The BBC’s environmental campaigner and pusher of alarmist climate porn, Roger Harrabin, will be burning the midnight oil (carbon neutral] tonight as Trump dumps the deal.
What more is there to say except LOL. And maybe LOL again.
Paris climate deal: Trump announces US will withdraw
The ice caps are the same size as twenty years ago.
There are more polar bears than twenty years ago.
But there has been a destructive increase in emissions from Climate Scientists and associated commentators.
At last, a man who puts his country first, and after listening to the ‘academics’ decides it’s not a good enough deal.
Wish we had someone like that here in the UK.
Trump has done what he promised.
Let’s hope Harrabin, the unbiased global warming troll sets himself on fire. Yahoo, at last a chink in the George Soros/EU/Left’s globalist insanity. Trump ain’t gonna pay your billions no more, he may well go down as the greatest president in US history. Catty Kay already choking on her 100 day old bile (read: “Frozen Britain” (John Blake Ltd) and Amazon and Kindle by Gavin Cooke, who called it years ago.
Let’s hope Harrabin, the “unbiased” but deffo unqualified global warming troll sets himself on fire. Yahoo, at last a chink in the George Soros/EU/Left’s globalist insanity. Trump ain’t gonna pay your billions no more, he may well go down as the greatest president in US history. Catty Kay already choking on her 100 day old bile (read: “Frozen Britain” (John Blake Ltd) and Amazon and Kindle by Gavin Cooke, who called it years ago.
From the BBC
‘Michael Brune, from US environmentalist organisation the Sierra Club, said the withdrawal was a “historic mistake which our grandchildren will look back on with stunned dismay at how a world leader could be so divorced from reality and morality”.
——-
And I thought that the coming Armageddon meant that there would be no grandchildren
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-40127326
Its been very hot in Yorkshire the last few days. I wonder if Pres Trump has anything to do with it,.Thanks you Mr President.
Its interesting the EU apparatchiks are making a big play that India and China have signed up to the fraud.. Of course they have, as both will get special concessions, as well as technological assistance. As the US is out, that means that Germany will have to fork up. Good.
Germany has been having a good time at our expense. Doesn’t pay fair share for defence, and makes sure that all the heavy lifting and blood is from the America and us. And when questioned, states that Germany does not dictate EU policy.
On RT yesterday, a German spokesman stated, that Germany was tired of hosting the American base in Ramstein . He should be grateful that America was there in 1945 to halt Stalin. If not, Germany would still be paying for what they did to Russia. They would be a poor ramshackled country in tutelage to the USSR. And the USSR would still be a going concern.
There is nothing Germany can do to repay that debt to the USA, as they never deserved that gift in the first place. Far from it.
I have begun to wonder if DJT may call time on some U.S. military assets in Germany and move at least the aircraft back to an aircraft carrier off shore from continental Europe.
You must be in a different part of Yorkshire NCBBC, it was warm here not hot i.e. mid 70s. But the BBC like to talk up any heat. The other day the weather forecaster on the BBC mentioned that it would be low 70s one day but would be ‘a bit warmer in the sun’. Apart from stating the bleeding obvious, I though reported temperatures were always in the shade (think Stevenson screen).
Today there was a Science Now programme on Radio 4 at 4.30 I think from Hay on Wye. Every scientist they had on, from different branches of science were asked how useful to man in general was their research. Every time they spoke, it felt like, their example of science referred to climate change yet not one of them was a meteorologist.
The science of Climate is not a science, and is unlikely to be ever a science, as it involves too many ‘sciences’. For a start, real climate scientists would have to be expert in Solar dynamics, planetary mechanics, thermodynamics, electromagnetics and radiation, oceanography- particularly the thermodynamics of heat exchange in the oceans, and the behaviour of living organisms. Thats for a start. Just solar dynamics is enough to keep one occupied for a lifetime.
Then the interaction, linear and non-linear, time delayed, feedback, noise, etc etc. This is just a start, without even mentioning clouds. Can’t see how it can be done.
Even a committee of experts would be unable to handle it. The only way left is to the take temperature readings and extrapolate. Extrapolation over a time frame of decades, is far worse then simply taking a blind guess.
This idea the BBC has of settling science by taking a poll. Absurd.
“How certain are you that mankind is warming the climate?”“How certain are you that C02 and the other things are greenhouse gases?”“How certain are you that we are emitting more CO2 which is one of the greenhouse gases?”
Who ever asked questions pertaining to science to a group of disparate “scientists” on matters which they are not expert? The whole idea of proving a theory on the basis of a questionnaire is ridiculous. Scientists may or may not come to a consensus, but they do not rely on consensus as proof.
The reason is not the science of AGW that concerns the BBC and governments, but the monies and politics of AGW. They have invested too much political and other capital, for them to let it go, especially as the gains are in trillions in tax levies, and the bonanza of patronage that results from a windfall in taxes. The others reason is that the West will be locked into a command and control economy for the foreseeable future.
Then this obsession that the science of Climate Change is settled. NO science, even the most rigorous one, is ever settled. And certainly not the fake one of Climate Change. Only politicians believe a science could ever be settled. Obvious, it is settled when trillions of taxes levies can be leveraged.
Excellent resume, NCBBC. This is the best description of the GW farce I have read.
Thick politicians with greedy eyes on the “trillions in tax levies, and the bonanza of patronage” are the problem, and you have put it perfectly!
(My fee, for this accolade, by the way, is waived, because you saved me having to type something on similar lines, but without any scientific terms as I’ve never heard of them)!
Thank you. Your’e very kind.
NCBBC,
Excellent post ! I would love to see some ignorant politician refute that !
A Very good post, you must be one of the many scientists under the BBC’s censorship policy for scientists.
But I would add amendments to it.
Atmospheric Physics has produced a theory that works for all Planetary Atmospheres, and it proves why all attempts to blame carbon-dioxide, using the carbon-dioxide Atmospheres of Mars and Venus, failed. Therefore this represents proof that Climate Change cannot be Man-Made, while, Solar Astronomy has produced evidence as to what causes Climate Change.
Astronomy covers Atmospheric Physics, Solar dynamics, Planetary mechanics, Thermodynamics, Electromagnetics, Radiation, Cloud Albedo and the Thermodynamics of heat exchange in the Oceans. And we have proof that we can ignore positive feedback, but not time delayed thermal lag.
But there are individual scientists who cover all of these topics for weather forecasting, such as Piers Corbyn. So therefore, they can produce answers that are much better than a committee of experts could for any statistical correlations of temperature readings. The correlations for both temperature readings and Solar Cycle lengths go back to the 18th century. So we already have an adequate 200 year record for showing what causes Climate Change.
It explains why the 22 year Hale Magnetic Solar Cycle which ended in 1996, produced the 0.5 Kelvin Global warming scare. And why the next 22 year Hale Magnetic Cycle which is about to end, produced the “Pause, Hiatus or Peak”. And then why a one Kelvin Global Cooling is predicted using planetary mechanics, for the next 22 year Hale Magnetic Solar Cycle starting in 2018.
The BBC employs Anthony Zurcher as its ‘senior North America reporter’ and someone who collects his salary from those who are compelled to pay the TV tax. Here is Zurcher’s take on the world.
https://twitter.com/awzurcher?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw&ref_url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.bbc.com%2Fnews%2Flive%2Fworld-us-canada-40123293
The man is clearly unhinged and certifiable, and for those old enough to remember, brings a deep yearning for the days of Alastair Cooke’s Letter From America. A period in history when the BBC actually reported news.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b00f6hbp
Nice one Mice!
More detailed presentation here –
https://www.prageru.com/courses/environmental-science/paris-climate-agreement-wont-change-climate
The issue has always been uncontrolled human population growth. If one really wants to address issues associated with “climate change” – one must talk about restricting and culling the human population rather than adding fuel taxes to keep the elite wealthy.
It’s the elephant in the room that no one is talking about because it is not political correct to talk about.
So called alternative fuels and renewables have their own major major problems – but no-one bothers to talk about it. The energy policy in Britain has been extremely negligent – we should have been using British coal and nuclear power – rather than buying so much oil from the islamists – which has resulted in Islam gaining the upper hand in Europe.
“The issue has always been uncontrolled human population growth.”
At least someone’s thinking logically here. Increasing population levels is the BIGGEST problem we face, whether you believe the climate is changing or not. But Trump won’t admit that, will he? And he certainly won’t tackle this elephant in the room – far from it!
The UN are definately thinking about it, Edward.
https://www.infowars.com/from-7-billion-people-to-500-million-people-%e2%80%93-the-sick-population-control-agenda-of-the-global-elite/
https://www.thenewamerican.com/world-news/north-america/item/10661-un-pushes-population-control-agenda
Anyone who bothered to watch President Trump’s address about the Paris Scam will understand precisely why he has withdrawn the US. In it he mentions the farcical 0.2 degrees Celsius reduction the Paris Scam is imagined to achieve by 2100. So there you have it, the grandstanding by the great and the good of the conspirators in the climate community is all about 0.2 degrees. Given the proven inadequacies of climate models even that figure is likely to be mumbo-jumbo.
Strangely, the BBC did not report that bit.
The dilemma for the rest of the west is how they now react as the US goes from strength to strength on the back of very low energy prices. Do they stick to their principles (sic) and keep their economies on a course straight down the pan? I doubt it, the electorate will make the decision for them when they compare global temps with unemployment rates and see them going in opposite directions.
And I would like to know how one measures temperature to an accuracy of 0.02C.
A rule of thumb, assuming if the temp to be measured is 0.2C, the measurement accuracy should be ten times more accurate, ie 0.02C.
Hi NCBBC – is that an engineering rule of thumb? In science it just has to be accurate in terms of significant figures, so 0.02 C becomes 0.02 +/- 0.005. However in engineering, where buildings can fall down if you get things wrong, the accuracy (tolerance) generally has to be better.
However, in climate change modelling the accuracy is “unknown” – it is best to say the models indicate a certain result or predict a certain result. Ensemble modelling is a method of estimating “sensitivity” within either a given model (sensitivity of the prediction to changes in input parameters of a given model) or a set of models. But one can never be certain the model accurately represents the full complexity of the Earth system. One can compare the predictions of past models to the reality, in time, and in general the differences are much greater than the claimed accuracy of the model. None of this is properly discussed in the public domain.
Hi NCBBC – is that an engineering rule of thumb? In science it just has to be accurate in terms of significant figures, so 0.02 C becomes 0.02 +/- 0.005. However in engineering, where buildings can fall down if you get things wrong, the accuracy (tolerance) generally has to be better.
Very thoughtful comment.
In engineering one also puts in a factor of safety. Two generally, then simulates the problem, if one does not have an analytical solution.
As you rightly say, the model is incomplete. An analytical solution is beyond reach because of the complexity. One is thus left running numbers through a program, while having no idea if the complexity of the model is leading to singularities in computation. We just dont know. The problem is too big.
Remember David Bellamy, the man with the beard, he was a regular on BBC and other TV and radio. He had the audacity to disagree with global warming and stated his opinion on TV once or twice.
His leftie establishment bosses fired him, he has never been on TV since. That’s the power of the establishment, if you don’t sing their tune you are out.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/culture/tvandradio/9817181/David-Bellamy-tells-of-moment-he-was-frozen-out-of-BBC.html
I remember David Bellamy. Good chap, with integrity, despite the beard.
Watched a program last night on BBC4 about an idyllic, chocolate box village that wanted to go “green”, hosted by Krton from Red Dwarf. Lots of talk and examples in other (sunnier) countries, showing battery technology and solar panel installations. Not a mention about the lifespan of these Lithiunm cells, replacement costs or the fact about Lithium being a finite resource. Then, some “engineer” turned up to talk about solar panels and where the best sites were for installation in the village. The village buildings all semed to be grade II listed, preventing installation on the roofs. This meant they had to go for ground installed panels but the best sites all seemed to be shaded at some times of day by stands of mature trees. No problem said the engineer/salesman, just cut them down, to the agreeable owner of the trees. The irony of being “green” and treefelling and despoiling the landscape with fields of solar panels was completely lost on the idiot!
Just watched Trump’s speech in full.
Brilliant.
Where are our patriotic politicians?
Meanwhile Beeb (and Corbyn, Lucas et al.) criticising May for not signing whining letter from France, Germany and Italy.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-40128356
Rather classic BBC ‘line to take’, forgetting the UK no longer needs to get behind France, Germany and Italy by default, and certainly not Jeremy Corbyn’s world view.
I also see Norm is on ‘analysis’ duty.
Speaking of duty, the whole desperate ‘but you didn’t join in’ whinge reminds me of some others closer to home when running out of anything else to try.
“Where are our patriotic politicians?” Six feet under and no doubt spinning, T.
When the EU say “no deal ” and chuck in a load of tariffs to benefit the Franco German alliance maybe we should do a Trump and tell them where to stick their climate change treaty . I’m a dinosaur denier and see the greenery thing as just an excuse to raise taxes . Let’s get fracking !
Renewable energy; so that the efforts to mitigate climate change can be seen in a realistic perspective, here are some figures from 2014.
Total energy use in UK was 2,249 TWh, of which electrical energy amounted to 335TWh. That is, around 15% of the energy used in the UK is electrical. Of the electrical energy around 16% was derived from renewable sources; this figure includes biomass burning.
So at most 3% of the energy used in the UK in 2014 came from renewable sources. This is despite decades of wind turbine and solar panel installations.
A major (insurmountable?) problem is the fickle nature of renewables, particularly wind. Additionally, many forms of transport, air, sea, and heavy goods on road simply do not lend themselves to electric propulsion.
We should be investing heavily in nuclear, chemical fuel cell technology, and in ways to capture carbon from fossil fuel burning if we believe that CO2 is a significant threat to the climate. Instead the major focus seems to be on generating electricity from renewable sources, and converting cars to electric propulsion.
When is Roger Harrabin going to come clean about the ineffectiveness of what is being done at huge expense to energy users?
Another problem of renewable energy is that it is dilute. Energy W/m^2 is low. Which means that vast amounts of area has to be covered with a large number of energy gathering collectors. High cost, low energy return, low tech, and high maintenance. Moreover, as the collectors are independent, one needs to phase lock them.
Nuclear power OTH, is high energy density, one off, and high tech. The downside of high energy density is that it is dangerous if not controlled. No such thing as a free lunch. But politicians, with their AGW/CC scam of raising taxes and saving the land and us from “rising seas and oceans”, do believe in a free lunch. They’ve been having free lunches, duty free booze etc in parliament here, and in the EU, for decades.
Another advantage of America refusing to pony up to the shakedown, is that Germany will have to pay. Its unlikely Greece or France has the cash. China and India joined the Paris scam, as they were promised all sorts of goodies. They were never supposed to pay up.
Germany has been having a good time at our and America’s expense. Its time they paid for the big mistakes they keep making – like inviting millions of Muslim invaders into Europe, and then expecting the rest of Europe to share the burden.
I can count on about three to six thousand times I’ve sat in property development meetings with people who put themselves on the line and accept the risk on behalf of their shareholders and own people.
Donald Trump – sorry President Trump – is no different, He looks at the deal, weighs up the odds, and decides to act. Kyoto was a labour farce, led by a buffoon – Prescott. And doomed.
It’s all about political money, coming from nowhere until the accounts are ‘signed off’ – which in the case of the ECC is never never. They’re passed off as ‘expenses’ or some ridiculous ‘environmental’ statement, and never quantified. Brexit is the way forward and no mistake.
Good man, President Trump, to do this. Tell all the ‘environmentalists to feck off’ They’re not needed.
Wish we had someone like President Trump in Number Ten.
http://dilbert.com/strip/2017-05-14