Dan Wootton On The Biased BBC & The Orgy Of Hypocrisy

Reposted from NOT A LOT OF PEOPLE KNOW THAT

NOVEMBER 3, 2021

By Paul Homewood

I don’t know which image of unbridled hypocrisy, sickening privilege and total tone-deafness made me fume more.

The parade of 400 private jets parked up at Scottish airports as world leaders, royalty and billionaires gushed out more carbon within a 24-hour period than most of us will in a lifetime in order to arrive at Cop26 and preach that we must all change our lives forever more in order to reach Net Zero by 2050.

Or the dangerous Insulate Britain criminals splayed once more on the roads, this time in Manchester, to stop more hardworking Brits from going to work, taking their kids to school or getting to hospital when most of these eco-terrorists haven’t even bothered to properly insulate their own homes.

And that’s just the start of the maddening spectacle of Flop26 over the past 48 hours.

The parade of 400 private jets parked up at Scottish airports as world leaders, royalty and billionaires gushed out more carbon within a 24-hour period than most of us will in a lifetime

There have been hyperbolic statements about the end of the world designed to terrify our children from the great and the good; a sweary display from that omnipresent sulky teen Greta Thunberg; no shows from China and Russia; the Archbishop of Canterbury comparing the climate debate to Nazi appeasement; and Prince Charles blatantly wading into politics yet again by demanding a ‘vast military-style campaign’ to reduce emissions.

In fact, I’d go as far to say there’s never been a bigger disconnect between everyday Brits and the political, business and media elite determined to tell us what we must do while not changing a thing about their own lovely lives.

And I say all of this as a passionate environmentalist.

I actually spent much of my own youth as some sort of 1980s Kiwi Thunberg wannabe, writing songs and campaigning about the hole in the Ozone Layer that, you might remember, was going to lead to our imminent demise.

Yup, I was one of those terrified youngsters back then who listened to the environmental doomsday merchants with complete terror.

But guess what? Moderate changes to chlorofluorocarbons (CFCs) in spray cans and refrigerants over a period of time have meant that the Ozone hole has actually shrunk in recent years!

The world survived the warnings from the hysterical campaigners (again) and I learnt a big lesson that constant scare campaigns from people who jet around the globe in private jets is not the best way to tackle climate change or environmental issues.

This is where you would hope the so-called independent British broadcast media would step in to bring a degree of perspective to Cop26 proceedings.

Chance would be a fine thing.

Instead, we’ve had hysterical Channel 4 News anchor Jon Snow tweeting on his way to the summit: ‘En route to COP26 – trees and branches affected by climate change have slowed our rail journey – tho the branches have been cleared we are doen (sic) to 5mph – What an irony! What a message! We MUST change! Dare we hope that we shall?’

Er, is a so-called impartial broadcaster really trying to claim that branches never fell onto train lines thanks to storms before the so-called ‘climate emergency’?

Sky News’ craven coverage has been unsurprising, given they are an official sponsor of Cop26 and run a dire daily climate show.

But I’d like to see one of their journalists question the company’s own chief executive Dana Strong, who spent the first half of the year commuting to her job in London from Philadelphia in the US via – you guessed it – private jet!

And, despite forcing its own TV dramas to start including characters driving electric cars and rejecting meat for vegan dishes, Sky had the audacity to defend the 3,500-mile transatlantic commute.

A spokesperson for the company said: ‘Many CEOs leading multinational companies have schedules that mean it is appropriate to use different modes of transport. It is critical to counterbalance this, that is why we offset carbon emissions caused by the business travel of Sky employees.’

Translation: While we’re telling our viewers to stop going on holiday and reduce meat consumption, if you’re rich, you don’t need to change a damn thing.

And that’s despite Sky’s own research concluding that its viewers are put off by ‘fear-mongering, guilt-tripping, blaming or preaching’ when it comes to the environment and instead want broadcasters ‘to lead by example’.

The hypocrisy is off the scale.

Speaking of which, European Commission president Ursula Von der Leyen should have been laughed out the room when she called the summit a ‘moment of truth’ for the planet, given she is a private jet addict who, on one occasion, used one to travel just 31 miles.

But most concerning has been a full-fledged BBC climate campaign masquerading as journalism.

Perhaps that was best illustrated by the corporation’s climate editor Justin Rowlatt, an anti-Trump protestor whose sister is one of the Insulate Britain zealots arrested for blocking roads.

His ‘interview’ with the Prime Minister amounted to a shouting match, with a clearly exasperated Boris Johnson helplessly turning to look at his advisers on a number of occasions.

In one exchange, Rowlatt yelled: ‘You’re going to the developing world saying ‘phase out coal’, at the same time as not ruling out a new coal mine in Britain. A new coal mine in Britain! We started the industrial revolution. We should close the mines!’

Er, what the hell happened to BBC reporters keeping their highly controversial political opinions to themselves?

As the PM tried to reply, Rowlatt continued his tirade, saying: ‘Why don’t you just say, we’re just not going to open this coal mine? Why don’t you be clear on the coal mine. The Chinese will just say: ‘We can’t take this guy seriously.’

So the BBC is now campaigning for the closure of all British coal mines…

After the PM tried to move on, Rowlatt continued: ‘I’m sorry to bang on about the coal, but the point is, it makes you look, no, it makes you look a little bit weaselly not answering the coal question.’

Boris replied: ‘Sorry, I’ve answered the coal question.’

What he should have done is end the interview then and there by saying: If you want to ask me questions as a journalist then fine, but I’m not here to be hectored by a BBC campaigner, that’s not your damn job.

But that’s what was always going to happen once the Corporation officially decided that issue of climate change was settled and that its staff no longer needed to reflect both sides of the argument; it gave its journalists a licence to hector.

The media should have one focus this week: Working out how to tackle the world’s largest carbon emitter China whose leader Xi Jinping didn’t even bother to turn up.

Without change from that terrible communist regime, which is building 43 new coal-fired power plants and will soon be responsible for more than a third of global carbon emissions, much of the discussion is futile.

I dare the Insulate Britain loons to book a flight to Shanghai or Beijing and try to block a Chinese road.

They’d be having to deal with a lot more than a few ink stains on their face or an angry Essex mum let me tell you.

And an important reminder to the BBC: The UK is now responsible for less than one per cent of global carbon emissions. Our carbon emissions have fallen faster than any other nation in the G20.

Tackling the topic of China’s lack of action seems far too difficult when asking Brits to fundamentally change our way of life is on offer instead.

But Boris and the Beeb should be warned: While most folk like me absolutely want to protect the planet, we have not consented to fundamental, largely unnecessary and very costly changes to the way we live our lives.

And that position is only going to be hardened as all the utter hypocrites of Cop26 fly out of Glasgow tonight in their private jets onto the next glamorous location. 

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/debate/article-10157499/I-want-save-planet-resent-told-it.html

4.7 25 votes
Article Rating
181 Comments
Oldest
Newest Most Voted
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
Scissor
November 4, 2021 6:02 am

One should worry first about “saving” oneself.

PaulH
Reply to  Scissor
November 4, 2021 7:32 am

Even if the planet required “saving” there isn’t one thing the likes of Dan Wootton and his fellow travelers can do that would make any difference.

Richard Page
Reply to  PaulH
November 4, 2021 12:01 pm

I don’t mind doing recycling (if only it was) and other reasonable things in the cause of having a clean place to live but I certainly would never have agreed to net zero.

observer
Reply to  PaulH
November 4, 2021 6:59 pm

His ‘interview’ with the Prime Minister amounted to a shouting match, with a clearly exasperated Boris Johnson helplessly turning to look at his advisers on a number of occasions.

I have absolutely no sympathy for Boris Johnson. He knows this is all balderdash, and if he stuck up for the truth – and stood up to his dreadful wife – instead of being an amoral jellyfish he could have sent the journalist packing.

Instead he looks like an utter hypocrite… which of course he is.

mikee
Reply to  observer
November 4, 2021 7:11 pm

The PM is influenced by nu nut and his blind eye.

SxyxS
Reply to  Scissor
November 4, 2021 11:22 am

ALL the people at the summit have already saved themselves.
Now they are trying to leave the peasants behind as far and fast as they can.
Their annual carbon footprint is probably 100*bigger than the footprint of a peasant in 100 years.
They have diesel genarators with 1000s of gallons of fuel,dozens of solar panels and a secret home far away from enrichment and border crisis ( probably new Zealand)

Eugene McDermott
Reply to  Scissor
November 4, 2021 4:52 pm

if insulate Britain lay on the roads in China they would drive tanks over them.

lee
Reply to  Eugene McDermott
November 5, 2021 1:52 am

The squeaky wheel gets the grease.

Zig Zag Wanderer
Reply to  lee
November 5, 2021 2:57 am

The squeaky wheel gets the grease.

Sometimes it just gets replaced

beng135
Reply to  Scissor
November 7, 2021 9:55 am

Exactly. “Saving the planet” has to be the most egregious form of delusions of grandeur. I suppose “saving the Universe” would be worse….

Last edited 2 months ago by beng135
November 4, 2021 6:08 am

Apparently, parties over Zoom are somehow missing something.

Richard Page
Reply to  Tom Halla
November 4, 2021 10:14 am

Fistbumps?

richard
November 4, 2021 6:10 am

More than anything the display of jets and life styles are leading to more rejection of the climate change agenda. It is now openly mocked. The bigger the concern the bigger the private jet- you cannot make this sh** up. Their days are numbered as their policies will hit the fan- quicker than expected –

Warning signals: magnesium, aluminium and cement
Just a handful of specialists seem to have noticed the significance of the recent magnesium shortage. Since the production of magnesium requires a lot of electricity, western companies got out of this business a long time ago. Many here were even happy to leave these “dirty” activities to China with its abundant and cheap coal-fired power generation. At the same time, one could then lash out at China as “the world’s biggest climate polluter.”
Since then, magnesium production had to be cut back there, not only because of electricity prices, but also because the power plants had exhausted their CO2 quotas, which were fixed by the state. China, too, is now firmly in the grip of CO2 hysteria.
This has triggered a chain reaction that no one seems to have had on the radar. Magnesium is one of the most important alloying elements for high-quality aluminium alloys. The value chain today runs as follows: No CO2 means no magnesium, which means no aluminium. Period.
Similar rationales apply to steel and cement, and in principle to all other metals. How are we supposed to install at least 150,000 wind turbines that will be needed in Germany alone in the future if we are neither able to produce neither steel nor cement for them? Green hydrogen and similar “alternatives” can only be exalted by people who have no idea whatsoever of such mundane terms as energy efficiency or cost-benefit ratio”

Richard Page
Reply to  richard
November 4, 2021 10:21 am

We’ve taken several hundred years to slowly build up this modern society; the technology, materials and expertise to live a very good life and we’ve been learning how better to live with the rest of the planet, little by little. Along comes this bunch of Muppets who want to tear all of it down and destroy everything that’s been built in just 20-30 years – they are completely deranged.

michael hart
Reply to  Richard Page
November 4, 2021 11:35 am

Quite correct, Richard.
Also, it ought to be funny, listening to the world’s engineers being lectured about efficiency by people who dropped maths, physics and chemistry before they left high school. But it mostly makes me depressed.

And if they believed even half of their own rhetoric, we would now have a large fleet of new nuclear reactors coming on line. Last time I checked, we have zero. Thanks, Boris, and every previous cowardly PM going back more than 30 years.

Peta of Newark
Reply to  richard
November 4, 2021 11:35 am

Another wild-card from this corner, wildly off-topic – or is it?
Think it over, while you’re still able to think. Keep some Epsom Salt handy – maybe add a pinch to your coffee now & again.

Magnesium is an extremely important neurotransmitter in most critters with ‘nervous systems’
Anyone with experince of farm livestock, esp of outdoor bred/reared/kept beef cows, will know about ‘Grass Staggers’
It presents as identical to Mad Cow Disease.
It is invariably fatal for cows, no matter how quickly you notice its onset and pump (at least) a pint of MgSO4 solution into her

For us, Mg keeps our hearts beating. Ours are ‘funny things’ in that they prefer Mg as their neurotransmitter but also, that they can burn saturated fat directly.
C16 fat Coconut Oil or as in Cetane = the main ingredient of ‘real’ diesel in the same way that Octane = Real Petrol.
That tickles me, We run on diesel.
Don’t tell Boris – his head may explode…
(on 2nd thoughts……………..)

In the same way as it keeps cows on their feet, so it does us, but it’s also vital in Vitamin D metabolism
And when our Vitamin D levels fall for whatever reason, so our mental health falls off a similar cliff as our immune systems do.
It matters not how sunny a clime you live in, if you ain’t got any Mg inside you all that ray-catching was wasted time.
There’s a wondertion for these modern times.

It also holds our bones together and thus when (typically) Grandmama ‘falls’ and breaks her foot, leg or hips, it’s because she was/is deficient in Mg.
..

Looking at the Periodic Table, Mg is, pretty well, an alkali metal and is thus one of the first and fastest things to disappear from soils should said soil become ‘acidified’
Calcium also – but if the farm runs out of Calcium in the soil, there ain’t nothing much left. Period

Acidification occurs naturally but is hugely accelerated via the copious addition of Nitrogen fertiliser farmland soil. Even worse when the farmer has a tendency to use Roundup – thus requiring he use 50% more fertiliser than he otherwise would.
You do know what I’m talking about there don’t you?

How much weight might anyone attach to a theory that Mg deficiency in our diets is contributing to not only physical ill-health, but also mental derangements?
At which point is someone/anyone, other than yours truly, gonna get to their feet and positively assert that Climate Science is such a thing?

Depends who you ask regarding diet and health. The minimum anyone will say is that 25% of the US population are deficient, some say 75% are deficient

How long has this been going on?
Put that another way, how long have people been flocking to places called ‘spa

It is A Very Big and Fantastic Place this world innit

edit for spellings…..

Last edited 2 months ago by Peta of Newark
beng135
Reply to  Peta of Newark
November 9, 2021 9:16 am

Thanks for that. I looked at my daily vitamin tablet and it only had 33% of daily magnesium?!? Looks like I’ll get a better supplement.

November 4, 2021 6:12 am

Dutch television shows an elderly couple before their destroyed (by floods) home.
They say: “we never have witnessed this in our entire life”,
Now, climate is the average weather condition over 30 years.
But the TV reporter adds: “we see the harmfull effects of climate change right now”

Tom Abbott
Reply to  David Dirkse
November 4, 2021 8:17 am

Lack of perspective, and confusing climate with weather, is what they are doing. The TV reporter saw harmful effects from weather. Weather has been causing harmful effects since the beginning of time, long before humans came on the scene.

Leo Smith
Reply to  David Dirkse
November 4, 2021 9:07 am

As I look out of the window I can truly say that I have never witnessed that in my entire life.

observer
Reply to  Leo Smith
November 4, 2021 7:05 pm

I’m looking out the window, and I’m certainly not seeing any “crisis”

Ben Vorlich
Reply to  David Dirkse
November 4, 2021 9:27 am

Just because you can’t remember something it doesn’t mean it never happened.

I can’t remember Queens Park FC winning the Scottish Cup, but they’ve won it 10 times more than any team apart from Rangers and Celtic. As their last win was in 1893 nobody alive can remember it.

SxyxS
Reply to  David Dirkse
November 4, 2021 11:29 am

I am pretty sure i watched an old documentary about the flood/storm of the century (I think it was around 1957 or 1965 )and they said that this flood has destroyed huge parts of Dams/Levys in holland and that many many square miles were flooded,
and not just a single house.

This claim is as crazy as saying that an explosion of a grenade was the worst thing that happened in Hiroshima.

Michael in Dublin
Reply to  SxyxS
November 4, 2021 12:05 pm

End of January beginning of February 1953.

SxyxS
Reply to  Michael in Dublin
November 4, 2021 12:24 pm

Thx,
found another one in Holland.
1634 so called great man killer flood 15.000 + victims.
Obviously nothing compared to a crying old couple nowadays but worth mentioning.

Last edited 2 months ago by SxyxS
Andrew Dickens
Reply to  Michael in Dublin
November 4, 2021 1:34 pm

I lived in South Essex, just onshore from Canvey Island, which was completely flooded by the storm surge in 1953. My school was used for Canvey evacuees. About 100 people in the UK died, some 50 of them from Canvey. Many more died in Holland.

If we’d had a climate problem since then you’d have expected a repeat. Fortunately we haven’t.

Dave Andrews
Reply to  Andrew Dickens
November 5, 2021 8:00 am

According to the book ‘Outrageous Waves’ by Basil Cracknell in the UK the 1953 floods caused great damage and loss of life all along the \east coast but especially in the Thames Estuary and on Canvey Island. More than 300 died.

The flood was much worse in Holland. 1800 people died and 65,000 had to be evacuated

Michael in Dublin
Reply to  David Dirkse
November 4, 2021 12:03 pm

I remember in the fifties a teacher telling my primary school class about the flooding in the Netherlands which because of the people adapting has not re-occurred in the past 68 years. This is what we should be looking at for the future not some fantasy of climate engineering in 30 climate zones and sub-zones.

Richard Page
Reply to  Michael in Dublin
November 4, 2021 1:04 pm

If there is one thing we really, really should have learned from being in the EU it is that a ‘one size fit’s all’ approach simply does not work. Every region has different situations, needs and requires a different approach to ecological management. Trying to impose any kind of global solution will be disastrous – Chinese dams in Africa are a case in point.

Michael in Dublin
Reply to  Richard Page
November 4, 2021 4:29 pm

Funny that the largest dams built in South Africa up to the seventies have been sturdy and provided water for millions and boosted agriculture massively. They also had competent engineers at the helm at that time and they were a priority – not like the white elephant football stadiums for the FIFA World Cup 2010.

Richard Page
Reply to  Michael in Dublin
November 5, 2021 7:32 am

I was thinking of the dams that sprung up further north actually. An engineer looked at the hydroelectric dam systems in China and sold that to various African countries as a solution to their electrical needs. Unfortunately, because of environmental differences between China and Africa, toxic algae proliferated along some areas of the, now slower moving, rivers causing widespread degradation of the water supply.

Last edited 2 months ago by Richard Page
fretslider
November 4, 2021 6:22 am

“a sweary display from that omnipresent sulky teen Greta Thunberg”

Showing just how mature she and those like her really are. It was painfully childish stuff.

As for the snobbish Justin Rowlatt, he isn’t a reporter he’s an activist and an advocate. 

Nobody would be surprised if I told them that our Justin’s sister, Cordelia Rowlatt, is a veteran XR campaigner and as part of Insulate Britain is among 113 protesters named on a National Highways injunction that would allow courts to jail repeat offenders. She’s has been arrested twice for blocking roads.

Just to let you know how barking mad the upper middle classes really are

In a recent video, she said: ‘A few months ago, I was in court and I was told that my right to protest against the lack of action against climate change was less important than the rights of people to go about their daily business, such as car drivers. Now that really is mad.’

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-10076243/BBC-Climate-Editors-sister-113-Insulate-Britain-eco-zealots.html

Bonkers or what?

richard
Reply to  fretslider
November 4, 2021 7:26 am

“lack of action against climate change” after 30 odd years- encouraging sign.

MarkW
Reply to  richard
November 4, 2021 7:36 am

This is an reoccurring theme with socialists.
Unless you do 100% of what they demand, then you have done nothing.
Agree with them 100%, or it’s the gulags for you.

The idea that there has been a “lack of action” in Britain is so ridiculous that only a complete ideologue could spout it with a straight face.

Last edited 2 months ago by MarkW
philincalifornia
Reply to  MarkW
November 4, 2021 8:01 am

For socialists, read Animal Farm Pigs

For the BBC, read The Baghdad Bob Corporation aka Animal Farm Pigs

…. of the toffee-nosed, elitist variety. The UK is a world-leader in this, except that they’re the toadies for the US DNC, but they don’t want to know that.

Tom Abbott
Reply to  MarkW
November 4, 2021 8:22 am

Yes, Britain has been very busy trying to destroy its electrical grid in the name of reducing CO2 output.

It doesn’t seem to be working out too well. Poor planning by the politicians. Poor understanding of the subject matter. They literaly don’t know what they are talking about.

mwhite
Reply to  fretslider
November 4, 2021 7:44 am

It’s getting colder now, a frost forecast for southern England tonight

BBC Weather

I say leave them glued to the ground.

Tom Abbott
Reply to  fretslider
November 4, 2021 8:19 am

Definitely bonkers. She seems to think it is all about her.

Richard Page
Reply to  Tom Abbott
November 4, 2021 10:03 am

Delusional. But vaguely understandable. She’s been brought up and educated on a steady stream of ‘rights’ without any consideration of the responsibilities that attend them. For example – she has the right to peaceful protest BUT she has the responsibility to not interfere with others right to enjoy that area – by enjoy, I mean the right to use the roads, pavements and other areas without fear of obstruction or harassment. It’s about time these over privileged Muppets had a cold dose of responsibility thrust upon them.

Graemethecat
Reply to  fretslider
November 5, 2021 3:17 am

“Cordelia Rowlatt” – that name just somehow epitomises the Guardian-reading upper-middle class toffs who are drawn to environmental activism.

Ian Smith
November 4, 2021 6:43 am

The BBC are notorious for sending out teams five to ten times the size of their private competitors to cover large events.

On a news story there will often be half a dozen different BBC teams involved from the various TV, radio, online, national and local divisions.

They are not known for the frugality of their operations either.

They were terrible decades ago, running interference on the climategate scandal, and the legal battles they fought to keep their 28 man panel of ‘experts’ secret – a panel that a leak eventually showed barely had a single credible scientist but was packed with cronies and activists.

Nothing was done with them then and they have only got worse over the years.

Alba
Reply to  Ian Smith
November 4, 2021 7:09 am

And I’ll bet the BBC London crowd made sure that they covered COP 26 rather than leave it to their colleagues on BBC Scotland.

Andrew Dickens
Reply to  Ian Smith
November 4, 2021 1:37 pm

I remember when George Bush jr was re-elected the BBC sent over 700 people to cover the event. Just to see the same bloke get in. I don’t know the figures for later elections, they probably keep it a secret.

Retired_Engineer_Jim
Reply to  Andrew Dickens
November 4, 2021 2:13 pm

Yes, each of the on-air talents had to have his/her own hair stylist, make-up artist and wardrobe manager, at the very least. Plus, of course, someone to actually do the work and write it up to be presented.

mikee
Reply to  Ian Smith
November 4, 2021 7:17 pm

BBC = Bagdad Bob Corporation

ResourceGuy
November 4, 2021 6:45 am

It looks like you’re own your own to find insights and partial truth about complex climate factors and global policy push based on advocate-driven models with very wide error bars. Given the long cycles of climate, it means an overtaxed life and generation instead of just a lost decade. Pity the paupers and their pitiful information base in this advocacy climate.

M Courtney
November 4, 2021 7:00 am

But that’s what was always going to happen once the Corporation officially decided that issue of climate change was settled and that its staff no longer needed to reflect both sides of the argument; it gave its journalists a licence to hector.

The strange thing is that , even were it settled, there is still no discussion of the costs of various policies.
It’s as though the BBC thinks anything and and everything is A-OK if it’s Green.
No other “settled” belief has no scrutiny on the costs of resulting policy.

fretslider
Reply to  M Courtney
November 4, 2021 7:10 am

“The strange thing is that , even were it settled, there is still no discussion of the costs”

How can you possibly discuss the costs if no costing has been done?

“During the case, the CCC revealed that their costing does not include any estimate for spending in 2020-2049, but only considered the residual amounts in 2050, after the bulk of the transition. This was not made clear to the MPs when they agreed to bring the Net Zero target into law, and it is likely therefore that MPs were misled.”

Information Tribunal orders Committee on Climate Change to reveal Net Zero calculations (netzerowatch.com)

The BBC’s new mission is to patronise, indoctrinate and blast out propaganda

For the record:

“By arguing that it has overwritten and erased the spreadsheet data, the CCC has essentially admitted that its internal processes are a shambles. This is not a competent organisation and Parliament needs to investigate as a matter of urgency. If they can’t even manage simple matters of data retention, what hope is there that they can prepare a plausible costing of a multi-trillion pound project such as the decarbonisation of the UK economy?””

Parliament is entirely happy with the advice Selwyn-Gumboot’s CCC is providing, despite Grenfell.

Last edited 2 months ago by fretslider
Jan de Jong
Reply to  M Courtney
November 4, 2021 7:12 am

“Green”.

MarkW
Reply to  M Courtney
November 4, 2021 7:42 am

One of the tenets of liberalism is that government spending is good, and more government spending is better. They still push the mantra that the way to get out of a recession is through massive government spending.

Those reporters don’t cover the cost of these policies because in their minds, since the government is paying, costs are irrelevant.

Richard Page
Reply to  MarkW
November 4, 2021 10:06 am

That’ll get interesting once the fuel tax fails to bring in the extra dosh. I highly doubt they’ll cut back on govt spending when there’s less to go around.

Awesome Welles
Reply to  MarkW
November 4, 2021 10:06 am

This is how you can tell the current administration has been infiltrated by all the wrong kinds of people. True Conservatism promotes small government and fiscal restraint.

Retired_Engineer_Jim
Reply to  M Courtney
November 4, 2021 2:14 pm

But renewable energy is “free”, so there are no costs.

ghalfrunt
November 4, 2021 7:10 am

There seems to be 2 sides to this biased BBC meme. The UK has a right wing government. The BBC refuses to castigate them for lying in parliament – an offence.
https://twitter.com/PeterStefanovi2/status/1450593629978955776?s=20


fretslider
Reply to  ghalfrunt
November 4, 2021 7:17 am

“The UK has a right wing government.”

Says who?

Since when has a woke government been right wing?

Since when did a right wing government bring EU targets forward by ten years?

half [bright] sounds just about right where you are concerned. You clearly have no idea how the Parliamentary dictatorship works.

Last edited 2 months ago by fretslider
MarkW
Reply to  fretslider
November 4, 2021 7:45 am

Says someone who so far out in left field, he has to dodge the cars in the parking lot.

MarkW
Reply to  MarkW
November 4, 2021 9:08 am

I should have been more clear that I was talking about ghoulfont, not fretslider.

fretslider
Reply to  MarkW
November 4, 2021 9:19 am

Believe it or not I got that.

Richard S Courtney
Reply to  fretslider
November 4, 2021 8:51 am

fretslider,

You ask,
“The UK has a right wing government.”
Says who?”

Answer: Everybody who knows anything about British Politics.

The Conservative and Unionist Party (aka the Tories) form the government and have a very large overall parliamentary majority.

The Tories are the Party of Disraeli, Thatcher and now Johnson.

If you dislike said that Tories are right wing then perhaps you would prefer it to be said that they are very right wing because they proclaim desire for small government and capitalism while having a consistent record of high taxation (presently the highest peacetime taxation in British history) hypocrisy, self-interest and sleaze (e.g. they are the Party of Disraeli, Thatcher and Johnson).

Richard

fretslider
Reply to  Richard S Courtney
November 4, 2021 9:04 am

Answer: Everybody who knows anything about British Politics.

Then you clearly know nothing and prefer to live in the past.

The middle ground shifted to the left quite some time ago. Didn’t you get the memo? I do not support any party or their role in the Parliamentary dictatorship. It is democratic in name only.

[A Mediaeval] Parliament above monarch and people has had its day.

Michael in Dublin
Reply to  fretslider
November 4, 2021 12:12 pm

To those who are far left, left of center has now become right of center. I would like to see the politicians who are really for small government, reject the prevalent monopoly crony capitalism in favor of small and medium sized companies, who want politicians to keep their noses out of personal family responsibilities, medical matters, their children’s education and much more. Perhaps we should refuse to talk about left and right but rather policy vs policy and expose the vacuous policies of many politicians.

Last edited 2 months ago by Michael in Dublin
MarkW
Reply to  Richard S Courtney
November 4, 2021 9:09 am

I will never get over how most of Europe considers socialists to be right wing.

Michael in Dublin
Reply to  MarkW
November 4, 2021 12:16 pm

Two of these politicians came to my door looking for my vote and I told them all they could offer were 50 shades of left.

Leo Smith
Reply to  Richard S Courtney
November 4, 2021 9:10 am

“We are all socialists now”

Richard S Courtney
Reply to  Leo Smith
November 4, 2021 11:44 am

Leo Smith,

No, you are not. But the world would be better place if you were.

Richard

MarkW
Reply to  Richard S Courtney
November 4, 2021 3:56 pm

So stealing money from those who work, in order to buy the votes of those who would rather not, would make the world a better place?

It will make your world a better place, definitely.

Richard S Courtney
Reply to  MarkW
November 5, 2021 12:37 am

MarkW,

You have things backwards,

Croney capitalists steal from those who work.
It is why corruption and sleaze go hand-in-hand with right-wing politicians (e.g. see the present ‘investigation scandal’ embroiling the British Johnson government).

Socialists oppose croney capitalism and support just treatment for all (e.g. see the present ‘investigation scandal’ embroiling the British Johnson government).

Richard

Trying to Play Nice
Reply to  Richard S Courtney
November 5, 2021 5:49 am

Croney capitalism is the hallmark of Socialism. They pretend there is true capitalism, but the elites control everything. The UK is not right wing.

MarkW
Reply to  Richard S Courtney
November 5, 2021 10:41 am

Crony capitalism is a form of socialism. Just like Nazi’s are a form of socialism.

The very definition of socialism is to take from those who produce and to give to the politically powerful. That is the definition of what you mislabel “crony capitalism”.

Like all leftists, you define anything you like as socialism and anything you don’t like as capitalism.
It’s lazy, but it works for you.

LdB
Reply to  Richard S Courtney
November 4, 2021 6:51 pm

ROFL the most failed political ideology ever … but don’t worry this time we will get socialism right and it will work 🙂

MarkW
Reply to  LdB
November 4, 2021 8:44 pm

A while back Richard was going on and on about how socialism promoted freedom.

Yea, getting subsidized by people who work does give those who are being subsidized more freedom in how they live their lives.
For those who’s money is being taken by force, freedom is decreased. But the socialists don’t care about them. Unless you are one of the elite who run socialism, having enough money to actually support yourself and your family makes you one of the evil rich.

Richard S Courtney
Reply to  MarkW
November 5, 2021 12:56 am

MarkW,

Margaret Thatcher was NOT a socialist.
She purchased votes by her ‘right to buy’ council houses at below market value. And she declared the miners and their families to be ‘the enemy within’ then she threw the entire might of the state at them to make them jobless. homeless and without food supplies.

Henry Ford was NOT a socialist.
He employed Al Capone to terrorise the families of striking workers so they were driven back to work.

etc.

Socialists oppose such things because we believe in freedom under the law with equal protection for all.

Richard

Trying to Play Nice
Reply to  Richard S Courtney
November 5, 2021 5:57 am

What is your source for the assertion that Henry Ford employed Al Capone? It sounds like you are rewriting history like a good leftist. Roosevelt, the real creator of American Socialism (who, just like Boris, was controlled by his wife), used Al Capone’s Cadillac. Sounds like he’s the one tied to criminals.

MarkW
Reply to  Trying to Play Nice
November 5, 2021 10:43 am

He doesn’t need a source, he knows that capitalists are evil, so it must be true.

Phil O'Sophical
Reply to  Richard S Courtney
November 5, 2021 7:14 am

Of course socialists do not purchase votes, with taxpayers’ money, with massive welfare spending and making people dependent on the state. Thatcher freed people to have self-respect and make decisions for themselves.

Wilson closed more mines than Thatcher. Times and industries change and move on. I expect you would like cotton mills back too, except for their Gradgrind owners. And if you are against any new coal mines opening you have no leg to stand on regarding mine closures.

MarkW
Reply to  Richard S Courtney
November 5, 2021 10:43 am

Once again, anything you don’t like is defined as capitalist or right wing.

Socialists use government to take money from the working man and then give that money to anyone who promises to support them.
Capitalism is by definition freedom, since it’s just people going about their business.

Mr.
Reply to  Richard S Courtney
November 4, 2021 9:12 am

I reckon Tony Blair was a better example of a PM who embraced hypocrisy, self-interest and sleaze.

So he must have been a right-winger?

Richard Page
Reply to  Mr.
November 4, 2021 10:08 am

Blair’s government was about as right wing as the current Tory one. Go figure.

Right-Handed Shark
Reply to  Richard Page
November 4, 2021 12:34 pm

It was said that “Tony Blair” was an anagram of “Tory Plan B”. Or as near as they could get.

Edit
oops.. was supposed to be a reply to Mr..

Last edited 2 months ago by Right-Handed Shark
Richard Page
Reply to  Right-Handed Shark
November 4, 2021 1:09 pm

Actually, it could work as a reply to either. It plays strongly to the idea that both Blair and BoJo are trying to occupy the same centre ground in UK politics.

Phil O'Sophical
Reply to  Richard Page
November 5, 2021 7:26 am

On hypocrisy, self-interest and sleaze the Tories are the visible tip of the iceberg; the hidden 90% below the waterline is all leftist. They are just far better at disguising it and getting away with it.

Shot yourself in the foot. As right-wing as Blair makes the current Tories left-wing. It is an oft used convenient myth that Blair was not really on the left. He was simply to the right of extreme leftists. Whereas Boris et al are way over into radical Green territory, and still drifting. But basically we are a one party state.

Richard S Courtney
Reply to  Mr.
November 5, 2021 12:54 am

Mr.

Your attempt fails to overthrow MarkW as supreme master of the non sequitur, but it is a good try.

Richard

MarkW
Reply to  Richard S Courtney
November 5, 2021 10:46 am

Nice attempt to evade the point.

Then again, it does appear to be your specialty.

Phil O'Sophical
Reply to  MarkW
November 5, 2021 1:13 pm

Talking of which, you did not say whether you would support reopening the mines.

Awesome Welles
Reply to  Richard S Courtney
November 4, 2021 10:08 am

You might perhaps research the Prime Minster’s father and the company he kept. I wager young Boris was primed in socialist principles from an early age.

Last edited 2 months ago by Awesome Welles
Richard S Courtney
Reply to  Awesome Welles
November 4, 2021 11:26 am

Awesome Wells,

The Prime Minister’s father is not in government.

You might perhaps research the Prime Minister’s childhood.
I accept your wager and ask how he was “primed in socialist principles” while boarding at Eton school. Is £50 enough for you to pay me for you losing the bet?

Richard

Retired_Engineer_Jim
Reply to  Richard S Courtney
November 4, 2021 2:28 pm

Mr Courtney,

Living here in the US, I look at claims to conservatism coming from the UK, Canada, New Zealand and the countries of Europe with amazement. Haven’t really run into a conservative in all my travels throughout Europe and the UK, or while living in the Federal Republic. I don’t think that any of the residents of those countries could survive a conservative Government.

MarkW
Reply to  Retired_Engineer_Jim
November 5, 2021 10:48 am

A conservative is someone who wants to slow down the growth of government.
A fringe right winger is someone who believes government is too big.

LdB
Reply to  Richard S Courtney
November 4, 2021 6:49 pm

From the view of countries like Australia the UK government is about as left as we could imagine. To the UK the Australian government probably looks right but here we would call it central/consensus.

Everything is relative to your perspective 🙂

ghalfrunt
Reply to  ghalfrunt
November 4, 2021 7:20 am

The BBC has little option about reporting what YOU would like to hear about climate change simply because the vast majority of scientists agree that we are facing a problem.
It would be unwise to report that 5G signals, Wind Energy Convertors cause cancer and mutation, or that the world is flat – in these instances science has shown these too be fake. With global warming science has shown that this will be a future problem so this is what msm reports.

fretslider
Reply to  ghalfrunt
November 4, 2021 7:23 am

The BBC is hopelessly biased – and by that token so are you.

What about the vast majority of scientists who have been censored? Why not ask them?

MarkW
Reply to  fretslider
November 4, 2021 7:47 am

You have to remember that ghoulFont, like most alarmists, defines a scientist as someone who agrees with them.

MarkW
Reply to  ghalfrunt
November 4, 2021 7:46 am

More lies from the master of lies.
The claim that most scientists agree that CO2 is a problem that must be dealt with NOW, has been refuted so many times that only the willfully ignorant still repeat it.

Teddy Lee
Reply to  ghalfrunt
November 4, 2021 7:51 am

Exactly what problem is this?

Disputin
Reply to  ghalfrunt
November 4, 2021 8:07 am

With global warming science has shown that this will be a future problem so this is what msm reports.

How prithee? They have a time machine?

MarkW
Reply to  Disputin
November 4, 2021 9:09 am

I’m still trying to figure out how a few tenths of a degree in warming is going to kill us all.

richard
Reply to  MarkW
November 4, 2021 9:35 am

as I get older I wish it was a few more tenths of a degree.

Retired_Engineer_Jim
Reply to  Disputin
November 4, 2021 2:34 pm

I think that they use the Tardis.

George Daddis
Reply to  ghalfrunt
November 4, 2021 8:07 am

If you think the “Climate” discussions are about whether the whether 5G or Industrial Wind sites cause cancer, you are demonstrating you don’t understand the issue.

The only indications that the climate will be a problem in the future are in models.
Actual observational data shows that the most accurate thing you can say about climate is that it changes. Always has and always will.

Richard Page
Reply to  ghalfrunt
November 4, 2021 1:24 pm

ghalfront – please quote anybody that has mentioned these things on this thread – apart from you, that is? You are attempting to misdirect and conflate conspiracy theories with healthy scientific scepticism – an approach which has been tried before and failed before. The BBC has a mandate from the country to “educate, entertain and inform” – I don’t recall that also included one-sided propaganda, failed theories and fake news in the mandate. It is a completely immoral and unethical thing to do and not something they should ever have done.

Retired_Engineer_Jim
Reply to  ghalfrunt
November 4, 2021 2:33 pm

“… the vast majority of scientists”? You’ve polled them all? I doubt, seriously, that even a minority of scientists in the PRC or Russia agree that “… we are facing a problem”. I doubt that even very many scientists in the US would agree (the professional societies gave up representing their membership decades ago).

As you lack that all-inclusive data, please stop refering to some “vast majority of scientists”.

LdB
Reply to  ghalfrunt
November 4, 2021 6:55 pm

ROFL future problem … I did enjoy that 🙂

Phil O'Sophical
Reply to  ghalfrunt
November 5, 2021 7:30 am

Settled science is an oxymoron. Science is not a thing it is a process. History is replete with consensuses being wrong. In 1931, a paper was published in Germany: “One Hundred Scientists Against Einstein”. Einstein responded: If I am wrong, why does it require 100 people? One would do.

MarkW
Reply to  ghalfrunt
November 4, 2021 7:44 am

To the communist, everyone else is a right winger.

Only someone who is completely out of touch with reality could consider the current British government to be “right wing”.
Once again, everything a liberal disagrees with is a lie.

November 4, 2021 7:16 am

If even modtran tells us CO2 can not cause much warming, isn’t ignoring that fact hypocritical as well?

comment image

DMacKenzie
Reply to  E. Schaffer
November 4, 2021 7:56 am

ES, Into Modtran, put 3200 ppm of CO2, that’s 8 times present level….Oceans absorb about 1/2 and we started at 280, so that would be projecting over 40 times the amount of CO2 “evah” emitted. Result will be a much lower number than you expect. Go ahead ES, post it for all, including Greta, to see….

DMacKenzie
Reply to  DMacKenzie
November 4, 2021 5:35 pm

ES, didn’t see your output half a day later, so here it is….over 40 times as much CO2 as mankind has ever emitted….doubled 3 times from current levels….IPCC says somewhere between 2 and 4.5 C increase per doubling…..but here is Modtran saying 2.3 degrees for 3200 ppm, 8 times as much as current. But Modtran is not so great on cloud cover issues…but how far off can it be ?
Comments on my run are welcome…

12921A8B-9B15-4ABF-9AE2-84A7251D2DE6.jpeg
Reply to  DMacKenzie
November 4, 2021 7:13 pm

2.34 / 3 = 0.78 ..what else would you expect?

Modtran is in perfect accordance with the orthodoxy. There is no contradiction, just different assumptions. For instance, remove clouds and all other GHGs except CO2, with the US std atmosphere. Then write down the emissions TOA. Then double CO2, and you will find emissions will decline by 3.768W/m2. It is spot on the forcing the orthodoxy tells us. You play this through with vapor and again you will get roughly consistent results.

So what is the problem? The orthodoxy uses these gross forcings and feedbacks, which are only true if there were no overlaps whatsoever. Also they use a wrong lambda of 0.3, instead of 0.264.

Modtran is not applying these mistakes. It derives “ECS” including overlaps, also implicitly using a proper lambda. And that is why it yields just 0.77K. Think about it.

What modtran does not do, and that’s where it overstates ECS, is to include negative lapse rate feedback and a realistic surface emissivity. Including these, ECS drops below 0.5K!

https://greenhousedefect.com/the-holy-grail-of-ecs/the-2xco2-forcing-disaster

DMacKenzie
Reply to  E. Schaffer
November 5, 2021 8:56 pm

ES, I find it odd that our ramblings here did not attract more attention from commenters. It should have been a good opportunity for people to try the UChicago online version and ask WTF is the IPCC pushing ? Are you and I the only ones that use the UChicago version?

Last edited 2 months ago by DMacKenzie
Reply to  DMacKenzie
November 5, 2021 9:10 pm

Or use any at all? The lack of education (or intellect) on the “critical” side is just appaling. No wonder Willis E. is considered an intellectual ;)))

Truth is, people are all the same. They consider true what they heard most often, by the perceived most important people. If you tell them something new, regardless how important and to the point, they will feel unconfortable. They just want to get confirmation in an endless repitition.

MarkW
November 4, 2021 7:27 am

It’s been over 30 years since CFCs were banned, and the so called shrinking of the ozone hole is barely measurable, and just so happens to correspond with changes in the sun.

One scam leads to the next.

Graham3
Reply to  MarkW
November 4, 2021 8:33 am

Unfortunately the substitute refrigerants perform poorly compared to CFCs requiring more energy for the same cooling effect.

MarkW
Reply to  Graham3
November 4, 2021 9:11 am

However the patent on the replacements haven’t run out, so the purpose of the CFC ban has been achieved.

Last edited 2 months ago by MarkW
MarkW
November 4, 2021 7:31 am

 when most of these eco-terrorists haven’t even bothered to properly insulate their own homes

They’re socialists. They believe it is the responsibility of government to insulate their homes.
And of course it’s the job of government to tax other people in order to pay for it.

Michael in Dublin
Reply to  MarkW
November 4, 2021 12:30 pm

I was amused by Prof Jordan Petersen asking students how they hoped to clean up the world when they could not even keep their bedrooms tidy and clean. A salutary lesson for climate alarmists – these spoilt brats who feel so entitled.

Steve Case
November 4, 2021 7:33 am

DAN WOOTTON: I want to save the planer, but….
________________________________________

Dan is a climate crusader. He’s unhappy that the people carrying his flag are rank hypocrites. If he were king, he’d be passing the same regulations to destroy western civilization and capitalism that the current crop of kleptocrats claim they want.

ghalfrunt
November 4, 2021 7:50 am

It is stupid that attendees of COP26 use a very polluting form of transport – it gives the wrong message But lets try getting numbers straight

let us say 400 private jets 2 flights per day over 4 days? that’s 3200 flights per year assuming yearly COP
heathrow normal condition 1300 flights/day which is 474,500 flights per year

The Learjet 35 has a relatively long range [2,056 miles 3309km nonstop] for a private jet and can cruise at speeds as high as 451 ktas, or 424 ktas (510mph) with four passengers. Fuel consumption is excellent: the 31A burns 197 gallons of fuel per hour. max flight time 4 hrs. Fuel used is 790 us? gallons= 2990.48litres for max distance
Assume COP private jets fly max distance use 9,569,536 litres of fuel globally per year

The Airbus A321 featuring Sharklet wingtip devices consume 2.2 l/100 km (110 mpg‑US) per person with a 200-seat layout for WOW Air 14,520 litres for 3309km
Assume Heathrow all jets A321 and fly 3309km then that is 6,889,740,000 litres per year at only heathrow.

I think that makes COP fuel for flights 0.14% of heathrows normal passenger use.

Of course you then have to add heathrow to all other airports in the world (removing the duplicated flights).

would you agree that COP private jets show the wrong headlines but their use is insignificant.

The figures probably need checking!!

Krishna Gans
Reply to  ghalfrunt
November 4, 2021 8:10 am

In cases like these numbers are 100% nonsense.

Dave Andrews
Reply to  ghalfrunt
November 4, 2021 8:32 am

And how did the other 24,600 get to the climatefest?

Hoyt Clagwell
Reply to  ghalfrunt
November 4, 2021 8:40 am

The emissions from 400 jets is insignificant yet, I am supposed to get rid of my incandescent light bulbs to save the planet. I’d like to see the numbers on that.

ghalfrunt
Reply to  Hoyt Clagwell
November 4, 2021 9:22 am

Assuming People would run 2 lights most of the evening. replacing your 100watts with a 15 watt LED bulb would save 170watts. multiply this by the number of houses in uk – 25 million.
this gives a saving of 170*25,000,000watts which is a staggering 4.3GW if sums are correct.

You have probably noticed that street lighting has gone to LEDs (white) from high pressure sodium (yellow-orange). There are 2 advantages life and lower power and local authorities seem to think it worth the initial cost.

MarkW
Reply to  ghalfrunt
November 4, 2021 10:13 am

Nice example of hypocrisy there ghoulfont.

When it comes to your idols using private planes, you point out how little their usage compared to how much CO2 is being produced.

However, when it’s someone else, all of a sudden you switch to the standard that if everyone were doing this, it would be a problem.

LdB
Reply to  MarkW
November 4, 2021 7:00 pm

No he just created the perfect argument why you don’t have to do anything for emission controls because you use less than the special people.

meab
Reply to  ghalfrunt
November 4, 2021 8:49 am

The point is, Ghoulfront, that if these so-called leaders really believed in the (phony) “climate crisis” they would lead by example and hold their conference remotely over the internet. Look, if their completely unnecessary and unproductive use of fossil fuels is “insignificant” (your words) then I’m definitely not going to be concerned about any productive use of fossil fuels that has brought all the wealth that the modern world enjoys.

Redge
Reply to  ghalfrunt
November 4, 2021 8:51 am

The big difference is Heathrow flights are normally full

Flights to CoP 26 are mostly empty, as are the heads of people who try to justify CoP 26 whilst not criticising the chosen mode of transport for the wealthy

Even the BBC think you’re talking through your arse:

Therefore, the total emissions for this flight would be 11.3 tonnes of CO2 equivalent, and with a capacity of nine, each passenger would be responsible for 1.2 tonnes on their journey.

If, however, our world leaders had decided to take a commercial flight from Rome to Glasgow their emissions would have been a quarter of a tonne each. Even though a commercial flight uses more fuel per hour, it is able to fly far more passengers than a private jet and therefore produces fewer emissions per person.

And that’s just from Rome. most flights have come from further afield

Just what sort of socialist are you!

fretslider
Reply to  Redge
November 4, 2021 9:13 am

For socialism read neo-feudalism.

Rules for thee…

Last edited 2 months ago by fretslider
Mr.
Reply to  Redge
November 4, 2021 9:24 am

Well, “smart”, “intelligent”, “knowledgeable” can be ruled out when describing all socialists, so that reduces the options a bit.

ghalfrunt
Reply to  Redge
November 4, 2021 9:34 am

The big difference is Heathrow flights are normally full

Flights to CoP 26 are mostly empty, as are the heads of people who try to justify CoP 26 whilst not criticising the chosen mode of transport for the wealthy

The figures i worked on were for loaded efficient aircraft in both cases. it would have been better for the delegates to have arrived in more efficient transport or to have used internet messaging.

MarkW
Reply to  ghalfrunt
November 4, 2021 10:15 am

I doubt any of the private jets were completely full.

Brian
Reply to  MarkW
November 4, 2021 4:06 pm

Agreed, the whole point of having a private jet is that you don’t have to share!

MarkW
Reply to  Brian
November 4, 2021 8:49 pm

That and you can go when and where you want. You aren’t tied down to the schedules of the airlines. You can avoid the long lines checking in, boarding and waiting for your luggage.
For a CEO, the time saved can often justify the cost of a private jet. It doesn’t save energy, and was never intended to.

Last edited 2 months ago by MarkW
Redge
Reply to  ghalfrunt
November 4, 2021 10:18 am

Thanks for confirming your comment was bullshit and intended to mis-lead

Lrp
Reply to  ghalfrunt
November 4, 2021 6:18 pm

Best for them and you to stop breathing as a small sacrifice in saving the planet.

Steve Case
Reply to  ghalfrunt
November 4, 2021 8:56 am

would you agree that COP private jets show the wrong headlines but their use is insignificant.
________________________________________________________
What wrong headline? Besides that what’s going on here is something called setting a good example, and that’s not happening. But, that the jet set is setting an example of rank hypocrisy is a good thing, it helps making the point that the Global Warming/Climate Crisis/Existential Crisis of our Time or whatever they are going to call it next, is a giant scam run by kleptocrats after our money, property and lives. These people want to destroy western culture and capitalism.

“Hey hey, Ho ho, Western Culture has got to go!

The people who chanted that in 1968 are running the show now.

MarkW
Reply to  Steve Case
November 4, 2021 9:14 am

Socialists don’t expect good behavior from their leaders.
So long as the supply of free stuff is not interrupted.

fretslider
Reply to  ghalfrunt
November 4, 2021 9:10 am

Gag do stop digging that hole

“It is stupid that attendees of COP26 use a very polluting form of transport – it gives the wrong message”

That message is the one truth they’ve uttered.

It’s the opulent good life for the elites who know what’s best for you and cricketburgers for the knuckledragging public.

My question is are you wealthy enough to qualify as one of the rich beautiful people?

Last edited 2 months ago by fretslider
MarkW
Reply to  ghalfrunt
November 4, 2021 9:13 am

Once again, the guy who keeps proclaiming that CO2 is a huge problem, excuses the generation of CO2 by those he agrees with.

Tim Spence
Reply to  ghalfrunt
November 4, 2021 11:24 am

All credit due that was an epic troll Ghalfrunt, well done, the way you carefully constructed an argument based on a little math and detail and then sure as hell forgot to divide the totals by the passenger number. The point is that a 300 passenger aircraft will emit much less CO2 per passenger than a ‘Learjet’.

ghalfrunt
Reply to  Tim Spence
November 4, 2021 7:16 pm

It was not about passenger count so why are you. the passengers will cause greater fuel use. so worst case assume all full = most inefficiency. the number of flights to/from cop a bit of a guess and the number of flights handled by heathrow from heathrow data were the figures i used. the lear jet figures were from a sales leaflet

MarkW
Reply to  ghalfrunt
November 4, 2021 8:53 pm

To quote you on the example of one person and a single incandescent light bulb
If everybody took private jets, their would be a huge increase in CO2 generation, and that’s why it is bad.

TonyG
Reply to  ghalfrunt
November 5, 2021 9:04 am

“assume all full = most inefficiency”

This is what passes for thinking?

Show your math.

MarkW
Reply to  TonyG
November 5, 2021 10:51 am

ghoulfont is nowhere near as intelligent as it believes itself to be.

MarkW
Reply to  ghalfrunt
November 5, 2021 10:50 am

It has nothing to do with passenger count, just how much fuel each type of plane uses? Really, is that the excuse you were told to use, or did you make it up all by yourself.

By this logic, it’s better to fly one person each in 100 private jets, than it is to put them all in a single plane that holds 100 people.

Retired_Engineer_Jim
Reply to  ghalfrunt
November 4, 2021 2:41 pm

I don’t know where you live, but 2056 (still-air?) miles is not long range. (It helps if you actually know how to compute aircraft performance..) Also, are you talking about the Model 35, or the -31A?

LdB
Reply to  ghalfrunt
November 4, 2021 6:59 pm

By your greentard logic I therefore have the right to burn fossil fuels for the rest of my life because it’s only a little amount and less than the entire fuel burnt by planes landing at Heathrow.

You created that as an argument so I am so going to be out there burning my fair share of fossil fuels. Feel free to join in folks Ghal has given us exemption.

Last edited 2 months ago by LdB
ghalfrunt
Reply to  LdB
November 4, 2021 7:19 pm

If you are the only person producing CO2 from fossil fuel then your use does not matter. when a couple of million have your profligate point of view then CO2 becomes a problem (together with other pollution)

MarkW
Reply to  ghalfrunt
November 4, 2021 8:58 pm

First off, nobody has been able to demonstrate that CO2 emissions are a problem. Indeed the evidence that does exist goes the other way.

Regardless; first off, why should the rest of us have to suffer, when you go out of the way to defend the profligacies of those who lead you?
Secondly, you made the argument that incandescent bulbs are bad, not because one bulb by itself used that much energy, but because millions of people using incandescent bulbs ended up creating a lot more CO2. Yet then you turn around and say that there is no reason to complain when your leaders fly around in private jets, because compared to the fuel used by the entire airline industry, the fuel used by those private jets is just a drop in the bucket.

If you can’t spot the blatant hypocrisy between those two claims, you are most likely a socialist.

LdB
Reply to  ghalfrunt
November 5, 2021 12:18 am

So Ghal who gets to decide if I am one of those allowed to burn fossil fuels?
Given a free choice no-one except your greenie type is going to decide not to burn it.

Perhaps I can offer this view on the special people
https://www.msn.com/en-au/news/world/luxury-carbon-consumption-of-top-1percent-threatens-15c-global-heating-limit/ar-AAQlbn0

Last edited 2 months ago by LdB
Hari Seldon
November 4, 2021 8:08 am

At least one head of state (from a small EU country) noted in his speech: “for more than 25 years we have been in the very last 24 hours”. Yes, this “very last 24 hours” is really very long…

SxyxS
Reply to  Hari Seldon
November 4, 2021 11:38 am

They say when you die all your life flashes in seconds.
Installing global communism seems to be the exact opposite.
An endless agony ( + hundreds of annoying virtue signalling assholes that simply won’t leave you alone)

Herrnwingert
November 4, 2021 8:57 am

The latest issue of the Economist also has a special report about the “emergency”.

https://econ.st/3COS9g6

“There is no doubt that the change in the CO2 level was brought about by humankind—mainly through the burning of fossil fuels, but also through conversion of forests and other natural ecosystems to farmland. As long as those activities continue in their current form, the CO2 level will continue to rise, and the world will move further and more damagingly away from its historical state.”

This graph is included to prove it’s all humans’ fault.

Screenshot 2021-11-04 165430.jpg
MarkW
Reply to  Herrnwingert
November 4, 2021 9:15 am

These guys actually believe that the Little Ice Age was the ideal state for the world.

pigs_in_space
Reply to  Herrnwingert
November 4, 2021 3:42 pm

Pretty damn weird graph when you think all that coal we keep digging up was produced in a period when CO2 was many 1000s of parts per million, and we are all still here, not like fried sausages on a BBQ!

It’s a long time since I stopped reading the shitty economist rag, as it became more and more eco-crappy, and less econo-competent.

LdB
Reply to  Herrnwingert
November 4, 2021 7:03 pm

Now that is a really funny graph 😉

Awesome Welles
November 4, 2021 8:58 am

Pardon the cynicism, but there is a part of me wondering if the blatant hypocrisy in Glasgow was deliberate. The hostility amongst the populous is palpable; the purpose of its creation is not yet clear. Watch this space.

Last edited 2 months ago by Awesome Welles
fretslider
November 4, 2021 9:30 am

“It is stupid that attendees of COP26 use a very polluting form of transport – it gives the wrong message But lets try getting numbers straight

let us say 400 private jets 2 flights per day over 4 days” – ghalfrunt, Esq.

Too simplistic by far. There are all the ad hoc trips to consider

Boris Johnson took a private jet from Glasgow to London for a reunion dinner with his former [Daily] Telegraph colleagues at an exclusive private members’ club, according to reports.

During the United Nations COP26 climate summit conference, Mr Johnson had said world leaders must “act now” to stop global warming, saying: “Humanity has long since run down the clock on climate change.

“It’s one minute to midnight and we need to act now. If we don’t get serious about climate change today, it will be too late for our children to do so tomorrow.”

https://www.breitbart.com/europe/2021/11/04/boris-took-private-jet-climate-summit-london-dinner-members-only-club-report/

Can one make this up? Nah.

MarkW
Reply to  fretslider
November 4, 2021 10:17 am

As someone else said,

There’s no way I’m going to believe that CO2 is a problem, so long as those who tell me it is, refuse to act like it is.

H.R.
November 4, 2021 10:17 am

From the article: “And that position is only going to be hardened as all the utter hypocrites of Cop26 fly out of Glasgow tonight in their private jets onto the next glamorous location. “


Glasgow is glamorous? It has some charms, but glamorous? Who knew?

(Written by someone whose wife and her family of Glaswegians for many generations, dating back to the industrial revolution, appear to be quite unaware of that fact. Factory workers and tradesmen were they. The recent bunch of that family, taking advantage of education opportunities, all moved somewhere else if they could. Only an Auntie and a couple of cousins remain there now. Yeah, it’s the family home turf, but none of them have ever used the term ‘glamorous.’ 😁)

IanE
Reply to  H.R.
November 4, 2021 12:04 pm

Don’t worry, the ‘elite’ will have found all the glamorous bits!

Richard Page
Reply to  IanE
November 4, 2021 3:23 pm

All? You mean ‘the glamourous bit’ – I believe she moved to Edinburgh a few years ago!

Last edited 2 months ago by Richard Page
Robert of Texas
November 4, 2021 10:50 am

Where do they think the carbon in the fossil fuels came from? Are they really so stupid as to think it is permanently buried and it will never release CO2 over time if left alone? Plate tectonics has a lot to say about this.

Why would anyone think the planet cannot handle more CO2? A trace gas that is required for most life to even exist…

Why would anyone just assume a natural process of warming (and cooling) would suddenly shutdown around 1960 just in time to blame it all on the humans? It’s such a childish idea.

These politicians and activists are beyond stupid. They are a group of fanatical religious nuts. And as always, religious nuts lead people to bad places.

Philo
November 4, 2021 11:07 am

Dan Wooton is entirely correct about the whole affair. The fact that China didn’t attend confirms the propaganda nature of the COP meeting. If pollution is a real issue the China MUST participate. But they won’t and they don’t.

Climate change simply a bogus issue, but it is a huge power grab by the global fakes.

The last time we went back to visit family I talked to one of the niece and her friend. The friend has been radically brain-washed by the climate change rhetoric her school used. At the end of last year, before graduating, she was very put out and worried that NONE of her classmates would attend a discussion about climate change.

She’s quite well-spoken, but the rest of the class is much better at handling propaganda!

ghalfrunt
Reply to  Philo
November 4, 2021 7:24 pm

so it is wrong that attendees fly to cop 26. But when china decides not to attend then that is wrong too????

MarkW
Reply to  ghalfrunt
November 4, 2021 9:01 pm

Poor ghoulfont, it actually believes that there is only one argument that is to be used for all facts.

Using private jets while demanding that everyone else learn to live on less, is wrong.
China not showing up is not wrong per se, but it does highlight how unnecessary the whole fandango was.

Bob Hunter
November 4, 2021 11:43 am

And here in Canada where the CDN Broadcasting Corporation, 70% funded by the taxpayer has a climate change article every day. Each article is prefaced with:
“Our planet is changing. So is our journalism”
Articles that don’t have data but narratives. Make a comment disputing the article narrative with the data & source and the comment is usually deactivated. (Fake News????)

IanE
Reply to  Bob Hunter
November 4, 2021 12:03 pm

Yep: to quote that old ditty, “It’s the same, the whole world over. It’s the poor wot gets the blame; it’s the rich wot gets the pleasure. Ain’t it all a bloody shame?”

H.R.
Reply to  Bob Hunter
November 4, 2021 12:09 pm

“Data? We don’ need no steenkin’ data!”

The 4th Estate is now the 5th Column, pretty much the world over.

Patrick B
November 4, 2021 1:42 pm

Stopped reading when he claims that reduction in the use of CFCs has fixed the ozone hole.

Talk about uninformed idiots.

TonyG
November 4, 2021 1:56 pm

Read this earlier today. Seems relevant.
https://twitter.com/Gitabushi/status/1455895512771612673

Christina
November 4, 2021 1:59 pm

“hysterical Channel 4 News anchor Jon Snow”

Nice chuckle. Do I have to quote the book?
Seriously, in our day and age who would employ a man with this name as a news anchor and not make him take on an alias?

Kip Hansen(@kiphansen2)
Editor
November 4, 2021 2:02 pm

The BBC partners with Covering Climate Now, a Columbia University Propaganda-via-Journalism campaign through its “The World” program. The Guardian is a co-founding organization. The journalists of the world have given up jourbalism for writing advocacy and propaganda.

Jeff Alberts
November 4, 2021 4:14 pm

But guess what? Moderate changes to chlorofluorocarbons (CFCs) in spray cans and refrigerants over a period of time have meant that the Ozone hole has actually shrunk in recent years!”

There’s a serious lack of evidence to support the concept of an ozone hole emergency in the first place. There’s even less evidence that Kyoto did anything to ameliorate said emergency.

MarkW
Reply to  Jeff Alberts
November 4, 2021 9:04 pm

Within a few months after the Kyoto protocols were signed, production of CFCs started to be cut back.
Yet it took over 30 years for there to be any change in the so called ozone hole.
Either it took over 30 years for the CFCs to get from the surface to the stratosphere, or CFCs were never a problem in the first place.

ATheoK
November 4, 2021 5:46 pm

And I say all of this as a passionate environmentalist.”

I am a naturalist now.

I gave up being an alleged environmentalist by the early 1980s.
Far too much evil has been conducted by huge environmental charities pursuing donations. Most of them preferring propaganda exclusively.

Some of my esteemed neighbors have tried discussing my weed fringed fields or my wild woodlot.
In answer, I point to the birds, including many lovely songbirds and ask how many birds they see on their properties.

Some of the birds, e.g., the Eastern Bluebird, are almost exclusively insect eaters. Apply insecticide and they’re amongst the first to vanish.
Concepts taught as environmentalism are not good for nature.

When I moved here there were a few breeding pairs of killdeers on the property. Killdeers require unmolested tall grass, and they choose where they nest. Mow too many times and the birds leave.

A couple of the neighbors cringe when I tell them I want the killdeers back. They’re of the yards must be close cropped grass, type. Never mind the damage down to the environment through use of excessive fertilizers and insecticides seeking a perfect lawn. Especially as the soil around here is mostly solid clay. So they till, dethatch, slather on insecticides and cut the grass every week whether needed or not.

And people wonder why the Chesapeake Bay is prone to algae blooms in locations.

ATheoK
November 4, 2021 6:06 pm

“Biden landed with 85 vehicles to convey himself and his teams of Secret Service and adoring reporters. Private plane for Biden? It’s called Air Force One.

Aligned establishment reporters and activists are frequently transported in another large Boeing.

“Climate Activist Joe Biden Brings 85-Car Caravan to Talk About Threat of Global Warming in Scotland”

You know Biden’s caravan is not composed of electric vehicles.
Biden’s personal vehicle will be heavily armored with bullet proof glass. Others, are likely armored and all are likely armed.

The there is the matter of transporting 85 ICE engine vehicles to Scotland and return. That would take multiple C5 military cargo planes.

LdB
Reply to  ATheoK
November 4, 2021 7:08 pm

They were confirmed as 85 petrol engine cars at the conference.

Pat from kerbob
November 4, 2021 10:24 pm

Weather reporter Jon Snow?

Winter is Coming!!!

Vincent Causey
November 5, 2021 1:32 am

Let’s drop this “save the planet” drivel. Admitting you need to save the planet and then proceeding to argue against COP 26 puts one immediately on the back foot. “If you don’t go along,” they will shout “the planet will not be saved,” ergo everything will go extinct.

This is such nonsense that to even say “I want to save the planet too, but”, is self defeating and makes one look like a hypocrite. People who preface their objections with such words are not much better than the screeching alarmists. We need more input from the likes of Mat Ridley and Patrick Moore. There is no climate emergency. The planet does not need saving.

Roger Knights
November 5, 2021 4:37 am

The Pranksters On Olympus have spent decades tempting our Clerisy to completely go far out on a rotten limb. Soon temperatures will fall, and their limb along with it. The Pranksters’ payoff is lulz, or cosmic laughter, at their discomfiture. May it echo for a century!

Ed Zuiderwijk
November 5, 2021 4:58 am

To student activists: if you want to cleanup and save the planet, start by tidying your room.

Ladislav
November 5, 2021 10:18 pm

While I agree with this article in principle, I am constantly frustrated with people who, while disagreeing with “climate change” BS, are using this idiotic “carbon emissions” phrase. By doing this they are giving, may it be unwittingly, support to warmist retards. No power station, factory or car is emitting carbon. The EPA would shut them down in no time! What they are emitting is carbon dioxide, which is NOT a pollutant.Carbon dioxide is invisible, odorless and tasteless gas. How can something like this cause pollution??

%d bloggers like this: