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:
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.
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.
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:
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)
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%.
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)
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)
Surely no sensible government can be expecting wind turbines and solar panels to produce the vast amount of reliable cheap electricity that the world needs when they get to net zero. No, I think they have set 2050 as the target date to make sure it is out of their time in office and what they are relying on (or should I say hoping for) is for something to turn up. I know, it is a crazy way to go on, but can you think of a more plausible idea? One of the possible projects they are betting on is nuclear fusion. So how are things going. Here is a good video to get us up to date:
Fusion power: how close are we? | FT Film - YouTube
The headline refers to India, but we know it could just as well apply to China. Here's the link:
India’s Uncompromising Commitment to Coal | Watts Up With That?
"Coal is still the largest contributor to global power generation. Leaders of Asian countries know this and are not inclined to risk their objective of economic liberty with over reliance on highly volatile and expensive “renewable” technology."
This new directive has been issued by the EU, but I'm sure the UK will soon follow suit.
No doubt our diet will be changed, whether we like it or not, unless we look very closely at the ingredient labels. This has as much to do with increasing profits as reducing CO2 emissions. You have been warned!
" The European Commission declares new insect products safe for consumption. So from Tuesday, powdered house crickets and the small mealworm will also be allowed in food."
"Cricket powder will now be permitted in a number of food products, such as multigrain bread, crackers, cereal bars, biscuits, beer-like beverages, chocolates, sauces, whey powder, soups, and other items “intended for the general population,” according to the new regulation."
Many people think that wind farms are the key to stopping the use of fossil fuels, but how do we feel about the collateral damage to wild life. Should we risk destroying endangered wildlife in a vain attempt to change the climate? Here is the link:
Evidence says offshore wind development is killing lots of whales - CFACT
You might think that oil is about to dry up across the globe. With all the talk of net zero, surely no one is still exploring for new oil wells? What about the imminent move away from fossil fuels and stranded assets? If you believe this is the future read this report:
You see, the rest of the world knows that we still rely heavily on oil and will continue to do so for decades to come. Surely our politicians know it too, even though they cannot bring themselves to actually do any new drilling or fracking themselves. They prefer to virtue-signal and then import it, hoping that no one notices.
UK electricity supplies near to collapse amid pleas for help. How long can this go on? If predictions of a cold February come true it does not look good.
There is a new website which has some thought provoking articles on it. This one:
Can climate policy be democratic? - Climate Debate
highlights the lack of any opportunity for the public to hear any opposing views on any aspect of the current drive to net zero. It also looks at the lack of any realistic opposition party to vote against the onslaught of the policy. As the results of the current policy continue to reduce ordinary people's quality of life, this can only lead to increased dissatisfaction. With no democratic way of expressing this, it is quite likely to lead to frustration boiling over.
UPDATE:
Environmental, Social, Governance* (ESG) - it doesn't trip off the tongue, but ESG has been gathering pace and influence among the Davos Elite and so it matters. Read further about it here:
Business (or private) reputation is very important and so any threat to vilify a company or individual is very powerful. Once a set of actions becomes "must do" or "must not do" in the eyes of the woke media (and those who hold sway over them) then any organisation (or individual) needs a lot of courage to stand out against it.
*ESG sounds very important and high-minded, but in fact it means whatever the self-appointed high priests of woke want it to mean.
Konstantin Kisin speaking.to the woke about climate change at an Oxford University debate. This was flawless delivery with a compelling message.
But who is going to save us from them? Jo Nova has captured a few highlights from the gathering of this bizarre cult. Here is the link:
You can only imagine what the pressure must be like to have such enormous responsibility on their shoulders.
How many time will the government ignore the warnings that net zero is a disaster waiting to happen?
National Grid puts coal plants on standby to supply electricity - BBC News
Saturday's Daily Mail carried a three page article by Ross Clark which explained in the most reasonable language just what has been happening to the media when reporting on global warming issues. While not everyone reads the Mail, it still has a very large readership. There is more to come on Sunday. The articles come from a new book that Ross is just publishing. Here is the link to the article:
Here are some quotes which illustrate the massive exaggeration in media coverage:
"On July 19 last year, Britain experienced its highest-ever recorded temperature: 40.3c (104.5f) at Coningsby, Lincolnshire. This was the fourth time Britain’s maximum temperature record had been broken since 1990 and is consistent with a warming climate.
Yet did that justify the reporting which framed it as an ‘apocalypse’ with predictions of 10,000 excess deaths from that summer’s heatwave? In the event, excess deaths came to less than a third of that. Moreover, the middle of 2022 witnessed a large unexplained number of excess deaths beginning in March, long before the heatwave."
"People already live and work quite happily in climates far hotter than Britain will experience even in the most dramatic scenarios of climate change. They manage to do this thanks to properly designed buildings, insulated from heat as well as cold, aided by proper ventilation and air-conditioning."
"There seem to be very simple rules behind the narrative being spun to the public. First, that climate change offers nothing positive, only harm. Second, that the only way to tackle that harm is to end climate change. The idea of adapting to it is considered sacrilege."
UPDATE:
Here is the follow up article in the Mail on Sunday:
The video linked below explains that it will be necessary to force humanity to give up our current way of life to reach net zero. This is not the message that Western governments are currently putting out, and I doubt they will be that explicit. Their approach is to scare the people and hope to get them to change by means of an overwhelming propaganda campaign. It seems doubtful that this will be sufficient for a large proportion of people, many of whom will be unwilling, or unable, to pay to change their heating system or their car. It is at this point that we will see if force will be used and how much. The video highlights the suggestion of world government, but that looks a long way off, considering there is no consensus and never likely to be. Here is the link:
Here is a good article which puts the outrageous claims made by climate alarmists in there place.
A Critical Examination of the Six Pillars of Climate Change Despair | Watts Up With That?
My one criticism of it is that the author accepts the worst case projections, but he does so just to make a very good point, which is that even that is not nearly as scary as is made out. So we should relax and instead prepare for the worst extreme weather that we will undoubtedly get occasionally.
We keep being told that fossil fuel companies will be left with billions of dollars worth of stranded assets. But that could only happen if the whole world goes over to renewable energy, which does not look likely in China, India and Russia for a start. On the other hand supposing there is not a mass transfer to battery electric vehicles (BEVs)? Read more here:
The graph below compares the ten warmest years on record for global surface measurements. Here is a link: Annual 2022 Global Climate Report | National Centers for Environmental Information (NCEI) (noaa.gov) The year 2022 was the sixth warmest since global records began in 1880 at 0.86°C (1.55°F) above the 20th century average of 13.9°C (57.0°F). What credence should we put on such data?
Where were the recording stations in the polar regions, bulk of Eurasia, Africa, South America, and the oceans in 1880? How does infrared radiation in a warming atmosphere penetrate the oceans beyond 1 millimeter?
It is hard to believe that there is much value in a claim that these figures are sufficiently accurate to be taken seriously.
The ten warmest years on record
The headline to this post might cause alarm to those who fear any rise in temperature of our lower atmosphere, but as you will see when you read the link provided, this unexpected warming is predicted to be caused by a natural event, a volcanic eruption. It is only a prediction and our atmosphere is so complex that it might be completely wrong, just like the predictions of climate change. Here is the link:
The actual temperature change of 1.5C is so small that it is not possible for humans to feel the difference. Why this figure was chosen as a limit is also shrouded in mystery. It was seemingly plucked out of thin air. The fact that it could be breached by completely natural events is also worth noting.
One day we will realise that it is simply impossible to control the world's temperature or the climate. Of course many of us already do! In any case who wants to see the temperature drop by 1.5C and send us back to the end of the Little Ice Age?
There is so much one-sided propaganda put out by the media that many people find it hard to believe that there could be any doubt about the so-called climate emergency. So I thought it might be useful to give readers a link to something which reminds us of the many areas of doubt and uncertainty which are real.
A DIY Guide To Demystifying “Greenhouse Gas” Claims…The Science That Cuts Corners (notrickszone.com)
Here are some of the main points:
"Even without a scientific background, most people have at least good common sense. And that’s all it takes to get a grasp of how vigorously and chaotically enormous energy fluxes slosh up and down, back and forth between earth’s surface and the skies."
Below are some key points
At the top of the atmosphere, every square meter oriented towards the sun thus receives a fairly constant power influx of 1361 to 1362 W/m2. Whereas the main greenhouse gases contribute a very small amount each:
Carbon dioxide + 2.05 W/m2
Methane + 0.49 W/m2
Nitrous oxide + 0.17 W/m2
Tropospheric ozone + 0.4 W/m2
The complex reality of transfers and transformations of energy on our planet involving soils, waters, gases, clouds, aerosols, heat storage, conduction and convection, chemical reactions and phase transformations, as well as a host of additional factors are simply swept under the carpet, attributing all their combined effects solely to the odious “greenhouse gases”.
One of the favourite tricks of climate prophets of doom is to suggest that all major factors influencing our climate are more or less constant, with the sole exception of “greenhouse gases”.
Another diversion has been to declare that water vapor is simply reinforcing the leading role of CO2.
Well worth reading it all at the link above.
Someone pointed out to me this interesting video. It talks about the massive interference by government in the automobile market in order to push battery electric vehicles. It is looking like this will seriously undermine the market. The man who does the talking, Harry, claims to believe in the climate emergency, even though he admits that the public are not ready to switch to expensive, less reliable EVs. I wonder why?
Here is the link to the video:
The linked article gives an insight into the accuracy of the state of the art satellite sea-level measurements. You will see that they are not as accurate as you might think as you read through to the end. Here is the link:
Sentinel-6: New International Sea Level Satellite - Watts Up With That?
The very last points are set out below and need to be emphasized.
5. The ONLY sea level, or its rise or fall, of any importance to any locality or its governmental bodies is Local Relative Sea Level. This sea level rise (or fall) caused by rising absolute sea level rise combined with vertical land movement (in most instances, downward) determines the magnitude of any risk or threat from sea level rise for that location.
6. Many localities which have valuable infrastructure built on land only a few inches or feet above existing mean sea level for their location are already at risk of flooding by spring tides and storm surge and need to initiate changes in building codes and begin mitigation immediately. The sea will continue to rise, ever so slowly.
So far there is no evidence of any change in the long term gradual rise in sea level here in the UK which is set at around 7 or 8 inches per century (16 to 19 cms)
I have covered this subject before and new readers can read it here:
climate science: WHAT DO WE REALLY KNOW ABOUT SEA LEVEL RISE?
Another good article covering world sea level rise can be seen here:
"The warming effect on Alabama of the extra GHGs is a problem as the temperatures of the recent decades (which should be responding to the warming influence of extra GHSs) have actually been cooler than earlier decades when this influence was essentially absent. A lesson here is that for small areas of the size of a state or two, the long-term natural variations are typically greater than that exerted by extra GHG's.
So much for "global warming" - no wonder it has been changed to "climate change" ! Joking aside, the real point here is that the world has so many different climates affected by so many variables that many of them will be changing in totally different ways at the same time for a whole range of reasons. CO2 changes is just one small variable among many.
John Christy on extreme weather and the link to human CO2 increases:
"We have observations for about 135 years in Alabama. Over this period, we can calculate the extreme values for every type of statistic desired, hottest day, hottest 3-days, hottest week, hottest fortnight, hottest month, etc. There are dozens and dozens of extreme parameters that may be determined. However, based on very simple statistics, we would expect fully half of these extremes to be exceeded in the next 135 years without any human influence at all. Extreme events will continue to occur naturally."
Exactly - our detailed measurements are over much too short a time frame to say that any small change in a record is significant. Yet the media try to make out there is an "emergency" because of a change in one record.
"Various types of paleoclimate evidence (tree rings, ice cores, lake sediments, etc.) give us some glimpses into events prior to the 19th century and indicate that many ancient extremes appear well outside of our recent experience (i.e. being “worse” than our “worst ever”) – all due to natural dynamical processes."
This case is due to take place on March 15th with far reaching results for all of us. Below is the background to it:
In The Netherlands there have now been two prominent climate cases.
In 2015 Dutch NGO Urgenda won its case against the Dutch state, demanding more
ambitious reduction of greenhouse gases. Now Friends of the Earth (FoE) has prevailed against a private
company in a climate case. Shell was ordered to adopt corporate policies to
reduce the CO2 emissions from the group’s activities by net 45% by the end of
2030 compared to 2019. This reduction obligation applies to the Shell Group’s
entire global energy portfolio. Shell must not only reduce its own emissions
but also ensure that the emissions of its suppliers and customers (Scope 3
emissions) fall drastically.
Sweetheart
The verdict and court documents, reveal that this is some sort of 'sweetheart'
case in which the parties agreed on the facts. Shell could hardly defend itself
against the alarmist statements put forward by FoE because the company had
previously made similar statements. Nowadays, a large, publicly traded company
cannot publicly deny the “climate crisis.” If a company were to do so, it would
have the media, activists, and a large number of politicians all condemning it.
No public company can afford such reputational damage. Climate activists
exploit the inability of corporations to defend themselves.
FoE in power
With the big win against Shell in its pocket FoE has demanded ambitious
'climate plans' from 30 major Dutch companies, including food companies and even
banks and insurance companies. These climate plans have been verified by the
“New Climate Institute,” a consultancy known for the “Climate Action Tracker”
that has turned climate into a huge revenue model. The result was a red
“climate crisis index” rating for the vast majority.
These companies face the same dilemma as Shell. If they fight
back they will likely suffer huge reputational damage. Shell moved its
headquarter from The Hague to London last year, and will receive huge subsidies
for CCS-projects (Carbon Capture and Storage) and green hydrogen. Ultimately,
the bill for all these 'climate plans' will have to be paid by citizens and
Small and Medium-sized Enterprises (SMEs). Small companies are already
suffering due to high energy prices, which are only partly related to the war
in Ukraine and for the rest the result of environmental and climate policies.
Intervention by Clintel
Clintel says enough is enough. In October Clintel sent a request to the court
of appeal to join the case as a third independent party. Clintel's aim is to
make clear that the judge based its verdict on a distorted picture of climate
science, the role of the IPCC and the state of the climate. It will also defend
the rights of citizens and democracy.
Not surprisingly, but disappointing nonetheless, both Shell and FoE oppose
Clintel‘s proposed intervention. The court ordered a hearing on March 15th 2023
in which Clintel can plead its case.
We launched our own special website for this court case: climatecaseofthecentury.org.
Everyone in the world can (free of charge) join our case (as a citizen/lawyer
or as a scientist) by filling in a form on the website. The more people
participate, the better for making your voices heard. You can also help us by
sending this newsletter to other people that might want to join our case.
Of course, we also need a lot of financial support for this big
court case. All the details about how you can contribute are available on climatecaseofthecentury.org.
We are truly living in extraordinary times. As has been said, above, all this is going to drive up prices which we will all be paying. It will also lead to shortages, as some businesses will go broke. I hope that many of these businesses will help to fund the Clintel legal team, as it is ultimately for their benefit, just as it will be for us. I suspect that there will be huge and complex arguments about what counts as a "carbon emission" and who is responsible for what. All this will lead to long and expensive court cases. It is utter madness brought upon us by foolish governments and courts. It will probably be looked at in future centuries in much the same way as we now see the Spanish inquisition and the Salem witch trials.
For those who are really interested in a thoroughly readable account of climate change, I can thoroughly recommend this download written by Prof John Christy. Here is a man with a passion for the subject and an unsurpassed knowledge and access to data. While the booklet specifically refers to Alabama, much of the content also applies to the world. At around 50 pages it contains many fascinating facts. Here is the link:
AlabamaClimatePracticalGuide_hires.pdf (uah.edu)
I will be highlighting some of the key messages from this book in the coming days.
Here is a good rebuttal to the oft repeated propaganda:
Microsoft Word - AC Rebuttal Hurricanes 122522.docx (wordpress.com)
Jan 05, 2023
Will Climate Change Really Put New York Underwater as NASA alarmists predictBy Steven Koonin
A recent (NASA)National Aeronautics and Space Administration report yet again raises alarm that New Yorkers are about to be inundated by rapidly rising seas. But a review of the data suggests that such warnings need to be taken with more than a few grains of sea salt.
The record of sea level measured at the southern tip of Manhattan, known as the Battery, began in 1856. It shows that today’s waters are 19 inches higher than they were 166 years ago, rising an average of 3.5 inches every 30 years. The geologic record shows that this rise began some 20,000 years ago as the last great glaciers melted, causing the New York coastline to move inland more than 50 miles.
There is no question that sea level at the Battery will continue to rise in coming decades, if only because the land has been steadily sinking about 2 inches every 30 years because of factors including tectonic motion, rebound from the mass of the glaciers, and local subsidence. Rather, the question is whether growing human influences on the climate will cause sea level to rise more rapidly. To judge that, we can compare recent rates of rise with those in the past, when human influences were much smaller.
The record shows how much sea level rose during the 30 years prior to each year since 1920. That rise has varied between 1.5 and 6 inches. The 5-inch rise over the most recent 30 years is higher than the century long average but isn’t unprecedented and shows no sign of increasing.
As the Earth warms, changes in sea level at the Battery will depend in part on global changes. These include the loss of ice from mountain glaciers, Greenland and Antarctica as well as the ocean’s expansion as it warms. It’s very difficult to predict these changes - many factors influence ice loss, and the oceans absorb only 0.25% of the heat flowing through the Earth’s climate system. The 30-year rises in the latter half of the 20th century were diminished by about an inch due to the filling of reservoirs behind dams and changes in groundwater around the world.
The Battery’s sea level also depends on local changes in the sea and the sinking of the land. Most important is the natural variability of winds, currents such as the Gulf Stream, salinity and temperatures of the North Atlantic, which cause variations in sea level along the entire U.S. Northeast coast. Because of these many variables, climate models can’t account for the ups and downs so evident in the records.
Despite this, the recent NASA report echoes a February National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration report predicting more than 1 foot of rise at the Battery by 2050. Such a rise during the coming 30 years would be more than double the rise over the past 30 years and more than triple the past century’s average. Even more remarkably, the NOAA report says this rise will happen regardless of future greenhouse-gas emissions. There is no way of knowing if this prediction is correct.
So while New Yorkers should watch the waters around them, there is no need to dash to higher ground. The Battery’s sea level hasn’t done anything in recent decades that it hasn’t done over the past century. And although we’ll have to wait three decades to test the predicted 1-foot rise, measurements over the next decade should tell us how quickly we’ll need to raise the seawalls.
Mr. Koonin is a professor at New York University, a senior fellow at Stanford’s Hoover Institution, and author of “Unsettled: What Climate Science Tells Us, What It Doesn’t, and Why It Matters.”
Read the full post with graphs Here: ICECAP
This video is important for anyone who wants to see the whole story of our climate history.
Despite all the hype and relentless propaganda from the mainstream media, the actual figures from the CET (Central England Temperature) record shows that warming has slowed. You can see the graph in this article:
Sky’s Extreme Weather Lies | NOT A LOT OF PEOPLE KNOW THAT (wordpress.com)
It is important to be able to read the evidence to counter the relentless propaganda and there is plenty of it at this link:
Microsoft Word - AC Rebuttal Heat Waves - 040822.docx (wordpress.com)
I bet you will not hear this on the main news channels!
Scientists: Antarctica Has Not Warmed For Over 70 Years (notrickszone.com)
Here is an example of the sort of extra control being considered:
We know that even the current 70mph speed limit is not being observed in many parts of the network, so it is unlikely that a small change to 64mph will fare any better. With the governing Conservatives so far behind in the polls it is hard to see them wanting to bring in any more unpopular measures. I am sure that Labour would do it, if they were in power. There lies the problem, there is no winnable alternative. There is the tiny Reform Party, currently at around 7 or 8% support. Voting for them would simply give more seats to Labour.
A total of four storms were named in 2022 but three of them came in the space of a week.
Storms Dudley, Eunice and Franklin impacted the UK in February 2022, with Storm Eunice resulting in red warnings for wind and saw a new highest maximum gust speed record for England set of 122mph at the Needles on the Isle of Wight.
Dr Mark McCarthy said: “There’s no evidence of a trend in storminess because of climate change, but this spell of impactful weather in February is certainly noteworthy. It was the first time three named storms had impacted the UK in a week, with Eunice being particularly impactful for much of southern England and Wales.”
“It’s also noteworthy that there haven’t been any named storms to impact the UK since that week in February.”
“The question is not whether it (the blackout) will come, but when it will come,” said KlaudiaTanner, the Austrian Defence Minister , blaming the war in Ukraine. No one has spoken this bluntly here in the UK, though there have been warnings that in the case of a prolonged cold spell there is a possibility of cuts. Here are the details:
It is now becoming clear that wind and solar power were just the fashion accessories that no one had to have. Coal, oil and gas were essential. Not only did demand for green energy fall, but the supply fell too. As costs rose, factories struggled to make wind turbines, solar panels, and batteries. Read the details here:
Let's hope that 2023 brings us some common sense from our political leaders. We desperately need to have a return to reliable affordable energy. We need an end to the obsession with climate alarm which is why I am highlighting this new research into the intensity and frequency of hurricanes.
This is not something you will have heard broadcast on mainstream media. I wonder why not ?
There is no doubt that eliminating fossil fuels from our home heating is going to be both costly and inconvenient. There will be huge change-over costs followed by increased running costs, whether we are forced down the heat pump route or the hydrogen gas route.
When the UK chose to move from town gas to natural gas in the 1970's it was a clear benefit as the gas was going to be cheaper. That is clearly not the case here. We still don't know which system our rulers will choose or when or how it will be paid for.
Here in this linked article we can see a detailed look at the problems with the hydrogen option.
Conversion of the UK gas system to transport hydrogen - ScienceDirect
We know that climate models spectacularly fail to show the correct amount of warming, running much too hot. See IPCC AR6: Breaking the hegemony of global climate models – Watts Up With That?
Now we have this: Pacific problems for climate models - Net Zero Watch They find that the models don’t work and don’t work by a great margin. They find the large-scale differences between observed and modelled trends are very unlikely (<5% probability) to occur due to internal variability as represented in models. Conflicting trends are found even in regions with weak multi-decadal variability, suggesting that the climate model inadequacy is profound.
All in all it would seem that the world would be mad to rip up a reliable energy system using relatively cheap reliable energy from fossil fuels and move to a costly and much less reliable system based on wind and solar.
There is an interesting discussion going on at Paul Homewood's blog. It's about what sort of energy will be the most reliable when extreme cold weather strikes. The answer, of course, is fossil fuels. Wind and solar are fine as an extra add on, but the more reliant we become on them the more we are liable to be let down when an emergency strikes.
Imagine you set out in your electric car when you encounter a blocked road. You will have a much smaller amount of energy to keep you warm than someone in a petrol or diesel vehicle, assuming all vehicles were topped up with fuel or electricity. It could make the difference between life or death.
In a modern country we should expect to be resilient to extreme weather with a more and more robust and reliable network. That does not seem to be the case in parts of the USA where the recent extreme cold has left many without heat and electricity. Some of the contributors on this subject are suggesting that political leaders are deliberately rushing to wind solar and EV's knowing that they will cause hardship.
Personally I find it hard to believe this is true. I suspect they are being misled by advisors who tell them what they want to hear in a modern version of the King's New Clothes story. In the end we know that the king found out the truth and I expect the public will do so too, but, unfortunately, not before a lot of expense and suffering has occurred. Read the details at the link below:
US Grid Needs Fossil Fuels, Not Wind | NOT A LOT OF PEOPLE KNOW THAT (wordpress.com)
Here is an interesting theory to explain the behaviour of the jet stream hence the extreme weather that has been happening in the USA in recent days.
Is the Sun driving ozone and changing the climate? « JoNova (joannenova.com.au)
You might think that government temperature records would be an honest display of the data, but in this new video Tony Heller makes a strong case for it to be fabricated. When you cannot trust your government you are in trouble. Watch the video here:
Are Government Temperature Graphs Correct? - YouTube
Bjorn Lomborg is a very interesting man. He says he believes that man-made global warming is real, but he does not believe the current policies of switching to wind etc. will work. He thinks we should tackle other more urgent issues and wait until a much cheaper solution is found, such as a cheap way to remove CO2 or a cheap way to power the world. I think he is partly right, in that the current policies won't work, but I don't think there is likely to be a cheap solution in the near future, but it is not impossible.
The problem is that we in the West have become brainwashed into believing there is a "climate emergency" and so the alarmists are not willing to wait until something turns up. The present hugely expensive policies are the only option, even though they are inadequate, so they will be pursued, until they are seen beyond doubt to be too expensive and inadequate, when people will rise up en masse and reject them.
Here is a link to the whole conversation between Bjorn and John Anderson, a former Deputy PM of Australia. It lasts almost 75 minutes and is all worth listening to, but if you want to cut to the part about climate change, it starts about 28 minutes in.
Looking at my blog's stats recently I noticed a big increase in readers from the USA which I am naturally delighted about. This blog is, unashamedly, a climate sceptic one and there is plenty to show that, while the alarmists are becoming more and more apocalyptic, there is mounting evidence that the real data tell us that there is nothing to fear from the modest warming from increased CO2 levels.
This should be good news for all of us, but for those peddling the alarmist narrative it must not be allowed to be heard. In the end the truth must prevail.
The truth is that we are being lied to by much of the mainstream media who are simply pushing an agenda with no regard for the facts. Another excellent piece by Roger Pielke Jr. explains.
SERIES: What the media won't tell you about . . . hurricanes (substack.com)
We all know that the internet contains a lot of outdated material, but what most of us are probably unaware of is that much of the data that is being used to predict the future dangers from global warming is coming from similarly out of date sources. Apparently it is such a big problem that no one is ready to tackle it, or even admit it exists. The linked article below explains the details;
Most of us used to accept that organisations like the UN and the WMO were trustworthy. Read this linked report and decide for yourself. Remember that the author believes we should reduce our fossil fuel use to prevent global warming. But he is also a man of great integrity who also believes that honesty is also important. Here is the link;
When will the public finally wake up to the fact that the UK's current energy policy is the main cause of the very costly energy bills they are paying? I think it will come very soon as the government's scheme to subsidise household bills becomes unaffordable next April and bills rise even higher. Also any further prolonged cold weather may well lead to rationing by power cuts. What a disaster!
Rishi Sunak’s incoherent energy policy will poison Britain’s future - Net Zero Watch
Here is the article giving the details for this claim:
Despite all of the uncertainty, Western governments continue to pursue net zero policies which are increasing the cost of energy, leading to poverty and a lower standard of living. Surely a change is imminent?
Here is a really well-explained set of answers by Prof. Christy to some detailed questions:
If you want to listen to someone who really speaks with authority on climate science then Dr. Christy is my recommendation.
The link under this heading is to a fictional story of how the future of the UK might look as a result of the government continuing along the current path to net zero CO2 emissions. While some aspects may seem far-fetched there are many elements which are only too believable. Indeed it is a a salutary tale of our times. Here is the link: On Belief in the Tooth Fairy: The Battle of Britain’s Climate 2021-2030 – Watts Up With That?
It was always certain that the cost of running an electric car was going to go up. The early savings on running costs were just a ploy to lure people to buy them. This piece tells us that the increase is starting to happen now. Electric car owners' costs jump - Norway's News in English — www.newsinenglish.no
Here are the details: The Autumn Statement is toxic to Britain's prospects and prosperity - Net Zero Watch I have only just noticed this time bomb included in Jeremy Hunt's Autumn Statement. What a cunning wheeze to put a delayed tax increase in, just as the voters are deciding who to vote for in next year's council elections.
The IPCC exaggerate everything and so don’t take this post as anything remotely truthful, but let’s just see how much methane (CH4) is expected to be released from the melting permaforst, based upon the IPCC’s own figures. In AR5 2013, the IPCC give an estimate of 5 PGs of released methane from permafrost by 2100 (source: IPCC AR5: Biogeochemical Cycles, page 530 to 531). PGs is equivalent to gigatonnes (Gts). See the extract below taken from the link and page above in the IPCC’s report. Now, 5 Gts of CH4 works out at about 1.9ppmv or 1900 parts per billion (ppb) and so 1 Gts of CH4 is equivalent to 0.38ppmv. So, how much effect would this extra 5 Gts of CH4 have? Would it be catastrophic?
Click on image to enlarge.
The formula below can be used to determine how much radiative forcing a given increase in CH4 would have. Where ΔF stands for the ‘increment of radiative forcing’ in W/m²; M is the new CH4 concentration in ppb after the increment is added, and M₀ is the old CH4 concentration before the increment was added.
Accepting that the current CH4 concentration is about 1900ppb (as of 2019) and that the IPCC say another 1900ppb will be added to the atmosphere by 2100 due to the melting permafrost (total of 3800ppb) then that would give us a radiative forcing from the released CH4 of which would only be enough to raise the surface temperature by 0.12°C. And that is on the basis of their own figures and formula! It makes you wonder how people can continue to justify ‘the sky is falling’ hysteria about CH4.
Below is a very good concise video debunking the top five climate lies which are being pushed at us constantly by the mainstream media. It is a wave of propaganda which Goebbels would have been proud of. Here is the antidote:
Oxfordshire Council to Trial a Climate Lockdown Starting 2024 – Watts Up With That?
UPDATE
I have now been sent a link to the actual scheme here:
Consultation on trial traffic filters 2022 | Let's Talk Oxfordshire
This is the real reason why our electricity price is going so high (aided by Putin's war).
The Tories’ Wind Power Delusion–Matt Ridley | NOT A LOT OF PEOPLE KNOW THAT (wordpress.com)
This short video has some of the answers:
The truth about hydrogen - YouTube
Can it be made at a competitive price and in sufficient quantity? Also can it be stored and used safely?
A lot of those who are convinced that global warming is causing a "climate emergency" base their belief on what they have been told about "97% of scientists" agreeing that it is true. The article that I link to below looks closely at the evidence for this statement and finds that it is completely false.
Link: “97% Consensus” — What Consensus? - CO2 Coalition
Below is a link to a video recording of a really well presented set of information, including a few questions and answers. Dr Wrightstone came across as a very knowledgeable and believable man. The problem for us all is that the media does not allow a rational debate where people like him can put their case.
Link: Wrightstone Testimony PA House EREC Hearing 2022-10-24 - YouTube
