Thursday, November 05, 2015

Old allies fall out:  Warmists now at odds with NASA

It has long been known that sea-ice around Antarctica has been increasing but to hear that a new study using more accurate measures found an increase in glacial ice as well has really upset the applecart

A number of experts are disputing the conclusion of a recent NASA study that says more ice is accumulating in Antarctica than is being lost due to climate change. They argue that the study contradicts more than a decade of other scientific measurements — including previous NASA studies.

The NASA report issued last week, “Mass Gains of Antarctic Ice Sheet Greater than Losses,” argued that snow accumulation in East Antarctica has added enough ice to the continent to outweigh the losses from the continent’s thinning glaciers, especially those in West Antarctica. These ice gains, the report noted, would likely not last more 20 to 30 years due to the speed with which ice is melting due to climate change.

But previous NASA studies, including data released last year, have warned that melting in West Antarctica is “unstoppable.” Researchers have also said melting ice could add as much as four feet to long-term sea level rise predictions, which warn of a three-foot rise by 2100.

Last week’s study — which challenged a 2013 report by the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) saying Antarctica was losing ice overall — has triggered heated debate.

“Please don’t publicize this study,” said Theodore A. Scambos, a senior research scientist at the National Snow & Ice Data Center, a polar research center at the University of Colorado at Boulder.

Other critics said the study contradicts 13 years of satellite measurements of Antarctica’s ice by NASA’s GRACE mission.

“There is no quality data to support the claims made by the authors of [ice] growth in East Antarctica,” said Eric Rignot, principle scientist for the Radar Science and Engineering Section at NASA’s Jet Propulsion Laboratory.

But the lead author of the contested report, Jay Zwally, a glaciologist at NASA’s Goddard Institute for Space Studies, told Al Jazeera his data are based on improved models that weren’t applied to previous measurements. If the same model were applied to other data, it would match his own “more accurate” determination of the state of Antarctica’s ice sheets, Zwally said.

Zwally’s model focuses on the movement of the bedrock deep under Antarctica’s ice. Earth’s mantle rises when relieved of the burden of ice sheets and glaciers. The same phenomenon occurred in Antarctica, Zwally said, but it hasn’t been accurately included in the old models of bedrock movement. That, he said, may be behind the difference between his measurements and those of the rest of the scientific community.

The old models “didn’t take into account the slow growth (in ice) at the center. So we estimated that that unaccounted-for growth is about a centimeter (0.39 inch) or two a year over 10,000 years. That’s … meters on top of the other ice. And instead of the Earth coming up because the ice went away, it’s going down because of that,” Zwally said.

Benjamin Smith, of the University of Washington’s applied physics lab, said he didn’t think there was inaccurate data in Zwally's study. The differences in conclusion with other studies, he said, were largely based on the interpretation of that data. It was possible, Smith said, that Zwally’s measurements were correct and previous data were wrong.

“There’s an interpretation step that needs to go into this. The GRACE measurements and his are both influenced by what rock is doing underneath the ice sheet,” Smith said. “You have to understand what’s happening with the rock motion to understand what the signal from GRACE means.”

Smith said the issue may be laid to rest soon. There are plans underway, he said, to send teams to Antarctica to take measurements of the ice's altitude that way rather than using satellite data.

If Zwally’s study is correct, it raises another question: Where did the sea level rise attributed to Antarctic ice melt originate?

In recent decades, the world’s oceans have risen an average of 2.8 millimeters (0.11 inch) per year, according to a 2013 report by the IPCC. That rise is attributed to Antarctic and Greenland ice sheets melting, to disappearing glaciers and to thermal expansion — when heat from climate change causes the ocean to expand, therefore causing a sea level rise.

“The good news is that Antarctica is not currently contributing to sea level rise, but is taking 0.23 mm per year away,” Zwally said last week in a press release.

“But this is also bad news,” he said. “If the 0.27 mm per year of sea level rise attributed to Antarctica in the IPCC report is not really coming from Antarctica, there must be some other contribution to sea level rise that is not accounted for.”


Abstract of the hated article below:

Mass gains of the Antarctic ice sheet exceed losses

Authors: Zwally, H. et al.


Mass changes of the Antarctic ice sheet impact sea-level rise as climate changes, but recent rates have been uncertain. Ice, Cloud and land Elevation Satellite (ICESat) data (2003–08) show mass gains from snow accumulation exceeded discharge losses by 82 ± 25 Gt a–1, reducing global sea-level rise by 0.23 mm a–1. European Remote-sensing Satellite (ERS) data (1992–2001) give a similar gain of 112 ± 61 Gt a–1. Gains of 136 Gt a–1 in East Antarctica (EA) and 72 Gt a–1 in four drainage systems (WA2) in West Antarctic (WA) exceed losses of 97 Gt a–1 from three coastal drainage systems (WA1) and 29 Gt a–1 from the Antarctic Peninsula (AP). EA dynamic thickening of 147 Gt a–1 is a continuing response to increased accumulation (>50%) since the early Holocene. Recent accumulation loss of 11 Gt a–1 in EA indicates thickening is not from contemporaneous snowfall increases. Similarly, the WA2 gain is mainly (60 Gt a–1) dynamic thickening. In WA1 and the AP, increased losses of 66 ± 16 Gt a–1 from increased dynamic thinning from accelerating glaciers are 50% offset by greater WA snowfall. The decadal increase in dynamic thinning in WA1 and the AP is approximately one-third of the long-term dynamic thickening in EA and WA2, which should buffer additional dynamic thinning for decades.

Journal of Glaciology

But wait:  There's more -- as the salesman said

Now even West Antarctica is letting the Warmists down.  In the last few years there has been some melting of ice in coastal West Antarctica, probably due to known subsurface vulcanism.

This has warmed Warmist hearts. The Green/Left is good at ignoring things so they had no trouble ignoring those volcanoes and attributing the melting to "climate change".  Why the ice wasn't melting in other parts of Antarctica was hard to explain but too bad about that.

Now we see that the climate was not at fault at all. In fact, snowfall on the West Antarctic has been unusually heavy in recent years.  A long-term picture of West Antarctic snowfall has now been derived from ice cores and they show a huge INCREASE in snowfall. So if W. Antarctica is melting despite all that extra snow falling on it, it must be really toasty underneath it all

Excerpt from the latest GRL article below:

Twentieth century increase in snowfall in coastal West Antarctica

E. R. Thomas et al


The Amundsen Sea sector of the West Antarctic ice sheet has been losing mass in recent decades; however, long records of snow accumulation are needed to place the recent changes in context. Here we present 300 year records of snow accumulation from two ice cores drilled in Ellsworth Land, West Antarctica. The records show a dramatic increase in snow accumulation during the twentieth century, linked to a deepening of the Amundsen Sea Low (ASL), tropical sea surface temperatures, and large-scale atmospheric circulation. The observed increase in snow accumulation and interannual variability during the late twentieth century is unprecedented in the context of the past 300 years and evidence that the recent deepening of the ASL is part of a longer trend.

3 Results and Discussion

3.1 Twentieth Century Trends

Prior to 1900 the annual average snow accumulation at Ferrigno and Bryan Coast remained fairly constant at 33 cm yr−1 and 40 cm yr−1, while after 1900 the snow accumulation increased at a rate of 0.13 cm yr−1 and 0.15 cm yr−1, respectively. Snow accumulation during the most recent decade (2000–2009) is 27% higher at Ferrigno and 31% higher at Bryan coast than the baseline values determined from 1712 to 1899. This twentieth century increase is consistent with the Gomez ice core record from the southwestern Antarctic Peninsula (Figure 1a (black)) which revealed a doubling of snow accumulation since 1854 with an increasing trend that began in the ~1930s and accelerated in the mid-1970s [Thomas et al., 2008]. Determining the onset of the trend is heavily dependent on the statistical approach used; however, the Ellsworth Land ice cores appear to corroborate the onset of this snow accumulation increase. There is significant correlation between the two Ellsworth Land records and the Gomez record from the southern Antarctic Peninsula (r2 > 0.75, decadal), suggesting that these records are capturing local and regional (>350 km longitudinally) accumulation variability. Spatially averaging the records together reduces the amount of small-scale noise, resulting from local wind redistribution and sublimation. Thus, a combined Ellsworth Land record was produced by averaging the normalized Ferrigno and Bryan Coast records (1712–2010), and a regional Ellsworth Land record was produced in the same way but includes the Gomez record (1854–2006). Using the combined Ellsworth Land record and selecting the period 1712–1899 as the baseline, we observe that after 1919 the running decadal mean exceeds the baseline average (Figure 2a) and remains above it for the remainder of the twentieth century. The increase in snow accumulation accelerates in recent decades with the running decadal mean since 1995 consistently exceeding two standard deviations (2σ) above the baseline average. [Two SDs is a LOT]

Geophysical Research Letters. 3 NOV 2015. DOI: 10.1002/2015GL065750

Nations and peoples should fear the Paris coup

Lord Monckton exposes U.N. 'agreement' to establish world government

Be afraid. Be very afraid. I have now read the late-October draft of the “agreement” that the U.N. will bounce all nations into ratifying at the climate conference in Paris at the end of this month. It is nothing less than a coup d’etat by the global governing elite. It is a charter for punishing prosperity, destroying democracy, finishing freedom and wasting the West.

It is not only the freedom of the people (in those countries that still retain it) that is now under direct and grievous threat. The freedom of all governments to govern as independent, sovereign powers in the interest of their peoples is about to be taken away forever.

The Paris “agreement” should be regarded by governments with at least as much caution as if it were called a “treaty.” The frank intent of the latest draft, now in my hands, is that the “agreement” should be at least as binding on the parties as a treaty.

The provisions for enforcement of the will of the new global governing authority over Western nations that the “agreement” brings into being are severe and potentially costly, damaging and even fatal to the very notion of independent, elected, national government.

The global-government ambition of the U.N., supported by most totalitarian regimes (who smell power at the expense of the Western hegemony) and by almost all Third-World countries (who smell Western money) is to establish a world government using the climate as the pretext.

The word “government,” in the sense of a global governing power with real authority to impose laws and regulations, to collect pre-emptive taxes and fines, and to supervise and enforce compliance, appeared twice in the failed Copenhagen treaty draft of 2009.

The phrase “governing body,” which appeared in the February 2015 first draft of the Paris “agreement,” has been quietly dropped in favor of the cloaking acronym “CMA,” standing for “Conference of the parties serving as the Meeting of the parties to this Agreement.” In practice, this means the permanent secretariat, to which the “agreement” gives real global governing power in all but name.

The New World Order will enforce its will by a multitude of outrageous mechanisms that no democratic nation should endorse for a single instant. Not the least of these is the proposal to establish an international climate change court, craftily renamed a “tribunal” to make it seem less powerful than it will actually be. The text makes it plain that this “tribunal” will have powers against Western nations only. And they will be real powers, backed by what the draft agreement delicately calls “facilitation.” In plain English, this means enforcement.

The notion of a climate court was originally proposed in the Durban climate agreement four years ago, but, though not one of the 2,000 journalists present at the conference bothered to report that or any other provision in the text, I publicized it, and there was such an international outcry that that proposal, along with two-thirds of the entire negotiating text, had to be abandoned at 24 hours’ notice once the daylight was let in on it. Now it is back.

Every flea-bitten fly-speck of an island state gets the same vote as the United States. The Third-World countries that smell power and money – Western power and money – will drive this nonsense through, because the U.N. voting system tilts the decision-making heavily in their favor.

Mr. Obama, with his scientifically illiterate and viscerally anti-American administration, will stand alongside the Third World as it uses the climate treaty to knife the West. So will the vapid Trudeau Jr. in Canada, the profiteering Turbull in Australia, and of course all the countries of the dismal European tyranny-by-clerk, which has already succeeded in taking away democracy from all its satrapy states, including Britain. The U.N. wants globally the power the E.U. wields regionally. And, this time, it is going to get it.

After more than two decades of negotiation in various exotic locations (throughout which there has been no statistically significant global warming, and none whatever for almost 19 years), the word “option” appears no less than 259 times in the current Paris draft. “Option 1,” “Option 2,” etc., appear all the way through.

On past experience, this is a sign that the secretariat has been maneuvering to prevent agreement being reached on anything other than a decision to transfer executive and decision-making authority on all matters marked “option” to the secretariat.

It is an old dodge. After the statutory all-night-session, the negotiators, after due softening-up, will emerge with stubbly chins (and the men, too) to announce that they have agreed to transfer all power of decision-making on the “difficult” question of climate to the faceless, full-time secretariat.

Throughout the draft, a dangerous ratchet mechanism has been built in, by which the Western parties commit themselves to pay more and more and more of their taxpayers’ money to the secretariat. On past experience of the U.N., practically none of that money will ever reach any Third-World country. It will be trousered by the fat-cat bureaucrats.

All parties other than China, to which Mr. Obama unilaterally gave an exemption last December to prevent them from blowing the Paris treaty out of the water as they blew away the Copenhagen treaty in 2009, will be required to submit to humiliating “verification” of the extent of their compliance with their obligations to pay the secretariat vast sums, and to destroy their economies by an eventual total ban on burning coal, oil and gas.

To consent to this chilling document, which reinstates at a stroke the totalitarianism we all hoped had been destroyed when the Berlin Wall came down, and this time makes it global and hence inescapable, would be sheer lunacy. How can governments be so stupid as to encompass their own destruction as well as the destruction of their national economies and of their people’s freedom?

In parallel with my reading of the 50 pages of small print that are the blueprint for global totalitarian dictatorship, I have been looking very closely at the “science” that is the pretext for this coup d’etat by the classe politique. I have identified the central, ingenious, carefully concealed fraud underlying the false claim that there will be major global warming by the end of this century.

I shall be going to Paris. There, I shall describe the fraud, provide all necessary evidence of it, and leave it to lovers of freedom everywhere to take that evidence, complain to their national investigating and prosecuting authorities, and have the small clique of malevolent, hard-left, profiteering scientists behind the scare rounded up and put on trial.

One or two fraud prosecutions will be enough. All of the rest will rapidly scuttle for cover, and the climate scare will implode overnight.

For freedom cannot and will not be destroyed. The creatures who now sense absolute power within their grasp will find – yet again – that we, the people, are more powerful than they know.


China Underreported Yearly Carbon Emissions by Billion Tons

China's co-operation with the Warmists is all "smoke and mirrors", as it were

After years of breakneck, environment-be-damned economic growth in China, the game appeared to have changed: last year, China agreed, with the U.S., to curb its emissions and earlier this year decided to try out a cap-and-trade program to cut its greenhouse gas emissions to dethrone itself as the world’s biggest polluter. That may be slightly tougher than expected, the world found out on Tuesday. The New York Times reports that while much has changed in China, the government's habit of smog-like transparency remains. New Chinese government data shows that the country is, in fact, burning 17 percent more coal yearly than previously reported. What does that mean for its emissions?

“Even for a country of China’s size and opacity, the scale of the correction is immense,” the Times notes. “By some initial estimates, that could translate to almost a billion more tons of carbon dioxide released into the atmosphere annually in recent years, more than all of Germany emits from fossil fuels.” Or, put another way, the 600 million ton revision to China’s 2012 coal consumption is, by itself, more than 70 percent of what the U.S. burns as country in an entire year.

Here’s more on how the error came to be from the Times:

"The new data, which appeared recently in an energy statistics yearbook published without fanfare by China’s statistical agency, show that coal consumption has been underestimated since 2000, and particularly in recent years. The revisions were based on a census of the economy in 2013 that exposed gaps in data collection, especially from small companies and factories."

The Chinese government has not yet commented on the correction, which will complicate efforts to meet climate negotiation goals later this month at the U.N. Climate Change Conference in Paris. “China’s emissions — 4.2 billion metric tons in 2013, according to the new data — now far exceed those of any other country, including the United States, the second-largest emitter,” according to the Times.


Australia: Behold a silly little lady who has drunk the Kool-Aid

The article below appeared in "New Matilda" under the heading: "Coal Moratoriums As A ‘Radical War On The Poor’. They’re Only Half Right".  It was written by a piece of furniture named Hilary Bambrick, who is allegedly "Chair" of Population Health at the School of Medicine at Western Sydney University, Australia.  Professor Bambrick was one of a group denounced by "The Australian" newspaper after she signed an open letter calling for no more coalmines. The original letter was signed by 61 people and it appears that the criticism of their ideas abashed 60 of them. Hilary is still standing, however so I am pleased to give you her attempt at scholarship below.

It is a curious thing:  100% assertion.  No proof or evidence offered. No links; no references.  She has faith and expects all others to share it.  And she feels no need to address obvious criticisms.  Winter is when most people die but she says it is warming that is bad for your health. She ignores total mortality in judging the effects of warming!

And she attributes recent bad weather events to global warming when even Warmist climate scientits shrink from doing that.  And the events CANNOT in fact be due to global warming -- because there has been no global warming for 18 years.  The satellites are the only way of obtaining a truly global temperature reading and for the last 18 years they just show random fluctuations around a constant mean. Here's the graph:

And even the terrestrial datasets show no statistically significant global temperature change over the last 18 years. That KoolAid must have tasted great!

She should become a Jehovah's Witness.  You have to have a strong faith to be a JW and her faith is Herculean.  One quails before the thought of her as a medical researcher, however.  Though she would not be the only medical researcher who believes that correlation is causation.

Isn't she a cute-ums?

On Tuesday last week an open letter called for a global moratorium on new coal mines. Prime Minister Malcolm Turnbull hurriedly dismissed the call as ineffective in reducing emissions, and The Australian accused those who signed the letter of waging war on poor people. This could not be further from the truth.

The letter was signed by 61 people, or ‘coal haters’ as The Australian called us. I am one of them, and here is why.

The planet has warmed nearly 1°C and we’re already seeing the effects. We’re heading into a ‘Godzilla’ El Nino; California is suffering unprecedented drought; Mexico just had a narrow escape from the world’s strongest ever hurricane, and the Pacific has had many more super typhoons than is fair.

We’re now having to construct new scales for measuring and reporting the weather because what we are seeing is outside previous human experience. We’ve added a ‘Catastrophic’ level to bushfire danger ratings, and a new colour to weather maps to depict regions over 50°C. And that’s only at 1°C warming – nowhere near the 4°C we are currently on track for by the end of this century.

As humans we’re not isolated from our environment. Through its effects on water, food, and air, climate change alters the relationship between us and our life-support system.

The health consequences of climate change are many, for example: Deaths and injury from heatwaves, flooding and bushfires; mosquito-borne diseases such as malaria and dengue; or those arising from food insecurity and conflict.

In Australia, we’re relatively well resourced to deal with climate change. We’re healthy, we have robust emergency response and health systems and we can add a tax levy to rebuild after major flooding, for example.

But climate change is not fair, and other countries are not so lucky. Poverty, poor health, ecosystem degradation, and limited infrastructure and services render some populations extremely vulnerable and diminishes their capacity to adapt.

The worst consequences of climate change fall disproportionately on the world’s poor. Already marginal regions will become decreasingly hospitable, and those living there are least able to adapt.

Climate change acts against economic development, and will keep vulnerable people in poverty and exacerbate existing health and economic inequalities.

The health consequences that are easiest to measure, such as deaths from the recent Middle East ‘heat dome’ or even Typhoon Haiyan in the Philippines, are not the biggest impacts in terms of numbers of people affected. The biggest impacts will be those that are least direct, and more complex, such as:

Repeated crop failures triggering famine

Sea level rise contaminating water supplies, and even consuming whole countries

Wars and civil unrest over increasingly scarce resources

Forced migration and deaths at sea

As with public health more generally, prevention is far simpler and cheaper than cure. We’ve known for decades what’s causing the earth to warm, and we’ve known for decades what we should do about it.

There is no ‘moral case’ for continuing to dig up, use and export coal, as Australia’s Federal Resources Minister Josh Frydenberg would have you believe. But there is a very strong moral case against it: Coal kills people.

We have healthy energy alternatives, and we don’t have to wait years to reap the benefits. Quitting coal this morning means cleaner air and better health this afternoon. It’s as simple as that.

These are exciting times. There’s real momentum for change. New polling shows six out of 10 voters in Malcolm Turnbull’s electorate support a moratorium on new coal mines. The divestment movement shows us that, ultimately, market forces will prevail and coal and gas will become untenable. But we can’t afford to wait. Some nudging is required now to get investment in renewables happening sooner, to promote faster returns and drive technological development.

Australia is very well placed to lead clean energy technology, but we risk missing the boat on innovation. Instead we seem hell bent on propping up a withering coal industry, de-funding clean energy technology and running interference with endless reviews into wind farms.

Rather than continuing to subsidise the problem, let’s subsidise the solution.

If politicians worried about the health and livelihoods of the people they govern as much as they worry about the ‘health’ of the economy in the coming financial quarter, we wouldn’t be in this mess.

The signatories to the letter have been labelled as radicals, and perhaps that is true. Certainly the decision to place the value of human health and wellbeing – and that of the planet on which we depend – above short-term economic growth requires heretical thinking. But most of all it requires politicians with the vision to lead this great transition.

Coal is so last century. It’s high time we quit.


‘Tis the season for all that global warming folly

By Janet Albrechtsen, writing from Australia

With the UN climate summit in Paris due to start later this month, the global warming silly season is well under way.

This week France’s popular weatherman Philippe Verdier was sacked by a French TV station for writing a book that challenges some scientists for inflating the effects of global warming. The UN gabfest, or COP21, is aimed at securing agreement from countries with vastly different levels of development, from the prosperous West to fast-growing economies in China and India, to less developed in Africa, to restrict global temperature rises to 2C. It’s a big ask, which may explain why the madness started even before Verdier was sacked by France 2.

Addressing a September conference in London on climate change and international law, Philippe Sands QC called for a ruling from the International Court of Justice to “scotch” claims by “scientifically qualified, know­ledgeable and influential individuals” who challenge the “consensus” on man-made global warming.

Are we re-entering the Middle Ages where you were treated as a traitor if you mentioned that the king might be dying — even if he was?

More recently, the future king of England, Prince Charles, repeated his favourite claim that the Paris conference was our “last chance” to draw up a “Magna Carta for the Earth”. Charles is no King John. But, equally, Charles seems to have scant understanding of the real Magna Carta, a document that aimed to curb the powers of the king. Charles and his global warming enthusiasts now want a treaty that will deny countries such as China and India the ability to do what rich nations have done — use readily accessible and cheap carbon energy to build prosperous economies.

Here in Australia, just as the Prime Minister turned 61, 61 so-called “eminent” people signed an open letter calling on Malcolm Turnbull to put a moratorium on coalmining and new mines. That went nowhere. It was easily demolished when Turnbull said shutting down our coal industry would make zero difference to ­global emissions.

And if every silly season has a Santa, [Leftist leader] Shorten is  it. More and more, the Opposition Leader resembles a second-rate actor who has assiduously studied a set of lines but hasn’t managed to inject any conviction into the role. This week Shorten has been on “a fact-finding mission” to the Pacific ­Islands. Translation: the Opposition Leader thinks he can use global warming to dent Turnbull’s popularity.

Shorten’s core problem begins with his role in past policy. Shorten rode the Kevin ’07 wave into office when Labor’s position was that global warming was the great moral challenge of our time and required an emissions trading system. As a senior minister, he then backed Rudd’s change of heart to dump the ETS. Shorten was a critical backer of Julia Gillard, when Labor’s new position was “there will be no carbon tax under a government I lead”. He was there too when Labor signed a deal with the Greens to legislate a carbon tax.

Shorten’s shadow boxing was evident as soon as Turnbull became PM. Labor’s attacks on Turnbull’s wealth served only to remind voters we have a PM who was highly successful before he entered politics and understands business. It makes a refreshing change from the career politicians who have never worked in the real world.

With the COP21 summit fast approaching, Shorten is now desperate to make climate change a positive for Labor. But, once again, his problem is one of believability. No one can question that Turnbull genuinely believes in the human drivers of global warming. It drives his critics mad and weakens the knees of his admirers.

Shorten’s history, on the other hand, is replete with stark episodes of him making statements thrust into his hands by spin doctors and pollsters. There’s no detail on the Opposition Leader’s uncosted “aspirational” 50 per cent renewable energy target. Nor has Shorten told us what Labor’s emissions target would be if he were the PM heading to Paris. A four-day visit to our Pacific neighbours does nothing to build Shorten and Labor’s credentials.

The hyperbole around global warming, Magna Cartas, last chances and moratoriums on coal will only ratchet up over the next few weeks. But the hyperbole won’t alter Turnbull’s commitment to take the Abbott government’s policy of a 26 to 28 per cent emissions reduction target on 2005 levels by 2030 to Paris.

None of it will alter the fact, while China and India will happily extract money from the West’s promised $US100bn Green Climate Fund, they won’t agree to a deal that curbs their emissions, and therefore their economic growth. China is building a new coal plant every seven to 10 days and has plans to boost its coal power by 50 per cent by 2040; India is intent on doubling its coal production by 2020.

In other words, none of the hype will deliver a meaningful treaty at the Paris gabfest that is legally binding, enforceable and verifiable. Unless you believe in Santa.



For more postings from me, see  DISSECTING LEFTISM, TONGUE-TIED, EDUCATION WATCH INTERNATIONAL, POLITICAL CORRECTNESS WATCH, FOOD & HEALTH SKEPTIC and AUSTRALIAN POLITICS. Home Pages are   here or   here or   here.  Email me (John Ray) here.  

Preserving the graphics:  Most graphics on this site are hotlinked from elsewhere.  But hotlinked graphics sometimes have only a short life -- as little as a week in some cases.  After that they no longer come up.  From January 2011 on, therefore, I have posted a monthly copy of everything on this blog to a separate site where I can host text and graphics together -- which should make the graphics available even if they are no longer coming up on this site.  See  here or here


No comments: