Wind Power - Cui Bono?

The cost of a kilowatt hour of electricity from an onshore wind turbine, including the cost of stand-by generation, was 5.4p. The corresponding figure for an offshore turbine is a daunting 7.2p. Gas, nuclear and coal-fuelled power stations can do it for 2.2p, 2.3p and 2.5p respectively...

While the turbine owners count their profits, the consumers foot the bill via increased energy prices. When Alistair Darling recently banged the table about the 15% rise in bills of N-Power (amongst others) he kept quiet about what they said in return – that about half the increases are directly attributable to the Government's green agenda.

Following the surprise discovery that wind farms make overflying planes invisible to radar, the Spectator Coffee House had yet another interesting post on the government's favoured renewable energy source yesterday.

BBC's Atlantic Stirrings

I was amused by a story on the Today programme just before 7am this morning highlighting a new study in Nature that claims to show a link between the frequency and severity of Atlantic hurricanes and rising sea temperatures. Amused on three counts: Firstly, no attempt was made to ask how this study sits with contradictory claims made last week that actual records of hurricanes over the last 150 years show an inverse relationship between the two; i.e. that increasing temperature in fact results in fewer hurricanes.

Secondly, no attempt was made to ask how this study can be reconciled with another published also by Nature last year showing that there is little correlation between Atlantic hurricanes and temperatures in the Atlantic but that there is, again, an inverse correlation with El Niño-related warming in the eastern Pacific.

Thirdly, that the scientist interviewed categorically asserted that there was no demonstrable link to claims of anthropogenic global warming but rather the observed 0.7°C warming was within natural fluctuations known as the Atlantic Multi-Decadal Oscillation.

Thus the BBC's latest evidence in support of its position on human-induced global warming evaporated before anyone could even complain about the lack of rigour in its questioning...

Climate Science Is Settled

Certain authorities keep trying to convince us that the science of climate change is settled. So why is it that climate scientists continue to reach opposing conclusions?

You may remember research from last spring indicating that increases in vertical wind sheer – differences between the upper and lower levels of the atmosphere in wind direction and speed – could counter-balance the effects of warming waters. Although conventional wisdom suggests that global warming could result in more powerful storms, examination of 150 years of hurricane records in fact reveals a small decline in hurricanes making landfall in the United States as oceans warmed. This latest inconvenient observation apparently triggered "lively debate" at the annual meeting of the American Meteorological Society.

Little wonder the majority of people remain sceptical† about the severity of claims made by politicians and the media!

† A global survey conducted last year concluded that just one in five believe human causes are the main factors driving climate change.

Global Warming Fears Cooling?

"Many scientists from around the world have dubbed 2007 as the year man-made global warming fears “bite the dust”"

"Looks like man-made global warming theory is melting away faster than you can say Al Gore. A lot of reputations are now going to disappear along with it: all those who were part of the famous ‘consensus’ (not). Those people should never be taken seriously again.

It’s over, guys. Reason, truth and real science are fighting back."

Ouch! Don't miss Melanie Phillips in the Spectator, where she quotes geophysicist David Denning and a US Senate report, for all the details. She also quotes the New Statesman, which observes:

For the past decade the world has not warmed. Global warming has stopped. It’s not a viewpoint or a sceptic’s inaccuracy. It’s an observational fact…. So we are led to the conclusion that either the hypothesis of carbon dioxide induced global warming holds but its effects are being modified in what seems to be an improbable though not impossible way, or, and this really is heresy according to some, the working hypothesis does not stand the test of data.

Well worth a read, even if you disagree — perhaps, especially if you disagree.

Actions Speak Louder

This really deserves as wide dissemination as possible:

One would think that countries that committed to the Kyoto treaty are doing a better job of curtailing carbon emissions. One would also think that the United States, the only country that does not even intend to ratify, keeps on emitting carbon dioxide at growth levels much higher than those who signed.

And one would be wrong...

If we look at that data and compare 2004 (latest year for which data is available) to 1997 (last year before the Kyoto treaty was signed), we find the following:

• Emissions worldwide increased 18.0 percent;
• Emissions from countries that signed the treaty increased 21.1 percent;
• Emissions from nonsigners increased 10.0 percent; and
• Emissions from the United States increased 6.6 percent.

Source: American Thinker; hat-tip: Britain and America

Talk Is Cheap

According to Environment Secretary Hilary Benn, the Bali roadmap is "a stark breakthrough." Really? Talks that have achieved "an extremely weak agreement" to start negotiations on a new pact to succeed the Kyoto Protocol are hardly going to change the world. Even their "groundbreaking agreement" on deforestation appears to amount to little more than agreement to include forest conservation in their future discussions. So much for the UN's "historic" climate deal.

The End Is Nigh

At last, the UN has agreed its fourth and final report on climate change — or, more accurately, its final "synthesis" of the report from the highly politicised Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. The twenty-page document, to be released tomorrow in Valencia by UN Secretary General Ban Ki-moon, is intended to act as a blueprint for the next round of climate talks starting next month in Bali, Indonesia, as the world's governments negotiate a successor to the Kyoto treaty, which expires in 2012.

Despite offering no new scientific evidence for human-caused global warming, and despite reducing their earlier predictions for future warming and suggesting its impact will be less severe and more distant than they had previously claimed, this latest forecast makes the strongest assertions yet that mankind is pushing the climate past some irreversible tipping point, some "point of no return."

As regular readers will know, I'm all for a serious discussion about environmental and social sustainability. I just wish the debate could be a little less myopic and a little more open, a little less hysterical and a little more rational.

Biofuels "Crime Against Humanity"

Every five seconds a child under ten dies from hunger or disease related to malnutrition and there are 854 million hungry people in the world.

Last month I asked when we were going to begin getting a proper sense of perspective on questions surrounding biofuels, food security and the environment. At last, people appear to have taken notice:

Earlier this month, the UN special rapporteur on the right to food, Jean Ziegler described current approaches to biofuels as "a total disaster for those who are starving."

Last week, in its October 2007 World Economic Outlook, the International Monetary Fund voiced concern that the increasing global reliance on grain as a source of fuel could have serious implications for the world's poor.

Earlier this week, in the Parliamentary debate to establish the first fixed targets for biofuels, the Shadow Minister for Transport, Julian Brazier warned, "If biofuels are to play a successful part in the fight against climate change, it is absolutely vital that they come from sustainable sources. Without clear and binding rules on sustainability, this proposal could damage the environment not protect it. It would be madness if UK biofuel targets actively encouraged people to rip up the rainforest."

Now, the UN's Jean Ziegler has described the conversion of food crops to fuel as a "crime against humanity" and has called for a five-year moratorium on biofuels. He suggests the ban would allow scientists to develop ways to make biofuels from other crops without diverting land from food production, such as a pilot project in India using trees planted in arid areas unsuitable for food crops. He also criticised European governments for choosing a military response to those fleeing famine and chronic hunger from sub-Saharan Africa and wants a new human right to be created in favour of these "refugees from hunger."

Let us hope good sense will prevail over the economic interests of the climate change lobby.

Living Sustainably

The United Nations Environment Programme's Global Environment Outlook: environment for development (GEO-4) report claims to be "the final wake-up call to the international community," warning that the human population is living far beyond its means and inflicting damage on the environment that could pass points of no return.

This fourth such report in ten years concludes that unprecedented population growth combined with unsustainable consumption has resulted in an increasingly stressed planet where natural disasters and environmental degradation endanger millions of humans, as well as plant and animal species. It suggests that 250% more fish are being caught than the oceans can produce in a sustainable manner and that the overall demand for resources would have to be cut to 15.7 hectares per person from its present 21.9 hectares per person if we are to stay within existing, sustainable limits.

As this blog has argued repeatedly before, it is on this question of sustainability, not inconclusive arguments about unproven theories of anthropogenic global warming, where the environmental debate ought to be focused. But how should we respond? In a newly published work, Christianity, Climate Change and Sustainable Living, Nick Spencer & Robert White present a constructive and distinctive faith-based response to these questions and suggest eight principles for sustainable living:

1. We should value and protect creation, seeing that as a joy rather than a burden.
2. We should reflect the close bond between society and environment in our decisions.
3. We should pursue justice for the vulnerable and marginalised.
4. We should not confuse wealth and value; our goal should be relational health rather than money or personal freedom.
5. We should favour regulated, market-based solutions that take account of natural, human and social capital.
6. We should express commitment to our immediate environment and favour local solutions.
7. We should aim to offer just and equitable access to natural resources.
8. We should respond seriously and with hope.

And In Other News...

Now that Sir Menzies Campbell has stolen the headlines for the next few hours by resigning as leader of the Liberal Democrats, I feel it is down to me to bring a few of the day's other stories worth noting...

Perhaps most significant is the European Union's adoption of a package of measures against Burma's military junta, including an embargo on the export of wood and metals and gemstones. Less encouragingly, despite still being "seriously concerned about the human rights situation in Uzbekistan," the EU has eased sanctions that were imposed against the Central Asian republic after the Uzbek authorities rejected demands for an international probe into a deadly uprising in Andijan province two years ago. As a spokesman for Human Rights Watch has observed, "Suspension in the face of no progress is nothing less than capitulation."

As for leaked suggestions that Britain should switch to long-life milk to reduce the emissions that the climate change lobby claim are responsible for global warming, I for one will most positively be sticking with fresh, full-fat. In the wake of foot and mouth and bluetongue, the Government (whose lab was responsible for the former and whose mismanagement was responsible for its re-emergence days after the all-clear was given) should be supporting our country's dairy farmers, not adding to the pressure they are under.

You might like to read A Rough Guide to the UK Farming Crisis, which concludes:

"Farmers, environmentalists and people concerned about social justice have a common cause: the transformation of the current damaging and highly exploitative food system and the creation of a pattern of food production based on respect for the land and the needs of local communities rather than exploitation and greed. None of us will succeed in this cause until we learn to work together."

A League Apart

Breaking News: The 2007 Nobel Peace Prize has been awarded to environmental campaigner Al Gore and the UN panel on climate change, the IPCC.

I merely repeat the question I asked a couple of days ago: Can anyone seriously tell me he is in the same league as Burma's Aung San Suu Kyi?

Convenient Untruths

Just last week, the envirocrats again attempted to flood the news airwaves with their apocalyptic message that the fabled opening of the Northwest Passage means the Arctic is melting at a disasterous rate and constitutes the latest catastrophic evidence of global warming — when, in truth, scientists told us earlier this year that the ice sheets are not losing their mass through melting but because the ice is flowing into the ocean faster than the snow is replacing it and that, without knowing why this is happening, it is impossible to predict the extent of future sea level rises, especially as climate modelling predicts that snowfall on the ice caps will increase over the coming century.

It was therefore a good day for science and education today when, despite Al Gore being tipped as the favourite to win the Nobel Peace Prize for his efforts on behalf of the climate change lobby [Can anyone seriously tell me he is in the same league as Burma's Aung San Suu Kyi?!], a High Court judge ruled in favour of Kent father Stewart Dimmock, who accused the Department of Children, Schools and Families of trying to "brainwash" children by sending thousands of copies of Gore's "shockumentary" An Inconvenient Truth to schools across the country. The judge concluded that the Oscar-winning film should only be distributed if it is accompanied by new guidlines explaining the numerous scientific errors contained in the former US vice-president's "one-sided" views — errors that he attributed to "alarmism and exaggeration."

As has previously been commented on this blog, if the Government were to send the failed presidential candidate's propaganda to every secondary school, then a copy of Martin Durkin's The Great Global Warming Swindle should also be sent, to encourage proper debate and help develop the next generation's critical thinking skills.

The Times lists the nine errors identified by the judge:

Error one

Al Gore: A sea-level rise of up to 20 feet would be caused by melting
of either West Antarctica or Greenland “in the near future”.

The judge’s finding: “This is distinctly alarmist and part of Mr
Gore’s ”wake-up call“. It was common ground that if Greenland melted it would
release this amount of water - “but only after, and over, millennia.”

Error two

Gore: Low-lying inhabited Pacific atolls are already “being inundated
because of anthropogenic global warming.”

Judge: There was no evidence of any evacuation having yet happened.

Error three

Gore: The documentary described global warming potentially “shutting
down the Ocean Conveyor” - the process by which the Gulf Stream is carried over
the North Atlantic to western Europe.

Judge: According to the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change
(IPCC), it was “very unlikely” it would be shut down, though it might slow down.

Error four

Gore: He asserted - by ridiculing the opposite view - that two graphs,
one plotting a rise in C02 and the other the rise in temperature over a period
of 650,000 years, showed “an exact fit”.

Judge: Although there was general scientific agreement that there was
a connection, “the two graphs do not establish what Mr Gore asserts”.

Error five

Gore: The disappearance of snow on Mt Kilimanjaro was expressly
attributable to global warming.

Judge: This “specifically impressed” David Miliband, the Environment
Secretary, but the scientific consensus was that it cannot be established that
the recession of snows on Mt Kilimanjaro is mainly attributable to human-induced
climate change.

Error six

Gore: The drying up of Lake Chad was used in the film as a prime
example of a catastrophic result of global warming, said the judge.

Judge: “It is generally accepted that the evidence remains
insufficient to establish such an attribution. It is apparently considered to be
far more likely to result from other factors, such as population increase and
over-grazing, and regional climate variability.”

Error seven

Gore: Hurricane Katrina and the consequent devastation in New Orleans
to global warming.

Judge: There is “insufficient evidence to show that”.

Error eight

Gore: Referred to a new scientific study showing that, for the first
time, polar bears were being found that had actually drowned “swimming long
distances - up to 60 miles - to find the ice”.

Judge: “The only scientific study that either side before me can find
is one which indicates that four polar bears have recently been found drowned
because of a storm." That was not to say there might not in future be
drowning-related deaths of bears if the trend of regression of pack ice
continued - “but it plainly does not support Mr Gore’s description”.

Error nine

Gore: Coral reefs all over the world were bleaching because of global
warming and other factors.

Judge: The IPCC had reported that, if temperatures were to rise by 1-3
degrees centigrade, there would be increased coral bleaching and mortality,
unless the coral could adapt. But separating the impacts of stresses due to
climate change from other stresses, such as over-fishing, and pollution was
difficult.

Tree-Felling Tree-Huggers

"Breathe in. Breathe out. In that time, an area of rainforest the size of five football pitches has been lost forever."

So a piece of literature that I received in the post from the RSPB informs me. "Every minute we destroy 25 hectares of the world's forests," it continues. This set me thinking about how misguided the anti-aviation environmental campaigners are. For, in the next 24 hours, deforestation will release as much carbon dioxide into the atmosphere as 8,000,000 people flying from London to New York. Or, in the words of Sir Nicholas Stern, deforestation in the next four years alone will pump more CO2 into the atmosphere than every flight in the history of aviation to at least 2025!

So, while deforestation accounts for up to 25% of global emissions of heat-trapping gases (and paper makes up 35% of all the rubbish we throw away) and transport, industry and agriculture each account for 14%, aviation contributes at most just 3% of the total. Yet, the Kyoto Protocol didn't even mention, let alone attempt to tackle, this far greater issue.

Perversely, as a result of the efforts of the global warming fanatics and so-called carbon markets, countries are actually being encouraged to destroy the world's forests — take, for instance, the recent deal between China and the Philippines that could ultimately see 8.8 million hectares of "idle alienable and disposable lands and forest lands" developed for agribusiness and biofuel production to feed China's voracious appetite for fuel, threatening the Philippines' own food security.

When are we going to begin getting a proper sense of perspective on these matters?

Blueprint for a Green Economy

"If we are to create a way of living that we can sustain, then water, waste, transport and energy, as well as farming, food, fishing and the built environment, have to be thought of as a whole."

Launching the Conservatives' Quality of Life Policy Group report, a day after the price of crude oil reached a record $80, former Environment Secretary John Gummer is surely right to place the emphasis on sustainability.

At the end of the day, for all the uncertain predictions about an imminent big freeze or, conversely, a global heatwave and for all the questions about the extent to which man has exacerbated the planet's natural cycles of climate change, one thing is certain: the world's reserves of fossil fuels will one day run out. Whether we make them last 50 years or 100 years, or even 200 years, won't ultimately affect mankind's carbon footprint. What our rate of fossil fuel use will affect is the timeframe available in which we can invest in the research and development of renewable sources of energy — during which we can answer the really big question: How can we sustain life and civilisation as we know it? Or, as the report puts it, given that there are plenty of other symptoms of the damage wrought by humans' modern lifestyles — such as desertification, soil erosion, and the destruction of forests — can we continue to be an economically successful nation and, at the same time, an environmentally and socially healthy one?

Does the report provide a satisfactory answer that is "entirely consistent with long-standing Conservative principles"? The introduction notes that "Instead of wanting the State to intervene and control, Conservatives seek only to ensure that the market framework is capable of delivering the nation’s requirements and that people, communities, and organisations, whether for profit or not, are empowered and trusted to play their proper and fullest role." Yet, about aviation, it complains:

"Growth in demand is heavily concentrated in short-haul leisure flights taken by UK residents. Between 1994 and 2004, 70% of the additional international trips that occurred were UK residents going abroad for leisure. From the perspective of the UK economy, this is arguably the wrong sort of growth. Shorthaul leisure flights exacerbate the country’s tourism deficit – the difference between what overseas visitors spend in the UK and what British citizens spend abroad – which already stands at around £15 billion. Today, over half of all air trips arriving or departing UK airports are UK residents travelling for leisure, and this proportion is set to increase." (p.355)

Thus, some of what are already its most criticised recommendations, such as no further airport expansions, rethinking Heathrow's proposed runway, and no new runways at Gatwick or Stansted, seem to burst with big state interventionism. The authors argue that "Scaling back airport expansion plans would lead to more efficient use of existing capacity, and accelerate the allocation of flight slots to parts of the market that value them most" and that this "does not mean that there would be a diminution in the cheap flights already available," but it is hard to see how such an approach could not but damage Britain's economy and international competitiveness.

I am happy to accept the premise that no government can be neutral in matters of wellbeing and we should therefore shift taxation policy towards the taxation of pollution — from 'pay as you earn' to 'pay as you burn.' However, if the shift is to be managed in an orderly manner, the Government will need to ensure that the alternatives that it wishes us to embrace are adequate. There is no point trying to tax us from flying if the rail network doesn't have the capacity to cope with the additional passenger loads. I would probably even be willing to accept that the best way of retuning growth to take account of environmental health is "by pricing carbon into the equation as the most effective surrogate for environmental cost" — so long as this genuinely is not used as a means to increase the total tax burden.

I agree that "It is time to debunk the myth that we must choose between the environment and the economy. In truth there is no either/or between environmental protection, social stability and sustainable economic growth." So, its discussions about energy efficiency — for instance in the context of the household sector discussed earlier in the week by Zac Goldsmith, which include the rejection of the Home Information Packs (HIPs) regime — are to be welcomed. In the related context of planning and also of rural life and Defra, its recommendation that "the localism agenda be used to empower the very lowest of levels of government, nearest to the people whose lives they affect" is also strongly welcome. This also applies to the subsequent discussions about reform of Europe's infamous Common Agricultural Policy and Common Fisheries Policy, "to shift the CAP across Europe from production-related subsidies (Pillar 1) to a system of paying farmers for the public goods and services they provide (Pillar 2)." As it says, "The more complex the world gets, the more globalisation seems to remove power from people, politicians, and even nations, and the more it is important that individuals feel they have a real say about the future of their own community." It is high time that this process should be reversed.

Given that I also believe we should "tilt the balance back from ‘economy-friendly families to family-friendly economies,’" I would also not oppose the suggestion for the planning system to "prioritise the protection and enhancement of ‘town centres’ and ‘local neighbourhood shopping centres’ over and above out of town/edge of town retail development." If we wish to strengthen our local communities, then it seems vital that we maintain the economic and social viability of our towns. I expect that some of you might disagree, but I think this is an area where Margaret Thatcher's "Never call me laissez-faire" quote is probably relevant: "Government must be strong to do those things which only government can do."

Lastly, back on transport, I was pleased to see the call for increased carriage of freight by inland waterways and, in relation to proposed national road user charging, the willingness to "seek simple and transparent ways to achieve our ends and avoid grandiose schemes that rely on unproven technology and huge investment."

In conclusion, does the report tell us how we can continue to be an economically successful nation and, at the same time, an environmentally and socially healthy one in a way "entirely consistent with long-standing Conservative principles"? Given that these are merely proposals that will all go into the melting pot containing the many recommendations from each of the other policy group reports, then I believe we have to conclude that it does as least help illuminate the way forwards. The next challenge will be for the Party to compile a coherent manifesto around a single Conservative vision for the twenty-first century...

The Arctic: Mirror of Life

As Christian, Jewish, Muslim, and Buddhist leaders unite in a silent "prayer for the planet" aboard a cruise ship amid icebergs on the west coast of Greenland, we have the perennial cuddly polar bear warning that "two-thirds of the world's polar bears will be gone by the middle of the century." [BBC]

No "might" or "could." No "models predict." Categorically, it will happen. This "grim news" is intended as a "call to action," so there can be no room for doubt or objective examination of facts — only emotive threats. The Center for Biological Diversity, which has petitioned the US to list the polar bear as an endangered species and, therefore, to take steps to protect its environment, is explicit: "Our hope lies in a rapid response, including both deep and immediate carbon dioxide reductions and a full-court press on other greenhouse pollutants."

Let us briefly remind ourselves of the facts:

1. The new NOAA study† makes the following prediction:

"Based on the selection of a subset models that closely simulate observed regional ice concentrations for 1979–1999, we find considerable evidence for loss of sea ice area of greater than 40% by 2050 in summer for the marginal seas of the Arctic basin... With less confidence, we find that the Bering, Okhotsk and Barents Seas have a similar 40% loss of sea ice area by 2050 in winter."

2. The US Geological Survey claiming that this predicted loss of summer Arctic ice means no bears will be able to live there within fifty years is based on estimated vital rates whose precision was "low" and a study that "was short in duration relative to the life history of polar bears."

3. Actual study of polar bear populations has revealed that only two of the bear's populations are decreasing — and they are in areas where air temperatures have actually fallen, while in areas where air temperatures have risen, populations are growing.

4. Polar bears evidently managed to survive five centuries of warm weather during the relatively recent Medieval Warm Period (~800-1300 AD).

Even if the ice were to melt and even if this were to result in fewer polar bears, one is still left asking to what extent anything we have done has exacerbated this situation and whether anything we now do could alter this eventual outcome. At least the religious leaders appear to have shown a little more wisdom and humility than the environmentalists and politicians — limiting their prayer to "A recognition that we have spoiled the earth and we now need to rectify this by changing our lifestyles," and stopping short of asking God to reverse the thaw for fear that "Such a request might have invited comparisons with the legendary vain attempt by 11th century English King Canute to stop the rising tide." [As if anyone would think to make that comparison!]

† The NOAA, you may recall, is the body responsible for skewing the global temperature data to give the appearance of half a degree warming since 1960.

Planet Relief Update

Well, what do you know:

BBC switches off climate special

The BBC has scrapped plans for Planet Relief, a TV special on climate change.

The decision comes after executives said it was not the BBC's job to lead opinion on climate change.

Celebrities such as Ricky Gervais were said to be interested in presenting the show, which would have involved viewers in a mass "switch-off" to save energy.

The BBC says it cut the special because audiences prefer factual output on climate change... A BBC spokeswoman said the cancellation was not due to concerns over impartiality."

"This decision was not made in light of the recent debate around impartiality." Sure, and Iraq was full of WMDs and Father Christmas will bring me a new job later this year if I keep being a good boy...

Planet Relief

First there was Live Earth. Now, yet again, the BBC is unashamedly revealing its blatant environmentalist agenda. Today's Guardian reports:

BBC news chiefs attack plans for climate change campaign

Two of the BBC's most senior news and current affairs executives attacked the corporation's plans yesterday for a Comic Relief-style day of programming on environmental issues, saying it was not the broadcaster's job to preach to viewers.

The event, understood to have been 18 months in development, would see stars such as Ricky Gervais and Jonathan Ross take part in a "consciousness raising" event, provisionally titled Planet Relief, early next year.

But, speaking at the MediaGuardian Edinburgh International Television Festival yesterday, Newsnight's editor, Peter Barron, and the BBC's head of television news, Peter Horrocks, attacked the plan, which also seems to contradict the corporation's guidelines. Asked whether the BBC should campaign on issues such as climate change, Mr Horrocks said: "I absolutely don't think we should do that because it's not impartial. It's not our job to lead people and proselytise about it." Mr Barron said: "It is absolutely not the BBC's job to save the planet. I think there are a lot of people who think that, but it must be stopped."

Martin Durkin, producer of The Great Global Warming Swindle, possibly speaks for all who are tired of the BBC's bias: "The thing that disturbs me most is that the BBC has such a leviathan position in Britain. If it decides that it is going to adopt climate change as a moral purpose, I have got a lot of trouble with that. I don't think it is the role of the BBC to spend my money on a moral purpose."

North Atlantic Panic Drifts

"Evidence that a vital North Atlantic current is slowing down as a result of melting ice in the Arctic has been blown out of the water." [NewScientist news feed]

Later today I'm heading off on holiday for a week, including three days in Venice with just the wife {hopefully the children will behave for the grandparents!} to mark our tenth wedding anniversary. Thankfully, we'll be flying out of Stansted, so shouldn't be affected by the environmentalist fanatics threatening Heathrow. I notice from current visitors statistics that a third of readers already seem to have taken leave of their computers this month. For those of you who have faithfully stuck with us during this quiet period, I am pleased to inform you that another member of The Difference team should keep you plied with food for thought each day in my absence, so hopefully you won't miss me too much — do take the effort to leave a comment or two so things don't get too lonely around here! Soon after I return, you can look forward to receiving the next issue of the magazine — so if you haven't yet ordered your copy, you might want to do so now.

In the meantime, as I depart, let me leave you with the above article from the New Scientist — the latest in what is becoming a long series of scientific observations inconveniently undermining the sensationalism of the AGW extremists:

The North Atlantic is stirring fitfully. A new monitoring system has shown that the ocean's currents change rapidly, surging or slowing from one week to the next... The overturning circulation fluctuates wildly, between 35 million tonnes a second and just 4 million tonnes a second. All the earlier measurements lie within that range.

So much for previous claims that the vital "overturning circulation" of the North Atlantic had already slowed by 30% and risks plunging Europe into a new ice age.

Airport Protests

Officers at the Camp for Climate Action outnumber the 600 protesters by two to one. [The Guardian]

Is this really how we want to use our overstretched police? If the anarchist elements within the climate change movement pose such a threat — and, according to Sky News, are planning to cause disruption inside Heathrow — why not just shut the camp down and redeploy our tax-funded police officers to patrol our streets and protect the likes of Dr Victoria Anyetei, stabbed on her doorstep in Dartford on Tuesday, and Tyrone Gilbert, the father-of-three shot at a wake in Manchester last Friday?

Global-Warming Deniers

Taking issue with Newsweek for plying "the worst kind of advocacy journalism," The National Ledger claims:

The extremists committed to the man-made global warming theory―that humans are causing the world to get hotter and that we have to drastically raise taxes and/or ration energy in response―are on the run. How else does one explain the sensational Newsweek cover story with the provocative headline, "Global Warming is a Hoax,*" over a photo of a boiling sun?

I'm not sure that I would agree that they are on the run, nor would I necessarily call them extremists, but they are right when they say:

"In fact, while most observers and experts agree that the climate is changing and may even be warming over the long term, the real debate is over whether human activities, such as the burning of fossil fuels, are responsible, and whether we can do anything about it. The critics of the theory cast doubt on that connection, noting the lack of definitive evidence of a cause and effect."

Hitting back against the Newsweek claim that it is only "well-funded naysayers"† who still reject the "overwhelming evidence" of anthropogenic global warming, the National Ledger also notes:

"While those skeptical of the man-made global warming theory have received some $19 million, the forces favored by Newsweek have taken in closer to $50 billion, much of it from American taxpayers and channeled through federal and global agencies. This figure, of course, doesn’t include the dollar value of all of the media coverage in support of the theory ... The well-funded lobby, in truth, is financed by U.S. taxpayers. This is the story Newsweek won’t tell."

It also has an interesting anecdote about how carbon offsetting is promoting the manufacture in China of large quantities of HFC-23, "a greenhouse gas that scientists say is thousands of times more potent than CO2 and that is a byproduct of the manufacture of a common refrigerant, HCFC-22."

Have a read of the two articles, and let us know what you think.

† For the record, this "naysayer" is most definitely not well-funded by anyone, but is always open to offers!