One of my constituents has written asking me to consult widely on the topic of what agenda the UK should be promoting at COP 26. I think that is a good idea, so I invite you all today to write in to say what you think the Conference should be saying and doing.
I have made clear my view that the Conference should be virtual, as it will be telling the rest of us to fly less and to go easy on the air conditioned hotels and meat dinners. It needs to examine why it is that many people accept the science that carbon dioxide is a greenhouse gas and that too much of it, all things being equal, can cause warming yet most are not willing to change their lifestyles, homes and transport in the way governments and green campaigners require. Where are the affordable new heating systems, personal transport and better diets that will be needed to woo enough people away from their carbon based lives?
It is important that the gap between the Green Governors and the rest does not get larger, with cries of hypocrisy every time a leading Green campaigner steps off another plane or gets into a diesel taxi. Carbon cutting needs to be popular to succeed. That means better and cheaper products that people want to buy. It did not take rules, laws, subsidies and taxes to get people to buy smartphones. Over to you.
July 7, 2021
Good morning.
Whatever it says or whatever it decides to do, I know we are not going to like it.
I read today on Conservative Woman that the UK buys much of its gas, usually through third parties, from Russia’s Gazprom and, that they hold some 28% of the world reserves. Given our continued hostility to Russia I can see why the UK Establishment is so keen to stop us using their product. Talk about cutting ones nose off to spite ones face. Or better still – make the people suffer for others foolish pride.
July 7, 2021
There is no justifiable reason why the British government has taken such an hostile posture toward Russia.
On any plane it doesn’t make sense.
Russia is rich in natural resources. It looks like we’re already buying their gas and oil. So how does that make sense, to be aggressive toward a country that supplies a large fraction of our energy?
Russia has a population we could sell product to.
But no, our British government want’s to provoke the Russians – like they did recently in the Black Sea, it’s totally unnecessary and stupid.
Unless British foreign policy is being manipulated.
July 7, 2021
APL, The Democrats built a fantasy that the Russians had helped Trump in 2016, even paying for fabricated gossip. It was a farcically embarrassing set-up by the Democrats.
But it’s carried over so that any attempt to treat Russia as a reasonable nation, and preferable to China, is met with the “Orange-man bad” syndrome.
And of course Carrie on Boris thinks we won’t need natural fuels, so we won’t frack in Lancashire, and we’ll then become dependent on Russia anyway.
July 7, 2021
APL
“Unless British foreign policy is being manipulated.”
……It is. By the EU.
The EU wants it’s borders as close as possible to Russia, that requires annexing the Ukraine.
Naturally the ungrateful EU expects the UK to run the risks of provoking Russia. If Russia is provoked a step too far the EU will make for peace, leaving the UK vaporised.
We should’nt be getting involved with any of the EU’s stupidity. Look how they’ve treated us since the last time we liberated them.
July 8, 2021
When Brown was PM at the G20 summit in 2009 he prated on about the NWO. Putin was at the same summit and clearly stated Russia wanted no part of it. It was from around that period you can pick up a distinct change and growing iciness toward Russia, who is now Mr Ultra Bad Guy again.
Love him or loathe him, there is no denying Putin is a patriot who loves and will protect his country. Would we had people like him here, instead of self serving traitors.
July 8, 2021
“…on any plane it doesn’t make sense…”
So long as it’s not the plane they shot down on the border with the Ukraine, or the plane on which they left a trail of polonium.
July 7, 2021
Indeed, Mark, but the current UK government is not building any extra capacity in electricity production to make up the energy shortfall by banning petrol cars and natural gas heated homes.
Like Matt “Mr Lockdown” Hancock the government forces us to behave in certain ways but doesn’t believe its own propaganda. No wonder we don’t believe them.
July 7, 2021
Biden has abandoned his green plans already because congress agreed to severely cut the funding. Like Obama he cannot make any difference whatsoever. Therefore Johnson has no big ally. Of course this leaves him to follow the EU rules and continue to be tied to its apron strings by being totally reliant on energy from EU interconnects- what was the term Rees-Mogg and Johnson previously used when being forced to follow EU rules without a say? Vassalage.
EU and UK on their own will not make a jot of difference only their populations will be poorer with jobs and manufacturing pushed east. Germany edging its bets by buying Russian gas is a sham. UK buying electric from EU interconnecters utterly stupid. I suggest the matter is not over to us, JR, but over to you to oust dimwit Johnson and his Missus.
We cannot socially, economically or politically afford your party in govt another day.
July 7, 2021
A lot of it is in LNG form from Novatek (which is supposedly under sanctions).I remember reading earlier this year that,of the first ten tankerloads of LNG landed this year,nine were from Russia.
Any hope of getting control of Russia’s resources that were entertained in the 1990s(when those helpful western advisers demolished much of Russian industry and agriculture,making the country,so they hoped, a helpless dependency of the west) have been utterly dashed by Mr Putin.
They have,in fact,built back….and better!
July 7, 2021
The Turkstream extension comes online on 1 October taking Russian gas to Hungary via Turkey and Serbia;totally avoiding Ukraine which will lose it’s transit fees-in addition to the transit fees it will lose from Nordstream to Germany and central Europe.Ukraine is totally stuffed and the UK wants to do more business with it!-those loans will never be repaid.
July 7, 2021
We do buy some gas from Russia as LNG, but it is only a small portion of our overall imports. This chart shows our gas imports by origin, which are dominated by pipeline imports from Norway, and then LNG imports from various countries with Qatar and the US as the largest suppliers.
https://datawrapper.dwcdn.net/W0qOT/2/
Because the Continent is facing tight gas supply as production at the Groningen field is wound down there is now very little import via the pipelines from Belgium and the Netherlands, who also have pipeline imports from Norway and assorted LNG imports, some from Russia. When Nordstream II starts up there may be slightly less need for EU LNG imports.
July 8, 2021
Russia’s LNG exports are primarily aimed at Asian markets but they will of course sell to the highest bidder on the spot market.
July 7, 2021
Good morning,
1. De-conflate global temperature change (currently warming up) with human gas emissions.
2. Explain to Mr. Average how a gas that accounts for 0.04% of the volume of our atmosphere is causing the ice caps to melt.
4. Publish a contry by country listing of CO2 emmission per capita, for 10 years ago, now and for 10 years time.
5. Explain where all the extra electricity is going to come from and how it will be transmitted.
July 7, 2021
Thank goodness for at least one balanced contribution.
July 7, 2021
Yes all other things being equal CO2 will indeed produce some slight warming but their is no climate emergency whatsoever and many negative feed backs. All other things are not equal anyway and CO2 is just one of millions of factors that affect climate. Slightly more CO2 amd slightly warmer is in fact a net benefit. Spending Ā£Trillions on reducing UK CO2 output is an idiotic waste of money and anyway the solutions proposed battery cars, heat pumps, hydrogen, wind power, solar are all very expensive indeed and save little or no net CO2 anyway.
Also World cooperation would be needed and this clearly will not happen anyway. Even if we had to cool the earth in some way then reducing CO2 is not even the best way to do it. Save the money and adapt if and when needed is the rational approach.
I recommend reading Fake Invisible Catastrophes and Threats of Doom by Patrick Moore and False Alarm: How Climate Change Panic Costs Us Trillions, Hurts the Poor, and Fails to Fix the Planet by BjĆørn Lomborg.
July 7, 2021
Better technology will come in the form of fusion or other breakthroughs, probably within 20 years. R&D yes please but the roll out of premature and inefficient technology using taxpayers subsidies as Boris, Carrie, the Energy dept. and the Committee on Climate Change Committee are doing is idiotic and hugely damaging. I can only assume it is driven by religious beliefs, corruption and vested interests it is an insanely damaging agenda.
July 7, 2021
LL, +1, those are good constructive points you make, fundamental and ignored by the usual suspects, pity that one is our PM.
July 7, 2021
Lifelogic, Excellent and sane points.
July 8, 2021
Indeed, Boris & Co are severely lacking in common sense and any ability to see that they are being manipulated by the globalists for their own benefit and to the detriment of everyone else.
July 9, 2021
Maybe surprising but I support LLās advice on reading Lomborgās book āFalse Alarmā. It accepts that climate is changing and proposes economic solutions that make sense.
And if you want to know all about walruses and polar bears, plus GMO, logging, nuclear power ā¦ and CO2, plus some ranting about Greenpeace, Patrick Mooreās book might be the one for you, even if his argument about the 150 ppm CO2 is clearly surprising (ie, doesnāt make much sense) as it appears that the lowest ever āobservedā level on Earth had been 180 ppm two million years ago. But if it makes people buy his book, all the better for him.
July 7, 2021
@Nigel
Reading this on a mobile phone, using Firefox, one has no idea whose comment you are responding to. It is one of a number of shortcomings of this site. Another is the inability to āup voteā a comment – which would obviate the endless +1 comments people have to make to show approval.
July 7, 2021
Mike, If the mobile phone version of Firefox is similar to the pc version, then under the View drop-down pick Page Style, and then click No Style. That nests the comments.
July 7, 2021
Anyone who believes they can control the weather is incapable of rational thought. The Circus is coming to town and it is full of clowns.
July 7, 2021
Media suggests, and a histrionic young girl/woman, that if we stop doing things we have done for 100 years the weather will be wonderful.
July 7, 2021
Climate is not weather.
The concern is that the climate is changing – not the weather is changing.
July 7, 2021
Yet when it is occasionally hotter or colder or wetter or dryer than average it is presented as Climate Change not weather
July 7, 2021
Andy, Have you decided yet how many of your EU toasters we’ll need to power our electric homes and charge our battery electric cars?
July 7, 2021
But those clowns are, via their manifesto, promising to bring us back to the middle ages
July 7, 2021
Indeed. Perhaps they could control the tides and have an adjustment to the Sun’s temperature and intensity. 0.04% of our atmosphere and CO2 causes all this change. I have a bridge to sell at this conference! When are they going to sponsor some scientific sceptics to look at the whole complexities of climate. In the meantime stop destroying the rainforest and aid those Countries to do so.
July 7, 2021
Cynic, +1. . . . . . donāt bother theyāre here . . . .
July 7, 2021
I see Biden has had his wings clipped. Congress only approving a quarter of the money he wants.
All the fatuous green crap has been ditched and only real infrastructure projects approved.
Leaves Boris looking a bit exposed and very silly.
No ditching of ICE in USA, only Britain.
July 7, 2021
Ian Wragg: “Leaves Boris looking a bit exposed and very silly.”
Boris has looked very silly since he sanctioned ( or was strongarmed, by the communists on SAGE ) into the lockdown. And his sidekick of a clown Matt Hancock, is just a fool with a hitler complex.
My concern, what is happening to the NHS. We’ve paid for the wretched organisation, it ought to be doing some thing useful.
July 7, 2021
+1
Very silly indeed!
Good.
July 7, 2021
And Boris āit wouldn’t pull the skin off a rice puddingā used to be sound on this issue before Carrie came along. It is political suicide too. Once people realise the huge costs and inconvenience of these duff and totally pointless non āsolutionsā to this non problem that this deluded government are pushing. Once COP26 is over they should ditch the whole mad agenda. The next election is probably less than 3 years away May 2024 most likely. The economy cannot afford the vast expense of this net zero insanity, it is counter productive, unscientific and totally pointless.anyway.
July 7, 2021
The Tory manifesto doesnāt say that it will impose the ICE ban by 2030ā¦.thatās a later inclusion of this government alone ā I bet he didnāt even ask his backbenches
July 7, 2021
Would it make any difference if he did?
Seems to me that the Tory party has melded into one āhive mindā.
July 7, 2021
We depend absolutely on stratospheric ozone. However, it makes up only a tiny amount of the air. In a pure layer it would be just 3mm thick at NTP.
There is vastly more CO2. If that were all in a layer at NTP then it would be several whole metres thick.
However, before industrial time it would have been whole metres again thinner. It has increased by around 50% since then.
That is HUGE.
We now have temperatures knocking 50 Celcius in the ARCTIC CIRCLE, which is far worse than even some of the outlying climate forecasts predicted.
Snap out of your entranced, stumbling zombie madness for pity’s sake.
July 7, 2021
Well said. The deniers frighteningly ignore such facts. The debate should be in how not why.
July 7, 2021
Actually, Nig1, “before industrial time” Martin’s notional layer of CO2 was for considerable periods, many metres thicker. The planet survived those epochs perfectly well without going into catastrophic melt down as imagined by Prince Charles and yourself.
July 7, 2021
MiC: “It has increased by around 50% since then.”
The geological record indicates that CO2 was much higher in prehistoric times. Well before the industrial revolution. So even if the CO2 level has increased by 50% since the begining of the Industrial revolution, that’s still a fraction of what it has been according to the geological record.
MiC: “We now have temperatures knocking 50 Celcius in the ARCTIC CIRCLE”
In the summer perhaps.
July 7, 2021
and we have more wind, rain and LOWER temperatures over GB than is usual at this time of year. Might be normal variations of weather?
July 7, 2021
Average (mean) temperature
North Pole South Pole
Summer 32Ā° F (0Ā° C) ā18Ā° F (ā28.2Ā° C)
Winter ā40Ā° F (ā40Ā° C) ā76Ā° F (ā60Ā° C)
July 7, 2021
LL, I havenāt watched a boxing match in ages but I seem to recollect that a count of ten knockout ended the contest regardless of the many sparring rounds of points scoring.
Thanks for those knockout Average temperatures.
July 8, 2021
Lifelogic would make a better point if he were to give us not only the average but both the averages and the standard deviations of these temperatures as observed for the 1961-1990 period and compare these for the average and s.d. for the 1991-2020 period as āclimateā is defined over such 30-year length of time.
July 7, 2021
Martin, The reason why CO2 is relatively unimportant as a “greenhouse” gas is that it only fills a couple of narrow gaps in the wide infra-red re-radiation spectrum of water vapour. And, unless you want to try draining the oceans to eliminate water vapour, you’re not going to alter that.
July 7, 2021
NickC, good try. Youāre among the best on this blog as at least you know what a spectrum is. A question: what do you think happens when going from the tropics (where indeed humidity is large and CO2 absorption is likely to be covered by H2O absorption, because there are about 4% of humidity in the air) to the polar latitudes where the air is much drier (about 0.5% humidity). Could it be that at high latitudes the effect of CO2 is bigger than at low latitudes? Could it be the reason why the impact on temperature is bigger at high than at low latitudes? Do you know that above roughly 20 micrometers onwards in polar regions the infrared spectrum is far from saturated by H2O?
So no need to drain the oceans, I think.
July 8, 2021
Oh, so when a CO2 molecule flies Quantum Airways to the Antarctic for its holidays, it’s so happy it gets more good vibrations (hat tip: the Iceboys) and magically decides to emit more IR radiation over a wider spectrum? Haha. It’s a bit like the clever covid virus which can tell the time, and also won’t infect a G7 attendee but will infect a Tesco shopper.
July 8, 2021
The CO2 molecule emits the same IR radiation as it would have done for the prevailing temperature, simply the masking effect of water vapour in polar regions is much attenuated and the CO2 effect is more apparent. Werenāt you saying that basically thereās nothing to see because H2O covers āeverythingā?
July 8, 2021
Haha, typical, you did not get it, I see that, and the only thing you can do is a (bad) joke. There was nothing in what I wrote saying that the CO2 molecule was going from low to high latitude: I was simply considering the large overlap of the CO2 absorption bands with H2O absorption bands in the equatorial area, with this overlap effect decreasing the further from the equator one looks, where the water vapour concentration decreases and the CO2 does not increase per se but has a bigger relative effect. Thatās what explains the bigger temperature increase in temperature at higher latitudes, further enhanced in the Northern hemisphere polar regions by the thinning and decreasing area of the permanent sea-ice.
But happy you had a good laugh.
July 7, 2021
@MiCk
50 degrees centigrade in the Arctic Circle? We should head North for our holidays? It must be 60 degrees here if it is 50 there.
July 7, 2021
Hysterical rubbish. Ozone absorbs UV radiation; CO2 absorbs IR radiation but not nearly as much as H2O. If you didn’t do science at school, it’s too late: scraping factoids off Wikipedia doesn’t cut the mustard.
July 7, 2021
Heatwaves in the Arctic aren’t unusual. Weather patterns around the world can align in such a way that hot air is transported quite far northward and colder air from the poles southward.
July 7, 2021
You’ve obviously not read Sir John’s post which was to say that the Green Leaders must lead by example and live lives of austerity.
He didn’t say that nothing should be done.
July 7, 2021
+1
July 7, 2021
And each point to be answered in a maximum of 300 words.
July 7, 2021
Spot on.
July 7, 2021
Peter Wood, That is an excellent list and, if the government expects us to take its pronouncements seriously, then it must answer those questions. But are we invited to think of question 3 ourselves?!
July 7, 2021
Ahha, question 3 is: how many EU toasters does it take to provide enough electricity to run 30 million battery electric cars? – proposed by Andy of the Lower VI, sitting next to little Greta (when she can be bothered).
July 7, 2021
Your point 2. As LL also says below, CO2 does a little bit of warming and as I have read in scientific circles it’s that CO2 increase which increases water vapour, a massive GHG, and it is that which will create the problems. No one here ever connects CO2 with water vapour.
Can anyone refute that connection?
July 7, 2021
Dennis, yes through the Clausius-Clapeyron equation that links absolute humidity to temperature. So temperature increases a bit due to direct CO2 absorption, and even if the relative humidity (the one given in %) remains the same, the absolute humidity (which gives the āgreenhouseā effect) increases.
Very basic physics/chemistry that a Cambridge science graduate should know about.
July 8, 2021
Yes, Iāll have a go. Alarmist theory is that co2 raises temperature, increases evaporation, leads to more water vapour in atmosphere and water vapour has ten times or so the warming effect of co2 – ergo, disaster.
The thing is, this doesnāt happen in the real world. If you look up Younger Dryas, Marine Isotope Stages, William Happer and Richard Lindzen you will find at least twenty big swings from warm times to cold times in the last million years and back again. And yes, co2 concentration roughly mirrors temperature (although often with a lag, and effect cannot be cause). But the point is, never did a death-spiral feedback loop with rising co2 driving ever higher temperatures occur. Peaks and troughs are regular, the graph is flat not rising, there are strong natural governors at work.
And so decarbonisation is very stupid. Cui Bono?
July 7, 2021
Peter Wood – 6) A full and truthful explanation of where the financial contributions to the Paric Climate Accord are distributed. (And if anyone thinks it is on climate awareness, wake up.)
July 7, 2021
Maybe you should all just discuss the concept of āClimate Changeā and why the previous alarm of āGlobal Warmingā was rapidly dropped?
Maybe have a āGosh Weather is Changeableā conference?
And please ā¦no virtual Zoom dancing on any nearby virtual beachā¦and no BBQ either!
I was under the impression that the new āHealthā Secretary was helped into place by rebel backbenchers. Bad choice? He is just a clone of the last one! Freedom Dayā¦Humbug!
July 7, 2021
Climate change is a more accurate term than global warming because although the world overall is warming the impact is unequal. Some places will get warmer, some will get wetter, some will get drier, some will get colder.
July 7, 2021
I knew someday you would find something sensible to add. Well done lad.
July 8, 2021
Oh come on, you are all gassing about the movement of air and its components in various concentrations This is not reality , we have land mass ,a globe shaped planet , the influence of the moon , tides , salination , sun , earth axis movement , sun flares , etc
July 7, 2021
Got it all covered now andy.
July 7, 2021
Yes.
It is called ā¦.weather!
Is your opinion based on āmodellingā?
July 7, 2021
Rubbish, Andy, the consensus you evidently believe is the theory that if humans keep emitting extra CO2 at the rate we have over the last 30 years the planet will be subject to catastrophic run-away global warming as measured by the average global temperature. That is a very specific sub-set of “climate change”, so using the term “climate change” is most inaccurate.
July 7, 2021
NickC, An admirably stated corrective to the disingenuous wriggle.
July 7, 2021
Easy peasy (for anybody who has cared to follow the story). Before the 1980s, most studies were done with one-dimensional (only discretisation along the vertical) models of the atmosphere. And in these āradiative-convectiveā models, an increase in CO2 only gives a heating at the surface and lower troposphere and a cooling in the stratosphere. From the mid-80s and thereafter with the development of three-dimensional models (general circulation models, very similar to meteorological models used for weather prediction) of the atmosphere, it became clear that this original warming by CO2 through interactions with H2O, and the overall dynamics of the atmosphere (mid-latitude jet streams, deep convection in the equatorial regions, ā¦) was having a much more complicated impact on the hydrological cycle of evaporation/ condensation / sublimation/ precipitation and that this impact was far from a global warming and much more likely to bring changes (often regional) to the weather/climate.
Therefore the change from āGlobal Warmingā to āClimate Changeā and IPCC, InterGovernmental Panel on Climate Change. Only the rather backward people at GWPF have not realised they are about thirty years behind the curve.
July 8, 2021
They are all just computer models.
Since 1998 the rate of increase in temperatures has fallen despite CO2 continuing to rise.
We were warned temperatures would increase their rate of rise post 2000 because the sensitivity of these models told us that would happen.
Yet this hasn’t happened.
Are these models too sensitive?
July 9, 2021
Hefner, For argument’s sake let us accept your mixed science/politics account (I don’t). But you characterise its consequence thus: “this impact was far from a global warming”. Far from? Yet activists and politicians demand that we up-end our whole civilisation (built on “free” natural fuels) because, whilst saying “climate change” (like you), they actually threaten us with catastrophic runaway global warming. You see the problem? Isn’t it about time that scientists corrected the activists and politicians?
July 9, 2021
NickC, why do you want them to do that? Do you think that Prof Whitty and Sir Patrick Vallance have had so much impact on the Covid policies of the UK Government over the last eighteen months? Or on the various pro- or anti- vaccination supporters? Or on the public at large? What would you want them to have done?
You said not long ago there was no such thing as āscienceā and consequently will refuse the advice. Canāt you see the similarities here?
July 9, 2021
P2, There are no such things as āthe modelsā. Sincethe ā80s, there have been various generations of models used for climate studies. The pre-1990s ones, mainly developed in the 70s-90s had a rather simplistic representation of moisture and energy exchanges over land with a ābucketā model to represent the āhumidityā from āsoilā and a specification of albedo (reflection of solar radiation at the surface) and unit emissivity (ie an emissivity of one) for emission of long-wave radiation by the surface. Over the ocean, albedo and emissivity were specified globally. Cloud fraction was only defined from the local relative humidity (if RH>80%, there is a cloud with a given albedo and emissivity of one).
In the subsequent 30 years, many developments happened, eg, maps of dominant soil were used with explicit representation of drainage, allowing shortwave albedo and long-wave to vary with moisture content of the uppermost layer of multi-layer soil models. Similarly maps of geographical distribution of dominant vegetation were introduced allowing some evapotranspiration to be computed. Clouds became linked to the full hydrological cycle, including the presence of various types of aerosols for their condensation and potential precipitation.
The results of these developments is that the models, most of them using different representations for these same processes (because developed by various groups over the world) started to show modifications in the āsensitivity to CO2ā, most of them showing smaller sensitivities(wrt to the original results in the mid-90s), some keeping their sensitivities in the same ballpark.
One of main progresses is that a number of the models used for climate research are very similar to weather prediction models, which allows, when they are run on past or present conditions, to be checked against the same observations used to āscore meteorological forecastsā.
Sir John is obviously free to ask his public for comments on COP26. If comments are on the possible economic policies to be taken, most people certainly have an opinion on those based on how the various potential options would affect them. I am much more doubtful about comments on the āscienceā as I would guess most people are unlikely to have any precise idea of what is actually included in āthe modelsā, how it is done, how the parametrisations have been validated, the type of uncertainties readily accepted by scientists but not figuring for example in the IPCC āSynthesis Reportsā and even less in the āSummariesā of these āSynthesis Reportsā used by journalists, politicians ā¦ and the GWPF.
July 7, 2021
Choice won’t be a consideration. It will be imposed. The inevitable kickback from those who live in the real world to this collectivist politics now enthusiastically embraced by an international political class including both main UK parties will happen when they are told they MUST buy green or starve, go cold or face criminal action. That will happen
People mustn’t underestimate the evil of what we are seeing. I never thought for example that we would see UK legislation that encodes into law feelings, emotions and perceptions but this is what has happened. There is no limit to what these people will do to achieve their goals of preserving access to power and strengthening their grip. The most sinister laws are being introduced in Canada that wouldn’t look out of place in post 1929 Germany of the Soviet Union.
The people are treated with thinly concealed contempt. They will kick back when the Socialist State starts to sequestrate their PRIVATE assets and deduct cash from their banks each month for public services. Taxes alone cannot finance the political State that now exists.
Thatcher warned of all of this. The State can be a force for good and for great evil depending on the character and morality of those who control it. Unfortunately those now in control are psychopathic and out of control
July 7, 2021
DOM, +1
Yes, evil is afoot, and were it not so there would be no need for this totally unnecessary conference.
July 7, 2021
Indeed. It is scary. I saw the Canada law proposals and now see our future. I read through the Home Office report, a link posted on here yesterday. What a load of garbage. Their priorities of gender equality, LGBT+1, whatever that means, everything PC and woke CO2 footprint. Minority issues everywhere. Crime stats irrelevant, numbers deported not mentioned. A bunch of irrelevant navel gazers who I wouldn’t pay in washers, and I used to work/consult them and they’re worse! Not fit for purpose leftys.
July 7, 2021
Agreed, Dom.
July 7, 2021
Dom, You’re leaving out the MMT zealots who think the government can print whatever money it wants, whenever it wants, to “finance” its wheezes.
July 7, 2021
Whatever happens the target for the conference must be to unilaterally agree that all the different schools of thoughts with their worse case scenarios all come up with figures that are believable and agreed to be achievable in time scales and costings. To do this they will have to engage with engineers as well as industrial scientists.
Remove the fear factor, stop teaching doom and gloom to school children embrace change and above all be honest and present true affordable alternatives.
Lead by example with taking advantage of modern technology to cut out, even remove unnecessary travel for meetings and conferences. Change the way government’s purchase their equipment, base the supply on carbon miles and footprints.
All politicians have got to understand the cause and effect process of their actions. Call time out on this lemming like chargeto remove CO2 , putting all the eggs in one basket with an all electric society. Government’s subsidising EVs but appearing to ignore the hydrogen possibilities being explored.
Until the world is in step with all of this you will never convince the people about the feasibility of such a massive change programme all the time that countries make up their own rules and timetables and agendas.
The UK has got to stop thinking it can be the leader in getting countries to follow their so called examples on self destruction. By all means lead but make it with our technology and engineering skills.
July 7, 2021
Turbo, That’s just a little too sensible for Carrie on Boris.
July 7, 2021
Agree and with the OBR forecasting rising interest rates causing trouble 459 billion is another chain round our neck. And just how does Boris think we are going to pay for new boilers, heat pumps, higher cost of electricity etc
Overall too much entrenched ranting on both sides, often from people without the deep scientific specialisms, to have a calm informed discussion.
As we have seen with the illogicalities of Covid added to yesterday by the unjustified rubbish of extending freedom date for double vaxxers, more imprisonments for millions of people, this bullying cloth eared government doesnāt care with too many MPs either on the hooks so bought off or hoping to get there so keeping quiet.
Letās get some decent opposition and then a general election cannot come quick enough to give your party a bloody nose.
July 7, 2021
How much does a heat pump cost for say a 3-bed semi? If this is feasible and affordable and will give the homeowner a saving why aren’t the new home builders all putting them in immediately? The people don’t have any control over that.
Rainwater from the roof why don’t they automatically get fed into a garden watering system already instead of the drain?
If the government want big changes then start making the changes on new properties and old properties will update as the time comes and they can afford to do it.
July 8, 2021
a-tracy
The Government are upgrading the Building Regulations on insulation again soon, not a lot of consultation with industry so I am informed, so many existing insulation products and windows and doors, will not meet the proposed new regulations next year, thus industrialists try to develop new products (many without long term trials) to try and stay in business.
I am all for better insulation standards, but they should be development driven, not simply imposed.
July 7, 2021
I can see the need to stop relying on fossil fuels. I can also see that this rush for ‘green policies’ relies on stripping the earth of other resources, which will also eventually run out. Are we jumping from the frying pan into fire?
I have serious doubts that man can change the earths climate to any discernible extent. There are too many factors involved, and if they manage to reduce CO2 by a significant degree it will be catastrophic (in my opinion) and will eventually lead to world starvation. Maybe that is the real goal?
July 7, 2021
And what will be the head-count at the conference, including the delegations, the ‘stakeholders’, Swedish pixies, and the press? Twenty thousand? I am sick and tired of these circuses.
July 7, 2021
+10
July 7, 2021
but they all took isolation for a week, and PCR test within 48 hours of travel. Then met and transported by coaches to secure hotels observing quarantine, didn’t they? No? oh dear!
July 7, 2021
I believe that we must decarbonise as a matter of urgency.
We have one atmosphere and countries worldwide must be held to account for their carbon emissions under a ‘level playing field’.
This won’t happen, and the British economy and taxpayers will continue to be sacrificial lambs, avoiding real action to tackle emissions, while maximising grandstanding opportunities for our supine politicians.
July 7, 2021
+1
July 7, 2021
Pat – We have decarbonised
The governments own BEIS report shows that the UK CO2 level has reduced to 1858 level
So whats the problem
July 7, 2021
Pat, So carbon based life-form goes to war against carbon? Sounds a bit apocalyptic. And there’s no sense in going to war against CO2 (if that’s what you mean) until you know what governs the balance between natural sinks and sources of CO2.
July 7, 2021
Climate change is a fallacy and EVERYBODY needs to wake up. The people are fed BS daily throughthe MSM but still they will not turn off their TV and do their own research.
July 8, 2021
Yes but not āclimate changeā that is a fallacy, the climate always has and always will change. It is the āimminent, man made, climate catastropheā that is the myth. Any even if it were true the gov. proposed solutions do not even work even in just CO2 terms. Their actions do far more harm than good.
July 7, 2021
Well whatever people might suggest on this site will be ignored as you know Mr Redwood. I would suggest however, that you and Steve Baker organise an alternative virtual conference at about the same time, make every effort to publicise it, and ensure it is realistic and balanced. An agenda could include:
1 Introduction – the scientific method vs computer modelling in the assembly of evidence of dangerous climate change/āclimate emergencyā
2 What the UK has done so far to reduce emissions, and the effects on energy costs and industry, as a very small island in the global climate context
3 Outline a future alternative energy and environmental policy concentrating on energy efficiency and security, university research support into alternative energy sources, and a commitment to adaptation as a first option rather than expensive mitigation.
Those of us who work in the energy industry would be delighted to further assist you in any way we are able.
July 7, 2021
That is an excellent and positive suggestion, MPC – grab the media’s attention (if possible) and publicise the discussion widely.
July 7, 2021
+ 1
July 7, 2021
@MPC – an interesting suggestion but not for JR to even comment on it seems.
July 7, 2021
That climate is changing a little is not in debate. It always has done. That man has abused the planets environment and continues to do so is also factual, just walk along the shore line at low tide and check out the rubbish. Both aspects need addressing, the climate for protection from aspects of it, the environment to correct the multitude of ways we abuse it.
I want to see wide ranging debate among those qualified to speak on the balance of reasons for current climate change. I do not wish to hear from the usual vociferous religious fanatics or politicians in search of a purpose. In the UK I want to hear about all the advantages of our change in climate to agriculture for instance and lessening the compulsion to jet off round the World in search of hot spots for holidays.
I want an honest open assessment of the part the Sun plays and has played in the Earths climate up and until the onset of the industrial revolution and in the last 270 years.
I want the same debate on the reasons why very small fluctuations in the level of CO2 plant food, currently at 0.040% of the Earths atmosphere, can have the forcast devastating effects promised. What does the ice core record tell us.
While I am all for cleaning up the environment, I am first not convinced that much of the polluting sources around the World are too. They are more interested in their bottom lines. On the evidence I can assess we have made a far too hasty dash for all electric as a solution. First we do not have the home grown electricity, we have to import it with dubious strategic consequences from less than friendly regimes and of debatable environmental origens. Second, all electric transport may answer the need to get to the supermarket, but hydrogen/electric transport is better for buses, goods transport, and for anyone wishing to go any distance towing anything, at night using aircon and lights. Let the market dictate, and government respond with the infrastructure.
Let all those who have already bought electric enjoy their tax holiday. As sure as night follows day HMG will start taxing the new vehicles.
The big long term bonus is in a clean environment and consequent lower demands on the NHS to lower its effect on the health of the nation. No less a second advantage is the creation of industrial product that we can sell to the rest of the World. Government are there to facilitate, but not to get involved with the detail of how. Something they continue to prove in Spades as we stagger away from Covid.
July 7, 2021
If you ask such questions it is ill intentioned in failing to publish answers. Particularly as to date you have only 29 responses.
July 7, 2021
A scam by ābig moneyā , I will continue to resist as its my duty to my offspring.
July 7, 2021
When “climate scientists” changed the basis on which they measured global temperatures in 1990 they (University of East Anglia) reduced the number of measurement points from over 4000 to 1200. Only some 200 were common to both systems. They also decided to place as many as possible close to sea level (and often co-located with airports). They eliminated all weather stations at any high altitude. The UEA failed to compare (at least publicly) the differences that might result in reported temperatures from this change. When invited to do so by the House of Commons Select Committee on Science and Technology (as part of the climate gate affair) the UEA said that was impossible because they had destroyed their old records. This was a significant omission not least because temperature drops by about 0.6C for every 100 metres gain in altitude. Thus comparisons of “global warming” of the period after 1990 with the period before 1990 are deeply suspect because the basis of measurement was fundamentally changed in 1990. We are all familiar with the sharp uptick in temperatures shown on the charts published by the IPCC. What we are not given is an adequate account of the contribution made to this by the change in measurement system that was made in 1990. This needs to be remedied by independent assessment using such records as are available to measure what bias is built into the current system compared with the old. It needs to be accompanied by an analysis of the accuracy of forecasts made over the past thirty years with actual outcomes and how accurate current models are when applied to actual historical data. Steven Koonin (author of the recently published Unsettled?) thinks their models are incapable of forecasting historical temperature data, when they are applied. What confidence can we have in the forecasts for the future? The science is not settled. It is suspect. Yet the western world is head long into a lemming like rush to the cliff edge of industrial disaster.
July 7, 2021
In one word ”correct”
July 8, 2021
Oldtimer
One of the most sensible explanations I have seen, but surely everyone knows the temperature drops the higher you go, thats why many mountains still have snow above the tree line, even when it is warm on the lower slopes, But i guess this simple fact is lost on many.
Was not aware of the change in temperature height locations myself, so many thanks for that, perhaps some of our more practical minded politicians, such as our host, could point this out to government.
July 8, 2021
How do you forecast historical temperature data?
July 8, 2021
Are you really asking the question? The oldest time-series of temperature measurements is for Central England and started in 1659 (centralenglandtemperature.co.uk). For the rest of the British Isles the MetOffice has been doing this type of measurements in the British Isles since 1861 (National Meteorological Library and Archive).
Measurements of temperature at the surface (over land) started more or less systematically (but in a few stations for a number of countries, Europe, USA, Japan, ā¦) in 1880-1890. Measurements of ocean āsurfaceā temperature were much less common, and using the ābucketā method were likely to be much less accurate (as mariners on different ships were not sampling the exact same depth of the surface layer) and were obviously dependent on the course of the ships.
A more homogeneous (but potentially biased) dataset started in 1967 with the first satellite measuring the radiance (in clear-sky conditions) in a wavelength channel around 11 microns. Assuming the radiometer (the instrument measuring this directional radiation coming from the surface to the satellite height) was properly calibrated, the measurements were covering most of the globe (being on near-polar orbits). When US NOAA started later on to have two satellites allowing the same area to be seen twice a day, the potential for biases decreased.
Thatās where the historical temperature data come from. Since 1967, satellites in various orbits (polar orbiters, geostationary, in pseudo-tropical orbit) have been measuring a āhugeā number of radiances in various wavelengths (eg, 2378 channels on the NASA Atmospheric Infrared Sounder, AIRS, ) over the whole electromagnetic spectrum from UV to microwave (radar) allowing a similarly āhugeā number of parameters to be defined.
(For a European set of satellites with UK participation, see ESA – The Sentinel missions).
July 9, 2021
I don’t doubt your science, it’s just that ‘forecasting historical data’ sounds like an oxymoron to me.
July 10, 2021
Well, you got it. There is no such thing as āforecasting historical dataā. It is indeed an oxymoron only used in pseudo-discussions by ā¦
July 7, 2021
The STRONG message should be that the UK is the world leader in carbon reduction – 29% over the last decade – through such measures as entirely eliminating coal power but we are reluctant to go any further due to the lamentably poor bad-faith performance of the likes of Germany, India and China in following our lead, all still disgracefully commissioning new coal power plants, building new gas pipelines and so on. I would then invite the attendees to stand and applaud the UK’s shininhg example for a full five minutes followed by an informal BBQ where Andy’s best French vegan sausages would be served raw.
July 7, 2021
Perhaps the question needs to be asked, why are China, India and Russia not following the green rules? Perhaps they donāt believe in it??
July 7, 2021
A BBQ? – -really burning all that gas to escape into the stratospere? What were you thinking – go stand in the corner.
July 7, 2021
The excellent and surely right Sunetra Gupta – today in the Telegraph.
āChildren should never have been locked down
There was no scientific justification for imposing restrictions on the young, and there still isnātā
July 7, 2021
Surely right? I guess because you agree?
July 7, 2021
No, they should have been allowed to have inadvertently killed their grandparents on an industrial scale, eh?
July 7, 2021
MiC – well some would argue for lower population, others less spent of our taxes on OAP pensions, more wanting to inherit -where there’s a will there are relatives….queue reductions in NHS, housing crisis averted, business booms (funeral directors) . Always look on the bright side (of death).
July 7, 2021
@MiCk
No, if their grandparents are vulnerable, the grandparents should isolate. Why should kids miss their education to preserve the life of unfit old farts who have lived their lives?
It should always have been about taking responsibility for yourself.
July 7, 2021
Cop 26 most certainly needs to explain why CO2 is suddenly deemed so harmful, and why they think the levels of CO2 that have risen and dipped throughout history (and have been much higher than now) should suddenly be deemed as man-made.
Those who donāt believe the science is settled have been ignored or cancelledā¦ that needs an explanation!
But it wonāt happen as the CO2 nonsense is, as most things now, purely political.
July 7, 2021
Sharon, The first COP in 1995 in Berlin was already addressing the same question
July 7, 2021
Think about it. There are genuine benefits to injecting additional CO2 into greenhouses as it results in plants being more productive, ie. more food. Maybe they should try removing CO2 from greenhouses and look at the result? Expand this worldwide and then tell me the wisdom of reducing CO2.
July 7, 2021
The problem that we have is that so many people in this country have been convinced by the fossil fuel industry – and it’s paid for research – that there really is nothing to worry about, the Greens should stop rocking the boat and allow us to continue burning carbon for our energy needs ad infinitum.
The UK only produces about 1% of the world’s greenhouse gases. The best way we can help is to use our influence with our trading partners, allies and countries like China to reduce their emmisions. In order to avoid accusations of hypocrisy, we should lead the world in reducing this percentage. We already have impresive wind and solar power output and we should accelerate the exploitation of the windswept North sea.
Germany now has a million+ EV’s on it’s roads. Here, the electric car market is also growing quickly, with nearly 260,000 pure-electric cars on UK roads at the end of May 2021, and more than 535,000 plug-in models (including plug-in hybrids). With increasing consumer demand, greater availability of vehicles and government support, sales of electric vehicles are growing strongly in parallel to the development of UK charging point infrastructure.
Electric vehicle registrations continue to rise in absolute numbers, with 22,975 new registrations in May 2021. The market share last month was 14.7%. The reason? It only costs Ā£7 to drive 350 miles and there are tax breaks for buying an EV/Hybrid. Charging EV’s using renewable electricty overnight yields tremendous carbon reductions and the EV’s then become renewable electricity storage devices.
It is unfortunate that Cameron’s government scrapped the solar panel FITS scheme, destroying a nascent new installation industry and 15,000 jobs in the process.
Worcester Bosch now do a nice range of new electric boilers, cheaper than a gas replacement.
July 7, 2021
Sakara said: “a nice range of new electric boilers, cheaper than a gas replacement”. Except the fuel to run them is five to six times more expensive. Choosing an electric boiler over a new gas boiler to replace my existing gas installation would cost me an extra cĀ£4000 every year. Why don’t you get one?
As for battery electric cars the range starts off being poor and deteriorates at every point – cold weather, hot weather, night time, rain, hills, charge time, age of battery. BEVs weigh about 50% more than petrol cars, cost at least 50% more, have batteries only guaranteed for 7 or 8 years, experience battery degradation reducing range, are a pollution crisis waiting to happen, and probably have little re-sale value after 8 years, roughly the time they break even on CO2 emissions. And poor people subsidise rich people to get them.
July 7, 2021
Well said Nick
Sakara isn’t bothered by Ā£4000 a year extra.
Loads a money…not bothered.
July 8, 2021
In Europe, the average EVās higher manufacturing emissions costs will be compensated within two years of driving compared to a typical ICE vehicle. In Norway (a lot of hydro electric) it’s one year. The CO2 break-even occurs at circa 18,000 miles. https://www.allego.eu/en-gb/blog/2019/october/-/media/498B5F63E7D3450E8EEF06A3AD8421F2.ashx?h=500&w=500
July 8, 2021
Not by my calculations because whilst an electric car doing 10,000 miles a year might save you Ā£1500 or even Ā£2000 in refuelling costs in 2 years, the purchase price is far more than Ā£2000 extra compared with an equivalent petrol or diesel car.
July 8, 2021
My WB Combi gas boiler, flat out supplying hot water alone swallows natural gas at about 33kW (3 m3/h). Running the heating only, about 7 – 12 kW. An equivalent 33kW single phase electric boiler would need circa 144 amps from a single phase domestic installation that at most will have 100 amp supply fuse, possibly 80 amps. I will have to go back to re-installing the hot water storage tank with a 3kW immersion heater; that was taken out when the Combi gas Boiler was fitted.
July 7, 2021
COP 26 should be a trade show for green technologies. Not a target- fest where the largest polluters get to show their virtue while doing little and increasing their competitive advantage against those naĆÆve countries which stick to the rules.
July 7, 2021
Stands at this trade fair should be free to all feasible technologies so the small providers and start ups get showcased.
July 7, 2021
“What should COP 26 be saying and doing?”
How about taking a long hard look at whether global top down grand design environmental policies, including the UK’s Net Zero aka the Great Leap Backward, will bring ordinary people any tangible net improvement to quality of life, or if it will only serve to leave those ordinary people cold, poor, hungry, dirty, immobile and bored? Particularly when we know full well that the elite will keep themselves warm, wealthy, well fed, clean, free and entertained, regardless of the fact that in doing so they will look just like the pigs in Animal Farm?
July 7, 2021
If this show of worthiness is to go ahead in its current form it should indeed be virtual, not in person but it should also heavily feature population control high on the agenda. Closing borders to refugees, asylum seekers and economic chancers will go some way to helping population control as will the acceptance of Malthusian checks and the withdrawal of aid. While we support third world countries they continue to breed. We then import their populations to steady the decline in our own populations.
Resource devouring madness!
July 7, 2021
Population growth, density, migration and demographics generally.
July 7, 2021
I really believe the greater problem to climate change is pollution. Yet there doesn’t seem to be a comparable conference to debate this issue. Perhaps everyone thinks it would be just too depressing to rehearse what the human population is doing to this planet.
What should really be on the agenda is to stop migration from low consumption countries to high consumption countries. Someone coming from say Nigeria to the UK requires a huge increase in carbon footprint just for winter warmth, even if they don’t equal the average British consumer in other ways.
July 7, 2021
If there are serious pollution problems they are not in the UK. We have a few isolated problems to deal with: contamination of some river water, a handful of pollution hot spots. But in general we have the clearest air and the cleanest environment we have had in centuries.
It is also important to understand that being able to afford high standards in cutting pollution requires a vibrant and successful economy if it is going to be maintained. There are costs to achieving it, and the benefits are largely social rather than monetary (although I suppose you could argue that an unpolluted environment attracts tourism spending). Being able to afford those costs means having an economy rich enough to do so. I’ve been in plenty of countries where that is not the case, and where pollution problems are much more severe.
July 7, 2021
Politicians who say they can control the climate and the earth’s temperature are either deluded fools or, more likely, dangerous tyrants.
July 7, 2021
Sir John
We are told that the world is warmer than it would have been without the increase in CO2. By what method was the steady CO2 climate calculated?
Roger
July 7, 2021
Another question, Roger, is why do the CAGW zealots think that the global temperature in 1850 was the “right” one?
July 7, 2021
NickC, you already asked this question about six months ago. I told you it was not the ārightā one, simply it was the beginning of more systematic measurements in various locations. Have you forgotten?
July 7, 2021
Nick
It is the major base temperature on which all the future changes are related to and compared to.
If that 1850 temperature figure is inaccurate then the main argument subsequently is faulty.
July 8, 2021
P2, how do you know it was inaccurate? And what about the measurements in subsequent years? 1860? 1900? 1950? Later? What do you think? Do you have a ātheory on the accuracy and precision of temperature measurements?
I would think important to put such thoughts in the open to allow people to make their mind on the credibility of your statement, wouldnāt you think so?
July 8, 2021
Did I say it acyually WAS inaccurate heffy?
Careful as you get off your high horse.
July 8, 2021
Hefner, It’s only “not the right” question because you, and other CAGW theorists, cannot answer it. In reality the base of around 1850 used by the CAGW theorists is purely arbitrary; and there is no “right” global temperature anyway.
July 8, 2021
Well said Nick
I can tell by the defensive reaction whenever this question is asked of green fanatics that it is a topic they do not want to talk about or investigate.
We are told it was totally accurate.
Anyone challenging that statement is a heretic.
The science is settled…yawn
July 7, 2021
So while we run around shouting about something we have no control over. We are ignoring the polution of land and sea we could have control over.
However, Johnson and gang are happier to complete the process of totalitarianism over us making laws to ensure their wishes are obeyed regardless of our disagreement.
In the end democratic government will suffer.
July 7, 2021
Carbon Dioxide Fertilization Greening Earth, Study Finds.
That statement comes from the NASA website. I acknowledge you do not accept links, so I will copy just the opening statement of this study.
“From a quarter to half of Earthās vegetated lands has shown significant greening over the last 35 years largely due to rising levels of atmospheric carbon dioxide, according to a new study published in the journal Nature Climate Change on April 25.
An international team of 32 authors from 24 institutions in eight countries led the effort, which involved using satellite data from NASAās Moderate Resolution Imaging Spectrometer and the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administrationās Advanced Very High Resolution Radiometer instruments to help determine the leaf area index, or amount of leaf cover, over the planetās vegetated regions. The greening represents an increase in leaves on plants and trees equivalent in area to two times the continental United States.”
Then I suggest it is shoved under Johnson’s, his bed fellow and their fellow green fanatics noses and they are held there until they provide the contrary evidence, as to why the NASA study is wrong and how and in what way, is ridding the World of CO2 is a positive?
July 7, 2021
According to NASA the “Earth is getting greener”. There are even lovely satellite pictures on the NASA website evidencing this.
Isn’t this what Johnson and his green fanatics want?
Downside is, this is being achieved by CO2. The trace gas the same green fanatics want to get rid of!
July 7, 2021
catch 22
July 8, 2021
JB, The āgreen fanaticsā do not want to get rid off of CO2, they want to stop the increase of it, and then let natural processes decrease it to somewhat lower levels over a couple of centuries.
BTW it would be impossible to get to zero CO2, or even decrease it back to 150 ppm. The natural carbon cycle linked to plant respiration/ evapotranspiration and ocean in/out-take would likely prevent that.
But that does not prevent āthe other type of fanaticsā (most of them having no clue about what they are talking about) from saying such things now for a couple of years.
July 8, 2021
Once the CO2 is reduced to a level green fanatics want, I presume the average global temperature would soon start to reduce again.
At what point would they then call for more CO2 to stop it going too low?
Is there a perfect average global temperature?
Does every nation agree what it should be?
July 7, 2021
I simply go back to a comment I made a few weeks ago, if all the planets in the solar system are warming at the same rate, then it’s not the fault of man, it’s the Sun that is the problem.
I would like us to go back to basics to look at ALL of the Science, to try to prove any theory.
Why did the so called warming not drop when half the World was in lockdown, or indeed did it, and if so by how much ?
July 8, 2021
AJ, As I had already asked you some time ago, where do you get the idea that āall the planets in the solar system are warming at the same rateā?
July 7, 2021
‘gap between the Green Governors and the rest does not get larger’
What we have is a ‘do as we say not as we do’ establishment , they seek to impose privations on the rest of that doesn’t apply to them. Johnson flew down to Cornwall for the G7 and tucked into lavish menus, no train or insect burgers for him, and this goes for all of the people trying to tell us how to live our lives , Government , politicians, business leaders, tech oligarchs, movie stars and media , they all consume resources at a grotesque level, then have the nerve to turn round and preach to the rest of us that we have to live cold miserable lives to save the planet.
The quickest way to end this virtue signalling fest is to make all these preachers of climate change live the lives they are trying to impose on the rest of us . All the MPs who vote this stuff on us should be required to live within a carbon budget , Prime Minister included, they wouldn’t want to be seen as hypocrites now would they? same goes for the likes of the BBC and others who are climate change activists, they and their staff should be made to live zero carbon lives, and it should be practice to require all the other preachers to declare their carbon foot print, I bet just this requirement would get most of them to shut up.
July 7, 2021
When writing a thesis for a graduate degree, masters degree and academic paper you must include arguments on both sides of the topic and investigate the wide spectrum of previous study and record it against the said thesis
Not so for COP26ā¦you only invite people with your opinion, only discuss one side of the topic and never examine alternative prior study
COP26 isnāt a conference to establish the factsā¦itās a conference to select the facts that satisfy their argument ā the UK should cancel the conference for the farce it is
July 7, 2021
Agreed. The best way forward is to cancel the entire climate farrago. They claim the science is settled, so presumably we will all react accordingly. Those who figure these things out reckon that the best thing to do is to adapt as we go along. Innovate freely. Work out how to use fuels more efficiently and with even less pollution. Work on lowering costs of nuclear power that will be needed in the future when fossil fuel supply dwindles.
If the alarmist scenarios held any real credibility then surely the Chinese would be willing to cut their emissions to our level on a per capita basis in short order. The reality is that China is very willing to watch the West become completely dependent on Chinese owned supplies of key resources like cobalt neodymium while going around securing fossil fuel supplies for itself on the back of its Belt and Road policy. The West will then find itself beholden to China whether they ask for cobalt or cargoes of oil and gas when their wind fails to provide enough energy. We should be continuing to make sure there are well supplied competitive global markets in fuels. They offer important incentives for stability in international relations.
July 7, 2021
It was interesting to see comments invited by a technology website for their experiences of electric cars:
The majority of replies expressed they could not justify owning one nor even running one compared with continuing to use their reliable 21st Century state of the art vehicles (that incidentally have developed over 100 years) compared with the dearth of real-world electric solutions since the demise of the humble 1950s milk float despite the dazzling added bling rainbow electronics that cars rely on today as the shortage of wee chips snags worldwide……
July 7, 2021
PM Johnsonās message to COP26 should be :
1) Future COPs will be virtual as flying 30,000 people into Glasgow for a grand jamboree gives the World the impression that AGW is a scam.
2) Future COPs will widen the debate to the more important issues of reducing pollution and curbing population growth.
3) Whilst the UK will play its part in reducing CO2 emissions it will not do so unilaterally and so fast as to cause immense economic and social damage to the country. Rather we will spend money on research into finding cheap non fossil fuel energy and ways to reduce waste and pollution.
July 7, 2021
Obviously we need affordable heating and affordable cars before people are able to get fully behind environment issues. So a big push on technological improvements is needed first, obviously. Given that we are almost moving towards a monopoly industry then some curbs on car manufacturers might be required re pricing, etc.
UK is still a drop in the ocean as far as environmental pollution goes and probably represents 1% of the worlds pollution if we adopted 100% carbon neutral policies. There are still too many countries such as Germany and China that could, but won’t because of potential reductions in economic growth, make a real difference to the issues at hand. China especially. Put pressure on China. How about the rest of the world stops buying Chinese goods. Discuss at COP 26.
Other developing countries could receive financial or other support to reduce emissions or stop deforrestation, etc. Discuss at COP26.
July 7, 2021
Most people feel that espousing the green agenda makes them appear virtuous. Hence many claim to. Very few consider the cost, or the actual validity of the agenda.
This circus will continue until either the cost becomes undeniable or the climate actually cools enough for that to be undeniable.
Until then it doesn’t matter what is said, no-one is going to admit that they have been wrong for decades without a compelling reason.
July 7, 2021
As David Attenborough used to say before the PC mafia got to him, we need to reduce the world population to make a significant contribution to climate change.
The UK is a perfect example, although our population growth is not caused by excess births but inward net migration. The net result for our emissions is the same.
We are currently allowing our population to increase by 1 million every 3-4 years.
Every additional million will inevitably result in at least :
250,000 extra homes
300,000 extra cars
A substantial increase in the need for electricity and gas
Extra Food production, or the emissions associated with importing it.
Then there are the less obvious consequencies, each of which has its own impact on emissions – extra school places, home deliveries, public transport. The list goes on and is repeated in every country with a growing population.
I am not so worried about the Green Crap agenda almost all of our politicians are wedded to. The cost is so unaffordable that it will either be curtailed by more sensible leadership of one party or a new political party will emerge to do it for us.
July 7, 2021
250,000 extra homes……Carbon foot print of our houses is around 50tons each, so there you are talking about 12.5 million tons of CO2 out put. Odd they don’t mention this when waxing lyrical about mass immigration.
July 7, 2021
I see that our government is subsiding Vauxhall green battery manufacturing by the equivalent of Ā£100,000 per employee ā that will go down well at COP26 by all the labour and green supporters as a future model for business
The Tories to subsidise everything with taxpayers money is the new norm
July 7, 2021
C S Lewis wrote: “The serious magical endeavour and the serious scientific endeavour are twins: one was sickly and died, the other strong and throve. But they were twins.
It might be going too far to say that the modern scientific movement was tainted from its birth: but I think it would be true to say that it was born in an unhealthy neighbourhood and at an inauspicious hour.”
What saves the scientific method (there’s no such thing as “the science” as though it were an ideology) is being anchored in the reality of theory, prediction, and testing that prediction. We can all see that the multiple predictions made about the catastrophic global warming caused by man-made CO2 emissions (CAGW, for short) theory have failed. Not least, as one self proclaimed “consensus” scientist once told me, because “CAGW was invented by sceptics to discredit the science”. So if he is right, everyone of the gullibles from Prince Charles to the CAGW enthusiasts on here, is discrediting science. The CAGW theory makes predictions which have proved false. CAGW is alchemy.
July 8, 2021
NickC, So CAGW is alchemy. How do you explain the recent heat waves at high latitudes? You have to start to provide explanations for these observed features, or do you think they have been invented by journalists? Once you have done this, will your explanation also account for last yearās Australian and Californian droughts?
July 8, 2021
Weather events are . . . . weather. How’s your catastrophe prediction thingy going, Hefner? What’s it this time? – another 100 months (Prince Charles, 2009)? Or what about this: Barack Obama has only four years to save the world (Jim Hansen, 2009)?
July 10, 2021
Just a simple question: do you consider all weather events occurring these days to be ānormalā, ie within the range of what can be expected from a climatology based on 30 years of observations, say 1961-1990 (or whatever thirty year range you choose)?
July 7, 2021
Younger people – and by that I mean under 50s – overwhelmingly want firm action on climate change.
But the world is run by – and on behalf of – old people whose priority is usually their own personal wealth.
The reality is that, if you are over 70, youāll probably never need to buy an electric car. Youāll probably never need a heat pump. You can potter around with the inferior and polluting technology you have always used. We donāt expect you to change your ways. We have seen One Foot In The Grave and Last of The Summer Wine. We understand what we are dealing with.
But this isnāt about any of you or your generation. It isnāt really about me and my generation – and Iām in my 40s. It is about my kids and grandkids generation. And they demand action.
What we need from the old people in power is, frankly, for them to get out of the way. We need all of you to stop being the problem and to help being part of the solution. And to be part of the solution you donāt have to do anything except let us get on with it. Your generation should have fixed this 30 years ago. You all failed. We wonāt.
This isnāt hard. We need people to eat significantly less meat. We need policies in place to make electric cars and heat pumps more affordable. We need to eliminate single use plastics. We need a global effort to develop electric plane engines and clean ways to power boats. We need to harness wind, sun, waves, tides to power our planet.
We are doing this anyway. Time for you all to stop being a part of the problem.
July 7, 2021
Wait until these youngsters work out how much it is going to cost them personally.
July 7, 2021
Andy āYounger people ā and by that I mean under 50s ā overwhelmingly want firm action on climate change.ā
This may be true, I donāt know, but I do know they have been brainwashed by the socialist MSM and educational establishment to believe the World will all go up in smoke if we donāt spend enormous sums of money to fast track inefficient and unreliable non fossil fuel energy.
But like socialists, the young are expecting someone else will pay the costs and I havenāt noticed young people forgoing spending on goods and holidays.
In fact older people had far fewer goods, went on UK only holidays and spent time repairing rather than replacing.
āMake do and mendā is definitely not a popular meme amongst younger people.
July 7, 2021
30 years ago those of us who are now pensioners were being told that the world was going to freeze to death before the millennium, shortly after the Maldives were going to be totally submerged.
Oops.
July 8, 2021
SM, it just shows that thirty years ago you were not following the news: the global cooling scare was in the 1970s linked to the increase in polluting aerosols in most developed countries.
July 8, 2021
I though it was mainly linked to man-made pollution creating thick dirty clouds thus cutting out the warming sun.
July 10, 2021
Did I say anything different? Man-made polluting aerosols inducing thicker and more reflecting clouds cutting out insolation. Are we not agreeing here?
July 7, 2021
But, Andy, you said all our electricity generation problems could be solved with more EU low powered kettles and toasters. Yet if that isn’t so, then in 2040 when you’re “old”, by your definition, there will be no more electricity production to power your unicorn electric world than now – because the government isn’t building any. And, oh, how I shall laugh at your technological illiteracy.
July 7, 2021
What you are asking for is to be cold, hungry and poor. To have a reduced life expectancy as a consequence. To experience rising crime levels that are associated with poverty. To see many people thrown out of work. Many more thrown out of homes that don’t meet your green standards and onto the street. Are you sure you really want a green future?
July 8, 2021
You spoil some good points Andy by juxtaposing a bigots view of the world. You portray older people and use generalisations about how you believe they collectively think and do. This stereotyping doesn’t do a younger generation any favours (as in implicit in my example here ) : it is divisive. Rather than groups of people you dislike, would it not be helpful to look at individuals and see a way of trying to persuade them that no good comes of driving old BMW’s at 60 mph in a 30 zone, throwing MacDonalds papers out of the window, dirtying the streets with plastic cartons from other takeaways , living on the earnings of their parents and grandparents who still work at 70 plus whilst they lazily talk about equal rights, thinking that they can jump in and out of relationships and others will pay for their mistakes , smoking and throwing fag ends out of car windows with abusive gestures , buying products to enhance cartels and ad infinitum..
July 7, 2021
There is no doubt that CO2 is a “greenhouse gas”, the question is how much effect it has on global temperatures. CO2 is not a pollutant, but a trace gas essential to life. Greenhouse gases prevent all of the infra-red radiation from the sun being reflected back into space, without this the Earth would be 33 degrees colder and largely unable to support life. CO2 accounts for 0.04% of the Earth’s atmosphere, usually expressed as 400 parts per million. The most important greenhouse gas is water vapour which accounts for 90-95% of atmospheric warming, whilst CO2 and all other greenhouse gases account for the rest. The assumption that the effect of CO2 is proportionate is never questioned, but it is very likely that has most of its warming effect up to 300 parts per million. Above that, the effect tapers, so that at a water vapour content of 1%, CO2 at 600 parts per million produces a temperature increase of 0.2 of a degree C, 1000 parts per million produces a temperature increase of 0.6 of a degree C. This is the “science” which should be prorperly debated and never is. Added to which there was the “Climategate” email scandal where a cadre of scientists conspired to lower the historic temperature record. Leaving all this aside, however, the main issue is whether the UK’s less than 1% of global CO2 emissions should prompt the proposed the draconian and fearfully expensive “green agenda” when the likes of China and India and other developing countries have no intention of reducing their emissions in the near future. We should surely adopt a “minimal carbon” agenda rather than “zero”, and avoid much of the poverty and economic destruction that the green agenda will produce.
July 7, 2021
Good summary, Pieter.
July 7, 2021
Pieter C,
1/ the solar (aka, short-wave) radiation is from 0.2 to 4 microns (UV, visible, near-infrared). Terrestrial (aka, long-wave) radiation emitted by the surface, atmosphere, clouds is between 4 and 100 microns.
So there is āno infra-red radiation from the sun being reflected back into spaceā.
2/ Could you please give a reference of where you took your numbers from (āThe assumption that the effect of CO2 ā¦ increase of 0.6 of a degree Cā).
They look to me like numbers from static radiative computations with not even the feedback temperature/humidity included in the crude one-dimensional radiative convective models used in the 70s (for example, the original Manabe and Strickler, 1967).
3/ As for the science never properly debated, what about you reading R.M. Goody, 1964, Atmospheric Radiation, Oxford University Press.
July 8, 2021
Hefner, Actually, the energy for the IR emissions to space, from the Earth, does come from the Sun. Your views about CO2 climate sensitivity seem to derive from the models – but model results are not observations, and are no use for determining sensitivity unless they can predict future climate accurately, which hasn’t happened so far.
July 9, 2021
Ah, you changed your tune, have you gone back to Atmospheric Radiation 101 to check things again? It is obvious that the original energy comes from the Sun and that (simple energy balance between incoming solar radiation and outgoing long-wave radiation, in absence of any āgreenhouseā gases would have the Earthās global temperature about 33 degC colder, at 255 K). The fact that the annual global temperature is around 288-289K is due to the āgreenhouse effectā essentially of water vapour, with some smaller contributions from CO2, CH4, N2O, O3, and other CFCs, HFCs, HCFCs.
The āclimate sensitivityā to CO2 can be observed, albeit with uncertainty as the time series is not very long, by having the state of the atmosphere in the 1960s and again in 2020s. Thatās not derived from models but from observations: observations of CO2 concentration originally on Mauna Loa (since 1958) then in other locations, of temperature from the meteorological network.
An interesting (maybe not for you) take on the rate of change in temperature since 22,000 years ago is on visualcapitalist.com āEarthās temperature over 22,000 yearsā.
Despite the acclaimed Montfortās āHockey Stick Illusionā, temperature around the Earth still is on a rising slope and that slope has steepened in the last 50 years wrt to the variations seen in the past millennia.
I expect the āYounger Dryasāer to come and explain these different slopes.
July 7, 2021
The hot air fest in Glasgow should be cancelled.
Doris your imbecilic leader should be sectioned . How much longer can you bear to be in the same Party with these disreputable, gullible know nothings John?????
July 7, 2021
+1
July 7, 2021
Adamās, +1
July 7, 2021
My advice would be that international agreements on getting people to do things they don’t want to do are anti-democratic.
The UK should concentrate on making sure that “green” stuff is also good for our pockets and the result of that would be international competition to do the same – with no need for grand summits.
July 7, 2021
We need to separate the science from the politics. I notice that, in the UK, in general terms that the left support the agenda and those more to the right don’t. Surely, if the science is actually settled, then it should be possible to show the public the evidence and thus get everyone on board.
Many of us are sceptical because all contrary views are shut down and silenced… Why? If the case is proven why not allow sceptics to express their views so they can be examined.
The media seem to be fully paid up members of what I call the “Good Dog Club” with no contrary views allowed.
One major broadcaster has a daily climate change programme during peak evening viewing times…. Who funds that, given it’s a commercial News Channel?
The Chinese, it is said, expect the warming to reverse within sixty years…. Why isn’t that widely reported? Have the West’s scientists looked at the evidence the Chinese have for their theory?
Surely, the biggest threat to the planet is over population. People breath out the “demon gas” every time they breath. The human body holds seventy percent of it’s weight as water. A 70kg human holds about 50 litres of water to remain healthy. That’s a lot of water tied up.
Don’t get me wrong, we should look after our environment. It makes no sense to poop in our own beds but, hasn’t the bidding got out of hands as politicians fight to appear to be the most virtuous greenie.?
The policies Boris and Co are putting forward will make many people’s lives a misery.
July 7, 2021
So hereās one cat leaping screaming out of its bag.
The Housing Minister has said that people working from home will free up office space for housing!
Nice one!
Detroit here we come.
July 7, 2021
and all those people living in the middle of large cities would save on transport there, and be available for …err …working there?
July 7, 2021
+1
July 8, 2021
+1
My thoughts entirely
July 7, 2021
Send St Greta of Thumberg with and extinction Rebellion bodyguard to China. That will do the trick. I would prefer they do that before asking me or the UK to unilaterally solve the issue by getting rid of my gas boiler with little or no affordable alternative. After that send them to the USA then the EU who seem to have higher CO2 emissions and no intensions of saving the world. If it is seen as morally correct to fly African elephants from the UK to Africa in a 747 with all the pollution that goes with it then I can see all the hypocrisy surrounding this whole topic and why people are so sceptical. Including me. Why not ban private jets world wide, they are unnecessary with so much commercial travel. See how far you get with that one. Tell Mr Biden to stop using Air Force 1. No don’t think that will go down well. I know lets ban BW’s boiler! problem solved. tea and cake for everyone. I expect the only solution will be to tax us out of everything.
July 7, 2021
As much as anyone would like to have a view it is clear that a get-together brokered by the unelected(UN etc.), therefor meaning those unrepresented by the majority on this planet – all other views are of no interest. To them what others think just doesn’t matter they are deaf to common sense.
Its just self indulgent grand standing.
This weak UK Government , supported by its ‘snowflake’ Parliament will punish the UK Citizen just so it can be seen to be on message with its overlords elsewhere.
Make no mistake the rest of the World and the majority of Governments will talk the good talk to be on message, then return home to do what’s necessary to defend their economies against allcomers. Baring the Johnson’s not a single one is going to put the wealth and prosperity of their home Countries at jeopardy.
As you say Sir John why are they burning up the recourses and indulging in the excess they want us all to curtail when they have no need to. The Elite against the sane – we are not all in this together. Self appointed, self indulgent hypocrites.
July 7, 2021
If you want to take your mind away from all the green rubbish, you couldnāt go any further than watching Grant Shapps MP on the Transport Select Committee this morning ā Its like watching āYes Ministerā
July 7, 2021
@NotA#
The real situation is that if there is such a thing as Global Warming. Why is it only the UK Citizen that has to suffer, why is it they have to loose jobs, they have to endure a decline in their economy, reduce their wealth and prosperity. Look forward to a grim future for themselves and their families.
We know others in the World are laughing at the UK for their desire to punish their economy, their people.
The Government would have more integrity if it was to adapt the UK to handle and cope with the doomsayers extra 1.5 degrees. As there is no way the rest of the World is going to adjust, they refer to it as catch up – their prosperity is sacrosanct.
67 million to fund the excesses of 7.5 Billion – that the biggest joke of them all.
July 7, 2021
Simply ask for the independently verified, irrefutable scientific evidence (if any) to be placed on public display, proving that we humans, are responsible for climate change BEFORE taking ANY action to stop it.
If (BIG If) so proven then urgently put the burden of immediate action/change on those that are the world’s worst offenders, NOT little UK whose carbon “contribution” is insignificant. We are spending Ā£Billions they are spending nowt. Why are they allowed to get away with it?
Team Britain, think more of your country us citizens and OUR money, BEFORE committing any more of it chasing rainbows. Preferably hold a referendum of the subject where both sides may put their case.
To attempt to alter global climates is tantamount to changing the weather. And who can do that?
July 7, 2021
To get a feel for the state of play I check out what the New Zealand leader is up to. NZ emissions rose by 57% between 1990 and 2018 ā the second greatest increase of all industrialised countries. In agriculture, some of the work to reduce methane emissions could be done through improved farm practices and breeding animals that produced less gas ā but the commission found it would also require a drop in the number of total herd numbers by 10%-15%. First, they came for our factories and dispersed them, what next the GB farms – we seem to have already moved most of the problem to NI which will have to switch back.
The country would need to end imports of fossil-fuel-powered cars by 2030-35, and transition to electric vehicles.ā including switching the government fleet to electric cars to create a secondhand market, and creating a new incentives regime. Then second they’re coming for reasonably priced cars with good, long lives that the second-hand purchase market can hand down with low fix-up costs.
The public submissions in NZ were mainly worried about ‘ a ban on gas barbecuesā lol. They were reassured it wouldn’t be banned – yeah right. And in the scheme of things cooking your sausages indoors to eat outside is hardly a tragedy (although will meat sausages are allowed!).
I feel there is much worse being planned on no flights for plebs, plebs packed in on trains and none car ownership. Rent everything so the State controls your behaviour and can remove things from you. We have seen how the elites have behaved in the past year, do you see them stop going off to the tropics, Italy, Dubai – no – do you see them troubled by the Ā£400 tests per person for a holiday, no they’re just enjoying the underlings can’t get near them. Just like congestion charging doesn’t affect them and car fuel tax as they can all afford the Teslas.
NZ used forests planted in the 1990s to try to offset its emissions and meet its targets, they’ve been told… āThe carbon removal benefits of these forests are now coming to an end.ā
July 7, 2021
The UK Government should not be promoting COP 26.
Its the economy that should be the priority. The war on Covid is going to last many years. As we are reminded none of us are safe until the World is safe. From that point alone we need a very strong economy to keep fighting this war whether on our door step or in some far of corner of the planet.
Every proposal that has so far emanated from the COP 26 proponents amounts to exasperating the problem they suggest has to be solved. According to them and in simplistic terms we need to replace facilities that already exist with nice new shiny ones. Conveniently forgetting that most of the Worlds manufacturing and the transporting of new goods is done in some of the most polluting ways imaginable. Certainly more polluting than extending the life of existing so-called polluting products. The bulk of damage to the planet is done before the consumer sees the product. The UK is not resolving the problem by bringing in masses of overseas goods – its frightening that that the UK Government sees it as their only policy.
The UK is a major contributor to the problem, successive Governments have forced manufacture abroad. They are now trying to enforce further disgusting pollution on the World by importing replacements.
The UK Government doctrine is an ideology slight of hand, assembly in the UK is not UK manufacturing. HS2 any one?
COP 26 is showing itself to be ‘Grand Standing’ and ‘Virtue Signaling’ on an obscene scale, almost embarrassing that we(meaning us peasants) allowed these type of people that sort of voice.
Simple, No strong economy, then no future in any type of World. So to quote a quote (some one said it before him) a US President ‘It’s the economy – stupid’
July 7, 2021
I certainly agree that the COP26 should be virtual, specially because when it is held there is relatively little input from the scientists, most of the preparatory work has been done on-line, and because most of the ācircusā is made by politicians, lobby groups (both environmentalist and industry) and journalists.
I would also encourage Sir John to read (some of) the 40+ items published by the FT under its āClimate Capitalā heading.
It is interesting to read that now $43 tn of assets (out of around $100 tn) are in funds committed to net zero, but whether that will translate or not into real actions is very uncertain.
I would guess this FT information to be much more worth chewing on than the ramblings of people who do not even know what the potential radiative impact of atmospheric gases is ā¦ To help you (once again) concentration is largely irrelevant per se, you can shout 0.0415 %/415 ppm till the cows come home, that is not the proper parameter to consider: remember the ppb and ppt of the CFCsā impact on ozone. It was not so much the concentration of those but their photochemical potentials that mattered. And water vapour is only about 2-3% of the total atmospheric mass, and responsible for all of the evaporation/ sublimation/ condensation/ precipitation phenomena, that is 2.4 hPa or 2.5 precipitable cm, out of a total mass of 5.13×10^18 kg. Iāll let you go through the various unit conversions ā¦
But āon nāapprend pas aux vieux singes a faire des grimacesā or in good English: You canāt teach your grandmother to suck eggs.
July 7, 2021
Well, I’ll say this for you Hefner, you’re good at quoting biased verbiage from the likes of Wikipedia and the FT, but it’s clear you don’t understand the barrel of bilge you’ve just spouted. But your rambling unconnected list of numbers might entertain an eight year old. Then again, maybe not.
July 8, 2021
An old saying – Bullshit baffles brains.
July 8, 2021
Well said Graham.
My thoughts exactly.
July 10, 2021
Oh yes, as soon as it is a teeny weeny more complex than 0.04% CO2 and therefore negligible the bright minds disconnect ā¦
July 7, 2021
It might be entertaining to review what the FT had to say in the early days of the dot com bubble. Though I do fear for pensioners whose funds are tied to green investments. When the subsidies run out, the crash will be fearful.
July 7, 2021
CO2 forms just 0.04% of the atmosphere, of which 97% is naturally-occurring CO2. This is accepted by all proper scientists. So mankind is responsible, at most, for a total of 3% of 0.04%, or 0.0012%. These are vanishingly small amounts – hardly measurable.
There was a small degree of warming in the second half of the twentieth century, cause unknown, but that has now stopped. It is time people stuck in the last century caught up.
I recommend āThe Hockey Stick Illusionā by Andrew Montford, if anyone really wants to understand the misinformation which lurks behind āwhy it is that many people accept the science that carbon dioxide is a greenhouse gas and that too much of it, all things being equal, can cause warming ā.
July 7, 2021
Proposal – COP 29 to be held in China.
July 7, 2021
Proposal – COP 27 to be held in China.
July 8, 2021
Counter proposal – COP 26 to be held in China
July 7, 2021
Dear Sir John, well firstly the COP26 conference should start with explaining how the Green House Gas effect is warming up the Plant and how our generation of CO2 is the problem and not a whole host of other environmental pollution and destruction causes , not to mention the very rapid expansion in the population since the start of the industrial period.
A challenge Sir John – Please post on your Diary an explanation of how the green house gas theory works, why it is warming the planet, and why the tiny fraction of Co2 we produce compared to the volume released and reabsorbed by nature is the main problem to be addressed to reduce/stop climate Change.
PS. If you chop down half the rain forest that reduces natures ability to reabsorb CO2.
July 7, 2021
Earth’s climate is dictated by the sun, not manmade carbon dioxide.
The science has moved on, so get real and get informed.
July 7, 2021
OK, so why is Venus – with only about one ninth of the solar intensity of Mercury – hotter than the latter?
Clue – Venus has an atmosphere – of largely carbon dioxide – and Mercury doesn’t.
July 7, 2021
You are almost as uninformed as Andy. The density of the atmosphere of Venus, and its pressure at sea level, is almost ninety times that of Earth. Ninety times!
The atmosphere of Venus could be made up of almost any gas, and that would be a serious problem.
July 8, 2021
jl, I donāt think youāre right. Two (or three) arguments.
1/ In a fixed volume increasing pressure increases temperature, which is not the case on a planet where the volume of the atmosphere can expand. So huge pressure could happen without concomitant high temperature.
2/ you say almost any gas. It would certainly not be true if Venusā atmosphere were made of linear molecules like H2 and N2 in which (tiny) motion of atoms would not produce any absorption/emission of energy (in what is called long-wave radiation). Absorption of solar energy would be possible and would contribute to heat up such a planet.
3/ Given the high temperatures prevalent on Venus, and its atmosphere essentially made of CO2, the peak of the so-called Planck is shifted to around 4 microns (on Earth around 10-12 microns). Most of the Venus āgreenhouse effectā comes from the very strong absorption band of CO2 around 4.3 microns (which on Earth has a negligible importance as being on the far side/fringe of the Planck function for Earthās temperatures).
July 8, 2021
Mic
The point is are all the planets getting warmer than they were, if so then its not manmade is it, because there are no humans on the other planets, unless you know differently.
July 8, 2021
AJ, could you quote a reference for this general warming of planets, please?
July 7, 2021
“…why it is that many people accept the science that carbon dioxide is a greenhouse gas and that too much of it, all things being equal, can cause warming…”
Because while the above is a perfectly sensible and defendable idea, the problem with it is that it doesn’t have any numbers in it, or any scientific relationships save an assertion that an unquantified “too much” of one thing, A, can cause an unquantified amount of another thing, B. That, with respect, isn’t science.
All of the attempts so far to bring quantity into the discussion by trying to express a relationship between A and B have failed to be backed up by nature. Therefore, as it says on the scientific tin, all of these hypotheses have failed, have been falsified by the experiment which is the universe. It is not that there is not a provable relationship merely that one has not thus far been shown to be true.
And now you ask me to beggar myself, to deny economic progress to the developing nations of the world, to make it more likely that poor people will die of cold in the north and heat in the south. You do not even have the good grace to build a few nuclear power stations (which is the only feasible route to the amount of electricity you will require).
The entire carbon conversation is antiscientific nonsense. This emperor has no clothes.
Reply I have not asked you to do these things!
July 7, 2021
Yes, I should have expressed myself more clearly = “Those that back, endorse, or otherwise silently give house-room to the range of “carbon reduction” policies touted about the place are tacitly requiring that…”
One cannot just sit by and let the scientifically illiterate be led by the eco-loons intent on destroying modern life. What is being proposed is quite wicked. But thank-you for replying.
July 7, 2021
And it is reported today that multi agency bureaucracy means that it can take 10 years to get approvals etc for off shore wind. Borisās claim to be the Saudi Arabia of alternative energy is like so much else he says, hot air.
And in other news the British Business Bank looks to have lost Ā£350 million to Greensill due to poor risk assessment. Am I surprised of course not. The person in charge has fund management but zero risk management expertise. Who cares when Ā£59 billion is lost on fraud and waste any way and a drop in the ocean compared to the close to 30 billion that we will be defrauded of in furlough/ business loans etc.
Any one lose their job? Silly me.
July 7, 2021
It is going to take a while to discover just how many Pounds Sterling, Conservative Party Ministers etc, have managed to launder out of the public purse into the private wallets of their besties and sponsors.
Naturally, such Ministers will be expecting a post Westminster “dividend payment” to be returned from said besties and sponsors. Usually taking the form of some executive sinecure position in a corporation that the Minister had favoured while in post.
The Conservative Party couldn’t believe its luck when Covid gave them an excuse to pillage the public purse every which way.
July 7, 2021
It’s going to be terribly inconvenient for those who need to get elected to inform “Joe Public” that:
1. Their car has to go. Shame they can’t afford an expensive and inefficient electric one …. but it’s for the greater good. They have the choice of trains and buses which don’t go where they want to go at the time they need to do it, or stay at home.
2. Their gas boiler has to go. It’s unfortunate that their (small) house/flat will have to be completely redecorated to suit a heat pump and they’ll lose tens of square feet of living space since the heaters are so large. It’s also unfortunate that the heat they give out is inadequate for the British climate (even with “global warming” but that’s not what’s important. Neither is the fact that conversion will cost them Ā£tens of thousands.
3. Meat is only for the elite and will be taxed to ensure the price is too high for most people other than a very occasional treat.
4. Flights. See (3) above
I’d like the COP26 to address all the above issues and make it quite clear to Joe Public the inconveniences and costs of forcing Net Zero on them ….. whilst the Elite will carry on as they always have.
“You will own nothing and be happy.” But that doesn’t apply to the Elite either.
July 7, 2021
Agreed, that is the agenda, Schwab at the World Economic Forum, where all our leaders flock to pay homage to him, has spelled it out in black and white.
July 7, 2021
Good one, Donna.
July 7, 2021
+10
July 7, 2021
Everyone wants to be heard.The media exaggerate and embroider stories so they can be heard.The falsification of facts and hype spoken in day to lives is absurd. I hear it every day as people make up signs and symptoms so they can take priority over another thereby spoiling it for others. Sensible discussion is what is required and not statements to make Mrs or Mr X important.
July 7, 2021
Here is the 2 week COP26 programme https://ukcop26.org/the-conference/presidency-programme/
In Summary
Sunday 31st October ā Opening address, photos and PR with media
Monday 1st November ā Secure global net zero
Tuesday 2nd November ā Keeping 1.5 degrees in reach
Wednesday 3rd November ā How to tax the people
Thursday 4th November ā Electrifying everything
Friday 5th November ā Using children to sell the message
Saturday 6th November ā Allow nature to reclaim land
Sunday 7th November ā Rest day
Monday 8th November ā Adapt peoples behaviour, promote vegan
Tuesday 9th November ā Use women & girls to sell the message
Wednesday 10th November ā Ban the ICE car
Thursday 11th November ā City cycle lanes and recycle
Friday 12th November ā Closing address, pats on back, photos
July 7, 2021
I wonder if there is a parallel conference on how to cope with blackouts and riots.
July 8, 2021
If we need riots to stop these people taking over the world then so be it; bring it on.
July 8, 2021
glen cullen : Thanks for your post.
Also to be discussed, possibly Monday 8th, will be the plan to extend the use of the MSM and social media to censor any criticism or dissent.
July 7, 2021
The COP should do more to detail the many various alternative energy sources. Relying on wind and solar power is obviously not sufficient. Relying on next generation electric vehicles also not sufficient. Many alternatives are probably worse than existing proven sources, a case in point is hydrogen as an energy carrier, because it is highly dangerous and horribly inefficient. How about processes to covert CO2 back to carbon, it can be done. Biofuels seem to hold the most promise.
July 7, 2021
I believe that legislation is being planned at present to update planning rules. Why not add a simple additional clause to require that all new buildings, private and commercial, should include solar panels. Over time this would add a very large amount to our generating capacity nationwide. The Hugh number of panels required would increase the economics of their production and bring down costs. If the same policy was replicated world wide this would have a significant effect.
July 7, 2021
China would love to provide all those panels, and claim it their contribution to the global savings.
July 8, 2021
But the power supply companies wouldn’t. Their profits are paramount. As we use less electricity (according to the Andy toaster theory) electricity prices go up, even though they say wind etc is almost cost free one the infrastructure is built. When will electricity prices reduce – answer, never.
July 7, 2021
Solar is problematic. It produces no energy at all when you need it most, on cold winter days after dark. It produces large amounts on sunny summer days, when demand is much lower. Trying to store the surplus from summer for six months to cover the winter is horrendously expensive and impractical. Moreover, those panels don’t have an unlimited life, and create big problems for disposal. It’s very hard to recycle them – read most of the panel will end up in landfill. Of course, the Chinese would doubtless be happy to run their Uighur slave labour camps producing panels for you.
July 7, 2021
What is so depressing about all the supposed ‘green’ stuff: the electric car, the solar panel and the wind turbine is that they are not green at all. From the horrific ecological impact of mining, refining and making a EV battery, to the disgusting amounts of concrete needed to implant a turbine and the ‘recycling’ of all three items. Not only will it all be more expensive and not as efficient but if it is no greener then that will really make the public angry – and the cat is already out of the bag. Look it up – an EV is only 5% greener than an ICE car. An EV burns as much CO2 as does running and ICE car does in 60,000 miles of use making them only become carbon neutral after six years. The the battery is only good for ten years, and the process of manufacturing a battery makes getting at anything worth recycling virtually impossible – or too expensive to bother with. It should all be call ‘alternative’ because that is all they are – definitely not renewables. There is nothing renewable about them.
July 8, 2021
Indeed Henry but the real issue is that CO2 “pollution” is a lie.
July 7, 2021
One main reason for the lack of credibility that green campaigners have is that, being employed by the state, academia, the charity sector or other subsidised bodies, they are easily able to ‘pay’ more for their transport and energy, for the simple reason that we, the taxpayers, are actually paying for their expenses, their salaries, plane and taxi fares, and indeed for their whole existence.
July 7, 2021
Off topic but topical:
https://www.irishmirror.ie/news/irish-news/garda-checkpoints-ireland-officers-customs-24477650
“Garda checkpoints Ireland: Officers and Customs officials catch drivers out at unusual checkpoint”
Bear in mind here that according to the Irish government there should be no checks and controls anywhere on the island of Ireland and āNo matter where you locate check sites ā they amount to a hard borderā:
https://johnredwoodsdiary.com/2021/04/08/lobbying-2/#comment-1221144
July 7, 2021
Boris is convinced that man-made CO2 is influencing the weather and a danger to mankind. I am not convinced, for the simple reason that this has NOT been proven. Correlation is not causation, and circumstancial evidence is not proof. But clearly Boris has a closed mind on the subject, and for him this is an article of quasi-messianic faith. But if so then he should at least be logical and consistent and tackle the ‘problem’ sensibly and fairly. The country emitting the most CO2 (by far) is China. Until China cuts its emissions then literally NOTHING that we do matters.
If the UK were to stop ALL its CO2 emissions tomorrow, within a year China will have made up the difference. So for the UK to make any sacrifices – any sacrifices at all – is unfair, unreasonable and unacceptable. It is discrimination against the British people. Either China starts cutting its CO2 emissions voluntarily or we should use COP26 to organise an international trade boycott of China, imposing sanctions on them to force them to act. And if the rest of the world is not willing to do this then let’s just forget the whole thing, as it is a waste of time and effort.
July 7, 2021
King Canute knew his limits and made it clear he couldn’t hold back the tide, Boris Johnson, deluded fool he is, thinks he can hold back the weather.
July 8, 2021
+1
July 8, 2021
and thinks he can hold a majority at the next GE.
July 7, 2021
Correlation is not causation – nearly, is not *necessarily* causation, you should more properly say.
But why do you so often claim with absolute certainty that every negative metric re the UK which occurred during its membership of the European Union was caused by that membership then?
July 7, 2021
back to the wall protestation MiC?
July 7, 2021
I would like to think the government would bring a sense of cricket, Britishness and fair play to COP 26 by inviting those who disagree with the Co2 hypothesis to debate the latest advances and understanding in climate science. You couldn’t do better than starting with Ben Davidson, Tony Heller et al. They’re well rehearsed in the subject and could point you towards no end of professionally qualified, published and highly respected speakers.
Come on Sir John, it’s time to release the political commitment to Co2 and view what the science is now showing. It might surprise you.
July 7, 2021
From Guido today – ” The European Commissionās planned carbon tax on jet fuel, which will be presented for legislation on July 14, will carry exemptions for private jets on the grounds that such journeys āaid to the conductā of business” says it all really – COP 26 is set to contain the peasants and the rabble so the ‘Elite’ can stroke their ego.
Will any arrangement from COP 26 be equal? or is it a Grand Standing smoke screen.
July 7, 2021
Apart from the enormous carbon footprint of 20,000 people all flying in and out of the UK, there is the strong likelihood that the conference will cause a one-off spike in Covid cases amongst delegates who will bring in new variants while others will take the strains back to their own countries.
And for what ?
The conference is nothing more than a talking shop to allow Grand Standing by third world countries and China who will castigate the West and demand that we spend enormous amounts to reduce our emissions and also pay for their costs while at the same time they reserve the right to increase their own emissions for at least another decade or two.
A pointless waste of time and money.
July 7, 2021
Agreed 100% that it needs to be virtual.
The key requirement is that nations that insist on running a dirty economy should be penalised by additional tariffs on their exports. That will require a revision of WTO rules and perceptions. Items for priority inclusion in what constitutes a dirty economy are burning raw coal, which emits double the CO2 per Mega KWh that gas emits, and using CFCs, which prevent the hole in the ozone layer from fully closing.
For each nation, compute the annual cost of replacing all of their coal fired power stations by decarbonised coal, and the annual cost of replacing their CFC production by something less harmful to the ozone layer. Add the two costs, double it pour encourager les autres, and spread it across a year of the nation’s exports.
We should ensure that these proposals are at the top of the agenda. Action now is needed instead of targets to be achieved by 2050. Perhaps we should make the acceptance of these proposals a condition of our promise to eliminate burning coal in UK by 2024. We must remain price competitive.
Sovereignty is a dry as dust constitutional concept. It’s not much use to us unless we have an active foreign policy.
July 8, 2021
LMcD, Very sensible and workable proposals.
July 7, 2021
A lot less environmental celebrity would work wonders. There is only one economy and one environment, and we have already made a lot of the choices, so there just isn’t any need for TV studios full of environmental celebrities who just got back from jetting off to Jackarta for a “conference”. It’s not environmental choices that are the problem, but environmentalism parasites.
July 7, 2021
Carbon Dioxide is a greenhouse gas ?? This ‘science’ is accepted widely ??
Plants need carbon dioxide. They photosynthesize during daylight hours. They absorb carbon dioxide and give out oxygen. If I remember correctly from ‘O’ level science it is how plants ‘feed’. The carbon dioxide is joined with nutrients from the soil to build the plant’s cellular structure.
That is the ONLY sense in which Carbon Dioxide should be called a greenhouse gas.
It is NOTHING TO DO WITH maintaining a warmer temperature in a greenhouse. OR IN EARTHS CLIMATE.
Also the so called ‘science’ that Earths climate is warming, has been disproved over and over.
Added to which, if Britain’s climate did get warmer there are just as many advantages to that as disadvantages.
So as far as we are concerned we SHOULD NOT commit ourselves to any of this ‘REDUCE CARBON DIOXIDE’
nonsense. We should continue burning fossil fuels if it suits our economy and we should continue using internal combustion vehicles for as long as it suits us.
As you have said yourself Sir John our emissions are a very tiny proportion, compared with other nations. So that is what we should be pointing out at COP26.
July 7, 2021
‘Science’ should mean predictable and repeatable…..what is predictable and repeatable about all this green nonsense. Total guesswork by ‘proper scientists? What a load of fanciful theories.
July 7, 2021
We have been repeatedly told that the ‘science’ is ‘settled’; however, the majority of people making this statement are not scientists and many of the scientists who assert that man made climate change is real have been given substantial grants to come to that conclusion. While other major countries are paying lip service to
the zeitgeist, many are unprepared in practice to sacrifice their economies by closing down carbon based energy production as we whose sacrifice will have negligible effect even if the science is correct.
July 7, 2021
Back on a recent topic.
Lithuania has announced it will build a barrier on the border with Belarus and deploy troops to prevent migrants from illegally crossing into its territory. Prime Minister Ingrida Simonyte said more than 1,000 migrants had been held after crossing along the 679km (422-mile) border since 1 June.
Lithuania, an EU member, also accused Belarus of flying in foreign migrants and allowing them to go to the border.
That from an EU member !!
July 7, 2021
No — To succeed it needs to be real
No sensible person will support a project based on politics alone without a great deal of MSM indoctrination, which unfortunately is what is going on. There is no ‘balanced view’ of this alleged problem – NO ACTUAL EVIDENCE, just more lies and indoctrination.
That is one reason it is perceived as a myth.
The MSM is making a fuss over the localised heat waves that are hitting some parts of the world, while ignoring the FACT that snow and ice are far more prevalent and temperatures in some places at record lows. That’s how dishonest the whole thing is.
They blame alleged MMCC for everything but forget to tell us that the Earth’s magnetic field is weak and weakening, allowing extra localised radiation / heat through – and that is nothing to do with alleged MMCC.
My message to COP26:
That will do for a start.
July 8, 2021
+1
July 7, 2021
Biden wants to see OPEC increase oil output. Why? I thought this idiot was now a green warrior and rejects the widespread us of fossil fuels?
And what about China? More coal fire usage, more oil usage, more habitat destruction
There’s politicians and then there’s real people who can SEE the bullshit and lies being pumped by an international political class with fascist, evil intent in their hearts
Oh, and why was it wrong for retard footballers to wear the poppy but it’s OK and this PM and Starmer agrees that indulging in Marxist symbolism (taking the knee) encouraged and dictated by a violent Marxist organisation is absolutely fine?
The descent into the Marxist abyss has been encouraged by both main parties. It ain’t gonna end well
Johnson must be toppled before he does real harm to our nation and its backbone population
July 7, 2021
all pretty fair and balanced points….. well? Sir John?
July 7, 2021
5. Explain where all the extra electricity is going to come from and how it will be transmitted.
As stated hereā¦..
There are plenty of essays on the web explaining the impossibility of the net-zero plan – in terms of electricity supply, battery raw materials and the like.
The only way it can work will be a massive reduction in living standards across the developed worldā¦ā¦. Get them to show the energy production planā¦.
They wonāt because they canāt- this nonsense will stop as we hit the laws of physics and thermodynamics
July 8, 2021
+1
July 7, 2021
“We know no spectacle so ridiculous as the British public in one of its periodical fits of morality.”
But then, Macaulay had never seen the public trying to discuss the environment.
July 7, 2021
“When chill November`s surly blast
Made fields and forests bare……… ”
wrote Burns in his poem -Man Was Made To Mourn -A Dirge.
Then along came COP 26 .
July 7, 2021
The UK contribution should be R&D and capacity support to drive technology solutions ,renewables, efficiency, insulations to the place where market forces takeover and drive the process. This is where the UK should direct ALL its Foreign aid budget.
Those countries with the largest outputs and largest output per capita should be the subject of intense attention and a real policy response e.g. carbon tarriffs, which protects each countries independence and imposes costs on the mercantilist free-riders instead of balanced trade by efficient high standard production methods.
Stop de-industrialising the democratic western countries by policies like climate change policy. Agreed to by the global elite for suspect reasons. Certain countries have gained from these policies. Other have been weakened.
Needless to say the exemptions for the 1% need to replaced with large tax penalties or rationing for large per capita use. Private Jets,Helicopters,Rocket trips to space etc
Each country should be encouraged to find solutions which maximise the renewable resources available to each country. e.g. The UK should expedite all consents for the domestic production of renewables e.g. floating offshore wind,with solar and wave technology to produce hydrogen for collection or electricity for storage, export or use.
July 7, 2021
Perhaps they should be debating the thoughts of a genuine environmentalist, Greenpeace’s co-founder, Dr Patrick Moore, who says that we need MORE CO2 in the atmosphere to stop plants dying out:
https://cairnsnews.org/2020/01/13/greenpeace-co-founder-dr-patrick-moore-says-we-need-much-more-co2-in-the-atmosphere/
July 8, 2021
Excellent comment XY; Government needs to start and take note of the real science.
July 8, 2021
I have not read through the 177 comments above so apologies if I am repeating what has already been said. Iāll try and be very brief.
I have yet to see a Costed Business Case with timelines for all the actions being proposed.
Agenda Item:
At least a back of the envelope quick and dirty estimate, showing the assumptions made ~ top down / bottom up by the world / region / country ~ filling in the gaps and updating as information becomes available or changes ~ for the Costed Business Case & Timelines.
For starters:
What power is generated where by what means: currently producing, being built, planned? How much and when does any of this need replacing? That is before we even start to think about the power needed for electric vehicles, heating, etc. and associated infrastructure costs.
Bear in mind all rated power station Rated Capacity has to be adjusted by usable production. This Capacity Factor is, I understand, 60% – 75% for Coal Plants, 30% – 40% for Wind Farms and 25% for Solar Farms. So reusable headline rated capacity can be misleading.
Interestingly, despite the IEAās softer headline announcements for the mainstream media about the death of oil the hard numbers in their main report pointed to demand likely exceeding 100 million barrels a day by 2023 and continuing to rise at least short term thereafter.
Too many Politicians seem to be competing for Bragging Rights with their fellow politicos, without thinking through how it all ties together and will be funded with all the checks and balances which need to be in place. Throwing other peopleās money at the perceived problem is all very well when they probably will not be around in 30 years time.
That is enough! To end on a tongue in cheek note, without cheap and ample energy, our economies will grind to a halt. We may me glad of global warming to keep warm by 2050 as we will only be able to afford thin hair shirts!
July 8, 2021
The whole global warming nonsense needs to be binned. It is based on unproven “science” and manipulated data. Obviously this is not the place for great detail but all is explained in an excellent book by A. W. Montford “The Hockey Stick Illusion”. There are many other comments on the web by real scientists if one looks.
Why would government follow this nonsense and base policies on it? Because it gives them control and a reason to follow the various UN Agendas which will destroy life as we know it and eliminate our freedom.
July 8, 2021
DavidJ :
Agreed.
I have yet to see an explanation for multiple climate changes in the past and specifically why the Earth has been gradually warming since the last Glacial Maximum (Ice Age) 22,000 years ago and long before the Industrial Revolution and the generation of man-made CO2.
July 9, 2021
One more time… The Greenland Ice Cores:
July 8, 2021
Interesting to see that the European Commission has proposed exempting the most polluting per passenger mile, private jets, from EU jet fuel tax while taxing scheduled passenger flights that the vast majority of us plebs can afford. They also propose exemption of pleasure flights.
https://www.thegwpf.com/eu-to-exempt-private-jets-and-pleasure-flights-from-green-tax-on-jet-fuel/
July 8, 2021
Whatever measures are proposed to reduce carbon emissions, they will be unpopular because they will impact people’s comforts and quality of life by increasing living costs/taxes or reducing their opportunity to travel.
Whatever “savings” may be agreed (even if they are later achieved which is very unlikely) will also be largely irrelevant in the bigger picture if nothing is done to halt the world’s population growth. Another 2 billion consumers by 2050 (even if no improvements in their average standard of living is envisaged and their energy/food consumption remains at current levels/head) will completely negate any future agreements on CO2 reductions.
If we cannot halt the world’s population growth within 5 years and then immediately start to reduce it to a stable 3-4 billion we are wasting our time so this should be the summit’s primary aim.