Electric cars are not selling well to individual buyers. Few people want to buy a heat pump. Green campaigners insist these products are essential to save the planet. They plan further taxes subsidies, regulations and bans to force people to buy things they do not want or cannot afford. To succeed the green revolution needs to be a popular revolution with people wanting its products.
There are various strands to scepticism which Green campaigners need to take seriously. Shouting back at people that they are climate deniers is no way to win them over and is usually wrong. Let us first look at the science.
I know of no one who denies carbon dioxide is a greenhouse gas or who denies manmade carbon dioxide is increasing. Most accept climate  has changed a lot in the past and is likely to carry on changing. The issues many have with the “settled science” include
1. Green scientists do need to explain to the wider audience what caused the warm periods and ice ages before mankind appeared. How will these  same forces which must still be around affect our temperatures going  forward?
2. In historical times before industrialisation and the adoption of coal,oil and gas as prime energy sources  by people what caused global warming and cooling? Could these forces still be around?
3. How does variation in solar intensity, solar flares and other changes in our main light and energy source affect past earth temperatures.? What are the forecasts for sun activity going forward? Will this make us warmer or colder?
4. Why do wind and current  patterns shift? What is the forecast for these going forward, as they can have an important impact on weather in different countries and continents.
5. What is the role of water vapour and what changes are likely in its pattern in future? Water vapour is another very common greenhouse gas.
Future temperature levels will be the result of the interplay of the past natural forces that produced climate change with the manmade additions to  greenhouse gases. To persuade more people to join green campaigns they will need persuasion that manmade CO 2 will be the deciding variable in future temperatures. This is presumably based on the thesis that past natural forces like solar activity and seismic activity will not be dominant forces or that their net impact will be neutral in ways that it was not in previous eras.
January 3, 2024
Good morning.
As many, including myself have stated, this is all a SCAM to bring in changes people do not want, all in the name of saving the planet.
The winner of all this will be China and the CCP as they have ownership of most of the materials to make batteries etc. China is already limiting supply, forcing european manufacturers to consider moving to China.
When will people wake up to the fact that we are being played.
January 3, 2024
Indeed and even if you belief in the CO2 devil gas religion it will not work anyway as:-
1. It requires World Cooperation which will not happen we cannot even stop wars after all.
2. The âsolutionsâ being pushed public transport, EV cars, walking, cycling, heat pumps, wind, solar, biofuels⊠save little or often no CO2 anyway. When properly accounted for. EV cars actually increase CO2 in general and tyre debris too.
January 3, 2024
HMRC announces this week punitive tax rises to vehicle excise licence from April. To stop poor and ordinary people from driving leaving it as a preserve for the rich. Like Sunak, Cameron and King nut stupid flying around the world in private jets to the same destination! Different rules for Preachers- taxpayers pay for it!
China, India and Russia not playing stupid buggers. US doing what it wants as well.
JR, all the jobs, manufacturing and coal energy production has not changed just your stupid Uni party. Tell us if things are as dire as your party suggests why did it import 3.5 million people here in the last two years? How do the 3.5 million live? Do they have energy, food, waste and housing needs? Does mass House building with cement and concrete help the planet? Then we have the added transport for 3.5 million people.
How about Royal Navy, Border Force and RNLI diesel to transport criminals to our shores to gain amnesty? Does that save the planet?
Turkey refused entry to two UK minesweeper ships through their territorial waters. Has Shapps given two of our minesweeper ships to Ukraine at taxpayer costs? Was this to save the planet? How about all the UK weaponry given to corrupt Ukraine how does that help the planet? I note war monger Cameron is going to give Ukraine another ÂŁ2.8 billion of borrowed UK taxpayer cash! Plebgate gives Africa ÂŁ3 billion to spend as it wants with no strings attached and in addition wants to feed Africa!
We cannot afford the stupidity of your party. Call an election.
January 3, 2024
Well said Hope.
January 3, 2024
I forgot the punitive tarriffs to car manufacturers start this week!
China, Russia and India must be laughing their heads off as they build more and more coal fired power stations for their immense manufacturing sectors- while exporting their low paid dross to our country to claim welfare! All the Uni party has achieved is give away our wealth, security and knowledge to these countries. It has not helped the planet one jot,not one.
Russia selling 30% more LNG to EU, who in turn inter connects with UK! Meanwhile Uni party falsely pretending there are sanctions! Shapps gives two of our war ships to Ukraine! We British taxpayers are paying for both sides of the war! JR, please confirm if this is the case and why anyone in their right mind would vote for your Uni party?
British Gas paying people not to use energy! 300 years of coal under our feet, JRâs party for years preferred to buy coal from Russia!! Could the nut stupid King pass a comment on this economic madness- in between digging up a perfectly vast lawn with diesel powered tractors for a fad to redesign!
January 3, 2024
+1
January 3, 2024
+1 the anger is so complete that I cannot see how it can be set aside. The will of the people has been thwarted and thus âdemocracyâ has failed.
The world looks on and believe that European people have stolen their wealth because it is obvious that we are the most stupid of all the races.
January 3, 2024
Indeed but Starmer is even more full of green cr** than Sunak.
In Primrose Hill today where another of Kahnâs London sad child stabbing took place on New Yearâs Eve. But he has stopped one of the two lifts at Chalk Farm Tube so as to save energy and help lower temperatures it claims.
Great plan Kahn, firstly you are wasting the circa ÂŁ100k plus capital cost of the lift. Secondly some people will mis their tube making them circa 15 mins late and the one lift is now very crowded
and this heating the place far more as they wait longer. Thirdly many people were then using the long stairs. Stairs statistically are far more dangerous than lifts and this too will heat the station far more than the lift and will waste far more energy too.
Do they not have any decent engineers with brains at the top of The Mayors TFL? I assume it was actually shut to save a tiny bit of money in maintaining it? Why not switch some of the trains off too then! Anyway please concentrate on the knife crime and murders please.
January 3, 2024
Turkey made it clear at the start of this war that the Black Sea was now a war zone under the provisions of the 1936 Montreux Convention which restricts the number ,size,and duration of stay of the military craft of non-littoral powers.
Surely,even in this most incompetent of governments -with it’s legendary lack of attention to detail-SOMEONE would have been aware of this.
January 3, 2024
The earth is about 4.2 billion years old and climate has always changed, landscapes and seas have also changed- again impacting on the weather. We are now expected to believe the tiny period of the last two hundreds years is going to destroy the earth. Not that fossil fuels have stopped but moved to other countries. Apparently making us poor, getting rid of jobs and manufacturing to other countries in exchange for their low paid welfare claimants helps the planet even though China has put out more than UK has since Industrial Revolution. Utter madness.
January 3, 2024
+1. They want to shoot at something to show how powerful they are. They will be forced to face their own existential weakness.
January 3, 2024
And you think Sir Kneel a Lot, Ginge, and Reeves would be any better ?
Remember, Milliband is pencilled in to be climate change secretary !
Unfortunately, the only hope we have is for the Conservatives to cling on and a new leader takes them in a more sensible direction. Every other alternative government will be much, much worse, especially if it is a coalition between Labour, Lib Dims and the SNP
January 4, 2024
Reform party has no such belief. Vote for what you believe in. You vote Uni Party and you rubber stamp the madness and You Will pay for it! Time has long gone for it will be worse with the other lot. They are the same. Wake up.
January 3, 2024
Mark B and “Lifelogic” (I put that in quotes because there is no logic in what you wrote). Are you in the pay of the fossil fuel companies? Nothing of what you wrote bears any relation to the truth.
January 3, 2024
@ Keith do you have a science background and have you researched this? What exactly do you you think I said that lacked logic? If you think you know then please tell me otherwise it seems you do not.
Also I am alas not paid by any fossil fuel companies unfortunately.
January 4, 2024
No but over 150 Tory MPs are in the pay of alleged Green organisations as depicted in the Daily Sceptic! JR forgets that part.
Reply Not in the pay
January 3, 2024
Mark, it does have that feel. The illusionist convinces the audience of something that isn’t real.
Other questions for Sir J to ask:
How has the world survived much higher CO2 concentrations than now (which are at a long term historical low)?
What evidence do we have that stopping man-made CO2 emissions will affect global temperatures?
January 3, 2024
Food is next…
Look at the shipping routes being blocked, meaning ships must go around Africa. This will put added costs onto already expensive food!
There is plenty of evidence of the climate change agenda being manipulated…
January 3, 2024
China does not have ownership of “most of the materials to make batteries etc”. A simple search will inform you of where mineral deposits are, eg Greenland has the largest deposits of neodymium though that material is not critical to electric motors. Australia is the main source of Lithium. Also, substitutions are possible in some cases while there is active research focused on alternative battery chemistries.
Where China does have a lead is their willingness to take on mass manufacturing at low cost.
BTW Where does your petrol and diesel come from? .. It appears there are no UK refineries left.
January 3, 2024
What about Fawley?
January 3, 2024
I’m surprised you’ve fallen for the man made CO2 scam John. You’ve seriously gone down in my estimation
Reply I have not fallen for any scam. Try reading my article again
January 3, 2024
I don’t believe Sir John has fallen for the scam. He is just trying to get the climate change cult to look at the real facts rather than their cherry-picked data. If you measure the rise in global temperatures from the end of the last ice age the graph looks alarming but if you measure it from before this age we haven’t even got back to normal temperatures and still have a long way to go.
January 3, 2024
You say…..I know of no one who denies CO2 is a greenhouse gas. It’s a trace gas and useful for growing food.
January 3, 2024
Let’s look at what you wrote. I took the liberty of clearing up a few minor typos in what I have pasted below but have not changed any words or meanings.
Of course, the answers to these questions are well-known but deniers like to ignore facts. Why you put “settled science” in quotation marks is a mystery.
[JR] The issues many have with the âsettled scienceâ include
1. Green scientists do need to explain to the wider audience what caused the warm periods and ice ages before mankind appeared. How will these same forces which must still be around affect our temperatures going forward?
[KC] We know what caused the warm periods and ice ages: changes to the earth’s orbit and tilt, changes to volcanic action and other geologic effects, and changes in the earth’s biota leading to variation in O2 and CO2 levels. Yes, these forces are still around but they take effect over geologic timescales, unlike the anthropogenic increase in greenhouse gases which has happened and continues to happen over very short timescales.
2. In historical times before industrialisation and the adoption of coal, oil and gas as prime energy sources by people what caused global warming and cooling? Could these forces still be around?
[KC] Oh, for goodness sake. This is the same question as 1, with the same answers. Do keep up.
3. How does variation in solar intensity, solar flares and other changes in our main light and energy source affect past earth temperatures.? What are the forecasts for sun activity going forward? Will this make us warmer or colder?
[KC] Hardly at all, especially compared to the impact of greenhouse gases.
4. Why do wind and current patterns shift? What is the forecast for these going forward, as they can have an important impact on weather in different countries and continents?
[KC] Wind and ocean currents are mostly caused by temperature differences, so as the oceans and earth warm this warming will have inevitable effects on wind and ocean currents. Modelling this is very difficult so it is almost impossible to say exactly what the effects will be. We can be fairly confident that this will (and indeed already has) lead to an increase in extreme weather.
5. What is the role of water vapour and what changes are likely in its pattern in future? Water vapour is another very common greenhouse gas.
[KC] But nowhere near as powerful as CO2 and methane. But as the earth gets hotter, there will be an increase in water vapour in the atmosphere, with predictable consequential increases in temperature.
[JR] Future temperature levels will be the result of the interplay of the past natural forces that produced climate change with the manmade additions to greenhouse gases. To persuade more people to join green campaigns they will need persuasion that manmade CO2 will be the deciding variable in future temperatures. This is presumably based on the thesis that past natural forces like solar activity and seismic activity will not be dominant forces or that their net impact will be neutral in ways that it was not in previous eras.
[KC] Why do you think any of this is in doubt? Or is it that you want people to think it is doubt? If so, why would that be? The science is pretty much settled (not “settled”). Manmade greenhouse gas emissions, mostly but not exclusively CO2, are far and away the biggest contributor to climate change. You have to be spectacularly obtuse to think otherwise – or see some gain in persuading people of that.
Reply So no evidence or working models to help us with the wide range of influences on climate in your piece
January 3, 2024
KC “Manmade greenhouse gas emissions, mostly but not exclusively CO2, are far and away the biggest contributor to climate change. You have to be spectacularly obtuse to think otherwise â or see some gain in persuading people of that.”
SJS: “Chinese greenhouse gas emissions, mostly but not exclusively CO2, are far and away the biggest contributor to climate change. You have to be spectacularly obtuse to think otherwise â or see some gain in persuading people of that.”
Yes, sir, if you’re dealing relativistically, then that goes across the board. The UK freezing itself while others scorch does us no favours.
January 3, 2024
Whether it is produced by China, the USA or ⊠Vanuatu, the emission of greenhouse gases is the biggest contributor to climate change and the few percent of those gases continuously man-made (on top of the naturally produced ones) since the end of the 19th century are likely to be the reasons behind the changes presently seen.
As for the contributor (PW) who was wondering what a greenhouse gas is: an atmospheric gas with absorption bands in the long-wave part of the electromagnetic spectrum, for Earth between the wavelengths 4 and about 100 micrometers. Water vapour have such absorption bands over most of that domain except in the âwindowâ between 8.5 to 13 micrometers, CO2 has bands at 4.3, 9.4, 10.4, 15 microns, ozone at 9.6 microns, then there is (methane) CH4, (nitrous oxide) N2O, a number of chlorofluorocarbons CFC-11, CFC-12, âŠ
Whereas H2O is the most abundant and strongest greenhouse gas, through the hydrological cycle (evaporation, condensation, precipitation) it has a relatively short lifetime as water vapour (about 5 days). In comparison CH4 has one around 12 years, N2O about 100 years, CO2 between 20 and 100+ years.
January 3, 2024
Reply to reply: Do you consider the results of reanalyses made by various operational weather forecasts in the USA (NASA, NCEP), Japan (JMA), UK (MetOffice), Europe (ECMWF) covering 40+ years as an absence of evidence or an evidence of absence of climate change?
January 4, 2024
Hef,
Your opening paragraph says it all âmost likelyâ. Climate has always changed over 4.2 billion years we know this as a matter of fact from archaeology through sub soils etc. The science is not settled proving climate change is through man.
January 4, 2024
According to palaeoanthropological research, proto-humans started to move around from Africa to Asia, Oceania, the Americas about 2 Myr ago.
Humankind (homo sapiens) has appeared in various places in the last 800-300 kyr.
So referring to atmospheric CO2 concentrations at times older than that is non-sensical when potential interactions between humans and CO2 are considered.
The last glaciation during which humans were present ended about 11,700-11,500 years ago, and the present period (Holocene) is a so-called interglacial.
These interglacials, after Milankovitch, are linked to small changes in Earth orbit around the Sun (eccentricity), in Earthâs axis tilt (obliquity), or wobbling of this axis (precession).
If one follows Milankovitch and successors, the timescale (period) for all these changes is a mix between 405 kyr, 124 kyr, 95 kyr, for eccentricity, 41 kyr for obliquity and 26 kyr for precession.
Even taking this shortest time scale of 26 kyr, we might still be 10 to 15 kyr away from feeling the effect of this orbital change.
It would seem that we had a much faster change in CO2 atmospheric concentration in the last 150 years. If not man-made and not Milankovitchâs effects, what could it be?
Solar magnetic storms, fluctuations of solar intensity ⊠? these solar sources would either only affect the Earthâs magnetosphere or affect similarly both the stratosphere and troposphere. Only âgreenhouseâ gas effects bring simultaneous stratospheric cooling and tropospheric warming, something that has been observed by radiosondes and temperature sounders over the last 40+ years (BTW something the static computations of W&H cannot even see).
Although it is important to discuss how to deal with the impact of changes in temperature, precipitation, etc, whether mitigation or adaptation is to be preferred, it is rather futile (or plain stupid when it comes from people who donât have the beginning of a start of a clue about what they are talking about) to pretend that these changes are not happening.
January 3, 2024
You say âGreen campaigners insist these products are essential to save the planetâ as does Sunakâs idiotic government. Driving EVs and heat pumps of electricity largely generated by gas, coal, oil, wood is lunacy even in CO2 terms.
You say:- âI know of no one who denies carbon dioxide is a greenhouse gas or who denies manmade carbon dioxide is increasing.â Indeed but even a doubling of CO2 would not warm the planet very much as Prof. William Happer demonstrates in his excellent videos. This as most of the frequencies CO2 absorbs are being absorbed already by existing CO2, plus most of the feed back mechanisms are negative anyway. More plant growth with more CO2 and a warmer climate radiates more heat.
CO2 is just one of thousands of factors that control climate the idea that it is some âworld thermostatâ is total lunacy. On balance a bit more CO2 (plant, tree, and crop food) and a bit warm is a net positive anyway. We are in a relative dearth of CO2 in historical terms. If we really had to control world temperature CO2 would be a very inefficient and largely ineffective way to do it.
January 3, 2024
Indeed.
See the excellent new book âThe Death of Scienceâ and the Dr John Campbell video on this with the very sound Prof. Dalgleish.
What was and is needed is a properly funded red team of scientists to point out how the group think on Net Zero, the net harm Covid Vaccines, the net harm lockdowns, the way the NHS is funded and run⊠is wrong, wrong, wrong.
The money, vested interests and politics is buying the science it wants to hear and killing the real science.
January 3, 2024
Well said LL. Plus we need to urgently look into the huge rise in excess deaths particularly among our younger people. My own family has been devastated in the last couple of years all because the NHS refused to fund a simple test in newborns which is widely available in other Western countries and then had a long wait for embryo selection. Yet my local health authority could find ÂŁ120k to remove the word WOMEN from its maternity literature. The NHS needs radical reform, it’s crazy how it’s being run.
January 3, 2024
All under a Tory government. Not that Labour/Libdem would be different. There’s a third way.
January 3, 2024
The Death of Science: The Retreat from Reason in the Post-Modern World Kindle Edition
by Paul R Goddard (Author), Nabil Jarad (Author), Chandra Wickramasinghe (Author), David Nutt (Author), Jeremy and Mark Goddard (Author), Rosamond Jones (Author), Clare Craig (Author), Angus G Dalgleish (Editor), Karol Sikora (Foreword), Sir Richard Dearlove (Preface)
January 3, 2024
Well put LL. In particular, what is and is not a ‘Greenhouse Gas’? Only CO2? I don’t know; it is one of the phrases thrown around by non science folk trying to sound competent in atmospheric science. All gases absorb light of some wavelength, it’s called spectroscopy. That’s the extent of my remembered A level physics.
It is sad that the real scientists who challenge the pundits on the ‘settled science’ are few, mostly being scared off from speaking out by loss of income. However, our host has made a start in UK politics.
I also see ‘excess deaths’ is now coming into the mainstream at last. Perhaps there’s hope that facts will result in questions.
January 3, 2024
I think it is very informative to note that just about all of the scientists that question the Climate Change/Net Zero orthodoxy are either retired or have secured tenure at some prestigeous seat of learning. They are all eminent in their feild, either in physics or earth sciences. Some have held very senior positions as government advisors. So whilst they may be in a minority, they are not only well qualified but also financially independant. They are feee to express their opinion. To my mind this adds considerable weight to their credibility.
January 3, 2024
Yes! And the same goes for those eminent men who warned against the gene therapy jabs for what is acknowledged to be manmade CV19.
Independent and with nothing but their reputations to lose – that precious thing.
January 3, 2024
â It is sad that the real scientists who challenge the pundits on the âsettled scienceâ are few, mostly being scared off from speaking out by loss of income.â
The degree to which this is happening is frightening, on Climate, Net Zero, Lockdowns, the Vaccine Harms, the current huge excess death rates⊠Top sensible scientist being silenced by politicians and media often bought by vested interests. Why no serious discussion of the excess deaths, why is Andrew Bridgen kicked out of the Tories by Sunak just for telling the truth?
January 3, 2024
LL – Prof Angus Dalgleish had a discussion last evening about excess deaths with Mr Farage on GB News’ ‘Farage’ programme 02 January. Some interesting points made.
January 3, 2024
He is very sound in may view.
January 3, 2024
LL :
Correct.
In fact the work of Happer and Wijngaarden (see the CO2 coalition website for details) is the game changer that completely destroys the myth that increasing CO2 (natural or anthropogenic) leads to an increased GHG effect and hence runaway warming.
This is in addition to all the other historical and scientific evidence in existence such as the Antarctic Vostok ice core data showing when both CO2 and temperature are low CO2 follows temperature and not vice versa. Plus ample evidence of warm periods since the last ice age ended just 11,000 years ago (no anthropogenic explanation of course for the warming to come out of this last ice age!) such as vines grown by Hadrianâs Wall in Roman times and barley grown in Greenland in the Middle Ages. Plus the receding and advancing of permafrost, tree lines and glaciers everywhere.
January 4, 2024
How obtuse you are. Wijngaarten & Happerâs papers are not game changers. They are copies of work done in the 90s and 00s but incomplete in the sense that:
1/ their radiation model does not bring anything that had not been done for example by Clough et al. (1992, Line-by-Line calculations of atmospheric fluxes and heating rates: Application to water vapour; 1995, Application to carbon dioxide, ozone, methane, nitrous oxide and halocarbons. Both papers in Journal of Geophysical Research, )
2/ This US group then produced a radiation transfer scheme from this line-by-line work, scheme that has since been used in weather forecast and climate model, therefore including all known feedbacks with surface radiative properties, with change in humidity, clouds, carbon dioxide, ozone and other greenhouse gases (Mlawer et al., 1997, J.Geophys.Res., 102, D14, 16,663-16,682).
3/ This is something that W&H or H&W models have not done simply because they are unable to do it, their codes being likely 100 to 1000 times less computer-efficient than the codes presently used in weather forecast and climate models.
Furthermore W&H are either dishonest or rather clumsy. Anyone simulating fluxes as they show in their papers would have shown a curve of the differences together with the original observations and simulations. They didnât simply because in all wavelength intervals where it matters, ie over the water vapour, carbon dioxide, ozone and other greenhouse gases absorption bands, a difference curve would show that the differences would be larger there.
H&Wâs work is hardly worth what a current BSc student in atmospheric science or meteorology would be asked to do as a monthly project.
As for the âdistinguished oldâ scientists, once they retire, they will hardly get any money for âprofessionalâ travelling. What about if the Heritage Foundation, the GWPF or any other climate change skeptic group were to finance a week, all expenses paid, to a conference in the US, Britain or any other more exotic place?
January 3, 2024
This government does what the WEF tells it.
January 3, 2024
If you approve of Marxism you’ll no doubt endorse climate change ideology and the total power over our world it affords its apostles. All main parties are apostles of this pernicious ideology. Why is this? Because they’ve got bat shit for brains and an authoritarian soul.
Do not underestimate the cynicism and poisonous intent of middle income, arsey, ‘butter wouldn’t melt’ green advocates
Some people love power and they’ll revel in using against those they despise
January 3, 2024
+++
And they just LOVE money.
And fooling those who are prone to having the wool pulled over their eyes.
Or who are desperately greedy enough to âsurrender to the agendaâ.
AnywayâŠI thought we were supposed to be several feet under water by now or frazzled like those bits of streaky bacon on the turkey.
January 3, 2024
Yes,”they just LOVE money”.It’s not Marxist,it’s fascist.Look who is behind all this;since when have multi-billionaire bankers been marxist?
January 3, 2024
+1
January 3, 2024
All very good points. You can add volcanic activity and meteorites (didn’t one end the era of the dinasaurs?) to the list. Maybe the next meteorite will have “net zero, you must be joking” written on it. As Mark B says, it’s a scam.
I only wish more people would wake up and push back. Back in my school and uni (geology, geography, archaeology) days we learnt about historic climate change. If you had that sort of traditional education, you can’t really be persuaded that man’s impact is that great. Unfortunately it’s probably not taught that way any more.
January 3, 2024
+++
Agree.
Speaking of school.
I am certain that books ( especially encyclopaedias) have been purposely marginalised if not gotten rid of.
They are narrowing the spectrum of knowledge to what suits them.
January 3, 2024
Even Physics at school is now full of climate alarmist lies. Claims for example that cycling and walking produce no CO2 also on government web sites or that chopping trees down to burn at Drax makes any sense.
Total drivel, stupidity or more likely blatant lies.
January 3, 2024
1. The Sun
2. The Sun
3. While you can observe sun activity and make predictions on observable data they are very short term. The time it takes a solar flare to get to the earth. Beyond that predictions are pure speculation.
4. Largely because of the short term effects of solar flares, there is no long term accurate prediction.
5. Water Vapour is natures way of transferring water from the sea to the land. A very haphazard process that sees a lot of it returning to the sea and much of it dropping in excess where not required and scarcely where it would be of benefit. Look to Israel to see how man can to a degree control the randomness of water supply. The opportunity to better control what converts to water and falls on the UK has been there for at least the last hundred years. However acquiring politicians of sufficient acumen to see how has been the challenge. They prefer vanity projects like HS2 and the Dome which confirm their vane stupudity. Consider what it would mean financially and strategically for farmers and horticulture to be able to tap into an abundent supply of water as and when required. It would improve our carbon imprint for a kick off, without destroying our personal mobility.
To your last paragraph I would suggest it dangerously erronious to downgrade the effect of the Sun on climate against that of the new tart on the block CO2. The Sun controls the ultimate destiny of the Earth, like it or not.
January 3, 2024
The temperature in the UK changes from 25-35C in Summer to -2 to 10 C in the Winter. That is a large range which is greater in other countries but less at the equator. This is due to the position of the Sun relative to the Earth.
To make a case that changes in the weather is due to much else than the activity of the Sun is risible and should be laughed off.
Less pollution? Yes
Use fewer resources for the growing number of inhabitants of our planet? Yes.
Reduce carbon? Not important in the grand scheme especially when all we are doing is importing our use elsewhere at our own cost.
January 3, 2024
Sir
The race to net zero directly affects our lives more than our membership of the EU ever did.
A full, frank and impartial debate on the science and on the economics, via the main stream media, followed by a referendum, should sort it out …… provided that the Government of the day can be trusted to deliver the result.
January 3, 2024
Well..put it like this.I have read recent articles about the 1952 London Peasouper Fog alleged to have claimed 4,000 lives ( how did they know?) which was never once mentioned to me by my at-that-time -London-dwelling relatives.
My dad (Walthamstow) did speak of pea souper fogs but then he also spoke of pea soup days at the local swimming baths. Cheap entrance before the water was changed/cleaned.
A claim made about the 1952 London fog was that cattle died at Smithfield. As far as I was ever aware live cattle at Smithfield stopped in 1852. ( Cattle .I believe moved to Islington).
With regard to the market it was moved on health fear grounds ( now finally gone I think) very transparently in Hansard because THEY WANTED TO BUILD!
The more it changes etc.
January 3, 2024
In the early fifties just about every adult smoked and respiratory health was dreadful. All my elderly relatives at the time had bronchitis and it was taken for granted that it was a condition that awaited all of us. I remember the pea soupers and I welcomed them as it meant getting out of school early. On one occasion the visibility was so poor that my bus route home was cancelled. So I got a train into London to go to my dad’s place of work. On the journey the train suddenly passed out of the smog and into clear sunshine. I looked back out of the train window and saw a vast rolling, billowing cloud of dirty grey stuff, a sight that I have never forgotten.
January 3, 2024
+++
However, theyâd have us believe that respiratory disease is utterly rampant now.
Remember?
People have smoked since tobacco was brought back here and there are now apparently too many people!
I forgot to mention that in the Hansard report blaming Smithfield cattle for disease a mention was made of rising cancer cases (cattle germs according to 19th century MPs supposed to be linked to cancer).
Blame anything. Say anything. Frighten us all rigid. Itâs always about the same thing.
Money!
PS. Have you thought of writing those memoirs? You ( I think) have a nice style and iconic memories!
January 3, 2024
When I was a child in West London in the 1950s, I recall going to school with a handkerchief over my mouth as a mask. When you took it off at school it was yellow and. Lack from the soot and sulphur. The Clean Air Act 1956 which stopped the burning of coal to heat our homes (you had to then use âsmokeless fuelsâ) put an end to this awful smogs. Fortunately there were not a load of people around who refused to believe anything was wrong.
January 3, 2024
I’ll believe something is wrong when you show me a) what actually is wrong; and b) proof that “excess” CO2 is entirely caused by man; and c) that the man made excess of CO2 is solely or primarily responsible for the approximate 1°K warming in the last 150 years. You can’t, because there is no such proof.
January 3, 2024
+++
Agree.
The desire to âclean upâ the environment is always political.
Even Evelynâs â Fumifugiumâ.
January 3, 2024
I can remember the thick fogs that had a yellowish tinge living west of Ealing, hardly central London.
The Clean Air act soon stopped the worst of them.
During 1970/1 we used to drive end of working day towards Wokingham turning off the short M4 at Holyport.
By the time we got to Binfield we would encounter numerous fogs – yet not particularly wet weather.
I can remember one when trying to drive on the left with little vision crawling along, wipers going wild, suddenly realising I was about to cross the A321 (being on Forest Road) without knowing where I was! It was alarming.
Within a few years a fog became a rarity – why is that, when it seems to me the climate is wetter over the year that it was then!
January 3, 2024
Everhopeful
Born and bought up in West London and certainly remember the peasouper smogs before 1952, the longest and worst lasted for about 3 days, no point in going out of the house unless desperate, as viability was down to a matter of a few feet at the time, I think the official records record visibility as one yard in Richmond at the time.
This was filthy choking yellow/green smog which actually and to a degree also infiltrated many houses at the time.
Certainly never had anything like it since the clean air act was introduced in 1956.
Yes thousands did die at the time, your relatives probably did not mention it as it was not an unusual occurrence, Air quality was always low in London as in many other industrial areas at the time, but freak atmospheric air pressure kept the smog of 1952 in situ over London for an extended period at the time.
January 3, 2024
Thanks for that. Nice anecdotes.
Did you take part in the flu jab trials during the winter of 1952/3?
According to the BMJ of the time there were pilot trials of flu jabs âŠsome 12,700 volunteers AND an outbreak of flu. Especially bad in London and the South.
Sounds familiar.
And then of course all those pollution-caused deaths!
January 3, 2024
Oh..AND masks could be obtained by prescriptionâŠagainst the smog you understandâŠnot the flu.
And bizarrely Churchill fell foul of his political opponents for denouncing the smog alarm as nonsense! AND his govt. ignored previous warningsâŠDonora Death.
January 4, 2024
Everhopeful
Not aware of and did not take part in any of the suggested flu jabs, neither did any of my family.
Do you personally know of anyone that did ?
Not trying to minimise your connection, but I guess all of those who died also ate bread and drank tea, do you have any written medical evidence of your suggestion that the excessive number of people who died at the time, died from another cause, if so I would be interested to see it.
January 3, 2024
Can I suggest Sir John that you join CLIMATE DECLARATION for an introduction to the many respected scientists who do NOT believe that man made CO2 has any great impact on climate.
It is a gigantic fraud being inflicted on the developed world to destroy our economies.
January 3, 2024
Indeed there is unequivocal evidence that Earth is warming at an unprecedented rate. Overwhelmingly, human activity is the principal cause. Most independent scientists, governments and especially the fossil fuel industry accept the conclusions. The information under this link will answer all the questions raised above
https://climate.nasa.gov/evidence/
We are flying to Morocco today for a short break, we are heading to Marrakesh and then Erfoud to go fossil hunting, where the Jurassic layers are good for Trilobites. Mrs Gold has insisted that I leave my expenive new laptop at home, so I shall be offline for a few days.
Reply I am grateful to Mrs Gold. I note you will be flying so you are obviously not that worried about manmade CO 2 increases. The attachment you send asserts but does not establish causation.
January 3, 2024
Well said Sir J.
Amazing how many of the eco-warrior types need to fly around the world to explain their problems.
January 3, 2024
@Sakara Gold I am not convinced by the climate alarmists. But I have an open mind. It seems plenty of people who are qualified and knowledgeable on the subject are, at least, sceptical.
The NASA article seems to me to be written by someone who has come to a conclusion and then written a biased article. It does not feel like scientific writing.
I am keen on clean energy. I donât mind paying more for clean energy. But what is clean? Solar panels and wind turbines all need raw materials mined, processed and manufactured. Solar panels are plastic which comes from oil. Etc.
IF we are the cause of irreversible, catastrophic global warming, surely the only answer is fewer people. If there has to be a cull, Iâd start with people who fly just to indulge their hobbies. Plenty of fossils (human and trilobites) here in West Dorset on the Jurassic Coast.
January 3, 2024
Agree with your final paragraph Mike. The real problem on this globe is that the human population is at 8bn. Just 100 years ago it was only 2bn. That rise drives land clearance, water demand, mineral demand, food demand… Why don’t the CC elite work out how to reduce the number of people by 2050/2070/2100?
January 3, 2024
Peter B. I think they have worked that one out.
January 3, 2024
The danger is they are. Starving us and freezing us to death are two methods they appear to be trying to implement.
January 3, 2024
I think they have and they called it Covid variant 1, 2, 3 etc. ….
January 3, 2024
Thank you, Sir John, for a reply that made me laugh. And thank you Sakara Gold, for providing the opportunity : I hope you have a good trip.
January 3, 2024
đ€Ł
January 3, 2024
And
I’ve got to give it to you mate, no one has the hutzpah here quite like you.
January 3, 2024
Ah! Morocco – it was claimed that Switzerland would have Moroccoâs climate by 2000. No skiiing whatsoever. Iâm sure it was our visionary King who assured us of that.
January 3, 2024
Reducing our 1% of World emissions to 0% will have no effect on Climate Change, so we are being manipulated for no good reason.
China etc. continue to pound the stuff out, building their manufacturing bases for the future, as the UK’s declines.
I have to ask, therefore, what is the motivation behind these dictates?
January 3, 2024
Interesting to note that Tesla has been overtaken as the worlds largest producer of EVs by BYD – a little known Chinese manufacturer. I’m sure Tesla has some very advanced software (the heart of their technical success) but BYD manufacture their own batteries and have direct access to the vast Chinese market, where they are well known & regarded.
By co-incidence I saw a TV advert for an EV yesterday (a striking looking car) and was wondering what the brand was. It turned out to be BYD – the first of many BYD ads I will see in the future I suspect…
January 3, 2024
“Green campaigners…..plan further taxes subsidies, regulations and bans to force people to buy things they do not want or cannot afford.”
Sections 74-77 Environment Act 2021 address âprovision to require the recall of motor vehicles on environmental groundsâ; cars deemed not to meet relevant standards by reference to noise, heat, vibrations âor any other kind of release of energy or emissionsâ are at risk of forfeiture.
Well, they didn’t say “at risk of forfeiture”, they said “liable to recall”, despite the fact that the state cannot “recall” anything it did not own in the first place. How on earth, and for what purpose, did such a Marxist measure get on the statute books under a Conservative government?
January 3, 2024
If you look at your cars V5 form you’ll see you are only the registered keeper, not the owner. Ownership passed to the government when the car was registered.
January 4, 2024
I can’t agree with that. Ownership passed from the vendor (garage, dealership, private seller) to the buyer under the purchase contract upon payment of purchase price and handing over of keys. The mantra “registered keeper is not necessarily legal owner” covers situations where the keeper drives a car belonging to someone else e.g. to a fleet owner or indeed a parent.
January 3, 2024
My rule of thumb.
Good science adds to the standard of living. (It delivers)
Bad science takes it away. (It fails to deliver)
Social science is NOT science at all. It is politics.
January 3, 2024
Succinctly put Paula
January 3, 2024
If you read the blog “Watts Up With That” you’ll be very well informed and will find that “the science” pushed by the Eco Zealots is as faulty and manipulated as “the science” used to push the Covid Scam.
Changing my gas boiler to a heat pump and my i10 to an EV won’t make a scrap of difference to anything – except a negative impact on my savings – so they won’t be happening. If enough of us refuse to be coerced into complying with the Eco Nutters in the Establishment, they’ll be forced to back down.
January 3, 2024
It should be abundantly clear to the green scientists, if they would embrace joined up thinking, that the UK should end net immigration, so the land can be returned to meadow and forest, not turned over to more housing.
So why aren’t they shouting their concern?
January 3, 2024
@Dave Andrews. Indeed. If we in the developed world have a far greater carbon footprint than people in the undeveloped world, then it is environmental vandalism and insanity to allow people to move from the undeveloped world to the developed world. Numbers should be limited here.
January 3, 2024
If climate was really a problem green activists would stop mass migration from low energy usage countries to high energy usage. But they donât.
The ONLY thing mass migration, woke and climate change have in common is taking money from the public purse.
January 3, 2024
I have previously suggested that Qataris, with the highest per capita energy consumption, should be free to emigrate anywhere, while those of us living in the UK would be confined to Africa and South America. China would be out of bounds for Europeans.
January 3, 2024
Also modelling is not science, ‘settled’ or not.âScience is layers of refutation.âAny model of complexity is subjective, a creation of the modeller.âHe prods and tweaks, testing changes, discarding ones he thinks gives improbable or unwelcome results until satisfied.âThen a paper can be written, more funding obtained, and a career progressed.âModelling too easily turns into the crafting of ‘evidence’ because the modeller’s competitive peers have already given in to the temptation of the incentives.
Expert failure is well known.âExperts are useful for explaining and answering using their in-depth knowledge.âThey are worse than average at predicting even when they know this is an expert’s flaw.âSchoolboy maths does better at extrapolating.âExpert failure plays into a modeller’s subjective choice of predictions.
Climate modellers deliberately continued to use RCPÂ 8.5 which assumed a 500% increase in coal and no effort to cut COâ emissions because otherwise their results were hard to distinguish from ‘noise’.âRCPÂ 8.5 was defined as 3% probable but gained the ‘business as usual’ moniker.âRCPÂ 8.5 ‘has been used in more than 2,000 research papers’ â Climate change: Worst emissions scenario ‘exceedingly unlikely’, BBC, 2020, https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-51281986
January 3, 2024
Just like Fergusonâs covid computer models – programmed with basic, inaccurate assumptions built in (eg no natural immunity, etc).
For those who donât know: RCP = representative concentration pathway (indicates the amount of climate forcing that would result from greenhouse gases in 2100).
January 3, 2024
Wait until AI gets its hands on all those âfactsâ and extrapolates to the nth degree. No actual facts will divert it. Rather like PHILIP of Spain or our âleadersâ. Wooden-headed to the end.
January 5, 2024
Neil Ferguson’s computer program used by him to generate his models has never been released.âWhen access was sought, a team of programmers from Microsoft spent a month ‘cleaning up’ the code and it was that cleaned version which was released.âI looked at it, as a programmer, and thought it abysmal.âSteve Baker MP, a former programmer, also looked and was very critical.âIt was just what would be expected from a non-programmer academic who altered, tweaked, and ‘fixed’ the same program over many years of modelling different things.âLayers of complexity make it difficult to be sure of its operation.
The original source is still not public.âWhy has the Covid Inquiry not demanded it?
January 3, 2024
Yes it is notable that the cause of ice ages has still not been conclusively identified and so no firm predictions of when the next one will start are possible. So whatever the cause is it is missing from current climate models. We are currently in an inter-glacial period and what is certain is the next ice age will wipe out life in UK and most of Europe, therefore doesn’t it seem a good idea to increase warming now and so delay the onset of that ?
Even if all your questions were answered I still wouldn’t buy a heat pump because I have nowhere to install it. It seems bizarre that the Conservatives even contemplated banning gas boilers from 2025 and the 2035 ban will be cancelled in due course too because they have no answer to how they will allow me to heat my home.
January 3, 2024
You can use electric heaters. It will cost you 4 times more than gas and there isnât enough electricity generation or grid capacity. But these are tomorrowâs problems and politicians ONLY care about now – and the next election In some ways democracy is a bit of a bummer – but marginally better than the alternatives.
That said, if we had a proper monarchy, maybe theyâd do a better job. They could lead us into battle for a start. And supply is all with organic vegetables.
January 3, 2024
The sun rules with variations caused by earth’s trajectory, tilt and wobble around it as well as by sun spot activity or inactivity. Unpredictable shifts in the tectonic plates causing earthquakes and volcanic action are sources of significant air pollution. In the latest IPCC report scientists stated they could not predict the creation and movement of clouds because the tools to do so were useless and there was no point in trying. Historic temperature measurements are unreliable because the basis of recording them has changed over time. The last time they changed it, in 1990, they failed, either by incompetence or by design, to conduct a parallel run of both old and revised systems to validate the new system. A parallel run was needed because only c200 of the old temperature stations out of over 4000 were carried over to the new system comprising c1200 station. There is an inbuilt error in all comparisons between pre and post 1990 temperature data. The late Professor Feynmann told his students that the “laws of science” were actually guesses that needed to be tested by experiment and/or observation. Observations do not support the claims of the green lobby that climate change is all man made. The gullibility of people is a measure of the success of the green lobby’s propaganda.
January 5, 2024
You only have part of the story right. Whereas I agree with your point about the change in the way measurements of surface temperature happened in 1990, these were tested by various groups independently and found to be consistent (see later nasa reference).
Furthermore there were comparisons of meteorological analyses performed (around that time) with the old and new sets of temperature showing that the differences were below the level of differences in relative/absolute humidity resulting from this change in temperature sets, themselves not leading to very different weather forecasts.
Then later on it was shown that it created differences in initial conditions for weather forecasts (much) smaller than the differences which are now used routinely
by most weather forecast centres running Ensemble Prediction Systems.
So your argument is much weaker than what you seem to think.
climate.nasa.gov, 25/03/2021, âThe raw truth on global temperature recordsâ.
January 3, 2024
While Sir John’s efforts to bring balance and common sense into the discussion are commendable, what can he do against his billionaire-funded colleagues on the Conservative Environment Network, etc ed/
Here is what the Chancellor said in 2022 when he was a backbench MP and therefore eligible to belong to the network: “I am delighted to join the Conservative Environment Network to champion net zero.” Does anyone suppose he’s changed his views now?
January 3, 2024
It ought to be an interesting study. How did the Green movement, which only achieved one MP and a handful of councillors, manage to force the main political parties to adopt their policies?
January 3, 2024
Oh it was all NGOs; âcelebritiesâ; international unelected do-badders. Democracy was killed stone dead and spat on.
January 3, 2024
But surely the green elites donât need to exercise âpersuasionâ as you say, given that Net Zero is firmly embedded in law together with the obligatory Carbon Budgets? Extreme green advocates will not admit that they are fundamentally afraid of informed debate which, as was the case during the EU Referendum campaign for Remainers, would expose the lack of rigour in what they endorse. I fear there is no end to all this. Even the regular energy blackouts to come will be justified. It seems only widespread direct action by people would have any chance of restoring sanity.
January 3, 2024
What is dangerous is that the phrase ‘climate change’ is embedded in all manner of commentaries and descriptions of natural events when it should not be. And the naming of storms in particular is to give the impression that they are unusual and ‘extreme’.
The target particularly of course the young, is indoctrination.
January 3, 2024
Sir John
You have highlighted the âFault-lineâ in the thinking coming out of Parliament in general and this Conservative Government in particular. Our legislators want to ban and tax âjustâ to manipulate the population into complying with a strange anti-human agenda.
The people that have stolen our Country no longer seek to allow people to achieve to be the best they can, instead they want to exploit and enslave people to bow down to their own personal gratification image.
Its pure 100% indoctrination, that doesnât back up freedoms, the individual and it also blocks entrepreneurship.
January 3, 2024
COÂČ is a greenhouse gas, its concentration in the Atmosphere is 0.04% and it is increasing by 0.0003% per year.
During the Covid lockdowns the global us of fossil fuels dropped significantly, however the effect of this on COÂČ concentration was imperceptable.
Makes one wonder just how significant is mankinds production of COÂČ.
Water Vapour is also a greenhouse gas, its concentration in the Atmosphere is 0.4%. (10 x COÂČ)
In 2022 the Hunga-Tonga under sea volcanic eruption sent a vast ammount of water into the Stratosphere
This increased the water concentration in the Stratosphere by 15%.
I expect the UK government is currently planning to invest ÂŁ billions in projects to strap Heat Pumps to rockets and use them as dehumidifiers in the Stratosphere.
January 3, 2024
One answer is that the ice cores from the Antarctic (EPICA Dome C) covering eight interglacial warming and cooling cycles of 100,000 years each show that temperatures started rising in each cycle before the concentration of CO2 in the atmosphere increased, so CO2 could not possibly be the cause of warming. However that does not mean that the concentrations of CO2 today, which are unprecedentedly high, have no effect in combination with the natural drivers of climate change. There is no evidence that CO2 dominates climate change. There is no evidence that atmospheric temperatures are extreme compared to previous interglacial warming periods and none that this current trend will not reverse as normal in the next phase of the inter-glacial cycle. After all it is only 20 to 26 thousand years since the last ice age, we are only a quarter of the way through the cycle so, obviously, the earth may still be warming.
January 3, 2024
Agree with many of the points you raise John but surprised you did not mention the ever increasing World population as a contributing factor.
If it truly is “manmade” as is suggested, then surely the people are responsible, logic would suggest the more people, the greater the problem, as each of us has a carbon footprint of some value.
I would certainly agree the activity of the Sun, which does vary, appears to also be ignored by many, I assume because even they know they cannot control that source.
January 3, 2024
If climate change is man-made, the increased population is by far its highest cause.
January 3, 2024
Yes, why aim for net zero and then import millions of extra people into the country that negates any progress being made? Follow the money.
January 3, 2024
Several reports suggest that once net zero is reached, there won’t be enough electricity to go round, this will affect homes, hospitals, food production, water purification centres etc. One report said that people would soon start to die of the cold, then starvation and then disease from unclean water etc. He thought half the world’s population would likely die. Seems a bit extreme, but that’s what these climate obsessed billionaires and others want! Fewer people!
I didn’t save the reports, or at least I can’t find them.
January 3, 2024
Yet Elon Musk warns all the time that people arenât having enough children. He is worried about population collapse. He retweeted this:
Population collapse is the biggest threat to civilization. Here’s what’s happening in the world:
âą South Korea’s Record-Low Fertility Rate To Fall Further, Warns Government
âą Chinaâs fertility rate is estimated to have touched a record low of 1.09 last year. Births were below 10mn for the first time. This year, expect a third straight year of decline with births a tenth lower to well below 9mn.
âą Japan’s 18-year-olds slip to record-low 1.06m on falling births
âą Singaporeâs birth rate is at a record low
âą Vietnam’s low birth rate keeps falling
âą Pope Francis Expresses Concern About Italyâs Low Birth Rate
âą Fertility rate in the Netherlands drops to record low
âą Indiana’s birth rate fell dramatically, dropping from 14.1 births per 1,000 people to 11.7, per new CDC data.
January 3, 2024
Things were summed up recently by the new Boss at Unilever. To paraphrase his take on the direction his new company had taken under the old regime. He said that imbedded in the Company was the thinking that if you signalled your âvirtueâ to the World you had done enough to keep the person paying your wages, the Customer, the Consumer coming back.
It is the same with this Conservative Government and this Parliament the thinking is that its all about the âVirtue Signalâ reinforced with laws and punitive taxes â whip the people and they will love you.
As with Unilever our MPs should recognise the People paying the wages allowing them to exist, buy what something will do for them â nothing else.
The one big reason this Conservative Government has to go even if we get something worse is they are not listening, they are enforcing laws and penalty taxes that donât exist with the UKâs competing Nations. We should the people of this Country be punished in ways that would not happen in the rest of the World let alone a so-called Free Democratic Country.
Who does this Conservative Government work for the noisy Zelotes primarily indoctrinated and funded by those that wouldnât tolerate the same being applied to them, or is it those that empower and pay them?
January 3, 2024
Ian B : âThe one big reason this Conservative Government has to go even if we get something worse is they are not listening,â
Absolutely correct.
To continue to vote for any economy destroying CAGW/Net Zero supporting candidates and parties is, according to Einstein, the definition of insanity.
Unless of course you are a fifth column communist or a green energy grifter.
January 3, 2024
Green campaigners can stop climate change if they try.
All they need to do is stop the world tilting on its axis.
January 3, 2024
…….and the shape of it’s orbit, the intensity of the Sun, movement of the tectonic plates and associated changes in sea currents. I even read last year that vast hydroelectric projects and man made Lakes have an impact on the tilt of the Earth.
Its ok though as the 3.5 million people the Tory’s allowed into the UK in the last 18 months have NO carbon footprint, housing, health, energy needs, welfare, transport or educational need.
Can the climate change activist who’s gone to Morocco, stay there or walk back!
January 4, 2024
Maybe he should consider swimming to Antarctica in pursuit of a cooler environment.
January 3, 2024
Science is only science when the scientists putting forward real findings are peer reviewed to replicate the results in all situations.
Or in other words what some choose to call science is nothing more than an opinion and for every opinion there are 100âs more.
January 3, 2024
Agree – and if your science relies upon that funding
January 3, 2024
100’s more? Like the Uni Party’s principles.
January 3, 2024
Some months ago there was a program on BBC2 simply called âEarthâ (with Chris Packham). Most of Sir Johnâs questions related to the Sunâs influence on the Earth were addressed there.
And not by âgreenâ scientists but by scientists.
As for the changes presently seen in the weather, an explanation might be the rate at which the concentrations of greenhouse gases have been increasing. Increases (and decreases) that had taken (tens of) thousands of years in the past are now seen over tens of years.
January 3, 2024
Whether you agree or not with Piers Corbynâs arguments, he has many interesting points of view â is it increased co2 that heating the globe or is it the sun heating the globe thereby increasing co2 ? http://weatheraction.com
January 4, 2024
It might be. Or it might not be. ‘The science’ isn’t settled.
January 3, 2024
Here I go again …………
CO2 is 0.045% of the Earths atmosphere (the UK contributes 1% of that, 0.00045%)
It cannot possibly have all the magical powers attributed to it.
January 3, 2024
But thatâs not really an argument. A poison might enter your bloodstream and only be a tiny percentage of you – but it can still kill you.
January 3, 2024
Well Sir John, i am now approaching Eighty years and I can see no change in climate in my time. I have memories of boyhood where the compacted earth was so hot it burned the soles of my feet. During my career as a merchant seaman frozen seas as we approached the St Laurence seaway.
Thats two extreme’s in my short life.
Your readers are right, its a scam and even those who fell for it are now wakening to the truth.
Man is insignificant in this world and can never ever change the climate!
January 3, 2024
Iâm 71 and I can definitely see climate change. Even in London, in the 1950s and 1960s, we had at least one belt of snow each winter. And many frosty mornings. Now, winters are much milder and the seasons are less pronounced.
January 3, 2024
Itâs hard to predict though snow, sometimes if falls in October, sometimes Nov, right through to March and it even snowed once in June in 1975 made for a great birthday party.
January 3, 2024
Water vapour accounts for approximately 95% of greenhouse gases. This gas is grossly underestimated and studied. The methodology used by IPCC scientists to plot worldwide influence of water vapour is crude to say the least, indeed across oceans guesswork is applied. An important question concerning âman made CO2â is how much influence this has when measured against natural forcings? Another important factor is the constant claim by activists of âclimate emergencyâ. We are not in a climate emergency. Unless and until the views of other experienced scientists and engineers are permitted to properly debate this issue without being shut down or denied a platform we are not going to make meaningful progress. The government allow the licence fee funded BBC to peddle their take on Climate 24/7 without challenge or debate, this is unacceptable. GWPF/Net Zero Watch accept approximately 1degC warming since pre-industrial days but fundamentally disagree with the solutions advanced by government. Given the methods used by all political parties on Climate Policies since 2008, our disastrous energy policy, and the virtue signalling nonsense of ex-PM Teresa Mayâs SI, arbitrarily changing 80% to 100% and ex-PM Johnsonâs arbitrary banning of new ICEâs from 2030, itâs hardly surprising people are sceptical. I suggest your most useful summary should also include the affect on climate caused by volcanic activity both on land and at sea. These are underestimated and have a huge impact on climate. As Professor Steve Koonin advocated years ago, we need a Red Team assessing and advising, not a bunch of environmental activists like the CCC, and above all, we need open debate.
January 3, 2024
It is worth studying the work done by ExxonMobil scientists back in the 1970s. Their projections of the impact of CO2 emissions on global temperature have turned out to be very accurate now we have the data to look back compare what they projected would happen against what actually happened.
That is despite the company spending decades denying in public what their scientists were saying internally.
The worst thing we can do is do nothing.
January 3, 2024
No, the worst thing we can do is tilt at windmills.
January 3, 2024
So the scientists predicted that almost nothing would happen! Because that is what has happened.
January 3, 2024
âGreen campaigners insist these products are essential to save the planet. They plan further taxes subsidies, regulations and bans to force people to buy things they do not wantâ
They donât plan anything. Itâs our Government that is enforcing these draconian policies on us. Anyone who doesnât submit to their way of thinking is being forced to pay extra for their cars and boilers to subsidise the rich eco-warriors.
Things are set to get even worse with mortgage providers increasing rates for homeowners who donât meet their arbitrary efficiency ratings. People seem to think they are only coming for landlords; they are coming for everyone, read the literature on their websites.
Things are set to get much worse as the government prices many out of their current way of life, based on the climate change lie. And, donât think Labour will be better, they wonât be. These policies are global, well for the West at least.
January 3, 2024
Why donât these so-called green campaigners target the litter dropped in our streets and the oceans or the pollution in our rivers; or the huge rise in our population? Seems to me they are funded by those with a financial interest in wind and solar farms that are destroying our countryside. A reform of charitable organisations which are fleecing the taxpayer is long overdue.
January 3, 2024
How are wind farms destroying our countryside? If your answer is âbirdsâ then you need to get rid of cats. Cats kill a vast amount of birds each year. As for tiny solar farms – they take up hardly any land, much of which is only used to grow grass to feed cattle – a hugely inefficient use of land.
January 3, 2024
These are very critical questions that may not be answered as political parties posture for the
oncoming election. Most troubling is that both major political parties seem dedicated to net zero
policies however problematic and costly they will be both for the country and consumers.
Labour`s plan to spend ÂŁ28 billion on their initial green programme may be just the start.
Idealogical zealots would appear to over ride what the public is prepared to accept.
January 3, 2024
Agree â How many times, decade after decade, have we been told that the due to climate change (global warming) our coastline would disappear, with seas flooding our cities 3 meters high with either a new warming period or cooling period âŠ.all due to man-made co2 produced by fossil fuels in the car and gas boiler
If permitted this website records all the climate predictions that didnât happen (and thatâs all of them) https://extinctionclock.org/
January 3, 2024
I would prefer the opinions of the climatologists who have been working on the climate their whole professional life. The Arctic has lost 40 % of its ice ( Blue Planet ) and we are seeing a definite change in weather. We do not need anyone to tell us the buildings in cities is increasing quickly and the landmass is warming due to the use of fuel to keep us warm etc.
I don’t want self appointed general public swaying the opinion against mankind. I do think electric cars are difficult to use from various opinions and looking at the problem from my own perspective, but will go along with further research.
January 3, 2024
@ Glen Cullen And how come so many billionaires live in beach houses?
January 4, 2024
Perhaps they have never heard of tsunamis?
January 3, 2024
âI know of no one who denies carbon dioxide is a greenhouse gas or who denies manmade carbon dioxide is increasing. Most accept climate has changed a lot in the past and is likely to carry on changing.â
The real climate deniers are the UN/WEF/BBC who deny that there was any climate change until the Industrial Revolution. They tell us that there has been no warming of the planet until we started to burn hydrocarbon fuels releasing CO2 into the atmosphere, a benign gas that is plant food, with no anthropogenic explanation for how the planet warmed 11,000 years ago to exit the last ice age.
This inevitable ending of this scam will surely destroy the reputations and quite possibly the existence of these organisations.
January 3, 2024
There is a single government funded academic website that collates the sea level around the UK since records began, and studying the high & lows of those statistics youâll realise that the UN-IPCC predictions are false
(National tidal and sea level facility) https://ntslf.org/products/sea-level-trends
If this government was serious about the rising sea levels theyâd increase the number of monitoring stations tenfold and produce evidence to backup their decisions about banning the ICE car and gas boiler
Remember the only reason for the Tory government policy of ânet-zeroâ is the predicted rise of the sea level
January 3, 2024
Dear Sir John,
It is now widely accepted that last year’s extraordinary sea warming (which caused many highly visible climate events) was caused by the ban on sulphur components in maritime fuels. This lead to less cloud, thus sea temperatures rose. This was predicted beforehand, but the UN (which I believe was behind the ban) pressed ahead. One solution to this (that doesn’t involve putting sulphur back into the fuel) is for ships to spray sea water into the air to ‘brighten the clouds’. If this is not put into place, I think it tells it’s own story; one where those driving the decarbonisation agenda are actually fine with warming, as long as it helps their case. This issue really should be raised in Parliament imo.
Regards,
SR
January 3, 2024
The main IR absorption band for CO2 is around the 15 micron mark â and that is exactly where there is a window in the IR absorption band of water vapour. Of course water vapour is by far the most important and wide spectrum so-called âgreenhouseâ gas â and the climate catastrophists cannot do a thing about it! So they ignore it. The average global temperature is c288°K of which c255°K is direct warming from the Sun. The atmosphere, including water vapour, contribute about 33°K, principally because all gases are poor conductors of heat.
The claim that man is responsible for recent (though not previous) global warming via emissions of CO2 is a classic case of circular reasoning. We have no idea what natural energy imbalances exist in the climate system; so we cannot say what man is responsible for. As it is, the modest warming that has occurred (probably naturally) has been entirely beneficial. Itâs no good looking to the GCMs because they are run deliberately to eliminate natural variations â an assumption that cannot be justified â and hence my comment about circular reasoning.
January 3, 2024
âGreen campaigners insist these products are essential to save the planet.â
This may be what the fifth column communists masquerading as âgreen campaignersâ say, but really they know that CAGW does not exist and intend to use the threat of planet destruction in order to achieve their real aim which is the destruction of the democratic West.
Hence we are starting to see the introduction of Stalinist stick tactics, since the capitalist carrot tactics are failing, such as outright bans, to achieve their aims.
As well as the overwhelming scientific evidence that CAGW does not exist (see Happer & Wijngaardenâs proof that doubling CO2 concentration in the atmosphere leads to negligible increased warming) there are two obvious reasons why CAGW is false and the Net Zero Strategy âsolutionâ is a communist scam :
1) The solution to replacing the burning of hydrocarbon fuels would be to use nuclear fission which can provide cheap, abundant, reliable (weather independent), high energy density and secure energy (heat and electrical). Instead the fifth column have selected ruinously expensive, low energy density, highly entropic, high resource consuming, chaotically intermittent and unreliable wind and solar power, which even needs the burning of expensive green generated fuels to exist at all.
2) The rush to net zero our CO2 emissions would apply to China, India and the whole world and not to just the democratic West.
January 3, 2024
We are peanuts in the world as far as carbon emission is concerned ; unless the whole world gets together and becomes disciplined at the same time ( for which there is little hope ) I doubt any improvement in climate control attributed to man will occur . In any event – as Sir John rightly points out , climate condition variations have featured long before man existed . World ” get togethers ” on this topic have been no more than political sham and a waste of tax payers money .
January 3, 2024
This is the real Tory party under the radar – two faced limpets –
‘Almost half the Conservative Partyâs backbench MPs in the British Parliament belong to a Caucus promoting extreme Net Zero ideas that is funded by a small group of green billionaire foundations. The Conservative Environment Network (CEN), which acts mostly as a lobby group, receives over 80% of its funding from the European Climate Foundation, Rockefeller Philanthropy Advisers, Oak Foundation, WWF-UK and Clean Air Fund. As regular readers will recall, these paymasters crop up regularly whenever anyone of influence, be they journalists, academics or politicians, requires help and guidance in promoting the insanity of removing hydrocarbon energy from industrial societies within less than 30 years.’
January 3, 2024
they talk with forked tongue
January 3, 2024
If the science is settled why have so many scientist signed a declaration that there isnât a climate emergency https://clintel.org/world-climate-declaration/
Politicians are busy trying to find solutions to problems that donât exist
âIn 2022, the Australian Institute of Marine Science (AIMS) reported the highest levels of coral cover across two-thirds of the Great Barrier Reef (GBR) in over 36 yearsâ https://www.whoi.edu/oceanus/feature/is-the-great-barrier-reef-making-a-comeback/
The average Joe doesnât understand; when he canât see any of the climate change predictions realised, especially with China & India introducing hundreds of new coal fired power station every year, why does he have to give up his freedom of choice under the tyranny of net-zero and surrender his car & gas boiler
January 3, 2024
Good questions Sir J. – for which you will hear a deafening silence from those who have a vested interest in promoting climate alarmism.
January 3, 2024
I will not be voting for any candidate or party that supports the false CAGW narrative and consequently the economy destroying Net Zero Strategy.
If anyone wants to see if their Conservative MP is a supporter of the CAGW/Net Zero Strategy then they should visit the CEN (Conservative Environment Network) website for membership details and aims :
https://www.cen.uk.com/our-work
The list of funders is also very informative.
January 3, 2024
So the tory party is really the green party and all its MPs support net-zero ….its reform for me
January 3, 2024
“I know of no one who denies carbon dioxide is a greenhouse gas or who denies manmade carbon dioxide is increasing.”
Water vapour absorbs solar energy far more than CO2; in either case, the absorption is constrained by bandwidth and will not increase after all the radiation within that bandwidth has been absorbed by the gas.
What actually drives climate are the Milankovitch cycles which independently control the orientation of the Earth towards the Sun and hence the amount of radiation reaching the Earth and where on its surface. Man has no control over this and those that claim that man is causing the icecaps to melt and thereby influencing these cycles are lying as usual.
January 3, 2024
Sir John
As with all the situation the UK faces its roots lay in the fact this Conservative Government refuses its job, the refuse to manage, they refuse our freedoms and our democracy. To that end they allow any naysayer an unchallenged platform to tear down our very being as a Nation.
Let no one forget there are 195 Countries that reside on this planet, just 6(including the UK) representing less than 1% of the World populations have turned into âvirtue signallingâ zealots with punishment dished out to their Citizens to force an unfounded belief on the mind set of the people they are said to represent. Meanwhile the rest of the World gets wealthier predominately at our personal expense â we are not permitted by law and penalty the same freedoms as the rest of the Planet
Many voters are puzzled by the Tories. It was HG Wells who explained in 1920:
“Big business is by no means antipathetic to Communism. The larger big business grows the more it approximates to Collectivism. It is the upper road of the few instead of the lower road of the masses to Collectivism”. First rule of this Conservative Government is kill competition, kill the UKâs Industrial ability and ensure that the poorer you are the more you have to subsidies the rich, for most part that means the rich in Foreign Lands.
The whole UK political party system is based upon Collectivism. What is called the âmanifesto package trick” forcing the voter to consent to the entire “collective” manifesto. Tory MPs may pretend to be “conservative” but they consent to the system, they allow it to happen. We at the GE will not be asked to vote for a Conservative MP as our representative in a Democracy but instead will be asked to consent to more of the same from the Sunak/Hunt Socialist Cabal
Hailsham’s famous term “elective dictatorship” is a modern way of describing the “single elective authority” of the revolution. This, instead of a check upon government power, by an elected Chamber we finish up with a system that consolidates that power.
January 3, 2024
The problem is that the propaganda is based on forecasts and modelling.
We have seen stories in the media going back to the 1980’s predicting major disasters from global warming (islands being lost under the sea and losses of species) and these disasters have not happened.
They cry wolf too many times and treat forecasts as facts.
Even many of those putting out the propaganda are travelling by aeroplane and therefore (presumably) are not believers in their own propaganda.
The environment should be protected properly and this endeavour should be taken seriously. While it is being used to peddle scare stories and used as a Trojan Horse for socialism or communism, most people will ignore the propagandists.
January 3, 2024
âReform UK presents a bigger risk to the Conservatives and to the country than the Labour Party, Lee Anderson has claimed.â
Why does he think that?
This Conservative Government has brought us the largest taxes and borrowing since WW2. This Conservative Government is all double talk, any old spiel for a headline â the latest heralded tax reduction (NHI) has resulted in the taxpayer on average paying ÂŁ1200 per year more. Just in this Parliament alone there have been 25 tax rises, with more on the way in the form of penalties for not having an electric car with massive rises in Road Tax and Fuel, and so on Its and endless stream of tax and punishment. That is where Lee Anderson has it wrong the biggest proven threat to the Country is his so-called spend, spend, spend pseudoâConservative Government. They donât know how to budget, control spending, manage an economy live within their means. They throw our money around as if itâs going out of fashion then demand more because they donât know where the last lot went.
Reform UK is just a reminder that if instead of having installed a WEF Socialist cabal at the top table, we had a Conservative Government with all the disciplines that entailed there would be no Reform UK. It is the Conservative Government that has deserted the Electorate not the other way around
January 3, 2024
The climate has changed ever since there was such a thing as climate.
The climate will always change.
Causes of climate change:
1. The Sun
2. Plate Tectonics
3. Milankovitch Cycles
4. Ocean Currents
5. Atmospheric water vapour
6. Albedo
.
.
.
47. Carbon Dioxide
January 3, 2024
Correct
January 3, 2024
The frightening thing about Climate Change / Global Warming is the mule like stubbornness of our Government and MPs on all sides of the house in accepting it as fact and making decisions which are already costing us money. It does not take much effort to research the subject and discover the science is not settled.
Well done, Sir John, for trying to make people think about it.
The refusal to think will do a lot of damage before the bubble bursts and CC/GW is exposed as the nonsense it is.
January 5, 2024
âIt does not take much effort to âresearchâ the subjectâ. ⊠Sigh âŠ
Certainly less effort to look at websites and YouTube where oh-so-neutral-hosts present a pre-digested soup of half-understood if not completely wrong âfactsâ than to get clued up by taking proper courses on atmospheric physics/dynamics and being able to read scientific papers produced since the 60s on subjects related to quantum mechanics, spectroscopy, radiative transfer, atmospheric and oceanic dynamics and physics, palaeo- and present climates.
January 3, 2024
Salford City Council has scrapped its plan to install air source heat pumps in Eccles Town Hall, citing a ÂŁ700,000 cost overrun during the tender process
https://www.energylivenews.com/2024/01/02/salford-abandons-heat-pump-plan-over-costs/?fbclid=IwAR0Uva1kgEOv4xt17ECMkBPpZkmDLpIilRaf_Hemnkdh-EgNJKU7zSSOAaE
January 3, 2024
Dear Mr. Redwood,
Green campaigners! Who are these Green campaigners?
It is the Conservative party, the party that you belong to, the party of which you are an MP, the party that is in government that is giving us all of these taxes, subsidies, regulations and bans.
It is the Conservative party that is forcing us to buy products that we do not want and cannot afford. It is the Conservative party that needs to understand people’s natural scepticism on a subject as complex as climate change especially when we are being forced to make sacrifices which are not reciprocated in other countries. I’m sorry but it is not good enough to say ‘ Britain must continue to set an example to the world’.
It is the Conservative party that throws us a bone in the form of a few years delay before you MUST buy an electric vehicle – just to stop the plebs from getting angry or causing trouble.
Lord knows, I agree with your comments on this and most other topics you write about but maybe it is time to realise the Conservative party is part of the problem and not the solution. It has been infiltrated and captured by the ‘left’ as surely as most other bodies and concerns in this country.
January 3, 2024
The biggest greenhouse gas is water vapour I.e. clouds, which form chaotically and there are many different types of cloud. The results produced by the various computer models cannot accurately predict when, where, how many and what type of clouds, height, density etc, so itâs all a guess put in by the programmers.
Those who have used computer models in their work will tell you if you put rubbish in you get rubbish out. Alternatively you can put in the values to get the result you want. What they also donât tell you is the results have massive error bars to keep their saucery confusing.
My advice is always follow the money and you will see universities, research institutes, NGOâs benefitting from the millions handed out by governments worldwide each year. Itâs also about socialist wealth redistribution. Who can forget Gordon Browns assertion after the Copenhagen summit failed when he said the west owed the third world (mainly Africa) a 100Billion âclimate debtâ.
He who pays the piper calls the tune.
January 3, 2024
âGreen campaigners insist these products are essential to save the planet.â
As was unfortunately amply demonstrated in the last century communists believe that the means always justifies the ends.
So what is going to be the cost to the UK of their unilateral Net Zero Strategy designed to net zero our 1% contribution to global anthropogenic CO2 emissions?
To consider just the cost of the decarbonisation of our electricity, planned for 2035, but if Labour win the next election, 2030 :
For decades, until renewable energy arrived, the wholesale price of electricity, using mainly natural gas, was around ÂŁ50/MWhr and would still be around this price after the Ukraine war spike, without the added green taxes.
Auction Round 6 (AR6) for renewables will see fixed offshore wind CfDs at just over ÂŁ100/MWhr and floating offshore wind (needed as we move further offshore into deeper waters) at just over ÂŁ240/MWhr (both 2023 prices). According the Royal Societyâs recent optimistic storage report these prices need to be doubled if we are to use hydrogen storage to obtain a reliable supply of electricity with no blackouts. So electricity will cost between ÂŁ200 and ÂŁ480/MWhr, 4 to nearly 10 times more than just a few years ago.
AR4 prices were so low (from whence came the myth that renewables were 9 times cheaper than gas) that these projects will not be built and the wind industry refused to make bids at AR5 at all.
The one nuclear new build, Hinkley Point C, is delayed but hopefully will provide electricity at ÂŁ128/MWhr. But note that the Con/Lib coalition that initiated this project used very expensive Chinese finance (9% instead of 2%) and as a result the electricity price is double that of the same reactor and technology just recently completed in Finland which is supplying electricity there at ÂŁ53/MWhr.
These huge electricity prices are in addition to the huge costs to build and install the wind turbines all across the North Sea, the solar panels covering good farmland, the enormous uograde to the national grid, the hydrogen electrolysers and storage and the new generators using hydrogen instead of natural gas. I estimate to build all of this is over ÂŁ1 trillion. And donât forget that since offshore wind turbines only last around 15 years anything completed today will be close to replacement by 2035. At least nuclear plants last for 60 years.
January 3, 2024
All valid questions that probably will not be answered by the green lobbyists because there are no answers which actually favour and confirm their own theories.
What I cannot understand is why so many political leaders have bought into the multitude of green proposals in the first place. Either they have not checked and accepted the real climate science or that they see it another way of controlling the people.
Fear is the key. Install fear into the population and you take control of them. Evidence of that is clear from the initial reaction to the lock-downs, when those who denied them were deemed heretics, or worse. However, no apologies have been forthcoming since it has been revealed they were unnecessary as a mandate and should have been left for the public to decide for themselves, as it is during a flu outbreak. Sweden did just that and suffered fewer deaths per capita of those infected. And saved ÂŁ Billions in the process.
With us AGW deniers, here we are again with the heretic mantra, and I have no doubt we shall be eventually seen as correct. The science tells us so.
January 3, 2024
“New rules requiring car manufacturers to sell a minimum proportion of zero-emission vehicles have come into force, the Department for Transport (DfT) said. Under the mandate, which became law on Wednesday, at least 22% of new cars sold by manufacturers in the UK this year must be zero-emission.”
A more regressive, stupid, market interfering , policy couldn’t have been designed, and this statist intervention has come courtesy of a supposedly Conservative Government . The next part of this policy will be the ruinous effect it has, costing the country a fortune. Brilliant. Happy New Year comrades.
January 3, 2024
Add to that, the point that the cycles described (which operate on cycles of tens of thousands of years) were at a low ebb when we started seeing global warming. There were large areas of desert where we are now seeing greening.
It is therefore likely that what we are seeing is a natural upward shift which was due in the natural cycles. The founder of Greenpeace even said that if CO2 were any lower then plants would begin to die out.
Another key point is that much of the world’s CO2 is dissolved in sea water. As temperatures rise, it comes out of solution (at a rate that is exponential relative to the temperature rise). This means that as the world warms, it will naturally produce more CO2 in an accelerating effect. This is not necessarily bad, life on Earth has survived it many times before, and as pointed out above, it leads to more plant life, more food.
Ice melt is a grossly overstated issue. When I saw an Attenborough programme scaring people with Arctic ice sheet melting and wailing about the effects on sea levels I switched off and never watched any of his nonsense again, I asked myself…
Has Archimedes’ Principle stopped being true? A floating body displaces its weight, a submerged body displaces its volume. In physics lessons in school, the teacher had a lead soldier in a boat floating on water. The level of the water was marked. We were asked: if I tip the soldier out of the boat so he goes to the bottom, what will happen to the water level – will it go up, down or stay the same? Most people thought it would go up.
Based on the Principle, lead is dense so it weighs more than its volume relative to, say, water. Therefore its displacement is less when it’s submerged than when it’s floating – the water level goes down.
Arctic ice, like almost all other ice packs is floating. When it melts it will weigh the same as when it was frozen, so the displacement will be the same. I.e. no effect on sea level. That could explain why, say, Brighton beach still loks the same as it did 300 years ago.
The non-floating ice includes some glaciers and is mainly in the Antarctic and Greenland, which are ice-on-rock. Any melt there would increase sea levels. Since records began measuring Antarctic ice, it has expanded. Strangely, the Wikipedia page was edited to remove that information. Go figure.
And a minor point is that methane is also a greenhouse gas, but stopping eating meat to have fewer livestock is not an answer – apart from anything else, humans also produce a lot of methane.
The bottom line is that these climate change forecasts are based on computer models which are seriously flawed. Their inputs are ludicrous, such as the IPC model predicting that coal use would increase 10-fold from the time they created their model. Any prediction s only as good as its assumptions… and the clincher here is that ALL actual observations, based on real data not predictions, show that there is no climate emergency at all.
January 3, 2024
So you get a new job and agree to the pay salary and the terms & conditions
Then after 1-5 years, still as a junior, you go on strike for 15 years back-pay increases
But you knew the salary when you joined
January 3, 2024
When I started paying Income Tax and NI in my teens, I was assured by UK governments that at 65 I would retire and live acceptably on the State Pension. Boy oh boy, was I sold a pack of lies.
January 3, 2024
Even if we accept the Climate Change (Crisis what crisis?) and must take urgent action to Save the World, our UK economy destroying measures might have an effect on 1% of the problem.
When are the alarmists going to focus on China, India, USA who are the 90+% of the World problem?
Until such time they take their share of the pain, I want nothing to do with the pain.
January 3, 2024
Has wind-turbines (offshore & onshore) reduced anyoneâs domestic energy bill
Net-Zero is a western disease
January 3, 2024
The Green thesis predominantly claims that the climate is warming, or if not warming, is changing due to the emission of CO2, produced by the burning of hydrocarbon liquid, gaseous and solid fuels. This thesis seems to not take into account that there is only a very tiny change in CO2 levels in our atmosphere. Maybe Green campaigners should focus not on the chemical composition of the atmosphere but on its size. The atmosphere is ballooning out into what is called ‘space’ making it more likely to get hot through contact with plasma and other atmospheres and energy dispersal such as sun rays. Some say this is caused by the conversion of carbon fuels into gas or particles. Others say the expansion of the atmosphere is caused by 5G and other pulsed microwaves converting water into split hydrogen and oxygen which is 1700 times bigger. Others say that solar activity is low, sending less pressure down towards earth’s magnetosphere allowing it to swell outwards. Energy can be created from light – either solar variety – or by splitting dipoles of light, using a laser to accelerate light through a Venturi (Funnel), splitting light’s energy away from light’s matter (fission) and as the two rejoin (fusion) creating 100:1 energy compared to inputs. Yet no one does this through fear of government and corporate power. Equally data can be transferred using photons as equally as with wifi and 5G signals, which would not affect the water molecules in the air or human and animal health. The technologies exist. But there seems to be a determination to bring about environmental catastrophe deliberately.
January 6, 2024
Your last sentence is also my view – it has to be deliberate because nobody could be this dumb. 600+ MPs can’t be this dumb, even by modern MP standards.
January 3, 2024
Well said indeed, if I may.
“1. Green scientists do need to explain to the wider audience what caused the warm periods and ice ages before mankind appeared.”
This one I think is relatively easy to explain, I believe, although mankind evolved under ice age cyclicity, but that is a separate debate.
Consider if you would the Fourier Transform (a mathematical method of analysing dominant frequencies in a given data set). When applied to (the most ingeniously acquired may I say) ice core data, the most dominant frequency, if I am not wrong, is of approx. 100,000 years. The next is approx 40, 000 years. Such things are a click or two away.
The variation of the obilquity of the axis of the earth (the tilt) follows a periodicity of 41,000 years.
The variation of the eccentricity of the annual orbit of the earth around the sun (between more or less of an extended oval shape), follows a periodicity of 100,000 years.
This surely is some most direct and compelling statistical evidence!?
One can bang on ad infinitum about the amount of radiated heat being absorbed by greenhouse gases, while the big brother in the room, the variation of the AMOUNT of heat being received by the the earth in the first place, is overlooked.
2. This peculiar approx. 2 million years of ice age cyclicity is without a doubt the coldest time period, by reference to the evolution of complex life on earth, for the past hundreds of millions of years. No doubt continental drift, and the configuration of the continents, is the culprit.
3. Skepticism is a healthy part of science, and a part of the method by which science proceeds. Skepticism has surely been suppressed here? There is no funding for any research skeptical of this ‘Great Consensus’. Any scientist even raising such a view faces public humiliation and abuse, loss of career, professional and social alienation and personal and financial ruin. That is not good science to say the least.
4. The danger is that we do not know where we are, and therefore ignore what may potentially be coming. Contingency planning that should have been done has been left undone. If indeed any adequate contingency plans whatsoever could ever be made.
January 6, 2024
Spot on. Your first point is one that I have been trying to get people to understand for some time now – we cannot ignore the variation in the cosmic cycles over very long periods of tens of thousands of years which affect the planet and its temperature.
Anyone trying to publish data on this subject (or any other subject that challenges the climate change orthodoxy) is torn to shreds in various ways by wild behaviour in the media, including the scientific press.
We have experience in fairly recent times of science seeming to show one problem, then advancing to a better understanding and showing that we actually have a different problem. The pro-climate people like to tell us that Mrs Thatcher was the first PM to be concerned with climate change, but what they don’t mention is that it was deforestation since back then the concern was that rainforests produced most of the world’s oxygen, so logging etc would see us all asphyxiated.
Science was allowed to advance, however, and we subsequently found that 80-90% of our oxygen is produced by phytoplankton in the sea, there was no climate emergency due to logging.
Instead of worrying about the plastics and other pollutants in our seas, however, they lurched off into this pseudo-science about CO2. If anything, we should be investigating the effect of pollution on oxygen production, since that could be a problem waiting to hit us very rapidly. If those phytoplankton start dying off, we’ll see life die out very quickly indeed.
January 3, 2024
Do our MP’s actually represent the many constituents who do support Net Zero introduction by force when so many of them are members of the Conservative Environment Network?
I seems to me that many questions need to be asked. The car ZEV mandate has just been passed without any proper debate.
January 4, 2024
There used to be a joke about predictions and human vanity:
Q. How do you make god laugh?
A. Tell Him your plans.
It can now be joined by another:
Q. How do you make God split His sides with laughter?
A. Tell him Climate Science is ‘settled’ and beyond doubt.
January 4, 2024
May I suggest that a good stride towards net zero carbon would involve:
– Zero population growth (ZPG) at world level
– Just stop coal and LNG
– Make sure that the holes in the ozone layer are fully closed by banning CFCs
– Stop COP conferences (and some other live conferences) and replace them by Zoom conferences
– Maximum use of high yield crops to reduce the land needed for agriculture
– Mirrors for the great and the good to look into and say “I am not special”
January 4, 2024
Claire Coutinho MP Dec 2, 2023 @ClaireCoutinho @COP28_UAE on twitter
‘Eleven years ago, coal was 40% of our power generation. Next year it will be zero’
Thats a Tory MP