According to the Guardian, Keir Starmer faces an “internal backlash” of Labour MPs “over the potential approval of a giant new oilfield”. Last week, a court found that the consents to exploit the Rosebank and Jackdaw oil fields given by the previous Government were unlawful and required a more detailed climate and environmental impact assessment. The restless MPs fear that Rachel Reeves, in her desperation to put growth into the economy, may give her backing to the project. And so the Guardian article looks like a pre-emptive mobilisation of MPs, ahead of a decision from Ed Miliband’s Department for Energy Security and Net Zero about the oil fields. But who is behind it?
The issue is complicated by the fact that Labour’s manifesto promised “not to issue new exploration licences, but not to cancel ones that have already been issued”, as the Guardian puts it. The ruling putting the ball back in the new Government’s court can be argued on either side on technicalities. These would not be new licences as such, since consent was already given, but they would be nonetheless fresh. MPs are reportedly anticipating comments from the Treasury, and the Guardian cites the MPs’ anonymous threats: “This would be a breaking point for a lot of us”; “This goes specifically against what we said we were about”; “This is absolutely a line in the sand for almost everyone in the [Parliamentary Labour Party]”.
To read the rest of this article, you need to donate at least £5/month or £50/year to the Daily Sceptic, then create an account on this website. The easiest way to create an account after you’ve made a donation is to click on the ‘Log In’ button on the main menu bar, click ‘Register’ underneath the sign-in box, then create an account, making sure you enter the same email address as the one you used when making a donation. Once you’re logged in, you can then read all our paywalled content, including this article. Being a donor will also entitle you to comment below the line, discuss articles with our contributors and editors in a members-only Discord forum and access the premium content in the Sceptic, our weekly podcast. A one-off donation of at least £5 will also entitle you to the same benefits for one month. You can donate here.
There are more details about how to create an account, and a number of things you can try if you’re already a donor – and have an account – but cannot access the above perks on our Premium page.
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.
Great article.. will most certainly share..
Great piece, Chris.
In other news, Boris cancelled for a few fibs about some birthday cake and outrage from the beer and curry enjoyers.
No big fan of Boris, but compared with 40 years of increasingly deranged climate lies and enormous exaggerations from “The Science”, I doubt that the cause of truthfullness will benefit.
Of course, Bunter was as addicted to GangGreen lies, as is an 80 a day Capstan Full Strength smoker is to Nicotine.
And although he got 14 Million votes in 2019 to “Get Brexit Done” (but only half-got the job done. At best.), I would much rather have seen him go because of just those shortcomings and because he surrendered far too easily to the Covid gangsters; rather than be ousted by Harriet Harperson and Angela Rayner, who by any measure were, are, always will be, far worse than Boris!
Thank you. Well stated. Yes no science to this cult, just ‘$cience’ – and of course they will be telling us that the ‘boiling oceans’ are linked to future scamdemics and scariants.
The below is wonderful as a summary, I call it $cientism, the corruption of real science for metaphysical ends:
And it is pushing it even further to suggest that most oceanic warming is caused by humans adding just 4% to all atmospheric carbon dioxide, a gas that is only measured in trace quantities at around 400 parts per million. It is beneath the water that we can profitably find some answers about changing oceanic temperatures.
Beneath the water means real science. That is beyond the skills of the Klimat-tards.
There is going to be another private jet fuel burning bonanza at the COP 28 event in Dubai later this year. Something tells me Chris will not be one of their guest speakers.
Someone in the Nanny State didn’t get the message about boiling oceans: they were “advising” us to be careful going in the water during the current hot spell (ie normal June weather) because the water is still very cold.
Playing Devil’s Advocate here, so why are sea levels apparently rising so rapidly, and the rate of rise apparently accelerating?
For example, see Fig. 8 in:
https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/01490419.2015.1121175#:~:text=The%20MSL%20at%20Newlyn%2C%20computed,above%20the%20Observatory%20Zero%20Datum.
This paper gives a century’s worth of sea level data, from 1915, at Newlyn in west Cornwall. It implies that from 1993-2014 sea level was rising by a massive 3.8 mm per year. (Incidentally, the isostatic rise accounts for perhaps only 0.7 mm per year at Newlyn.)
Genuine question.
The official statement is;
Due to the measurements from the Newlyn Tidal Observatory, it has been established that between 1915 and 2015 sea level at Newlyn has increased at 1.83mm/year and between 1993 and 2014 at 3.8mm/year, as shown below.
Sea level rise has many causes;
Not sure if that helps at all?
Well yes, that sort of makes my point. If isostatic rise (i.e. the land sinking, in this case) is about 0.7 mm a year, then we are left with an actual sea level rise of 3.1 mm a year – which is massive.
As I understand it, actual sea level rise is closely related to temperature – expansion with increasing temperature and overall mass/volume increase owing to ice melting. Thus, one way or another, the sea level rise presumably points to a great deal of warming.
I’m not saying I’m definitely right or anything, just trying to understand. If Mr Morrison is saying that there isn’t much temperature increase, where is the level rise coming from?
I don’t know if he or any of the editorial team reads these comments, but I would like to hear any alternative views as what is going on.
In short, doesn’t seal level rise point strongly to increase in temperature?
If you imagine 3.1 mm per year (or a foot in a Century) is “massive”, then maybe you’d be happier with three masks on, five times jabbed and hiding behind the sofa.
Or you might wish to rely on actual measurements at tide gauges around the planet, allowing for measured isostatic rises, showing the actual rise for several hundred years has been and continues to be around two thirds of that, so eight inches or around 200mm a century. NO acceleration.
I suggest this is far more likely to be correct that the “computer models” based on satellite and buoy readings in the middle of the oceans, accurate (allegedly) to a tenth of a millimetre. Just think about that.
And interesting to note that no little islands anywhere have been losing their area in the last 50 years, with 80% gaining area. Only a few initially less that 10 Ha have got smaller.
Still panicking about 200mm in 100 years? Or (for the sake of argument) 400mm or 500mm?
Well, I think the Dutch managed pretty well with their dykes and polders. Dug by hand. Land up to 6 metres below high tide. Obviously, after we “Just Stop Oil” (not to mention cement, excavators, lorries, rollers etc.), the problem will seem a bit more urgent. In three hundred years, we might have to stop building solar farms and whirligigs, and build some more sea walls.
… you might wish to rely on actual measurements at tide gauges around the planet, allowing for measured isostatic rises, showing the actual rise for several hundred years has been and continues to be around two thirds of that, so eight inches or around 200mm a century. NO acceleration.
That Newlyn data paper I gave a link to earlier – that is indeed data from a tide gauge, and Fig. 8 does appear to show an acceleration since about 1990. And I’ve allowed for isostatic changes (e.g. 0.7 mm per year out of 3.1mm).
All things are relative. When you consider the sea level changes of say the last 4000 years then a foot a century is indeed very large. As I understand it, sea levels were close to static until the late 19th century, when they started to rise.
See:
https://www.pnas.org/doi/10.1073/pnas.1015619108
So I don’t know where you got your information from? Please feel free to provide sources, as I’ll read anything with an open mind. I only want to get at the truth.
And I understand that every extra foot that has to be built into a tidal barrier costs a great deal of money.
But my question wasn’t about that: it was about whether the elevated sea levels we are seeing are indeed the result of warming.
Going off line soon, so apolgies if I don’t get back on this thread anymore.
Off to a place, in the UK, where a foot rise in sea level would be a very important matter indeed.
Btw, never wore a mask, unstabbed, and took no notice of lockdiown rule.
When someone states that the rate of rise is accelerating it is important to clarify against what and what is the scale. For context please see the graphic below showing the sea levels over the last 20,000 years. It should be evident that there is no obvious or ‘ideal’ sea level, and it we think we can decide what the global sea level should be and maintain it then those thinking this are pathologically deluded. The scale of this graphic is in metres and not mm.
I don’t know what the ideal sea level is but I suggest that one that is significantly higher than current levels is far from ideal given that large proportion of humanity living in coastal areas.
Your chart is interesting. It appears to show that sea levels rose about 120 metres since the last ice age when global temperatures were about 6C lower than they are now. Makes you wonder how much they would change if got another 2C.
The Holocene Climate Optimum was hotter than now and perhaps by 2C. The tree line in the UK was much higher than now and the Sahara was green and wet. The Brecon Beacons had trees at the very top. So far tree lines haven’t budged in the last 200 years and if they have it has been localised. Also, as far as what is ideal – humans have populated just about everywhere on this planet and we have figured how to live in just about any of the 30 odd different climates. Humans have learned how to live/survive in -40C as well as +50C, or on the oceans or high up mountains where the atmosphere is thinner. We are supremely adaptable and inventive and it would be a bad idea if we stopped being adaptable and inventive.
There is nothing in the global temperature records that shows the glacial cycles of the last 3 million years have stopped. The last warm interlude ended while CO2 remained elevated so that trace gas is not going to stop the next glacial expansion happening. We have between 100 and 500 years before the next glacial expansion gets under way, and when that does, and judging by all previous cycles, it will be about 100,000 years till the next warm interval. If by some miracle we have stopped the next glacial expansion we will have dodged a massive bullet, but there is no evidence that is the case.
There is no such thing as a global temperature. That’s a mathematically created piece of fiction.
True.
Correct, all temperature is local.
Thanks for this – but it does illustrate how most of the post Ice Age sea water rise was owing to ice melting, and that this process was essentially complete by circa 2000 BC, or before. Clearly, the ending of an ice age would be expected to cause major changes in sea level.
Sea levels appear to have fluctuated over the following centuries and millennia, but there appears to have been a steep rise since the late 19th century which, according to the Newlyn data, appears to have accelerated since the 1990s.
So what is going on?
Incidentally, I haven’t got time to do the calculations right now (or at least remind myself how to do them), but I imagine that a ‘0.03 %’ total ocean heat rise, over the last 125 years – although it doesn’t sound much when put that way – would actually lead to an expansion of the water which itself would lead to a significant rise in sea level.
So are these rises in sea level over the last 125-150 years down to warming??
We are in an inter-glacial. The Ice Age hasn’t ended because there is significant ice at both poles and on the tops of mountains. While it is claimed that CO2. The following graphic shows temp/CO2 over the last 600 million years and it is clear there is no link between the two.
https://www.researchgate.net/figure/Global-Temperature-and-CO2-levels-over-600-million-years-Source-MacRae-2008_fig1_280548391
Or
Per a new published study (Martins et al., 2023), during the Mid-Holocene (~7000 to ~4000 years ago), when CO2 was a “safe” ~265 ppm, the sea levels on the coasts of Brazil were 3 to 4 meters higher than they are now. Sea levels have been falling to the present levels for millennia.
From 1993-2015 the sea levels around South America sea have risen (shown in red in the figure) overall by about 1-2 mm/yr, but there are large regions where sea levels have fallen (blue, shown especially in the southeast, west) by -1-2 mm/yr too.
The Brazilian mangrove forest area has increased from 9,564 km² in 1985 to 9,800 km² in 2020, In other words, coastal mangrove forests grew seaward (rather than shrinking inland due to sea level rise) by 2.5%.
Korkai was a port city, capital, and the principal trade center for India’s Pandya Kingdom from the 6th to 9th centuries CE.
While Korkai was situated on the sea coast during the early stages of the Medieval Warm Period, the city center is now approximately 5 or 6 km from the coast. This confirms the sea has substantially receded since then.
Nautical maps from the 1805-1828 period clearly affirm the coast of southern India has continued expanding seaward in the last 200 years, despite the reported rise in relative sea level (Gupta and Bhoolokam Rajani, 2023).
In other words, much more coastal land area is above sea level today than during the Little Ice Age, or when CO2 levels were said to be 280 ppm.
GMO: a belated thanks for your two posts. I really don’t understand this sea-level change business. How can sea levels be rising in one place but falling in another? I thought eustatic change was assumed to be constant everywhere?
As far as eustatic changes are concerned, presumably there are a whole load of mechanisms in play of which CO2 levels play little or no direct part in.
‘boiling oceans’ ?
That means the oceans, or an ocean has to rise in temperature by a minimum of 80C? And this will be achieved by increasing the amounts of a trace gas?
Are there any scientifically literate people in the media or even the sciences?
Back in 1997 the NSF, the U.S. Office of Naval Research, and the Japanese government cooperated in funding a research project called SHEBA (Surface Heat Budget of the Arctic).
One of the conclusion was that “melting sea ice also raises worldwide sea levels, with potentially significant effects for coastal cities and towns.”
The NSF was challenged and to their credit they did correct their error: [Editor’s note: An inaccurate statement about sea ice and rising sea levels has been deleted. We regret the error.]
However, it took 6.5 years for the NSF to eventually make this correction. One wonders what kind of ‘scientific’ education have science grads received, let alone science journalists?
No one is claiming the oceans will actually boil or anything like. That is just a figure of speech.
None of science or any trades are built on figures of speech. The largest voices in pushing the climate catastrophe so as to extort billions do assert such things and they are not scientists, but politicians, actors, pop stars and children. Here is Al Gore hyperventilating and he says “…that’s what’s boiling the oceans…”
https://www.youtube.com/shorts/Ao8uEx0Ftik
For the record I have not received any money or coercion from ‘big oil’ and I am very capable of thinking things through for myself.
Almost everything we hear about the “Climate Crisis” is a smidgeon of the truth elevated into a planetary emergency for which no evidence exists. There is nothing unusual about current temperatures or climate. There is no increase in the frequency or intensity of any type of weather event, no increase in the rate of sea level rise etc etc etc, but somehow people believe the opposite. ———How can that be? ——-Progaanda is a very powerful tool which is why government and its compliant media use it everyday.
0.03% of what? I can only think it means 0.03% of the heat that would be required to raise all the water in the oceans from absolute zero to current temperatures? If so, it is an utterly irrelevant figure.
A good article, thank you, a little sense on a Sunday
ITN Wales has a story about places in Wales disappearing under the sea in the near future due to rising sea levels. We are all going to Dai, where ever he is.
And remember that sea to air heat transfer, via the North Atlantic Drift, is something we rely on to a large extent, at UK latitude – especially to the west of Scotland.
Oceans are so vast and deep it takes hundreds to thousands of years for them to heat up and cool down. If there was a slight change in solar output then it would be a thousand years before it was noticed by oceans. So, similarly, any chages we see now are likely being caused by something that happened a thousand years ago, not by a slight rise in CO2 emissions in the last 50 years.
I’m not friend of or supporter of Greta but she did not say “Let’s not forget that according to Greta Thunberg ‘all of humanity’ is going to be wiped out in exactly 10 days time.”.
She said in 2018 that “climate change will wipe out all of humanity unless we stop using fossil fuels over the next five years”.
She did not give a timeline when ‘all of humanity’ would be ‘wiped out’.
The pro-humanity-caused climate change industry/cult is prone to exaggerations, dubious claims and predictions that should be taken with a grain of salt.
Those who believe in natural climate change should not follow their lead and use exaggerations either.
Giving straight-forward facts should be enough.