It seems all greens are nasty about their religions.

From Local Transport Today by Andrew Forster

Lawson rails against ‘religious fervour’ of the climate change ‘alarmists’

“I have never in my life experienced the extremes of personal hostility, vituperation and vilification which I – along with other dissenters, of course – have received for my views on global warming and global warming policies'. He says. 

Yes and you see the same attitudes against pro drivers from the anti driver religion too Nigel. Read on.

Policies to dramatically cut carbon dioxide emissions are politically, economically and scientifically irrational, says the former chancellor Lord Lawson, who thinks alarm about man-made climate change has similarities to religion

Lawson: computer models “scarcely worth the computer code they are written in”

Andrew Forster

Fear about man-made climate change doesn’t feature quite so prominently in the transport policy debate today as it did five or ten years ago but it continues to be a fundamental building block in how policy-makers frame ‘the transport problem’. With the exception of grassroots organisations such as motorist group the Alliance of British Drivers, there appears to be universal acceptance within the transport sector that man-made climate change is real, that it poses a serious threat to life on this planet, and that we should mitigate its impacts by dramatically cutting carbon dioxide emissions.

But how will historians look back at this thinking? Nigel Lawson thinks the judgment will be very harsh indeed. The former Conservative chancellor wrote a book in 2008, An appeal to reason: a cool look at global warming, and a year later set up a think-tank, the Global Warming Policy Foundation, to challenge what he regarded as widespread misinformation in the scientific, political and economic debate about global warming. The Foundation’s director is Benny Peiser, who LTT interviewed in 2006 and 2008 as climate alarm reached its peak in the UK, with the Government’s world-leading Climate Change Act 2008 committing the UK to cut carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases by 80% by 2050 against 1990 levels.

Lawson believes policy-makers have got things badly wrong and his explanation for how this has happened reads something like this: take a credible theory; record a temperature rise that excites scientists; set up a United Nations body to look into the matter; build some computer models with flawed assumptions that generate projections of runaway temperatures; stoke these fears with the help of a largely uncritical media and a vibrant environmental movement; and, finally, add some politicians who see ‘saving the planet’ as the ultimate cause célêbre.

Lawson recently fleshed out his thinking in a lecture in Bath, which the GWPF circulated this month. As a distinguished politician, he has had plenty of bad-tempered exchanges with political opponents but none have been so bitter as  those over climate change. “I have never in my life experienced the extremes of personal hostility, vituperation and vilification which I – along with other dissenters, of course – have received for my views on global warming and global warming policies.”

After a recent appearance on the BBC, many listeners complained to the broadcaster that Lawson was unqualified to speak on the topic because he wasn’t a climate scientist. “I must admit I am strongly tempted to agree with that... on the clear understanding, of course, that everyone else plays by the same rules. No more statements by Ed Davey, or indeed any other politician, including Ed Miliband, Lord Deben [John Gummer] and Al Gore. Nothing more from the Prince of Wales, or from Lord Stern. What bliss!”

But Lawson said he and other non-scientists had every right to speak about the topic because, ultimately, it was not a scientific one. “The issue is not climate change but climate change alarmism. And alarmism is a feature not of the physical world, but of human behaviour.

“There is, indeed, an accepted scientific theory – the greenhouse effect – which I do not dispute and which, the alarmists claim, justifies their belief and their alarm,” he said. The effect of increasing atmospheric concentrations of carbon dioxide was, however, highly uncertain. Temperature records suggest that mean global temperature increased by about 0.5ºC in the last quarter of the 20th century. “But since then, and wholly contrary to the expectations of the overwhelming majority of climate scientists, who confidently predicted that global warming would not merely continue but would accelerate, given the unprecedented growth in global carbon dioxide emissions, there has been no further warming at all.

“To be precise, the latest report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, a deeply flawed body whose non-scientist chairman is a committed climate alarmist, reckons that global warming has latterly been occurring at the rate of 0.05ºC per decade, plus or minus 0.1ºC. In other words, the observed rate of warming is less than the margin of error.”

Lawson said this showed that the computer models used by the climate science community to predict future dramatic temperature rises were “scarcely worth the computer code they are written in” and “almost certainly mistaken”. 

Evidence, what evidence? 

Some pundits have pointed to the floods that affected much of southern England this winter, caused by a shift in the jetstream, as evidence of man-made climate change. But Lawson was scathing. There was “no credible scientific theory that links this behaviour [the movement of the jetstream] to the fact that the earth’s surface is some 0.8C warmer than it was 150 years ago”.

“That has not stopped some climate scientists, such as the publicity-hungry chief scientist at the UK Met Office, Dame Julia Slingo, from telling the media that it is likely that ‘climate change’ (by which they mean warming) is partly to blame.”

Society was now much more sensitised to extreme weather events, he said, “partly because of sensitivity to the climate change doctrine, and partly simply as a result of the explosion of global communications”.  “It is perfectly true that many more people are affected by extreme weather events than ever before. But that is simply because of the great growth in world population.”

With temperature datasets suggesting there stable average global surface temperatures for 17 years, Lawson said adaptation, not mitigation, was the correct response to the possibility of warming resuming. “It clearly makes sense to make ourselves more resilient and robust in the face of extreme weather events, whether or not there is a slight increase in the frequency or severity of such events.

“Astonishingly, this is not the course on which our leaders in the Western world generally, and the UK in particular, have embarked. They have decided that what we must do, at inordinate cost, is prevent the possibility (as they see it) of any further warming by abandoning the use of fossil fuels.”

Lawson said there was “no way in which this could be remotely cost-effective”. Lord Stern’s 2006 report for the UK Government, The Economics of Climate Change, suggested otherwise but Lawson said it was “a bible for the economically illiterate”, full of “dodgy economics”, and had been “comprehensively demolished by the most distinguished economists on both sides of the Atlantic”.

Stern based his conclusions on weighing up the costs and benefits of action to cut emissions, but Lawson said other commentators ignored any economic assessment of the case for mitigation at all. These people urged dramatic reductions in fossil fuel use on the basis of the ‘precautionary principle’ – the possibility that failing to kerb emissions will have a catastrophic outcome.

This made no sense either, said Lawson. “A moment’s reflection would remind us that there are a number of possible catastrophes, many of them less unlikely than that caused by runaway warming… and there is no way we can afford the cost of unlimited spending to reduce the likelihood of all of them.”

Turning to the politics of cutting emissions, Lawson said there was “no chance” of a meaningful global agreement at the supposedly ‘crunch’ United Nations-sponsored conference in Paris next year. Developing countries such as China rightly saw fossil fuels as a vital way of delivering economic growth and lifting their populations out of poverty.

“We use fossil fuels not because we love them, or because we are in thrall to the multinational oil companies, but simply because they provide far and away the cheapest source of large-scale energy, and will continue to do so, no doubt not forever, but for the foreseeable future.”

The UK’s Climate Change Act was pointless. “There is little point in setting an example, at great cost, if no one is going to follow it. Around the world, governments are now gradually watering down or even abandoning their decarbonisation ambitions.”

So why, Lawson wondered, has Western society “succumbed to the self-harming collective madness that is climate change orthodoxy?”   “It is difficult to escape the conclusion that it has in effect become a substitute religion, attended by all the intolerant zealotry that has so often marred religion in the past, and in some places still does today.”

The two creeds that used to vie for popular support in the western world – Christianity and Communism – were in decline, “yet people still feel the need both for comfort and for the transcendent values that religion can provide”.

“It is the quasi-religion of green alarmism and global salvationism, of which the climate change dogma is the prime example, which has filled the vacuum, with reasoned questioning of its mantras regarded as little short of sacrilege.  Throughout the ages, something deep in man’s psyche has made him receptive to apocalyptic warnings that the end of the world is nigh.

“It is a cruel irony that, while it was science which, more than anything else, was able by its great achievements, to establish the age of reason, it is all too many climate scientists and their hangers-on who have become the high priests of a new age of unreason.”  

One page summary on climate change.

Be as clever as anyone on climate change here.

Calling people 'headless chickens' Chazza becomes one.

At the very least HRH Prince of Wales should now hear full presentations delivered by Lords Monckton and Lawson and their supporting scientists.

 

With credit to What's Up With That for the following:

 

 

 

Monckton: Challenge to Prince Charles

Posted on February 5, 2014 by Guest Blogger

Lord Monckton invites ‘Chazza’ to spar over ‘unroyal’ global-warming remark

His Royal Highness The Prince of Wales,
Clarence House, London.

Candlemas, 2014

Your Royal Highness’ recent remarks describing those who have scientific and economic reason to question the Establishment opinion on climatic apocalypse in uncomplimentary and unroyal terms as “headless chickens” mark the end of our constitutional monarchy and a return to the direct involvement of the Royal Family, in the Person of our future king, no less, in the cut and thrust of partisan politics.

Now that Your Royal Highness has offered Your Person as fair game in the shootout of politics, I am at last free to offer two options. I need no longer hold back, as so many have held back, as Your Royal Highness’ interventions in politics have become more frequent and less acceptable in their manner as well as in their matter.

Option 1. Your Royal Highness will renounce the Throne forthwith and for aye. Those remarks were rankly party-political and were calculated to offend those who still believe, as Your Royal Highness plainly does not, that the United Kingdom should be and remain a free country, where any subject of Her Majesty may study science and economics, may draw his conclusions from his research and may publish the results, however uncongenial the results may be.

The line has been crossed. No one who has intervened thus intemperately in politics may legitimately occupy the Throne. Your Royal Highness’ arrogant and derogatory dismissiveness towards the near-50 percent of your subjects who no longer follow the New Religion is tantamount to premature abdication. Goodnight, sweet prince. No more “Your Royal Highness.”

Hi, there, Chazza! You are a commoner now, just like most of Her Majesty’s subjects. You will find us a cheerfully undeferential lot. Most of us don’t live in palaces, and none of us goes everywhere with his own personalized set of monogrammed white leather lavatory seat covers.

The United Kingdom Independence Party, which until recently I had the honor to represent in Scotland, considers – on the best scientific and economic evidence – that the profiteers of doom are unjustifiably enriching themselves at our expense.

For instance, even the unspeakable Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change has accepted advice from me and my fellow expert reviewers that reliance upon ill-constructed and defective computer models to predict climate was a mistake. Between the pre-final and final drafts of the “Fifth Assessment Report,” published late last year, the Panel ditched the models and substituted its own “expert assessment” that in the next 30 years the rate of warming will be half what the models predict.

In fact, the dithering old fossils in white lab coats with leaky Biros sticking out of the front pocket now think the rate of warming over the next 30 years could be less than in the past 30 years, notwithstanding an undiminished increase in the atmospheric concentration of plant food. Next time you talk to the plants, ask them whether they would like more CO2 in the air they breathe. Their answer will be Yes.

The learned journals of economics are near-unanimous in saying it is 10-100 times costlier to mitigate global warming today than to adapt to its supposedly adverse consequences the day after tomorrow.

Besides, in the realm that might have been yours there has been no change – none at all – in mean surface temperature for 25 full years. So if you are tempted to blame last year’s cold winter (which killed 31,000 before their time) or this year’s floods (partly caused by the Environment Agency’s mad policy of returning dozens of square miles of the Somerset Levels to the sea) on global warming, don’t.

You got your science and economics wrong. And you were rude as well. And you took sides in politics. Constitutionally, that’s a no-no. Thronewise, mate, you’ve blown it.

On the other hand, we Brits are sport-mad. So here is option 2. I am going to give you a sporting second chance, Charlie, baby.

You see, squire, you are no longer above politics. You’ve toppled off your gilded perch and now you’re in it up to your once-regal neck. So, to get you used to the idea of debating on equal terms with your fellow countrymen, I’m going to give you a once-in-a-reign opportunity to win back your Throne in a debate about the climate. The motion: “Global warming is a global crisis.” You say it is. I say it isn’t.

We’ll hold the debate at the Cambridge Union, for Cambridge is your alma mater and mine. You get to pick two supporting speakers and so do I. We can use PowerPoint graphs. The Grand Debate will be televised internationally over two commercial hours. We let the world vote by phone, before and after the debate. If the vote swings your way, you keep your Throne. Otherwise, see you down the pub.

Cheers, mate!

Viscount Monckton of Brenchley

 

Climate Clips from CCNet

CCNet – 18 July 2012 The Climate Policy Network Germany's Green Energy Panic Government Fears Voter Anger About Electricity Prices Explosion Germany's revolutionary switch to renewable energies is stalling and the country's new environment minister has now admitted as much by casting doubt on the ambitious goals set last year. --Spiegel Online, 17 July 2012 Is the green energy transition crumbling? The German government fears the price explosion - and punishment by voters. Concern about rising electricity prices is politically understandable. Because with all due sympathy for nuclear phase-out and green energy - if their own money is involved, many citizens do not care much about their green principles anymore. And since the green energy transformation is one of the key projects of Chancellor Angela Merkel, the voters’ anger about price increases could also be expressed by withdrawing of support for those responsible in the general election in 2013. This is at least what many in the coalition government fear. Philipp Wittrock and Florian Gathmann, Spiegel Online, 17 July 2012 Ministers have delayed plans to axe Government subsidies for wind farms after another disagreement between the Conservatives and the Liberal Democrats. The Government was poised to announce a 25 per cent cut in wind farm subsidies today after warnings from George Osborne that the taxpayer support was too generous. Sources claim that Ed Davey, the Climate Change Secretary, agreed in principle with the cuts — far greater than the 10 per cent reduction initially proposed by a Government review. An announcement was due to be made today but Nick Clegg is thought to have removed Liberal Democrat support for the scheme yesterday. Another compromise deal is being negotiated, which will be announced in the autumn, along with a new gas strategy to replace some wind generation. --Robert Winnett and James Kirkup, The Daily Telegraph, 17 July 2012 Capitol Hill's most powerful Republicans say advocates who have been discussing a carbon tax behind closed doors are wasting their breath. House Speaker John Boehner (R-Ohio) and Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.), speaking through aides, have stated their opposition to the concept in recent days. While their positions are no surprise, the categorical opposition underscores the hurdles facing an ad hoc, left-right coalition of activists and policy wonks who have held a series of meetings in private to discuss the idea. --Ben Geman, The Hill, 16 July 2012 The theory of global warming claims that a trivial warming from CO2 levels will result in more water vapor in the atmosphere and an alleged 'runaway greenhouse effect'. However, satellite observations published in a new paper show that global water vapor has instead declined over the past 12 years despite steadily rising concentrations of CO2. These observations provide further support that the positive water vapor feedback in IPCC models is overstated and therefore claims of future warming greatly exaggerated. --The Hockey Schtick, 16 July 2012 A new analysis of some of the statistical methods used in getting something out of temperature readings from weather stations carried out by Steirou and Koutsoyiannis of the National Technical University of Athens has been gaining some publicity as its conclusions are startling. The researchers say that the statistical manipulation of the data to correct errors often introduces even greater errors, as well as exaggerating positive trends. --David Whitehouse, The Global Warming Policy Foundation, 18 July 2012

The green economic death and destruction.

Yours truly in the Echo in response to.........

a self evident believer of claptrap.

(Click image to enlarge.)

Example of IPCC sexing up what scientists said.

This is how the IPCC ,(Nicholas Stern pictured), spun the lack of a human signal back in IPCC SAR from draft to publication. Deletions shown as strike-through, replacements in italics:

"Finally we come to the most difficult question of all: 'When will the detection and unambiguous attribution of human-induced climate change occur?' when the detection and attribution of human induced climate change is likely to occur. The answer to this question must be subjective, particularly in the light of the very large signal and noise uncertainties discussed in this Chapter it is not surprising that the best answer to this question is 'We do not know'.

So: "Finally we come to the most difficult question of all: When will the detection and unambiguous attribution of human induced climate change occur? Particularly in the light of the very large signal and noise uncertainties discussed in this Chapter, it is not surprising that the best answer to this question is 'We do not know'.

Becomes:

"Finally we come to the difficult question of when the detection and attribution of human induced climate change is likely to occur. The answer to this question must be subjective, particularly in the light of the very large signal and noise uncertainties discussed in this Chapter.

Now IPCC link to natural disasters spurious.

'THE United Nations climate science panel faces new controversy for wrongly linking global warming to an increase in the number and severity of natural disasters such as hurricanes and floods.'Say Times Online (Photo Nicholas Stern)

The report goes on to say:
'It (IPCC) based the claims on an unpublished report that had not been subjected to routine scientific scrutiny — and ignored warnings from scientific advisers that the evidence supporting the link was too weak.

The claim by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), that global warming is already affecting the severity and frequency of global disasters, has since become embedded in political and public debate. It was central to discussions at last month's Copenhagen climate summit, including a demand by developing countries for compensation of $100 billion (£62 billion) from the rich nations blamed for creating the most emissions.

The latest criticism of the IPCC comes a week after reports in The Sunday Times forced it to retract claims in its benchmark 2007 report that the Himalayan glaciers would be largely melted by 2035.

The Sunday Times has since found that the scientific paper on which the IPCC based its claim had not been peer reviewed, nor published, at the time the climate body issued its report.

It has also emerged that at least two scientific reviewers who checked drafts of the IPCC report urged greater caution in proposing a link between climate change and disaster impacts — but were ignored'.

Times Online

'IPCC Violates basic laws of physics'.

German Physicists Trash Global Warming “Theory”December 26, 2009 · 174 commentsguest article by John O’Sullivan.

For any non-scientist interested in the climate debate, there is nothing better than a ready primer to guide you through the complexities of atmospheric physics – the “hardest” science of climatology. Here we outline the essential points made by Dr. Gerhard Gerlich, a respected German physicist, that counter the bogus theory of Anthropogenic Global Warming (AGW).

Before going further, it’s worth bearing in mind that no climatologist ever completed any university course in climatology – that’s how new this branch of science really is. Like any new science the fall-back position of a cornered AGW proponent is the dreaded “appeal to authority” where the flustered debater, out of his or her depth, will say, “Well, professor so-and-so says it’s true – so it must be true.” Don’t fall for that proxy tree-ring counter’s gambit any longer. Here is the finest shredding of junk science you will ever read.

In a recently revised and re-published paper, Dr Gerlich debunks AGW and shows that the IPCC “consensus” atmospheric physics model tying CO2 to global warming is not only unverifiable, but actually violates basic laws of physics, i.e. the First and Second Law of Thermodynamics.

The latest version of this momentous scientific paper appears in the March 2009 edition of the International Journal of Modern Physics.The central claims of Dr. Gerlich and his colleague, Dr. Ralf Tscheuschner, include, but are not limited to:1) The mechanism of warming in an actual greenhouse is different than the mechanism of warming in the atmosphere, therefore it is not a “greenhouse” effect and should be called something else.2) The climate models that predict catastrophic global warming also result in a net heat flow from atmospheric greenhouse gasses to the warmer ground, which is in violation of the second law of thermodynamics. Essentially, any machine which transfers heat from a low temperature reservoir to a high temperature reservoir without external work applied cannot exist. If it did it would be a “perpetual motion machine” – the realm of pure sci-fi. Gerlich’s and Tscheuschner’s independent theoretical study is detailed in a lengthy (115 pages), mathematically complex (144 equations, 13 data tables, and 32 figures or graphs), and well-sourced (205 references) paper. The German physicists prove that even if CO2 concentrations double (a prospect even global warming advocates admit is decades away), the thermal conductivity of air would not change more than 0.03%. They show that the classic concept of the glass greenhouse wholly fails to replicate the physics of Earth’s climate. They also prove that a greenhouse operates as a “closed” system while the planet works as an “open” system and the term “atmospheric greenhouse effect” does not occur in any fundamental work involving thermodynamics, physical kinetics, or radiation theory. All through their paper the German scientists show how the greenhouse gas theory relies on guesstimates about the scientific properties involved to “calculate” the chaotic interplay of such a myriad and unquantifiable array of factors that is beyond even the abilities of the most powerful of modern supercomputers.

The paper’s introduction states it neatly:
(a) there are no common physical laws between the warming phenomenon in glass houses and the fictitious atmospheric greenhouse effects, (b) there are no calculations to determine an average surface temperature of a planet, (c) the frequently mentioned difference of 33 degrees Celsius is a meaningless number calculated wrongly, (d) the formulas of cavity radiation are used inappropriately, (e) the assumption of a radiative balance is unphysical, (f) thermal conductivity and friction must not be set to zero, the atmospheric greenhouse conjecture is falsified.This thorough debunking of the theory of man made warming disproves that there exists a mechanism whereby carbon dioxide in the cooler upper atmosphere exerts any thermal “forcing” effect on the warmer surface below. To do so would violate both the First and Second Laws of Thermodynamics. As there is no glass roof on the earth to trap the excess heat, it escapes upward into space.

Thus we may conclude that the common sense axioms are preserved so that the deeper the ocean, the colder the water and heat rises, it does not fall. QED.John O’Sullivan is a legal advocate and writer who for several years has litigated in government corruption and conspiracy cases in both the US and Britain. Visit his website.