eurealist.co.uk

A new report of a study for the WWF this morning detailing the windfall profits to power companies from the European emissions trading scheme (ETS) the EU’s flagship market-based mechanism for a progressive reduction of carbon emissions.

Power companies in Spain, Italy, Germany, Britain and Poland are all set to make massive profits from their gifts of free emissions permits. The trick is these companies can pass on the costs of the emissions permits based on the trading figure even though they did not buy the permits in the first place.

The figures are staggering, the companies are set to make 71Billion euros profits, British supplies are set to make between €6 and €15 billion Germany between €14 and €34 Spain between €1 and €4 billion Italy between €6 and €9 billion and Poland €2 and €9 billion.

The idea behind the scheme is that it delivers additional revenues to low carbon forms of generation and they are a benefit because they do not incur any additional costs themselves by having to purchase pollution allowances.

A further benefit to reducing carbon is that increased prices to the consumer will cut demand for power and also boost the sales of energy efficient measures.

Even more good news for power generators was released this morning when Carbon Positive reported that the prices of EU carbon allowances have seen an upward trend over the past month, climbing 13 percent since a low point in early March. Prices are now at their highest levels since the early days of January.

I am probably missing something important here, but I am quite sure that if our old government - you know the one we used to elect to run this country,- came up with a hair brained scheme that penalised us the consumers and incidentally the voters, whilst at the same time rewarding the main polluters, in order to reduce carbon so that we can all save the world. Ignoring the fact that no matter what cuts we do, or do not make, will make not the slightest difference, because the overall world production of carbon will increase, because countries like China can produce as much as they like, if our old government were to come up with such an idea, there would be a massive political price to pay, come the next election.

It cannot therefore be an unconnected factor, that the EU, by not having to face the voters, can do anything is likes without any political fallout accruing to itself. And of course we are all supposed to applaud the EU for taking such action and happily stand by and see our industry hobbled on the world stage, in the cause of equalising our relative standards of living.

Technorati Tags:
Power companies, carbon emissions, ETS, EU Trading
Add to: | Technorati | Digg | del.icio.us | Yahoo | BlinkList | Spurl | reddit | Furl |

From Global warming Politics

Tags: BlogDesk

Of course, those who have deep, vested interests in promoting the ‘global warming’ scare are going to have to be dragged, kicking and screaming, away from their precious toy. As one of my excellent correspondents observes, with so much taxation, control, and carbon trading involved, the fight could become rather nasty. Some serious reputations are at stake.

But don’t do a Caesar and underestimate the omens: they are there for all to witness - the death watch beetle can be heard banging its little head in the crumbling timbers of the ‘global warming’ castle in the air.

Front page of the Telegraph today Labour`s secret council tax database penalise properties with a view.

Details about the logging of homes with a view and off-street parking came from answers to Tory parliamentary questions given by Jane Kennedy, John Healey and Phil Woolas, all ministers either at the Department for Communities and Local Government (DCLG), the Treasury or the Department for the Environment, Food and Rural Affairs.

Thus conflicting with the government line given by the DCLG : “We have made clear many times there are no plans for a revaluation, and there is no revaluation by stealth. This means no one can be penalised for improving their home, off-street parking or having a scenic view.

The Telegraph says some of us can expect rises of 11 percent, as my business rates have just gone up by twenty percent, I suspect that my property has already been revalued.

I cannot deny that we live and work in a very scenic area or that we also have quite a lot of off street parking, so according to Labour`s theory we should pay more.

But wait a minute let us try to think this through- whose criteria is it that says having a view is something which should be taxed – does it add value to the property , I would have to agree that it probably would, but is that not counterbalanced by the fact that country houses hold less base values than those in towns. If my house was in the middle of Ludlow for instance it would be worth something like twice as much.

Then there is a very distinct difference in the service we in the countryside are offered by our government than is available in the towns and cities.

We have a mobile library which I think visits once a month, we have one solitary street light at the other end of the village, the single track lane which runs through the village is swept once a year, but I note not last year, well the council has got to find extra savings I suppose. The last time it snowed a tractor pushing a snowplough ran through the village once, if there is ice there is no gritting of the roads. We have no council pretty flowers adoring  roadsides no litter bins on our pathways in fact come to think of it, we have no pathways, we just jump up into the hedge when a lorry drives past.   

One sunny Thursday afternoon last June I walked out of my house and literally stepped back in absolute open mouthed amazement because walking down the lane was a policeman, good god! I exclaimed, I have not seen one of your lot about here for the last 7 years what’s happened. The young fresh faced (it really does make you feel old) officer explained this is a new project, the idea is that I will travel around with the library van and visit all the outlying villages on a regular basis get to know the locals and see if there are any problem we can help with. I can only assume that he did not find many problems in our village because he has not been seen since.

That is not to argue that I never ever see a policeman, in fact one stopped his car with his lights flashing at 12.30 am, right outside our house a couple of years ago. when I answered the door in my pyjamas he wanted directions to somewhere I have never heard of. A paramedic team on a call did something similar, as did an ambulance on an emergency call.

Then there are other facilities if we want a postage stamp, half a lb sorry 25ogm butter, loaf of bread. light bulb it means a 9 mile round trip in the car. Because we have to contend with steep hills, muddy, icy, snow covered roads a 4X4 is almost a necessity, it certainly makes travel much safer as you can see over some hedgerows. If we want to go to the cinema to see a film it means a 38 mile roundtrip increasing to 80 miles if we want the latest releases, and these are just some of the drawbacks in country living.

When was the last time a herd of 30 cows or a flock of sheep parked themselves on your font drive. Public transport is a laugh it is impossible to live and work in the countryside without a car the public transport system is simply not capable of offering a flexible enough service to make it consideration.

If you try to run a business like mine in the countryside, one that necessitates customers actually travelling to you other considerations must be faced, the weather and the BBC, ever since the hurricane debacle the BBC, well the TV in general, have gone overboard with their dire weather warnings, they might think they are offering a public service, when they announce because of the possible prospect of high winds, snow, rain, ice that you should not travel unless it is absolute necessary, but they are also directly affecting our livelihood by putting people off.

Now I do not want anyone to run away with the idea that I am complaining, after all we chose to live in the country side, and I would totally agree that if there is little crime there is little need for a police presence, and of course the police and ambulance service are only a phone call, a satellite navigation system and about ¾ of an hour away.

But a pretty view can also comes at a cost of services that are available on the doorstep a cost in higher travel expenses, a cost of less or slower police protection, less or slower emergency cover and a cost of lower earnings.

We have already seen an attack by this government on what they term Chelsea tractors, but the last budget has changed the criteria and now even a modest 4×4 like ours carries a tax penalty, one that might have some relevance if we actually lived in Chelsea, but we do not. So their increased tax is a direct attack on country dwellers.

Now if we have off road parking (just try parking in our lane and you will block it for everyone else) and a view, we must also contribute more to central the coffers for the privilege of having less public services, slower emergency cover, fewer and more dispersed public amenities, all topped off with lower average earnings.

My Mother in law came up with a good argument this morning, when she said I should write to my local council and tell them that I understand we have a nice view of the countryside, but as I am short sighted could I please get a rebate.

Technorati Tags:
Council Tax, counrty living, taxing view, police protection, emegency services, local amanties
Add to: | Technorati | Digg | del.icio.us | Yahoo | BlinkList | Spurl | reddit | Furl |

Hellow Shropshire Star readers for those looking for the Mathew Green letters- firstly thanks for the interest, if you do a search top right for Mathew Green you will find the post.

If you want to view other GW posts on Eurealist you will find the link on the left.

If you are looking for evidence of Ultra Right Wing tendencies, sorry to disappoint but good luck in your search.

All real comments will be welcomed and allowed as I only delete spam.

Cheers Ken

A Tangled Web posts that 2005 data from NASA’s Mars Global Surveyor and Odyssey missions revealed that the carbon dioxide “ice caps” near Mars’s south pole had been diminishing for three summers in a row. So it would seem to add to the evidence that the long-term increase in solar irradiance is heating both Earth and Mars which of course rather undermines the human Co2 global warming scam.

Also this morning Tim Worstall links to a Guardian article by their Science editor Robin McKie who puts the boot into Channel 4 The Great Global Warming Swindle, which is described as a documentary which says claims that carbon emissions are causing global warming are ‘lies’ and that attempts to debate the subject are being suppressed.

In order to undermine any effect this program might have on the global warming debate and yes to close down the debate, McKie places the suggestion that the ICCP might have got it wrong, alongside other well known conspiracies. “Princess Diana was killed by Nazis; 9/11 was the work of the US government, while the manned lunar landings were hoaxes filmed in TV studios. To this list of internet-fuelled daftness, we can now add a new plot: that the world’s scientific community is not just wrong about global warming, but is collectively lying when it says industrial carbon dioxide emissions are heating up the planet”

Then misinterpreting as Tim Worstall points out the recent ICCP summary for policymakers as. “Given that the world’s climatologists have just published a careful, sober report showing global warming is real and worrying,” (The full report is still a couple of months away, currently being rewritten to make sure it accords with that summary.)

McKie says “the programme is an astonishing foray into the debate. Certainly, there many reasons to deride it. Its contents are largely untrue, for a start. That is Channel 4’s problem. Yet a couple of important points do emerge from this nonsense and we should not make the mistake of ignoring them.”

Before launching into a virulent Ad Hominem attack

“To back his case, director Martin Durkin interviews climate-change deniers including Phillip Stott, Piers Corbyn, Nigel Calder and Nigel Lawson who reveal their antipathy to the idea we are altering Earth’s weather systems.

These names are scarcely unknown. Listeners to Today and viewers of Newsnight have been hearing Stott and the rest promote their views for years. Indeed, they have dominated and distorted the whole global warming debate, a point stressed by Alan Thorpe, head of the Natural Environment Research Council. ‘These people are never off the radio or TV, yet now they claim debate is being suppressed? It is preposterous.’ So what, we might ask, is the deniers’ problem? Examine their movement and you see a common thread: most proponents are elderly, only a few are scientists and several have pronounced pro-market views. And hereby hangs a tale.”

Later in the article McKie tries a little bit of double think when he writes;

The problem is that denial - in all its ludicrous glory - makes it easy for us to gloss over genuine concerns about society’s right reaction to global warming and carbon emissions. And that is what is wrong with Durkin’s programme. It opts for dishonest rhetoric when a little effort could have produced an important contribution to a critical social problem.

Society’s right reaction is most likely reliant on the acceptance of real scientific proof and not on a political controlled UN summary of the state of scientific knowledge. More so when the last two summaries issued by the ICCP in 2001 and 1995 have both been comprehensively shown to be biased towards the human causes of global warming and the Mann Hockey stick graph on which the ICCP based its claims last time out, has been proved to be totally unreliable.

But the morsel which I found most instructive was Mckie`s attemt to justify himself against any suggestion of double standards, when he says

“I refuse to feel guilty because I have a family holiday in Spain and then write about the threatened glories of the Great Barrier Reef.” As “air travel accounts for only 2 per cent of global carbon dioxide emissions”

If we are to accept this basis then why on earth should we in Britian feel guilty at all, as according to government figures in Britain humans contribute only 0.06% of total world output of Co2.

It also seems according to Eureferendum that the EU is doing its bit for global warming by claiming a bit of Hollywood glamour. Because the Oscar winning Al Gore documentary “An Inconvenient Truth” drew on some results produced by the EU-funded EPICA environmental project.

Christopher Booker informs readers of his Notebook in the Telegraph that “In terms of meeting the EU’s targets, the moment when waste disposal counts as “recycling” comes when it is collected and registered for that purpose.”

After that it can be and in many areas, often is simply dumped in landfill sites, there would of course have to be a payment of £21 per ton Landfill Tax to Gordon Brown but the councils will not be fined by Brussels.

Booker explains “The main reason why so much composted green waste now ends up in landfill is that, under last year’s Agricultural Waste Regulations, so much hassle and expense is involved in giving farmers an “exemption” allowing them to spread “waste” on their land. To obtain an exemption, the soil has to be tested, an agronomist must be called in, hefty fees have to be paid, until before long a large farmer may be having to pay tens of thousands of pounds just for spreading compost on his fields.

And who charges those fees and has set up this scheme, the cost of which makes the sensible use of compost so prohibitive that much of it now ends up in landfill? Why, none other than the Environment Agency: the body which is calling for “a united effort to beat the waste cheats”.

The argument advanced by scientists who study the sun is that too little respect is given to the effect of the sun on climate change.

If these scientists are right, those who argue that even if the likes of Al Gore are wrong about the causes of global warming, it is better to something than nothing at all, are going entirely in the wrong direction and it would actually be better in the long run if we did in fact do nothing.

The upper layers of the world’s oceans are - much to climatologists’ surprise - becoming cooler, which is a clear indication that the Earth has hit its temperature ceiling already, and that solar radiation levels are falling and will eventually lead to a worldwide cold spell, Abdusamatov said.

“Instead of professed global warming, the Earth will be facing a slow decrease in temperatures in 2012-2015. The gradually falling amounts of solar energy, expected to reach their bottom level by 2040, will inevitably lead to a deep freeze around 2055-2060,” he said, adding that this period of global freeze will last some 50 years, after which the temperatures will go up again.

http://alfin2100.blogspot.com/2007/01/solar-power-driving-climate.html

Rising levels of carbon dioxide and other gases emitted through human activity, generally believed to trap heat in the Earth’s atmosphere, are an effect rather than the cause of global warming, a prominent Russian scientist said Monday.

Habibullo Abdusamatov, head of the space research laboratory at the St. Petersburg-based Pulkovo Observatory, said global warming stems from an increase in the sun’s activity. His view contradicts the international scientific consensus that climate change is attributable to the emission of greenhouse gases generated by industrial activities, such as the burning of fossil fuels and deforestation.

“Global warming results not from the emission of greenhouse gases into the atmosphere, but from an unusually high level of solar radiation and a lengthy - almost throughout the last century - growth in its intensity,” Abdusamatov told RIA Novosti in an interview.

“It is no secret that when they go up, temperatures in the world’s oceans trigger the emission of large amounts of carbon dioxide into the atmosphere. So the common view that man’s industrial activity is a deciding factor in global warming has emerged from a misinterpretation of cause and effect relations.”

http://en.rian.ru/russia/20070115/59078992.html

Lord Monckton, Viscount of Brenchley, has sent an open letter to Senators Rockefeller (D-WV) and Snowe (R-Maine) in response to their recent open letter telling the CEO of ExxonMobil to cease funding climate-skeptic scientists.

 Lord Monckton, former policy adviser to Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher, writes: "You defy every tenet of democracy when you invite ExxonMobil to deny itself the right to ’senior elected and appointed government officials’ who disagree with your opinion."

 "Sceptics and those who have the courage to support them are actually helpful in getting the science right. They do not, as you improperly suggest, ‘obfuscate’ the issue: they assist in clarifying it by challenging weaknesses in the ‘consensus’ argument and they compel necessary corrections … "more…..Britannia Radio

I have not been keeping up with events this is the first time I have heard the term ‘climate change denial’ or linking those who dare to question one particular view on global warming  to the Nazi Holocaust denier.

This sort of think grabs my attention becasue the USE United States Of Europe deniers always try to act very much in the same manner it will happen get used to it. they aslo try to hold the high moral ground.

From Spiked

Global warming: the chilling effect on free speech The demonisation of ‘climate change denial’ is an affront to open and rational debate.

There is something deeply repugnant in marshalling the Holocaust in this way, both to berate climate change deniers and also as a convenient snapshot of what is to come if the planet continues to get warmer. First, the evidence is irrefutable that six million Jews were murdered by the Nazis; that is an historical event that has been thoroughly investigated, interrogated and proven beyond reasonable doubt. (Although as the American-Jewish academic and warrior against Holocaust denial, Deborah Lipstadt, has pointed out, even the Nazi Holocaust is not above debate and re-evalution; it is not a ‘theology’.)

There is no such proof or evidence (how could there be?) that global warming will cause a similar calamity. Second, it is, yet again, a cynical attempt to close down debate. The H-word is uttered as a kind of moral absolute that no one could possibly question. We are all against what happened during the first Holocaust, so we will be against the ‘next Holocaust’, too, right? And if not – if you do not take seriously the coming ‘global warming Holocaust’ – then you are clearly wicked, the equivalent of the David Irvings of this world, someone who should possibly even be locked up or certainly tried at a future date. At least laws against Holocaust denial (which, as a supporter of free speech, I am opposed to) chastise individuals for lying about a known and proven event; by contrast, the turning of climate change denial into a taboo raps people on the knuckles for questioning events, or alleged events, that have not even occurred yet. It is pre-emptive censorship. They are reprimanded not for lying, but for doubting, for questioning. If this approach was taken across the board, then spiked – motto: Question Everything – would be in for a rough ride.

Letter in the Times

edited

The public image of science is mostly formed from reports on the leading edge of research — the asking process — where argument, debate and disagreement are manifest. This brief and fluid research period is totally faith based, with all those working in this field having notional, speculative views of the way things are. Their researches are designed to substantiate their beliefs.

I see no compelling reason to distinguish this “faith” from that felt in respect of religious objectives. Disputes may be every bit as heated, and based on as little “factual” evidence as some religious confrontations. Many pursue false “gods” and fall by the wayside, but never without facing their critics in the pursuit of their belief.

It is only by constant questioning, challenging and reinterpretation in the light of new information that understanding progresses. The British Centre for Science Education should embrace this inquisitorial, correctional philosophy without fear. Science is not for the faint hearted.

DR MIKE SNOW
Former senior research scientist
Medical Research Council

There are two MSM articles that coincide with two separate themes this blog has referred to recently,

The first was in yesterdays Telegraph “There IS a problem with global warming… it stopped in 1998
By Bob Carter”

For many years now, human-caused climate change has been viewed as a large and urgent problem. In truth, however, the biggest part of the problem is neither environmental nor scientific, but a self-created political fiasco. Consider the simple fact, drawn from the official temperature records of the Climate Research Unit at the University of East Anglia, that for the years 1998-2005 global average temperature did not increase (there was actually a slight decrease, though not at a rate that differs significantly from zero).

That industrial carbon dioxide is not the primary cause of earth’s recent decadal-scale temperature changes doesn’t seem at all odd to many thousands of independent scientists. They have long appreciated - ever since the early 1990s, when the global warming bandwagon first started to roll behind the gravy train of the UN Inter-governmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) - that such short-term climate fluctuations are chiefly of natural origin. Yet the public appears to be largely convinced otherwise. How is this possible?

Since the early 1990s, the columns of many leading newspapers and magazines, worldwide, have carried an increasing stream of alarmist letters and articles on hypothetical, human-caused climate change. Each such alarmist article is larded with words such as “if”, “might”, “could”, “probably”, “perhaps”, “expected”, “projected” or “modelled” - and many involve such deep dreaming, or ignorance of scientific facts and principles, that they are akin to nonsense.

The problem here is not that of climate change per se, but rather that of the sophisticated scientific brainwashing that has been inflicted on the public, bureaucrats and politicians alike. Governments generally choose not to receive policy advice on climate from independent scientists. Rather, they seek guidance from their own self-interested science bureaucracies and senior advisers, or from the IPCC itself. No matter how accurate it may be, cautious and politically non-correct science advice is not welcomed in Westminster, and nor is it widely reported.

The article concludes with a call for the British Government to urgently recast the sources from which it draws its climate advice. The shrill alarmism of its public advisers, and the often eco-fundamentalist policy initiatives that bubble up from the depths of the Civil Service, have all long since been detached from science reality. Intern-ationally, the IPCC is a deeply flawed organisation, as acknowledged in a recent House of Lords report, and the Kyoto Protocol has proved a costly flop. Clearly, the wrong horses have been backed.

This as I mentioned is the very horse that David Cameron is so keen to mount that he is making it central a Conservative policy to lead a new green revolution.

The other article is William Rees-Mogg in the Times “For goodness’ sake don’t mention Europe: it doesn’t fit our new image”

Rees-Mogg point out the obvious but usually ignored fact of British politics, that a great deal of our national policies have an EU related connection. Writing of David Cameron’s speech in Manchester: “He did not refer at all to Europe in his leader’s speech in Manchester on Saturday. This omission, however, made his speech sound strangely lopsided, since most of his main themes had a European aspect that he did not mention. Identity cards arise from European policies, as does the regionalisation to which he is so strongly opposed, while the environment is largely a European competence. Even if he did not wish to discuss the European integration, he should have recognised the European limitations on British policymaking. More than half of all our legislation now comes from Europe. Parliament is the rubber stamp for Brussels.

Yesterday Oliver Letwin further stirred these troubled waters. On the BBC Sunday AM programme, Andrew Marr asked him why there had been no reference to Europe in the leader’s speech. Mr Letwin replied that the speech had concentrated on “mainline issues”, clearly implying that Europe is not one. If Europe is not a mainline issue, what is?

No doubt the real motive for avoiding discussion of all European policy is that Europe does not fit the desired image of Mr Cameron’s party. Euroscepticism could be as embarrassing as a striped polyester bow-tie at a Notting Hill party. To some people, the mention of Europe sounds obsessive or old-fashioned. But Conservative Party policy, while it needs a favourable image, cannot merely be a fashion statement. Europe matters because in wide areas Brussels makes the laws for Britain. Mr Cameron understands that perfectly well. Any policy without a European element is only half a policy, if that.

Unless Cameron addresses the EU aspect, and explains exactly how he will deliver policies that run counter to EU aspirations, the policies he is touting amount to nothing more than hot air, and in the context of global warming, the last thing the new green Conservative leader should be doing is adding to the problem. .

More from David Cameron’s speech yesterday Climate change is a huge and growing problem.

In Britain the three hottest years since records began centuries ago all occurred in the last

decade. “Our planet is rapidly getting warmer. The polar ice caps are melting. Sea levels are rising. Hosepipe bans in April. What more evidence do we need? We simply cannot afford to ignore it. This Government hasn’t taken the environment nearly seriously enough. We need to be the party that doesn’t tiptoe around the issue. Instead of just far-off targets that we will never meet, we need binding targets for carbon emissions every year. We can take a lead. We can make a difference.

Imagine if twenty years ago I’d have told you that all our cars would be running on unleaded petrol…that we’d be recycling our waste on a daily basis… that houses in England would have solar panels on their roofs. You’d have thought I was mad.

Well today I want this Party to lead a new green revolution.

Daring to imagine possibilities that seem a distant dream today.

Unleashing innovation, imagination, inspiration.

Setting a clear framework that brings forward the best technology, the brightest thinking, the boldest plans.

And setting a clear challenge for individuals, for households, for business and for government… a clear challenge that says: this is our planet, our future, our responsibility.

We’re all in this together, and together we can lead the way.”

Download full speech

This section gained the most applause so I assume that those in the hall had perhaps been brainwashed by crusading journalism, or alternately were perhaps not so very old.

Because had they been around during the 1970s they would have been told to be worried, very worried, about global cooling.

Science magazine (Dec. 10, 1976) warned of “extensive Northern Hemisphere glaciation.”

Science Digest (February 1973) reported that “the world’s climatologists are agreed” that we must “prepare for the next ice age.”

The Christian Science Monitor (”Warning: Earth’s Climate is Changing Faster Than Even Experts Expect,” Aug. 27, 1974) reported that glaciers “have begun to advance,”

“growing seasons in England and Scandinavia are getting shorter”

and “the North Atlantic is cooling down about as fast as an ocean can cool.”

Newsweek agreed (”The Cooling World,” April 28, 1975) that meteorologists “are almost unanimous” that catastrophic famines might result from the global cooling that

the New York Times (Sept. 14, 1975) said “may mark the return to another ice age.”

The Times (May 21, 1975) also said “a major cooling of the climate is widely considered inevitable” now that it is “well established” that the Northern Hemisphere’s climate “has been getting cooler since about 1950.”

Let Cooler Heads Prevail

If the scientist in the 1970 was so spectacularly wrong what is it that make today`s scientist right? perhaps they are in some cases the very same people.

David Cameron probably thinks he has hit upon a popular idea, a notion that can only have been reinforced by the reaction of his audience. But setting a clear challenge for individuals, for households, for business and for government will not come without associated costs, cost which if he is determined that we should lead a new green revolution, would be borne by us in Britain but not by our trading partners, this can only have the affect of slowing down the British economy.

Before leaping feet first into the void created by questionable science and dragging the country down with him Cameron should question some of his own rhetoric,

Our planet is rapidly getting warmer, The National Academy of Sciences says the rise in the Earth’s surface temperature has been about one degree Fahrenheit in the past century. But one degree is margin of error they allow themselves. Because taking the temperature of our planet, involves limited precision.

Even then the scientists cover their backs with political like get out clauses, for instance;

The Earth’s climate varies naturally over time, responding to shifts in its orbit, variations in the sun’s energy, levels of greenhouse gases, volcanic eruptions, and random changes in the atmosphere and oceans. The gases that we have been adding to the atmosphere have contributed to the warming of the past l00 years, producing what scientists have called “a discernible human influence on global climate.” We will need a longer record of temperature data and a better understanding of climate to determine how much of the warming has been caused by human activities.

Sorry, on one hand there is a discernible human influence, on the other we will need a longer record of temperature data and a better understanding of climate to determine how much of the warming has been caused by human activities.

In fact the planet is cooler now than it was 4, 5 or 6 thousand years ago.

Analysis of long-term European temperature

records: 1751–1995

ABSTRACT: Monthly temperature records are assembled for 57 European stations, with some of the

records extending nearly two and a half centuries. Our analyses reveal a statistically significant warming

of approximately 0.5°C over the period 1751 to 1995. The period of most rapid warming in Europe

occurred between 1890 and 1950, and there is quantitative evidence that some of the observed warming

during this 60 yr period may be related to urbanization or other local effects; no warming was

observed in the most recent half century. Urban effects or other local contaminations in the earliest

records could not be quantified due to a dearth of reliable comparable data. The long-term warming in

Europe has been confined to the low-sun months, and the coldest period since 1751 occurred near 1890.

Hosepipe bans in April? perhaps Cameron should read Eureferendum, here and here

If the EU had not imposed such draconian unrealistic and arbitrary standards of purity for drinking water and sewage effluent costing billions, the water companies could have invested that money in repairing their leaking system, or creating new reservoirs. It was a political choice to impose those standards and costs on out drinking water, we can now see the results, it will also be political choice if the Conservatives ever gain office, to impose new standards to combat Global warming, the results of which will probably not be come evident until after Cameron is out of office. But never mind we have new green lean conservative party leader, just wait and see how much we all appreciate what he is going to cost us.

Saturday’s Mail reported that the EU Commission has threatened member states with legal action if they impose GM-free growing zones in their countries, saying they would violate trade rules by making the cultivation of GM crops “practically impossible”. The EU has also postponed legislation on GM/ conventional crop co-existence until 2008.

EUpolitix