No, the world ISN’T getting warmer (as you may have noticed). Now we reveal the official data that’s making scientists suddenly change their minds about climate doom. So will eco-funded MPs stop waging a green crusade with your money? Well… what do YOU think?
The Mail on Sunday today presents irrefutable evidence that official predictions of global climate warming have been catastrophically flawed.
The graph on this page blows apart the ‘scientific basis’ for Britain reshaping its entire economy and spending billions in taxes and subsidies in order to cut emissions of greenhouse gases. These moves have already added £100 a year to household energy bills.
Steadily climbing orange and red bands on the graph show the computer predictions of world temperatures used by the official United Nations’ Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC).
The estimates – given with 75 per cent and 95 per cent certainty – suggest only a five per cent chance of the real temperature falling outside both bands.
And for this, governments are still subsidizing “alternative” energy AND taxing cheaper energy and relying on technologies that cost a lot of money with no benefit:
The new tax, intended to cut pollution from traditional sources of electricity, will allow wind farm operators to charge more for the power they produce, with the extra costs expected to be passed on to consumers through their bills. Energy industry experts predict the new tax will cost electricity customers an extra £1billion a year from 2016.
The documents seen by The Sunday Telegraph show how:
- Wind farms are already making hundreds of millions of pounds of profits, with half the income from existing consumer subsidies;
- Coal-fired power plants are being forced to close ahead of the new carbon tax as it will make operating too expensive;
- Electricity prices are expected to increase at an accelerated rate due to the resulting reduction in power supplies;
- Energy costs will rise by around eight per cent each year between now and 2020, meaning wholesale prices will almost double.
The details are contained in a 70-page prospectus drawn up by Barclays Bank and sent to financiers looking to invest up to £260million in a new energy fund, Greencoat UK Wind, which is planning to buy stakes in six big wind farms around the UK.
Too bad the US is still in the grips of this moronic idiocy:
Today, Partnership for a Secure America (PSA) launched their newest open letter, signed by 38 Republicans, Democrats, and Independents, on the national security threats of climate change at a bipartisan panel event on Capitol Hill.
In the midst of sequestration’s looming budget cuts and White House promises of Executive Action on climate change, should Congress fail to act, the letter’s signatories stress the urgent need for action to prevent disastrous impacts on U.S. national security interests. Mobilizing public and private support for international mitigation and adaptation projects in vulnerable communities must be a priority, the letter states.
R. James Woolsey, former Director of Central Intelligence, and Wayne Gilchrest, former Congressman (R-MD) and Co-founder of the Congressional Climate Change Caucus, spoke at the event to highlight the critical threats that climate change presents.
“If we have difficulty figuring out how to deal with immigration today, look at the prospects for the glacial retreats in the Andes. The glaciers are not doing well… If that starts to go away, we will have millions upon millions of southern neighbors hungry, thirsty, with crops failing and looking for some place in the world they can go,” Woolsey said.
And then there’s this:
The U.S. government has pumped $5.5 billion in federal grants and loans into manufacturing and promoting electric cars and batteries. But research by Bjorn Lomborg of the Copenhagen Consensus Center finds that a typical electric car driven 50,000 miles over its lifetime emits more carbon-dioxide than a similar-size gas-powered car driven the same distance.
The reason: manufacturing electric cars, which involves mining for lithium, produces over twice the amount of carbon-dioxide emissions (30,000 pounds for an electric car versus 14,000 for a conventional vehicle) as gas-powered cars.
Lomborg says electric cars would have to be driven “a lot” to “get ahead environmentally,” and that is only if the driver somehow avoids coal-powered electricity. Even then, says Lomborg, the gains would be minimal.
Even if the electric car is driven for 90,000 miles and the owner stays away from coal-powered electricity, the car will cause just 24% less carbon-dioxide emission than its gas-powered cousin….Over its entire lifetime, the electric car will be responsible for 8.7 tons of carbon dioxide less than the average conventional car.
Those 8.7 tons may sound like a considerable amount, but it’s not…An optimistic assessment of the avoided carbon-dioxide associated with an electric car will allow the owner to spare the world about $44 in climate damage.
Dumb as a box of rocks. If we want to help the poor, forget this Quixotic quest and set about doing realistic things.
What. A. F*ckin’. Mess.