“such a wide range of views on the next three quarters of a century discredits the notion that the IPCC represents a ‘scientific consensus’ on climate change”
Ben Pile reported in The Daily Sceptic that the Guardian recently published its survey of ‘climate experts’. For the purposes of creating this story, the Guardian’s Environment Editor Damian Carrington contacted 843 ‘lead authors’ of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change’s reports (IPCC) and 383 responded to his questions. The actual substance of the survey does not seem to have been published by the paper, but the main response Carrington wanted to get from his respondents was an estimate of how much global warming there will be by the end of the century. “World’s top climate scientists expect global heating to blast past 1.5ºC target,” claims one headline. A graphic in the article shows the responses:
Ben Pile pointed out that the obvious problem this raises is that such a wide range of views on the next three quarters of a century discredits the notion that the IPCC represents a ‘scientific consensus’ on climate change. The ‘consensus’ – the putative expression of agreement by the worlds ‘top climate scientists’ – is the lynchpin of the narrative, epitomised by the Guardian, that the climate debate is between scientists and denialists. “Seventy seven per cent of climate scientists expect a rise of at least 2.5ºC,” explains the chart. Well, yeah, but 23% of climate scientists do not. And a good number of those connected to the IPCC believe that there will be just 1.5 degrees of warming – a third less warming than is anticipated by their colleagues at the other end of the spectrum. Clearly, there is, or needs to be, a debate.
Clearly, the wide range of results shows the so-called IPCC “experts are and the organisation is itself a complete joke as it cannot even get its so-called experts to agree on a point which is fundamental to its whole existence.
However, help is at hand, because I can state the exact number that the IPCC’s own results show should be the answer!
The question was: “How much global warming will there be by the end of the century”?
“This is the effect of global CO2 increase. That due to humans is 3% of the total. So, the human contribution to the total global temperature rise is about 0.017 ºC”
Now we have to estimate the possible rise of CO2 from the present day to that at the end of the century, 2100 or in 76 years time.
The total global rise in CO2from 1980, (335 ppm) to 2024 (420 ppm) was 85 ppm or nearly 2 ppm/annum over the last 44 years. Hence, at that rate the global total of CO2 will rise about
152 ppm. So, the global total CO2 level will be about 420 + 152 ppm = 572 ppm.
For convenience sake let us round this figure up to 600 ppm.
From figure 2 of my note above the ΔT (increase in temperature) against CO2 ppm for 420 ppm is 3.5 ºC and that for 600 ppm is 4.05 ºC.
Hence the global temp increase by the end of the century implies a total temp increase of 4.05 – 3.5 ºC or just 0.55 ºC.
This is the effect of global CO2 increase. That due to humans is 3% of the total. So, the human contribution to the total global temperature rise is about 0.017 ºC.
So, the ACTUAL ΔT due to human activity is 0.017 ºC or:
17,000 ppm of 1 ºC
The UK contribution to global CO2 increase is about 1% of the total human contribution. So the UK’s element of the temperature increase is:
170 ppm of 1 ºC
“the responses from 77% of the so-called climate experts of the IPCC which claim a 2.5 ºC rise in temperature is nearly 150 times too large! Their answers range from 90 to 300 times too large”
But the Guardian article and the whole climate change hysteria evidently assumes that the increase in global temperature is entirely due to human activity. This is evident because no distinction is drawn between them. Hence, the responses from 77% of the so-called climate experts of the IPCC which claim a 2.5 ºC rise in temperature is nearly 150 times too large! Their answers range from 90 to 300 times too large. So ALL of the so-called IPCC experts who responded got nowhere near the ACTUAL temperature increase that the IPCC results predict!
It is therefore clear that the IPCC’s predictions of catastrophic climate change are nothing more than total horse manure, which is spread around by the shovel full by the media. Unfortunately, this is swallowed wholesale by our politicians, such as Rishi Sunak and Claire Corthino, and the climate fanatics to the total detriment of our society and economy.
As the IPCC is so unreliable I have argued in my note above that their results should be ignored in favour of data produced by the eminent scientists Dr William Happer, of Princeton University and Dr van Wijngaarden, of York University, Canada, (see FIG 1 of my note). The revised and probably much more accurate result is that the temperature increase due to the human element of increasing the global CO2 level from 420 ppm to 600 ppm is:
0.0036 0C or 3,600 ppm of 10C
of which the UK contribution would be:
36 ppm of 10C
CONCLUSION
It is absolutely scandalous that the government is basing its policy on such a ridiculous entity as the IPCC. This was set up purely and primarily to promote the concept that human activity causes increased levels of CO2 which is causing catastrophic global temperature increases.
The hysteria generated by the IPCC and the media, including the BBC, Sky News and the Guardian for example suggests that the title of this note should be changed to:
“Why are the Conservative, Labour, Lib Dem, Green and SNP parties and many civil servants so keen to destroy the UK economy, knowing that net zero is unachievable”
SUMMARY
This note aims to expose the fallacy of net zero and how the current main UK political parties are all promoting the myth. It will examine how certain factors have contributed to this situation by comparing the effect of CO2 on global temperature and the UK’s contribution. In all the hype of human activities supposedly increasing global temperatures and the claimed deleterious effect on the earth’s climate, the actual effect of achieving net zero on the earth’s temperature is rarely mentioned, because it is insignificant.
This statement can be seen to be supported by two graphs of the effect of CO2 on global temperatures which are presented and discussed. These graphs produced by the IPCC and eminent professors Dr William Happer, of Princeton University and Dr van Wijngaarden, of York University, Canada, are referred to as (H&vW) and IPCC in the discussion that follows.
The H&vW graph indicates that the current solution to the so-called global warming to reduce global human CO2 to pre-industrial emissions by all the countries in the world may only reduce the global temperature increase by:
0.0036 of 1°C or 3,600 ppm of 1°C
So the UK should only reduce the global temperature after reducing its CO2 output to preindustrial levels by a derisory:
0.000036 of 1°C or 36 ppm of 1°C
It must be noted that the results presented in this note are estimated values interpreted from Figures 1 and 2 rather than absolute values. However, I believe that the results obtained are of the right order.
In addition, it should be noted that the results presented in this note obtained from the IPCC graph have been ignored as there is ample evidence, referred to in the text and in the Appendix, which show that the IPCC reports are unreliable as they are intended to vigorously promote the global warming fallacy at all costs and to avoid giving any impression of alternative views.
So the question is:
Why are the Conservative, Labour, Lib Dem, Green and SNP parties and many civil servants so keen to destroy the UK economy, knowing that net zero is unachievable and is already ruining the lives and livelihoods of many UK citizens and taxpayers? They are ignoring the best interests of the UK and are complying with the globalist agenda of the WEF, UN, EU and IPCC. If you agree then the remedy is in your hands, so:
NEVER, EVER VOTE CONSERVATIVE, LABOUR, LIB DEM, GREEN OR SNP AGAIN!
“Carbon Dioxide, (CO2) is a trace gas, currently accounting for about 420 parts/million (ppm) or 0.04% of the atmosphere. It is an essential part of our life”
Introduction
Carbon Dioxide, (CO2) is a trace gas, currently accounting for about 420 parts/million (ppm) or 0.04% of the atmosphere. It is an essential part of our life, as if it falls below about 150 ppm all vegetation will die and all life on earth with it. (See “Inconvenient Facts” by Gregory Wrightstone.) Satellite images have shown that higher levels of CO2 have increased global greening, which increases life preserving global oxygen levels. Commercial growers also pump CO2 into their greenhouses to vastly increase plant growth.
Unfortunately, CO2 is also a “greenhouse” gas, as it does affect the earth’s global temperature. It is this aspect of its attributes that has been picked on by the climate alarmists to use, quite wrongly, as a cause of concern by blaming increasing CO2 levels in the atmosphere caused by human sources for excessive global warming. This is called Anthropogenic Global Warming, (AGW), which the climate alarmists claim causes serious weather extremes and will melt the polar ice caps and flood vast areas of low-lying land, killing billions of people as a result.
But the earth produces CO2 naturally and over the past centuries CO2 levels have been much higher than they are today. (Wrightstone, “Inconvenient Facts, quotes a CO2 level of 2,500 ppm, 140 million years ago.) Hence their misguided aim to reduce CO2 to preindustrial levels at any and all cost, despite the fact that the IPCC states that anthropogenic CO2 is only about 3% of the annual total. In addition, water vapour, over which man has no control whatsoever, is by far the largest and most effective greenhouse gas.
The effect of anthropogenic CO2 on global warming and the earth’s surface temperature is discussed below as the hype on AGW is strangely reluctant to quote the temperature changes involved. This is likely because the temperature changes caused by AGW are so small that they would have no impact on the public and would also illustrate what a monumental scam was being played upon them.
Global Warming
Figure 1 is copied from a lecture given by Dr Tom Sheahan. For the full lecture view at:
“increasing global CO2 by 140 ppm has an imperceptible effect on increasing earth’s temperature. In fact, higher levels of CO2 have even less effect on increasing global temperature”
The figure, compiled by Prof Happer, and Dr van Wijngaarden, clearly defines the effect on global warming due to increasing levels of CO2. This shows that increasing levels of CO2 from the pre-industrial level of 280 ppm (parts per million) to the warming effect at today’s level of about 420 ppm is practically indiscernible. This shows beyond any doubt that increasing global CO2 by 140 ppm has an imperceptible effect on increasing earth’s temperature. In fact, higher levels of CO2 have even less effect on increasing global temperature. The graph is referred to as (H&vW) in the discussion below.
FIGURE 1
H&vW GRAPH
FIGURE 2, below is based on IPCC published information defining the effect on global temperature with increasing CO2. This graph is copied from Gregory Wrightstone’s excellent book, “Inconvenient Facts The science Al Gore does not want you to know”, It also confirms the shape of the H&vW graph above.
FIGURE 2
IPCC GRAPH
The implications from Figures 1 and 2 are presented in Table 1 below, which shows the total temperature change (ΔT) as CO2 rises from zero to 800 ppm. (NB The results have been scaled from Figures 1 and 2, so should be regarded as estimates rather than totally accurate values. However, the trend is clear regardless of the values presented. See the Appendix for additional information justifying FIG 1 and for ignoring FIG 2).
TABLE 1
TEMP RISE ΔT AGAINST CO2 ppm INCREASE: FROM FIGURES 1 AND 2
The main points to note are that:
The absolute minimum level of 150 ppm required for all vegetation and therefore all life on earth means a temperature increase, from zero ΔT at zero CO2, of 4.15 0C from H&vW and 1.81 0C from the IPCC.
The graphs have a fairly large difference of 2.66 0C at 100 ppm but they gradually converge at much higher concentrations.
The global temp increase at the 1830 pre-industrial level of about 280 ppm produced a total temp increase of 4.58 0C according to H&vW and a 2.85 0C increase according to the IPCC.
The current, (say 2024) level is about 420 ppm, an increase of 140 ppm over 194 years, or 0.72 ppm/annum.
The total temp increase due to the rise in CO2 to 420 ppm is approximately 4.7 0C (H&vW) and 3.5 0C (IPCC). This means that the global temp increase due to increasing CO2 from 1830 to 2024 is 0.12 0C (H&vW) or 0.65 0C (IPCC).
“As the UK only contributes 1% of the global human CO2 this means that the UK will only reduce the global temperature after reducing its CO2 output to pre-industrial levels”
BUT, the human contribution to this global increase, according to the IPCC, is 3% of the total. Hence, the current solution to the so-called global warming to reduce global human CO2 to pre-industrial emissions will only reduce the global temperature increase by:
0.0036 0C (H&vW) or 3,600 ppm of 1°C
Or
0.02 0C (IPCC) or 20,000 ppm of 1°C
As the UK only contributes 1% of the global human CO2 this means that the UK will only reduce the global temperature after reducing its CO2 output to pre-industrial levels by:
0.000036 0C (H&vW) or 36 ppm of 1°C
Or
0.0002 0C (IPCC) or 200 ppm of 1°C
So to produce this derisory 36 ppm, or 200 ppm of 1 0C effect on the global warming “crisis” the Conservative, Labour, Lib Dem, Green and SNP parliamentary parties are allegedly all intent on ruining the UK economy and are making the UK citizens lives a misery.
Also, it must be noted that increasing the current global CO2 level from 420 ppm to 600 ppm is 4.82 – 4.7, (H&vW) and 4.06 – 3.5 0C, (IPCC) or 0.12 0C (H&vW) or 0.56 0C (IPCC)
Hence, increasing the global CO2 by nearly 50% to 600 ppm from the current level of 420 ppm has a minimal effect on global warming. The global human contribution to that would only be:
0.0036 0C or 3,600 ppm of 10C (H&vW)
Or
0.0170C or 17,000 ppm of 10C (IPCC)
of which the UK contribution would be:
36 ppm of 1 0C (H&vW)
Or
0.00017 0C or 170 ppm of 1 0C (IPCC).
It should be noted the huge benefits to food production resulting from the increased CO2 which promotes world plant growth and agriculture. Higher CO2 concentration in the atmosphere increases food production and more life sustaining oxygen for all living creatures on earth.
The total global rise in CO2 from 1980, (335 ppm) to 2022 (420 ppm) was 85 ppm or 2.02 ppm/annum over the last 42 years. Hence, it will take the earth nearly 90 years to increase the global CO2 level to 600 ppm at that rate. This will only increase global temp by 0.12 0C (H&vW) or 0.56 0C (IPCC) at that level.
Assuming human emissions were 3% of the annual total of 2.02 ppm gives a global increase of 0.0606 ppm/annum. The UK share of that at 1% gives an annual UK emission figure of 0.000606 ppm/annum as the UK’s increase in CO2 over the last few years.
This means that it will take approximately 1,650 years for the UK to add just 1 ppm of CO2 to the global total.
The results derived from the IPCC graph are considered to be unreliable and are therefore being ignored. There is ample evidence that the IPCC’s reports and procedures are littered with examples of questionable practice, including many examples where the IPCC has ignored and supressed evidence that does not support their net zero agenda. Numerous publications, listed in the Appendix, describe in detail the many examples of the IPCC failings.
“the drive to net zero is totally unrealistic, totally unachievable and is going to cost the UK trillions of pounds to de-carbonise the grid together with all the other mandatory costs involved”
CONCLUSION
The current hysteria over the “so called” effect of rising CO2 levels causing disastrous increases in global warming, thereby causing melting of polar ice-caps, more extreme weather conditions etc., etc. is entirely unnecessary.
The current rise in global temperature of 4.7 0C, (H&vW), or 3.5 0C (IPCC), due to the current CO2 level of 420 ppm has already happened and the world is still carrying on as normal.
Increasing global CO2 level to 600 ppm will only add 0.12 0C or 0.56 0C to the global total and it will take nearly 90 years to reach that level at the current rate of increase.
This misguided rush to reduce global warming by reducing CO2 to pre-industrial levels is ruining the UK economy, its residents’ livelihoods, living standards and freedom of movement.
In addition, the drive to net zero is totally unrealistic, totally unachievable and is going to cost the UK trillions of pounds to de-carbonise the grid together with all the other mandatory costs involved.
Net zero is however, fully supported by the Conservative, Labour, Lib Dem, Green and SNP parties. as they are ignoring some basic evidence on the limited effect of CO2 on global warming which is described above.
So, why are the Conservative, Labour, Lib Dem, Green and SNP parties and many civil servants so keen to destroy the UK economy and the UK as an independent sovereign country?
For example, the drive to net zero has recently resulted in stopping steel production in the UK. Steel was invented in the UK and is an essential strategic commodity. Yet the government, supported by the other parties in parliament, are allegedly quite happy to abolish UK production of this essential material by closing all UK coal powered generating stations.
This is clearly ridiculous as 1,893 new coal powered generating stations are being built in the world. The total number in operation will then then increase from 3,743 to 5.636. Of these the EU has 465 existing plants and is adding 25 giving a total of 490 plants. The UK has only one plant still operating and that is being closed soon.
So, do you really agree that it is in the best interests of the UK to abolish steel making and throw thousands of skilled craftsmen out of work for the sake of saving 36 ppm of 1°C? The Conservative, Labour, Lib Dem, Green, SNP parties and many civil servants allegedly do! They are clearly adopting the diktats of unelected international bodies whose aim is to 7 impose their policies on the world. The 5 UK political parties listed above are therefore completely ignoring what is best for the UK ‘s citizens who have voted them into office. They are all therefore totally unfit to be represented in parliament, let alone governing the country in any shape or form.
If you agree that these parties are not representing our best interests the solution is in our hands. So,
NEVER, NEVER VOTE CONSERVATIVE, LABOUR, LIB DEM, GREEN, OR SNP AGAIN!
It is also incumbent on the PM, the government and all the climate change fanatics to explain how the UK’s 0.000165 0C (0.55 x 3% x1%) maximum extra contribution to global temperature over 194 years, or on average:
0.0000008 0C/annum
has endangered the earth so much that it justifies the net zero legislation and all the trauma that goes with it. In addition, it makes Rishi Sunak’s donation of £1.6 billion of taxpayer’s money to the UN’s Climate Change Fund a grossly stupid and irrelevant payment.
In addition, the Cabinet Office confirmed they had no record of ANY data whatsoever to support this payment. In other words, it was apparently an impromptu payment to impress other delegates and make Sunak look big in the eyes of the delegates at a COP meeting. Hence, he should be made to reimburse the UK taxpayers out of his own pocket for that amount of taxpayer’s money he threw away.
APPENDIX
THE ACCURACY AND FEASABILITY OF THE H&vW and IPCC GRAPHS
The two graphs presented in Figures 1 and 2 of the note are similar in shape but show different results. It is therefore necessary to examine which graph is more meaningful and accurate.
The Happer & van Wijngaarden results in Fig 1 can be justified by means of the following graphs which show excellent co-relation with measured results:
With regard to the IPCC results, Andrew Montford’s excellent books “The Hockey Stick Illusion” and “Hiding the Decline”, which details the history of the “Climategate Affair” show how the IPCC operates. These and other books, (see list below) are essential reading to understand the workings and methods employed by the IPCC. These clearly show that the IPCC, and the authors of IPCC reports are quite willing to edit information and ignore results that do not fit in with their intention to promote global warming at every opportunity.
In addition, the graph below, copied from David Craigs excellent book “There is no Climate Crisis”, shows the results of IPCC estimates of global temperature increase over time This clearly shows the IPCC results are well over actual results.
Hence, in view of the above and more evidence of IPCC failings to represent real values it can be assumed that the IPCC results are not reliable and should be ignored.
References
Christopher Booker, “The Real Global Warming Disaster”, Continuum, 2009.
A.W. Montford, “The Hockey Stick Illusion”, Stacey International, 2010
A.W. Montford, “Hiding the Decline”, Anglosphere Books, 2012
Gregory Wrightstone, “Inconvenient Facts”, The science that Al Gore doesn’t want you to know, Silver Crown Productions Ltd., LLC, 2017
Bruce C Bunker, PhD, “The Mythology Of Global Warming”, Climate Change Fiction vs. Scientific Facts, Moonshine Cove Publishing LLC, 2018
M J Sangster,PhD, “The Real Inconvenient Truth”, Amazon, 2018
David Craig, “There Is No Climate Disaster”, Original Book Company, 2021
Ian Plimer, “Green Murder”, A life sentence of Net Zero With No Parole, Connor Court Pty Ltd., 2021
Dr Niall Mccrae, RMN, MSc, PhD, “Green in Tooth and Claw”, The Misanthropic Mission of Climate Alarm, The Bruges Group, 2023
I recommend you also watch Climate: The Movie. The film that lifts the lid on the climate alarm, and the dark forces behind the climate consensus.
“will demand huge subsidies from UK householders and taxpayers, and which will require a reliable back-up power generation system”
I cannot for the life of me understand the thinking behind the massive wind farm order. This is an intermittent power source, which will demand huge subsidies from UK householders and taxpayers, and which will require a reliable back-up power generation system when it is producing little or no electricity. Apart from being unreliable offshore wind farms are a blight on the landscape and are a massive hazard to bird life. It is also being built by a Danish company which will increase our existing massive total balance of payments deficit with the EU which has already cost us over £2 trillion.
“The alternative is to invest heavily in Rolls Royce SMR’s, which can be operated continuously”
The alternative is to invest heavily in Rolls Royce SMR’s, which can be operated continuously (except for maintenance periods) and which are designed and made in the UK by the world-renowned UK manufacturer. In addition, SMRs provide the same energy output pa at a lower capital cost than wind farms. Also, 370,000 miles of new HV cables and overhead lines, must be installed to connect remote wind and solar farms. The reactors in RN submarines are expected to last for over 30 years, compared with a 20-year typical life span for a wind turbine and 40,000 UK jobs will be created during development & commissioning of SMRs – leaving us independent in spares & back up. Once these are fully developed and operational, they would provide excellent export potential, thereby earning the UK valuable foreign funds.
The proposal suggests a death wish for UK design and manufacturing, a policy shared by many parties. So, in the next general election please do consider this when voting.
Letter from Jeremy Wraith to the PM asking what justifies retaining the net zero policy.
“net zero policy is catastrophically damaging the UK economy and destroying the normal lives and freedoms of all UK citizens”
To Mr R Sunak Prime Minister 10th Dec 2023
Dear Sir
Please note that this FOI is in the public interest as the net zero policy is catastrophically damaging the UK economy and destroying the normal lives and freedoms of all UK citizens, (e.g. abolition of our petrol and diesel powered cars, 15 minute cities, imposition of smart meters, massive costs of green energy subsidies, lack of reliable power generation, etc., etc.)
1 What information do you have which justifies retaining the net zero policy imposed upon the UK by the pernicious EU?
2 What information do you have that negates that the increasing CO2 from the start of the industrial revolution to the present day has had a negligible effect on increasing global temperature?
3 What information do you have which proves that the man made CO2 produced by the UK from the start of the industrial revolution to the present day has created any damage to the world environment?
4 What information do you therefore have that justifies giving £1.6 BILLION of UK taxpayers money to the UN climate change fund?
“What information do you have, and can list, that defines EXACTLY what damage the UK’s CO2 emissions since the 1830’s have supposedly caused other countries”
5 What information do you have, and can list, that defines EXACTLY what damage the UK’s CO2 emissions since the 1830’s have supposedly caused other countries, and which you are using to justify paying huge “reparations” using UK taxpayers money?
6 What information do you have on any cost benefit analysis carried out by the government to prove that giving £1.6 BILLION of UK taxpayers money to the UN climate fund is more beneficial to the UK taxpayers than using that money to repair crumbling concrete in our schools, universities, museums etc.? Especially when the £1.6 BILLION has to be borrowed and when we already have an enormous public debt of well over £2.5 TRILLION, costing every UK household over £2,000/annum just service the interest?
I look forward to receiving your responses to this FOI request.
Our contributor Tim Duce sent a letter (published below) in March to the HRH King Charles III, Rishi Sunak, Sir Keir Starmer, Sharon Thorne, Zac Goldsmith, Nicholas Lyons, Rachel Reeves, Richard Moore and Tony Blair on the subject of CO2 and Climate Change.
He’s had little response although does note that Tony Blair has now made one anti climate change statement. We are also in now seeing some delay to implementing NetZero policies from the government.
“When so many differing voices claim to quote ‘the science’, it’s important to listen to your own common sense and to see what is clearly visible”
Dear
At the recent WEF summit, Climate Change was discussed.
If we are indeed to save the planet, we must distinguish carefully between beliefs and facts. Saving the oxygen producing rainforests and oceans and controlling the production of toxic pollutants is self evident but the ‘CO2 and Global Temperature’ issue is far more murky. When so many differing voices claim to quote ‘the science’, it’s important to listen to your own common sense and to see what is clearly visible.
A clear answer is not hard to find. We already have the facts, but we have to join the dots between them. Let’s look at those facts together.
How Does a Greenhouse Work?
A greenhouse is covered in glass which is transparent to light, reflects light and refracts (bends) light. Having seen our reflections in a window and the effect of the lenses in a pair of spectacles, we all know this to be true. Light from the sun hits the glass fairly perpendicularly and most of it passes through easily (a tiny amount is lost due to reflection). It then hits the ground and plants. Some of it is absorbed as heat and some is reflected in all directions. Of this reflected light, some goes straight back out through the glass but some hits the glass at a shallower angle, causing it to be reflected and/or refracted back into the greenhouse again, causing a further increase in temperature. You probably knew this. Even if not, it is easy for anyone to understand.
Is There a Gas with the Same Characteristics as Glass?
One extremely plentiful gas has the same characteristics of transparency, reflection and refraction as glass. It is water vapour.
Again, our own experience confirms this. Water is transparent to light, reflects light and refracts (bends) light. We’ve all seen our reflection in water and we’ve seen how a stick half immersed in water looks bent. If we shine a light into fog, we are dazzled by reflected light. As for refraction, we have all seen a rainbow.
CO2 and methane are also transparent to light but reflection or refraction? If they do possess these characteristics, they are so infinitesimally small that we cannot see them.
Any greenhouse capabilities of CO2 and methane are so infinitesimally small as to be invisible whereas the greenhouse capabilities of water vapour are obvious for anyone to see with the naked eye.
Conclusion
Compared to the greenhouse gas water vapour, any greenhouse effects of CO2 and methane are infinitesimally small. Consequently, the effect (if any) of changes in CO2 levels on global temperature is insignificant.
“Greenland, which is currently covered in ice and snow, is called ‘Green-land’ because when the Vikings discovered and colonised it more than a thousand years before the industrial revolution, it was green“
To Illustrate:
The Earth has heated and cooled since its beginning. Greenland, which is currently covered in ice and snow, is called ‘Green-land’ because when the Vikings discovered and colonised it more than a thousand years before the industrial revolution, it was green. Vikings lived and farmed there for about 450 years. For Greenland to be green, just imagine how warm the Earth was then!
Didn’t Al Gore show that changes in CO2 levels and global temperature could be seen in polar ice? Yes he did but having got the answer he wanted, he stopped there. When other researchers duplicated the experiment, they found that the rises in CO2 level happened about 800 years after each rise in global temperature and not the other way around so: A rise in global temperature causes a rise in CO2 but a rise in CO2 does NOT cause a rise in global temperature. They also confirmed that the Earth has often been much warmer than it is now.
I met a young woman from Friends of the Earth on an aeroplane. Ignoring the fact that she was, it turned out, the most well travelled person I had ever met, I asked her to send to me a copy of an email from her bosses which, she told me, “Proved once and for all that CO2 caused global warming”. I wasted the evenings of two weeks of my life reading through 40 published papers in which there was not a single proof. The writers all simply said that a CO2 climate change connection was probably true because they thought so. Opinion is not science. Science demands proof.
Qualification:
If CO2 is frozen it can crystallise as ‘dry ice’ which you may have seen in theatre, movies or a disco. These crystals do have reflective and refractive properties but they do not appear in this form in nature. CO2, which is heavier than air even at room temperature, remains close to the Earth while temperatures cold enough to freeze CO2 only occur at very high altitudes.
Some Climate zealots claim that CO2’s ability to absorb heat is a problem. This is pseudo-science. ALL of the gases, liquids and solids of the Earth’s atmosphere and surface absorb heat from the sun every day, but they ALL cool again by radiating heat into space each night. (Since heat invariably flows from warm places to cold.)
“Scientists soon learned that if they were to receive funding for a project, they needed to include the magic words ‘Global Warming’ and later ‘Climate Change'”
Why Has This Myth Gathered Such Momentum?
The ‘CO2 and Global Temperature/Man Made Climate Change’ story has gained popularity because of the benefits it provides to various interest groups.
Margaret Thatcher used it as a justification for closing profitable coal mines during the miners’ strike. She pressured the Science Research Council to fund projects with ‘Global Warming’ in the title to give the story credibility.
Scientists soon learned that if they were to receive funding for a project, they needed to include the magic words ‘Global Warming’ and later ‘Climate Change’ in the title and to keep quiet about their scepticism. The Hard Left and Anti-Capitalists used it to justify their cause. ‘Prophet of Doom’ journalists found that it sold column inches.
Bill Gates, a major sponsor of the WEF and the WHO is currently using it as a justification to stop normal farming (especially organic farming!) and introduce production of artificial meat according to patented processes. Ker-Ching! (The systematic destruction of farmers’ livelihoods is already happening in the Netherlands.)
The ‘Climate Crisis’ myth is being used to persuade national leaders to sign up to agreements set by the WEF. In essence, our right to self-determination is being taken from voters and national governments and handed on a plate to the WEF which serves the interests of its main sponsors.
So:
Just by consulting your own knowledge, it becomes clear that ‘Climate Change’ is a myth.
Worse still, it is a myth being used to reduce people’s freedoms and erode democratic accountability. Also, as we rush headlong towards a fallacious Net Zero, we risk destroying our economy and inflicting extraordinary hardship upon ordinary people. As you put your head on the pillow tonight, I suggest you ask yourself where you stand on all of this and, if you wish, send me a reply.
Kind regards,
Tim Duce BSc.
cc. HRH King Charles III, Rishi Sunak, Sir Keir Starmer, Sharon Thorne, Zac Goldsmith, Nicholas Lyons, Rachel Reeves, Richard Moore, Tony Blair
Letter from Jeremy Wraith to the The Prime Minister asking ‘Why is net zero being continued?’
“More CO2 means more and greener vegetation. Commercial growers increase CO2 levels in their greenhouses to increase plant growth”
FREEDOM OF INFORMATION REQUEST
Dear Prime Minister
WHY IS NET ZERO BEING CONTINUED?
“Climate Change” is being blamed on human production of CO2 or Anthropogenic Global Warming (AGW). This is obviously an outrageous and dangerous lie as shown below.
CO2 FACTS
The earth produces CO2 naturally. 140 million years ago the CO2 level in the earth’s atmosphere was 2,500 ppm (parts/million).
CO2 is essential for life on earth.
If the CO2 level falls below about 150 ppm plant life cannot exist. Hence, all animal and human life will expire with it.
More CO2 means more and greener vegetation. Commercial growers increase CO2 levels in their greenhouses to increase plant growth.
Global CO2 level in 1850, beginning of the industrial revolution was 280 ppm.
Global CO2 level in 2021 was 410 ppm.
Hence, total increase of CO2 over that period, natural and man made, was 130 ppm.
130 ppm increase over 171 years gives an average annual increase of 0.76 ppm.
Mankind is responsible for about 3% of that annual increase, or approx. 0.02 ppm.
There are about 200 countries in the world. This gives an average of 0.0001 ppm/country/annum! This gives some idea of the small quantities of CO2 involved, even on a global scale.
HENCE: Based on these average numbers it will take:
EACH COUNTRY 10,000 YEARS TO ADD JUST 1 ppm/YEAR TO THE GLOBAL TOTAL!
However, some countries produce far more CO2 than the average. 70% of annual global CO2 emissions are produced by China, the USA, the EU, India, Russia and Japan combined.
The UK produces only 1% of total man made annual CO2 or 0.0002 ppm.
HENCE: Based on these average numbers it will take;
“to avoid adding 1 ppm to the worlds CO2 level over the next 1,560 years the UK’s Conservative government, (supported by the Labour, Lib Dem and Green parties) is….”
THE UK 5,000 YEARS TO ADD JUST 1 ppm CO2 TO THE GLOBAL TOTAL!
However, the CO2 level was possibly rising faster more recently than the average, perhaps about 2.13 ppm between 2021 and 2022.
The man made element of that would be 3% or 0.064 ppm of which the UK’s contribution to that at 1% would be 0.00064 ppm.
So, even taking one extreme result for CO2 increase it will still take:
THE UK 1,560 YEARS TO ADD JUST 1 ppm CO2 TO THE GLOBAL TOTAL!
“Threatening to fine objectors £15,000 with a possible 12 month jail sentence if they refuse entry AND legalising the use of brute force by fitters and the police”
Banning the use of our diesel and petrol cars by 2035.
Making us buy EV’s at a much higher cost and which are liable to burst into flames if their batteries get wet or damaged. (EV cars have numerous other disadvantages)
De-carbonising the national grid which National Grid (NG) estimates will cost £3 trillion to decarbonise the Grid alone – by 2035 – i.e. at an average cost of around £120,000 per household – to which must be added the cost for industry, transport and agriculture.
Banning the use of our efficient gas boilers and making us buy inefficient heat pumps at great expense.
Making our homes unusable and un-sellable by insisting on unreasonably high and extremely expensive insulation properties.
Decimating our power supplies by abolishing coal fired power stations.
Relying for our electricity supply on unreliable and costly wind and solar farms which require substantial subsidies to be paid by UK consumers. All fossil fuelled and nuclear stations will have been decommissioned by 2035 and the national grid will be unable to meet the additional load of millions of EV chargers and heat pumps. By then the Grid will be almost totally dependent on solar and wind power – when on some days the output from those sources is less than 1GW, i.e. 2% of grid maximum demand – a demand which is expected to reach around 90GW by 2035.
Making householders install smart gas and electricity meters, so that they can be switched off when electricity supplies are overloaded. It will also enable the supply companies to charge exorbitant prices during periods of high demand. NB The use of these meters on householder’s health, (due to high energy pulses they emit) is highly suspect and has not been adequately investigated and proved safe by the authorities.
Threatening to fine objectors £15,000 with a possible 12 month jail sentence if they refuse entry AND legalising the use of brute force by fitters and the police to make householders let smart meters be installed.
Forming “15 minute” cities and severely restricting residents and visitors rights to travel and move around their cities.
Banning practically all air travel and preventing people from enjoying foreign holidays and seeing their families based abroad.
Severely taxing air travel to put people off from taking holidays abroad.
Scrapping good farmland to re-wild it!
Putting taxes on meat to encourage people to eat bugs.
The key materials needed to meet net zero, range from copper, aluminium, nickel and silicon to rarer metals such as lithium All of which require substantial increases in their production to produce the quantities required for the expected demand in 2035.
The irony is that increasing CO2 greens the planet more: which will increase the global plant life, which will increase the uptake of CO2 by the vegetation and produces more Oxygen!
Paying £billions of UK taxpayers money to UN carbon funds and paying “reparations” to other countries for “polluting” the earth with CO2 during the industrial revolution and afterwards. A totally despicable lie as adding CO2 from 1800 to the present day has had a negligible effect on global warming, (see Figs below).
So, to avoid adding 1 ppm to the worlds CO2 level over the next 1,560 years the UK’s Conservative government, (supported by the Labour, Lib Dem and Green parties) is;
“ALREADY donated $2 billion of our, taxpayers’ money to the UK climate change fund. Was that penance payment REALLY just for adding 0.039 ppm to the global total over 171 years?”
NB In fact, of the total 130 ppm increase in CO2 between 1850 and 2021 the 3% man made element was only 3.9 ppm. Of that the UK contribution of approximately 1% was 0.039 ppm over 171 years.
Yet you, Mr Sunak, have ALREADY donated $2 billion of our, taxpayers’ money to the UK climate change fund. Was that penance payment REALLY just for adding 0.039 ppm to the global total over 171 years?
ALL THAT AND MORE TO PREVENT THE UK ADDING 1 ppm CO2 TO THE WORLDS CURRENT TOTAL OF 400 ppm OVER THE NEXT 1,560 YEARS, WHEN DOUBLING THE CO2 LEVEL FROM 400 to 800 ppm MAKES A NEGLIGIBLE CHANGE TO GLOBAL WARMING!
Hence, in view of the above I would like to ask you to justify WHY each of the points listed above are required and WHY:
You still insist on applying “net zero” when it is so obviously a totally unjustifiable, unattainable and horrendously expensive scam and making the UK taxpayers and residents so utterly persecuted, all for nothing.
You gave away $2 billion of taxpayers money to the UN for just adding 0.039 ppm to the global total over 171 years when doubling the global CO2 from 400 to 800 ppm has a negligible effect on global warming.
Please treat this as a Freedom of Information request.
In the UK we’ve faced a wet summer, whilst we’ve been told Europe burns. Are we being told the truth? Are these problems man-made or due to climate change? If climate change, what if anything should we do about it?
“there appears to be warming trend there. The trend is, however, consistently less pronounced than even the most conservative climate models have predicted”
“There’s a huge difference between weather and climate”, we’re told by the experts every time there is a cold snap. Trouble is, those same experts are in the habit of announcing that every sunny day is evidence of manmade climate change. Despite these endless pronouncements, I don’t think there is a huge amount of evidence that the number of extreme weather events has actually increased from pre-industrial times. So far, anyway.
That being said, I am not a total climate change sceptic. I have looked at the temperature graphs, as everyone else has, and there appears to be warming trend there. The trend is, however, consistently less pronounced than even the most conservative climate models have predicted, indicating that it may be less of an issue than some climate scientists think. It’s looking like we’ll see between two and three degrees of warning this century. Whilst there will likely be negative consequences to this (as well as some positive consequences), I think the people of our species have surmounted greater challenges in the past.
“There is simply no way to hit the arbitrary target of net zero emissions by 2050 without bringing about the mass immiseration of the British people”
I’m therefore of the opinion that the cure is overwhelmingly likely to be worse than the disease. There is simply no way to hit the arbitrary target of net zero emissions by 2050 without bringing about the mass immiseration of the British people. Undoubtedly the worst hit would be those on the lowest incomes. All of this would be little more than a gesture, as it’s now clear that the rest of the world would not follow our example. Large emitters like China and India will continue to prioritise rapid economic development over carbon emission reductions, leaving those countries that pursued net zero with all the pain and little or nothing to show for it.
Letter from Jeremy Wraith to the The Secretary of State for Energy Security and Net Zero.
“Prime Minister, Rishi Sunak, “donated” $2 billion of UK taxpayers money to the UN climate change fund during his visit to the G20 summit in India recently. Please justify”
To the Secretary of State for Energy Security and Net Zero, Department for Energy Security & Net Zero 1 Victoria Street, Westminster SW1H OET
16th September, 2023
Dear Ms Couthino
Freedom of Information Request – UK Net Zero
I believe that the Prime Minister, Rishi Sunak, “donated” $2 billion of UK taxpayers money to the UN climate change fund during his visit to the G20 summit in India recently. Please justify and explain why he did this when he had no authority to do so from the UK public and UK taxpayers and;
We have hundreds of schools plus an unknown number of hospitals, museums, libraries etc., which are unsafe due to crumbling concrete construction.
Jeremy Hunt, Chancellor of the Exchequer, said that there was no money to repair the schools, so all school repairs would have to be paid out of the existing education budget.
Why you, and the Conservative Party, have completely ignored the data provided by Professor Happer that PROVES adding more CO2 to the atmosphere has an imperceptible effect on global warming.
So where did the £1.6 billion taxpayers money come from and why was it thrown away on a completely spurious and un-necessary fund when our schools, hospitals etc., have to be repaired at great cost to the UK taxpayers?
That AGW climate change is a total scam, has never been agreed to by the UK public and taxpayers nor has any liability for global warming as such been fully justified by the government and accepted by the general public as it is a completely spurious and untrue concept.
Why a policy of net zero is being actively pursued by the Conservative government, (despite our leaving the EU which imposed it), which is crippling us now and will cripple the UK and all it’s population for years to come, when the UK’s contribution to global CO2 production will take over 1,500 YEARS TO ADD 1 ppm TO THE GLOBAL TOTAL, TAKING INTO ACCOUNT THE FACT THAT EVEN DOUBLING THE CURRENT CO2 LEVEL TO OVER 800 ppm HAS AN IMPERCEPTIBLE EFFECT ON GLOBAL WARMING ACCORDING TO PROFESSOR HAPPER?
Why I am now liable to a £15,000 fine and 12 months prison sentence for denying climate change, according to Rishi Sunak!!
In the UK we’ve faced a wet summer, whilst we’ve been told Europe burns. Are we being told the truth? Are these problems man-made or due to climate change? If climate change, what if anything should we do about it?
“the British summer has never been a given: predictably unpredictable. Nothing this year we haven’t seen in living memory”
The following represents my own, reasonably humble opinion: all or even part of it not necessarily coincident with that of Reform UK.
We’ve certainly had a topsy-turvy summer in Blighty, and there were heatwaves in southern Europe while we were almost shivering and damp here. But the British summer has never been a given: predictably unpredictable. Nothing this year we haven’t seen in living memory, following a day or two of just about record highs last year.
First let me admit to a very limited knowledge and understanding of climatology. On the other hand, 35 years in aviation and a general interest in natural sciences have led me to a close interest and reasonable understanding of weather, and its short-term forecasting.
” I rarely give heed to bold predictions – eagerly seized on by journalists – of weather extremes 10 or 14 days in advance. As for what sort of weather we can expect in the next month or three: forget it!”
Weather forecasting has been largely computerised and enables meteorologists to predict most types of weather phenomena up to 4 or 5 days ahead with remarkable accuracy. Beyond that period, reliability rapidly declines, and I rarely give heed to bold predictions – eagerly seized on by journalists – of weather extremes 10 or 14 days in advance. As for what sort of weather we can expect in the next month or three: forget it!
That doesn’t mean, of course, that the climatologists’ gloomy analyses of long-term climate-change trends can simply be dismissed, nor that human activity has no effect on world climate. But it seems to me that, to take one example, they are not always comparing like with like in their historic graphs of temperature. For example, many rural thermometric sites in the 19th century have since been surrounded by buildings. Temperature readings are bound to be generally higher. In one sense, that is man-made climate change! Can and is due allowance made for that?
They claim that extreme weather events, including fatalities, are and will continue to be on the increase. But, in this age of mass, almost instant worldwide communication, events that would have remained unrecorded – or at least overlooked internationally, even 50 years ago – are on our TV screens within 24 hours. And the 24-hour news media make a big proportion of their living by reporting them in the greatest detail.
“There are doubts on the impartiality of a climate science that is funded by governments and international organisations (using your taxes and mine)”
There are doubts on the impartiality of a climate science that is funded by governments and international organisations (using your taxes and mine) pursuing a globalist agenda that would impose swingeing restrictions on the freedoms, lifestyles and even the diet of ordinary citizens, while its leaders’ swan around in private jets from conference to conference with their entourages. In the UK, to take one example, present government policy would ban the production of fossil fuel-powered cars in just over six years’ time, while the electric alternatives remain problematical, to say the least.
Finally, there is also a shrillness in the pronouncements of the self-styled climate-emergency lobby, and an unwillingness to engage in calm debate. Climate-change sceptics are branded as climate-change “deniers”, a term that implies bigotry. An old adage springs to mind: “methinks thou doth protest too much…”
Simon Richards, former CEO of The Freedom Association
“Let’s be honest – most of us don’t even know for sure how tomorrow’s weather will turn out.
Consequently, I prefer to hedge my bets about climate change”
Unlike so many politicians who pontificate about climate change with all the certainty of meteorological professors who have also been granted forward climatic vision for the next century or two, I claim no such expertise. Let’s be honest – most of us don’t even know for sure how tomorrow’s weather will turn out.
Consequently, I prefer to hedge my bets about climate change. My guess is that it is mostly down to natural causes, but that it makes sense to treat the planet and the atmosphere with care and respect. For that reason, I reckon it makes sense to develop renewable energy and nuclear energy. But it is also sensible to try to reduce our energy dependence on what are often hostile overseas powers, so I also favour using all domestic energy sources, including shale oil, coal, oil, natural gas etc. as necessary.
“As usual, the Left is using fear to drive an expansion of state control and interference in people’s lives.”
As usual, the Left is using fear to drive an expansion of state control and interference in people’s lives. Excessive adoption of the Net Zero agenda in the UK must not be allowed to impoverish us, whilst Communist China and others make a mockery of our self-flagellation.
In the UK we’ve faced a wet summer, whilst we’ve been told Europe burns. Are we being told the truth? Are these problems man-made or due to climate change? If climate change, what if anything should we do about it?
“Parts of Europe may have had an uncommonly hot summer, but to frame that as part of a climate ‘emergency’ is completely disingenuous”
As ever, the narrative we are fed from politicians and the mainstream media consists of a load of half-truths presented in a way which is designed to mislead. Parts of Europe may have had an uncommonly hot summer, but to frame that as part of a climate ‘emergency’ is completely disingenuous, and to attribute it to the wildfires is spurious in the extreme.
Everyone knows that the ignition point of paper is 451 degrees Fahrenheit. For wood, grass and all similar substances, it is generally between 450 and 500 degrees, so there is no way a temperature of 120 degrees – the hottest ever recorded in Europe – can cause the spontaneous combustion of grassland or scrub. In all cases, the wildfires could not have been started without the heat being magnified in some way or, as is more likely, an external heat source being applied. In short, the wildfires will have been started by human activity, deliberately or by accident, and not as a result of climate change.
Dry grass obviously makes the fires easier to spread, but that is caused more by prolonged dry spells than a few days of high temperatures, and is a normal characteristic of the summer climate which doesn’t usually result in a mass panic. Most, if not all, of the fires could have been avoided if people used their brains and took appropriate care.
“Croydon’s name means ‘Valley of the Crocus’, commemorating its Roman use as a centre for saffron production. If the temperature gets warm enough, we could revive that industry”
The climate, of course, is permanently in a state of flux, and will warm up and cool down over periods of centuries as it always does. The only thing for us to do as adapt to it, as humans in times past did by wearing fur and hides to keep the cold out, or taking advantage of the warm summers to grow apricots, musk melons and figs, as we did in Tudor times. As friends of the Croydon Constitutionalists will know, Croydon’s name means ‘Valley of the Crocus’, commemorating its Roman use as a centre for saffron production. If the temperature gets warm enough, we could revive that industry.
“We do not need to take heed of the agenda-driven zealots who tell us we should all become miserable vegans and have our energy consumption monitored”
Post-Industrial Revolution, the scope for mankind to overcome and adapt to obstacles has never been greater. There will always be options, and it is up for us to try them, reject them or improve them as we see fit. We do not need to take heed of the agenda-driven zealots who tell us we should all become miserable vegans and have our energy consumption monitored. As a case in point, a carbon-neutral synthetic fuel has recently been developed for internal combustion engines – no thanks to politicians, prophets of doom and their electric-car fixation – and works interchangeably with petrol, making the 2030 ban on petrol and diesel vehicles look pretty stupid.
Scott Neville, Hampshire Independents
“The south of Europe has always been hot, if the Mediterranean Sea were to be dammed in the straits of Gibraltar it would dry up as more water evaporates out of the sea than flows into it from the rivers of Europe/Africa”
There is a lot of things to unpack there. The first thing to remember is that the media is not there to tell you the facts, they are there to sell you the news, so there is always going to be some blurring of the truth to make it more marketable. So has the UK summer been wet…. yes, but it’s not been wet by biblical proportions and the UK has a long history of rubbish weather and it raining more than we want, ok sure its rained a lot more than we would want, but I don’t think this is anything that exceptional. I don’t really think there is anything special about the weather in the UK other than “it’s been a bit wetter than usual”.
Europe is a little different, so you ask, “are these problems man-made or due to climate change?” I would say, yes and yes. The south of Europe has always been hot, if the Mediterranean Sea were to be dammed in the straits of Gibraltar it would dry up as more water evaporates out of the sea than flows into it from the rivers of Europe/Africa. Given the longest river in the world connects to it, that tells you a LOT of water evaporates. So, it’s pretty hot there and always has been. So, the man-made bit. Historically a lot of farming has been conducted by small scale family farms in the south of Europe, they have had small fields which are well suited to the hilly terrain. This kind of landscape is far less suited to large scale farming. Now the EU really hates small scale farmers, they would much rather have big industrial farmers. Over the years a lot of these small-scale farmers have been put out of business and the big industrial ones have taken over some of the land. This is a critical change, because the fires while in part might be caused by slightly hotter temperatures, they are mostly caused by an abundance of fuel on the ground in these now abandoned fields.
“which makes no sense when you consider the religious cult of “The Science” where is totally acceptable to abuse people in the street for contradicting the first slightly official looking thing you found on Google”
We have seen this many times in other countries like Australia where the indigenous people would burn the land regularly to remove the excess fuel. For some reason we hold a certain arrogance over such things now, where our leaders have decided these people don’t know what they are doing because their actions have not been derived through the scientific method (which makes no sense when you consider the religious cult of “The Science” where is totally acceptable to abuse people in the street for contradicting the first slightly official looking thing you found on Google and academics like Peter Boghossian have shown deep flaws in the peer review process in some fields).
Now, I am all for the scientific method, both my degrees (BSc – Hons – 1st & MSc – Distinction) are in Science, so I am well signed up to the Scientific method (I don’t like to brag about my education, because you should judge me on the quality of my research / arguments / findings, but it was more to show that I am not some fly-by-night that looked up the definition of science yesterday, I have devoted my life to it). I really don’t agree with the modern fad of “there are other ways of knowing” and “my truth”, there is only the truth and the only way of knowing for sure is empirical evidence which is falsifiable. However, these old cultures and people have survived for a reason, so while burning the land or small-scale farming might be done to appease some god (which I don’t accept), there might be some valid practical reason for these practices evolving. Another example might be the rules in religious texts, like thou shalt not kill, I don’t believe any god said that (because I don’t believe they exist), but I do think that’s a pretty sensible rule to produce a functioning society, i.e. the reasoning is wrong, but the outcome is sound. One obvious outcome is that these practices produce a stable environment from which humans can flourish. While I would always doubt the reasoning, I am very open to the idea that there is good reason for doing these things and sure we can change what we do, that’s fine, but let’s be pretty sure about the consequences before doing that. In essence the fires in Europe are very much man made.
Climate change, yes the climate is changing, and yes its getting hotter, that is not going to help, one thing I have learned is that Earth has a lot of reinforcing feedback loops which is counterintuitive. For example, in an ice age its colder, colder means more snow, snow is very good at reflecting heat back into space, therefore it gets colder. The same could be true here, more heat, stuff burns more easily therefore more heat. It’s interesting that the planet does always appear to have some method of correcting itself (although we don’t really understand why, and life does play a part in that so past performance is not a guide to future returns blah blah).
“Firstly, get the plastic junk out of the seas. The seas are one of the most important regulators of our climate, they are the origins of all live on earth and produce vast quantities of food, why, why, why, are we ok with all this plastic being dumped in there?”
In terms of climate change, I think there are some important things we can (and should do as quickly as possible). Firstly, get the plastic junk out of the seas. The seas are one of the most important regulators of our climate, they are the origins of all live on earth and produce vast quantities of food, why, why, why, are we ok with all this plastic being dumped in there? We need to get all that plastic junk out and stop putting any more of it in (which includes things like shipping recycling to China where it can fall off the sides of boats). We should think a bit more carefully about what we eat too. All the arguments I see make absolutely no sense, the better thing for the climate is to eat avocados shipped in from South America rather than meat from a farm I could walk to. What? This makes no sense. We should try to eat more locally grown produce as its generally better for us, uses less energy and animals have a higher welfare standard. Now I realize that not everyone can afford that, so I don’t complain about people buying cheap food I know plenty of people can’t afford anything else, but those that can afford, in my view should (although I have no right to force them).
The final thing I think we should all do is use less energy, not in some “you will own nothing and be happy” way, but because it just makes sense, if you don’t need the lights on, turn them off, it will save you some money. Insulated homes are cheaper to heat. We are going to have a few years with power cuts over winter thanks to our inept government not planning our energy security properly and building new power plants (Nick Clegg, “it will take a decade to build a new nuclear power plant, so we won’t do that” in 2010…. well would have been pretty handy now in 2023). Using as little energy as possible will help reduce your own costs and help mitigate the supply problems. Further to this the energy we have on earth is finite and controlled by the Sun (other than nuclear, though that’s still finite), at some point in our distance future humans will need to leave Earth and find a new home, I imagine that will need quite a lot of energy, so let’s not squander it all now on lighting up the outside wall of our house at night.
