Most countries have now committed to reducing their CO2 emissions to Net Zero; Germany by 2045, the USA, Japan and Europe, including the U.K., by 2050, China by 2060 and India by 2070. Under these circumstances, I suggested in the Daily Sceptic on March 11th that climate sceptics should accept the direction of travel and focus their time and energy on trying to ensure the Government puts forward reasonable policies in order to achieve Net Zero.
From the comments on my article, it seems that some climate sceptics still believe it is realistic to persuade the Government to abandon Net Zero. I would certainly agree that the Government needs to slow down the timetable for Net Zero and it needs to ignore the claims about ‘climate emergency’ and ‘the clock is ticking and we are at one minute to midnight’. If these claims are true then we are all doomed anyway because it was clear from COP26 that China and the other countries of the developing world, which between them produce 63% of global CO2 emissions, have no intention of reducing their emissions in the near future.
Our Government needs to consider carefully which policies will work and which won’t. For example, I listened to Any Question on the radio on Saturday April 2nd and the panellists from all the political parties blithely talked about generating ever more energy from wind. This is madness. If we become too dependent on wind energy then when we have spells of weather with low wind speeds there will be power cuts and our homes will be without light and heat.
There is also talk of increasing the amount of solar energy, which at the moment is much less developed than wind. But there is a reason why solar energy is less developed and that is because it does not make sense in the U.K. Our maximum energy requirement is during the winter when we need to heat our homes and offices. But in the winter there is very little sun in the U.K., the days are short and the sunlight weak.
The only presently available option for both reducing CO2 and having a reliable electricity supply is nuclear energy and the Government should be upfront about this and commit to a major programme of new nuclear power stations. But successive governments have neglected nuclear energy and the industry has all but disappeared in this country. We cannot just wave a magic wand and new nuclear power stations will appear. Even if the Government decides tomorrow to go with nuclear it is unlikely that any new power stations will be operational until the 2030s and in the meantime fossil fuel power stations will still be needed.
There is also the issue of China, which is by far the largest emitter of CO2; it produces approximately 30% of global CO2 emissions. China and other developing nations have been quite clear that their priority is not climate change but improving the living standards of their population. So China has said it will keep increasing its CO2 emissions during the present decade but from 2030 onwards it will gradually reduce them until reaching Net Zero in 2060. Many people question how much we can rely on the word of the Chinese Government and would argue that the U.K., which produces only 1% of global CO2 emissions, should pedal more slowly until we are clear that China, and indeed the other countries with large CO2 emissions such as the USA and India, are keeping to their promises.
So there are practical reasons why the U.K. should move more slowly towards Net Zero but is it realistic to argue it should abandon Net Zero altogether? A point often made by climate sceptics is that throughout its history the Earth has shown variations in temperature. There were periods when it was warmer than now and periods when it was colder. But human beings were not around for most of these previous climate change episodes, whereas we are around now and we have the technological and scientific tools to better understand the Earth and its climate. The theory of Anthropogenic Global Warming (AGW) has been proposed to explain the main observations. Firstly, the rise in atmospheric CO2 levels, from under 300 parts per million (ppm) before the Industrial Revolution to over 400 ppm now, is assumed to be due to human activity, burning fossil fuels and cutting down trees. Secondly, the increase of just under one degree Celsius in the Earth’s temperature over the same time period is assumed to arise from the increase in CO2 because CO2 is a greenhouse gas. Whilst I would completely agree that AGW is not proven, it is plausible and has the support of the majority of scientists.
Over the years, climate sceptics have made a number of criticisms of AGW, for example that CO2 absorption is largely ‘saturated’ and adding further CO2 will not greatly increase atmospheric warming, or that the correlation between CO2 density and temperature is imperfect and in the middle of the last century there was a period of 30 years when the temperature did not change. AGW supporters then counter these criticisms, for example by agreeing that the main absorption band in CO2 is ‘saturated’ but adding there is still absorption in weaker lines and the wings of main band, or that the Earth is a large and complex planet and when plotting CO2 density versus temperature you need to take a multi-decadal view such that you use the running mean over 20, 30 or 40 years. These and other technical issues have been widely discussed over the years but the majority of scientists still support AGW.
Climate sceptics have also proposed a number of alternative explanations for the increase in the Earth’s temperature, for example it is caused by solar activity or it is a natural statistical fluctuation. But again, these explanations have not attracted widespread scientific support. Until there is either a show-stopping criticism of AGW or a compelling alternative theory to AGW it seems unlikely that governments will abandon 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.
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.
Corrupt gov influenced by China spends billions on good produced by China to help us get to somewhere that makes no difference while China pollutes on behalf of the governments they influence in the name of saving the planet. Nothing to see here..
I remember a few years back when I went to a Labour deputy leader hustings for Caroline Flint (who would have perhaps been rather better than what has happened since) and a former coal miner was complaining about how his industry had been sold out. At this time, as I remember, Britain was importing masses of goods from the CPR, a country where ageing steam locomotives were hauling coal from filthy open cast mines. We really do need an alternative to the old, corrupt parties in future elections.
The usual point of order: we get one vote, for one individual, in one constituency.
And we don’t cast that vote for parties, or for Dear Leaders (unless we happen to be in their constituency).
If voters understood that, if we actually voted for the individual that best represents our views through the way they’ve lived their lives, then we’d get the representation that we want.
As long as we cling to the follower mindset of putting an X beside a party logo – for a party stuffed with entryists, frauds and turncoats – then we’ll continue to get the representation that we deserve.
The problem isn’t with the parties, but with the electorate.
The problem is also with the MSM that launch a propaganda war against any fledgling political party that appears to be gaining traction!
For that, one would have to know the candidates personally, supposing anyone suitable stood. And one would have to ignore the issues that separate the parties, or who actually gets to govern. If what you say is valid, political parties with an ambition to govern should be banned from putting up candidates.
Hugh we congratulate ourselves in reducing emissions when all we are doing is exporting them. What should happen is that the emission resulting from each thing we import be added to our emissions rate, then we might not feel so smug and return some of the heavy industries to our country. But we would need to be prepared to pay the extra cost of designing proceses which reduce their emissions. Various factory act and emission regulations, due to the cost of implementing them, have driven many industies out of Britain and replaced them in countries where these things are much worse regulated and thus create a great deal more pollution than they did here. How does that help things in the world?
“Government” is just a neo-feudalist way to funnel billions per year to the establishment.
Green rent-seeking is a new stream of looting us for their benefit.
“Ahhhh but “Carbon Borders” are shortly going to be a thing – to be introduced into trade agreements to solve that little niggle – it will be some kind of sleight of hand which will allow us to buy certain products only, guaranteed to cost a damn sight more than others, in order to immiserate and further impoverish the UK population reducing consumer choice and demand.
So that will be all right then, our climatey carbony consciences will be clear and those of us in power can sleep easy in our beds at night.”
There isn’t a sentence here that could easily be challenged.
For example H2O is a far more important and far more concentrated greenhouse gas than CO2 which has Fernley clutching his pearls.
Let’s just point out that Wind Turbines are enormously expensive and it has been pointed out for 20 years that they are not fit for purpose at any significant scale to power a modern economy.
Anyone, like Fernley, who has been involved in this mamoth scam should be ignored.
Yes, sometimes Toby really annoys me.
It’s like Farrage on GBNews.
Farrage lays out a case stating how useless and impossible this NUT Zero nonsense is.
Then (I presume who ever is running GB News) brings on some pro global warming nutter to argue against him?
There are dozens of real scientists who know this whole global warming hypothesis is a vast fraud – bring them on.
Carbon Dioxide is plant food and we need lots more of it to stave off the upcoming Marxist inspired world famines.
Debate is the foundation of both science and democracy. Encouraging it by inviting pro CC advocates to be examined on a public forum is the very means of destroying their arguments.
I could not agree more if that were true.
For instance the lying bee bee seas idea of a ‘debate’ is 2 or more talking heads sharing the view of their propaganda. Old Farrage is fine and good in so far as goes, but he is no expert.
What I would wish for is when Nigel brings that plonker Bob Ward from the Grantham institute on when Nigel has had a rant about windmills or Nut Zero.
We should have someone like Paul Homewood or our own Global Warming correspondent to put Ward in his place.
That is the type of debate we rarely see on air.
It is the same with the evening Wooton/Dolan shows. I think they do it so that they can achieve the necessary “balance”.
To me it just dilutes their brand. Rest of MSM is either “doing balance” or completely abandoning any sense of it in order to promote a “narrative”.
I certainly doesn’t qualify as any kind of ‘journalism’ (or what used to pass for it) as far as I am concerned.
Typo allert!
“There isn’t a sentence here that could NOT be easily challenged”
Dammit!
it’s ok I got it. Thanks.
Turbines will also need replacing every 20 years or so, and can’t really be recycled. They also need Co2 to produce the blades and Oil!?! to lubricate the turning, when the wind is just right.
At the moment wind power is at 15 GW solar at 3.3 gw, gas 10.5gw.
https://energynumbers.info/gbgrid
Hear, hear.
Net zero is a form of slavery. We are being put to work to solve a problem that doesn’t exist and therefore will never be resolved.
What we are seeing now is the thin end of a very big wedge.
Yes and the social conditioning and tech to control has passed initial testing now as well.
I totally agree.
Global warming and CO2 net zero are to ‘saving the plane’ what Covid19 was to health.
The plandemic has brainwashed the majority, allowing the foundations and infrastructure for Phase 2 to be implemented.
CO2 net zero > carbon credits~energy credits + CBDCs + UBIs + total surveillance = complete control
“You will own nothing, and be happy.”
Abandon smart phones, grow your own veg, and spend cash.
On the other hand, large numbers of us no longer believe a word that issues from government lips, or from any other of our formerly great institutions. The war in Ukraine, for instance, just seems to me like the phase following covid.
Hmm, bird mincers really are a modern form of pyramids – nothing more than massive monuments to the ego of God-kings. And they’ll never be big enough.
Pyramids didn’t funnel money to royalty like the offshore sea bird mincers do.
Point of debate: what were the pyramids for, actually?
Allegedly as burial chambers. But some are convinced it would be impossible to build them without advanced technology.
A global system to receive cosmic energy and distribute around the world, maybe.
Landing bases for the Goa’uld spaceships.
This is a great metaphor! I might steal it for a cartoon, in which case hat tip to you, sir.
John Fernley… “a director of a wind energy development company” supports ‘Net Zero’ and clearly thinks mankind’s 3.5% contribution to the overall atmospheric CO2 level is somehow more potent than the naturally occurring 96.5%…
Does anymore need to be said?
And that 3.5% is of the 0.04% of the atmosphere that CO2 represents.
CO2 is essential for all life on this planet (other than the weird and rare tiny critters that live around sub-ocean sulphurous volcanic plumes).
So, CO2 is a pollutant? We must be at “Net Zero”?
How might that work out?
Every time something new shows up, we apparently need to delay, or better, ban it. Because Precautionary Principle. (Note this doesn’t apply to locking down children, novel vaccines etc etc). So who considered the Precautionary Principle before spending tens, hundreds of Billions on whirligigs? Or Solar “farms” (which are not even financially viable in the Sahara), never mind at 54° North?
Remember, there never was a wind turbine, anywhere, that produced enough energy to create another wind turbine. Think about that.
You don’t need to be an expert in Physics to understand that the merry team promoting Ruinable Energy tell lie after lie after lie, whilst refusing to discuss their get-rich-quick schemes with any rational Engineer or Scientist, let alone mere intelligent adults.
The fact that many Scientists allegedly support “Net Zero” is a perfect example of Group Think. They have NEVER looked at the evidence, preferring to just support other Science Academics.
As a director of a wind energy company would he have been in receipt of public money by any chance?
Huxley-cuddly-piggly dude, you accurate cynic. 😉
Very sensible. And totally wrong. Which is par for the course with the true believers.
Higher CO2 is a net benefit. Higher plant growth and crop productivity is a benefit. Warmth is a benefit.
The whole shaky edifice is built on laughably dodgy modelling, what-ifs and maybes, and defended by billionaires and the meanest, nastiest, poor excuses for scientists their money can afford.
Science advances one funeral at a time, and knowing human nature, at some point in the not too distant future a new generation of scientists who don’t have established careers and pensions to defend will throw out the current climate paradigm and it’ll end up as an historical relic and a subject of ridicule.
Exactly this. It is a fad and history will judge it as such. Our focus should really be on the psychology of it, not the ambitions. Our elites seem to lack any self-awareness whatsoever. Our current leading lights will soon be classified as outright cranks and lunatics. Are they unaware of this?
In “The Olden Days” probably from 1973 to sometime later ( nineties ?) as I recall the purpose of “RENEWABLE” energy sources was because:
“The oil is running out, and we still need to power our modern economy”
Which to any sane person seems sensible as there is almost certainly only a finite amount of fossil fuels.
But somewhere along the line it has transmogrified to this screeching woketard “Climate Catastrophe” bollocks, taking in along the way
Climate Change
Then
Climate Emergency
🤦♂️
The oil is running out, climate change, climate emergency all really mean the same thing: we are losing control of the critical natural resources.
By we i mean the west.
That is what climate BS is all about, what it has always been about. Power and control.
In a previous era, a country or group of countries who were under threat from another country or group of countries would just go to war with each other. They can’t do that these days for various reasons. So instead they wage economic wars.
The effect is similar. Ordinary people pay the cost of pursuing the power ambitions of the few at the top.
But we are only hamstringing ourselves in the West. The enemy is building coal fired power stations. That’s not war it is suicide.
China built 38.5GW of brand new coal generation in 2020.
Our entire national grid draw is currently (checks gridwatch…) 36.39GW.
To be fair, we’re going to need to get that closer to 150-200GW peak capacity in order to power electromobiles and reverse fridges. But we’re not going to do that with bird mincers, even ones made with cheap Chinese coal energy.
“The enemy”? Because China takes advantage of the west’s stupidity?
China is no more an evil empire than Britain was when it was colonising the world.
We are hardly in a position to condemn their desire to elevate their population from poverty.
I don’t view them as enemies. It was in response to the fellow’s comment, which in turn focused on the powerful and their ambitions. They view china as an enemy to their ambitions, not me. Hope that clarifies.
Yes, but the point is that the UK (and other countries) has stopped trying to colonise the world because we realised it was a bad idea.
Simply handing over the baton to a new coloniser is not a good thing.
You think we stopped because it was a bad idea or because the old fashioned form of colonialism became untenable and we came up with more sophisticated, less obvious way of doing so through global institutions like the IMF, the banks and large corporations?
Because it was a bad idea.
There was a symbolic moment in 1931 when Gandi visited London to campaign for Indian independence. India was of course ‘the jewel in the crown’ – one of the few colonies that was actually profitable, Yet he was well received by the public. Hard to see Zelensky getting a similar welcome in Moscow, or Tsai Ing-wen in Beijing.
Bwahahahahahahahah………
You’re going to tell us next our bankers have a heart.
I didn’t mention bankers.
I didn’t say China was attempting to colonise the world. Once again, you inert your distorted opinions into an argument and present them as read.
Just the most incredible expression of naivety on this blog so far.
Have you never thought it strange that a country with a population of 60m ranks as one of the wealthiest in the world?
How do we manage that with virtually no industry? We control money, that’s how, across the world.
Luxembourg, Ireland, Switzerland, Brunei, the Cayman Islands. All great colonisers in your bizarre world view.
And their wealth relative to the UK today?
Didn’t bother thinking of that, did you?
Didn’t bother thinking of it and neither should you – it doesn’t mean anything. This is a really uninteresting line of argument that has drifted way off topic.
This kind of maniacal self harm isn’t without precedent.
Look at what Germany embarked on twice in the 20th century. Did that result in anything but huge misery and untold destruction?
We really have to wake up the fact that leaders will sometimes destroy everything around them to hold on to their power and position. For them, losing their power is like losing everything and if they are psychopathic enough they’ll take take everything around them down with them.
I agree. Cult-like behaviour in many respects, which was also a feature of the later stages of the Third Reich. Groupthink, shared interests and a rapidly changing world don’t help either. And of course, a large centralized bureaucratic state cannot cope well with change, so that complicates things too.
Here in the Northern Wastelands Her Imperial Highness, Sturgeon, is an exemplar of the type. It is apparent to many she will happily preside over a pile of rubble as long as she is in charge.
The majority of people must like Queen Nicola – otherwise they’d have got rid of her. It really is that simple.
No, it’s not that simple.
They have less than 50% of the seats in the Scottish Parliament and need the Greens for a majority.
Their supporter base is both enthusiastic and energetic, kids are indoctrinated at school with independence rhetoric, as well as other nonsense, and they keep lowering the voting age. Bribes have been used come election time, for first time voters, (those not old enough to drink, smoke, marry, or join the armed forces – without permission), in the form of free laptops and/or bicycles.
Proportional representation doesn’t help, especially with a 63% turnout.
But the real problem is the split opposition.
And, of course, all of this suits the Tory Party to a tee, because without a Labour majority in Scotland, they will be unable to regain power in Westminster.
No, the opposition is virtually non-existent, which is why she is still there.
Please call the First Minister by her proper name of Nicola Ceausescu.
Correct, sir.
German philosophy was behind all of what you describe, Green ideology originated in Germany and is also Brown ideology, after the shirts of the National Socialists, an anti-industrial political party.
Although the Nazis were fond of rhetorical idealisation of the countryside, their economic practice was, in fact, anything but anti-industrial.
On the contrary, they were nihilists and, as such, anti-industrial except for weapons of destruction.
Wind turbines and Insulation take a lot of oil to produce and maintain, just 2 things they want to increase without oil
Volvo recently released data which suggested that an electric vehicle would have to travel between 54,000 and 80,000 miles, just to break even against an ICE vehicle, and that’s without any battery change.
I’ve never seen a proper breakdown of solar or wind tech, but the fact that the blades apparently have to be swapped out every 5 years or so and go straight into landfill suggests their credentials are unlikely to be any better?
Not only can they not be recycled they produce tonnes of VOC emissions during manufacture (fibreglass + resin). Having worked around the wind industry it knows it’s on dodgy ground, they know the damage they cause to the seabed, they know the amount of oil loss each turbine suffers, they know how many/type of birds the blades kill – because they count them.
Impossible to count the number of birds/bats killed by offshore turbines. The bodies sink, are swept away by the seas, or they are eaten.
How do the windmills kill birds? Bonking them on the head as they fly past? I find it hard to believe that birds can’t see the blades and can’t manage to avoid them. They don’t spin around like a blender!
The blade tips of the larger turbines are moving at several hundred miles per hour.
Dodge that.
plus the supporting infrastructure to construct them then supply power from windy areas!
Volvo doesn’t suggest it. They are very specific.
I really don’t see the logic for conceding defeat.
Firstly, the consequences of pursuing absurd energy policies are only going to increase which means the pressure to abandon them will increase. Up to now climate policy has been mostly posturing and lip service. Why give up precisely when real policies are going to bite and get people angry?
Secondly, why would you stop arguing against a lies and deception. The day you abandon your pursuit of truth, you’ve lost your soul.
Lastly, is there an opportunity cost of arguing against crazy climate policies? Do you think people who are in a deluded fantasy about humans being able to alter the global temperature as if turning a thermostat are going to listen and accept more reasonable policies?
I couldn’t disagree with the author more. In my experience, when something is clearly wrong you speak up against it and never stop because eventually it pays off. Resilience can be pretty seductive. It can also be pretty demoralising to the other side, as clearly the author is demonstrating by his own demoralisation.
I would argue articles like this signal the beginning of the end. It is the author, a member of the sect if you will, who is arguing we shouldn’t throw the baby out with the bath water. That is, he senses the end and is arguing to at least temper our determination to discard these policies. But the piece concedes the total destruction of climate alarmism is at least being discussed and considered in some circles.
They are being found out. For those invested in this scam, psychologically or otherwise, that is painful. We must expect them to fight their corner, but their explicit need to fight at all in a defensive manner like the article above is a positive sign.
I’m inclined to agree. It’s certainly often a feature of failed ideas and regimes that they harden as they face their end.
Net zero madness can only collapse under the weight of the terrible consequences it produces. How far we are from that, though, who knows..
We are heading for inflation not seen since the 90’s. In a matter of months we have reached 6.2% and the jump in energy costs in the last week aren’t calculated in that.
When we reach levels of 15% we are looking at years to bring that back down to manageable levels, but if NetZero costs are heaped on it we will never deal with it, in fact it will increase.
We will get back to home repossessions on a scale beyond that of the 90’s. The knock on effects for employment and business survival are obvious because they are all within living memory.
Civil unrest may well break out because people have nothing left to lose.
The logic is he wants environmentalism to win, an utterly irrational and anti-life position.
He therefore must promote Piltdown Man hoaxer balderdash as science.
And, lest we forget, all this is to reduce a currently miniscule emission rate of less than one percent to a trace gas that makes up 0.004% of the atmosphere… with a technology that was producing 3% of our electricity needs just a few days ago.
I got as far as “the concept of agw”.
Can this person come back to us when he can show us scientific proof of this “concept”
Thank you Toby.
A director of a wind energy development company… says… it is not realistic to expect governments to abandon it altogether. While he fills his boots… colour me shocked.
I somehow managed to miss that little fact in the intro! Thanks.
In other news a Bank robber says banks shouldn’t secure their vaults.
Fine, then we need to remove the government.
The author assumes the government will always be in its current powerful position to dictate terms to the population. I would argue it is this assumption that is unrealistic, not the end of climate change alarmism.
Poverty will end western government ambitions in this area. Our preoccupation with cosmic ambitions, while ignoring everyday problems, is a consequence of affluence. There will be fewer scientific papers on climate alarmism when climate scientists are on the dole looking for work.
The bureaucratic class cannot imagine a world without themselves in it running everything. But they forget their wages are paid by the productive sector which is shrinking and being distorted through colossal immigration of people who are less productive and expensive to maintain; immigrants contributing little, but producing large families, are a much bigger drain than we account for. Just one example from many.
Reality will stop climate alarmism because it is an invention to satisfy existential angst among the unproductive class. Real life will move on. It will eventually occupy the same mental place as alchemy and astrology; how could any rational person ever have taken this seriously?
Deleted
Gigatonnes of carbon dioxide is emitted into the atmosphere every year, 4% is man made. 30% of that 4% is from china so 1.33% of net global co2 emissions is from china and 0.04% from the uk.
the rest is from natural emissions like volcanoes, the land, sea, wild fires, decomposition etc etc.
https://skepticalscience.com/human-co2-smaller-than-natural-emissions.htm
effectively they are saying that the tiny amount of human CO2 accumulates and is what is causing the bother, no allowances for more natural carbon absorption or emission is permitted, it’s all man made -allegedly.
before we start getting het up about CO2 we should evaluate the problem again, sadly it’ll be hijacked by those interested in finding excuses to support their own causes and will possibly just cause more problems.
there is already show stopping criticism and compelling alternatives, their voice has been drowned by the propaganda onslaught over the last 20+ years to the extent that school age climate prophets skip school to make headline news while those promoting her get rich. Those school age prophets have no scientific basis for what they are espousing yet universities are happy to erect statues of her to inspire their adult students who by the time they’ve reached university to study science should know that there is no way the child climate prophet could know anything about what they are talking about and it’s not science but nonsense.
0.04% – that number sounds vaguely familiar… 🤔
Covid IFR for >75s?
The Government (what you really mean is the British Establishment) didn’t intend that we would ever leave the EU. But we did.
Ultimately, the electorate will decide about Net Zero as well.
I hope the scientist will give us the scientific basis for the claim that the majority of scientists support AGW. I am not sure that an atomic physicist is the best qualified to assess anything regarding climate science other than CO2 absorbtion. He might be better turning his attention to the effects of cosmic rays on cloud formation in the upper atmosphere; cloud formation has a much more immediate effect on global temperatures and climate.
AGW sceptics (NOT climate sceptics, Mr Fernley – I fully accept that there is a climate) have put forward a lot more criticisms than the saturation characteristics of CO2. I think it is fair to say that the utter reliance on temperature modelling is probably the most egregious, since the models being changed year on year yet still cannot accurately hindcast the actual temperatures, let alone forecast the future.
Sooner or later it must become obvious to even the most blinkered AGW cultist that temperatures are not accelerating, and if the experience of the last decade of satellite records are to be believed are turning downwards.
If a majority of scientists rejected the onset of climate change, sceptics would point to that as proof.
As only a minority agree with them, sceptics say these are the scientists who know best and the others are ‘corrupt’, ‘influenced’ or ‘sheep’.
For climate sceptics, every fact will always be adapted to support their point of view.
Except that, according to the scientific method, those who make the assertion that AGW is real are the ones who need to prove it.
Yet I find “climate sceptics” to be the ones who provide scientific debate, even when they are not the ones making the assertion of AGW.
The AGW crowd are usually reactionary and emotional.
Odd, eh?
PS I don’t deny climate change. It’s pretty obvious. It’s the AGW crowd who are denying climate change, by saying that there is some “correct climate” which we humans need to preserve.
Indeed Marcus, I would love some Einstein of the Cult to tell me what the “correct” world temp is.
Indeed. Same with sea levels.
I asked an AGW person if they know that the sea level on one end of the Panama Canal is some several metres below that at the other end. He glazed over.
Yes Marcus as ahold seafarer having traversed both major canals, that was well known to us 50 years ago.
Ah! Dem was de daze!
Sea level rise would not be a tsunami. Holland has been reclaiming land from the sea for hundreds of years. SLR is an engineering challenge, ultimately humanity will gradually move inland over hundreds of years if it’s not possible to mitigate it.
There’s no such thing as a correct temperature, but there are certainly temperatures which would be hostile to our continued existence.
Name them and precisely where on the planet they would prove disastrous.
The IPCC informs us that warming will occur largely across the hemispheres, at night and in winter. The tropics will be left largely unaffected.
What, precisely, would be the effect of a warmer northern hemisphere, apart from longer growing seasons and a milder winter climate which might alleviate some of the 25,000 – 50,000 excess winter deaths we endure in the UK every year?
A bizarre comment. The earth hasn’t always been able to support human life – we’ve only been around a short time.
Do you realise you’re disproving AGW, Fingal?
No
He’s a socialist. Knows f*ck all about anything. Complete waste of space.
Is this site mainly right wing? Seems like it from the comments.
Where did I even allude to when the planet couldn’t support human life?
Typical socialist, just making shit up once again.
Lots of days reach temperatures of over 35 during the Australian summer. I guess some people would find that “hostile”, but we manage fine.
In Wyndham (northern Western Australia), the coolest month has an average maximum of 31; the hottest month has an average maximum of 39.5. They’re proud of it. If that’s too hot for you, you don’t live there.
There are far more options than people are suggesting.
Far too many people in the UK who believe that two weeks in Benidorm is the hottest experience evah!
Puerile, small minded trolls who have never travelled extensively and never witness real poverty and real wealth.
Nor have they ever witness real generosity exhibited by some of the poorest people on the planet.
They believe there is poverty in the UK. They have never seen real poverty.
The vast majority of earth’s history was not suitable for human life. Civilisation has emerged during a brief stable spell.
The notion that you can burn that many hydrocarbons without any effect on climate is, to say the least, counter intuitive.
I don’t agree with your observation. There’s poor behaviour on both sides.
What do you mean by “poor behaviour”?
And what “sides”? All I see are a lot of hysterical predictions of doom, and pronouncements about all the crazy things we must do to avoid said doom.
And then, yes, some quiet/underrepresented voices asking, “What, exactly, is the problem?”
Within the climate change sceptic group are many people who hold a whole panoply of conspiracy theory views. They are difficult to debate with because they are prone to simply saying everyone is lying/in the pay of a world elite.
Conspiracy theories? Like Klaus Schwab declaring that Covid was the launchpad of a New World Order?
You can scweam conspiracy theory all you want but they have all been articulated quite clearly by those with the influence to affect change.
Christiana Figueres, former Executive Secretary of the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC)
But it’s all just a conspiracy according to you. Will you ever wake up and look at what these people actually say. It’s in your face!
The problem with the world-elite conspiracy theory (besides being untrue) is that it makes it impossible to debate any other subject cleanly.
Any view you don’t like can be dismissed by saying “you’re just part of the conspiracy” (something I’ve experienced a number of times). They reply: “well you would say that”, and so on. End of useful debate.
Now, I happen to know for sure I’m not part of any conspiracy, so this is not exactly persuasive.
There is no elite conspiracy theory, no elite conspiracy practice but there is German philosophy and it dominates the world.
Green ideology began in Germany, it is Kant, Hegel and Marx stripped of all pretense.
Well, there most certainly is a theory and I keep seeing people referring to it on this website. The identity of the elite varies, but it’s the same principle.
There is no conspiracy, nonetheless, no theory qua theory.
Marx saw industrialisation as an inevitable and progressive development. He complimented the bourgeoisie for its creation of enormous cities, increasing the urban population as compared with the rural: which had “thus rescued a considerable part of the population from the idiocy of rural life.”
He was not being ironic.
Marx was a moron, he denied what made industrialisation possible.
That is why the new left, after seeing that they had to choose between socialism and abundance, chose socialism.
So Klaus Schwab writing a book on the subject is just a fantasy, is it? The fact he boasted about having infiltrated almost every government in the world with his young leaders is just made up. Other than the list of people like Ardern, Macron and Merkle who were members of his young leaders organisation is well documented.
The Club of Rome never existed, did it?
What rock have you been living under for the last 20 years?
Sooner or later, every international think tank or forum gets cited as a ‘world elite’ vehicle.
People who believe in a controlling world elite/new world order/great reset answer every question with the same explanation. It’s not interesting and it doesn’t go anywhere.
It would be great if everyone who believes in the world elite story could congregate into a single site, because it messes up every other debate.
Right, so the proposition of a New World Order is just an inconvenience to your desire to impose socialism on the world.
As you’re a socialist the NWO plays very neatly into your political objectives, top heavy, authoritarian government. No point in denying it, that is the objective of all socialist organisations.
In which case, it’s quite true that you are part of the process promoted by the likes of Schwab and his cronies because that’s precisely what they propose.
Laughably, you still consider this a conspiracy.
The agreements on climate policy are indeed being decided over our heads by a world “elite”; it’s odd to suggest otherwise. Where in the world has Net Zero been subject to a referendum? The Greens come nowhere in UK elections. Climate change mitigation has pretty consistently been an extremely low priority with electorates.
Do you think Boris is seriously aiming for net zero by 2050?
Not in his policies he isn’t.
Which policies, precisely, usurp NetZero, which is now Law!
Net Zero is a target. To reach that target requires more policy commitment than Boris has yet been willing to give.
I imagine he plans on being out of office before we start crashing through those deadlines.
Do you think Boris is seriously aiming for net zero by 2050?
It’s possible to do immense damage in the name of climate change mitigation AND fail to hit the Net Zero targets. In fact that’s exactly what I would expect to happen. No authoritarian system ever delivers what it promises to its adherents. The Germans never got their Lebensraum, the Soviet Union never got its workers’ paradise, the Chinese Great Leap Forward led to famine on a vast scale. And yes, even the intention to hit the targets is likely a sham; the measures are a pretext for social control.
“Within the climate change sceptic group” – people who believe the Earth’s climate is static.
And you dismiss arguments as conspiracy theories, despite them being documented.
This is a bottomless pit, but it depends what you consider to be conspiracy theories.
For example, I don’t accept the most famous of them all (9/11).
The idea of a world elite/new world order/great reset is an overarching conspiracy theory that can contain many others under it – as you can see on this website.
Show us the climate sceptics equivalent of Extinction Rebellion, Greenpeace, Insulate Britain etc. who exhibit, at best, low level violence toward the public, businesses and the law.
Where are the sceptic facebook and twitter organisations who ban comment contrary to the catastrophic climate change narrative?
On the contrary, we invite you fanatics to debate, but you never do.
As usual, your head is up your backside.
QAnon
Observation: those you name behave like the SA.
Green ideology is also Brown Ideology, judging by the shirts worn by the National Socialists.
Marcus, can we refrain from rising to Fingal’s bait? He is just a troll like tree.
For 25 years all UK governments have had a policy of rapidly increasing the population through mass immigration of people overwhelmingly from countries with lower, often very much lower, per capita emission rates.
This would make absolutely no sense if they were convinced that hugely reducing emissions was needed to avoid catastrophe.
Watch what they do, not what they say. As with the parties during lockdown.
Same goes for their apparent concerns about women’s rights and homophobia; the last people you’d be importing are sub-saharan Africans, Asians and Muslims from anywhere. None of it adds up.
High immigration was not an intention, it was an undesired consequence of other policies and commitments.
It had nothing to do with emissions and that’s certainly an original reason to oppose immigration.
Other opinions are available, and they cite their sources.
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3466485/How-Blair-cynically-let-two-million-migrants-Explosive-biography-reveals-PM-s-conspiracy-silence-immigration-debate.html
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/law-and-order/6418456/Labour-wanted-mass-immigration-to-make-UK-more-multicultural-says-former-adviser.html
The Mail and the Telegraph are Tory papers, so you have to read everything in that context. (By the way, this is one of the positives of MSM – at least you know where they’re coming from.)
Blair made a big mistake when the EU expanded eastwards. When negotiations started, most EU countries planned to allow open immigration from the start. But closer to the deadline everyone except the UK and Ireland withdrew. Crucially, this included Germany, which would otherwise have soaked up most of the people who came to the UK.
Blair should have changed policy in line with the new reality.
However, this thread is not about immigration so perhaps we should leave it there.
LOL. Climate sceptics are conspiracy theorists and ‘Tory’ media needs to be read with caution.
Could legal immigration be considered a sensible policy?
The birth rate to sustain a community is 2.1 children per couple. The UK’s birth rate is 1.8.
When people object to immigration they usually mean illegal immigration.
They might mean illegal immigration, but they often don’t.
Or, they might want to restrict legal immigration to white relatives of the people already here.
There goes that socialist practice of seizing a personal belief and broadcasting it as a likely scenario.
Almost* everyone I talk to about immigration who condemns it as unnecessary and/or bad, corrects themselves when I point out the difference between legal and illegal immigration and the obvious benefits of the former.
*I say ‘almost’ but I can’t think of a single person who has disagreed with me.
When people object it is usually because of who we are allowing in and their evident unwillingness or inability to assimilate.
The illegal aspect doesn’t help of course. But it is the changes to our culture that matter.
All cultures change over time. It’s a bit like the climate, ever evolving.
What’s the birth rate within the LGBTQ+*# community?
What’s the birth rate in the UK going to be in 10 years time when the long term effects of mRNA become known?
https://www.fhi.no/en/news/2022/menstrual-changes-following-covid-19-vaccination/
The LGBT community is a tiny minority, inconsequential in terms of procreation.
The question of birth rates following the mRNA vaccinations should be of concern to everyone. If it seriously affects it negatively there will be competition to invite immigrants into countries across the world.
It’s a nice theory to imagine the elites want all us pond life dead, but who then do the elites live off? No one to pay the taxes they plunder, no employees for their factories/businesses, no one to buy their goods and services.
How about infrastructure if there is no one to maintain it? The national grid, water supplies, energy, the internet? Who would build the armaments to protect them, far less man the armies they would demand?
The elites will live very comfortably with 500 million serfs! And, increasingly, robots will be doing work (see the 4th Industrial Revolution). What the elites don’t want are an extra 7 billion ‘useless eaters’ using up all the finite resources. I’m astounded that people refuse to see what is staring them in the face!
“The Mail and the Telegraph are Tory papers, so you have to read everything in that context. (By the way, this is one of the positives of MSM – at least you know where they’re coming from.)”
Oh dear – must be hard for you to try to negotiate your way though the DS BTL comment section then.
I can see where the DS is coming from. The problem is the sources that get quoted here. So long as it’s not ‘MSM’, it gets believed.
wonder why that might be?
That policy would however be the best way to increase rents and lower wages.
I see Sadiq Khan isn’t taking in any Ukrainian refugees into his own home – he knows the cost of electricity!
“Ukraine: Sadiq Khan says UK should do more to help refugees”
https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-england-london-60887157
If reports I hear are accurate, Ukrainians don’t want to move anywhere beyond immediate access to their country. They all want to get home and begin to rebuild their country as soon as possible.
It’s all another media fantasy scare (along with the congenital idiot Gove). The idea that these people want to move thousands of miles to America or even the UK is just complete fantasy.
Some may be forced to, but its not by choice for most of them.
Did the British abandon the UK en mass during or following WW2? Of course they didn’t.
I despair that even the sceptical amongst us are still falling for this propaganda crap!
Are you actually sceptial of any governent narrative?
The government itself was highly sceptical of climate change in the past. Even today, a significant proportion of the Conservative party are essentially sceptics – at both national and local level.
It’s a battle that goes on within the party at all times. For example, in 2006 the Labour government committed to zero carbon standards for all new houses, to be introduced in 2016 (giving industry time to prepare). But in 2015 Cameron abruptly reneged on the promise. As a result, another 2 million houses have been built with inadequate insulation etc.
This happened because the Tories are too close to developers.
So are you actually sceptial of any governent narrative?
As I just pointed out, since the Conservatives are to some extent climate sceptics, your question doesn’t make sense. It’s impossible to always follow the government narrative as the government isn’t consistent.
I disagree with the government on all kinds of issues. Perhaps as many as you, but just not the same issues.
The question is in the present tense, and refers to the government, not to the party.
It’s not complicated, unless you don’t want to answer it.
I’m opposed to the government on a host of issues – taxation, the NHS, social care, planning and the environment to name a few.
I think Boris is a serial liar and should resign.
I hardly think this means I follow the government’s narrative in the present tense or any other tense.
(NB Not sure how to separate the ruling party from government in an answer. If you mean, am I opposed to all UK governments, then the answer is no. But I can’t be either consistently supportive or opposed to different governments, because they have different policies.)
Which government are you opposed to, the incumbent or the shadow?
And isn’t it strange that whilst no other country in the world has copied our failing NHS, when the Tories want to improve it, by whatever means, the labour party insist on retaining the failing edifice in its current parlous state, or make it worse by simply chucking more money at it.
Kindly name me another PM who wasn’t considered a serial liar. Laughably, Starmer and the rest of his woke organisation don’t know what a woman is. That makes them them either incredibly stupid (in which case why would anyone consider voting for the imbeciles) or it makes them all liars.
As Boris is the current leader of the Tory party and the principle advocate for NetZero, sadly you are in the same boat as him, irrespective of whether other Conservatives are climate sceptics or not.
You are singing from the same songsheet as so i’m just shocked you’re not voting Conservative as climate change is apparently the biggest issue of our time. It was a Tory PM that passed NetZero into law and a Tory leader running with it, so unless you don’t think it’s an important issue, why wouldn’t you vote for them?
Don’t know what you mean. There is only one government, which I oppose on most issues.
There are degrees of lying, and Boris exceeds all of them. (He’s also lied to the House which should mean resignation under the Ministerial Code.)
The Conservative party is only reluctantly subscribing to Net Zero (because its popular) but is so half hearted in policy making that they’re unlikely to get close to any targets.
As pointed out above by Mumbo, I doubt if you will find anyone with a positive IQ who is a “climate sceptic”
We are all too well aware of climate or weather – it is freezing and sleeting here now in East Scotland – what we are sceptical about and I for one DENY categorically is the unproven theory of Catastrophic Man Made Runaway Global Warming.
Climate change sceptic, I should say. Or whatever shorthand you prefer.
Climate Change Sceptic – someone who believes the Earth’s climate is static.
This is funny…….
And no one on the left is a sceptic? And that’s the way you want to live your life, simply conforming to a government narrative unquestioningly.
Cameron didn’t “renege” on a promise he didn’t make. He changed policy because the alterations in building codes were ruinously expensive and harmful to house prices as the housing crisis was biting. You can’t have it both ways.
Labour never committed to “zero carbon standards for all new houses” as they didn’t propose an alternative to gas boilers, without which a zero carbon house is impossible.
Don’t we all just love the lying left. Distort every circumstance to suit their argument of the moment.
The most reliable climate sceptic MP is Graham Stringer, a Labour MP and one of the few MPs with a science degree. He’s also a trustee of the GWPF.
The Conservatives had also committed to the pledge but Cameron reneged.
They’re in the process of introducing new building codes now but it’s 6 years later than it could have been.
By the way, it would also have helped with the present energy crisis. UK homes are, on average, very poorly insulated. Better insulation is an absolute no brainer policy at every level.
The best way to reduce house prices is not lower building standards but land purchase at existing use rates.
Labour has its sceptics but not to the same extent as the Tories, where it is arguably the dominant opinion, although not officially.
The labour party made the pledge, not the Conservatives mate. Blair the murderer to be precise.
Everything is always 6 years too late if you’re a card carrying labour supporter and a policy by the Conservative is passed. Sorry, we’re sick hearing that old whinge.
The limited number of new homes built to modern standards over the last 20 years or so are but a drop in the ocean of houses built in the UK that simply will not benefit from insulation. Its a pathetic argument trotted out by every socialists believing it’s convincing.
I trust you don’t live in an older building as it will cost you well in excess of £100,000 to make it NetZero compliant, and it’s very doubtful it could ever be achieved.
Who will benefit from tens of millions of householders borrowing £100,000+++++? The Banks of course, no one else. It won’t make a jot of difference to the miniscule CO2 emissions emitted by householders, which is well below the 1% the whole country emits.
Have you any idea what that ridiculous concept means. Fundamentally the nationalisation of land and property. It will scare off any investment in property by speculators, builders, banks and buyers.
The only thing socialists policies are good for is driving perfectly good economies into the ground, deliberately.
Back to the usual socialist practice of distorting the truth to suit their agenda. If the question is “arguable” you have no evidence for it but make the claim anyway.
Socialists – Pathetic children.
Full on passive-haus standard would be a tough ambition, but greatly improved insulation and sustainable energy is not.
The UK has a relatively old housing stock and the challenge of retrofit is indeed enormous. But again, lets not make the perfect be the enemy of the good.
The main reason for house price inflation since the 70s is land value. When agricultural land gets planning permission for housing, its value jumps by 100-200x. The value is conferred by the public planning authority, but the reward goes to the landowner/developer. Most government actions (stamp duty relief, mortgage tax relief, First Homes etc) only subsidise continued inflation in house prices.
If land could be acquired at or near existing use rates (eg 2x value) then the landowner would be amply rewarded, while we could get on and solve the affordable housing problem.
Hello. What’s a “climate sceptic”, and what is our collective point of view?
I may feel that I have some opinions on that, but clearly you’re better placed to tell me what I really thing.
Kindly present us all with one single, credible, empirical, peer reviewed, scientific study which demonstrates atmospheric CO2 causes catastrophic global warming.
I’ll save you the trouble, there are none.
On what basis, therefore, are scientists supporting the cause of climate change?
It couldn’t possibly be for the money, or the fear of being cancelled, sacked or marginalised.
There was a point at which global warming was the fringe view, so he positions were reversed.
There’s plenty of money in climate change scepticism.
I’m not qualified to make the scientific argument one way or the other. All I said (at the start) was that climate change sceptics here seem to take every fact as proof of their pre-existing conviction.
If scientists oppose them: that’s positive, because it proves they’re avaricious etc.
If scientists support them: that’s positive, because it proves their case has merit.
Doesn’t matter what happens – absolutely no-one here is listening to any view that contradicts the opinion they started with.
and there’s you listening to every view being swayed this way n that by new evidence all the time…
^.^
On the covid issue, some of the arguments I’ve read here have been interesting and have influenced me.
On climate change, I simply stated in relation to this thread that sceptics take absolutely any fact as being supportive of their claim, even if the facts are opposite.
The thing that counts against this site is that:
a) In looking for allegedly unreported news, it leaves out the main point of view whether or not it might have merit. It’s default position.
b) The credibility of the site is severely undermined by the presence of so many fringe conspiracy theorists, who frequently contradict each other on their alternative world view explanations, but don’t even notice it – because of their kneejerk response to ‘down with MSM’.
Utterly astonishing remark from anyone but a fully paid up CAGW cult member.
With not one single empirical scientific study available to you demonstrating atmospheric CO2 is principle in causing the climate to change, you people concoct an entire fantasy around the whole subject, then accuse climate sceptics of ignoring ‘facts’.
Facts are not the problem for us, it’s the fantasy you people introduce to support a wholly unsupportable hypothesis.
Pleas point me to where temperatures have tracked rising atmospheric CO2.
To repeat, I’m not a scientist and and I didn’t make an argument about the science. I simply said that climate change sceptics on this site treat every fact as proof of their convictions, even if it’s opposite.
It’s not a good thing for your argument that a majority of scientists disagree – it’s a negative.
Global warming was never the fringe view. It evolved from climate cooling in the 70’s and convinced people there was a problem when there was a perceptible change in NH climate over a short period.
Show us the money in CC scepticism. I can demonstrate plenty in the AGW scam. Apart from the above, 25% of your energy bill devoted to renewables which goes straight into the pockets of wealthy landowners. How do climate sceptics make money if they don’t erect wind turbines?
Nor did I ask you to make scientific arguments. Read what I posted:
No discussion necessary, just present the documentation. All you did was attempt to duck the question by distorting the response.
You are full of it.
Once again, present your belief as a credible argument.
I began my journey through the climate quagmire as a believer in AGW well over 20 years ago. The difference is, I asked questions of by own beliefs and sought the truth.
Cleary you have never done the same and probably never will.
The truth is there is no scientific evidence of the nature I asked you for but you continue to wriggle and squirm, determined to justify your cognitive dissonance. If you don’t look you can’t find it, and if you can’t find it you never have to acknowledge it.
And you have the audacity to level accusations at climate sceptics.
No, it’s 25% of your electricity bill and circa 15% of your whole energy bill. And it’s not just a green levy, it includes social payments to help low income families.
Most of our wind farms are at sea.
I just googled ‘climate change co2 peer reviewed article’ and got a stack of answers, so I don’t know what you’re basing this on. Clearly you have some reason to dismiss lots of info – perhaps you could share it in advance?
There is no such thing as a climate sceptic, no one doesn’t believe there is a climate.
What is obviously false is the Net Zero idea that implementing the energy and economic policies of North Korea can make the Earth’s climate static.
Every day is Earth Day in North Korea.
Should have said ‘climate change’ sceptic, I abbreviated too far. But I’m sure you get the idea.
A climate change sceptic believes the Earth’s climate is static.
There’s plenty of evidence to support the idea that CO² has increased because of warmer temperatures. Not the other way around.
Protect the planet? From whom? CO² is life! We and almost all other life on this planet are carbon-based life-forms!
I think it is important to separate out climate change from Net Zero.
Net Zero is simply a consumption tax intended to generate vast amounts of extra money for the government and climate change is the justification for the simple minded.
It is an indulgence to ensure our place in the heaven of perfect climate.
I think Net Zero is a lot more evil than just a consumption tax (although it certainly is that as well!).
Christiana Figueres, the Costa Rican Marxist who headed up the United Nations UNFCCC that runs the IPCC, freely admitted that whole scam was to abolish Capitalism.
But also note that “Climate” is normally considered to change (or stay the same) over a period of 30 years or more.
Note even more that the justification of a “Climate Crisis / Emergency / Breakdown” is always justified by an “extreme” weather event that lasts for a day or two. “Unprecedented!!!”
And when you look at these “Unprecedented” events, almost always there have been bigger problems within living memory, let alone within the established weather records!
Neue Zürcher Zeitung, 14 November 2010:-
“Climate policy has almost nothing to do anymore with environmental protection, says the German economist and IPCC official Ottmar Edenhofer. The next world climate summit in Cancun is actually an economy summit during which the distribution of the world’s resources will be negotiated.” – Ottmar Edenhofer
For those who may not know, Ottmar Edenhofer is the co-chair of the IPCC Working Group III.
bad link
Let us have a REALISTIC evaluation of the NEED to “tackle climate change”
Nut note the evaluation helpfully provided by Chritiana Figueres, the Costa Rican Marxist Executive Secretary of the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC), who at a Brussels press conference (UN Regional Information Centre for Europe, February 3 2015) explained that “This is the first time in the history of mankind that we are setting ourselves the task of intentionally, within a defined period of time to change the economic development model that has been reigning for at least 150 years, since the industrial revolution.)”. Or at COP 18 in Doha, Qatar, November 26, 2012 “..the whole climate change process is the complete transformation of the economic structure of the world.” (Again Figueres.)
Net Zero is like Mao’s Great Leap Forward, which led to possibly the largest famine in history; the number of fatalities is not accurately known. There’s a bait and switch between “scientists agree on climate change” and actual policies that are to be implemented without cost-benefit analysis, that is to say regardless of how much damage they do.
No they should not,
They should fight the destructive life threatening stupidity and its dark and sinister population-cull motivation!
current CO2 levels = .o4%
of which monstrous man produces 4% (ie 1/25 th of CO2 “emissions”)
Plants die when CO2 < .028%
Plant growth up 14% in recent years
Surface temperature flat for last 20 years
No increase in storms – normal fluctuating weather for last 170 years
Climate system far too complicated to “model”
etc
etc
Are people so stupid to believe that if “Man” changes the the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere by a tiny fraction – yes one or two parts per million that the entire planetary system will collapse? Just think how stable it is? Been within a small range of temperature for 2.5 billion years.
Please – where has common sense gone?
Extremists get too much air time now, those brainwashed into shouting we need to do it for our grandchildren etc….
Yep, globalist shills who profit from the narrative, gonna shill globalist shillyness.
Regardless of the number of competing hypothesis, the AGW hypothesis (for it is not a proven theory) will be used by globalists to consolidate global power. Until the Swiss bankers decide to drop it, it seem unlikely governments in their debt trap will abandon Net Zero.
NUT ZERO
The Nut Zero cultists
Wish to put us back in caves,
By destroying grown up energy
Make us New World Order slaves;
They want to limit plant food
Yet we must live on greens,
They’ll ban God given protein
But feed us on vaccines.
Voltiacs and wind mills
We know only work part time,
They need fossil fuelled back up
To deny this is a crime;
Its time to get afracking
And digging up more coal,
We have plenty carbon energy
What we own we can control.
Old and poor can heat or eat
They no longer have a choice,
Social Media gangsters
Deny realists a voice;
Allied with the Lugenpresse
They feed us propaganda,
Sourced from the Davos eunuchs
A marxist memoranda.
Patrick Healy
BTW the first of the inevitable food riots have started in Ceylon/Sri Lanka.
Several MP’s have resigned and the government is on tender hooks. Soros, Schwab, Gates and the Prince of Whales are happy no doubt.
Interesting. Thanks Btw, it’s tenter hooks!
Yer Miles ahead of me! Thanks.
Peru as well https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2022-04-04/peru-deploys-army-to-control-violent-protests-disrupting-exports
The government will abandon Net Zero … because as the costs mount exponentially, the public will force them to abandon them.
Seeing just how pathetic “the public” has been over Covid, I think it far more likely it’ll be the costs mounting that will force the government to abandon Net Zero!
Totally Rotten: Dodgy Government Deal Exposes Grand-Scale Wind Industry Corruption
https://stopthesethings.com/2022/04/05/totally-rotten-dodgy-government-deal-exposes-grand-scale-wind-industry-corruption/
by stopthesethings
Stand for freedom with our Yellow Boards
Tuesday 5th April 2022 4pm to 5pm
Yellow Boards By the Road
A3095 Maidenhead Road/B3034 Forest Road
Three Legged Cross, Forest Rd, Warfield,
Bracknell RG42 6AE
Stand in the Park Sundays from 10am – make friends & keep sane
Wokingham Howard Palmer Gardens
(Cockpit Path car park free on Sunday)
Sturges Rd RG40 2HD
Bracknell
South Hill Park, Rear Lawn, RG12 7PA
Telegram http://t.me/astandintheparkbracknell
please share
“…with MOST scientists supporting the concept of anthropogenic global warming it is not realistic to expect governments to abandon it altogether.”
Oh yeah?
(My caps.)
Just like all those scientists offering empirical proof of the benefits of eugenics a century ago, all enthusiastically backed by presidents and prime ministers. Things change.
Yeah, they renamed all the Eugenics societies to things like “Planned parenthood” and “The Welcome trust” and carry on with their eugennic nonsense behind closed BSL-3 lab doors.
I would suggest the “welfare” state is an exercise in genetic meddling for the opposite of eugenics, i.e. fertility redistribution to the worst.
And so called Princes dead and alive.
Good observation about 2 strands of genocidal fake science.
When the grants for scares stop the “support” for scarience will too.
Thanks for letting me know that it’s not worth reading in part, let alone in full.
I can understand the defeatist sentiment in publishing an article like this, because it’s true. Western governments are never going to give up their Net Zero ambitions.
But that gives me a certain amount of hope, because it’s make or break for us now. We need to get rid of this form of government, this Empire of Lies as Putin called it. Representative Democracy is dead and must be replaced with a direct democratic alternative that is able to question and test the technocratic assumptions the lies are built on.
Mr Fernley, this is very poor.
Just because a lot of people choose to believe in something doesn’t make it right. If you are a scientist you should know this. It only takes one to disprove something to destroy its basis.
AGW is not proven, its actually impossible to prove. And the onus has to be on the people advocating it rather than those not doing so. Especially as assuming its true leads to energy poverty for billions.
Nuclear power has not been built in the past in great numbers because its very expensive in capital requirements and can only run as baseload. That is, as it gets old, it just has to be retired with a lot of more cost implications, rather than move up the merit order and produce load following generation, which has and remains the component of generation being able to be supplied by flexible plant.
Despatchable generation, that which can increase/decrease output second by second to meet fluctuating demand from consumers is necessary for functioning electricity supply. without it the lights will go out, irrespective of the mount of baseload generation. Indeed have too much wind/solar/nuclear and you have exactly the same situation as too little, they have to be turned off. Which is the current situation in summer nights.
I despair of people writing rubbish when they do not spend the time to understand how electricity supply grids operate.
The UK is desperate need of new mid-merit generation, and the only source of that generaion is fossil-fuel powered. It provides the opportunity to load follow by turning up and down the furnaces that create the steam that turns the lump of metal that creates magnetic field that create what we call ‘electricity’ , the potential force that is created down the transmission and distribution cables. Nothing other than burning fossil fuels gives that flexibility.
Storage of energy in batteries provides some back-up if generation fails for a couple of hours, Pump Storage the same. On cold winter nights with no wind and no sun, again only one form of generation can fill the gap, fossil fuels.
So unless you are prepared to have days and weeks with no power, if you prepared to have intermittent power black outs during normal days because you can’t load follow, it would be utter madness to strive for net zero.
And the cost of trying to do it is in the £trillions. It would bankrupt the country and the worst of the costs and deprivation of heat and light would fall on the poorest. There has never been a more divisive social policy envisaged.
It is up to all of us to stop this madness now.
TY preparing for the passing of the new online harms bill?
Surely the green zealots have to start getting some things right to be taken seriously. I cant think of one prediction that has come true. They make ferguson look accurate. Just like everthing else it is purely a form of control. People, industry, finance. take your pick. Covid another cheek of the same arse.
If you believed the nonsense then imo a much better way to reach net zero would be to stop all money going into todays green infrastructure and plough the trillions into a technology drive for 20 years. Imagine what the great minds of the world could produce with 20 years of high investment. I have heard talk of synthetic fuels that create no co2 and im sure those kind of products could be developed. But no, they would prefer us to live in caves while china cant stop laughing and takes over the world.
The goal of new technology might be only 8 years away. Oxford Tokamak are anticipating building the first grid connected Fusion power by 2030. So far they have hit every other target they have set, including their reactor achieving the critical 100mºC for stable generation recently.
https://www.tokamakenergy.co.uk
Just imagine what results in R and D the 37billion filched from the tax payers by the Wu Flu scams, and then the other untold billions wasted elsewhere these past 2 years.
It haunts me. But this company don’t need money, they are well financed. The physical challenges are the time delay.
No, totalitarianism should not be accepted as science.
This entire article is quack pseudoscience, straight from the doomsday cultist philosophy of environmentalism.
I reject this farrago of falsehoods utterly.
The goal of Net Zero is the sacrifice of man, as an end in itself. To pretend it has scientific justification is totalitarian fake science like Eugenics and Lysenkoism.
The IPCC is a sham of an organisation whose membership comprises a few nut-job scientists – the rest being behavioural psychologists, economists and idiots like Jug-eared Charlie.
Granting this for the sake of argument, so what? What is the ‘correct’ amount of atmospheric CO₂, and why?
Your argument is predicated on an unproven assumption.
Argument from Popularity.
Argument from Popularity. So what if a ‘majority of scientists’ support something? Has history taught you nothing?
That illegitimately shifts the burden of proof. The onus is on climatemongers to demonstrate their case, which you admit above is ‘not proven’. You’re the ones making the claims, and you don’t get to swerve your burden of responsibility. Prove your case or, with all due respect, put a sock in it.
What we do know is that a majority of the scientists who support the AGW theory are, effectively, paid to support it via Grants, which would not be forthcoming if they didn’t.
Where is the evidence of this ‘majority’ of scientific support?
30,000 scientists signed the Oregon petition which cast considerable doubt on the cause of climate change. I don’t think there is a petition of scientists even approaching that level of support for CC.
The barefaced fraud of 97% has been condemned scientifically, mathematically and arithmetically.
What sceptics predicted would happen, is happening. Vast unnecessary cost to build unreliable renewables that’s affecting every household in the world.
There is one thing the alarmists are correct about. eventually climate change will cause violence, but not for their imaginary causes. It won’t be war amongst nations, it will be people taking to the streets to overturn governments torturing them with poverty and misery.
As reality bites and the time comes for a choice as to who which party occupies number 10, the character prepared to stand up and call NetZero out for the fraud it is will win a landslide.
By then, inflation will have skyrocketed, but the direct cause, and the solution, will be fresh in peoples minds.
Too many of us have painful memories of uncontrolled inflation of the 90’s and the time it took to get back under control.
However, I suspect for all the bluster from Boris about building renewables, NetZero will gradually and quietly be pushed into the long grass. Political focus will shift to nuclear as resistance to building wind turbines across Englands green and pleasant land becomes a quagmire of legal actions. Five years (at least) of legal delays will prove catastrophic to the legal obligation to reach NetZero by 2050.
No matter how noble the cause, no government can survive 25% of households being unable to pay their energy bills, even the mighty British Gas would go bust dealing with that. The answer? Nationalisation, at which point even the diehard Conservative faithful would be tearing up their membership cards.
Condemn Farage all you want for his acknowledgement of climate change, the man is far too pragmatic to actually believe the world is going to burn up. However, if he’s to win a GE he can’t dismiss a voter base who truly believe climate change is an existential threat to mankind.
Frankly, Boris is now bulletproof. He should have, by all rights, have been gone a year ago but survived, despite himself. We won’t be rid of him until a GE. On that basis, even if Farage continues with Boris’ policies we will be no worse off and we might at least have a leader committed to dealing with immigration.
I do believe, however, that if Farage can be elected, the moment he’s elected we’ll see the gloves come off relative to climate change and the destructive NetZero campaign.
Will he rescind Theresa May’s legal ‘legacy’ to reach NetZero by 2050? Who cares? What punishment will await any politician who fails to achieve the wraith that is an impossible, ever moving target? Nothing. They won’t be thrown in the Tower for the rest of eternity nor be cast from society.
If we don’t vote for change we will get no change and the entrenched two party dominance will continue.
I don’t think that changing ANY leader will be any good. Trump didn’t change the US.
until we can dismiss the Civil Service, things will continue as before.
If you don’t try for change, you won’t get it.
Not even Farage believed Brexit would win the referendum, but at least he tried.
These and other technical issues have been widely discussed over the years but the majority of scientists still support AGW.
These and other technical issues have been widely suppressed over the years so the majority of scientists who wish to stay in employment do not attack AGW.
There. Fixed that for you…
Co Chair of the latest IPCC nonsense Jim Skea is also a Non Exec Director of Blackrock New Energy Investment Trust Plc.
So theres no vested interests at all in the agenda.
Pointing out how few Climatologists are authors of this crap and the financial links with the story makes you very unpopular with the zealots.
Currently ‘renewables’ produce 3-4% of the worlds energy and that is unlikely to go up without some earth shattering breakthrough in battery technology or power generation. And John Fernley and the green cartel know this full well. This is why they donut around the car park in their junk science muck spreaders throwing as much stink around as possible to distract from the plain fact that there is no scientific evidence of a global climate or warming crisis. And plenty to show that what we are living through are historically unremarkable patterns of weather and climate during one of the lowest periods of CO2 in the Earth’s history.
It takes 150 tonnes of coal to produce one solitary wind turbine. In the meantime the trillions governments are spending on trying to create unicorn fart powered countries are going straight into the pockets of shills like our John Fernley here in what’s fast emerging as the biggest scam in modern history.
I’ve posted this before but it’s worth posting again: Here’s what else John’s beloved three trillion pound ‘net zero’ program could buy:
-636 missions to Mars.
-The cost of an Uber journey across our entire solar system and back.
-6000 brand new hospitals with free parking.
-16 million fully trained NHS nurses for ten years.
– 6 million fully trained police officers for ten years.
-12 million ambulances.
-750 million ICU ventilators.
-24.8 million affordable homes or social housing.
-Free university education for 60 million students.
-A cheap briefcase containing £100,000 cash for every household in the UK.
-200 billion clean water tanks in Sudan.
-500 billion plastic taps in Sierra Leone.
-60 billion hand washing stations in Mozambique.
-3 trillion pounds towards cyber and physical defence against attacks by our enemies.
-3 trillion pounds towards recycling and cleaning our oceans of plastic waste.
-3 trillion pounds towards protecting elephants, tigers, rhinos, whales and many other rare and endangered species across the world.
-3 trillion pounds towards finding a cure for Cancer, Multiple Sclerosis, Parkinson’s, Altzheimers, AIDS, Malaria or any other devastating disease you can think of.
Yes, but it’s a bargain price for a whole planet.
Only if you think that ruining a planet is a valid and worthwhile aim.
The price isn’t really the issue. If we do nothing about global warming, and we’re wrong, then the penalty is total.
It’s not an even sided question. The penalty for unnecessary spending on clean energy is not in the same order of magnitude.
The global temperature has risen barely 1 degree over the past 120 years during one of the lowest periods of CO2 in the Earth’s history. Previously temperatures at many points throughout history have been warmer than they are today with no industrialisation and no anthropogenic CO2. This is historical, meteorological, scientific fact. Take a look at why Vine Street in London is called Vine Street for example. Or why they are finding 2000 year old agricultural equipment under melting glaciers in Norway.
So I came to your door with ‘my team’ claiming to be a structural engineer 30 years ago and told you I’ve been modelling your house collapsing and you need to pay me 10K a year to stop it from happening. And you just paid me no questions asked. All I had to say is we ‘modelled it’ because we’re ‘experts’. You didn’t need any evidence, or indeed credentials, you just believed us and paid it.
Now 30 years on, your house it still standing and there’s never been a problem. Yet you now want to give me 100K a year just in case it does?
Are you insane?
if you don’t build me a spaceship to counter the threat of space giraffes then it’s all over!
If we do nothing about space giraffes, and we’re wrong, then the penalty is total.
In the event there was a credible risk of space giraffes, then you’d have a point.
There is the same risk of space giraffes as of any danger from CO2.
Ok, I’ve nothing to add to that.
You’ve obviously nothing to add to mine either. Strange from one of the most prolific commentators we’ve seen on here in a while..
Actually I did respond. Briefly.
Absolute utter nonsense.
This is the calculation, using internationally recognised data, nothing fancy, no hidden agenda, just something you can do by taking your socks and shoes off.
Assuming increasing atmospheric CO2 is causing the planet to warm:
Atmospheric CO2 levels in 1850 (beginning of the Industrial Revolution): ~280ppm (parts per million atmospheric content) (Vostok Ice Core).
Atmospheric CO2 level in 2021: ~410ppm. (Mauna Loa)
410ppm minus 280ppm = 130ppm ÷ 171 years (2021 minus 1850) = 0.76ppm of which man is responsible for ~3% = ~0.02ppm.
That’s every human on the planet and every industrial process adding ~0.02ppm CO2 to the atmosphere per year on average. At that rate mankind’s CO2 contribution would take ~25,000 years to double which, the IPCC states, would cause around 2°C of temperature rise. That’s ~0.0001°C increase per year for ~25,000 years.
One hundred (100) generations from now (assuming ~25 years per generation) would experience warming of ~0.25°C more than we have today. ‘The children’ are not threatened!
Furthermore, the Mauna Loa CO2 observatory (and others) can identify and illustrate Natures small seasonal variations in atmospheric CO2 but cannot distinguish between natural and manmade atmospheric CO2.
Hardly surprising. Mankind’s CO2 emissions are so inconsequential this ‘vital component’ of Global Warming can’t be illustrated on the regularly updated Mauna Loa graph.
Mankind’s emissions are independent of seasonal variation and would reveal itself as a straight line, so should be obvious.
Not even the global fall in manmade CO2 over the early Covid-19 pandemic, estimated at ~14% (14% of ~0.02ppm CO2 = 0.0028ppm), registers anywhere on the Mauna Loa data. Unsurprisingly.
In which case, the warming the planet has experienced is down to naturally occurring atmospheric CO2, all 97% of it.
That’s entirely ignoring the effect of the most powerful ‘greenhouse’ gas, water vapour which is ~96% of all greenhouse gases.
You’re assuming the growth rate is flat. However:
https://www.climate.gov/news-features/understanding-climate/climate-change-atmospheric-carbon-dioxide
At the end of the last ice age atmospheric CO2 was around 180ppm, a mere 30ppm away from the extinction of meaningful life on earth. The NH was also fresh from being buried under approximately 1 mile deep in ice.
Quite how you expect a comparison between 11,000-17,000 years ago, to the world over the last 60 years to be credible I really don’t understand. It is the most bizarre sleight of hand I have seen yet from an alarmist.
It’s also the usual poor analysis of a non peer reviewed article, with cherry picked numbers utilised to make your feeble point that atmospheric CO2 is somehow harmful to mankind or the planet.
C3 plants are 95% of all plants on earth. They flourish at their optimum at around 1,000ppm – 1,200ppm atmospheric content. Is that coincidental or don’t you imagine Mother Nature is perhaps giving us all a huge big clue.
Now, assuming your claims were credible, you need to explain why atmospheric COs increase is around 100 times what it was. You might want to count the number of volcanos found under the Antarctic ice sheet in 2018 – ninety one. CO2 was being apportioned to mankind which was unknowingly being produced by these volcanoes.
Now count the number of active volcanoes, vents and fissures on the sea beds around the world. No? Cant manage that?
Neither can anyone else. Humans stumbled on 91 of them in the Antarctic yet we have barely begun to explore our ocean’s sea beds.
My calculation stands because any 100 fold increase over the last 60 years is inherent within the calculation of CO2 increases between 1850 and 2021, 171 years to be precise.
It’s also entirely convenient, is it not, that as usual, NOAA muddies the waters by showing CO2 increase only back to 1960. When it suits them they’ll cite them back to 1850.
Now go away and do try harder the next time.
You appear to be referring to a wider argument I didn’t make. I asked about flat rate versus incremental increases.
How does he know that most scientists support the concept of anthropogenic global warming? Also, for those that do support the concept: a) to what extent do they think people are contributing to climate change, and b) to what extent do they consider the contributions to be a problem?
So before the first paragraph is even completed we have pretty important questions left unanswered.
‘…the majority of scientists still support AGW. ‘
But how many know anything about it? How many are familiar with the question-begging circular reasoning built into the IPCC computer models, on whose nobbled and always-wrong predictions the entire AGW alarm is based?
The models are programmed to assume that a doubling of CO2 concentration in the atmosphere leads to 3 degrees C of global warming. That number is between 1 and 6, and that’s all there is to be said for it. It has absolutely no scientific justification.
When you run the models retrospectively over the last 100 years, they predict 3 times more warming than occurred. They always predict 3 times more warming than ever occurs, a track record that strongly implies that a better figure than 3 is 1 – 1 degree C of warming for every doubling of atmospheric CO2.
Coe et al, in a recent paper, put the figure at 0.5 C. But, of course, for the same reason we don’t hear about covid vaccine injuries in the MMS, we are told nothing about that.
Scientists are not the electorate; they should not be dictating policy however much they are in agreement, and of course it’s actually the WEF that governments are responding to, not scientists or the electorate, which is why “the Greens always get in” regardless of which party you vote for. The electorate has pretty consistently placed a very low priority on climate change mitigation, rationally so if you look at published cost benefit analyses.
The key consensus is not amongst scientists on the technicalities of climate, it’s amongst WEF-sponsored politicians on the priorities of certain policies that are alleged to mitigate climate change and that are to be implemented without cost-benefit analysis, that is to say regardless of how damaging they are.
Scientists have always had disagreements over everything (science related, obviously). Some feuds have lasted decades amongst them. Unfortunately the government only listen to a select few who are in agreement with one another and fuck the rest. So now those scientists who have the governments ear are the new god. And now we must bow down to them or forever be tarred as science deniers or conspiracy theorists.
Piltdown Man Hoaxers are not the electorate. Anyone supporting Net Zero is a fantasist, not a scientist.
I think this article can be summed up as follows:
“We are all going to be fooked because the people in power are determined to fook us come what may. They have all the support they need from a number of bought and paid for scientists, that they can claim are the majority (even if they are not and even if they know sweet FA about the subject) because anyone who does not come on board with them is sidelined, cancelled or ignored; and those in power are doing the counting anyway. Therefore the only course is to accept our fate. But if we ask them nicely, perhaps they might be persuaded to fook us a little more slowly and a little less painfully.
Now, everyone bend over and let’s get on with it.”
If you accept water vapour as a gas, perhaps the damming of rivers and a vast amount of water not getting to its traditional places to evaporate and cause rain is as much to blame as co2 or methane, people can see desertification and the need to move, I wonder if co2, etc is a strawman to try and keep populations where they are in the hope electricity will keep them where they are eventualy?
For goodness sake. The oceans cover 70% of the planet. Do you really imagine a few dams and rivers will make any difference whatsoever?
… and water vapour is a far more effective greenhouse gas than CO2 and a hundred times more prevalent. Are we going to have war on water vapour aka H2O.
There is also no such thing as a climate sceptic since no one believes there isn’t a climate.
This article is gibberish, extrapolated from false assumptions and written in an imaginary language where words don’t refer to reality.
Is ‘climate change sceptic’ more acceptable ?
‘Is ‘climate change sceptic’ more acceptable ?’
Who is sceptical that the climate changes?
A climate change sceptic believes the Earth’s climate is static
‘Whilst I would completely agree that AGW is not proven, it is plausible and has the support of the majority of scientists.’
What happens to any scientist that openly disagrees?
Do you imagine having their career destroyed by those in power might influence the public opinion of many of these scientists?
And since when did scientific principles get decided by a democratic vote?
Man made global warming and green energy is like covid and the vaccines, is like men being women if they say they are, is like relentless mass immigration, is like homo propaganda,is like Islam is a religion of peace.
All these things and more are all part of the wholesale and deliberate destruction of the Western democracy and liberal (in the proper sense) society.
Excellent comment.
The same billionaire psychopaths and loonies (like Prince Charles) are behind both the ‘Pandemic’ and ‘Climate Change’ scams.
No Government voluntarily abandons Socialism which is what Net Zero is, elevation of State over individual; central economic planning and control.
It ends when the economy crashes in ruins.
I don’t think we have much further to go.
In 1974, Edward Heath who had taken on the miners whose strike led to electricity rationing, power cuts for hours on a daily basis, three day week for businesses, called a General Election, back him or back the miners. The public voted for electricity.
I think once people can no longer afford energy bills, or food and goods the cost of which driven up by high energy costs, and power cuts are frequent or power rationed because as wind takes over the grid will become increasingly unstable – that will end Net Zero.
Green energy can supply the global population with sufficient energy but they need to kill off about 90% of the existing people for it to work.
But how do you get that many people to agree to letting the governments put them down, with I don’t know, a lethal injection for example?
That’s about it.
He says that while there are clear reasons for the U.K. to pedal slowly to Net Zero, with most scientists supporting the concept of anthropogenic global warming it is not realistic to expect governments to abandon it altogether.
The ONLY reason for governments to support the abolition of CO2 emissions is that there is an immediate danger of the world catching fire.
IF this danger does not exist, THEN there is no need whatsoever to comply with this monumental scam….
Unbelievable. A so-called scientist talking about ‘pedalling slowly to net Zero.’ This is fantasy physics or chemistry or whatever.
Net Zero takes us back to the medieval period at best and the stone age at worst.
Utter ruddy stupid nonsense.
“Our maximum energy requirement is during the winter when we need to heat our homes and offices.”
Then isn’t it time we created super insulated homes that we *cool down* most of the year, which would then fit with the solar cycle.
It’s always struck me as obvious that we shouldn’t be using heat pumps to warm up cold houses, we should use air conditioners to cool down warm ones with solar panels on the roof.
If you believe the world is getting warmer, then this is the logical conclusion.
It’s the lack of consistency in the beliefs that gets me. There’s no logic to it.
Unfortunately, we have housing stock much of which it would be too disruptive to insulate to the standard you suggest. How to insulate the walls of a solid granite building with an airgap between the granite and the ‘pre-plasterboard’ internal surfaces?
Converting an average 3 bedroom house to NetZero standards, including a heat pump, will cost in excess of £100,000.
Do you have that cash lying around?
No? Then welcome to the world of banking, with tens of millions of home owners being forced to borrow, in many cases, at least one third of what their house is worth.
Will it keep them warm and snug at almost zero cost? No, people conflate insulated homes with Passive Haus construction which uses the energy from a variety of sources to supply what little heating needs it requires. They rarely involve heat pumps as they are insanely expensive to run.
Like much of the rest of the country, you have been deliberately suckered into believing that insulating a home is the holy grail of minimising CO2 emissions. It is a complete fantasy.
On the basis that you get nothing for nothing, how long do you imagine the payback period in terms of CO2 emissions for production of all that insulation will take? Remember that commercially produced insulation is an oil derivative so more oil will be required to manufacture all that insulation at enormous production losses.
Go and look for the variety of reports undertaken by Professor of engineering, Michael Kelly on the subject.
BTW, heat pumps can be run as air conditioners but they are unnecessary for a super insulated house in a British summer as insulation not only keeps the heat in, it keeps the heat out.
Fingal the troll is back and has taken over the thread with his nonsense.
Please ignore.
Never!
I have slammed him every time he’s raised his ugly, socialist mug.
I’m not a socialist and I haven’t supplied a picture.
But you have been slammed.
Communist?
And I though that blank white circle was your picture. My mistake.
Fossil fuels are one of the greatest liberators of mankind, ever. Due to its various uses it gave countless millions the opportunity to prosper, raise families, stay warm, stay fed and it allowed travel to places our ancestors could only dream of. And now certain types, especially those who made vast sums of money from the exploitation of fossil fuels previously, want to take it all away again – I wonder why?
The billionaire sociopaths/psychopaths who run the world hate that the average working man in the Western democracies has a car, can fly overseas on vacation, and live in a nice house.
I think it’s as simple as that.
They can’t bear that the plebs have a nice life.
And they certainly don’t want us to be in good health.
They would watch the slow death of almost everyone in their domains rather than give up this agenda. It has a grip on them because they are blindsided to the Ahrimanic force that controls them. But there are encouraging signs. If you look at the top minds in science and medicine they are moving towards a deeper understanding and recent events have catalysed this process.
Trust me they don’t believe in it themselves just look at their investment decisions in beachside property that will soon be underwater according to the spiel. This is all you have to do. If you undertake this simple exercise then you will see that they are ripping the piss out of you.
Who is this muppet?
It’s no longer even a question of whether climate change will be good, bad or indifferent, it’s a question of affordability.
The insane drive by Biden to his green utopia ignited energy cost’s spiralling upward for no good reason other than a deranged principle. This isn’t carefully managed progress into a climate utopia, this is full on, bull in a china shop stupidity.
UK inflation was 6.2% prior to the energy price rises which will have immediate effect on next months figures. I would be surprised if they weren’t 8%.
The following few months will be quiet and we’ll hear great things about inflation being controlled, until supply chain costs filter through. Expect to see inflation then move to 10% by the end of summer.
As a means of control, interest rates will have to rise, adding yet more to immediate inflation until saving, rather than spending becomes attractive or, more accurately, necessary.
Ten per cent added to everyday living costs, on top of outrageous energy price rises, will prove catastrophic for many families, never mind pensioners on a limited income.
And yet this clown suggests we all just calm down and carry on?
As for his final statement:
It seems to me there is a compulsion on scientists to demonstrate, beyond reasonable doubt, that the science of AGW is robust.
Yet, to date, there is no compelling evidence to believe atmospheric CO2 is any way affecting global temperatures to any meaningful degree. If not, why has there been no temperature rise for the last 7.5 years whilst CO2 continues to rise in a linear fashion?
Sorry mate, you do science a disservice. No wonder the editor of the Lancet condemned medical science as up to 50% junk. Climate science is even worse, clearly, and yet the fate of the world is entrusted to voodoo techniques to scare the public into compliance.
We know full well from statements by numerous, prominent, influential figures over the years that the subject is a trojan horse for global governance. Whilst I don’t believe this is an achievable objective (China and Russia responding to diktats from Klaus Schwab? Are you kidding me?) it is nevertheless a real threat, and no expense in lives of other peoples money will be spared in their pursuit of this objective.
We know the authoritarian disposition of Schwab’s lieutenants, Ardern, Macron, Trudeau, Merkel et al. They showed their hands during covid. Thankfully they seem to have broken cover much too early.
No, it won’t be ‘the science’, or lack thereof, of climate change which changes the direction of travel of NetZero, it will be cold, hard cash – or the lack thereof – which will bring NetZero crashing down around our governments ears.
Why would we risk our children’s lives over the threat of a science that’s never been conclusively demonstrated isn’t the right question.
We should be asking why we should even consider impoverishing future generations over a subject which has some of the most prominent and independent scientists around the world up in arms.
And if we’re talking consensus science, we sceptics have that covered as well, with over 30,000 scientists signing the Oregon petition calling the phenomenon into question.
Where is the signed declaration by 30,000 AGW believing scientists that ‘the science’ is robust?
Nowhere to be seen……..
Good critique…
V.good summary.
I worked in the paper industry during the 90’s, before the prevalence of the interweb and home printers.
Recycled paper was all the rage.
‘Save the trees’ was the mantra.
Truth of the matter was that recycled paper consumed more energy in collection, recycling, and production than virgin wood pulp paper, was inferior in quality and colour, and was hugely overpriced.
And wood pulp suppliers managed their resources, planting more than they deforested, and planned for the future.
The main customers for recycled paper were local councils, gas lighting global companies, and central government.
EUVs are marketed in exactly the same way.
I suspect that the real reason is to limit people’s ability to travel long distances.
John Fernley wants us to stop discussing what the truth of the matter is and instead talk about what action is to be taken. He correctly identifies the factual issues – poorly correlated change in the rate of change, the existence of alternative explanations of warming, and above all saturation over the spectrum – and dismisses them as irrelevant because they have failed to convince a majority of scientists (meaning, I suppose, a majority of those who hold the degree of BSc).
This is the kind of thinking which got us here in the first place. Climate scientists are political activists whose main concern is what is to be done. They look for signals about the action to be taken and have no difficulty finding them. The signs of anthropogenic climate change are all around us. So, for that matter, are the signs that foul-smelling airborne miasmas cause epidemics (I smelt one only the other day and felt rather ill). One of the actions climate scientists take is to declare that the debate is over when in fact the debate about fact has yet to take place.
A requirement for “a show-stopping criticism of AGW or a compelling alternative theory to AGW” reverses the burden of proof. Real scientific reasoning is based on falsification, a presumption in favour of the null hypothesis, and in this case the null hypothesis is that more carbon dioxide need not cause more warming. Falsificationist science is not activist science. It comes with a presumption of inaction, not action.
What we really need is to explain to technically-illiterate politicians, teachers, administrators and everybody else in the political and managerial class that mankind’s CO2 emissions have ZERO impact upon atmospheric temperatures and the problem is entirely imaginary.
“Most countries have committed to reducing their CO2 output to Net Zero.”
That’s because most countries are governed by corrupt idiots.
This is one of the weakest articles I have read on this site. A scientist reaching a conclusion by counting heads? Really?
A scientist who was a director of a wind energy development company. Say no more.
We simply have to defeat the warmists, not just for our own sake but that of our descendants. Difficult I know.
Fossil fuels are a finite resource. As it gets more expensive the market will innovate and invest in new energy sources, leave this to the markets. The state is forcing everyone towards electricity, but there may be better alternatives if companies were given the incentives to invest in R&D.
The rare earth minerals and metals needed for electricity generation and storage are also finite, and prices are escalating as everyone is chasing the same limited supplies.
I suppose a slow motion car crash is less damaging than a full on high speed, head on smash. However, the best option is still to avoid the car crash entirely. Net zero is unobtainable without forcing society to go back hundreds of years.
Fixed a sentience in the last paragraph for you.
trust the chinese to keep their word?
you mean, like chamberlain trusted mr hitler to keep his word?
here is what is going to happen:
the chinese will kill off western industry by producing far cheaper than western industry will be able to do, as the chinese will not be hampered by shortages in energy and high energy prices.
and after the chinese have become top dog they will gladly tell the rest of the world to go fuck itself.
for after the chinese have obliterated western industry they can afford to do whatever they want in regard to whatever they choose to, as the western world will have no alternative but to bow to the chinese.
allowing the chinese to expand their energy demands so the “poor” country can catch up is moronic.
the chinese billionaire elite will remain getting richer and richer and the working slaves will remain working slaves.
and the uyghurs will keep being genocided.
He hasn’t mentioned the Milankovich cycles. It has been shown that the sequence of glaciation and interglacial warm periods of the current Pleistocene Ice Age in which we live falls in line with the periodicity of the Milankovich cycles, first with the 41,000-year cycles of the changes in the planet’s axial tilt, then, since about 1 million years ago, with the 100,000-year cycle of the distension of its elliptical orbit around the Sun. The next glaciation should be along in about 85,000 years. Or maybe 15,000 years if a reversion to the 41,000-year cycle occurs. That’s real climate change. CO2 absorption of reflected IR energy from the Earth’s surface has nothing to do with it. Attack that and Net Zero collapses and disappears up its own orifice.
There is an energy source which is reliable free of emisions and could generate vast amounts of clean energy, but ignored in the UK. I am talking about tidal enegy at our river estuaries. We built the Thames barrier without harnessing the power resource there and our river estuary with the largest tidal range is ignored. I am talking about the River Severn. Where are the current day scientists and engineers fighting for these projects? In Victorian times faced with the current situation the Brunells and Telfords of those times would have been on this with the enthusiasm so lacking today. Its no good relying on politicians they haven’t got a clue, but spend their time spouting about a crazy net zero target and doing nothing useful about it whilst pretending they believe the rubbish from the climate nutters when they obviously don’t but it suits ther politics to pretend they do and set targets during times after they will be long gone.
If the theory doesn’t match observations, it’s wrong. – Richard Feynman
Climate models do not match subsequent observations. They are wrong.
Anyone who still believes in CAGW is not a scientist.
Concerning the “problem” with CO2, it is instructive to plug “Greening of the Earth and its drivers” into your search engine, paying particular attention to the paper “Nature Climate Change volume
6, pages 791–795 (2016).
Per Matt Ridley, in the four decades since 1982, as Bjorn Lomborg points out, NASA data show that global greening has added 618,000 square kilometres of extra green leaves each year, equivalent to three Great Britains.
Realistic? Not while Mrs Boris is in no.10.