NO GOVERNMENT PLAN TO USE HYDROGEN FOR HEATING?

 An article in the 20th March edition of The House magazine (for MPs) looks at how the government intends to "decarbonise" our heating system. There are two options being considered. One is to replace natural gas boilers with hydrogen gas versions and the other is to replace them with heat pumps.

The government's Energy Bill contains provisions for a new heat policy that will require boiler suppliers to sell a percentage of their output as heat pumps each year, much like the electric vehicle policy. This uses the salesmen to convince the public to buy them. This policy would push up the cost of gas boilers which would annoy the public when they found out, so it might not pass. If not, at present the government has no policy to roll out hydrogen so the article says, yet they are carrying out trials of hydrogen boilers right now. 

You can read the whole article, and the whole magazine online at this link:

The House Live | Politicshome.com

ENERGY PRICES TO REMAIN ARTIFICIALLY HIGH DUE TO GOVERNMENT POLICY

 I find it quite astonishing that the government is, on the one hand having to give subsidies to people and businesses because of the high price of electricity, while on the other hand they are themselves raising its price by adding extra charges to the producers. Why is this not being flagged up by the media? Why is no one questioning the minister? Here is an information-packed article from the great Paul Homewood: 

Will Offshore Wind Lower Energy Bills? | NOT A LOT OF PEOPLE KNOW THAT (wordpress.com) 

By the way has anyone noticed the change of name of the former government department for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy (BEIS) to the Department for Energy Security and Net Zero (DESNZ). When you think about it, these two aims (energy security and net zero) do not seem to be very compatible. If, by secure, we mean reliable, then increasing renewables like wind and solar which are at the mercy of the weather, are not the way to go. Of course if reaching net zero is your aim, then wind and solar are the way to go. Interestingly energy security comes first, something a government minister pointed out to me recently. Is this a subtle hint at a change of emphasis? We can only hope!

THE CLIMATE REVOLT GAINS MOMENTUM

 On 16th March this blog reported on a stunning political upheaval in Holland, see here:

climate science: DUTCH FARMERS GAIN STUNNING VICTORY

Now I see the story is starting to get the mass coverage it deserves. See today's Daily Mail:

European farmers revolt against EU-inspired plans to make people eat INSECTS instead of meat  | Daily Mail Online

It seems clear that the major TV news outlets are determined to suppress this kind of story, but it cannot be maintained. The truth will come out and I predict that, if Western governments continue to pursue restrictive policies against the wishes of the majority of people there will be more and more rebellions. If democracy means anything, it means the majority will be heard, as Macron is finding out right now over his pension policies. In the end politics has to lead to a compromise, or defeat in an election. 

WIND INADEQUACY EXPOSED

We all know deep down that wind is unreliable. That is why ships stopped using it and turned to coal and oil, and windmills were replaced by motor-driven machines. I have often wondered why politicians rely so heavily on wind turbines to replace coal and gas power stations. Now a professor has done the maths:

 Wind fantasy land: to cover 8 days of half-speed wind, UK needs 1,000 times the “biggest battery” on Earth « JoNova (joannenova.com.au)

But will those who make policy listen to the science?

SOUTHERN OCEAN TOO COLD FOR ELEPHANT SEALS

I wonder why this has not figured in our news broadcasts? 

 Recent Decades Of Cooling And Sea Ice Expansion Has Led To Declining Elephant Seal Populations (notrickszone.com)

Global warming theory does not predict this cooling of the Antarctic. It just shows how much we still need to find out about the causes of our changing climate. But our political leaders have set their policy and will not be interested in looking more closely at the science. The problem is that the policy is a disaster and very few people seem to realise what is coming in the next few years. However they will soon begin to understand as the cost of living keeps on rising.  

CLIMATE CHANGE IS "NOT PARTICULARLY DANGEROUS"

 

Find out why from the short video in the link below from one of the most highly qualified climate scientists there is:

Climate change isn’t ‘particularly dangerous’: Richard Lindzen | NOT A LOT OF PEOPLE KNOW THAT (wordpress.com)

Isn't it extraordinary that such a highly qualified man is ignored by governments and by the mainstream media? He is one of many top experts who say the same thing. Yet the world listens to a school girl who has missed lessons to protest that more needs to be done to stop emitting CO2.  This has nothing to do with science, it is simply politics.  We are living in extraordinary times.

GO WOKE - GO BROKE

 Only three months ago the Credit Suisse bank issued its annual Task Force on Climate-related Financial Disclosures report, promising to set the bank at the centre of the global Net Zero carbon trajectory.

 
As shares of the legendary Credit Suisse bank tax haven plunged 24 per cent on Wednesday and fuelled another day of alarm over the risks imbedded in the financial system, green activists at Bill McKibben’s 350.org climate operation distributed invitations to an online Earth Day event titled “Divest/Invest: How we stop banks from fuelling the climate crisis.”

The message might have rung bells of support a week ago. The plan was to stop America’s big banks from investing in fossil fuel development and “shut down” the oil and gas industry.

Such action calls are likely to fall on deaf ears this week as the global policy and investment focus is on keeping the banking industry alive and well. Instead of forcing banks to divest fossil fuels assets, the challenge now is to stop institutions from divesting bank shares.

Today it’s the banking climate that needs to be protected in an environment filled with predictions that the world financial system is in some peril. 

Another caution came from Bob Michelle, the chief investment officer at JPMorgan Asset Management, who warned that Credit Suisse is “absolutely” a sign that there is more trouble on the horizon. It is, said Michelle, the “tip of the iceberg” of banking turmoil to come.

It’s a cold metaphor that neatly brings us back to the climate activist campaign. In their easy-money world, banking icebergs have long ago melted away and there is nothing to worry about except how to get the banks to divest their fossil fuel holdings to make the world safe and green. But this idea that the only problem facing the planet is climate change is going to be more and more difficult to maintain.

There are indications that banks, central bankers and regulators have been dedicating too much effort and resources to the management of environmental, social and governance (ESG) issues. Tracking ESG risks, in other words, may well have been a distraction from managing the real risks foisted on the world economy by high government debt and inflationary monetary policies.

The Bank of England seems to be pulling back on climate change. In a report on climate-related risks issued Monday the Bank implies that climate risks in financial markets seem to be under control and “are appropriate.” It warned, however, that “Any use of macroprudential tools would need to be assessed carefully against how well they mitigate climate risks, their behavioural impacts, and the potential for unintended consequences.” In other words, now is no time to be flirting with unintended consequences of radical climate policy when real financial risks are being overlooked.

Notes of caution over climate management risk were issued in Canada last week by the federal government’s Office of the Superintendent of Financial Institutions. While climate change is an issue, the biggest risk seemed to be coming from “transition risks” created by government policy. “These risks can emerge from current or future government policies, legislation, and regulation to limit GHG emissions, as well as technological advancements, and changes in market and customer sentiment towards a low-GHG economy.”

Within Credit Suisse, a heavy public focus on ESG and climate issues was accompanied by less obvious failures to manage financial risk.

Only three months ago the bank issued its annual Task Force on Climate-related Financial Disclosures report, a 106-page document signed by its top executives. The report, they said, “provides important information on how we apply our expertise as a bank.” Filled with graphs, metrics and explanations, the report promises to set the bank at the centre of the global Net Zero carbon trajectory.

Credit Suisse’s financial management regime is another story. This week — as its shares fell to near US$2 from highs of US$50 a decade ago — the bank’s annual report said there were “material weaknesses” in its internal controls over financial reporting.

When it comes to bank management of risk in the future, the new focus is likely to be on the books rather than the climate. 

Read the whole article at this link:
 
Terence Corcoran: The bank crises could take down the ESG push
Financial Post, 17 March 2023 

DECEPTIVE PHOTO USED BY BBC TO CLAIM DROUGHT FORECAST

 Surely we should expect our state broadcaster to live up to the highest standards when reporting, yet in a recent article claiming that the current winter has been exceptionally dry, the BBC showed a photo of a reservoir with very low levels of water which was discovered to be taken during the height of a summer drought! Read it all here;

Drought risk to England regions after (slightly) dry February, scientists warn | NOT A LOT OF PEOPLE KNOW THAT (wordpress.com)

 

25% OF THE COST OF ELECTRICITY IS DUE TO GOVERNMENT POLICY

 Read about it here:

The Price We All Pay For The Emissions Trading Scheme | NOT A LOT OF PEOPLE KNOW THAT (wordpress.com)

It is no good political leaders wringing their hands and blaming it on Putin.

CLIMATE LITIGATION MUST BE STOPPED OR THE WEST WILL GO BROKE

The problem for Western governments is that they have opened Pandora's box by bringing out laws to achieve net zero carbon emissions by 2050 (legally binding in the case of the UK) and so climate activist groups are increasingly taking to the courts to force ever more severe policies to achieve this. See here:  

 Milieudefensie v Shell: Implications of the Dutch court ruling explained | Fieldfisher

If the courts uphold the activists claims then major companies and the government itself will become mired in a very costly stand-off until the law can be changed. What a mess!

DUTCH FARMERS GAIN STUNNING VICTORY

 Take a look at this:

Farmer's protest party win shock Dutch vote victory - BBC News

At last the fight-back begins against government plans to slash nitrogen emissions by dramatically reducing livestock numbers and buying out thousands of farms. How long before people fight back against ever higher fuel bills due to net zero policies? 

60% OF AMERICANS BELIEVE "CLIMATE CHANGE" HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH CLIMATE

That is what this recent poll says:

 Rasmussen Poll Shows 60% of Americans Believe "Climate Change" is a Religion that Has Nothing to do with Climate | The Gateway Pundit

A majority of voters agree with a Republican presidential candidate’s criticism of climate change as a “religion” that isn’t really about the climate at all.

A new Rasmussen Reports national telephone and online survey finds that 60% of Likely U.S. voters agree – including 47% who Strongly Agree – with Vivek Ramasamy’s recent statement that climate change has become a religion that “actually has nothing to do with the climate” and is really about power and control. Thirty-five percent (35%) disagree with Ramaswamy’s statement, including 25% who Strongly Disagree.

WHAT CLIMATE CRISIS?

Below is a link to a very interesting essay which includes a large list of reference links. 

Climate Crisis? What Climate Crisis? Part One: The Evidence | Watts Up With That?

PRESIDENT BIDEN WAKES UP TO REALITY

 The US President has been forced to face reality and understand that oil will be essential to the USA for decades to come, if not longer. It's a truth that no leader of any Western nation can ignore in the end for all the fine green words they may spout, or else they will find the voters will turn on them.

Here is an extract from the Daily Telegraph to explain:

Joe Biden is facing a showdown with environmentalists and leading Democrats after approving one of the largest ever drilling projects on US land.

His administration gave the green light to the Willow Project on Alaska’s North Slope, effectively reversing a policy pledge he made during the 2020 presidential election.

Having entered office vowing “no more drilling on federal lands, period”, Mr Biden’s hand has been forced by soaring energy prices, which have fuelled inflation.

The Willow Project, which has been led by oil behemoth ConocoPhillips, could produce more than 600 million barrels of crude oil over the next 30 years.

It is understood that the president will try to soften criticism by imposing strict restrictions on offshore drilling and strengthening protection on more than 13 million acres in the National Petroleum Reserve in Alaska.

This is unlikely to satisfy critics who are pressing the administration to honour its pledges at a raft of global climate summits.

Environmental groups estimate that the Willow Project will add more than 250 million metric tons of carbon emissions to the atmosphere over the next 30 years, equivalent to the annual emissions of 66 coal plants.

Annually, it would equate to adding nearly two million cars onto US roads.

Only last week, nearly two dozen Democrat members of Congress – as well as independent Bernie Sanders – wrote to Mr Biden urging him to kill off what they described as an “ill-conceived and misguided” oil and gas drilling project.

GLOBAL WARMING IN THE REAL WORLD

Anthony Watts has introduced a new feature to show what global warming actually looks like in the real world. It's something that is needed to help the general public understand how small the actual warming is. Take a look at this link: 

New WUWT Global Temperature Feature: Anomaly vs. Real-World Temperature | Watts Up With That?

HEAVY RAINFALL JUST AS LIKELY IN THE PAST SAY THE RECORDS

 The Met Office are at it again trying to scare the public into believing that rainfall is going to become dramatically heavier due to global warming. Luckily there are records kept which show that such events are not unprecedented, but have in fact occurred periodically over many years (and no doubt even before records were kept). Here is the evidence:

Extreme Rainfall In 1937 | NOT A LOT OF PEOPLE KNOW THAT (wordpress.com) 

CARBON FOOTPRINT TO GO ON PARCELS?

 

Could we soon be seeing labels on our parcels revealing their carbon footprint? Industry professionals and politicians in Germany are calling for CO2 labels on all parcels, as part of its forthcoming postal law reforms. Where Germany goes, Britain may need to follow, says the UK-based international delivery expert ParcelHero.

ParcelHero’s Head of Consumer Research, David Jinks M.I.L.T., says: ‘Germany is considering radical postal and parcel reforms, in what is expected to be the biggest shake-up of services in 30 years. Its Federal Ministry of Economics is reportedly weighing up legislation to introduce CO2 emissions information. The SPD MP Sebastian Roloff says: "Everything that focuses on more climate protection in parcel delivery is worth considering… There should be more transparency for consumers."

So how do they expect consumers to react? Do they think they will stop ordering items?

HEAT PUMP REVOLT

The latest report into heat pumps does not look very encouraging. 

The great heat pump revolt: Couple forced to use plug in radiators and man installs log-fired boiler | Daily Mail Online

ATOLL ISLANDS GROWING NOT SINKING

 Here's another bit of good news that won't appear in the main TV channels. “88.6% of islands were either stable or increased in area, while only 11.4% contracted. It is noteworthy that no island larger than 10 ha decreased in size. These results show that atoll and island areal stability is a global trend, whatever the rate of sea-level rise.”

Read it all here: Science Yields Surprises! Island Nations Growing… “Atoll, Island Stability Is Global Trend”! (notrickszone.com)

BIG FINANCE USES ITS POWER TO PUSH THE CLIMATE AGENDA

 BlackRock’s tyrannical ESG agenda - UnHerd

As the ESG agenda took hold, the individual investor increasingly found himself shunted aside. The roots of this shift lay in the early Eighties, when federal proxy voting rules were changed to allow fund managers such as BlackRock to vote on behalf of their clients. 

WILL GAS BOILER BAN DATE BE PUT BACK?

 UK could U-turn on 2035 gas boiler ban as heat pumps cost 'many times more'

Daily Express, 1 March 2023

The Government has hinted that it could U-turn on its proposed ban on the sale of new gas boilers by 2035, as energy experts have warned that heat pump costs will not become cheaper. Over the past year, heat pumps have been hailed as a solution for the energy crisis, because run on electricity instead of natural gas, and are far more efficient than traditional boilers. However, the technology has remained prohibitively expensive for millions of households, with average costs of installation being quoted between £10,000 and up to £13,000 according to some estimates.

THE DANGER OF HYDROGEN FOR HEATING

 Madness on stilts: Hydrogen boilers might need ‘four-inch holes in walls to prevent explosions’

The Daily Telegraph, 3 March 2023

Households that have hydrogen boilers installed could be forced to drill a 4x4-inch hole in their wall to mitigate risks of explosion, according to recommendations in a government-backed safety report.

Residents in a neighbourhood being considered for a trial of hydrogen for home heating have been alarmed by a report’s recommendation that rooms with boilers hobs or substantial pipework “should have non-closable vents with [an] equivalent area of 10,000 mm2”.

That is a bit drafty, but never mind - just turn up the heating!

SEA LEVEL - RISING OR FALLING, TAKE YOUR PICK!

 There are three major difficulties with the claim that sea level rises are accelerating.

1. Geological stability: According to tidal gauges in the Gulf of Bothnia, sea levels are falling drastically. Along the coast of Finland, the variation in sea level trends is over 2 meters, over 6 feet. (Pick a sea level trend – rise or fall?)
https://en.ilmatieteenlaitos.fi/sea...
The Gulf of Alaska and Hudson Bay are other locations with falling sea levels.
https://tidesandcurrents.noaa.gov/s...
Conversely, the Atlantic Coastal Plain and Gulf of Mexico are experiencing significant sea level rise from groundwater extraction which is causing the land to sink. Coastal Virginia (Norfolk-Newport News) is an excellent example.
https://pubs.usgs.gov/circ/1392/pdf...
(Roger Bezdek did an excellent paper on this problem showing developing funnels of subsiding land around major wells at West Point and Franklin, Virginia, from the USGS report cited, pp 13 & 16.) In my view, the problem for coastal areas is solvable by desalination techniques developed by the Israelis, used in other Mid-Eastern countries and in Carlsbad, California.
https://www.usgs.gov/special-topics...
and
https://www.carlsbaddesal.com/...

2. Changing patterns of prevailing winds. Over 100 years ago the British National Oceanography Center
https://ntslf.org/tgi/newlyn-tidal-...
established tidal gauges at geodetic stable locations at Newlyn, Cornwall, England, https://psmsl.org/data/obtaining/stations/202.php
and North Shields, Northumberland, England. As Paul Homewood demonstrates, examination of the entire records shows periods of increasing sea level rise and falling sea levels.
https://notalotofpeopleknowthat.wor...
Changing prevailing winds are the most likely cause in changing sea level trends in these locations.

3. As Kip Hansen shows, instrument changes are the most likely cause of the recent fad of accelerating sea level trends. Government scientific organizations should realize that following instrument changes periods of stabilization, or calibration, are needed to assure that different types of instruments are measuring the same thing the same way. The infamous hockey-stick episode demonstrated that proxy data such as tree rings may not measure temperature alone or the same way as thermometers. Many government organizations ignore these past failures and fail to properly standardize measurements.
According to Brown University in Providence, Providence, Rhode Island, has been subject to floods from hurricanes (gales) since 1764.
https://www.brown.edu/Departments/J...

Other major hurricane floods include 1815, 1869, 1938, Carol in 1954, and Connie and Diane in 1955. The 2010 flood was from rain.
https://www.weather.gov/safety/floo...

A problem is its geological location at the small end of a funnel. The construction of the Fox Point Hurricane Barrier, completed in 1966, will help against hurricanes and northeasters, but that does not protect against river flooding from the Providence River due to rainfall. In general, sea level rise is real, but not accelerating, and not more than 8 inches per century.

NET ZERO IS A FANTASY-HORROR STORY

Below is an in-depth look at the details and finance needed to achieve net zero CO2 emissions by 2050 in the USA. It is a fascinating read which re-enforces the work of other experts in concluding that the policy is impossible to achieve and that attempting it is likely to lead to severe hardship for a majority of the population. Here is the link:  

Feasibility for Achieving a Net Zero Economy for the U.S. by 2050 | Watts Up With That?

WIND POWER INDUSTRY DEMANDS MORE SUBSIDIES

 

The shameless blackmail by the wind industry is a golden opportunity for the Chancellor

Press Release

 

The government should reject the wind industry’s crude blackmail and cancel contracts that appear to have been obtained on the basis of false representations.


London, 3 March - Further details are now emerging of the offshore wind industry’s attempt to obtain additional support for unbuilt projects, first reported by the Financial Times, and the subject of a Net Zero Watch statement (“Demands for more subsidy expose the illusion of falling wind power costs”).

The Times is now reporting that the Danish state-controlled wind giant Ørsted is threatening to cancel the £8 billion Hornsea Three wind farm, the world’s biggest, unless it is given more UK government support through “enhanced capital allowances”.

Hornsea Three was amongst five projects that bid very low prices for UK government Contracts for Difference in 2022. Ørsted claims that it is not alone, and that all these projects are now “in jeopardy”.

The justification offered for this threat is that the company is facing “very extraordinary circumstances” that have increased its costs.

However, since the contracts are inflation-linked in any case, and world steel prices have actually fallen since Ørsted submitted its CfD bid for Hornsea 3, Net Zero Watch does not accept this explanation.
 

 

On the contrary, we refer once again to analysis that we and others have published over the years, demonstrating from audited financial statements that wind CAPEX and OPEX have not fallen significantly, and that the CfD bids were never realistic.
 
We predicted that these companies would eventually return to government demanding even more support. We were widely criticised at the time for this work, with one prominent energy reporter stating that it was bizarre to believe that the wind companies were “banking on threatening to go bust” in order to blackmail government into further subsidy. However, this is precisely the situation that is now emerging.

A government spokesperson has been quoted to the effect that Hornsea Three’s “inflation-linked contract was already generous” but they were “open to listening to the sector about concerns they may have”.
 
The Chancellor may choose to listen, but he should reject the industry’s crude blackmail, and indeed take it as a golden opportunity to cancel contracts that appear to have been obtained on the basis of false representations.

Dr John Constable, Net Zero Watch's director of energy, said:

“From 2002 to 2022, the offshore wind industry in the UK has received about £20 billion in subsidy, charged on consumer bills and mostly under the Renewables Obligation. If offshore wind is not yet showing real cost reductions it is unlikely ever to do so. The Chancellor should stand up for consumers and taxpayers and say that enough is enough.”

NET ZERO LIKELY TO CAUSE RATIONING AND RISK STARVATION FOR THE WORLD'S POOR

 In a wide-ranging paper titled ‘Challenging ‘Net Zero’ with Science‘, Emeritus Professors William Happer and Richard Lindzen of Princeton and MIT respectively, along with geologist Gregory Wrightstone, state that Net Zero – the global movement to eliminate fossil fuels and its emissions of carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases – to be “scientifically invalid and a threat to the lives of billions of people”.

 
The battle over nitrogen fertiliser is being hard fought by green activists who argue for massive reductions in its use and more organic methods to be mandated. This can extend to fanaticism, as marked by the Guardian’s George Monbiot who argues for an end to dependence on farming. The ground for less choice and food is also being prepared in academia. Recently, three barking academics operating through the University of Leeds suggested World War II rationing could be an effective way to reduce carbon emissions. Also harking back to the days of spam and when spivs controlled parts of the supply chain was the actress Joanna Lumley, who has suggested a return to a points distribution system and a form of wartime rationing.
 
Back on Planet Reality, the authors publish the graph below showing a “remarkable” increase in crop yields after the widespread use of nitrogen fertiliser began around 1950.

The authors make a general point that any present or future Government actions that omit analysis of the disastrous consequences of reducing fossil fuels and CO2 to Net Zero for low income people, people worldwide, future generations and the United States, “is fatally flawed science and appalling government policy”.
 
Happer and Lindzen state that they are career physicists who have specialised in radiation physics and dynamic heat transfer for decades. These are said to be integral to atmospheric climate science. In their opinion, all Net Zero regulations are scientifically invalid. In summary they state the science is based on fabricated data that omit figures that contradict their conclusions, for example, on extreme weather. In addition, climate models “do not work”, while IPCC findings are “government opinions, not science”. Furthermore the “extraordinary” social benefits of CO2 and fossil fuels are omitted, and any science that demonstrates there is no catastrophic risk of global warming is ignored.
 
Numerous examples are supplied. The authors quote Professor Steven Koonin, a former Under-Secretary of Science for President Obama, as noting in his recent book Unsettled, that, “observations extending back over a century indicate that most types of extreme weather events don’t show any significant change”. Koonin is said to show “multiple egregious examples” of both fabricating data and omitting contradictory data on extreme weather in the U.S. Government Fourth Climate Science Special Report (CSSR) of 2017. The report claims that there were marked changes in temperature extremes across the U.S. The number of high temperature records set in the past two decades “far exceeds” the number of low temperature records, it claims.

Koonin summaries the evidence on extreme temperatures by noting: “The annual number of high temperature records set shows no significant trend over the past century, nor over the past 40 years”. Happer and Lindzen observe a downward trend in high temperatures over nearly 100 years, while CO2 emissions have risen, and “respectfully suggest” that every agency analysing heat waves and high temperatures “has the scientific obligation to apply the scientific method to contradictory facts and avoid fabricating facts”.
 
The authors are distinctly unimpressed with the work of the United Nations IPCC. They note the process of compiling reports is governed by two rules – all Summaries for Policymakers (SPMs) are approved line by line by member governments, and these SPMs override any inconsistent conclusions scientists write for IPCC reports.

Full post 

UK PUBLIC CHALLENGE CHANGE TO HYDROGEN BOILERS

Some village people are being asked to take part in an experiment to swap their natural gas boilers for hydrogen gas versions and many of them are objecting. Perhaps they have safety fears, or fear that their bills will go up after the end of a two year deal to keep them the same. Read the details here: 

Villagers stop boiler switch to hydrogen for net-zero trials | NOT A LOT OF PEOPLE KNOW THAT (wordpress.com)

CLIMATE FRAUD EXPOSED AGAIN

 Why do climate scientists manipulate data to completely change what it shows?  It is so blatant that it would be laughable, were it not for the very serious implications of the fraudulent result. Here is the short video explaining what has been done:

NOAA Climate Fraud Index | Real Climate Science 

CLIMATE UNCERTAINTY AND RISK

Here is a thoughtful presentation from Judith Curry

 Climate Uncertainty & Risk: the presentation | Watts Up With That?

"The climate “crisis” isn’t what it used to be. Circa 2013 with publication of the IPCC Fifth Assessment Report, the extreme emissions scenario RCP8.5 was regarded as the business-as-usual emissions scenario, with expected warming of 4 to 5 oC by 2100. Now there is growing acceptance that RCP8.5 is implausible, and RCP4.5 is arguably the current business-as-usual emissions scenario according to recent reports issued by the COP 26 and 27. Only a few years ago, an emissions trajectory that followed RCP4.5 with 2 to 3 oC warming was regarded as climate policy success. As limiting warming to 2 oC seems to be in reach, the goal posts were moved in 2018 to reduce the warming target to 1.5 oC.

Climate catastrophe rhetoric now seems linked to extreme weather events. For nearly all of these events, it is difficult to identify any role for human-caused climate change in increasing either their intensity or frequency."

MORE PAIN FOR BRITISH HOUSEHOLD ENERGY USERS

 The UK government is today announcing that it will force British households to pay an additional charge on their energy bills to reduce the costs of Net Zero for some 300 energy intensive industrial users.

Net Zero Watch today condemned this so-called “Households Payment Mechanism” as deeply unfair to consumers, but utterly inadequate as help to industry.

It is reported that the so-called ‘British Industry Supercharger’ will cost each household about £3 to £5 per year, suggesting that the scheme will move about £80m to £130m of green energy costs from industry to households.

This is simultaneously deeply unwelcome for domestic consumers, who are struggling as it is with high energy bills, but trivially weak for businesses.

The measure is not expected to come into force until 2025, when the Office for Budget Responsibility expects levies to support fundamentally uneconomic renewable energy (such as wind and solar energy) to amount to £9 billion per year (and over £10 billion including the Feed-in Tariff for smaller generators).

This huge annual green surcharge is being paid by all energy consumers, with severely negative economic consequences.

The government’s support package for industry is trivial by comparison and seems designed simply to get a few good headlines in response to the bad news of more closures and job cuts in the steel industry.


Dr Benny Peiser, Director of Net Zero Watch said:

"As long as the UK continues to prioritise Net Zero over the national interest, energy security and economic competitiveness, Britain will lose the last traces of its industrial base, its prosperity and its global status."


Dr John Constable, Net Zero Watch’s energy editor, said:

"The laughably named ‘British Industry Supercharger’ is nasty in principle but pathetically weak in practice. Instead of playing PR games, government needs to tackle the root cause of our energy problems, namely the wind and solar and biomass subsidies that are costing all consumers many billions per year. The green levies must be cut to the bone. We simply can’t afford them."

CLIMATE SIGNALS FROM ANCIENT ICE AND WOOD

You would think that there was no doubt that we are living in unprecedented times with all the shouting about a "climate emergency", but if you take a cool look at the past it seems that this is all hype.

 Climate signals from ancient ice and wood - Net Zero Watch

8 YEAR CLIMATE PAUSE - HOW LONG WILL IT CONTINUE?

 Or should the headline read "how long will it be allowed to continue?" The following article explains what is going on:

Is NOAA trying to warm the current 8+ year pause? | Watts Up With That?

It is odd to see such clear tampering of the record, even though it is small. It gives the impression that something is not right.

A SOLAR PANEL REVOLUTION IS UNDERWAY

 Advances in solar panel technology are amazing and will result in dramatic improvements in their efficiency as this video shows:

Solar 3.0: This New Technology Could Change Everything - YouTube

As this kind of improved technology happens we could end up with cheaper energy, but we still need a dramatic improvement in storage.   

RATIONING - COULD THAT BE THE FUTURE?

The idea of rationing as a means of "fighting climate change" is being touted around and Paul Homewood has put a piece on his blog here:

 Climate Scientists Want Rationing To Fight Climate Change | NOT A LOT OF PEOPLE KNOW THAT (wordpress.com)

Personally I think this is something that will cause a lot of outrage among the public. It will be hard to convince people that they should endure rationing when there is no actual shortage of the items. They will also be aggrieved to see that these measures are not adopted in other nations. So any government that brought in rationing would immediately become very unpopular. In a democracy this would normally lead to another political party adopting a policy to lift the rationing. This is why I doubt any government would dare to introduce such a measure. 

COMMON SENSE ON THE "ENERGY TRANSITION"

I strongly recommend you to watch this excellent speaker go through his extensive graphs and charts to show the impossibility of a transition from fossil fuels to wind turbines and solar panels. Mark Mills presentation is done in a very balanced manner, making it all the more powerful. Here is the link:

 Mark Mills: The energy transition delusion: inescapable mineral realities - YouTube

I think his conclusion is likely to be correct. See if you agree.

LEARN TO LIVE WITH THE CLIMATE AND ADAPT TO COPE WITH EXTREMES

 That, in summary is what Ross Clark recommends in his Not Zero book. After all, humans have found ways to live in places which often exceed 40 degrees C. in summer and others which often get below minus 40 degrees C. in winter. From tropical rain forests to deserts, from 1400 feet below sea level on the shores of the Dead Sea to 18,000 feet above sea level, and places where the wind regularly exceeds 100mph.  Why would we not be able to cope with a one or two degrees increase in temperature and a slight increase in rainfall?

The trouble with net zero is that we will be poorer and less able to put in place the measures to deal with climate extremes which are already happening as part of the natural climate variability. Poverty is the biggest problem, not climate.   

PUBLIC OPINION - MORE POLLING RESULTS

 I am interested in finding out what the public really think about the issue of climate change, given the mass propaganda on it from the main TV news stations. There is some information in the new book by Ross Clark - "Not Zero".

In January 2021, a poll by the UN Development Programme involving 1.2 million people across 50 countries found that 64% agreed with the assertion that there is a "climate emergency". In Britain and Italy the figure was even higher at 81%.  In another poll in October 2021 by YouGov and the Cambridge Centre for Public Opinion Research, 70% agreed with the statement "I would be prepared to change my behaviour to help limit climate change".  But when it came down to specific changes they were rather less enthusiastic. Only 42% supported the ban on petrol and diesel cars from 2030 and 19% supported a meat tax. 

The whole problem with polling is that the results can be skewed by the way the questions are asked. Look at my post on the ONS poll (here:climate science: PUBLIC VIEWS ON CLIMATE CHANGE) which showed that only  around 30% claimed they were "very worried" about climate change, leaving the other 70% as not very worried. And yet the UN poll showed that 81% agreed that there was a "climate emergency". How can anyone not be very worried, and at the same time accept there is an emergency? 

The reality is that the public's views on climate are, for the most part, very shallow. Having seen all the doom laden news items, they don't feel that they can say they are not worried, while at the same time they can see in their every day experience that there is nothing unusual happening to their own climate. Therefore they are willing to go along with the narrative of a climate emergency but not if it is going to affect them adversely.  

NOTTINGHAM CITY CLAIM THEY WILL BE "CARBON NEUTRAL" IN 2028

 Nottingham City Council reckons the city will become "carbon neutral" by 2028. See here:

What is CN28? - Nottingham City Council

There is a lot of virtue-signaling going on, but what exactly do they mean? Will all their homes be free of gas heating and cooking? (not likely) or will all their cars become electric - with all electricity coming from green sources? How about food? Will it all be locally sourced with no meat products?

Their is no mention of any of this in their smooth soundbites. They could have picked any year, so why choose 2028?  Is anyone fooled by this stuff? Mind you, the government's aim for 2050 is just as far-fetched.

Why does no Councillor in their council ask some awkward questions?  I guess they have all been brain-washed.

PREVENTING BLACKOUTS COST THE GRID OVER £4 BILLION IN 2022

Here is the true situation regarding the cost of adding more wind and solar to the grid: 

National Grid spends £4bn to prevent blackouts after surge in wind and solar | NOT A LOT OF PEOPLE KNOW THAT (wordpress.com)

That works out at £150 for every household in the UK. How can anyone say that this could give us cheap energy? It is now perfectly clear that this is a complete fiction. As time passes and electricity becomes more and more expensive everyone will realise the truth. Having to get to net zero by 2050 is what is driving this mad rush. What will history make of all this? Sadly none of us will be here to see the final judgement

MARTIN DURKIN SPEAKS OUT ON STATE CLIMATE CONTROL

 You may remember the polemical film The Great Global Warming Swindle. It was produced by Martin Durkin who speaks out in this interview where he talks about the price he has paid for daring to take on the climate change movement. 

#22 - Martin Durkin on updating The Great Global Warming Swindle, and fighting the “new class” - YouTube

Martin's views are very interesting. He observes that the hardline, militant climate sceptics such as Extinction Rebellion are mainly composed of middle class people who are actually intent on destroying capitalism and replacing it with a highly controlled society in which people are subject to rationing.  

The original video of The Great Global Warming Swindle is still available here:

The Great Global Warming Swindle - Full Documentary HD - YouTube

MOON DUST COULD SAVE US FROM GLOBAL WARMING!

You can read all about this crazy idea here:

 Save Earth by blowing holes in the moon? Moon dust as a sunscreen for Earth « JoNova (joannenova.com.au)

There are a few questions which need answering such as, how much will it cost and who is going to pay? Will everyone benefit or will some parts of the world be worse off? Personally I would not want us to embark on such a scheme unless it was an emergency. So far it is not.

NET ZERO - A DISASTER FOR THE UK

Ross Clark has written a new book in which he dissects the policy of achieving net zero CO2 emissions by 2050. Below is a link to an interview with Ross (sound only) in which he explains the inconsistency and the foolishness of committing to the arbitrary target while other nations carry on emitting. This is an important book and interview.  

The folly of Net Zero - spiked (spiked-online.com)

PUBLIC VIEWS ON CLIMATE CHANGE

 Further to my previous post (2nd February) I decided to follow it up by looking at some more detailed survey results from the Office for National Statistics (ONS) here in the UK. Remember the question was "How worried or unworried are you about the impacts of climate change?"

Results by age group:

                          all ages   16 to 29        30 to 49       50 to 69      70+

very worried               28%           33%            30%           23%        25%

somewhat worried      46              34               46              51           52

neither worried or not 17              22               13              18           16

somewhat unworried    3                1                 4                2             3

not at all worried           6               10                7                5             4 

First of all it shows that the "very worried" group is at most 33% down to 23%. This clearly shows that a large majority of the population at all ages are not very worried.

 "Somewhat worried" is the answer from the majority, which is not surprising given the vast amount of doom-laden climate items regularly on the news. Even the vast majority of the youngest age group who have grown up with this have not selected "very worried". 

This must be a great concern to the government who will have to impose some very unpopular restrictions and cost increases on us if they are to reach net zero by 2050. As time goes by and the climate continues to have much the same variety of weather as always, it will get harder and harder to sell the idea of a climate "emergency". This will be particularly so if the CO2 levels in the atmosphere continue to rise despite the restrictions imposed here. 

Here is a link to the survey data: Worries about climate change, Great Britain - Office for National Statistics (ons.gov.uk)

CO2 REDUCTION TAKES MONEY AWAY FROM VITAL BASIC NECESSITIES

The current obsession with eliminating CO2 emissions is taking the focus away from putting more into clean water and energy for lighting and cooking. Read it here:

Analysis: How the green elites are impoverishing the world | Climate Depot

 

SEA LEVELS ARE STABLE - REJOICE!

 Here is the article which covers the good news which, strangely, has not been broadcast on the main TV news channels:

Sea Level Is Stable Around The World… The Good News The Media Don’t Want Us To Hear | Climate Depot

REALITY CHECK ON MET OFFICE PROJECTIONS

 England was projected to be between 3 and 4C warmer on average by the 2080s, in comparison with 1961-90.

The actual trend so far is much less dramatic:

https://www.metoffice.gov.uk/hadobs/hadcet/data/meantemp_seasonal_totals.txt

The current 30-year average is only 0.72C higher than 1961-90; but more significantly, it is just 0.40C higher than 1931-60.

Given this knowledge it is not credible to postulate that average temperatures will rise by another 3C or more in the next 60 years, particularly since temperatures in the hottest of summers do not appear to be increasing.

Even if every summer in the 2080s was as hot as last year, the long term average would still only be 2C higher than 1961-90.

Yet UKCP09 is still used as the basis for climate projections, and similar nonsense numbers are coming out of the most recent set of projections in UKCP18.

Read the whole article here: UKCP Summer Temperature Projections Are Not Supported By The Data | NOT A LOT OF PEOPLE KNOW THAT (wordpress.com)

INTERVIEW WITH STEVEN KOONIN

Following my previous post of Jordan Peterson's interview with Richard Lindzen, I also recommend very strongly this interview of Dr Steven Koonin again with Jordan Peterson. Peterson is a great interviewer as he obviously has a good knowledge of the subject and interjects with some very insightful questions. Koonin, like Lindzen, is a remarkably well-qualified man who really is worth listening to. The public should see these interviews to open their eyes to what is going on in the climate change field. 

Unsettled: Climate and Science | Dr. Steven Koonin | EP 323 - YouTube

IN DEPTH INTERVIEW JORDAN PETERSON WITH RICHARD LINDZEN

At almost two hours this is a serious in-depth discussion, but I an highlighting it because some of you will want to explore the thinking of such an eminent scientist as professor Lindzen. The first 30 minutes is devoted to an introduction to Richard in which his rapid promotion through to becoming a full professor was aired, with his holding various important positions. It was very impressive and underlines why he is someone who should be listened to. After the intro the interview moves on to his views on the various aspects of climate science. 

Climate Science: What Does it Say? | Dr. Richard Lindzen | EP 320 - YouTube

10 DEGREES OF WARMING IN A DECADE!

 We are told that our recent 1 degree Celsius of warming in 150 years is "unprecedented", but just see what happened 11,500 years ago at the end of the period known as the Younger Dryas:

NOAA National Environmental Satellite, Data, and Information Service: Drought and the Ancient Maya Civilization

In the face of the Earth's climate changes we should admit that we cannot prevent changes, but we must be ready to adapt to them.

CLIMATE DATA FIDDLING EXPOSED YET AGAIN

 It is so easy to fool people by using false data because there is nothing to hand to check it against. Luckily Tony Heller has done his research and found the facts from old newspaper articles, as he demonstrates in this recent short video:

Imaginary Climate History | Real Climate Science

The question that needs to be asked is, why is the past climate temperature data being constantly altered? The only logical answer is that it is being done to make it conform to fit with an agenda. The pressure to do this may seem hard to imagine, but in fact it is simply that, once a majority of those in positions of influence come to accept that their career depends on conforming to a certain position, then they will  automatically go along with whatever is necessary to further that agenda. 

History shows that this has happened many times. For example, the power of religion, also the power of the ideological state. These are the most obvious examples, but they illustrate the willingness of most people in society to conform. Fortunately we live in more enlightened times today, hence Tony Heller is able to go against the agenda. But he, and any others that do so, risk becoming "outcasts" and, if they wanted career promotion for example, it would not be a sensible course of action.    

CLIMATE INFORMATION BEING CENSORED

We think we live in a free country and yet there are organisations attempting to shut down information and opinions that they disagree with, using the excuse that they are somehow protecting us from receiving "false" information.  Read about it here: 

The Ministry of Climate Truth | Watts Up With That?

The problem with this is who gives them the authority to do it and why should they decide which things are "true"? Clearly there are things on the internet that are incorrect, but it should be up to us to decide who to believe.

UPDATE:

More on this here:

What looks, acts and smells like a Global News Cartel and just got hit by an Antitrust lawsuit… « JoNova (joannenova.com.au)

MAKING CLIMATE DATA UP IS THE NEW SCIENCE

I think reliance on computer modelling is getting out of hand. As it becomes more and more used to replace actual measurements, trust in science is only going to fall.

 Who Needs Actual Data? Not The Met Office! | NOT A LOT OF PEOPLE KNOW THAT (wordpress.com)

ENERGY OUTLOOK - GOOD FOR FOSSIL FUELS

This article looks at what BP has to say: 

BP Energy Outlook 2023 | NOT A LOT OF PEOPLE KNOW THAT (wordpress.com)

The Net Zero scenario completely unrealistic. Nobody seriously believes the whole world will have to all intents and purposes eliminated CO2 emissions by 2050. The whole idea that China, India and the rest of the developing world is going to give up the extra energy their economies need to grow is absurd. Under the only rational projection, which the report calls New Momentum, fossil fuels will still be supplying 55% of the world’s energy in 2050, with renewables well down the list at 35%.

DO THE PUBLIC REALLY BELIEVE THERE IS A CLIMATE EMERGENCY?

How worried are the public about the impacts of climate change? That is a very interesting question which has recently been asked of the residents of the New Forest, here on the south coast of England, as part of a residents survey. Here is a link to the survey:

Residents survey - New Forest District Council

If you click on the link you will see that the headline about climate change was:

"75% feel worried about the impact of climate change" When you looked at the actual responses, this is what people gave (this is not in the link, but was given to me on asking for it) I have also obtained some national (UK) survey data from ONS to put alongside the New Forest (NF) data :

                                                    NF                   UK

Very Worried:                             29.5%               22% 

Somewhat Worried:                   45.2%               42%

Neither Worried nor Unworried: 11%                  20%

Somewhat Unworried:                 5%                    3%

Not at all Worried:                        9%                    9% 

Don’t know:                                  1%                    2%

The totals do not add up to 100% due to rounding errors.  You can see that by adding those who are "very worried" to those "somewhat worried" you do get to almost 75% (64% for the UK)  BUT if you were to take the "somewhat worried" away and instead add them to the rest, this gives a total of 71.2% who are not "very worried" (78% for UK). Anyone who really believed there was a climate emergency would answer "very worried" - so clearly over 70% do not believe it.

It is not surprising, given the constant barrage of doom-laden stories that appear on our TV news bulletins, that many people would say they were "worried". What was interesting was that over 45% (42% UK) did not say they were "very worried", but instead chose a lesser degree of "somewhat worried". I would suggest that this softer category is quite significant. 

If you click to download the report you will find some more detail. In item 5.10 it gives a summary of people's response to questions about what they have done, or would be willing to do to "address climate change", or to "benefit the environment". 

The responses show that although people said they had used less energy at home, the primary reason they did that was not for the benefit of the environment, but simply to save money due to the big rise in energy costs. Another response was they had driven less, but again the majority had done this to save money, not the climate.

This backs up my hypothesis that the 45% who responded they were "somewhat worried" simply do not believe there is a climate emergency. What would have been interesting would have been to ask them how much they would personally be willing to pay in increased taxes and costs in order to get the country to achieve net zero emissions of CO2.

UPDATE:

Here is a link to the Office for National Statistics website which holds the survey data:

Worries about climate change, Great Britain - Office for National Statistics (ons.gov.uk)

IF ONLY WE HAD A SENSIBLE GOVERNMENT LIKE NORWAY

Political leaders here in the UK seem to be bereft of all common sense. Despite the country having taxes at an all-time high, along with government debt, they still cling to their plan to reach net zero and drive out all energy intensive industries (or have to massively subsidise them). Meanwhile, across the North Sea, Norway takes a very sensible approach:

 Soaring gas price helped Norway triple its hydrocarbons tax revenue — MercoPress

And if you think that Labour would be any more sensible, well sadly no.

Labour will end North Sea oil investment | NOT A LOT OF PEOPLE KNOW THAT (wordpress.com)