On Monday, Ed Miliband addressed the Labour Party Conference. He started off by claiming that “things can and must be better for the British people” and that we must “build a country that puts working people first”. He framed his speech around the key themes of economic justice, social justice and climate justice.
The full speech can be seen here.
His ideas for more jobs and prosperity centre around more expensive intermittent energy that will be the inevitable consequence of his mission to make Britain a clean energy superpower by 2030. It is interesting that he recommitted to the 2030 Net Zero grid target, because it was only last month that he and his sidekick Chris Stark sent out an SOS to the National Grid ESO asking how to deliver it.
Miliband eschewed the free market and instead called for massive spending on what he termed an armoury of clean power. These technologies include onshore wind, solar power, offshore wind, nuclear, tidal, hydrogen and carbon capture. He said he wants to break the power of the petro-states.
The trouble is that the only technology on his list that can deliver firm power is nuclear. The others are either expensive, unreliable, intermittent sources or expensive technologies to try and mitigate intermittency or emissions. Every single contract awarded in AR6 was awarded at a higher price than the market rate so far this financial year. No wonder he doesn’t want the free market anywhere near electricity generation. Carbon capture applied to a gas power stations will increase the quantity of gas needed to produce the same amount of electricity. With Miliband’s ban on offshore drilling and the continuing fracking moratorium, carbon capture will increase the power of the petro-states and increase energy prices.
Miliband hailed the return of industrial policy under the Labour Government. He failed to mention that thanks to him, we have had an anti-industrial strategy since the Climate Change Act of 2008 that has pushed up energy prices and destroyed highly productive jobs. He wants to use the (debt funded) Great British Energy and National Wealth Fund to build new industries for Britain and deliver a British jobs bonus. These jobs are going to be in carbon capture and storage, nuclear, floating wind and making electrolysers for hydrogen. As has been discussed before, we have seen six times as many jobs lost in energy intensive industries as have been created in green power. Miliband’s plan to reindustrialise Britain will kill off what is left of our productive industries.
Miliband conjured the image of the post-war Labour Government that created the NHS as a source of inspiration. He is more likely to lead us down the path of the 1970’s Labour Government that led to a bailout from the IMF.
Finally, in an act of stunning hypocrisy, Miliband is going to fly to the UN to demonstrate that Britain is back in the business of climate leadership. Yes, he’s going to fly there, because curbing emissions is just for the little people. He is going to use his plan as a stick to beat other countries and demand they follow suit in some sort of grand economic suicide pact. There is no sign that this ‘global leadership’ is working.
David Turver writes the Eigen Values Substack page, where this article first appeared. The podcast version of this article can be found on these links to Spotify, Apple and YouTube.
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.
Global temperature: meaningless gibberish
UK temperature: also meaningless gibberish
I try to tell friends and family or anyone I ever come across who happens to want to discuss this issue that “Temperature is a field”. ———I am now accustomed to being looked at by people as if I am from Mars though. ———You can try this little experiment with a friend if you want. Ask them “What is global temperature and how is it calculated”? ———I guarantee you none will have an answer. ——–What I have found is that most people only need to know that something is about science. They don’t have to actually understand any of it. If it comes under the banner of “science” then that is enough for them. They think it must be true because if all scientists say so then who are they to disagree
Quite so.
There is no single temperature for the Earth.
There is no global temperature record because there is no global, accurate, near-surface array of scientific measuring instruments reporting such a record.
‘Global temperatures’ are from a few inaccurate reporting instruments on less than 10% of the Earth’s surface many sited in areas of Human activity sure to elevate local heat levels.
Satellite measurements have been getting done since 1979 to be fair. The period they use to compare to now is 1990-2021. But even if slight warming is detected there is no way to tell what caused that. The IPCC itself even say they cannot tell whether any warming is due to natural variability or alleged human activity. They say they see no human signal in the data.
Satellites measure ground temperature, yet temperature has to be measured 2 meters above ground to be anywhere near accurate.
It’s a fascinating subject. They claim to able to measure ‘global’ temperature to the nth degree. The facts is, nobody actually knows what the average global temperature is. The planet is not covered in thermometers. Nowhere near it.
The same applies to farcical claims about sea level rise measured to 3mm. It’s not possible even with satellites to measure sea levels with any accuracy. Their margin of error is at least 3 inches. The sea is never level, waves and the bulge effect of moons gravitation pull make it impossible to measure.
Add continental rise and fall into the mix, and you can see what utter nonsense the whole thing is.
The Met Office really ought to get out more and observe nature . Yes, January and February were mild, but subsequently the weather was cool. The result was that after a brief burst of growth , the plants in our landscape came back into line with the calendar . The flowering of the Hawthorn began in Cheshire in the third week of April . The big losers were the butterflies such as the Orange Tip whose flight was delayed from Early April to late April .
The problem with assessing Temperature is that nature responds to the highest temperature , which this year was decidedly average , while The Met Office assesses minimum temperature in its calculation and this year it was higher than average .
Years ago, I read that June was the crucial month for butterflies in Britain. It said they could withstand cool or rainy weather at any other time, as long as they had a good warm June to carry out their breeding & feeding survival habits.
After a little research I found the met office uses a ‘normal’ weather period of 29 years to compare all records to.
From 1961 to 1990.
This includes some of the coldest and most long-lived below freezing temperature events in recent UK history! The winter of 1962 to 1963 being one of them and 1975 it snowed in the North of England on June 2nd!. 1981 was a particularly long cold winter as was 79.
Quite frankly anything compared to this period is going to look like a record temperature!
https://www.metoffice.gov.uk/about-us/news-and-media/media-centre/weather-and-climate-news/2021/9120-new-climate-normal
And:-
https://www.theguardian.com/news/2020/jun/01/weatherwatch-freak-snow-stopped-cricket-on-2-june-1975
Thanks for this link – my wife and I remember this well and had snow on the same day in Cheshire. We’re both fairly sure that at Wimbledon a few weeks later it was extremely hot!
Yes I watched that video yesterday….It is called Temperature Anomaly. The media love calling it “average global temperature” and hope the people will not know the difference, which they mostly don’t.
The real question here is “Why are all these institutions lying and falsifying figures?”. Milliband commissioned data from, I recall, East Anglia University circa 2008. The University found the data did not match their modelling so, as Truthsayers often do, they altered the data.
Milliband subsequently used that data to implement his Insanity Bill in 2008. The Tories then adopted that “data” for what we see today. The issue is why are they all lying? One would hope that The Great and The Good we elect are not entirely stupid but they all profess to believe this crap.
It is the ultimate The Emperors New Clothes and here we are saying “The Emperor is an obscene flasher and a criminal destroying the world”. Yet we are the ones in the wrong.
Vote Reform: They haven’t lied to you – yet.
It all emanates from the world government people at the UN. They don’t actually try to hide what their motivations are. It is there for all to see in Agenda 21 and 2030, and in their Sustainable Development rantings.
The general public are fed it through a media prism that sanitises all of this and presents it as “saving the planet from dangerous greenhouse warming” or other such drivel.
You can see why anyone who dares to interfere with this eco socialism masquerading as science is vilified and in the case of Trump ——REMOVED by the Climate Industrial Complex.
I was studying at UEA in 2008. Anyone who didn’t sign up to the Global Warming Cult risked being taken out and shot. OK, they risked being put on long-term sick-leave caused by cognitive dissonance (if they were staff) or risked failing their course (if they were students). Also there was enormous peer pressure to conform to the cult, along with other cults such as the Reparations Cult, the UN Cult and the LBGT Cult. (I don’t think IDE had got going.)
Seriously, all this globalism movement is introduced via the universities.
Were you still there in 2009 when the sh.t hit the fan and the charlatans were exposed by the Climategate emails? I would be interested how all these groupthink planet savers reacted to that exposing of the fraud.
Averaging temperature readings measured by different instruments at different times in different locations is nonsense. And the Met Office is certainly just following the order to produce “record level temperatues” somehow as someone (the UN, in all likelyness) has decreed that that’s what we’re going to get, regardless of the actual weather. Climate change is a much too important business to allow it to be affected by something as variable and unrpedictable as the weather.
Critical climate change theory dictates that man-made climate change is getting worse all the time. And only conspiracy theorists believe this should have an effect outside of climate change statistics. The notion that it’s possible to gain knowledge about the world by observing it is just the typical racist thinking of white supremacists, anyway, and just gets in the way of good policymaking.
These people pretty much worship irrationality as end in itself. Why would they ever tell the truth, especially considering that they claim truth doesn’t even exist?
Disturbingly, science has now just become another government department, where in a symbiotic relationship with the scientists that they fund, government have created “Official Science”. It is similar enough to “science” in the eyes of the general public and it has an air of authority about it. ——–But at the end of the day it isn’t science at all. It is Politics.
“We are supposed to take the good faith of institutional science for granted and are neither welcome nor even permitted to check for ourselves. ‘Follow the science’, means ‘obey’, not ‘try to understand.’ “
I am sure there are thousands of people in this country who now regret taking “the good faith of institutional science for granted.”
The days of trusting anything from official bodies have long gone for me.
Some call it gaslighting and I tend to prefer lying. It can hardly do the Nut Zero cause any favours by willy waving about the warmest May on record when people are complaining about having to put their heating on.
It’s June 6th, an important day in our calendar. I’ve put the heating on – not that the two are related.
I’ve abandoned the attempt to stop wearing my winter jacket until next fall again — because of all the record-breaking heat, it’s much to cold outside without it.
Gaslighting is a good analogy because it is about making you question your own reality. They are playing with datasets and modelling that Gaslights people. In layman’s terms, pissing on someone’s back and telling them it is raining.
I understand that Ron but I am too much of a black and white person.
No racist intent buried in that sentence. 😀
I kind of like how Judith Curry (formerly of Georgia Tech) explains it. “Sure all things being equal, CO2 may cause a little bit of warming, but all things in earth’s climate are not equal”——-The gaslighting comes where the climate establishment try to pretend they know what is happening as regards the climate moving forward. But that is FALSE. There are no experts or scientists who know what the climate will be doing 50 or 100 years from now, and those who do based on modelling that has so far all been wrong are the “gaslighters”. ——Government funded ones, as almost all climate science is funded by government.
They aren’t really lying. They’re making truthful statements about a fictional, mathematical world created for this purpose and bank on people being generally clueless about even very basic math to be unable to recognize how they’re being fooled.
Eg, judging from the article, their statements are based on (very much mathematically hashed) minimum and maximum temperatures. But these so-called extremes are often not representative for actual temperature distribution during a day, ie, they’re using the exact values they shouldn’t be using to characterise actual temperatures, the ones most likely to be (possibly a lot) different from it. If they were serious about making accurate statements, they’d either use median day and night time temperatures (the median is the number in the middle of an ordered set of values) for the simple case or something like a trimean (weighted average of the median and the first and third quartile, it’s calculated as two times the median plus the two quartiles and the sum divided by 4).
This can also be seen in the article: Ben Pile, who’s certainly more knowledgable about climate politics than I’ll ever become, realizes that the values presented by the Met Office are somehow off and don’t match the actual weather. But he doesn’t seem to know that that’s because the Met Office picked exactly the values most likely to be somehow off. I can explain this here (like I did above) but to Joe Average who knows nothing about this stuff, I’m an internet nobody appearing as two letter acronym and the Met Office is the Met Office. Hence, he’s going to trust them and not me.
“They aren’t really lying”—————-eh I see you are taking the philosophical approach and I understand what you mean, but when Mann would not provide his methodology, his data or computer code so other people could check his Hockey Stick Graph for themselves, it wasn’t a lie as such, but it was deliberately withholding information, which really amounts to the same thing. He did not want to have Steve McIntyre investigating his graph because he knew full well it did not represent what he claimed it did. Can you imagine if Einstein didn’t let people see how he arrived at his General Relativity theory incase it turned out not to be true? ——–This is what the science of climate change has become. Hiding the true state of climate, and basically that is lying.
“Met Office Admits Spraying the Skies” —–ie geoengineering. You can seethis video on You tube. I would imagine typing that title will get you it. Also there is another called “How Britain’s Met Office works the climate change racket”———But before the Internet and places like the DS none of us would ever know any of that and all we would really know was “There is a Climate Crisis” because the BBC said so. It would be like living in the olden days of Pathe News, and we would all be out waving Union Jacks at the King urging him to “save the planet”
Strangely my electricity consumption, night time, was up this May compared to last. Since I have electric heating, that can only be because nights were colder this May than last.
Or the price went up, and basically that is all the is going to happen to your bill. It will keep going up—-And when “dynamic pricing” comes in after they get everyone on a smart meter you are going to get an even bigger shock
The Met Office say that the mean temperature for England in May 2024 was 13.6 This is not the hottest warmest on record, if you consider the Central England Temperature record between 1659 and 2021 inclusive. There are five warmer Mays.
1833 15.1 1848 13.9 1788 13.8 1758 13.8 1808 13.7.
Curiously, the Met Office doesn’t supply the CET for 2023 or 2024. Presumably it takes a couple of years to decide what “adjustments” are needed in order to make the “provisional” data match the values required by The Narrative. If they take their cue from NASA/GISS procedure, the provisional figures for the last two years are always too high, and are given widespread media coverage, but the final figures are then quietly lowered for the “final” record. Naturally, our memories retain the “hottest evah” figures, the red bits on maps and the media fanfare, but the lowered final figures never enter our consciousness.
Finally, it is trivial to create “hottest evah” figures by simply drawing the best-fit straight line through a couple hundred years of data covering the recovery from the Little Ice Age, whereupon each year is bound to appear to be warmer than the preceding year, and the next year is reliably predicted to be even hotter. If you start a land journey from the Dead Sea then wherever you finish you will be higher! If you want to show global cooling (as in the 1970s) you pick a different starting point, such as the 1920s and draw a best-fit line, which will be downwards.
Yes the warming is all in the “adjustments”. ——They like to call it Homogenisation.
How were the temperatures measured? Where were the temperatures measured? Has the environment changed over the years? Has the measurement regime changed? Have the calculation algorithms changed?
I am willing to bet that it is almost impossible to legitimately compare them on a fully scientific basis, in which case hottest, wettest, coldest, driest, most fiery are all meaningless except for propaganda purposes.
Perhaps you would all like to take part in the government sponsored focus groups used to decide what the temperature ought to be when they next measure it.
A nice 21.5 degrees C would suit me just nice. Let’s ask Greta!
Of course, if it was the case that daytime temperatures in May were the highest on record, but low night-time temperatures made the average over May normal or cooler than normal (on average), would they use the same average calculation? I would bet my left leg that no, they would instead focus on only the daytime temperature and ignore the average!
In fact this is precisely what we got when daytime peak temperatures broke records in the the summer of 2022… Not a whisper about averages.
Using RAF Bases and the like. category 4 etc.
Ben Pile is right— “gaslighting” is exactly what they are doing to us.
I first noticed it when the weather forecast maps showed all these alarming red, yellow & orange “heatwave areas” of Britain, when the actual temperatures were only about 21 degrees C, and when the news started warning that “scorching” temperatures could rise to 20 degrees C (70 degrees in old money Fahrenheit, which is far more sensible, measuring the temperature of the air, rather than the Centigrade temperature of water).
Have a look at the photos and headlines on the Electroverse website, scrolling down to see what is really happening:
Electroverse – Documenting Earth Changes During The Next Grand Solar Minimum
We turned the central heating off on June 3rd because it’s supposed to be Flaming June. Yesterday evening I turned it back on. Here on the south coast it’s been a cold and wet Spring. We don’t need the Met Office to play with stats. Our vegetables on the allotment are small and yellow; they know what the weather is like. There was a hysterical article in “The Times” yesterday predicting yet again that the end of the world is nigh.i would have written a rebuttal but had something else to say – about forgotten heroes of WW2…
If you change your past data by repeatedly applying ‘corrections’ to give you the trend you like, you then have to apply your ‘new’ method to the latest data coming in and, after processing, it gives you the next desirable point in your trend. But ‘massaging’ the current data raises more eyebrows than massaging historic data. I suspect that the ONS are going to hit similar problems in the future with their ‘new’ way of calculating excess deaths.
Cloud reduces max day temp and increases min night temp and gives this result. If only the clouds were natural
“It has been a long time since I bothered doing a deep dive into meteorological data, because it turns out that you do not need any kind of weather statistics to know, for absolute sure, that there is no ‘climate crisis”. A great article debunking the Met Office. But they need to earn a crust, more likely a large loaded brioche bun, don’t they? What a Ship of Fools this world is, most of us anyway. We should ship some out to another planet, a really hot one, starting with statisticians. Moving on to climate alarmists next
On GB news this morning, the Met presenter had to say’ there may be a ground frost in the morning in some places’. Quite normal for the 1st week of June.
They do follow the WEF agenda quite nicely though, being a government organ.