Climate Panic Page 2g : Original Writing by StewGreen

- Back to Main Climate Change Page and Index

Those Greedy Small Countries holding out their hands in Copenhagen

- Switch on TV and we see the Nepali government staged a cabinet meeting on Everest saying "help global warming is causing our glaciers to melt and enviromental catastrophe ..please western people give us money"

- How cynical can western TV people to report this, but not report the terrible pollution in the main cities ?

- 10 months I was in kathmandu. I had to buy a dust mask the street pollution is so bad !. There would be days where the smog wouldn't clear up all day. Someone has made an effort to replace many of the auto rickshaws with electric powered, but there are still so many other dirty vehicles and wood fires

- BUT IT'S THE NEPALIS FAULT ... not western countries
...(though to be fair Nepal has been at war for the last 10 years so they have had other priorities)... and haven't got a clue about keeping an enviroment clean

- Yep the average person in Nepal does have a very low income, but guilt money from western powers will undoubtably end up in the pockets of the already wealthy corrupt elite.
- India has made small inroads by getting people to use gas or charcoal blocks instead of wood fires.

- People would have also see the Maldive government meeting in it's wet suits to show how sea level rise will destroy the Islands. All very convincing to people who don't know the facts. There is no evidence of sea-level rise in the Maldives, Yes the islands will be covererd in water... why ? cos as like all volcanic islands they are created by undersea volcanic activity but these islands actually always SINK and get replaced by new eruptions .. volcanic islands are not stable but continually sinking and reforming

Recap : Facts are Science, but Speculation is not
- Science Facts are important cos you can act on them.
- There are facts, but then there is endless speculation.

- Nature is someimes in turmoil, but there is usually some kind of short term balance.
- Humans do a lot of stuff which affects nature e.g. clear forests, pollute rivers etc
- One of the major infuences of man is by burning stuff which sends lots of compounds into the atmosphere like sulphur dioxide causing acid rain etc.
- one of the main compounds is CO2

- 1. YES man sends a lot of CO2 into the atmosphere
- 2. YES It seems accepted that atmospheric CO2 levels have continually increased over the last 150 years
- 3. Temperatures during the period 1975-2000 did seem on average to rise (although there are major questions like why has atmosperic temperature not risen, and temperature measuring stations being in heat islands etc.)

- anything after that like saying it was all lead to catatastrophe is pure speculation.
- Convenient UNTRUTHS saying things like "the temperatures risen faster than ever" or "there is more CO2 in the atmosphere than ever" turn out on inspection not to be true
- Stories count for nothing - As ever it's statistical evidence that counts - so "these glaciers are melting", "this islands is flooding", "this species is becoming extinct" often turn out to have little meaning like many islands are based on volcanic rocks which sink
- Meaningless Predictions - This might happen , "sea level will rise 4m" count for very little in Chaotic systems (non-linear) as we are know they can't predict the correct weather for tomorrow.

Is The Science of Greenpeace UK credible ?
Their Chief Scientist has no idea how many scientists they have
- I heard an interview on BBC radio the journalist was trying to ascertain the scientific basis for Greenpeace's beliefs.
- "So you are sure Greenpeaces belief in Global warming is based on science ?", " oh yes we get it from our scientist members"
- "What level are these scientists are they just graduates or PHDs ?", "err I couldn't say" ,
- "Well how many actual scientists does Greenpeace UK have ? " ... "err I've got no idea"

- He's in charge of them yet he has no idea scientists are in his team. .. He could have said "dozens" or "over a hundred", but he really didn't seem to have a clu. It didn't do much for their credibility.

Trust Destroyed by Climategate and Strings of False Catastrophe stories
- Everyday the newspapers are full of climate catastrophe stories which when you know extra information or check the facts turn out to be not what they make out to be and often completely false.

- This is the thing about Climategate it shows many examples of why we cannot trust.

Greenies are not Green
- It's always amazing to me how the people taken in by the "it's simple" message and are loudest in message are the weakest in effective action : they have lots of kids, celebrate Christmas, buy more stuff to make themselves green etc.
- There should be a website - Green

- Peter Hitchens said some good things on his blog about eco-fascism based on weak evidence telling the rest of us how to do things.
- He plugged The Real Global Warming Disaster, by Christopher Booker

- The Skeptics Handbook is a very good presntation : the_skeptics_handbook_2-3_lq.pdf

- Stott put some solution ideas in the Mirror 6/12/2009
- Electric cars 3/10 - (Vauxhall will sell them in 2 years time) - still give off CO2 at the power station
- Severn tidal barrage 8/10 - £23Bn, should generate 5-6% of UK electricity but enviromentalists might kill it
- Eco towns 1/10 - gimmick
- Carbon capture 5/10 - expensive, but has great potential
- Clean power station 5/10 - The Drax produces 4,000 MW, 7% of the UK's needs. Will be modified and use 12.5% renewable fuel
- Wind £2billion London Array 4/10 - They will never be a major player, the most expensive way and need gas and coal back-up
- Nuclear 9/10 - ""Labour got this right & and by new law planning permission must be settled within 1 year"
- Wave Power 4/10 - "We are behind the French on this."
- Algae Fuel 6/10 - : has up to 100 times the energy of sugar cane."Important.", but Stott contradicts himself by criticising Biofuel engines (a mistake surely)
- podcar-minitrains 0/10 - fantasy

- This is the warmest decade in modern history - Interesting to hear the BBC shout this story. But on analysis it's like the catastrophe machine can't say it's the warmest year so is desperately looking for something shocking to say and this is the best that they can do. But picking blocks of data is a bit of a statistical game. You could probably say this millennium is colder than the last millennium etc

- I notice every BBC correspondent uses the terms "climate deniers" and "stolen emails" instead of leaked emails at every opportunity.
- No come on BBC that's not on ! Denier is a negative term from the phrase Holocaust Denier. No you are the Deniers : You deny that climate science is complex. Catastrophe Skeptics are the people who realise that.

- complexity deniers are The Simples as they say they believe it's all very simple and that you don't have to question proposed solutions much that "every little helps" etc. So that their solutions are ineffective and counterproductive.

- They say "It's all very simple...Man makes extra CO2, the greenhouse effect causes the extra heat that changes the climate that will undoubtedly lead to CATASTROPHE like the icecaps melting and all coastal areas flooding etc.
- And graphs show temperature has risen faster than ever !
- And look it rained a lot yesterday so we can see the climate is changing already.
- And cimate doesn't change normally does it ?"

- Almost all of these a simply wrong - And complexities immediately arise :
- Sea level is different in different places in the world
- stopping burning stops the smog that adds cooling to the planet

Secondly Understand Why Climategate is REALLY important
They “Sexed up” Global Warming & damaged the CREDIBILITY of Science

- So I just explained how the public get their view so we can see why climategate is important to them.

- When the government as preparing the public for war against Saddam it's said that they “sexed up” a report on his weapons of mass destruction. So the leaked emails reveal CRU was doing the same with the global warming debate. They had a "sexed-up" Climate Catastrophe dossier. They didn't give the public the data that revealed the situation was complex, no instead they “sexed it up” to give a simple message.

- 1. The emails show the top scientists were being deliberately deceptive in presenting the hockey stick graph.

- And fundamentally : Climategate damages the Credibility of science - We know what to expect from politicians, activists, business and PR agencies : we know they will spin the data to suit their agenda, but science is different scientsts are open minded and impartial they collect the raw data and deal with it as it is, come up with hypotheses and try to disprove them. The rest of can take this data and form policies etc. So it's important that we can trust the data. If some scientsts start tinkering with the data then this damages the credibility of whole of science.
- This is what happened at the top of CRU they ceased to behave like truth seekers, so how can we believe anything they say. This damaging for them, but they need to be punished for damaging Science itself.

- At least one scientist (Tom Wiggly former head of CRU) spoke against skulduggery... when someone (DR Alcomo) sent out an email saying "we need to get a pettion with as many scientists as possible, forget checking whether they are real PHDs etc ..the media won't bother checking"
- Wiggly told him "...Your'e being dishonest, this is extremely disturbing..."

- Really weakens the scare story of the week machine - Actually there is one important way the Catastrophe Believers have been effected.... they have a constant program of wheeling out their experts to announce the scare story of the week, but now 10 or 20 of their "names" are out of action as as soon as they stand up at a press conference "someone will ask what about that data you shredded etc".

First Understand Why the public believe

- 1. A hockey stick graph clearly shows how temperature rose.

- 2. Polar Bears are becoming extinct aren't they ? We have seen emotional photos


- 4. Simple Solutions : The government needs to install windmills and for us normal people "Every little helps" we just have to do things like buy eco-lightbulbs

- 1. - This graph has always been wrong, it was doctored to remove the medieval warm period - this is the subject of one of the emails

- 2. - This is not bourne out by scientific studies that's why natives are still allowed to shoot a certain number each year.

- 3. - actually according to a graph in the Independent China's emissions overtook the US's in 2009 - It is the normal peoples fault it's them who consume all the goods.

- 4. - "Every little helps" NO IT DOESN'T if you want to make a difference cut your consumption of stuff by 80% and stop having kids

Why is the Press still Running the Scare Stories but not running with the Big Story ?
- 2 weeks after Climategate emails were confirmed to be true
: more than 12 million internet pages mention Climategate yet the Mainstream Media isn't covering it, mention of it is almost only in their letters pages and then at today I see and hear "A new report says sea level rise could be double what we previously expected", What's that was there some certain prediction of sea level rise before ? No this story is just empty scary speculation, it's meaningless whereas Climategate is fact. Yet the meaningless speculative stories are given almost daily coverage and it this fact based story that's ignored.

- We need a new word for things where huge groups take the same irrational action as if there is a conspiracy. Cos in this case surely there can be no conspiracy ... It would be too big to organise. Yes there is a vast Greenpeace machine to talk up "Climate Change catastrophe theory", but why everyone obeys it I don't know.

- well I have one idea : Of course Main Stream media are going to support the Catastrophe angle cos negative stories sell. Actually when you look at it negative disaster stories are the nature of the media beast. Murdoch knows that there is much more scope with negative stories rather than positive. Positive stories have only one option "good news such and such will happen", but with bad news have a multitude of options and the story can run and run "Oh my God this might happen, or this might happen etc. etc. "

- My other theory - Maybe Climategate is the tip of the iceberg Could it be that journalists don't want to talk about the nasty secrets in the scientists email archive because they actually have similar nasty secrets in their archive.

- Could it be that journalists won't run the scientists dirty climate secrets because there are dirty secrets in their own archives ?

- Stop Press 1. - 2/12 BBC News reported the story in a small way - Jones has just resigned. Their spin was very negative they focused on referring to the emails as been "hacked" and "stolen" rather than been leaked and they didn't really mention Jones crimes.

- Stop Press 2. - 2/12 The Daily Mail today has "Climate Change a Tax raising scam says Scientist : Ian Plimer" : Oh dear, great to see Skeptics and Plimer get some publicity, but it damages his case that his case has been taken up by a newspaper which normally doesn't respect reason andgood science. Maybe the informal conspiracy is coming apart at the edges.

- Stop Press 3. - 3/12 Finally The BBC begins to carry the story in the main headlines : The spin they put on it is that the Saudis are quoting the story to hold up Copenhagen changes. The tone they take is unhyping quickly mentioning "most scientists say it makes no difference" and they fail to mention that the head of the CRU has resigned

- Stop Press 4. - 4/12 The BBC cover the story that there will be an enquiry in the main headlines : however this comes 36 hours after the enquiry was announced

Why Climategate is the Biggest Climate Story Ever
- It's no news to Skeptics as we knew all along that many figures are not reliable.
- But to the Warmist Believers it is a very big deal. The Science says ... The Science says
- The BBC says "well most scientist say the leaks make no difference .... the results are duplicated
- Yes it does matter
- 1. these are top scientists : they are supposed to lead by example if we can't trust the top scientists then how can we trust the lower ones
- Tip of the iceberg If the top scientists cheat then there may be others cheating
- 2. These are the founders of some of the main foundations of public opinion : The famous hockey stick graph etc
- but if top scientists come out with data then it's not really a surprise that lower scientists seem to duplicate the results : "Ah you say the emperors suit is fine, yes so do I"

Some Top Global Warming Scientists cheated, lied, manipulated : so what ? We Already Expected that
- synopsis from bishophill blog
- Beginning of October - BBC Weatherman Paul Hudson publishes a blog questioning the Global Warming Panic.
- Someone identifies PH as about the only person in the BBC who isn't toeing the Global Warming Panic line, so leaks him emails from 1999-2009 incriminating a few of the worlds top climate scientists including those at the very foundation of the Catastrophe Theory and Hockey Stick Graph like Phil Jones and Mann.
- (18th December Head of the University knew of the leaks I heard him say this 3 weeks later on R5, but he couldn't explain why they had sat on the news for 3 days)

- 20th November BBC publishes a report on it's science news pages saying that the last 10 years of emails from the UK's top; climate science unit CRU have been leaked
- The BBC plays down rather than publishing the real super hot story. Now it's clear from the outset the emails may have been stolen, so you'd expect the BBC to try to check if the emails are real, and report any if it's in the public interest.
- it seems it doesn't do this. The CRU does nothing to claim the emails are false and the shear number 180Mb leads to the impression they are genuine. Ah I just saw reports that Phil Jones the chief culprit confirmed the emails were real on 20th Nov also.
- The emails appear in the public domain - once on the hacked CRU website for 20 minutes and then permanently on a Russian server.
- Some Impossible Secrets Revealed
- 1999 they talked about leaving stuff of graphs so it looks like the medieval warming period never happened.
- They lean on university to ban one of their staff from using it's name on her skeptical reports.
- They talk about having a skeptic fired - later he was.
- They talk about having a token skeptic on a committee to make it look balanced
- 2009 - They talk about deleting emails so that a FOI request canot find them. etc. etc.
- This is the kind of skulduggery we expect from politicians or activist organizations like Greenpeace which often spin stories to suit their agenda, but science isn't supposed to be like that; SCIENCE IS SUPPOSED TO STICK STRICTLY TO THE FACTS. And the main culprit wasn't some lowerly student, but rather the head of the organisation.
- Andrew Bolt's list of the Climategate crimes

- Mainstream conspiracy to play down - Of course some of the emails are so hot the story spreads like wild fire among skeptic blogs as they confirm what skeptics knew all along that some top scientists were using dirty tricks. Objectively it's not big news we knew scientists were often political as so few spoke out about the obvious errors in Gore's film, but the strangest thing is that the media which is characteristically unobjective and regularly builds any sniff of a scandal into a mountain remains very quiet. Yet to them it should be one of the biggest stories of the year. If those emaills came out of Conservative party offices and revealed 4 conservative people had been engaged in a dirty tricks campaign and coverup it would be all over the front pages.

- Funny how the very same media including the BBC reported the "People being killed for fat" last week : "Peruvian gangs are harvesting people for fat", for fucks sake it's obvious to any moderately intelligent person that that story was rubbish ... There is a market for live kidneys , but fat is surely widely available.

- Andrew Bolt's site picks out even worse examples

- jamesdelingpole in the Telegraph is a good report also questions why Mainstream Media is ignoring this story even though it's the biggest news topic on the internet

Wind doesn't work ! : do the maths
- There was a BBC farming prog about windfarms. Some farmers love them cos they get paid £15,000 per turbine per year.
- For God's sake when you do the maths windfarms lead to more CO2 and much more costs.

- Wind seems like a great solution "Wow CO2 free electricity" , but hang on they are only 30% efficiency so 70% of the time it's normal CO2 , then when you factor in the CO2 generated in producing massive amounts of concrete used in construction then that eats well into the 30%. You achieve better value for money and more CO2 reduction if you didn't build the windfarm at all, but invested in other measures like increasing the efficiency of your hydrocarbon generating plants which you need anyway the to make up the 70% of the time the turbine is not generating and have standing idle the 30% of the time the turbine is working.

- If windfarms were sustainable the private companies would have been building them years ago. Even with big susbsidies they said no they'd rather stick with hydrocarbon plants which do make them money, so the government has come up with a blackmail plan that the companies can't have the profit making plants unless they build their target number of windfarms. So the companies build there token wind farms and are forced to pay top dollar to the farmers.

-The windfarm salesman said "30% efficiency, but the wind blows 85% of the time", he's either a liar or stupid 30% ... even if there was this amazing location where there was wind 85% of the time a lot of the time the wind would be too light or too strong so meaning the turbine would be off. It might be possible to get some CO2 free electricity 60-70% of the time, but this would average 30% of the time at the the turbines peak rating. i.e. after going to all the trouble of building the windfarm 70% of the time you are getting the same CO2 as a hydrocarbon plant cos thats what you are using 70% of the time.

- The prog featured an expert Dr John Etherington agreed with me on windfarms he has a new book coming out "The Wind Farm Scam"

- BTW I noticed a trick - companies put in a big plan, then halve it so it get's approved, then a few years later they put in a plan for an extension to this "existing site" so the Crucial question is "will you put more turbines on this site later ?"

- Actually I should pedal back a bit
- don't need backup power then wind maybe OK - if you are using electricity in a way where time is not important like charging an electric car which is not used much on non windy days ... though this type of use is not widespread yet.

Stop the ice melting ... it causes a decrease in CO2
- Oh my God we have to stop the ice melting... you know what a science report on BBC Science in Action just said , "In areas where ice has melted, huge blooms of algae have been observed the size of Wales" and that means there is a new mass of vegetation that didn't exist before absorbing CO2. The scientist only put the annual absorption volume at 1000th of that that humans put out in a year... but again it shows how complicated climate systems are

Yes Trust in science that works 30/10/09
- Yes Trust in science that works. Most of the science used it climate catastrophe claims is not science that works.

- Whatever science comes up with theory and then predictions that actually are proved by time is credible. But as I said below no people (on the panic side) predicted the climate graph of the last 10 years.

Where was the downward sloping graph in 1998 Predictions ? 11/10/09
so we can't trust climate predictions
- "believe us climate disaster is coming" they chant .. Yet 1998 remains the warmest ever year.
- Despite predictions that this year would be hotter than ever .. it was WRONG

- "ah well you 1998 was an El Nino year so that's why it was hotter was an exception"
- I don't remember them saying : "now in 1998 it's hotter than 1997, but remember that it's an El Nino year"
..... no in 1998 they they were running around saying "Oh my God another hotter than ever year"
- Now they if they failed to predict the last 10 years how can they make predictions for the next 50 ?

- Just listened to another BBC prog banging on and on about climate change ...same old dogma .. failing to explain other angles ..could almost smash the radio

Some Odd Notes July 2009

- Philip Stott recommended I thought it was a place where you check for bad scientific theories, but it's just someones blog mostly about how temperature measurements are unreliable .. a bit narrow focus really.

- A Gramme of Mercury is dangerous, but 1/1000g is not. On ABC science an RMIT scientist was talking about measuring Mercury from Power Stations implying that it could be a major unpublicised threat to human health particularly in countries where emission control standards are low like India. I didn't find much on the internet except in California forest fires sent up 40T/year as against 110T/year in industry. Apparently Mercury is widely occurring in nature, we all have a few particles in us it's when we have 1000 times more that it's a problem.

Climate is a Chaotic not a linear system June 2009
- see the opinion PC458
- Recently a lot has been reported about the human brain processes maths. We get into groove thinking about things being linear systems ... More of input X generates more of output Y e.g. Press harder on the accelerator = more speed , And while this works many times it turns out humans are making a lot of errors cos a lot of systems are chaotic and the Climate is a chaotic not a linear system . You can't just assume X more fuel burning = Y more temperature. Indeed actions might have opposite effects. E.g smoke particles might adding a cooling effect.

- interesting what Ian Plimer said on Counterpoint. Yes CO2 might effect climate, but it would get to a limit. More CO2 doesn't mean more temperature like closing the curtain, it doesn't matter if you put another curtain in front of that

salty sea and a river as a battery ..reported on rado NL
-Earthbeat on radio Netherlands reports how you can use a salty sea and a river as a battery - sounds possible, but what are the numbers ?. quote 500MW ..that's pretty good if true ..they only did in lab so far earthbeat story. The organisation is called Wetsus. so far this s the only story of the idea ... so sounds a lttle too be good to be true

Proper Maths on the Subject
- just heard a great article on BBC More or Less - a David MacKay who was infurated by the bad maths used in energy stories has written a book about the proper maths and it's free to download Sustainable Energy - without the hot air, 10-page synopsis

Amercians are not the biggest polluters ? 28/1/09
-HYPOTHESIS- We undercount Developing World proportion of climate warming
- 1. We undercount developing world fuel use cos we only count fuel that is traded and most fuel is wood cut down for free, and
- 2. Cos it's burnt inefficiently the smoke warming effect maybe double or triple the CO2 warming effect of fuel burnt cleanly in the west.

- Given the report below that smoke causes more warming than CO2 I wonder if we can question the Amercia is the biggest polluter assumption ?
- Americans buy a lot of fuel for sure, so it's easy to count. We can say a westerner generates 1000Kg of CO2, but 900Kg is from products they buy and 100Kg from direct fuel. Whereas the developing world guy doesnt buy hardly any fuel or products so we count his CO2 as near zero. BUT by only counting trade we are way under counting his CO2, I believe that on average they use twice the direct fuel through cutting his own wood and burning it inefficiently. Secondly his pollution is worse than the Americans burning fuels "cleanly", as the South Indian haze reasearchers found smoke causes more heating effect than the CO2 effect.
- So Developing World person maybe using 200Kg of CO2 in fuel, but we factoring the dirty smoke effect can count the effect as equal to 400 or 600Kg of CO2.

- I should add I never believed America was the largest polluter before either as I don't trust any Asian statistics particularly China's

biggest cause of S Asian warming is cooking - BBC 28/1/09

- BBC Science in Action just reported that scientists have proved that "the biggest cause of winter global warming in South Asia is caused by people buring wood for cooking." The carbon 14 analysis of the South Asia Dustcloud shows 2/3 of the soot particles come from recent biomass not fossil fuels like coal and petrol. The burning wood and dung is so inefficient that lots of partially burnt carbon goes up into the atmosphere and these particles are efficient at absorbing heat.

- The expert said each year in the area wood burning causes 1 in 20 deaths (2 million/yr)

- Does the cloud shadow or warm .. Their calculations show the warming effect is bigger and is effecting the monsoon.

- This is stunning : If they have only just worked out smoke is worse than Something that in many areas of the world causes a larger warming effect that CO2 is not in Climate models.

- My own culturally imperialist take is .. Usually I have cooked stuff once a day as my breakfast and lunch are uncooked. Yet I often see poor people seem to be stuck with cultural practices which make life hard work. They ignore readily available food like fruit and insist on having 2 cooked meals a day as well as some cups of tea. So women have to spend so much time collecting wood and cooking. I am not saying with a western lifestyle that I don't use 10 times as much fuel as them, just that I can see simple changes could make their lives a lot easier. What if the whole village cooked together instead of 50 different kitchens ?

- They said the Indian government is actively tackling the dustcloud problem, by promoting other technology.

- That's 2 anti-panic stories on Science In Action is it biased ? or are other sources ignoring stories that don't promote the cause ?

Recession is Good Surely
- 13/12/08 - Surely less consumption is the best news ever for the environment, so we should be happy that there is big recession. Yet this does play well with the press .. Contrast with banging on and on about the possible Disastrous Global Warming. Seems negative stories go onand on, but positives don't get reported.

Original Writing by StewGreen

What will YOU give up to save 200 million deaths in the next 20 years ?

...cigarettes ?



Keep it Simple = sustainable

- focuses on Climate Change Skeptism home of the $125K challenge

Excellent Explanation of GW

HOME ** Feedback/comments ** stew@stewgreen.comnospam ** Index of My Essays