Skip to content

Global Coal Power Capacity Set To Rise By 33%

October 13, 2018

By Paul Homewood


I covered Matt McGrath’s report last week on the then ongoing discussions re the IPCC report. Tucked away right at the end was this paragraph:


A new analysis by a group of environmental organisations says that 1,380 new coal plants or units are planned, or under development, in 59 countries. If built, these plants would add 672,124 megawatts of energy capacity to the global coal plant fleet – an increase of 33%.


I doubt whether any of these new plants contradict anything pledged in INDCs at Paris, which rather underlines the whole futility of the exercise there.

And while some of the plants may replace older polluting ones, countries who are building them certainly will not be prepared to close these new ones prematurely.


Globally, coal power generation currently accounts for about 47%  37% of total power, so an increase in capacity of 33% will add signficantly to that share, particularly given that these modern, efficient and clean plants will likely be run at much higher utilisation levels.


Florida’s Major Hurricane Strikes: No Change In 120 Years

October 12, 2018

From Roy Spencer via GWPF:



Florida’s Major Hurricane Strikes: No Change In 120 Years

  • Roy Spencer

I’ve updated a plot of Florida major hurricane strikes since 1900 with Hurricane Michael, and the result is that there is still no trend in either intensity or frequency of strikes over the last 118 years:

This is based upon National Hurricane Center data. The trend line in intensity is flat, and the trend line in number of storms (not shown) is insignificantly downward.

Nevertheless, the usual fearmongers are claiming Hurricane Michael is somehow tied to climate change.

After all, the Gulf of Mexico is unusually warm, right?

Yes, but if you look at the history of Jul-Aug-Sept average sea surface temperature (SST) anomalies over the eastern Gulf (available here, 25N-30N, 80W-90W), you will see that since 1860, this summer is only the 9th warmest in the eastern Gulf of Mexico.

Even more astounding is that out of the top 10 warmest Gulf years since 1860, 7 occurred before 1970, which is before we experienced any significant warming.

So, all the “experts” can do is make vague claims about how major hurricanes like Michael are what we can expect more of in a warming world, but the data show that – so far at least – the data do not support the theory.

Major hurricanes are part of nature. As evidence of this, I will also remind people of the study of lake bottom sediments in Western Lake in the Florida panhandle, not far from where Michael made landfall, that showed the last 1,000 years have been relatively quiet for Category 4 to 5 hurricanes, but the period from 1,000 to 3,400 years ago was a “hyperactive” period for intense landfalls at that location.

Hurricane strikes in the U.S. are notoriously variable, as evidenced by the recent (and unprecedented) 11+ year “drought” in major hurricane landfalls, which was finally broken in 2017.

Where were the claims that the hurricane drought was due to global warming?


Attributing the latest hurricane in any way to global warming is the ultimate in cherry-picking the data. In fact, they don’t even show the data.

Which brings us back to those vague claims by the experts.


I also included Michael in the count of ALL U.S. landfalling major hurricanes, again from NHC data. The marked downward trend since the 1930s, 40s, and 50s is quite evident:

Where is the news story about THAT?

BBC Finds Lord Deben Guilty Of Misleading The Public On Wind Farms

October 12, 2018

Hot off the press from GWPF:



Press Release 12/10/18

BBC Finds Lord Deben Guilty Of Misleading The Public On Wind Farms
London, 12 October: Lord Deben, Chairman of the influential Committee on Climate Change (CCC) has been found guilty by the BBC Executive Complaints Unit of misleading listeners of the Today programme.

The incident occurred on 28 June, when Deben was being interviewed by John Humphrys in advance of the CCC’s Progress Report to Parliament. During the segment, he claimed that the government was not allowing communities that wanted to build onshore wind farms to do so.

He said: “What on earth is the government doing, saying that even where a community wants to have an onshore wind farm, it can’t have it. This is sheer dogma.”

Yet, the opposite is true: the Government has devolved the decision to approve onshore wind turbines to local councils.

Wind developers know full well that their projects are very unpopular with local people. That, and the crucial consideration that there are no more subsidies available, accounts for the fact that there are only a very small number of onshore wind projects in the planning system at present.

In its ruling, Dominic Groves, Deputy Head of the BBC’s Executive Complaints Unit, said Lord Deben’s claim “does not appear to be supported by the evidence”.

He went on to say: “Lord Deben was presented as someone with a significant degree of expertise and knowledge in this area … I think he should have been challenged on this point to ensure listeners were not left with a materially misleading impression.”

Lord Deben also claimed that onshore wind power was the “cheapest form of producing electricity today”. This is false;  the substantial network costs necessary to connect wind power to the national grid and manage its intermittency, make wind energy more expensive than gas even when the cost of carbon taxes are included.

Responding to these false claims, Dr Benny Peiser, director of the Global Warming Policy Foundation (GWPF), wrote a letter of complaint to the BBC.

Initially, the editors of the Today programme rejected the complaint. An appeal to the Executive Complaints Unit was successful and upheld the first part of his complaint, relating to a supposed government ban on onshore wind. The GWPF now plans to refer the second part of the complaint, relating to the cost of generating electricity, to media watchdog Ofcom.

Commenting on the BBC decision, Dr Peiser said:

“We welcome the BBC’s public acknowledgment of the misleading statement by Lord Deben. In light of the BBC’s recently announced policy of banning sceptical voices from their programmes, there is now a growing risk that misleading claims by green campaigners and activists will go unchallenged.”



It is bad enough, if hardly unexpected, for the BBC to allow such blatant lies to be broadcast without challenge.

But how on earth can Deben be allowed to retain his position as Chair of the CCC when he either is unaware of such basic facts, or wilfully misrepresents them?



Ocean Temperatures Have Been Rising Since 19thC

October 12, 2018

By Paul Homewood


h/t Dave


This paper published in 2012 has much relevance to m y post a couple of days ago about ocean temperatures:




A new study contrasting ocean temperature readings of the 1870s with temperatures of the modern seas reveals an upward trend of global ocean warming spanning at least 100 years.

The research led by Scripps Institution of Oceanography at UC San Diego physical oceanographer Dean Roemmich shows a .33-degree Celsius (.59-degree Fahrenheit) average increase in the upper portions of the ocean to 700 meters (2,300 feet) depth. The increase was largest at the ocean surface, .59-degree Celsius (1.1-degree Fahrenheit), decreasing to .12-degree Celsius (.22-degree Fahrenheit) at 900 meters (2,950 feet) depth.

The report is the first global comparison of temperature between the historic voyage of HMS Challenger (1872-1876) and modern data obtained by ocean-probing robots now continuously reporting temperatures via the global Argo program. Scientists have previously determined that nearly 90 percent of the excess heat added to Earth’s climate system since the 1960s has been stored in the oceans. The new study, published in the April 1 advance online edition of Nature Climate Change and coauthored by John Gould of the United Kingdom-based National Oceanography Centre and John Gilson of Scripps Oceanography, pushes the ocean warming trend back much earlier.

"The significance of the study is not only that we see a temperature difference that indicates warming on a global scale, but that the magnitude of the temperature change since the 1870s is twice that observed over the past 50 years," said Roemmich, co-chairman of the International Argo Steering Team. "This implies that the time scale for the warming of the ocean is not just the last 50 years but at least the last 100 years."

Although the Challenger data set covers only some 300 temperature soundings (measurements from the sea surface down to the deep ocean) around the world, the information sets a baseline for temperature change in the world’s oceans, which are now sampled continuously through Argo’s unprecedented global coverage. Nearly 3,500 free-drifting profiling Argo floats each collect a temperature profile every 10 days.

Roemmich believes the new findings, a piece of a larger puzzle of understanding Earth’s climate, help scientists to understand the longer record of sea-level rise, because the expansion of seawater due to warming is a significant contributor to rising sea level. Moreover, the 100-year timescale of ocean warming implies that Earth’s climate system as a whole has been gaining heat for at least that long.

Launched in 2000, the Argo program collects more than 100,000 temperature-salinity profiles per year across the world’s oceans. To date, more than 1,000 research papers have been published using Argo’s data set.


The significance of course is that the warming of the oceans began long before any impact from CO2 emissions.

HH Lamb has written extensively about how sea temperatures in the Atlantic fell radically during the LIA. Is the warming trend since then merely a return to earlier conditions?

Extreme Rainfall In England Not Getting Worse

October 11, 2018

By Paul Homewood


It is frequently claimed that rainfall is becoming more extreme because of global warming.

I have previously shown that data for England & Wales does not support this theory.

KNMI helpfully also provide graphs for the different regions that make up the England & Wales Precipitation Series. These are the monthly anomalies since 1873:








There is precious little evidence there that extreme rainfall is either becoming more common or intense in any of the regions. About the only spike is for the North West during the winter of 2015/16.

Just as significant is the fact that very dry months are also much less common than they used to be.

Yet another case where the facts don’t match the hype.

Delingpole: Meet the green wonk who is ready to ruin Britain

October 11, 2018

By Paul Homewood


From Dellers:


Only government intervention in the free market will enable Britain to meet its carbon emissions reductions obligations, Chris Stark, the chief executive of the Committee on Climate Change (CCC) has warned.

Chris Stark

Interviewed in the Guardian, Stark can barely contain his revolutionary fervour as he prepares to push the UK government into line with Monday’s report by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC).

The report, the most alarmist ever produced by the IPCC, calls for $2.4 trillion a year to be spent every year until 2035. Stark is relishing the “challenge”.

“We will be challenged as never before,” he said. “We will be scrutinised as never before. We must stick up to that scrutiny. We will be forcing politicians to make hard decisions. We will be testing the political consensus [on climate change].”

He said reducing emissions by the amounts needed would “require answers that the market unfettered will not deliver”.

If this doesn’t chill you to the marrow, it should.

Stark may look innocuous enough with his charming resemblance to Arthur, the amiable Aardvaak in the children’s cartoon series. But this is one dangerous apparatchik: the CCC was established by the Labour government as an enforcement mechanism for its 2009 Climate Change Act, one of the most costly acts in British history, which legally obliges Britain to reduce its CO2 emissions by 80 percent at a cost conservatively estimated at £18.3 billion a year every year till 2050.

Until the act is repealed, the British government is legally bound by its prescriptions.

If Stark gets his way — and he might –then Britain will be carpeted in yet more bat-chomping, bird-slicing eco-crucifixes, electricity prices will rocket and British industry will become increasingly uncompetitive.

Stark is an ardent true believer in the threat of climate change. As he told Carbon Brief:  “I believe – quite passionate, actually – that one of the issues in climate change is that we often understate some of the risks to the climate and risks to the economy that come from climate change.”

He’s also a huge fan of wind turbines:

  • On his “daft list” of cost-effective action not being pursued: “Top of my list would be onshore wind. Finding a route to market for the cheapest renewable electricity technology, it would seem to me, to be the most important step that government could take in the short term and I do believe it is daft that that is not happening at the moment.”

We should be afraid, very afraid. If Jeremy Corbyn ever gains power, the damage that Stark will be able to wreak with his green policy measures on both the economy and the landscape will be virtually limitless.

But even as the government stands, he is unlikely to be reigned in. Theresa May’s government, though notionally Conservative, is fully committed to the green agenda. Indeed, if you believe the Guardian‘s report, it is considering actually increasing its already impossible carbon emissions targets.

Claire Perry, business minister, announced in April that she would ask the committee to review the UK’s current climate target – of an 80% cut in emissions from 1990 levels by 2050 – soon after the IPCC’s findings.

Any analysis is likely to centre on the UK becoming “net zero” in emissions terms by mid-century. That would involve reducing emissions as far as possible, for instance by ramping up clean energy and switching to electric vehicles, while increasing the UK’s carbon “sinks”, such as forests and soils. It could also include the option of offsetting any remaining emissions by investing in emissions cuts in other countries.

So who is this Chris Stark, with whom we have invested so much power to ruin the country?
This is his profile from the CCC:

Chris joins the CCC from the Scottish Government where he is currently the Director of Energy and Climate Change, leading the development of Scotland’s approach to emissions reduction and the accompanying energy system transition.

Previously, Chris headed up the Scottish Government’s central strategy team. He has widespread experience of economic policy-making and has worked in a number of Whitehall departments including HM Treasury and the former Department for Business, Innovation and Skills

In other words, he has no experience in the private sector, let alone the energy sector. Instead he is little more than a policy wonk, just like the idiot Miliband who brought us the wretched Climate Act in the first place.

It’s like handing the kids a can of petrol and a box of matches.

Hurricane Michael Claims

October 11, 2018

By Paul Homewood


Tony Heller questions whether Hurricane Michael was as powerful as claimed, in the following  post:


A few weeks ago climate scientists said climate change is making hurricanes slow down, stall and rain a lot like Florence. This week they say climate change causes fast moving hurricanes like Michael.

I was watching the storm and the commentary this morning, and long before landfall Michael was officially declared to be a catastrophic category four hurricane (just below category five), the most powerful to ever make landfall “in that region” – and the third most intense in US history after the 1935 Labor Day hurricane and Camille in 1969.  It was a genuine pre-hurricane category four propaganda storm.

The NOAA wind gauge at Panama City didn’t back up any of the claims.  It showed a peak sustained wind speed of  62 knots before the eyewall arrived, and minimum pressure of 937.5 mb. Neither remotely close to the hype.

Meteorological Observations – NOAA Tides & Currents

The pictures of damage I’ve seen don’t compare to other “officially less intense” hurricanes, like Andrew in 1992.

Or the 1926 Miami hurricane.

Read the full post here:


This is not the first time that official claims of wind speeds do not stack up with what has been recorded on the ground.


I shall look at this in more depth next week.







Yes, the Ocean Has Warmed; No, It’s Not ‘Global Warming’

October 10, 2018
tags: ,

By Paul Homewood


How often have we heard the claim that the “missing heat” is hiding in the oceans?

Back in 2000, leading oceanographer, Robert Stevenson, debunked that theory:



Contrary to recent press reports that the oceans hold the still-undetected global atmospheric warming predicted by climate models, ocean warming occurs in 100-year cycles, independent of both radiative and human influences.

Read more…

UN Calls For $2.4 Trillion A Year To Be Spent To Save Us From Global Warming

October 9, 2018

By Paul Homewood

So the pretence that Paris solved any problems has finally been exposed as a lie. And the IPCC have had to present us with the bill for what they want us to do.


From Bloomberg:


Climate Crisis Spurs UN Call for $2.4 Trillion Fossil Fuel Shift

By Reed Landberg , Chisaki Watanabe , and Heesu Lee

The world must invest $2.4 trillion in clean energy every year through 2035 and cut the use of coal-fired power to almost nothing by 2050 to avoid catastrophic damage from climate change, according to scientists convened by the United Nations.

Their report published Monday adds pressure on policymakers and businesses to step up their response to global warming, which is boosting sea levels, making storms more violent and exacerbating poverty. The atmosphere is already almost 1 degree Celsius (1.8 Fahrenheit) hotter than it was at the start of the industrial revolution and on track to rise 3 degrees by 2100, according to the report. That’s double the pace targeted under the 2015 Paris climate agreements endorsed by almost 200 nations.

Chart from IPCC’s report shows observed temperatures through 2017 and scenarios to limit further warming.Source: Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change

“We are already seeing the consequences of 1 degree of global warming through more extreme weather, rising sea levels and diminishing Arctic sea ice,” said Panmao Zhai, one of the co-chairs of the UN’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, which brought together the work of hundreds of researchers and thousands of scientific papers.

To read more about the international debate about climate change, click here.

Even a rise of 1.5 degrees would have massive consequences, including a “multi-meter rise in sea levels” over hundreds to thousands of years and a mass extinction of plants and animals. With a temperature increase of that scale, of the 105,000 species studied, 6 percent of insects, 8 percent of plants and 4 percent of vertebrates lose half their habitat. Those proportions double with a 2 degree gain.

Envoys at the 2015 Paris talks asked the IPCC to study what it would take to limit warming to 1.5 degrees, a more ambitious goal than the previous 2-degree target. The scientists concluded that carbon dioxide emissions should be cut 45 percent by 2030 from 2010 levels then reduced to zero by 2050. That would require “unprecedented changes in all aspects of society,” most especially within the energy industry. The report acknowledged those changes would be difficult and costly, but not impossible.

Deployment Constraints

“These systems transitions are unprecedented in terms of scale, but not necessarily in terms of speed, and imply deep emissions reductions in all sectors,” the IPCC said in the report. “These options are technically proven at various scales, but their large-scale deployment may be limited by economic, financial, human capacity and institutional constraints.’’

To limit warming to 1.5 degrees would require a roughly fivefold increase in average annual investment in low-carbon energy technologies by 2050, compared with 2015, according to the report.

The $2.4 trillion needed annually through 2035 is also an almost sevenfold increase from the $333.5 billion Bloomberg NEF estimated was invested in renewable energy last year. The International Energy Agency says about $1.8 trillion was invested in energy systems in 2017, down 2 percent from the year before. About $750 billion went to electricity and $715 billion to oil and gas.

The IPCC report also recommended that by 2050:
  • Coal’s share of electricity supply should be cut to 2 percent or less.
  • Renewables should supply 70 percent to 85 percent of power generation.
  • Carbon capture and storage technology should be deployed to absorb remaining fossil-fuel emissions.
  • Natural gas could maintain an 8 percent share of electricity generation if CCS reduced total global net emissions to zero by 2050.

Those ambitions would mark a massive upheaval to the energy system, with coal currently accounting for about 37 percent of power and gas at 24 percent, according to the International Energy Agency.

Electricity Generation by Source

Coal dominates, but renewables including hydro are gaining share

Source: International Energy Agency’s WEO 2017

The IPCC’s proposals are bolder than the most-ambitious scenario set out by the IEA. The Paris-based institution envisioned coal maintaining 6 percent share of the power generation market and gas 16 percent by 2040 under one pathway that’s compatible with 2 degrees of warming.

“We assess the scientific information and then provide policy-relevant messages to our member governments as well as the relevant stakeholders,” Hoesung Lee, chairman of the IPCC, said in an interview. “We provide a manual of solutions. It’s up to them to use this manual, considering the constraints or opportunities existing in different countries. It’s their decision, but we provide the scientific information.”

Organizations and investors that back green energy said the report makes it clear that the world should accelerate the shift away from coal, the most polluting fossil fuel.

“The coal industry has no role in a climate-stable world,” said Jan Erik Saugestad, chief executive officer of Norway’s Storebrand Asset Management, which oversees $88 billion. “It’s our pressing duty to call on other investors to end meaningless engagement with coal-exposed companies.”

The report also highlights the risk to further investments in natural gas-fired power plants and suggests that more of them should be replaced by renewables, said Han Chen, who follows energy finance for the Natural Resources Defense Council.

“Large quantities of current gas plants will need to be retired early, while those under construction or in planning stages must be reconsidered immediately as they are not compatible with the 1.5-degree future,” Chen said.

Chart from IPCC’s report shows CO2 emissions for various scenarios to keep global warming to 1.5 degrees Celsius.Source: Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change

The World Coal Association noted the IEA and other forecasters expect the fuel to remain an important part of the energy system for the foreseeable future. That would make it crucial to expand carbon capture projects, which siphon the gas off from smokestacks and store it permanently underground.

“Any credible pathway to meeting the 1.5 degree scenario must focus on emissions rather than fuel,” Katie Warrick, interim chief executive officer of the WCA, said after reviewing a draft of the report.

Michael Bloomberg, founder and majority owner of Bloomberg News and its parent company Bloomberg LP, is a UN Special Envoy for Climate Action.

The IPCC report was meant to ring alarm bells about global warming, noting that temperatures are likely to be 1.5 degrees higher by 2030 to 2052 based on current commitments to reduce emissions made under the Paris deal. While an increase of that magnitude would boost sea levels by as much as 77 centimeters by the end of the century, that would be about 10 centimeters lower than at 2 degrees, the report said.


 $2.4 Trillion a year! And even this won’t alter the fact that the world cannot run a modern economy with intermittent renewable energy, even if we spent ten times as much.
Given that the bulk of the world’s emissions now come from the developing world, I think it is fair to say that they won’t be paying any of this.
And given that the developed nations are struggling to find more than a few billion for “climate aid” , I cannot see us doing so either.
So what is the point of this whole exercise?
Is the objective of the UN and the green lobby to scare us all into abandoning our modern lifestyles and the capitalist system upon which they depend?
Why on earth would anybody care about a half a degree or so of warming over a century, which they could not possibly even notice if they were not told about it?
So, step forward the IPCC’s propaganda division.
Remember that the 1.5c of warming is not from now, but from the Little Ice Age. So for their scare tactics to work, they must convince us that the degree of warming we have already had has been disastrous:
We are already seeing the consequences of 1 degree of global warming through more extreme weather, rising sea levels and diminishing Arctic sea ice,” said Panmao Zhai, one of the co-chairs of the UN’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, which brought together the work of hundreds of researchers and thousands of scientific papers.
In fact, there is absolutely no evidence that there is more extreme weather. Sea levels have been rising steadily since the late 19thC, long before CO2 had any effect. And nobody has explained why less Arctic sea ice should be a problem at all.
Indeed, most of the evidence suggests that the world’s climate is actually more benign than in those earlier times.
Weather has never been perfect, but surely it is not beyond the wit of mankind to mitigate its worst effects, and at a much lower cost than $2.4 Trillion a year.
Particularly when the alternative is to return us all to the dark ages?

BBC censorship and the man-made global warming scam

October 9, 2018

By Paul Homewood



A brilliantly incisive article from Melanie Phillips:

BBC censorship and the man-made global warming scam

It’s only fair to share…

This evening, an important lectureis being delivered in London on the subject of man-made or anthropogenic global warming (AGW) theory.

If you follow BBC news programmes, you are extremely unlikely to hear anything about this important lecture.

That is because the scientist delivering it is saying that man-made global warming theory is a scam.

BBC policy is to report no challenge to AGW theory at all. The explicit statement of this policy was set out in a four-page memo by Fran Unsworth, the BBC’s Director of News and Current Affairs, which was leaked to Carbon Brieflast month.

This memo maintained that man-made climate change “exists” and no-one proposing the contrary view – offensively termed a “denier” – was needed to balance the debate. “To achieve impartiality, you do not need to include outright deniers of climate change in BBC coverage, in the same way you would not have someone denying that Manchester United won 2-0 last Saturday. The referee has spoken.”

In true Soviet fashion, the BBC will now indoctrinate its journalists into misreporting the issue. It will be “offering all editorial staff new training for reporting on climate change. The one hour course covers the latest science, policy, research, and misconceptions to challenge, giving you confidence to cover the topic accurately and knowledgeably”.

In itself, this is absolutely astounding. In the BBC’s mindset, propaganda is fact and scientific facts are propaganda. Censoring information like this goes against the most fundamental BBC rules of fairness. It goes against the most fundamental rules of journalistic objectivity. And it goes against science itself. The widespread claim that “the science is settled” on AGW is scientifically illiterate. Science is never settled but is always subject to fresh discovery, analysis and challenge.

The BBC subscribes to the claim that some 97 per cent of the world’s scientists agree man-made global warming is an established fact, and that it is “denied” by only a few cranks or propagandists on the fringes of academic respectability. This is also totally untrue. I refer to many such sceptical scientists in my 2010 book The World Turned Upside Down: the Global Battle over God, Truth and Power. These include some of the most distinguished in their field who were used by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change as expert reviewers of the evidence – but resigned when they realised that the IPCC, a political/ideological rather than scientific body, was grossly misrepresenting their research to support an AGW thesis that didn’t stack up.

The man delivering tonight’s lecture is one of the most eminent climate scientists in the world. He is Richard Lindzen, who until his retirement in 2013 was Professor of Meteorology at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology. He is the author of over 200 papers on meteorology and climatology and is a member of the US National Academy of Sciences. He has consistently drawn attention to the fact that AGW theory is a sham and a scam.

In tonight’s lecture, he ridicules the core premises of AGW theory that the climate, a complex multifactor system, can be summarised in just one variable – the globally averaged temperature change – and that it is primarily controlled by the 1-2 per cent perturbation in the single variable of carbon dioxide. This, he says, is “an extraordinary pair of claims based on reasoning that borders on magical thinking.”

That’s because it is dictated not by science but by politics and ideology. “A few years ago Christiana Figueres, then executive secretary of UN Framework Convention on Climate Change, said that mankind was, for the first time in history, setting itself the task of intentionally changing the economic system”.

On the evidence itself, Prof Lindzen simply shreds AGW “magical thinking” as not just irredeemably stupid but as not even saying what its hysterical exponents in the media and elsewhere say it says.

“Turning to the issue of temperature extremes, is there any data to even support concern? As to these extremes, the data shows no trend and the IPCC agrees.

“… At the heart of this nonsense is the failure to distinguish weather from climate. Thus, global warming refers to the welcome increase in temperature of about 1◦C since the end of the Little Ice Age about 200 years ago. On the other hand, weather extremes involve temperature changes of the order of 20◦C. Such large changes have a profoundly different origin from global warming.

“This has also been the case with sea-level rise. Sea level has been increasing by about 8 inches per century for hundreds of years, and we have clearly been able to deal with it. In order to promote fear, however, those models that predict much larger increases are invoked. As a practical matter, it has long been known that at most coastal locations, changes in sea level, as measured by tide gauges, are primarily due to changes in land level associated with both tectonics and land use. Moreover, the small change in global mean temperature (actually the change in temperature increase) is much smaller than what the computer models used by the IPCC have predicted. Even if all this change were due to man, it would be most consistent with low sensitivity to added carbon dioxide, and the IPCC only claims that most (not all) of the warming over the past 60 years is due to man’s activities. Thus, the issue of man-made climate change does not appear to be a serious problem”.

That hasn’t stopped nonsensical hypotheses being fed into computers – whose modelling function is in any event wholly inadequate to deal with the extreme complexities of climate even if accurate data were being fed into them.

The whole thing is absurd beyond belief. Yet that hasn’t stopped the shameless production of ever more ludicrous inconsistencies, contradictions and lacunae. Today the IPCC has issued yet another prediction of climate apocalypse, giving us 12 years to limit the catastrophe of climate change.


In 2006 Al Gore said the planet had 10 years to avert climate change apocalypse. in 2007, seven years after that supposed tipping point had come and gone, Rajendra Pachauri, then the IPPC chief, declared: “If there’s no action before 2012, that’s too late.”

Do clickhere to marvel at the way the tipping point for the apocalypse has itself been tipping throughout the years.

The original IPCC report predicted that a 2℃ increase in global warming would produce planetary catastrophe. In today’s report, the IPCC claims that even half a degree of extra warming will “affect hundreds of millions of people, decimate corals and intensify heat extremes”.

Limiting global warming to 1.5℃, as it recommends, would require “rapid, far-reaching and unprecedented changes in all aspects of society” – ie, reducing carbon emissions to zero and thus plunging the world back into the pre-industrial dark ages.

And yet: global temperatures have been falling sharply since 2016 while the 21st century warming trend is half of what most climate models predicted;
Arctic sea ice is no longer decreasing but expanding and thickening;
Polar bears are not dying out but their numbers are stable or even expanding.

And so on.

As Prof Lindzen says: “Misrepresentation, exaggeration, cherry picking, or outright lying pretty much covers all the so-called evidence… An implausible conjecture backed by false evidence and repeated incessantly has become politically correct ‘knowledge,’ and is used to promote the overturn of industrial civilization”.

The man-made global warming scam is the defining motif of the west’s own cultural death warrant. And that’s because it is the signature issue illustrating the western world’s repudiation of modernity, science and reason itself.

It’s only fair to share…