Skip to content

Telegraph Publishes Fake Claims From XR Supporter

October 12, 2019

By Paul Homewood


The Telegraph printed this letter from an XR supporter yesterday, containing some utterly absurd claims:




In particular these claims:

“The Government upped its subsidies to big oil to £2 billion this year while reducing subsidies to sustainable energy to £700,000”


Really? What subsidies to Big Oil? Last year, far from receiving subsidies, UK oil and gas producers paid £1.9bn in taxes:



As the government points out, North Sea oil and gas producers pay an effective rate of 40% corporation tax on all profits, which compares to a normal rate of 19% for other companies. In other words, Big Oil pays more than double the usual rate:



It is true that there has been a rebate on Petroleum Revenue Tax, amounting to £744 million last year. But this relates to decommissioning costs, which are deductible against taxes already paid on earlier profits.



As for renewable subsidies, laughingly put at just £700,000, the OBR tell us that they will cost £11.4bn this year (that is excluding CRC and Warm Home Discount):




How the hell this pathetic letter got past the Telegraph letters editor beats me. It is one thing allowing controversial opinions to be aired, but quite another allowing blatantly incorrect “facts” to be published in support of them.

I can only assume the editor actually assumed they must be true. If so, the mass indoctrination of the public by the climate charlatans appears to be even more successful than I thought.

I have written a letter to the Telegraph, outlining the true facts. Whether this gets published, we will have to wait and see.

BTW – I suspect that the idiot Tom Hardy may be heavily involved in XR, and not just the member of the public implied in the letter.

If anybody has time to dig some more detail out, I would be grateful/

Tim Ball on Michael Mann

October 11, 2019

By Paul Homewood



Prof Tim Ball on Michael Mann and other topics. Well worth a watch:






Andrew Neill Destroys XR’s Eco Wally

October 10, 2019

By Paul Homewood


Finally there seems to a fight back against the eco loons of Extinction Rebellion. Andrew Neil thoroughly takes apart this wally from XR. (about 20 mins in)


There has also been a highly critical article in the Telegraph today, as well as in the Mail this week.


Naturally of course the eco nutters are still treated as being serious people by the BBC, but the message seems to be hitting home now, confirming what most normal people already believe:


1) There is no “climate emergency”


2) UK emissions are so tiny that eliminating them will have no effect at all.


3) The UK is already fast reducing emissions, but at a huge cost.


3) To get to zero carbon will cost much more, even if possible. And will utterly transform people’s lives for the worst.


4) Eliminating emissions globally will condemn most of the world’s poor to eternal poverty.


5) We have a democratic system of govt. If people agree with the lions, they can vote for the Green Party. XR have no right to stop ordinary people from going about their business.



The BBC would still like you to believe that XR are a serious body, who represent millions of normal  people. In fact they are a rabble who have little public support, and no justification morally or scientifically for what they are doing.


Hopefully the government might now take the hint, and treat them as the bunch of anarchists that they really are

Catastrophic Sea Level Rise At Scapa Flow

October 10, 2019

By Paul Homewood


h/t Joe Public



New evidence of catastrophic sea level rise at Scapa Flow since WWI:



NB The Twitter post wrongly labels it as WWII, but the author corrected this soon after.

Climate change in Vietnam ‘destroying family life’–Latest BBC Lies

October 9, 2019

By Paul Homewood



h/t MrGrimNasty




If it’s climate change, you can pretty much guarantee the BBC won’t tell you the truth!






In fact, as with many deltas around the world, the problem has very little to do with rising seas, but soil subsidence:


Newswise — River deltas face threats other than rising sea levels. Physical geographer Philip Minderhoud (Utrecht University and Deltares Research Institute) has studied soil subsidence in the Mekong delta, and managed to raise the issue with the Vietnamese government. Minderhoud will defend his dissertation in University Hall at Utrecht University on 15 February.

In the late 1980s, Vietnam transitioned towards a market economy, which resulted in increased agricultural production, population figures, and urbanisation, all of which heightened the demand for ground water. But as Minderhoud wrote in his dissertation, pumping out ground water exacerbates the problem of soil subsidence. “The area also has a soft, shallow soil layer. The growth in infrastructure that has accompanied the past few decades of economic development has placed an extra burden on the soil. This is another reason the soil is subsiding, which makes the sea level rise more quickly in relation to the land. It’s as if the delta is sinking into the sea. Plus, salt water is pushing ever farther land-inwards, so the delta also faces the problem of salinization.”



Philip Minderhoud is regarded as the world’s leading expert on soil subsidence in the Mekong delta. His paper, Impacts of 25 years of groundwater extraction on subsidence inthe Mekong delta, Vietnam, notes that during the past 25 years, the delta sank on average ~18 cm as a consequence of groundwater withdrawal. In comparison, sea level rise of 2mm a year is relatively insignificant.


The paper also states that over the past 25 years, groundwater exploitation has increased dramatically, transforming the delta from an almost undisturbed hydrogeological state to a situation with increasing aquifer depletion.


And it is not just water extraction:


Upstream damming and extensive mining of the Mekong’s riverbed for sand is causing the land between the sprawling network of rivers and channels near the mouth of one of the world’s great rivers to sink at a pace of around 2cm (0.75 inches) a year, experts and officials said…


Across the region, local authorities are struggling with a rapid pace of erosion that is destroying homes and threatening livelihoods in the Southeast Asian country’s largest rice-growing region.

A key cause is the years of upstream damming in Cambodia, Laos and China that has removed crucial sediment, local officials and experts said.

That sediment, vital for checking the mighty Mekong’s currents, has also been lost due to an insatiable demand for sand – a key ingredient in concrete and other construction materials in fast-developing Vietnam – that has created a market both at home and abroad for unregulated mining.

“It’s not a problem of the lack of water, it’s the lack of sediment,” said Duong Van Ni, an expert on the Mekong River at the College of Natural Resources Management of Can Tho University, the largest city in the Mekong Delta region.

At this time of year the waters of the Mekong used to flow into Vietnam as a milky-brown crawl, locals and officials said.

Now, the river runs clear. And without fresh sediment from upstream, the deeper riverbed creates stronger currents, which in turn eat away at the banks of the Mekong, where those who rely on the river for their livelihoods have their homes.

The problems began when China built its first hydropower plants in the Upper Mekong Basin, said Ni. That left Laos, Cambodia and Thailand as the main source of sediment for the Mekong in Vietnam, he said.

Sand mining in Cambodia boomed over the last 10 years, fuelled in part by demand from wealthy but cramped Singapore, where it is used to reclaim land along its coast, and culminating in a government ban of all Cambodian sand exports in 2017 under pressure from environmental groups.

But hydroelectric projects have continued. Earlier this month, Cambodian Prime Minister Hun Sen opened a US$816 million hydroelectric dam in Stung Treng province, near the border with Laos, built by companies from China, Cambodia and Vietnam.


Unsurprisingly the BBC make no reference to either of these factors, but spend 10 minutes mentioning climate change every few seconds.

Mann, Hayhoe try to erase the Medieval warm period

October 8, 2019

By Paul Homewood


James Taylor writes for CFACT:



Climate alarmists Michael Mann and Katharine Hayhoe have been caught using dubious, revisionist temperature data in their attempt, as one Climategate email author put it, to “deal a mortal blow” to the extensively documented Medieval Warm Period.

Before climate change became a political issue, it was scientifically well-established that a significant global warming event occurred between approximately 900 AD and 1200 AD. For example, the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) First Assessment Report presented a temperature history and visual graph documenting that the Medieval Warm Period existed and that it brought temperatures at least as warm as today (at pg. 7). Multiple peer-reviewed studies provided additional confirmation of the Medieval Warm Period.

The warming climate of the Medieval Warm Period spurred abundant crop production, fewer extreme droughts and floods, growing human population, and improving living standards. The Little Ice Age terminated the Medieval Warm Period and brought devastating weather extremes, widespread crop failures, famines, plagues like the Black Death, and a contracting human population. (For a good summary of the extensive benefits of the Medieval Warm Period and the devastating harms of the Little Ice Age, see the excellent book, “In the Wake of the Plage: The Black Death and the World It Created.”)

The existence of large historical temperature fluctuations, warmer temperatures than today, and many documented benefits of those warmer temperatures presented a powerful obstacle in alarmists’ attempts to brand our current modest warming an unprecedented climate crisis. One of the many embarrassing emails leaked in the Climategate scandal showed how alarmists deliberately set a goal of eliminating the historical existence of the Medieval Warm Period. Alarmist climate scientist Jonathan Overpeck wrote in an email to fellow alarmist Keith Briffa, “I get the sense that I’m not the only one who would like to deal a mortal blow to the misuse of supposed warm period terms and myths in the literature.”

Also, scientist David Deming testified to Congress that a prominent figure working in the field of climate change asserted to him, “We have to get rid of the Medieval Warm Period.”

We have often been told that the science is settled. Apparently, that doesn’t apply to scientific data and evidence invalidating climate alarmism. Mann last month favorably retweeted an assertion that present temperatures are the warmest they have been for at least the past 5,000 years. Hayhoe earlier this year gave a presentation in which she presented a graph (without any scientific citation) asserting temperatures steadily and consistently declined for 4,000 years – without any significant variation – prior to the warming of the past 120 years that finally and mercifully brought an end to the Little Ice Age (at 7:41).

As documented above, the existence of substantial historical climate variations such as the Medieval Warm Period and the Little Ice Age were scientifically well-documented and not in dispute before climate activism politicized the issue. Alarmist scientists were on record searching for justifications to eliminate these inconvenient climate variations that blew gaping holes in their alarmist theories. Now, conveniently, alarmists like Mann and Hayhoe claim the Medieval Warm Period, the Little Ice Age, and other well-documented warm and cold periods simply did not exist.

An old sarcastic saying goes, “When the facts doesn’t fit the theory, change the facts.” Mann and Hayhoe provide perfect real-world examples of such perniciousness. Powerful scientific evidence supported near-universal agreement about the existence of the Medieval Warm Period. Then Mann and Hayhoe, supported by little or no compelling evidence, waved a magic wand and made the Medieval Warm Period conveniently disappear.

Climate realists, however, will stick with the powerful scientific evidence, the long-established scientific “consensus,” the peer-reviewed scientific literature, and the findings of the IPCC. Sorry, Mann and Hayhoe, but you have been caught red-handed.

XR’s Diesel Generator!

October 8, 2019

By Paul Homewood


H/t Dave Ward


Berlin XR caught by the short and curlies!


New polar bear horror emerges out of advice to parents on eco-anxiety in kids

October 7, 2019

By Paul Homewood



Susan Crockford on the latest polar bear scare:


Unbelievably wrong: A psychologist has told parents to assure their children that rising sea levels might be an immediate threat to polar bears – but not to kids in the UK. She says this is “putting things into perspective” for anxious kids but is horrifyingly and almost laughably far off the mark.


The amount of ignorance about polar bears from those who still consider the species an appropriate icon for catastrophic climate change never seems to end.

From the Mail on Sunday (28 September 2019), “As doctors warn of a surge in youngsters with eco-anxiety, MARINA FOGLE reveals how to stop Greta Thunberg and Co making your children sick with worry” [my bold]:

“So what should we do when confronted by a child who is distressed by environmental concerns?

Child psychiatrist Dr Kathryn Hollins advises a frank discussion – because a desire to be more environmentally friendly is a positive thing. ‘Let them know they are not alone in having worries,’ she says. ‘Ask them what they are scared of and where they got these thoughts from.’

She says that reassurance will come from putting things into perspective. Rising sea levels might have an immediate effect on the lives of polar bears, but not on those living in the UK, she explains.”

Fact: Rising sea levels – the pitifully small amount that has happened since  1900 or predicted at 2100 – are in no way a threat to polar bears. Polar bears survived sea level changes of 100s of metres within the last 40,000 years along with unimaginable changes in sea ice extent.

Here’s a perspective based on fact rather than myth: polar bears are currently thriving and all scientific evidence shows they are not threatened by the amount of reduced summer sea ice they have experienced so far and are unlikely to be devastated if summer sea ice declines further.

My advice to parents: view the video below, buy this book for kids: “Polar Bear Facts & Myths” (available in English, French, Dutch, German, and Norwegian) and buy this book for yourselves: “The Polar Bear Catastrophe That Never Happened“.

Letter to Telegraph

October 6, 2019

A very good letter in today’s Telegraph:




SIR – As a chartered engineer who worked in the electricity supply industry for 39 years, I despair to hear politicians like Rebecca Long-Bailey claiming that renewables will provide for most of our energy needs by 2030.

Renewable generation – solar, wind and tidal – is, by definition, non-synchronous and it is technically impossible to operate our electricity transmission system solely on non-synchronous generation. There is a real danger of system instability and consequential widespread blackouts once non-synchronous generation exceeds around 30 per cent of total generation at any one time.

The National Grid report on the recent major outage makes numerous references to the lack of inertia in the system. This resulted from insufficient large synchronous generators (nuclear, coal, gas) being connected.

Given the need to reduce carbon dioxide emissions, the only option is to increase significantly nuclear build rapidly. Both Labour and Conservative governments have been unwilling to commit themselves to this, which has led us into the problems we now face.

It is unfortunate that politicians and environmental campaigners are ignorant of the technicalities of energy supply, or wish to ignore them. MPs may have the power to change the laws of the land, but not to change the laws of physics.

Steve Proud



Greta’s “Stolen Childhood”

October 6, 2019

By Paul Homewood


Tony Heller has his usual expert take on silly, little Greta’s claim that her childhood has been stolen: