As a practical matter is it time for climate sceptics to accept that the argument has been lost? Whilst the terrible events unfolding in Ukraine have led to calls by some politicians for a slowdown in the timetable for Net Zero there is little appetite for changing the direction of travel. Politicians around the world are convinced that human activities are causing the Earth to warm and almost every country has now committed to reducing CO2 emissions to net zero. The USA, Japan and most of the countries of Europe, including the U.K., have pledged to get there by 2050. Germany has committed to get there by 2045. The countries of the developing world are in general pedalling more slowly but have still made the pledge, China by 2060 and India by 2070.
So should climate sceptics buy a Tesla and drive off into the sunset? Or should we remember the old CIA saying “peace is just war by other means” and find another role for ourselves? I hope it is the latter because there is a clear need, as we move towards a Net Zero world, for some voices of sanity.
Many green extremists have positions in science, the media and government. From these positions they pump out an unending stream of apocalyptic propaganda. For example, recently the media reported the claims in an IPCC (Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change) Report that if humanity carries on as it is then by the end of the century “75% of the world’s population will be exposed to life threatening heat” and there could be “nine million climate-related deaths per year”. How credible are such claims?
One of the lessons of Covid is surely that the predictions of scientists, however eminent, need to be treated with great caution. It was nearly two years ago, when Covid first appeared, that we started to hear the expression “following the science”. In practice it meant following the advice of SAGE modellers. And the Government duly followed that advice and locked us down in the Spring of 2020 and again in November and over Christmas 2020. But by the time the Omicron variant came around, at the end of last year, the Government had started to have doubts about SAGE modelling and so it refused to lock us down again. And we saw that the dire SAGE predictions of hospitals being overwhelmed and huge numbers of deaths were greatly exaggerated. If scientists cannot predict the progress of a virus two or three weeks ahead then how can they predict the climate of the Earth 70 or 80 years ahead?
The IPCC itself acknowledged the uncertainty of the climate models in a 2018 Report. It reviewed the models and concluded that if human behaviour remains the same then the Earth will warm by between 0.1 and 0.3 degrees per decade. This is a wide range, a factor of three difference between the lower and higher estimates, and illustrates just how uncertain the models are.
Voices of sanity need to remind people over and over again that trying to model the climate of the Earth is complex and the predictions of climate models have to be treated with great caution. The claim that unless we mend our ways then by the end of the century “75% of the world’s population will be exposed to life threatening heat” and there could be “nine million climate-related deaths per year” are a repeat of the tactics used during the pandemic: make exaggerated claims in order to create fear and modify people’s behaviour.
If instead of climate models we look at the actual data on the temperature of the Earth then the picture is considerably less alarming. The same 2018 IPCC Report referred to earlier concluded that in the decade between 2006 and 2015 the Earth was warmer by between 0.7 and 1.0 degree than it was in the period 1850 to 1900. Such a modest temperature rise hardly justifies talk of “climate crisis” and “the clock is ticking and we are at one minute before midnight”.
Arguably the world would be better and happier place if we shut down all climate research and donated the funds to Ukrainian refugees. Then instead of a constant barrage of green alarmist gloom we could once a year, say on New Years Day, in a low-key address from the UN Headquarters in New York get the latest data on the temperature of the Earth. It would be factual and objective and I suspect much less frightening.
Another important role for voices of sanity is to review the Government policies that are being adopted to achieve Net Zero. In the U.K. the continued expansion of renewables will end in tears. Of course renewables should be part of the energy mix but if we keep expanding them then in a few years’ time, when we have cold spells of winter weather and at the same time there are low wind speeds, there will be power cuts – the lights will go out and the heating will go off. If we want to cut CO2 emissions and maintain energy supply then, as many people have argued before, including some green activists, there is only one option presently available and that is nuclear.
Also, Net Zero does not require us to have zero CO2 emissions. It means the CO2 we emit is balanced by the CO2 we absorb. So if we focus more on increasing the absorbing, for example by the planting of new trees and woodlands, then we can focus less on reducing the emitting. For example, electric cars should arguably be encouraged but the proposed ban on petrol cars in the U.K. will punish those least able to afford it. Electric cars are around 40% more expensive to buy than the equivalent petrol car and less convenient to run because of the length of time it takes to charge a battery compared to the length of time it takes to fill a petrol tank. This is not a great problem if you are relatively well-off and can afford the extra cost and you have your own driveway so you can leave the car to charge overnight. But if you are on an average income then buying an electric car will be a struggle. And if you live in a block of flats then charging it will also be a struggle.
I realise that many Daily Sceptic readers will not agree with me and will still be hoping that our Government abandons Net Zero. But in my opinion that is unlikely to happen and do we want to be like Edward Heath, sitting on the back benches forever scowling at Margaret Thatcher? Or do we accept the situation and move on? Be a part of the discussions that will be taking place as the Government sets policies to achieve Net Zero.
John Fernley is a retired scientist who was a Research Fellow at University College London working on Atomic Physics and subsequently a director of a wind energy development company.
Discussion
Comments
This week across the site:
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.
The latest IPCC Report (no 6) states the same temperature rise of roughly 1 degree centigrade since 1850 and non appreciable rise in the last ten years. Hardly surprising that the Earth has warmed up a bit since the end of the Little Ice Age in 1850, although it still lower than during the Medieval Warm Period.
Climate change exists and and always will do so, but it has very little to do with mankind other than to help idiots confuse weather events with climate.
A lot of people seem to be worried that increasing the contribution of wind and solar will result in power cuts. Gas fired power stations will of course be needed for the foreseeable future to fill the gaps on those sunless, windless days.
Every kWh from cheap wind and solar saves a kWh of expensive gas.
Increasing wind and solar will allow the UK’s dwindling gas reserves to last much longer, and with sufficient gas storage we can look forward to energy independence.
“Is it Time For Climate Sceptics to Accept That the Net Zero Crowd Has Won?”
How much more defeatist can we get?
If we surrender to this nonsense it is time for the whisky and the pistol.
“Is it Time For Climate Sceptics to Accept That the Net Zero Crowd Has Won?”. Absolutely not! And regardless of what they claim, they can never defy the physical laws of nature; they not ‘win ‘.
“Is it Time For Climate Sceptics to Accept That the Net Zero Crowd Has Won?”
No.
Stupid headline – this scam has been forced on the world by the power crazed Gilded Elites to force the Great Reset by wrecking our lives for s total nonsense..
No
Next question?
Net Zero is a pathetic pipe dream, might as well make the target Friday next week for all the sense it makes.
“Net Zero is a pathetic pipe dream”
Did you mean net zero will never happen?
If so, you must believe there is an infinite supply of fossil fuel and that the concentration of CO2 in the atmosphere will exceed levels that are directly injurious to human health.
Or did you mean net zero by 2050 is not possible?
If so, when you think net zero will happen?
‘… to accept that the argument has been lost? ‘
There has been no argument to lose! It takes two to argue. The Climatists have refused all debate so as not to give credibility to challengers or give the public cause to wonder by so doing if the science isn’t ‘settled’.
What has been lost is democratic accountability of our political class who all, irrespective of Party, agree on all the major issues that affect our lives.
The only positive I can see for this article was that it generated lots of interesting comments.
I don’t think much of anybody, never mind someone who was allegedly a scientist, who hasn’t worked out that net zero is impossible without mass genocide and returning our society to the 18th century (or earlier.)
Renewables provide about %5 of our energy needs compared to 65% coming from fossil fuels. It is also not just about energy as fossil fuels provide the feedstocks for things like plastics and fertilizers. Just getting rid of fertilizers will mean that half of us will have to work in agriculture digging sh1t into the fields. I know that would be an ideal for our politicians as they could source the raw materials directly from their mouth.
Net zero common sense (common purpose?)
If the Russians are pushed into a corner and use nuclear weapons the only net zero that will happen is zero population, but hey ho mother earth will still carry on without us and probably be better off.
A worrying article, arguing that although truth is being twisted and almost buried by those claiming to be ‘experts’ and ‘scientists’, nevertheless they have bullied and scared the public into going along with very dubious claims and have won, as if the ‘science’ were ‘settled’.
This is not only a catastrophe for the non wealthy but also for ‘science’, which is now enjoying a risible reputation for using fear rather than scientific method to get authoritarian rule accepted. What is happening is that post modern ‘science’ is taking us back to the days before Galileo, even before Aristotle, and into a superstitious medieval fideism of an infallible and indefectible papal kind.
Toe the line of these cardinals or you get cancelled and set upon by the monstrous regiment of the Woke BBC et al. We do need proper science, but as the days go by it is destroying its own reputation as a bringer of truth, first Covid and now this act of faith in zero carbon as the path to salvation.
No. We must fight and fight again to ensure the truth will out, to preserve the scientific method from political interference and to guarantee our rights to freedom of speech and conscience.
Now let’s talk about the East India Company operations in Bengal in the 1760s. “Eh?“ you say. Stay with me here, it’s important. Bengal, earlier in the 18th Century was one of the richest, most productive places on the planet. In 1759, Clive ‘of India’ backed by Indian banking syndicates wins the Battle of Plassey and takes over the taxation system. Within ten years, Bengal is taxed to death, asset stripped and millions of people in this once wealthy province have died of starvation. They died because the grain stores had ‘not been maintained’ for which we can read “sold off”. Now I’m not writing this to have a dig at the British Empire. This was not the actions of ‘Britain’ it was the action of a private company, run for profit that had been put in a situation where they had control of the tax system and the laws on property rights. No, I’m not having a pop a capitalism here either. The commercial world is hard and ruthless, and businesses need to be hard… Read more »
No, we shouldn’t give in and accept Net Zero, because it’s not based on reality – it’s a cult. While we retain even a vestige of rationality and value scientific achievement we should strive for evidence-based government policy.
Why do we continue with this fear mongering, red herring of ‘climate catastrophe?’ This only plays into the hands of the green industrialists and the technocrats. According to Chris Morrison the DS’s Environment Editor, there is not yet one single peer reviewed paper that proves conclusively human activity is responsible for all or part of global warming. The rise since 1800 is small and insignificant. What is significant is the amount of industrially produced poisons and toxins in the air, water and food we all need to stay alive. Let’s focus on the real problems not the projections of computer models which are no doubt even more useless than the models used to project huge numbers of deaths from Covid-19.
I’m not a sceptic, rather, an empiricist. Planet Earth has been cooling for 7k years.
We’re already a few years into a GSM which may drop temperatures as much as the rise since the LIA end in mid 19th century.
So destroying our energy sources in the face of this is an act of deep stupidity that smacks of ideological possession.
And CO2 has rarely been much lower in planetary history.
and there’s nothing you can do about how Ice Ages and interstadials manifest.
The whole thing is insanity. The so called EV revolution will severely worsen the lives, life style and life chances of the masses, if not impoverish larges sections.
Fossil fuels fazed out, crap public transport, restricted travel, lower aspirations and worse economic prospects.
If the government won’t get a grip and stop the nonesense then we need to. And soon before it’s too late.
I might be forced to accept that the UN/WEF will get the Net Zero policy because they own our Governing Class, but that doesn’t mean I will voluntarily contribute towards delivering it …. or vote for it.
A week is a long time in politics. There are 2 / 3 years before the next General Election and plenty of time for the electorate to revolt against the deliberate ramping up of energy costs/war on drivers/cost of living etc.
Perhaps a tiny silver lining of the Ukraine cloud is that the malleable public are waking up to the green wokery b.s. Bottom line: money talks. When fuel bills rocket principles are easily chucked away. Net Zero must be buried.
Surely one of the problems with the IPCC reports is that there is a Report (thousands of pages long) which is written by ‘real’ (or at least ‘more real’) scientists, and then there’s an Executive Summary (dozens of pages long) which is written by activists who pick out the most apocalyptic findings of the Report and dress them up as The Science©
The next step is to hand over to the BBC/Sky/Guardian cabal, and the job is done…..
No, we should not give up. We are up against very well funded green advocates who are in place all over industry, governments and charities. Many of them are making a lot of money from all this, so the task of sorting it is massive, and probably unachievable.
However, we should try to keep the light of reason burning. One never knows, a crisis like the one we are in may occur, and the collective wisdom of sceptics needs to be available to give politicians the scientific cover they would need to make some of the necessary changes.
Like we rolled over for the Covid mania? I think your losing the reason for our existence.
The real issue is the loss of social circles over this insanity, you either have to parrot the dogma, or lose inevitably lose friends, I choose to be informed.
“and susbsequently a director of a wind energy sic development company”
Nuf said
Seems to have been a bit of a u turn on this since it was written. Needs must and all that.
A couple of things here. Scientists are more often wrong than they are right, otherwise there would be no need for experiments.
Secondly, the world has never been a better place for humanity to live. The planet has greened substantially over 35 years of satellite observations than ever in recorded history.
Health is is also dramatically better than even 100 years ago leading to longer, more productive and enjoyable lives.
Extreme poverty has fallen like a stone over the last 100 years across the planet, as has child mortality rates.
There is barely a single thing in our lives that haven’t improved dramatically over the last 100 years including wars. Despite the middle east and Ukraine, the world is demonstrably a more peaceful place.
As for food, mankind throws away our excess and we no longer have to grub for it.
Finally, the spectre (fantasy) of over population is a myth. The western world’s population is in decline because of falling birth rates largely attributed to prosperity.
The developing world’s birth rate is increasing because they have no old age provision. Families must be large to overcome child mortality rates the west wouldn’t tolerate and large families are the only… Read more »
Hear hear Scottie!
Why no mention of Farage asking for a Referendum on net zero policy? The fact that the haters out there have unleashed a tidal wave of ad hominems and general vitriol tells me his position at least bears further investigation. An example of the screeching:
https://www.desmog.com/2022/03/10/nigel-farages-net-zero-referendum-drive-is-steeped-in-climate-science-denial/
There was a guest on Financial Sense a few weeks ago who said climate change policy is now only about growing GDP – juicy loans to build infrastructure for renewables, without which today’s historically high levels of debt can’t be serviced.
Of course another major way of rebalancing the global ledger is War – lots spent from more loans on weapons, ships, aircraft etc which destroy property, which then has to be rebuilt with another dose of “funding”. What’s not to like in that for bankers?
When I hear phrases like “climate science denial”, I know that I am listening to a pathological ignoramus who has no idea what science is. . .
How many Covid obsessives are also climate hysterics? Almost all of them. How do you combat 30 years of relentless propaganda in the schools, universities and the media? This is a lucrative industry that rests entirely on the myth that the end of the world is nigh. Nothing wrong with environmental sustainability in principle but it has been turned into a pernicious self-serving ideology. It is time we started to fight back.
Fighting narratives is difficult. They’re designed to encourage identification and take you along to the enjoyable or terrifying climax (in this case Net Zero or The End of the World). Once begun, they have a compelling force and power of their own.
Tackling “pollution” is not sexy, but it was remarkably effective in the last half of the 20th century (not universally, of course). The climate change scenario changed everything. It required the willing suspension of disbelief, and that’s exactly what it got.
I don’t believe there’s any point in attempting to create a counter-narrative – not on this one. The narrative is now a juggernaut. It has to be confronted, piece by piece, at precisely the points where “Net Zero” has a negative impact on people’s lives:
Well since the majority of people are actually sensible, the majority of people will accept the substantial scientific basis behind climate change and reasonable Covid management such as vaccinations.
You would be surprised at how few pay attention to your fringe views.
You really discredit yourselves when you object to everything, just because your peers do.
There is no substantial scientific basis to human caused climate emergency.
These shots are not vaccines.
Your supercilious sniping shows you to be both arrogant and ignorant.
Millions will die because of the likes of you.
If climate hysterics banging their heads against an impenetrable brick wall of “Net Zero”, is winning, then yes they have won.
John Fernley, Director of 4 Wind Energy Companies in the recent past, all dissolved. Age , almost 73 yrs, resident of Brighton.
Why exactly has is this bloody stupid article been posted?