Saturday, 30 July 2011


This week we have been honoured by the great climate change/global warming expert Dr Rajendra Pachuri. He FLEW in to among other things to be delicately interviewed by the BBC and other organisations to answer questions re the falsified evidence of Global Warming such as the retreat of Himalayan glaciers (not true) and the alteration of data to prove the AGW theory.

The irony of FLYING round the world to prove this increasingly discredited theory is perhaps lost on him. After all he is a railway engineer and he must think that makes him an expert on environmental matters.

Also this week I read that a Mr (or Monseur?) Monnet has been suspended from his job in the climate change industry. He has been found exterpolating global changes from casual observations.

This scientist? flew over a part of the Arctic Ocean and saw four dead polar bears floating. From this observation he calculated that there was proof of global warming and an imminent extinction of that species.

He did not take into account that the polar bear populations have greatly increased.
NO he had seen four dead polar bears, which died from unknown causes and took it to mean that an environmentally disasterous global warming episode was imminent.

His cause was taken up by the great global warming crusader Al Gore,(what are his scientific credentials?) who has made millions out of the campaign.

These millions have enabled him to build himself a luxurious seaside house in the Carolinas. Strange that if global warming and sea rises are so imminent that he would decide to build at the side of the sea.

He obviously knows things we don't.

He has possibly seen the data from NASA that the CO2 in the atmosphere does not trap as much heat as previously thought.

Now back to Dr Pachuri.
I was privelidged? to see him share the podium in Brussels with that well known scientific expert Sir Paul McCartney who had FLOWN in to promote his vegetarian philosophy in order to cut emissions emitted by animals.

We have our "experts" in government also.
Chris Huhne, he of the speeding points shambles (high spped driving uses more fuel) FLEW to a conerence in Cancun last year to think of ways of preventing excessive flying, preferably by higher taxes.

A week later after coming home he took his attractive (there's no explanation for taste) ex lesbian partner back to the Carribean for a well deserved holiday.

Two trans Atlantic return trips for Mr Huhne

More recently he has been instrumental in subsidising "renewable energy" with money raised from increasing electricity prices which could cause death from hypothermia in winter.

In addition the Carbon Credit scam has put our industry at a disadvantage in respect to countries such as Dr Pachuri's India and caused the loss of among other things the Redcar steel works.

Possibly they have some connections to the Carbon Trading industry, I don't know.
What I do know is that it is having a devastating effect on our beleaguered industries, but no matter their wealth does not depend on that.

How fortunate we are to have these hypocritical "experts" (not a scientist among them) to fly all over the world to think of ways to stop us flying and heating our homes.

It would be poetic justice if these wealthy people were made to live with the consequences of their arrogance and ignorance.

It would be nice to bring them down to earth from their private jets.


Dr Chris Hill said...

You said:
"Global Warming such as the retreat of Himalayan glaciers (not true)........"

I say:
Wait a minute it is true, although not every glacier is badly effected. I'll seek out some scientific references and post them tomorrow to support my claim.

Then you said:
"....from NASA that the CO2 in the atmosphere does not trap as much heat as previously thought."

I say:
Neither have I, perhaps you could include a link to a reputable scientific source to back your claim up.

After which you say:
"........Carbon Credit scam has put our industry at a disadvantage......"

I say:
The Carbon Credit scheme is indeed a scam. But this say nothing about the truth of climate change, only that unscrupulous politicians will misuse it.

Finally you say:
"It would be nice to bring them down to earth from their private jets."

I say:
What reasons do you have to think these were not regular scheduled airline flights?

Dr Chris Hill said...

Re Himalayan glaciers decline.

In 2005 the magazine New Scientist wrongly reported that a study by Syed Hasnian (an Indian scientist) had predicted that all the Himalayan glaciers could be gone by 2035, this was a mistake on the part of the magazine. The report had estimated a minimum period of about 350 years for the total disappearance of the glaciers, not 35 years as reported. This mistaken time line was then taken up and reported by the worlds press, and went uncorrected for some years.

A statement issued by the IPCC on 20 January 2010 said:
"a paragraph in the 938-page Working Group II contribution to the underlying assessment refers to poorly substantiated estimates of rate of recession and date for the disappearance of Himalayan glaciers. In drafting the paragraph in question, the clear and well-established standards of evidence, required by the IPCC procedures, were not applied properly." It emphasised that the paragraph did not affect the conclusion in the final summary for policymakers in the 2007 report, which it described as "robust, appropriate, and entirely consistent with the underlying science and the broader IPCC assessment", and reaffirmed a commitment to absolute adherence to the IPCC standards. The IPCC also stated that it did not change the broad picture of man-made climate change. This was confirmed by Wilfried Haeberli, who announced the latest annual results of the World Glacier Monitoring Service. He stated that the important trend of 10 years or so showed "an unbroken acceleration in melting" and on expected trends, many glaciers will disappear by mid century. Glaciers in lower mountain ranges were the most vulnerable, and while those in the Himalayas and Alaska could grow in the short term, in a realistic mid-range warming scenario they would not last many centuries. Mojib Latif, a climate scientist who contributed to the report of Working Group 1, sees the consequences of the glacier data mistake but also the need to continue focusing on global warming.

I say:
So yes a mistake by a New Scientist reporter was repeated and went uncorrected for a long time. But as soon it became clear that this was an inaccurate translation of the science it was corrected. But the main point should not be an honest mistake made by a journalist, but the fact (I quoted directly from above) that: ".....while those in the Himalayas and Alaska could grow in the short term, in a realistic mid-range warming scenario they would not last many centuries."

Lanky Patriot said...

Chris, I knew this would get you going, this is another obseesion that seems to take much of your time and thought.

I may have exagerated over private jets but I bet they didn't travel cattle class.

My object was to prove the bad science and hypocricy of these AGW enthusiasts.

You ask for references to back up my statements?

I got them all from the "Telegraph" blogs where there are references.
Co incidentally they all were published in the last week or so.
I thought you would like it.

I can quote other geologists and scientists but I can't be bothered.

I think as a nation, to protect our independence, jobs and fuel security we should regenerate the coal industry.

China and India are developing theirs and--


Andyj said...

Chris, ONE Himalayan glacier out of hundreds was affected by a receding line. That was solely due to geological effects.

On CO2, why do you choose to believe one version over another if you cannot give empirical proof?
I do recall from my old times the IR absorption characteristics of CO2 climbed exponentially with higher concentrations. You want a total blow away of the CO2/heating lie? Have a look at the the Vostock ice cores. CO2 precedes heating. Not the other way round. Same for the other way. No argument; FACT.

AGW is an end to end scam and it's embarrassing to hear you want to believe the lies they tell.

Chris, if nobody flew then oil prices would fall, energy for the future would be more secure. Immigration would falter and I would enjoy clearer skies from all those annoying contrails, transport noise and politicians in their own turf more often.

Andyj said...

Coal can burn very cleanly but not if its dumped into an old fashioned coal fire like ordinary Joe was muggins enough to use. They are like 20% efficient. Coal stoves approach 80%.

Our local mines were abandoned for a good reason. One of them they were hot as hell to work in. We should pipe this to heat engines for electricity. Free heating/electric forever.

The Chinese are well on the ball for clean energy because the city centres are literally killing people on high pressure days,,, and they are not stupid over fuel prices and future costs..