Wednesday, 12 November 2014

Obama´s "climate breakthrough" with China: Hype and reality

The hype: 
With his popularity continuously sinking in the US, president Obama resorts to non-binding hype with China on "climate change". Fortunately the Republican dominated US Congress will most certainly roll back Obama´s spurious carbon "pollution" targets.

Of course China needs to control its real air pollution, but that has nothing to do with the kind of hype now agreed in Peking.

When Obama returns to Washington D.C. he will get a less than warm welcome:

Saturday, 8 November 2014

Gorbachev blames the west and lauds dictator Putin

Mikhail Gorbachev accuses the west and does not have a critical word about Putin´s blatant aggression in Ukraine:

The 83-year-old former leader has accused the west – particularly the US – of “triumphalism” after the collapse of the communist bloc.
Gorbachev called for new trust to be built through dialogue with Moscow and suggested the west should lift sanctions imposed against senior Russian officials over its actions in eastern Ukraine.
Before arriving in Berlin, he gave pointed backing to Russian president Vladimir Putin, saying the Ukraine crisis offered an “excuse” for the US to victimise Russia: “I am absolutely convinced that Putin protects Russia’s interests better than anyone else.”
In an interview with the Interfax news agency, Gorbachev admitted that Putin was not above criticism, but he said he did not want others to pick on the Russian leader.

As they say in Finland, "A Russkie is always a Russkie, even when fried with butter".

Gorbachev apparently wants to secure himself a first class ticket in Putin´s thugocracy when it is time to leave ...

Wednesday, 5 November 2014

The Republican victory brings an added bonus: Next year´s climate change jamboree in Paris will most likely be a repeat of Copenhagen

The Republican landslide in the US elections means that sanity prevails also in the "climate change" debate. Oklahoma senator James Inhofe will again become the chair of the Senate´s environment committee. The IPCC and the international climate alarmist community can forget about getting a "meaningful" new climate change agreement in Paris 2015.

This is how one warmist blog summarized the elections already before results were in:

Oklahoma senator James Inhofe would become chair of the Senate's environment and public works committee. The committee has the ability to hold up, change, or scrap any climate change legislation. It also holds regular hearings on matters related to climate policy.
Inhofe describes climate change as a "hoax" and is strongly opposed to Obama's clean power plan. He became known for aggressively questioning the validity of climate science in his previous tenure as the committee's chair between 2003 and 2007.
If the Republican's win, climate skeptic committee chairs such as Inhofe, Ted Cruz, and Ron Johnson could also move to cut funding to those charged with implementing Obama's climate plan, such as the Environmental Protection Agency.
Combined, the committee chairs would make the Senate altogether less climate-friendly.
That could spook other governments in the run-up to next year's international climate negotiations. If they don't think the US's more proactive approach to curbing emissions is going to last, they are less likely to agree to taking action themselves.
Global issues
The US's efforts to curb emissions and the world's prospects of taking action are largely synonymous.
Those unsure of the Senate's international influence need only to think back to 1997, when a Republican Senate refused to ratify the Kyoto Protocol. That decision meant the world's only binding agreement to cut emissions was hamstrung from the start. Many say it never recovered.
The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change yesterday spelled out the dangers of failing to tackle climate change in the clearest terms yet. How the US votes tomorrow will have a significant impact on the type of action the world agrees to next year.
That's why environmental campaigners have spent millions promoting climate-friendly candidates. And it's why it shouldn't just be US citizens watching closely when the polls close.

Friday, 31 October 2014

Warren Buffett on Wind farms

Warren Buffett knows what he is talking about:

 'We get a tax credit if we build a lot of wind farms. That's the only reason to build them. They don't make sense without the tax credit.'

Wednesday, 29 October 2014

2014 as "the hottest year on record" is nothing but warmist propaganda

Mainstream media have lately been full of stories about this year becoming "the hottest year on record":

WASHINGTON (AP) - Earth is on pace to tie or even break the mark for the hottest year on record, federal meteorologists say.

That's because global heat records have kept falling in 2014, with September the latest example.

However, this is another example of the global warming alarmists trying to misuse unrealiable statistics in order to spread their secular "religion". Dr. Roy Spencer explains why their "facts" are no more than propaganda:

Much is being made of the “global” surface thermometer data, which three-quarters the way through 2014 is now suggesting the global average this year will be the warmest in the modern instrumental record.
I claim 2014 won’t be the warmest global-average year on record.
..if for no other reason than this: thermometers cannot measure global averages — only satellites can. The satellite instruments measure nearly every cubic kilometer – hell, every cubic inch — of the lower atmosphere on a daily basis. You can travel hundreds if not thousands of kilometers without finding a thermometer nearby. --

... the alarmists will continue to use the outdated, spotty, and heavily-massaged thermometer data to support their case. For a group that trumpets the high-tech climate modeling effort used to guide energy policy — models which have failed to forecast (or even hindcast!) the lack of warming in recent years — they sure do cling bitterly to whatever will support their case.
As British economist Ronald Coase once said, “If you torture the data long enough, it will confess to anything.”
So, why are the surface thermometer data used to the exclusion of our best technology — satellites — when tracking global temperatures? Because they better support the narrative of a dangerously warming planet.
Except, as the public can tell, the changes in global temperature aren’t even on their radar screen (sorry for the metaphor).
Of course, 2015 could still set a record if the current El Nino ever gets its act together. But I’m predicting it won’t.
Which brings me to my second point. If global temperatures were slowly rising at, say, a hundredth of a degree per year and we didn’t have cool La nina or warm El Nino years, then every year would be a new record warm year.
But so what?
It’s the amount of temperature rise that matters. And for a planet where all forms of life experience much wider swings in temperature than “global warming” is producing, which might be 1 deg. C so far, those life forms — including the ones who vote — really don’t care that much. We are arguing over the significance of hundredths of a degree, which no one can actually feel.

Saturday, 25 October 2014

Garry Kasparov: "Putin’s bargaining power has been greatly overestimated"

Garry Kasparov´s speech at the Oslo Freedom Forum should be compulsory reading for European and American leaders:

After the fall of the Iron Curtain, it made perfect sense to integrate, to “engage”, with the morally and economically impoverished countries emerging from the Communist Dark Ages. But even after the European Union and NATO were expanded to their logical limits, the West continued to engage with authoritarian nations and leaders who wanted nothing to do with human rights and free markets within their own borders. Countries like Putin’s Russia and China received the economic benefits of engagement with the free world, but never ceased their crackdowns on civil society at home.


Putin in particular has been very successful using the free world’s open borders, open press, and open political systems to his advantage. Just a note, that if not for Putin’s blatant aggression in Ukraine the so-called G-8 Summit would have taken place in Sochi last summer. Putin and his representatives have put many prominent Western politicians on his payroll, held fundraisers for political parties, brought influential western companies and executives into his network, and flooded western banks and markets with the easy cash they love, paid for with their own oil and gas money. However, Putin’s bargaining power has been greatly overestimated.


The free world still has many advantages in this fight, and could have all the leverage it needs, if only it had the courage to use it. The EU, for example, gets only a third of its oil and gas from Russia. Substantial, and in many ways shameful, since it has been clear for years that Putin is not a reliable partner. Russia’s annexation of Crimea took place in March and Europe did nothing for seven months to find an alternative to Russian gas. And of course Norway could be one of the options! Today we still hear that “Europe could freeze” if Putin cuts the gas supply. But Russia exports over 80% of its oil and gas to the EU! Over 80%! Who has the leverage here? By boycotting or taxing those exports, or even making a credible threat to do so, Europe could cripple the cash flow that keeps Putin and his gang in power.
There are other powerful measures that could be employed. Russia’s hundreds of billions of dollars in cash reserves kept in Europe and the US could be frozen, as Iran’s were in 1979; Russian state corporations can be stripped of their cash flow; and Putin’s oligarchs’ assets can be seized to create a rift between the Godfather and his lieutenants. Total isolation is not possible today, but the free world must break all forms of dependency on dictatorships. Engagement with dictators has failed.


This failed engagement policy of the West has given Putin something the Soviet leaders never dreamed of: an open frequency for propaganda and lobbying, and open markets for their natural resources and cash. Russia and China have channels on Western cable TV and teams of influential lobbyists in every capital. But sellers need buyers. Pipelines cannot easily be redirected. Russia’s ruling elite and their families have no desire to live in the country they have so effectively looted and ruined.
So the free world holds the winning cards in this game of geopolitical poker, but keeps folding its hand whenever Putin bluffs – and he does so regularly and successfully. A dictator knows what he must do to stay in power: he must look strong; he fights to survive. Democratically elected leaders are more worried about the next poll, the next election, or passing on tough decisions to their successors. Conflict and sacrifice aren’t winning campaign issues. Western leaders complain about jobs that could be lost from a confrontation, but how many jobs will be lost from global instability when dictators go unchallenged?
But we must fight – now, or later. If we have learned anything about dictators it is that they do not go away on their own. Putin is not a nightmare that goes away when you open your eyes! The longer we wait, the harder it will be. The price keeps going up every day. There is never a safe and easy solution. Sanctions can be effective, but they must be strong enough and fast enough to deter.

Read the entire speech here

Friday, 24 October 2014

The European Union continues on its path to economic self-destruction: Agrees on "World´s most ambitious climate energy policy"

The grim reality for the European Union:

Now that German growth has stumbled, the euro area is on the verge of tipping into its third recession in six years. Its leaders have squandered two years of respite, granted by the pledge of Mario Draghi, the European Central Bank’s president, to do “whatever it takes” to save the single currency. The French and the Italians have dodged structural reforms, while the Germans have insisted on too much austerity. Prices are falling in eight European countries. The zone’s overall inflation rate has slipped to 0.3% and may well go into outright decline next year. A region that makes up almost a fifth of world output is marching towards stagnation and deflation.

Surely the leaders of the European Union should be more than worried. However, instead of taking the necessary measures to create growth, those leaders have chosen to reinforce the only really "succesful" EU project, the self-destruction of the European economy:

in the early hours of Friday, Mr Van Rompuy, wrote in a tweet: "Deal! At least 40% emissions cut by 2030. World's most ambitious, cost-effective, fair #EU2030 climate energy policy agreed ."

The EU Commissioner for Climate Action, Connie Hedegaard, said she was "very proud" that the leaders "were able to get their act together on this pressing climate challenge".

Meanwhile, German Chancellor Angela Merkel said: "We made a decisive step forward."

The EU is already on target to cut its CO2 emissions by 20% by 2020, compared with 1990 emission levels.

EU officials earlier said they wanted the EU to have an "ambitious position" in the run up to the UN climate change conference in Paris in December 2015.

They must be smiling in the US, China and India ...