It was another bad week for the "warmists", now more desperate than ever to whip up alarm over an overheating planet. It began last weekend with the BBC leading its bulletins on the news that a "leading climate scientist" in America, Professor Chris Field, had warned that "the severity of global warming over the next century will be much worse than previously believed". Future temperatures "will be beyond anything predicted", he told a Chicago conference. The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) had "seriously underestimated the size of the problem". The puzzle as to why the BBC should make this the main news of the day only deepened when it emerged that Prof Field was not a climate scientist at all but an evolutionary biologist. To promote its cause the BBC website even posted a video explaining how warming would be made worse by "negative feedback". This scientific howler provoked much amusement and derision on expert US blogs, such as Anthony Watts's Watts Up With That – since "negative feedback" would lower temperatures rather than raise them. The BBC soon pulled its video. This was followed on Sunday by yet another outburst from the most extreme of all the scientists crying wolf on global warming, Al Gore's ally Dr James Hansen, director of the Goddard Institute for Space Studies. In The Observerhe launched his most vitriolic call yet for the closing down of the coal-fired power stations which are the world's main source of electricity, repeating his claim to a British court last year that the new coal-fired plant at Kingsnorth will alone be responsible for "the extermination of 400 species". "Coal-fired power plants are factories of death," wrote Hansen, "the trains carrying coal to power plants are death trains". This deliberate echo of the trains carrying Jews to Nazi death camps recalled how the more extreme warmists like to equate sceptics on climate change with "Holocaust deniers". But such overheated language seemed somehow at home in the newspaper which in 1996 solemnly predicted that by 2016 half a million Britons would be dying each year from having eaten BSE-infected beef. Later in the week sceptics were struck by an admission from Professor William Schlesinger, a lead author for the IPCC. Since one of the enduring myths of our time is that the case for global warming is supported by "the world's top 2,500 climate scientists" on the IPCC, Schlesinger was asked in a public debate how many of its contributors are in fact climate experts. The best he could come up with was that "something on the order of 20 per cent have had some dealing with climate". (This will not of course stop the BBC calling any old evolutionary biologist or economist who supports its views a "leading climate scientist"). Finally there was the strange case of the vanishing Arctic ice. Just how far Arctic sea-ice is melting or growing is one of the issues which arouses most passionate interest in the global-warming debate. Observers were therefore startled last week to see the US National Snow and Ice Data Center (NSIDC) showing a very dramatic drop in sea-ice cover, 500,000 square kilometres of ice suddenly disappearing in the depths of the Arctic winter. When this was queried by a puzzled Anthony Watts, the NSIDC somewhat shamefacedly admitted that a problem had developed with one of its satellites. The data for the previous 45 days was found to be so faulty that it had been withdrawn. But inevitably this provoked the question as to why quality control seemed to be so poor on one of the world's leading official sources of climate data that it had taken an outside observer to point out that something was wrong, This is by no means the first time that data on which the official case for global warming rests have had to be corrected, some of the more notorious instances involving temperature data supplied by Dr Hansen's GISS. Yet this is one of the four official sources of temperature data on which the IPCC itself relies. When politicians plan measures to "combat climate change" costing tens of trillions of dollars, we can at least expect them to ensure that their figures are halfway believable. Chinese pull a fast one in space race as EU’s 'pigs with gold trotters’ remain earthbound There has been another wondrously bizarre twist to the unending farce of the EU’s favourite vanity project, Galileo. This is the multi-billion euro programme designed to give the EU its own rival to the US GPS satellite system, which provides a free positioning fix to ships, aircraft, Satnav owners and other users all over the world. Although I have regularly reported on this joke project since 2001, almost the only time it has excited much media interest in Britain was when, in 2007, the late Gwyneth Dunwoody described it as “not one pig flying in orbit, this is a herd of pigs with gold trotters, platinum tails and diamond eyes”. The Commons Transport Committee, of which she was chairman, had produced a report suggesting that Galileo would cost British taxpayers at least £1.7 billion, and was so pointless that it might as well be scrapped. No episode in the story was more curious, however, than the deal signed in October 2003, whereby the Chinese government agreed to pay 200 million euros for a 20 per cent share in Galileo, to be spent on developing infrastructure and ground stations based on European technological know-how. The EU was over the moon, thinking that this would cement in China as its partner in a project always partly intended for military use, allowing it both to operate independently of the US. A first sign that all was not well came when the Chinese, having got on with their part of the deal, using EU know-how, were shut out from top-level management of Galileo on security grounds. But, having obtained the technical information they wanted, they have powered ahead with a satellite system of their own, Compass. They are now so far advanced, and Galileo has slipped so far behind schedule, it seems certain that the Chinese satellites will be in place long before the EU system. Furthermore the Chinese now plan to operate on the same wavelengths that the EU had earmarked for Galileo. Since their satellites will get there first, they will be able to lay claim to ownership of them. The EU would thus only be able to use the wavelengths with Chinese permission. Having robbed the Common Agricultural Fund of €1 billion in a desperate effort to pay the soaring bill for Galileo, the Europeans are said to be “very angry”, since this removes just about the last conceivable excuse for proceeding with their absurd project. The Americans, having followed the whole saga with bemused irritation, are said to be laughing themselves silly. MEPs prove not at all the president’s men As an eloquent and drily humorous Euro-sceptic, the Czech President Vaclav Klaus is making the most of his country’s six-month presidency of the EU. In the European Parliament on Thursday he delivered what my Daily Telegraph colleague Bruno Waterfield called on his blog “a storming speech – the best I have ever heard in that place”. Having spent much of his life under Communism, Klaus courteously questioned the way in which the EU, like any other one-party state, has no place for opposition and is fiercely intolerant of dissenting views. The fact that his remarks were greeted with boos and jeers, followed by 200 MEPs walking out, neatly confirmed his point. Marks & Spencer fail to go green In a bid to earn “Greenie points”, Marks & Spencer last week announced a plan to source all its electricity from “renewables”. As a next step, nPower is to supply it with “2.6 terawatt hours” of electricity from windfarms and other renewable sources over six years. A quick sum shows that this equates to 40 per cent of the entire current annual output of Britain’s 2,000 wind turbines. Pretty impressive, until one realises that the electricity will in fact be supplied by the National Grid, most of it made from “dirty” coal, carbon-intensive gas and “nasty” nuclear. In other words, this not just a load of cobblers, this is M & S cobblers.Climate change rhetoric spirals out of control
Christopher Booker says that the Government must be absolutely sure that their data on climate change is accurate.
Sunday, 22 February 2009
Posts
