By Paul Homewood
I noted the other day that ice cores in Peru indicate that temperatures were warmer there from 8400 to 5200 years ago. Adding to this evidence is the discovery of plant remains are being uncovered as the Quelccaya Glacier, also in Peru, recedes. Radiocarbon dating shows these to be about 5000 years old. Furthermore, more seem to be being discovered (the report was made in 2007), so it is highly likely many more remain to be found deeper under the glacier.
Glaciologist, Lonnie Thompson, also produced this temperature graph, using ice cores on the Quelccaya, which clearly show higher temperatures back in the MWP.
Note that the temperatures are presented decadally, and the “current” ones are 1991-2000. (The study was made in 2003). Also note the steep rise in the 11thC, much steeper than in recent years.
And, for good measure, note that the recent warming began in the 19thC, long before any impact from humans. It’s also interesting that, apart from the sharp fall and subsequent recovery in the 1980’s, temperatures have been pretty flat since the mid 20thC. ( The El Chichon volcano in Mexico exploded in 1982; this may well have had a major effect on temperatures that decade in Peru).
Taking a longer perspective look at the 19thC, it is worth remembering what Lonnie Thompson wrote in 1995, about another glacier in Peru, the Huascarán:
“that the climate was warmest from 8400 to 5200 years before present, and that it cooled gradually, culminating with the Little Ice Age (200 to 500 years before present). “
Clearly, from a historical point of view, there is nothing remotely unusual about temperatures in this part of Peru.
By Paul Homewood
I briefly mentioned the GWPF report yesterday, concerning climate change brainwashing in schools.
The full report can be found at GWPF’s website here. It is by necessity very detailed, but the Executive Summary is well worth a read, if you have not already seen it.
But I thought I’d show some of the examples found, to give some of the flavour.
Let’s start with this example from the “GCSE Geography AQA A (Student Book)”, which begins its description of the climate change question with a paragraph that would not have looked out of place in a Greenpeace pamphlet:
Climate change isn’t something that is going to happen in the future – it’s happening now! Disasters, like the severe droughts in Niger, in sub- Saharan Africa, in 2005–6 and 2009, are wrecking people’s lives more and more frequently. And it’s going to get worse.
The book also includes a section about how individual children can help reduce greenhouse gases, suggesting that they join 10:10, an organisation best known for a controversial video campaign that vividly portrayed the violent death of two children at the hands of their teacher, when their parents refused to accept the teacher’s demands for action in response to her concerns about energy usage and global warming.
The text in GCSEGeography forWJEC: a Revision Guide makes several highly dubious statements, for example claiming that there has been an increase in the number and intensity of tropical storms, directly contradicting the IPCC, which says that there is low confidence that any such increase has taken place. The book’s section on the impacts of climate change features a mind map that suggests that global warming will be worse than famine, plague or nuclear war (see Figure 1). This has been taken directly from a pamphlet published by a ‘passionate’ green activist.
Some geography textbooks make passing mention of the existence of dissenting points of view, but these are often then dismissed. An example comes in GCSE Geography A AQA :
The climate is changing – global warming is happening. It’s just that a handful of people think some of the evidence isn’t great. There are other things that cause climate change, but let’s face it,we humans better take the rap this time.
Even worse was this characterisation, from A2 Level Geography AQA Complete Revision & Practice :
All scientists care about is evidence…All these graphs can be mighty confusing, especially when people manipulate the data to try to show that climate change isn’t happening.
Propaganda also finds its way into the Biology curriculum, in the Revision Guide:
There’s too much carbon dioxide in the atmosphere, and burning fossil fuels…is making the problem worse. Luckily there are some biofuels out there that we can use, which are carbon neutral.
No mention is made in the guide about the damaging effect on food production.
[You might also have thought biology lessons would teach pupils that plants need CO2 to live!]
English lessons are not immune either!
The CGP English Revision guide for GCSE English mentions global warming three times, for example the extract shown in Table 1, explaining effective use of adjectives:
In a Heinemann textbook for A Level French, students are asked to study an open letter by a French environmentalist to schoolchildren:
Examinations and mark schemes
Just as worrying is that mindless repetition of the global warming mantra is the fact that exam marks depend on it.
A number of examination boards have repositories of past and example papers, together with examiners’ reports and these are revealing as to the emphasis given to global warming in exams. The following section is a review of materials in the repository of the AQA exam board:
A search of the AQA past paper repository returned 526 documents containing the expression ‘global warming’ and 391 containing the expression ‘climate change’, spanning a wide range of subjects. For example, the expression ‘global warming’ could be found in papers on economics, chemistry, geography, religious studies, physics, French, humanities, biology, citizenship, English and science.
One example, from an Economics paper,was particularly egregious, assuming in essence that a particular political response was beyond question:
Explain why developed rich countries should provide money to poorer, developing countries so that they can reduce their CO2 emissions.
Questions on global warming also appeared in a paper on religious studies:
(b) Explain two reasons why many religious believers are concerned about climate change. (4 marks) …
(d) Explain actions religious people might take to look after the planet. (3 marks)
The mark scheme for part (b) of this question suggests awarding marks for:
The effects of climate change on life, e.g. loss of life, food shortages, devastation of livelihoods because of severe weather, droughts, floods, famine, destruction of crops, effects on plants and animals/long term effects/ religious reasons – stewardship, dominion, responsibility, etc.
While for part (d), marks were to be awarded for such things as:
Avoid polluting the world/recycle/reduce carbon footprint – reduce use of car, use renewable energy, turn off lights, use energy saving bulbs/ encourage sustainable development/plant trees/protest when necessary/ join action groups such as Greenpeace and religious organisations which raise awareness/encourage others to protect the planet, etc.
Global warming also featured prominently in Humanities, for example:
2. (e) Explain two ways in which global warming can be reduced. Use your own studies to answer. (4 marks)
The marking scheme for this question suggested:
Max 2 marks for each of the two ways:
1 mark for identification and 1 mark for explanation or development.
Ways of reducing global warming include: reducing the amount of greenhouse gases we produce; taking action through international agreements such as the Kyoto Protocols; producing energy in cleaner ways; reducing individuals’ energy consumption, e.g. by better insulation of homes, recycling, using public transport rather than our own cars.
If anybody has other examples of exam questions, coursework etc, please send over, and I will post .
By Paul Homewood
Many will have read Andrew Montford’s & John Shade’s expose of the climate change propaganda that is being force fed to our kids, in the name of education.
Their full report for the GWPF can be seem here. It is what most of us have suspected for years, and is truly scary.
There is one section, though, that I could not resist repeating.
This is the official answer to a question in the Chemistry GCSE, (the exam for 16 year olds).
An AQA GCSE specimen answer in Chemistry, deemed worthy of full marks, includes the following words: ‘Overall I think we should be using more biodiesel as it is important for us all to reduce our carbon footprint in an effort to halt global warming’. One for a physics question includes: ‘I think wind turbines are a good idea as global warming from burning coal is an increasing problem and needs to be stopped.’
Now, we’ll just leave aside the obvious questions about indoctrination, and get to the other really serious issue.
In my day, (and, no, I’m not 202 years old) to pass an O Level in Chemistry or Physics, we had to answer proper questions about science.
The UK is crying out for proper scientists and engineers, and is it any wonder? If you can pass an exam just by repeating global warming mantras, it does not take a genius to work out why.
(BTW- if any Guardian readers are having difficulty with this pretty simple bit of logic, perhaps you should stop reading such left wing drivel).
By Paul Homewood
I don’t know where the Guardian dredges up these dopey birds from, but this one apparently thinks that “carbon barons”, (not sure if this includes the Chinese, but I expect Communist Carbon is good for everyone), will kill the planet as we know it. In the meantime we can expect famines, droughts and all the other Horsemen of the Apocalypse.
She obviously does not realise that all these nasty events have happened with great regularity in the past, so perhaps a history lesson is in order for Millie.
By Paul Homewood
h/t Alex Henney
E.ON Benelux power station Maasvlakte, Rotterdam
As well as the tranche of new coal fired power stations being opened in Germany this year, Alex Henney alerts me to a similar situation in the Netherlands, where three more have either opened last year, or will this year.
|MW Capacity||Year of
|Maasvlakte Electrabel, Rotterdam||800||2013|
|Maasvlakte, E.ON, Rotterdam||1116||2014|
While, the plants are designed to use biomass as part of the load, coal will still be the main fuel. For instance, the Eemshaven plant biomass can only provide up to 10% of the mix.
According to Wiki, prior to Maasvlakte Electrolabel’s commissioning, there were four coal plants, with a capacity of 2698 MW, so even if all these shut down in the near future, the three new ones will serve to increase coal fired capacity.
The three new plants will be capable of supplying 26.2 TWh a year, about 27% of the Netherlands total generation.
Currently, fossil fuels supply 81% of the Netherlands’ power . It does not look as if this proportion will fall very much in the near future.
More details on the plants can be found below.
By Paul Homewood
Back in 1936, the USA did not just have the hottest summer on record, it also had the 2nd coldest winter since 1895. Only the winter of 1978/79 was colder.
Nebraska was one of the states that experienced big extremes that year, and the State Climatological Reports give a flavour of this.
Those who talk of extreme weather nowadays really don’t know what they are talking about.
By Paul Homewood
One of the examples this silly little girl uses is the French Revolution:
One of the events prompting the French Revolution was the failure of the 1788 wheat crop, which made bread prices skyrocket and the poor go hungry.
And the study she links to?
Just so that Rebecca gets the message, I will highlight:
By Paul Homewood
RWE’s new lignite power station opened in Neurath in 2012
BDEW, the German Energy Producers Association, have just published their annual list of new power stations being built, or in planning. The list shows that a further four coal power stations are due to commission this year.
The combined capacity of the 14 plants is 14.5GW, which will be capable of supplying about 19% of Germany’s total power requirement of 575TWh (based on 2012 stats from the IEA).
I addition there are another 24 gas fired power plants, due by 2020, which can supply a further 17%.
These numbers will, of course, be additional to power supplied by existing fossil fuel plants, even though some of these may shut in due course.
Germany’s pressing need for fossil fuel power is abundantly clear, as the IEA statistics for electricity generation in 2012 show.
Despite throwing billions of subsidies at renewables, they still only account for 23%, and that heavily intermittent. In order to replace the nuclear capacity, the only realistic solution is to expand fossil fuel capacity.
By Paul Homewood
A good review in the Telegraph of Rupert Darwell’s new book, The Age of Global Warming. (Except for the picture caption “emitting smoke”!)
Most of us pay some attention to the weather forecast. If it says it will rain in your area tomorrow, it probably will. But if it says the same for a month, let alone a year, later, it is much less likely to be right. There are too many imponderables.
The theory of global warming is a gigantic weather forecast for a century or more. However interesting the scientific inquiries involved, therefore, it can have almost no value as a prediction. Yet it is as a prediction that global warming (or, as we are now ordered to call it in the face of a stubbornly parky 21st century, “global weirding”) has captured the political and bureaucratic elites. All the action plans, taxes, green levies, protocols and carbon-emitting flights to massive summit meetings, after all, are not because of what its supporters call “The Science”. Proper science studies what is – which is, in principle, knowable – and is consequently very cautious about the future – which isn’t. No, they are the result of a belief that something big and bad is going to hit us one of these days.
Some of the utterances of the warmists are preposterously specific. In March 2009, the Prince of Wales declared that the world had “only 100 months to avert irretrievable climate and ecosystem collapse”. How could he possibly calculate such a thing? Similarly, in his 2006 report on the economic consequences of climate change, Sir Nicholas Stern wrote that, “If we don’t act, the overall costs and risks of climate change will be equivalent to losing at least five per cent of global GDP each year, now and forever.” To the extent that this sentence means anything, it is clearly wrong (how are we losing five per cent GDP “now”, before most of the bad things have happened? How can he put a percentage on “forever”?). It is charlatanry.
Like most of those on both sides of the debate, Rupert Darwall is not a scientist. He is a wonderfully lucid historian of intellectual and political movements, which is just the job to explain what has been inflicted on us over the past 30 years or so in the name of saving the planet.
The origins of warmism lie in a cocktail of ideas which includes anti-industrial nature worship, post-colonial guilt, a post-Enlightenment belief in scientists as a new priesthood of the truth, a hatred of population growth, a revulsion against the widespread increase in wealth and a belief in world government. It involves a fondness for predicting that energy supplies won’t last much longer (as early as 1909, the US National Conservation Commission reported to Congress that America’s natural gas would be gone in 25 years and its oil by the middle of the century), protest movements which involve dressing up and disappearing into woods (the Kindred of the Kibbo Kift, the Mosleyite Blackshirts who believed in reafforestation) and a dislike of the human race (The Club of Rome’s work Mankind at the Turning-Point said: “The world has cancer and the cancer is man.”).
These beliefs began to take organised, international, political form in the 1970s. One of the greatest problems, however, was that the ecologists’ attacks on economic growth were unwelcome to the nations they most idolised – the poor ones. The eternal Green paradox is that the concept of the simple, natural life appeals only to countries with tons of money. By a brilliant stroke, the founding fathers developed the concept of “sustainable development”. This meant that poor countries would not have to restrain their own growth, but could force restraint upon the rich ones. This formula was propagated at the first global environmental conference in Stockholm in 1972.
The G7 Summit in Toronto in 1988 endorsed the theory of global warming. In the same year, the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change was set up. The capture of the world’s elites was under way. Its high point was the Kyoto Summit in 1998, which enabled the entire world to yell at the United States for not signing up, while also exempting developing nations, such as China and India, from its rigours.
The final push, brilliantly described here by Darwall, was the Copenhagen Summit of 2009. Before it, a desperate Gordon Brown warned of “50 days to avoid catastrophe”, but the “catastrophe” came all the same. The warmists’ idea was that the global fight against carbon emissions would work only if the whole world signed up to it. Despite being ordered to by President Obama, who had just collected his Nobel Peace Prize in Oslo, the developing countries refused. The Left-wing dream that what used to be called the Third World would finally be emancipated from Western power had come true. The developing countries were perfectly happy for the West to have “the green crap”, but not to have it themselves. The Western goody-goodies were hoist by their own petard.
Since then, the international war against carbon totters on, because Western governments see their green policies, like zombie banks, as too big to fail. The EU, including Britain, continues to inflict expensive pain upon itself. Last week, the latest IPCC report made the usual warnings about climate change, but behind its rhetoric was a huge concession. The answer to the problems of climate change lay in adaptation, not in mitigation, it admitted. So the game is up.
Scientists, Rupert Darwall complains, have been too ready to embrace the “subjectivity” of the future, and too often have a “cultural aversion to learning from the past”. If they read this tremendous book they will see those lessons set out with painful clarity.
By Paul Homewood
More bias from the BBC.
(Well, no surprise there then!)
From Paul Chapman’s blog:
Apparently this is the BBC’s idea of balanced reporting. They seem to have taken a leaf out of Goebbel’s book.
The full story is here.