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.
Discussion
Comments
This week across the site:
To join in with the discussion please make a donation to the Daily Sceptic.
Profanity and abuse will be removed and may lead to a permanent ban.
Realistic? Not while Mrs Boris is in no.10.
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.
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).
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.
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.
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.
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.
Fixed a sentience in the last paragraph for you.
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.
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.
We simply have to defeat the warmists, not just for our own sake but that of our descendants. Difficult I know.
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.
“Most countries have committed to reducing their CO2 output to Net Zero.”
That’s because most countries are governed by corrupt idiots.
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.
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… Read more »
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.
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… Read more »
Good critique…
V.good summary.
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.
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.
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.
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.
“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… Read more »
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.
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….
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.
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.
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.
‘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?
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
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.