By Mike Jonas
In your editorial “The Political Climate” in The Times, 20 May 2019, you discussed the Australian election result in the context of climate. The commentary was all one way – damning of Scott Morrison and the winning Liberal-National coalition:
…Australia has just endured its hottest ever summer and storms and dengue fever are turning up in new locations…
…The coalition – which has been, to say the least, inactive on climate change…
…It appears that the coalition attempt to portray climate change as a series of economic losses has paid off…
…There is no question that climate change is a serious issue confronting Australia and little doubt either that the coalition government is not taking it seriously…
…Mr Morrison recently responded with casual dismissiveness to a report from the United Nations which concluded that the world was sleepwalking towards an extinction crisis. Australia is does not meet its share of reducing global emissions and it is deflating to see a prime minister rewarded for such a short-sighted position…
Well, you clearly have not been paying attention. The United Nations, by its actions, makes it clear that there is no crisis. The international agreements that it has promoted impose no restrictions whatsoever on countries like China and India. Those countries are free to pump as much CO2 as they like into the atmosphere, and the rate at which they are doing so makes a mockery of any idea that Australia can have any effect by cutting its CO2 emissions. If there really was a crisis, then it would be vital for those other countries to cut their CO2 emissions too.
It would seem that the Australian public have been able to work out a few things for themselves in spite of the relentless public bullying by the climate activists, the ABC (Australia’s national broadcaster), the left-leaning newspapers (like yours, evidently), and various other influential institutions. Yes, it is bullying – anyone who dares to question the mantra comes under immediate and ferocious attack. In this inhospitable environment, the public has very sensibly made use of their ultimate weapon – their vote. As it was put very succinctly by Jo Nova (an Australian climate realist) recently:
Bullying works in public, but people vote alone.
Instead of trying to bully people into submission, it might be a very good idea for The Times to invite prominent people from all sides of the climate science debate to quietly and calmly explain their positions, so that the public would have a real opportunity to decide things like whether the science of climate really is settled, whether the climate models have any predictive skill, whether advanced nations cutting their CO2 emissions can have any measurable effect on the global temperature, and whether the cost of cutting CO2 emissions is higher than the cost of fixing any problems if and when they arise.
And also, of course, how 77 came to be 97% of 3,146 (I’ll let you look that one up for yourself).
I think you would be surprised by the strength of the arguments that have so assiduously been repressed by so much of the UK media for so long.
– – –
Anyone who can forward this letter to the editor of The Times, please do so.
Bravo! Very succinctly and accurately said! Indeed, the citizenry are waking up to the rubbish LIES of CAGW.
The Department of Geosciences at the University of Connecticut invites applications for a tenure-track faculty position at the rank of Assistant Professor in the area of deep-time paleoclimate modeling and the interactions between climate and topography. The successful candidate will complement existing department strengths in tectonics and Cenozoic paleoclimate research and will be a key member of the growing atmospheric and paleoclimate program at UConn. More information about faculty research and graduate programs in Geosciences at UConn can be found at earth.uconn.edu.
Details for the position can be found at https://academicjobsonline.org/ajo/jobs/13799 or through http://www.jobs.uconn.edu.
The University of Connecticut is an EEO/AA employer.
Why emphasize “the interactions between climate and topography”?
One would think researchers should first focus on quantitatively determining the extent to which atmospheric CO2 affects climate (or, perhaps more importantly, the extent to which atmospheric CO2 concentration changes as a result of global temperature change).
Mankind can do little to change any correlation of climate and topography.
Yes, the Aussie result it a step in the right direction and is encouraging. However, the content of this “open letter ” is a bit light. I generally don’t even bother reading “open letters” but I have a lot of respect for Mike Jonas’ opinions and technical ability, so I did read. I was disappointed.
If you are going write a letter “to ” someone , at least have the decency to send them the first copy, don’t just rant against them in public and pretend it is “to” them.
That’s very lazy and counter productive. If you look it up you will probable get sent to SkS version of rewritten history. If you have an informed point to make about the 97% ( one of the most successful lies in the politics of AGW ) then put a link to what you think so important that the editor of the Times reads. He is not going to go out if his way to prove your criticisms of his paper. Neither is this of any use to any reader here who is not already aware and does not have a source for reliable information about the 97% lie.
Greg
Taking your argument, it would have been useful if you had posted a link to the ‘97%’ so those unaware of the background could read it.
tonyb
Don Easterbrook is Professor Emeritus of Geology at Western Washington University.
and explains why this is not true…….See point 1hr 07m 05s on video
I bought a copy of The Times and I looked in their website. I could find no way of writing to the editor without paying a subscription. So I resorted to an open letter. I expect the editor will get notified by someone, and in the meantime a lot more people have read it.
Maybe the letter is a bit “light”, but it’s a complete waste of time putting in “heavy” stuff like the Tropical Troposphere or the Southern Ocean or model maths etc. So I kept it to a very simple watertight argument that anyone could understand.
I think citizenry all around the world are well awake to the CAGW rubbish and lies but unfortunately way too many of them do not vote. In Australia turning up to vote is compulsory at both Federal and State elections and thus all those CAGWarmist promoting politicians are readily reminded in no uncertain terms that their horse manure fearmongering is not helping their election prospects.
The pollies of Oz just got a quick, swift kick in the electoral groin as a reminder. The Greenards will just laugh it off because otherwise their whole product just evaporates but for the centre-left mainstream it is like shock therapy and I hope they fully recover.
So, on a positive not can I suggest that rather than prospective doom from CO2 emissions be used to get the kids on the street, that voluntary voting just encourages alarmist politics and that will surely spell prospective doom for democracy. If you can put up with death and taxes then you can put up with turning up at a polling booth or electoral commission office to have your name signed off and be given a ballot paper every 2 to 5 years.
Unfortunately, you waste your breath using logic and reason to persuade those entrenched in a position based on emotion, or driven by ulterior motives. “There are none so blind as those who will not see.”
You’re right. We’re dealing with a quasi religious matter here, and there’s no point in asserting that my dogma is better than your dogma. Climate realists should be campaigning for governments to adapt to whatever version of climate change politicians fear. If they fear floods, then ensure drainage systems are adequate, and that buildings are not built in flood plains. If you fear drought, then build or improve irrigation and water storage systems. If wind, then stronger building codes. If heat or cold, then better insulation and ventilation. Don’t for heaven’s sake tax carbon dioxide. That is only a virtue signalling exercise, that kills jobs and taxes the poor.
Richard – what you say is correct. That’s why, when talking to such people, you should try to ensure that third parties are listening. It’s through others that the entrenched can eventually be persuaded or dislodged. (Another reason for mine being an open letter).
Regarding the “”Times””. Here in South Australia, one of the hottest parts
of this vast country, we usually get very hot summers, over 40 C, but this
year overall it was a cool summer.
True we did have one week of really hot wether, but as usual its very dry in
this State, so it was bearable, but overall it was a coolish one.
MJE VK5ELL
OK Coober Pedy gets pretty hot but is higher lattitude S.A. really hotter than N.T. or Queesnland?
Yes Greg South Australia does get very hot at times. It is a matter of geography.
Much of the north of the state is desert, & the area to the north of the state is extreme desert. When the wind blows from the north it brings air that has been baking over those deserts straight down over the main inhabited area of the state.
Yes again it is much hotter than the tropics under these conditions, which are usually followed by an icy blast from the southern ocean, which lowers averages. In many years within a few hundred miles of the Equator, & can’t remember a maximum above 33C. I also can’t remember a minimum below 24C. It is the high minimum temperatures that give high averages in the tropics, not the maximums.
It is the rising minima and ‘averaging’ maximum and minimum temperatures that lead to the claims of increasing temperatures.
Temperature is the wrong metric for heat content in any case. The correct metric is kilojoules per kilogram. As dry air has significantly lower enthalpy than humid air, averaging temperatures is a nonsense.
It is more like the fact that BoM used ACORN2 “data” to support “the hottest summer ever”.
http://www.waclimate.net/acorn2/imgs/century.gif
“Temperature area averages are derived from the ACORN-SAT version 2 dataset. ”
http://www.bom.gov.au/climate/current/season/aus/summary.shtml
Lee,
It doesn’t matter – temperature is the incorrect metric.
A volume of air in a ‘cool’ 75F in a misty Louisana bayou (or for that matter in Brisbane) but with close to 100% humidity after an afternoon thunderstorm, has twice the energy content in kilojoules per kilogram of a same volume of 100F air but close to zero humidity in the Arizona desert (or for that matter close to Alice Springs)
The so called greenhouse effect is trapping energy not ‘trapping temperature’ – so measure energy content nuch of which is due to latent heat.
Temperature is an intensive variable so average temperature is a nonsense.
Michael, if you are talking about “hot wether”, shouldn’t that be “as ewesual”?
letters@thetimes.co.uk
The Times is like a print version of the BBC along with The Guardian, Independent, Observer, etc. – all pro-EU, pro-CAGW, pro -immigration. It is absolutely pointless talking to them since it’s not so much opinions that they share but a common agenda, so they are immune to reasoned argument. The audience to reach is the brain-washed public but that’s virtually impossible now since the MSM have ganged up to prevent open discussion on these issues. It is quite shocking how rapidly freedom of speech and the printed word has been usurped without too much of a fuss being made …
You said it. Good comment.
From a WUWT article a day or two ago:
Only in the deepest blue regions of the U.S. can learned judges decide that the First Amendment does not apply in the very circumstances the Framers imagined it must as they wrote the Bill of Rights.
The worm turns. Slowly, but surely turns. To quote Edmund Burke: “The people never give up their liberties but under some delusion.”
Great letter! But even if delivered, in person, to the Editor of The Times and/or other media outlets it is, sadly, unlikely to see the light of day. Let’s face it, those who control the media control the narrative to the public and they are adept at pushing their agenda. They have even dreamed up, and explained to the lay public, their justification for not even allowing any further debate on the issue of “climate change”.
They continue to agitate for civil insurrection via events like the “Climate Extinction” nonsense and weekly climate strikes by schoolchildren. Orwell was more prescient than we could ever have imagined.
Not prescient, he simply wrote the blueprint. He intended to warn us but someone seemed to think it was a good idea.
Like Gene Roddenbury was not prescient of mobile phones when he gave Capt. Kirk et co. their oyster shell “communicators” , he planted a dream in a generation who eventually made it happen.
Orwell simply extrapolated from what he had observed in Russia and the Spanish Civil war.
Australia’s CO2 emissions matter not one bit. Even the coal it sends to China. If not from Australia, China will get it elsewhere. Now you can choose to “leave it in the ground.” But then that means Australia is economically weaker, and from economic strength flows military strength.
And China will then one day use its military might to come and help itself to Australia’s mineral bounty.
Choose wisely.
Good point Joel, the watermelons are constantly stepping-up concerted efforts in this area as well. There’s a never ending stream of daily media and trolling commentator attacks on western arms providers and military spending or operations. Meanwhile there’s this constant counter stream of gushy articles praising military developments and actions of countries like China, Russia and Iran. This seems to be part of a wider leftist narrative to attempt to strip the West of economic and military power and to give comfort and apologetics the the most authoritarian states in existence who also happen to be the most environmentally unaccountable and destructive countries on the planet.
A perpetual Free-Pass!
Good luck fighting a war with wind and solar power. Battery-powered tanks? Missiles? Warships?
Nicely put, Mike.
But, given that the Times has gone full-on with the green madness like all the other UK mainstream media, I’m not holding my breath.
Even the more-right Daily Telegraph is signed up to full membership of the Green Protection Racket, complete with in-house copy-n-paster of renewable press releases, and a prohibition on questioning anything claimed by the Green Blob and its luvvie out-riders.
“In this inhospitable environment, the public has very sensibly made use of their ultimate weapon – their vote”
Same as Brexit and Trump. Ordinary people have simply had enough of relentless bullying from the ‘elite’.
Printed out and posted as requested.
Thanks.
“I love a sunburnt country/A land of sweeping plains, /Of ragged mountain ranges, /Of droughts and flooding rains.” From the poem My Country written by Dorothea Mackellar around the turn of last century & describes Australia’s sometimes harsh climate then. The climate was hot then, the millennium drought of 1880’s was bad.
Weather Bureau records do not seem to include this data. The Times is a bit off in their article.
Firey is absolutely correct
example
I have a 20 plus acre property near Daylesford in the Centre of the southern mainland state of Victoria
For the first four months of the year we totalled 71 mm of rain fall-not quite 3 inches in four months
The grass was brown and dry and there were forest and grass fires in the district almost every week and it was warm to hot most of the time
Contributors to the MSM were writing articles about how this dryness was “unusual” and was caused by of course climate change
Along comes May the last month of Autumn and to date we have had 180mm or 7 inches of rain in one month
Is that caused by the same climate change too? -or does it just reflect the known variability of Australia’s rainfall patterns known to all Australian experienced farmers and encapsulated in the poem quoted by Firey
The UK’s MSM — The Times, BBC, Sky UK, The Guardian, Independent, Observer, along with the internet players of Google, Facebook, etc., etc., have not got the message, the majority of Australia, like the UK (and it recent EU vote) do not believe you.
It should be painfully obvious to any independent observer that in these two nations, the populations voted for what they see as the best choice — and that was not what the MSM wanted.
And it’s not a message or choice that the MSM like. Tough! The perception by the majority is that the MSM is a bunch of complacent toadies that spins the truth to fit the MSM’s politically motivated agenda. Get with it MSM, or you will be perceived as increasingly irrelevant, increasingly playing only the tune that your Globalist paymasters wish you to play. It is not about populism or national isolationism, it’s about national sovereignty, where and how people see their place in the world, and doing the best for the nation within a global context. It is about people noting that the Climate industry and the Greens like the EU and the UN, are seen as hypocritical, illogically dictatorial and bullying, and increasingly irrelevant to their lives. These organizations do not appear to do what they profess and propagandize to be about.
Well put, tom0mason. I’d say that it’s impossible to get an opinion contradicting CAGW published in the national daily newspapers – I’ve tried.
I’ve had some letters published locally however, complete with figures supporting my comments. I’ve not had one ‘warmist’ reply with data – it’s always ‘trust the science’, with some remark belittling my position or the source of the information. Ad hominem tactics, nothing more. Not one shred of evidence have I seen in these exchanges that indicates they’ve done any reading around the subject or have probed deeper – due diligence, so to speak.
But – never give up! About two years ago, the threat of a wind farm loomed over the beautiful part of rural England close to where I live. That prompted a good tussle between myself and the warming brigade in the local newspaper. As usual, they didn’t present a shred of data.
I can’t claim any credit for the outcome, but feel that I did the best that I could by contributing to the arguments.
The planning application for these monstrosities was refused.
I cannot remember the last time I saw a copy of the Times on sale – I’d bet the most frequently read article in the times now is obituaries of its former readers.
Hottest summer ever? What they mean is, since we started keeping records. “Ever” means 5 billion years. The records cover a century or so.
These people are scientifically illiterate.
You won’t even get an acknowledgement of receipt, let alone a proper reply.
I like the way Dengue Fever is claimed to have increased since the 1960s because of ‘climate change’ and the fact our loving and caring elites decided to ban DDT.
I’m in Townsville NQ and the areas north, south and west had protracted epic rainfalls in February this year (1,400 to 2,000 mm in 13 days), but we did not get the predicted widespread Dengue outbreak.
In fact during the past decade personal mosquito bite experience is well below what it was 30 years ago. I’m not sure why that should be, I’ve considered that 30 to 40 years ago insect screens were not so universally used but now they are, and as a result mosquitoes can’t breed or live within a house, and they rarely get past the now ubiquitous screen doors either. Less blood for mosquitoes to breed with seems to be one of the reason, plus people now think about where mosquitoes breed and empty the water.
From personal experience I can say that one of the biggest sources of urban and suburban mosquitoes are new developments like housing tracts and shopping centers that have poor roof plumbing, poor storm-water runoff design which allows underground pooling, and poor sprinkler systems that keep those drains charged with water all year round. If designers and inspectors eliminate these sources, the outdoor mosquito plagues go away fast when the system dries, and they take a lot longer to establish spread in numbers from such locations during the wet season.
“And also, of course, how 77 came to be 97% of 3,146 (I’ll let you look that one up for yourself).” Just to help the editor of the Times I would like to draw attention to a summary of the background I wrote for other purposes some years ago. It can be found at https://www.dropbox.com/s/0g11ppg21367ibd/Oreskes%20et%20al.pdf?dl=0
I suspect that the first MSM newspaper that exorcises its CAGW viral Meme and starts publishing the TRUE facts relating to the climate will make a killing. There is a huge raft of yet unpublished papers just waiting to be revealed.
The public loves reading about lies which have been exposed for what they are.
I agree. IMO that is exactly what Rush Limbaugh did–tapped into the large pool of anti-liberalism that existed in the US and benefited by doing so.
Why you think that there is a vast majority of main news outlets understand that climate action is needed whereas only places like Breitbart and Fox news (both laughing stocks amongst the media) think scientists know nothing.
Is it because they understand that action is needed?
Why did the director of CFACT change sides? Perhaps he sees that a possible future needs mitigation?
Is it time that you reconsider your positions. OR at least start providing scientifically backed evidence that there will be no future (in only a few decades) climate crisis. THERE WILL MOST LIKELY BE NO CLIMATE CATASTROPHY, but rainfall/wind/sea level will cause difficulties.
You first.
Please supply scientifically backed evidence that “rainfall/wind/sea level will cause difficulties” beyond what the planet has experienced in the last several hundred years.
I suggest you start your research with the IPCC reports, and then peruse the solid data from Roger Pielke Jr (University of Colorado) and from NASA Distinguished Scientist John Christie, Director of the Earth System Science Center Huntsville AL (UAH).
Agreed.
“An extraordinary claim requires extraordinary proof.”
“laughing stocks amongst the media”
ghalfrunt, you say that as if it is a negative.
If, as you say (almost certainly correctly), there will be no climate catastrophe, why take any action at all?
Graemethecat: exactly, no ‘action’ is needed (whatever that’s supposed to mean to the politicians who prattle on about climate change action) – just pull the plug from all government funding to do with the CO2 nonsense, and spend the money on things that matter in the real world such as healthcare.
The EU for example is wasting billions of Euros on ‘mitigating climate change’ – the European Commission has put forward its future budgetary plans, which include spending a quarter of its entire finances on tackling climate change.
Under the new proposals, covering the period between 2021 and 2027, a total of €320 billion will be spent on climate adaptation and mitigation, an increase of €114 billion.
The European Commission’s President, Jean-Claude Juncker, said the plan was “an important moment for our Union. The new budget is an opportunity to shape our future as a new, ambitious Union of 27 bound together by solidarity.”
Under the current budget, €206 billion is already being spent out to 2020 on combating climate change through investments in energy efficiency, renewable energy, environmental protection, and other carbon reduction schemes. This represents 20 percent of the budget, and so the draft proposal represents an overall increase of 5 percent.
Earlier this year, French President Emmanuel Macron floated the idea that 40 percent of the EU’s budget should be spent on making the transition to a low-carbon economy, commenting the amount “would allow for this transition to be ambitious rather than measured, as it is today.”
Environmental groups were also quick to point out a higher figure was needed to meet the goals of the Paris climate agreement – not a surprise!
Markus Trilling, policy coordinator at the CAN Europe said that “it is a good sign that the European Commission considers increasing the share of the future budget dedicated to climate action”, but that so far “the green potential of the EU budget has regrettably been untapped.”
“To bring European economies closer to the Paris Agreement, the post-2020 EU budget must spend at least 40 percent on the decarbonisation of energy, industry and mobility systems, and ensure not one cent will benefit fossil fuel-related activities and infrastructure.
Roland Joebstl, a policy officer at the European Environmental Bureau, said the plan should also be more “Paris-compatible”.
“An increase of climate spending does not fix a budget that, overall, still fails to be carbon neutral.”
The budget will now go to the European Parliament and Council for final approval where revisions could be made to the level of climate ambition.
The madness continues.
The laughingstock FOX News pundits had the collusion story right for 2 years, not from political leanings, but from facts and investigative reporting. All the other broadcast network and cable networks, i.e. the MSM, had it WRONG. Who is really the laughingstocks on that and other issues?
The Democrats and MSM want Trump’s taxes and financial records to get his BUSINESS records of financial dealings in Russia so they can claim that that is where the COLLUSION lies. Trump is an international businessman. Doing business does not mean collusion but the MSM will spin anything to the Dems desires. Note the one day repetition that Pelosi “got under Trump’s skin” talking point used throughout the MSM yesterday.
The MSM coverage of the Trump tax cut had the majority of the electorate believing that they wouldn’t get a tax cut before the last election when in the end after tax day 80% of them actually did. Even after tax day polls still show the brainwashing worked. Again, MSM coverage was false.
You, as a leftist, should be very happy. In my opinion, if the media was balanced, Republicans would benefit by about 3 to 5 % higher overall voter support. The continued voter suppression by the MSM/Democrat party propaganda machine has been effective for 50 years, but amazingly the populace still elects Republican presidents.
Also note that Mueller’s failure to give the NO COLLUSION report last spring probably allowed the Democrats to retake the House and allows the ongoing witch hunt now unfolding. If Muller testifies in congress, I would hope that would be one of the central lines of questioning by the Republicans, since his delay was obviously intentional, and specifically to effect the election.
You guys have been screaming crap like that for 50 years. Put up or shut up, G half runt.
The Times today. Australia to open a coal field the size of Britain. Galilee Basin.
Let me tell everyone that Americans (U.S.) did not pay attention when U.S. President Barack Obama and Chinese President Xi Jinping struck a new, more ambitious deal to cut their greenhouse gas emissions on 12th November 2014.
See U.S.-China Joint Announcement on Climate Change
Para 3 is reproduced here:
3. Today, the Presidents of the United States and China announced their respective post-2020 actions on climate change, recognizing that these actions are part of the longer range effort to transition to low-carbon economies, mindful of the global temperature goal of 2℃. The United States intends to achieve an economy-wide target of reducing its emissions by 26%-28% below its 2005 level in 2025 and to make best efforts to reduce its emissions by 28%. China intends to achieve the peaking of CO2 emissions around 2030 and to make best efforts to peak early and intends to increase the share of non-fossil fuels in primary energy consumption to around 20% by 2030. Both sides intend to continue to work to increase ambition over time.
I get frustrated when commentators and politicians and alarmists claim that Australia is doing nothing . Under the liberal government Australia is one of the few countries on track to meet its Paris commitments. I personally wish we were doing nothing , it’s such an exercise in futility and the money can be spent doing useful things like hospitals and better security. The reality is these lunatic alarmists of the left will not be satisfied until there is 100% renewable and a totally dis functional and wrecked economy.
From the article: “The United Nations, by its actions, makes it clear that there is no crisis. The international agreements that it has promoted impose no restrictions whatsoever on countries like China and India. Those countries are free to pump as much CO2 as they like into the atmosphere, and the rate at which they are doing so makes a mockery of any idea that Australia can have any effect by cutting its CO2 emissions. If there really was a crisis, then it would be vital for those other countries to cut their CO2 emissions too.”
I think that is the best argument to make to Australians.
Why should Australians destroy their economy by using windmills when others don’t feel the need to do anything about reducing CO2 production? Even a thick-headed Lefty ought to be able to see there is something out of whack here.
Our thick headed Lefties here in OZ are thicker than most.
The Times has expressed different views in the past – and sometimes worth reading.
https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/2500-new-coal-plants-will-thwart-any-paris-pledges-ctx3t7thnf7
I once had my opinion on climate change published in my local paper it was called “climate change is a lot of hot air” and my points were made but after every point an expert gave a negation of my points which made me look just stupid. I don’t think the main stream media allows anyone the right of reply perhaps because of limited time or space but social media does not have that restriction anyone can air there opinions.
would love to see your letter, especially where the so called experts rebutted your points
what do you expect from Britain, they plowed under a forest to put up wind turbines
The climate change zealots may have been given a black eye in the Australian election but rest assured they haven’t gone away. There is work to be done and it has to be different to what’s happening at the moment.
The rebuttal’s on this blog and elsewhere are excellent but I’m suggesting they are ineffective in getting a message to large areas of the population.
They present too much detail, too many graphs and too many numbers.
A very big percentage of voters simply haven’t a clue and have formed an opinion that is based on the fact that “well it must be right because everyone says so” or “I believe the scientists.”
Fortunately, many of these people are not necessarily spooked by the fear campaign, at least not yet. Scarily, again, many are also the parents of school kids and we all know what’s happening to them.
They will be voters in 3 years’ time and many will carry their uninformed parents with them, sweeping them up in the tears and hysteria emanating from a one-sided education system.
Masses of people think that
1/ The polar bears are just about all gone.
2/ Ditto for Arctic ice.
3/ Carbon pollution refers to soot in the air.
4/ The seas are rising at some alarming rate
They have no idea about homogenisation, UHI’s or how miniscule all this so called “warming” actually is.
I’m appealing to someone who has the wherewithal to get the ball rolling and start producing brief (30 seconds?) grabs that can be deployed on social media, newspapers and radio. We need brief, hard hitting factual good news.
It will be costly but could be crowd funded and perhaps backed by a cashed up benefactor.
By all means, keep pumping out the graphs, the numbers, facts and so on, but it is going to the wrong people (in the political sense) and eventually the scare juggernaut will win.
I said 5 years ago that this battle would be won at the ballot box. It is heartening to see that people are starting to wake up to this fact.
For a comprehensive list of contacts for
The Times and The Sunday Times
Head Office Postal Address
News UK & Ireland Ltd
1 London Bridge Street
London SE1 9GF
United Kingdom
from https://www.news.co.uk/contact-us/
For a list of email addresses:
https://www.thetimes.co.uk/static/contact-us/
Whilst it does seem at times that we are just banging our heads against a
brick wall, taking the long view the lights wall brown out some day.
Snag is that by then we here in Australia will be e in one hell of a mess.
If we are lucky it will first happen to ether or both the states of South
Australia and Victoria, then the Federal Government can say, “”Look at that “.
Perhaps the Morrison government can take the Greens at their word, and
when they say that Renewable are now cheaper than coal, then remove all
subsides and most important remove the ruling that says that the utilities
have to take their poor quality energy.. Thus the Green nonsense will finally
die.
MJE VK5ELL