“ELDERLY person dies (of cold) every SEVEN minutes due to fuel poverty ‘scandal’ ”
“2014 was the warmest year on record”
Two recent headlines: one is truthful, the other not — and, while seemingly incongruous, they are connected.
It is a fact, according to British charity Age UK, 3.5 million elderly Britons are at risk from winter cold. It is estimated 25,000 “excess winter deaths” across Britain will result from the inability of the poor to afford power because renewable energy policies have driven it beyond reach. One-third of those polled by Age UK worried how they would heat their homes.
Tragically, that first headline is true and the deaths continue.
It is the second one that lacks candour. Taken from a press statement issued by NASA/Goddard Institute for Space Studies, it was later acknowledged by director Gavin Schmidt that the release was only 38 per cent certain. The so-called record is well within the margin of error and it cannot be concluded it was the warmest year of the decade, let alone in recorded history. The more reliable satellite data put 2014 as likely the third or sixth warmest.
Asked whether he regretted that the news release didn’t mention this low level of certainty, Schmidt didn’t respond. Why would he? A gullible media had swallowed the story and run scary headlines around the world. Mission accomplished!
In case we missed the global temperature scare, NASA/GISS also confirmed 2014 was the hottest year on record in South America. Really?
Well, to quote Watts Up With That contributor Paul Homewood, who checked what little rural raw data there is, “Lo and behold, as we so often see, the past has been cooled the best part of 2.0 degrees centigrade.
“Much of Schmidt’s data is centred around a large chunk of South America where there is little actual data and, where data exists, it has been adjusted out of all relationship to reality.”
Yet the world is supposed to rely on this information.
In Australia, the Bureau of Meteorology’s temperature records are also being questioned. Its homogenisation methodology so far has failed to satisfy independent researchers.
Moreover, by choosing 1910 as a starting point it has conveniently dismissed from the record the extreme heat of the late 19th century.
Frequent claims of the hottest or driest have been shown to diverge significantly from satellite or raw data observations. Most recently, the bureau asserted Queensland was suffering the worst drought in 80 years, disproved by its own website indicating the figure was nine.
The CSIRO is not without blemish either. David Stockwell, a niche ecological modelling expert, found: “The most worrying failure (of CSIRO-BoM models) was that simulations showed increases in droughted area in all regions, while the observed trends in drought decreased in five of seven regions identified.”
Now, having promoted itself as a “warming believer”, the CSIRO is warning that, according to “40 global climate models”, Australia will be hit harder by climate change than the rest of the world. That’s interesting, but the claim will have to take its place among recent studies monitored by ClimateChangePredictions.org that variously point to Papua New Guinea, Bangladesh, Africa, the Middle East, Vietnam, Thailand, the Maldives, Bulgaria, Spain, Portugal, Denmark, Sweden and Norway as the countries to be affected most by global warming.
As the ever popular Professor Julius Sumner Miller used to ask, “Why is it so?”
Canadian academic Ross McKitrick says it isn’t so. He has written extensively on climate modelling, saying: “We will reach the 20-year mark with no trend in the satellite data at the end of 2015 and in the surface data at the end of 2017. With CO2 emissions continuing to rise, it will at that point be impossible to reconcile climate models with reality, and the mainstream consensus of how the climate system responds to greenhouse gases will begin breaking apart.”
Back in the real world, the poor are dying of the cold while the political elites and their friends bask in the warmth of cosy conferences, taxpayer subsidies and research grants.
They seem indifferent to the hardship that their actions, based on dubious science, impose on the world’s underprivileged. They care little for the economic distortions and rigidities that their “green” policies have embedded or the widening social inequities that have resulted. They favour dependence and compulsion over self-reliance and spontaneous adaptation.
They want binding emissions targets and, by 2020, a $100 billion a year fund run by the UN for developing countries. This may be a boon for a privileged few and the corrupt, but not so great for Joe Public.
Already a $10bn Green Climate Fund has been established using “thematic windows” to support projects in developing countries. Naively, even though “many of the operating rules remain to be discussed”, some countries, including Australia, have made a pledge. OK. But where will a cash-strapped West find $100bn a year?
It says something about the political success of climate change propaganda that, of all Western leaders, only Tony Abbott and Canadian Prime Minister Stephen Harper have had the courage to push back. But they too will be tested in the run-up to the Paris conference in December.
Every wet spell and unseasonably warm day will be reported as an extreme weather event. New climate studies will abound, each calling for action now. Whatever it takes to hold the alarmist narrative together will be done.
After Copenhagen’s failure, Paris is do or die. The climate change movement is rooted in power, money and emotion — not science. It is indecently obsessive and authoritarian. In fact, it’s the people behind this movement who pose the greatest threat to humanity, not the climate. The sooner we accept it, the quicker the poor will come in from the cold.
Maurice Newman is the chairman of the Prime Minister’s Business Advisory Council. These views are his own.