Beginning of the end for climate change hysteria?

IT should come as a wake up call to the MSM who so blindly follow the climate change fanatics’ doomsday prognostications. This is the news that Michael Mann, the litigious climatologist at Penn State University who created the ‘hockey stick graph’ (which appears to show global temperatures taking a noticeable swing upward in the era when humanity has been burning fossil fuels and dumping CO2 into the atmosphere), has lost his lawsuit against climate change sceptic Dr Tim Ball, and has been ordered to pay his costs. You can read all about it here.

The infamous graph was first published in 1998, and featured prominently in the 2001 UN Climate Report, firing part of Al Gore’s 2006 movie An Inconvenient Truth. Its methodology and accuracy have been hotly contested ever since. 

Only this summer the distinguished Professor of Atmospheric Science and Director of the Earth System Science Center at the University of Alabama, John Christy, reiterated that the discrepancy between empirical measurements and computer predictions has been confirmed at the global level.

He told a meeting of MPs and peers: 

‘The global warming trend for the last 40 years, starting in 1979 when satellite measurements began, is +0.13C per decade, or about half of what climate models predicted.

‘An early look at some of the latest generation of climate models reveals they are predicting even faster warming. This is simply not credible.’ He said lessons were not being learned and criticised the lack of due scientific method involved in the modelling.*

Meanwhile the Mann vs Steyn climate-change hockey stick case – yes, Mark Steyn has been on the receiving end too for daring to be a ‘denier’ – will shortly be entering its eighth year and is heading for the US Supreme Court. It will be the most consequential free speech case of the day. We pray that Steyn will be victorious too.

Steyn has asked, with the journal Nature in his sights, ‘if there’s a more effective way to silence your critics? Say, by proving scientifically that they should be expelled from polite society.’ You can read his post here on the detailed and devastating comparison between Nature’s ‘politicised science, something we used to leave to the Soviets and other totalitarians’ and the genuine climate change scientists who are ostracised.

He refers to the beleaguered Professor Will Happer, Professor Richard Lindzen and Professor Judith Curry. He tells us that the latter, though ‘former chair of the School of Earth and Atmospheric Sciences at the Georgia Institute of Technology, co-editor of The Encyclopedia of Atmospheric Sciences, member of the NASA Advisory Council Earth Science sub-committee, etc, etc – and, while we’re at it, author of some 130 peer-reviewed scientific papers’ is none the less listed in an ‘ignominious cabal’ of contrarians. 

* Professor Christy’s paper The Tropical Skies: Falsifying climate alarm can be downloaded here.

The post Beginning of the end for climate change hysteria? appeared first on The Conservative Woman.

Read More

Editor’s pick of the week

READERS of the Conservative Woman were spoilt for choice last week. From Michael St George’s forensic exposé of not-so-green Greta’s yacht  – a post that sent shockwaves through the Twittersphere – to Daniel Dieppe’s brilliant debut article from the classroom coalface on the corruption (dumbed down feminisation) of A Level English literature; from Harry Smith’s unveiling of Dominic Grieve to David Keighley’s wake-up call to ‘team Boris’ on BBC bias, I’ve been hard put to name a favourite.

Terrific and timely though all these posts were, my pick of the week was the one that made me laugh. Alan Ashworth’s response to the bonkers Italian psychologist who advocates wiping out bigotry with electric shock treatment (I fear she never was made to study Stanley Milgram during her training) did that. It left my sides aching.

If you haven’t yet read Alan’s double-edged satire, ‘Zap those Brexit mutineers, Boris’, I can only say do so now by clicking here. Nothing, but nothing, is more effective in deflating the ridiculous, the ignorant and the dangerous than humour.

The post Editor’s pick of the week appeared first on The Conservative Woman.

Read More

Prager on why anti-Zionism equals anti-Semitism

CRITICISING Israel is not anti-Semitic. But attacking Zionism is another story. So begins Dennis Prager’s brilliant exegesis in the National Review this week. He asks us to imagine a group of people who work to destroy Italy because, they claim, Italy’s origins are illegitimate. He then asks us to imagine further that these people maintain that of all the countries in the world, only Italy is illegitimate. Finally he suggests we imagine that these people vigorously deny they are in any way anti-Italian.

Would we believe them? Or would we dismiss their argument as not only dishonest but absurd? Of course we would:

‘Substitute “Israel” for “Italy” and “Jew” for “Italian,” and you’ll understand the dishonesty and absurdity of the argument that one can be anti-Zionist but not anti-Semitic.’

Of course, as he says, that is precisely what anti-Zionists claim. You can read the rest of his acutely analysed article here.

 

The post Prager on why anti-Zionism equals anti-Semitism appeared first on The Conservative Woman.

Read More

Housing crisis? Immigration is the elephant in the room

NO one reading the near constant coverage of the UK’s housing crisis would think that either the shortage of accommodation or inflated prices and rents that define it have anything at all to do with immigration-driven population growth.

Last week’s was no exception. From the Times came another cri de coeur about the additional million young adults still living with their parents, condemned to be priced out of the market. Today a quarter of those aged 20 to 34, about 3.4million people, are still in their family home, rising from 2.4million in 2003. The reason?  They all – house builders, campaigners and commentators – agree. Landbanking and complex laws are to blame. We need look no further for an explanation than naughty developers holding back on building tens of thousands of homes a year (despite a relaxation of planning laws designed to address the housing shortage) to maximise their future profit  and the bureaucracy that they in turn blame. Both may indeed be factors, but this is to wilfully ignore the most fundamental cause of all: demography  – meaning significantly increased demand due to dramatic population growth.

Around this a wall of silence is maintained – you can’t mention the i-word when it comes to housing, education or hospitals. Yet you have to wonder how provision is to be planned if is not accounted for.

Migration Watch alone defies this ‘Ministry of Truth’ as they just have again in their summer newsletter (you can sign up to it here) and their latest numbers breakdown:

Net arrivals to the UK since 1999 total 4.7million; and since 2009 the figure is 2.5million –  an average and unprecedented net migration since 2009 of over a quarter of a million a year. The direct and indirect (births to immigrants) impact of immigration has added 6million to the population since 2001and has driven up house prices by about a fifth (1991-2016). This interestingly is according to the government’s own analysis.

If England is to cope with the current level of net migration (England is where nearly 90 per cent of immigrants head) we will, according to Migration Watch, need to build a new house every six minutes.

You can read their overview on immigration and housing here. 

It’s time well-intentioned charities such as Shelter who are demanding hundreds of thousands of homes be built for social housing, did too.  Until they face facts and accept that a major reduction in immigration must be a significant part of the solution, the supply of housing will neither catch up with need nor become affordable again. So much for those they purport to care for – the homeless and aspiring home owners.

The post Housing crisis? Immigration is the elephant in the room appeared first on The Conservative Woman.

Read More

An expensive taste of the zero-carbon future

WE can’t say we weren’t warned. Mrs May’s legacy eco-lunacy – her net zero carbon policy by 2050 – is going to come at great cost. The former Chancellor of the Exchequer forecast a trillion pounds but others are already predicting that this almost incomprehensible figure is an underestimate. 

The question no one seems to have put is: from where and from whom is all this money to come? Well, we have our first taste of the so-called zero carbon future with the news that British consumers already face a doubling of electricity prices to bail out the new wind farms coming on stream now – just those currently planned for.

A recently released report by Professor Gordon Hughes of Edinburgh University provides a stark warning of the implications for energy costs of this headlong flight from fossil fuels to renewables.

In it he explains that a number of large wind farms have contracts to supply power at extraordinarily low prices, ‘but the cost and performance data suggest that they will be unable to cover their costs’. From his detailed analysis of the latest wind farm data he calculates that we face a doubling of the electricity prices to finance the bail-out they’ll need.

He gives as one example Moray East, a site under construction in northern Scotland, where the operators will need to double their selling price at least if they are to break even. Hughes says they are playing a high-stakes poker game with the government, with the government as patsy:

‘They are probably gambling that if they threaten to go bust, the government will be forced to raise carbon taxes sharply. This will push market prices up, and the operators will simply walk away from their agreed contracts and trade at the new prices.’

Instead of seeing cheap renewables, he shows how the consumer will be hit by huge electricity price rises. He fears, too, that when the full impact of this is felt by the consumer and small businesses there is a real possibility that we see the public take to the streets, just as the gilets jaunes have been doing in France.

You can find his full report here. 

The post An expensive taste of the zero-carbon future appeared first on The Conservative Woman.

Read More

Sense at last on ‘medical’ cannabis

IN a triumph for good sense, the National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (NICE) will not recommend medical cannabis for epilepsy and chronic pain.

Draft guidance just published says patients with chronic pain should not be offered tetrahydrocannabinol (THC) or mixtures of cannabidiol and THC unless the treatment is part of a clinical trial.

NICE has said it is currently unable to recommend cannabis-based medical products (CBMPs) for severe treatment-resistant epilepsy.

We have long since warned against the perils of legalising so-called medicinal cannabis, arguing that the evidence for its efficacy and safety is just not there, and furthermore that it is wrong that the isolated and extremely difficult cases of childhood epilepsy (which have been taken up by the legalising lobby and so receive massive media attention) should be used to overturn our world-class pharmaceutical testing and safety regulatory system.

In its draft guidance on the use of CBMPs, NICE has backed the Chief Medical Officer’s reservations we reported last March, saying that more research into the use of CBMPs for the treatment of a number of conditions was needed because ‘current research is limited and of low quality’, adding that clinical trials had shown a high level of adverse events.

You can read the report here.

 

The post Sense at last on ‘medical’ cannabis appeared first on The Conservative Woman.

Read More

One last chance for the Tories to tackle immigration

MIGRATION Watch UK published an analysis yesterday that demonstrates the bulk of the adult population – some 30million – want to see immigration reduced. Their breakdown of the data from seven key opinion polls conducted since spring 2018 underlines the strength of public opinion on immigration.

Taken together, the surveys show that 30million people wish to see a reduction in immigration, and that more than 18million of these would like the numbers to come down significantly. In contrast, only a small minority wish to see an increase in immigration.

Migration Watch believe it is no longer acceptable for the government to continue ducking an issue which is of clear concern to the majority of the UK adult population. Their advice to the new Home Secretary, Priti Patel, is that she must ensure a complete overhaul of our immigration system to bring about a much-needed decrease in the number of those coming here.

The Conservatives have rowed back on three consecutive manifesto commitments to meet the 100,000 a year target; now they have one last chance to restore credibility in the immigration system and to satisfy their own voters, 88 per cent of whom support reductions.

Commenting on the findings Alp Mehmet, Chairman of Migration Watch UK, says that ‘they demonstrate that Migration Watch is, indeed, the voice of 30million. The government really cannot pretend that the issue is “control” rather than the numbers themselves. The public very clearly want to see a large reduction in the scale of immigration which is changing the country before our eyes. Public confidence in the immigration system will only be restored when numbers start to fall considerably.’

The detailed evidence for Migration Watch’s analysis and conclusion can be found here in their recently published briefing paper.

The post One last chance for the Tories to tackle immigration appeared first on The Conservative Woman.

Read More

Coffee crisis? No, a global warming storm in a teacup

IN CASE you missed July’s good news for coffee drinkers, it was this – they are not likely to be deprived of their daily fix any time soon. The bad news perhaps was for the coffee producers. An oversupply of beans has sent global prices tumbling as record seasonal surpluses of beans pushed down coffee futures to their lowest levels in more than a decade.

So? What of it? you might be forgiven for asking.

It so happens that this coffee-bean glut was not predicted. Au contraire. It came despite previous claims of a looming coffee apocalypse. Three years ago, in September 2016, the New York Times reported research purporting to show how global warming was threatening the world’s coffee supply.

The NYT said: ‘Though it contains little new research, it has made waves by collating an array of available literature indicating that climate change will have a stark effect on the world’s coffee supply.’ The report itself emphasised the threat warming temperatures posed to farmland, citing a study from the March 2015 issue of the journal Climatic Change which found that climate change ‘will reduce the global area suitable for coffee by about 50 per cent across emission scenarios’.

The Global Warming Policy Foundation pointed out at the time that this was pretty much a load of alarmist claptrap. Global grain production has also defied climate hysteria. It has not been damaged by climate change, in fact it is set to reach record levels this year.

And farmers in France, the European Union’s largest grain producer, no doubt to the alarmists’ chagrin, will harvest their second largest soft wheat crop in history this year at 39.17million tonnes as the summer’s continental heatwave failed to hurt yields.

For an insight into just how flawed the Fair Trade-inspired coffee report was you can do no better than view the GWPF’s original Briefing film, Roasting the Coffee Apocalypse. I rather think they, rather than the Climatic Change journal, have been proved right.

You can see the film here.

The post Coffee crisis? No, a global warming storm in a teacup appeared first on The Conservative Woman.

Read More