How does one “combat climate” (in this author’s words)? Such obsequiousness is to be expected, I suppose, from a writer with his pro-China credentials.
According to the “world is ending tomorrow” humanity is evil and must be destroyed crowd…. you depopulate, force people not to use fossil fuels, subsist on bugs and worms.
Should be Xi’s speechwriter. Certainly few caveats. On a wider level, don’t China institutes have a history of silencing students abroad? Covid lab concerns aside, are we now to trust China as the go-to for climate action – from Red to Green Book? And do please educate us on the gulags. COP26 needs better than prez-for-life Hidden Dragon and blame game.
Last edited 2 years ago by Matt B
Trevor Law
2 years ago
Anyone who presses into service the phrase “climate change deniers” is either dishonest or intellectually impoverished. Judging by the rest of the piece, I suspect it is the latter.
Forget ‘climate change’ heating, though very many scientists are clear it’s a problem. Just think environmental destruction. It’s surely undeniable that air quality or plastics pollution are major problems and species destruction and desertification are major environmental problems. It’s easy to be smug in the UK since we outsourced our dirty industries to China, although they’ve obviously ‘agreed’ to this. Out of sight out of mind? Population is always the key. As the oil guy said- it’s true carbon is an issue but in his grandfather’s time the world’s population was 2bn. Now it’s 8bn. How much better it would be in the UK if we’d had strict immigration control and managed our population down to 45m over time from 55m in the 1960s. Instead we’re heading for 75m in the next decades. Disaster.
I think you need to go and look up the statistics for population growth and then you will see that the only country where population growth is occurring is Nigeria , every other country in the world is in 50 years time going to have a major problem with population being predominantly the elderly
No one is guilty for existing but the numbers worldwide are unsustainable- the last Northern Rhino is about to disapear. The UK is having appalling species loss. We have a pathetically low 8% for all woodland including commercial. The UK would be far better off, including GDP per head with 20m less people.
Yes, indeed. Unfortunately, today you have to side with the multitude or be persona non grata. What this means of course is that our progress through history will yaw from one extreme to another, with nary a mid-point. The worrying thing to me is the possibility that many accepters (non-deniers) don’t really believe either but they’re making a shed full of money so why bother.
I am a scientist/engineer of the old school, trying to do everything by the book. I have designed experiments and been ecstatic when the ‘right’ results came along and depressed when the ‘wrong’ appeared. I have never knowingly cheated but I am only human and I’m sure I must have given precedence to those results which suited my viewpoint.
The whole crux of the system is that another researcher can come along and try to prove me wrong. Obviously, he has to have the same funding as me. If his funding is withdrawn he has no way of getting his counter-arguments into the public eye. Therefore, my findings are absorbed into the ‘right and correct’ – even if they’re totally wrong.
Chris Wheatley
2 years ago
This will be unpopular on UnHerd but the President of China will be a lot more important than BJ, who will have no significant effect.
Asia fossil fuel use is increasing exponentially. It has actually been going down in the West since about 2008. Asia is what matters and where all the energy is. Both human and fuel. lol. The West is literally committing suicide.
Stephanie Surface
2 years ago
The author again confuses smog and polluting particles in the air with CO2, which is invisible and odourless. So many Western newspapers and TV stations show us black smoke coming from chimneys, trying to tell us the horrible pollution of the tracing gas CO2. CO2 is not “dirty” or a “pollutant”, but it is essential for plant growth, which in turn is essential for us as plants produce Oxygen and food. You can make coal plants cleaner with filters and same goes for cars. The judgement is still out, if the increase of CO2 causes Global Warming. For the last 30years the IPCC mostly relies on models which didn’t conform to reality and were much exaggerated.
Xi and the Chinese Party will probably solve the smog problems and the pollution of rivers. Don’t know if the Chinese Government accepts the near hysterical faith in Doom and Gloom of the Western World. Why did the Middle Ages and Roman times have similar or higher temperature than today, without an increase of CO2?
Yes, you are right about how the media use chimneys smoke….but it’s only an attempt to show that we are producing enromous amounts of CO2….which is a GHG.
The rest of your post is the usual denier nonsense. You said:”The judgement is still out, if the increase of CO2 causes Global Warming”. No…it’s been known about for around 180 years. It’s called physics.
You said: “For the last 30years the IPCC mostly relies on models which didn’t conform to reality and were much exaggerated”. No they don’t…and no they haven’t.
You said: “Why did the Middle Ages and Roman times have similar or higher temperature than today, without an increase of CO2?”. They didn’t.
If you are going to be a denier, at least be an original one.
Can’t show the links on comment section of UnHerd. But climate models, which were first published in 1977 showed a projection of temperature increases of 1.3C by 2020, but the reality is that temperatures during that time only rose by0.3C, which is very moderate. Also the recent Climate chart published by IPCC shows the hockey stick, leaving out the warming period of the Middle Ages, which was still published by the IPCC in the report before. Guess it wasn’t convenient and not scary enough. Also why is it so important to publish temperatures of the last 2000 years and not of the last million years? The planet after all is 4 billion years old. Million of years ago dinosaurs grazed in N Canada and Greenland was green. No icecaps on the poles. So if I am a denier, what are you? Working for the IPCC and scaring the world with coming Gloom and Doom?
The planet will survive and there will be life of some sort on it. For humans the key issue is not average temperatures but the rate of change compared with the rate at which we can adapt to that change. We have more time to adapt if we anticipate but if we anticipate there are risks we will do somethings that prove to be unnecessary. We need to balance risks. Waiting for certainty increases the risk that there is then not enough time to adapt without great suffering.
Yup. CO2 has the toxicity of clean water. Also, I think the public has been utterly befuddled by the phrases “absorbs heat” and “greenhouse effect” leading to this belief that CO2 is bad, polluting, and the less the better.
Prashant Kotak
2 years ago
It’s very simple – the CCP has already inadvertently poisoned it’s population once in the persuit of uber-rapid growth. They are not stupid, they are unlikely to make the same mistakes again. However, they will sacrifice ‘green’ if it impacts the Chinese growth model beyond a certain point. The power of the CCP is predicated on continuing to deliver high growth, they would quickly come under challenge if that falters and living standards start to fall. Once expectations start to rise, it is pretty impossible to put that back – the appetite grows in the eating.
Last edited 2 years ago by Prashant Kotak
Alan Thorpe
2 years ago
Forget this, Joanna Lumley has turned into another crazy celebrity and has decided that the way to save the earth is a return to post war rationing. That should sort us out.
Isn’t it great when ‘celebrities‘become experts on anything they take up as their fad for the month .
Hardee Hodges
2 years ago
China recently declared for more coal production to feed the increasing number of coal fired plants known to create pollution. Why so few nuclear plants? They are heavily investing in R&D to extend technology and it remains to be seen if the culture can innovate. But nuclear technologies can achieve several of their goals, yet little effort. They seem to be doubling down on known technologies. While demonstrating some military technology development to ward off potential imaginary aggression they seem to be not capable of advancing power technology.
Dennis Boylon
2 years ago
Earthly God Xi is going to save the planet! What would we do without him? LOL. I remember LA having major smog problems when I was young. They managed to (mostly) clean it up and still use fossil fuels. Beijing has become wealthier and can afford to clean up its air a bit but I didn’t know the Earth was about to perish from Beijing smog. Good for them though. This is of course is still not enough for the humanity haters. They will not be happy until nobody can use fossil fuels, everybody is penniless, and we are forced to eat bugs and worms to survive.
Red Sanders
2 years ago
Oh God, still ANOTHER long winded save the planet and let’s bash President Trump…on to something else!
How does one “combat climate” (in this author’s words)? Such obsequiousness is to be expected, I suppose, from a writer with his pro-China credentials.
According to the “world is ending tomorrow” humanity is evil and must be destroyed crowd…. you depopulate, force people not to use fossil fuels, subsist on bugs and worms.
Should be Xi’s speechwriter. Certainly few caveats. On a wider level, don’t China institutes have a history of silencing students abroad? Covid lab concerns aside, are we now to trust China as the go-to for climate action – from Red to Green Book? And do please educate us on the gulags. COP26 needs better than prez-for-life Hidden Dragon and blame game.
Anyone who presses into service the phrase “climate change deniers” is either dishonest or intellectually impoverished. Judging by the rest of the piece, I suspect it is the latter.
Forget ‘climate change’ heating, though very many scientists are clear it’s a problem. Just think environmental destruction. It’s surely undeniable that air quality or plastics pollution are major problems and species destruction and desertification are major environmental problems. It’s easy to be smug in the UK since we outsourced our dirty industries to China, although they’ve obviously ‘agreed’ to this. Out of sight out of mind? Population is always the key. As the oil guy said- it’s true carbon is an issue but in his grandfather’s time the world’s population was 2bn. Now it’s 8bn. How much better it would be in the UK if we’d had strict immigration control and managed our population down to 45m over time from 55m in the 1960s. Instead we’re heading for 75m in the next decades. Disaster.
I think you need to go and look up the statistics for population growth and then you will see that the only country where population growth is occurring is Nigeria , every other country in the world is in 50 years time going to have a major problem with population being predominantly the elderly
I guess we’ll have to nuke Nigeria. We can’t have these evil filthy humans reproducing.
No one is guilty for existing but the numbers worldwide are unsustainable- the last Northern Rhino is about to disapear. The UK is having appalling species loss. We have a pathetically low 8% for all woodland including commercial. The UK would be far better off, including GDP per head with 20m less people.
Not sure which corner of Twitter you inhabit but such comments add nothing here.
8bn who will want more affluence. Unsustainable.
We just need less people and the world will be a perfect place. Why 45m? Why not 10m? or 1m? 100k? The less the better?
Surely you mean’fewer’people !!
Yes, indeed. Unfortunately, today you have to side with the multitude or be persona non grata. What this means of course is that our progress through history will yaw from one extreme to another, with nary a mid-point. The worrying thing to me is the possibility that many accepters (non-deniers) don’t really believe either but they’re making a shed full of money so why bother.
I am a scientist/engineer of the old school, trying to do everything by the book. I have designed experiments and been ecstatic when the ‘right’ results came along and depressed when the ‘wrong’ appeared. I have never knowingly cheated but I am only human and I’m sure I must have given precedence to those results which suited my viewpoint.
The whole crux of the system is that another researcher can come along and try to prove me wrong. Obviously, he has to have the same funding as me. If his funding is withdrawn he has no way of getting his counter-arguments into the public eye. Therefore, my findings are absorbed into the ‘right and correct’ – even if they’re totally wrong.
This will be unpopular on UnHerd but the President of China will be a lot more important than BJ, who will have no significant effect.
Asia fossil fuel use is increasing exponentially. It has actually been going down in the West since about 2008. Asia is what matters and where all the energy is. Both human and fuel. lol. The West is literally committing suicide.
The author again confuses smog and polluting particles in the air with CO2, which is invisible and odourless. So many Western newspapers and TV stations show us black smoke coming from chimneys, trying to tell us the horrible pollution of the tracing gas CO2. CO2 is not “dirty” or a “pollutant”, but it is essential for plant growth, which in turn is essential for us as plants produce Oxygen and food. You can make coal plants cleaner with filters and same goes for cars. The judgement is still out, if the increase of CO2 causes Global Warming. For the last 30years the IPCC mostly relies on models which didn’t conform to reality and were much exaggerated.
Xi and the Chinese Party will probably solve the smog problems and the pollution of rivers. Don’t know if the Chinese Government accepts the near hysterical faith in Doom and Gloom of the Western World. Why did the Middle Ages and Roman times have similar or higher temperature than today, without an increase of CO2?
Yes, you are right about how the media use chimneys smoke….but it’s only an attempt to show that we are producing enromous amounts of CO2….which is a GHG.
The rest of your post is the usual denier nonsense. You said:”The judgement is still out, if the increase of CO2 causes Global Warming”. No…it’s been known about for around 180 years. It’s called physics.
You said: “For the last 30years the IPCC mostly relies on models which didn’t conform to reality and were much exaggerated”. No they don’t…and no they haven’t.
You said: “Why did the Middle Ages and Roman times have similar or higher temperature than today, without an increase of CO2?”. They didn’t.
If you are going to be a denier, at least be an original one.
Can’t show the links on comment section of UnHerd. But climate models, which were first published in 1977 showed a projection of temperature increases of 1.3C by 2020, but the reality is that temperatures during that time only rose by0.3C, which is very moderate. Also the recent Climate chart published by IPCC shows the hockey stick, leaving out the warming period of the Middle Ages, which was still published by the IPCC in the report before. Guess it wasn’t convenient and not scary enough. Also why is it so important to publish temperatures of the last 2000 years and not of the last million years? The planet after all is 4 billion years old. Million of years ago dinosaurs grazed in N Canada and Greenland was green. No icecaps on the poles. So if I am a denier, what are you? Working for the IPCC and scaring the world with coming Gloom and Doom?
What’s GHG?
The planet will survive and there will be life of some sort on it. For humans the key issue is not average temperatures but the rate of change compared with the rate at which we can adapt to that change. We have more time to adapt if we anticipate but if we anticipate there are risks we will do somethings that prove to be unnecessary. We need to balance risks. Waiting for certainty increases the risk that there is then not enough time to adapt without great suffering.
Yup. CO2 has the toxicity of clean water. Also, I think the public has been utterly befuddled by the phrases “absorbs heat” and “greenhouse effect” leading to this belief that CO2 is bad, polluting, and the less the better.
It’s very simple – the CCP has already inadvertently poisoned it’s population once in the persuit of uber-rapid growth. They are not stupid, they are unlikely to make the same mistakes again. However, they will sacrifice ‘green’ if it impacts the Chinese growth model beyond a certain point. The power of the CCP is predicated on continuing to deliver high growth, they would quickly come under challenge if that falters and living standards start to fall. Once expectations start to rise, it is pretty impossible to put that back – the appetite grows in the eating.
Forget this, Joanna Lumley has turned into another crazy celebrity and has decided that the way to save the earth is a return to post war rationing. That should sort us out.
Isn’t it great when ‘celebrities‘become experts on anything they take up as their fad for the month .
China recently declared for more coal production to feed the increasing number of coal fired plants known to create pollution. Why so few nuclear plants? They are heavily investing in R&D to extend technology and it remains to be seen if the culture can innovate. But nuclear technologies can achieve several of their goals, yet little effort. They seem to be doubling down on known technologies. While demonstrating some military technology development to ward off potential imaginary aggression they seem to be not capable of advancing power technology.
Earthly God Xi is going to save the planet! What would we do without him? LOL. I remember LA having major smog problems when I was young. They managed to (mostly) clean it up and still use fossil fuels. Beijing has become wealthier and can afford to clean up its air a bit but I didn’t know the Earth was about to perish from Beijing smog. Good for them though. This is of course is still not enough for the humanity haters. They will not be happy until nobody can use fossil fuels, everybody is penniless, and we are forced to eat bugs and worms to survive.
Oh God, still ANOTHER long winded save the planet and let’s bash President Trump…on to something else!