To be referred to as a scientist suggests that someone has studied science, passed exams relevant to their subject and continued to work, exploring that particular field. Most people would consider a scientist as an intelligent human being.
Climate scientists are constantly warning us that if the global level of carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gas emissions is not cut the world will suffer badly.
We will experience extreme heat leading to intense heatwaves, droughts and wildfires.
There will be more intense, even supercharged storms with the inevitable flooding and wind damage.
Low lying regions will be submerged as the ice caps melt.
I recently travelled to Las Vegas in Nevada. Outside temperatures were 42 degrees Celsius in the shade. There was no cool breeze outside, just a hot wind akin to being in front of a giant hairdryer. Inside, particularly in the cavernous casinos, it was cool and comfortable. Any transport I used had air conditioning.
Outside the city there were solar panels and wind turbines. There was also one installation where fields of mirrors focus sunlight on receivers located on centralised solar power towers. The receivers generate steam to drive adapted steam turbines. It sounds like an amazing idea but the one I passed is apparently slated for closure. Perhaps that is because the concentrated energy beam is a lethal death ray for any birds!
The roads were almost constantly full. A few Teslas but mainly petrol or diesel powered cars and trucks.
The USA relies on hydrocarbons for over 80% of its energy.
A few years ago I was in China and witnessed a similar scenario.
India isn’t there yet but will be, so perhaps will the African nations one day.
I am not a scientist but the evidence I can see suggests that global emissions are on the increase.
We have British based climate scientists that are constantly badgering about Britain’s energy use and how we have to reduce our emissions.
Britain accounts for around 1% of global emissions.
I can’t see the rationale that if Britain reduces its emissions (and impoverishes itself by doing so) the rest of the world will follow, assuming that would halt climate change.
Because the rest of the world is evidently increasing their use of hydrocarbons, if British based climate scientists genuinely believe that we are heading for disaster they should be screaming from the rooftops about what we need to do to protect our country and our people.
There should be a plethora of scientists on TV and writing columns in newspapers calling for things like flood defences and reservoirs to divert and save the massive amounts of rainwater expected for when we need it. Desalination plants to cope with prolonged summer droughts and provide a means to put out wildfires. Giant greenhouses where temperatures can be regulated (and carbon dioxide can be fed to the crops) to protect our food supply. Switching to animal breeds that can cope with extremes and providing shelter for the cattle, again to protect our food supply. Building regulations that take into account not only the need for retaining heat in winter, which they already do, but getting rid of heat in summer.
But none of them say any of this, all we hear is the need for wind turbines, solar panels, electric cars. Everything that has a government subsidy or is predominantly made in China. One has to wonder where the money comes from to pay these scientists.
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.
But “maladaption” to “climate change” is the point. If we did sensible things as you suggest, people would stop worrying about “climate change”; newspapers (and the Climate Attribution charlatans) would stop attributing every instance of sun/cloud/rain/sleet/snow/wind/air to Climate Change; people might start asking where all the £££££ devoted to Climate Change come from… and where’s they’re going.
The UK accounts for 1% of human CO2 emissions. Human CO2 emissions account for 5% of planetary CO2 emissions. Human activity in the UK therefore accounts for 0.05% of planetary CO2 emissions. The British Isles could sink into the sea next week and it would have zero measurable impact on the atmosphere’s composition. Ever get the feeling you’ve been cheated? (Nod to Johnny Rotten).
The author writes, “The USA relies on hydrocarbons for over 80% of its energy.”
According to the Energy Institute’s latest Statistical Review of World Energy, the total energy supply dependency on fossil fuels (oil, coal, gas) for the world as a whole is a stonking 86%. For the UK, the figure is 79%.
The UK government recent admitted that the UK achieved a net reduction of just 15% on greenhouse gas emissions over the period 1996 to 2023.
These official statistics show clearly that Net Zero is pointless and unachievable, both globally and nationally here in the UK.
So what on earth is stopping the authorities from admitting that the entire Net Zero endeavour has been a huge mistake which needs to be abandoned before any further pointless damage is inflicted on our energy infrastructure and economy, especially as most of the rest of the world, now including the USA, clearly doesn’t give two hoots about it? I can only conclude that malign deep state influence is being brought to bear for some inscrutable unfathomable ulterior motive.
It is very frustrating that there is no honest public debate with those at the top of the establishment on their reasons… Read more »
My guess would be “ vested interests “.
‘The USA relies on hydrocarbons for over 80% of its energy.’
while the UK, even after all the spending, relies on hydrocarbons for over 70% of its energy
97% of Carbon dioxide is naturally made, from oceans, volcanic activity and rotting vegetation.
To suggest 0.04% of Carbon dioxide in the atmosphere is causing a climate crisis is rubbish science.
The latest Minister in lieu of Miliband was interviewed in the last hour on BBC PM, and seemed quite rationale, although she would not open her mouth about new oil & gas extraction from the North Sea.
As you say, it is always a good idea to invest in things that can ameliorate weather changes. Desalination is probably not a good investment here, though. There are other water supply projects that are on the shelf – like new surface reservoirs, or the plan to transfer water from one river to another (Severn to Thames). However, Thames Water has roughly £20BN debt on the balance sheet, so you can see where that project is at present.
Could desalination be used as a way of using up excess electricity when the renewables are producing too much and Europe doesn’t want it?
She has had training from a George Soros funded think tank – she will be worse https://www.charlottecgill.co.uk/p/every-article-you-need-to-understand?utm_source=substack&utm_medium=email#media-5e27d465-c821-42a4-85c5-72629db8d81c
“One has to wonder where the money comes from to pay these scientists.”
Our taxes, NGOs, International bodies, rich people like Bill Gates (until recently), and numerous vested interests who stand to profit from all the cash being thrown around.
It would seem that several £million comes from Dale Vince (Ecotricity) which goes to the Labour Party, which effectively launders it through the Treasury and then awards it to so-called Green “charities” who lobby for more, and Eco Nutter $cientists who produce flawed models which always find that climate change is going to kill everyone …. 10 years ago …. and the solution is to give massive taxpayer subsidies to the likes of Dale Vince so they can build more solar farms.
And in return Dave Vince gives Labour more money …..
Putting “climate” before “scientist” is like placing “witch” in front of “doctor”.
Unless you are William Happer, Richard Lindzen or Judith Curry plus others who are honest. Climate science is indeed scientific, but it has been appropriated by politics and huge research grants.
Will Happer is a physicist, Richard Lindzen is an atmospheric physicist and Judith Curry is a climatologist.
Watch his videos – William Happer has done work on climate science, which isn’t much more than the physics of heat movement in gases (atmospheric physics). Svensmark is another proper climate scientist (who has just lost his job).
The new Energy Secretary to replace Ed Milibrain is Miatta Fahnbullah…. Those relieved that he has gone need to read this…she will be worse https://www.charlottecgill.co.uk/p/every-article-you-need-to-understand?utm_source=substack&utm_medium=email#media-5e27d465-c821-42a4-85c5-72629db8d81c
Very good point.
If we in the UK only account for 1% of the world’s carbon dioxide emissions, our scientists should spend more time lecturing the rest of the world and leave us in peace. Even if you do believe that anthropogenic climate change is real, you can’t seriously think that removing our 1% is going to make the slightest noticeable difference to anyone, ourselves included?
The percentage is lower than that, around 0.78% from what I’ve read elsewhere. And falling all the time as the climate change derangement drives out investment and industry.
But we are not even removing it, just relocating it to China and India.
And as the fires in Canada that are sending smoke south into the USA, the atmosphere does not respect borders.