For years grubby politicians in the UK parliament have felt free to lie and lie and lie about global warming knowing that no would would dare stand up and tell the truth.

Well … that seems to have ended!

(Thanks Mr. Arthur Ainslie for highlighting this video)

On the 10th of June 2015, UK Member of Parliament, David TC Davies MP rose to tell the Government The Truth about Climate Change, during the debate. The Government refused to deny his well founded assertions, even though he asked the Climate Minister to correct him if he was mistaken, and if she knew any different.
A red faced Labour Party MP was embarrassed to hear that his own fatuous assertions were actually contradicted by the UNIPCC itself, in documents read out by Mr. Davies.
For more information on David Davies see his website:

http://www.david-davies.org.uk/

Most of these public scams such as bird flu (= sales of anti viral drugs), the Millennium bug, Ozone hole (=sales of new refrigerant), etc. start with a mass of publicity as those making money from the scam try to create the scare, and then as reality overtakes, they die by fading into obscurity.
However, I’ve long known the end of this scam might be very different. The problem is that the government passed legislation to force it to act. So, the usual government tactic of ignoring its own (or more accurately civil service) stupidity & saving itself embarrassment was difficult this time.
… although after perhaps as much as 5 years saying it would all come to a sticky end – and nothing happening, I was doubting my own analysis. I had resigned myself to the proverbial “watching paint dry” as we waited for the scam to slowly fade away.
But the fact is that the government are caught between a rock and a hardplace. They know the electorate do not, will not & in many cases cannot stomach the massive rises in fuel bills necessitated by these idiotic climate targets. They know that if they do not act against unreliables particularly onshore bird-mincers, the electorate in the countryside will turn against them more. But they are also compelled by their own legislation to raise those fuel bills and erect more bird-mincers.
The problem for the politicians is that global warming alarmism was always strongest amongst the left-of-centre public sector civil servants and academics and “climate” was a magnet subject for the extreme left, political active “eco-fascists” academics. There must be few more anti-tory subjects outside the overtly leftist political subjects like feminist studies.
Few academics will willingly support the government and amongst climate academics there will be a particular loathing for Tory politics. There is no way academics pushing this climate alarmism are going to stick their hands up to help the Tories out of this mess by saying “we’re to blame”.
After years of inaction, what I assumed was going to happen – is that the government were just going to ignore unreliables and slowly turn off the tap of funding – continually making statements about their “aspiration” to cut CO2 – but knowing few alarmists have any interest in actual figures – so knowing that the odd concession of a few £million to the Greens would offset cuts of £billions.
And that might still be the game plan – but perhaps not! Because soon after the election the Tories announced an end to onshore wind (clearly suggesting the Lib Dems were being blamed for stopping this move in the past).
When there was little or no outcry from the alarmists it seemed likely that unreliables would go the way of all the other scams and fade into obscurity.
But today I learn:

Stay of execution for onshore wind farms as subsidy axe delayed – Conservative proposals to axe onshore wind farm subsidies delayed amid fears of legal challenge and row with SNP

Continue reading →

In a previous article I said: “Global Warming – the debate is over – the sceptics won!” because either alarmists have shut down comments, or where they do the sceptics dominate. Searching this morning I finally found an article that might be worth commenting on in the Washington post:

Sorry, “skeptics”: Global warming may not be so great for plant life after all

But the comments amply demonstrate my point that sceptics have won. To put that “newspaper” in context for none US readers, the Washington post is a notorious alarmist paper and even a few years ago, the comments would have be filled to the brim with alarmists. Any sceptic daring to comment would be relentlessly & personally attacked. And if you dared to make similar comments about the alarmists, you would get banned as per the Guardian tactics on their comments.
But just look now … it’s a sea of sceptics and a few isolated alarmists … and I’m not sure what I personally can add.

Latest Comments

(note: I’ve bolded the alarmists comments so you can find them)

Hal Guernsey
7:08 AM GMT
The title of the article is wishful-thinking of “global-warming” activists who are desperate to prop up their failed movement. The article presents unproven claims based on seeming mischaracterized data, cherry-picked, to fit a political agenda; and erroneously presented as a solid position. The claims are without merit and nonsense.
Senior Memberdad
7:05 AM GMT
Duke University, some years ago set up CO2 generators in a large section of forest, and conducted a live actual cause and effect study of the impact of higher CO2 concentrations . . . their findings? . . . levels at 500 ppm greatly enhanced the tree growth, no adverse effects. In fact I can observe trees in my city appear to have accelerated growth compared to 20 years ago.
Allen Thomas
4:31 AM GMT
The plants will do fine. After all, they will enjoy the extra CO2 (plant food) and the daily effluence of bilge (fertilizer) from scaremonger AGW propagandists.
ConstanceUnderfoot
4:06 AM GMT
Did the author miss the class on the “Superflora Period?” CO2 was 900-3,300 ppm or so, little more than the elevated levels pumped into greenhouses to increase food output.
Maybe they could find some other talking head to predict that the increased temperate zone and elevated CO2 levels won’t increase food on Earth like its done every other time it has happend for the last 570 million years? I’m sure if they reach out to some other agendized fraud pushers, they can do it.
Frankok
3:32 AM GMT
Losing 200 growing days? This study is as bad as the one that predicted about eight years ago there would be no snow. Refs. below – We the USA taxpayers pay $22 billion/year for global warming. Why? NOAA data shows warming is slowing over last 18 years even with large rise in CO2. It is mainly methane and water vapor and wonderful MAMA Nature and her cycles with her honey Mr. Sun, and with water vapor, oceans and volcanoes when she blows her top, and either opens methane holes or blows wind causing a polar vortex or dust storms when she has gas, all as her home the Earth tilts on its axis.
See website for Lordmoncktonfoundation
Refs. Search:
“NOAA Scientists Can’t Find The Heat, So They Start A Fire”
Looks like a cooling trend – see plot in “antarctic-sea-ice-sets-new-high-in-may”
“Isn’t It About Time Climate Scientists Confessed?’
“Why I am a Climate Change Skeptic”
“Updated NASA Data: Global Warming Not Causing Any Polar Ice Retreat”
“study-climate-models-wrong-global-warming-slowed-natural-variability”
“Duke University study looked at 1,000 years of temperature records“
“A Reagan approach to climate change“
“U.N. Official Reveals Real Reason Behind Warming Scare”
“Was 2014 the Warmest Year on Record? No, It Wasn’t”
“Scientist Confesses: “Global Warming a $22 Billion Scam””
“Natural tilts in earth’s axis cause ice ages, says Harvard geophysicist”
“republicans-to-investigate-climate-data-tampering-by-nasa”
“Climate Alarmists Grasping at Icicles”
“bad_news_for_warmists_sun_has_entered_weakest_solar_cycle_in_a_century”
“scientists-balk-at-hottest-year-claims-we-are-arguing-over-the-significance-of-hundredths-of-a-degree-the-pause-continues”
3
catch2too
4:41 AM GMT
There was no study predicting ‘no snow in 8 years’. As usual you are just repeating false talking points from WUWT, like all the rest of your spiel.
‘Cooling trend’ LOL. On what planet do you make this also false claim for?
[Truth: the “no snow” meme was commonly quoted by alarmist academics such as the notorious University of East Anglia quotes that “children won’t know what snow is” in the Independent]
dalyplanet
3:08 AM GMT
If those neutrino scientists has “adjusted” the speed of light they would have found their faster than light particle.
1
John E. Harrington
2:54 AM GMT
Please don’t call them “skeptics”. They’re denialists. The distinction is crucial.
[Note the failure to make an argument but instead an ad hom attack]
1
eric654
3:01 AM GMT
Instead of researchers we can call them record-straighteners.
2
dalyplanet
5:37 AM GMT
They are the trend setters.
They may have gone too far…
Hal Guernsey
7:20 AM GMT
Ah, another thoughtless “global-warming” cultist who thinks that anyone cares about the term they use to try and stifle debate and demean those who disagree. There is nothing wrong with either term: skeptic or denier—a much better position that that of a mindless lemming so easily deceived by the “global-warming” exploiters.
kevin jorgensen
2:25 AM GMT
So a geography professor is now an esteemed botanist? Really? Why not just quote an artist? Or a musician? Pathetic, reckless and silly.
1
RMer
2:01 AM GMT
All climate change/global warming propaganda is based on models, flawed models, that are both inaccurate and manipulated. There is no story here. Move along. Enjoy the weather. Wear sunscreen.
3
dalyplanet
12:06 AM GMT
There are thousands of actual field studies on the effects of CO2 enrichment on plant growth but the Warmies cherry pick a study that does not even look at plants but rather modeled scenarios of impossible modeled scenarios. It is amazing how dangerous these scenarios find the building block of all life on the planet to be.
2
Tenmile1
2:01 AM GMT
Yeah, and there are thousands of studies that prove water is beneficial to plant life. I suppose that you think that means there cannot be too much water. Well all I can say is: don’t drown yourself.
[I think this one is drowning in a sea of sceptics]
eric654
3:00 AM GMT
Like water there can be too little CO2. The C4 plants evolved to fill flourish under those conditions. Hope you like sugar, corn, millet and sorghum because that’s what will grow the best in the CO2 starved world that you want to return to. I’ll keep my wheat, rye, oats and barley. OTOH the C4s do better in heat so I might be stuck eating that too.
1
Odin3
3:58 AM GMT
We are not even close to having too much CO2 at approximately 400 ppm.
During the last ice age CO2 levels fell to 180 ppm and plants started to shut down. If CO2 levels had reached 150 ppm or lower, plants would have died off and all animal life on the planet would have died too. Green houses regularly keep CO2 concentrations at 1000-1200 ppm because the plants grow better. In the past, CO2 levels have been at several thousand parts per million and plants and animals thrived. US submarines try to keep CO2 levels below 8,000 ppm. Federal OSHA standards set CO2 maximums at 5,000 ppm. When you exhale, your breath contains more than 40,000 ppm CO2. The most predominant greenhouse gas is water vapor and increased CO2 levels are greening the planet.
We are much closer to being CO2 deprived than we are being threatened by too much atmospheric CO2. Plants thrive on more CO2- that is a good thing. CO2 is not a pollutant. It is a weak greenhouse gas that is colorless and odorless which comprises only .04% of the atmosphere (naturally occurring CO2 + CO2 emissions). A 2007 IPCC report estimated that CO2 emissions were only .03% of the total CO2 in the atmosphere. So, CO2 emissions make up only .0012% of the atmosphere. That is why blaming global warming on CO2 emissions is like having “the flea wag the dog”.
eric654
6/10/2015 11:24 PM GMT
Like many biology and related science papers, this is silly. They run old climate models that are way too warm for the planet as a whole and have no accuracy for any local area.
Will tropics losing half their growing days? There’s a reason the all time high in Miami is from 1942 and all states except NY and New England and Hawaii and Alaska have all time highs that are higher than Florida’s. Florida will continue to be a fine place for growing plants for centuries. A lot of the rest of the tropics and subtropics will be fine for the same reason. The interior sections (Sahara, Sahel, Amazon) will vary. But nobody really knows what the patterns will do, some areas will get greener and some will get browner.
1
Mujokan
6/10/2015 11:51 PM GMT
CMIP5 was used for the IPCC AR5 report, it is fine. In 85 years’ time under the business as usual scenario, you can expect Florida will look different to today.
dalyplanet
6/10/2015 11:56 PM GMT
RCP 8.5 assumes CO2 levels above 1200 ppm. This will never happen.
So if you model the worst case based on another worst case scenario that can never happen you can imagine anything can happen. It’s climate fiction. Where is that scribbler guy by the way.
2
eric654
1:35 AM GMT
Scribbler is writing weather forecasts. I quote: “In the Northern Hemisphere, the North Atlantic sees the greatest counter-trend cooling influence in atmospheric regions due to glacial melt. Meanwhile, Arctic regions continue to see (somewhat slowed) warming conditions. The result is a shift of the center of cold air to an off-set zone more toward Greenland and a screaming storm track running oblong over the polar zone and centering over a trough in the North Atlantic. Amazing temperature differentials between the continents, the Polar zone, Greenland, the North Atlantic, the equatorial Atlantic and Africa result in the potential for continent-sized storms packing the strength of hurricanes according to a recent study by Hansen.”
The “recent study by Hansen” looks like a blog post from 2012 and it says: “Such a slowdown in the rate of sea level rise would be little consolation to humanity, however, as the high latitude cooling would increase latitudinal temperature gradients, thus driving powerful cyclonic storms (Hansen, 2009)”
Nothing about the size and strength, but that’s probably from the 2009 study.
1
catch2too
5:08 AM GMT [Edited]
Not even a nice try eric654 LOL once again. Scribbler was not reporting weather forecasts as you claim with your partial quote. Scribbler was talking about what happens in the 2nd phase of human caused climate change in his article “When The Great Ice Sheets Start Going Down – The Age of Storms”.
Writing about what happens during long periods of climate change is not weather forecasts, as your childish cherry picked little put down trys to claim. Climate change is thirty year + periods of global weather, not weather forecasting which is by definition a daily forecast of the weather.
View More Replies
felix jury
6/10/2015 11:02 PM GMT
Chelsea , get your facts sorted , tell the tomatoe growers who in crease their CO2 ppm to 1200 inside glass or plastic houses that this is a non productive action , and what about the 6000 ppm inside submarines .
The more CO2 the better for all of us .
1
Tenmile1
2:05 AM GMT
The problem is that you are not getting an “all else equal” CO2 enrichment. Along with the increased CO2 you are getting changes in temperature and water availability that are just as crucial to plant life.
dalyplanet
4:27 AM GMT
But a warmer atmosphere holds more water I am told. Look at all that rain in Texas someone important said.
Steven Cohen
6/10/2015 9:55 PM GMT
The last paragraph in this article sums up why reducing carbon emissions is prudent. Why are so many posters against it? They are just fools who deny science.
[What Steven means is “deny the right of public sector academics to publish their personal political views as ‘research'”]
Peter Piasecki
6/10/2015 9:43 PM GMT
when you give 5 billion a year to find something, you will find it, and need more money to be 100% sure, so far they are only 97% according to false consensus, which in reality it is less than 5%, so they will need to more money to get to the 100%…..
2
Virgil Sandberg
6/10/2015 10:48 PM GMT
So who is paying off the Chinese and Russians to come to a false consensus?
3
eric654
6/10/2015 11:09 PM GMT
Last I checked, China was doing nothing about CO2. They built 100 times more coal electric capacity than solar.
1
Odin3
4:02 AM GMT
I hear the Russians are shutting down all of their oil and gas production facilities because they are convinced that CAGW is imminent. /sarc
[more]

There’s a boringly familiar pattern to these climate talks in Paris. The rhetoric is all about making deals, but the reality is that everyone is backpeddling furiously behind the scenes trying the darnest to prevent any serious deal getting made. But what is different this time is that if anything the parties are being far more open in their desire not to come to any deal this time than all the previous clown fests from Jokenhagen onward.
The previous pattern has always been the pretence of vigorous negotiations, a last minute “deal” and a final push to agree a document … which basically says they agree to meet next time to discuss pretty much the same things they were supposed to discuss this time.
However, these agreements agreeing to meet again to “agree” the same basic text they were supposed to agree this time at the next meeting, seem to satisfy the Greens
But I’m not sure they are even going to get one of these meaningless agreements to agree to meet again to agree some text. Because this is what the Chinese delegate is saying:

The Chinese chief negotiator, Su Wei, said talks about the procedure for a new UN climate regime were going so slowly there was no time to discuss whether the emissions cuts added up.

“It has taken us 10 days here discussing procedural matters and we have made hardly any progress,” he told the BBC. “We cannot add any more items to the agenda to be discussed before Paris.”

That is mandarin (Bureaucratese) for: “We are slowing down the discussions and will not discuss anything new – particularly anything to do with actually implementing the meaningless nominal targets“.
This open admission of “slow progress” and the admission the agenda is shut is in sharp contrast to previous talks where one had to read between the lines to tell things were going slowly. In short, the negotiators seem to have been told not to make progress and their bosses are not too concerned if people know that.

This video neatly sums up the reality of “Green”. Politicians, including those who have been most vocal about reducing CO2 emissions, are saying one thing in public to the gullible greens and doing something entirely different.

You can fool everyone some of the time, but you really can fool greens all the time – because the reality is that green means gullible. They start by being clueless about energy use (particularly their own) – and so they are utterly clueless whether politicians deliver any of their “promises” (which they don’t).

Scanning the dying news stories I spotted a lot of the “pause denial” stories based on NOAA altered data & analysis and I began wondering why it didn’t concern me in the slightest that they had all these news-stories.
Why wasn’t I concerned that they “got rid of the pause”?
And then it struck me. For years the zealots like NOAA have been saying “the data cannot be interpreted in any other way – the world is warming”. Then when we sceptics said “but recently the world is not warming”. They initially denied it, then admitted it – and then started to come up with all types of excuses.
At that point, they had a tenable argument. The world was warming as predicted, the data was correct, but something they had not previously considered was causing a temporary pause.
So, the temperature data is secure, the analysis of the trend is secure – there was just something else that they had not considered.

THEN – like complete idiots …

NOAA came out and said: “actually the data is not secure, the analysis was not correct”. In short, they’ve just proved what we sceptics have been saying all along –

you can get whatever trend you want by manipulating the data

And they are seriously trying to use this trick against the people who above any other know how to manipulate data to get whatever trend they desire: POLITICIANS. They have spotted this a mile off. These academics have blown their credibility with a cheap trick that every politician understands.
And add to that they’ve thrown a huge custard pie at every academic who’s been on TV saying “yes I agree that we’ve seen a temporary pause but I think it’s explainable by … <enter another excuse>”.
And sure as eggs are eggs, like every other previous excuse for the pause, this one will be quietly forgotten – firstly because they’ve basically said every other group compiling temperature data showing a pause has LIED and secondly, because there is now an industry in creating papers explaining the pause and too many academics are now on that bandwagon for them all to jump off with any credibility left.

For a while, I’ve become more and more frustrated looking for news stories on Global Warming, because not only have the number gone down dramatically, not only do those that remain lack “meat”, but almost invariably those media outlets who still publish Global Warming bullshit, do so without allowing comments. From Wikipedia to the BBC-Guardian, to DeSmugBlog the alarmists can only publish their propaganda when they prevent sceptics from giving the evidence on the other side.

Quite literally the debate is over.

There is no longer anywhere I know of that allows free debate – not because sceptics are not willing to argue rationally, but because alarmists can’t stand the overwhelming dominance of sceptic views which is now prevalent on every open forum.
The best analogy I know is this – at the end of WWII, when the Americans were invading islands, many Japanese sat in bunkers refusing to come out even though they could not possibly win the battle and they were just wasting their lives. Their action was totally futile – just as those like the BBC-Guardian, etc. are futile. They cannot possibly turn the tide, the debate has moved on from their non-science alarmism. They’ve lost and sometimes I really do wish I had a proverbial flame thrower to stop their stupid pathetic pot shots.

I haven’t been able to take climate academics seriously for a while, but when Gavin Schmidt hosted a conference where this type of graph (below) was presented and then far from laughing at it, they allowed someone to conclude based only this data and models they were “very certain”… I realised I was wasting my time with these pathetic clowns.
Unfortunately, many cut and paste snooze-papers have reported “research” by NOAA as showing the pause did not happen. Bollocks!
The only thing this latest “research” shows is that these climate academics who have been so completely deluded that they thought could just deny the pause and they expected everyone else to follow them in their madness … have again tried to to deny the pause. That’s not news! How many excuses are there for their failed climate predictions? 50? 100? 200? They deny the pause – there’s nothing at all unexpected there!
I was thinking how to finish this article – the TV is on and it just said “our comedy season starts”. That’s as good a summary as any for this “research”.

The English government in Westminster, is reported in the Telegraph as planning to scrap the hated “Renewable Obligation” as early as this week. This will leave the Scottish government (who were given the power to increase consumer bills through devolution) out on a limb as it continues to push for ever higher consumer bills to pay for its anti-fossil fuel policies (to sate the Greens) whilst it hypocritically & irrationally pushes for “Scottish Oil” on the hand.
This won’t immediately cut the hundreds of pounds households are paying for this policy in terms of direct costs on electricity bills,  indirect costs as suppliers increase bills to as a result of their higher prices & lost jobs an economic prosperity as companies move outside EU, but it will stop most of the steep rise in bills predicted as a result of this insane policy.
No details are available on the future pricing (outside Scotland) of the “Renewable Obligation Tax” for those developments already in place. But hopefully, this marks a general downward move on electricity prices which undoubtedly will make many wind scams unviable, particularly toward end of life – so we can all look forward to rusting wind scrapyards all the sooner!).

Subsidies that have fuelled the spread of onshore wind farms are to be dramatically curtailed, under Government plans to be unveiled within days.
The Telegraph has learnt that a generous subsidy scheme will be shut down earlier than expected, effectively preventing thousands of turbines from getting built, under plans being considered by Amber Rudd, the new energy secretary.
The proposals, which could be announced as soon as this week, will set out for the first time how the Conservatives will implement their manifesto pledge to end any new public subsidy for onshore wind farms – amid concerns that turbines are unpopular with local communities.

Wind farm subsidies facing the axe (note pseudo-waywalled)

I’ve noticed an interesting phenomena online which is that overwhelmingly, if its a letter or a small blog or just a comment on a pretty mundane country snoose-paper, the sentiment has moved overwhelmingly toward sceptical.
But if its a Royal Society of “science”, the Biased Broadcasting Company or a lot of groups who consider themselves to be “intellectually superior” – then they are arrogant that global warming is “true” (even thought they personally have not looked at the subject themselves but they know they belong to a group where someone did – at least they’re sure it’s been looked at and … well they are just articulating “science” because that’s what people who call themselves “scientists” say) .
What is certain, is that those outside the “intellectuals” were first to spot the pause, first to recognise that models that did not predict the pause could not predict climate and first to recognise that the intellectuals were deluded about their own abilities.
The common explanation for this is “group-think”. But now I am beginning to wonder whether the real explanation is that ordinary people are actually smarter than the “intellectuals”. (Call it a hypothesis)
My own belief is that more or less we each are given the same intelligence at birth. That more or less we all develop our intelligence at the same rate …. BUT THAT SOME CHOOSE TO SPECIALISE IN NON-INTELLECTUAL ACTIVITIES (at least this is what I assume about people – I might be better in some areas – but doubtless they are better in others).
In other words, in order to become very intelligent in a specialist area – you can only do so by forsaking other areas which are commonly known as “common sense”. Or perhaps “knowing when you’re having the wool pulled over your eyes – sense”.
Son far from the Royal Society being cleverer as a group, they are in fact full of people who have concentrated their intellectual development toward their specialist subject – but unfortunately, that has entailed a much lower IQ in common sense – in knowing when other people are deluded.