The most famous bet in the environmental debate is probably the one between the Late Julian Simon and alarmist Paul Erlich in 1980, over predicted shortage in natural resources. As much as the story still amuses me, it also serves as a constant reminder of the optimism we all deserve more of.

In this proud tradition, the no less proud Dr David Whitehouse, found himself in a global warming bet,staged by the BBC. Reports Whitehouse:

 ”…eventually the BBC’s radio programme “More or Less” got in touch. The programme is about numbers and statistics and they set up a series of interviews. You can hear the programme here.

Almost at the last minute the programme-makers came up with the idea of a bet. It was for £100 that, using the HadCrut3 data set, there would be no new record set by 2011. It was made between climatologist James Annan and myself. His work involves analysing climatic data and validating climate models. He accepted enthusiastically as he has a perchant for taking on ‘sceptics.’ The presenter said that if the global temperature didn’t go up in the next few years, “there would be some explaining to do.”

Later today, January 13^th, “More or Less” returns to the bet,which I am pleased to say I won, though I note that this bet, or its conclusion, is not yet mentioned on Annan’s Wikipedia entry despite his other climate bet being discussed.”

Congratualtions! Considering the hilarious amounts of money circling around in the alarmist hemisphere, maybe serious gambling could be a solid way for realists to make a decent living.

Hey Lady! Got a Light?

Don’t you agree? On the anti smoking issue, that is. On the one hand, people in general are just giving up, resigning in the face of oppression and harassment. On the other, some – maybe an increasing amount of people – are beginning to feel that enough is enough. Some even dare to say so in public.

Let me be one of them, enouraged by a – today non smoking – brother in arms.

Dr Sean Gabb of the Libertarian Alliance has made a bold effort to reintroduce science into the debate, otherwise carried out either by uninformed legislators or the, often just as uninformed, public.

The passive smoking, or as it is sometimes referred to, Environmental Tobacco Smoke (ETS), roughly took off about 30 years ago with a widely quoted EPA report in the US, quickly dismissed as nonsense by a subsequent analysis from the Congressional Research Center, not gaining much attention. Legislators followed. Air traffic came first, then public buildings, airports, trains, restaurants, now even pubs, and the hyenas are out sniffing for balconies, peoples homes, and now even their cars. Oh, yes, forgot the outdoor cafes, already banning smoking in some places, and probably the top thing next European summer. Sure, there has been a load of more or less scientific attempts since then.

Writes Gabb:

“The argument from “passive smoking” is based on falsehoods. There is no way of gathering meaningful data, nor even sound epidemiological evidence that passive smoking exists. The alleged figure of 300,000 children harmed every year in the UK by passive smoking is what is called a “junk statistic.” It is in the same league as the claims made in the 1980s about the number of people who would die of aids by 1990, or the claims made in the 1990s about the numbers who would soon be dead from mad cow disease. It is almost as gross a falsehood as the fraudulent global warming claims made by British scientists.”

Letting voodoo into the rules for governmental buildings is one thing. As for the airlines, well, the result apparently was less cost for ventilation/fresh oxygen, and a jump in so called air rage, which in turn was used as an excuse to cut down on the free drinks.

But moving further, to the situation today, when it’s regarded as perfectly normal to harass smokers standing on the sidewalk (where-else should we be), it’s strange to notice the – frankly rather stunning- disrespect for private property. Some European countries still allow smoking in bars, if not in restaurants, but even that is to be taken away. Germany, seems to be one of the few decent countries left. Austria introduced a rule a few years ago that you had to have separate sections and advertise on the entrance door if you were a smokers place or not. Quite acceptable from a patron’s point of view. This is now tightening. Belgium has fallen, as has France. One of the last times I had a decent smoke indoors was in the secluded smokers area (air proof) at one one Copenhagen’s oldest hang-outs, in connection to the Climate Fiasco in 2009.

Remains the fact that smoking can be impolite, just as hitting on total strangers, or invading private property. Remains the golden rule of survival in a civilized society: Common Decency.

Climate predictions, weather forcasts and a decent overcoat is what makes the world go round.

Here comes the new ice age. Writes the Daily Express:

Scientists say the anticipated cold blast will be due to the return of a disruptive weather pattern called La Nina. Latest evidence shows La Nina, linked to extreme winter weather in America and with a knock-on effect on Britain, is in force and will gradually strengthen as the year ends.”

Yepp.

I would be the last one to say that London weather is a pleasure, rather it’s a common theme in books and movies. The same goes for the other side of the channel. A walk along the coast around Oostende can be marvelous. A few days per year.

The positive side is that, in this case at least, media is back to recognicing the climate pattern, even making paralelles to the “little ice age”, about 300 years ago.

Are we finally back to talking science, instead of politics and money? At least something to consider in Durban, while we Europeans put on our winter coats.

The Daily Telegraph Reports

We’re not making this up.

This is part of an astonishing £523 million in subsidy payments British ratepayers sent to foreign wind corporations.

Foreign oil was not enough?  Foreign wind?

_____

UPDATE:

Telegraph Editorial:  Wind power: a policy spinning out of control

When London submitted its bid to host the 2012 Olympic Games, it sweetened its offer with a promise “to purchase emission reduction credits and to invest directly in clean energy projects in the developing world to offset … emissions.”  Organizers estimated that “international travel to London by competitors, officials and members of the Olympic Family would generate an estimated 35,000 tonnes of carbon dioxide emissions.”

The scheme called for large transfers of funds from London to the developing world.  “Our approach goes beyond merely offsetting emissions,” London 2012 Environmental Project Manager David Stubbs promised, “and aims to spread environmental and social benefits beyond London to countries where the impacts of climate change are most acutely felt.”

These promises were made in 2005, when climate propaganda stood unchallenged — before the specter of economic crisis, joblessness and government spending came to haunt Britain as they do today.   London is a city recently set ablaze by a no longer hidden underclass of voluntarily uneducated and unemployed wards of the state.

Harsh reality has sounded a wake up call for Londoners and the prospect of shipping millions of pounds overseas to finance projects with no connection to the Olympics (that will have no meaningful impact on our climate) no longer seems so sporting.

Bloomberg Business quotes Green Party member of the London Assembly Darren Johnson as saying, the decision to drop the offsets is “not fair … Obviously we want the Olympics to benefit London, but environmentally they should be a green Olympics to benefit the whole world as well.”

In place of offsets, organizers will look for local ways to “reduce their carbon footprint.”  CFACT expects that as disappointed as investors who had sought to profit from the overseas carbon offset schemes may be, there are others with schemes rooted closer to home who will be all to willing to cash in.

We can no longer afford the waste and abuse that are part and parcel of feel-good schemes like offsets and subsidies.  CFACT calls on London to blaze a path to an environment where large scale public and business enterprises can proceed with no obligation to pay baksheesh to radical green campaigners and carbon profiteers.

We’ve reached a new tipping point.  Henceforth use of the term “carbon footprint,” where tongue is not planted firmly in cheek, identifies a scheme unlikely to pass rigorous examination.  Policy makers, accountants and fraud examiners take note.

1,000 land-based wind turbines stand to be scrapped if government follows through and slashes millions of pounds in subsidies.  A report commissioned by ScottishPower concludes that reducing subsidies 25 percent will render the turbines a loss maker for investors instead of just rate and taxpayers.

CFACT continues to conclude that alternative energy sources such as wind and solar should only be deployed when they can compete effectively with other sources of energy.  Locking in inefficient power generation and the subsidies and guarantees that goes with it will have a terrible long term impact on industry as well as family finances.  Sadly, under current policy, wind turbines are more efficient at generating handouts from working people than electricity.

Scotland is plagued with unemployment numbers that keep rising to the north side of eight percent.  Industry continues to bypass regions like Scotland seeking out places to produce where costs and regulatory burdens are less.  Unfortunately, scrapping these land-based turbines could lead to relocating them offshore, where the subsidy pot is still full, at great cost to rate and taxpayers.  Scotland should instead lead the way, drop the subsidies and schemes and enable all forms of power generation to compete in the marketplace.  Efficiency and low cost is how to keep Scotland working.  The prosperity that results will green the environment more than top down mandates ever will.

The Telegraph reports that British nobles, including Dukes and a cousin of the Queen are cashing in on tax and ratepayer subsidies to erect wind farms on their country estates.  Each turbine can net a noble £20,000 a year or more.

Prime Minister David Cameron’s father-in-law is a baronet who is pulling in “as much as £350,000 a year from eight turbines on his estate at Bagmoor in Lincolnshire.”  This may give Cameron’s un-torylike policy surrender to radical green interests some perspective.

For generations the UK could count on its aristocrats’ selfless noblesse oblige.  Country estates have traditionally been havens of bucolic green space and conservation.  Today’s gentle folk appear ready to abandon the needs of the land and bring industrial turbines to glen, wood, hillside and moor.  We’ve entered a brave new millennium of selfish noblesse spolio.

Sadly, many of these turbines end up situated in inland areas where there isn’t even much wind.  They generate not electricity, but subsidies.

The Telegraph quoted “Sir Simon Jenkins, chairman of the National Trust but speaking in a personal capacity [who] said: “The level of subsidy available to landowners to put up these turbines is out of all proportion to the public benefit derived from them and the temptation to ruin what is usually outstanding landscapes is overwhelming. It is a crime against the landscape.”

This may well be the worst example of regressive redistribution of wealth in Britain since the Sheriff of Nottingham shook down the peasants for Prince John.

Reuters reports that with half of major energy suppliers in the UK announcing double digit price increases for electricity and gas the British public has had enough.  75 percent now favor abandoning Britain’s green agenda if it means higher prices.

The problem of course is after you thwart efficient nuclear, coal and gas generation and lock in guarantees, subsidies and high prices for alternative energy profiteers it is almost impossible to go back.

Developed nations like the UK already price their labor out of the marketplace with the high costs of their social welfare states.   Affordable energy is one area in which developed nations should have the edge, yet they toss that advantage away in the name of useless carbon initiatives.   A government study predicts energy costs for British business will rise 58 percent by 2030.  Who will be able to afford to work or produce in such a wasteful environment?

CFACT has consistently pointed out that this combination of high energy prices, inefficient generation and massive transfers of wealth from taxpayers to corporations cashing in on alternative energy is unsustainable.

Will nations which have not yet locked themselves into the same energy cage as Britain wake up in time to avoid a similar trap?  Will China, India and Brazil generously grant work visas to workers from (one-time) developed nations who need a job?

Interesting to notice how the big-whigs get nervous, as soon as someone else on the top dares to question the holy Global Warming religion.

Recent weeks have seen uproar in the European Parliament as British, conservative members openly have defied the “green” promises from London. Recently, Commissioner Janusz Lewandowsky caused even more havoc, when questioning the entire ideology and scientific basis behind the scare. Euractiv reports and provides links, with the rather unexpected help from Greenpeace, who provided a translation.

Lewandowsky is not anybody. In fact, he was one of the founding fathers of the free Poland after the final liberation in 1989, and as such a hard core free marketeer. He is currently commissioner in charge of the ongoing, and rather chaotic budget process. This has not gone to well so far, but his decision to stick out his neck on an issue that was basically considered untouchable not so long ago, is a sure sign that times have been changing.

Notice the wording “chocked colleagues”.

This will be fun.