The Met Office have jumped on the bandwagon, claiming that the 2010 heatwave in Northern India was made 100 times more likely by climate change, based on their modelling. Instead of playing around with their computers, they should have looked at the actual data, which would have told their claims were nonsense.
Let’s start with the Met Office claim.
If we look at spring temperatures in Delhi, we see that 2010 sticks out like a sore thumb. But there is no evidence whatsoever of any warming trend in the other years. Indeed, quite the opposite. The run of extremely hot springs in the 1940s and 50s has not been repeated since.
Clearly 2010 was an outlier, a freak event. If global warming made it more likely, we would see a warming trend in other recent years.
The BBC Climate Check points out that the Delhi heatwave began early this year, arriving in April, as if this was in some way unusual. However the data shows that last month was not unusually hot.
Again we see the extreme heat in April 2010. But temperatures were higher in 1941, 1948 and 1952. Last month also tied with 1973.
If the current heat is due to global warming, then what caused those heatwaves of the past?
But what about that Delhi record temperature? It probably won’t surprise you to learn that things are not quite what they seem!
The Safdarjun Airport weather station is regarded by the Indian Meteorological Department as their ‘base station’ in Delhi. In other words, it is a high-quality, long-running site. At the peak of the heat last week, temperatures there hit 45.6C, well below the record of 47.2C set in 1944.
The story is the same at Gandhi International Airport, where temperatures peaked at 46.4C this month, a full two degrees below the 1998 record of 48.4C. Other weather stations around Delhi tell the same story.
So where did this supposed record of 49.2C come from?
According to the Hindustan Times, a place called Mungeshpur, on the western edge of the city. The newspaper reveals that the weather station there started operating only this year. This is a strict no-no where record setting is concerned, as temperatures may be affected by local siting issues. Reputable meteorologists would normally only endorse a record at sites with many years of data.
Worse still, the Hindustan Times reports that Mungeshpur has in recent years been ‘concreted over’. Two large industrial complexes have also been built there recently. The locals have been complaining about this for years. Where there used to be fields and trees, there are now roads and factories. Any meteorologist will tell you that environments like these will artificially raise temperatures, a phenomenon called the Urban Heat Island effect.
The Indian Meteorological Department itself accepts that ‘local factors such as the lack of green cover and presence of concrete structures exacerbate the problem [of high temperatures].’
Clearly this ‘new record’ has no climatic significance at all; it is merely a product of poor siting. It is abundantly evident that Delhi as a whole did not experience record temperatures last week.
You might just as well put a weather station next to the runway at Heathrow and claim a new record (oh, wait a minute!)
Who funds the Green Blob?
READ any article on global warming, renewable energy, or even bad weather, and you can almost guarantee it will be full of comments and opinions from Greenpeace, WWF, Friends of the Earth and assorted paid-up members of the Green Blob. In contrast there is a dearth of alternative views.
Who funds these organisations to bombard us with their left-wing politics?
A classic example of the Green Blob is the inappropriately named Energy & Climate Intelligence Unit, or ECIU. Despite its name, it has little to do with disseminating intelligence; instead its job is to promulgate propaganda.
So just who are the ECIU, and who funds them?
According to their blurb:
‘The Energy and Climate Intelligence Unit is a non-profit organisation that supports informed debate on energy and climate change issues in the UK.
‘Climate change presents important challenges and opportunities to Britons in the decades ahead, while the choices we make on energy have implications for society, the economy and the climate system. We believe that debates on these issues should be underpinned by evidence, and involve the full range of stakeholders.
‘We support journalists, parliamentarians and other communicators with accurate and accessible briefings on key issues, and work with individuals and organisations that have interesting stories to tell, helping them connect to the national conversation.’
Informed debate? Accurate briefings? You must be joking!
The ECIU was founded in 2014 by Richard Black, who you may recall was the BBC’s environment correspondent for many years. He was its director until last year, and remains a senior associate.
With this background, the ECIU clearly is not a reliable source of anything.
But what about the funding?
‘All of our funding comes from philanthropic foundations. We gratefully acknowledge support from the European Climate Foundation, and the Quadrature Climate Foundation; and previously, the Grantham Foundation for the Protection of the Environment, the Climate Change Collaboration, the Oak Foundation, and the Tellus Mater Foundation. During 2021, we received £754,000 from ECF and £237,000 from QCF.’
From the start, they have relied most heavily on the European Climate Foundation (ECF).
‘At the heart of the Blob is a single institution – the European Climate Foundation (ECF) – which has offices in London, Brussels, The Hague, Berlin and Warsaw.
‘Every year it receives about £20million from “philanthropic” foundations in America, Holland and Switzerland, and channels most of it to green campaign and lobby groups.
‘The most significant source for the ECF’s millions is a body called Climate Works – a private foundation which channels colossal sums to climate campaigners worldwide.
‘The Climate Works manifesto was set out in 2007 in a document entitled “Design to Win: Philanthropy’s Role in the Fight Against Global Warming”. It said that to be effective, a campaign to change government policies on energy and emissions would need at least $600 million from donors.
‘It advocated the giving of generous grants to local campaigners in countries such as Britain who had detailed knowledge of the way their political systems operated.
‘One of the US-based Climate Works’s first acts was to set up and fund ECF as its European regional office. All ECF’s main funders are represented on ECF’s board.’
Climate Works is in turn funded by a Who’s Who of far-left foundations in the US, including the William and Flora Hewlett Foundation, which spends the fortune amassed by the co-founder of the Hewlett-Packard computer firm. A US Senate report referred to these funders as a ‘billionaires’ club’ which effectively controlled the environmental movement, pumping more than half a billion dollars a year into green groups around the world.
Meanwhile the ECF hands out money to Friends of the Earth, Greenpeace, the WWF, Client Earth, Carbon Brief, and of course the aforementioned ECIU.
In short, money from billionaires in the US is funding a massive propaganda effort in Europe, designed radically to restructure our society regardless of the wishes of the public.
I find it ironic that left-wing organisations are happy to collaborate with billionaires who act against the wishes of the working classes the left are supposed to represent.
THE New Scientist is moaning that no countries have yet delivered on their promise at COP26 to improve climate plans: ‘In Glasgow, 196 countries promised to “revisit and strengthen” their plans for curbing emissions, but there is little sign of this happening before the next talks in November.’ https://www.newscientist.com/article/2320379-cop26-no-countries-have-delivered-on-promise-to-improve-climate-plans/
I am amazed anybody thought they would!
As I pointed out at the time, nobody ‘promised’ to do anything of the sort. The Glasgow Agreement only ‘urges’, which is a meaningless term, put into the text to create the illusion of COP26 actually achieving something.
It was always obvious that few if any countries would offer meaningful emission cuts when they had not been prepared to do so pre-Glasgow.
The New Scientist seems to be under the impression that the rest of the world gives a damn about climate change.
Meanwhile global emissions of carbon dioxide continue to grow, and are projected to be about 10 per cent higher by 2030, Glasgow or no Glasgow!