In his recent presentation to the Global Warming Policy Foundation, Professor Gautam Kalghatgi answers the question: ‘Is it really the end of internal combustion engines and petroleum in transport?’

Gautam Kalghatgi is currently a Visiting Professor at Imperial College London (Mechanical Engineering) and also at Oxford University (Engineering Science). He is a Fellow of the Royal Academy of Engineering, Society of Automotive Engineers, Institute of Mechanical Engineers and the Combustion Institute and an Honorary Fellow of the International Society for Energy, Environment and Sustainability. He worked for 31 years at Shell Research followed by 8 years in Saudi Aramco before retiring in June 2018.

The post Is It Really The End Of Internal Combustion Engines & Petroleum In Transport? appeared first on The Global Warming Policy Forum (GWPF).

via The Global Warming Policy Forum (GWPF)

https://ift.tt/2Saj2pU

February 7, 2020 at 12:02PM

 Infected 31,526         Deaths 638         Recovered 1,764         John Hopkins CSSE

Assuming that these official statistics from China bear a faint connection to reality (in trend, if not number) this may be a sign that the draconian quarantine is starting to work. If real, it is only a slight slowing in the rate of growth, but it’s a good sign — one I been looking for. It is a barely visible slowing of the rate of change in the cumulative tally of victims. The exponential curve is slowing. Of course, if this takes off in Africa this would be but a pause…

Graph by Worldometers.info

The virus which had been growing at 50% a day two weeks ago, slowed to 20% last week, and 11% today. One week was such a long time ago in exponential land. Last Friday night the tally was 9,700 infected, and 213 deaths. At that point, no nation had cut off flights or refused visa’s.

..

Sadly the brave doctor who tried to warn the world has been taken by the virus. Ominously he was only 34 — presumably with no “underlying disease”. Instead of listening to him, […]

via JoNova

https://ift.tt/2S7QP2Q

February 7, 2020 at 11:36AM

Today I’m writing about a public relations disaster here in Germany by the Heartland Institute where its president, James Taylor, allowed himself to be fully duped by leftist journalists posing as industry lobbyists offering half a million dollars to his Chicago-based think tank.

Image: Correctiv

Just days ago, flagship ZDF German public television broadcast a segment here — created by “investigative” site Correctiv here — its popular weekly Frontal 21 magazine. Frontal 21 describes how the two “investigative” journalists from the leftist Correctiv infiltrated Heartland Institute and exposed its “lobbying and climate disinformation campaign”.

The ZDF’s Frontal 21 magazine shows how Correctiv set up a phony PR agency, fake website and printed phony business cards so that two of its reporters could pose as lobbyists representing the German automotive and coal industry. Their Project Veritas-like mission: to infiltrate Heartland and uncover “what goes on in the climate denier scene, how it work, which strategies it’s pursuing in Europe and how influential it is.”

“That’s how we want to find out whether and how to question climate change in exchange for money and to buy influence,” reported Frontal 21.

Unfortunately, Heartland President James Taylor fell for the entire ploy. The ZDF’s Frontal 21 (and Corectiv) took the material and later pieced together a major hit piece seen nationally on February 4th. A blow to the skeptic scene in Germany.

First meeting in Munich

The two undercover German journalists started by making their way from their base in Berlin to the Munich Climate Conference last November, where they had an easy time fooling James Taylor.

Equipped with hidden cameras, they sat down with Taylor for dinner and asked how he went about convincing people of his mission. ZDF’s Frontal 21 quotes Taylor: “The people cannot be motivated by logical things; you have to argue emotionally.”

$500,000 offer in Madrid

According to Frontal 21, after dinner Taylor then personally invited the two “German lobbyists” to Madrid for a later conference, where they met again with Taylor in the Marriott Hotel lobby.

ZDF Frontal 21 reported: “Taylor boasted about his good contacts to the Trump administration. ‘The Trump administration often asked for advice and about what we could do. We worked closely together.’” Taylor even told the undercover journalists that Heartland’s budget was $6 million.”

When asked how a $500,000 donation could be made, Frontal 21 says Taylor told them to donate it directly to Heartland. “And if you want to remain anonymous, then give it to an organization. One of them is Donors Trust.”

“To keep it hidden?” one undercover Correctiv journalist asked.”

“Yeah right, exactly,” replied Taylor, alleges Frontal 21.

Untypical for interviews, Taylor’s voice is completely filtered out by Correctiv editors, so it’s impossible to ascertain whether Frontal 21 translated Taylor’s words accurately.

In the Marriott lobby meeting, Taylor discloses Heartland’s future plans for Germany, where he also brings up young German influencer Naomi Seibt – the “anti-Greta”.

Weeks later, Taylor sends the two undercover journalists his proposal dubbed “Funding Proposal: Germany Environmental Issues”, outlining Heartland’s strategy for Germany and that Heartland was interested in the funding in order to inform the public about the minimal effects of diesel exhaust and to produce videos on the negative impacts of excessive environmental regulation.

The set-up succeeded, and Correctiv got all the footage they needed, and much more, to allow German ZDF public television to weave a highly distorted, one-sided, yet believable hit piece. All in all, a major PR blow for climate skeptics in Germany.

A little research and precaution on Heartland’s part could have avoided being duped to the extent they were. And we also have to feel bad that a young, promising German influencer got caught up in it.

In her latest video, a visibly distraught Naomi tells of her experience of being observed under the table by hidden cameras by imposters, yet bravely pledges to keep up the fight. Now she understands just how mean and nasty the German media really is.

via NoTricksZone

https://ift.tt/39gfrvV

February 7, 2020 at 11:07AM

By Paul Homewood

 

I thought extortion was illegal!

 

From Business Green:

 

The number of UK residents facing significant flood risk is larger than the population of Birmingham and Manchester combined, according to a major new report from a coalition of leading environmental campaign groups.

The numbers at risk were highlighted in a study from The Climate Coalition, a collection of over 130 organisations including conservation bodies WWF, the RSPB, and The Wildlife Trusts, aid agencies such as Oxfam, and community groups like the Women’s Institute.

The UK is experiencing wetter winters and more frequent and intense weather extremes, which scientists have attributed to climate change and which are widely expected to worsen over the coming decades. The report outlines how communities have suffered in the aftermath of floods, such as those in Yorkshire and the Midlands at the end of last year.

The years 2007-19 have seen a major flood event nearly every year, with almost 100,000 properties damaged in England, according to data drawn by the report from the Environment Agency.

The November 2019 floods led to more than 2,250 insurance claims for flood damage from homeowners with at least £45 million expected to be paid out to cover damaged homes and possessions, according to information given to report authors by the Association of British Insurers (ABI). Coastal, surface or river flooding is now estimated to cause more than £1bn worth of damage a year in the UK.

https://www.businessgreen.com/news/4010093/flood-risk-insurance-cost-fears-highlighted-million-uk-residents

 

The study referred to is this one:

 

https://notalotofpeopleknowthat.files.wordpress.com/2020/02/4b828-hometruths-reportembargoeduntil2230040220.pdf

 

The claim of 1.8m people at risk of flooding is absurd. We have seen similar claims made in the past by the Environment Agency and Committee on Climate Change, which have been easily discredited – see here.

But if 1.8m is a genuine figure, the major flooding events listed in the report are a pretty insignificant proportion, albeit extremely traumatic on a personal level:

 

The only major floods were in summer 2007 and winter 2015/16. But more on that later.

Let’s first address the claim of wet winters.

On the face of it, it is correct. However, when we drill down we see that the UK trend is almost solely due to greater rainfall in Scotland. In England there is no long term trend, or rise in the frequency of extremely wet winters:

https://www.metoffice.gov.uk/research/climate/maps-and-data/uk-temperature-rainfall-and-sunshine-time-series

 

Without wishing to dismiss the rest of the UK, it is of course England where the vast majority of those 1.8m live, and where all of the severe floods listed have occurred.

As for extreme rainfall in winter, the actual data shows the opposite. Peak rainfall in individual months during winter in England used to be far worse, with the wettest being Decembers in 1868, 1876 and 1914.

I have also looked at autumn and winter months combined, as many floods occur in autumn. Again we find exactly the same result – high rainfall months have been relatively scarce in the last two decades, and the most extreme months were in the 19th and early 20thC.

 

https://www.metoffice.gov.uk/pub/data/weather/uk/climate/datasets/Rainfall/date/England.txt

 

As for extreme daily rainfall, again we find no evidence of anything untoward, looking at the year as a whole:

 

 https://www.metoffice.gov.uk/hadobs/hadukp/ 

 

Quite clearly the study’s claim of a heightened risk of floods does not stand up to scrutiny.

There are lots of numbers bandied around, but no assessment of how any of this fits into the long term perspective. For instance it is claimed that nearly every year since 2007 has seen a “major flood”. I would certainly dispute the use of the word major, because most of the floods listed have been purely localised events, such as the Fishlake flood last autumn.

But nevertheless, is it not the case that exactly the same statement could have been made about nearly every decade in the past? Similarly the claim of £1bn worth of damage every year. (I will ignore the desperate reference to the £360m paid out during the Beast from the East – As we are supposed to be seeing milder winters, such costs should drop significantly in years to come?)

For instance, the 1950s. A trawl through the Met Office monthly weather reports of the time finds these references to severe floods:

 

• Feb 1950 – Considerable flooding in some districts.
• Nov 1951 – Severe flooding in many parts of the country
• Aug 1952 – Lynmouth floods
• Nov 1952 – Serious flooding in Sussex
• Jan 1953 – The Great North Sea floods
• May 1953 – Severe storms brought heavy rain and floods, particularly in West Scotland causing “much damage”
• June 1953 – Severe thunderstorms brought “exceptionally heavy rain” causing “severe flooding and considerable damage”
• July 1953 –Widespread thunderstorms seriously affected crops in West Midlands and Central Scotland, with local damage due to lightning and floods, with some loss of life.
• Aug 1954 – Considerable flooding in some areas
• Oct 1954 – Severe flooding in NW England, N Wales and S Scotland
• Nov 1954 – Serious floods in many parts of the country
• March 1955- Serious floods in the Midlands
• July 1955 – Record daily rainfall in Dorset led to severe flooding there. (279mm at Martinstown is still the highest daily total for any station in the UK)
• Aug 1956 – Widespread flooding
• Oct 1957 – Floods in Wales and NW England, with 12.71 inch of rain recorded at Blaenau Ffestiniog in a four-day spell.
• Nov 1957 – Torrential rain led to floods in many areas, particularly the Midlands
• Sep 1958 – Widespread flooding in Wales

These are just the major flood events. There would be many more minor ones which never got a mention in the monthly summaries.

I suspect you could go back to virtually any decade and find a similar number of floods.

 

Naturally the insurance companies will make hay from using this as an excuse for putting up premiums. But it is shameful that climate scientists should enable this with their junk science.

And the authors of the study give the game away when they reveal their true objective:

 

The idea that cutting UK emissions will make Britain’s weather better belongs in the kindergarten, and not real science.

via NOT A LOT OF PEOPLE KNOW THAT

https://ift.tt/2OAWCvH

February 7, 2020 at 10:37AM