Generalised abuse is no substitute for rational thought

unnamed

Recently I’ve been seeing a lot of mindless abuse from Warmist Trolls on Twitter.  “The fact that we have ignoramuses like Roger Helmer representing us in parliament is a f***ing outrage.  It really is”.  Or “Please resign. I don’t want a moron representing me in the European parliament”.

Hang on guys.  You can disagree with me if you want – though you might be more credible if you could advance rational arguments in a courteous way.  But the fact is that I had a good grammar school education, and I got a State Scholarship and a Cambridge maths degree.  I think that’s good evidence against the “Moron and ignoramus” charges.

These people seem to think that blind adherence to the failing Warmist paradigm will (in the words of the Good Book) “be accounted unto them for righteousness”.  Sorry, guys, but it doesn’t work like that.  You don’t get too many Brownie Points for parroting what everyone else is saying.

They keep referring to “science”.  So OK, let’s talk science.  The classical scientific method involves postulating hypotheses, making predictions based on those hypotheses, and then testing predictions against observed data.  Climate “science” is largely based on highly complex computer models.  But the starting point for these models is a series of hypotheses, or assumptions, about how climate responds to various forcing factors.  And the outcome of the models is no more than a very sophisticated prediction, based on hypotheses and assumptions.

It is worth noting here that some of the assumptions underlying Warmism are implicit.  Indeed some have probably not even been recognised as assumptions by members of what we may call “the Warmist community”.  I return to one or two of those below.

But of course the Warmist trolls completely ignore the third stage of the scientific method – checking predictions and outcomes against observed data.  And when we look at the real data, we find that observed temperature trends fall far below the general run of alarmist predictions.  And we find satellite data showing no further warming for nearly two decades.

Self-respecting scientists will look at these data and conclude that there may well be problems with the hypotheses.  And frankly anyone who thinks that the primary determinant of global climate is an invisible, non-toxic trace gas which amounts to no more than 0.04% of the atmosphere, needs to think again.

Let’s look at those implicit assumptions.

Assumption #1: Human activity is causing the rise in atmospheric CO2.  Yes, atmospheric CO2 has risen from around 250 ppm to a current figure of 400 ppm over the last hundred years or so, at a time when the industrial revolution has gathered pace, and fossil fuel use has risen dramatically.  So human activity is the obvious cause – right?  Maybe not.  Let’s go back to Al Gore’s famous film, “An Inconvenient Truth”.  He points to changes in both global temperature and atmospheric CO2 levels over the last 600,000 years.  He establishes a clear correlation between the two data sets.  And he cries “Eureka! That proves it!  CO2 causes temperatures rises!”.

Of course it proves no such thing.  Correlation doesn’t prove causation.  And what Al Gore doesn’t mention is that if you look at the fine grain of the data, the temperature changes precede the CO2 changes by a few hundred years.  Any serious scientist looking at that would accept the correlation, but conclude that temperature was driving CO2.  Not, as Gore claims, CO2 driving temperature.

But this creates a major problem for Gore and the Warmists.  He can attempt to explain the most recent increase in CO2 levels as a result of man-made emissions.  But he offers no explanation for the CO2 fluctuations over the previous 600,000 years, when clearly they were not the result of human activity.  There were no industrial emissions or 4 x 4s or sports-utility vehicles.  Gore’s CO2 fluctuations remain a mystery.

Climate sceptics, on the other hand, have a complete explanation.  Changes in mean global temperatures are driven by long-term cyclical astronomical and solar effects.  These in turn drive CO2 changes.  Neither the temperature changes nor the CO2 fluctuations remain unexplained.

Over the last 10,000 years (and arguably much longer) there has been a roughly 1000-year cycle  in mean global temperatures.  It gave us the Holocene optima, the Minoan Optimum, the Roman Optimum, the Mediæval Warm Period, and it now seems to be delivering a new 21st Century Climate Optimum.  Note that recent warming seems to be part of a well-understood, long established natural climate cycle, and (applying Occam’s Razor) we need seek no other explanation.

But to resume: it could well be the case that the cyclical warming which for two hundred years has been bringing us out of the Little Ice Age is also the main driver of the observed increase in atmospheric CO2.  It may have relatively little to do with human activity, which in any case is only around 3% of the global carbon cycle.

But what about the mechanism?  How would temperature drive CO2?  Simple.  There is about fifty times the amount of CO2 dissolved in the oceans as there is in the atmosphere.  But the amount of CO2 that can be held in the oceans is temperature-dependent.  As oceans warm, the sea water cannot contain so much CO2 in solution.  So it ends up in the atmosphere.  Levels of atmospheric CO2 rise.  Conclusion: man-made emissions may well be no more than a minor factor in atmospheric CO2 levels.

Assumption #2: CO2 is the only significant driver of global temperature.  Yes, CO2 is a greenhouse gas.  But so is water vapour – and as long as the wind blows over the ocean, there is nothing we can do about that.  If we are to look at correlations (as Al Gore seems keen to do) there is a rather good long-term correlation between the sun and climate – and a rather poor correlation between CO2 and climate (see Fritz Vahrenholt “The Cold Sun“).  There is also strong emerging evidence that the solar magnetic field, closely linked to the sunspot cycle, has a powerful effect on the cosmic ray flux reaching the earth, and that this in turn affects cloud formation, albedo — and climate.  It is naïve to assume (as the IPCC does) that “It was the carbon dioxide wot dun it”.

Assumption #3: We can change the trend of CO2, and climate, with renewables.  No.  There are reportedly around 1200 new coal-fired power stations  in the global pipeline – and fossil fuels are becoming cheaper.  CO2 emissions will rise for decades whatever we do (and as noted above, may not be primarily driven by man-made emissions in the first place).  And intermittent renewables cost more, and save fewer emissions than the industry likes to claim.  This is because, through intermittency, they export inefficiency to the necessary fossil fuel back-up, which burns more gas (it’s usually gas), and emits more CO2 per megawatt than would be the case without intermittency.

But there is a more fundamental economic reason why our energy policies may do more harm than good.  Electricity prices across the EU are now around double the level of our major competitors (excluding Japan, which is a special case).  As a result, energy-intensive industries are moving offshore, taking their jobs and investment with them.  Often they go to jurisdictions with lower emissions standards, arguably increasing global emissions.  Brussels calls this “Carbon leakage”.  I call it economic suicide.

This entry was posted in Uncategorized. Bookmark the permalink.

63 Responses to Generalised abuse is no substitute for rational thought

  1. Brin Jenkins says:

    Brilliant Roger, lets keep up the logical rebuttal. I usually ask for their explanation of the mechanism and so far it seems to be above their pay grades to do this.

  2. Ex-expat Colin says:

    Bishop Hill has identified a book (in French) which charts disasters impacting on the west coast of France since year 567 to date (20th C). Puts claims of global weirding in their proper context it appears?

    http://bishophill.squarespace.com/blog/2015/2/4/chronique-du-climat.html#comments

    If there is something I don’t want in our government/westminster its certainly the SNP. I have a feeling that they are going to finish Grangemouth off. Hope the workers there are not voting SNP?

    • Grangemouth is owned by INEOS. CEO Jim Ratcliffe says that the chemicals industry in Europe will be finished in ten years unless we get a grip on energy pricing. And he needs affordable natural gas as a feed-stock. That’s part of the case for shale.

    • Katie says:

      What are you on about???? Finish off Grangemouth?? They will finish everything that is worth anything in Scotland!! We came back from Spain to live in Scotland and wish we hadn’t bothered. The SNP are nothing but a load of trouble making idiots who will do nothing about anything if it falls into line with any English policies. They HAVE to be different. They have ruined the lives of so many people here and their beautiful landscapes with their incessant obsession with wind farms. It is totally out of control as are many other things here. Their hatred of England and everything that goes with it knows no bounds.

  3. Alan Love says:

    Excellent summary of the situation. Unfortunately, the “mankind makes CO2, causes warming and destroys the planet” scenario is being drummed into school children from an early age. In addition to your comments is the case that the classic greenhouse hypothesis defies basic thermodynamics requiring, as it does, the successive transfer of heat from a cooler atmosphere to a warmer surface. I like to think of Parliament passing the 2008 Climate Change Act as repealing the Second Law of Thermodynamics.

  4. Robert Dallas Gray says:

    Quoting http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_opinion_on_climate_change:

    “As of 2007, when the American Association of Petroleum Geologists released a revised statement,[11] no scientific body of national or international standing rejected the findings of human-induced effects on climate change.”

    Even people who make their money digging oil out of the ground disagree with you.

    And you think you know better because you’ve got a degree in Maths.

    The point is, none of us “Warmist trolls” NEED to do the science, because “no scientific body of national or international standing” even questions the fact that human-induced warming is happening. There is a massive, overwhelming consensus, supported by reams of research undertaken by people who have studied this for decades. If you want to seriously challenge that consensus, you’ll have to pick over that body of evidence and convince nearly every working scientist in the world that you’re right and they’re wrong. Good luck.

    Further, it’s broadly agreed that human-induced climate change presents an extinction-level risk to life on Earth. So if you’re in a position of leadership, and you want to say something about climate change, there is a lot at stake; you need to think very carefully about the effect of what you say, and have bulletproof evidence that it’s helpful.

    That’s the situation. In the light of it, your expectation of getting respectful responses to nonsense like “Here goes BBC Countryfile peddling the false claim that 2014 was ‘the hottest year on record’. No it wasn’t” is risible. All you should expect is abuse, because you’ve said nothing to merit anything else.

    • Brin Jenkins says:

      Can you give us the mechanism details for CO2 being responsible, and explain how having been released from water by heating (cause heat, effect CO2 is released) it now reverses to be to be the cause of heating?

      No jargon, no abuse and insults, just the logical explanation please. If you don’t know, or can’t, we will understand.

    • Ex-expat Colin says:

      Think you ought to read that citation (11)…properly !! They are divided/don’t know and think research and climate models are needed. I think thats largely 2 frauds at once!

      God Help Us !!

      • rdallasgray says:

        You haven’t read or understood my comment. The AAPG were the last important scientific body to remain dissenting, which is hardly surprising because it’s composed of people who make their livings from fossil fuel. It is certainly not surprising that their assent is equivocal.

    • The “97% consensus” claim is hugely and wilfully misleading, and has been substantially debunked. See https://rogerhelmermep.wordpress.com/2014/08/29/lets-stop-worrying-about-global-warming-and-worry-about-the-damage-that-green-policies-are-doing-to-our-economy-2/ I have personally worked with highly qualified scientists, including IPCC Reviewers, who profoundly disagree. Although it is true that there is huge pressure for conformity, based on appointments, tenure, access to publications, and especially research grants. In 1600 the flat-earthers burned their opponents at the stake. At least today the Warmists apply only financial sanctions.

      • rdallasgray says:

        The ‘debunking’ is bunk. See e.g.: http://www.theguardian.com/environment/climate-consensus-97-per-cent/2014/may/28/wall-street-journal-denies-global-warming-consensus.

        My favourite bit: “Worse yet, Bast and Spencer also referenced the Oregon Petition, which can be signed by anyone with just about any college science degree, and which has included ‘signatures’ from fictional characters and Spice Girls.”

        I’d urge you to look, also, at this very informative page on NASA’s website, which quotes numerous respected scientific bodies as supporting the consensus on human-induced climate change: http://climate.nasa.gov/scientific-consensus/.

        But, you know, you could be right. NASA and all the rest of them could have been duped by a huge conspiracy, a Ruse concocted by Warmists. I don’t really think you believe that, though, because you’d have to be daft, and I’m sure you’re not. I think your dissent is ideological, because at this point it’s impossible for it to be anything else.

      • Brin Jenkins says:

        We must leave it there I think, my explanations on how I see and understand matters are as clear as I can make them, Eddie Coke, who I don’t know, has explained on here very clearly the difference between the greenhouse effect and greenhouse gases.

        You have not explained anything, merely pointed to a Guardian newspaper link, as though reported opinion consensus meant everything.

        My commiserations.

    • Terry Knight says:

      It’s interesting that what was once called ‘global warming’ has gradually changed to ‘climate change’, because over the last 20 years there has been no warming that could in any way support what the ‘warmists’ were predicting. So, a vague term like ‘climate change’ is now used so that any abnormality in seasonal weather can be pounced on as “evidence” of the impact that man is having on the climate. Even the met office was recently compelled to state that there was absolutely no evidence to support the mounting hype about man-made climate change being responsible for weather anomalies caused by Jet Stream behaviour.

      Roger’s article provided a lot of factual information that is consistently ignored by the global warming stakeholders, such as the ’cause and effect’ relationship between CO2 and warming. Our history books tell us about the mini-ice age, when fairs took place on the frozen River Thames, and also about Romans cultivating grapes in England during a warmer period. So yes, the climate change does occur constantly and some of the factors that appear to influence that were mentioned by Roger. I do not share your faith in the Wikipedia entry, especially when bodies such as the IPCC are the sources.

      However, even if mankind were to be contributing to the warming of the planet in some small way (but not over the last 20years!), then the way that the EU is trying to tackle it is even more preposterous. What is the point making the heavily regulated Europe-based manufacturers either go out of business or transfer their operations to other parts of the world where the lax standards actually result in CO2 emissions increasing? Why erect vast wind turbines at great expense (with all the associated energy consumed and CO2 emitted during their manufacture and installation) when, in the recent cold spell in the UK, these monstrosities were just idling along during this period of high pressure / low winds and only contributed 0.5% to the national grid at the very time when the demand was highest.

      • Brin Jenkins says:

        Worse than that, the grid loses 28% of transmitted energy as radiated heat! Now 28% of 40 Gw is almost one third in rounded figures so about 12Gw of heat is radiated from the grid 24/7..

      • rdallasgray says:

        I refer you to my comments above.

      • Brin Jenkins says:

        Having no explanations yourself, we should link to a newspaper article. It’s what you understand and believe. You will need to do better to convince anyone that you even understand the arguments.

      • Brin Jenkins says:

        Referring to your comment? A link to a Guardian article, regurgitating opinion rather than science, and supported only by a biased consensus. Ah, if only you were able to explain it all in your own words.

    • Hugh Davis says:

      …….claim that 2014 was ‘the hottest year on record’

      The UK Met Office says “2014 was NOT the hottest year ever due to ‘uncertainty ranges’ of the data. The uncertainty ranges mean it’s not possible to definitively say which of several recent years was the warmest.”
      The main conclusion to be drawn from the data is that 2014 was a warm year, but not statistically distinguishable from most of the years of the past decade or so meaning that the “pause” in global annual average surface temperatures continues.

    • Robert Jones says:

      You’re the one out of step here. After far too long a period during which the international warmists held sway the UK was in thrall to the voodoo science. In 1988 James Hansen said that by 2010 the earth will have warmed by 2-4 degrees C; in fact the variation was less than 0.1 degrees C. In 1997 the earth’s surface temperature was 14.5 degrees C; today it is still 14.5 degrees C (source Met Office HADCRUT4 data). The Arctic ice is deeper and wider than it was 4 years ago, the polar bear population has increased and no islands have been inundated by rising sea levels.

      UK citizens have been paying the outrageous and unwarranted subsidies for inefficient renewable technologies since the Labour Government’s flawed Climate Change Act in 2008. Many of the most vulnerable in our society have been forced into fuel poverty as a direct result. Where is your real-time evidence, as opposed to flawed computer predictions? When are you going to face the fact that the great AGW scam is over?

    • catweazle666 says:

      “Further, it’s broadly agreed that human-induced climate change presents an extinction-level risk to life on Earth”

      No it isn’t.

      Stop making stuff up.

    • Even the Met office agrees that they can’t claim 2014 as the hottest year on record. And given our position on the 1000 year cycle, you’d expect recent years to be amongst the warmest
      In the last couple of centuries.

    • stallardmike says:

      First of all: even if all the scientists, without exception, everywhere in the world agree, that does not make the truth. Galileo? Copernicus? William Harvey?
      But that is not what I wanted to ask – yes – ask.
      How do scientists know if the whole world is getting warmer or cooler? There is an awful lot of world and an awful few people on it – certainly over the centuries – able or indeed willing to do the measurements.
      A list of things to measure wouldn’t half help.

      • Brin Jenkins says:

        The Kings Naval sailing ships in early voyages started taking sea temperature readings that are still in the logs. It has been suggested that these were inconvenient to warmists and so these logs have been ignored.

  5. @Alan Love. The sun heats the land and the sea, these in turn transfer their heat to the air above. Stop trying to be clever quoting the Second Law of Thermodynamics and go and re-sit your A-Levels lad. Comments like yours are leaving Roger wide open to accusations that he is also an idiot.

    • Brin Jenkins says:

      Of course all of our energy has been radiated from the Sun, Radiation has little effect on the atmosphere and what gets through indeed heats land and water. In turn they transfer by convection, conduction and radiation. Our Atmosphere acts equally in both direction in both shielding and insulating. What is it that acts like a one way valve allowing heat in, but not out at the same rate causing Global warming? This seems to be the crux of the controversy. Is there any experimental data in support?

      Personally I would welcome a bit of warming, in 2001 I planted 6 olive trees in preparation but so far we have no olives worth talking about.

      • Entropy is the one way valve you are looking for. The sun gives us light in various wavelengths including higher energy ones such as UV. Once they have hit a surface and have been absorbed they are re-emitted in the infrared spectrum generating heat.

        Don’t bank on global warming helping your nascent olive grove as models would suggest the UK would be one of the losers in global warming as the weather systems that have kept this country unusually warm for it’s latitude would be disrupted meaning we would likely be a couple of degrees cooler after global warming compared to now.

        Our energy is not all from the sun either. Studies estimate that half the Earth’s warmth comes from within most likely due to the decay of radioactive elements.

        I hope this helps.

      • Brin Jenkins says:

        Simon I understand refraction fairly well, I am also able to describe variations in the speed of light in glass and air, changes in frequency doppler effects, and how this changes as the speed slows down. This speed will incidentally also increase on reradiation and the frequency decrease.

        Perhaps you can explain the mechanism of this one way heat valve, because I don’t see how at present?

        All energy, including that radioactive stored, came from our solar system when it was first formed. That’s as I understand it including all of the elements. It will eventually all be radiated back into space sharing the heat in an egalitarian way throughout the universe as our Sun and this solar system die.

      • Ex-expat Colin says:

        Brin..this interesting comment was put on Bishop Hill yesterday…I did not follow this part of Physics so am only half able to understand it:

        “The study of the thermodynamics of the atmosphere lies wholly within the discipline of physics. Correct me if I’m wrong. but my understanding is that climatology courses do not include anywhere near as much physics as is covered in a degree in science with a major in physics, such as I have.

        More importantly, physics is about understanding the real world. If you use equations and “laws” of physics, you need to know about the prerequisites for these to apply. Many of my students over the years have not understood such.

        For example, the Stefan-Boltzmann equation only applies to true black and gray bodies, and such bodies have to be perfectly insulated against any loss of thermal energy by conduction and other sensible heat transfers. And of course a black body is not transparent like the thin surface layer of the oceans. So all James Hansen’s fiddling with back radiation in order to get the magical 390W/m^2 to “explain” the surface temperature of 288K is garbage, because radiation is not the primary determinant of that temperature, for the simple reason that it is not a black or gray body and only the solar radiation should be counted anyway.

        You have to understand that you can only claim that sensible heat transfers occur only from warmer to cooler regions in a horizontal plane, because, as we saw above, the equations for thermodynamic potentials are derived with the assumption that gravitational potential energy does not vary.

        You have to understand that the Second Law is all-pervasive and plays a part in determining what happens in all heat transfers and other energy transfers also. That’s why the density gradient is a result of the Second Law. To claim that the state of thermodynamic equilibrium has no density gradient in a gravitational field would be ludicrous. It is just as ludicrous to claim that it has no temperature gradient. There must be no unbalanced energy potentials, and that sure ain’t the case for the assumed isothermal troposphere.

        It is not greenhouse gases which establish the temperature gradient: it is gravity. Until you understand that fact, you will never understand the downward convective heat transfers which explain why all planets’ surfaces are hotter than their tropospheres”.

      • Brin Jenkins says:

        Colin as you say, its a bit esoteric for me with only a modest HND from the mid 50’s. I understood that the Planet’s internal heat is probably frictionally generated by plate movements under great pressures. As such it is solar gravitational forces causing this heat.

        Considering the Troposphere, when our atmosphere is thinner, there must less convection of heat, and radiation will be the heat transference method explaining the -30 degrees outside air temperatures of Airliners at cruising altitudes. As gravity holds our air in place I suppose gravity is the reason it gets colder when air pressure falls away. As you say very interesting, and I would love to read more in laymans terms.

        It seems to me that once any real science is considered, we reveal the bamboozling from the Climate Industry.

  6. eddie coke says:

    Great article, Roger! Almost there. Just one small step to go. Because there’s been a fatal flaw – or a fatal fraud – in all of this. The concept of a “Greenhouse Gas”.

    Sitting comfortably? Good, then I’ll begin…

    There’s no such thing as a greenhouse gas. There are gases ***which under the right set of circumstances*** cause a greenhouse EFFECT. Two very different concepts.

    Saying “CO2 is a greenhouse gas” is like saying “water is a building material”. Well, if you live at the North Pole, it probably IS a building material. But (as with CO2) we need to consider two main variables: abundance and energetics.

    North Pole: water abundance (high); energetics (freezing)
    The UK: water abundance (high); energetics (too warm – liquid water)
    Sahara Desert: water abundance (low); energetics (too hot)

    If the Sahara was freezing cold (-30C, say), there’s still no water, so in fact we need BOTH abundance AND energetics to be perfect for water to be a building material.

    Let’s look at CO2 then. First the science bit:

    Buy or borrow the 1st Year Undergrad Chemistry texts, “Physical Chemistry” (PW Atkins) and “Fundamentals of Molecular Spectroscopy” (CN Banwell). Read them.

    Now you know about normal modes of vibration of linear triatomic molecules; that CO2 has four of them; that the symmetric stretch is infrared inactive (but can be seen in the Raman). You should also understand the concept of quantum mechanical selection rules for energy absorption and excitation to higher vibrational energy levels. Morse potential and other useful stuff.

    In other words, that CO2, and all other molecules, absorb/emit very specific wavelengths of energy, which correspond to the size of the bandgaps between the vibrational energy levels (a bit like a fingerprint). If they didn’t, we wouldn’t have any way of identifying molecules using Infrared Spectroscopy. The IMPORTANT bit is that the energy is quantised, not continuous. So a particular wavelength is required to excite the molecule. If you only deliver half the required energy, NOTHING HAPPENS. It does NOT absorb that energy and “wait” for the other half to show up.

    Now look up Soufiani’s 2011 paper online (JQSRT, 2011, 113, 14-25) on the high temperature IR spec of CO2. The peak emission wavelengths are 2.7 micron and 4.3 micron (there, I’ve saved you looking it up).

    Plug those lambda values into either Wien’s Approximation or Planck’s Law and you get the corresponding blackbody temperatures. They are 800C and 400C respectively. Earth’s atmosphere is not at either of these temps. No greenhouse effect occurs due to CO2. Impossible – wrong energetics. The next vibrational state of CO2 occurs when the gas hits 400C and above. (And then Greenhouse Effect STABILISES that temp; the effect does not cause *warming* – it *insulates temporarily* until 2nd Law of Thermodynamics overwhelms it!)

    So why the fatal flaw (or fraud)? It’s a Tale of Two Planets!

    Venus: CO2 abundance (96%); energetics (temp = 460C. ie 400C or higher!)
    Earth: CO2 abundance (0.04%); energetics (temp < 50C)

    Venus has a greenhouse EFFECT because of CO2 – BOTH abundance AND energetics are perfect. The non sequitur was to say, "Therefore, CO2 is a *Greenhouse Gas*. Let's transfer it over to earth and start taxing people. Yay!"

    Repeat after me: There is no such thing as a Greenhouse GAS; only a Greenhouse EFFECT.

    • Brin Jenkins says:

      Thank you Eddie, this is an excellent explanation. In the blacksmiths terms that I am more familiar with I see it as the transition from black to cherry red of ferrous material in the hearth as more heat is applied. This is making it malleable as any middle ages Smith would understand.

      In the Electron valve theory this effect was described as the Electron cloud increasing in size with heat until a positive charge could attract a stream across the vacuum valve to its anode. I took it as read it was probably a fairly linear process but it seems Infra Red experimental work shows otherwise.

  7. Anne says:

    I am not in UKIP but guess who I am voting for.
    The Sinking Ship ]

    Election time will soon be here,
    So who shall we put into power?
    So many new faces to choose from
    The choice it will be said is ours.
    But people are beginning to wonder,
    What an elected Representative can do?
    Others gave away the power they had
    To that dictatorial Organisation, the EU.

    The EU is meant last forever,
    All bound by the law of one State,
    To compete with the U.S of America,
    And seal forever the UK’s fate.
    Over the years the lies have been many,
    For not one now, the truth dare tell
    That ALL were trapped by those Treaties,
    And were treading down the path to HELL.

    In this Country we pledge our solemn Oath
    To our Queen, quite loud and clear,
    Our loyalty will never be to ‘Europe’
    For our British way of life we hold dear.
    We are definitely coming out of “Europe”
    Through the General Election in 2015
    We are voting of course for UKIP
    And putting first our Country and our Queen.

  8. Stuart todd says:

    Roger, as a retired rotating equipment engineer in the Oil and Gas Industries I never tire of reading your web pages. I am a Disciple of yours when it comes to shale gas. I have been in many Asian and South American countries where fracking was the norm. and the only place I felt a minor earthquake was here in the North East of England, maybe 20 years ago, caused by a natural fault near the West Coast and well before Fracking was even a discussion item. What has it got to do with the current topic….a chicken and egg situation I would guess, but I firmly believe that when we have our own fuel resources,then what were formally two huge, but failing (due to energy costs) PetroChem complexes on Teesside will have revived fortunes.
    Please keep pushing the messagse on Global Warming and Shale Gas.

    • Hugh Davis says:

      The BBC never ever refers to the fracking process in news reports without adding the prefix “controversial”, and is fully signed up to the idea fed to it by the Green Machine
      that fracking contaminates water aquifers as well as causing earthquakes.
      Hydraulic fracturing has had a 65 year history since Halliburton pioneered the process in 1949. and has been used in over 2 million treatments in 90 percent of all US gas (and many oil) extraction wells, conventional and unconventional, without a single documented instance of the process leading to the pollution of a water aquifer. Not surprising really as between the strata of shale (8 to 10,000 feet down) and water aquifers (around 500 feet) are tons of impenetrable rock, often up to 2 miles thick.

    • Thanks Stuart. Jim Ratcliffe of INEOS has been very clear that for the chemicals industry to survive we need affordable energy, and we need affordable gas as a feedstock. The case for indigenous shale gas is clear.

  9. David Cox says:

    Hi Roger, I would not be downcast about these idiots, I see most days that Any comment that is in any way in favour of UKIP, gets abuse. I suspect that these are either idiots fearing change of any kind or paid trolls for the 3 old parties. For me the abuse just make me more positive who I will vote for ! best wishes Dave Cox

  10. Anne says:

    Something that hasn’t been mentioned here even though it is a good few years ago that I came across HAARP. (1999) Here is a little for you, “Considers HAARP (High Frequency Active Auroral Research Project) by virtue of its far reaching impact on the environment to be a global concern and calls for its legal, ecological and ethical implications to be examined by an international independent body before any further research and testing; regrets the repeated refusal of the United States Administration to send anyone in person to give evidence to the public hearing or any subsequent meeting held by its competent committee into the environmental and public risks connected with the high Frequency Active Auroral Research Project (HAARP) programme currently being funded in Alaska;

    28. Requests the Scientific and Technological Options Assessment (STOA) Panel to agree to examine the scientific and technical evidence provided in all existing research findings on HAARP to assess the exact nature and degree of risk that HAARP poses both to the local and global environment and to public health generally;End of Quotes. http://www.europarl.europa.eu/sides/getDoc.do?pubRef=-//EP//TEXT+REPORT+A4-1999-0005+0+DOC+XML+V0//EN

    Lots about HAARP in the EU Parliament and also in our own Houses of Parliament.
    See Haarp vor dem Europaparlament, Brüssel, 28.2.1998
    The HAARP project and non-lethal weapons. Experts alarmed – public debate needed.

    And some people talk about “Climate Change” and “Global Warming”!!!. Has anyone ever asked exactly WHO is changing it?

  11. Jane Davies says:

    In my opinion internet trolls fall into two categories, 1: the bullying tactics used by those who trade personal insults because they do not agree with your views but don’t have the intelligence to apply rational argument. 2: those who are paid in whatever form to discredit the opinions of others in a political sense, as alluded to by David Cox. As far as I’m concerned their “opinions” are worthless.

  12. Jane Davies says:

    I hesitate to call this a bit of fun because it is a serious subject but enjoy the jab at the government anyway……

    • Katie says:

      Hilarious Jane. I have sent this to all my friends. This just about sums up our current leaders. What a shower!!! Thanks for a great laugh.

      • Jane Davies says:

        ‘Tis funny isn’t it? I hope it goes viral and the world can see what a bunch of turds oops sorry nerds are “running” the country!

  13. catweazle666 says:

    Here is a fairly crude graph showing the background trend of ~+0.5°C per century that is probably a section of the ~1000 year cycle that is responsible for the Minoan, Roman and Medieval Warm Periods and the corresponding cold periods such as the Dark Ages.

    It is overlaid by a ~60 year cycle of ~0.3°C amplitude that apppears to correlate with the North Atlantic Oscillation.

    The close match between the warming period ~1910 – 1940 with the ~1970-2000 in both slope and duration is quite marked, as are the cooling periods ~1880-1910 and 1940-1970.

    It is evident that we are currently about half way through the negative phase ~2000-2030, so the cooling will become marked over the next 15 years, whereupon the temperature will once again increase, peaking around 2060.

    http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/hadcrut4gl/from:1850/trend/plot/hadcrut4gl/from:1910/to:1940/trend/plot/hadcrut4gl/from:2001/trend/offset:-0.1/plot/hadcrut4gl/from:1860/to:1880/trend/plot/hadcrut4gl/from:1970/to:2000/trend/plot/hadcrut4gl/from:1880/to:1910/trend/plot/hadcrut3vgl/from:1940/to:1970/trend/plot/hadcrut4gl/from:1850/to:1860/trend/plot/hadcrut4gl/mean:120

    No evidence whatsoever of anthropogenic CO2 emissions having any effect whatsoever on temperature.

  14. Ian Terry says:

    Great piece Roger and good to see such a good response. Trolls? Declare an open season and lets all have a bit of fun.

  15. rdallasgray says:

    I give in. You’re all nutters.

    • Brin Jenkins says:

      Again no explanation as to why you think this? Just opinion I suppose.

    • catalanbrian says:

      I am afraid that these people who are trapped in their own idological vanity box are impossible to argue with. They have made their minds up and whatever evidence is put in front of them to demonstrate just how wrong they are will make no difference whatever to their blinkered thinking. Do not, however give in. It is too important that they are questioned and the lack of their knowledge is exposed.

      • Brin Jenkins says:

        Brian, I believe that you are convinced you are saving the Planet by your actions, I have difficulty understanding why this is so. Can you please inform us on the mechanism involved. No links to what is a biased industry or others opinions, no around the houses explanations relying on lies and misconceptions. Just explain it in your own words! How can Carbon Dioxide be the driving force behind The Global Warming Theory?

        If the reason for Carbon taxes are to save the planet by reducing Carbon, and I have explained it only converts recipient economies from low carbon into being carbon producers, why are we doing it this way at a crippling cost?

        The National Grid loses 12GW as radiated heat every day in transmission losses, is this not a cause of you Global Warming for you to worry over?

        There we are, three questions that need answering please.

      • Terry Knight says:

        I read Brian’s ‘idological vanity’ comments as a reference to warmists! … a question of perspective I guess. Your comments were well made; the power loss over the national grid must surely only become an increasing factor as the government and some local authorities promote the uptake of electric vehicles.

  16. Katie says:

    One for RDallasgray

    http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/earth/environment/globalwarming/11395516/The-fiddling-with-temperature-data-is-the-biggest-science-scandal-ever.html

    I for one am fed up with the likes of the BBC and other money making journalists, ‘scientists’ etc pulling the wool over our eyes and making us pay good money for something which simply isn’t true. How many people are being driven into fuel poverty over these lies and propaganda? It is about time it was stopped. Also for those who think Fracking is so bad and wind farms are so friendly, take a look at what has been going on a few miles from us and yet because it is wind and not fracking nobody, not even the Green party, has even commented. People have actually been hospitalised with poisoning and this water is still unfit for human consumption. It is corruption on a very large scale. Take a look at the link below.

    Toxin fear at Whitelee wind farm

    http://www.thesundaytimes.co.uk/sto/news/uk_news/scotland/article1516825.ece

    How would you like your water contaminated like this?

  17. Jane Davies says:

    I’m with you Katie on the uselessness of wind farms but fracking is also a danger to water supplies. Some provinces here are now thinking of stopping fracking. Approx. 40,000 gallons of water and chemicals are used per fracking. Six hundred chemicals are used per fracking including known carcinogens and toxins. There have been over 1,000 documented cases of water contamination next to areas of fracking.

    • catweazle666 says:

      “Six hundred chemicals are used per fracking including known carcinogens and toxins.”

      Drivel.

      “There have been over 1,000 documented cases of water contamination next to areas of fracking.”

      More drivel.

      • Jane Davies says:

        No it’s not and there is no need to be so rude. Your opinion is not always the right one.

      • Brin Jenkins says:

        Jane we must have energy! Mankind has managed in the past with much less but not at our population levels and dependency. Contemplate no mineral oil and a return to 1750 levels, no aircraft, no tractors, trains or buses. Just horses on our overcrowded Island short of land for food.

        Our choices are to buy at home, or abroad. Some buying options may be better than others, but all carry a risk of pressure via supplies. Russia may well be a safer option than the Gulf, but even supply reduction of 20% would cause misery and disruption, 50% starvation leading to massive civil disorder possibly a terminal collapse.

        My preference is ignore the greenie 5th column and go for our own supplies, and under our total control. Production risks are manageable, whilst rioting and looting are not and must be avoided.

        Am I mistaken?

      • Jane Davies says:

        No Brin you are not mistaken, I just object to someone telling me my comment was drivel and to just dismiss the opinions of others in this rude way is both patronising and dangerous. To go blindly ahead with something without first being aware of the dangers is just plain stupid when we all need clean water to stay alive. I may well be wrong but I’m entitled to my opinion and here in Canada some provinces are considering banning fracking for that very reason. We shall see who is right in the years to come

      • catweazle666 says:

        “We shall see who is right in the years to come”

        We already have seen, in point of fact. Hydraulic fracturing technology is not a brand new technology, something that appears to have escaped the Luddites – or more likely, they are disingenuous – mendacious even – about its history.

        We have many decades of experience in the use of hydraulic fracturing techniques, it’s record over in excess of a million sites demonstrates it to be one of – if not the cleanest, safest and non-intrusive methods of extracting fossil fuel reserves that has ever been employed, compare it with the environmental and human costs of coal mining – especially in states such as China and Turkey for example, an industry that is hopefully likely to be reduced in importance by the general adoption of shale gas..

        You may be interested (although I doubt it) in this report from the highly respected Royal Society and the Royal Academy of Engineering on the subject.

        https://royalsociety.org/policy/projects/shale-gas-extraction/report/

        https://royalsociety.org/~/media/policy/projects/shale-gas-extraction/2012-06-28-shale-gas.pdf

        You appear to be unaware that hydraulic fracturing has been in use for many decades, including at Wytch Farm in the UK:

        http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/earth/earthnews/10233955/The-town-where-a-form-of-fracking-is-already-happening.html

        and that over 200 wells have been ‘fracked’ in the UK alone over the past two decades, without the slightest problems.

        Even Germany, despite all the hoo-hah about it being banned (it is only banned in designated water preserves in fact) has been using the technique with zero ill effects since 1975.

        http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hydraulic_fracturing_by_country#Germany

        The whole furore against fracking only arose after the “Peak Oil” brigade suddenly realised that new technologies – not just fracking, there are several others – had entirely destroyed their smug “we’ll have to do without oil in 20 years anyway so we might as well get used to it and freeze in the dark tomorrow” BS and we have in fact fossil fuel reserves for several hundred years at least, and turned the full force of their anti-capitalist “Green” propaganda machine against it. Even that bastion of “Green” idiocy the Guardian had to admit that Russia – for obvious reasons – had a hand in promoting the anti-fracking propaganda.

        Russia ‘secretly working with environmentalists to oppose fracking’

        http://www.theguardian.com/environment/2014/jun/19/russia-secretly-working-with-environmentalists-to-oppose-fracking

        Note that in the USA the Environmental Protection Agency (absolutely no friends of the oil and gas industry) has investigated thousands of claims of pollution and has not found one proven case yet – something which you will not find acknowledged by the media, which invariably reports the initial claims but omits to publish the results. However, if you insist on obtaining all your “information” from crackpot alarmist blogs and debunked propaganda films such as the ridiculous “Gasland”, which even its creator Josh fox admitted was a hoax.

        Finally, if you wish to have your views treated with respect, I suggest you ensure they are respectable, ie well-researched, and not alarmist claptrap, much of which appears to be propaganda inspired by the likes of the Russian oil oligarchs..

  18. Anne says:

    THE ALIENS HAVE LANDED.
    Imposing in there hundreds,
    Such an army on display,
    Those alien grey metal monsters
    I saw while on my way.
    Aliens on our shores have landed,
    So tall, backs straight and true,
    At night they watch through flashing eyes
    Of red, at me and you.

    Some have scaled the mountains,
    Others near schools and homes,
    Of one thing I am certain,
    Those aliens have no souls.
    No “whispering” from their ranks at all,
    An unearthly sound they make,
    It envelops each and everyone,
    No more can humans take.

    Three giant arms revolving,
    Enveloping all around,
    They’re here to ‘save the planet’,
    The biggest “con” I have found.
    Such hideous tall grey monsters,
    Invade green and pleasant lands,
    To stay for generations,
    Unless the people make a stand.

    These aliens feed on power and wind,
    Without either, they will die,
    They’re NOT environmental friendly,
    They’re for profit, (at a cost), that’s WHY.

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