Below is another great video of a second speech to Colchester Council questioning their policies on climate change with some very well put arguments.
ROUND 5 - Answer us! Residents vs Colchester City Council - YouTube
You can see all the videos in this series here:
Below is one of a series of excellent videos, showing how a small group of citizens attended council meetings to put their case:
Round 7 - Climate Emergency or Eco-Terrorism? Residents vs Colchester Council - YouTube
A new Norwegian paper has found that the effects of man-made CO2 emissions are not strong enough to explain global warming in the last 200 years, implying that natural factors must play a large role:
In 2023, charcoal and firewood remain the dominant fuel for many households in Africa. Rapid population growth has seen an exponential rise in demand. Trees are not being cut down by people who don’t care about the environment, but by those with few alternatives. In countries such as Malawi, where deforestation is especially serious, the trade in charcoal is banned, but continues openly. A mix of corrupt officials and buyers desperate for the product make it hard to enforce the law. On a continent marked by poverty and a shortage of electricity, consumers either have no alternative to charcoal, or can’t afford it. Cutting down a tree is free. In Africa, an area the size of Switzerland is cleared of forest every year, with an estimated 90% of the wood used for cooking or to heat the home. Read the rest here:
Africa's Burning Issue: Charcoal and the loss of forest - Net Zero Watch
Most of us suspected it anyway, but now the wind industry has itself admitted that wind farm electricity cannot compete with gas turbines and prices must rise by 70% for it to be viable. So, thanks to the net zero policy our electricity will become a lot dearer, which of course means heating and transport will become dearer as well.
Offshore Wind Demands £95/MWh | NOT A LOT OF PEOPLE KNOW THAT (wordpress.com)
We all know that the establishment sticks together and here is a classic case of it:
There is one way to expose this unfairness and that is to use the courts. It can only be done by those with access to substantial funds, but it can be very effective as was shown when a case was brought against the government's decision to show Al Gore's propaganda film, An Inconvenient Truth, in British secondary schools. Link:
Who would have guessed?
|
Thanks to improvements in hydraulic fracturing and directional drilling “Crude oil is set to become the largest export item for the United States this year for the first time in history.” “In August alone, the value of U.S. oil exports, at $10.3 billion, had
the highest share of all American exports with 6%, followed by gasoline and
other fuels, per WorldCity data. In terms of tonnage, oil's share was also
the highest—at 24%, followed by LNG and gasoline and other fuels. So much for net zero! |
That is the view of the head of our gas network, as he is quoted in the article linked below in today's Daily Telegraph (paywalled)
"In 2022, the wind didn’t blow enough or at all for 262 days. And in those 262 days, we would have had rolling blackouts, or a full blackout across the UK if it wasn’t for gas.”
There are a number of interesting charts in the article which show the size of the shift the government are hoping to make. Currently 86% of our homes have gas central heating. That is 25 million gas boilers. The big question that no politician will answer is "who is going to pay" - when the public find out it is them, I suspect they may be a bit cross!
There is no doubt that many glaciers around the world are retreating, though it's also interesting to note that some glaciers are advancing, which shows that although the world as a whole may have warmed a little over 1 Degree Celsius, there are are parts which have cooled. The link below looks at this in more detail. It also highlights an interesting anomaly whereby some glaciers appeared to be melting when the world's temperatures record shows it was at the lowest point and yet the same glaciers were growing when the temperature was at its highest point! Tony Heller explains it clearly in the short video below:
This is money that we could have spent on useful things like education, police, hospitals, sea defences etc.
"Most of that trillion will go on replacing petrol cars with electric ones and gas boilers with electric heat pumps, and on generating, transmitting and distributing the extra electricity needed for these two uses. It also includes a host of other capital projects, including better household insulation. With all that electric demand, we would need extra power stations, extra pylons and upgrades of household electrical circuits. And we would need subsidies for installing the heat pumps and buying electric vehicles."
"There is, of course, one benefit we will supposedly get from this spending: a lower risk of disastrous climate change. So what will climate change cost by 2050? That's a figure known as the 'social cost of carbon' — technically speaking the economic damage done by each additional ton of carbon emissions released into the atmosphere. You almost never hear this discussed any more. Why not? Because all the estimates are embarrassingly small — far smaller than the cost of decarbonising."
This story is hardly a good advertisement for electric vehicles:
When a Nobel prize winning physicist speaks out to say the science of global warming ignores a key variable and so is unreliable, you would expect there to be a lot of discussion in the media and on the news, but not in this case. There is no mention of it at all. What he highlights is the obvious factor that anyone would think was basic - the change in cloud cover. This one variable could completely wipe put the effect of CO2 and yet it is poorly understood. This article gives the details:
Nobel Winner Refutes Climate Change Narrative, Points Out Ignored Factor - CO2 Coalition
Statistics can sound scary, but the reality is that the numbers may be explained as being quite normal, Take the melting of Antarctic ice. The fact is that trillions of tonnes of ice are lost every year, due to both calving and melt. That is what ice sheets and glaciers do. And the loss is replenished by snowfall over the Antarctic continent.
Those who say one thing and do another are called hypocrites. This term appears to fit with the way the BBC has treated those who oppose the climate change policies of the main political parties in the UK, as opposed to the very amenable attitude they have adopted in dealing with those who sympathise with Hamas. The argument is very well put in this article:
All over the media and in political institutions we are bombarded with the phrase "trust the science", whatever that means. It is a glib phrase which means "you are too uninformed and must take my word for it". I prefer the Royal Society's motto "Nullius in Verba", which means take nobody's word for it. In other words do your own due diligence. The article below discusses the trustworthiness of the science applied to climate change.
Judith Curry is a leading climate scientist who once subscribed to the main tenets of global warming but subsequently changed her mind. That alone makes her new book, Climate Uncertainty and Risk, exceptional. The following link to a review of her book explains why it is well worth reading.
Book review: Climate Uncertainty and Risk, By Judith Curry - CFACT
There has been a lot of media pronouncements saying that because this year has been particularly warm in many places that this proves there is a "climate emergency". Of course anyone who studies climate seriously knows that it takes at least 30 years of data to show any change in climate and that any one year, or even four or five, is simply "weather". Below is a good article to explain this in more detail.
If we are going to have a nation which has a good standard of living then it is essential that we have reliable low cost energy. In a fossil fuel free economy that is a very difficult issue. Without a big increase in nuclear power it becomes hard to believe that it is achievable at all. A new report by the Royal Society claims that hydrogen storage can be the solution, but this has been debunked by the author of this study:
Sea level has been rising for the past two hundred years threatening our coastal communities. According to tide gauge readings the rate of rise has remained the same for the past century and yet the predictions given out by the UK Environment Agency claim that the rate will accelerate by around 200% by the end of this century due to global warming. All this has big implications for plans to protect our coastline. The following article looks at examples from the Norfolk area where much of the coast is unger threat.
This happens about every eleven years as sunspots reach their maximum. Read the details here:
DATA: THE SUN’S MAGNETIC POLES ARE VANISHING • Watts Up With That?
The devious goings on by large investment companies is undermining the ability of Exxon and probably others from carrying on their business. As this article, below, explains, this interference can lead to nations losing their independence in terms of energy supply. Also it can simply be an excuse to manipulate the market for profit. What a murky world we are living in.
Some people try to claim that renewable energy is cheaper than traditional coal or gas. But if this were the case there would be no need to pass on any extra costs.
Which ever way the government try to hide it, the cost of renewable energy is going to cause pain to the public, as this piece explains:
This looks like a serious issue that has had no publicity yet.
Failing underwater cables “pose global threat to offshore wind” « JoNova (joannenova.com.au)
Anyone thinking of buying an EV ought to read this first:
EV kidnaps the driver at 30 mph, runs amok « JoNova (joannenova.com.au)
It seems silly of the official weather bureaus to make claims of records, only to find that they are not actually records at all. On the other hand if they want to get a headline and are willing to deceive the public to do it, then it makes perfect sense. Most people will never know that it wasn't an actual record because the media rarely, if ever, give an apology or a retraction.
It seems that, rather than being ‘rather low’, Net Zero is actually going to be ‘costly’. Indeed, we are warned, the investment required is ‘not in the billions, but in the trillions’ – ‘vast amounts of money’. Find out why by reading the linked article:
Fingers pointed over failure of Net Zero (netzerowatch.com)
The whole net zero policy has had no real scrutiny because no one in power wanted to ask any difficult questions. It was simply like declaring war - except that there was no visible enemy. No one wanted to admit that serious sacrifices would have to be made, so it was passed off as being easily achieved at a cost which would hardly be noticed.
It is very odd how most climate change campaigners concentrate all their efforts into closing down their own nations fossil fuel plants, yet make no mention of what is happening in China and India.
The US has the world’s largest coal reserves, and Michael Bloomberg wants to shut down US coal and gas. But for some reason he isn’t trying to stop 100 new coal fired power plants in China per year.
With all the headlines telling us that the world is warmer than it has been for as much as 100,000 years, it must be a bit embarrassing to find that there is yet more evidence that it was in fact clearly warmer as little as 3,300 years ago. Of course there has always been climate change, which I fully accept, but I don't accept that we can predict the future weather as there are too many unknown variables.
While in office, Trump boasted about wanting the US oil and gas industry to “drill, baby, drill,” implementing expansionist policies that enhanced the country’s energy security, rendering it almost energy independent before the Covid bust set in during 2020.
NUSA DUA, Indonesia, Sept 27 (Reuters) - Asia's coal sector has gone from thinking they are in terminal decline as the world shifts to a net-zero carbon future to seeing themselves as being a part of the energy mix for decades to come, while raking in profits.
The UK government is showing that we will still need oil way into the future by its decision to develop a big new oil field in the North Sea. It is a sensible decision that is driving the climate extremists mad.
Rosebank: Biggest untapped UK oil field approved by regulators - BBC News
There appears to be some signs of dissent among the Western governments, as revealed here:
The article liked below is a real tour de force which states the real state of where climate policies are leading us. This section gives a flavour of it:
"The promises of upsides are simply lies. There are no drop-in replacements for the things that make our lifestyles today. That is why the Climate Change Committee told Parliament that up to 62% of emissions reduction is going to come from ‘behaviour change’, which is to say that Net Zero requires government to use the criminal law and price mechanisms to regulate what people can do. That is what Sunak means when he says that previous governments have not been straight with the public."
That is the eye-watering sum that the UK Foreign Secretary said was needed to be raised, much of it to "fight climate change". How much longer can the UK, or for that matter any other indebted Western nation, go on dishing out billions of pounds before the citizens start to notice a drop in their standard of living?
We are witnessing extraordinary levels of behaviour in the battle for hearts and minds in the new religion of climate. In the following link we see how internet propaganda can be used as a weapon
Will the police be taking any action against broadcaster Chris Packham, for his encouragement to others to break the law? The following link looks at exactly what he has been saying and doing.
Welcome to the new fundamentalist religion headed by the high priest giving a tub-thumping sermon to his followers.
UN climate science now at “Gates of Hell” level « JoNova (joannenova.com.au)
Surely they must realise that this kind of language is counter-productive and leads to the bulk of the public looking at them as a laughing stock.
Here again we see a country which has made a grand commitment to reach net zero CO2 emissions come up against the harsh reality of how costly it is, as the date gets nearer. When it comes to a choice of severely damaging the economy causing millions to suffer or to defer the date of achieving an arbitrary and meaningless target there can only be one rational decision.
Read the latest news from the Prime Minister's spokes people
Rishi Sunak considering weakening key green policies - BBC News
I have only just come across this second volume of the Skeptics Handbook which is packed with interesting facts that you will never see in any mainstream publication or on TV. Jo Nova has a great way of putting across difficult material in a simple and direct style. The whole thing is well worth reading, but I particularly like this section:
The one flaw that wipes out the crisis
Carbon dioxide only causes 1.1°C of warming if it doubles. That’s according to the IPCC. Did you know? The real game changer is water. Researchers made guesses about humidity and clouds in the early 1980s and they built these guesses into their models. We now know they were wrong, not about carbon, but about water in the form of humidity and clouds. Here’s how the models can be right about carbon and wrong about the climate. CO2 is a greenhouse gas, and it warms the planet. The modellers guessed that as the world warmed, more water would evaporate, and the rising humidity would lock in more heat. Makes sense. Humid nights are warmer than clear nights. This is called “feedback” — carbon warms us, which lifts humidity, which warms us even more, at least in theory. But water is complex and fickle. Humidity can stay ‘humid’, or turn into low clouds, high clouds, or fall out as rain, hail or snow.
And they all have a different effect. Every prediction over 1.1 degrees relies on “feedback” of some sort. But what if that extra humidity turned into low clouds? What if it just rained out? What if fewer high clouds formed? Any of these would cool the planet. Without the effects of feedbacks to amplify carbon’s minor warming, there is no disaster, and that’s exactly what the observations tell us. Lindzen found that as the planet warms it gives off more radiation. Spencer found that as the planet warms, we get fewer high clouds. Paltridge found that humidity levels have fallen. The missing hot spot shows the models are wrong. There goes almost all of the warming. The models exaggerate by a factor of six. The 3.3°C scare is really only about half a degree of extra warmth. Who needs to transform economies to prevent half a degree of warming, most of which has already happened? Who indeed?
Sources: Feedbacks: (projected) IPCC Assessment Report 4, Chapter 8. (Measured) Lindzen et al 2009. Clouds: Spencer et al 2007. Humidity, Paltridge et al, 2009.
I often wonder who the bulk of you, my readers, are and where you come from. Most of you never leave a comment, though Renewable Guy has made up for some of you! Over the years my readership has varied a lot, but this year it has definitely seen a big increase, which is very encouraging. It is interesting because it is now much harder for people to find it because the big search engines, like Bing and Google do not come up with this blog on their first pages, which they used to. Climate sceptic websites are not given any prominence these days.
Despite all this, my number of hits for this month is already at 43000 with half the month to go and my previous best month was January this year at 42562, so it is going to be a new record.
I started the blog back in 2007 when many of the now top blogs had not started, like Paul Homewood's superb NOT A LOT OF PEOPLE KNOW THAT . Even Watts Up With That? was only just starting. I started as a means of keeping a catalogue of informative articles for my own use and to show other people that there actually were a lot of scientific arguments to rebut what was being put out by the likes of Al Gore who's new film was gaining a lot of coverage at the time.
Let me be absolutely clear, I have never disputed that the climate has changed in the past and in some parts of the world it is changing now. Of course it could change any time at any place. What is definitely in dispute is that CO2 is a major driver of the climate. It is beyond doubt that there are many natural factors that have affected the climate. Particularly clouds.
Even if man-made CO2 had a measurable effect, the nations of the world could not possibly reduce the level in time to make a difference to the temperature or the climate. The answer must be to adapt to the climate rather than a futile attempt to change it.
There have been so many extreme climate change messages in our news media that you would imagine that everyone would be completely convinced. Indeed in the political world in public debates this seems to be largely the case. However this consensus is, in reality, false, as in private I find most people actually think more like the comments of Telegraph readers in the article below.
We are constantly being told about the new green jobs which are going to be created by pushing for net zero, and yet the reality is the complete opposite. What we see is the loss of good well paid jobs in the traditional economy as we increase the price of fuel and electricity. Here is a prime example:
Labour In A Spin Over Green Steel Job Losses | NOT A LOT OF PEOPLE KNOW THAT (wordpress.com)
I have heard some extreme green activists state that saving CO2 emissions should come before economic benefit. This is not the view of the majority of the public.
Thanks to David Whitehouse at NetZeroWatch who has found a remarkable paper: Pyrenean caves reveal a warmer past
The new study on stalagmites in caves of the Pyrenees shows that modern climate change is nothing compared to natural fluctuations in the last 2,500 years, when it was at times much hotter, colder, and more volatile. Rapid shifts between temperatures were common.
Yet we are constantly bombarded with propaganda telling us our climate is going off the scale. It is amazing how many people pay lip-service to this idea, similar to a religious ideology.
Wesley J Smith: Why we can’t trust the science journals
National Review, 5 September 2023A climate scientist has written that he pulled
his punches in a climate-change article in order to be published by
the prestigious journal Nature. From, “I Left Out the Full Truth to Get My Climate Change
Paper Published,” by Patrick T. Brown:
"The paper I just published—“Climate warming increases extreme daily wildfire growth risk in
California”—focuses exclusively on how climate change has
affected extreme wildfire behavior. I knew not to try to quantify key
aspects other than climate change in my research because it would dilute the
story that prestigious journals like Nature and its
rival, Science, want to tell.
This matters because it is critically important for scientists to be published
in high-profile journals; in many ways, they are the gatekeepers for career
success in academia. And the editors of these journals have made it abundantly
clear, both by what they publish and what they reject, that they want climate
papers that support certain preapproved narratives—even when those narratives
come at the expense of broader knowledge for society."
In other words, if Brown provided a thorough and nuanced study, it would never
have passed the ideological blockade he knew controls the scientific discourse
on this important topic.
Brown explains why we see such an anti-science paradigm:
"In theory, scientific research should prize curiosity, dispassionate
objectivity, and a commitment to uncovering the truth. Surely those are the
qualities that editors of scientific journals should value.
In reality, though, the biases of the editors (and the reviewers they call upon
to evaluate submissions) exert a major influence on the collective output of
entire fields. They select what gets published from a large pool of entries,
and in doing so, they also shape how research is conducted more broadly. Savvy
researchers tailor their studies to maximize the likelihood that their work is
accepted. I know this because I am one of them."
Brown left academia so he could engage in better science. And, that allowed him
to write this article. [...]
Brown has done a true service in illustrating how science has been distorted by
nonscientific agendas at the highest level of “expert” discourse — aided and
abetted by the media. Until and unless that changes, public trust in the
scientific and medical sectors will continue to fall.
Full post
Matt Goodwin: The Sun, 8 September 2023
If Rishi Sunak is to have any chance of
winning the next General Election, then he should be doing a lot more to tap
into people’s growing sense of exasperation with the spiralling costs of Net
Zero.
That’s the message from my latest polling on what ordinary people who took a
punt on Boris Johnson in 2019 really think about the expansion of green
policies such as the Ultra-Low Emission Zone in London, where the owners of
non-compliant vehicles must pay £12.50 each time they drive.
Were you to listen only to the expert class, to London Mayor Sadiq Khan or the
new elite who dominate the institutions, then you might be forgiven for
thinking that these kinds of policies are incredibly popular among the public. But the reality, as my polling shows, is quite different.
Much like globalisation in the 1990s, or the rise of mass immigration in the
2000s and the 2010s, many people today are becoming sceptical, if not outright
opposed, to the spiralling costs of this agenda.
Only one in four say they would like to see a Ulez-type scheme operating in
their own local area. The vast majority would not.
But it’s the coalition of voters from across the political spectrum who backed
Boris Johnson and the Conservative Party in 2019 — many of whom are the same
people who backed Brexit — who are especially opposed to footing the bills for
things such as Ulez and the creeping influence of Net Zero.
These voters, remember, are absolutely critical for Sunak’s chances next year. Sunak is currently only holding on to half of Johnson’s 2019
voters.
Ask people whether they want their leaders in Westminster to prioritise Net
Zero even if this increases people’s bills or prioritise lowering their bills
even if this undermines the quest to achieve Net Zero and the vast majority
strongly favour the latter.
Only 16 per cent want to prioritise Net Zero.
Ask Conservative voters from 2019 — the very people who will determine whether
or not Sunak remains in power — and just seven per cent want their leaders to
prioritise Net Zero while nearly three-quarters (72 per cent) want them to
prioritise slashing the cost of living.
Full post
Texas declared its first power emergency since a deadly winter storm two years ago and came close to rolling blackouts as soaring temperatures roasted the second-largest US state.
High demand, lower wind generation, and the declining solar generation during sunset led to lower operating reserves on the grid and eventually contributed to lower frequency,” the grid operator’s CEO said.
The declaration of a so-called Level 2 emergency late Wednesday came in response to shrinking supplies of available power and meant the Electric Reliability Council of Texas, the state’s grid operator, had to draw on reserves while pushing consumers to curb usage.
Texas hadn’t experienced a grid emergency since February 2021, when a historic freeze triggered blackouts that led to hundreds of deaths, stranded millions inside freezing homes, and paralyzed the Lone Star State for almost a week.Over the last few years, the Government has thrown everything it can think of at forcing us to switch to electric vehicles. There are big subsidies on offer, both for the car itself and for a home charging port. There are tax breaks for company vehicles, long since phased out for the petrol equivalent. There are exemptions from resident’s parking permits, and from the increasingly bewildering array of congestion and clean air charges that now mean driving from one British city to another involves almost as much paperwork as getting a visa for North Korea.
And from next year onwards, the auto manufacturers will have to meet a target
of selling 22pc electric vehicles, rising to 52pc by 2028, ahead of a complete
ban on the sale of new petrol cars by 2030.
There is a problem, however. Despite all the incentives, most of us are not yet
convinced about making the switch. According to a survey this week by Auto
Trader, only 47pc of drivers believe that an electric vehicle will work for
them, while 56pc of drivers felt that they were too expensive to buy. In fact,
there are a whole range of reasons why people don’t want them. They are
expensive, with average prices above traditional models. The charging network
is hopelessly inadequate, especially if, like most people, you don’t have your
own driveway. There are doubts over how long the batteries last, minor
collisions can cost thousands to repair if the power unit is damaged, and there
is even a risk of them catching fire in enclosed space.
And yet, at the same time petrol cars are becoming increasingly unaffordable.
There already was a trend for new cars to get more and more expensive: from
2011 to 2021 the average price of a new car in the UK rose by 39pc, compared to
a 22pc rise in average wages, according to research by Moneybarn. But as quotas
are introduced, that will only accelerate, since the only way the manufacturers
can meet the target, at the same time as protecting profit margins, will be to
make fossil-fuel driven models pricier and pricier. Add in the soaring cost of
insurance, and the vast range of Ulez-style charges, and one point is clear. A
petrol car will be a high-end luxury product, restricted to a tiny minority.
The result? Car ownership will soon be following home ownership into dramatic
decline, driven off the road by central planning, and short-sighted, chaotic
government policies. Instead, people will be forced onto shambolic public
transport that might just about work in inner London, and within a few other
major cities, but is practically non-existent in the suburbs, small towns or
villages. In reality, the end of the car era will be the greatest backward step
in living standards in recent memory. In terms of mobility and freedom it will
take us right back to the 19th century - and it will be entirely our own fault.
Most of the public seem blissfully unaware of how their government is taking away their freedom in the pursuit of net zero. A few of them may be better informed now, as a result of this article:
RICHARD LITTLEJOHN: No heat pump? Put your thermals on, you're nicked | Daily Mail Online
Not net zero - just zero! This should be a wake up call for the government and for the people of the UK. Clearly offshore wind is simply much too expensive.
We seem to hear nothing but doom and gloom in our daily news. The following is an interesting article taken from a website which answers questions on every topic and is well worth looking at for a wide range of information. The following article by Patrick Boschmann can be found at this link:
The world wasn’t broken and it didn’t need fixing. The world was getting healthier and wealthier before the Climate Change© agenda came along and put a stop to all of that.
FATHER OF CLIMATE CHANGE
The things the BBC forgot to mention in their quest to make us believe that we are facing a "climate crisis"
BBC’s Extreme Summer Weather Propaganda | NOT A LOT OF PEOPLE KNOW THAT (wordpress.com)
Here in the UK we are reaching the point when the government has to make some very difficult and unpopular decisions. Even though the Conservatives had an 80 seat majority there are enough Conservative climate activist MPs to defeat them with the support of the opposition. One such decision is the ban on onshore wind farms. Faced with defeat, the government is now doing a u-turn to end the ban and pass the buck onto council planners.
*AMOC = Atlantic Meridional Overturning Circulation
A lot of climate alarmists confuse the AMOC with the Gulf Stream. They are both currents which circulate through the Atlantic Ocean, but they are distinct separate currents, as explained in this link:
The Guardian's (ocean) circulation problem - Net Zero Watch
Luckily the Gulf Stream is the one which is the least likely to be affected. But that doesn't stop fear-mongering articles peddling the idea that climate change will mean that northern Europe will be driven into an ice-age by global warming. Either we will freeze or fry, it's a win-win for the alarmists!
Anyone who gives a little thought to what is involved must realise that our 38 million houses rely on a lot of fossil fuels to power all our appliances and cook our food and keep us warm. The figures are so huge that doing the calculations is not to be taken lightly. Fortunately the Global Warming Policy Foundation has done the sums and come up with the answer £1.8 trillion extra to the cost of staying with the present system. Read the details here:
I don't envy the new minister for net zero, appointed yesterday. The fact is that most people are, understandably, reluctant to spend at least £10000 to change their central heating system from a relatively cheap gas boiler system to a less powerful and more costly heat pump. Even those who can afford it are not buying. Of course the majority cannot afford it. It is hardly sensible to put in a heat pump system unless you have good insulation as they will not give enough heat. Read all the details below.
Heat pumps: mythology and actuality - The Global Warming Policy Foundation (thegwpf.org)
Net Zero Watch slams Government’s 'desperate' and 'unethical' heat pump proposals - Net Zero Watch
The following report is a very comprehensive and interesting read.
UK Food Strategy and Net Zero (thegwpf.org)
Here are one or two highlights:
In 2019, the total CO2 emissions from the UK (i.e. production, not consumption figures) amounted to 369 million tonnes. In 2020, emissions dropped to 329 million tonnes. These figures ignore land use. In 2020, this represented just 0.95% of global emissions, down from 2.64% in 1990 (world CO2 emissions totalled 36.7 billion tonnes in 2019). Consumption-based emissions for the UK in 2019 (the most recent year for which data is available) were 520 million tonnes, bringing the country’s contribution to 1.4% of global emissions. Achieving Net Zero for the UK would be effectively a rounding error in global emissions, which continue to increase. China, far and away the world’s largest CO2 emitter for over a decade, will not compromise its economic growth in the cause of climate change mitigation.
Look at what the UK has achieved in recent decades. Total emissions have fallen very significantly, now standing at about the same level as in late Victorian times. This is for a country of 67 million, compared to about 31 million in 1870.
To re-engineer the UK’s agricultural sector and food supply chain will inevitably have a massive impact on farmers, the countryside and diets, whether or not people conform to policymakers’ expectations and move to plant-based diets or whether they simply eat more imported meat and dairy produce. Decreeing the effective end of much livestock farming would be devastating. Doing this for the sake of 10% of the country’s overall emissions of greenhouse gases would be pure folly.
Apparently, all those people missed the fact that they were looking at the output of a climate model, not actually measured temperatures. Only one news outlet, The Associated Press, bothered to print a sensible caveat…The National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration distanced itself from the designation, compiled by the University of Maine’s Climate Reanalyzer, which uses satellite data and computer simulations to measure the world’s condition….
The AP updated its story on July 7th to include this single yet very important paragraph: “NOAA, whose figures are considered the gold standard in climate data, said in a statement Thursday that it cannot validate the unofficial numbers. It noted that the reanalyzer uses model output data, which it called ‘not suitable’ as substitutes for actual temperatures and climate records. The agency monitors global temperatures and records on a monthly and an annual basis, not daily.”
So, in the space of two days, we went from temperature data that was “totally unprecedented and terrifying,” to temperature data that was not suitable for purpose.
‘Supposed’ Record Temperature In China Not All It Seems– Paul Homewood: “There is a highly coordinated effort taking place to persuade the public that the world’s climate is somehow out of control, with extreme weather everywhere and heatwaves on every continent.” … “Quite clearly, any record temperature set in the Turpan is meaningless and cannot be compared to other locations in China. It is merely the product of a micro climate. There is also a second issue here. Sanbao has no official listing or any historical data…In short we have no way of knowing whether it has been hotter in Saobao in the past, or whether the thermometer there is even properly sited and maintained.”
Read the whole article here:
There is a massive industry which has grown up around the climate change issue. It is costing the UK taxpayer many millions of pounds. Most of it goes unnoticed by the public. Occasionally something comes to the surface like this organisation:
About Us - Climate Ambition Support Alliance (CASA) (casaclimate.org)
Looking at their website we see their purpose set out as follows:
To increase the capacity and capability of climate-vulnerable country negotiators to engage in international climate negotiations, helping to preserve and enhance the rules-based international system and increase appetite for higher ambition.
Or, in simple terms, to get third world countries to lower their CO2 emissions and to help them to extract more from the West in return.
Hat tip to Not a lot of people know that, see here:
More Taxpayer Money Going To The Green Blob | NOT A LOT OF PEOPLE KNOW THAT (wordpress.com)
The New Scientist seems to be completely captivated by the climate scare. In this article Dr David Whitehouse analyses their latest article to find some surprising results:
New Scientist: How worried should we be about climate change? - Net Zero Watch
In a New Scientist Climate Special Report senior reporter Michael Le Page asks if climate change is worse than we thought it would be?
It’s first question is: Is the world is warming faster than expected?
In short, the conclusion the article draws is no, it isn’t;
Next comes the question, are we seeing more extreme weather than predicted?
The jury is still out.” So, scientifically speaking that would be another no.
Then the magazine asks: Are we closer to tipping points than anticipated?
New Scientist says “Yes, we are, though a great deal of uncertainty remains.” In other words, the answer might equally be: No, we aren’t, or We actually don’t know.
Read the full article at the above link.
Have you heard of this? It seems to have received very little publicity. But apparently it involves several Western countries, including the UK providing capital and loans to get foreign countries to agree to end their use of coal. Unsurprisingly the countries are not very keen to give up on cheap energy, as the articles below explain:
Net-zero: Green colonialism backfires | Turbulent Times
Net-zero: dead in the water | Turbulent Times
Have you ever wondered why our electricity is amongst the most expensive in the world? Well the answer lies in the crazy pricing system which could not be more bizarre if they tried. Read it here from Ross Clark:
While plastic straws had their drawbacks, we now find that replacing them is not as easy as was first thought. This is yet another example of rushing to do something without thinking it through. A bit like net zero, though a lot cheaper!
This is a tale of unexpected consequences, as Londoners are buying older and higher CO2 emission vehicles which are, ironically, exempt from the ultra low emission zone (ULEZ) charge. As a bonus, these cars are also exempt from road tax. These taxes are driving us into becoming a third world country.
Sales of old fossil cars are booming in Ultra Low Emission London… « JoNova (joannenova.com.au)
Any serious scientists who wish to write a paper which goes against the hypothesis of man-made warming is finding it is likely to destroy their reputation.
The Climategate leaks showed co-compiler of the HadCRUT global temperature series Dr Phil Jones emailing Michael “Hockey Stick” Mann, July 8, 2004:
"I can’t see either of these papers being in the next IPCC report. Kevin [Trenberth, a colleague] and I will keep them out somehow — even if we have to redefine what the peer-review literature is!"
Thanks to a science whistle-blower, there’s now documentation of a current exercise as bad as that captured in the Jones-Mann correspondence. This new and horrid saga – again involving Dr Mann – sets out to deplatform and destroy a peer-endorsed published paper by four Italian scientists. Their paper in European Physical Journal Plus is titled A critical assessment of extreme events trends in times of global warming and documents that extreme weather and related disasters are not generally increasing, contrary to the catastrophists feeding misinformation to the Guardian/ABC axis and other compliant media
.
Full story here.
