Mark Drakeford has said that a decision on whether to extend the Welsh Government’s vaccine passport scheme to pubs won’t be taken until the last possible moment, with the Welsh First Minister adding that “circumstances and knowledge are developing so fast”. Drakeford also mentioned that imposing vaccine passports on pubs would not have been taken into consideration if the Omicron variant had never emerged. BBC News has the story.
A decision on whether to extend Covid passes to pubs and restaurants will be made at the “last minute”, First Minister Mark Drakeford has said.
Ministers are to consider whether to expand the scheme over the next week, with the next Covid rules review due on Friday.
Drakeford said the emergence of the Omicron variant has led to knowledge and circumstances developing “so fast”.
The first case of Omicron was confirmed in Wales on Friday.
Covid passes are already required for cinemas, theatres, nightclubs and large events in Wales.
They show if someone has been fully vaccinated or tested negative for Covid in the past 48 hours.
The Welsh Conservatives have said they remained opposed to Covid passes because they do not seem to present “additional benefits” to stopping Covid.
But the First Minister told Politics Wales he did not think the Welsh Government would be considering extending passes to hospitality if it had only been dealing with the dominant Delta variant.
He said: “We’ve got another week to go. We will learn a lot in that week about the Omicron virus.
“If we were to do it, it would simply be to help those businesses to stay open and still attracting customers through the door because people would feel confident that everybody else in that setting were either vaccinated or had taken a lateral flow test.
“But we haven’t made that decision, and we won’t make that decision right up until the day we have to, because circumstances and knowledge are developing so fast around the new variant that you ought to wait to have the maximum amount of information that you can.”
Sam Rowlands, Conservative Member of the Senedd (MS) for North Wales, said the Government should ensure “every part of our energies” is put in to rolling out booster jabs rather than extending use of the pass.
“With that you could see much better walk-in centres – rapid roll-out of walk-in centres across the country,” he said.
Plaid Cymru deputy leader Sian Gwenllian MS said: “We need to rely on the evidence and listen to what the experts say before bringing in any new regulations but if they are needed, they are needed.”
Drakeford said he could not claim the Covid pass scheme was making a difference “above the fact that it makes that extra marginal difference alongside everything else you do”.
Worth reading in full.
To join in with the discussion please make a donation to The Daily Sceptic.
Profanity and abuse will be removed and may lead to a permanent ban.
Even the charts used by the Net Zero zealots to show that growth is possible with green policies, demonstrate your point. The more CO2 emissions are cut, the slower the growth.
As covered here: https://davidturver.substack.com/p/co2-emissions-reductions-lead-to
Even worse, the industries bearing the brunt of this nonsense are energy intensive industries. Industries like fertiliser, chemicals, steel and other metals. You know, the things we need to feed our population and defend the realm.
https://davidturver.substack.com/p/net-zero-policies-damage-growth
Unilateral economic (and military) disarmament.
Absolutely nailed it.
Good article and good book by this author (There is no climate crisis). Good read.
25% of UK energy is from bird choppers and solar tan beds. By 2030 Sir Idiot wants to quadruple this and remove safe, clean, hydrocarbon energy, abiotic, self reproducing, or coal which is 20x more efficient per MW than the tanning beds?
Is bankruptcy the real stated goal ? As the author shows, GDP is tied to efficient, clean hydro-and nuclear-power usage. Not the ungreen subsidised bird manglers and tanning beds.
Making Britain a ‘”clean energy superpower”, removing fossil fuels from all of Britain’s electricity generation by 2030 will receive an early test tomorrow evening (8th March). A col is a region of extremely light winds. Tomorrow evening there will be a col over the UK for a day, coming just after a North Wind has deposited Arctic air over the country, giving us the first cold spell of winter.. The next 48 hours will be a quick test of the National Grid’s generating capacity during a period of darkness, little wind and below-zero temperatures. Here are two ways of monitoring the situation in real time. The first is full of dials and graphs showing what percentage of electricity is being generated from what source, and what demand it is trying to cope with. The second is less cluttered but includes the cost per megawatt hour. Already (7th March) the demand curve in [1] looks like there has been some load shedding at 40GW, perhaps to large industrial users or smart meters. Let’s see if the remaining coal-powered stations rescue us and if the cost spikes!
[1] http://gridwatch.templar.co.uk/
[2] https://grid.iamkate.com/
Nothing approaching 25% of UK Energy.
25% of UK Electricity on a good day.
A vital distinction.
We need to reframe this argument. It should not be “we can’t afford to reduce CO² emissions because that will impoverish us” but rather “a slight increase in atmospheric CO², even if caused by human activity, is not a problem“. Yes, of course we need to address pollution. The mistake is to conflate that with the specious doctrine of CO² reduction.
Mark Steyn dealing with Green lies, Covid lies, Windsor Brexit Deal lies
The Hangout …and a Hanging
https://www.steynonline.com/13304/the-hangout-and-a-hanging
Welcome to the first Mark Steyn Show of a brand new week! As part of our tremendous marketing campaign, just a few hours before airtime Ofcom found Steyn guilty (and set him trending on Twitter)!
Wednesday 8th March 11am to 12pm
Yellow Freedom Boards
Junction A327 Arborfield Rd &
Eastern Relief Rd, Shinfield,
Wokingham RG2 9EA
There’s always been a simple solution: frack, use coal and gas and oil, and pour the money into developing clean alternatives however long it takes, preferably many nuclear fission reactors and seriously invest in fusion technology, which has been underinvested in on purpose, because fusion power will end many of the hegemonies currently controlling the world. While I support the search for better, cleaner, more efficient fuel sources, green ideology is suicide for Western civilisation; I don’t support it and never have. Impoverishing the most inventive civilisation in history is suicide for the human race. An we know from statements out of the UN that this is deliberate: slowing down capitalism in the West so the rest of the world can ‘catch up’. This is the consequence of supranational organisations and rule by too many international treaties.
https://thezman.com/wordpress/?p=29445
This post comes closest to explaining and settling the cockup Vs conspiracy issue in this and all other areas as well.
They are not aware of let alone interested in the plebs real problems.
They are only interested in talking to and being acceptable among themselves.
There is no need for formal conspiracies, if you tick that way and belong only to the same clubs and their belief systems as everyone else.
That overall emissions chart for the UK is particularly striking; we’re back to late 19th century levels despite population growth of around 68%. All those dark satanic mills!
We are in an interglacial period, the Earth is warming by about 1°C every hundred years, likely mainly due to Milankovitch Cycles, this is a totally natural phenomenon and nothing to do with levels of atmospheric CO2
You don’t have to do much research to find that this is nonsense. Milankovitch cycles affect the climate on timescales of thousands of years – not the decadal change we are seeing at the moment and also predict cooling (over these timescales) at this time. In fact solar irradiance has been decreasing since about 1960 (although this will not be because of Milankovitch cycles – being far too short a timescale).
Remember even sceptics such as Roy Spencer accept that the greenhouse effect is real – they just dispute how much of recent warming is caused by it.
“In fact solar irradiance has been decreasing since about 1960”
https://climate.nasa.gov/internal_resources/2502
I am afraid your eye must have been deceived by the anomalous bump / drop between c 1950 and c 1970. In fact the graph shows a notable rising trend of solar irradiation between 1880 and c 1990, one which closely correlates to rising global temperatures.
In other words the sudden and dramatic divergence from temperature visible on this comparative plot occurred at almost exactly the same time as Margaret Thatcher launched the ‘Catastrophic Anthropogenic Climate Change’ theory and agenda in 1988, the UN IPCC was set up and the whole massively lucrative scam got underway.
So convenient to say the least.
Furthermore the NASA graph exists in at least two different forms, one with additional data which noticeably reduces the divergence.
https://qph.cf2.quoracdn.net/main-qimg-db3985b80c1982d6528cdd6c5baab4c8
The plot thickens further. Here’s a report produced by this very same NASA in 2003 which claims that
“Since the late 1970s, the amount of solar radiation the sun emits, during times of quiet sunspot activity, has increased by nearly .05 percent per decade, according to a NASA funded study…In this study, Wilson, who is also Principal Investigator of NASA’s ACRIM experiments, compiled a TSI record of over 24 years by carefully piecing together the overlapping records. In order to construct a long-term dataset, he needed to bridge a two-year gap (1989 to 1991) between ACRIM1 and ACRIM2. Both the Nimbus7/ERB and ERBS measurements overlapped the ACRIM ‘gap.’ Using Nimbus7/ERB results produced a 0.05 percent per decade upward trend between solar minima, while ERBS results produced no trend. Until this study, the cause of this difference, and hence the validity of the TSI trend, was uncertain. Wilson has identified specific errors in the ERBS data responsible for the difference. The accurate long-term dataset, therefore, shows a significant positive trend (.05 percent per decade) in TSI between the solar minima of solar cycles 21 to 23 (1978 to present).”
https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2003/03/030321075236.htm#:~:text=Although%20the%20inferred%20increase%20of,for%20a%20century%20or%20more.
In other words NASA is fully aware that the main graph they are publishing and you made use of is incorrect and based on flawed data – but continues to use it.
Thanks for the link to the second graph. I did some research and the difference appears to be because the second uses the PMOD adjustment to the TSI data. There is quite an extensive discussion of different ways of measuring solar irradiance here. I guess the key point is:
In recent years it has generally been accepted that the PMOD composite, which displays a decline of c. 0.3 Wm-2 over the past three solar cycle minima, is probably the most accurate.
This was written in 2016. While it is always interesting to read alternative interpretations of the data, a 2003 paper is 20 years old and likely to be superseded by more recent research and data.
Thank you back for that very reasonable response, as I’ve said before I always admire people willing to go against the current grain or popular view in any specific setting.
In any case the solar radiation discussion you linked to is very complex and above my knowledge pay grade, but if it maintains that the PMOD composite is the most accurate that leaves NASA as guilty of at the very least gross exaggeration in the graph that leaves PMOD out.
Also the claims made in the 2003 paper are factual and should therefore not be open to subsequent interpretation.
Finally I was concentrating purely on the solar radiation aspects of this graph.
Having now looked at the temperature element I would suggest that this is even more suspect – as it shows a basically unremitting dramatic upswing since c 1970 with not even a hint at the two sustained ‘pauses’ that have taken place since 1998 – including the now 8 year period of plateaued temperatures.
The reason I think it is crucial to challenge any aspects of Climate Change factual claims that seem flawed is not statistical pedantry, but rather the catastrophic effect the overall agenda is having on UK and other economies, particularly affecting the poorest and most vulnerable first.
I think it is unfair to accuse NASA of gross exaggeration. It is clear from the technical discussion that while PMOD is generally accepted as the most accurate estimate, others have credibility (and no doubt have their fans). The temperature record is clearly labelled as GISTEMP 3.1 which, like most surface temp records, shows negligible pause since 1960 (see https://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/world-of-change/global-temperatures and page down a bit to see all the different surface temp graphs). The “pauses” are really only found in the satellite records. No doubt you would argue that only the satellite records count but that is a long debate and it is not ingenuous of NASA to use a temperature record that is widely accepted and they explicitly support.
Anyhow, whatever you think of NASA’s presentation the big takeaway is that TSI has not increased in the last 30-40 years.
As the effect on global economies – that is a whole other discussion.
Common sense indicates you cannot cut back and get more! Just another net zero blind mp!
Doubtless the BBC will spin China’s purchase of Sri Lanka as “investment” rather than exploitation of a deliberately bankrupted state.
Craig’s argument appears to be
To do this he presents a number of charts
a) showing countries with decreasing CO2 emissions and a falling share of global GDP and other countries with increasing CO2 emissions and increasing share of global GDP.
b) a chart showing electricity costs in 2011
Let’s take a) first.
There are economies with high CO2 emissions that have failed to grow, for example Russia. And countries, such as Singapore, that have low and dropping CO2 emissions and a very respectable growth rate. Nevertheless if you were to draw a graph of all the countries in the world and plot rate of change of CO2 emissions against growth rate I don’t doubt that you would find a loose correlation.
However correlation is not causation and in this case there are plenty of confounding factors. The low growth, low CO2 countries differ from the high growth, high CO2 countries in many fundamental ways. The faster growing economies are mostly developing economies that are growing from a very low base 50 years ago. There are all sorts of reasons for this. e.g. investment, lower average age of workforce, less regulation generally, and simply more scope to grow. The low growth economies are mature rich countries with higher per capita standards of living.
Most importantly, although the first world countries with decreasing CO2 emissions have a decreasing share of global GDP, they are still growing. It is possible to reduce CO2 emissions and grow. In fact that is normally what happens.
How about b)? You could quibble about the chart, it is 12 years old. But actually it is not really controversial that high energy prices, including high electricity prices (electricity is often a relatively small part of energy), tend to limit economic growth. What is less certain is to what extent limiting carbon emissions raises electricity prices. The USA has decreasing carbon emissions per head but low electricity prices. Current high electricity prices in Europe are clearly down to a shortage of gas not limiting carbon emissions. Renewables are becoming cheaper and cheaper as a source.
Per capita CO2 emissions is a nonsense category. CO2 emissions happen as side effect of economic activity (somewhat simplified “industrially burning stuff”). Hence, one should use CO2 emissions per trillion dollars GDP (or something similar) instead.
Consistent use of the visualization of the same kind of statistics would be also be a good idea. Instead of alternating between annual and per capita emissions with no discernible rhyme or reason.
There is a fundamental flaw in the article. It seems to give credence to the notion that CO2 is endlessly harmful to the planet and all humanity and life upon it. Unless I’ve been sleeping, there is no measurable benefit to ‘Nett Zero’, other than some hand-waving hysterics about us fast approaching a ‘tipping point’ (which no-one can define) at which the planet warming (which it actually hasn’t…) will run away and boil us all in our own juices. Tornadoes, floods, the breakdown of society, starvation, and a horrible death, I think it went, or some such other hystrionics. Except for….(roll of the drums…) the saviours of the planet, who despite being nerds and useless morons, will convince us all that we are heading the wrong way and they will save us all, and get the girl, like in a film they once saw.
In fact, CO2 is the target only because it comes from human activity that we can measure and therefore tax. Assuming that we forget about the 97% of CO2 which is naturally occuring. The worst part of the lie is that we are trying to accomplish Nett Zero well before all the fossil fuel replacement technologies are available and mature enough to be used. 2c warmer this century? Well that means Edinburgh will be as warm as Manchester is now. Is that an emergency requiring societies and economies to be dismantled and rebuilt to some half arsed plan that sounds like it was an 8 year olds school project. No, of course it isn’t. It is absurd, a fantasy. You don’t need to compare charts and draw comparisons with GDP, to know that ours is going down the toilet, and our economy and society with it. In 200 years from now, as our descendants (assuming there are some…) are trying to keep warm as the new ice age begins, they will look back at this as a period of utter madness where we reintroduced real poverty to billions of people just for the sake of useless people stroking their own fur at how virtuous they have been to save a world that didn’t need saving..
Starmer got Saville off. I rest my case.
It should be clear to anyone what is happening in the world and how our politicians are crippling our countries’ growth. It seems that there is a large group of people who don’t understand what is really going on. There are a growing number of real scientists like William Happen and the Canadian Patrick Moore trying to explain that there is no human induced climate crisis and there is plenty of data to prove they are right. It seems there must be some kind of movement to eliminate the success of the free western world and its ideology, and our traditional party politicians are fully signed up members. We need a political organisation that can fight the stupidity that prevails, but it’s sad to realise there are not enough intelligent people to support it.
Anti Human, Anti Capitalist, Anti Growth, Anti prosperity, Anti Personal Freedom.————————– “Climate Change” is the main tool in the Eco Socialists toolbox. CO2 is the Central Planners dream gas. It is the gas that allows them to control all human activity, because everything humans do involves the release of a little CO2. The wealthiest emit the most and the poorest emit the least. A carbon tax and control of CO2 gives the Central planner the ability to redistribute wealth from richer to poorer people and from richer to poorer countries, with “saving the planet” as the excuse.
The Socialist think tank “The Club of Rome” spoke back in 1972 about the supposed “unsustainable” lifestyles of the affluent middle classes, with their central heating, air condition and travel in private cars etc. Since then the UN has sought to reduce the standard of living of the wealthy western countries, take away cheap abundant energy (coal and gas) and replace it with expensive unreliable energy in (wind, sun and heat pumps). The idea is that western wealthy countries have used up more than their fair share of the worlds resources in becoming prosperous and must stop doing that. In order to get away this piece of chicanery you need a very plausible excuse, and that excuse is climate change, and the idea that CO2 is causing a climate emergency. But ofcourse there is zero evidence for this “climate crisis” and it should be obvious to any sensible person that when you are never allowed to question any of this supposed emergency that we are not dealing with science. We are dealing with POLITICS. The politics of the UN’s Sustainable Development. In our own parliament we recently passed NET ZERO policy. Not one single MP of any major party asked a single question as to how much this absurdity will cost and what benefit it will be to the global climate or to the standard of living of the citizens of the UK that these MP’s are supposed to represent. The public were never consulted on this prosperity reducing ideology. It was simply waved through, despite the fact that they have no idea how much this is going to cost (estimated to be near to two trillion quid) or how it can even possibly be achieved and whether the technologies are even currently or likely to become available. They are jumping off an environmental cliff hoping that someone invents something to break their fall. This is the reality of the Green Agenda. ——-Wake up people you are being played.
But, but what about all the jobs, new technology businesses and growth that the climate cult promise will magically appear to replace old fashion fossil fuels as is recorded in “The Little Red Book of Climate Change”?