For the first time in 21 months, global ocean temperatures have returned to levels seen in December 2015—nine years ago. Let that sink in for a moment. After two years of being bombarded with claims that the Earth’s oceans were on an unstoppable trajectory of warming, we find ourselves… back where we were nearly a decade ago.
Ocean Temperatures and Climate Hysteria: A Lesson in Perspective – Watts Up With That?
Many climate scientists in the USA are worried about whether they will still have a job when President Trump moves into the White House on the 20th January. It will be interesting to see just how much he will change the situation in his second term. What he needs to do is to allow an open debate with time for the sceptics to put their case to the country.
The track by Sir Starmer and the Granny Harmers, which mocks Labour’s decision to strip millions of pensioners of the benefit, is topping music downloads charts with a week to go before Christmas Day. The single is already topping the EE Big Top 40, which ranks songs based on downloads and Apple Music streams.
We are constantly being told that some proportion of any weather event is being made worse by the extra CO2 in the atmosphere by those pushing the idea, but in reality this simply is not possible as this article shows.
There is dismay across Europe as the calm weather drastically reduces the output from wind farms. It is something that is so obvious and yet political leaders appear to have ignored it.
The accuracy of Met Office weather stations was not a big issue when these were just filed away, but today they assume much greater importance as they are used to provide evidence of how much warming has been achieved and also whether pensioners receive a cold weather payment. In view of this the poor state of the Met Office weather stations is a disgrace and it needs to be urgently improved.
Here is a link to a review of a typical example:
Bainbridge DCNN 2212 – This would be funny but only if it was not true. | Tallbloke's Talkshop
Recent changes made by the Met Office to its climate average pages shows that the state-funded operation is fully aware of the growing interest in its entire temperature recording business. This interest has grown because the Met Office is fully committed to using its data to promote the Net Zero political fantasy. But it is silent on the biggest concern that has been raised of late, namely the promotion of temperatures, accurate to one hundredth of a degree centigrade, obtained from a nationwide network where nearly eight out of 10 stations are so poorly sited they have internationally-recognised ‘uncertainties’ as high as 5°C.
This is really good news for all those small island nations, and yet this is not headline news on our TV news bulletins or in the press. It does not fit with the climate emergency theme. Read the linked article and watch the video in it.
Fake Climate Doom…Recent Research Shows “Vast Majority” Of Pacific Atoll Islands Have Grown In Size
What lies behind the fanatical push for green energy in the West? One major player has been discovered to be the Chinese Communist Party. Obviously they have a lot to gain by selling their products to us, while at the same time weakening our independence and leaving us with a less reliable system of electricity production. Read all the details here:
We know that computer models of the climate are not very accurate. If they were, they would all agree with one another and they would be able to predict the future climate with more precision when they are fed with data from the recent past - but they don't. As we uncover more factors that affect the climate we can understand why this is the case. Here is a case in point:
Amazon forests really are cloud machines (and the climate models had no idea) « JoNova
Isoprene is mentioned in the text and just for the benefit of any who are curious, this is emitted by many broad leaved trees. It is a reactive compound which can form a polymer which is a form of natural rubber.
The Met Office have only been using extremely exposed sites such as Aberdaron and Capel Curig for a few years, both opening in 1993. Pembrey Sands, another regular on the wind gust list was also opened in that same year. It is almost as if the Met Office wanted to make people believe winds were getting stronger! What the BBC refuse to tell viewers is that the storms of the 1980s and 90s were much more severe than anything seen since, which even the Met Office have been forced to admit. Read the details at the links below:
Storm Darragh | NOT A LOT OF PEOPLE KNOW THAT
Storm Darragh’s Winds Were 60 mph, Not 90 mph | NOT A LOT OF PEOPLE KNOW THAT
"A group of Korean polar scientists have made the astonishing discovery that summer temperatures in Antarctica plunged by a massive 1°C in just 20 years from 1979-1999 and have since been on pause. These findings are ignored in the mainstream media, where a simplistic opinion that humans control the climate by using hydrocarbons is the main driver of panic designed to implement the evil Net Zero project. "
Dramatic 1°C Plunge Recorded in Recent Antarctica Summer Temperatures – The Daily Sceptic
Below is a clip from Talk TV which features an energy expert quoting statistics about UK energy use and associated costs. It is very sad to hear how badly led we have been over the past 20 years and the opportunities we have wasted.
The energy u-turn is a recognition that his policy was completely impossible.
"Environmental OBSESSION!" | Labour's Energy Target 'Back-Track'
Below is an extract from the latest news from "down under". Read it all at the link.
If your company has agreed to be ready to shut down at a moments notice on a warm day, that’s not being on “Standby to Close” your business is a ““pre-activated” extra reserve.”
In Renewable World, bad is good: your smelter used to make aluminum, but now you can sell “electricity use reduction” as well, and the AEMO (the grid manager in Australia) will call you a “Virtual Power Plant” too. Australian companies can now sell their own blackouts back to the grid.
Those who control the energy, control the people. Every part of this trend is a step in a dumb direction. We’re paying more for less in every single aspect. More people sit around being useless, or half useful, or distracted. More companies make fewer goods. And more government makes more government which is the worst thing of all…
The public are being deliberately misinformed about the true cost of electricity obtained from wind turbines. The reason for this is clearly to try to keep people onboard with accepting the blight of these monster structures and the multitude of pylons. But in the end the truth must come out if prices continue to rise. Then support will rapidly turn to anger at the government. Read this article for details:
Using the excuse that they were trying to reduce fossil fuel use, three very big banks used their massive wealth to invest in coal and then increase electricity prices. It is an extraordinary story and shows the huge profits to be made while claiming to be saving the planet.
The following short video shows members of the public attending a council meeting to challenge councillors on their "climate emergency" stance, and finds they are now considering taking a fresh look at it.
Although this is not a new debate it is still worth watching because the arguments brought out in it are still relevant today and the standard of both speakers is excellent. A vote was taken at the start of the debate and at the end. Both results were only revealed at the end. I will not spoil the ending for you.
Is Carbon Dioxide Endangering the Planet? Craig Idso vs. Jeffrey Bennett. A Debate
In this lecture Dr Sheahen focuses on the work of Professors Will Happer and William van Wijngaarden in their pioneering work in calculating the real-world Global Warming Potentials (GWPs) of the five most common Green-House Gases (GHGs). He emphasizes how their calculations have now been precisely verified by satellite measurements, thus validating their research. These results verify the actual low GWPs of these GHGs, and, in particular, of the irrelevancy of the impact of Methane on climate. The results have profound implications, particularly for agriculturally based economies like those of Ireland and New Zealand.
“Methane – The Irrelevant Green-House Gas” Dr Thomas P Sheahen
John Christy is acknowledged, even by Michael Mann, to be a reasonable voice for scientists who are sceptical of the constant calling out that we are in a "climate crisis." This voice of reason makes it essential that he is heard. Listen to the interview and judge for yourselves:
John Christy on making sense of data in the climate change debate
That is the question posed by the BBC article below which looks at several innovative ideas to reduce the CO2 emissions from aircraft, such as bio-fuel and improved engine efficiency. You can read the whole piece from the link, but to cut to the chase the answer is NO.
Can flights hit net zero by 2050 and at what cost to passengers? - BBC News
"I have tried and failed to get Mr Pocklington (the civil servant with a conflict of interests) to tell ministers the truth about the cost of Net Zero.Indeed, somewhat mysteriously, he seems determined to avoid the subject altogether. Many will conclude that the explanation lies in his conflict of interest. The rule in Westminster and Whitehall for Net Zero people appears to be that it is perfectly acceptable to have a conflict of interest, so long as it is declared, and if it isn’t, or if there are undeclared payments, a blind eye is turned anyway. It’s shocking."
Whitehall Permanent Secretary has “shocking” conflict of interest
Despite all the whitewash thrown at it, there is still the strong smell of a conspiracy between the tight-knit community of scientists who were at the heart of efforts to push their own narrative of man-made CO2 emissions controlling the world's surface temperature. Take a look down memory lane by reading this article which recalls those damning emails:
What percentage of UK Electricity is renewable by type?
Total 43.1% Wind alone 30.4% Biomass 6.6% Solar 4.7% Hydro 1.4%
Electricity is 20% of total energy, so these must be divided by 5 to get their percentage of total energy.
Total 8.62% Wind 6.08% Biomass 1.32% Solar 0.94% Hydro 0.28%
So it is clear from these figures that over 90% of the UK energy comes from fossil fuels or nuclear, despite all the massive drive to build wind and solar. The government has just declared that by 2035 we will have become 81% net zero. That looks like a very difficult task, but this government is unlikely to be in power when that date is reached. I wonder what odds a bookmaker would give on that?
Getting the public to be convinced that the climate is somehow in an emergency is a difficult job when most of us see nothing much seems to have changed within our (mostly short) living memory. One way of doing this is to allow one-sided conversations to be played out on radio shows, like the one exposed in this video. The video shows how one hapless listener called Dave was be-littled on air for daring to suggest that the alarmism was misplaced. Admittedly he didn't help himself by saying he got his information from a blog, but even so he deserved a fair hearing. Listen to it here and see what you think:
"IF THIS IS TRUE …”, a compilation of campaigning/debunking climate posts by a blogger, Bernie Spofforth, who was recently banged up for 36 hours for an inaccurate tweet with an “If this is true” qualifier: https://www.youtube.com/@Bernie-is-Artemis.
She describes her ordeal with the police here: https://x.com/Artemisfornow/status/1836322109934407779.
Here is a piece taken from the BBC report on the latest climate meeting in Azerbaijan. What I find unbelievable is the complete faith implied in the quoted projection of temperature change by 2100. Why should anyone have such faith, when virtually all the predictions that have been made in the past have proved false, such as the summer ice-free Arctic, and the rise in world temperatures from computer programmes. Doubt is simply not allowed, despite the many failures. It seems much more like a religion than a scientific study.
Climate change: Where do we stand?
A recent UN report warned that current policies put the world on track for around 3C warming by the end of the century, with other organisations mirroring those figures.
This is well above the target set out in the Paris agreement - which about 200 countries signed in 2015 - which aimed to limit warming to 1.5C above pre-industrial levels.
The 1.5C target is still "technically possible", the UN says, but would need significant cuts to emissions in the next 10 years.
To reach net zero this is one idea that is being seriously considered. But is it an economic possibility? Or even feasible on a scale that would be needed? This article looks at it:
That is the future of electricity production. It would seem that, belatedly, our leaders have realised that renewables simply won't do the job of producing reliable electricity, according to this piece:
Regular readers may remember that I wrote about a group of residents who were challenging Colchester Council about their decision to declare a "climate emergency". They have attended council meetings and spoken eloquently, but felt they were not taken seriously. A lot has happened in the time since I last reported on them.
Do take a look at the videos they have made recently here: WANTED - 30 GOOD people - the council needs to go! and here: INCONVENIENT Climate Emergency Scrutiny - Rachel Rants!
Event attribution research is a form of tactical science — research performed explicitly to serve legal and political ends. Key motives in conducting such studies is, “increasing the ‘immediacy’ of climate change, thereby increasing support for mitigation. Otto and others have been very forthright that the main function of such studies is to create a defensible scientific basis in support of lawsuits against fossil fuel companies — She explains the strategy in detail in this interview, From Extreme Event Attribution to Climate Litigation.
In other words it is a type of propaganda.
The Hague Court of Appeal was not impressed by FoE’s “go green or go extinct” rhetoric and rejected its case that Shell must reduce its emissions by 45% by 2030. Nevertheless, the Court of Appeal’s ruling leaves much to be desired and did not eliminate the threat of activist NGOs launching climate cases to effect “system change” in the future.
Climate case of the century won, but threat remains - Clintel
Following on from yesterday's post, here is an interesting take on COP 29 and Starmer's climate policy from Richard North. Here is a flavour of it:
"We are now seemingly entering the end game where the pursuit of the impossible is about to hit the rocks of reality and demonstrate for all time that the targets are a chimera, fraught with dangers as the inevitable consequence will be economic degradation and the certainty of prolonged and damaging power cuts." Read it all here:
I think we are about to see an even starker contrast between the USA energy policy and that of the UK. They will be reducing energy prices while ours will be increasing even more steeply. Of course Ed Miliband claims our electricity prices will drop as a result of increased wind, but I am very doubtful. Time will tell!
Trump’s New Energy Secretary | NOT A LOT OF PEOPLE KNOW THAT
Lord Frost,who was our chief negotiator for Brexit under Boris Johnson's government, has proved to be a formidable speaker in favour of honesty on the cost of renewables. You can see his 14 minute speech in the link below where he makes a powerful case for a thorough debate to establish the truth about renewable energy costs, taking into account the cost of back up for when the wind isn't blowing and the sun isn't shining.
Although we are often told from surveys that the majority of people believe that increased CO2 is causing a 'climate emergency', their willingness to pay to do something about it is a totally different thing. Of course if someone else is paying the bill they are quite willing to let them.
What is happening at the latest climate conference (COP29) is that a lot of poor countries are demanding payments of large sums of money from the wealthier countries to help them to cope with the so-called emergency. The sums being asked for are so big that they have no hope of reaching them, but, no doubt this is simply to get a lesser sum, which they hope we will think is a 'good deal' in comparison. Here is a good video exposing the unfolding disaster
These climate conferences are simply ignored by most of the UK population as seeming to be quite irrelevant to us - but they should not be, as they have dramatic consequences for our finances, as we will soon find out if Starmer and Miliband get their way. This piece from Jo Nova gives an insight into the insane demands of so-called developing nations on us. Read it and wonder!
Power restrictions get a bit nearer as the wind drops across Europe. Luckily we still have some fossil fuel generation at present. Once this is reduced below a critical level the inevitable result will be disaster, when the people will at once wake up to the lies that they have been told by their political leaders.
Green Blues…As Fog Persists For Days In Germany, Green Energy Output Falls To Near Zero!
That is according to a new paper about the changes over the past 30 years. So the threat from sea on our coasts remains the same as it has always been. The coast still needs protecting and that is where we should be spending the money. Instead it is being wasted on a pointless quest for net zero which will have zero effect on the weather, climate or temperature.
New Paper: Wave Height, Storm Surge Changes Over Past 30 Years Too Small For Measurable Impact!
The new UK Labour government's obsession with net zero has led them to impose yet another tax on farmers on top of the inheritance tax on farms valued above £1 million. This time it is a tax on fertiliser which is likely to lead to lower crop yields and an increase in prices and imported food. Read more details here:
This time it is about York Minster being damaged by "climate change". What they really are referring to is that it has been exposed to the weather for over 600 years and so requires a lot of repair to undo the damage caused. Nothing to do with any recent change in the climate because, as the linked article shows, there has not been any change in the climate. But how many readers would look up the data to check that?
York Minster Sell Its Soul For Solar Panels | NOT A LOT OF PEOPLE KNOW THAT
I used to be a landlord about 20 years ago and I had to have my properties inspected by the local council to see if they conformed to the fire regulations and they were in a fit state of repair. Since I sold them there has been a steady increase in the demands placed on landlords, including the requirement to have an Energy Performance Certificate giving a rating from A to F. Now they have been told that they must reach a level C or above, but as you can see from the link below it is a bit of a lottery to achieve this. I expect a number of landlords will be quitting the business. Things will get a lot worse in the mad pursuit of net zero!
Getting building energy performance right is essential for net zero - part I - Watt-Logic
In 2017 President Trump announced the US would pull out of the Paris climate agreement, the most important UN process to tackle climate change. The agreement saw almost all the world's nations - for the first time - agree to cut the greenhouse gas emissions which cause global warming.
But the shock of Trump's decision was limited. The treaty's rules meant the US was not able to withdraw until November 2020, a few months before he left office.
If Trump withdraws again, he will only have to wait a year before the US is completely out. That would give him three years to chart his own course without any need to report to the UN or be bound by its rules.
While President Joe Biden's negotiators will be at next week's COP talks in Azerbaijan, nothing they agree to will be binding for the Trump administration.
So, if Trump cuts off funding and simply ignores the UN it will be interesting to see what happens.
This story has not been given much publicity at all here in the UK, which is odd since normally such a thing would be headline news. It is yet another example of the way in which the media appear to not want to draw the public's attention to anything which runs contrary to the ideology of climate change. How can £41 billion not be accounted for? This money has come from our taxes and shovelled into the World Bank and then disappeared. Watch the excellent Paul Burgess video linked below to see the whole story.
How to Lose $41 Billion (and go unnoticed)
Will the Western governments now think twice before putting any more money into this black hole? I bet Donald Trump will be more careful when he takes over the USA presidency next January! The voters are fed up with this kind of ridiculous nonsense, which is one reason why they voted for Trump.
The report, by the National Energy System Operator (NESO), says there will need to be ‘significant growth’ in schemes which allow people to lower their energy use at peak times. Around 4,500km of undersea cables will have to be installed along with 1,000km of new power lines, including pylons - doubling the total amount built in the past ten years. Labour’s plans could see the countryside blighted by wind farms and pylons.
About £40billion of investment will be needed annually by the end of the decade, the report states, which will be passed onto taxpayers in the form of higher bills. Read it all here:
The letter in the link below highlights a catalogue of omissions and failings by the Met Office in relation to temperature measuring stations in the UK. These failings are quite extraordinary for any professional organisation to be charged with, but when the data they produce is being used as a basis for billions of pounds of government expenditure it is even worse. The conclusion that can be drawn is that the very foundation of global warming is based on unreliable evidence.
The letter is quite long, but well worth reading in full.
Here's another thing the new Labour government didn't mention before the election. They promised us cheaper electricity, but it looks very unlikely as you can see at this link:
Environmental Levies To Cost £108 Billion By 2029/30 | NOT A LOT OF PEOPLE KNOW THAT
The problems affecting people by living close to wind farms is something which seems to have gained little publicity. With more onshore wind farms being put forward these issues are going to be more prominent. This new video from Paul Burgess gives the details:
After its politically driven foray into electric vehicles, Volkswagen is facing significant financial challenges…plans to close at least three of its German factories…unprecedented move in the company’s history…. tens of thousands of jobs will be lost!
How did a company so successful for a century get into this position so quickly. You can read some details in the link below:
Don’t Feel Sorry For VW… Liberal Arts College Dropout, Anti-Auto-Activist On Supervisory Board!
High project costs, regulatory uncertainty, and weak demand have led to a roll back of investment in this supposed replacement for fossil fuels. You can read more details here:
Hydrogen Stocks Crash as Hype Faces Reality Check | OilPrice.com
I seem to detect a shift in the media here in the UK, or at least in the part that has traditionally been right leaning. This article is encouraging the continuation in the extraction of fossil fuels - not something I have seen in recent times, but welcome none the less. This is an admission that these fossil fuels are essential for our survival as a modern nation, and that renewables are simply not up to the job of supplying the reliable economical power that is needed. The penny has dropped, but I doubt it will penetrate the cloth ears of our new Labour government.
The International Energy Agency (IEA) shared some good news last week—clean energy is gaining ground, fossil fuel use is peaking, and carbon reductions look achievable.
But dig into the numbers, and a different picture emerges. The IEA’s forecast rests on shaky assumptions, wishful thinking, and contradictions that cast serious doubt on the credibility of its projections.
Coal use—the largest source of global carbon emissions—will decline by just 0.5% per year through 2030, and only 0.8% annually from 2030 to 2050. Oil consumption will increase by 0.75% annually and natural gas use will grow at 1.6% per year over the same period. Clearly there will be a major role for fossil fuels for decades to come. Renewables have a part to play but they will not be a replacement for reliable energy.
Read more here: IEA Optimism vs. Reality: The Contradictions in the Energy Transition | Art Berman
This story was featured in the Daily Mail, one of the UKs best selling newspapers. There is no way to verify it, as the article does not actually give any reference to the source, instead it simply states that it came from "leading climate change scientists". It then goes on to lists the horrors that might happen. I must say that even if this did happen there is nothing whatever that we can do about it. We simply would have to adapt to the climate we get. That means we would need more cheap energy to heat our homes. The government would have to abandon net zero and get fracking.
Interestingly I have not seen this story on the BBC, which seems a bit odd.
The new calculation reveals that the cost is likely to be around six times the previous estimate. which was £50,000 per household. So now it is £300,000 per household. That is an eye-watering sum even thought it is spread over 25 years. Where will it come from? How will it be raised? We will soon start to find out from the budget next week. This is not just a black hole, it is a vast cavern. People who have taken no notice of climate change until now will begin to realise that the cost will affect them in a big way and we will see how keen they are to support it.
Here is another great video from Paul Burgess. This one looks at ten difficult questions to put anyone who claims that we are facing a "climate emergency" due to human CO2 emissions. Just the sort of thing to throw out when you meet someone who thinks they know they are right!
Have another look at this brilliant film if you have already seen it. If you have not seen it yet, then you really should.
This debate was moved by Lord Lilley: "That this House takes note of the impact of His Majesty’s Government’s climate agenda on jobs, growth and prosperity."
This gets to the heart of what our government should be about. Looking at the effect of their policy on the British people.
There are several realists among the many alarmist speakers. Here is an excellent contribution by Lord Strathcarron:
"The main impact of the Government’s climate agenda is to import pollution and to export jobs, growth and prosperity, and the two are directly linked.
Turning first to importing pollution, since 1990 our share of CO2 emissions embedded in imports has risen from just over 10% to nearly 50%. The very fact that we import half our emissions should give us pause for thought, but, unfortunately, we are moving in the opposite direction. The decision to cease all new oil and gas licences can only mean that, in future, we will need to import even more oil and gas to make up for our own self-induced shortfalls.
Whether we like it or not, fossil fuels are here to stay for the foreseeable future. Even the Government’s own assessment suggests that, by 2040, the demand for natural gas will decrease by only 4%. This simply means that any domestic reduction in emissions will be made possible only by offshoring the production, and of course the jobs, to other countries. Furthermore, the imported fuels will need to be liquefied—itself a polluting process, alongside the emissions caused by shipping them here—and then there is further pollution from processing them after they have landed here.
While Ministers may be able to stand up at international conferences and proudly proclaim that our domestic emissions have reduced, these same policies have in fact only contributed to increasing global emissions. One might say that, as we produce only 1% of the world’s emissions, it does not really matter and that the gesture is more important than the reality. However, it is a mighty counterproductive gesture with a direct, negative impact on our standard of living and quality of life.
Turning to jobs, growth and prosperity, as has been well publicised, the UK now has the highest industrial electricity prices in the developed world, which is directly caused by artificially penalising industrial and domestic consumers with subsidies for renewable energy, carbon pricing and the extra infrastructure costs as a direct result of the policy. The OBR suggests that subsidies for renewables will add £12 billion to our bills for this year alone—and it will only get worse as we factor in future renewable subsidies and the £100 billion grid upgrade needed for decarbonisation.
To give an indication of the wishful thinking by net-zero advocates, in 2014 the current Secretary of State for Energy promised 1 million new green jobs. The outcome is somewhat less impressive. Since then, official government data shows an increase in employment in the low-carbon sector of just 40,000. Against this must be offset the manufacturing jobs we have already lost in other sectors. Moreover, there will surely be many more to come, not least in the steel and oil and gas sectors. We now have the worst of all worlds: high taxes to pay for job losses.
The other great beneficiary of all this wishful thinking is China. It is now the world leader in two seemingly contradictory energy policies: green energy, by securing the global supply and demand lines for lithium-ion batteries, solar panels and wind farm components; and brown energy, by building the equivalent of two coal-powered power stations a week. However, the Chinese famously take much a longer-term view of events than we do. They would agree that, due to recent advances in paleoclimate science, we know that over the last 400 million years the earth’s climate has been changing constantly and often dramatically. Relatively speaking, we are now in one of its cooler periods—the late Cenozoic ice age—meaning that we are at the tail-end of a 50-million-year cooling period.
On our own continent, even very recently we can see climate change in action. In Roman times, it was far warmer than it is now, followed by a brutal cold period in the Dark Ages. Then came the medieval warm period, when vines were growing even in Scotland. That was followed most recently by an especially cold period called the “little ice age”, the coldest period in the last 10,000 years. The statement we heard today that 2023 was the hottest year on record is quite simply not true—far from it.
This long-term view of the earth’s climate changes puts the whole net-zero delusion into a much greater perspective. It suggests that we are taxing and bankrupting ourselves domestically for absolutely minimal global benefit, if any. This whole worldview of climate change should be the subject of another debate, and a very fruitful one it would be too."
For some reason more than a thousand whales, dolphins and porpoises died around the UK’s coastline every year for the last eight years. This is roughly twice as many as in the 25 years before that. What could it be?
The big environmental pressure groups like Greenpeace – which in its early years, remember, ran a Save the Whales campaign – don’t believe in waiting for evidence. They revere the ‘precautionary principle’, the whole point of which is that industries should be assumed to be guilty until proved innocent. Lack of definitive evidence must never be used to excuse a potentially devastating environmental vandal.
Fifty years ago environmentalists would have raised hell about a thousand dead whales and dolphins. Today they are a part of the cover up.
Researchers have found that between 2020 and 2022, the drastic increase in atmospheric methane was driven almost entirely by microbial sources. Since 2007, scientists have observed microbes playing a significant role in methane emissions, but their contribution has surged to over 90% starting in 2020. Methane from fossil fuels has a higher carbon-13 ratio, but even though fossil fuel use was rising, the carbon-13 levels of atmospheric methane was dropping. So it could not be due to fossil fuels after all!
Mysterious record methane surge since 2020 was not fossil fuels but “90% due to microbes” « JoNova
The linked essay with comprehensive back up articles makes a powerful case for abandoning net zero. It should be compulsory reading for our politicians.
The Case Against Net Zero – A Seventh Update – Climate Scepticism
The video linked below has an old documentary in it from 1977 called "The Coming Ice Age". It is very interesting to listen to the commentary and hear how the data is used to persuade the viewer to believe the narrative of cooling having been occurring for the previous 30 years. In another decade it became clear that cooling was no longer happening and so there was a switch to a warming scare and so the old data no longer fitted with this. The video looks at how this was done in a completely shameless way.
This new report says there have been a number of plausible explanations given for the recent temperature spike, with attention focused on the massive Hunga Tonga submarine volcano adding 13% extra water vapour to the stratosphere, a strong El Niño and even the reduction in atmospheric particulates caused by recent changes in shipping vessel fuel. Several “changepoints” were used by the mathematicians and it was found that “a warming surge could not be reliably detected any time after 1970”.
Along with other realists I have been saying for years that a unilateral net zero policy would simply lead to our own industries becoming uncompetitive causing to us to import the products we used to make, while the CO2 emissions simply carried on being made abroad. Our jobs are being exported.
Former Conservative MP, Miriam Cates has now openly criticised the net zero policy. This is welcome news, but a pity she was not more vocal when they were in power. The problem then was that her party was pursuing the same policies. It is much easier to criticise the other party, easier still when you are not even an MP. As the inconsistency between the aims and the actual results become more apparent we will soon get an open debate which may just burst the net zero bubble and reveal the hopelessness of the climate alarmists dreams.
You can read it all in the article below. The Germans are on the same path as we are in the UK, only a little further ahead. So why can't the UK government learn some lessons from this?
Another interesting video from Paul Burgess explains the limitations of hydrogen.
It is interesting that no leader of any major UK party (other than Reform) has challenged the orthodox position on climate change, that we must reach net zero by 2050 no matter what the cost, until now. If you read the link, below, you will see that Robert Jenrick is not exactly abandoning net zero, but he is clear that we must not keep to a timetable which ruins the economy. That there is a real possibility of ruining the economy is an admission that has not been made before, though I am sure it has been in the minds of our other leaders. A shift in the timetable would be an important start towards abandoning it. It will, no doubt cause an outcry from those wedded to this ideology, and a huge sigh of relief from the rest of us!
Get ready to pay for every mile you drive on Britain's roads. That is certain to come according to senior government advisors. Big brother will be watching us all and recording every mile we drive.
Pay-Per-Mile Road Pricing is "Inevitable", Drivers Warned – The Daily Sceptic
"CCS divides a green movement riven with disagreements as its climate crisis grift starts to fall apart in the face of reality. Capturing CO2 and burying it in the ground has been described by one influential green think tank as a “colossal waste of money”
Many people have difficulty in understanding the Greenhouse Effect, which is why the idea that CO2 controls the Earth's temperature is so hard to refute. Sabine Hossenfelder has produced a large number of videos on physics which have helped people to understand a range of concepts. However Sabine admits herself that she finds understanding the Greenhouse Effect difficult which she has explained in a video. The article linked below explains the problems and has links to her video within it. In fact she still has a little confusion in her understanding and the scientists at Clintel explain the finer points.
Some comments on the Sabine Hossenfelder video - Clintel
Once the Greenhouse Effect is fully understood it becomes clear that CO2 is not the major source of our planet's heating. While it is vital that there is CO2 in our atmosphere at the sort of concentrations that exist at present, adding a little more (even doubling it!) will make very little difference to the temperature of the atmosphere. That is a fact that politicians need to understand.
According to a new study the method used to measure the temperature of the air is subject to a systematic error which leads to them being higher than they should by 42%. I bet this never makes the main news!
Ron De Santis, the Governor of Florida has given a reporter a lesson on the history of hurricanes that have landed in Florida. We could do with some UK politicians who would do the same to our reporters when they ask spurious questions about climate change. The clip starts about 4 minute in to the video:
If they did it would give credence to the claims of the media who continue to make these links based on extremely dodgy press releases.
It is probably only a matter of time before they change their minds, but at this moment in time they still do not claim that there is any clear evidence that increased CO2 has caused an increase in the quantity or severity of storms, droughts, or floods.
Paul Burgess has made some videos on this:
The Met Office Exposed! What is the Agenda? (youtube.com)
Debunking Weather Event Alarmism (youtube.com)Extraordinary news from Australia that bankers are threatening to close down a perfectly viable coal power station while the government stands by and does nothing. Read it here;
"It is debatable whether we need home-grown electricity more desperately than home-grown food these days: reliance on imports of both are increasing sharply. But you cannot currently make bread or lambs any other way than by using land; the same is not true of electricity." Read the full article here:
Solar farms are taking us back to the dark ages - Matt Ridley
Reconstructions of past temperatures are a vital piece of data to help us to understand whether today's climate is unusual or even unprecedented as some alarmists try to make out. The graph in the link below shows a reconstruction from an ice core from Greenland, taken as part of the Greenland Ice Sheet Project (GISP) which covers the past 10000 years. This ice core temperature reconstruction is viewed as a gold standard when it comes to proxy data-based reconstructions, unlike other proxy data reconstructions based on dubious tree ring analyses.
The video link below is to one which shows an old TV science programme from the 1970's when scientists were predicting the coming of a new ice age. There is no doubt that this was a genuine concern and interestingly the film shows how the data pointed to this. Now, of course, the narrative is one of dangerous warming and so the data from the 1970's simply does not fit, and so what has happened is that the current scientists who are pushing this have actually altered the old data.
It can be seen quite clearly, but only by looking at historical films and manuscripts, which, fortunately, have been preserved. This revised temperature data has resulted in temperatures now showing quite cool times in the 1930's, when historical accounts show that it was exceptionally hot. George Orwell could not have predicted it better!
(1) To the heart of Climate Deception - YouTube
Another excellent video on this theme is linked below:
1986 - The Movie A Tribute to Insulate Britain Heroes and the basis of their protests. (youtube.com)
I am shocked by the findings of Ray Sanders on the subject of UK weather stations ability to provide accurate data on the temperature of the location in which they are situated. Here is a recent post by Ray:
There is a lot of interesting information in his article, but one thing particularly caught my attention, which was the claim that the Met Office thermometers were capable of recording the temperature to no less than five decimal places! Here is a short quote about a table supplied by the Met Office:
"This shows that over a period from 12:33 at 25.48038°C the temperature rose to 26.41959°C i.e. 0.93921°C in just 4 minutes to then reduce by almost as much in the following 4 minutes."
What is extraordinary is that the site itself has been assessed by the Met Office as class 4, which is defined as being accurate to within +/- 2 degrees C. It is a schoolboy mistake to give a measurement which claims to be more accurate than the margins of error. The correct way to report the reading would be to include the margins of error. 26+/-2
Many people have suggested to me that we ought to harness the power of the tides to get a reliable source of electricity, but there are many problems to doing so, including the corrosive environment of salt water. But there is a more fundamental problem, which is that it is very expensive and does not produce enough nor is it constant. See the details in this new video from Paul Burgess:
Considering the new Labour Government claimed there was a £20 Billion black hole left by the previous government, it is a strange coincidence that they have managed to find £22 billion to spend on schemes to capture and store CO2. These are highly controversial schemes, as we know down here on the South coast in the New Forest, where a similar scheme proposed by Exxon has suddenly been dropped after attracting some opposition from local people, including the local Green party. What we are starting to see, is that there is now a debate on the effectiveness of the policies to reach net zero, even if there is still very little debate on whether there is a need to reach it in the first place.
Govt To Waste £22bn On Unproven Carbon Capture | NOT A LOT OF PEOPLE KNOW THAT (wordpress.com)
Kincardine produced 144 GWh last year, so the total cost equates to £562/MWh. I wonder what point is there for producing electricity at such inflated prices. Far better to continue using methane and wait and prepare for the extreme weather, which has always happened anyway.
Floating Wind Farm Lost £30m Last Year | NOT A LOT OF PEOPLE KNOW THAT (wordpress.com)
Both these trends are not happening according to the official data.
Are Hurricanes Getting Stronger? | NOT A LOT OF PEOPLE KNOW THAT (wordpress.com)
It is interesting to read the way Kamala Harris has reversed her policy on fracking from wanting to ban it to claiming to support it. How can such a change be credible?
Fracking and the Election: It’s Not About Pennsylvania – Watts Up With That?
