SCIENTISTS SIGN UP TO THE WORLD CLIMATE DECLARATION

Have look and see the large numbers of qualified people signing this.

 World Climate Declaration - Clintel

When you look at the mainstream TV broadcasts you could easily believe that no serious scientists disagree with the hypothesis that CO2 is causing a climate "emergency".  

IS INFLATION BEING DELIBERATELY CAUSED BY THOSE WHO MANAGE THE ECONOMY?

The writer of this piece explains why he thinks so. 

The green agenda’s role in global inflation - The Conservative Woman 

The author, Ben Pile, has a video at the link where he goes into more detail. There is no doubt that a number of very rich people seem to have funded much of the pressure groups working to get fossil fuels banned. Their activities have resulted in the price of fossil fuels to rise, quite apart from the Ukraine war. On top of that the Bank of England has printed money to deal with the Covid crisis causing inflation. 

Ben Pile asserts that there is a deliberate attempt by government to raise the price of fossil fuels. If so, I doubt that they would have wanted to go this far, but the trouble with tinkering with the economy is that things can get out of control and now that seems to have happened. 

If the government does not get the price of fuel and energy to an affordable level they will be in deep trouble. Renewable energy is certainly not the answer, as it is both expensive and unreliable, so they must face the fact that unless they can build nuclear power stations fast (which they can't), they will have to make fossil fuels affordable, or face defeat in the next election.

WE MUST STOP DEMOLISHING BUILDINGS TO SAVE THE PLANET

 Has anyone told Mr Putin?

Here is the latest report: Climate Change: MPs say building demolitions must be reduced - BBC News 

What will they come up with next? I wonder if this conflicts with the government's policy to build hundreds of thousands of new houses all over the country?

BBC REPORTER SPREADS YET MORE EXAGGERATION AND LIES

 Is it any wonder that people are confused about global warming when the BBC puts out false  information? See here: Insiders say Justin Rowlatt is more 'campaigner' than reporter | Daily Mail Online 

Last week, it was reported that the BBC's Executive Complaints Unit (ECU) had upheld complaints about two claims made in the  BBC's Panorama programme on November 3 last year by reporter Justin Rowlatt.

First, it wasn't true that the death toll from natural disasters is rising. In fact, the opposite is true.

According to ourworldindata.com, the number of deaths globally from natural disasters has tumbled each decade for the past century, apart from a small blip in the 2000s, from an average of 524,000 a year in the 1920s to just 45,000 in the 2010s — despite a booming global population.

The ECU also ruled that Rowlatt's claim that southern Madagascar was 'on the brink of the world's first climate-induced famine' was incorrect, as other factors were involved.

THE WARMING TREND HAS WEAKENED OVER THE LAST 40 YEARS

 Yes, the good news is that "the warming trend of the last 40 years is weakening”, says German expert.

No Tricks Zone, 11 May 2022
 
By Professor Fritz Vahrenholt
 
During the energy crisis that has become visible in Germany and Europe over the past few months, things have gotten quieter about the supposedly imminent climate emergency. On the one hand, energy prices and security of supply have pushed the climate issue into the background. On the other hand, a weakening of the warming trend of the last 40 years is apparent.


 
The temperature curve of the satellite-based measurements of the University of Alabama UAH has been oscillating between -0.2 and 0.4 degrees for 20 years and seems to have remained stable since 2015, as shown in the next graph in the enlargement.
 

(Source: woodfortrees). The mean value is drawn in green- it shows a slightly decreasing trend since 2015. Why hasn’t this been reported?
 
What are the reasons for this stagnation?
 
CO2 concentrations in the air have continued to rise unabated. It is true that global annual CO2 emissions have been more or less constant for some years now, at 40 billion tons of CO2. Slightly more than half is absorbed by the oceans and plants, so that currently each year the equivalent of about 2.5 ppm CO2 is added to the air concentration. In 2015, there were 401 ppm of CO2 in the air; in 2021, there were 416 ppm. At this rate, by the way, we would never reach the IPCC’s scary scenarios of 800 to 1000 ppm in 2100.



No, the lack of warming must have other reason

What has been the amount of natural warming in the last 30 years?
 
And how big is the natural cooling in the next 30 years?
A change in global temperature can also happen naturally. We know that clouds have decreased by about 2% after the turn of the millennium, and that for the last ten years cloud cover has been stable at a low level. Second, there are oceanic temperature cycles such as the Atlantic Multidecadal Oscillation AMO, which increased sharply from 1980 to the beginning of this millennium (by 0.5 degrees, after all), has remained at maximum since then, and is now weakening slightly again (see next graph).
 


The United States Weather and Oceanographic Administration, NOAA, writes that the AMO can amplify anthropogenic warming in the warm phase and make it disappear in the cold phase. According to NOAA, the AMO is a naturally occurring change in North Atlantic temperatures that has occurred for at least 1000 years with alternating warm and cold phases of 20-40 years. Add to this the weakening solar radiation since 2008, and further significant warming beyond 1.5 degrees is unlikely in the next 30 years.
 
Sea ice melt has stalled
 
The stagnant trend of temperatures that has been observed for several years can also be seen in the halted decline in Arctic sea ice extent reported by the European Copernicus program in March (see next graph)



This is actually good news.

Wouldn’t it be time for climate researchers to bring these trends to the attention of politicians and the public? After all, politicians are currently readjusting the priorities of energy supply. While until last year’s price explosion and the aftermath of the Ukraine war it was apparently taken for granted that climate impacts would be the sole determining factor for energy policy, we are all now being made aware of the importance of security of supply and price trends.
 
However, German policymakers are still reacting inadequately. They believe they can solve the problem of self-generated energy shortages due to the double phase-out of coal and nuclear energy by simply building more wind farms and solar plants. It must always be remembered that in 2021 the share of wind and solar energy was just over 5% of primary energy supply (oil, gas, coal, nuclear, renewables). Even in a good windy year, it would not be much more than 6%.
 
Politicians do not have the necessary courage to repeal the coal phase-out law, to stop the nuclear phase-out, to lift the natural gas fracking ban and the ban on CO2 capture at coal-fired power plants. Not yet.

Gas-fired power plants like the one in Leipzig are still being built to replace coal-fired power plants with domestic lignite. Industry is already further ahead. Volkswagen has postponed the conversion of two of its own coal-fired power plants into gas-fired power plants indefinitely. This statement by CEO Diess was not widely reported in Germany, but it was abroad.
 
The U.S. government is also repositioning itself. John Kerry, the U.S. government’s climate envoy, for whom the 1.5-degree target was previously the sole political guideline, is now putting things into perspective and, in view of skyrocketing energy prices, saying that 1.8 degrees should be quite sufficient as a target. China, India and Southeast Asia, whose growth path is threatened by the price explosion, are practicing a renaissance of coal production.
 
That’s where we should listen when Jochem Marotzke of the Max Planck Institute for Meteorology in Hamburg says: “It’s unrealistic to bring global emissions to zero by 2050… a 2.5 degree world is still better than a 3.5 degree world.”
 
Let us reassure Mr. Marotzke: a 2.5 degree world will not be achieved in this century because natural variations in climate dampen anthropogenic warming. Had this been adequately accounted for in climate models, we would all have been spared much public panic and flawed policy decisions.
 
With best wishes
Fritz Vahrenholt
 
Professor Fritz Vahrenholt is a member of the GWPF's Board of Trustees.

BBC CLIMATE PROPAGANDA FOR 5 TO 11 YEAR OLDS

 I stumbled across this: The Regenerators - Lessons age 7 to 11 - BBC Bitesize while browsing the BBC website. It looks like one-sided brain-washing to me. On the bright side I can't see the majority of seven to eleven year old's finding this material all that interesting.

As for the video on 'Talking about climate change' with Adam - all I can say is, he would not convince anyone who could think for themselves! 

Five to seven year old's are supposed to understand this: Why is our climate changing? - KS1 - BBC Bitesize - The Regenerators - BBC Bitesize It seems to me that they have completely lost the plot with this simplified nonsense. Notice they state that the 'planet' has warmed by 1 degree C, whereas it is only the atmosphere near the surface. Of course no 5 to 7 year old would question this. 

UK ELECTRICITY CONSUMERS BEING RIPPED OFF BY WIND FARM OWNERS FOR HUNDREDS OF MILLIONS OF POUNDS

 

Delaying tactics by wind industry will cost consumers hundreds of £millions

Press Release

 

Boris Johnson's promise to reduce consumer electricity prices “in tatters”

London, 3 May - According to a new analysis, consumers could be hundreds of million pounds worse off due to wind companies' delaying tactics in delivering electricity at fixed prices.   Ministers have promised that a new generation of “low-cost” renewable generators will get bills down, and there are several gigawatts of offshore windfarms, either under construction, or newly completed, in the North Sea. These have all agreed to sell power to the grid at low fixed prices under the government’s “Contracts for Difference” (CfD) scheme.   But since the start of the energy price crisis, newly completed windfarms are delaying taking up their CfDs, most probably because they can earn much higher prices in the open market. Moray East, a huge windfarm off the Scottish coast, recently reached full operational capacity, but then announced that it was delaying taking up its CfD until 2023. As a result, consumers will potentially have to pay this one windfarm an extra half a billion pounds in its first 12 months of operations.   In fact, since energy prices soared last autumn, no new renewables capacity has been added to the CfD scheme, and every renewables generator that was supposed to take up a contract in 2022 has now delayed until next year. There is nothing to stop them putting the date back further after that.   There is no suggestion that anyone is doing anything illegal. CfD contracts allow a great deal of flexibility on start dates, with delays of up to three years possible. The contracts are extraordinarily generous to developers, with all of the risk taken by consumers and none by the windfarms themselves.   “The Government has a chicken and egg problem”, says Net Zero Watch’s Andrew Montford.   “They say that low-bidding CfD windfarms will lower consumer prices, but no windfarm will take up its CfD with market prices so high. The Government’s energy strategy is in tatters”.   Craig Mackinlay MP, the chair of the parliamentary Net Zero Scrutiny Group, said: "The false promise of cheap renewable energy is in tatters with ineptly agreed heads they win, tails we lose contracts littering UK energy strategy.   "If energy prices are low, CfDs mean consumers pay out to artificially increase energy prices; when energy prices are high these companies hold back to permanently fix high prices for themselves.   "It’s a shameful racket that households are paying for all in the name of the Net Zero con-trick."   Steve Baker MP said:    "Pleading for fair play is an admission of massive regulatory failure. We urgently need sensible energy policy based on free market prices, profit and loss, not the present failing tangle of state intervention. Public welfare depends upon it." Contact Andrew Montford e: awmontford@gmail.com