by P. Homewood, May 26, 2019 in NotaLotofPeopleKnowThat
Taxpayers’ money earmarked to support overseas development has been spent on supporting China’s fracking industry, The Independent can reveal.
The government is required to spend 0.7 per cent of its national income each year on foreign aid.
But even with climate change threatening the developing world with droughts, flooding and heatwaves, millions have been spent on fossil fuel investment abroad over the past two years.
This includes two schemes aiming to “export the UK’s expertise in shale gas regulation” to China, as controversy about new drilling sites rages back in Britain.
I won’t bore you with the rest of the story. As you can probably guess, the “Independent” being the “Independent” proceeds to give full coverage to a load of eco cranks, including Christian Aid, who claim that the rapidly changing climate is driving more extreme weather, more acute disasters. (Don’t they know it’s a sin to lie?)
At the end they deign to give a few words to the government spokesperson.
Leaving aside the question why China needs our aid at all, the “Independent” fails to ask the really relevant question of why our government is so keen for us to decarbonise at huge cost, but at the same time thinks it is a good idea to help China develop their natural gas sector?
by Prof. A. Préat, 24 mai 2019 in ScienceClimatEnergie
Nous sommes manifestement dans une période médiatico-politique rarement rencontrée dans notre histoire, excepté peut-être aux passages des millénaires et des siècles où les peurs tous azimuts ont engendré chaque fois des comportements irrationnels. Pourtant aujourd’hui nous sommes de plain pied dans un siècle, il n’y a aucune date revêtant une signification particulière et il est presque question de la fin du monde tous les jours puisque le slogan à la mode est ‘la fin du mois ou la fin du monde’. Slogan répété à l’envi par tant de jeunes, de ‘défavorisés’, de retraités et repris en cœur dans les médias et aussi par des scientifiques.
Alors tout ceci est-il fondé ? Faut-il avoir sans cesse peur, peur principalement alimentée par la peur climatique, mais pas uniquement…
by Prof. dr. H.J. Lüdecke, May 26 2019 in
(German text translated/edited by P Gosselin)
Was it sloppiness or intent? In the IPCC Summary Report for Policymakers published by the Federal Government in German, the most important statement of the original English report was falsified.
IPCC reports are available as comprehensive status reports and get strongly condensed as reports for policymakers. The latter are not to be taken as IPCC-authorized extracts as the governments concerned are allowed contribute in the writing. As a result, information or formulations from the English IPCC original which do not agree with German politics are often omitted in the German IPCC reports for policymakers. This is popularly called censorship. As a result of such falsifications, the status reports and the corresponding reports for policymakers are often contradiction.
Key finding deleted from Summary for Policymakers
One example in the past was the famous Chapter 2.6 of the AR5 Report, in which the IPCC explained in detail that no increase in extreme weather events could be found in climate periods (about 30 years) from 1950 onwards (beginning of more extensive measurements and statistics). EIKE reported on this. But in the accompanying German IPCC report for policymakers, this IPCC finding, which is hardly trivial, was nowhere to be seen.