Category: Global Warming

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

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