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)