GWPF | 28 Sept 2015
Pope’s Climate Adviser Fails (Again)
A Cambridge professor who claimed that assassins may have murdered three British scientists investigating the impact of global warming has had a complaint against The Times dismissed by the press regulator. Peter Wadhams said in an interview that he feared he might also have been targeted himself. When his comments were published byThe Times, the academic complained that he had been misquoted and that the newspaper had breached a duty of confidentiality towards him. An investigation by the Independent Press Standards Organisation has found that Professor Wadhams did make the claims reported and has cleared the newspaper of breaching the editors’ code of practice. –David Brown, The Times, 28 September 2015
Peter Wadhams is something of a favourite at [Bishop Hill], his researches into the paranormal, his physics-free sea-ice predictions and his concerns about assassination having provided readers with much entertainment over the years. The last of these claims led to an official complaint to the Press Regulator, but it seems that Prof Wadhams’ complaint has been no more successful than his doom-laden predictions about the Arctic. Prof Wadhams is an advisor to Pope Francis. –Andrew Montford, Bishop Hill, 28 September 2015
Why did no one speak out against this idiocy? Well, of course, a few did — people such as former chancellor Nigel Lawson, the Tory MP Peter Lilley, and journalists Christopher Booker and Richard North. But for years these sceptical voices have been drowned out by the yells of hypocritical politicians, greedy corporations, green zealots and a gullible public that ‘something must be done’ to deal with the supposed menace of man-made carbon dioxide. The great dash for diesel was a huge, expensive con inflicted on us by people who should have known better — and indeed did know better — but were so dazzled by the climate change scare that they could not see the bigger picture. It isn’t the first time this has happened, and it won’t be the last. –James Delingpole, The Great Diesel Scandal, Daily Mail, 9 August 2014
1) Climate Murder Conspiracy Complaint Dismissed – The Times, 28 September 2015
2) Pope’s Climate Adviser Fails – Bishop Hill, 28 September 2015
3) Arctic Ice Recovering – Science Matters, 26 September 2015
4) Relatively Few In US & Europe See Climate Change As A Serious Concern – Pew Research Center, 25 September 2015
5) Dominic Lawson: Climate Saviours & Europe’s Mad Rush For Diesel – The Sunday Times, 27 September 2015
6) And Finally: Holy Wrong – Editorial, The Sun, 25 September 2015
The Pope makes valuable contributions on religious matter. But he has no business banging on about climate change. That has nothing to do with faith. It’s about science and provable facts. That science is disputed, some of it discredited. The Pope’s believe in it is irrelevant. Stick to religion, Your Holiness. —Editorial, The Sun, 25 September 2015
Pope Francis is generally popular around the world, but when he highlights the global effects of climate change Friday at the United Nations General Assembly, he may get a lukewarm reception from many Americans and Europeans. Concern about climate change is relatively low in the United States and Europe. A median of 42% among both Europeans and Americans reports being very concerned about the issue. And in the U.S., partisan differences are stark. A majority of Democrats (62%) say they are very concerned about climate change, compared with just 20% of Republicans. –Jill Carle, Pew Research Center, 25 September 2015
You will be hearing a lot about 2015 having the fourth lowest minimum Arctic ice extent ever recorded. Here is what they are not telling you: While Arctic ice varies a lot seasonally, there was a slightly increasing trend [in recent years], particularly in the last five years. The value for 2015 is for the record so far; the final number will be known at year end. –Ron Clutz, Science Matters, 26 September 2015
The “rush for diesel” might seem an unmatchably counterproductive idiocy on the part of the EU member states, as they sought to prove themselves the saviours of the earth. In fact, it is merely one of a number of catastrophic components in the climate-change policy makers’ hall of infamy. The inability to deal with the crises afflicting the European Union is blamed by the European Commission on member states failing to act as one. Yet unity behind a terrible policy is worse than any disagreement: and in no cause has the EU been more destructively united than in the battle against the alleged existential threat to the planet known as climate change. –Dominic Lawson, The Sunday Times, 27 September 2015
1) Climate Murder Conspiracy Complaint Dismissed
The Times, 28 September 2015
David Brown
A Cambridge professor who claimed that assassins may have murdered three British scientists investigating the impact of global warming has had a complaint against The Times dismissed by the press regulator.
Peter Wadhams said in an interview that he feared he might also have been targeted himself. When his comments were published byThe Times, the academic complained that he had been misquoted and that the newspaper had breached a duty of confidentiality towards him.
An investigation by the Independent Press Standards Organisation has found that Professor Wadhams did make the claims reported and has cleared the newspaper of breaching the editors’ code of practice.
The professor of ocean physics had been interviewed in July after a study contradicted his prediction that Arctic ice was melting so fast that it could all disappear this summer.
During the interview, Professor Wadhams said that the deaths in early 2013 of the other three scientists in Britain “who were really leaders on ice thickness in the Arctic” were “too bizarre to be accidental but each individual incident looks accidental, which may mean it’s been made to look accidental”.
He said that he himself had had a narrow escape when an unmarked lorry apparently tried to push his car off the M25.
Following publication of the interview, Professor Wadhams complained to the press watchdog and widely publicised his complaint. His criticisms of the paper were reported by another national newspaper and on climate science blogs and social media.
Professor Wadhams told Ipso that he did not believe that the three scientists had been assassinated and that he had made clear during the interview that any fears he might have had were quickly dispelled.
A recording of the interview was provided by The Times to Ipso’s complaints committee. In a decision published today, the committee states: “The article had accurately reported his position as he had explained it to the journalist.”
After listening to the tape, the committee said that during the approximately 30-minute interview about 20 minutes focused on Professor Wadhams’s suspicions about the deaths of his fellow scientists, a subject introduced into the conversation by the professor himself.
2) Pope’s Climate Adviser Fails
Bishop Hill, 28 September 2015
Andrew Montford
Peter Wadhams is something of a favourite at BH, his researches into the paranormal, his physics-free sea-ice predictions and his concerns about assassination having provided readers with much entertainment over the years. The last of these claims led to an official complaint to the Press Regulator, but it seems that Prof Wadhams’ complaint has been no more successful than his doom-laden predictions about the Arctic (£).
A Cambridge professor who claimed that assassins may have murdered three British scientists investigating the impact of global warming has had a complaint against The Times dismissed by the press regulator.
Prof Wadhams is an advisor to Pope Francis.
3) Arctic Ice Recovering
Science Matters, 26 September 2015
Ron Clutz
MASIE Proves Yearly Arctic Ice Recovering
You will be hearing a lot about 2015 having the fourth lowest minimum Arctic ice extent ever recorded. Here is what they are not telling you:
MASIE has very helpfully provided their records for the last ten years. Since stormy weather can affect both maximum and minimum ice extents, emphasis on March and September averages can be misleading. From a climate change perspective, a better metric is the average ice extent over the entire year. By that measure we gain a realistic perspective on the last ten years of Arctic ice fluctuation.
While Arctic ice varies a lot seasonally, the graph shows that it is not that variable annually during this decade. Fluctuating about +/- 4%, there was a slightly increasing trend, particularly in the last five years.
Here are the ice extents in M km2:
The value for 2015 is for the record so far; the final number will be known at year end.
4) Relatively Few In US & Europe See Climate Change As A Serious Concern
Pew Research Center, 25 September 2015
Jill Carle
Pope Francis is generally popular around the world, but when he highlights the global effects of climate change Friday at the United Nations General Assembly, he may get a lukewarm reception from many Americans and Europeans.
Global climate change was the top-rated threat in a 40-nation Pew Research Center survey conducted in spring 2015 – a median of 46% say they are “very concerned” about climate change.
But concern about climate change is relatively low in the United States and Europe. A median of 42% among both Europeans and Americans reports being very concerned about the issue.
And in the U.S., partisan differences are stark. A majority of Democrats (62%) say they are very concerned about climate change, compared with just 20% of Republicans.
For the most part, European and American concerns about international issues lay elsewhere. In Europe, concerns about the Islamic State (ISIS) and tensions between Russia and its neighbors are more prominent than other issues.
5) Dominic Lawson: Climate Saviours & Europe’s Mad Rush For Diesel
The Sunday Times, 27 September 2015
The “rush for diesel” might seem an unmatchably counterproductive idiocy on the part of the EU member states, as they sought to prove themselves the saviours of the earth. In fact, it is merely one of a number of catastrophic components in the climate-change policy makers’ hall of infamy.
The inability to deal with the crises afflicting the European Union — a malfunctioning common currency and apparently unstoppable migration via the Mediterranean — is blamed by the European Commission on member states failing to act as one.
Yet unity behind a terrible policy is worse than any disagreement: and in no cause has the EU been more destructively united than in the battle against the alleged existential threat to the planet known as climate change.
While America and the developing world refused to sign up to the 1997 Kyoto treaty setting strict targets for reducing CO2 emissions, the nations of Europe, co-ordinated from Brussels, signed without a whisper of dissent. Britain was especially enthusiastic, in a vain delusion that we should achieve “global leadership” in the fight to “save the planet”.
It was idiotic to suppose that even eliminating all of the UK’s 1.5% contribution to worldwide CO2 emissions would achieve anything more than to de-industrialise the nation that started the Industrial Revolution.
Only the latest example is that the UK’s last large-scale steel-making plant, employing 3,000 at Redcar, is having to call on the government to save it from imminent closure. It can no longer compete with plants in countries that do not impose arbitrary CO2 emission limits on its steel manufacturers.
Redcar’s unaffordably high fuel bills are the direct effect of government policy demanding that the plant obtains a portion of its power from “renewables”. The result is not a global reduction of emissions: it merely moves their generation from here to another country, such as China. This is technically known as “carbon leakage”. National death wish is an alternative term.
The same, quite literally, has been the result of Europe’s concerted push to get its populations to abandon petrol for diesel as the fuel to power their cars. This is the real story behind the astonishing scandal of VW’s fraud upon the US Environmental Protection Agency. VW had installed software in its newer diesel cars that detected when the vehicles were being tested for noxious emissions and cut most of the smog-forming compounds caused by burning diesel.
When the cars were driven normally on the road by owners, the software “defeated” the pollution control. This greatly enhanced the vehicles’ performance. And so VW could claim — absolutely dishonestly — that it was selling high-performing diesel cars while conforming to stringent American “clean air” requirements.
Yes: America, frequently accused by Europeans of being a laggard in environmental protection, has stricter regulations governing air pollution than the eternally preachy EU. This is because of — and not despite — Europe’s obsession with climate change.
Our government, after its signing of the Kyoto treaty, set up an incentive through vehicle excise duty to push consumers into buying diesel rather than petrol cars. The point is that diesel produces more oomph per gallon than petrol, so less of it is used for each mile’s driving and hence less CO2 is emitted in the course of any given journey.
However, it has always been known that burning diesel creates much more of the oxides of nitrogen that can cause terrible damage to the human respiratory system: more than 20 times as much of the stuff as burning petrol does. Because in America engine emission controls are related much more to overall air quality than in the EU, VW had a real problem getting its diesel cars into that market. Hence its scam.
Yet here the national obsession — at least in Whitehall — with CO2 means that British lives have been shortened to save future lives in Africa (the continent thought to be most vulnerable to the consequences of climate change). The developing world, meanwhile, is cracking on with fossil-fuel power generation, since its leaders understand that that is the fastest way to lift their countries out of poverty — and really save lives.
By the way, do not listen to politicians such as the shadow energy and climate-change minister Barry Gardiner, who said this year of the decision to go all out for diesel: “Hands up — there’s absolutely no question that the decision we [Labour] took was the wrong decision. But at the time we didn’t have the evidence that subsequently we did have.” A senior Department for Transport civil servant recently admitted: “We did not sleepwalk into this. To be totally reductionist, you are talking about killing people today rather than saving lives tomorrow.
Occasionally we had to say we were living in a different world and everyone had to swallow hard.”
That is, the different world of politicians and campaigners who had convinced themselves that the only environmental policy that mattered was reducing carbon emissions. That meant regarding CO2 as a greater public enemy than poisonous fumes. Taken to its logical conclusion, this would classify mouth-to-mouth resuscitation as more dangerous than inhaling particulates from the back of a London taxi, a vehicle that is crazily regarded as better for the planet than the petrol- powered cabs on the streets of American cities. Londoners may choke but we’re saving the Earth. Except that Gaia shows every sign of being able to cope just fine with man’s CO2 emissions.
The “rush for diesel” might seem an unmatchably counterproductive idiocy on the part of the EU member states, as they sought to prove themselves the saviours of the earth. In fact, it is merely one of a number of catastrophic components in the climate-change policy makers’ hall of infamy.
There was the EU’s directive mandating that 10% of energy in transport come from “biofuels” — that is, crops. In this case the US was complicit in the lunacy, although for different reasons: it subsidised ethanol production — fuel from corn — because it wanted to reduce its dependence on Middle Eastern oil.
The result was a drastic increase in global food prices that was felt most acutely by the poorest people on the planet: it was for this reason that a United Nations special rapporteur on “the right to food” said the EU’s biofuels policy was “a crime against humanity”.
Perhaps the craziest policy of all was that derived from Kyoto’s “clean development mechanism”. Under it, signatories to the treaty could gain emission reduction credits by paying poorer countries to reduce their production of gases including HFC23, a by-product of the manufacture of refrigerants thousands of times more potent than CO2 in creating the greenhouse effect.
As a Global Warming Policy Foundation pamphlet, The Unintended Consequences of Climate Change Policy, said: “The upshot of this influx of western money was to completely change the behaviour of refrigerant manufacturers. Instead of HFC23 being merely a by-product of the manufacturing process, it came to represent their principal product. The factories were in effect being incentivised to produce this most powerful of greenhouse gases.”
Nowhere more so than in China. It was an echo of what happened when the Communist party under Mao Tse-tung rewarded citizens who slaughtered the most houseflies: people began breeding them so as to produce the necessary number of dead flies to gain the reward. This is the lunacy that can happen when central planners issue what they call “incentives”. It doesn’t help, admittedly, when the original policy is insane.
6) And Finally: Holy Wrong
Editorial, The Sun, 25 September 2015
The Pope makes valuable contributions on religious matter. But he has no business banging on about climate change. That has nothing to do with faith. It’s about science and provable facts. That science is disputed, some of it discredited. The Pope’s believe in it is irrelevant. Stick to religion, Your Holiness.
