Global Cooling Approaches; Warmists: ‘Look! A Gulf Stream Squirrel!’


Unexpectedly early, a new solar minimum has arrived.
The signs are that it could be one of the weakest in centuries, potentially ushering in the most serious bout of global cooling since the 17th century’s Maunder Minimum.

You might think the climate alarmists would be happy about this: after all, what better antidote to the horrors of “global warming” than a bracing dose of global cooling?

Instead, they are trying to divert attention by reviving one of their favorite old scare stories: the one about how ‘climate change’ is causing the Gulf Stream to alter its course, just like in The Day After Tomorrow.

This latest version of the scare story originated in the alarmist journal Nature and was then amplified by the Germany’s Potsdam Institute for Climate Impact, ground zero for the most extreme form of pseudo-scientific climate alarmism.

Read the rest at Breitbart.

I’m Putting My Money Where My Mouth Is and Betting against Climate Change

I’ve invested in a fund that will aim to short-sell overvalued renewable energy stocks.

‘As oil crashes, is it time to short solar stocks?’ Gosh, I wish I’d read that headline a year ago. The solar stock it tipped for doom in January 2015 has since plummeted from $19 to $2.65.

Yes, hindsight can be a wonderful thing. But what if there were an area of the markets which you knew to be grotesquely overvalued as a result of ignorance, dishonesty, and false sentiment? You’d be mad not to bet against it, wouldn’t you? It would hardly be gambling: more like plain common sense.

This is how I’ve felt for quite some time about the climate change industry. Very often when I read the expert commentators writing on the subject in the City pages, I’m shocked by how much more I know than they do. Invariably — and the same goes for financiers and big corporates — their opinions rest on assumptions that man-made global warming is real, that renewables are a viable alternative to fossil fuels, that the data hasn’t been fiddled, and so on. But if all these premises are false, what then?

Well that’s where my new hedge fund comes in. When I say ‘my’ hedge fund, I mean the start-up to which I’ve just ‘donated’ on the internet. It cost me $75 for a single share in its management company, which I don’t think is going to make me rich. But it’s the principle that matters. This, as far as I know, is the first investment vehicle explicitly to bet against the climate change ‘consensus’. And it’s about time — on the Big Short principle — that the good guys called this rigged market’s bluff.

Up until now the bad guys have made all the running. The annual climate change industry is worth roughly the same as the online shopping industry: $1.5 trillion. But where one performs a valuable service, giving people more of what they want, more cheaply and efficiently, the other does the exact opposite. It’s a racket, a form of state-sanctioned organised crime. Given the choice, no one — save perhaps the odd, bearded poi enthusiast — would spend a penny of their income on wind turbines, solar panels, research grants for dubious climate science projects, local council sustainability officers, et al.

Climate change is a Potemkin industry; it’s the very emblem of crony capitalism — entirely dependent for its existence on favours granted to rent-seeking troughers by the political class. As Warren Buffett famously said: ‘We get a tax credit if we build wind farms. That’s the only reason to build them.’

Read the rest at the Spectator.

‘Global warming? What global warming?’ says High Priest of Gaia Religion | James Delingpole

April 25, 2012

Lovelock: wrong

“Likewise, I say unto you, there is joy in the presence of the angels of God over one sinner that repenteth”, saith the Bible.

So let joy be unconfined that one of the archest of the world’s arch Greenies – James Lovelock, inventor of the Gaia hypothesis and therefore, more or less, founder of the world’s most powerful modern religion – has come clean and admitted that he got it wrong in his doomsday predictions about “Climate Change.”

Well, come almost clean.

I can’t say there has been quite as much wailing and lamentation and as breast-beating as I would have liked. Here’s what he has said in in his retraction in an interview with MSNBC.

“The problem is we don’t know what the climate is doing. We thought we knew 20 years ago. That led to some alarmist books – mine included – because it looked clear-cut, but it hasn’t happened,” Lovelock said.

“The climate is doing its usual tricks. There’s nothing much really happening yet. We were supposed to be halfway toward a frying world now,” he said.

“The world has not warmed up very much since the millennium. Twelve years is a reasonable time… it (the temperature) has stayed almost constant, whereas it should have been rising – carbon dioxide is rising, no question about that,” he added.

Presumably, Professor Lovelock will now be donating all his royalties from his earlier alarmist bestsellers to help fund those proper, principled, decent scientists around the world – Fred Singer, Richard Lindzen, Bob Carter, Ian Plimer, Tim Ball et al – whose careers have been blighted and whose lives have been made misery for having said precisely what Lovelock is now admitting, only much, much earlier. And then, perhaps, using his cachet among his greenie co-religionists to make amends for his sins by calling for the abolition of the IPCC.


But this case of backsliding is, in some ways, more significant still (H/T Benny Peiser/GWPF)

David Cameron is set to end his long silence on green issues, with a major speech in front of the world’s key energy and climate figures, the Guardian has learned. “It will be a major policy intervention by the prime minister,” said climate change  minister Greg Barker, who described the speech as a major keynote on the green economy. “All the big players in the energy sector will be there: China, US, Germany, France, Brazil, Abu Dhabi and so on.”–Damian Carrington The Guardian, 4 April

David Cameron is no longer making a pro-environmental oration on Thursday during a gathering of 23 energy ministers from around the world. –Jim Pickard, Financial Times, 23 April

Related posts:

  1. ‘Trougher’ Yeo recants on global warming
  2. Global warming is dead. Long live, er, ‘Global climate disruption’!
  3. Why we can all stop worrying about ‘Global Warming’ for a bit
  4. Whoops! CO2 has almost nothing to do with global warming, discovers top US meteorologist

One thought on “’Global warming? What global warming?’ says High Priest of Gaia Religion”

  1. Aussiesue26 says:29th April 2012 at 3:40 amI saw you James on The Bold Report today (29/4/2012), and I said about time someone like you came forward and exposed all these money grabbing liers about global warming. I never believed it in the first time I heard about it, afterall living in Australia we always have droughts, floods, heat, cold and anything else mother nature throws our way, been happening since the world began.

Comments are closed.

Post navigation

My Holiday Is Being Ruined by Global Cooling. But Try Telling That to the ‘Scientists’

Nursing a climate grudge

The beaches of the future, thanks to global cooling

The beaches of the future, thanks to global cooling

I’m writing this in Salcombe, Devon on a rainy, miserable summer’s day which, I fear, may be all too symptomatic of the climatic rubbish we can all expect for the next 30 years as – thanks to changes in the Pacific Decadal Oscillation combined with a solar minimum – we enter a period of global cooling. Let’s hope I’m wrong, eh?

Well, among those who seems to be hoping just that is an amiable fellow called Sir Paul Nurse, the Nobel prize winning geneticist and president-to-be of the Royal Society, who came round to my house last week to film part of a BBC Horizon documentary on why it is that people are losing their faith in scientists.

I told him people aren’t losing their faith in “scientists”. Just the “scientists” who are behind the junk science being advanced in the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change’s four increasingly tendentious and misleading assessment reports.

Over the next three hours, Sir Paul and I had a long, friendly, on-camera argument in which he tried to make a distinction between “scepticism” [good] and “denialism” [bad] – an entirely specious distinction, in my book – while I tried to focus on the details of the Climategate emails because it’s only on details that an arts graduate journalist is ever going to win a debate like this with a (feisty, bright, delightful but not a little combative) Nobel genetics laureate.

A trick I noticed Sir Paul trying to perform throughout our debate was to move away from specifics to the general. So, for example, he would keenly assert that “the majority” of the world’s scientists agreed with a thing called a “consensus” on man-made global warming, and whenever I got down to grimy and tedious detail suggestive of the contrary – e.g., Ben Santer’s outrageous rewriting of the “Summary for Policy Makers” in the Second Assessment Report, which seriously exaggerated the unanimity of scientific opinion on AGW – he’d either politely brush it off as if it were far too involved to be of much interest or he’d airily cite the three whitewash enquiries into Climategate as “proof” that the scientists had done nothing wrong.

Perhaps he was just playing devil’s advocate. The impression I got that Sir Paul is a thoroughly decent, very clever man who wants to be as open-minded as possible on the whole AGW debate. But the impression I also got is that, as you would entirely expect of a future president of the Royal Society (which for years has been one of the great cheerleaders for AGW theory, even to the point of writing an official letter to Exxon demanding that it cease funding “deniers”) is that Sir Paul’s view of what is reasonable and balanced has been heavily coloured by that of the scientific Establishment. And, unfortunately, the scientific Establishment’s views on AGW are about as neutral and unbiased and reliable as, say, the BBC’s are about Israel. Or the European Union. Or, indeed, “Man Made Global Warming.”

Related posts:

  1. Signs that show Man Made Global Warming is Definitely Still Happening
  2. 10 reasons to be cheerful about the coming new Ice Age
  3. ‘Global warming’ was always far too important to be left to the scientists
  4. Climategate goes SERIAL: now the Russians confirm that UK climate scientists manipulated data to exaggerate global warming

7 thoughts on “My holiday is being ruined by global cooling. But try telling that to the ‘scientists’”

  1. JLK says:30th August 2010 at 7:28 pmI have been a “sceptic or “denier” (whatever I don’t care what epithets are hurled) since 2005 because, as an economist, I have always analyzed the issue from a “follow the money” perspective. Plus as an American I know what half-crazed sleezeballs Al Gore and his ilk really are.

    I have hundreds (thousands?) of articles over the years and I have always been struck by the common thread in the argumentative replies.

    First: readings, findings measurements etc of the same phenomenon can be 180 degrees opposite from one to another depending on the POV of the issuer. Ocean temps are going up, no, wait a minute they are going down…no,no they are flat.
    Current weather patterns in the Western US are caused by AGW, no they are the El Nino Effect, no, no, they are showing signs of cooling due to solar inactivity.

    Cmon don’t you people see the futility of your angels on the head of a pin arguments are worse than useless…they are meaningless.

    Being from US Pacific NW, Ground Zero of the modern day hardcore Enviro Movement I have observed many smaller battles over timber, airpollutuion,. stream pollution ad nauseum. The strategy is always the same. using the US legal system and a Straw Horse (such as the Spotted Owl) the Greenies have won victory after victory. Unfortunately with AGW they massively overreached with this selfsame strategy.

    This time they came up with a Trojan Horse that was so successful that it gathered a global panoply of greedy politicians, scientists wanting to increase their Grants, corporations “greenwashing” their way into insider status for money machines like Cap and Trade systems and the ultimate fraudster organization, the UN.

    Unfortunately when you get all these disparate interests diving into the same pot someone will slip up and reveal the dirty secrets behind the wizard’s curtain. (IPCC, Climategate) Add the worst recession since the 1930’s and voila’! you find the oh so supportive public is only behind you when it does not affect their pocketbooks. And when they find out they have been lied to on any level it gives them all the rationale needed to turn on you. Saying “well it was only a couple of lies but the science is still real” does not help at this point.

    My advice: go back to basics. Work on real and pressing needs like clean water, world fish stocks, particulate air pollution in China and so many more. Read Bjorn Lonborg with credulity and an open mind. Take one thing at a time and don’t get sucked into a breathtakingly all encompassing issue that will bend the whole of the world to your POV. If it sounds too good to be true…well you know the rest.

  2. David Hardy says:31st August 2010 at 10:26 amOne cold summers day and we should disregard the largest and most rigorously peer-reviewed scientific collaboration in human history. Put your heads back in the sand with holocaust deniers your time here will soon be over.

    Oh yes do read Bjorn Lonborg ‘with credulity and an open mind’ in todays Guardian

    See beyond the politics dumbasses!

  3. Pete Mac says:31st August 2010 at 3:18 pmWell David. What are we to say to your well mannered and non-insulting comment?

    Who knows where the weather or cl;imate is going to go, do or not? Certainly no-one on this planet. The concensus says we can only reasonably predict three days weather in advance but we’re being asked to rely oin predictions for the next hundred years or so which haven’t been close to righ so far?

    It muts be really irritating. Sitting there supporting warmist theories as they slowly fail and fall about your head. How about we all agree that no-one knows and until we do know we go about our lives as positively as possible? How about we pursue ensuring every person on the planet has enough food and doesn’t go to bed hungry? How about we send a large proportion of the money spent on climate change to people who need a a good quality home to live in. How about we make sure everyone on our planet has access to cheap energy so they can go about their lives comfortably.

    Please bear in mind that if you want to live a very low carbon foot print life you can always do that anytime you like. No use of electricity or gas at all for you or at a push you could have some intermittently only when the wind blows and at the proportional national grid generation rate for wind power (windmills). No public transport. No flying. No buying any goods you haven’t sourced within cycling distance. No drugs if you get ill apart from what you can grow. No coffee unless you grow it. Maybe you should even grow your own food?

    No one knows what will happen.


  4. JLK says:31st August 2010 at 9:15 pmThanks Pete

    I actually thought David was being facetious about “The Most Peer Reviewed” yadda yadda yadda. So there are people out there still actually believing that?

    Should have known when the two words “The Guardian” came up as a source for anything outside of a chuckle or two. Now that I think about it…I think they still are true believers along with the NY Times…oops they are sliding away, the Economist , nope they are turning themselves literary pretzels trying to justify spending trillions on unproven science, BBC? seems as though they are having a few internal arguments over their “former stance. Oh…I know Rolling Stone and Mother Jones.


    PS: Thanks again to Pete for actually restating what I meant (in shorthand) by taking Lonborg seriously.

  5. Frank Tavos says:1st September 2010 at 3:56 pmThanks for your incisive, deeply thought-out critique, David Hardy. I am now convinced of the error of my ways. I can’t believe that I once thought global warming was just another progressive MacGuffin designed to revive the fortunes of socialism after it was completely discredited by the fall of the Soviet Union and its satellites.

    Now I see that I was mistaken and that “The Guardian” is the keeper of all scientific truth. Where do I sign up to give all of my freedom and property to Big Government?

  6. Watchman says:1st September 2010 at 8:42 pmHere’s proof positive that the eco-facists are a lot more dangerous than they make themselves out to be – an eco-tard hostage taker who has a vendetta against the Discovery Channel and “human filth”:

  7. Gus Walters says:2nd September 2010 at 8:23 am“……. your time here will soon be over.”

    David Hardy:

    Do we have time for another cup of tea ?

Comments are closed.