I have long made many important arguments against the policies the U.K. is following in the name of net zero. I have shown how closing down our own energy using industries only to import from elsewhere adds to world CO 2. I have pointed out that plugging an EV or heat pump into the grid may just lead to us burning more gas in a gas power station which creates more CO 2. I have shown how we will lose any well paid jobs and tax revenue as we rush to close down our domestic oil and gas production, close our steel works, undermine our refineries, petrochemical works, ceramics, aluminium, glass and other heavy energy using industries. I did not vote for the climate change targets as there was no proper costing or feasibility study.
Some of you want to make a case that far from being settled the science does not prove that serious global warming is happening from manmade CO 2. So this is your opportunity to summarise the case for that view or for the government counter. It would be useful if both sides could deal with the following points made in the debate when and where it is allowed.
1. Given there were periods of global warming and global cooling before mankind lived here, what caused those big changes? Could those forces change  the climate again? Will they reinforce warming or will some cause cooling?
2. What allowance is made for natural CO 2, water vapour, solar intensity, volcanic activity and other causes of warming and cooling?
3. What tests have been performed on models to back test them against temperature data, and to check them at future dates against predictions?
4. Why do some models and most official commentary concentrate on manmade CO 2 to the exclusion of all the factors that did cause climate change before mankind arrived, and in history before the coal based Industrial Revolution and the population explosion got under way?
5. Why when seeking to combat manmade CO 2 on a national basis do they not recommend the U.K. stops growing its population as that is a major cause of extra  manmade CO 2?
6. What is the total CO 2 impact of making battery electric cars including extracting the rare earths and metals through to disposing of the battery?
September 8, 2024
Fascinating video that explains a lot of the warming, Global warming and astrophysics :- https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ek5VK_TdKSA
We should start fracking now, as the world is going to get a lot colder in the next few years, and we will need the energy. The government windmill, solar panel costs forced by the science deniers are going to destroy us.
If we double CO2, (Impossible even if we use all the oil/gas on the planet), the temperature increase would only be 0.7C!!!
September 8, 2024
I’m sceptical on mankind driven climate change, simply because mankind contibutes only a fraction to total CO2 emmissions. Putting aside the mankind driven climate change question, I think a large majority of the UK population would agree:
1. UK impact on total global emmissions is trivial, and irrelevant compared to USA, China & India
2. UK has ‘done it’s bit’ already in terms of CO22 reductions
3. Far better for us to encourage others to act, rather than continue down a current path which will bankrupt us
4. Do all we can to stabalise/reduce the UK (& global) human population as that will have the maximum benefit for the planet
September 8, 2024
Some very interesting comments today on the most important issue facing our nation. And that’s my point; our political leaders who spend our money (more than we actually give them) have not taken the time to educate themselves and consider the data supporting and refuting the premise of man made global warming. They have simply jumped on the bandwagon and taken the easy path.
The world warms and cools, this we know, we humans can and do adapt. It’s what we do best. But we need to look at facts not fantasy to chose our path correctly.
September 8, 2024
Adaptation when it get colder, hotter, wetter, dryer, less windy or more windy, sea levels rise and fall⊠is only sensible ways to go. The idea that we can control the climate by using wind farms, EVs, bike, buses and Solar is absurd, totally moronic and on so very many levels.
BBC shows huge bias over Israel I read – rather like Labour & Lammy. But as nothing to BBC bias on Climate Alarmism, VAT on school fees, the NHS, the net harm Covid Vaccines, Masks, Lockdowns, Landlord and Tenant, The BBC licence tax, size of government, Non DomsâŠ
September 8, 2024
What has our UK leadership achieved to the rest of the world…..nothing …..nothing ….well maybe higher taxes, higher levies and ULEZ/LTNs in the UK
September 8, 2024
The World has had ice ages with CO2 levels over ten times the current levels. Sensible and honest physicists and scientists who are not on the make or seeking grant funding know all this. Millions of things affect the climate and CO2 is just one of them not even the main greenhouse gas. On balance a bit more CO2 plant tree and crop food is actually a net positive. Freeman Dyson and William Happer videos perhaps the best at explaining it in accessible ways to non physicists.
Anyway the things pushed by government to reduce CO2 (heat pumps, wind, solar, EVs, public transport, walking, cycling, road blocking, burning wood at Drax⊠do not even do this to any sig. degree. They either just export it, or even actually increase CO2 EVs and burning wood certainly do this.
Walking often powered by say steak, chips, apple pie and a bottle of claret is absurdly inefficient in CO2 terms if you do the maths. Trains very inefficient too when fully accounted for with staff, tracks, ticketing, stations, end connections and often very indirect routes (Last time I went for Birmingham Airport to near Cambridge I went via London by train distance was double the car journey plus a taxi for circa 13 miles. Buses too very often empty much of the time, stoping every few 100 yards, holing up other traffic and often hugely indirect routes.
September 8, 2024
If global warming is man-made, then overpopulation is the only cause.
Imagine the world population totalled only 1,000 people with every one of them trying to cause global warming.
How could they possibly achieve it?
September 8, 2024
Agreed on population being the problem. In 1800 there were a billion people, this doubled to 2 billion by 1925. In the last 100 years it has risen 4 fold to 8 billion. Unsustainable.
Population growth causes pressure on clean water, land usage, wildlife diversity, political stability, mineral demand… Why don’t the eco-warriers focus on this bigger problem?
September 8, 2024
too difficult
September 8, 2024
The eco-warriors are really intent on destroying western civilisation. Environmental concerns are just a distraction to justify their actions.
Imagine if a new source of petrol could be found and the engines could be cleaned up completely. They would be livid.
September 9, 2024
+1
September 8, 2024
None of the questions you pose are relevant. Net Zero is a UN and WEF mandated target to deindustrialise the west for the benefit of the BRICs.
Until this is acknowledged discussion is a waste of time
Having Milipede incharge of policy is sound as he is a red tooth and claw communist following in his fathers footsteps.
Farage is the only one who will calk this nonesense for what it is. I find it very disturbing that almost 600 of our lawmakers follow this voodoo path.
September 8, 2024
The long march captured our MP selection process years ago and placed their people in this country’s major institutions. Whilst still giving an air of democracy we have had nothing of the kind until Reform came along. We have only had the uniparty for decades but finally, this model is broken.
September 9, 2024
Who chooses the Reform Candidates? Did you know that Mr Farage now owns 60% of Reform? When he wants to change the Chairman, he sacks him – there is no vote, no popular will.
Is this an improvement?
September 8, 2024
I tend to agree. Either all these 95%+ of MPs etc. are mad and truly inflicted with this climate alarmist net zero religion, or they are incredibly stupid, or they are lying and either A. using it just to get more voters by pretending the clean gas of life is dirty pollution or B. they using it for yet another excuse for even more tax, more government and even more state power to control people or C. They are corrupt or on the make for subsidies and anti-competitive regulations to rig the energy and other markets.
Any other explanations? Nearly all MPs have little or no science beyond 16. Scientific and engineering total ignorance seems to be a requirement especially in the energy department.
September 8, 2024
+1 The UN has admitted it has nothing to do with Climate Change and everything to do with wealth re-distribution.
The British Establishment is deliberately impoverishing the UK, in favour of globalist objectives.
September 8, 2024
Why was the UK and five other countries the only one’s to make the UN targets LAW
September 9, 2024
China produces the UK annual emissions in 10.6 days. They know that CO2 is not the control knob for the planet. Likewise, India has committed its future to coal.
September 8, 2024
With fracking we’d have cheap plentiful energy. We are not even allowed to discuss it.
September 8, 2024
Correct, we should be fracking for shale gas like the USA, Russia, Indonesia, China, South Africa, Argentina, Canada, Mexico, Turkey, India, Pakistan, Denmark, Poland, Romania, Sweden, Ukraine, etc https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shale_gas_by_country
September 8, 2024
There is a mass of publications on climate change. Answering all 6 questions is possible but not in a short answer. I’ll give one answer which torpedoes nearly all other CAGW arguments.
Ice cores encompassing 800,000 years of atmospheric cycles from Antarctica (EPICA C) have shown two salient facts: the interglacial cycle (the dominant warming and cooling cycle) is about 100,000 years long and we are only a short way into the current warming part of the cycle. These ice cores show that in all inter-glacial warming periods increasing temperature precedes CO2 concentrations in the atmosphere. Therefore rising CO2 cannot be the driver of warming but warming can be the driver of rising CO2.
You might remember the alarmist cries of the melting polar ice and rising sea levels when the 1,250 square miles of the Larsen B iceshelf broke off from Antarctica in 2002 and drifted northwards. Research showed that the cause was most likely to have been volcanic action underneath the ice shelf, part of a chain of undersea volcanoes stretching for thousands of miles. This shows how people jump onto a narrative rather than consider alternative explanations that risk destroying their preferred narrative.
The future is one of a warming earth in line with 8 previous known interglacial cycles. Caution is warranted, but panic and a rush to half baked solutions is not.
There are many papers showing hurricanes, storms and violent weather are not increasing in intensity or frequency; that global mean sea level is rising at the same rate as it has for hundreds of years, polar bears are not in danger from global warming etc. Watts Up with That is an excellent web site covering these. The GWPF also publishes excellent papers.
Motivation is always worth checking, as is follow the money – money is available only to promote or prove CAGW, not to debunk it.
Ottmar Edenhofer, lead author of the IPCCâs fourth summary report (2007) said in 2010: âOne has to free oneself from the illusion that international climate policy is environmental policy. Instead, climate change policy is about how we redistribute de facto the worldâs wealth.â
This was reiterated by UN climate chief Christina Figueres who remarked, the true aim of the UNâs 2014 Paris climate conference was âto change the economic development model that has been reigning for at least 150 years, since the Industrial Revolution.”
So now you know. CO2 is not the problem. Social engineering to re-distribute wealth is the problem.
September 8, 2024
+1
Socialism by other means. And the Tory Party was fully on board.
September 8, 2024
+1
The excellent testimony of Prof. William Happer.
Even a doubling of CO2 will not cause any significant warming and even what little it does cause will almost certainly be net beneficial (as will the higher CO2 be beneficial for crops and in greening the planet.
https://kslegislature.gov/li/b2023_24/committees/ctte_s_fed_st_1/documents/testimony/20230307_01.pdf
September 8, 2024
Agree â All roads of net-zero lead to communism
September 8, 2024
Indeed and an extremely damaging way to re-distribute wealth it is too.
September 8, 2024
Well said Peter
September 8, 2024
+1
I note that in the science chapters of the most recent IPCC report they acknowledge they have no way of measuring or predicting cloud cover, a significant element contributing to temperature at the local level. They also speculate that the cooling that occurred in the early 18thC was probably caused by unreported volcanic action. More recently it has been pointed out that the volcano that erupted, without warning, near Tonga a couple of years ago pushed a huge amount of water into the atmosphere. What goes up must come down, eventually. One hypothesis is that it has contributed to the torrential rains experienced around the world since then.
September 8, 2024
Well said.
September 8, 2024
They always tell you donât they? Speech analysis say âbelieve what people sayâ – thatâs how they catch criminals.
September 8, 2024
An excellent response. I was going to answer each of Sir Johns questions but thought, “What is the point?”.
We have a useless mainstream media who do not question or properly interrogate our stupid politicos with God syndrome.
I watched a Climate leader on GB News the other night and given far to much time without rebuke or a real challenging scientist on the show to show how ridiculous that believer was. Martin Durkins, “CLIMATE: The Movie” has at least 20 accredited scientists who debunk the whole myth. I could list them but Patrick Moore, Will Happer, Tony Heller, Steve Koonin, Willie Soon etc with real qualifications are enough with websites to kick this whole charade out of the water. Unfortunately we have to give them time. In a few decades the myth for what it is, will be proven. I won’t be around then to say I told you so. But they will have wrecked the economy and power generation by then!!
September 8, 2024
NZ is an act of authoritarian politics. Politicians and their lackey bureaucrats and supporters drag the issue of environmental protection (like so many other issues nowadays) into the ideological arena and bingo, the state now as a reason to assert control over many aspects of our economic world. It’s grubby totalitarianism with a kind face. Most can smell the bullshit a mile away. The fake concern being expressed by greasy politicos with well concealed sinister intentions is utterly repugnant with the true fiscal cost being concealed by taxpayer funded subsidies.
I know most politicians weren’t harping on about CO2, environmental concerns and other related issues twenty or ten years ago. Following Covid (the gateway issue to trigger the Great Reset and the onslaught of the barbarism we see today all around us regarding race, gender, sex, speech, thought and climate) every politician are now in lock-step which should trigger suspicion over the timing and organised nature of what we are seeing. The NZ agenda is not organic but contrived and centrally organised.
Those who support NZ are nothing more than Marxists, a threat to our freedoms and purveyors of a snake oil ideology
Let the grubs in government damage our economy and destroy our freedoms if that’s what people voted for. The next puppet Tory government will simply do the bidding of Labour’s Socialist state
September 8, 2024
We are making you all poor and immobile for your OWN GOOD, brother.
September 8, 2024
Dom :
An interesting video made by Jordan Peterson reading an article he wrote for the Daily Telegraph which I would recommend everyone to watch :
“Back Off, Oh Masters of the Universe”
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=–QS_UyW2SY
September 8, 2024
It is a subject for lengthy honest scientific evaluation, not one for lay predudicial opinion.
I accept that climate change is happening, in the history of the Earth it always has. The long term driver has been the Sun with contributions from Asteroids, Volcanos, under water Continental Plate clashes, and continental Land Mass clashes and shifts. Uk coal comes from a period when the UK was at least sub tropical.
What concerns me is that the combined intellect of Parliament contains nobody prepared or capable of seriously questioning what is little more than fanaticism or at best idealogical conviction. It is fruitless argueing with the Pope as Galileo discovered.
My second concern, accepting climate change as a reality, is that beyond the Thames Barrier, nobody in power is prepared to mitigate against its consequences. There is no action being taken in the UK to prevent property falling into the sea for instance.
There are many pluses to cleaning up our environment. Health alone would benefit enormously, as it did from the industrial revolution. However the lesson that nobody in government is prepared to learn is that change has to come with market acceptance. The market does not respond well to top down imposition, especially when it comes from fanatics like Rasputin. There you have it, a case where a royal commission may have some merit.
September 8, 2024
@ Agricola You say:- I accept that climate change is happening, in the history of the Earth it always has. The long term driver has been the Sun with contributions from Asteroids, Volcanos, under water Continental Plate clashes, and continental Land Mass clashes and shifts. Uk coal comes from a period when the UK was at least sub tropical.
Indeed also Planetary Orbits, Solar activity, plants, evolution in plants and millions of other factor. How can we predict the climate in 100 years without knowing populations, wars, when we will get controlled practical nuclear fusion energy and millions of other things and factors?
September 8, 2024
What worries me is that Politicians think they can change or reverse climate change! So does the King! These are people who display their incompetence publicly regularly. They canât deal with errant sons, they canât deal with shadowing a Government department, they can frame the questions as JR has done, the answers to which will enable a considered decision.
But they can change the weather and climate of the world world – and probably of ten solar system too because the sun needs to be controlled đđ€Ł
September 8, 2024
How’s King Canute doing with those tides? Just springs to mind with our politicos.
September 8, 2024
To be fair to King Canute he was demonstrating the limits to his powers.
September 8, 2024
On 6.
Rare earth elements are not used for batteries, they are used for the electric motors which enjoy far wider spread application anyway. Some are probably also used in the control systems but ICE vehicles have these also.
Lithium batteries are not just used for EVs but since development have been for many electronic appliances, I would say the most important being hearing aids, smartphones and laptops.
If you do not wish to do a full apples to apples comparison of EV vs ICE full lifecycle impacts and focus solely on the EV battery you also need to do a full lifecycle analysis – including repurposing as domestic/commercial power storage, recycling etc. In which case what are the same repurposing and recycling of the ICE equivalent where the answer is none whatsoever.
But I think CO2 is completely the wrong metric and the wrong goal anyway. Sustainability and self-reliance are far more important.
September 8, 2024
Keeping your old car is almost invariably far better than causing a new EV to be build. Storage of electricity on a large scale is very expensive indeed, often dangerous so why do it? Only needed due to intermittency of wind and solar. It is far better just stored as piles of coal, stores of gas, oil or nuclear fuel and then only generated when needed.
Why invest ÂŁ billions (with huge Ed Miliband subsidies and market rigging) in Wind and Solar to generate power when it is not needed?
September 8, 2024
Good morning
To answer your questions:
1. The Sun. The Sun is the giver and taker of life in our Solar System. The heat from it warms the Earth. The heat creates currents in both the sea and the air which creates our climate and weather. The Sun has been known to go through cycles which have created great changes in our weather system. It is a certainty that these changes in our Sun will once again change our weather system. We are hostages to this fate.
2. We do not know the accumulative effects listed, we simply have not been on this planet long enough and, our science and understanding has only just begun.
3. Models to predict things are as only good as the data they are built from. If you build a house out of sand do not be surprised if it only lasts one tidal cycle. My concern is that there is not enough data and, the modellers are more interested in the result than the information and the science.
4. Because it suits their âpurposeâ.
5. Because man made global warming is a con designed to rob us of our money and send our industries East with little complaint.
6. I do not know this. But I do know the environmental and social costs are huge.
If I may add one more ?
7. Currently, the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere as a percentage currently stands at 0.04%. At which point do those believe in manmade climate change that ALL life on earth become extinct and, what are your best estimates on current trends do you think we will meet that extinction point ?
To be honest, number seven is a trick question. The Earthâs CO2 levels have been far, far higher and life carried on. If they can answer it then they have to predict the extinction event. That gives us a timeline. From that, say one million years, I think we can deduce that this has been somewhat overblown. The current narrative from this peddlersâ of doom, is that is a near disaster requiting immediate action.
Take away that pillar of falsehood, along with many others, and this House of Babel will come tumbling down.
September 8, 2024
At what level of lack of CO2 is the extinction event triggered? Is it .02%? Are we .02% away from extinction? Or is it less than that?
September 8, 2024
For plant life it’s about 150ppm. There are many views on this subject but Patrick Moore (one of the Greenpeace founders) had very clear views on atmospheric CO2. Here is a precis of a paper by Moore, published by Jon Clearbout of Stanford:
https://sepwww.stanford.edu/sep/jon/climate.html
It’s always interesting to note that where academics air an opinion contary to popular climate ‘lore’ – they are either retired or in secure tenures. Jon Claerbout is now retired but is still an emeritus Professor of Geophysics at Stanford University, so he’s probably better informed than most on this subject…
September 8, 2024
I have read its 0.018%.
September 9, 2024
đ±so close to and extinction event and working hard to get there!
September 8, 2024
Crisis? What crisis!
Consecutive UK governments and its elected MPs are the real crisis.
September 8, 2024
Oh Yes …You’re spot on Mickey
September 8, 2024
To sum it up.
1. A bit more atmospheric CO2 crop, tree, sea weed and plant food is, on balance, a net good – as is being slightly warmer too.
2. The things being pushed to lower manmade CO2 do not actually do so and certainly not to any significant degree. Many like EVs and burning wood (young coal) actually increase it.
3. The cost of net zero are hugely high and not remotely the best way to spend this money even if CO2 were a real problem adaptation is the way to go. See Best Things First: by Bjorn Lomborg
4. Even if we had to cool the earth then reducing CO2 would not be the best way to do it.
5. CO2 is just one on millions of things the affect the climate & it is not even a major one when considered properly.
All five statements above are true and any one alone if sufficient to show that May (Geography), King Charles (Arc and Anth.), Sunak (PPE), all the would be Tory leaders, 95%+ of MPs and Ed (PPE Oxon) Miliband’s Net Zero agenda is total economic and environmental insanity. Pure evil in a new Chairman Mao way too.
September 8, 2024
I have quoted two physics professors below, but Lifelogic illustrates the alarming groupthink prevalent in politicians. It is really worrying that so few politicians appear to have scepticism about the green Marxism being promoted through Net Zero scare tactics, designed to impoverish the West. Congratulations, Sir John, for at least asking the right questions. Perhaps you could encourage your erstwhile surviving colleagues in Parliament to do the same.
It is noticeable that the groundswell of on-line conservative activists here and on the Telegraph and Spectator web sites are extremely sceptical, even through the respective publications still promote the falsity that CO2 is an existential threat to mankind.
Reply I have been asking these questions for a long time but am not getting good answers from the net zero advocates. I did raise these questions in my two short books on the road to net zero.
September 8, 2024
The planet will look after itself like it as done for billions of years, were we around for the hottest or very cold weather conditions NO itâs just one big global con by the money people to make more money at our expense and as for the deluded green lobby theyâll not be satisfied till weâre all flip flop wearing tree hugging cave dwellers, believe it or not I said 40 odd years ago that governments wonât be satisfied till they are taxing the air we breathe, well thatâs what the climate issue is a big fat tax on the god furring right to breathe so wake up people and donât be conned anymore End of rant of the day
September 8, 2024
Questions 5 & 6 are to do with CO2 policy, not the basis for the science of global warming.
An overwhelming extent of climate alarmism is not based on IPCC science, but is fabricated in all sorts of ways by media and many organisations and institutions. It’s easy to spot this as there is very seldom any balance in the arguments. Just apply the same approach you would take to any salesman. You wouldn’t buy a used car from any of these people.
My strong view, from considerable experience of computer modelling including CFD, is that climate models are conceptually flawed and readily manipulated by parametrisation. It is simply not possible to model this planet. We are 20 orders of computing power short of what it would take, we are obviously nowhere near able to capture all the physical processes, and we have nowhere remotely near the data needed to initialise a model.
Despite this the IPPC science reports make no mention of alarm or catastrophe, and almost no claim in any confidence that extreme events may be increasing. Just on the basis of IPPC science, there is no basis for net zero policies. Adaptation would be dramatically more cost effective.
The elephant in the room is that actual warming has been much less than predicted, so politics has overwhelmed science to keep the scare going. This is despite the strong evidence that temperature records have been manipulated to exaggerate warming.
If you want to worry about anything, worry about net zero policies. CO2 is a trace gas that has major benefits to the planet and mankind even if it does cause slight warming. The planet has greened over by something approaching 20% with CO2 increase – read that again – 20% greening! Food production increases. We are also more robust against the next ice age (who knows when, could be within 100 years) when CO2 levels fall and all life could be wiped out.
Net Zero will end in catastrophe.
September 8, 2024
I am not an expert in this subject.
The vast majority of people are not experts.
We have to rely on the experts to tell us the truth.
Our judgment on climate change is therefore influenced by our opinion on the credibility of each expert.
The pursuit of Net Zero will continue to seriously impact everyone financially and for general quality of life. It is very worrying that the politicians have brought us to where we are, without getting the majority on board with the science.
With our host’s permission:
https://youtu.be/A24fWmNA6lM?si=JVC2Cy2n1AO-So4q
https://thefederalnewswire.com/stories/649656011-over-1-600-scientists-claim-that-the-climate-emergency-is-a-myth
September 8, 2024
But the vast mayority (the common people) can look out of their windows and see that nothing has changed ……its only the funded minority (paid scientists & universities ) that tell of doom & gloom
September 8, 2024
One person’s expert might be another person’s idiot!
The planet is flat, evolution never happened, God created the lot in 7 days, most of the planet divide up the belief in God into numerous versions of God and will not entertain the others’ opinion. Their’s is the only truth.
September 8, 2024
Nottingham University ! I seem to remember they were held as experts, until a certain unfortunatly event rather tarnished their reputation on this subject.
September 8, 2024
Amazing that Governments have come this far down the line without any form of proper debate, costings, historical fact, or an appreciation of the scale of changes they are trying to implement.
At the moment our present government is living in a fantasy land where common sense and the craving of more control is driven by political dogma.
September 8, 2024
+1
September 9, 2024
Horrifying! We need to change the personnel.
I wonder whether Starmer knows that more people die of cold than of heat? Should not the warm parts of the world be subsidising the cold, dark places?
Where is the UN on this?
September 9, 2024
The UN stands and watches far from the root of any issue.
September 8, 2024
Responding to your fundamental question about the science supporting Net Zero is quite simple. Scientific truth is all about isolating variables and proving causation through rigorous testing in controlled conditions. A hypothesis becomes a theory only when direct causation is proved, and is supported by other scientists who have carried out the experiments with the same rigour elsewhere. To be scientific a hypothesis has to be âfalsifiableâ, or amenable to controlled experiment and verification.
There is no true science backing Net Zero, only attribution and computer modelling. Unfortunately many people donât understand the scientific method, which enables governments to continue along the disastrous road to Net Zero.
September 8, 2024
MPC, ++++++
September 8, 2024
Itâs like a very long drawn out version of covid. âThe Scienceâ – as determined by committees from which dissenting expert voices were excluded – declared an immediate requirement for lockdown, masks and mandatory vaccines to stop the spread. Now it turns out that, whilst they doubtless acted in good faith, they were in fact wrong. So it is likely to prove with net zero. Covid was a serious illness, it wasnât just an ordinary flu, it killed 20m people. Other things being equal more atmospheric CO2 means more warming, from which there will be adverse consequences. But as with covid, the mandated solution – lockdown, school closures etc in the case of covid, net zero in the case of global warming, is both ineffective and hugely damaging, with the costs far outweighing the benefits.
September 8, 2024
The questions are all being asked all of the time Sir John. The answers to those questions are constantly being answered, sadly the political class across the Western World are blind and deaf to those answers.
I recommend everyone watches, ‘Climate The Movie’ there you will see real scientists outlining the background to the Climate Alarmists movement that has captured the political class.
A couple of simple points. CO2 is the giver of life. Without it there would be no photosynthesis no plants and no animal life on Earth.
At levels below 200PPM plants struggle to exist deserts grow and all life is on the edge of extinction.
The LIA (little ice age) period in our recent history 1350 to 1850 brought horrific difficulties to humanity the level of CO2 dropped dangerously low to ~250 PPM, hunger was a feature of life as was early death before reaching 40 years of age for most.
The increase in CO2 since the end of the LIA which now stands at ~420 PPM has resulted in massive plant growth, with an area equal to twice the contiguous land mass of the USA (NASA data) added to the biosphere. The world is feeding 8 billion people easily. Less hunger than at any time in history. If CO2 was increased to 600 PPM the lush plant growth and the record harvests we have enjoyed for the past fifty years would be even greater than now.
CO2 is not a problem it is a blessing and essential component of life. We must stop condemning the very thing that sustains us.
September 8, 2024
Exactly Rod – I watched Climate the Movie for the third time last evening – it is so reassuring to know there are at least some scientists who have the integrity not allow themselves to be bullied into submission by the climate zealots. Ed Miliband should watch it.
September 9, 2024
Ed Millibandâs head has an idea in it already. No capacity for a second one.
September 8, 2024
Difference and reflection are the essence of existence.
Maybe Earth is the centre of existence, which boiled, and forced the Moon to shoot out of the Gulf of Mexico in a spiral flash that created the Sun.
The Universe is described as expanding ever-faster outward. How could that possibly be?
It is more likely that is the view we see in life while the Earth that created us is pulling us back inward tail-first.
Nature controls Earth heat and us; we just feel its effects.
September 8, 2024
Off topic if I may, today a report is published showing extensive and disgraceful bias by the BBC over Israel / Gaza. Of course weâve seen the same thing in a lower key way on net zero (and other topics) over many years. I think a quick win for the new Conservative leader would be to adopt the idea put forward here by a few of us including Sir John to distribute shares in the BBC to license holders. They would probably be worth ÂŁ500-1,000 each and should be tax-free. The license fee could be ditched at the same time. This would be a popular policy and would cure the BBC of its institutional wokery – that wouldnât survive in a competitive environment with market pressures.
September 8, 2024
What gets me about that conflict is this:
Israel must seek peace with the terrorist Hamas who have taken innocent hostages. Verses. Ukraine must fight Russia at great expense in lives and money. I just don’t get it.
September 9, 2024
The establishment is anti-Christian-Judeo. We have all noticed.
We notice the politics and religions they support too.
September 8, 2024
The recent period (18 months) of abnormal temperatures is puzzling, if only CO2 levels are considered.
However:
1. There was a big El Nino event which raised global temperatures by well over 0.5 degrees C.
2. The giant underwater Hunga Tonga eruption in the Pacific 18 months ago sent hundreds of millions of tonnes of water vapour (a greenhouse gas) into the usually dry stratosphere.
3. The Earth’s albedo is falling – less of the sun’s radiant energy is being reflected back into space. The decline is about 0.7% over the past 20 years. NASA has stated a decline of 1% in albedo is equivalent to a doubling of CO2. The reason? We are producing less pollution, thus cloud formation is reduced.
September 8, 2024
So given the NZ is insane what do we do to make the likes of Millispeed see and appreciate the reality?
September 8, 2024
You can’t ! They are in power and the zealot has 5 years to shaft this country.
September 8, 2024
I don’t believe in going to a great deal of trouble in order to re-invent the wheel.
The argument against the Climate Change propaganda can all be found on this website:
https://wattsupwiththat.com/
It is useful when the UN admits the truth “Global warmingâ is not about the science â UN Admits: âClimate change policy is about how we redistribute the worldâs wealth”
https://www.climatedepot.com/2017/05/24/global-warming-is-not-about-the-science-un-admits-climate-change-policy-is-about-how-we-redistribute-the-worlds-wealth/
September 8, 2024
I am supportive of measures that reduce the impact of climate change, the science is far from settled but the weather trends do support the general conclusions. We can not afford to wait until the evidence is conclusive before taking action to halt or delay the consequences, because it will then be too late for effective action.
Many Alternative Energy technologies have been developed and are being further developed to replace fossil fuels. These are already available to us if we look for them and if we don’t rely on the Government to do it for us. My electricity is provided by a combination of roof top solar panels and a share in a Scottish wind turbine, together they produce approximately double my annual electricity usage. and my excess is exported to the national grid. Solar panels are now cheaper and more efficient than they were 10 years ago, a local developer, Oxford Perovskite has just introduced a more efficient solar panel which looks like an interesting next generation product. By contrast the Governments energy scheme and grant for heat pump installation is an administrative mess and not fit for purpose. My efforts to use it have stalled.
In summary the debate over climate change has long past its sell by date and we just have to get on with it and take action now.
September 8, 2024
NOTHING we do in the UK to reduce our miniscule CO2 emissions will make a scrap of difference to the global climate.
We are being impoverished so that the UN can redistribute wealth and to enrich a small number of billionaires and their puppeticians.
September 8, 2024
Your point 5 is moot. It is quite easy to reduce population. All you have to do is empower women so they have a choice of career with education, rather than forcefully put into arranged marriages and denied education.
There’s an economic barrier to having children in this country. In order to afford them you either have to be on benefits so the state pays, or be a train driver.
Less people in this country would make it a more pleasant place, without the dubious consideration of CO2 generation. Our over-populated and unproductive inner cities seem to contribute little to human endeavour.
September 9, 2024
I believe JR is intimating that importing people is increasing the U.K. population at a rate that the British have been unable to accomplish the ânatural wayâ.
Indeed the native British population is falling and dramatically.
Why do the people intent on reducing the CO2 produced in Britain insist on importing millions of people who, of necessity, increase the same – that is the question.
September 9, 2024
Original ‘British’ people often do not see the country fit for bringing up ‘right thinking families with a positive future’ hence lower birth rate. Population growth from more recent migrants, say last 50 years, has resulted from much improved lifestyles than they might have elsewhere.
September 8, 2024
Your points 1-6 are moot, without the continuous and accurate measurement & recording of sea-level data; the initial & only reason for policies of net-zero and the propaganda of settled science
Why are we using âjunkâ (unreliable) temperature weather stations, and why arenât sea-level measurement poles every mile around our coast (we currently have just 44 historic tidal stations in ports for commercial shipping)
Its only when you have accurate data that you can determine (1) natural or man-made, (2) If man-made is it due only to co2 (0.04%) or other elements/factors and most importantly (3) Is any perceived increase (if any) causing actual harm to humans ? We do know that global agricultural growth has increased
Once you get through the media & political hype, research tells us that hurricanes, natural wild-fires are in decline, the great-barrier reef is healthy & growing, the anti-arctic ice mass is increasing and polar bear population is increasing in the arctic âŠthe doom and gloom of world climate disasters just havenât happened
What is real is that weâre destroying our own economy & industry
September 8, 2024
Just watch Climate â The Movie again to answer your questions. They explain it far better than I ever could.
September 8, 2024
Agree
September 8, 2024
Am thrilled this erudite stuff has an airing before we are all banned from discussing it. I agree with all said here but fear only Reform is likely to adopt it. Certainly population and pollution needs to go down but CO2 is a “Janet and John” myth to cause huge self-inflicted destruction for the benefit of the puppet-masters.
September 9, 2024
Isnât it shocking that free-born British people are afraid that certain subjects will be banned from even being discussed?
I find that more distressing than the psychosis suffered by the nihilistists thrusting global warming down our throats.
September 8, 2024
The biggest question of all:
What does Net Zero in Britain mean for the planet ?
– 1% which will probably be taken up by China anyway.
September 8, 2024
I have suggested to the Global Warming Policy Foiudation that they advise you on your 6 questions. Lord Frost, whom you know, obviously, is on the board of trustees but the Director, Dr Benny Peiser, or the science editor, Dr David Whitehouse, would be excellent on the science.
September 8, 2024
Didnât the introduction (by the tories) of paper straws, save the planet
September 8, 2024
Save the planet? school’s out on that one, so the next bet is to burden every home with (colours vary) :
A brown wheelie for garden waste – no animal poo or soil premitted.
A black wheelie for household waste but very limited in what!
Little tight lid pots for food waste, does it go to pigs? No- it gets anaerobic digestion prior to producing electricity and fertiliser.
Green closable bags for recycling, but is necessary to consult on what is permitted.
(thin types of plastic not allowed, black hard types required to go to Council Waste Sites. Books no!
Glass – no way – find a helpful supermarket bin.
Batteries – no way – ditto or shops often will take them.
Clothing, shoes – must be clean, shoes paired.
So after sorting all that and employing contract staff who work before sunrise, and make sure you hear it, it has been known to see various of the above tipped into a single container! But some us are made to feel ‘we made a difference’ one of the most detestable expressions of the modern era. IMO.
September 8, 2024
Glad you’re doing your bit to ”save the planet” ….however I can confirm that most of your recycled waste goes to the same big hole
September 10, 2024
Maybe you should visit your closest recycling centre. The one in Reading on Island Road is certainly not a big hole.
September 8, 2024
We live on a dynamic planet. The Earth, Ocean, Atmosphere system is very complex and has an unknown number of variables. The system is chaotic and non linear.
The idea that CO2 is the main driver of climate change is absurd.
The main factors include:
1. The Sun
2. Milankovitch Cycles
3. Plate Tectonics
4. Water Vapour
5. Ocean Currents
6. Albedo
I have said it before.
Net Zero is by far and away the most catastrophically lunatic idea ever.
September 8, 2024
IPCC modelling is deeply flawed as data dealing with cloud formation is missing or cloud formation data created by little more than informed guesswork. Our vast oceans are largely devoid of accurate weather and temperature gathering data and many land based sensors are too scarce or are in positions affected by urban heat. Temperature data has been manipulated by scientific policymakers to suit their overriding political agenda making reliance suspicious to say the least. The âMannâ hockey stick is one glaring example, another is the falsifying of data by East Anglia University. The extent of warming has also been exaggerated to meet a political agenda and the claim of a climate emergency is totally unjustified. When engineering and technical experts are excluded from essential debate as indeed are the general public and non technical politicians set unachievable targets itâs clear there is something seriously wrong. In an effort to be virtuous and leaders of the world in tackling âclimate changeâ our political masters have taken our Nation down the wrong energy policy pathway. Disastrously we are heading for a massive âtrain smashâ . Meanwhile, China, India, Russia and many other emerging nations are continuing to pursue energy policies with fossil fuel their principle source of energy!
September 8, 2024
China, India, and Russia are not controlled the same crime syndicate that controls the Western public discourse by regulating the Overton window tightly through unpersoning those who speak out on topics of public concern. They are helped by treasonous political parties like the Tories and Labour whose laws allow this behaviour whilst blathering about free speech (as long as it supports their propoganda).
September 9, 2024
Thatâs why JR asks for the modelling to be beck tested – to prove how far out it actually is. If it canât âpredictâ what has already happened then we can be sure it is also not predicting what will happen.
Unless âcomputer modelsâ achieve a specified level of accuracy on back testing, publish their results should be punished as promoting âmisinformationâ.
September 8, 2024
To attempt to answer your questions, Sir John :
1. The science of the cause(s) of climate change is definitely not settled although we do know that CO2 is not the driver of temperature or climate change, whether natural or anthropogenic, because of a phenomenon known as IR saturation. There is already sufficient CO2 in the atmosphere to produce 99% of all the greenhouse gas warming that is possible. So adding further CO2 to the atmosphere makes negligible difference. 1.2 degrees C according to the IPCC (WG1 P95) and 0.7 degrees C according to Professors Happer & Wijngaarden for a doubling of CO2 which will take 170 years at the current rate of increase.
There has been no correlation between CO2 and temperature over the last 500m years since the start of the Cambrian explosion and we even had an ice age when CO2 was 10 x more than today. Over the last 450,000 years, when both CO2 and temperature have been exceptionally low (most of the last 500m years there has been no snow at the poles) the Antarctic Vostok ice core data shows CO2 following temperature and not vice versa. Probably simply because there is 50 x more CO2 in the oceans than the atmosphere and cold water dissolves more CO2 than hot water. A more likely cause of climate change is the sunâs varying output, our varying distance from the sun and the Milankovitch cycles.
The climate has always changed and always will. At some point temperatures will inevitably rise and fall. The difficult part is predicting when! Many scientists are predicting temperatures to fall within the next couple of decades as we enter a new solar cycle.
2. The IPCC makes no allowance for anything but anthropogenic CO2, as this is its remit except to make the ridiculous claim that the greenhouse effect of water vapour, which is the largest of the greenhouse gases already, is amplified by small increases in the greenhouse effect of CO2. Certainly volcanic activity will be producing some heating. Interestingly the smaller West side of Antarctica is part of the Pacific Ring of Fire and very volcanic leading to its warming far more than the much colder and larger East side.
3. The IPCCâs models are failing. They all predict far too much warming which is, according to the UAH satellite data, just 0.14 degrees C per decade.
4. The IPCCâs remit is not to discover the reasons for climate change but to find any evidence it can for anthropogenic climate change. Hence all the money flows into projects studying man-made climate change. Hence the nonsense.
5. They know that increasing CO2 has no effect on the climate.
6. None.
September 8, 2024
4) IPCC – it ensures so many climate researchers keep a well paid job/career pursuing their hobby.
September 8, 2024
Follow the money
September 8, 2024
Taking the questions out of order, I see Questions 5 and 6 as more âeconomicâ questions than scientific ones.
5. UK politicians should take responsibility and decide about immigration given the state of the economy and what they expect to achieve in terms of GDP growth (given that this appears to be the only parameter they are able to consider).
6. Again, the CO2 (and other greenhouse gases and pollution) production associated with the present (and recent) extraction of the rare earths required for making and with the disposal of the EV batteries (and wind turbines, solar panels, nuclear energy plants, hydroelectric dams, âŠ) should obviously be considered but as much as the emission of greenhouse gases linked to the gas/petrol industry over the last ~200 years.
Now to more âscientificâ considerations:
1. Since the work of Milankovitch (et al.) in the 1920-30s we know of the various cycles (all longer than 25kyr, with some at 45kyr, 105kyr and 400kyr) that affect the insolation at the top of the atmosphere and have been linked in palaeoclimatological studies (including studies of Antarctic ice cores) to the changes in both temperatures, CO2 concentrations, proportion of C12 vs C13 vs C14 atoms in CO2 molecules. There is no reason to think that these cycles are not âactiveâ anymore but they cannot explain the rapid increase in CO2 concentration seen since the 19th c, nor the change in balance between CO2 isotopes (that favours an explanation based on the increase of CO2 from fossil fuels).
2. Meteorological reanalyses (performed independently by various meteorological centres, USA, Japan, Korea, UK, Europe) and now covering between 50 years (and using conventional and all types of satellite data) and 120 years (using conventional temperature, humidity, wind measurements) all show similar year-to-year variations but dominated by a similar increase of not only global but also regional (at the scale of continents or oceanic basins) temperature.
3. Although the climate models are very similar to the meteorological weather forecast models used for these reanalyses, they differ from those by the inclusion of processus (development of âvegetationâ, representation of evolving ice sheets, âŠ) whose timescales are hardly relevant for meteorological purposes.
Climate models (and all new developments) have been and are checked by ârerunningâ them on past periods, whether in palaeoclimate simulations or last 150 years. These reruns allow to pinpoint uncertainties or missing processes (interaction with building up of aerosols and more recent clean-up of some of these aerosols).
4. It is not correct to say that CO2 is the only greenhouse gas considered in climate studies. Effects of other GGs (CH4, N2O. O3, CFCs and HFCs), of various type of aerosols (sulphate vs. carbonaceous vs. organic vs. desert-type aerosols), of urbanisation, of changes in agriculture/forestry, of changes in ice/snow albedo due to pollution, âŠ) have also been the subjects of âclimate studiesâ.
September 9, 2024
Why are they âable to consider only GDPâ? Anyone who has ever run a whelk stall knows that if you lose a Penny in each whelk, the fewer you sell the better.
Is this too complex for Rachel Reeves, Kier Starmer and the Treasury?
If so is there not a barrow-boy who has run a whelk store available to take over Nr 11?
September 8, 2024
There is another rarely mentioned problem with the net zero fantasy. If we all use electricity for heating and transport then just about every town and village in the country will need to be rewired. Most local electricity supplies were not designed with an electricity for everything load in mind.
Weâve seen back of the envelope estimates for repurposing the National Grid but how much will the local electricity supplies cost to upgrade and how long will it take?
September 9, 2024
Where is the âwireâ going to come from and has the consequences of living under high voltage cable been calculated and transposed to the increased âpressure on the NHSâ?
September 8, 2024
Unsettled? What Climate Science Tells Us, What It Doesn’t, And Why It Matters by Steven E Kooning
is well worth reading for a balanced analysis, debunking of some of the claims made, pointing out the limitations of the IPCC remit and arguing thee case for adaptation.
September 8, 2024
In a sane logical normal human society anyone would wish to discover the real cause of climate change.
Jumping to Nett Zero is in effect arriving at a verdict before the trial has begun. We are most asiduous at avoiding such a situation in law, why are we so casual at committing this fundamental error in a matter of science. Is it the ignorance of the majority on scientific matters that makes it so easy for them to jump to erronious conclusions.
Even in a government with no scientific background it is surely their responsibility to seek out the truth, or failing this a balance of probability. Then to base policy on climate change on this balance of probability and be prepared to change it if more compelling evidence is forthcoming.
I do not hold much hope of such, because we are living in an age of belief, that the mere act of creating new law is a solution in itself. It is a formula for failure.
September 8, 2024
agricola : âEven in a government with no scientific background it is surely their responsibility to seek out the truth, or failing this a balance of probability.â
It is not possible to determine the truth without free speech. The fact that the UN, governments and the BBC have blocked any free speech on the subject of climate change is an indication itself that at best they fear any discussion in case they are found to be wrong or, at worst, they know they are wrong. In particular, the fact that the BBC, our state broadcaster, refuses to allow discussion on climate change and Net Zero, shows it is shamefully anti-democratic and consequently makes our country a disgrace in the eyes of true democracies.
We need a referendum for the truth to emerge.
September 8, 2024
One preliminary outcome of the Covid inquiry is that government ministers should have challenged the scientists more. Same mistake on Net Zero.
September 8, 2024
Almost nobody in the UK is qualified to comment with any certainty on the truth, or otherwise, of man-made global warming. Least of all that idiot Miliband E !
We should therefore put aside endless and unproductive speculation on the cause, and concentrate on what, if anything, the UK should and can do about it that would have a positive effect on a world-wide basis.
The answer to that question is certainly “almost nothing.”
All political parties, with the exception of Reform, are committed to impoverishing us with wildly expensive and restrictive actions that will make not one iota of difference to the world.
We had all better hope that somehow Reform wins the next general election. One thing is certain, voting Conservative is not going to bring about a different result to that currently being implemented by Labour.
September 8, 2024
357 illegal economic /criminals arrived in the UK yesterday from the safe country of France âŠ..you donât see that reported on the BBC
Also no real scientist would ever say that the science is settled
September 8, 2024
Illegal migrants arrived since pledge to âstop the boatsâ : 137,000
UK police officers : 171,000
British army : 75,000
September 8, 2024
Border Control staff ?
September 9, 2024
May as well be 0.
September 8, 2024
Sir John,
My only comment on thie delusional project.
I read ‘Green in Tooth and Claw’ – Dr Niall McCrae. My mind is made up about ‘Climage Change’. A con of the green agenda pushed by powerful people. Enough said.
September 8, 2024
Regarding climate change, there is at least one uncontested and proven fact: for 2 million years there have been dramatic cycles of climate change with the onset and decline of ice ages with an approximate 100,000 year periodicity, with interglacial average temperatures of (surprise, surprise) around 4°C above current. We are living in an interglacial period.
Worth bearing in mind that this evidence only became apparent towards the end of the last century with the development of the engineering ability to collect and analyse ice core samples. I remember watching a documentary in around 1992 about NASA engineers who had been tasked with designing fleets of satellites with reflective mirrors!
The science was well understood then, and is well understood now. Presumably the deployment of a reflective shield of spacecraft proved practically impossible. Other methods became necessary. Evidently the most practical and achievable, in theory at least, is the attempt to reduce the levels of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere. The engineering methods for extracting carbon dioxide are rapidly advancing; in a frantic attempt to ‘mitigate the worst effects of global warming’ if that phrase rings any bells.
Meanwhile, amid all the distraction, how much proper science has been left undone?
September 8, 2024
While on supposed ‘Science’ may I comment on the Grenfell Tower inquiry since I believe it is symptomatic of the massive irrationality in which we now live. That inquiry entirely overlooked context.
Yes, 72 people died. Yes, the cladding was to an extent flammable. However there were more than 4,500 similarly clad buildings in England and Wales alone and probably tens of thousands in the world. Yes, the constructors cut corners, but I suspect this was just one of many corners (the others without detriment) that were cut. If constructors had to use top quality materials all the time, housing would be unaffordable for all except the wealthiest. Yet only one in several decades had a fire that cost lives. It was a freak event, a freak accident. What does one do about freak accidents? The sensible answer is nothing or nothing much. By contrast many of the enquiry’s 58 recommendations will require massive bureaucracy, massive costs and massive expenditure of human time, extremely disproportionate to any human time that might be saved in another such freak accident.
Meanwhile the incredible cost of ‘remediation’ is very many billions of pounds and about ÂŁ90,000 per flat (an incredible figure for replacing about fifty square yards of cladding per flat). This has meant over one million people have suffered grievously for years with flats they can’t sell and massive service charges for waking fire watches, causing financial crises and financial anxiety that has no doubt led to much ill health and many times the 72 deaths lost in the fire. Meanwhile we are told 250 people are dying each and every week from excessive waits to be seen at accident and emergency and a similar number due to hospital infections. That alone is daily due to the poor public management of our so called ‘health service’about as many as died in that once in decades freak cladding fire!
It is time to ignore a small number of freakish casualties and deal instead with the numerous routine and relatively easily avoidable deaths that are happening day in, day out.
September 8, 2024
You forget DEI/ESG considerations overrides ………..everything. The elephant in the room.
September 8, 2024
and the tragedy would have reduced the horrific death toll if alarms could be heard by all occupants, who should have begun leaving the building immediately.
September 9, 2024
The fire service told them to stay!
September 9, 2024
that was much later than the start of fire and flames going up the side. People had to knock on doors to tell occupants of the fire. The fortunate ones made their way down or were not in the building.
September 8, 2024
1 — The Earth is wobbling, giving us the changes of season, the Earth also tilts from side to side. This tilt is known to vary between 22.1 and 24.5 degrees on a cycle that lasts about 41,000 years. Together these can give us extreme weather, especially when the Sun is at a solar maximum or minimum.
Some 3,000 years ago Egypt was a lush greenery. The only thing to cause this was the tilting effect.
2 — None. When the so called models are created they often leave out vital components like volcanoes, the sun, and radiation from long dead stars.
3 — None that I know of.
4 — Modelling is inadequate because it cannot take in all the inputs, so guesses are made and adjustments calculated accordingly. None of this is scientific.
5 — More people allegedly mean they create or cause to be created Co2 by their purchase and activities, but this is a red herring because the Earth is far from full and would take a lot more people. It just needs willingness to manage. People are used as an excuse to bring in de-population.
There is no problem with excess co2 – it helps us grow more food.
6 — Impossible to know, but it surely has to be higher than making petrol cars.
The sun is in a quiet period hence the cooler temperatures of late. That doesn’t mean that we still cannot get warm rays from the sun, but reports of these are exaggerated due to their collection location. We also have evidence of NASA, for example, altering old graphs to make it seem like temperatures are higher now.
We are brainwashed daily to expect a new heatwave or freeze. When they come they are nothing spectacular.
We’ve had ice ages in the past because man didn’t utilise so much of the land surface as we do now. Our presence changes the effect of what would be a mini-ice-age during this solar minimum. Co2 doesn’t create ice ages.
September 9, 2024
The Eskimos say âthe whole sky has shiftedâ. I.e the earth has wobbled to an extreme. Modern science canât deal with that because it might answer a few questions which are current ly being used to âscare the pants off usâ ( I believe that is a scientific Covid phrase).
September 8, 2024
You have elicited some excellent comments today Sir John and there is little for me to add.
I have mentioned before the very good book, based on science and a lifetime of experience, GREEN MURDER by Ian Plimer, an Australian geologist who has spent his life both working in the field and teaching. A book that can be understood by most. A blunt straight to the point Aussie who pulls no punches.
The viewpoints in this book are in line with many other serious scientists, some mentioned in these comments.
The official line? The ‘narrative’? Globalist manipulation designed to control, manipulate and impoverish.
September 8, 2024
ââThousand trillion dollars for a tenth of a degree less warmingââ
A must two minute read of US climate committee Q&A
#Senator Kennedy: âIâm just trying to lay a foundation here to understand your expert testimony. Dr Holtz-Eakin, do you know how much it will cost to make the United States of America carbon-neutral by 2050?â
#Holtz-Eakin: âYouâre going to look at $50 trillion.â
#Senator Kennedy: âDoes anybody know how much it will lower world temperatures? [Pause] No?â [3]
#Holtz-Eakin: âNo one can know for sure.â
#Litterman: âIf China and India do not help? I donât know.â
https://clintel.org/the-new-pause-lengthens-to-8-years-9-months/
September 8, 2024
I donât know what to believe. I read all sorts in passing about humanâs interfering with weather đŠïž, flooding suddenly in the dessert through man made interferrence.
All that I know is that I do everything I can to keep my consumption down. Iâve never slept with heat on at night, although last year I did get an electric blanket to warm the bed before we got in for an hour to stop cramp.
Iâve read the plans for overland cabling on new pylons all over England which fills me with dread.
Years ago we used to recycle milk bottles every day, we used to take home fruit and veg in brown paper packets, my Mum would pick up boxes at the front of the supermarket and load them, no plastic bags, we used Tupperware containers over and over rather than buying water and other drinks in disposable bottles.
Exporting our manufacturing, steel etc doesnât help the world, we create more problems by then importing all the materials we used to make here. If steel needs a lot of resources why arenât the steelworks near the working windmills that have to be turned off because theyâre making too much power at times.
September 8, 2024
windmills adjacent will never make enough electricity to power steelmaking.
September 9, 2024
As I said, I don’t know too much about it, just what I read, such as:
“16 Jan 2024 â The UK is currently set to waste enough wind energy to power more than 5 million households by the end of the decade” rechargenews.com
I also read that a lot of wind power was going to waste and we can’t store it.
September 9, 2024
pity you can’t stop and start steelmaking at the whims of sun or cloud and wind or calm.
September 8, 2024
The point isn’t about greenism at all.
It has been decided at WEF level that Westerners have been living and privileged life way beyond their talents or abilities and that we must be equalised in a great reset with the majority population who are poor.
To be done either by taking things from us or by bringing in people to share with us. This is an intercontinental transfer of power and wealth with the avoidance of war and the decommissioning of defence systems.
“You are going to have to be poorer and we are going to make you so but it is for your own good. To save the planet.”
September 8, 2024
All the while they get to hang on to their vast wealth and, not only that, grow it đ
A nice life it you can get it.
September 8, 2024
Dear Mr. Redwood,
I consider it quite impossible to provide a definitive answer as to whether or not man-made CO2 is responsible for global warming and climate change. The model is too large, too complex and there are too many competing variables. The science can never be settled because more information and discoveries come to light all the time. You have listed several possible causes but there are others including the strength of the sun, changes in the earth’s orbit, axial tilt and precession and variations in ocean currents.
I suggest that climate change experts can only state that it is human endeavour that is causing climate change on the balance of probabilities. They cannot be 100% sure because they can never be in possession of the full facts. Lay persons can only read what they find on the internet, listen to discussion and debate and then decide which side of the argument they stand on.
Global climate change has typically occurred very slowly, over thousands, hundreds of thousands or millions of years. Research shows that the current climate is changing much more rapidly than shown in geological records. In my humble opinion, it would, therefore, be prudent to limit the amount of CO2 that we are pumping into the atmosphere.
Now, before some of your readers fly off the handle, this has got to be done commensurate with the needs of our industries, tax revenues, the technology available which at present is immature and ineffective and, of course, jobs and people. It also needs to be done in a reasonable and realistic timescale which is not happening. Look at what the 2035 ban on petrol and diesels cars is doing for the car market. Look at the imbecilic 2030 deadline Miliband has placed on decarbonising the National Grid.
At the moment, all government seems to want to do is impoverish the British people while other countries profit at our expense.
Man-made climate change may or may not be happening but if it is, there is one incontrovertible fact in all of this; our governments, both past and present, are proving their stupidity and uselessness at dealing with it.
September 9, 2024
The dinosaurs saw pretty quick climate change, and definitely not man-made.
September 8, 2024
The question I would like to ask Mr Milliband (and all those who support our drive to Net Zero) is :-
How much will the Earth’s temperature alter after we achieve Net Zero in the UK?
September 8, 2024
…as yet to be determined âŠ.weâll get back to you
September 8, 2024
forecast answer? – available about 2035?
September 8, 2024
We are coming out of the last ice age. So temperature rises must discount these rises.
I suggest looking at rises in sea level because the sea kind-of acts like a giant thermometer.
When you look at sea level rises look at when satellites started being used which is when control of sea level rise data is owned by NOAH and when it is the rate of the rise magically doubles over night.
September 8, 2024
The earth’s changing climate is affected by a vast array of interacting factors involving the earth’s orbit around the sun, the sun itself, ocean currents, meteorites, volcanoes and, of course, the atmosphere’s composition including greenhouse gases, the most influential one of which is water. Carbon dioxide is a greenhouse gas but its particular properties mean that its warming functions decrease as its concentration increases.
Professors Richard Lindzen (MIT) and William Happer (Princeton) wrote on 14 July 2014: “We are career physicists with a special expertise in radiation physics, which describes how CO2 affects heat flow in Earthâs atmosphere. The physics of carbon dioxide is that CO2âs ability to warm the planet is determined by its ability to absorb heat, which decreases rapidly as CO2âs concentration in the atmosphere increases. This scientific fact about CO2 changes everything about the popular view of CO2 and climate change. At todayâs CO2 concentration in the atmosphere of approximately 420 parts per million, additional amounts of CO2 have little ability to absorb heat and therefore is now a weak greenhouse gas. At higher concentrations in the future, the ability of future increases to warm the planet will be even smaller. This also means that the common assumption that carbon dioxide is âthe main driver of climate changeâ is scientifically false. In short, more carbon dioxide cannot cause catastrophic global warming or more extreme weather. Neither can greenhouse gases of methane or nitrous oxide, the levels of which are so small that they are irrelevant to climate. “
September 9, 2024
Happer and Lindzen are exactly right.
September 8, 2024
The earth has gone through several ice ages during which the UK has been under hundreds of metres of ice.
1) What causes ice ages ?
2) Based on the answer to (1), when is the next ice age predicted to be ?
3) Do all current climate models include the factors identified in (1)
I believe the answer are:
1) We don’t know
2) We don’t know
3) No because we don’t know what they are
I conclude then that current climate models are worthless as they omit major variables.
September 8, 2024
I fear there are other questions you might have asked and for which we need answers:
1 Why did the UN (IPCC) decide that progress to Net Zero would best be measured by in-country emissions that blatantly exclude CO2 from the manufacture and shipping of imports?
2 Isnât it all a giant Ponzi scheme to transfer Western wealth (in the form of driving out heavy industries to the developing world, and supposed Climate Change reparations and foreign aid to spendthrift regimes?
3 As far as I can see, none of the models have ever predicted what transpired in practice, in fact for over 60 years weâve been threatened with doom and destruction (hot, cold, dry, wet, windy, wildlife extinctions etc) and every prediction has failed to materialise. Why are the modellers never held accountable?
4 Having imported so much cultural nonsense from USA, why has our food self-sufficiency been threatened in the name of veganism (with N Trust now jumping on the bandwagon despite having tenant dairy farmers), and Solar and Wind farms? Weâre blessed with a temperate climate and excellent agricultural land and expertise. Is it too much to ask for it to be used for food?
September 8, 2024
The important thing above all is not to get bogged down in minutiae and technicalities, but to remember the VERY shaky foundation this whole hypothesis rests on. It largely rests on a 2007 graph from climate scientist Michael Mann called âthe hockey stickâ (because of its upward curving shape), which was demolished by Andrew Montford in his book âThe Hockey Stick Illusionâ in 2010. The top comment on amazon re the book sums it up well:
âThe ‘hockey stick’ is a graph showing how the average temperature in the northern hemisphere has varied over the last thousand years or so: bumbling along steadily, apart from the odd wiggle, until in about 1900 it started shooting up at an unprecedented rate. It was invented by Michael Mann and his colleagues in the late 1990s, and it acquired a huge prominence within the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. It was, and remains, greatly favoured by the most vociferous advocates of the idea that the global climate is going to hell in a handcart as a result of human activity.
Is it correct though? It’s certainly a bit of a surprise if you accept the medieval warm period and the little ice age, for which there is plenty of evidence. Palaeoclimatic reconstructions depend on the use of statistical methods, and one thing that becomes abundantly clear early on in this superb book is that Michael Mann isn’t very good at statistics. (It seems to be a bit of a failing in the climate research community in fact – the Oxburgh panel investigating the leak of e-mails from the Climatic Research Unit in Norwich (the so-called ‘Climategate’) expressed surprise that their research had ‘not been carried out in close collaboration with professional statisticians.’) Mann’s methods were flawed and his input data (mostly from tree rings) were biased. How do we know that? Largely because of the dedicated detective work of Stephen McIntyre, a retired Canadian engineer with a much better grasp of statistics than Mann.
The subtitle of this book is ‘Climategate and the corruption of science’. In fact, it doesn’t have so much to say about Climategate, but what it reveals about the closing of ranks, sharp practice, and sloppy attention to evidence and detail, in parts of the scientific community and in the interfaces between science and policy (especially the IPCC) is truly shocking. It is a gripping story, attractively and intelligently presented.â
âA rattling good detective story and a detailed and brilliant piece of science writingâ Matt Ridley, The Spectator
â….one of the best science books in years….deserves to win prizesâ Prospect Magazine
âIn addition, we can now read in shocking detail the truth of the outrageous efforts made to ensure that the same 2007 report was able to keep on board IPCC’s most shameless stunt of all – the notorious ‘hockey stick’ graph……For a full account see Andrew Montford’s The Hockey Stick Illusionâ Christopher Booker, The Sunday Telegraph
September 8, 2024
SJ you state “I have long made many important arguments against the policies the U.K. is following in the name of net zero. I have shown how closing down our own energy using industries only to import from elsewhere adds to world CO 2. I have pointed out that plugging an EV or heat pump into the grid may just lead to us burning more gas in a gas power station which creates more CO 2. I have shown how we will lose any well paid jobs and tax revenue as we rush to close down our domestic oil and gas production, close our steel works, undermine our refineries, petrochemical works, ceramics, aluminium, glass and other heavy energy using industries. I did not vote for the climate change targets as there was no proper costing or feasibility study.”
Unfortunately these efforts were not enough to make any difference to the mad cap runaway, and I surmise that you retired from front line Politics as a result of your recognition of this as a fact.
Rather than respond to any of the 6 incisive questions you raise I would ask;
Can You, or any of the Millibraine’s pushing this nonsense, cite one single Peer reviewed Paper based on empirical data that shows that that the miniscule component of CO2 in the atmosphere attributable to anthropogenic activities, that constitutes the miniscule amount of CO2 that is present in the atmosphere, is in any way possible to have any affect the Climate.
For any that you can cite (or produce) I can cite a double amount of Peer Reviewed studies that show that anthropogenic contributions are of no significance. I challenge you (you have my email address) to cite the evidence that the Millibrains reply upon.
Reply I did not vote for the climate change legislation and have never made the case that manmade CO 2 is the cause of global warming, so I donât know why you are asking me this question.
September 8, 2024
Yes.
We would achieve much more at lower cost. If we pause, take a deep breath and applied some common sense.
Applying science based project management will achieve much more than idealogical rhetoric, promising impressive goals which will fail and political hype.
Graeme Dexter
September 8, 2024
The real issue is war avoidance.
The emerging powers have demanded that the cosseted Western populations give up their good livings and freedoms.
Our leaders have agreed and the method is to convince us that is for our own good.
September 9, 2024
For me the key question is the ice core data, which shows CO2 as a lagging, not a leading, indicator of temperature change.
As you say, prior to industrial times the climate did vary. For example, in Roman times the UK temperatures were 2 to 3 degrees higher than now. That is why the Romans planted vineyards as far north as Newcastle.
5,000 years ago there was a thriving population on the Orkney Islands. That is not likely to have occurred if the temperatures were as low as they were in the 1970s.
I agree with the comments you have made about us impoverishing ourselves on the altar of net zero, which is not likely to affect the worlds climate one jot or to change the behaviour of other countries.
September 9, 2024
Sir John,
Good questions – but the political agenda that lurks behind the Alarmism means that ‘facts’ are irrelevant.
September 9, 2024
Sir John:
Your mistake is to approach climate change as if it is a scientific problem. It is instead a belief system, akin to a religion. Arguing with an adherent of climate change from a scientific point of view is pointless. It would be like a scientist trying to argue about transubstantiation. The scientist and the believer share no common ground. Ed Miliband is a full believer in the climate change cult. He will close down British industry and impoverish the nation rather than admit he is wrong.
Reply I do not agree my approach is wrong. I have never spoken in favour of the extreme net zero theory or policies.
September 10, 2024
Sir John:
My point is that there is no arguing with these people. They know they are right, there is no evidence yo can show them that will ever make them change their minds. It is like talking to members of a cult.