Category: Global Warming

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

Climate – rational action, and affordability

Image: By GodeNehler – Own work, CC BY-SA 4.0, https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?curid=74650075

Join us on Wednesday 28th September for an evening talking about the climate, rational action, and affordability.

Our guests, Harry Wilkinson, Head of Policy at Net Zero Watch and Benjamin Elks of the Taxpayers’ Alliance will each present and hold a joint Q&A.

As energy prices rocket and everything from driving your car to changing your boiler becomes more restricted, Ben and Harry will be giving their thoughts on the government’s Net Zero measures.

Come along 7pm, upstairs at Elliott’s Bar, 5 High St, Purley CR8 2AF.

Benjamin Elks worked in pension prior to moving to the TPA last year working in Fundraising, Operations and Events.  Ben supported our recent action day with the TPA in Purley questioning executive pay at Croydon Council.  Ben has a degree in Politics and War Studies from the University of Wolverhampton and plays for a local rugby team in his spare time.  Ben can be found on Twitter at @elksy91.   

Harry Wilkinson is the Head of Policy at Net Zero Watch. Net Zero Watch aims to is highlight and discuss the serious implications of expensive and poorly considered climate change policies. Harry has regularly written for the Conservative Woman and has appeared with us on our Podcast. Harry can be found on Twitter at @HarryWilkinsonn.   

Facebook Event: https://www.facebook.com/events/1119759738961387

Monetary Policy and Environmental Progress

Why Bad Money Drives Up Pollution

By Josh L. Ascough

“actions towards the green economy are for nought; not just while the tragedy of the commons and eminent domain remain, but while monetary policy remains in favour of secular inflation”

Many people are growing concerned about pollution and its growing effects on our environment and quality of life. So much so it seems, that politicians are now taking nuclear power much more seriously than previously.

We’ve seen a greater push towards solar and wind power, as alternative and more renewable means of providing energy for national and global economies.

Despite this, actions towards the green economy are for nought; not just while the tragedy of the commons and eminent domain remain, but while monetary policy remains in favour of secular inflation.

Secular inflation is a term used to describe a state of affairs, where the policy of the monetary authorities; in the UK’s case the Bank of England, is to have a prolonged or gradual increase in prices via inflation targeting. The current target of the Bank of England sits at 2%, so the BoE aims to increase the money supply (MS) over the quantity demanded (MD) during each period to meet their price index targets of an increase by 2%.

This excess expansion of MS, leads to a decrease in the purchasing power of the pound, meaning that money is not as valuable as it was in the previous period, nor is it as valuable as that of the base year. The base year, also known as year 1, is the starting point for measuring changes in the price level and purchasing power of money. It is derived as being equal to 1.00. If the purchasing power of the pound decreases by 50%, then the price index in year 2 will be marked as 1.50; similarly if the purchasing power increases by 50% it is marked as 0.50. (For more simple calculations shown later below, a comparison will be made between the price index of 2021 to 2020, rather than the base year).

From a secular inflation perspective, the value of money for one year holds an “expiration date” in the next year.

This policy effect on environmental quality and progress can be examined using the Kurznets Curve.

The Kurznets Curve measures environmental quality by per capita income.

“as we become richer, we place a higher value on the environment and are more able to maintain it”

The curve shows that as economies begin to develop, environmental quality worsens, because new activities are being enacted which impact the environment, but there is not enough monetary productivity to incentivise the maintenance of the environment. As per capita income increases, the cost of maintenance or seeking renewable alternatives, in proportion to income allows for a cleaner environment becomes a desired activity; as we become richer, we place a higher value on the environment and are more able to maintain it. This is shown by the location of low income; denominated as LYand HY in relation to their relationship to the x and y axis.

The problem is that the Kurznets Curve measures nominal income, rather than real income. Nominal income refers to the total quantity of current money (10 £50 notes = £500), whereas real income refers to the actual purchasing power of that £500. This real money balance is calculated as:

Where m is the real money balance, M is the nominal and P is the price index.

The current CPI 9.1, so the real value of the £500 is, so by comparing the price index of June 2021 (111.3), to June 2022 (121.8)

Meaning £500 M (nominal) from 2021 is worth £456.89 (£457 rounded) in m (real) in 2022.

We can also calculate the real level of income by denoting y as real income, and by dividing Y (the nominal level of income) by the price index P:

Suppose average per capita income is £30,000. According to the curve measuring nominal income, a per capita income of £30,000 should see us shifting to the right of the curve. However, adjusting to the real level of income via P we obtain:

This means that Y £30,000 level of income from 2021, is worth y £27413.79 (27414 rounded) level of income in 2022.

The trend of reduced real value can be shown further. Treating 2008 as the base year and looking towards the receding purchasing power of the pound, it can be observed how the pound has reduced in value over time:

This means that Y £30,000 level of income from 2021, is worth y £27413.79 (27414 rounded) level of income in 2022.

The trend of reduced real value can be shown further. Treating 2008 as the base year and looking towards the receding purchasing power of the pound, it can be observed how the pound has reduced in value over time:

Above we see a time plot of the real value of the pound from the period 2008 to 2022. The plot starts at the base year and looks at the value of the pound (measured in pence) for each year in comparison to the previous year. For example a nominal money balance of 100p in 2013 is worth 97.15 in real money balance terms, compared to nominal 100p in 2014, which is worth 98.10 in real balance terms.

We can also observe the contraction in real money balances as a comparison to the base year and further compare it to the year by year data:

In the graph the blue line represents the real value (m) of 100p on a year by year comparison (the real value of 100p in 2009 compared to the real value of 100p in 2010 etc), whereas the red line represents the onwards reduction in the real value of 100p compared to the previous years real value, from the point of the base year.

To give an example of this, in the period 08/09, the real value of 100p compared to the base year was 93.84, whereas in 09/10, the real value of that 93.84 in the next year was 92.02.

“The largest fall in real value occurred after the financial costs of the covid lockdown, where the real value of £30,000 in 2022 is £27,413.79”

A similar phenomenon can be observed with regards to wages. Supposing the median nominal income is £30,000, we can see the change in the real value of the median income over the period from 2008 to 2022:

Here we see the real value of income from 2009 to 2022, where 2008 is treated as the base year. During the aftermath of the 2008 financial crises, we see the real value of £30,000 drop from £29,480.97 in 2009 to £28,778.14 in 2011. The largest fall in real value occurred after the financial costs of the covid lockdown, where the real value of £30,000 in 2022 is £27,413.79.

Translated back to the Kurznets Curve then, it can show the following:

By adjusting nominal to real, we see that the slope of the curve rises and overall shifts further to the right. Meaning that adjusted to real money balances, renewal of the environment becomes a lot less affordable for the average person. As time moves on with a policy of secular inflation in place, the value of the £30,000 wage decreases, and people need to acquire higher nominal balances each year in order to reach previous levels of real income; ad infinitum.

This means that we are always a step behind (or according to the CPI, 9.1 steps behind) when it comes to environmental quality. This leads to one of the many costs of inflation; protection.

When people expect inflation to rise or to be constant, they spend resources to protect the value of their assets from the effects of inflation. This is in the form of personal finances, investing in precious metals such as gold or silver, or seeking advice from accountants.

While this type of activity is rational to the person(s) looking to protect themselves, it is also wasteful compared to the value that could’ve been satisfied had there been no inflation to begin with. This further adds to slowing down the process of per capita incomes moving to the right of the curve, because the loss of purchasing power for financial capital, diverts resources to “wasteful” endeavours.

Our current policy of price stability by injecting excess money into the economy, as an attempt to avoid deflating prices, provides us with the very effects that slow the Kurznets Curves process; a rise in output prices which detract from falls in unit production costs.

If we want to take environmental degradation, and improving the environments quality seriously, then it is important to address secular inflation and abandoning the policy of inflation targeting, in favour of a productivity norm to allow for growth deflation, financial stability and a reduction in unit production costs to spur on reduced output costs.

Sources:

For All Climate Change Deniers!

Image by Mojca JJ from Pixabay

Opinion Piece by Jeremy Wraith

I have just finished re-reading Christopher Booker’s excellent book titled “The Real Global Warming Emergency”1. This book should be compulsory reading for all politicians and climate change fanatics as it describes from the IPCC’s first report, in 1990, to the Copenhagen conference, in 2009, some of the IPCC’s deceit, lies and manipulation, all aimed at promoting the fallacy that human beings are mainly responsible for catastrophic Anthropogenic Global Warming (AGW)2. The number of professional scientists of international standing who have resigned from IPCC committees due to their adverse views being ignored or deliberately doctored in the final IPCC reports is confirmation of this.

In addition, the publicity of the lies and deceit by the IPCC resulting from the Mann “hockey stick” saga and the “climategate” emails from the discredited University of East Anglia should have also alerted everybody to the total AGW sham being perpetrated on the general public. Also, none of the doomsday predictions concerning AGW have been realised.

Despite all this evidence, the AGW sound bite that 97% of “experts” agree that global warming is mostly man made is still being repeatedly trotted out. This was based on a “review” of abstracts of 11,944 peer reviewed papers published over a 21 year period which supposedly endorsed the scientific consensus on AGW. The 11,944 papers were reviewed later by another group who established that only 0.3% of the papers reviewed actually endorsed man-made global warming as defined in the original review. This result was confirmed when 31,487 American scientists, including 9,029 holding PhD’s, signed the Oregon Petition which disputed the notion of anthropogenic climate alarmism. Unfortunately, U.S. President Barack Obama sent out in 2013, a tweet claiming 97% of climate experts believe global warming is “real, man-made and dangerous.” Apart from being disastrously untrue, the survey he was referring to didn’t even ask that question. So, why was the President of the most powerful nation in the world promulgating such falsehoods?

“He then claimed in a speech to business leaders that the world has only 100 months to act “before the damage caused by global warming becomes irreversible” That was in 2009, 13 years, (156 months) ago. So, why are we still getting snowfalls, cold winters and increasing ice growth in the Antarctic?”

Sadly, even Prince Charles has been guilty of spreading false claims about AGW. In 2005, (17 years ago) he said climate change should be seen as the “greatest challenge to face man” and treated as a much bigger priority in Britain. He then claimed in a speech to business leaders that the world has only 100 months to act “before the damage caused by global warming becomes irreversible” That was in 2009, 13 years, (156 months) ago. So, why are we still getting snowfalls, cold winters and increasing ice growth in the Antarctic? Yet Prince Charles was still banging the AGW drum at the 2022 COP 26 conference in Glasgow. All this coming from a man who talks to his vegetables to help their growth! He should stop making stupid political statements as he is bringing himself and the Monarchy into disrepute.

It is also ludicrous to maintain that CO2 is bad for the planet. If it falls below about 150 ppm all plant life will die and all human existence with it. In fact, CO2 levels have in centuries past been 10 times higher than today and if anything, current CO2 levels need to be increased not diminished. Currently, CO2 comprises around 400ppm of the atmosphere, which has been increasing by around 1.5ppm pa for many years. Human emissions contribute around 3% of that annual increase & the UK only emits around 1% of that 3%, i.e., 0.00045ppm pa.

“temperature – not the other way around – and that human CO2 emissions fell dramatically during Lockdown, while CO2 concentration went up. You should also know that increasing CO2 levels result in global greening”

You will be aware that over time atmospheric CO2 concentration follows global temperature – not the other way around – and that human CO2 emissions fell dramatically during Lockdown, while CO2 concentration went up. You should also know that increasing CO2 levels result in global greening, which absorbs CO2 – a feedback loop which doesn’t seem to be factored in IPCC models.

“The RAC estimates that 18 million homes can utilise off-street parking to accommodate EV charging at home. How are the “other” 7 million households going to charge their EV’s?”

Apparently, the wholesale change-over from petrol and diesel engine cars to electrically powered vehicles (EV’s) is essential to achieve the UK’s target of bringing all greenhouse gas emissions to net zero by 2050. However, there are nearly 25 million dwellings in the UK 52% of which are terraced or semi-dets and 21% are flats. The RAC estimates that 18 million homes can utilise off-street parking to accommodate EV charging at home. How are the “other” 7 million households going to charge their EV’s? Has any thought at all been given to the trip hazard for the blind, disabled and elderly of live electric cables draped over the pavements, especially in wet weather?

Apparently, climate change zealots have allegedly said that all “climate deniers” should be prosecuted! I have some sympathy for that argument. However, it is the real climate deniers who should be prosecuted. They are, all those politicians, scientists, media outlets, (particularly the BBC, Sky News and the Guardian), weather forecasters and others who have prostituted their positions, training, careers and common sense to promote the seriously flawed and untrue philosophy of AGW. That is, they refuse to acknowledge that man made CO2 makes an imperceptibly small contribution to global warming. Dr Bruce C Bunker in his book “The Mythology of Global Warming”3 demolishes every claim made by the global warming zealots with facts and figures. He concludes that “the science of global warming is indeed settled”, that is;

“Gas is abundantly available in the UK, so the UK must prioritise gas production, particularly by allowing UK companies to start fracking in earnest”

GLOBAL WARMING IS A MYTH

For the government to swallow all the fallacious hype on climate change, let alone establish government policy on it, is totally insane. The law to achieve net zero must be repealed at once. Even optimistic estimates of the cost of reaching net-zero by 2050 show that it will cost £250 billion4.  The government’s action to reduce gas and coal consumption is therefore illogical and insane, as they are the cheapest forms of energy. Gas is abundantly available in the UK, so the UK must prioritise gas production, particularly by allowing UK companies to start fracking in earnest. Coal mines and coal fired power stations must also be prioritised together with nuclear power stations. But new nuclear stations will take some years to become more productive.

As a member of the public I have been able to satisfy myself that AGW is a total sham. The government, with all the resources at its disposal must also be very aware that AGW is a total sham. Yet they persist in promoting this fallacy and are intent on ruining the UK economy in the process for whatever reason known only to them. The UK has already suffered over 50 years of lies and deceit by the Conservative, Labour and Liberal/Lib Dem parties over the EU, so lies and deceit are their stock in trade. They have also lied and deceived us over the so-called global warming for at least 20 years and are intent on making this last at least for another 30 years and decades beyond that. Lying and deceit are these parties’ stock-in-trade. Therefore, they must NEVER be allowed to govern this country again. They are imposing a flawed strategy and an enormous burden on the sovereign people, without their consent and they must be held accountable for that.

References:

  1. “The Real Global Warming Crisis” by Christopher Booker. Quantum Books
  2. “Inconvenient Facts”, By Gregory Wrightstone, Silver Crown Productions, LLC.
  3. “The Mythology of Global Warming”, Climate Change Fiction vs. Scientific Facts by Dr Bruce C. Bunker, PhD, Moonshine Cove Publishing, LLC.
  4. “Paying for Net Zero”, by Tom Sasse, Institute for Government.

Net Zero – We came together to fight a referendum do we need a new one? – Part 5

As a group that came together to fight a referendum on membership of the EU, we thought we would ask you, what your views are on Net Zero, a possible Referendum, and more generally the environment.

Part 5 in our series of your views. More responses can be found from Part 1.

Thanks to Zack Stiling, and Roald Ribe for their responses.

“it would be arrogant and foolish to suppose that we could arrest a natural and inevitable greenhouse period simply by coercing the public to adopt a lifestyle which blends medieval feudalism with an enforced dependence on smart technology”

Zachary Stiling was the Heritage Party candidate in Kenley in the 2021 by-election, and was on the party’s GLA list the same year. Zachary has been interviewed by us and on our Pubcast.

Is global warming a threat?

No. Glacial and interglacial periods occur naturally across thousands of years and, since we made it through the ice age with little more than basic hand tools, fire and animal skins, we should be quite well equipped to cope with a projected rise of 1.5 degrees centigrade thanks to several millennia of scientific and technological progress. Even if global warming was a threat, it would be arrogant and foolish to suppose that we could arrest a natural and inevitable greenhouse period simply by coercing the public to adopt a lifestyle which blends medieval feudalism with an enforced dependence on smart technology. Presumably, some ‘net zero’ enthusiasts such as Barack Obama and Bill Gates are secretly of the same mind, or they would not both have bought coastal properties within the past year.

Should we have a referendum on enforced Net Zero targets?

No. Few members of the public have a detailed knowledge of climate and there is a danger that the government could increase its fear-mongering to manipulate voters, as the Remain side tried to do with the E.U. referendum. In the event of the government winning such a referendum, it would have a moral imperative of sorts to accelerate its Net Zero authoritarianism.

What action should we be taking on the environment?

The most important environmental action we should be taking is the protection and restoration of our countryside. Other than the fact that the countryside is an invaluable public asset, access to which is a lifeline for many people living in crowded urban areas, the destruction of it leads to phenomena which are immediately attributed to climate change. Before we get carried away with climate, a more immediate cause for loss of biodiversity is habitat destruction; a more immediate cause for flooding is the paving over of green land with impervious materials, which causes excessive surface run-off. We should also make an effort to reduce waste – so much plastic is unnecessary. As far as the climate goes, we should be making use of human ingenuity to adapt, not resorting to fear and authoritarianism in an attempt to control the uncontrollable.

“rational individuals should work for more individual freedom, which is the only action that will unleash the creativity and the economic environment needed to enable all to have enough surplus in their life to care about the environment they live in”

Roald Ribe is the Deputy Chair Political of The Capitalist Party (Liberalistene) (Wikipedia) of Norway. You can read our interview with Roald, and read below for an international perspective.

Is global warming a threat?

Within the current range of claims made, it is my understanding that no existential threat exists. If the sun were to expand, as it will at some point, that warming would be a threat.

Should we have a referendum on enforced Net Zero targets?

I am against letting any dictator, proletariat, group or majority control and run the lives of each individual. A referendum will not help much given the sense of doom and panic transferred into the population by bias and propaganda.

What action should we be taking on the environment?

The state or collective “we” should not do anything related to hypotheses about the planet’s climate. The “we” of rational individuals should work for more individual freedom, which is the only action that will unleash the creativity and the economic environment needed to enable all to have enough surplus in their life to care about the environment they live in.

This is the fifth set of your responses, further responses can be found from Part 1

Net Zero – We came together to fight a referendum do we need a new one? – Part 4

As a group that came together to fight a referendum on membership of the EU, we thought we would ask you, what your views are on Net Zero, a possible Referendum, and more generally the environment.

Part 4 in our series of your views. More responses can be found from Part 1.

Thanks to Crispin Williams, Helen Spiby-Vann, and Mike Swadling for their responses.

“I can remember back in the 1960s when the doom-mongers were heralding the start of another ice age!  … so I am by nature and experience a sceptic”

Brexiteer Crispin Williams. Crispin has previously written for us on House of Lords Reform.

Is global warming a threat?

It is Boris Johnson’s (and others’) threat!

I can remember back in the 1960s when the doom-mongers were heralding the start of another ice age!  I have also lived through the panics of Aids and the Millennium Bug, both of which were supposed to ruin life as we know it but fizzled out as a major threat, so I am by nature and experience a sceptic.  However, I am inclined to believe the graphs that show global temperatures have soared since 1980.  Therefore, my proper answer to the question is yes, it is a threat.

1980?  Hmm.  The temperature rise seems to mirror the rise of industrialisation in China and India.  Anyone who has travelled to these and similar countries will have witnessed the high levels of smog and pollution, far worse than we used to have in Britain when we were renowned for our ‘pea-soupers’.  In short, we British are not the cause of the problem.

But should we be taking the lead in addressing it?  In practical terms, it is a waste of time us ruining our economy to shave off a fraction of the 1% of carbon emissions that we generate.  It is well documented that China can – and will – increase their output by this amount in a few weeks, if not days.  So it is patently nuts for us to be spending billions of our taxpayers’ money on reducing our miniscule contribution to the problem.

Should we have a referendum on net zero targets?

No.  That’s not how we do things in this country.  Switzerland can have one as it is part of their democratic processes but there is virtually no precedent here.  Referenda should be reserved for constitutional matters only.  Anyway, the subject is too emotive and the general public would not be given the full range of facts to make an informed decision.

What action should we be taking on the environment?

Buy lots of sun block, nice shades and swimmies and sod the next generation… 

Yes, that was a joke.  That said, what we could and should do is pressure the worst polluting countries into reducing their emissions.  How?  Well, as a suggestion, we could put a ban (or very high tariffs) on imports from them until they address the problem.  Of course, this would increase the cost of goods we buy but I suspect the total would be a mere fraction of what we are intending to spend on net zero.  And it would stimulate our manufacturing base.

Finally, if we are intent on reducing our emissions, this would best be done through market forces rather than government diktats, artificial target dates and huge subsidies.  Once electric cars are cheaper than petrol ones and heat pumps are cheaper than gas boilers, then we will naturally move towards lower emitting technologies.

“Kenya successfully banned plastic packaging in 2017, Rwanda in 2008. We don’t need plastic packaging. We have paper, cardboard, tin, glass, compostable and natural fibres”

Helen Spiby-Vann of the Christian Peoples Alliance party. You can also read our interview with Helen.

‘I’m not going to replace the polyfoam with paper food trays until the government makes me.’ Said the chip-shop man nonchalantly. Not so long ago I got into an uncivilised wrangle over a chip tray. My teenager left the shop in horror at my indiscretion. 

However unreasonable and hopeless it may seem, small changes will make a huge difference.

Is global warming a threat?

I believe global warming is a threat. However, as a Christian, my divine calling is unconditional advocacy for compassionate stewardship of the earth’s creatures and plants. Plus to foster equitable sharing of the earth’s resources.

Should we have a referendum on enforced Net Zero targets?

I think this would be a good idea as it will create awareness about the implications across the board. Open discussion and critique from a range of opposing positions will stir hearts into action. Assuming it is approved, it will strengthen the resolve and mandate of this movement. Unfortunately, there is so much ‘greenwashing’ at large, a person can be forgiven for thinking they are helping the planet by buying more plastic Petunias.

What action should we be taking on the environment?

Lifestyles:
More cherished, forbearing and Godly. Less materialism, disposable and excess.

Plastic packaging:
‘I was shocked, when I came to the UK, there’s plastic wrappers on everything in the supermarket.’ (Confessions of my Kenyan friend in London).

Kenya successfully banned plastic packaging in 2017, Rwanda in 2008.

We don’t need plastic packaging. We have paper, cardboard, tin, glass, compostable and natural fibres that are part of circular economies. Supermarkets are selling more and more items in plastic packaging. This is not acceptable. We can solve the plastic packaging problem simply by not producing it in the first place.

Moreover, we should be extending this to manufacturing by promoting ‘Cradle to Cradle’ type standards: healthy, socially just and authentically sustainable. Producing no waste and using natural energy flows that do not pollute.

Energy:
We have been building wind turbines and paying for them to be switched off. There must be a better way to manage our sustainable energy assets so we can phase out fossil fuels.

“we have a situation where the political/media classes all agree they need to lower our standard of living, which I firmly believe people don’t want (note they don’t seem to want to lower theirs)”

Mike Swadling one of the Croydon Constitutionalists.

Is global warming a threat?

Humans are exceptional.  200 years ago Global life expectancy was under 30, today life expectancy in the poorest counties 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 mean 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.  Climate has changed for millennia before mankind, during our existence and will for many more to come without our interference.  For over 30 years ‘experts’ on hefty grants have told us of impending doom from global warming, rising seas levels, agricultural failures, and a scorched planet.  None of this has happened, and the planet is greening every year. 

Is global warming a threat? Maybe, but human ingenuity will not just rise to any challenge, we will excel and overcome it. 

Should we have a referendum on enforced Net Zero targets?

All of the major parties are in lockstep on Net Zero.  For all of the challenges of a referendum, we have a situation where the political/media classes all agree they need to lower our standard of living, which I firmly believe people don’t want (note they don’t seem to want to lower theirs).  Unless or until a party currently outside parliament makes a breakthrough, the people have no real choice.  For all of the challenges off a Referendum on Net Zero, today we have the people pitted against parliament, and like Brexit, I can only see that a referendum will allow us to set parliament back on a path of striving to improve rather than diminish our lives. 

What action should we be taking on the environment?

We should protect the environment we live in. In our borough, every small patch of land is being built on.  New blocks of flats out of character of the area they are built in keep popping up.  Council and government policies have made where we live a less pleasant environment, we need to change this. 

Globally we should protect at risk species of animal and plant.  I believe this is best achieved by balancing the environment concerns and economic concerns of the local populations.  Chickens are not at risk of extinction because they are good source of food and economically useful.  Horses are often well looked after because they work and are raced, so are economically useful.  Dogs are not at risk of extinction because they work and provide companionship.  There is no threat of extinction of lawn grass or corn.  Whether through tourism, food, work or altruism, animals and plants that are economically viable thrive. 

We can best protect the environment by making bio diversity an economic benefit.  To achieve this we should focus on raising the standard of living of the poorest across the globe to the point that they have the capacity to choose to invest in, and protect their local environments.

This is the forth set of your responses, further responses can be found from Part 1 and in Part 5.

Net Zero – We came together to fight a referendum do we need a new one? – Part 2

As a group that came together to fight a referendum on membership of the EU, we thought we would ask you, what your views are on Net Zero, a possible Referendum, and more generally the environment.

Part 2 in our series of your views. More responses can be found in Part 1 and Part 3.

Thanks to Josh L. Ascough, Tam Laird, Georgina Guillem, and Sandy Wallace for their responses.

“We could throw billions at the environmental cause, but if we don’t address the tragedy of the commons we will never improve anything. In order to address the environment, we need the market process”

Libertarian, economics writer Josh L. Ascough has contributed many times to our site. He can be followed on Twitter and be heard on our Podcast from earlier this year.

Is Global Warming a threat?
Yes I would argue it is a threat, but doomsday predictions by people desperate to be proven right about humanities demise are useless actors. While we should acknowledge what negative effects pollution has, we must also acknowledge what we have done well.

Should we have a referendum on enforced Net Zero targets?
Net Zero no matter the target is an impossible venture, as all choices have trade-offs. It’s in human nature to adapt our environment around us in order to survive, rather than the rest of the animal kingdom which must adapt to its surroundings in order to survive. Because of this nature there will always be negative feedback. So yes, we should have a referendum but we must instead of targeting figure out how to internalise the costs to those who made the trade-offs.

What action should we be taking on the environment?
We could throw billions at the environmental cause, but if we don’t address the tragedy of the commons we will never improve anything. In order to address the environment, we need the market process. We should campaign for mass privatisation of all land, allow for the private ownership of seabed’s, do away with subsidies, abolition eminent domain laws, completely privatise rubbish collection & rubbish dumps. As long as we persist in the idea of “common ownership”, & “the public good” through eminent domain laws, we will never incentivise innovation; we will simply spread out the time it takes for costs to be socialised.

“Global warming is and never has been an existential threat. It’s one of the many hobgoblins used by government to justify it’s own incompetence, interference and increasing authoritarianism”

Tam Laird is the leader of the Scottish Libertarian Party.  You can read our interview with Tam, and browse other articles on the party.

Is global warming a threat?

No. Global warming is and never has been an existential threat. It’s one of the many hobgoblins used by government to justify it’s own incompetence, interference and increasing authoritarianism.

Should we have a referendum on enforced Net Zero targets?

The danger of a referendum is that the government might win. Simply strengthening its position. Scientific fact should not be decided by consensus but by reason and empirical evidence.  By all means vote out the perpetrators at the next General election.

What action should we be taking on the environment?

Government should concentrate on fostering an environment that encourages human flourishing and wellbeing. The best way it can do that is by leaving us alone.  Polluters should be made pay for damages through the courts. Instead of big business and pharma being afforded government protection.

“I do not think Global warming is a threat… The Climate as we call it has been changing and indeed is constantly changing since the beginning of time”

Brexit campaigner Georgina Guillem, is a former UKIP candidate in Purley and has run many street stalls and station leafleting sessions across the borough.

Is global warming a threat?

I do not think Global warming is a threat. I think the climate is so complex a system that we should not meddle with it. The Climate as we call it has been changing and indeed is constantly changing since the beginning of time.

Should we have a referendum on enforced Net Zero targets?

Yes, I do think there should be a referendum on whether we want to spend trillions of pounds on Green Energy to end up with Lukewarm houses in winter.

What action should we be taking on the environment?

I do think though that we as human being owe the planet care and management as to not pollute in the way that we are doing. We must Behave better starting with plastic and throw away packaging, that is sometimes unnecessary.

“There is a close to absolute establishment consensus that the way forward is the imposition of costs and restrictions on liberty upon ordinary people, with predictable exceptions for those who are important enough.”

Aberdeen Councillor Sandy Wallace brings our second contribution from the Scottish Libertarian Party. Sandy can be found on Twitter and you can read our interview with him.

Is global warming a threat?

Life is not that simple, climate change is both a threat and an opportunity, depending on who and where you are, the actions of mankind clearly have an impact, how much is hard to gauge, what effect different actions would have is harder to gauge and certainly not proven and the cost of those actions versus the hoped-for benefit of them is at best marginal if every wish comes true and at worst far worse than the effect of climate change

Should we have a referendum on enforced Net Zero targets?

There is a close to absolute establishment consensus that the way forward is the imposition of costs and restrictions on liberty upon ordinary people, with predictable exceptions for those who are important enough. The only possibility that the establishment row back is if normal politics is disrupted and governments see the possibility of losing power. Calls for a referendum seem to me to be part of that, but there needs to be some sort of political movement emerge to cause Tory MPs, in particular, to fear for their future

What action should we be taking on the environment?

We should be planning for environmental change, not planning how to avoid it. The latter is wholly unproven technology, the latter even with official state opposition across the developed world is wholly proven. Can we terraform Mars? Probably. Can we terraform Earth? Of course we can. Desalinate water, irrigate deserts, plant trees, capture carbon. Deliver nuclear power. Reclaim land. Permit and enable economic migrancy.
Mankind needs to believe in itself.

This is the second set of your responses, further responses can be found in Part 1 and Part 3

Net Zero – We came together to fight a referendum do we need a new one? – Part 1

Reaching Net Zero carbon emissions by 2050 is enshrined in UK Law.  With COP26 in Glasgow the news is full of stories about Climate Change and Global Warming.  With all the main parties in agreement on the policy we have recently seen calls for the people of Britain to have a choice via a referendum on Net Zero.  Nigel Farage has hinted he could campaign, articles have appeared in the Spectator, and Gaia Fawkes sums the position up brilliantly when they say:

“Politicians seem very keen to avoid a Net Zero Referendum. It’s a project without democratic legitimacy. Let the politicians who want us to eat bugs, have cold showers, lukewarm heat pumped houses, higher energy bills and far more expensive foreign holidays, make their case!”

As a group that came together to fight a referendum on membership of the EU, we thought we would ask you, what your views are on Net Zero, a possible Referendum, and more generally the environment.

Thanks to Peter Sonnex, Jeremy Wraith, Dr Tom Rogers, and Scott Neville for their responses.

“we must allow the developing world their industrial revolution. The world, where energy poverty is no longer a significant factor, will be in a better position to adapt to ever changing climactic conditions”

Peter Sonnex, former Brexit Party candidate and political campaigner.

Is global warming a threat?

Global warming may be a threat to the planet, if only we knew! That the climate has always been in flux is true – so what is the ideal status quo or permanent reversal we are trying to engineer? And, at what cost, if our UK 1% contribution may amount to £1 Trillion to mitigate?

Climate and Covid catastrophists are one and the same – doing stuff just in case, if it saves just one ounce of carbon or one life. And, we know the government can’t do cost benefit analysis.

Should we have a referendum on enforced Net Zero targets?

Referenda are only offered when the establishment believes it can win. The Brexit result confirmed both arrogance and a lack of connection to the electorate. Neither the government, nor the opposition, will risk a climate referendum.

What action should we be taking on the environment?

Firstly, we must allow the developing world their industrial revolution. The world, where energy poverty is no longer a significant factor, will be in a better position to adapt to ever changing climactic conditions – perhaps even influence the most extreme effects.

Secondly, I think we should be pursuing nuclear power – capital plants, small modular nuclear reactors and fusion – with more vigour and investment. We should be emulating the example of our sun, not trying to fight against it.

With nuclear power comes the energy to desalinate and move water, ending the reality of water poverty and potential conflict. Hydrogen through electrolysis becomes entirely viable. Hydrogen can be stored, and with fossil fuels provide stored, potential energy and, therefore, energy security.

Peter is a regular contributor to the site, and can hear him on a recent Podcast.

“The REAL threat are the people who think that man made CO2 is causing it and making us all suffer huge costs and inconvenience  because of it”

Brexiter Jeremy Wraith who has contributed a number of articles to our site.

Is global warming a threat?

NO! The REAL threat are the people who think that man made CO2 is causing it and making us all suffer huge costs and inconvenience  because of it.

Should we have a referendum on enforced Net Zero targets?

DEFINITELY and ASAP!

What action should we be taking on the environment?

Developing more nuclear power stations and using coal (mined in the UK of course) powered power stations until all our generated power is nuclear.

“We have to be very careful about being panicked or coerced into measures that in themselves would be catastrophic to our industries, economy and human freedoms in response to alarmist claims of a ‘climate emergency’”

Dr Tom Rogers is the Deputy Leader of the Christian Peoples Alliance Party.

The CPA affirms that we have a duty to be the best possible custodians of God’s creation — our planet and its natural resources. We therefore have a developed programme of policies for greening the economy and transport, which you can find in our 2019 Manifesto (www.cpaparty.net). 

Our approach to ‘climate change’ is a sensible and cautionary one. We have to be very careful about being panicked or coerced into measures that in themselves would be catastrophic to our industries, economy and human freedoms in response to alarmist claims of a ‘climate emergency’ and ‘climate extinction’. Contrary to the establishment narrative that ‘the science is settled’ (in itself an unscientific statement) the extent to which recent changes in temperatures are unnatural, dangerous to our survival and/or caused by human activity are questions still contested by many scientists, and which require much more open scientific freedom, investigation and debate than is currently being allowed. The earth’s climate after all has never been something static but has always been constantly changing and evolving in the absence of human presence or attempted control.

We would therefore implement effective but proportionate policies best in themselves for the environment and long-term provision for humanity, and not just because they reduce carbon omissions. It is right that we seek to eliminate pollution, continuously improve energy efficiency, increase recycling, and strive to further the use of renewable sources of energy, and we have detailed policies in all these areas which we would support also at a local level.

“you will be going back to the supermarket at some point, the lorry that delivers to the supermarket will go back to the factory, just take the damn bottles back and refill them”

Scott Neville is a party founder and the Nominating Officer of the Hampshire Independents.

Is global warming a threat?

Potentially, it depends on how far it goes and I don’t believe we have sufficiently accurate data to know for sure. The important thing to consider is the word “threat”, is any of this a threat to the planet, no, the planet will be fine regardless.  If the planet was going to boil away with a self-reinforcing loop of heating it would have done so millions of years ago. However any change is always a threat to some people (and potentially a benefit to others), so yes global warming or global cooling does pose a threat to some of humanity regardless how big or small.  There could however be a big threat to humanity, I personally don’t believe all the doomsday predictions, but I accept I might be wrong, and I accept totalitarian government is a very big threat too.

Should we have a referendum on enforced Net Zero targets?

I am unsure. I don’t believe in enforcing many things is just, because the use of force against another is wrong, holding a referendum does not suddenly make me believe this is ok (as many found the presence of an EU referendum does not make their belief in themselves less European).  I simply don’t agree with a tyranny of majority.  Any referendum would be fought on religious grounds (the fastest growing religion of “the science”) and that will just lead to far more anger and fighting with everyone becoming more ideologically entrenched rather than trying to examine empirical fact and critically assess information presented.

What action should we be taking on the environment?

Waste is by far the biggest problem, filling up our landscapes with all this scrap, use once and throw away plastics. The debate is so skewed it’s all about paper vs plastic straws rather than “why do most people even need a straw?” or make sure that you put your plastic bottles in the correct bin rather than “you will be going back to the supermarket at some point, the lorry that delivers to the supermarket will go back to the factory, just take the damn bottles back and refill them”.  Energy production needs to focus on nuclear, particularly research in nuclear fusion where the UK is already a world leader, bizarrely we don’t say much about our achievements despite our achievement in making Didcot the hottest place in the solar system (briefly) https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/didcot-was-hottest-place-in-solar-system-gj9wg258f.

You can read more about Scott and the Hampshire Independents in his interview with us, or listen to him one of our recent Podcasts.

This is the first set of your responses, further responses can be found in Part 2