Always keen to stay one step ahead of the English, Nicola Sturgeon has set the Scottish Net Zero target at 2045, five years ahead of England’s. No longer can anyone pretend that the climate catastrophe is some abstract event, the Scottish First Minister told the recent COP26 conference in Glasgow. “You only have to see the increasing numbers of severe weather events around the world to know that the climate, and the planet is changing rapidly”, she added.
Alas, it appears some pretence is now required to promote the Scottish Net Zero agenda using the ‘climate fireball’ scare tactic.
According to the Met Office graph (above), the temperature in Scotland has stalled and has barely moved for almost 20 years. Indeed Scotland seems to be leading the way in plateauing measurements. Satellite data show that the global temperature pause is almost eight years long, although, as in Scotland, the start of the slow down can be dated before 2000. Of course, Sturgeon is never going to be short of a bit of bad or severe weather somewhere in the world to point a finger at. And, needless to say, climate change must also be seen as a “feminist” issue.
But old scare habits die hard. Last week, the Government-sponsored Climate Change Committee (CCC) issued some nannying nonsense about tackling climate change in Scotland, and stated that the process had “stalled”. The chairwoman of the CCC adaptation committee Julia King, Baroness Brown of Cambridge, told the BBC that the average temperature in Scotland “has risen by 0.5°C” over the last 30 years. According to the Met Office graph, the figure is around 0.4°C. In addition, King’s figure is clearly cherry picked, since most of the rise occurred in the last century.
Many of the forecasts for future climate change in Scotland were produced in 2018 by the Met Office Hadley Centre. A useful summary of the predictions was compiled by the Scottish Government-funded Adaptation Scotland, and can be seen here. Assuming the current ‘medium-high’ carbon dioxide emissions scenario, it said that temperature would rise by 1.5°C by 2050. By 2080, the temperature could rise to 3°C, with a top limit of 5°C. Back in the real world, the Met Office graph would shoot up nearly vertically with a high point well past this article’s headline. Inaccurate doesn’t even begin to describe it!
Turning to rainfall, the Met Office predicted about 12% extra precipitation by 2050 in winter and around 8% less in summer. These figures, along with those for heat, are of course just guesses made by constantly wrong climate models.
The actual figures from the Met Office show that Scottish rainfall has been stable for over 30 years, albeit with a recent marginal fall. As with the previous chart, both temperature and rainfall showed a rise for a short period from the 1970s. It is likely they were linked – slightly higher temperatures leading to increased water evaporation. A link with CO2, the vital connection that must be proved to justify Net Zero, remains scientifically unproven. The Scottish temperature chart is similar to other northern hemisphere countries. Carbon dioxide rose throughout the 20th century, despite pauses, dips and rises in the temperature. From 1900 to 1940, before mass industrialisation took off, it rose by 5.2%.
For old times’ sake, climate alarmists still promote the fireball narrative but their hearts cannot be in it. The once fashionable global cooling scare of the 1970s was killed off by the small jump in temperatures during the 1980s and 90s. It is likely that a decade of flatlining will do the same to the warming alarm. The more scientists look at the Earth’s climate, the more evidence accumulates that the changes seen since the turn of the 19th century have occurred countless times in the past. The Earth has been much hotter and colder in the past, CO2 levels have been 15 times higher in the atmosphere and plant and animal life has been abundant. Short-term temperature movements are commonplace.
Meanwhile, Scotland is saddled with a nationalist Government supported by green activists that seeks to close down the oil and gas industry, which for a while gave an enormous boost to its fragile economy. In barely 23 years, the Scots plan to warm their homes in the depth of a bitterly cold winter by drawing heat from the outside frozen air and ground. As well, they will be forced to rely on battery cars to safely move around the under-populated wilds of the freezing north. Recently Sturgeon came out against developing the Cambo oil field off the coast of the Shetlands.
It is not as if Scotland does not have enough problems already to contend with. Writing in the Daily Telegraph on Saturday, Camilla Tominey noted that the SNP Government had presided over failure after failure. These included a toxic nationalist debate, falling education and health provisions, rising drug abuse and broken public finances. This has occurred at a time when the funding per person for public services is 30% higher than in England, much of which arises as a result of the Barnett Formula. Perhaps this goes some way to explaining why the SNP “thinks it can afford to run the country like a banana republic”, suggested Tominey.
The all-in energy bet being made in Scotland is for subsidy-hungry, intermittent wind, a process started by Sturgeon’s predecessor Alex Salmond. In 2014, Salmond suggested that Scotland’s green energy resources could power much of Europe. With its natural energy resources the envy of Europe, Scotland, he continued, “could be the Saudi Arabia of renewables”. The bet is being placed despite the local Institution of Engineers and Shipbuilders warning that Scottish green policy was likely to lead to “severe electricity blackouts”.
If only there was a way to harness the windy rhetoric of Scottish politicians, Scotland could light up the globe.
Chris Morrison is the Daily Sceptic’s Environment Editor
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.
As with all officiak narratives complete bollox.
I’m sure when the digital harms bill comes in any questioning of the climate fraud will be classed as a harm and banned.
“98% of Harm Experts agree”.
(This post is OSB compliant)
If only there was a way to exist without leaving any trace of our existence.
Don’t worry, the government is already working on it.
Their Net Zero Carbon is the ‘final solution’ – the Human extinction plan.
This is all childish nonsense. As I’ve pointed out here several times recently, most major non-Western countries are either unconcerned about the impact of greenhouse gases on the climate or don’t regard the issue as a priority, focusing instead for example on economic growth, poverty eradication and (increasingly and understandably) on energy security. Yet these countries – comprising 84% of the world’s population and all its poorest people – are the source of 75% of global emissions whereas Britain is the source of less than 1% – making Scotland the source of about 0.09%. Nothing Nicola does – by 2045 or earlier – can make even the slightest difference to the continuing growth of global emissions. It’s all completely pointless.
Since when did our leaders stop speaking childish, pointless nonsense?
You tell me.
The best way for the uk to reduce co2 emissions is to invest in cleaner solutions for the developing world, less polluting power generation, and all forms of transport plus heating for homes (water plus space).
if our old polluting stuff never made it to less developed nations then they have to buy new efficient stuff.
how about reverse subsidies for developing nations to buy our new less polluting technologies at lower prices.
a glaring issue is that things like dpf filters on cars reduce mpg, try persuading a developing nation taxi driver to ditch his old diesel that does 60mpg for the new less polluting one that does 40mpg and needs more expensive servicing, their priorities are different to ours.
But we don’t need to reduce CO2 at all.
We should be as efficient as possible, do more with the same or less, that in its own right reduces co2.
Yeah, but as I said, we don’t need to reduce our production of CO2. In fact it would benefit us more if we increased it.
There is no need to reduce CO2, see this chart for a true picture of how much CO2 is in the atmosphere – it’s a trace gas!
If anything, it needs to be increased. It’s a plant food after all.
it’s a trace gas!
So what? What matters is the absolute amount of GHGs including CO2, not the vast amount of other irrelevant gasses. It is like saying a singe drop of Novichok can’t harm you because it represents such a low concentration.
No it’s not.
The “vast amount of other irrelevant gasses” is dominated by water vapour, which represents 95% of all greenhouse gases. CO2 is around 3%.
What, pray tell, do you intend to do about water vapour?
Novichok is poisonous to humans at almost any concentration. CO2 is beneficial to humans at all but the most extreme concentrations. This persistent ridiculous argument made by alarmists is utterly puerile.
The vast amount of irrelevant gasses are non-GHG gasses such as oxygen and nitrogen. The concentration of water vapour is highly variable depending on temperature, is large compared to CO2 but small compared to non-GHG gasses. Because the concentration is largely determined by temperature it is a positive feedback for small increases of longer lasting GHG gasses – but I suspect you knew that.
I did not meant to suggest that CO2 was poisonous like Novichok. I only used Novichok as an example to show that low concentration doesn’t mean low effect. So it is invalid to argue that it is a trace gas therefore it doesn’t matter. CO2 undoubtedly has benefits and a certain level is essential. I don’t think many scientists challenge that. The question is simply whether it can also cause sudden climate change.
CO2 comprises 0.04% of the atmosphere (the vast majority of which is produced by nature). It’s essential to life on the planet and we’d benefit (crop yields) if it were a bigger percentage.
the vast majority of which is produced by nature
Nope. Although most of the CO2 entering the atmosphere is naturally generated this is balanced by other natural process which remove it (the carbon cycle). There is very strong evidence that almost all the increase in CO2 in the atmosphere since about 1960 is the result of human activity i.e from 300 ppm to 420 ppm. Therefore about 25% of the CO2 in the atmosphere is produced by man.
Good. Let’s get it to a safe 1000ppm.
At 150ppm (parts per million atmospheric content) all meaningful plant life dies which means global extinction of almost every living mammal and insect.
We are currently at around 400ppm, only 250ppm away from extinction. If the EU dealt with the climate in the same way it deals with everything else, based on the precautionary principle, they would necessarily increase CO2 emissions.
This would move us closer to what Mother Nature informs us is an ideal atmospheric CO2 content, 1,000ppm – 1,200ppm when C3 plant life (95% of all plant life on earth) flourishes and further from certain extinction.
Frankly, no one knows what will happen if atmospheric CO2 rose to 1,000ppm, but we are absolutely, 100%, definitely, certain what happens if it falls to 150ppm.
I’ll take my chances, and my children’s chances with higher CO2.
So now prove that man-made CO2, and only man-made CO2, causes the world’s temperatures to rise inexorably.
“There is very strong evidence that almost all the increase in CO2 in the atmosphere since about 1960 is the result of human activity.”
I hope you’re not going to cite the 2019 paper by Santer et al. ‘Celebrating the anniversary of three key events in climate change science’ in support.
Santer refuses to separate his work as a climate modeller from his left-wing anti-Trump politics and has previous form, going way back to 1995, in his role as lead convening author of the Second IPCC Assessment Report, Chapter 8.
I wasn’t thinking of referring to this paper – The Royal Society will do for me – but if I did refer to a paper it would be because of its content not the background of the author.
If the honesty of the author doesn’t bother you then there’s no more to be said.
Actually, a host of experts believe that only 7%-10% of CO2 is produced by humanity.
And, it’s an essential trace gas (your comparison to a deadly toxin is risible), and it is not a pollutant. If the amount in the atmosphere were doubled, we’d all benefit.
Actually, a host of experts believe that only 7%-10% of CO2 is produced by humanity.
No doubt you can produce some experts who believe that the increase in CO2 since 1960 is largely natural. Meanwhile I will accept the assessment of the Royal Society over the blogosphere. (There are of course countless other reputable references making the same point).
So you think the Royal Society are an objective observer? You cannot be helped.
So you think the Royal Society are an objective observer?
I didn’t say that – did I?
Please produce the credible, empirical, peer reviewed, scientific study which demonstrates conclusively that atmospheric CO2 causes the planet to warm meaningfully.
I’ll save you the trouble, there isn’t one, far les one which demonstrates mankind’s contribution is in any way detrimental.
BTW. I assume you know the precise number of active volcanoes, vents and fissures on the worlds sea beds.
No? Neither does anyone else.
Please produce the credible, empirical, peer reviewed, scientific study which demonstrates conclusively that atmospheric CO2 causes the planet to warm meaningfully.
As far as I know, there isn’t a single study. It is an accumulation of masses of evidence. There is:
No doubt there are other sources of evidence I haven’t thought of or I don’t understand well enough to articulate here.
I can’t be bothered to look up scientific papers to support all these points. If there is a specific point you want to challenge I will do some more research.
If you are using Venus as an example, you also need to include Mars. In both cases CO2 accounts for about 96% of the atmosphere. The difference in surface temperature is about 450C. None of your other points, although better than Venus, demonstrate conclusively that humans cause all or most global warming. The fact that you “can’t be bothered to look up scientific papers”, does not inspire confidence, although the attitude is common within the “settled” science lobby.
Mars has a high concentration of CO2 but that is because there is hardly any atmosphere. Compared to earth it has a very low total amount of GHGs. Remember that water vapour is the key amplifier of the greenhouse effect here. It is another illustration of the point that it is not the concentration of GHGs that matter. It is the quantity.
I repeat my offer to do the research for any particular point you want to challenge. Please don’t say all of them – I haven’t got the time.
So naturally generated CO2 is balanced by other natural processes. So why is man made CO2 not balanced by those same natural processes? Also if that balancing effect is a true phenomenon, why were CO2 levels higher / lower in previous times? Just asking.
Because natural processes adjust on a much longer timescale than the anthropogenic increase. Co2 levels have been at higher and lower levels in the past because of even more fundamental changes at even longer timescales.
Nice try, but 4% human contribution does not equal 25%, even in the whacky world of green activists. Three physicists led by Professor Skrable of the University of Massachusetts recently analysed carbon isotopes in the atmosphere, given that burning fossil fuel produces a slightly different record. They found that human-caused CO2 between 1750 and 2018 “was much too low to be the cause of global warming”. Check it out.
https://journals.lww.com/health-physics/Abstract/2022/02000/World_Atmospheric_CO2,_Its_14C_Specific_Activity,.2.aspx
Hi Chris
I am aware of the Skrable paper (although I can’t get hold of the complete paper without paying). It is interesting and should be taken seriously but it is only one paper on the subject and comes to a different conclusion from most (all?) other authors. Bear in mind that there are many uncertainties and therefore assumptions required to do this calculation (sadly they don’t include margins of error in the abstract). For example, it is necessary to know the C14 isotope ratio from long before we started measuring it directly. This can only be done by assuming that such things as carbon absorbed by trees is an accurate representation. You also have to allow for anthropogenic CO2 from sources other than burning fossil fuels such as changing land use (which dominated anthropogenic CO2 up until about 1850) and do not have the lack of C14 signature. I am not saying that Skrable and co are necessarily wrong but the paper cannot be taken by itself as definitive proof. (It is a very recent paper and it will be interesting to see responses to it.)
Meanwhile, remember that C14 ratio is not the only evidence that the increase in CO2 is anthropogenic. For example, it is possible to do a “carbon budget” which looks at different sources and sinks. As you know, the amount of CO2 has risen from 300 ppm to 420 ppm very consistently since 1960. This is far in excess of the concentration over the last 800,000 years (measured through ice cores). So where did the increase come from?
I don’t understand your first sentence:
4% human contribution does not equal 25%,
If the 4% human contribution accounts for 100% of the increase each year and we have gone from 300 to 420 then – then that increase is about 25% of the total – right?
Whatever makes you believe that countries such as China, India, Russia, Japan, Iran, South Korea, Indonesia and Saudi Arabia (collectively the source of 55% of global emissions) would have even the slightest interest in buying ‘new efficient stuff’ from us?
As CO2 isn’t a pollutant and does not drive climate change, it’s all childish nonsense.
Some people have become extremely rich on the back of it, though.
CO2 is a positive externality.
And bearing in mind Scotchland’s parlous fertility rate of just 1.29, among the lowest in the world, the Scotch are heading for self-extermination anyway.
And Krankie isn’t going to boost the numbers as apparently she’s a rug muncher.
What you fail to appreciate is that in 2022, ‘Ignorance is Strength’ in political circles.
If there’s one thing I’ve learned in 20 years this century it’s that politics promotes incompetent, biddable, corrupt ignorant f***wits of the first order.
“You only have to see the increasing numbers of severe weather events around the world to know that the climate, and the planet is changing rapidly”, she added. This is the level of intelligence we’ve allowed to get to the top of the tree. These moronic, myopic, extremely dangerous, virtue-signalling t*ats only see the now, not what has been or what may be. The whole climate debate is based on data which is equivalent to holding up a grain of sand on beach and saying “look, every grain of sand on this beach is just like this”. Ridiculous.
Sturgeon, in an interview with The Scotsman, said “I try to read every night before I go to bed because I find that helps me switch my brain off and relax me.” She added that she didn’t read much non-fiction. That’s the problem, if you avoid non-fiction what’s left is Discworld, Jane Eyre and Anthropogenic Climate Change.
Clearly she doesn’t actually manage to read.
If only she could find something to turn her brain on.
But there is no evidence of increasing severe weather events. Saying there is is a lie, like global warming will increase in direct relationship to rate of CO2 emissions, global warming is increasing, the Arctic Sea will be ice free by 2013, no more snow by 2010, the mRNA therapies will stop you getting CoVid, CoVid is potentially fatal to everyone in the population, PCR Tests can diagnose ‘cases’, the number of people killed by CoVid. And there’s more.
‘…the Scottish First Minister told the recent COP26 conference in Glasgow. “You only have to see the increasing numbers of severe weather events around the world to know that the climate, and the planet is changing rapidly” ‘.
The thing is, First Minister, I don’t see them, and, I would venture, neither do you.
Maybe, like Greeting Thunberg, Kween Krankie can “see CO2”.
We would need to be very worried if the climate never changed.
yes it sometimes looks to be changing quicker than it should but that’s how it looks not how it is in reality.
you need to look over a period of decades to see any trends, preferably over centuries or longer to extract any real meaning.
don’t forget we are on the tail end of an ice age.
normal for this planet is no ice at the poles. This planet has had more years with no ice at the poles than with ice, by a huge margin.
we are looking at things today instead of over the last 4.5billion years.
history shows todays climate is ok and nothing to be worried about.
Trends are utterly useless. The trend of the planet has been to cooling over millions of years, but that’s meaningless to humans because we adapt to whatever the conditions are.
The last ice age saw atmospheric CO2 fall to around 180ppm. Growing anything was difficult for man, even in the tropics, but we adapted.
Over a generation no one will notice anything. It would likely take ten generations of a changing climate (nor is it even climate, it’s temperature) before a meaningful change would be noticed, by which time no one will remember what it was like ten generations ago, and they will adapt.
When people discuss climate change, what they really mean is. global average temperature change. No one knows what temperature change will have on the planet other than from historical evidence nothing of which suggests that a higher average temperature will be detrimental.
liar liar pants on fire. In the UK, if we did nothing, we would still have a very moderate benign climate.
About five years ago my GP asked me to record my blood pressure over a couple of weeks, which I duly did, and I entered the results on a spreadsheet. At my next appointment he dropped his usual superior attitude the moment I presented him with a printout of the spreadsheet. Coloured graphs (only 11 were required for Johnson to have his “Damascus moment” ) and spreadsheets are sometimes all it takes to impress the poorly informed these days. In the past coloured beads would do the trick. Facts really aren’t required when your presentation looks impressive.
My 23 year old daughter had the misfortune of telling me that there were a lot more ‘extreme weather events’ now. ‘Than when?’ was my question, which of course she couldn’t answer. When you convince people who have only been truly aware of things like weather for 10 or 15 years, rather than 50 years, then you get this utter rubbish masquerading as fact.
A friend has just retired as a grammar school science teacher. I asked him what he liked most about his new life. “Not having to grit my teeth every time I lecture the kids about so-called climate change”. He knew it was rubbish but he had to fall in with the hysteria otherwise his pupils would fail their exams. Some hypocrisy is understandable.
Whilst I do not agree with the alarmist headlines about an imminent climate catastrophe, the graph above shows an approximate 1.3 degree increase in the last 130 years.
I am surprised that Mr Morrison uses such a graph, where the temperature trend line is clearly rising. I agree that it is possible temperatures have ‘stalled’ as claimed, but it is not evident from the graph – being too early to say.
Although I might agree with many of his observations, he is as at risk of hyperbole as those he condemns.
The thing is, even if the graph is accurate, it only covers 130 years. The Earth is, we are told, 4.543 billion years old with life first appearing 3.5 billion years ago. What was the temperature when Julius Caesar crossed the channel? Or when Nebuchadnezzar was lording it over the Israelites? Or when dinosaurs wandered around the Dorset coast?
It’s not ‘normal’ for the poles of the Earth to be covered in ice. The planet is usually a lot warmer.
Anyway, what is Queen Nicola going to do about the Andromeda galaxy which is approaching the Milky Way at a speed of 110 kilometres per second?
Fate of the Solar System:
“When the two galaxies collide the Solar System will be swept out three times farther from the galactic core than its current distance.
By the time the two galaxies collide, the surface of the Earth will have already become far too hot for liquid water to exist, ending all terrestrial life; that is currently estimated to occur in about 3.75 billion years due to gradually increasing luminosity of the Sun (it will have risen by 35–40% above its current luminosity).”
The Scots will deep-fry any Galaxy coming their way, just as they do with Mars.
But you can’t eat a smart phone – do they not know that?
I’ll bet someone in Glasgow has tried. I meant a Galaxy chocolate bar.
I am sure Queen Nicola will have a plan of some kind. Even more sure that it will involve a severe drop in the freedom, wealth and happiness of everyone over whom she has any influence. While affecting the huge forces that drive the universe, including our tiny planet, not one iota.
I think you may have misunderstood. There is clearly warming trend over the last 10 000 years as Earth left an Ice Age. The claim by the Climagheddonists is we are seeing an unprecedented RATE (please remember that word) of warming since the late 1970s, directly proportional – correlating to – the increased RATE of CO2 emissions from fossil fuels.
The RATE of increase of temperature did increase from 1980 onwards after it had been flat for a while, and this did correlate with increased RATE of CO2 emissions, but the RATE of increase in temperature peaked and flatlined around 1996, but the RATE of increase of CO2 emissions continued. If you check from just after 1996, you will see the trend of RATE of temperature to date is flat. In fact until 2012 it was actually in decline.
The point being: if there is a causal relationship between fossil fuel CO2 emissions and global temperature since the last part of the 20th Century – as claimed – then there has to be correlation. Since the observed RATE of temperature increase and the observed RATE of CO2 emissions parted company circa 1996, then there is no correlation. No correlation, in real science, means there can be no causal relationship. Manmade global warming/climate change is falsified.
Now the alarmist pull a trick which you have fallen for. They insist global warming is still happening and people such as me, are ‘denying’ (emotive word) it/the science. But I, and others are not ‘denying’ global warming is happening, what we are pointing out is the RATE of global warming is not happening as they predicted and does not correlate with CO2 emissions.
Looking back before the latter part of the 20th Century there was a warming trend and current trend since is about the same. So if CO2 emissions are causing global warming since the late1970s, what was causing it before? And why is it not likely that whatever was causing it before is causing it after?
Global warming is not the issue. The issue is its RATE and whether a link with CO2 emissions can be demonstrated. It cannot.
By way of illustration.
I’m obliged that you point out the rising trend over the last 100+ years. Curiously, I had also noticed it. Since around 1820, the global temperature has rebounded just over !C from the so-called little ice age. But it is strange how a near 20 year stalling is “too early to say”, but the small jump in the 1980s and 90s is cause to declare a “climate emergency”, and remove fossil fuel from our industrial economies, the only cheap reliable power we have.
‘Mean temperatures’.
Of course they’re mean.
…they’re in Scotland.
When are we going to sue China for spreading the smoke from their coal-fired power stations around the planet?
They are trying to kill us! And the polar bears!
Oh God.! I hope the Polar Bears dont become extinct again….
(What they don’t tell you is that Polar Bears are a comparatively recent mutation of Grizzly Bears. They are so close as species that they are able to mate successfully. They also dont tell you that since the moratorium on hunting in Arctic nations, the Polar Bear population is thought to be as large as its ever been, some 50,000 animals.)
This is a graphic showing how warming has/hasn’t happened over the last century. Best to watch to the end.
https://twitter.com/kirstinferguson/status/1502801738193313798?t=-1G00y2CP-iHYtZSR6F8fw&s=08
And what does this prove?
The Earth’s climate has been heating for 10 000 years. Supposedly Mankind took control around 1980… so what heated it up before?
Hmmmmmmm
The sheer hubris that attaches to this utter nonsense is staggering.
Have they got any ideas how to turn the dial up when the planet goes colder?
Thought not.
These dense idiots are making the Dark Ages look like the Age of Enlightenment.
Actually, the worrying issue is that if CO2 is lowered, agriculture will suffer greatly. Yields will plummet.
Lucky that all the proposed CO2 saving policies won’t be able to change the CO2 concentration one iota… otherwise we really would be up sh*t creek…
In the meantime, we have to hope Gates of Hell doesn’t succeed in his plan to alter the atmosphere to reduce the amount of sunlight reaching the surface!
That would also drop plant growth. Funny how Greens are happy to sacrifice the environment when there’s money to be made. You don’t see Extinction Rebellion complaining about the DRAX use of wood-chip….
The whole scam is irrational and depends on appealing to the emotions through manipulation of the narrative. As someone pointed out the other day in the btl comments about Covid, it’s impossible to reason someone out of a position they arrived at without the use of reason.
The only way this could be countered is via an honest government and MSM. Will this ever happen? Hell will freeze over faster!
Groan. Not global cooling again……
What is the point of explaining to ourselves that there is no climate emergency? We have known that for 20+ years.
The powers that be do not care whether there is an emergency or not – as can readily be noted by the fact that they keep on consuming at the same rate they always have.
The whole point of saying that there is a climate emergency is that it provides a ‘justification’ for arbitrary extra taxes and profitable projects which make us poorer. Couple this invalid statement with the fact that anyone who disagrees is instantly cancelled, and you have a self-fulfilling gravy train.
That is what we should be complaining about….
Sturgeon has gone completely nuts. They’ll be taking her away in a straight jacket soon.
Oh, I do hope so.
As long as it is a tartan one to match her face nappy.
She’s always been nuts. She just doesn’t feel compelled to hide it now, having demonstrated what will happen to anyone who dares to oppose or question her.
They couldn’t get the twisted bitch into a straight jacket.
Sturgeon is presumably concerned with more than just the temperature in Scotland. It is global averages that will determine what happens to sea levels etc. Scotland is just one small data point amongst global temperature and rainfall records. As a very small part of that record it can be expected to be more variable and unpredictable than the global average and may well differ a great deal from that global average. Hence the predictions that Morrison quotes actually have very wide confidence intervals e.g. the average summer temperature change prediction for 2050 is anything between -0.1 and 3.1.
The Earth’s climate system can only sensibly be studied retrospectively and on a scale of tens of thousands of years to be meaningful. It cycles between very cold to very warm, back to very cold over long time intervals… repeat.
Transition from one state to the next is not smooth straight line, but erratic. During a warm to cooling phase, a short time period snapshot might look like sudden rapid warming but which later declines back on track toward the cool minimum – and vice versa. Making alarmist predictions based on a few decades is charlatanry: who will buy my snake-oil?
A small caucus of these snake-oil peddlers has captured the support of the political class and misanthropic Green ideologues, because it serves purpose.
But All True Scotchmen can see the Empresses’ New Climate Catastrophe.
Apropos the earlier thread today, anyone recommending reverse-fridge heating with a mean temperature under 10C and poorly insulated homes is committing fraud. I cannot think of any other word for it.
I would love to live through a post-industrial warm period, bring it on. And I hope that when April’s energy bills hit the inbox that there’s an awakening among the electorate about what Nut Zero actually means for us.
‘the Saudi Arabia of renewables’….
Does that mean that She who Would Be Queen will be resigning to allow an all-male ruling elite in Scotland?
Will Scottish lassies be banned from driving to stop them getting above their station?
And will big President Xi protect the Scots so long as they underpin the ‘Green Renmimbi’??
Climate change is driven by the sun, not by man and not by CO2. Those who haven’t done the research into global cooling are ‘cooling deniers’. And poor Greta is being abused by adults for political purposes based on UN Agenda 21. They are all useful idiots for those who want a Stalinist form of socialism designed to control the masses – as capitalism begins to collapse