Skip to content

Philip Eden Throws Out Met Office Record Temperature Claim

July 28, 2015

By Paul Homewood    




Another interesting piece from Philip Eden in the latest Sunday Telegraph, this time looking back at some of the weather extremes in August.


What particularly stood out though was:


The reading of 101.3F (38.5C) at Faversham, Kent is now widely discounted.


I have heard of doubts raised about the Faversham record before, but this is the first time I have seen it officially raised in this way.

Which then raises the question – why are the Met Office still declaring it as their all-time record high?





The “national record” of 100.6F at Kew, which Eden now recognises, can also be put into perspective by the temperatures measured in August 1911. In particular, 100F at Greenwich.

This really shows just how little things have changed in the last 104 years.




Top 10 Global Warming Lies

July 28, 2015

By Paul Homewood 




James Taylor exposes the latest set of lies peddled by the Environmental Defense Fund.

No Austerity For The Met Office!

July 27, 2015

By Paul Homewood




The Met Office’s Annual Accounts are now published for 2014/15, and once again we find that government funding has increased.


Read more…

What Did Gummer Know About The Risks Of Diesel?

July 27, 2015

By Paul Homewood  




Scientists warned British ministers 22 years ago their planned “dash for diesel” could cause a public health disaster, but were ignored because the then government believed climate change was more important, documents released under freedom of information rules have revealed.

About 50,000 people die annually because of air pollution, yet many deaths might have been prevented had ministers heeded a 1993 report handed to the then environment secretary, John Gummer — now Lord Deben — warning that any increase in diesel could have just such a consequence.

It said that although diesel produced less of the key greenhouse gases (carbon dioxide, methane and nitrous oxide), it produced more of the toxic nitrogen dioxide and particulates that damage health.

It added: “The impact of diesel vehicles on urban air quality is a serious one. Any increase in the proportion of diesel vehicles on urban streets is to be viewed with concern unless problems of particulate matter and nitrogen oxides emissions are addressed.”

But the warning came at a time when climate change was seen as a more pressing issue than air quality. Margaret Thatcher had championed climate issues, telling the UN in 1989: “The most pressing task which faces us at the international level is to negotiate a framework convention on climate change.”

She also told ministers to prioritise the problem, a policy that continued when John Major replaced her as prime minister in 1990, overseeing budgets that favoured diesel. In 1992 this included a sharp cut in the tax on diesel company cars.

The documents show concerns about air quality were sidelined by civil servants in favour of climate change: “Research so far suggests that diesel emissions present a very low level of health risk.”

This was untrue; by then many scientists had warned of the risk if the government continued to promote diesel.

Among them was Martin Williams, head of the former Department of the Environment’s air quality research unit for 20 years from 1993, who said ministers were clear climate change and fuel efficiency had priority.

“Climate change took precedence. At that time there were discussions in Europe to cut the average CO2 emissions of new cars by 25%. Diesel was seen as the way to achieve this because it was considered more efficient,” he said.

In 1994 Gummer showed some awareness of scientists’ concerns over diesel. Asked whether unleaded petrol or diesel-powered cars were “better for the environment”, he said: “When diesel cars are used largely for longer journeys, there is a real environmental advantage. If they are used for stopping and starting in towns, the balance goes the other way.”

Last week Gummer, who is now chairman of the government committee on climate change, said he could not remember discussions from so long ago, but he added: “In attempting to solve one problem, we inadvertently land ourselves with another.”


Diesel fumes play part in premature deaths of Londoners

Financial Times, 15 July 2015

Large numbers of diesel vehicles on London’s streets have contributed to the early deaths of thousands more people than previously thought, a report from the Mayor’s office has revealed.

Up to 9,400 people died prematurely in 2010 because they spent years breathing in pollutants commonly found in fumes from diesel trucks, buses and cars, according to a study by King’s College London academics.

That is more than twice the number calculated in previous studies and it shows Londoners are more likely to be killed by the air they breathe than a car accident, said the British Lung Foundation.



Gummer, now Lord Deben, has serious questions to answer. To simply shrug them off, as he has tried to do, is a disgrace and should not be tolerated.

Lomborg And The Marxist Eco Warriors

July 27, 2015

By Paul Homewood  




Dellers catches up with the latest attempts to exclude Bjorn Lomborg from Australian universities:


Earlier this year, I reported how a handful of green activists at the University of Western Australia had nixed a $4 million policy centre just because it was vaguely associated with “Skeptical Environmentalist” Bjørn Lomborg.

Now they’re at it again, this time at Flinders University in South Australia, where the student association’s general secretary Grace Hill has vowed to lead students in killing the project.

The University of Western Australia was to host the think tank, to be aligned with Lomborg­’s Copenhagen Consensus Centre and work in areas ranging from food security to social justice, but reversed its decision amid howls of protest from students and staff.

Flinders University Student Association general secretary Grace Hill said students would launch a campaign immediately against having “a climate change denial centre on campus”.

“I’m pretty repulsed by it,” she said.

“At this stage there seems to be no student or staff consultation. It’s right-wing junk. It was excellent to see him booted out of WA so hopefully the same will happen here.

And who exactly is this Grace Hill person when she’s at home? Well “Aussieguy” in the comments at Jo Nova has found a few clues at the university’s website.

Name: ​Grace Hill
Position: General Secretary
Degree: Bachelor of Government and Public Management

What does the General Secretary do?
The General Secretary calls meetings of the Student Council, organises the Student Council’s correspondence, helps clubs, and organises the First Year subcommittee. Contact me if you are a concerned First Year student and you want to be part of the sub-committee.

What are the important issues that drive you?
​Marxism, student rights, social justice.

There are at least two things that trouble me about this story—both of them depressingly symptomatic of our times.

Read more…

Do We Need Baseload Capacity?

July 26, 2015

By Paul Homewood





Richard Black, ex-propaganda guy for the BBC and now head honcho at the warmist propaganda outfit, the Energy & Climate Intelligence Unit, is getting excited that we are not long away from a 100% renewable future.

He has picked up on a German modelling study, Kombikraftwerk. There are English versions, and also a video in English for anyone who is interested.




According to the video, the main thrust of their proposed system is based around a massive expansion of wind and solar capacity, coupled with use of surplus power at various times of the year to produce methane, which can be stored when the wind does not blow and the sun does not shine.

While there is a role for battery storage, geothermal and biomass, these are surprisingly small. The authors appear to recognise their limitations.


The dominance of wind and solar can be seen on their chart below, showing the projected, decarbonised mix. (On the left is generation, and the right is consumption – “Weitere Stromverbraucher” is additional consumption to current, if my German translation is right!)).


Read more…

Dozy Journalists Keep Falling For Same Old Record Heatwave Nonsense

July 25, 2015

By Paul Homewood 


It’s Whack-a-Mole time again!




And the outcome?




Well, they surely could not get it wrong two months in a row?



Read more…

What The Solar Industry Forgot To Tell You!

July 24, 2015

By Paul Homewood 




The solar industry has apparently been bragging about how much power it has been producing recently. Unfortunately, they seem to have forgotten to tell us the full story.


In overall terms, solar only generated 1.2% of UK’s electricity last year.





But worse still, in Q1, when demand is at its highest, solar only provided 0.51%.


And if that was not bad enough, when solar power does ramp up on sunny days, it simply provides problems for the grid, as this presentation from the National Grid earlier in the year showed:


Read more…

Temperature Spikes At Airports

July 24, 2015

By Paul Homewood 




There was a very interesting letter in last week’s Sunday Telegraph, in response to the Booker article on the record temperature set at Heathrow.

The Met Office have now confirmed to me that the next highest temperatures set that day were 35.7C set at Northolt and Kew, a full degree less than the 36.7C at Heathrow. Wittering with 35.3C was the highest outside London.

Northolt is only 7 miles from Heathrow, and the Met Office confirm that temperatures at Kew, just a few miles further away, track very close to Heathrow on average. The idea that the sun came out and brought a spike in temperatures at Heathrow alone is looking ever more threadbare. 

BBC Promote Flawed Anti-Fracking Study

July 23, 2015
tags: ,

By Paul Homewood 


h/t Mark Hodgson




The BBC are continuing with their campaign against fracking:


New research suggests that the impact of shale gas on curbing US carbon emissions has been overstated.

Politicians have argued that the US was able to significantly reduce CO2 between 2007 and 2013 because of fracking.

But scientists now believe an 11% cut in emissions in that period was chiefly due to economic recession.

The study suggests that the future impacts of shale as a way of curbing carbon may be limited.

Between 2007 and 2013 US emissions of carbon dioxide, mainly from the burning of fossil fuels, declined significantly.

By 2012, levels of CO2 from the US were running 5% below the total for 1997.

In the same period, a boom in the production of shale gas through the use of hydraulic fracturing technology saw a rapid switch from coal fired electricity production to gas burning.

Coal dropped from producing half of US electricity in 2007 to 37% by 2012.

Scientists and commentators immediately linked the curb on emissions to shale gas.

Even official government documents such as the US Third National Climate Assessment highlighted the move as being "largely due to shift from coal to less CO2-intensive natural gas."

But according to this new study, the shift played a minor role. The key to the reduction in emissions in this period was consumption.

"We couldn’t see that gas was the real driver," lead author Prof Klaus Hubacek from the University of Maryland told BBC News.

"What we can show is that the main driver has been the level of consumption, GDP per capita. The decrease in this was the main driver. Gas was a driver but a very minor one."

The biggest drop in emissions took place when the recession was really beginning to bite between 2007 and 2009 when CO2 fell by almost ten percent, due to a sharp decline in in the volume of consumed goods.

From 2009 to 2013 the US economy started to recover and consumption began to rise, also impacted by a growing population.

But the authors point out that although shale gas begins to have a greater impact on the fuel mix in this latter period, changes in the amount of energy used to produce goods and services still has a far greater effect on the overall picture.

"It is a myth – in terms of the economics of the whole system, natural gas is also competing with renewables," says Prof Kubacek.

"The other question is what happens with the coal that the gas displaces – if you take it out of the ground, it’s going to be used somewhere. The whole gas story doesn’t make a difference."

The researchers argue that it is a mistake to think that shale gas can be an easy path to lower emissions, as many governments around the world have argued.

They point to the experience of the US showing that exports of coal to China grew rapidly as US power producers shifted to gas.

In China, the coal was likely used in less efficient burners than in the States, turning what on the surface looks like an emissions cut into an overall emissions rise for the world.

If we are serious about tackling climate change, the authors say, we need to find more effective solutions that deal with the root causes.

"We need to rethink the amount of stuff that people are consuming – one could also tax the dirty stuff, one could think of a tax on more polluting items, driven by environmental reasoning," says Prof Kubacek.

"If you want a low carbon future, then why don’t you focus on low carbon stuff rather than investing in the wrong alternative which is in my mind, gas."


The BBC will no doubt claim that they are only reporting on a scientific study, and that none of this reflects their views. However, it is clear that this is in no way an impartial, objective study, as Kubacek’s comments, such as “taxing dirty stuff” make clear.

It is not the BBC’s job simply to cut and paste studies whose findings suit their agenda, but to report the facts, which, with a few minutes research, they would have discovered totally undermined the study.


Read more…