GWPF | 20 Nov 2014
Australian Foreign Minister Julie Bishop criticises US president Barack Obama for a speech in Brisbane last weekend in which he claimed climate change threatened the Great Barrier Reef. It is highly unusual for an Australian foreign minister to openly criticise a US president. Ms Bishop also said Australia currently had no intention of committing extra forces or resources to the mission against Islamic State, even though the White House had discussed it with the Abbott Government. —Radio Australia, 20 November 2014
Why did the Southern Beaufort polar bear population survey stop in 2010? It’s clear that the recently-published and widely-hyped new study stopped before the population rebound from a known decline was complete. The researchers of the recently-published paper knew before starting their mark-recapture study in 2007 that the population decline had taken place. They also knew why the numbers dropped and that previous declines, caused by similar conditions, had been followed by a full recovery. In fact, a US Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) fall survey of Southern Beaufort polar bears in 2012 found numbers were higher than they had been in a decade. –Susan Crockford, Polar Bear Science, 19 November 2014
Chemicals giant Ineos is to announce plans to invest up to $1bn (£640m) in shale gas exploration and production in the UK, the BBC understands. The company plans to use the gas as a raw material for its chemicals plants, including Grangemouth in Stirlingshire. Grangemouth is currently running at a loss but Ineos believes shale gas will transform the economics of the plant. BBC industry correspondent John Moylan says the move will be seen as a significant vote of confidence in the sector, and will position Ineos as one of the major players in the emerging industry. —BBC News, 20 November 2014
The UK government’s plan to build a new nuclear power station is in danger of collapse amid turmoil at the French group which designed the reactor, experts warned today. Areva, the crisis-torn nuclear company, could be forced to pull out of the consortium set to build the European Pressurized Reactor (EPR) at Hinkley Point as its losses escalate, it is feared. The difficulties come after Areva, which is state controlled, admitted that with losses escalating, it was unable to set financial targets for the next two years. Le Monde, the French daily, said its failings had plunged the entire French nuclear industry into ‘torment’. –Adam Sage & Tim Webb, The Times, 19 November 2014
I notice that my Labour colleagues who are troubled by the cost of the war on climate change, and especially when I point out that its costs fall heavily on the poorer classes, while its financial benefits go to rich landowners and individuals on the Climate Change Committee, still won’t face those facts because they want to cling on to the new climate faith because they want to believe it is in the common good. They are not bad or stupid people. Many are better and cleverer than me. But they have a need for a faith which they believe is for the global good. They don’t want a moral vacuum. And the current leaders of the social democratic parties in Britain and Europe are not offering them much else. For Ed Miliband, who is not a bad or stupid man, but coming from a Marxist heritage, when asked for more vision, he grasps climate change like a drowning man clasping a lifebelt. –Bernard Donoughue, Bishop Hill, 15 November 2014
1) Australian Govt Rebukes Obama’s Climate Claims, Rules Out Extra Troops – Radio Australia, 20 November 2014
2) New Science Scandal: Polar Bear Researchers ‘Hide The Increase’ – Polar Bear Science, 19 November 2014
3) Ineos To Invest $1 Billion In UK Shale Gas Development – BBC News, 20 November 2014
4) UK’s Nuclear Future In Danger Amid Mounting Areva Losses – The Times, 19 November 2014
5) Bernard Donoughue: Climate Change And The Left – Bishop Hill, 15 November 2014
1) Australian Govt Rebukes Obama’s Climate Claims, Rules Out Extra Troops
Radio Australia, 20 November 2014
Australian Foreign Minister Julie Bishop criticises US president Barack Obama for a speech in Brisbane last weekend in which he claimed climate change threatened the Great Barrier Reef. It is highly unusual for an Australian foreign minister to openly criticise a US president.
Speaking to 7.30 from New York, where she is attending a meeting of the United Nations Security Council, Ms Bishop said “there was an issue regarding [Mr Obama’s] statement” and she could “understand the Queensland Government’s concern”.
In a speech at University of Queensland, Mr Obama had said that: “Here, a climate that increases in temperature will mean more extreme and frequent storms, more flooding, rising seas that submerge Pacific islands … The incredible natural glory of the Great Barrier Reef is threatened.”
Ms Bishop told 7.30: “We are demonstrating world’s best practice in working with the World Heritage Committee to ensure that the Great Barrier Reef is preserved for generations to come.
“I think that President Obama might have overlooked that aspect of our commitment to conserving the Great Barrier Reef.”
Extra troops to fight Islamic State ruled out
It is highly unusual for an Australian foreign minister to openly criticise a US president.
Ms Bishop also said Australia currently had no intention of committing extra forces or resources to the mission against Islamic State, even though the White House had discussed it with the Abbott Government. […]
Ms Bishop is not the only Coalition politician to voice criticism of Mr Obama, with frontbenchers Joe Hockey and Jamie Briggs making comments in the wake of the Brisbane speech.
Mr Briggs labelled the address as a “massive, massive distraction” from the rest of the G20 summit, while the Treasurer said it would be difficult for Mr Obama to deliver on his stricter emissions standard pledge.
“Barack Obama has to get any initiative on climate change through a hostile US congress … I mean, that’s up to the US, but so far he hasn’t had great success,” Mr Hockey told Insiders.
2) New Science Scandal: Polar Bear Researchers ‘Hide The Increase’
Polar Bear Science, 19 November 2014
Susan Crockford
Why did the Southern Beaufort polar bear population survey stop in 2010? It’s clear that the recently-published and widely-hyped new study stopped before the population rebound from a known decline was complete.
The researchers of the recently-published paper knew before starting their mark-recapture study in 2007 that the population decline had taken place. They also knew why the numbers dropped and that previous declines, caused by similar conditions, had been followed by a full recovery.
Did they really think a full recovery in population numbers was possible in only three years, when cubs born in 2007 would not yet have been old enough to reproduce?
In fact, a US Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) fall survey of Southern Beaufort polar bears in 2012 found numbers were higher than they had been in a decade.
To recap, the new paper (Bromaghin et al. 2014, in press) took numbers from previous studies that revealed a statistically insignificant decline from 2004-2006 and formulated a new kind of model that suggested the decline had actually been more severe, between 25-50%. The only new data reported was collected between 2007 and 2010 (details here).
Survival of polar bears started to improve markedly by 2007 (a year of very low summer sea ice) and the population had recovered by 2010 to ~900 (range 606-1,212). The authors looked, but found no correlation of the decline with summer sea ice conditions as predicted by the IUCN Polar Bear Specialist Group (PBSG) earlier this year.
However, the USFWS reported in their 2013/2014 Polar Bear Newsletter [pdf here, pg. 17, lower right] that their fall aerial survey results showed that in 2012 the population was “high” compared to previous years and that bears were in “average” condition.
“The number of polar bears observed in 2012 was high relative to similar surveys conducted over the past decade. Body condition appeared relatively normal for this time of year with most bears reported to be in average body condition.”
Why would the authors of the 2014 paper cherry-pick their end dates, when they had to have known when they submitted their paper for publication that the population size had continued to recover beyond 2010?
see also: Newspapers Mislead Public About Polar Bear Numbers
3) Ineos To Invest $1 Billion In UK Shale Gas Development
BBC News, 20 November 2014
Chemicals giant Ineos is to announce plans to invest up to $1bn (£640m) in shale gas exploration and production in the UK, the BBC understands.
The company plans to use the gas as a raw material for its chemicals plants, including Grangemouth in Stirlingshire.
Grangemouth is currently running at a loss but Ineos believes shale gas will transform the economics of the plant.
Shale gas extraction is promoted as an important potential energy source but has prompted environmental concerns. […]
Ineos is currently building Europe’s largest shale gas import facility to feed its petrochemicals plant at Grangemouth – but it wants to produce home grown shale gas as well.
In recent months it has been buying up rights to explore across hundreds of square miles of the Midland Valley around the Stirlingshire site.
Ineos is also thought to have applied for further licences as part of the government’s ongoing onshore licensing round.
The company is expected to outline plans on Thursday to invest hundreds of millions pounds in UK exploration and production.
BBC industry correspondent John Moylan says the move will be seen as a significant vote of confidence in the sector, and will position Ineos as one of the major players in the emerging industry.
4) UK’s Nuclear Future In Danger Amid Mounting Areva Losses
The Times, 19 November 2014
Adam Sage & Tim Webb
The UK government’s plan to build a new nuclear power station is in danger of collapse amid turmoil at the French group which designed the reactor, experts warned today.
Areva, the crisis-torn nuclear company, could be forced to pull out of the consortium set to build the European Pressurized Reactor (EPR) at Hinkley Point as its losses escalate, it is feared.
Steve Thomas, professor of energy policy at Greenwich University, said that with Chinese groups getting cold feet over their participation in the reactor, it ‘could be curtains for the project’.
Mr Thomas said the EPR chosen by David Cameron was a ‘bad, unbuildable design’.
The difficulties come after Areva, which is state controlled, admitted that with losses escalating, it was unable to set financial targets for the next two years.
Le Monde, the French daily, said its failings had plunged the entire French nuclear industry into ‘torment’.
Areva designed the Hinkley Point C plant, and is due to deliver its steam supply and instrumentation and control systems.
EDF the French state-owned electricity giant is due to take a 50 per cent stake in the consortium at Hinkley Point, with China’s General Nuclear Corporation and National Nuclear Corporation taking about 35 per cent between them and Areva 10 per cent.
But Mr Thomas said the Chinese groups were ‘not committed’ to the reactor and Areva no longer had the financial muscle to back it. ‘Areva’s never going to be able to take 10 per cent’ he said.
Full story (subscription required)
5) Bernard Donoughue: Climate Change And The Left
Bishop Hill, 15 November 2014
The issue of why the political left is overwhelmingly supportive of the climate change alarmist ideology/faith, and hence there are relatively few left wing sceptics, is quite complex and would take more space and time than I intend to impose on you here. But may I, as a lifelong Labour supporter, offer a couple of broad observations. They are by no means comprehensive and omit many nuances. But they are major general factors which I have observed in the party for 61 years, and in Parliament for almost 30 years.
First is that most leftish British people get politically involved because they genuinely believe they wish to contribute to the common good in our society. (They tend to believe , rightly or wrongly, that the right wing wishes to contribute to their own individual or class good). At first this drew many to sympathise with Marxist ideology, until the Soviets discredited that. More sympathised and many still do with the social democratic ideals of equality and civil liberty, though that position lacks the ideological certainties and claimed scientific basis of old Marxism. With the collapse of Marxism, there was created a vacuum on the left. Those seeking an ideological faith to cling on to for moral certainty, felt bereft.
They also wanted a faith which again gave them a feeling of still pursuing the common good of society, especially the new global society, and even more a feeling of moral superiority, which is a characteristic of many middle and professional types on the left. Climate change and the moral common good of saving the planet , with its claimed scientific certainties, offered to fill the vacuum. It may or may not be a coincidence that the climate change faith gained momentum in the 1990s immediately after Marxism collapsed with the Berlin Wall.
I notice that my Labour colleagues who are troubled by the cost of the war on climate change, and especially when I point out that its costs fall heavily on the poorer classes, while its financial benefits go to rich landowners and individuals on the Climate Change Committee, still won’t face those facts because they want to cling on to the new climate faith because they want to believe it is in the common good. They are not bad or stupid people. Many are better and cleverer than me.
But they have a need for a faith which they believe is for the global good. They don’t want a moral vacuum. And the current leaders of the social democratic parties in Britain and Europe are not offering them much else. For Ed Miliband, who is not a bad or stupid man, but coming from a Marxist heritage, when asked for more vision, he grasps climate change like a drowning man clasping a lifebelt.
While this need persists and there persists the misconception that the Green faith is somehow leftish and in pursuit of the common good, then most on the political left will stay with it. To shake them it will be necessary to show them that the costs of implementing climate alarmism will actually destroy the economic hopes of the poor and is often a cynical device to enrich the wealthy. That it enables self righteous middle class posturers to parade their assumed moral superiority at the expense of the poor. And that it’s so-called scientific certainties are very uncertain indeed. It is also necessary for the sceptical and realistic side to show more publicly that they accept the proven aspects of climate change (which every sceptic I know does) and care about the genuine concerns of the environment (which the Greens ignore by littering our landscapes with inefficient and costly windmills.)
My second point concerns the Stalinist tactics of the Green activists in trying to suppress any questioning of their dogmatic faith and to damage the lives and careers of any professional person who attempts to examine this subject in an honest way which might undermine their dogmatic claims. Their use of Holocaust language such as ‘Denier’, implying their target is akin to a neo Nazi, is but one example of the Stalinist mentality. In that political context, where any questioner is so derided, it is no surprise that most Labour supporters choose not to take the risk – especially when it immediately throws them into confrontation with their embattled leader.
Sorry to go on so long. But they are my observational conclusions on why it is not easy for the sceptical side to make progress on the political left. Interestingly, polls suggest it is among Labour working classes, always more practical than our Hampstead/Guardian types, that there is the biggest dissent from the Green religion – and some of them are already slipping off to UKIP, which shows more concern for their suffering under the Green taxes.
This battle to bring understanding to Labour that its climate policies punish its core supporters, will take a while to win, partly for the two reasons I offer above.
