Unhaltable global warming claim withdrawn by Scientific Reports journal
In this newsletter:
1) Green lobby up in arms as France plans to tear up solar subsidy contracts
GWPF, 13 November 2020
2) French solar investors up in arms over threat to renege on contracts
Financial Times, 12 November 2020
3) Boris Johnson seeks advice on how to create 2 million green jobs
Bloomberg, 12 November 2020
4) Unhaltable global warming claim withdrawn by Scientific Reports journal
The Times, 13 November 2020
Bloomberg, 12 November 2020
4) Unhaltable global warming claim withdrawn by Scientific Reports journal
The Times, 13 November 2020
5) Ratings agency warning: Germany's green energy transition reduces utilities' financial flexibility
Fitch Ratings, 13 November 2020
6) Britain yet to choose between carbon tax or emissions trading post-Brexit
The Economic Times, 12 November 2020
Fitch Ratings, 13 November 2020
6) Britain yet to choose between carbon tax or emissions trading post-Brexit
The Economic Times, 12 November 2020
7) GWPF Webinar: How Effective Are Carbon Taxes?
Tuesday 17th November, 5pm GMT/ 12pm EST/ 9am PST
8) A short history of climate sensitivity
Andy May, Watts Up With That, 12 November 2020
Tuesday 17th November, 5pm GMT/ 12pm EST/ 9am PST
8) A short history of climate sensitivity
Andy May, Watts Up With That, 12 November 2020
9) And Finally: Ex-soldier who sparked fury with Cenotaph Extinction Rebellion protest is a drug dealer
Daily Mail, 12 November 2020
Daily Mail, 12 November 2020
Full details:
1) Green lobby up in arms as France plans to tear up solar subsidy contracts
GWPF, 13 November 2020
As the perverse opulence of multi-billion renewable energy subsidies become ever more costly, the French government has decided to stop the rot.
GWPF, 13 November 2020
As the perverse opulence of multi-billion renewable energy subsidies become ever more costly, the French government has decided to stop the rot.
The French government plans retroactive cuts to generous solar subsidies it granted between 2006 and 2010. The green energy industry should expect more retroactive subsidy cuts in coming years. This is the price the green lobby is paying for claiming that renewable energy is now dirt cheap.
The retroactive cuts proposed by the government are currently debated in the French parliament. The government’s budget law would cut subsidies granted to solar projects between 2006 and 2010. These cuts could save consumers €400m-€600m a year of the annual €2bn solar handouts.
The €2bn handed out to solar investors annually produces less than 1 per cent of France’s electricity, but consumes a third of public spending on renewables.
“If approved by the members of parliament, this measure would mean the immediate termination of contracts for the majority of the 800 impacted PV plants,” Xavier Daval, CEO of French solar technical advisory KilowattSol, told pv magazine. “This decision would force them to file for bankruptcy, as these plants were built with non-recourse financing.”
2) French solar investors up in arms over threat to renege on contracts
Financial Times, 12 November 2020
Paris plans to cut tariffs for early photovoltaic power projects it says generate ‘excessive profits’
The retroactive cuts proposed by the government are currently debated in the French parliament. The government’s budget law would cut subsidies granted to solar projects between 2006 and 2010. These cuts could save consumers €400m-€600m a year of the annual €2bn solar handouts.
The €2bn handed out to solar investors annually produces less than 1 per cent of France’s electricity, but consumes a third of public spending on renewables.
“If approved by the members of parliament, this measure would mean the immediate termination of contracts for the majority of the 800 impacted PV plants,” Xavier Daval, CEO of French solar technical advisory KilowattSol, told pv magazine. “This decision would force them to file for bankruptcy, as these plants were built with non-recourse financing.”
2) French solar investors up in arms over threat to renege on contracts
Financial Times, 12 November 2020
Paris plans to cut tariffs for early photovoltaic power projects it says generate ‘excessive profits’
A French government plan to save hundreds of millions of euros a year by reneging on early solar power contracts it says generate “excessive” profits has caused outrage among investors, who say the move could cripple their businesses, undermine the credibility of the state’s promises and threaten future renewable energy projects.
France is the latest European country to find that the rapid development of solar technology and the collapse in the price of photovoltaic cells has left its government liable for payments over decades far in excess of the cost of new contracts. Spain, Italy and the Czech Republic have faced similar legal tussles in the past.
“Who’s going to have confidence in the state for an offtake agreement on hydrogen production?” asked Xavier Barbaro, founder of renewable energy company Neoen and one of the signatories of a business petition demanding the government abandon its solar energy proposal.
“If you know that in 10 years the tariffs of 2020 will be judged by the costs of 2030, you’ll say, that’s not acceptable . . . it means the state is devaluing its credibility.” Neoen said it owned a modest 19 megawatts of photovoltaic power capacity that could be affected by the resetting of the tariffs.
President Emmanuel Macron’s government, which said it was committed to the “greening” of the French and European economies, launched its attack on the terms of about 800 large photovoltaic power contracts signed between 2006 and 2010 in an amendment to the 2021 draft budget law being debated at the National Assembly this week.
The amendment mentions “excessive profitability” — officials say some investments generate margins of more than 20 per cent — and says tariffs will be cut in such a way that “the return on fixed capital . . . does not exceed a reasonable level given the inherent risks of the investment”.
Full story (£)
The study says that even if man-made greenhouse gas emissions were to reduce to zero this year, global temperatures would still be about 3C warmer and sea levels 2.5m higher by 2500 compared with 1850.
Richard Betts, professor of climate impacts at the University of Exeter, criticised the press release and questioned the study’s conclusions, saying there was a risk of the public being given a “frightening message” that was misleading. “While the press release suggests that global warming may now be unstoppable for centuries, the model result in this paper is not convincing as support for that message,” he said.
“The paper itself does not actually claim to be a prediction of the real world, it just reports the behaviour of one model — but the press release goes a big step further and presents it as a prediction."...
Andrew Watson, a Royal Society research professor at the University of Exeter, said that he did not agree with the press release describing global warming as potentially catastrophic, “given that it occurs over 500 years”.
Full story (£)
France is the latest European country to find that the rapid development of solar technology and the collapse in the price of photovoltaic cells has left its government liable for payments over decades far in excess of the cost of new contracts. Spain, Italy and the Czech Republic have faced similar legal tussles in the past.
“Who’s going to have confidence in the state for an offtake agreement on hydrogen production?” asked Xavier Barbaro, founder of renewable energy company Neoen and one of the signatories of a business petition demanding the government abandon its solar energy proposal.
“If you know that in 10 years the tariffs of 2020 will be judged by the costs of 2030, you’ll say, that’s not acceptable . . . it means the state is devaluing its credibility.” Neoen said it owned a modest 19 megawatts of photovoltaic power capacity that could be affected by the resetting of the tariffs.
President Emmanuel Macron’s government, which said it was committed to the “greening” of the French and European economies, launched its attack on the terms of about 800 large photovoltaic power contracts signed between 2006 and 2010 in an amendment to the 2021 draft budget law being debated at the National Assembly this week.
The amendment mentions “excessive profitability” — officials say some investments generate margins of more than 20 per cent — and says tariffs will be cut in such a way that “the return on fixed capital . . . does not exceed a reasonable level given the inherent risks of the investment”.
Full story (£)
3) Boris Johnson seeks advice on how to create 2 million green jobs
Bloomberg, 12 November 2020
Investors are keen to create ‘green jobs’ in technologies such as nuclear, hydrogen and carbon capture but they are too expensive to work without subsidy.
Prime Minister Boris Johnson is seeking advice from industry on how to create green jobs in the U.K. as unemployment rose at the quickest pace in a decade.
The government is gathering a green jobs taskforce that seeks to create employment for 2 million by 2030. Johnson is planning a major speech on how he will spur an industrial revolution in clean-energy technologies, part of a series of initiative leading up to global talks on climate change the U.K. will host next year.
The move also is aimed at helping the U.K. economy recover from the battering delivered by coronavirus lockdowns, with the number of workers being made redundant hitting a record. With the government weighing a ban on diesel cars by 2035, it’s seeking to spur new technologies like electric vehicles and offshore wind power that can absorb workers from industries that are being wound down.
“Businesses desperately need a framework to plan and there’s been a lack of certainty about the future direction of travel,” said Kate Bell, head of rights, international, social and economic at the Trades Union Congress. “There is a need to get moving quickly.”
The government has once again delayed a much anticipated energy policy paper that will set a direction for how the U.K. will meet its target to eliminate greenhouse gas emissions by 2050. It will be key for investors who want to create jobs in technologies such as nuclear, hydrogen and carbon capture that are key to reducing pollution but too expensive to work without subsidy. […]
The TUC has identified 1.24 million jobs that could be created across the U.K. in two years by investing 85 billion pounds in areas such as home insulation, electric car charging, and planting trees.
Full story
For an economic reality check on 'green jobs' see this report
Bloomberg, 12 November 2020
Investors are keen to create ‘green jobs’ in technologies such as nuclear, hydrogen and carbon capture but they are too expensive to work without subsidy.
Prime Minister Boris Johnson is seeking advice from industry on how to create green jobs in the U.K. as unemployment rose at the quickest pace in a decade.
The government is gathering a green jobs taskforce that seeks to create employment for 2 million by 2030. Johnson is planning a major speech on how he will spur an industrial revolution in clean-energy technologies, part of a series of initiative leading up to global talks on climate change the U.K. will host next year.
The move also is aimed at helping the U.K. economy recover from the battering delivered by coronavirus lockdowns, with the number of workers being made redundant hitting a record. With the government weighing a ban on diesel cars by 2035, it’s seeking to spur new technologies like electric vehicles and offshore wind power that can absorb workers from industries that are being wound down.
“Businesses desperately need a framework to plan and there’s been a lack of certainty about the future direction of travel,” said Kate Bell, head of rights, international, social and economic at the Trades Union Congress. “There is a need to get moving quickly.”
The government has once again delayed a much anticipated energy policy paper that will set a direction for how the U.K. will meet its target to eliminate greenhouse gas emissions by 2050. It will be key for investors who want to create jobs in technologies such as nuclear, hydrogen and carbon capture that are key to reducing pollution but too expensive to work without subsidy. […]
The TUC has identified 1.24 million jobs that could be created across the U.K. in two years by investing 85 billion pounds in areas such as home insulation, electric car charging, and planting trees.
Full story
For an economic reality check on 'green jobs' see this report
4) Unhaltable global warming claim withdrawn by Scientific Reports journal
The Times, 13 November 2020
A top scientific journal which claimed that global warming may already be unstoppable has been forced to issue a clarification after being accused of potentially causing “unnecessary despair”.
Scientific Reports sought to publicise a study by Norwegian scientists with a doom-laden press release headlined: “Ending greenhouse gas emissions may not stop global warming.”
The Times, 13 November 2020
A top scientific journal which claimed that global warming may already be unstoppable has been forced to issue a clarification after being accused of potentially causing “unnecessary despair”.
Scientific Reports sought to publicise a study by Norwegian scientists with a doom-laden press release headlined: “Ending greenhouse gas emissions may not stop global warming.”
After being strongly criticised by leading British scientists, the journal issued a revised press release which admitted that the prediction was based on a particular computer model and said the results should be tested by “alternative models”.
The study says that even if man-made greenhouse gas emissions were to reduce to zero this year, global temperatures would still be about 3C warmer and sea levels 2.5m higher by 2500 compared with 1850.
Richard Betts, professor of climate impacts at the University of Exeter, criticised the press release and questioned the study’s conclusions, saying there was a risk of the public being given a “frightening message” that was misleading. “While the press release suggests that global warming may now be unstoppable for centuries, the model result in this paper is not convincing as support for that message,” he said.
“The paper itself does not actually claim to be a prediction of the real world, it just reports the behaviour of one model — but the press release goes a big step further and presents it as a prediction."...
Andrew Watson, a Royal Society research professor at the University of Exeter, said that he did not agree with the press release describing global warming as potentially catastrophic, “given that it occurs over 500 years”.
Full story (£)
5) Ratings agency warning: Germany's green energy transition reduces utilities' financial flexibility
Fitch Ratings, 13 November 2020
Fitch Ratings-Frankfurt/London-13 November 2020: Germany's energy transition faces the challenges of exiting nuclear and coal-fired generation while adjusting networks to an increasing share of volatile and decentralised green power.
Fitch Ratings believes these challenges could limit utilities' flexibility to grow renewable assets or could even deteriorate some credit profiles if not mitigated.
We view transmission system operators (TSO) as the most exposed to potential deterioration in credit quality as Germany's energy transition unfolds. We expect TSOs' already high investment in grids to surge by 2030, whereas returns from new assets will be earned over assets' lifetimes (including the investment period).
This will increase leverage, which will remain high until at least 2030, despite Germany's fair regulatory framework. The ultimate impact on TSOs' credit profiles will depend on their ability to partially delay capex, receive shareholder support or enact other mitigating actions.
Full post
6) Britain yet to choose between carbon tax or emissions trading post-Brexit
The Economic Times, 12 November 2020
LONDON: Britain is still deciding whether it should use a carbon tax or a domestic emissions trading system (ETS) once it leaves the European Union’s Emissions Trading System at the end of 2020, the British energy minister said on Thursday.
Putting a price on carbon emissions is seen as one of the main tools to help the country meet its target of net zero emissions by 2050.
Earlier this year, the government put forward plans for a domestic ETS to replace the EU scheme from January 2021 – once the Brexit transition period ends – which could be linked with the EU scheme to help increase liquidity.
Yet, with just seven weeks to go, Kwasi Kwarteng, minister for business, energy and clean growth, said the government could introduce a carbon tax rather than a trading scheme.
“A carbon tax has not been removed from the table,” he told a cross-party committee of lawmakers on Thursday.
Full story
see also Boris Johnson warned that tone deaf carbon taxes risk ‘Poll Tax’ fiasco
Fitch Ratings, 13 November 2020
Fitch Ratings-Frankfurt/London-13 November 2020: Germany's energy transition faces the challenges of exiting nuclear and coal-fired generation while adjusting networks to an increasing share of volatile and decentralised green power.
Fitch Ratings believes these challenges could limit utilities' flexibility to grow renewable assets or could even deteriorate some credit profiles if not mitigated.
We view transmission system operators (TSO) as the most exposed to potential deterioration in credit quality as Germany's energy transition unfolds. We expect TSOs' already high investment in grids to surge by 2030, whereas returns from new assets will be earned over assets' lifetimes (including the investment period).
This will increase leverage, which will remain high until at least 2030, despite Germany's fair regulatory framework. The ultimate impact on TSOs' credit profiles will depend on their ability to partially delay capex, receive shareholder support or enact other mitigating actions.
Full post
6) Britain yet to choose between carbon tax or emissions trading post-Brexit
The Economic Times, 12 November 2020
LONDON: Britain is still deciding whether it should use a carbon tax or a domestic emissions trading system (ETS) once it leaves the European Union’s Emissions Trading System at the end of 2020, the British energy minister said on Thursday.
Putting a price on carbon emissions is seen as one of the main tools to help the country meet its target of net zero emissions by 2050.
Earlier this year, the government put forward plans for a domestic ETS to replace the EU scheme from January 2021 – once the Brexit transition period ends – which could be linked with the EU scheme to help increase liquidity.
Yet, with just seven weeks to go, Kwasi Kwarteng, minister for business, energy and clean growth, said the government could introduce a carbon tax rather than a trading scheme.
“A carbon tax has not been removed from the table,” he told a cross-party committee of lawmakers on Thursday.
Full story
see also Boris Johnson warned that tone deaf carbon taxes risk ‘Poll Tax’ fiasco
7) GWPF Webinar: How Effective Are Carbon Taxes?
Tuesday 17th November, 5pm GMT/ 12pm EST/ 9am PST
The idea of a 'carbon tax' has been seen by many as a free-market approach to the issue of tackling climate change. The idea is that by taxing everyone the same amount for emitting one tonne of carbon dioxide, the market will drive emissions reductions in the most efficient possible way.
But despite this intuitive simplicity, the policy has nonetheless become controversial as it bumps into the messy reality of politics. Demands for greater subsidies and financial support for green tech have not gone away, despite the presence of carbon taxes in many jurisdictions. Elsewhere, voters have rejected the idea at referendums.
So can carbon taxes can be effective - despite governments’ tendency to pick winners? And what is to stop industries moving abroad to places where carbon dioxide emissions are not taxed as highly, if at all?
Joining the GWPF's Harry Wilkinson to discuss these questions are Victoria Hewson, Prof Ross McKitrick and Prof Richard Tol.
Tuesday 17th November, 5pm GMT/ 12pm EST/ 9am PST
The idea of a 'carbon tax' has been seen by many as a free-market approach to the issue of tackling climate change. The idea is that by taxing everyone the same amount for emitting one tonne of carbon dioxide, the market will drive emissions reductions in the most efficient possible way.
But despite this intuitive simplicity, the policy has nonetheless become controversial as it bumps into the messy reality of politics. Demands for greater subsidies and financial support for green tech have not gone away, despite the presence of carbon taxes in many jurisdictions. Elsewhere, voters have rejected the idea at referendums.
So can carbon taxes can be effective - despite governments’ tendency to pick winners? And what is to stop industries moving abroad to places where carbon dioxide emissions are not taxed as highly, if at all?
Joining the GWPF's Harry Wilkinson to discuss these questions are Victoria Hewson, Prof Ross McKitrick and Prof Richard Tol.
You can register for the webinar by clicking this link:
https://us02web.zoom.us/webinar/register/WN_22zPwnrgTPOkBcN60-MV3g
After registering, you will receive a confirmation email containing information about joining the webinar.
8) A short history of climate sensitivity
Andy May, Watts Up With That, 12 November 2020
The first modern theoretical estimates of ECS, the equilibrium climate sensitivity to carbon dioxide, were reported in 1979 in the so-called “Charney Report” (Charney, et al., 1979). They reported, on page 2, a theoretical ECS of 1.5°C to 4.5°C per doubling of the CO2 atmospheric concentration.
This estimate included an estimate of water vapor feedbacks, the effect of ice and their assumed uncertainties. Absent any water vapor feedback their computed value was 1°C per doubling of CO2. They also supply a likely value of 2.4°C on page 9, although on page 2 they offer a value “near 3.0.” The page 9 value is not far off from the empirical estimate of 2°C made by Guy Callendar in 1938, but significantly higher than the 1.2°C to 1.95°C (17% to 83% range, best estimate 1.5°C) given by Nic Lewis and Judith Curry (Lewis & Curry, 2018).
The IPCC, in their AR5 report (Bindoff & Stott, 2013), estimate ECS as lying between 1.5°C and 4.5°C and provide no best estimate. This range is precisely the same as the Charney Report made 34 years earlier.
While the empirical, observation-based, estimates have narrowed significantly, the theoretical range has not changed, despite thousands of government-funded scientists spending billions of dollars trying to do so. The data is very much the same today and churning it faster with more powerful computers and billions of dollars doesn’t seem to matter. It works the same way with manure.
Digging deeply into the AR5 internals, as Monckton, et al. did in MSLB15, a paper entitled, “Why Models run hot: results from an irreducibly simple climate model” (Monckton, Soon, Legates, & Briggs, 2015), we see that the elements of the AR5 theoretical calculations suggest that the range is narrowing in a downward direction.
Given the political environment at the IPCC, one can easily suspect that the politicians do not want to admit the theoretical risks of CO2-caused climate change are lessening. As more empirical estimates of the CO2 effect appear and more theoretical work is done, one wonders how long the politicians can support the clearly inflated range of 1.5°C to 4.5°C?
Estimates of ECS have been declining for a long time, as shown in 2017 by Nicola Scafetta and colleagues. Figure 1 is from their paper:
https://us02web.zoom.us/webinar/register/WN_22zPwnrgTPOkBcN60-MV3g
After registering, you will receive a confirmation email containing information about joining the webinar.
8) A short history of climate sensitivity
Andy May, Watts Up With That, 12 November 2020
The first modern theoretical estimates of ECS, the equilibrium climate sensitivity to carbon dioxide, were reported in 1979 in the so-called “Charney Report” (Charney, et al., 1979). They reported, on page 2, a theoretical ECS of 1.5°C to 4.5°C per doubling of the CO2 atmospheric concentration.
This estimate included an estimate of water vapor feedbacks, the effect of ice and their assumed uncertainties. Absent any water vapor feedback their computed value was 1°C per doubling of CO2. They also supply a likely value of 2.4°C on page 9, although on page 2 they offer a value “near 3.0.” The page 9 value is not far off from the empirical estimate of 2°C made by Guy Callendar in 1938, but significantly higher than the 1.2°C to 1.95°C (17% to 83% range, best estimate 1.5°C) given by Nic Lewis and Judith Curry (Lewis & Curry, 2018).
The IPCC, in their AR5 report (Bindoff & Stott, 2013), estimate ECS as lying between 1.5°C and 4.5°C and provide no best estimate. This range is precisely the same as the Charney Report made 34 years earlier.
While the empirical, observation-based, estimates have narrowed significantly, the theoretical range has not changed, despite thousands of government-funded scientists spending billions of dollars trying to do so. The data is very much the same today and churning it faster with more powerful computers and billions of dollars doesn’t seem to matter. It works the same way with manure.
Digging deeply into the AR5 internals, as Monckton, et al. did in MSLB15, a paper entitled, “Why Models run hot: results from an irreducibly simple climate model” (Monckton, Soon, Legates, & Briggs, 2015), we see that the elements of the AR5 theoretical calculations suggest that the range is narrowing in a downward direction.
Given the political environment at the IPCC, one can easily suspect that the politicians do not want to admit the theoretical risks of CO2-caused climate change are lessening. As more empirical estimates of the CO2 effect appear and more theoretical work is done, one wonders how long the politicians can support the clearly inflated range of 1.5°C to 4.5°C?
Estimates of ECS have been declining for a long time, as shown in 2017 by Nicola Scafetta and colleagues. Figure 1 is from their paper:
The decline in estimates of ECS from 2000 to 2015. Source: Scafetta, Mirandola, and Bianchini, 2017.
The 1980s was when the catastrophic man-made (or anthropogenic) global warming catastrophe (CAGW) idea was developed. The alarmists have been beating the drum year-after-year ever since. In the United States, a Senate committee meeting, hosted by Senator Tim Wirth, on CAGW took place in the Washington, DC Dirksen Senate Office Building on June 23, 1988. It was a hot and humid day in swampy Washington, DC. The meeting was a watershed moment, in no small part due to Dr. James Hansen of NASA. In his presentation to the Congressional committee, he said:
“It is warmer in 1988 than at any time in the history of instrumental measurements.”
“Altogether the evidence that the earth is warming by an amount which is too large to be a chance fluctuation and the similarity of the warming to that expected from the greenhouse effect represents a very strong case. In my opinion, … the greenhouse effect has been detected, and it is changing our climate now.”
“The present observed global warming is close to 0.4 degrees C, relative to ‘climatology,’ which is defined as the thirty-year (1951 – 1980) mean. … we can state with about 99 percent confidence that current temperatures represent a real warming trend rather than a chance fluctuation over the 30-year period.” (Hansen, 1988)
ExxonMobil believed that natural variability was ±0.5°C. They thought that a change had to be larger than that to be significant. Obviously, Hansen somehow narrowed this natural range. The world cooled globally from 1944 to 1977, then began warming in 1978. An increase of 0.4°C is not much, so using that to determine that the “greenhouse effect” has been detected after a long period of cooling should have raised eyebrows and questions.
Notice Hansen says, “greenhouse effect,” when he means “human-caused greenhouse effect” or “enhanced greenhouse effect.” There is a natural greenhouse effect, caused by natural CO2 and other greenhouse gases, especially water vapor. This is the beginning of a deceptive tactic commonly used by the alarmists. To ignore natural causes of climate change, they equate “greenhouse effect” with “human-caused greenhouse effect.” Also, they use “global warming” as synonymous to “human-caused global warming” and “climate change” is synonymous with “human-caused climate change.” This sort of deceptive and manipulative language is still used today.
Full post
The 1980s was when the catastrophic man-made (or anthropogenic) global warming catastrophe (CAGW) idea was developed. The alarmists have been beating the drum year-after-year ever since. In the United States, a Senate committee meeting, hosted by Senator Tim Wirth, on CAGW took place in the Washington, DC Dirksen Senate Office Building on June 23, 1988. It was a hot and humid day in swampy Washington, DC. The meeting was a watershed moment, in no small part due to Dr. James Hansen of NASA. In his presentation to the Congressional committee, he said:
“It is warmer in 1988 than at any time in the history of instrumental measurements.”
“Altogether the evidence that the earth is warming by an amount which is too large to be a chance fluctuation and the similarity of the warming to that expected from the greenhouse effect represents a very strong case. In my opinion, … the greenhouse effect has been detected, and it is changing our climate now.”
“The present observed global warming is close to 0.4 degrees C, relative to ‘climatology,’ which is defined as the thirty-year (1951 – 1980) mean. … we can state with about 99 percent confidence that current temperatures represent a real warming trend rather than a chance fluctuation over the 30-year period.” (Hansen, 1988)
ExxonMobil believed that natural variability was ±0.5°C. They thought that a change had to be larger than that to be significant. Obviously, Hansen somehow narrowed this natural range. The world cooled globally from 1944 to 1977, then began warming in 1978. An increase of 0.4°C is not much, so using that to determine that the “greenhouse effect” has been detected after a long period of cooling should have raised eyebrows and questions.
Notice Hansen says, “greenhouse effect,” when he means “human-caused greenhouse effect” or “enhanced greenhouse effect.” There is a natural greenhouse effect, caused by natural CO2 and other greenhouse gases, especially water vapor. This is the beginning of a deceptive tactic commonly used by the alarmists. To ignore natural causes of climate change, they equate “greenhouse effect” with “human-caused greenhouse effect.” Also, they use “global warming” as synonymous to “human-caused global warming” and “climate change” is synonymous with “human-caused climate change.” This sort of deceptive and manipulative language is still used today.
Full post
9) And Finally: Ex-soldier who sparked fury with Cenotaph Extinction Rebellion protest is a drug dealer
Daily Mail, 12 November 2020
Ex-soldier who sparked fury with Cenotaph Extinction Rebellion protest is a drug dealer jailed for selling heroin - and was accused of abusing his disabled wife
Former soldier Donald Bell (above) who hijacked the Cenotaph Remembrance Day ceremony is a convicted heroin dealer who was accused of abusing his disabled wife, MailOnline has learned
The former soldier who hijacked the Cenotaph Remembrance Day ceremony is a convicted heroin dealer who was accused of abusing his disabled wife, MailOnline can reveal.
Standing proudly to attention dressed in his military fatigues, Donald Bell's Armistice Day actions on behalf of Extinction Rebellion (XR) caused fury from veterans after he walked over other official wreaths to plant one on behalf of the climate change extremists.
Yesterday he even dismissed the official Remembrance ceremonies as 'a little ritual'.
MailOnline can reveal he was jailed for four years in 2007 after being caught pushing his wheelchair-bound wife around the streets of Cambridge – while peddling heroin at the same time.
Standing proudly to attention dressed in his military fatigues, Donald Bell's Armistice Day actions on behalf of Extinction Rebellion (XR) caused fury from veterans after he walked over other official wreaths to plant one on behalf of the climate change extremists.
The widowed former infantry private was a long-term cannabis user, who 'has brought shame on the family', according to one relative who spoke to MailOnline said.
Full story
Daily Mail, 12 November 2020
Ex-soldier who sparked fury with Cenotaph Extinction Rebellion protest is a drug dealer jailed for selling heroin - and was accused of abusing his disabled wife
Former soldier Donald Bell (above) who hijacked the Cenotaph Remembrance Day ceremony is a convicted heroin dealer who was accused of abusing his disabled wife, MailOnline has learned
The former soldier who hijacked the Cenotaph Remembrance Day ceremony is a convicted heroin dealer who was accused of abusing his disabled wife, MailOnline can reveal.
Standing proudly to attention dressed in his military fatigues, Donald Bell's Armistice Day actions on behalf of Extinction Rebellion (XR) caused fury from veterans after he walked over other official wreaths to plant one on behalf of the climate change extremists.
Yesterday he even dismissed the official Remembrance ceremonies as 'a little ritual'.
MailOnline can reveal he was jailed for four years in 2007 after being caught pushing his wheelchair-bound wife around the streets of Cambridge – while peddling heroin at the same time.
Standing proudly to attention dressed in his military fatigues, Donald Bell's Armistice Day actions on behalf of Extinction Rebellion (XR) caused fury from veterans after he walked over other official wreaths to plant one on behalf of the climate change extremists.
The widowed former infantry private was a long-term cannabis user, who 'has brought shame on the family', according to one relative who spoke to MailOnline said.
Full story
The London-based Global Warming Policy Forum is a world leading think tank on global warming policy issues. The GWPF newsletter is prepared by Director Dr Benny Peiser - for more information, please visit the website at www.thegwpf.com.
No comments:
Post a Comment