Use Due Diligence on… Climate

A brief post to highlight a relatively new website providing detailed coverage of many of the issues and questions that come up time and time again in discussions about climate change and global warming. It provides a helpful drill-down approach making a useful goto site for bullet points and links to scientific research.

http://www.use-due-diligence-on-climate.org

On the Reproducibility of the IPCC’s climate sensitivity

I wonder what @RHarrabin of the BBC will make of this?

“The conclusion is that the IPCC’s warming values are about 200 % too high (1.75 degrees versus 0.6 degrees) because both the CO2 radiative forcing equation, and the CS calculation include water feedback.”

Watts Up With That?

Guest essay by Dr. Antero Ollila

The highest ranked scientific journal Nature published on the 28th of July 2016 an article based on the survey for 1,576 researchers. More than 70 % of the researchers were not able to reproduce the results of another scientist’s experiments. Are there any attempts to reproduce IPCC’s climate sensitivity?

I think that the most important key figure of the climate change science is the value of the climate sensitivity (CS), because it describes the warming effects of the major greenhouse gas carbon dioxide (CO2). CS means the temperature increase corresponding to the doubling of CO2 concentration of 280 ppm.

1. IPCC’s estimates of climate sensitivity

IPCC still uses a very simple equation in calculating the global mean surface temperature response dTs (AR5, p. 664)

dTs = CSP* RF (1)

where CSP (also marked by lambda) is the Climate Sensitivity Parameter (K/(W/m2)) and RF…

View original post 2,231 more words

GWPF Condemns Misleading Committee on Climate Change Report on Policy Costs

NOT A LOT OF PEOPLE KNOW THAT

By Paul Homewood

image

http://www.thegwpf.com/gwpf-condemns-misleading-committee-on-climate-change-report-on-policy-costs/

The GWPF has also responded quickly and emphatically to the Committee on Climate Change’s grossly misleading report on the cost of climate policy:

Today’s statement on Energy Prices and Bills by Lord Deben’s Committee on Climate Change confirms growing suspicions that it is neither objective nor reliable as an advisor to the public about the true cost of climate policies.

The CCC’s attempt to reassure the public about the cost impact of climate policies is a misleading whitewash. Contrary to the spin of the CCC, their own figures show that almost all the projected increase in domestic electricity prices between 2016 and 2030 is the result of energy and climate policies.

According to the CCC’s own work (see chart 1.7) energy and climate policies have increased prices to domestic consumers by 33% in 2016. In other words they are 33% higher at present than they would…

View original post 196 more words

What is the Opportunity Cost of Climate Waste?

Makes you think.

Ending world poverty sounds like something even the contemptible Greenpeace would applaud?

I won’t hold my breath.

Watts Up With That?

Mouse Mouse. By George Shuklin (Own work) [CC BY-SA 1.0], via Wikimedia CommonsGuest essay by Eric Worrall

What do we miss out on because the world wastes so much money and attention on climate? Imagine if some of that squandered money was spent on other fields such as medical research, such as the following accidental discovery, which if developed offers the possibility of longer life and superhuman athletic prowess.

Born to run; the story of the PEPCK-Cmus mouse

Richard W. Hanson and Parvin Hakimi

In order to study the role of the cytosolic form of phosphoenolpyruvate carboxykinase (GTP) (EC 4.1.1.32) (PEPCK-C) in skeletal muscle, PEPCK-Cmus mice were created by introducing the cDNA for the enzyme, linked to the human α-skeletal actin gene promoter, into their germ line. Two founder lines generated by this procedure were bred together, creating a line of mice that have 9.0 units/g…

View original post 543 more words

British Foreign Aid Scandal: “Hundreds of Millions” Wasted on Useless Renewable Projects

The NHS would certainly benefit from some aid just now. Unfortunately not many on the left who support the current situation will read the Telegraph.

Watts Up With That?

Guest essay by Eric Worrall

The Telegraph, a major UK Newspaper, has investigated a scandalous waste of British taxpayer’s money on expensive renewables projects which deliver very little return for the money invested.

Hundreds of millions of British aid ‘wasted’ on overseas climate change projects

Robert Mendick, chief reporter
12 MARCH 2017 • 10:00PM

Serious questions are raised today over hundreds of millions of pounds of British taxpayers’ money being ‘wasted’ on climate change projects such as an Ethiopian wind farm and Kenyan solar power plant.

A Telegraph investigation shows little benefit so far from a £2 billion foreign aid programme to tackle climate change that was established eight years ago.

One scheme, costing £260m of UK taxpayers’ money, has produced only enough renewable electricity to power the equivalent of just 100 British households – about the size of a typical street.

Projects including solar parks in Kenya and Mali…

View original post 409 more words

Retailers’ Call for ‘Emissions Intensity Scheme’ Signals End for Australia’s Renewable Energy Target | STOP THESE THINGS

https://stopthesethings.com/2017/03/12/retailers-call-for-emissions-intensity-scheme-signals-end-for-australias-renewable-energy-target/

Quote “The commission also called for emissions reductions and energy policy to be properly integrated, pointing to Britain as a “cautionary tale” where customers were slugged with price hikes as climate change ”

You know things are getting bad when the aussies think we have a worse energy system.