Speculative climate science destroying European economies

This entry was posted in Uncategorized. Bookmark the permalink.

44 Responses to Speculative climate science destroying European economies

  1. catalanbrian says:

    Usual drivel from Helmer. Perfectly rebuffed by Maniatis.

    • Adrian Hey says:

      Huh? You can’t have been watching the same video as the rest of us. That Greek blokes response was exactly the same vacuous stock gibberish that one might expect from the scientific and technological ignoramuses that make 95% of UK parliament.

    • I await stents says:

      We can trust the Greeks of course, they are so good at running things

  2. tallbloke says:

    Reblogged this on Tallbloke's Talkshop and commented:
    UKIP MEP Roger Helmer asks straight climate-energy-economics question. Gets consenseless reply.

  3. Thomas Fox says:

    Most Tory Farmers will Follow UKIP as they do not beieve in all this EU Climate Science

    • catalanbrian says:

      Unless there is an EU subsidy related to climate change then they would greedily claim it!

    • And of course UKIP recognises that that in a world where most farmers are subsidised, we have to support the industry. But we also believe that a farm policy made in Britain for British farmers would serve them better than a farm policy made in Brussels for French farmers.

  4. AlecM says:

    There is no enhanced GHE: it is a fabrication.

    Maniatis is confusing the number of publications with real science which shows there is next to zero CO2-AGW.

  5. Thomas Fox says:

    Social Media is now being used extensively to spread the Climate Change Agenda untruths so UKIP must counter this in the same fashion!

    • DICK R says:

      The ecolunatics are stark raving mad, if they were cast adrift on an ice floe, stripped down to their underpants off Greenland in January they would still be bleating about global warming , even as they were being eaten by an almost extinct polar bear.
      No amount of logic can convince them, even when frozen in pack ice for two weeks in the Antarctic summer melt , even when the middle east was covered in snow before the end of December ,even when vast areas of the US are recording the coldest temperatures for decades.

      • catalanbrian says:

        It is clear that you have no understanding of the matter, Thomas. The various weather phenomena that you cite as examples of no climate change (you use the term global warming) are just that; weather phenomena. Weather is different from climate. Weather is that which happens daily, whereas climate is the average weather in that place as measured over a long period of time. Exceptional weather phenomena (including periods of exceptional cold in certain parts of the world) are likely to be an indicator of climate change. And we have had some pretty exceptional weather events in the last 12 months over the globe, Catastrophic storms in the Philippines and the far east, ,exceptional cold in the USA and a series of extreme low pressure systems causing flooding, not to mention the wind damage in the UK. To ignore these warnings is foolhardy in the extreme.

      • David H. Walker says:

        Dick R, your analogies are great. No matter what, the climate change sheeple prefer bleating about the BIG LIE, and submitting to the whim and will of governments. Wresting the podium from the greedy, malicious and ambitious requires hard work and intelligence. Obviously, those who believe the BIG LIE will never be up to task, unless that task calls for surrender. What are they, French?

        Indeed, it’s all about using the perception of crisis to determine who gets rich and powerful (the established, the political class, and the aligned) who pays (the upstarts, the productive class and the poor) by government force. In another era, it was called fascism.

      • Catalan Brian: You are right that isolated weather events (including floods & hurricanes) are not evidence of global warming. But many recent events, including those mentioned by Dick, fit with trends which are evidence. For example, the nearly two decade hiatus in warming, which many astronomers believe is caused by solar activity, and presages a new period of global cooling. It’s the Sun, not the CO2.

  6. So in EU Parliament, it’s legitimate to lie to Parliament?

    3000 papers, most of them claiming to show anthroprogenic climate change?

    Is the man too lazy to read? Too stupid to be able to tell when he’s being given bad advice? Or simply malevolent, wishing to cast all of Europe into the economic pit dug by Greece?

  7. silverminer says:

    This is what so frustrates the voter. Politicians who will not answer questions and will not admit it when they’re wrong! What did this Greek Minister say about how he was going to prevent Europe’s industries being further off-shored due to artificially higher energy prices? Nothing, because he has no answers. All he could offer to do is abandon the policies he is espousing and that would mean admitting he and his colleagues have been talking out of their backsides for the last 20 years…

    I believed the AGW propaganda until about 3 or 4 years ago when I actually examined the evidence for myself. I even paid to so a higher degree in the subject before I wised up! Higher CO2 does cause warming but it’s background noise compared to natural cycles and nothing to get into a lather about. There is no shame in admitting you’re wrong and changing your mind. The people suffer because of politicians who won’t do their own research and can’t get over their own egos.

  8. Ex-expat Colin says:

    Its certainly not drivel from you Roger. The EU specialises in drivel for sure, I suppose somebody has to do it. Pity its so many of them.

    3000 or so papers on noise…spendy noise really!

  9. Ian Forman says:

    Roger, can you get your researchers looking at those 3000 papers? If they all say man-made CO2 is at fault then we’re in trouble unless you can get Prof.Lindzen, Lord Monckton, and the others to refute them with logic. If they’re only about deforestation or extreme weather or some other such non-CO2 related activity, then we can say so, loudly.
    To me, it’s all about CO2. For many frustrated years I have hoped that one day, (when mention of emissions, footprints, low-carbon and saving-the-planet keep coming up), one of our own experts would come out and proclaim publicly that CO2 cannot be proved to cause any significant change. They blog endlessly and convincingly but what they say is never actually used where it matters.
    I say that only by getting to the root of the problem and using evidence as a lawyer would are we ever to prove our argument. Until then WUWT, Messrs. Delingpole, Booker etc. (and UKIP?) might all be whistling in the wind, and fellows like Maniatis will go on having it all too easy..

    • When you look at these “3000 papers” you find that many could be interpreted as supporting the orthodoxy, but could be interpreted otherwise. Prof. Fred Singer has used much of the IPCC’s material to make the sceptic case. meantime Vahrenholt quotes hundreds of peer-reviewed papers to demonstrate that it’s the Sun, more than the CO2.

      • ianforman says:

        I’d like respectfully to ask, Roger that, if that’s the case, how was Maniatis able to get away with quoting the 3000 papers? He seemed able very smugly to close the discussion with them.
        In my post I was trying to stress how the whole house of cards would collapse if only the CO2 thing was brought to a head. If it’s not CO2 then all the talk of emissions and “low carbon” is shown to be a hoax and all my reading of the subject points to it being just that. But no-one ever does bring it to a head. Now we have the heir to the throne once more using it as if he’d never seen the other side of the case, and no-one makes any attempt to correct him.

  10. silverminer says:

    Do you think they believe their own rhetoric? Some do, the useful idiots. I suspect those at the top don’t but they find AGW is a useful cover, amongst others, for their real agenda which is to de-industrialise the West and create world government. This is why they won’t give it up, aside from the “egg on their face” issue. As it looks highly likely that the Earth is entering a cyclical cooling phase they are soon going to be even more lathered in egg yolk and the AGW issue will quietly be shelved (already happening to some extent). Unfortunately, it will be replaced with something else, some other great scare story to get us to go in the right (in their opinion) direction, that which suits their agenda.

  11. Thomas Fox says:

    I follow what you say Catanbrian but without more peer review they cannot tell what percentage is due to CO2 , being a retired farmer I have witnessed all this weather before over 50yrs .If my great grandfather were to be here now he would recall the same.

  12. Thomas Fox says:

    Another point to Catalanbrian, a friend who runs a cattle station in Queensland Australia is in a burn up now having to sell his stock; he tells me his father has had to do the same many times in history. Maybe your name suggests you have experience in Southern European climates.
    Regards. Thomas UK.

    • catalanbrian says:

      Thomas. indeed I do live in southern Europe and as a matter of interest I have also been involved in agriculture for pretty much all my life, most of it in the UK, but also in Africa and currently in southern Catalunya. I think that you will find that whilst there have been serious weather incidents in the past (and I can remember a number of them, from flooding and severe winters in the UK to droughts in East Africa) but these events are becoming more common (how many “100 year storms” have we experienced recently?).
      Scientists, and I mean the majority of scientists, have concluded after extensive research that CO2 in the atmosphere does contribute to global warming and climate change and I am prepared to accept their reasoned opinions rather than the non scientific and contrarian views held by most of the people following this thread.

  13. Charles Wardrop says:

    In my experience, in pro-AGW bloggers, several common characteristics are prominent, such as patronising bad manners, humourlessness, blind assertiveness, even though they may provide selected scientific references and self-righteous scorn for us crassly-ignorant “deniers” who ask questions of them or suggest any disagreement.
    In reality, they are themselves deniers, never in the wrong, whose predictions are almost always accurate, or, if forced, the AGW blog brigade wriggle argumentally, introducing post-hoc explanations not mentioned beforehand.
    The undoubted complexities of climate (quite distinct from weather) changes and their causes are no problem to these clannish people, whose formulas’ “fudge factors” overcome all possible obstacles to accurate prediction, with certain, dire consequences for us all.
    They don’t recognise any faults in their predictions or themselves, which makes them snobs!

    • David says:

      i like your suggestion, I might add that there are reasoned opinions from some, whilst others come across as confident, some are over confident and then follows arrogance from a certain type of poster. They do not accept 1 degree of any different opinion. All others are extremists in their view. I know a few, blair, brown & balls. Sounds like mcdonalds recipe.

  14. Thomas Fox says:

    Reply to Catalanbrian
    Because of a wetland bird sanctuery in the Somerset Levels have the EU Evironmental Funds been favoured to these schemes other than for drainage to protect the houses and farm lands?
    If climate science as specified by the IPCC is the reason for funds being channeled from human welfare, then it is a totally expensive dishonest political ploy.
    Regards. Thomas.

    • Ex-expat Colin says:

      Thomas…my understanding of the term climate science (a science?) is that it is termed Climatology – not a specific science, and which draws on Atmospheric Sciences (AS) that research environmental impacts on the atomsphere and its impact in return. To me that means there exists in (AS) a considerable number of kingdoms that do not communicate/behave adequately (those real sciences perhaps). In the context of climate (AGW threat) I suspect such kingdoms do not act very honestly…. and indeed who is there to check? I think we know about the IPCC review panel, a group of specialists(?) that no doubt relieve us of necessary variables in submissions that owing to them may or may not appear in the final IPCC reports.

      So we are all in together….I don’t think so in this big game.

      • Let me offer you a quote from the IPCC itself, its 2001 TAR report: “We have to recognise that the climate is a complex non-linear system, and therefore that it is not possible to make long-term forecasts of future climate”. There, I agree with them — especially as they choose to ignore the most important driver of climate change — the Sun. As a former mathematician, I have some understanding of complex non-linear systems, or as we used to call it, Chaos Theory.

  15. DICK R says:

    Remember when the ecolunatics were advising us to plant drought resistant plants in the garden, because of global warming ,now it’s pissing down also because of global warming ,my cacti have been washed away!

  16. David says:

    Those massive holes in the ozone dont get a mention today.

    Have they healed up?

    • DICK R says:

      Are they the holes that the ecolunatics expected us to believe were caused by aerosols and some refrigeration chemical that had been in use for about 90 years.

      • David says:

        Yep, but I did hear that the wonderful eu had decided to make farms change their LARGE refrigeration installations to a more ozone friendly gas, which then needs about 33% more electricity to get the same temperature drop, another winner from brussels folks.

  17. David says:

    My view is that there is climate change, but it is not just man made causing it, and wind farms are not going to fix it. Yes the politicians are spending a massive amount of our money taxes on these non fixes.

  18. Ex-expat Colin says:

    A brain scramble exercise is going off now at the HoC Energy and Climate Change Committee
    http://www.parliamentlive.tv/Main/Player.aspx?meetingId=14741

    They are on about the production of the summary for policy makers: ah but, yes but, t’is, t’isn’t

    This will impact directly on us…the energy user/bill payers. The 3 warmers on this panel are insistent that C02 dumping has to be stopped (literally dead/now). That of course will be for UK only – until the EU spot it? Just how that solves a perceived problem that is not well understood I cannot understand.

    The models of (chaos) climate/weather seem to be adequate within any experts view. Meaning the expert can pick out what he/she thinks influences policy. Something that Peter Lilly has a problem with I note

  19. Thomas Fox says:

    Now that we have established that non linear climate is to blame, how about the multi linear Environment Agancy DEFRA and all the other useless quangos who now need to decide how to prevent floods in Somerset while giving protection to it’s more important wild bird sanctuery!
    We have more Chiefs than Indians , important human welfare and food must take priority over any EU IPCC directives.

  20. John Hancon says:

    Roger,
    Thank you for another clear well argued piece. May I just amplify what has already been said for the benefit of Catalan Brian.

    Carbon Dioxide is a green house gas. The argument is whether the increase in the level of CO2 in the atmosphere will cause runaway increases in temperature, positive feedback, or have little or no effect on temperature, negative feedback. The Global Warming hypothesis (positive feedback) has been tested by observation and failed. All the predictions made since 1988 have not happened.

    There is no scientific theory of Climate Change, as a theory must be falsifiable. It has come to mean any bad weather and is a political slogan.

    The models used by Climate scientists looked for positive feedback mechanisms, but positive feedback makes the models unstable so that any input makes the output increase dramatically. They appear to give very low weight or ignore completely the main climate drivers i.e. the major ocean oscillations (PDO, AMO, ENSO), the effects of extreme UV light from the Sun on the Jet streams, the level of magnetic particles from the Sun hitting the earth affecting the number of cosmic particles incoming from space. These cosmic particles seem to seed cloud formation on earth. It is difficult to check most climate models as their code is secret, not very scientific.

    The temperature rise over the years is very small and well within the error bars of measurement. The worldwide measurement of temperature by surface instruments is a shambles, with the closing of many stations, the misplacing of many others and the application of just one station to huge areas. There have been unexplained adjustment of historical data downwards (1920’s 30’s and 40’s) and upwards in the recent past. In fact this whole episode smacks of fraud. See the obnoxious practices revealed by the climate gate emails and the crude political whitewash undertaken to exonerate the culprits.

    Repetition is a powerful teaching aid, but leads to frustration when no one takes any notice.

  21. Ex-expat Colin says:

    The HoC Energy and Climate Change Committee with the Yeo in charge?

    Donna Laframboise stated today :
    1. The IPCC performed closed door review of the summary of AR5 to policy makers (30 pages)
    2. Why are the AR5 working group lead reviewers activists of both Greenpeace and WWF (20 yrs worth/group). What happened to independence?

    Lindzen on concensus (of the science) – it does not exist…well, it does on the easy/simple topics.

    I suspect and auditor worth his salt could drive a few busses abreast through the IPCC procedures, rather like the multi year EU accounts that have never been signed off!

    Anything to do with model software (code) will be IPR, yet I think we paid for it. Its very likely and probably hidden behind something like “the national interest”.

  22. Thomas Fox says:

    Roger
    When we return to Shale Gas extraction as we all will nead to because it is a political time bomb, would it be possible for UKIP to promote a common sense in practice fracking engineer to explain in better detail how it functions?
    I read a lot of rubbish from so called academic theorists on farming ,so maybe the same applies to gas drilling. A person can be theoretically brilliant but unable to explain it all in untechnical plain understandable language.
    To allay the fear and propaganda broadcast to voters ,is this request feasible?

  23. Thomas Fox says:

    Roger
    If the people in Somerset were to bring a claim for compensation against the Evironment Agency for damage to health / property/ loss of income as a result of insufficient drainage ,then could a long running case be detrimental to our PM,s unpopular European policy?
    Mr L Granger,s outbust of condemnation of Evironmental policy is too late ,the locals truly blame the EU Green ecology MP s .

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s