Category: Global Warming

Letter to the great and good on Global Warming

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:

  1. 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!
  2. 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.
  3. 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

https://www.ipsos.com/en/obscop-2022

https://rogerpielkejr.substack.com/p/dont-believe-the-hype

https://dailysceptic.org/2023/03/05/new-scientific-evidence-suggeststemperatures-have-been-stable-in-greenland-for-60-years-save-for-asudden-1c-jump-in-1994/

https://dailysceptic.org/2022/12/12/global-poll-shock-four-in-10- people-believe-climate-change-mainly-due-to-natural-causes/

https://dailysceptic.org/2023/01/02/more-reasons-to-doubt-the-u-k-srecord-40c-temperature-was-attained-last-summer/

https://dailysceptic.org/2023/02/23/net-zero-to-blame-for-vegetableshortage/

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Laws_of_thermodynamics

Image from: kallerna, CC BY-SA 4.0 https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0, via Wikimedia Commons

Prime Minister: WHY IS NET ZERO BEING CONTINUED?

WHY IS NET ZERO BEING CONTINUED?

Image by Mojca JJ from Pixabay

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”

  1. Banning the use of our diesel and petrol cars by 2035.
  2. 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)
  3. 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.
  4. Banning the use of our efficient gas boilers and making us buy inefficient heat pumps at great expense.
  5. Making our homes unusable and un-sellable by insisting on unreasonably high and extremely expensive insulation properties.
  6. Decimating our power supplies by abolishing coal fired power stations.
  7. 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.
  8. 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.
  9. 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.
  10. Forming “15 minute” cities and severely restricting residents and visitors rights to travel and move around their cities.
  11. Banning practically all air travel and preventing people from enjoying foreign holidays and seeing their families based abroad.
  12. Severely taxing air travel to put people off from taking holidays abroad.
  13. Scrapping good farmland to re-wild it!
  14. Putting taxes on meat to encourage people to eat bugs.
  15. 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.
  16. 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!
  17. 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:

  1. 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.
  2. 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.

Yours faithfully

J G Wraith

Wet summer, whilst Europe burns.  Is it weather or is it climate change? – Your Views (Part 4)

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?

We asked our contributors for their views.

Back to Part 3

Duncan Forsyth, local Brexiteer

“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.

Other Articles in this series:

“There almost certainly has been some recent warming as we emerge from the Little Ice Age of the 13th-19th centuries which followed the Medieval warm period” – Wet summer, whilst Europe burns.  Is it weather or is it climate change? – Your Views (Part 1)

“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” – Wet summer, whilst Europe burns.  Is it weather or is it climate change? – Your Views (Part 2)

“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” – Wet summer, whilst Europe burns.  Is it weather or is it climate change? – Your Views (Part 3)

Back to Part 3

Photo by USGS on Unsplash

FoI to The Secretary of State for Energy Security and Net Zero

Image by Mojca JJ from Pixabay

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;

  1. We have hundreds of schools plus an unknown number of hospitals, museums, libraries etc., which are unsafe due to crumbling concrete construction.
  2. 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.
  3. 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.
  4. 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?
  5. 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.
  6. 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?
  7. Why I am now liable to a £15,000 fine and 12 months prison sentence for denying climate change, according to Rishi Sunak!! 

Yours faithfully

J G Wraith

Wet summer, whilst Europe burns.  Is it weather or is it climate change? – Your Views (Part 3)

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?

We asked our contributors for their views.

Back to Part 2

Chris Scott, Reform UK

“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…”

You can contact Chris at [email protected].  More information on Reform UK and their policies can be found at https://www.reformparty.uk/.

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.

You can listen to podcast with Simon at https://croydonconstitutionalists.uk/podcast-episode-82-simon-richards-local-election-results-no-sunset-for-eu-laws/.

Back to Part 2

Photo by USGS on Unsplash

Wet summer, whilst Europe burns.  Is it weather or is it climate change? – Your Views (Part 2)

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?

We asked our contributors for their views.

Back to Part 1 ¦ On to Part 3

Zack Stiling, political activist.

“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.

Scott can be emailed at [email protected] and is on Facebook at https://www.facebook.com/ScottNevilleIndLib.  The Hampshire Independents are online at https://hantsind.com/ and on Facebook at https://www.facebook.com/hampshireindependents.

Back to Part 1 ¦ On to Part 3

Photo by USGS on Unsplash

Wet summer, whilst Europe burns.  Is it weather or is it climate change? – Your Views (Part 1)

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?

We asked our contributors for their views.

On to Part 2

Tony Brown, Libertarian Party UK candidate for Mayor of London

“There almost certainly has been some recent warming as we emerge from the Little Ice Age of the 13th-19th centuries which followed the Medieval warm period”

To say Europe burnt this summer is the worst form of hyperbole. I spent my entire summer in Europe, England and Belgium to be precise and I assure you neither burnt nor were particularly wet: both experienced perfectly ‘normal’ summer weather. And that illustrates the problem of absurd, wild comments from people one is supposed to respect claiming global boiling or similar nonsense (I use the word literally and accurately.) 

Both the weather day-to-day and climate millenia by millenia constantly change. There almost certainly has been some recent warming as we emerge from the Little Ice Age of the 13th-19th centuries which followed the Medieval warm period which saw wine cultivation as far north as Northumberland (still not yet possible today). It is impossible to judge the human contribution to all this and even the most sophisticated climate modelling is still far too simple accurately to understand the vastly complex interactions involved. 

So, no we are not being told the truth because the truth is not known and perhaps not knowable at this stage.  (though in time AI and quantum computing might help.)

“we are subject to a barrage of unscientific scare-mongering by people who really ought to know better. And it is certainly not justified to trash our standard of living”

Instead, we are subject to a barrage of unscientific scare-mongering by people who really ought to know better. And it is certainly not justified to trash our standard of living and force us to replace low-cost, proven technology such as gas boilers and petrol cars with more expensive, less efficient alternatives such as heat pumps and EVs with all their problems of charge, range and weight.

Neither should we ignore it all. We should be pursuing a strategy of progressive adaptation based on first, proven technology which works; secondly, full life-cycle costing from raw material extraction to final scrapping and recycling; thirdly, efficiency as indicated by market pricing (which is why pricing is useful and essential); and, fourthly acknowledge that much of the world is not a nice place: countries such as Russia, China and even India are very happy to manipulate our gullible good nature to damage us and give themselves economic and competitive advantage at our expense whilst making promises they have no intention of keeping! 

To quote Ford Prefect ‘Don’t Panic’. Apply our minds instead and the result will be a much better outcome for all of us!

You can find out more about Tony’s campaign at https://www.libertarianpartyuk.com/

Spanish political scientist, Lorena Serantes

“I know temperatures are raising, at least here in Spain, and we’ve been having severe draughts in the last 2 years”

Unfortunately, I’m not an expert on climate change and environmental issues, I know temperatures are raising, at least here in Spain, and we’ve been having severe draughts in the last 2 years. My view is Southern Europe is at risk due to high temperatures, because wildfires are becoming more common year after year, and it’s scary. I wish I knew more about these issues but there’s too much information and too little time to check it out. It’s a complicated matter.

Lorena blogs on British Politics at https://serantesprietolorena.blogspot.com/

Martin Hartmann, President of the Libertarian Party Switzerland

“There are many more and more important factors affecting global climate than humankind. We should focus on innovation and change

The climate crisis is a hoax. It’s being hyped by the green leftist journalists in the mainstream media. There are many more and more important factors affecting global climate than humankind. We should focus on innovation and change – the only constant.

The Libertarian Party in Switzerland can be found online, on Facebook, on Twitter, and on Instagram.

On to Part 2

Photo by USGS on Unsplash

An irrefutable claim for AGW Climate Change

It could take 1,800 years for the UK to add 1ppm of CO2 to the global total.  Bear that in mind when you realise that even doubling the global CO2 from 400ppm to 800ppm has very little effect on global warming!

By Jerry Wraith

The AGW (anthropogenic global warming) claims for causing Climate Change are continually being promoted by many institutions, including the IPCC, the media, (BBC, Sky TV, The Guardian for example), and politicians. The UK is being subjected to crippling costs due to scrapping coal fired power stations (at the EU’s demand) and trying to replace them with renewable forms of energy. This is costing a fortune for UK taxpayers as renewables are unreliable, very expensive and demand huge subsidies. They also demand reliable back-up systems when the “wind don’t blow” and “the sun don’t shine”! In addition, our petrol and diesel fuelled cars are being banned in favour of EV’s which again raise horrendous operational problems.

“the warming effect of CO2 at the pre-industrial level of 300ppm to the warming effect at today’s level of about 400ppm is practically indiscernible”

The figures below are copied from a lecture given by Dr Tom Sheahan: 
(Full Lecture)

The graph above shows that increasing CO2 levels from 50ppm to 800ppm has very little effect on global warming. The graph below defines the effect on global warming due to increasing levels of CO2 more clearly. The most significant points are the warming effect of CO2 at the pre-industrial level of 300ppm to the warming effect at today’s level of about 400ppm is practically indiscernible. This proves beyond any doubt that increasing CO2 by 100ppm has an imperceptible effect on increasing earth’s temperature.

The above graph is based on calculations by van Wijngaarden and Happer. Their calculations are compared to real measurements as shown in the graph below.

” the IPCC climate models are grossly inaccurate as their calculated global temperature rise, due to increasing CO2, is over 3 to 5 times, average 3.5 times) the actual recorded results”

NOW look at the graph below, comparing IPCC calculations with measured results (copied from “There Is No Climate Crisis” by David Craig, published by The Original Book Company in 2021.)

This clearly proves that the IPCC climate models are grossly inaccurate as their calculated global temperature rise, due to increasing CO2, is over 3 to 5 times, average 3.5 times) the actual recorded results. The IPCC is therefore a completely disreputable organisation and must be completely ignored. This has been confirmed by Professor Chris Holland of the Hadley Centre for Climate Prediction and Research who said:

“The data doesn’t matter. We are not basing our recommendations on the data. We are basing them on the climate models.”

In addition, Ottmar Edenhofer, previous Co-Chairman of the IPCC Working Group 111 “Mitigation of Climate Change” has apparently also completely destroyed the case for AGW by saying:

“First of all, developed countries have basically expropriated the atmosphere of the world community. But one must say clearly that we redistribute de facto the world’s wealth by climate policy. Obviously, the owners of coal and oil will not be enthusiastic about this. One has to free oneself from the illusion that international climate policy is environmental policy. This has almost nothing to do with environmental policy anymore.” (My highlighting.)

The UK’s contribution to increasing CO2 can be estimated as follows:

Here’s a chart of atmospheric CO2 levels:

This shows that in 1980 global CO2 was 330ppm. This increased to 390ppm in 2010. This means that global CO2 increased by 55ppm in 30 years, or by 55/30 = 1.8ppm/year of which humans provided 3% or 0.055ppm/year. The UK is generally recognised as providing only 1% of the total human contribution to CO2 or 1/100 x 0.055 = 0.00055ppm/annum.

Hence to ADD 1ppm to the global CO2 total will take the UK 1/0.00055 or 1,800 YEARS!

For this our politicians are ruining the economy of the UK for a TOTALLY WORTHLESS EXERCISE. Made much worse by the FACT that CO2 has a trivially negligible effect on global warming at these concentrations!

Finally, it should be noted that NASA admitted that CO2 has a negligible effect on climate warming. See the Natural News article by Ethan Huff, dated Fri, 30 Aug 2019. 

SO

are you going to believe calculations based on the real facts which give good results with the real world,

OR

are you going to believe IPCC calculations, which are artificially produced and bear little or no relation to the real world to bolster their politically motivated case that increasing man made CO2 is having a catastrophic warming effect on the earth’s climate?

“the stupid Department for Business, Energy & Industrial Strategy “provided £1,173,666.21 (excl. VAT) of taxpayer’s money to the contractor responsible for delivering the ongoing UK Greenhouse Gas Inventory for the 2021/2022 financial year”

COMMENTS

1 Talking of reparations for third world countries is a ridiculously ludicrous idea as any increase in the worlds CO2 due to our industrial revolution has a vanishingly small effect on global warming.

2 Promoting Climate Change (meaning AGW induced Climate Change) is totally FAKE propaganda. As confirmed in the quotes above.

3 Using CO2 levels to debate Climate Change is a worthless exercise as CO2 makes a vanishingly small effect on global warming. Especially, as the UK produces only 1% of the world’s 3% annual human production of CO2. YET the stupid Department for Business, Energy & Industrial Strategy “provided £1,173,666.21 (excl. VAT) of taxpayer’s money to the contractor responsible for delivering the ongoing UK Greenhouse Gas Inventory for the 2021/2022 financial year. The outputs of this work included providing the data for the 2020 “UK Greenhouse Gas Emissions Report, and a number of other products”. What a colossal waste of taxpayers’ money!

4 REDUCING CO2 IS PROBABLY HAVING THE OPPOSITE EFFECT TO THAT REQUIRED FOR THE WORLDS POPULATION! IF CO2 LEVEL GETS TOO LOW ALL WORLD VEGETATION WILL DIE AND MANKIND WITH IT! MORE CO2 INCREASES WORLD GREENING AND PLANT GROWTH! (Proven by satellite observations and greenhouse use of CO2.

5 Dr Sheahan also makes the point that Methane, CH4 and Nitrous Oxide, N2O are also insignificant with regard to global warming and even less effective than the vanishingly small effect of CO2.

6 Earth’s climate is changing and has always changed, but this has virtually nothing to do with CO2 which is a trace gas in the earth’s atmosphere. The climate changes are due to the sun and the earths eccentric orbit round the sun. See the article “The woman who could cancel net zero” by Iain Hunter in The Conservative Woman, Dec 22, 2022.

7 The true purpose of the IPCC is to transfer wealth from developed nations to undeveloped nations and form a global government. (The campaign about CO2 is just a smoke screen. Whether CO2 can warm the atmosphere is irrelevant.) The plan was allegedly set out in clause 38 of the draft treaty put to the IPCC conference in Copenhagen 2009. It stated that the new global government will have three basic pillars: Government; Facilitative Mechanism; and Financial Mechanism. It will be ruled by the Conference of the Parties (IPCC) and managed by the support staff of the IPCC.

“UK taxpayers must be given the opportunity to vote on whether they want the UK economy, and their personal well being destroyed for the purposes of this global government.”

CONCLUSION It is astonishing that UK politicians, now paid £84,144/annum + expenses, by UK taxpayers are

SO INCREDIBLY DECEITFUL

as to base policy, costing UK taxpayers £trillions and ruining the economy of the UK, on eliminating a problem THAT DOES NOT EXIST! The IPCC is clearly a political project, not a technical one, therefore politicians and councillors, must pay the price. So, the UK taxpayers must be given the opportunity to vote on whether they want the UK economy, and their personal well being destroyed for the purposes of this global government.

Image by Mojca JJ from Pixabay

Warmer since when?

“the coldest Christmas day on record since 1659 was in 2010 – so much for global warming”

Only 11 times in London in the last 60 years has snow fallen on Christmas day, this was not always so.  The river Thames held its first frost fair in 1608 and the last was in 1814.  These took place during the Little Ice Age lasting from about 1300 to about 1850.  Clearly, we have warmed since then.  The Little Ice Age started without man made input and ended before any serious global industrialisation.  It’s almost as if temperatures change without a man-made cause.  Incidentally the coldest Christmas day on record since 1659 was in 2010 – so much for global warming.

“tax records show the Britons extensively grew their own wine grapes in the 11th century.  Compared to then we are colder not warmer.”

What if I was to pick other dates, different dates to measure warming.  The English wine market is once again growing, centred in the south.  Of course, the Romans grew grapes and made wine at Hadrian’s Wall, not something we could do today without artificial heaters.  Later tax records show the Britons extensively grew their own wine grapes in the 11th century.  Compared to then we are colder not warmer.

The later growing took place in the Medieval Warm Period lasting from around 950 to 1250 AD.  The warming during this period saw the Vikings break out of Scandinavia, conquer much of Europe and even grow barley in Greenland.  The same warming in the east produced more rain, and grass for the grazing animals that Genghis Khan’s Mongolian horseman rode and fed off.  This abundance allowed his descendants to conquer much of Eurasia.  The Medieval Warm Period was not caused by car journeys, aircraft, coal fuelled power stations or even the Saxons use of trial by fire.  The climate changes and it often has little to do with man.  Compared to then we are colder not warmer.

The climate changes, yes, we know that.  Global temperature is not fixed, we know we had ice ages, we know we have had warming periods.  The premise here is the following (with thanks to Dennis Prager):

  • The globe is warming.
  • The warming is man-made – if this isn’t because of human influenced greenhouse gas emissions, then the currently prescribed actions are meaningless.
  • And finally, that the warming will be catastrophic – there is little point in acting if the impact is only two more weeks of summer and not much else.

Warmer since when?  For someone to say the globe is warming, requires them to state over which period they are measuring, and justify why that period rather than some other timeframe.  To believe the last two premises you must believe in the predictions of people who have told us food would run out in the 1980s, that New York City is currently underwater, that Britain would suffer a “famine” within 10 years from 2002 and that in 2009 we only had “eight years to save the planet”.  I ask anyone who believes these people to get in touch with me about a bridge I have for sale.

“All the abundance you see around you, that has allowed billions of people to move from calorie insecurity to having commodity goods in our lifetimes, is fed by fuel, mostly fossil fuels”

If we do assume global warming is a threat, then what can we do about it?  Let’s not start by throwing away civilizations’ manna from heaven.  All the abundance you see around you, that has allowed billions of people to move from calorie insecurity to having commodity goods in our lifetimes, is fed by fuel, mostly fossil fuels.  It is a manna showing no end.  We have more oil reserves than all the oil we have ever used, with new technology opening even further access to fuel.  If you have a proven, working, source of fuel that reduces pollution, great let’s use it.  If you are saying we need to change the basis of our modern civilisation and put at risk the food supply chains for billions of people, you better be dammed sure of your predictions.

Despite the supposedly dangerous level of CO2 of 1 part per 2400, life has never been better.  We may have a cost of living crisis, but prior to lockdown poverty had never been lower.  An estimated 3.2 billion people, or 42% of the total world population, are now in the global middle class.  Many of them enjoying today in countries we used to consider third world, a better standard of living than some of us grew up with.

Humans are exceptional.  200 years ago Global life expectancy was under 30, today life expectancy in the poorest countries is over 50, the global average is over 70.  When I was at school people starved in many countries, today hunger has almost disappeared except where war or governments stop food supplies.  Since the turn of the century the expanding economies of China and India have meant China has a middle class the size of the population of Europe, with India only a few years behind.

Despite expanding populations and doomsday predictions the number of people dying from extreme weather events continues to collapse.  The climate has changed for millennia before mankind, during our existence and will continue to change for many more years to come without our interference.  For over 30 years ‘experts’ on hefty grants have told us of impending doom from global warming, rising sea levels, agricultural failures, and a scorched planet.  None of this has happened, and the planet is greening every year.

Is global warming a threat? I don’t think so, but maybe. However I have no doubt by making use of the energy buried all around us, human ingenuity will not just rise to any challenge, we will excel and overcome it.

This article was first published in Blacklist Press’ Free Speech. 

Image by Mojca JJ from Pixabay

Podcast Episode 75 – Climate – rational action, and affordability

We bring you the speeches from our recent event in Purley with speakers Benjamin Elks from the Taxpayers’ Alliance and Harry Wilkinson from Net Zero Watch.

Spreaker

iTunes

Google Podcasts

Podchaser

Podcast Addict		Deezer

Spotify

Stitcher

Castbox

Amazon