“£billions on complying with EU laws imposed upon the UK and which have not been abolished by the Conservative Party 8 years after the referendum result”
This year the Labour government is committed to spending:
1) Over £200 billion on mainly totally, un-necessary, unwanted and useless quangos.
2) £billions on complying with EU laws imposed upon the UK and which have not been abolished by the Conservative Party 12 years after the referendum result, and after the UK officially left the EU 8 years ago. (NB Membership of the EU was costing the UK economy well over £200 billion/annum when we left the EU in 2020.)
3) £Billions on incredibly stupid net zero policies which are clearly ruining the UK economy.
4) £billions on illegal immigrants, which they, (and the Conservatives), have allegedly NO real intention of stopping or reducing!
5) £billions on the useless vanity HS2 project which has been severely cut and is costing well over budget.
6) £12 billion on foreign “aid”.
7) £millions on MP’s expenses, including heating their second homes. (NB. Chancellor Rachel Reeves has faced criticism after justifying her decision to claim £4,400 in taxpayer-funded expenses for heating her second home, a day after MPs voted to scrap winter fuel payments of up to £300 for millions of pensioners.)
“Chancellor Rachel Reeves has faced criticism after justifying her decision to claim £4,400 in taxpayer-funded expenses for heating her second home”
YET, the Labour government is totally committed to scrapping the winter fuel allowance for pensioners to save a measly £1.3 billion!
They are fully aware that this will apparently condemn 4,000 pensioners to a miserable death, from hypothermia and/or malnutrition this winter. This is probably a very low estimate, the facts of which are not being published for scrutiny by the public. So, did 9,708,716 people really vote for Labour to waste billions upon billions of pounds of taxpayer’s money and to condemn thousands of vulnerable people to save a pittance?
“did 9,708,716 people really vote for Labour to waste billions upon billions of pounds of taxpayer’s money”
“such a wide range of views on the next three quarters of a century discredits the notion that the IPCC represents a ‘scientific consensus’ on climate change”
Ben Pile reported in The Daily Sceptic that the Guardian recently published its survey of ‘climate experts’. For the purposes of creating this story, the Guardian’s Environment Editor Damian Carrington contacted 843 ‘lead authors’ of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change’s reports (IPCC) and 383 responded to his questions. The actual substance of the survey does not seem to have been published by the paper, but the main response Carrington wanted to get from his respondents was an estimate of how much global warming there will be by the end of the century. “World’s top climate scientists expect global heating to blast past 1.5ºC target,” claims one headline. A graphic in the article shows the responses:
Ben Pile pointed out that the obvious problem this raises is that such a wide range of views on the next three quarters of a century discredits the notion that the IPCC represents a ‘scientific consensus’ on climate change. The ‘consensus’ – the putative expression of agreement by the worlds ‘top climate scientists’ – is the lynchpin of the narrative, epitomised by the Guardian, that the climate debate is between scientists and denialists. “Seventy seven per cent of climate scientists expect a rise of at least 2.5ºC,” explains the chart. Well, yeah, but 23% of climate scientists do not. And a good number of those connected to the IPCC believe that there will be just 1.5 degrees of warming – a third less warming than is anticipated by their colleagues at the other end of the spectrum. Clearly, there is, or needs to be, a debate.
Clearly, the wide range of results shows the so-called IPCC “experts are and the organisation is itself a complete joke as it cannot even get its so-called experts to agree on a point which is fundamental to its whole existence.
However, help is at hand, because I can state the exact number that the IPCC’s own results show should be the answer!
The question was: “How much global warming will there be by the end of the century”?
“This is the effect of global CO2 increase. That due to humans is 3% of the total. So, the human contribution to the total global temperature rise is about 0.017 ºC”
Now we have to estimate the possible rise of CO2 from the present day to that at the end of the century, 2100 or in 76 years time.
The total global rise in CO2from 1980, (335 ppm) to 2024 (420 ppm) was 85 ppm or nearly 2 ppm/annum over the last 44 years. Hence, at that rate the global total of CO2 will rise about
152 ppm. So, the global total CO2 level will be about 420 + 152 ppm = 572 ppm.
For convenience sake let us round this figure up to 600 ppm.
From figure 2 of my note above the ΔT (increase in temperature) against CO2 ppm for 420 ppm is 3.5 ºC and that for 600 ppm is 4.05 ºC.
Hence the global temp increase by the end of the century implies a total temp increase of 4.05 – 3.5 ºC or just 0.55 ºC.
This is the effect of global CO2 increase. That due to humans is 3% of the total. So, the human contribution to the total global temperature rise is about 0.017 ºC.
So, the ACTUAL ΔT due to human activity is 0.017 ºC or:
17,000 ppm of 1 ºC
The UK contribution to global CO2 increase is about 1% of the total human contribution. So the UK’s element of the temperature increase is:
170 ppm of 1 ºC
“the responses from 77% of the so-called climate experts of the IPCC which claim a 2.5 ºC rise in temperature is nearly 150 times too large! Their answers range from 90 to 300 times too large”
But the Guardian article and the whole climate change hysteria evidently assumes that the increase in global temperature is entirely due to human activity. This is evident because no distinction is drawn between them. Hence, the responses from 77% of the so-called climate experts of the IPCC which claim a 2.5 ºC rise in temperature is nearly 150 times too large! Their answers range from 90 to 300 times too large. So ALL of the so-called IPCC experts who responded got nowhere near the ACTUAL temperature increase that the IPCC results predict!
It is therefore clear that the IPCC’s predictions of catastrophic climate change are nothing more than total horse manure, which is spread around by the shovel full by the media. Unfortunately, this is swallowed wholesale by our politicians, such as Rishi Sunak and Claire Corthino, and the climate fanatics to the total detriment of our society and economy.
As the IPCC is so unreliable I have argued in my note above that their results should be ignored in favour of data produced by the eminent scientists Dr William Happer, of Princeton University and Dr van Wijngaarden, of York University, Canada, (see FIG 1 of my note). The revised and probably much more accurate result is that the temperature increase due to the human element of increasing the global CO2 level from 420 ppm to 600 ppm is:
0.0036 0C or 3,600 ppm of 10C
of which the UK contribution would be:
36 ppm of 10C
CONCLUSION
It is absolutely scandalous that the government is basing its policy on such a ridiculous entity as the IPCC. This was set up purely and primarily to promote the concept that human activity causes increased levels of CO2 which is causing catastrophic global temperature increases.
The hysteria generated by the IPCC and the media, including the BBC, Sky News and the Guardian for example suggests that the title of this note should be changed to:
“Why are the Conservative, Labour, Lib Dem, Green and SNP parties and many civil servants so keen to destroy the UK economy, knowing that net zero is unachievable”
SUMMARY
This note aims to expose the fallacy of net zero and how the current main UK political parties are all promoting the myth. It will examine how certain factors have contributed to this situation by comparing the effect of CO2 on global temperature and the UK’s contribution. In all the hype of human activities supposedly increasing global temperatures and the claimed deleterious effect on the earth’s climate, the actual effect of achieving net zero on the earth’s temperature is rarely mentioned, because it is insignificant.
This statement can be seen to be supported by two graphs of the effect of CO2 on global temperatures which are presented and discussed. These graphs produced by the IPCC and eminent professors Dr William Happer, of Princeton University and Dr van Wijngaarden, of York University, Canada, are referred to as (H&vW) and IPCC in the discussion that follows.
The H&vW graph indicates that the current solution to the so-called global warming to reduce global human CO2 to pre-industrial emissions by all the countries in the world may only reduce the global temperature increase by:
0.0036 of 1°C or 3,600 ppm of 1°C
So the UK should only reduce the global temperature after reducing its CO2 output to preindustrial levels by a derisory:
0.000036 of 1°C or 36 ppm of 1°C
It must be noted that the results presented in this note are estimated values interpreted from Figures 1 and 2 rather than absolute values. However, I believe that the results obtained are of the right order.
In addition, it should be noted that the results presented in this note obtained from the IPCC graph have been ignored as there is ample evidence, referred to in the text and in the Appendix, which show that the IPCC reports are unreliable as they are intended to vigorously promote the global warming fallacy at all costs and to avoid giving any impression of alternative views.
So the question is:
Why are the Conservative, Labour, Lib Dem, Green and SNP parties and many civil servants so keen to destroy the UK economy, knowing that net zero is unachievable and is already ruining the lives and livelihoods of many UK citizens and taxpayers? They are ignoring the best interests of the UK and are complying with the globalist agenda of the WEF, UN, EU and IPCC. If you agree then the remedy is in your hands, so:
NEVER, EVER VOTE CONSERVATIVE, LABOUR, LIB DEM, GREEN OR SNP AGAIN!
“Carbon Dioxide, (CO2) is a trace gas, currently accounting for about 420 parts/million (ppm) or 0.04% of the atmosphere. It is an essential part of our life”
Introduction
Carbon Dioxide, (CO2) is a trace gas, currently accounting for about 420 parts/million (ppm) or 0.04% of the atmosphere. It is an essential part of our life, as if it falls below about 150 ppm all vegetation will die and all life on earth with it. (See “Inconvenient Facts” by Gregory Wrightstone.) Satellite images have shown that higher levels of CO2 have increased global greening, which increases life preserving global oxygen levels. Commercial growers also pump CO2 into their greenhouses to vastly increase plant growth.
Unfortunately, CO2 is also a “greenhouse” gas, as it does affect the earth’s global temperature. It is this aspect of its attributes that has been picked on by the climate alarmists to use, quite wrongly, as a cause of concern by blaming increasing CO2 levels in the atmosphere caused by human sources for excessive global warming. This is called Anthropogenic Global Warming, (AGW), which the climate alarmists claim causes serious weather extremes and will melt the polar ice caps and flood vast areas of low-lying land, killing billions of people as a result.
But the earth produces CO2 naturally and over the past centuries CO2 levels have been much higher than they are today. (Wrightstone, “Inconvenient Facts, quotes a CO2 level of 2,500 ppm, 140 million years ago.) Hence their misguided aim to reduce CO2 to preindustrial levels at any and all cost, despite the fact that the IPCC states that anthropogenic CO2 is only about 3% of the annual total. In addition, water vapour, over which man has no control whatsoever, is by far the largest and most effective greenhouse gas.
The effect of anthropogenic CO2 on global warming and the earth’s surface temperature is discussed below as the hype on AGW is strangely reluctant to quote the temperature changes involved. This is likely because the temperature changes caused by AGW are so small that they would have no impact on the public and would also illustrate what a monumental scam was being played upon them.
Global Warming
Figure 1 is copied from a lecture given by Dr Tom Sheahan. For the full lecture view at:
“increasing global CO2 by 140 ppm has an imperceptible effect on increasing earth’s temperature. In fact, higher levels of CO2 have even less effect on increasing global temperature”
The figure, compiled by Prof Happer, and Dr van Wijngaarden, clearly defines the effect on global warming due to increasing levels of CO2. This shows that increasing levels of CO2 from the pre-industrial level of 280 ppm (parts per million) to the warming effect at today’s level of about 420 ppm is practically indiscernible. This shows beyond any doubt that increasing global CO2 by 140 ppm has an imperceptible effect on increasing earth’s temperature. In fact, higher levels of CO2 have even less effect on increasing global temperature. The graph is referred to as (H&vW) in the discussion below.
FIGURE 1
H&vW GRAPH
FIGURE 2, below is based on IPCC published information defining the effect on global temperature with increasing CO2. This graph is copied from Gregory Wrightstone’s excellent book, “Inconvenient Facts The science Al Gore does not want you to know”, It also confirms the shape of the H&vW graph above.
FIGURE 2
IPCC GRAPH
The implications from Figures 1 and 2 are presented in Table 1 below, which shows the total temperature change (ΔT) as CO2 rises from zero to 800 ppm. (NB The results have been scaled from Figures 1 and 2, so should be regarded as estimates rather than totally accurate values. However, the trend is clear regardless of the values presented. See the Appendix for additional information justifying FIG 1 and for ignoring FIG 2).
TABLE 1
TEMP RISE ΔT AGAINST CO2 ppm INCREASE: FROM FIGURES 1 AND 2
The main points to note are that:
The absolute minimum level of 150 ppm required for all vegetation and therefore all life on earth means a temperature increase, from zero ΔT at zero CO2, of 4.15 0C from H&vW and 1.81 0C from the IPCC.
The graphs have a fairly large difference of 2.66 0C at 100 ppm but they gradually converge at much higher concentrations.
The global temp increase at the 1830 pre-industrial level of about 280 ppm produced a total temp increase of 4.58 0C according to H&vW and a 2.85 0C increase according to the IPCC.
The current, (say 2024) level is about 420 ppm, an increase of 140 ppm over 194 years, or 0.72 ppm/annum.
The total temp increase due to the rise in CO2 to 420 ppm is approximately 4.7 0C (H&vW) and 3.5 0C (IPCC). This means that the global temp increase due to increasing CO2 from 1830 to 2024 is 0.12 0C (H&vW) or 0.65 0C (IPCC).
“As the UK only contributes 1% of the global human CO2 this means that the UK will only reduce the global temperature after reducing its CO2 output to pre-industrial levels”
BUT, the human contribution to this global increase, according to the IPCC, is 3% of the total. Hence, the current solution to the so-called global warming to reduce global human CO2 to pre-industrial emissions will only reduce the global temperature increase by:
0.0036 0C (H&vW) or 3,600 ppm of 1°C
Or
0.02 0C (IPCC) or 20,000 ppm of 1°C
As the UK only contributes 1% of the global human CO2 this means that the UK will only reduce the global temperature after reducing its CO2 output to pre-industrial levels by:
0.000036 0C (H&vW) or 36 ppm of 1°C
Or
0.0002 0C (IPCC) or 200 ppm of 1°C
So to produce this derisory 36 ppm, or 200 ppm of 1 0C effect on the global warming “crisis” the Conservative, Labour, Lib Dem, Green and SNP parliamentary parties are allegedly all intent on ruining the UK economy and are making the UK citizens lives a misery.
Also, it must be noted that increasing the current global CO2 level from 420 ppm to 600 ppm is 4.82 – 4.7, (H&vW) and 4.06 – 3.5 0C, (IPCC) or 0.12 0C (H&vW) or 0.56 0C (IPCC)
Hence, increasing the global CO2 by nearly 50% to 600 ppm from the current level of 420 ppm has a minimal effect on global warming. The global human contribution to that would only be:
0.0036 0C or 3,600 ppm of 10C (H&vW)
Or
0.0170C or 17,000 ppm of 10C (IPCC)
of which the UK contribution would be:
36 ppm of 1 0C (H&vW)
Or
0.00017 0C or 170 ppm of 1 0C (IPCC).
It should be noted the huge benefits to food production resulting from the increased CO2 which promotes world plant growth and agriculture. Higher CO2 concentration in the atmosphere increases food production and more life sustaining oxygen for all living creatures on earth.
The total global rise in CO2 from 1980, (335 ppm) to 2022 (420 ppm) was 85 ppm or 2.02 ppm/annum over the last 42 years. Hence, it will take the earth nearly 90 years to increase the global CO2 level to 600 ppm at that rate. This will only increase global temp by 0.12 0C (H&vW) or 0.56 0C (IPCC) at that level.
Assuming human emissions were 3% of the annual total of 2.02 ppm gives a global increase of 0.0606 ppm/annum. The UK share of that at 1% gives an annual UK emission figure of 0.000606 ppm/annum as the UK’s increase in CO2 over the last few years.
This means that it will take approximately 1,650 years for the UK to add just 1 ppm of CO2 to the global total.
The results derived from the IPCC graph are considered to be unreliable and are therefore being ignored. There is ample evidence that the IPCC’s reports and procedures are littered with examples of questionable practice, including many examples where the IPCC has ignored and supressed evidence that does not support their net zero agenda. Numerous publications, listed in the Appendix, describe in detail the many examples of the IPCC failings.
“the drive to net zero is totally unrealistic, totally unachievable and is going to cost the UK trillions of pounds to de-carbonise the grid together with all the other mandatory costs involved”
CONCLUSION
The current hysteria over the “so called” effect of rising CO2 levels causing disastrous increases in global warming, thereby causing melting of polar ice-caps, more extreme weather conditions etc., etc. is entirely unnecessary.
The current rise in global temperature of 4.7 0C, (H&vW), or 3.5 0C (IPCC), due to the current CO2 level of 420 ppm has already happened and the world is still carrying on as normal.
Increasing global CO2 level to 600 ppm will only add 0.12 0C or 0.56 0C to the global total and it will take nearly 90 years to reach that level at the current rate of increase.
This misguided rush to reduce global warming by reducing CO2 to pre-industrial levels is ruining the UK economy, its residents’ livelihoods, living standards and freedom of movement.
In addition, the drive to net zero is totally unrealistic, totally unachievable and is going to cost the UK trillions of pounds to de-carbonise the grid together with all the other mandatory costs involved.
Net zero is however, fully supported by the Conservative, Labour, Lib Dem, Green and SNP parties. as they are ignoring some basic evidence on the limited effect of CO2 on global warming which is described above.
So, why are the Conservative, Labour, Lib Dem, Green and SNP parties and many civil servants so keen to destroy the UK economy and the UK as an independent sovereign country?
For example, the drive to net zero has recently resulted in stopping steel production in the UK. Steel was invented in the UK and is an essential strategic commodity. Yet the government, supported by the other parties in parliament, are allegedly quite happy to abolish UK production of this essential material by closing all UK coal powered generating stations.
This is clearly ridiculous as 1,893 new coal powered generating stations are being built in the world. The total number in operation will then then increase from 3,743 to 5.636. Of these the EU has 465 existing plants and is adding 25 giving a total of 490 plants. The UK has only one plant still operating and that is being closed soon.
So, do you really agree that it is in the best interests of the UK to abolish steel making and throw thousands of skilled craftsmen out of work for the sake of saving 36 ppm of 1°C? The Conservative, Labour, Lib Dem, Green, SNP parties and many civil servants allegedly do! They are clearly adopting the diktats of unelected international bodies whose aim is to 7 impose their policies on the world. The 5 UK political parties listed above are therefore completely ignoring what is best for the UK ‘s citizens who have voted them into office. They are all therefore totally unfit to be represented in parliament, let alone governing the country in any shape or form.
If you agree that these parties are not representing our best interests the solution is in our hands. So,
NEVER, NEVER VOTE CONSERVATIVE, LABOUR, LIB DEM, GREEN, OR SNP AGAIN!
It is also incumbent on the PM, the government and all the climate change fanatics to explain how the UK’s 0.000165 0C (0.55 x 3% x1%) maximum extra contribution to global temperature over 194 years, or on average:
0.0000008 0C/annum
has endangered the earth so much that it justifies the net zero legislation and all the trauma that goes with it. In addition, it makes Rishi Sunak’s donation of £1.6 billion of taxpayer’s money to the UN’s Climate Change Fund a grossly stupid and irrelevant payment.
In addition, the Cabinet Office confirmed they had no record of ANY data whatsoever to support this payment. In other words, it was apparently an impromptu payment to impress other delegates and make Sunak look big in the eyes of the delegates at a COP meeting. Hence, he should be made to reimburse the UK taxpayers out of his own pocket for that amount of taxpayer’s money he threw away.
APPENDIX
THE ACCURACY AND FEASABILITY OF THE H&vW and IPCC GRAPHS
The two graphs presented in Figures 1 and 2 of the note are similar in shape but show different results. It is therefore necessary to examine which graph is more meaningful and accurate.
The Happer & van Wijngaarden results in Fig 1 can be justified by means of the following graphs which show excellent co-relation with measured results:
With regard to the IPCC results, Andrew Montford’s excellent books “The Hockey Stick Illusion” and “Hiding the Decline”, which details the history of the “Climategate Affair” show how the IPCC operates. These and other books, (see list below) are essential reading to understand the workings and methods employed by the IPCC. These clearly show that the IPCC, and the authors of IPCC reports are quite willing to edit information and ignore results that do not fit in with their intention to promote global warming at every opportunity.
In addition, the graph below, copied from David Craigs excellent book “There is no Climate Crisis”, shows the results of IPCC estimates of global temperature increase over time This clearly shows the IPCC results are well over actual results.
Hence, in view of the above and more evidence of IPCC failings to represent real values it can be assumed that the IPCC results are not reliable and should be ignored.
References
Christopher Booker, “The Real Global Warming Disaster”, Continuum, 2009.
A.W. Montford, “The Hockey Stick Illusion”, Stacey International, 2010
A.W. Montford, “Hiding the Decline”, Anglosphere Books, 2012
Gregory Wrightstone, “Inconvenient Facts”, The science that Al Gore doesn’t want you to know, Silver Crown Productions Ltd., LLC, 2017
Bruce C Bunker, PhD, “The Mythology Of Global Warming”, Climate Change Fiction vs. Scientific Facts, Moonshine Cove Publishing LLC, 2018
M J Sangster,PhD, “The Real Inconvenient Truth”, Amazon, 2018
David Craig, “There Is No Climate Disaster”, Original Book Company, 2021
Ian Plimer, “Green Murder”, A life sentence of Net Zero With No Parole, Connor Court Pty Ltd., 2021
Dr Niall Mccrae, RMN, MSc, PhD, “Green in Tooth and Claw”, The Misanthropic Mission of Climate Alarm, The Bruges Group, 2023
I recommend you also watch Climate: The Movie. The film that lifts the lid on the climate alarm, and the dark forces behind the climate consensus.
“will demand huge subsidies from UK householders and taxpayers, and which will require a reliable back-up power generation system”
I cannot for the life of me understand the thinking behind the massive wind farm order. This is an intermittent power source, which will demand huge subsidies from UK householders and taxpayers, and which will require a reliable back-up power generation system when it is producing little or no electricity. Apart from being unreliable offshore wind farms are a blight on the landscape and are a massive hazard to bird life. It is also being built by a Danish company which will increase our existing massive total balance of payments deficit with the EU which has already cost us over £2 trillion.
“The alternative is to invest heavily in Rolls Royce SMR’s, which can be operated continuously”
The alternative is to invest heavily in Rolls Royce SMR’s, which can be operated continuously (except for maintenance periods) and which are designed and made in the UK by the world-renowned UK manufacturer. In addition, SMRs provide the same energy output pa at a lower capital cost than wind farms. Also, 370,000 miles of new HV cables and overhead lines, must be installed to connect remote wind and solar farms. The reactors in RN submarines are expected to last for over 30 years, compared with a 20-year typical life span for a wind turbine and 40,000 UK jobs will be created during development & commissioning of SMRs – leaving us independent in spares & back up. Once these are fully developed and operational, they would provide excellent export potential, thereby earning the UK valuable foreign funds.
The proposal suggests a death wish for UK design and manufacturing, a policy shared by many parties. So, in the next general election please do consider this when voting.
Letter from Jeremy Wraith to the PM asking what justifies retaining the net zero policy.
“net zero policy is catastrophically damaging the UK economy and destroying the normal lives and freedoms of all UK citizens”
To Mr R Sunak Prime Minister 10th Dec 2023
Dear Sir
Please note that this FOI is in the public interest as the net zero policy is catastrophically damaging the UK economy and destroying the normal lives and freedoms of all UK citizens, (e.g. abolition of our petrol and diesel powered cars, 15 minute cities, imposition of smart meters, massive costs of green energy subsidies, lack of reliable power generation, etc., etc.)
1 What information do you have which justifies retaining the net zero policy imposed upon the UK by the pernicious EU?
2 What information do you have that negates that the increasing CO2 from the start of the industrial revolution to the present day has had a negligible effect on increasing global temperature?
3 What information do you have which proves that the man made CO2 produced by the UK from the start of the industrial revolution to the present day has created any damage to the world environment?
4 What information do you therefore have that justifies giving £1.6 BILLION of UK taxpayers money to the UN climate change fund?
“What information do you have, and can list, that defines EXACTLY what damage the UK’s CO2 emissions since the 1830’s have supposedly caused other countries”
5 What information do you have, and can list, that defines EXACTLY what damage the UK’s CO2 emissions since the 1830’s have supposedly caused other countries, and which you are using to justify paying huge “reparations” using UK taxpayers money?
6 What information do you have on any cost benefit analysis carried out by the government to prove that giving £1.6 BILLION of UK taxpayers money to the UN climate fund is more beneficial to the UK taxpayers than using that money to repair crumbling concrete in our schools, universities, museums etc.? Especially when the £1.6 BILLION has to be borrowed and when we already have an enormous public debt of well over £2.5 TRILLION, costing every UK household over £2,000/annum just service the interest?
I look forward to receiving your responses to this FOI request.
Letter from Jeremy Wraith to the PM and Treasury asking why we are not repealing EU imposed laws.
To Mr Rishi Sunak, Mr Jeremy Hunt and John Glen
“As a result, after 47 years trading with the EEC/EU our total BOP is currently now, a DEFICIT (LOSS) costing us well over £2 trillion and still rising. Is that such a good deal?”
REPEALING EU IMPOSED LAWS
I understand that the proposal to scrap as many of the 4,000+ laws imposed on the UK by the EU has been shelved. The Conservative Party was responsible for the UK joining the EU in the first place on the massive and deliberate lie that our sovereignty would not be affected. The Conservative Party has lied, lied and lied again to the UK public on the so called “benefits” of EU membership ever since and for over 50 years.
Membership of the EU has been a total disaster for the UK, not only politically, but economically as well. For example:
When we joined the EEC in 1973 we had a virtually zero balance of payments (BOP) with the EEC. From day 1 the EEC/EU took over all our trade policy as they believed they were more “competent”! As a result, after 47 years trading with the EEC/EU our total BOP is currently now, a DEFICIT (LOSS) costing us well over £2 trillion and still rising. Is that such a good deal? So, why do you want to keep so many EU imposed laws and make our BOP even worse? (NB Over the same period we made a SURPLUS, on our trade with the rest of the world. This surely proves where our best interests are!)
In addition, being in the EU when we left could have cost our economy well over £200 billion/annum. The total accumulated cost of being in the EEC/EU for 47 years could therefore have cost our economy well over £13.22 TRILLION. That figure is still going up by your senseless and stupid decision to keep the laws in question. So, why do you want to keep the EU imposed laws which must STILL be costing our economy £ billions/annum? NB Two examples spring to mind.
The CPC for lorry drivers which probably takes about 1,000 lorry drivers off the roads and must cost our businesses and consumers a fortune. How much exactly? Why has it not been scrapped?
In addition, Royal Mail was denied it’s right to deliver all mail in the UK as the EU demanded, that postal deliveries must be opened to “competition”. This was obviously a “front” to enable EU postal services to take over mail deliveries in the UK as part of the EU’s asset stripping policy of UK businesses. The monopoly of Royal Mail to deliver all mail in the UK must be restored ASAP as UK consumers are probably still subsiding foreign postal companies.
We also lost over £100 billion in our fishing rights which were taken over by the EU. So why have we still allowed EU countries fishing rights after we left and continued to destroy our fishing industry and the livelihoods of our fishermen and great fishing ports like Brixton, Grimsby and Hull?
A report by Bob Lyddon, of Lyddon Consulting Services Limited and published by the Bruges Group as “The UK’s liabilities to the financial mechanisms of the European Union” shows that the EU’s financial institutions can call on the UK to contribute up to nearly £1 trillion in the event of a financial crisis. In addition, the EU could call for “extraordinary support” above that! So, are we STILL committed to saddle UK taxpayers with the liability of supporting bankrupt EU countries like Belgium, Spain, Ireland, Italy, Greece and Portugal and their banks when they go bust and by how much?
Why are we STILL in the ECHR which is a political entity apparently dedicated to frustrating UK policy at every opportunity. It is a national disgrace and profoundly insulting that the UK government which is supposed to protect the UK citizens rights etc., is subject to laws and legal decisions by a FOREIGN country!
“They cannot bear the thought that the UK out of the EU can make a success of being a free, sovereign, and democratic nation again”
Don’t believe me, work it out for yourself! ALL glitches between the UK and the EU due to BREXIT are entirely due to EU spite and dog in the manger attitude to the UK’s departure. They cannot bear the thought that the UK out of the EU can make a success of being a free, sovereign, and democratic nation again.
Even Angela Merkel endorsed Brexit when she said, “Post-Brexit Britain will be a potential competitor to the European Union alongside China and the United States”. Angela Merkel obviously had more common sense than you. She recognised that while Britain is/was in the EU the EU could screw Britain to such an extent in their favour, particularly for France and Germany, that Britain would not be a potential threat to their economies! You, and the Conservative government are obviously either don’t recognise that or, want it to happen by retaining the myriad laws imposed upon us by the EU!
A letter from Jeremy Wraith to Sir Ed Davey asking about their plans to re-join the EU.
Sir Ed Davey Leader Liberal Democrat Party
“Leaving the EU has saved us at least £10 to 12 billion/year in EU budget contributions. Only half of which we got back, AND we were told by the EU how to spend it!”
Dear Sir Ed Davey,
You and the Liberal Democrat Party apparently want to reverse the democratically elected decision on Brexit, the reason, or reasons for which are not obvious. So, please explain, as a Freedom of Information request, why you and your party think re-joining the EU would be best for Britain, bearing in mind the following costs associated with our 47-year membership of the EU.
Leaving the EU has saved us at least £10 to 12 billion/year in EU budget contributions. Only half of which we got back, AND we were told by the EU how to spend it! The total thrown away on nett EU budget contributions has currently cost us over £300 billion. So why do you want to throw away £billions more to our competitors in the EU?
When we joined the EEC in 1973, we had a virtually zero balance of payments (BOP) with the EEC. From day 1 the EEC/EU took over all our trade policy as they believed they were more “competent”! As a result, after 47 years trading with the EEC/EU our total BOP is now a DEFICIT (LOSS) costing us well over £2 trillion. Is that such a good deal? So, why do you want to give the EU the right to run our trade again and make our BOP even worse? (NB Over the same period we made a SURPLUS, on our trade with the rest of the world. This surely proves where our best interests are!)
In addition, being in the EU when we left could have cost our economy well over £200 billion/annum. The total accumulated cost of being in the EEC/EU for 47 years could have cost our economy well over £13.22 TRILLION. So, why do you want to re-join the EU and make us pay even more every year as the EU imposes even more regulations on us, which we have absolutely no say or control over?
We also lost over £100 billion in our fishing rights which were taken over by the EU. So why are you so keen to destroy our fishing industry again, and destroy the livelihoods of our fishermen and great fishing ports like Brixton, Grimsby and Hull?
The next generation of UK taxpayers were liable to bail out EU pensioners due to the 32++ TRILLION EURO black hole looming in their pay as you go pensions. So, why do you want to saddle the next generation of UK taxpayers with the probability of horrendous costs of supporting EU pensioners?
A report by Bob Lyddon, of Lyddon Consulting Services Limited and published by the Bruges Group as “The UK’s liabilities to the financial mechanisms of the European Union” shows that the EU’s financial institutions can call on the UK to contribute up to nearly £1 trillion in the event of a financial crisis. In addition, the EU can call for “extraordinary support” above that!
So, why do you want to saddle UK taxpayers with the liability of supporting bankrupt EU countries like Belgium, Spain, Ireland, Italy, Greece and Portugal and their banks when they go bust?
“Even Angela Merkel endorsed Brexit when she said, “post-Brexit Britain will be a potential competitor to the European Union alongside China and the United States”
Don’t believe me, work it out for yourself! ALL glitches between the UK and the EU due to BREXIT are entirely due to EU spite and dog in the manger attitude to the UK’s departure. They cannot bear the thought that the UK out of the EU can make a success of being a free, sovereign, democratic nation again. Even Angela Merkel endorsed Brexit when she said, “post-Brexit Britain will be a potential competitor to the European Union alongside China and the United States”. Angela Merkel recognised that while Britain is/was in the EU the EU could screw Britain to such an extent in their favour, particularly for France and Germany, that Britain would not be a potential threat to their economies! By trying to take us back in – despite the referendum result and that 80% of MPs undertook to get Brexit done – suggests that you also hold democracy in contempt.
Letter from Jeremy Wraith to the The Prime Minister asking ‘Why is net zero being continued?’
“More CO2 means more and greener vegetation. Commercial growers increase CO2 levels in their greenhouses to increase plant growth”
FREEDOM OF INFORMATION REQUEST
Dear Prime Minister
WHY IS NET ZERO BEING CONTINUED?
“Climate Change” is being blamed on human production of CO2 or Anthropogenic Global Warming (AGW). This is obviously an outrageous and dangerous lie as shown below.
CO2 FACTS
The earth produces CO2 naturally. 140 million years ago the CO2 level in the earth’s atmosphere was 2,500 ppm (parts/million).
CO2 is essential for life on earth.
If the CO2 level falls below about 150 ppm plant life cannot exist. Hence, all animal and human life will expire with it.
More CO2 means more and greener vegetation. Commercial growers increase CO2 levels in their greenhouses to increase plant growth.
Global CO2 level in 1850, beginning of the industrial revolution was 280 ppm.
Global CO2 level in 2021 was 410 ppm.
Hence, total increase of CO2 over that period, natural and man made, was 130 ppm.
130 ppm increase over 171 years gives an average annual increase of 0.76 ppm.
Mankind is responsible for about 3% of that annual increase, or approx. 0.02 ppm.
There are about 200 countries in the world. This gives an average of 0.0001 ppm/country/annum! This gives some idea of the small quantities of CO2 involved, even on a global scale.
HENCE: Based on these average numbers it will take:
EACH COUNTRY 10,000 YEARS TO ADD JUST 1 ppm/YEAR TO THE GLOBAL TOTAL!
However, some countries produce far more CO2 than the average. 70% of annual global CO2 emissions are produced by China, the USA, the EU, India, Russia and Japan combined.
The UK produces only 1% of total man made annual CO2 or 0.0002 ppm.
HENCE: Based on these average numbers it will take;
“to avoid adding 1 ppm to the worlds CO2 level over the next 1,560 years the UK’s Conservative government, (supported by the Labour, Lib Dem and Green parties) is….”
THE UK 5,000 YEARS TO ADD JUST 1 ppm CO2 TO THE GLOBAL TOTAL!
However, the CO2 level was possibly rising faster more recently than the average, perhaps about 2.13 ppm between 2021 and 2022.
The man made element of that would be 3% or 0.064 ppm of which the UK’s contribution to that at 1% would be 0.00064 ppm.
So, even taking one extreme result for CO2 increase it will still take:
THE UK 1,560 YEARS TO ADD JUST 1 ppm CO2 TO THE GLOBAL TOTAL!
“Threatening to fine objectors £15,000 with a possible 12 month jail sentence if they refuse entry AND legalising the use of brute force by fitters and the police”
Banning the use of our diesel and petrol cars by 2035.
Making us buy EV’s at a much higher cost and which are liable to burst into flames if their batteries get wet or damaged. (EV cars have numerous other disadvantages)
De-carbonising the national grid which National Grid (NG) estimates will cost £3 trillion to decarbonise the Grid alone – by 2035 – i.e. at an average cost of around £120,000 per household – to which must be added the cost for industry, transport and agriculture.
Banning the use of our efficient gas boilers and making us buy inefficient heat pumps at great expense.
Making our homes unusable and un-sellable by insisting on unreasonably high and extremely expensive insulation properties.
Decimating our power supplies by abolishing coal fired power stations.
Relying for our electricity supply on unreliable and costly wind and solar farms which require substantial subsidies to be paid by UK consumers. All fossil fuelled and nuclear stations will have been decommissioned by 2035 and the national grid will be unable to meet the additional load of millions of EV chargers and heat pumps. By then the Grid will be almost totally dependent on solar and wind power – when on some days the output from those sources is less than 1GW, i.e. 2% of grid maximum demand – a demand which is expected to reach around 90GW by 2035.
Making householders install smart gas and electricity meters, so that they can be switched off when electricity supplies are overloaded. It will also enable the supply companies to charge exorbitant prices during periods of high demand. NB The use of these meters on householder’s health, (due to high energy pulses they emit) is highly suspect and has not been adequately investigated and proved safe by the authorities.
Threatening to fine objectors £15,000 with a possible 12 month jail sentence if they refuse entry AND legalising the use of brute force by fitters and the police to make householders let smart meters be installed.
Forming “15 minute” cities and severely restricting residents and visitors rights to travel and move around their cities.
Banning practically all air travel and preventing people from enjoying foreign holidays and seeing their families based abroad.
Severely taxing air travel to put people off from taking holidays abroad.
Scrapping good farmland to re-wild it!
Putting taxes on meat to encourage people to eat bugs.
The key materials needed to meet net zero, range from copper, aluminium, nickel and silicon to rarer metals such as lithium All of which require substantial increases in their production to produce the quantities required for the expected demand in 2035.
The irony is that increasing CO2 greens the planet more: which will increase the global plant life, which will increase the uptake of CO2 by the vegetation and produces more Oxygen!
Paying £billions of UK taxpayers money to UN carbon funds and paying “reparations” to other countries for “polluting” the earth with CO2 during the industrial revolution and afterwards. A totally despicable lie as adding CO2 from 1800 to the present day has had a negligible effect on global warming, (see Figs below).
So, to avoid adding 1 ppm to the worlds CO2 level over the next 1,560 years the UK’s Conservative government, (supported by the Labour, Lib Dem and Green parties) is;
“ALREADY donated $2 billion of our, taxpayers’ money to the UK climate change fund. Was that penance payment REALLY just for adding 0.039 ppm to the global total over 171 years?”
NB In fact, of the total 130 ppm increase in CO2 between 1850 and 2021 the 3% man made element was only 3.9 ppm. Of that the UK contribution of approximately 1% was 0.039 ppm over 171 years.
Yet you, Mr Sunak, have ALREADY donated $2 billion of our, taxpayers’ money to the UK climate change fund. Was that penance payment REALLY just for adding 0.039 ppm to the global total over 171 years?
ALL THAT AND MORE TO PREVENT THE UK ADDING 1 ppm CO2 TO THE WORLDS CURRENT TOTAL OF 400 ppm OVER THE NEXT 1,560 YEARS, WHEN DOUBLING THE CO2 LEVEL FROM 400 to 800 ppm MAKES A NEGLIGIBLE CHANGE TO GLOBAL WARMING!
Hence, in view of the above I would like to ask you to justify WHY each of the points listed above are required and WHY:
You still insist on applying “net zero” when it is so obviously a totally unjustifiable, unattainable and horrendously expensive scam and making the UK taxpayers and residents so utterly persecuted, all for nothing.
You gave away $2 billion of taxpayers money to the UN for just adding 0.039 ppm to the global total over 171 years when doubling the global CO2 from 400 to 800 ppm has a negligible effect on global warming.
Please treat this as a Freedom of Information request.
Letter from Jeremy Wraith to the The Secretary of State for Energy Security and Net Zero.
“Prime Minister, Rishi Sunak, “donated” $2 billion of UK taxpayers money to the UN climate change fund during his visit to the G20 summit in India recently. Please justify”
To the Secretary of State for Energy Security and Net Zero, Department for Energy Security & Net Zero 1 Victoria Street, Westminster SW1H OET
16th September, 2023
Dear Ms Couthino
Freedom of Information Request – UK Net Zero
I believe that the Prime Minister, Rishi Sunak, “donated” $2 billion of UK taxpayers money to the UN climate change fund during his visit to the G20 summit in India recently. Please justify and explain why he did this when he had no authority to do so from the UK public and UK taxpayers and;
We have hundreds of schools plus an unknown number of hospitals, museums, libraries etc., which are unsafe due to crumbling concrete construction.
Jeremy Hunt, Chancellor of the Exchequer, said that there was no money to repair the schools, so all school repairs would have to be paid out of the existing education budget.
Why you, and the Conservative Party, have completely ignored the data provided by Professor Happer that PROVES adding more CO2 to the atmosphere has an imperceptible effect on global warming.
So where did the £1.6 billion taxpayers money come from and why was it thrown away on a completely spurious and un-necessary fund when our schools, hospitals etc., have to be repaired at great cost to the UK taxpayers?
That AGW climate change is a total scam, has never been agreed to by the UK public and taxpayers nor has any liability for global warming as such been fully justified by the government and accepted by the general public as it is a completely spurious and untrue concept.
Why a policy of net zero is being actively pursued by the Conservative government, (despite our leaving the EU which imposed it), which is crippling us now and will cripple the UK and all it’s population for years to come, when the UK’s contribution to global CO2 production will take over 1,500 YEARS TO ADD 1 ppm TO THE GLOBAL TOTAL, TAKING INTO ACCOUNT THE FACT THAT EVEN DOUBLING THE CURRENT CO2 LEVEL TO OVER 800 ppm HAS AN IMPERCEPTIBLE EFFECT ON GLOBAL WARMING ACCORDING TO PROFESSOR HAPPER?
Why I am now liable to a £15,000 fine and 12 months prison sentence for denying climate change, according to Rishi Sunak!!
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.
