Homes pollute more than cars

It's official! People produce less pollution while using their car than they do by watching TV, washing the dishes and keeping warm.

That's according to a new Government website, which allows users to work out their annual carbon footprint.

The Internet-based calculator takes into account the property you live in, the appliances you have and transport you use.

But car magazine Auto Express wanted to see exactly how much a car contributes to someone's total carbon output, so entered figures for one of their team who lives on his own in a two-bedroom flat in London.

The website found he created 4.06 tonnes of carbon a year heating and lighting his home and powering appliances such as TVs, a fridge and a dishwasher.

The transport section of the calculator works out the combined total for public transport use, flights and cars. Doing 10,000 miles a year in a 42mpg Ford Focus 1.6, the Auto Express writer's transport carbon footprint came out at 2.89 tonnes - 42% of the total.

Another clear illustration of how the relentless pursuit of car users to shoulder the burden of so-called 'green taxes' is so wilfully misdirected that it must be far more about raising extra cash from an easy target than helping the environment.

EU pays to be lobbied on global warming

The EU Referendum blog has a story today that gives a very revealing insight into how global warming obsessives and politicians have organised themselves into a mutually-supportive society at taxpayers' expense.

It's a perfect demonstration of exactly how, consequently, the global warming agenda has become so prevalent among political decision-makers, despite the science behind it being far from conclusive.

Friends of the Earth Europe, a leading group in lobbying the EU for oppressive taxes on car users and the car industry in the hope of combatting global warming, apparently received an astonishing €635,000 in funding from the European Commission last year.

Together with funds from the German, Austrian and Dutch ministries of environment, plus contributions from the United Nations Environment Programme, this accounted for over half of the group's income, making it primarily a taxpayer-funded organisation - not an independent grass-roots environmental campaign group as it likes to style itself.

FoE forms part of the "civil society" caucus to which the EU Commission pays special attention, as part of its programme to encourage "participative democracy" – its response to the low turn-out for EU parliament elections and the fact that Commission members are unelected.

So FoEE gets access to high-level decision-makers, plus some very helpful funding to promote their global warming agenda.

The Commission gets to say it's 'responding' to a group supposedly arising from "civil society" to justify the needlessly oppressive regulations and higher taxes it wants to impose.

Read more here.

Global warming to go into reverse?

The BBC reports today on a new scientific study that purports to show that changes in the Sun's output cannot be causing modern-day climate change.

The study has been carried out by Mike Lockwood, from the UK's Rutherford-Appleton Laboratory, together with Claus Froehlich from the World Radiation Center in Switzerland.

Their main argument is that, in the last 20 years, the Sun's output has declined while temperatures on our planet have continued to rise.

While the authors concede that most of the 20th Century saw a slight but steady increase in solar output, and even that cosmic rays may have affected our climate in the past, they point out that in about 1985 that trend appears to have reversed and solar output started to decline.

'Small' detail missing

However, what they don't acknowledge is that the temperature effects of solar radiation have been shown to lag, one big reason being the time it takes for the heat from the sun, or lack of, to affect the temperature of our oceans.

So the influence on Earth's temperatures from the declining solar output this study highlights may in fact take considerably longer to become apparent in temperature changes.

In essence, Lockwood is drawing his conclusions prematurely.

So far from "settling the debate", as Lockwood rather arrogantly hopes, what he may have in fact revealed in this study is not that global warming is man-made, but a looming cooling trend.

Once again, far from an excuse for politicians to heap excessive financial burdens on hard-pressed car users.

Climate change hits Mars

Mars is being hit by rapid climate change and it is happening so fast that the red planet could lose its southern ice cap, the Sunday Times has reported.

Scientists from Nasa say that Mars has warmed by about 0.5C since the 1970s. This is similar to the warming experienced on Earth over approximately the same period.

Since there is no known life on Mars it suggests rapid changes in planetary climates could be natural phenomena.

The mechanism at work on Mars appears, however, to be different from that on Earth.

One of the researchers, Lori Fenton, believes variations in radiation and temperature across the surface of the Red Planet are generating strong winds.

In a paper published in the journal Nature, she suggests that such winds can stir up giant dust storms, trapping heat and raising the planet’s temperature.

Fenton’s team unearthed heat maps of the Martian surface from Nasa’s Viking mission in the 1970s and compared them with maps gathered more than two decades later by Mars Global Surveyor.

They found there had been widespread changes, with some areas becoming darker.

When a surface darkens it absorbs more heat, eventually radiating that heat back to warm the thin Martian atmosphere: lighter surfaces have the opposite effect.

The temperature differences between the two are thought to be stirring up more winds, and dust, creating a cycle that is warming the planet.

Censorship row over global warming documentary

Leading scientists have moved to block the DVD release of the controversial Channel 4 documentary 'The Great Global Warming Swindle'.

The programme cast doubt on the science behind popular theories on global warming - claiming climate change has nothing to do with man's actions.

In a letter to the programme's producers and the television regulatory authority OFCOM, 37 global warming experts asked for the documentary to be banned unless 'factual inaccuracies' were edited out, claiming repeats of the show would 'not be in the public's interest'.

In response, the show's producer Martin Durkin claimed the scientists wanted the programme banned only because they "have staked their reputations and built their careers on global warming".

Other observers have drawn comparisons between the scientists' letter and Soviet-style censorship.

The only real fact of the matter is that, whether these scientists agree with the claims made in the documentary or not, they were well-argued claims, by credible people - scientists and leading environmentalists.

This attempt to block such opposing arguments being made available more widely, so that people can make up their own minds on the issue - the idea that humans are causing global warming having had near monopoly coverage in the media for some considerable time - can only enhance suspicions that the science sustaining the man-made global warming theory is indeed as weak as the documentary claims.

Global warming?

Interesting story over on the EUReferendum blog today, contrasting the dire predictions from the "global warming scare industry" with problems being caused by unusually thick pack ice off Newfoundland's northeast coast.

While politicians would like to use the outpourings of the likes of Al Gore to justify hitting car users with extreme tax rises and putting unreasonable demands on the car industry, contradictory evidence such as this is seriously undermining their case.

Read more here.