"Carbon (Dioxide) trading is now the fastest growing commodities market on earth.....And here’s the great thing about it. Unlike traditional commodities markets, which will eventually involve delivery to someone in physical form, the carbon (dioxide) market is based on lack of delivery of an invisible substance to no-one. Since the market revolves around creating carbon (dioxide) credits, or finding carbon (dioxide) reduction projects whose benefits can then be sold to those with a surplus of emissions, it is entirely intangible." (Telegraph)
This blog has been tracking the 'Global Warming Scam' for over three years now, four when we get to the end of November this year. There are a very large number of articles being published in blogs and more in the MSM who are waking up to the fact the public refuse to be conned any more and are objecting to the 'green madness' of governments and the artificially high price of energy. This blog will now be concentrating on the major stories as we move to the pragmatic view of 'not if, but when' and how the situation is managed back to reality. To quote Professor Lindzen, "a lot of people are going to look pretty silly"
PS: If you have arrived here on a page link, then click on the HOME link...
Tuesday, 18 June 2013
Monday, 17 June 2013
"These facts speak for themselves and should be front page news. They are not. That fact should also be front page news."
Sunday, 16 June 2013
"British households forked out a massive £1.2billion in subsidies to wind farm operators last year - a sector that creates 12,000 jobs for the economy. That means every job in the industry is effectively costing £100,000 a year in handouts from inflated domestic energy bills, according to a report today."
Saturday, 15 June 2013
Friday, 14 June 2013
Thursday, 13 June 2013
Okla. congressman wants Obama apology for spending 30x more on global warming than weather forecasting and warning
"Even climate change alarmists admit the number of hurricanes hitting the U.S. and the number of tornado touchdowns have been on a slow decline for over 100 years. “But here is what we absolutely know. We know that Oklahoma will have tornadoes when the cold jet stream meets the warm Gulf air, and we also know that this president spends 30 times as much money on global warming research as he does on weather forecasting and warning. For this gross misallocation, the people of Oklahoma are ready to accept the president’s apology and I intend to submit legislation to fix this.”
"As Anthony and others have pointed out, even the Washington Post has at last been constrained to admit what Dr. Pachauri of the IPCC was constrained to admit some months ago. There has been no global warming statistically distinguishable from zero for getting on for two decades."
Wednesday, 12 June 2013
"The absence of any significant change in the global annual average temperature over the past 16 years has become one of the most discussed topics in climate science. It has certainly focused the debate about the relative importance of greenhouse gas forcing of the climate versus natural variability. In all this discussion what happened to global temperature immediately before the standstill is often neglected. Many assume that since the recent warming period commenced – about 1980 – global temperature rose until 1998 and then the surface temperature at least got stuck. Things are however not that simple, and far more interesting."
Monday, 10 June 2013
"The secret email accounts the EPA used to eschew transparency are only the tip of the iceberg compared to the 'Sue and Settle' tactic, whereby environmental groups sue a sympathetic administration with the hopes of settling the lawsuit without the need for the administration to go through the regular regulatory process. A settlement that allows the EPA to quickly enact new regulations while claiming that it was forced to do so by the terms of the lawsuit. In nearly 60 of these lawsuits, EPA chose not to defend itself. EPA simply agreed with the terms set forth by the environmentalist groups. In nearly all of these proceedings, EPA also did not disclose to Congress, stakeholders or the Office of Management and Budget that it was even being sued until the consent decree had already been agreed to."
"Climate scientist Dr. Murry Salby, Professor and Climate Chair at Macquarie University, Australia explains in a recent, highly-recommended lecture presented at Helmut Schmidt University, Hamburg, Germany, why man-made CO2 is not the driver of atmospheric CO2 or climate change. Dr. Salby demonstrates: ..."
Sunday, 9 June 2013
"The great Climate Change hoax has cost the UK not just the odd thousand here and there. It has cost it billions. Thousands of old people have been condemned to miserable deaths in fuel poverty; good businesses have been crippled by layers of environmental regulation; bad businesses have gorged themselves on free money they simply don't deserve by sucking on the teat of the subsidised renewables sector; property rights have been confiscated, views ruined, sleep disturbed, people's health damage, birds and bats chopped to pieces by wind turbines; our economic recovery has been held back by idiot green taxes and the idiot ongoing attempt by DECC and its allies to stop us exploiting our abundant shale gas reserves.
And where has alleged Tory MP Tim Yeo MP been in all this? Has been carefully scrutinising the scientific evidence for this alleged climate change threat? Has been overseeing DECC's policies to be absolutely damn sure they're not doing more harm than good?
Er, not exactly, no. Instead, he's been doing everything in his power to keep the green gravy train going – long after the evidence to justify its existence has lost all credibility – in order, it would seem on the first casual glance, to benefit from it financially."
Saturday, 8 June 2013
" Last Tuesday something happened in the House of Commons so weird that it must be counted as one of the more terrifying episodes in the entire history of our Parliament. Towards the end of a seven-hour debate on its virtually incomprehensible, 200-page Energy Bill, the Government slipped in a new amendment proposing something so utterly mad that, if anyone present had understood its implications, it might have made front-page news. What MPs were being asked to endorse was that, within just six years, we should all be forced by law to make a mind-boggling cut in how much electricity we are allowed to use. The reason why no one seemed to grasp this was that the amendment was so opaquely dressed up that only an MP with some knowledge of the basics of electricity might have twigged the enormity of what was being proposed. By 2020, it said, Britain must reduce its electricity use by “103 terawatt hours”, rising by 2030 to “154 terawatt hours”. This could have been understood only by someone aware that we currently use each year some 378 “terawatt hours”. So what was being proposed was that this must be cut down in six years by 27 per cent – more than a quarter – rising 10 years later to a cut of more than 40 per cent, or two fifths. In the course of his mind-numbing speech, Greg Barker, the minister proposing this, carefully avoided any explanation of what it was all about. Not one MP picked him up on it. At the end of a vacuous debate, during much of which the House was virtually empty, MPs dutifully poured in from all over Westminster to nod the Bill through by 396 votes to eight."
Friday, 7 June 2013
"On one side you had the alarmists, who had all the politicians in their pocket, a massive PR budget which was usually and still is replenished by governments grants, all the mainstream media including the crypto-state television channels like ABC, CBC, PBS and BBC, pretty much the whole of the journalistic establishment, all the activist prominenti of climate science, the EU, NASA, NOAA, BOM, EPA, IPCC, pretty much anything you can think of which has an acronym, the seamier side of the investment industry, every environmental organisation right down to the smallest fruit loop loony tune outfit, all the major science journals, presidents, prime ministers, the world, his brother, his sister, their dawg and even the frigging cat, never mind their bloody hamster.
On the other side you had us and we had, umm, well, as a matter of fact we’d bugger all beyond the wit to point out the teensy-weensy cracks, nay yawning crevasses, in the science, and in a political sense, sound the alarm bell about the sort of Armageddon the hysterical bandwagon was slouching towards. Given that match up, the obvious question has to be – how the hell did they ever manage to lose and why are we doing so well, while their once soaring ambitions now lay in smoking ruins?" (h/t Bishop Hill)
Wednesday, 5 June 2013
A dangerously deluded energy policy and why the greens want to hide the truth about your soaring bills
"Mr Davey suggested that journalists who doubt the wisdom of his policy only do so through ‘sheer blinkered, dogmatic, political bloody-mindedness’ — probably because they are being paid to do so by nameless ‘vested interests’. So angry does this make him that he seemed to suggest that any questioning of his policy cannot be tolerated. In other words, he will brook no opposition — at a time, we should remind ourselves, when free speech in Britain seems under threat as never before. I should say at this point that if this remarkable attack was simply a detached assault on writers like me who are critical of the Government’s green policies, then I might let it pass. But there are bigger issues in play here, for the decisions the Energy Secretary makes are having a direct and damaging effect on the finances of millions of households across the country, who find themselves paying ever-higher bills as a result of green subsidies. .......But the most disturbing part of Mr Davey’s speech came towards the end, where he came up with that only too familiar boast that the European Union is leading the world in the fight against the carbon dioxide that is causing all this global warming, and that Britain is leading the EU with its Climate Change Act, committing us — uniquely in the world — to reducing our ‘carbon emissions’ by 80 per cent in fewer than 40 years.
Mr Davey seems quite oblivious to the fact that the rest of the world is no longer taking any notice of what we are up to, and that China and India between them are now building more than 800 new coal-fired power stations, so that China alone is now generating more carbon dioxide every year via its new power stations than the total emitted by Britain. Even the EU is at last waking up to the fact that ‘decarbonising’ its economy is making electricity so expensive that ever more firms are moving their operations overseas — not least to America, where the shale gas revolution has more than halved the price of gas and electricity in just five years. So poor little Britain is left increasingly alone, with an energy policy deliberately designed to price out of the market those very much cheaper fuels which still provide most of the electricity we need to keep our homes lit and warm, and our economy running."
Monday, 3 June 2013
"What's unusual about the Energy Secretary's latest attack is that he's saying that sceptics shouldn't be given the same opportunities as warmists to make their case. "Of course there will always be uncertainties within climate science and the need for research to continue," he says. "But some sections of the press are giving an uncritical campaigning platform to individuals and lobby groups."
That's an odd thing for Davey to say on several levels. To begin with, it's a charge that could be made equally well by climate change sceptics about the Guardian and the Independent. Indeed, if you substitute the word "media" for "press", it could also be made about the BBC. As every sceptic knows, the BBC held a famous meeting in 2006 in which the corporation assembled 28 of "the best scientific experts" to discuss global warming and concluded that "the weight of evidence no longer justifies equal space being given to the opponents of the consensus on anthropogenic climate change". What Ed Davey appears to be saying is that it's perfectly acceptable for some sections of the media to endorse one side in this debate, but not for other sections to endorse the other.
More importantly, it's completely inappropriate for a senior politician to criticise the editorial policy of any newspaper, however much he or she disagrees with it."