August 3, 2023 - 10:00am
It has been a tough week for climate activists. First, the new head of the UN’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), Jim Skea, said we should not overstate the 1.5 degrees celsius warning, and that humanity will not end if we miss it. At the same time, wind projects are hitting new obstacles, with Vattenfall cancelling a new offshore project in the North Sea due to high costs, while also having a project in Sweden rejected because Stockholm sees potential “negative effects on the environment” from offshore wind installations.
Elsewhere in the world of renewables, a new report has shown that the production of solar panels is causing more emissions than previously thought, and the once much celebrated solar-powered mini-grids in India are falling apart. But it does not end there: the British Government has decided to cut costs of polluting and approve hundreds of new North Sea oil and gas licenses. This announcement may have upset Just Stop Oil activists, but the reality is that the world is using more oil than ever and Britain needs to be prepared.
In addition to oil, the world’s most common fossil fuel — coal — is also set to break a new record in consumption. “In 2023 and 2024, small declines in coal-fired power generation are likely to be offset by rises in industrial use of coal,” according to the International Energy Agency. Despite all the promises of renewable energy, the road to industrialisation is still paved with coal.
Then there is the issue of electric vehicles. Ford is set to lose $4.5 billion on them this year, while Volkswagen has decided to scale back its EV production amid a slowdown in the Chinese market. This begs the question of how promising the EV market really is without coercion (banning the internal combustion engine) or incentives (tax credits and subsidies) by government.
What’s more, insurers around the world are paying attention to the higher risks surrounding the transportation of EVs, something that will push prices up even further (at the time of writing, a cargo ship carrying cars is still burning off the Dutch coast, most likely due to a fire caused by an EV battery, with one sailor killed). It also doesn’t help that Tesla actively suppressed thousands of driving range complaints from becoming public, and this lack of reliability likely also explains why the absolute number of gasoline-powered cars is still growing.
As the energy analyst Anas Alhajji has pointed out, one of the reasons why EV sales are often presented in percentages is because the total number is still incredibly small. For many people a battery-only vehicle is not an option, especially at times of growing electricity prices.
Join the discussion
Join like minded readers that support our journalism by becoming a paid subscriber
To join the discussion in the comments, become a paid subscriber.
Join like minded readers that support our journalism, read unlimited articles and enjoy other subscriber-only benefits.
Subscribe… just another minor setback. Currently the Just Stop Oil clowns are draping Rishi Sunak’s home in black cloth as their latest whacky protest.
Do you believe the activists will ever accept they’ve lost the argument or care if they’ve lost public support or commercial backing? If you do, you underestimate the seductive self-actualising power of a moral mission. This is all about the driving emotional need of the righteous do-gooder to ‘change the world’ by some act of collective will. They will not be diverted from their cause by anything so mundane as fact based argument or even the underperformance of their ‘sustainable’ pet-projects.
We can only hope that more sane and sensible minds within our institutions (surely there must be some!) will help steer us away from this destructive eco-faith.
a sad and pathetic quasi tribal cum religion substitute for the desperate, pitiful, vapid internet addicted lemmings of today, and a glowing advertisement to repeal the Great Reform Act and remove to vote from a vast proportion of the moron pipl…
I take it you deem yourself one of the superior forms of humanity despite your spelling and grammar deficiencies?
But Robbie, surely you regard yourself as superior to the average UK voter. You are in no position to throw stones.
It that the best argument you can come up with now, criticising the grammar of people who disagree with you? Better than smearing or censoring them I suppose..
My comment was prompted by the suggestion of removing the vote from certain people who are apparently unworthy.
Why was Plato’s Republic a tyranny? He’d lived under Athenian democracy, and saw if fail – and fall.
Not that his proposed solution would work, in reality. If you want to see the future for the West, study Gibbon.
I agree with you regarding the desire to remove anyone’s vote, however it is time we started jailing the Green protesters and scrapped Net Zero. It is insane as anyone with even a basic understanding of how the UK is fed will tell you. Which simply goes to show we are ruled by M0r0ns or else they don’t ever read much about anything or never anything except the BBC. Tho’ even the BBC has an article on how much hotter it can be without the world frying.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/articles/385SHpTG5M25Xr6G3FSMJTG/seven-things-that-happened-when-the-planet-got-really-really-hot
Why was Plato’s Republic a tyranny? He’d lived under Athenian democracy, and saw if fail – and fall.
Not that his proposed solution would work, in reality. If you want to see the future for the West, study Gibbon.
I agree with you regarding the desire to remove anyone’s vote, however it is time we started jailing the Green protesters and scrapped Net Zero. It is insane as anyone with even a basic understanding of how the UK is fed will tell you. Which simply goes to show we are ruled by M0r0ns or else they don’t ever read much about anything or never anything except the BBC. Tho’ even the BBC has an article on how much hotter it can be without the world frying.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/articles/385SHpTG5M25Xr6G3FSMJTG/seven-things-that-happened-when-the-planet-got-really-really-hot
My comment was prompted by the suggestion of removing the vote from certain people who are apparently unworthy.
But Robbie, surely you regard yourself as superior to the average UK voter. You are in no position to throw stones.
It that the best argument you can come up with now, criticising the grammar of people who disagree with you? Better than smearing or censoring them I suppose..
agreed with the sentiment but this type of apocalyptic movement and this type of mentality has popped up pretty regularly throughout history. The current climate catastrophe ideas map pretty perfectly on to this.
A belief that bad behaviour will bring about catastrophe. Tick
That some people (the elect, the faithful, the good) can see this and have a duty to warn sinners. Tick
That only radical repentance and paying huge penance will avert the apocalypse and the end of days. Tick
They aren’t sad, they are insane and they appear to have the earsof power. That means M0r0ns in Govt are seriously thinking of trying to achieve Net Zero?!. IT will kill billions globally and millions in the UK and I”m not joking. Imagine how supermarket shelves if HGV drivers went on strike. They’d empty AND that is not hyperbole, remember when farmers blocked refineries over fuel taxes and fuel became scare? Well supermarket shelves very quickly emptied. That was only a short interruption Net Zero will be a ‘permanent’ interruption. It is insane as is anyone who thinks it is a good idea at ANY point in time.
They aren’t sad, they are insane and they appear to have the earsof power. That means M0r0ns in Govt are seriously thinking of trying to achieve Net Zero?!. IT will kill billions globally and millions in the UK and I”m not joking. Imagine how supermarket shelves if HGV drivers went on strike. They’d empty AND that is not hyperbole, remember when farmers blocked refineries over fuel taxes and fuel became scare? Well supermarket shelves very quickly emptied. That was only a short interruption Net Zero will be a ‘permanent’ interruption. It is insane as is anyone who thinks it is a good idea at ANY point in time.
I take it you deem yourself one of the superior forms of humanity despite your spelling and grammar deficiencies?
agreed with the sentiment but this type of apocalyptic movement and this type of mentality has popped up pretty regularly throughout history. The current climate catastrophe ideas map pretty perfectly on to this.
A belief that bad behaviour will bring about catastrophe. Tick
That some people (the elect, the faithful, the good) can see this and have a duty to warn sinners. Tick
That only radical repentance and paying huge penance will avert the apocalypse and the end of days. Tick
Youre right, the death cult disciples are not givihg this up so easily.
Unherd has been pretty silent on the Climate Scam and Net Zero nonsense until now, so good to see some coverage, finally, even if it is this shallow.
“… Jim Skea, said we should not overstate the 1.5 degrees celsius warning, and that humanity will not end if we miss it.”
Humanity is not going to end. Nothing is going to happen at all, since the “climate emergency” is a fabrication of neo-Marxist globalist lunatics, and CO₂ is not a “pollutant” (“the British Government has decided to cut costs of polluting”).
In terms of Net Zero, this is so obviously unachievable by 2050 – or 2100 – that something has to give sooner or later.
https://johnsullivan.substack.com/p/the-dummies-guide-to-uk-net-zero
Skea is simply softening everyone up for a “slightly less ambitious approach” – as are the disingenuous globalist traitors of our “Tory” government. Then carry on destroying the socio-economic fabric of the UK as normal.
Net Zero, in any form and in any timeframe, is insanity. Its about time that someone at Unherd did some actual research and investigated properly just how utterly bonkers and/or corrupt its advocates are.
Net Zero dead?
No, Sir. The ruling cabal (by which, of course, I mean the WEF and BlackRock) have issued a decree that the plebs are to be *severely* curtailed – in terms of where and when we can travel, what we can eat and even what we can spend our money on.
Ne’er-do-wells (since my preferred term and, indeed, the very mention of them triggers the censor) like Schwab and the WEF, Fink and BlackRock have already decided on that.
If you.think the small matter of overwhelming public opposition is going to be any deterrence at all, you are frankly very naive.
If it was a simple matter of what we, the people wanted, the very notion of net zero (and all the attendant massive repeal of civil rights and dire impoverishment) 0would have been dismissed long ago.
After all, crowd control and a bit of spring cleaning to eliminate dissent are what national governments are for.
a sad and pathetic quasi tribal cum religion substitute for the desperate, pitiful, vapid internet addicted lemmings of today, and a glowing advertisement to repeal the Great Reform Act and remove to vote from a vast proportion of the moron pipl…
Youre right, the death cult disciples are not givihg this up so easily.
Unherd has been pretty silent on the Climate Scam and Net Zero nonsense until now, so good to see some coverage, finally, even if it is this shallow.
“… Jim Skea, said we should not overstate the 1.5 degrees celsius warning, and that humanity will not end if we miss it.”
Humanity is not going to end. Nothing is going to happen at all, since the “climate emergency” is a fabrication of neo-Marxist globalist lunatics, and CO₂ is not a “pollutant” (“the British Government has decided to cut costs of polluting”).
In terms of Net Zero, this is so obviously unachievable by 2050 – or 2100 – that something has to give sooner or later.
https://johnsullivan.substack.com/p/the-dummies-guide-to-uk-net-zero
Skea is simply softening everyone up for a “slightly less ambitious approach” – as are the disingenuous globalist traitors of our “Tory” government. Then carry on destroying the socio-economic fabric of the UK as normal.
Net Zero, in any form and in any timeframe, is insanity. Its about time that someone at Unherd did some actual research and investigated properly just how utterly bonkers and/or corrupt its advocates are.
Net Zero dead?
No, Sir. The ruling cabal (by which, of course, I mean the WEF and BlackRock) have issued a decree that the plebs are to be *severely* curtailed – in terms of where and when we can travel, what we can eat and even what we can spend our money on.
Ne’er-do-wells (since my preferred term and, indeed, the very mention of them triggers the censor) like Schwab and the WEF, Fink and BlackRock have already decided on that.
If you.think the small matter of overwhelming public opposition is going to be any deterrence at all, you are frankly very naive.
If it was a simple matter of what we, the people wanted, the very notion of net zero (and all the attendant massive repeal of civil rights and dire impoverishment) 0would have been dismissed long ago.
After all, crowd control and a bit of spring cleaning to eliminate dissent are what national governments are for.
… just another minor setback. Currently the Just Stop Oil clowns are draping Rishi Sunak’s home in black cloth as their latest whacky protest.
Do you believe the activists will ever accept they’ve lost the argument or care if they’ve lost public support or commercial backing? If you do, you underestimate the seductive self-actualising power of a moral mission. This is all about the driving emotional need of the righteous do-gooder to ‘change the world’ by some act of collective will. They will not be diverted from their cause by anything so mundane as fact based argument or even the underperformance of their ‘sustainable’ pet-projects.
We can only hope that more sane and sensible minds within our institutions (surely there must be some!) will help steer us away from this destructive eco-faith.
There’s not much to thank Russia for but its invasion of Ukraine has concentrated minds wonderfully on the necessity for energy security. I’m surprised this isn’t mentioned because it’s surely in the mix.
Pity that the Germans don’t have a word for schadenfreude. I like corny jokes.
Gloating?
Why not? I got booed off stage at a climate action conference for raising questions about geo-politics and the absurdity of tying climate politics (if you care about it) to radical gender/race politics..pronouns (‘you just lost Alberta. Can you afford to lose Alberta?’). So there is a natural urge to gloat and say ITYS…although, I agree, not very edifying
No. Just laughing. Not worth a gloat.
Why not? I got booed off stage at a climate action conference for raising questions about geo-politics and the absurdity of tying climate politics (if you care about it) to radical gender/race politics..pronouns (‘you just lost Alberta. Can you afford to lose Alberta?’). So there is a natural urge to gloat and say ITYS…although, I agree, not very edifying
No. Just laughing. Not worth a gloat.
They have, it’s called…….Schadenfreude ):
I was riffing on the Dubya joke that the French don’t have a word for entrepreneurship.
Irony. Lost.
Irony. Lost.
I was riffing on the Dubya joke that the French don’t have a word for entrepreneurship.
??? I’m missing the joke – ‘schadenfreude’ is German.
Indeed it is. That is why it is amusing to see them as the architects of their own misfortune. Worthy of a dose of schadenfreude in anyone’s language.
Perhaps they should have taken notice of the old English warning “When you sup with the devil take a long spoon.”
Indeed it is. That is why it is amusing to see them as the architects of their own misfortune. Worthy of a dose of schadenfreude in anyone’s language.
Perhaps they should have taken notice of the old English warning “When you sup with the devil take a long spoon.”
Gloating?
They have, it’s called…….Schadenfreude ):
??? I’m missing the joke – ‘schadenfreude’ is German.
You should thank Trump. He reminded them well before the Russia affair, but he was scoffed at, remember?
Pity that the Germans don’t have a word for schadenfreude. I like corny jokes.
You should thank Trump. He reminded them well before the Russia affair, but he was scoffed at, remember?
There’s not much to thank Russia for but its invasion of Ukraine has concentrated minds wonderfully on the necessity for energy security. I’m surprised this isn’t mentioned because it’s surely in the mix.
The socialist state of Victoria in the resource rich country of Australia will run out of offshore gas early next decade and one Victoria’s last three coal fired power stations will shut down in 2028 when its coal supply runs out.
There is an onshore non-fracked gas field and an adjacent coal deposit just waiting to be developed – but no one will invest the capital because of the sovereign risk. From among the world’s cheapest energy to effectively none.
The world’s longest lockdown doesn’t seem to have dented Chairman Dan’s hold over the population and, like the Pied Piper of Hamlin he will lead us into financial oblivion.
The socialist state of Victoria in the resource rich country of Australia will run out of offshore gas early next decade and one Victoria’s last three coal fired power stations will shut down in 2028 when its coal supply runs out.
There is an onshore non-fracked gas field and an adjacent coal deposit just waiting to be developed – but no one will invest the capital because of the sovereign risk. From among the world’s cheapest energy to effectively none.
The world’s longest lockdown doesn’t seem to have dented Chairman Dan’s hold over the population and, like the Pied Piper of Hamlin he will lead us into financial oblivion.
“…almost everyone likes the idea, but no one wants to pay for it.”
They simply cannot afford to pay for it. People were lied to about the true cost involved.
Indeed. No one actually “likes the idea”, because they have no clue as to what “the idea” really is. As you say, they’ve been lied to – and they’re still being lied to.
Net Zero is not possible for the UK, but the lunacy will complete the destruction of the country left unfinished by the Covid fiasco.
https://johnsullivan.substack.com/p/the-dummies-guide-to-uk-net-zero
The dim Sums in Westminster came up with ” £1 Trillion ” National Grid has said £3 trillion for just a just a part of the economy. And today news that Drax is polluting the UK with CO2 and getting Government subsidies to make a big profit. This is the stupidity of our MP’s and why we will become Poorer, Hungrier, and Colder.
“Poorer, Hungrier, and Colder” I think they handled my divorce for me.
“Poorer, Hungrier, and Colder” I think they handled my divorce for me.
Indeed. No one actually “likes the idea”, because they have no clue as to what “the idea” really is. As you say, they’ve been lied to – and they’re still being lied to.
Net Zero is not possible for the UK, but the lunacy will complete the destruction of the country left unfinished by the Covid fiasco.
https://johnsullivan.substack.com/p/the-dummies-guide-to-uk-net-zero
The dim Sums in Westminster came up with ” £1 Trillion ” National Grid has said £3 trillion for just a just a part of the economy. And today news that Drax is polluting the UK with CO2 and getting Government subsidies to make a big profit. This is the stupidity of our MP’s and why we will become Poorer, Hungrier, and Colder.
“…almost everyone likes the idea, but no one wants to pay for it.”
They simply cannot afford to pay for it. People were lied to about the true cost involved.
Too many humans are consuming too much unreplaceable resources on this little planet.
Net-Zero, however (in my view) is not the answer, it is unrealistic, unachievable and will penalise the poorer members of the global population.
Education and tweaks to consumption can work. Food miles (and plastic tat miles), especially when flown to market, reduce and recycle, waste has a double edged cost both with production and then disposal (big lorries taking rubbish to landfil).
Tweak electricity consumption (and gas, coal etc.).
Support the developing world with infrastructure and sustainable development and education, health care etc etc.
A blunt stick will get thrown out at an election as long as one party says “enough of this nonsense” (irrespective of reality).
Net Zero is a rich mans pleasure (other genders are available) and a great way for big business to make more money while making little difference.
Educate and change consumption patterns and support the developing world and ignore the big, unachievable, sound bite commitments.
Nice ideas but massively wide of the mark and delusional. Those measures are a drop in the ocean of what is needed.
The only thing that is needed is a gradual transition from coal to gas and nuclear power. When you account for costs of production, disposal, battery storage, and destruction of wildlife, solar and wind power are more environmentally destructive than gas and oil.
Agreed. Tweaking energy consumption and eating patterns will not reduce CO2 in anything close to net zero
Not sure why that got so many downvotes. It seems on the money Robbie. The left-greens are deluded into thinking that they can have a low-growth, low energy green economy without losing any of the social complexity and individual mobility + welfare and tech (hence preoccupation with non-negotiable pronouns). But social conservatives think they can have economic liberalism, individualism and fevered technological innovation …massive market and a massive state, underpinning a kind of billiard ball individualism BUT with social conservative, communitarian, Christian values. They can’t. The traditionalists could deliver what the Greens claimed to want…..but the greens don’t really want it (because they are really cosmopolitan liberals) and the conservatives don’t want it (because they are really metaphysical materialists committed to various forms of idolatry).
Any realistic attempt to hit those green targets would be post-liberal and very conservative
Nothing is needed because CO2 historically has no direct relationship to temperatures – as this Geologist (NOT a Climate Scientist using computer models) points out.
https://twitter.com/wideawake_media/status/1676156584169205760?s=12
The only thing that is needed is a gradual transition from coal to gas and nuclear power. When you account for costs of production, disposal, battery storage, and destruction of wildlife, solar and wind power are more environmentally destructive than gas and oil.
Agreed. Tweaking energy consumption and eating patterns will not reduce CO2 in anything close to net zero
Not sure why that got so many downvotes. It seems on the money Robbie. The left-greens are deluded into thinking that they can have a low-growth, low energy green economy without losing any of the social complexity and individual mobility + welfare and tech (hence preoccupation with non-negotiable pronouns). But social conservatives think they can have economic liberalism, individualism and fevered technological innovation …massive market and a massive state, underpinning a kind of billiard ball individualism BUT with social conservative, communitarian, Christian values. They can’t. The traditionalists could deliver what the Greens claimed to want…..but the greens don’t really want it (because they are really cosmopolitan liberals) and the conservatives don’t want it (because they are really metaphysical materialists committed to various forms of idolatry).
Any realistic attempt to hit those green targets would be post-liberal and very conservative
Nothing is needed because CO2 historically has no direct relationship to temperatures – as this Geologist (NOT a Climate Scientist using computer models) points out.
https://twitter.com/wideawake_media/status/1676156584169205760?s=12
Quasi-religious twaddle Buckley. You need to get a grip of yourself.
I’d much prefer a planet with a changed climate to the ghastly de-industrialised world you eco-fanatics claim to wish for.
Whatever the merits or otherwise of your arguments, your use of last names when trying to make a point is juvenile. Have you just emerged from some sixth-form debating society?
Using last names is kind of standard in journalism.
A tad Ad Hominem don’t you think, Murray – and isn’t that a cardinal sin among the more genteel debaters?
Using last names is kind of standard in journalism.
A tad Ad Hominem don’t you think, Murray – and isn’t that a cardinal sin among the more genteel debaters?
Whatever the merits or otherwise of your arguments, your use of last names when trying to make a point is juvenile. Have you just emerged from some sixth-form debating society?
rubbish…
so far no resources have been shown to be unreplaceable; indeed, abundance is overwhelming
The resources are not irreplaceable. The march of technology makes more and more resources acceptable. We can power the globe with nuclear power effectively forever. The proven economical reserves of oil and gas only grow as technology advances.
Don’t let a good fact get in the way.
Electricity and (total) energy are not the same thing. Electrifying everything, nuclear or not, is a vast undertaking that we are nowhere near ready to seriously attempt.
Recent claims regarding ambient temperature superconductivity could make a big difference if borne out, but we’re still talking centuries not decades.
A good analogy is probably fusion. Back in the 1950s, a lot of people thought it was just around the corner. It wasn’t; but slow, albeit steady, progress has been made all along, and it ight happen in another couple of decades. If so, it’ll be better than fission -less radioactive waste.
A good analogy is probably fusion. Back in the 1950s, a lot of people thought it was just around the corner. It wasn’t; but slow, albeit steady, progress has been made all along, and it ight happen in another couple of decades. If so, it’ll be better than fission -less radioactive waste.
Don’t let a good fact get in the way.
Electricity and (total) energy are not the same thing. Electrifying everything, nuclear or not, is a vast undertaking that we are nowhere near ready to seriously attempt.
Recent claims regarding ambient temperature superconductivity could make a big difference if borne out, but we’re still talking centuries not decades.
When i pointed out the costs to us all of the “plastic tat market” a short while ago in Comments, some fool accused me of snobbery.
Not true.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FACK2knC08E
Nice ideas but massively wide of the mark and delusional. Those measures are a drop in the ocean of what is needed.
Quasi-religious twaddle Buckley. You need to get a grip of yourself.
I’d much prefer a planet with a changed climate to the ghastly de-industrialised world you eco-fanatics claim to wish for.
rubbish…
so far no resources have been shown to be unreplaceable; indeed, abundance is overwhelming
The resources are not irreplaceable. The march of technology makes more and more resources acceptable. We can power the globe with nuclear power effectively forever. The proven economical reserves of oil and gas only grow as technology advances.
When i pointed out the costs to us all of the “plastic tat market” a short while ago in Comments, some fool accused me of snobbery.
Not true.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FACK2knC08E
Too many humans are consuming too much unreplaceable resources on this little planet.
Net-Zero, however (in my view) is not the answer, it is unrealistic, unachievable and will penalise the poorer members of the global population.
Education and tweaks to consumption can work. Food miles (and plastic tat miles), especially when flown to market, reduce and recycle, waste has a double edged cost both with production and then disposal (big lorries taking rubbish to landfil).
Tweak electricity consumption (and gas, coal etc.).
Support the developing world with infrastructure and sustainable development and education, health care etc etc.
A blunt stick will get thrown out at an election as long as one party says “enough of this nonsense” (irrespective of reality).
Net Zero is a rich mans pleasure (other genders are available) and a great way for big business to make more money while making little difference.
Educate and change consumption patterns and support the developing world and ignore the big, unachievable, sound bite commitments.
So many people I know have thouroughly accepted the “truth” that every change in the weather is attributable to anthropogenic climate change. And it’s “science be damned!”; most of them are completely immune to any contrary evidence.
Simply put, the bad guys have won the public relations war. This is the problem we face now. We need to deal with it as such; enlisting influential people to “speak truth to power”. And loudly celebrating the significant progress we’ve made in bringing back our widlife and our wild places.
Unfortunately, much more of this climate mania is about Trump then anyone is willing to admit. As long as he’s ranging around for revenge the mania will continue. But that makes this the perfect time to start our own PR war.
Under Trump the US finally met its Kyoto commitments. Some say because of fracking.
Very true. Even intelligent writers almost uniformly tie climate change with anthropogenic causes when the reality is certainly largely beyond our control. Tragic
Amen. I usually point them to the cause of the dinosaurs’ extinction as evidence of how ridiculous it is to blame human activity for climate change, and then they look at me strangely and mutter, “oh yea”.
You two need to look up the ‘greenhouse effect’.
A theory that is un-proven in an open system such as the earth. Further, CO2 is not even close to being the most significant greenhouse gas in our atmosphere.
It’s scientific fact. CO2 is the most significant for climate change, since it persists in the atmosphere for up to two hundred years.
The residence time of a gas should be irrelevant for the green house effect. What should matter is the concentration of that gas at any given time.
Not if it is accumulating.
Not if it is accumulating.
Actually, water vapour is the most significant climate change driver. Straight CO2 causes only marginal warming. According to the models, this marginal warming is amplified exponentially by water vapour, creating runaway heating. Increased CO2 creates a feedback loop of more water vapour and more heating. The magnitude of this feedback loop is disputed by climate scientists like Currie and Lindzen.
A lot of the global warming mathematical models used to (I gave up staying current; it was about as useful as staying current on debates about angels on pinheads) bootstrap a CO2-related temperature increase by claiming that CO2 would cause a slight temperature rise, which would cause an increase in water vapour, which in turn would cause more heat retention.
A lot of the global warming mathematical models used to (I gave up staying current; it was about as useful as staying current on debates about angels on pinheads) bootstrap a CO2-related temperature increase by claiming that CO2 would cause a slight temperature rise, which would cause an increase in water vapour, which in turn would cause more heat retention.
Two hundred years?!
So whatever steep sacrifices we make now won’t help us or our children or their children, out to five or six generations!
The residence time of a gas should be irrelevant for the green house effect. What should matter is the concentration of that gas at any given time.
Actually, water vapour is the most significant climate change driver. Straight CO2 causes only marginal warming. According to the models, this marginal warming is amplified exponentially by water vapour, creating runaway heating. Increased CO2 creates a feedback loop of more water vapour and more heating. The magnitude of this feedback loop is disputed by climate scientists like Currie and Lindzen.
Two hundred years?!
So whatever steep sacrifices we make now won’t help us or our children or their children, out to five or six generations!
Water is but it is so ‘volatile’ in terms of amounts present I understand they can’t model it very well at all in their computer models. Here is also another intriguing thought regarding the claims that ‘this is the warmest July on record’ The Tonga submarine explosion last year failed to insert into the atmosphere any cooling material aerosols BUT it has injected into the atmosphere up to 50Km high such vast quantities of water vapour originally as super-heated steam that NASA couldn’t believe their measuring systems were accurate. The effect is likely to continue for some years and is linked to the reputed temperature increases where they have been found. (Though still not the shockingly high 48c claimed as an air temperature when it was a ground temperature.)
It’s scientific fact. CO2 is the most significant for climate change, since it persists in the atmosphere for up to two hundred years.
Water is but it is so ‘volatile’ in terms of amounts present I understand they can’t model it very well at all in their computer models. Here is also another intriguing thought regarding the claims that ‘this is the warmest July on record’ The Tonga submarine explosion last year failed to insert into the atmosphere any cooling material aerosols BUT it has injected into the atmosphere up to 50Km high such vast quantities of water vapour originally as super-heated steam that NASA couldn’t believe their measuring systems were accurate. The effect is likely to continue for some years and is linked to the reputed temperature increases where they have been found. (Though still not the shockingly high 48c claimed as an air temperature when it was a ground temperature.)
Could you share the original papers where it was shown to be of significant effect to actually change the climate? If you really dig, the scientific literature you will see that causality is not very strongly established.
You need to look at the Lake District – and ask, why isn’t it the Glacier District? Then ask yourself IF the limited amount of CO2 we humans are pumping back into the air from the fraction of fossil fuels we utilise is, according to the Climate Computer Models, going to ‘fry’ the planet, how come we have any fossil fuels in the first place? The only way the Carbon got into fossil fuels was due to living organisms – so they couldn’t have ‘fried’ even with the vast amounts of CO2 that were originally free. Have you a sensible answer to that question?
A theory that is un-proven in an open system such as the earth. Further, CO2 is not even close to being the most significant greenhouse gas in our atmosphere.
Could you share the original papers where it was shown to be of significant effect to actually change the climate? If you really dig, the scientific literature you will see that causality is not very strongly established.
You need to look at the Lake District – and ask, why isn’t it the Glacier District? Then ask yourself IF the limited amount of CO2 we humans are pumping back into the air from the fraction of fossil fuels we utilise is, according to the Climate Computer Models, going to ‘fry’ the planet, how come we have any fossil fuels in the first place? The only way the Carbon got into fossil fuels was due to living organisms – so they couldn’t have ‘fried’ even with the vast amounts of CO2 that were originally free. Have you a sensible answer to that question?
You two need to look up the ‘greenhouse effect’.
Amen. I usually point them to the cause of the dinosaurs’ extinction as evidence of how ridiculous it is to blame human activity for climate change, and then they look at me strangely and mutter, “oh yea”.
The mania may have become more manic due to Trump, but I can assure you it has been around for decades. Since the 1970s—anyone remember Neil Young’s “look at Mother Nature on the run in the 1970s…?”
As a young gullible Student in the 1970’s I feared the coming Ice Age, BUT curiously the ‘End of Oil’ predicted for 1999 meant that I got to produce a report on “Hydrogen as an alternative to Oil” The bad news was that despite my enthusiasm for it to be so, the evidence was overwhelmingly against. The only hope was fuel cells. Things haven’t changed that much in the intervening 50 years and the ‘hope’ curiously is STILL fuel cells. (Hope springs eternal, rather like apocalyptic cults)
As a young gullible Student in the 1970’s I feared the coming Ice Age, BUT curiously the ‘End of Oil’ predicted for 1999 meant that I got to produce a report on “Hydrogen as an alternative to Oil” The bad news was that despite my enthusiasm for it to be so, the evidence was overwhelmingly against. The only hope was fuel cells. Things haven’t changed that much in the intervening 50 years and the ‘hope’ curiously is STILL fuel cells. (Hope springs eternal, rather like apocalyptic cults)
Climate hysteria started decades before Trump.
Under Trump the US finally met its Kyoto commitments. Some say because of fracking.
Very true. Even intelligent writers almost uniformly tie climate change with anthropogenic causes when the reality is certainly largely beyond our control. Tragic
The mania may have become more manic due to Trump, but I can assure you it has been around for decades. Since the 1970s—anyone remember Neil Young’s “look at Mother Nature on the run in the 1970s…?”
Climate hysteria started decades before Trump.
So many people I know have thouroughly accepted the “truth” that every change in the weather is attributable to anthropogenic climate change. And it’s “science be damned!”; most of them are completely immune to any contrary evidence.
Simply put, the bad guys have won the public relations war. This is the problem we face now. We need to deal with it as such; enlisting influential people to “speak truth to power”. And loudly celebrating the significant progress we’ve made in bringing back our widlife and our wild places.
Unfortunately, much more of this climate mania is about Trump then anyone is willing to admit. As long as he’s ranging around for revenge the mania will continue. But that makes this the perfect time to start our own PR war.
After stealing and wasting trillions, with nothing to show for it, the biggest scam in human history, NetZero is slowly coming to an end. It made people like Gore etc.. unbelievably rich, it destroyed public discourse by injecting into it the stream of never ending hyperventilation and lies. It destroyed the education system that has been feeding a hysterical garbage presented as “Science” to young people.
After stealing and wasting trillions, with nothing to show for it, the biggest scam in human history, NetZero is slowly coming to an end. It made people like Gore etc.. unbelievably rich, it destroyed public discourse by injecting into it the stream of never ending hyperventilation and lies. It destroyed the education system that has been feeding a hysterical garbage presented as “Science” to young people.
I look forward to rational discussion and debate here in the USA. Several states have mandates in place for 2035 to ban the sale of gasoline powered cars. There are or will be restrictions on gas ranges and gas water heaters in several places also. Wait until there is a power outage and it gets cold in homes with no way to heat food or charge their electric cars at home.
Climate is a lucrative field. Plenty of consulting and advocacy groups feed off the cart. For entertainment watch the congressional hearings on what climate czar, John Kerry does.
Gas stoves and gas heating run off natural gas, not gasoline like cars. Has the use of natural (or propane) gas been shown to be a greenhouse gas?
Both natural gas and propane contain carbon, and so produce CO2 when burned.
Several US governmental entities have already put limits on gas heating; there is discussion of federal action on gas stoves (notionally because they cause indoor air pollution).
Both natural gas and propane contain carbon, and so produce CO2 when burned.
Several US governmental entities have already put limits on gas heating; there is discussion of federal action on gas stoves (notionally because they cause indoor air pollution).
When Prof James Lovelock recanted his Climate Alarmism, he was asked IF it were as he claimed, why where there not a great many other Climate Scientists joining him – I believe these are his exact words
“in an interview with msnbc.com, he admitted: ‘I made a mistake.’
He said: ‘The problem is we don’t know what the climate is doing,’ he told ‘We thought we knew 20 years ago. That led to some alarmist books – mine included – because it looked clear cut, but it hasn’t happened.
‘The climate is doing its usual tricks. There’s nothing much really happening yet. We were supposed to be halfway toward a frying world.
‘[The temperature] has stayed almost constant, whereas it should have been rising – carbon dioxide is rising, no question about that.'”
then ended with this little gem
“he said. ‘I made a mistake’ As “an independent and a loner,” he said he did not mind saying “All right, I made a mistake.” He claimed a university or government scientist might fear an admission of a mistake would lead to the loss of funding.”“
Gas stoves and gas heating run off natural gas, not gasoline like cars. Has the use of natural (or propane) gas been shown to be a greenhouse gas?
When Prof James Lovelock recanted his Climate Alarmism, he was asked IF it were as he claimed, why where there not a great many other Climate Scientists joining him – I believe these are his exact words
“in an interview with msnbc.com, he admitted: ‘I made a mistake.’
He said: ‘The problem is we don’t know what the climate is doing,’ he told ‘We thought we knew 20 years ago. That led to some alarmist books – mine included – because it looked clear cut, but it hasn’t happened.
‘The climate is doing its usual tricks. There’s nothing much really happening yet. We were supposed to be halfway toward a frying world.
‘[The temperature] has stayed almost constant, whereas it should have been rising – carbon dioxide is rising, no question about that.'”
then ended with this little gem
“he said. ‘I made a mistake’ As “an independent and a loner,” he said he did not mind saying “All right, I made a mistake.” He claimed a university or government scientist might fear an admission of a mistake would lead to the loss of funding.”“
I look forward to rational discussion and debate here in the USA. Several states have mandates in place for 2035 to ban the sale of gasoline powered cars. There are or will be restrictions on gas ranges and gas water heaters in several places also. Wait until there is a power outage and it gets cold in homes with no way to heat food or charge their electric cars at home.
Climate is a lucrative field. Plenty of consulting and advocacy groups feed off the cart. For entertainment watch the congressional hearings on what climate czar, John Kerry does.
The crisis is internal to ‘eco-modernism’ – which is an oxymoron. If greens were truly interested in biophysical limits, they would endorse religious, place-bound, family oriented, communitarian conservatism; and reject out of hand, all the trappings of liberalism, billiard-ball individualism and metaphysical materialism/atheism
The crisis is internal to ‘eco-modernism’ – which is an oxymoron. If greens were truly interested in biophysical limits, they would endorse religious, place-bound, family oriented, communitarian conservatism; and reject out of hand, all the trappings of liberalism, billiard-ball individualism and metaphysical materialism/atheism
Quote “The Atlantic Meridional Overturning Circulation is a water stream of the Atlantic Ocean.The rate at which it transfers heat towards the pole—about one petawatt, or 1,000 terawatts, roughly 60 times the rate at which humans produce energy by burning fossil fuels in factories, furnaces, power stations, cars, aircraft and everything else—accounts for about a quarter of all the northward flow of heat from the tropics. At least half of the water that gets into the ocean depths does so in the North Atlantic.” Unquote
I bumped into an article of which I copy a fraction. It says here that that this stream alone transfers heat 60 times more than what humanity produces in all the activities. The question which arises immediately is : what influence has humanity on global warming under such circumstances ? I shall add no more.
You seem to be conflating 2 very different issues – the amount of heat energy produced by burning fossil fuels, and the amount of retained solar energy due to the increased greenhouse gas effect from additional atmospheric CO₂.
The latter is thought / claimed to be about 100 times the former – but still, the evidence for any globally significant warming, let alone a “climate emergency”, is thin, to say the least.
I would say, perhaps a teeny, tiny bit?
You seem to be conflating 2 very different issues – the amount of heat energy produced by burning fossil fuels, and the amount of retained solar energy due to the increased greenhouse gas effect from additional atmospheric CO₂.
The latter is thought / claimed to be about 100 times the former – but still, the evidence for any globally significant warming, let alone a “climate emergency”, is thin, to say the least.
I would say, perhaps a teeny, tiny bit?
Quote “The Atlantic Meridional Overturning Circulation is a water stream of the Atlantic Ocean.The rate at which it transfers heat towards the pole—about one petawatt, or 1,000 terawatts, roughly 60 times the rate at which humans produce energy by burning fossil fuels in factories, furnaces, power stations, cars, aircraft and everything else—accounts for about a quarter of all the northward flow of heat from the tropics. At least half of the water that gets into the ocean depths does so in the North Atlantic.” Unquote
I bumped into an article of which I copy a fraction. It says here that that this stream alone transfers heat 60 times more than what humanity produces in all the activities. The question which arises immediately is : what influence has humanity on global warming under such circumstances ? I shall add no more.
Duuuh. About time, none soon and long overdue. The so called science is sketchy at best and long term destructive. Please, oh please, let us use our money, talent, technology and yes, freedom to invent, to way better use.
Duuuh. About time, none soon and long overdue. The so called science is sketchy at best and long term destructive. Please, oh please, let us use our money, talent, technology and yes, freedom to invent, to way better use.
The real travesty here is that governments and corporations pushed so hard for electric vehicles. These were not going to be a suitable substitute for the internal combustion engine at any time in the near future. We would find ourselves in a much better circumstance if instead, they had pushed for hybrid vehicles with the same fervor. This would have caused a decrease in fossil fuel use, decrease in electric energy consumed, and a decrease in price, making these more affordable for people with middle incomes.
An opportunity lost, that I fear will not be recovered.
The real travesty here is that governments and corporations pushed so hard for electric vehicles. These were not going to be a suitable substitute for the internal combustion engine at any time in the near future. We would find ourselves in a much better circumstance if instead, they had pushed for hybrid vehicles with the same fervor. This would have caused a decrease in fossil fuel use, decrease in electric energy consumed, and a decrease in price, making these more affordable for people with middle incomes.
An opportunity lost, that I fear will not be recovered.
Of course Net Zero was always just a confected political narrative. It can be as easily erased as any other equally confected narrative; say (as you imply in your article), those around Tesla and Elon Musk.
Particularly where the narrative can no longer obscure what’s actually happening on the ground; the impacts on a growing mass of sentient humans who can no longer reconcile the narrative with reality, and who can’t be suppressed.
Given a sufficient modulation in the zeitgeist, most of the time gravity will just do its work. And where that fails, an opposing force of power, money and compliant information distribution platforms.
So what shall our new political narrative be ? That this has all just been a conspiracy of elites and the scientific community built upon a decades long compounding of incomprehension about complex climate systems, to serve the ultimate objective of implementing a neo-Marxist totalitarian world order ?
I don’t think that particular narrative is going to hold water either.
Of course Net Zero was always just a confected political narrative. It can be as easily erased as any other equally confected narrative; say (as you imply in your article), those around Tesla and Elon Musk.
Particularly where the narrative can no longer obscure what’s actually happening on the ground; the impacts on a growing mass of sentient humans who can no longer reconcile the narrative with reality, and who can’t be suppressed.
Given a sufficient modulation in the zeitgeist, most of the time gravity will just do its work. And where that fails, an opposing force of power, money and compliant information distribution platforms.
So what shall our new political narrative be ? That this has all just been a conspiracy of elites and the scientific community built upon a decades long compounding of incomprehension about complex climate systems, to serve the ultimate objective of implementing a neo-Marxist totalitarian world order ?
I don’t think that particular narrative is going to hold water either.
The only people who like the idea of Net Zero are those who think CO2 (the basic compound of life via photosynthesis) is a poison and who believe a ‘Computer Model’ is more to be believed than reality. a) Climate has ALWAYS changed b) Even the BBC hasn’t yet removed this article about the world 7c warmer
http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/articles/385SHpTG5M25Xr6G3FSMJTG/seven-things-that-happened-when-the-planet-got-really-really-hot
where life flourished and the Earth didn’t burn
c) A simple though experiment also helps to question the Green ‘burning earth’ myth. The CO2 we are putting back into the atmosphere is from Fossil fuels. Fossils are the remains of living organisms, before they ‘fixed’ that CO2 it was in the atmosphere, AND we are nowhere near putting back into the atmosphere all the CO2 in fossil fuels. So, with ALL that CO2 in the atmosphere a lot of living organisms appear to have NOT fried either.
d) As geologists will tell you, temperature and CO2 historically have no direct relationship.
https://twitter.com/wideawake_media/status/1676156584169205760?s=12
e) The models claim to use maths to model the physics of the atmosphere, well here is a Nobel Prize winning Physicist on the subject of Pseudoscience.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KSfdpmEafGI
f) Net Zero is insane, and IF you don’t think so, read this report, in particular the Graphic on P6 for 2050 when Net Zero is supposed to be achieved.
https://www.icax.co.uk/pdf/Absolute_Zero_Report.pdf
2050 is 27 years away, IF you think the Green’s and Net Zero aren’t insane, then please explain how an Island, with a population of 70m+, which is not self-sufficient in food and only has a Chunnel rail link to other lands is going to feed those 70m+ with NO shipping, NO flying and NO fossil fuels.
Finally two more questions 1) Ask any 44 Tonne Artic HGV driver if he’ll be replacing his diesel tractor unit with an electric one any time in the next 10 years. Such men and women in their wagons are the life-blood of the country, they move everything from where it arrives to where it is wanted.
2) Ask Dyson, a company heavily involved with electric motors and batteries why they abandoned their ‘build it from scratch’ electric vehicle as ‘uneconomic’.
https://www.icax.co.uk/pdf/Absolute_Zero_Report.pdf
My original post appears to have disappeared, I’m not going to repeat all the arguments in case it miraculously returns. Simply read the above, particularly the Graphic on P6 then IF you are a Green, explain how we are going to feed 70m+ in the UK with no shipping, no flying and no fossil fuels, and that in 27 years time.
Didn’t die this week. But exposed as unrealistic.
Electorates starting to see the consequences. Pushback going to be hard. Some domestic politics going to be shook up over this (and with good reason…).
Calling out the ignorant, the impossible, the unsustainable, the Eco-Statist in favor of reason and balance is what we do.
Stop by and see us. Free subscription > https://envmental.substack.com/
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FACK2knC08E
The above video is fascinating, it destroys the Malthusian myths of overpopulation AND it provides overwhelming evidence that one of the greatest things to happen to mankind was the Industrial revolution. Now ONE thing that no one seems to consider is that the Malthusian Greens IF they get Net Zero will kill billions globally and millions in the UK – mostly due to starvation AND if you think that is hyperbole, then read this and in particular the Graphic on P6.
https://www.icax.co.uk/pdf/Absolute_Zero_Report.pdf
This claims to show that for the UK to hit Net Zero in 2050 we will have NO shipping, NO flying and NO fossil fuels, and that in 27 years time. Now anyone who knows anything about say, 44 tonne articulated lorries know that without them, the UK even now would soon find itself with large areas without food while vast amounts of it would be rotting on the docks or warehouses. So can anyone tell me how the UK is going to feed a population of 70m without those 3 items? The Chunnel rail tracks would melt with the traffic needed to replace shipping EVEN if it could deliver enough food, without a diesel tractor unit to pull the 44 tonne trailers (and EV’s tractor units are even less likely to manage it than Unicorns harnessed to the trailers) it won’t get around the country and people will starve.
Clearly a rethink underway as to how to achieve the goal with sufficient public support which is sensible and overdue. But no indication yet its entirety junked.
Lots of policies need a significant tweak. For example the whole thought process behind battery recharging infrastructure in UK about as well developed as immigration policy. It’s the same clowns in charge so what did we expect.
But the direction of travel remains pretty solid.
“But no indication yet its entirety junked.”
It won’t be junked, as politicians don’t junk their heartfelt convictions. They just kick them into the long grass.
I suspect the drive now coming as much from Businesses and Industry as from politicians. Whilst some of that inevitable’green-washing’ they’re thinking ahead and where market advantage will be. The arc of progress always bumpy PR.
Net Zero is not progress
Net Zero is not progress
I suspect the drive now coming as much from Businesses and Industry as from politicians. Whilst some of that inevitable’green-washing’ they’re thinking ahead and where market advantage will be. The arc of progress always bumpy PR.
“But no indication yet its entirety junked.”
It won’t be junked, as politicians don’t junk their heartfelt convictions. They just kick them into the long grass.
Clearly a rethink underway as to how to achieve the goal with sufficient public support which is sensible and overdue. But no indication yet its entirety junked.
Lots of policies need a significant tweak. For example the whole thought process behind battery recharging infrastructure in UK about as well developed as immigration policy. It’s the same clowns in charge so what did we expect.
But the direction of travel remains pretty solid.
Achieving the goals of Net Zero targets was always aspirational. The reality of our (global) society is that fossil fuels are completely entwined with our industry and economy and unpicking that is going to take unprecedented policies that are far harsher than has been described already.
Humanity simply cannot deal with it.
The bad news however is that future generations are going to pay the price – not through ‘world ending’ strawman scenarios, but mass migration, political upheaval and conflict, droughts, floods and famines.
Once climate change has reached that stage it will take hundreds of years to solve.
Political upheaval and conflict, droughts, floods and famines have always been with us. Eco-propagandists (such as yourself) can now attribute them to “climate change” – simple!
As for mass migration: that looks far more like vast droves of people struggling to escape from failed, badly governed or oppressive nations in the hope of finding a better life in the much-maligned West. Arch eco-fanatic Roger Hallam warns of “climate emergency” driven migration in the future but as with so much eco-propaganda it’s all about the prophesied disaster to come.
It’s not propaganda, it’s an observation – did it not occur to you what is actually the root cause of conflict and upheaval in countries such as Sudan? The numbers of immigrants and refugees we have seen are just the beginning. Just extraordinary that people can be in denial of what is happening around them.
No it did not occur to me as it is only eco-evangelists who are straining to blame the problem on their all-encompassing climate change. However, I can forsee future where, due to our activist-riddled institutions, “seeking refuge from the climate emergency” will be a treated as a valid asylum claim. I expect shyster lawyers are already preparing for that money making prospect.
By the way, it is a misuse of the word “observation” when what you are actually referring to is an opinion.
The UN, UNICEF, ICR have all made the same observations about Sudan, to name just a few.
You could be right about climate refugees however, get used to it.
UN, UNICEF, ICR The usual suspects.
3 of the most corrupt self-serving institutions on the planet – you should have added in the WHO to really sink you argument like a stone.
UN, UNICEF, ICR The usual suspects.
3 of the most corrupt self-serving institutions on the planet – you should have added in the WHO to really sink you argument like a stone.
The UN, UNICEF, ICR have all made the same observations about Sudan, to name just a few.
You could be right about climate refugees however, get used to it.
The huge growth of human populations – driven by better medicine and agricultural science – is a bigger factor. Amazing how the believers in ‘climate change’ religion ignore this. It’s extraordinary that people with these strong religious beliefs can be in denial of what is happening around them.
No it did not occur to me as it is only eco-evangelists who are straining to blame the problem on their all-encompassing climate change. However, I can forsee future where, due to our activist-riddled institutions, “seeking refuge from the climate emergency” will be a treated as a valid asylum claim. I expect shyster lawyers are already preparing for that money making prospect.
By the way, it is a misuse of the word “observation” when what you are actually referring to is an opinion.
The huge growth of human populations – driven by better medicine and agricultural science – is a bigger factor. Amazing how the believers in ‘climate change’ religion ignore this. It’s extraordinary that people with these strong religious beliefs can be in denial of what is happening around them.
It’s not propaganda, it’s an observation – did it not occur to you what is actually the root cause of conflict and upheaval in countries such as Sudan? The numbers of immigrants and refugees we have seen are just the beginning. Just extraordinary that people can be in denial of what is happening around them.
Global warming will take hundreds of years – IF IT CONTINUES – to reach anything that will significantly upset normal life. And we have those centuries to adapt IF IT HAPPENS.
More likely is that global warming will decline or just disappear as it has since 1998.
Apparently we’re just entering a great solar minimum that will reduce global temperatures by 1 deg by 2034.
Lucky then that the Tonga submarine volcanic eruption has flung unprecedented amounts of water high into the atmosphere that is expected to produce a noticeable warming effect for several years.
Lucky then that the Tonga submarine volcanic eruption has flung unprecedented amounts of water high into the atmosphere that is expected to produce a noticeable warming effect for several years.
Apparently we’re just entering a great solar minimum that will reduce global temperatures by 1 deg by 2034.
more adherents of the great philosopher Testiclese…
“Achieving the goals of Net Zero targets was always aspirational”
Pity that this aspiration is government policy then isn’t it.
“The reality of our (global) society is that fossil fuels are completely entwined with our industry and economy”
Of course they are. It’s why you are not scraping a subsistence level existence in some miserable rathole. Oil or starve – your choice.
The world has gotten massively greener in the last 30 years. Plants grow with less water in higher C02 environments. Ares like Sudan are helped most. The Sahara is shrinking.
For all the rhetoric about droughts and famine, it cannot be disputed that the world is 5% greener than it was 20 years ago – an area twice the size of mainland USA – and that crop yields have consistently and continually increased.
Greening from global warming is what led the dinosaurs to rule the earth, after all.
That’s down to tree planting programmes, crop yields are down to efficient agriculture and better seeds.
https://www.nasa.gov/feature/ames/human-activity-in-china-and-india-dominates-the-greening-of-earth-nasa-study-shows
The re-greening of parts of the Sahel is little or nothing to do with the planting of trees or your reason for better crop yields. The natural grasses and other ground-cover plants are, with the extra CO2, reclaiming the desert. Many commercial greenhouses are now injecting extra CO2 into their “Atmos- pheres to increase crop yields.
So what are you panicking about? We don’t need to go to Net Zero, just do as we are doing.
The re-greening of parts of the Sahel is little or nothing to do with the planting of trees or your reason for better crop yields. The natural grasses and other ground-cover plants are, with the extra CO2, reclaiming the desert. Many commercial greenhouses are now injecting extra CO2 into their “Atmos- pheres to increase crop yields.
So what are you panicking about? We don’t need to go to Net Zero, just do as we are doing.
Greening from global warming is what led the dinosaurs to rule the earth, after all.
That’s down to tree planting programmes, crop yields are down to efficient agriculture and better seeds.
https://www.nasa.gov/feature/ames/human-activity-in-china-and-india-dominates-the-greening-of-earth-nasa-study-shows
For all the rhetoric about droughts and famine, it cannot be disputed that the world is 5% greener than it was 20 years ago – an area twice the size of mainland USA – and that crop yields have consistently and continually increased.
The problem is not the climate, the problem is the insane Net Zero delusion, which may indeed take hundreds of years to solve if it continues much longer.
It will stop as soon as ordinary people start to understand the insanity of Net Zero AND that probably won’t be far off. If it is, then when they go hungry they’ll stop it., AND they go hungry will because this country is an Island of 70m+ who need imported food AND Net Zero means No shipping, no flying & no fossil fuels according to the FIRES report and that in 27 years time. Follow the Net Zero trail and those 70m are going to get hungry long before 2050.
It will stop as soon as ordinary people start to understand the insanity of Net Zero AND that probably won’t be far off. If it is, then when they go hungry they’ll stop it., AND they go hungry will because this country is an Island of 70m+ who need imported food AND Net Zero means No shipping, no flying & no fossil fuels according to the FIRES report and that in 27 years time. Follow the Net Zero trail and those 70m are going to get hungry long before 2050.
Political upheaval and conflict, droughts, floods and famines have always been with us. Eco-propagandists (such as yourself) can now attribute them to “climate change” – simple!
As for mass migration: that looks far more like vast droves of people struggling to escape from failed, badly governed or oppressive nations in the hope of finding a better life in the much-maligned West. Arch eco-fanatic Roger Hallam warns of “climate emergency” driven migration in the future but as with so much eco-propaganda it’s all about the prophesied disaster to come.
Global warming will take hundreds of years – IF IT CONTINUES – to reach anything that will significantly upset normal life. And we have those centuries to adapt IF IT HAPPENS.
More likely is that global warming will decline or just disappear as it has since 1998.
more adherents of the great philosopher Testiclese…
“Achieving the goals of Net Zero targets was always aspirational”
Pity that this aspiration is government policy then isn’t it.
“The reality of our (global) society is that fossil fuels are completely entwined with our industry and economy”
Of course they are. It’s why you are not scraping a subsistence level existence in some miserable rathole. Oil or starve – your choice.
The world has gotten massively greener in the last 30 years. Plants grow with less water in higher C02 environments. Ares like Sudan are helped most. The Sahara is shrinking.
The problem is not the climate, the problem is the insane Net Zero delusion, which may indeed take hundreds of years to solve if it continues much longer.
Achieving the goals of Net Zero targets was always aspirational. The reality of our (global) society is that fossil fuels are completely entwined with our industry and economy and unpicking that is going to take unprecedented policies that are far harsher than has been described already.
Humanity simply cannot deal with it.
The bad news however is that future generations are going to pay the price – not through ‘world ending’ strawman scenarios, but mass migration, political upheaval and conflict, droughts, floods and famines.
Once climate change has reached that stage it will take hundreds of years to solve.