouting up all around us like faux Xmas trees. It's all about photo ops, folks! So, get on yer bike and have the official car carry your books and papers a few yards behind. Read all about it here.

Mark Steyn on Global Warming

2006-04-25T12:07:00.000+01:00

The Daily Telegraph appears to have cut Mark Steyn adrift but I am pleased to note that he has landed on the shore of Lake Michigan and writing as pithily and wittily as ever for the Chicago Sun Times. Here is his take on the politics of global warming. The entire piece is very heart warming and yet does not melt the ice of a single glacier. Encore, Mr. Steyn!

The Green Chameleon

2006-04-24T09:57:00.003+01:00

British politicians are attempting to cool the planet! The "coolest" of all must be the new Tory leader, David Cameron, he who doesn't wear a tie and has plans for an energy saving windmill on his London residence. A major plank of his new policies to make him look more like Tony Blair (and therefore perhaps a lot less appealing to the voter) is the environment. Which might be good if I could believe that he really means all he says.

The Conservative Party wants to win the next general election but apparently doesn't know how to achieve this relatively simple task. Instead of focusing on the present Government's track record and being a vocal opposition, they are bombarding us with a load of new policies that don't add up. First, many of the policies seem to be very close to what the present Government has in its manifesto, and second the main elements of the new policy seems to be based on spin, photo opportunities and poor advice.

The recent tour of a Norwegian glacier that is shrinking fast has all the mockery of a political joke. Instead of campaigning for the current local elections, Cameron took off for Norway where the press dutifully photographed him tie-less on a plane (creating all those carbon emissions), in a parka with a dog team (no sno-mobiles for the pictures!) and generally making noises about sustainability while walking about on his selected glacier (he could have walked on a glacier that is increasing in size).

Sustainability? A six syllable word that sounds wonderful in a political speech but does little for anyone with common sense at their side. People with "good intentions" and a "holier than thou" attitude always seem to be trying to make the rest of us feel uncomfortable. Strangely, such people are generally a lot better off than the rest of us (HRH Charles Windsor being a classic example) but they always try to come across as though they are suffering more than we are! Hence the use of the word sustainability.

It all comes down to elitism. David Cameron is just as elitist as Tony Blair only he has yet to do anything with his life other than become leader of the opposition party. Imagine what he could be like if elected Prime Minister!

Personally, looking at the British Political spectrum I have a hard time seeing anyone who is fit to lead the country. The Labour Party seems to have annointed Gordon Brown as successor to Tony Blair (whenever. . . .) when in my opinion the better qualified man for PM would be Foreign Secretary Jack Straw. Cameron is fast proving himslef to be unfit. And the guy who was recently elected leader of the Lib-Dems, who is he, exactly? That leaves the fringe parties like UKIP (an interesting bunch of xenophobes who could capitalize on the failure of the main parties to get a message across), the Green Party (not a real contender in the UK) and, heaven forbid, the BNP.

Look for a lot of election day abstentions and, worse still, disinterest. The politicians have much to answer for.

April 23 Sunday Telegraph

2006-04-23T05:38:00.000+01:00

Good morning! An interesting contrast in content. First we have an op ed piece by the green chamelion, David Cameron. This man's sustainability index will be interesting to follow as he attempts to plough up the stable fields of Tory policy. Very touchy feely but not much else that bears detailed examination (particularly the Norwegian glacier photo op trip!)

Elsewehere a slew of letters on the previous week's article on global warming. Including one from the Canadian scientists advising PM Harper that "global climate changes all the time due to natural causes and the human impact still remains impossible to distinguish from this natural 'noise'". Another letter suggests that we should leave the problem to god (which is a helluva better idea than handing it over to politicians!).

Happy breakfast reading!

Canada Leading the Way - Again

2006-04-11T12:12:00.000+01:00

The Daily Telegraph reported this on Sunday - perhaps the only main line media outlet in the UK to do so - while our new would-be Tory leader David Cameron spouts the following soundbite rhetoric (lifted directly from the Tory Party Website):

Climate change is a huge and growing problem.

In Britain the three hottest years since records began centuries ago all occurred in the last decade.

Our planet is rapidly getting warmer.

The polar ice caps are melting.

Sea levels are rising.

Hosepipe bans in April.

What more evidence do we need?

We simply cannot afford to ignore it.

This Government hasn't taken the environment nearly seriously enough.

We need to be the party that doesn't tiptoe around the issue.

Instead of just far-off targets that we will never meet, we need binding targets for carbon emissions every year.

We can take a lead.

We can make a difference.

There are some obvious problems with what Mr. Cameron says he believes. Fancy using the "statistics" of three recent summers to base your scientific case! Ice caps are indeed getting smaller and glaciers should be retreating as we are, after all, still emerging from a significant Ice Age. (Doh!) What those hose pipe bans have to do with it all I fail to see - this is a function of poor planning and a lack of provision of supplies, not a reflection of the climate we live in! Dear Mr. Cameron, perhaps you should listen to the experts who disagree with you (like those 60 Canadian scientists) for a change. Then you might just get my support. Not until then.

Unexpected warming in Antarctica - "Predicting the Past"

2006-03-30T22:13:00.000+01:00

It's frustrating for the media when scientists provide evidence of warming but cannot explain why. In fact, the models used had not predicted the warming, so now the scientists are not sure whether this particular experiment proves natural or human modified climate change.

Ha!

I suppose the problem here is twofold. First we know we are in a warming trend regardless of man's emergence as a major species on the planet (we're coming out of an ice age). Second, we really have no yardsticks to compare against. I mean, where is the temperature data from the Antarctic middle troposphere taken, say 100 years ago or 1,000 years ago?

Non-existent.

So comparisons are made using models that are simplistic in design and subject to gross miscalculations in practice. And now, after all the funding, all the time and all the posturing by those who wish for certain answers, we are back to square one.

But finally, one of the scientists said "We are confident we are able to predict the past, and globally we can predict climate change". Predicting the past! Now that deserves major funding, does it not?

Radiohead - Climatic Experts?

2006-03-22T11:39:00.000Z

This just in from the BBC. Friends of the Earth "ambassador" Thom Yorke of Radiohead spurns a meeting with Tony Blair because Blair "has no environmental credentials".

Scary stuff, hard to make reasoned comment on, so I'll just leave it at that.

WWJD? How about WWDS?

2006-03-15T14:14:00.000Z

Switching to the Evolution/ID discussion, I just had a thought. The WWJD movement seems to have taken off in a big way. I wonder exactly What Would Jesus Do with this website!

But that aside, let's start a new slogan-driven belief system - What Would Darwin Say?

It is not the first of its kind, though. The Darwin fish with feet symbol has been around for quite some time. Here is a rather garish and irreligious secular website that seems to have spawned a bunch of them!