Saturday, March 10, 2012

No Warming For 17 Years – Game, Set, Match



Temperatures have been dropping since 2005, and are the coldest now in the last seventeen years. Game over for alarmists, based on their own rules.
11-11-03

LIVERMORE, Calif. — In order to separate human-caused global warming from the “noise” of purely natural climate fluctuations, temperature records must be at least 17 years long, according to climate scientists.

To address criticism of the reliability of thermometer records of surface warming, Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory scientists analyzed satellite measurements of the temperature of the lower troposphere (the region of the atmosphere from the surface to roughly five miles above) and saw a clear signal of human-induced warming of the planet.

SOURCE (See the original for links)




Just one pesky sentence

In the middle of an article with a heavily Warmist slant we read the following sentence about the work of a fisheries researcher:

"Studying fish in the laboratory, Munch found that raising them at higher temperature made their offspring grow 30 percent faster"

That sounds beneficial to me. No wonder there was no further comment on it.

More HERE






Kiribati sea level story

Yesterday’s Daily Telegraph carried yet another climate alarmism story, this time about the government of Kiribati negotiating to buy land in Fiji ‘so it can relocate islanders under threat from rising sea levels’.

Autonomous Mind contacted the former president of the International Association of Quaternary Research’s Commission on Sea Level Changes and Coastal Evolution, Dr Nils-Axel Mörner to ask for his response to the story. Dr Mörner has very kindly replied with an exclusive comment, below:
With respect to the article on March 7 by Paul Chapman on the future of Kiribati, I have to protest and urge all readers to consult the only “hard facts” there are, viz. the tide gauge record of the changes in sea level.

The graph reveals that there, in fact, is no ongoing sea level rise that threatens the habitation of the islands. This is the hard observational fact, which we should all face before starting to talk about future flooding and the need for evacuation.

If the president of Kiribati, Anote Tong, claims that the islands will soon be flooded and that there is an urgent need to buy new land for possible future refugees, it is the president’s own tactical idea in order to raise money from abroad. Let us respect the observational facts and stay away from invented disasters.

Once again the media rushes to print with an alarmist piece that is completely devoid of balance or contrary opinion and which completely ignores the overtly political motivations and background of what has been shared with the press. The dramatisation of Earth’s ever changing climate for ulterior political motives needs to be challenged.

How long will it be also before people start to hold the media to account for acting as the propagandist mouthpiece of government and vested interests?

SOURCE





Poland to veto EU low carbon plan

Polish environment minister Marcin Korolec has said he will veto an EU proposal for CO2 cuts at a meeting in Brussels on Friday (9 March).

The minister told Polish press agency, Pap, in Warsaw on Wednesday: "Our position is - we do not agree to any higher EU reduction goals looking to the year 2020. To currently define climate policy, when we do not know what global negotiations will look like, is seriously premature."

The Danish EU presidency at a meeting of environment ministers in the EU capital is to propose the Union should make even deeper cuts to carbon emissions in an energy roadmap up to 2050.

The bloc is currently committed to 20 percent cuts by 2020. But the roadmap envisages 40 percent by 2030 and 50 percent by 2040, while some are calling for 30 percent by 2020.

Other Polish government sources told Pap that Warsaw also objects to other details of the "low carbonisation" plan.

It does not want the European Commission to get powers to impose legally-binding CO2 targets on EU countries. It wants instead to aggregate member states' individual cuts and come up with an EU-level target.

It is against going beyond the EU's existing pledge to cut emissions by 20 percent by 2020, amid calls to aim for 30 percent, before global talks end in 2015. It wants to be able to sell CO2 permits in the EU's carbon trading system even if they exceed limits set by the so-called Kyoto protocol, the global-level climate deal from 1997.

It also dislikes commission plans to reduce CO2 permits for EU countries to promote energy efficiency measures, such as better heating insulation for large buildings.

Poland still relies on coal - among the dirtiest of energy sources - for 90 percent of electricity production. It has closed some mines since the end of Communism in 1989, but the sector currently employs about 180,000 people, who are prone to holding violent demonstrations in Warsaw.

An EU diplomat noted that the Czech Republic and Romania are "hiding behind Poland" on the issue. But that they are unlikely to use their veto if Poland drops its red flag.

A spokesman for the Danish EU presidency said: "We will have to see. The presidency is always open to negotiations. But we want to uphold some level of ambition and watering down the proposal means we might lose other member sates."

SOURCE




German Climate Policy On Ice

Very quietly, the big issue of climate change has disappeared from the agenda. Even the former cheerleaders in Europe have given up

When Germany's environment minister Norbert Röttgen took place alongside his rival economics minister Philipp Rösler last week to announce the compromise on the energy efficiency directive and the reduction in solar subsidies, he talked a lot about "industrial competitiveness", about "supply security" and "price stability". But two words the German environment minister did not mention were "climate change."

Since the failure of the UN climate conference in Copenhagen two years ago, Germany, and indeed the whole of Europe, has lapsed into lethargy. Hardly any country still dares to call for ambitious goals in climate policy. Europe has committed itself to emit 20 percent less greenhouse gases in 2020 compared to 1990. This target will probably be met. But any debate about what comes after that is absent. "Compared to the years 2007 to 2009, the EU's approach to climate policy is in complete crisis," says Severin Fischer of the Foundation for Science and Politics (SWP) and author of On the way to a common energy policy.

At the climate summit in Copenhagen, the Europeans and their ambitious goals were virtually ignored. Above all, after Copenhagen environment minister Röttgen, then newly in office, seemed disillusioned. Copenhagen had a disastrous effect on him," says Hermann Ott, climate policy spokesman of the Green parliamentary group. "Since then he has become cautious, almost timid." Röttgen has struggled in vain ever since to achieve even minimal progress in international climate policy.

First nuclear phase

Even Angela Merkel, the "climate chancellor", has set new priorities. The nuclear disaster in Japan one year ago changed Germany's energy policy: now phasing-out nuclear power plants has top priority. Economics minister Roessler, intends to build gas and coal power plants with a total capacity of 20 gigawatts by 2020. This way, the elimination of nuclear power and the intermittency of wind and solar energy would be compensated. However, it also means more greenhouse gases.

In any case, only one issue currently dominates the political agenda - the financial and debt crisis. Manuel Barroso, the president of the European Commission, no longer talks about a green Europe; instead, he talks about solidarity. Energy policy is no longer driven by morality, but by economic needs. "What used to be called climate protection has been re-framed as resource efficiency", Fischer says.

Long-term climate targets are falling by the wayside. The EU Commission still publishes occasional "Roadmaps" on how Europe could cut up to 80 percent greenhouse gases by 2050 in order to limit the increase in global warming to two degrees. But these papers have all been ditched. Poland has refused even to take notice of the "Climate Roadmap" by Commissioner Connie Hedegaard. In December, Energy Commissioner Günther Oettinger presented his "Energy Roadmap", which shows several scenarios of how CO2 emissions can be reduced in Europe - among other things, with the help of nuclear energy, renewable energy or storing CO2 underground. But energy expert Fischer doesn’t believes that EU leaders will deal seriously with these "thinking exercises".

Like two junkies

Unlike in 2007, today Germany and France, the green movers and shakers, are missing in action. What is more, southern and eastern European countries refuse to go beyond the 20 percent emissions target. Poland uses mainly coal-fired power plants in its energy mix. According to Fischer, the obstructionists are unlikely to accept stricter targets only if there were to be a global agreement.

But this is unlikely to happen. After all, the process was kept alive with great difficulty at the UN climate summit in Durban in South Africa late last year. By 2015 there should be a post-Kyoto agreement, which will enter into force in 2020. However, immediately after the end of the summit disillusionment set in again: Canada announced its withdrawal from the Kyoto Protocol. China and the United States, the largest emitters, are still dead against joining it. The Green Party’s Hermann Ott is advocating an "alliance of the ambitious". Only countries that want to advance climate protection should take part. Because so far, the participants of the climate summits have behaved like two junkies: one wants to stop - but with a caveat: "But only if you also stop."

There is now a vicious circle: because international pressure has dissipated, there is now a distinct lack of vigour in Europe. Hardly anyone is talking about raising the EU’s CO2 emissions targets to a 30 percent cut by 2020. That was the EU’s agreed negotiation target - if a global agreement was reached. But environmental activists have long been demanding that the EU should act unilaterally. Denmark, currently chairing the EU presidency, suggested 25 percent. But because the proposal met with little interest, it is focusing instead on energy efficiency and has referred climate targets to subsequent EU presidencies: crisis hit Ireland and the small state of Cyprus.

More stringent climate goals are also needed to fix the emissions trading scheme, which has gone off the rails. Because of the financial and debt crisis, EU countries use less energy and due to Germany’s development of renewable energy sources, significantly fewer emissions certificates are required. The price for carbon credits has dropped by halve to about eight Euros per ton. The result is that the incentive to invest in climate-friendly technologies has dropped. Coal and natural gas are becoming more attractive as a result. Emissions trading, which covers about half the CO2 emissions in Europe, has turned against its original purpose: climate change is not being slowed. In Brussels, there are plans to cut back the amount of allowances for the next trading period from 2013 to force up the price of carbon credits. But what if the economy picks up and carbon credits become virtually unaffordable?

The extension of emissions trading to the aviation sector is highly contentious too. The EU wants airlines to buy certificates for flights to Europe from 2013. The United States, Russia and China, however, are dead against this scheme. Even in Germany the climate sceptics are advancing. Most recently, the book by RWE Manager Fritz Vahrenholt The Cold Sun made headlines and was selling like hot cakes in book stores. [...]

SOURCE





British Liberal minister says green tax must be cut to save companies

Cabinet rebel pushes Osborne to remove £740m burden of commitments to reduce carbon emissions

Vince Cable is pushing Chancellor George Osborne to scrap a £740m environmental burden on British business in this month's budget. It is understood that business department officials have asked the Treasury to remove the carbon reduction commitment (CRC).

This forces an estimated 20,000 non-energy intensive businesses that still use lots of electricity and have bills of around £500,000, such as supermarket and hotel chains, to pay a price for every ton of carbon they emit.

This was introduced in 2010 as part of the Government's ambition to reduce carbon emissions by 4m tonnes a year by 2020 and has also been estimated to raise £740m for Treasury coffers from 2013-14, when a carbon floor price is also introduced to bolster the CRC.

However, critics argue that the CRC has so far failed to show any signs of reducing emissions, as those big businesses still need electricity to keep their lights and computers on, and so is essentially just a tax in a time of financial struggle.

A source who has lobbied against the CRC said that though it was unclear whether the Treasury will surrender to the business department's demands, the issue was on the agenda for possible inclusion in the Budget.

He added: "Businesses are struggling with the cost of CRC, which is mandatory, and its administrative burden. CRC has quickly become a blunt tax instrument that is hated by industry."

A major Treasury concern is how it would recover what would become a near-£750m black hole in its finances. There are suggestions that this could be offset by an increase of the Climate Change Levy, which is placed on fossil fuel-based energy used by non-domestic private or public organisations to encourage them to find greener sources of fuel. However, business does not want the amount to be entirely recouped through this levy, as it would result in a hike of as much as eight per cent to their energy bills.

CRC is a cap and trade system. Businesses measure energy-use, work out the CO2 emissions and then buy allowances of what is currently fixed at £12 per tonne, but will soon fluctuate in the open market.

If they buy too many they can sell them on and if they have too few, businesses must reduce their emissions or purchase additional credits.

The CBI has been particularly vocal in its criticism. Last year director general John Cridland said that the CRC and similar measures were "counter-productive" and "hold back investment and growth". If the Treasury rebuffs the business department's proposal, it will be another blow to Mr Cable's authority having been so publicly slapped down on his idea to split-up Royal Bank of Scotland and create a "British Business Bank" that would focus on lending to SMEs.

A letter to David Cameron and Nick Clegg dated 8 February outlining his idea was leaked earlier this week and dismissed by government insiders. A leading opposition MP said that Mr Cable's letter read like "a plea". "This wasn't the letter of someone with power, is more like someone in my position had written it," the MP added.

Speaking last night at Mansion House, Mr Cable renewed his assault on the Conservatives. "It is especially acute for innovative firms who find themselves trapped in a "valley of death" unable to raise funds to develop a proof of concept and cover the risks of early-stage growth."

SOURCE





Greens in Tasmania‏, Australia

An email from a Tasmanian reader

I live in Tasmania and have investments in George Town, which is near the proposed Pulp Mill in Bell Bay. As you might know Gunns Pty Ltd have been trying to put the mill into reality for some 7 years and have obtained all the permits, conducted all the studies etc in face of concerted and continuous Green opposition. The impoverished Northern Tasmania has been waiting with bated breath for the mill, particularly with threats to the Bell Bay Aluminium and Manganese plants due to poor profit results and lack of competitiveness. As you might know, the Greens have orchestrated a virtual destruction of the $1 billion a year Tasmanian timber industry, under their many peace deals which are never good enough, and now they are decimating grazing in Tasmania with what amounts to a practical ban on 1080, causing a wallaby plague with some 60-70% of loss of pasture in most areas. More on this later, if you are interested.

As you might know, Gunns have been falling over themselves trying to appease the Greens and obtain a "social licence", causing a huge financial damage to the company with no perceptible results. Gunns have, however, attracted attention of a billionaire investor, a Mr Chandler, of the RCC company. He was willing to buy 40% of Gunns for $150 million which would enable Gunns to start getting out of debt and eventually find a venture partner for the $2 billion mill.. The announcement was made in early February inst. The negotiations then appeared to proceed to an inexorable investment conclusion.

The greens saw a great opportunity to put themselves on the map, both in Tas and federally. Mr Bob Brown wrote a letter to Mr Chandler where he was apparently clearly trying to deter him from investing in Gunns. Mr Chandler's offsiders then came to Tasmania some two weeks ago, where they met local politicians including the Green Leader Mr McKim. He is actually a Minister for Education and also Prisons in the Green Labour government here. He, and other Greens, were strangely quiet after the meetings, quite unlike the usual howls of protest against greedy capitalists, as one would expect.

The Chandler corporation announced today that they are pulling out of the deal. They made no comment as to why.

I have no doubt that the local Greens have frightened Mr Chandler so much with their threats, that he decided that the investment was too exposed to public noise dangers. The Tas Greens have sabotaged business deals here many times in exactly the same fashion. They have caused a drop of woodchip production here to one fifth of the previous figures whilst other states have increased theirs, by going to Japan and telling them things along the lines that there are hardly any trees left here, (about 50% of the land mass is now locked away from forestry activities) and that forestry practices are defective, which they are not (see ABC interview with forestry financial consultant, Mr Eastman). They went to London to explain to the Olympic Games organisers that they should break the contract for buying parqueting wood from Tasmania since the company involved was using "native forest" (now meaning anything which is not a plantation under 20 years old, apparently). They have done similar things to Harvey Norman, I believe.

These are boycotts of business, normally prohibited under the Consumer and Competition Act 2010. If, however, the dominant purpose of this conduct is substantially related to environmental protection, the boycott protagonist is exempt (section 45DD). This effectively gives the environmentalists "a licence to lie" (Mark Poynter, forestry industry spokesman).

I think that we have a real fifth column here of the most savage variety, whose only interest is attention, publicity and fund seeking. For this they are clearly prepared to sacrifice anybody who wishes to advance himself or his community by remunerative activity. Now that the climate gurus are on the run, it may be time to turn to some other shocking practices of the Greens.

End of email

Tasmania: Greenie job destruction => reduced government revenue => deep cuts in health care

SENIOR surgeons fear budget cuts will cause catastrophic damage to the long-term viability of the state's healthcare system.

They also believe patients are being driven to near suicide, the cuts are too deep, there has been a lack of consultation on cuts and one hospital could be closed in the state's North-West.

The statements were presented to a parliamentary inquiry into budget cuts by Medical Staff Association chairman Frank Nicklason.

Dr Nicklason said senior staff had serious concerns that cuts to elective surgery would put patients' health at risk. "There are a lot of ways there can be negative impacts from delayed surgery," he said. "My overwhelming experience is that people are having to wait far too long."

A 50-year-old Hobart woman on a waiting list for serious arthritis in her knee had even contemplated suicide because she could no longer work, he said. "She got so desperate she was going to get in her car and drive into a tree."

He said the waiting list for elective surgery could be better prioritised. "I am not sure if at this stage we are doing this well enough," he said. Dr Nicklason said a drop in elective surgeries could see specialist staff heading to other states for opportunities and experience.

"A surgeon is nothing if they can't maintain their skills and reputation," he said. "A worrying number of people were considering leaving the hospital. Some specialists can't be replaced."

He said there were widespread fears that if specialist staff left in the next few years amid serious budget cuts it could take a decade or more to replace them.

Staff understood the difficulties facing governments with shrinking GST revenue and growing health needs. But, staff felt there had not been enough consultation about cuts, Dr Nicklason said.

He said there was a general consensus the state did not need the bureaucracy of three separate health networks and the Mersey Hospital could be merged with the North-West Regional Hospital in Burnie.

SOURCE

***************************************

For more postings from me, see DISSECTING LEFTISM, TONGUE-TIED, EDUCATION WATCH INTERNATIONAL, POLITICAL CORRECTNESS WATCH, FOOD & HEALTH SKEPTIC, GUN WATCH, AUSTRALIAN POLITICS, IMMIGRATION WATCH INTERNATIONAL and EYE ON BRITAIN. My Home Pages are here or here or here. Email me (John Ray) here. For readers in China or for times when blogger.com is playing up, there are mirrors of this site here and here

*****************************************

1 comment:

Tassie Flash said...

In regards to your letter, "Greens in Tasmania".

Nick Mc Kim and the Greens probably were strangely quiet after the RCC meeting as they were confident that Richard Chandler would see through this white elephant of a proposal!

It just does not stack up financially, socially and environmentally. If you dig a little deeper than what the main-stream media keep on repeating, you will find many serious unanswered questions that have been conveniently "forgotten" by our political leaders both Liberal and Labour alike.

Until these issues have been addressed and solved, this particular pulp mill proposal will always be on the nose for the majority of thinking Tasmanians!