Iain Hall's SANDPIT

Home » World Events » France (Page 2)

Category Archives: France

“Okay, this hurts, but it must hurt in order to make things more secure, more robust. Evolution through crisis.”

If you area Climate Change sceptic like I am you just have to love the collapse of the European carbon trading scheme because it so clearly demonstrates that it is little more than a glorified ponzi scheme where traders make a quid buying and selling something that does not have any relationship to any real commodity.

 

The European commission has put an indefinite freeze on carbon markets. Photograph: John Giles/PA

The European commission‘s emergency suspension last week of trading in carbon allowances to put a halt to rampant theft of credits by hackers has been extended indefinitely until countries can prove their systems are protected from further fraud.

While the suspension had been expected to end last night, Brussels now says that the freeze in trades had been imposed to give the commission executive some breathing space to figure out what to do.

“The suspension last week was only a transitional measure to give the commission and member states the time to assess the situation and decide the way forward,” the commission’s climate spokeswoman, Maria Kokkonen, said.

“Okay, this hurts, but it must hurt in order to make things more secure, more robust. Evolution through crisis.”

A total of 30 countries that participate in the Emissions Trading Scheme, Europe’s flagship climate change policy, must now send assessments of the situation performed by independent monitors.

 

 

Its amazingly like the AGW argument: “all sound and fury signifying nothing ”

So here is a challenge for or resident Warministas like JM or PKD:

Please explain just how such schemes are supposed to affect the climate again because this one seems to have failed…
Cheers Comrades

The validation process

Our Warminista friends have been rather quiet lately about “runaway global warming’ mainly because their credibility has been shot to pierces over the Cliamategate scandal and the fact that the weather has simply not been playing ball with their dire predictions at all. Nowhere is this more so than in the United kingdom, Europe and North America where we have seen three years of colder than usual winters. Now I expect that warming fools like our resident J(trust me I’m a scientist but I won’t tell you what I am qualified in)M will insist that what we are seeing here is “weather” and that it is not the same as “climate”, well frankly I think that JM is talking out of his over rated (by himself) arse.

Back in November, when the Met Office was still doing its “mild winter” schtick, Corbyn said it would be the coldest for 100 years. Indeed, it was back in May that he first predicted a snowy December, and he put his own money on a white Christmas about a month before the Met Office made any such forecast. He said that the Met Office would be wrong about last year’s mythical “barbecue summer”, and he was vindicated. He was closer to the truth about last winter, too.

He seems to get it right about 85 per cent of the time and serious business people – notably in farming – are starting to invest in his forecasts. In the eyes of many punters, he puts the taxpayer-funded Met Office to shame. How on earth does he do it? He studies the Sun.

He looks at the flow of particles from the Sun, and how they interact with the upper atmosphere, especially air currents such as the jet stream, and he looks at how the Moon and other factors influence those streaming particles.

He takes a snapshot of what the Sun is doing at any given moment, and then he looks back at the record to see when it last did something similar. Then he checks what the weather was like on Earth at the time – and he makes a prophecy.

I have not a clue whether his methods are sound or not. But when so many of his forecasts seem to come true, and when he seems to be so consistently ahead of the Met Office, I feel I want to know more. Piers Corbyn believes that the last three winters could be the harbinger of a mini ice age that could be upon us by 2035, and that it could start to be colder than at any time in the last 200 years. He goes on to speculate that a genuine ice age might then settle in, since an ice age is now cyclically overdue.

Is he barmy? Of course he may be just a fluke-artist. It may be just luck that he has apparently predicted recent weather patterns more accurately than government-sponsored scientists. Nothing he says, to my mind, disproves the view of the overwhelming majority of scientists, that our species is putting so much extra CO? into the atmosphere that we must expect global warming.

The question is whether anthropogenic global warming is the exclusive or dominant fact that determines our climate, or whether Corbyn is also right to insist on the role of the Sun. Is it possible that everything we do is dwarfed by the moods of the star that gives life to the world? The Sun is incomparably vaster and more powerful than any work of man. We are forged from a few clods of solar dust. The Sun powers every plant and form of life, and one day the Sun will turn into a red giant and engulf us all. Then it will burn out. Then it will get very nippy indeed.

 

Weather is to climate in the same way that the one millimetre mark is to the the one Metre mark on a measuring stick, it really is just a matter of “scale” because when you get enough “weather” measurements and consider them together you get climate. Surely this is an uncontentious observation on my part?   You see I can’t get past the fact that despite the claims that “this is one of the hottest years on record” we have experienced a rather cooler and somewhat wetter year here in my part of the world and that I have been consistently seeing reports of record cold temperatures in the northern hemisphere so I wonder just how the “hottest year” claim is arrived at because as far as I understand how averages work if large parts of the planet have experienced extraordinary cold weather this year  then it must be the case that more of the planet has had extraordinarily warm weather  for longer periods than usual  but I have heard no such reports of longer and hotter summers … well at least not enough to balance out the reports of colder and more severe winters

I freely admit my limitations on the science and the maths but I do know that those who make dire predictions and prognostications about the weather and climate require more than just a bit of luck which is why we see most predictions drawn on a scale larger than the seer’s lifetime. That way the prognosticator can safely sell their predictions to the world knowing that they will never have to answer the obvious questions when they are shown by events to have been on the wrong track.

Personally I reckon that the next couple of Christmases will be just as white as the last few in the UK and I base that on nothing more than a sort primal “I feel it in my water”  instinct unlike the sort of assertions we  get from our Warminista friends I admit that I could be entirely wrong and that with humility we all have to accept that the only  true validation of any prediction comes in the fullness of time.

Cheers Comrades

 

Guest post by Dr. Hans Labohm nicked from Anthony Watts

This Post is unashamedly nicked from Anthony Watts because I liked it and I’d like to consider what it is saying about the Warminista faith. I some how don’t think that either Anthony or the Dr Hans Labohm will mind if I help spread the good word by putting it up in the Sandpit.


 

WWF scare tactic ad, not working

The upcoming climate change (and wealth redistribution) summit in Cancun – coupled with Bjorn Lomborg’s ongoing publicity campaign for his new film – makes one thing painfully obvious. The fight against the delusion of dangerous man-made global warming remains an uphill struggle.

For decades the climate debate has been obfuscated by cherry-picking, spin-doctoring and scare-mongering by the UN’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) and other climate alarmists, including the environmental movement and mainstream media. Their massive effort to overstate the threat of man-made warming has left its imprint on public opinion.

But the tide seems to be turning. The Climate Conference fiasco in Copenhagen, Climategate scandal and stabilization of worldwide temperatures since 1995 have given rise to growing doubts about the putative threat of “dangerous global warming” or “global climate disruption.” Indeed, even Phil Jones, director of the University of East Anglia’s Climatic Research Unit and one of the main players in Climategate, now acknowledges that there has been no measurable warming since 1995, despite steadily rising atmospheric carbon dioxide.

People are paying attention, and opinion polls in many countries show a dramatic fall in the ranking of climate change among people’s major concerns. They are also beginning to understand that major rain and snow storms, hurricanes and other weather extremes are caused by solar-driven changes in global jet streams and warm-cold fronts, not by CO2, and that claims about recent years being the “warmest ever” are based on false or falsified temperature data.

In various parts of the world, the climate debate displays different features. The US and other parts of the non-European Anglo-Saxon world feature highly polarized and politicized debates along the left/right divide. In Europe, all major political parties are still toeing the “official” IPCC line. In both arenas, with a few notable exceptions, skeptical views – even from well-known scientists with impeccable credentials – tend to be ignored and/or actively suppressed by governments, academia and the media.

However, skepticism about manmade climate disasters is gradually gaining ground nevertheless.

In my own country, The Netherlands, for instance, it has even received some official recognition, thus dissolving the information monopoly of climate alarmists. The Standing Committee on Environment of the Lower House even organized a one-day hearing, where both climate chaos adherents and disaster skeptics could freely discuss their different views before key parliamentarians who decide climate policy.

This hearing was followed by a special seminar organized by the Royal Netherlands Academy of Sciences, using the same format but focusing on scientific topics. The Academy will soon publish a report about this seminar.

Europe often brags about its emission trading scheme (ETS), regarding itself as the vanguard of an international climate policy. In the European view, the Copenhagen climate summit should have produced a worldwide extension and sharpening of its ETS. But the vast majority of countries in the world refused to follow Europe’s example, so the meeting turned into a fiasco. Its follow-up in Cancun at year’s end will surely produce a similar result. And for good reason.

Contrary to official claims, Europe’s experience with ETS is dismally bad. The system is expensive and prone to massive fraud. More importantly, it serves no useful purpose.

The European Environmental Agency tracks Europe’s performance regarding the reduction of CO2 emissions. Its latest report states: “The European Union’s greenhouse gas inventory report … shows that emissions have not only continued their downward trend in 2008, but have also picked up pace. The EU-27’s emissions stood 11.3% below their 1990 levels, while EU-15 achieved a reduction of 6.9% compared to Kyoto base-year levels.”

On the face of it, the scheme seems to be pretty successful. However, much of the downward trend was due to the global economic recession, not to the ETS. Moreover, both climate chaos proponents and climate disaster skeptics agree that the scheme will have no detectable impact whatsoever on worldwide temperatures – perhaps 0.1 degrees – though this crucial piece of information has been carefully and deliberately shielded from the public eye.

What about renewable energy as an alternative? Consider these EU costs for various sources of electricity in cents per kilowatt-hour: nuclear 4, coal 4, natural gas 5, onshore wind 13, biomass 16 … solar 56!

Obviously, the price tag for renewables is extremely high, compared to hydrocarbons. The additional costs can be justified either by imminent fossil fuel scarcity (the “oil peak”), which would send petroleum and coal prices through the roof, or by the threat of man-made global warming. But on closer inspection neither argument is tenable.

The authoritative International Energy Agency does not foresee any substantial scarcity of oil and gas in the near to medium future, and coal reserves remain sufficient for centuries to come. As to global warming, the absence of a statistically significant increase in average worldwide temperatures since 1995 obliterates that assertion.

Meanwhile, recent peer-reviewed studies indicate that increasing CO2 levels in the atmosphere (natural or man-made) have minimal effects on climate change – while others demonstrate that, on balance, this plant-fertilizing gas is beneficial, rather than harmful, for mankind and the biosphere.

All this argues for a closer look at the cost/benefit relationship of investing in renewable energy projects, to prevent a massive waste of financial and natural resources on unreliable and thus uncompetitive forms of energy. Since every cloud has a silver lining, the ongoing economic crisis might give extra impetus toward that end.

______________

Hans Labohm is a former professor at the Dutch Institute of International Relations and guest teacher at the Netherlands Institute for Defense Studies. He has been an IPCC reviewer and has written extensively on global warming, petroleum economics and other topics.

Cheers Comrades

(there you go JM now we can get back to arguing about our favourite topic 😉 )

A blessing of the franger

I hope readers will forgive me if I open this post with a personal note. I actually hate condoms, in my experience using one is rather like, ah hem “having a shower in a raincoat” none the less I acknowledge that they are inexpensive and effective if used properly. I am just thankful that I don’t have to use them. That said this is a very significant change of direction for the church of Rome. It makes a very big turning point from a previously unassailable objection to the franger.

Pope Benedict says that although condoms are not ”a real and moral solution, in certain cases, where the intention is to reduce the risk of infection, it can nevertheless be a first step on the way to another, more humane sexuality”.

Although the book is not a formal Vatican document, it has credibility because excerpts were published at the weekend in the official Vatican newspaper, L’Osservatore Romano.

[…]

Jesuit moral theologian Jeff King said it was significant that the Pope had highlighted intention. ”You could apply the same thing to the married couple where the husband is HIV positive … the primary intention would be to preserve life.”

He said the Pope’s unofficial change of direction was the classic way church teaching changed. ”We say ‘no, no, no’ for a long time, ‘it’s impossible’, then a small exception is made, which keeps expanding.”

Catholic commentator Paul Collins said the Pope meant the principle of preventing infection not just for homosexual sex but heterosexual married sex.

”He’s using the law of two evils, which goes back beyond the Middle Ages. It assumes that using a condom to impede the transmission of life is one evil; the other is passing AIDS to a non-infected person. He’s admitting that using a condom is a lesser evil than giving someone AIDS,” Mr Collins said.

”What he’s trying to guard against is going too far, which would mean the collapse of the whole house of cards that constitutes Catholic moral teaching on sexuality.”

The Catholic church is rather like a very big oil tanker* that takes a long time to slow down stop or turn, especially when it has got a good run up at full speed on an issue  so it should be appreciated  that this change of direction is a big deal and we may have to wait for quite a while for the church to be having a more universal blessing of the franger . Maybe this change of heart opens the way for the church to make a quid or two. Imagine if you will a new brand of “French letters” that have been blessed by the church, maybe even blessed at Lourdes, then they could even be marketed under the brand of say “Holy F#%K”  or “Blessed relief “(wouldn’t that be a winner in the marketing sense 😉  ) where the truly faithful could both enjoy their sin and invoke a miracle of healing at the same time.

It has to be a winner for a cash strapped** church.

Cheers Comrades

* and just as evil in the eyes of the latte sippers™
** you have to fund the endless litigation over claims of abuse some how and there could be nothing more apt than doing so this way 😉

 

Half a million page views at the Sandpit

I know that statistical miles stones are really meaningless but that does not stop you feeling pretty good when you reach them. Well if you keep an eye on the hit counter at the bottom of the page some time today I expect that you will see the counter tick over t0 the magical “500,000” mark . That is pretty good for a modest blog written as a bit of fun .

Thanks very much to all of those who take the time to read what I and my friends put up  here and a special thanks to all of those who take the time to comment and argue with what is on this web-page. Commentary and argument is the life blood of blogging and long may it keep pumping at the Sandpit.

Cheers Comrades

Blackout curtains and face covering in a time of peace

First Belgium and now France, it looks like we have the beginning of a trend here. While it is easy to argue that the issue here is the civil liberty of the individual to wear what ever they please I tend to think that restricting or discouraging the practice of face covering by Muslim women will make for a more civil society.

The lower House of the French parliament today approved a ban on Islamic veils.

The move is popular among French voters, but has sparked serious concerns from Muslim and human rights groups.

In the vote, 336 members of the French national assembly voted for the bill, with only one voting against. Most members of the Socialist party, the main opposition group, refused to participate in the vote.

The ban on face-covering veils, or niqab, will go to the Senate in September, where it is also likely to be passed. Its biggest hurdle is likely to follow when it is scrutinised by the French constitutional watchdog scrutinises it.

Some legal scholars say there is a chance the ban could be ruled unconstitutional.

While I have the greatest respect for any one to believe what ever they please I also think that respect does not have to extend to any anti-social aspect of any faith that is expressed in public.

Cheers Comrades

Oh dear!!!

Cheers Comrades

😉

Tinfoil hats and the Precautionary Principle, a witty take on alarmism

Writing is a medium where wit and a good sense of humour can make reading a pleasure and one of the pleasures that I have recently found is James Delingpole. In nautical terms I would say that I like the cut of his jib which is why readers will now find a link to his regular column added to my side bar. His latest missive takes a most amusing slant on the travel woes of Britain  Europe and the world and I commend it to my readers.

Has anyone else noticed that since the eruption of the Ejyerkslllbjorkscreeylllkkrctarslyllgrgleglugglug volcano not a single plane over Europe has crashed, been involved in a terrorist incident or caused any of passengers on board an aircraft any discomfort whatsoever?

I feel a Big Idea coming on. It’s a Big Idea right up there with David Cameron’s new Big Idea to corral all Britain’s old people into repainting youth centres, clearing up needles on drug estates, setting up new Green Job enterprises, and so forth.

I suggest we ground all passenger aircraft forever. On the Precautionary Principle.

Cheers Comrades
🙂

%d bloggers like this: