As a practical matter is it time for climate sceptics to accept that the argument has been lost? Whilst the terrible events unfolding in Ukraine have led to calls by some politicians for a slowdown in the timetable for Net Zero there is little appetite for changing the direction of travel. Politicians around the world are convinced that human activities are causing the Earth to warm and almost every country has now committed to reducing CO2 emissions to net zero. The USA, Japan and most of the countries of Europe, including the U.K., have pledged to get there by 2050. Germany has committed to get there by 2045. The countries of the developing world are in general pedalling more slowly but have still made the pledge, China by 2060 and India by 2070.
So should climate sceptics buy a Tesla and drive off into the sunset? Or should we remember the old CIA saying “peace is just war by other means” and find another role for ourselves? I hope it is the latter because there is a clear need, as we move towards a Net Zero world, for some voices of sanity.
Many green extremists have positions in science, the media and government. From these positions they pump out an unending stream of apocalyptic propaganda. For example, recently the media reported the claims in an IPCC (Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change) Report that if humanity carries on as it is then by the end of the century “75% of the world’s population will be exposed to life threatening heat” and there could be “nine million climate-related deaths per year”. How credible are such claims?
One of the lessons of Covid is surely that the predictions of scientists, however eminent, need to be treated with great caution. It was nearly two years ago, when Covid first appeared, that we started to hear the expression “following the science”. In practice it meant following the advice of SAGE modellers. And the Government duly followed that advice and locked us down in the Spring of 2020 and again in November and over Christmas 2020. But by the time the Omicron variant came around, at the end of last year, the Government had started to have doubts about SAGE modelling and so it refused to lock us down again. And we saw that the dire SAGE predictions of hospitals being overwhelmed and huge numbers of deaths were greatly exaggerated. If scientists cannot predict the progress of a virus two or three weeks ahead then how can they predict the climate of the Earth 70 or 80 years ahead?
The IPCC itself acknowledged the uncertainty of the climate models in a 2018 Report. It reviewed the models and concluded that if human behaviour remains the same then the Earth will warm by between 0.1 and 0.3 degrees per decade. This is a wide range, a factor of three difference between the lower and higher estimates, and illustrates just how uncertain the models are.
Voices of sanity need to remind people over and over again that trying to model the climate of the Earth is complex and the predictions of climate models have to be treated with great caution. The claim that unless we mend our ways then by the end of the century “75% of the world’s population will be exposed to life threatening heat” and there could be “nine million climate-related deaths per year” are a repeat of the tactics used during the pandemic: make exaggerated claims in order to create fear and modify people’s behaviour.
If instead of climate models we look at the actual data on the temperature of the Earth then the picture is considerably less alarming. The same 2018 IPCC Report referred to earlier concluded that in the decade between 2006 and 2015 the Earth was warmer by between 0.7 and 1.0 degree than it was in the period 1850 to 1900. Such a modest temperature rise hardly justifies talk of “climate crisis” and “the clock is ticking and we are at one minute before midnight”.
Arguably the world would be better and happier place if we shut down all climate research and donated the funds to Ukrainian refugees. Then instead of a constant barrage of green alarmist gloom we could once a year, say on New Years Day, in a low-key address from the UN Headquarters in New York get the latest data on the temperature of the Earth. It would be factual and objective and I suspect much less frightening.
Another important role for voices of sanity is to review the Government policies that are being adopted to achieve Net Zero. In the U.K. the continued expansion of renewables will end in tears. Of course renewables should be part of the energy mix but if we keep expanding them then in a few years’ time, when we have cold spells of winter weather and at the same time there are low wind speeds, there will be power cuts – the lights will go out and the heating will go off. If we want to cut CO2 emissions and maintain energy supply then, as many people have argued before, including some green activists, there is only one option presently available and that is nuclear.
Also, Net Zero does not require us to have zero CO2 emissions. It means the CO2 we emit is balanced by the CO2 we absorb. So if we focus more on increasing the absorbing, for example by the planting of new trees and woodlands, then we can focus less on reducing the emitting. For example, electric cars should arguably be encouraged but the proposed ban on petrol cars in the U.K. will punish those least able to afford it. Electric cars are around 40% more expensive to buy than the equivalent petrol car and less convenient to run because of the length of time it takes to charge a battery compared to the length of time it takes to fill a petrol tank. This is not a great problem if you are relatively well-off and can afford the extra cost and you have your own driveway so you can leave the car to charge overnight. But if you are on an average income then buying an electric car will be a struggle. And if you live in a block of flats then charging it will also be a struggle.
I realise that many Daily Sceptic readers will not agree with me and will still be hoping that our Government abandons Net Zero. But in my opinion that is unlikely to happen and do we want to be like Edward Heath, sitting on the back benches forever scowling at Margaret Thatcher? Or do we accept the situation and move on? Be a part of the discussions that will be taking place as the Government sets policies to achieve Net Zero.
John Fernley is a retired scientist who was a Research Fellow at University College London working on Atomic Physics and subsequently a director of a wind energy development company.
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.
Is it April 1st already?
It’s got nothing to do with Net Zero and all about the trillions to be looted in carbon trading etc.
The only Net Zero will be in the plebs bank accounts.
Did you note that the author is a Director of wind energy development company? Say no more and forget whatever he says as he clearly believes in wind energy which is useless except if it could be stored. Living up in NE Scotland where all the wind farms are, none of the turbines turn on the coldest days as there is no wind.
Middle of January this year, we had a temperature of between -3C to -12C and in that 9 day period we had not a breath of wind but a maximum need of power. Get money invested in Rolls Royce small modular reactors, drill for more oil in the North Sea and start fracking – that way we will have sufficient UK energy supplies and make little difference to the 0.8% CO2 the UK produces.
We are governed by ignorant, frightened pygmies.
Net Zero is a grifters’ charter.
When the voters finally start feeling the effects of net zero…………………
… they’ll blame it on Putin the Bad
Queue the two minutes of hate!
Indeed!
PS you mean “cue”
Yes, thanks.
When I practise my Romanian you can correct me
We already have that. The majority of people I meet are hating on Russia just like the trained seals they are.
It’s designed to block any sensible conversation on the topic. I tried telling someone that both the EU and NATO have all sorts of interests in Ukraine, and that they ultimately are to blame for egging Ukraine on and taunting Putin into attacking. That and the fact that Zelenskyy is Schwab’s boy, just like Macron and Trudeau. Instead of discussing this, the conversation rapidly shifted to how come I am not condemning Putin and how dare I talk about anything other than how bad Putin is, despite me being very clear that I am definitely against the invasion.
Disruption tactics. They’re getting very good at it.
We listen to quite a bit of classical music. Has Tchaikovsky been sanctioned yet?
Yep… I heard George Galloway having a rant t’other day saying some orchestra had removed him from history….or something…. it was George Galloway after all.
Well it will be bad for Putin. All he has to offer are Oil, gas and warfare.
Bring on renewables.
Good luck with that, leek.
The whole notion of “renewable” is a fallacy.
Renewable appears to be a decent business model though – all those windmills will deteriorate and need renewing in 20 years or so, just as the “subsidies” run out
It is a spelling error he meant unreliable.
“Average” living standards increased at quite a fast pace in Russia for more than a decade under Putin, until around 2013, since when they’ve been falling.
Today’s statements from the White House and Boris Johnson saying that Russia might start using chemical weapons make me wonder whether western operatives are about to mount a fake (or fake-flag) chemical attack just as they did at Douma in Syria in 2018.
Why would they do that? The first reason that comes to mind is that they want to escalate the war, through the No-Fly Zone that they have been making their puppets talk about – and which would necessarily involve military conflict between Russia and NATO – and on to nuclear war. The second? Well it may also be possible to make an argument that all they’re really aiming to do is to scare their “own” populations more in order that they’re too browbeaten to protest against further deprivations. After all, it can’t be too long before the financial system goes pear-shaped.
There are problems with that argument. A chemical attack or perceived chemical attack heightens instability: whichever way you look at it, it would raise the probability of the direct involvement of other powers (and not just Belarus) and nuclear war. Meanwhile, rulers think in terms of costs and benefits. Given that the “minds” of the sheeple are pretty much where they want them, they don’t need another Douma-type story to soften them up some more. It would be a waste of resources.
I would like to think a third reason is what we’ve got – basically that this whole discourse gives too much weight to statements from the White House or Downing Street, and it’s no more than today’s barrel-load of piffle, perhaps to be replaced tomorrow by an allegation from a butler that Vladimir Putin is a secret transvestite. However, in this case that seems unlikely.
I agree Star, the Rubio/Nuland conversation screams false flag incoming….I hope they’re not that cynical and stupid but sadly they are hysterical enough to think it would be a good plan and that no one would notice
They have war-gamed a billion, mostly European, dead from a full scale NATO/Russia war.
They have been trying to wipe us out for decades, probably centuries.
This is their one big chance to hit the White genocide/general de-population jackpot.
It’s the hysteria that concerns me. Those who encourage it almost always catch a dose of it themselves. And they are both stupid and arrogant.
They simply can’t see the dangers they are creating for themselves, because they underestimate everyone else.
Their wargames depend on the other guy being a passive idiot. The leading echelons in Russia, China and India are not stupid and they are not hysterical. Possibilities are being opened for them that an earlier FO and State Department would have predicted and avoided.
I don’t think the Western elitists want this to end quickly – a quagmire would be much more beneficial to undermine and destabilise Putin’s control and eventually, they hope, lead to his overthrow.
Yup, in one – an Afghanistan on his doorstep suits them nicely. Almost as if they planned it that way – Bear traps anyone?
The people pushing for war are the neocons who want to balkanise Russia, render it militarily impotent in order to steal its oil and gas, same as they done elsewhere. So much for your bright green future.
Is this why you renewed your handle from “rational” to “leek”?
Or did you just decide it was a much more appropriate name for the ramblings of a vegetable?
Please explain to us all how one wind turbine could produce enough electricity in its lifetime to produce another wind turbine, without the the process conforming to perpetual motion, which has never been achieved.
Kindly also explain where the electricity comes from when the wind doesn’t blow and the sun doesn’t shine.
I’ll give you a clue: https://www.rationaloptimist.com/blog/wind-still-making-zero-energy/
In our new, net zero, ‘sustainable’ future we won’t own anything at all, not even property rights, including any rights over our own body. However a tiny group of global parasites will own everything. Especially us. It’s called slavery
Mwwhite —– then we will elect the socialists —- or what?
The clowns are in charge of the mad house and the lunatics are waiting to take over.
the problem is the term “net zero” is a warm and fuzzy one and the people don’t know either what it really means or the costs to them, once they feel those costs that includes far higher bills, then they will soon change their minds.
If the Great Reset is allowed to happen, it’ll be far too late to change their minds.
I hope this is the case otherwise I won’t get my money’s worth out of the air conditioning unit I bought last year.
It can be turned to “warm”, can’t it. You wont need a heat pump
Yes – we should all just go along with the greatest scam in history – a giant bad weather prevention tax – which will do nothing to the climate but impoverish us all. While we’re at it, let’s all head down to the doctors to get triple clot-shotted. If you can’t beat ‘em, join ‘em. You know it makes sense.
taxing the air we breathe out.
Didn’t we use to joke about that?
Tell me how many miles you have to drive in your Tesla before you break even on c02 compared to petrol/diesel, which have much lower c02 production costs? 50k-90k according to the calcs ive seen. Then you probably need a new battery that those kiddies will mine for you.
Why are they making electric cars the size of a house that weigh about 3 tonnes? Up to 20 tonnes in c02 to produce those things (ie i can do 200k in my focus diesel for same cost). Surely small light electric cars would be far better for the planet. But then the green zealot champagne socialists from Islington want their big SUV fully kitted out with all the trimmings.
Agree 100%. But it’s CO2. One carbon and two oxygen. What we breathe out (and also breathe in, albeit a lot less). Let’s not give the green numpties ammunition against us!
The only reason BEVs exist is because green washing governments mandate their production.
Elon Musk is a crook, but I must give him credit for managing to create a business which loses money by selling its product and only manages to make money by selling ZEV and GHG credits (awarded by aforementioned governments) to proper car manufacturers.
They call him The Subsidy Truffle-Hound, and for good reason.
He also gets a nod from me for being anti-lockdown… but he only did this because he needed to attract a new crowd; he did very well out of socialist largesse in California, and only “fell out” with them when they ran out of money to give him for his “green endeavours”.
Since when have the rulers given a toss for “the planet”?
The more they say they do, the less they actually do.
It’s like when someone says they’re not lying to you, or “to tell you the truth”, or “to be honest”. Imagine a f***ing supermarket company – a SUPERMARKET company! – saying you’ve got to pay for bags because they’re fighting against waste and pollution so much. They’re only robbing you to HELP you. A supermarket company – fighting against waste and pollution. One minute’s clear thought, about what a supermarket is and why they exist…
Galileo had to give up.
Eppur si muove
I am always amused by the inadvertent meaning in the biblical exhortation to ‘not kick against the pricks’ Acts 9:5. Most of the time the pricks deserve a damned good kicking.
The other negative of electric vehicles in their current configuration at least is that from manufacture to scrap page they produce more CO2 than conventional cars. The electricity to charge the batteries is generated usually by CO2 producing fossil fuels. The Lithium Ion batteries are a fire hazard. The Cobalt component of the batteries relies on exploitative child Labour in the Congo. The batteries have a limited life, are very expensive to replace and difficult to dispose of. I predict they will be abandoned as soon as there is an update alternative.
Hybrid, maybe. Using electric just in slow-moving city traffic to improve air quality gets my vote, but that’s it. For the rest it’s lovely fossil for me.
That is just pollution shifting.
Agree. Now, what were you writing about hydrogen fuel cells?
Now don’t you go spoiling Greta’s story – and her children’s crusade!
The other problem with electric vehicles is that from manufacture to scrappage they generate more CO2 than a convention car. The batteries are afire hazard. The Cobalt component of batteries relies on exploitative child Labour in the Congo. The batteries have a limited life, are expensive to replace and difficult to dispose of. As soon as there is a viable alternative I predict they will be abandoned.
Hydrogen Fuel cells. That’s the alternative.
High energy density, fast to refuel, electric motor efficiency, no reliance on mining fuel materials.
If you want to campaign for something, fight for this.
Hydrogen is BS. It’s by far the least efficient way of having no harmful emissions at the point of use.
I say this despite knowing how clean the modern ICE is.
Explain with some facts please..
The exhaust gas from Hydrogen is water.
Marcus acknowledges that, but points specifically to inefficiency.
So show some comparative numbers, with references.
But consider the efficiency of the whole energy chain.
Focussing on point of use is a con. It is what makes electric cars look great, but it’s only part of the story.
You’re deluded, leek. See my response above.
I do agree that BEVs are terrible. Particularly Teslas.
That response is just arm waving. You might as well write a poem.
Where are the numbers?
Taking CH4 and turning it into H, releasing H2o and C02 (could be very wrong) cant ever be effecient v just burning the gas
Where are the numbers?
Two chemical processes are never going to produce as much energy as one. There are always loses involved.
Just looked it up.
Steam reformation of methane. CH4 + H2O —- 3H2 + CO, plus temperatures above 1500degF.
Then CO + H2O—-CO2 + H2, with an iron catalyst.
Or you could just burn the CH4 to produce CO2 and water and energy.
It takes enormous amounts of energy to produce hydrogen, like silly amounts of energy.
Hydrogen fuel doesn’t just grow on trees, it takes far more energy to produce it than it delivers.
It’s just another nutty fantasy like burning fossil fuels to build wind turbines. Why not just generate electricity from burning the damn fossil fuels in the first place and eliminate the losses.
Why is this so difficult for the green loon to understand?
Thank you, Simon.
I understand the chemistry well enough, leek. You’re the one advocating for hydrogen fuel cells. Why don’t you show how amazing they are, compared with the modern diesel engine?
Think about the amount of energy needed to compress hydrogen so that cars don’t need to drive around pulling Zeppelins and barrage balloons filled with it.
Think about where the compression happens.
Never mind the weight of the cylinders.
It isn’t difficult to demonstrate that the only reason hydrogen fuel cells exist is because of scientifically illiterate green-washing politicians trying to demonstrate they are “improving air quality”, egged on by the Gretas of this world.
One of my bosses in London in 2007 was quite open about the fact that the only reason he installed a hydrogen unit was to avoid paying the Congestion Charge. He saved a lot of money. He also never used it, just carried around a lot of extra weight. How green.
Leek is a troll. You are allowing him to hi-jack threads by responding to him.
Please ignore.
You mean avoid questions that are too hard and may make you look stupid.
No, just avoiding your totalitarian balderdash.
Do you think it could be rayc? Or is it “rational” after a training course?
I don’t think leek is a troll. I think leek is genuinely deluded, like a lot of people. I think leek just can’t admit that leek fell for the narrative, but instead of attacking the powerful forces which conned leek, leek attacks those who see through the narrative. Secretly, leek hopes to learn something from us in such a way as to not lose face.
Justify this with some numbers.
No. Since YOU are the one advocating IN FAVOUR of hydrogen fuel cells, as opposed to maintaining the status quo, it behoves YOU to validate and prove YOUR position.
If you hadn’t realised, it’s called the scientific method.
Please explain the net effect on emissions using the various methods mooted to produce Hydrogen ( not a scientist but I gather they involve heavy use of electricity …)
I didn’t think it was possible for you to look any stupider than you do, then you post again, congratulations, it’s the only time you’ve ever proved anyone wrong! LOL
I know very little about Climate Change, but I think by now I know hysteria when I see it, and rabid censorship of dissent, and that makes me suspicious.
So no, I don’t think we should “accept” anything. Accepting things you believe to be wrong because they seem inevitable is appeasement. It didn’t work against wokeism, it didn’t work against coronamadness, and it won’t work against Climate Change madness (if indeed it is madness).
Yes. Giving in just enables them to push further, as the lunatics compete to signal ever greater personal virtue than the next loony.
“Arguably the world would be better and happier place if we shut down all climate research and donated the funds to Ukrainian refugees. ”
From one class of virtue signalling expenditure that it is entirely morally inappropriate for government money ever to be used for, to another?
Granted, the chances of our society ever recovering from the immoral collectivist derangement that mis-identifies state theft as “charity” are slim, but hope springs eternal.
If and when times get hard enough, sanity might return.
I realise that many Daily Sceptic readers will not agree with me and will still be hoping that our Government abandons Net Zero. But in my opinion that is unlikely to happen and do we want to be like Edward Heath, sitting on the back benches forever scowling at Margaret Thatcher?
Thatchers policies were grounded in hard economic reality influenced by world renowned economists like Milton Friedman – Net Zero is pure fantasy grounded in highly questionable science, wildly inaccurate computer modelling forecasts and influenced by a teen eco-activist by the name of Greta Thunberg.
Reality is not optional – you cannot replace what worked with what simply sounds good … ignoring reality is doomed to failure as western nations who have adopted zero/green policies are now just discovering to their cost … or should I say, at the taxpayers cost.
.
“Reality is not optional” A lot of people are trying really really hard to wish it away. I probably won’t live to see the day but I am waiting for the time when they let liars, loonies, incompetents and politicised scientists design politically correct, environmentally friendly aeroplanes and try to pretend nothing has happened when they fall out of the sky. They’d probably blame the far right or something, for cursing the planes.
Exactly. They are so spoiled to not understand that fossil fuels made an inhospitable planet hospitable.
Until it isn’t.
“Until” is an idea in your head.
“Reality is not optional”
It is in Zuckerberg’s Metaverse – that’s probably where the plebs will live their lives for the most part after the Great Reset.
It will end, when the grid goes down in multiple countries, with no way of restarting it. My guess, for the UK, it will happen when large numbers freeze to death in a cold winter.
As much as would like to agree with you…
No, because the sheeple will blame it all on whichever bogeymen TPTB have erected: “unvaccinated”; Putin lovers; unmarried childless women over 21; whatever.
The grid going down will have nothing to do with putin, the un vaxxed or anything else. It will clearly be down to the energy policy that is net zero. Maybe it should be framed as a net zero energy policy ie for every private jet flight that I take, 100 of you have to use no energy this year.
See how long it takes before the private jet users are swinging from lamp posts.
I think you need to loosen up to recognise sarcasm, but the point Marcus is making is spot on.
They will never, ever admit that a policy they put in place caused such a calamitous scenario.
The establishment will pull together, as it always does, to fudge, distort, blame and lie its way out of any responsibility. Then there’ll be an inquiry, “lessons will be learnt”, and the show goes on.
I agree re sarcasm, but my point remains. They won’t change anything until a disaster happens, which may be sooner than we/they think. Look at what is called a “fire sale”. Everything must go. One can’t restart an electric grid by just switching on a power station. Everything must be balanced, to stop substations et al burning out. So if the grid collapses, it won’t be weeks it will be years before electicity is provided to people. Cue mass death.
The argument hasn’t even taken place.
Net Zero is malevolence masquerading as science, it is a genocidal ideology.
The author is a disgrace.
Best laid plans and all that.
In 1859 the Earth was struck by a coronal mass ejection (CME) from the Sun – the Carrington Event. The mass of highly charged particles generated currents in the telegraph cables in the US melting them. Fortunately this took place before nearly everyone was totally dependent on a reliable continuous electrical supply, not to mention the internet of things, including the ability to buy food.
When the next similarly sized CME hits, which it will sooner rather than later, how do you think civilisation will fare? The cables could be replaced quickly if we were prepared, but the larger transformers not so soon as they are mostly one offs that will take years to build.
Considering that it has been remarked that civilisation is only 3 meals deep, the events we are planning for aren’t the ones that will take us back to the Stone Age if we continue to ignore them.
[Note that the Earth’s protective magnetic shield is also waning rapidly, and the magnetic poles have reversed their direction of wandering – starting in 1859 – with the North Magnetic Pole now heading towards Northern Russia], both of which events are contributing far more to climate change than CO2 ever could.
Russia! Is there anything the Russians won’t spoil for the rest of us
Exactly. The energy the CME sent earthwards was enough that the telegraphists could continue to morse each other even after disconnecting their batteries.
Not sure what the point of this article is. All the paragraphs bar the last one lists all the reasons why AGW is bunkum and Net Zero is idiocy on stilts. Then the last one tells us that maybe we have lost the argument (what ‘argument’?) but maybe we can be clever about how we achieve Net Zero.
First of all, what makes you think that this strategy will work? Pointing out the idiocy of the AGW theory and Net Zero IS what may helps us prevent the very worse policies from being implemented.
The larger point is that we should never sacrifice individual liberties for collective safety (almost threw up in my mouth writing those two words) or collective anything. This is why we must not move on from Covid until the truth is made known and there has been just retribution.
“Net zero crowd has won”…No no no! Nothing more likely to focus the minds of hundreds of millions of people in the west as empty pockets, no electricity and cold showers!
Er, no.
Are electric cars only 40% more expensive than the ICE equivalent?
List price I believe. I don’t know how the battery + electricity v petrol price works out.
I’ve only ever bought second hand but I don’t think that’s a very good option for electric
Don’t understand. Sorry. What I meant is that over the lifespan of the EV you’re going to have pay for the fuel AND replacement batteries, which are very expensive (at the moment), as opposed to just the fuel for the ICE
sorry I was thinking of the list price and depreciation…I’ve never bought a new car because it’s so much cheaper to buy a one-year-old car, but that simply isn’t the case with EVs. When I last bought a car I looked at a Nissan Leaf (so glad I didn’t buy that, 6 years later!) at something like 22 grand – and bought a used Micra for 5,000. At the time, there were virtually no second hand EVs available and those that were, were not much less than the full price.
I wonder if Mr/Doc/Prof Fernley would like to comment on wind energy. It is my belief that wind turbines produce not much more energy over their lifespans than is used in their construction and maintenance. Thus they are entirely useless. Maybe I’m wrong.
Isn’t it time to ignore the IPCC and its daft models and listen to the science… the one based on the data not loony green wet dreams?
Which science do you mean?
It’s hard to see the purpose of the UK’s net zero policy given our relatively small contribution to global CO2. I used to think this was an exercise in virtue-signaling that would be ‘achieved’ through creative accounting, but now it seems it might be a serious proposal. Of course it couldn’t possibly have any effect on the climate unless major polluting countries decided they had to join in, and on the basis of prior showing, I would predict that it would entail a movement of wealth from the poorer to the richer in society, to fund measures a good number of which will have precisely the opposite effect to that intended. I’m not sure whether we need to just accept this and move on.
“and subsequently a director of a wind energy development company.”
Kind of blows the whole article out of the water I’d say along with the eggy ‘John Fernley’s merely a concerned neutral observer’ narrative.
An article telling us we should just bend over and accept a £3 trillion ruinous assault on our liberty, our lives and our country whose author just happens to be the director of Unicorn Fart Co.? Do better Daily Sceptic.
Here’s another reminder of what else our £3 trillion Net Zero program could buy, but is sadly being diverted into John and his friend’s trousers:
-6000 brand new hospitals with free parking.
-636 missions to Mars.
-The cost of an Uber journey across our entire solar system and back.
-3 million KLFs with 3 million furnaces.
-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 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.
3 million KLFs – the Justified & Ancient type?
And they’d have furnaces in which to burn a million quid each!
Mu Mu
Also known as the Jamms
But, they drive an Ice cream van. And I’m sure that isn’t electric.
The Earth has been COOLING for the last 8 years or so, and will cool faster as we go into the downward phase of the AMO. What are the Net Zero crowd going to say then? Pump more CO2 out?
A common argument that is nonsense.
Cherry picking data fools only yourselves.
“Is it Time For Climate Sceptics to Accept That the Net Zero Crowd Has Won?”
Have won what exactly? The truth is just the truth and cannot be invented to fit a particular narrative. I think all they have won is the propaganda war (for now), not that the opposite side had much chance to air their views. But if the climate zealots are lying it will become clear at some point. My guess is that the coming energy poverty (and poverty generally) will focus many minds on the validity of the claims made by climate alarmists. There’s nothing like cold and hunger to get people’s attention. If climate sceptics are simply seeking the truth then they should not be deterred by the background noise of unquestioning groupthink. Just go on seeking the truth.
I am appalled that the DS has given space to this article.
Better to have this view out in the open than not.
Emel I disagree. It is the dark side which “Denys” debate.
Don’t be so pessimistic.
I was part of the campaign to leave the EU for decades and for almost all that time a lot of similarly minded folk were worried about a referendum. They believed it could not be won.
When our country and the west as a whole is following a policy that will end in suicide for our nations, the argument cannot ever be abandoned. At some point the futility of the net zero policies and the costs to people generally will be so large that a political reaction will take place. It may be too late to prevent authoritarian, perhaps foreign take over of our countries but it might just be in time.
When policies like net zero are abandned as unnecessary, ineffective and stupid, do not expect any apologies from the promoters. We have never had any apology from those on the left who excused away all the Soviet, Communist and other left wing governments. They just crept out of the media for a couple of years and re-emerged with another set of ridiculous policies, net zero and wokism being two of them.
Well said Epping, but when can we expect to leave the EU?
Of course renewables should be part of the energy mix
There really is no “of course” about this.
he spelt unreliables wrong too
Incuding this one
Won what? The Argument? The Debate?
What argument? What debate?
What ‘post normal’ planet are you living on?
John Fernley, Director of 4 Wind Energy Companies in the recent past, all dissolved. Age , almost 73 yrs, resident of Brighton.
Why exactly has is this bloody stupid article been posted?
If climate hysterics banging their heads against an impenetrable brick wall of “Net Zero”, is winning, then yes they have won.
How many Covid obsessives are also climate hysterics? Almost all of them. How do you combat 30 years of relentless propaganda in the schools, universities and the media? This is a lucrative industry that rests entirely on the myth that the end of the world is nigh. Nothing wrong with environmental sustainability in principle but it has been turned into a pernicious self-serving ideology. It is time we started to fight back.
Fighting narratives is difficult. They’re designed to encourage identification and take you along to the enjoyable or terrifying climax (in this case Net Zero or The End of the World). Once begun, they have a compelling force and power of their own.
Tackling “pollution” is not sexy, but it was remarkably effective in the last half of the 20th century (not universally, of course). The climate change scenario changed everything. It required the willing suspension of disbelief, and that’s exactly what it got.
I don’t believe there’s any point in attempting to create a counter-narrative – not on this one. The narrative is now a juggernaut. It has to be confronted, piece by piece, at precisely the points where “Net Zero” has a negative impact on people’s lives:
Well since the majority of people are actually sensible, the majority of people will accept the substantial scientific basis behind climate change and reasonable Covid management such as vaccinations.
You would be surprised at how few pay attention to your fringe views.
You really discredit yourselves when you object to everything, just because your peers do.
There is no substantial scientific basis to human caused climate emergency.
These shots are not vaccines.
Your supercilious sniping shows you to be both arrogant and ignorant.
Millions will die because of the likes of you.
Why no mention of Farage asking for a Referendum on net zero policy? The fact that the haters out there have unleashed a tidal wave of ad hominems and general vitriol tells me his position at least bears further investigation. An example of the screeching:
https://www.desmog.com/2022/03/10/nigel-farages-net-zero-referendum-drive-is-steeped-in-climate-science-denial/
There was a guest on Financial Sense a few weeks ago who said climate change policy is now only about growing GDP – juicy loans to build infrastructure for renewables, without which today’s historically high levels of debt can’t be serviced.
Of course another major way of rebalancing the global ledger is War – lots spent from more loans on weapons, ships, aircraft etc which destroy property, which then has to be rebuilt with another dose of “funding”. What’s not to like in that for bankers?
When I hear phrases like “climate science denial”, I know that I am listening to a pathological ignoramus who has no idea what science is. . .
A couple of things here. Scientists are more often wrong than they are right, otherwise there would be no need for experiments.
Secondly, the world has never been a better place for humanity to live. The planet has greened substantially over 35 years of satellite observations than ever in recorded history.
Health is is also dramatically better than even 100 years ago leading to longer, more productive and enjoyable lives.
Extreme poverty has fallen like a stone over the last 100 years across the planet, as has child mortality rates.
There is barely a single thing in our lives that haven’t improved dramatically over the last 100 years including wars. Despite the middle east and Ukraine, the world is demonstrably a more peaceful place.
As for food, mankind throws away our excess and we no longer have to grub for it.
Finally, the spectre (fantasy) of over population is a myth. The western world’s population is in decline because of falling birth rates largely attributed to prosperity.
The developing world’s birth rate is increasing because they have no old age provision. Families must be large to overcome child mortality rates the west wouldn’t tolerate and large families are the only source of income support the elderly have.
So, another two things here, the fear isn’t about global warming really, it’s the malthusian concept of controlling population promoted by the wealthy because they fear death, because that’s the end of their power.
They imagine that somehow they will be robbed of their wealth by the poor when, in fact, the poor is where they derive their wealth from.
So population control doesn’t make sense, even to the uber wealthy. Would Bill Gates add to his extraordinary wealth if there were only ten people left on the planet buying his software?
But then there is power, and here’s where Putin comes in, not because he desires power but because he resist’s it.
The west has been expanding its industrial military might eastwards relentlessly since WW1. It’s now bumped into Russia, the largest country in the world which has said ‘enough’.
Russia is a young democracy. It’s a bit like the early days of democracy in the UK where life was tough, there was no welfare state and people had to work for a living or starve.
But back to the point, which is that without cheap, reliable fossil fuel energy the developing world cannot prosper. They cannot reduce birth rates, wars will continue to be fought over energy and people will profit from war.
Climate change isn’t about CO2, it’s about yet another profit bonanza for the super wealthy.
Hear hear Scottie!
Seems to have been a bit of a u turn on this since it was written. Needs must and all that.
“and susbsequently a director of a wind energy sic development company”
Nuf said
Like we rolled over for the Covid mania? I think your losing the reason for our existence.
The real issue is the loss of social circles over this insanity, you either have to parrot the dogma, or lose inevitably lose friends, I choose to be informed.
No, we should not give up. We are up against very well funded green advocates who are in place all over industry, governments and charities. Many of them are making a lot of money from all this, so the task of sorting it is massive, and probably unachievable.
However, we should try to keep the light of reason burning. One never knows, a crisis like the one we are in may occur, and the collective wisdom of sceptics needs to be available to give politicians the scientific cover they would need to make some of the necessary changes.
Surely one of the problems with the IPCC reports is that there is a Report (thousands of pages long) which is written by ‘real’ (or at least ‘more real’) scientists, and then there’s an Executive Summary (dozens of pages long) which is written by activists who pick out the most apocalyptic findings of the Report and dress them up as The Science©
The next step is to hand over to the BBC/Sky/Guardian cabal, and the job is done…..
Perhaps a tiny silver lining of the Ukraine cloud is that the malleable public are waking up to the green wokery b.s. Bottom line: money talks. When fuel bills rocket principles are easily chucked away. Net Zero must be buried.
I might be forced to accept that the UN/WEF will get the Net Zero policy because they own our Governing Class, but that doesn’t mean I will voluntarily contribute towards delivering it …. or vote for it.
A week is a long time in politics. There are 2 / 3 years before the next General Election and plenty of time for the electorate to revolt against the deliberate ramping up of energy costs/war on drivers/cost of living etc.
The whole thing is insanity. The so called EV revolution will severely worsen the lives, life style and life chances of the masses, if not impoverish larges sections.
Fossil fuels fazed out, crap public transport, restricted travel, lower aspirations and worse economic prospects.
If the government won’t get a grip and stop the nonesense then we need to. And soon before it’s too late.
I’m not a sceptic, rather, an empiricist. Planet Earth has been cooling for 7k years.
We’re already a few years into a GSM which may drop temperatures as much as the rise since the LIA end in mid 19th century.
So destroying our energy sources in the face of this is an act of deep stupidity that smacks of ideological possession.
And CO2 has rarely been much lower in planetary history.
and there’s nothing you can do about how Ice Ages and interstadials manifest.
Why do we continue with this fear mongering, red herring of ‘climate catastrophe?’ This only plays into the hands of the green industrialists and the technocrats. According to Chris Morrison the DS’s Environment Editor, there is not yet one single peer reviewed paper that proves conclusively human activity is responsible for all or part of global warming. The rise since 1800 is small and insignificant. What is significant is the amount of industrially produced poisons and toxins in the air, water and food we all need to stay alive. Let’s focus on the real problems not the projections of computer models which are no doubt even more useless than the models used to project huge numbers of deaths from Covid-19.
No, we shouldn’t give in and accept Net Zero, because it’s not based on reality – it’s a cult. While we retain even a vestige of rationality and value scientific achievement we should strive for evidence-based government policy.
No. We must fight and fight again to ensure the truth will out, to preserve the scientific method from political interference and to guarantee our rights to freedom of speech and conscience.
Now let’s talk about the East India Company operations in Bengal in the 1760s. “Eh?“ you say. Stay with me here, it’s important. Bengal, earlier in the 18th Century was one of the richest, most productive places on the planet. In 1759, Clive ‘of India’ backed by Indian banking syndicates wins the Battle of Plassey and takes over the taxation system. Within ten years, Bengal is taxed to death, asset stripped and millions of people in this once wealthy province have died of starvation. They died because the grain stores had ‘not been maintained’ for which we can read “sold off”. Now I’m not writing this to have a dig at the British Empire. This was not the actions of ‘Britain’ it was the action of a private company, run for profit that had been put in a situation where they had control of the tax system and the laws on property rights. No, I’m not having a pop a capitalism here either. The commercial world is hard and ruthless, and businesses need to be hard nosed and be prepared to grasp an opportunity which presents itself, simply to survive. The problem for Bengalis in the 1760 is that ethical attitudes of their new overlord, which was perfectly acceptable in deal making in a market place where customers have the right to walk away and talk to your competitor next door, proved disastrous when the same ethics were used to run a state, where the citizens could not walk away and get taxed somewhere else. A company, answerable to its shareholders for profit, cannot reasonably be put in a situation where it is supposed to work “for the common good” as might be said in the current parlance. It’s a short road to disaster.
Now let’s get back to today. Over the past 15 years we have had Governments who have taken billions of pounds of taxpayers money and given it to the banks, to the green energy business and to the pharmaceutical industry. Why? Well because “A banking collapse would destroy western civilization”, “Global warming will destroy the world”, “Covid will kill billions of people”. The pattern is clear. If you are a CEO of a big multinational and want to do your job of maximizing returns for you shareholders, you come up with a scare story, and sell it to the politicians. The politicians in turn can play the hero to the voters by ‘dealing with the crisis’. For the multinational, its one sale with a huge return. Moreover, if you were such a multinational, why would you stop? The last 15 years has proved that this business model works and can be repeated again and again. It can be repeated that is until the country concerned ends up like Bengal in the 1760s. But by that time, just like in the cast of the East India Company, the shareholders are far away and rich.
If we are to protect ourselves from this kind of exploitation, our unrelenting and unceasing scepticism is so important. The only way this cycle can be broken, before we all go broke, is to break the power of the scare stories on the public. Social and Main Stream Media might be awash with nudging, propaganda, virtue signalling and the evidence of mass formation, but and it is a huge but, tens and hundreds of thousands of people protesting on the streets of the UK demonstrate that this psychosis is not universal and can be broken. When we human beings go home to our own thoughts, we read and we think for ourselves. Without a commitment to the facts, to the evidence and to alternative interpretations, those people, us, the taxpayers, the people of Britain and the world are left marooned without that alternate viewpoint to consider. It is clear scepticism works. The NHS mandates have been removed. Demands for repeated lockdowns from powerful voices were dropped by Government. Scepticism can win. So, as human beings, let us put in the hard work to make our civilization one that can be proud of its ethics, its reasoning and its commitment to the truth.
A worrying article, arguing that although truth is being twisted and almost buried by those claiming to be ‘experts’ and ‘scientists’, nevertheless they have bullied and scared the public into going along with very dubious claims and have won, as if the ‘science’ were ‘settled’.
This is not only a catastrophe for the non wealthy but also for ‘science’, which is now enjoying a risible reputation for using fear rather than scientific method to get authoritarian rule accepted. What is happening is that post modern ‘science’ is taking us back to the days before Galileo, even before Aristotle, and into a superstitious medieval fideism of an infallible and indefectible papal kind.
Toe the line of these cardinals or you get cancelled and set upon by the monstrous regiment of the Woke BBC et al. We do need proper science, but as the days go by it is destroying its own reputation as a bringer of truth, first Covid and now this act of faith in zero carbon as the path to salvation.
If the Russians are pushed into a corner and use nuclear weapons the only net zero that will happen is zero population, but hey ho mother earth will still carry on without us and probably be better off.
I don’t think much of anybody, never mind someone who was allegedly a scientist, who hasn’t worked out that net zero is impossible without mass genocide and returning our society to the 18th century (or earlier.)
Renewables provide about %5 of our energy needs compared to 65% coming from fossil fuels. It is also not just about energy as fossil fuels provide the feedstocks for things like plastics and fertilizers. Just getting rid of fertilizers will mean that half of us will have to work in agriculture digging sh1t into the fields. I know that would be an ideal for our politicians as they could source the raw materials directly from their mouth.
Net zero common sense (common purpose?)
The only positive I can see for this article was that it generated lots of interesting comments.
‘… to accept that the argument has been lost? ‘
There has been no argument to lose! It takes two to argue. The Climatists have refused all debate so as not to give credibility to challengers or give the public cause to wonder by so doing if the science isn’t ‘settled’.
What has been lost is democratic accountability of our political class who all, irrespective of Party, agree on all the major issues that affect our lives.
Net Zero is a pathetic pipe dream, might as well make the target Friday next week for all the sense it makes.
“Net Zero is a pathetic pipe dream”
Did you mean net zero will never happen?
If so, you must believe there is an infinite supply of fossil fuel and that the concentration of CO2 in the atmosphere will exceed levels that are directly injurious to human health.
Or did you mean net zero by 2050 is not possible?
If so, when you think net zero will happen?
No
Next question?
Stupid headline – this scam has been forced on the world by the power crazed Gilded Elites to force the Great Reset by wrecking our lives for s total nonsense..
“Is it Time For Climate Sceptics to Accept That the Net Zero Crowd Has Won?”
No.
“Is it Time For Climate Sceptics to Accept That the Net Zero Crowd Has Won?”. Absolutely not! And regardless of what they claim, they can never defy the physical laws of nature; they not ‘win ‘.
“Is it Time For Climate Sceptics to Accept That the Net Zero Crowd Has Won?”
How much more defeatist can we get?
If we surrender to this nonsense it is time for the whisky and the pistol.
A lot of people seem to be worried that increasing the contribution of wind and solar will result in power cuts. Gas fired power stations will of course be needed for the foreseeable future to fill the gaps on those sunless, windless days.
Every kWh from cheap wind and solar saves a kWh of expensive gas.
Increasing wind and solar will allow the UK’s dwindling gas reserves to last much longer, and with sufficient gas storage we can look forward to energy independence.
The latest IPCC Report (no 6) states the same temperature rise of roughly 1 degree centigrade since 1850 and non appreciable rise in the last ten years. Hardly surprising that the Earth has warmed up a bit since the end of the Little Ice Age in 1850, although it still lower than during the Medieval Warm Period.
Climate change exists and and always will do so, but it has very little to do with mankind other than to help idiots confuse weather events with climate.