On Belief in the Tooth Fairy: The Battle of Britain’s Climate 2021-2030

Iain Aitken

Back in the 1970s Britain was routinely described as ‘the sick man of Europe’. As we enter the fourth decade of the twenty-first century it seems germane to look back and ask how Britain managed to come to a point, in just a decade, of once again routinely bearing that sad appellation. Today we see the beleaguered, devalued Pound pegged at 2.3 Chinese Yuan and once again see rampant stagflation, with inflation at 12.6% (from less than 1% at the start of the decade) largely thanks to escalating energy, food and commodity prices and 3.6 million unemployed (double that at the start of the decade) largely thanks to the collapse of the steel, cement, aerospace and car manufacturing industries. We also see deep social unrest across the country resulting from the steadily falling standards of living, coupled with peoples’ inability to heat their homes adequately or affordably with heat pumps, coupled with regular blackouts, coupled with regular food shortages – and permanent restrictions in our freedoms, such as how we may heat our homes, what type of car we may buy, how many miles we may drive it and how many flights we may take. And all this ‘Green Austerity’ and misery as a result of, of all things, Britain’s arcane battle to deliver net zero greenhouse gas emissions by 2050.

How could the people of Britain have chosen such a disastrous path? Perhaps the answer is ‘thoughtlessly’. For they surely would never have elected to go down the road to ruin if the destination had been spelt out to them back in 2021. And each step on that road was relatively small and incremental – so the costs and impacts crept up on the population by stealth. As former Prime Minister Rishi Sunak put it in his recent memoirs With the Best of Intentions, ‘Each step we took on the path to net zero appeared sensible and responsible at the time, and anyway was necessitated by the legally-bound commitments of successive British governments to achieve net zero by 2050. But we never stood back and asked fundamental questions such as, ”How reliable is the science behind all this?” or “Is the adverse socioeconomic impact on our citizens acceptable?” or “Would it actually be more cost-effective to adapt to the warming?” or “Will Britain achieving net zero actually have any detectable effect on anyone’s climate?” – or even “Is net zero actually technologically possible?” Being perceived to achieve global climate leadership came to dominate our thinking and our energy and economic policies and, although perhaps subconsciously we knew that these policies made little or no socioeconomic sense and that even achieving the net zero goal would have no detectable effect on anybody’s climate, we chose simply not to think about it.’ Later he points out, ‘The UK Climate Change Committee kept telling us that net zero was “achievable” and “affordable” – but the fact is that nobody knew how to run an advanced economy, or even keep the lights on, without fossil fuels. And the cost kept escalating, first £1 trillion, then £1.4 trillion, then £2.3 trillion, then £3 trillion and so terrifyingly on. Basically we were on a runaway train and the only way to stop it would have been to repeal, or at least suspend, the Climate Change Act. But that would have been political suicide. It was not just the Green and youth vote that would have gone – the wider electorate believed in the climate emergency. After all, we had been the ones to tell them that it existed.’

It began innocuously enough in early 2022 with the ‘Cut the Carbon’ national campaign and the creation of the voluntary role of ‘Climate Constables’ who were tasked with reporting to the Police  ‘climidiots’ who, for example, used their cars for journeys that could have been taken by bicycle or who switched on their central heating outside government-mandated winter months or were seen to have set their house thermostat to above the government-mandated maximum of 180C. Few understood the complex and ever-changing rules about what was and what wasn’t acceptable and so few managed to avoid the fine in the post. Rather more insidious change occurred later that year when Climate Studies became a compulsory part of the curriculum for all state schools. Unfortunately this did not actually teach climate science, in all its complexities and uncertainties and competing theories, but simply government-approved climate science, effectively starting with the assumption that a man-made climate emergency did, in fact, exist. This culture even extended beyond the teaching of science, with, for example, History lessons focusing on Britain’s historical shame for being the crucible of the Industrial Revolution and so carbon pollution. In this way our children were indoctrinated from an early age in beliefs that now appear highly scientifically contentious. As Britain’s satirical magazine Private Eye (Issue 1571) remarked, not entirely in jest, it was only a matter of time before pupils would be asked to report the ‘climate crimes’ of their parents to the authorities.

2023 saw the 15 year old climate activist Sion Darks win the first National Climate Change Essay for Children with his paper Capitalism vs Climatism; he would then go on to found the Climate Revolution Party, that now holds such an influential role in British politics, with its ‘climate struggle’ message. That year also saw the release of the 26th James Bond movie Climate of Fear, in which the villain, Xi Blojing, was a Chinese terrorist who, from his vast bunker under the Forbidden City, threatened to flood the atmosphere with carbon dioxide and so destroy the planet by runaway global warming.

Then, in 2024, came the introduction of the Pollution Adjustment Tax (essentially a carbon border tax) that greatly increased the cost of imports from the Developing nations (especially China). This had a stark effect on peoples’ standards of living but, unfortunately, just resulted in retaliatory Climate Reparation Taxes from the countries affected and so did little more than create the ongoing trade war. 2024 also saw the introduction of road pricing, with the compulsory purchase and installation of GPS trackers in every vehicle, the resultant monthly pay-by-the-mile bills forcing motorists to think very carefully about the necessity of every trip. It was accompanied by the end of a 14 year-long freeze on fuel duty (effectively a carbon tax on fossil fuels) with the Chancellor of the Exchequer taking the bold step of increasing the duty by 5% that year with rising increases in successive years. This sparked the now regular specter of rolling roadblocks of haulage trucks on roads across Britain, the blockades of refineries and the stockpiling of groceries by the public.

The Prevention of Climate Change Act (2025) was also a landmark, with its introduction of individual carbon quotas, this effectively limiting petrol and diesel drivers to a few thousand miles of travel every year and rationing households to at most one short haul flight every three years. This also introduced the Agricultural Emissions Surcharge (aka the ‘Meat Tax’) and extended the restrictions imposed by road pricing to the banning of personal transportation for those living in designated urban areas. It also criminalized those who exceeded their carbon quotas, or made false statements in their Annual Carbon Returns to the Department of Climate Control. 2025 also saw the ban on the installation of gas-fired home boilers come into effect.

Then, in 2026, questioning the existence of the climate emergency was made a Hate Crime, effectively eradicating any further debate about climate change in Britain. It was also in that year that what remained of the British automotive industry was rescued (temporarily) thanks to nationalization, the sector having been brought to its knees by being forced to manufacture and sell only electric vehicles, vehicles that few could afford (thanks to the skyrocketing costs of batteries due to the skyrocketing price of their raw materials, such as cobalt and lithium, thanks to skyrocketing global demand).

The next landmark was the introduction in 2028 of the law preventing the sale of new and existing housing that failed to achieve a high energy performance rating. This made the majority of Britain’s housing stock impossible to sell (and impossible to mortgage) so creating the current housing crisis. With all coal-fired and gas-fired power plants having then been shut down and only one nuclear power plant still functioning 2028 was also the year that energy rationing and rolling blackouts had to be introduced owing to the energy crisis. Electricity supply companies started switching off (via ‘smart meters’) homes’ high usage electrical devices,  such as electric vehicle chargers and central heating systems, when the grid was at a state of emergency (which it regularly was in anticyclonic periods over winter, when wind and sunshine were in short supply) – and this without compensation or warning. The crisis only intensified in 2029 with the collapse (and subsequent nationalization) of the three largest offshore wind farm companies, as the efficiency of their turbines fell rapidly thanks to rapid ageing in the demanding conditions of the North Sea, whilst at the same time their operational costs escalated. And of course that year ended with the great Battery Dumping Scandal when it transpired that because it was not economically viable to recycle most spent vehicle batteries they were simply being shipped overseas to form vast mountains of pollution, leaching explosive and toxic electrolyte into the surrounding soil.

By this point escalating food prices and falling real incomes had made over 24% of Britons dependent on Food Banks. Escalating electricity prices had also by then pushed over a third of British households into fuel poverty, with regular reports of older and poorer people dying of hypothermia in homes they could no longer afford to heat. Europe’s ‘Summer Without Wind’ of 2029 will also, of course, be remembered for the way the EU interconnectors to Britain, on which Britain depended for its electricity supply in low wind conditions, were simply suspended, without warning, in order to keep the lights on across Europe. The three day working week that was then implemented to help eke out energy supplies was a stark wake-up call about Britain’s energy insecurity.

The ban of sales of new petrol and diesel cars has now, in 2030, just started and it is becoming increasingly clear that Britain is going to start looking like a third world country, reminiscent of Cuba after the Revolution, with most drivers clearly intending to nurse their internal combustion engine powered cars along for decades.

Perhaps the most extraordinary aspect of this story is that whilst the world as a whole has so far experienced an increase in surface temperatures (above pre-industrial levels) of 1.60C (so exceeding the Paris Climate Accord’s 1.50C threshold above which climate catastrophe was widely predicted) Britain’s climate has not actually warmed at all over the last decade; indeed it has not warmed since 2006. In fact had it not been for the great El Niño event of 2025 Britain’s climate would have cooled slightly since 2006. Furthermore (and to the despair of climate activists worldwide) despite the world exceeding the critical 1.50C threshold the only statistically significant climate impact that has been observed to date has been a 1 inch rise in globally-averaged sea levels, which hardly appears ‘catastrophic’. Approached for a comment, Greta Thunberg, the veteran climate activist (and recently announced Face of Lamcôme 2030), said, ‘This terrifying sea level rise is our final warning. This year’s COP35 conference is our best and last chance of avoiding catastrophe.’

Perhaps we should leave the final word to Rishi Sunak’s memoirs, in which he says, ’The idea that the UK Climate Change Committee had actually done no due diligence on the science underpinning the climate emergency idea simply never occurred to me – or any of us. I was simply stunned to find that they were taking it all on trust just like the rest of us. I was even more amazed when I found out that the 1.50C goal we had been told was necessary to prevent climate catastrophe had no real basis in science but had just been plucked out of thin air! Yet in our scientific illiteracy and gullibility we politicians all just hid behind the ‘we are following the science’ mantra. After all, we were told that 97% of climate scientists believed that we were experiencing a man-made climate change crisis and that we must urgently, radically decarbonize the world – but my own suspicion now is that 97% of climate scientists actually had serious doubts but were keeping quiet about them while continuing to milk the climate change research cash cow. It was as if we had all collectively agreed to believe in the Tooth Fairy… I suspect that history will not look back kindly on our appeasement of climate activists, our failure to challenge the alarmist views of a small group of highly politicized scientists at the IPCC and our failure to understand and communicate to the people of Britain the sacrifices that net zero would actually entail.’

4.7 49 votes
Article Rating
268 Comments
Oldest
Newest Most Voted
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
November 18, 2021 10:07 pm

The GBP Pound is worth 8.61 Chinese Yuan

Gordo
Reply to  nicholas tesdorf
November 18, 2021 10:18 pm

OMG you really are a bit slow

Reply to  Gordo
November 18, 2021 10:51 pm

Guess he didn’t grasp the meaning or significance of “As we enter the fourth decade of the twenty-first century”, nor the other numbers in the sentence he is criticisng 🙂

Classic case of shooting from hip.

Last edited 14 days ago by StuM
Redge
Reply to  Gordo
November 19, 2021 12:23 am

In fairness, it took me a few sentences to cotton on.

gbaikie
Reply to  Redge
November 19, 2021 11:14 am

So, you have a longer fuse.
Some have close to zero, with minds exploding every nano second.
I didn’t read all of it, I knew the kind of ending of the story- which isn’t really fictional as it is predictive.
Europe is doomed. UK has has slight chance, because left the sinking ship,
but huge whirl pool can not just suck down UK, but also US.
China is safe, as it hard to get much worse than it’s been for decades.

Bill Toland
Reply to  Gordo
November 19, 2021 1:34 am

I thought Nicholas Tesdorf meant that the pound is currently worth 8.61 Chinese yen for comparison purposes with the value of 2.3 in ten years time.

LdB
Reply to  nicholas tesdorf
November 20, 2021 3:10 am

Triggered 🙂

Julian Flood
November 18, 2021 10:48 pm

Didn’t fight? Speak for yourself! I stood twice against a Minister for Energy and Climate Change who was so technologically ignorant that he didn’t realise that his rush for solar (at 52 North! In cloudy England!) meant he’d need to store energy. To much mockery I introduced Suffolk County Council to the comparison of our heating contribution to the change in temperature resulting in moving downwards by eight inches.*

I even opposed and stopped a wind turbine** above my adopted town.

JF
*perhaps comparing this to the height of a small Chihuahua, the Chihuahua of Doom, was a mistake.

**Anyone willing to continue the battle in Suffolk should Guugel “No to Sunnica” , the fight against England’s largest solar blight.

Reply to  Julian Flood
November 19, 2021 12:14 am

Indeed Julian, perhaps you sould rephrase the effect of adiabatic cooling thus: “To remove the effect of climate change allegedly caused by UK emissions, just stand on Greta Thunberg”

Phillip Bratby
Reply to  Julian Flood
November 19, 2021 2:08 am

I too have been fighting for ears against our pig-ignorant ministers.

Bill Toland
Reply to  Phillip Bratby
November 19, 2021 2:51 am
griff
Reply to  Bill Toland
November 19, 2021 4:34 am

Do look up UK delicacy ‘Pork Scratchings’.

Possibly not before lunch

Ben Vorlich
Reply to  griff
November 19, 2021 5:23 am

Pork scratchings are more of an English delicacy. I’d never come across them until I started working in Stoke-on-Trent

Richard Brimage
Reply to  griff
November 19, 2021 6:17 am

I think those are what we call cracklins here in the US. I love them and we can get them fresh here in Louisiana. Didn’t realize you all liked them.

ATheoK
Reply to  griff
November 19, 2021 4:51 pm

Interesting comment, giffie.

It is always the alarmists who want other people to eat disgusting things.
Yet, they themselves abhor making full use of the creatures killed for their food.

Cracklings are fried pig skin snack food sold across most of the USA. They’re terrific for people on low carbohydrate diets or for anyone driving long distance.

The best sausages and hot dogs are made with pork, beef or sheep intestines.

Chitlins are fried pork intestines. Made at home from fresh intestines across America.

Tripe are stomach linings from cattle, sheep or pigs. Delicious when cooked tender.

Hogshead cheese, (‘head cheese’ in some parts of the country), is an aspic made from a pig’s gelatinous parts like skin, bone and cartilage.

Usually the meat adjacent to these parts are ground and molded into the aspic.
Terrific on crackers or toasted bread. Use anywhere you’d use pâté.
In cookbooks, these aspics are usually in the same chapter as pâté.

Scrapple is a term for using the flavorful but less palatable portions of pigs, grinding the meat fine, cooking thoroughly then adding it to corn meal in water.
Sort of like polenta with ground meat.

Pig jowls, pigs feet are delicacies in America, just as are duck and chicken feet are delicacies in Asia.

All good nutritious food. Except to climate alarmists and activists.

beng135
Reply to  ATheoK
November 22, 2021 9:17 am

Puddin’ — ground-up pig parts. Hmmmmm.
https://questionfun.com/what-is-puddin/

Alastair gray
Reply to  griff
November 21, 2021 1:47 pm

At least on one point griff we wail from thesame minaret. There is hope for you yet

H B
November 18, 2021 11:02 pm

You forgot 50 % of the poplation commited suicide the remaining people rose up and murdered all in authority and we returned to the dark ages

Reply to  H B
November 19, 2021 12:15 am

What about the compulsory homosexuality?

Gerry, England
Reply to  Leo Smith
November 19, 2021 6:42 am

Transgender – pick any one of the 400 available. Do try and keep up, Mr Smith.

Gottlob
Reply to  H B
November 19, 2021 5:54 am

And life was still better (for the survivors anyway).

Gordon A. Dressler
November 18, 2021 11:03 pm

Coming next: “Gulliver’s Travels in His EV” 

Zig Zag Wanderer
November 18, 2021 11:38 pm

As former Prime Minister Rishi Sunak put it in his recent memoirs

When was he Prime Minister?

Edit: ok, I get it, sorry. It’s a fictional future.

Last edited 14 days ago by Zig Zag Wanderer
Vuk
November 18, 2021 11:57 pm

No need to panic, our ‘ridiculam princeps’ Boris has made a U turn every day of the week but twice on Tursdays. Let’s live in hope that he will be true (that sounds like contradiction of terms) to himself.

Vincent Causey
November 18, 2021 11:58 pm

The author is far too kind to Rishi Sunak. I know he is using a literary device – using Sunak’s thoughts to describe the how the catastrophe unfolded – but I fear politicians like that will possess neither understanding nor remorse. Sunak will simply disappear back to his billionaire lifestyle, and Johnson probably enjoy a well paid position on the board of some globalist corporation, appearing from time to time to crow about Britain leading the world in “green” technology.

Newminster
Reply to  Vincent Causey
November 19, 2021 4:44 am

I reckon he’s picked the right one though. If any of them suddenly comes to his/her senses it’s likely to Sunak. (My other possible candidate, though many will disagree) could be Dorries! Time will tell but if it takes much more than 10 years I doubt I’ll be around to say “told you so!”

M Courtney
Reply to  Newminster
November 19, 2021 1:51 pm

The inventor of “Eat Out To Kill Your Grandma” is not a great thinker.

Nadine Dorries record speaks for itself. Theresa May without the personal courage (nor the hatred of foreigners though, in Dories favour).

If there was anyone in the Tory Party with any sense the currentPM would already be gone.

The piece should have gone with Starmer. He will make the same Green mistakes as Rishi would but may actually have the sense to realise he’s blundered.
Council flat (UK equivalent of a log cabin) to top lawyer in the land? Sir Kier Starmer is able, though Green.

griff
November 19, 2021 12:51 am

Let’s start by reaffirming that climate change already impacts the UK.

Here’s the UK Met Office to tell you about that:
Climate change continues to be evident across UK – Met Office

Now let’s review progress to date:

UK has reduced its CO2 by 48.8% on 1990 levels already and now has 42% renewable electricity and about 16% low carbon nuclear. We only get 2% and falling of our electricity from coal.

None of these solid achievements in any way impacted UK lifestyles – nobody noticed. The grid stayed working.

why would anyone believe that making necessary changes to mitigate future climate impacts is going to lead to some dystopian vision like the alarmist stuff set out in this article?

Zig Zag Wanderer
Reply to  griff
November 19, 2021 1:27 am

None of these solid achievements in any way impacted UK lifestyles – nobody noticed. The grid stayed working.

Electricity bills are rising so incredibly fast that the government has to introduce subsidies in the form of price caps to prevent people dying of cold. And that’s before insane policies of banning gas heaters are enforced. Dozens of electricity providers have gone bust because of stratospheric price increases they cannot pass on to customers. The UK nearly failed to provide power to the grid.

Yeah, right, no impact. Maybe apart from the impact that you want, to impoverish and k!ll uk citizens.

Just like the BBC, you want 10x as many people to die from cold, just because of some hypothetical increases in rain or something so terrible predicted by provenly failing models. Nothing has happened, nothing has been demonstrated to happen, yet you want to enforce misery and deaths.

Last edited 14 days ago by Zig Zag Wanderer
griff
Reply to  Zig Zag Wanderer
November 19, 2021 4:26 am

and the price rises and company fails aren’t down to UK green policy, but world fossil fuel costs…

and the increase in rain is NOT hypothetical, but actual: UK by measurement is 6% wetter than 30 years ago

Exactly how is net zero going to kill anyone?

The gas heater ban (on existing homes) is just alarmist nonsense: the actual plan is to put green hydrogen in the gas grid.

MarkW
Reply to  griff
November 19, 2021 5:33 am

I’m guessing that griff’s goal is to repeat his lies so frequently that everyone else just gives up refuting him.

Chaswarnertoo
Reply to  MarkW
November 19, 2021 5:44 am

Think it’s a composite bot that gets paid to post cobblers.

griff
Reply to  Chaswarnertoo
November 19, 2021 8:14 am

Because you have no argument, you have to resort to childish statements like that?

griff
Reply to  MarkW
November 19, 2021 8:13 am

but you never DO refute me.

MarkW
Reply to  griff
November 19, 2021 1:03 pm

You wish.

DipChip
Reply to  MarkW
November 19, 2021 8:27 am

“the actual plan is to put green hydrogen in the gas grid.”

This statement proves his technical expertise is severely lacking.

MarkW
Reply to  DipChip
November 19, 2021 7:43 pm

He read it in the Guardian, so it must be true.

DipChip
Reply to  griff
November 19, 2021 5:44 am

Not until they determine how to stop the leakage of hydrogen from the current gas distribution system.

And also at what pressures do Natural gas and Hydrogen have equal energy by volume?

Carbon500
Reply to  griff
November 19, 2021 6:27 am

Griff: You say that ‘the increase in rain is NOT hypothetical, but actual: UK by measurement is 6% wetter than 30 years ago.’
Please supply the figures and calculations whereby this figure was derived. What exactly is meant by ‘6% wetter’? Water can’t get any wetter! I asume you mean that rainfall has increased.

MarkW
Reply to  Carbon500
November 19, 2021 8:12 am

Also show the uncertainty bars on all of the data, both now and 30 years ago. Don’t forget to include the fact that not all of Britain is being measured and you are only guessing as to what went on between the existing sensors.

griff
Reply to  Carbon500
November 19, 2021 8:15 am

somewhere I’ve already given you the link to the Met Office statement… you can look further at the many articles on their website

Richard Page
Reply to  griff
November 19, 2021 9:10 am

You’ve done it so often now and been refuted every time. The UK is not 6% wetter, is not experiencing climate change and you have been given links to data that shows this and refutes the alarmist Met Office site. You are just peddling alarmist nonsense and exhibiting your failings and delusions in public – frankly it’s just embarrassing, Griffy.

Carbon500
Reply to  griff
November 20, 2021 2:31 am

Figures and data, Griff – I want to see arguments and opinions from you based on your study of observed numerical data, and, importantly, references given for the source of your figures.
Show that you’ve actually bothered to question what someone’s saying – what’s the background?
That’s how science works.

Jim Gorman
Reply to  griff
November 20, 2021 6:33 am

You obviously have a computer so find a notepad application and put your references in it. Then you can copy and paste them so we don’t have to spend valuable time trying to find the data you think you know about.

Richard Page
Reply to  Carbon500
November 19, 2021 9:04 am

It’s based on alarmist propaganda put out on the Met Office blog. It’s got zero credibility and no basis in observed reality – despite being refuted on several different occasions, Griffy continues to use such a discredited source for his favourite misinformation.

MarkW
Reply to  griff
November 19, 2021 8:11 am

Home energy prices were going up for a long time before European oil and gas prices started rising.
You’re going to need to think up a new excuse.

Mark BLR
Reply to  griff
November 19, 2021 8:32 am

and the price rises and company fails aren’t down to UK green policy, but world fossil fuel costs

Technically correct, but not the whole story.

From the Ofgem website (direct link, scroll down to the “What makes up your energy bill? … Electricity bill” pie-chart) :
“Environmental/social obligation costs (25.48%)”

The “UK green policy” has a non-negligible effect on UK household electricity bills, hence the current effort to shift some of those “climate levies” from the electricity side to the gas side of the equation..

Richard S Courtney
Reply to  griff
November 19, 2021 8:53 am

Griff,

You say,

and the price rises and company fails aren’t down to UK green policy, but world fossil fuel costs…

I strongly suggest you don’t say that in an ex-coal mining village if you want to get out alive.

A generation has passed but there are still people trapped in their homes because they had to complete paying-off their mortgages in properties that could not be sold because nobody wants to move to a mining village with no mine.

Richard

LdB
Reply to  griff
November 20, 2021 3:12 am

Green Hydrogen .. ROFL the gift that keeps on giving.

Robert Slightam
Reply to  griff
November 21, 2021 11:38 am

What is green hydrogen

Gordon A. Dressler
Reply to  Zig Zag Wanderer
November 19, 2021 6:40 am

griff is always about 90 kWh short of a full charge.

Vuk
Reply to  griff
November 19, 2021 1:36 am

Griffo,
Your role here is to make us laugh, but today you are not to your usual standard, quoting fibs from MO is not particularly funny, surely you can do better, so another – from me.

Vuk
Reply to  Vuk
November 19, 2021 2:16 am

. Perhaps you might be so kind to inform the WUWT readers how is this project doing, after all it is well over a year since taxpayers money has been allocated for it.
“Dominic Cummings wins £100m to save planet by sucking CO2 from air.
Friday July 03 2020, 12.01am BST, The Times
An experimental plan championed by Dominic Cummings to tackle global warming by “sucking” carbon dioxide out of the air will receive £100 million from the Treasury.
Dominic Cummings had “become obsessed” with the proposal, a source said.”

48.8% reducton in CO2, looks like Dominic Cummings’ project is off to flying start, together with millions of our money, possibly into distant mist of historic past of foggy Barnard Castle

https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/dominic-cummings-wins-100m-to-save-planet-by-sucking-co2-from-air-8qv3mzjx8

griff
Reply to  Vuk
November 19, 2021 4:28 am

I think that’s greenwashing and fiddling round the edges of the problem.

The main part of UK planning is a massive increase in offshore wind -another 30 GW, plus more interconnectors and more nuclear. (I am not so sure about the nuclear!)

MarkW
Reply to  griff
November 19, 2021 5:34 am

What matters is not how many bird choppers are built, but whether they manage to produce any energy when that energy is needed.
So far the answer to that question is a resounding NO.

Vincent Causey
Reply to  griff
November 19, 2021 6:29 am

How much CO2 is released in the mining, fabrication, transportation and installation of these devices? And they all have to be disposed of and replaced after 20 years – rinse, repeat, for ever.

griff
Reply to  Vincent Causey
November 19, 2021 8:16 am

If you look you will find they save more CO2 than taken in construction, transport, erection, operation and eventual dismantling after 18 months operation, usually less.

Richard Page
Reply to  griff
November 19, 2021 9:18 am

Dear God, Griffy – that one statement has far more than your usual delusions and mistakes in it but it is embarrassingly hilarious at the same time. First of all, I do believe you meant to say 18 years, not 18 months (although it’s funnier and true for some wind turbines the way you wrote it) however the break-even point with wind turbines is usually around the 25-30 year mark at best, often far longer; given that the average lifespan is around 15 years (14-18 is typical) even you can see that they will never save anything in emissions. They are exactly as planned – an expensive boondoggle to extract government subsidies for the benefit of their investors, nothing else.

MarkW
Reply to  griff
November 19, 2021 1:06 pm

That’s true, if you only consider the nacelle.

Jim Gorman
Reply to  griff
November 20, 2021 6:36 am

SHOW YOUR DATA that supports this conclusion. Assertions with supporting data is a joke!

Richard S Courtney
Reply to  griff
November 19, 2021 9:27 am

griff,

It has been known for a long time that windpower does NOT reduce greenhouse gas emissions.

For a full explanation of this I suggest you read the text of the 2006 Annual Prestigious Lecture which I had the honour of providing for a Special Joint Meeting of The North of England Institute of Mining and Mechanical Engineers and The Institute of Materials, Minerals and Mining (North East). You can read it at
http://scienceandpublicpolicy.org/images/stories/papers/reprint/courtney_2006_lecture.pdf
Its title is,
A suggestion for meeting the UK Government’s renewable energy target because the adopted use of windfarms cannot meet it.

It includes this conclusion,

Windfarms are expensive, polluting, environmentally damaging bird swatters that produce no useful electricity and make no significant reduction to emissions but threaten electricity cuts.

For now, I copy its Synopsis,

The UK Energy White Paper was published by the UK’s Department of Trade and Industry (DTI) in May 2003. It proposed the objective of a contribution to reduction of carbon dioxide (CO2) emissions by use of ‘renewables’ mostly in the form of windfarms (i.e. local assemblies of wind turbines) to provide 20% of UK electricity supply. This objective was endorsed by the UK’s Energy Review that was published by the DTI on 11 July 2006. However, this paper suggests the use of windfarms cannot make significant contribution to reducing the emissions and suggests the construction of tidal coffer dams instead. Windfarms for power generation provide intermittent power so they merely displace thermal power stations onto standby mode or to operate at reduced efficiency while the thermal power stations wait for the wind to change. They make no significant reduction to pollution because thermal power stations continue to use their fuel and to produce their emissions while operating in standby mode or with reduced efficiency that can increase their emissions at low output. And this need for continuously operating backup means that windfarms can only provide negligible useful electricity to electricity grid supply systems. But the large scale use of windfarms requires upgrading of an electricity grid, more complex grid management, and operation of additional thermal power stations to protect against power cuts in time of supply failure. These effects increase the cost of electricity supplied by the grid in addition to the capital, maintenance and operating costs of the windfarms themselves. And the windfarms cause significant environmental damage. Tidal coffer dams would not have these problems and could provide continuous and controllable power supply at similar cost to off-shore windfarms.

Please note that when the paper says,
And this need for continuously operating backup means that windfarms can only provide negligible useful electricity to electricity grid supply systems.”
it is making a statement of economic usefulness and it is NOT misunderstanding thermodynamic usefulness (as windfarm promoters have misrepresented).

Richard

TonyL
Reply to  Vuk
November 19, 2021 4:42 am

Dominic Cummings, OK.
From Wikipedia, that paragon of accuracy and truth:

“Dominic Mckenzie Cummings (born 25 November 1971) is a British political strategist who served as chief adviser to British Prime MinisterBoris Johnson from 24 July 2019 until 13 November 2020.”

Sounds like a classic case of a well connected insider cashing in.

griff
Reply to  Vuk
November 19, 2021 4:26 am

I quoted the UK Met Office, didn’t I? How are their actual observations ‘fibs’?

MarkW
Reply to  griff
November 19, 2021 5:34 am

The fib is claiming they are actual observations.

griff
Reply to  MarkW
November 19, 2021 8:19 am

They are. How are they not? If you think the Met Office makes it up, tell me why they’d do that

MarkW
Reply to  griff
November 19, 2021 1:08 pm

As has been stated before, they are adjusted, infilled and corrected until they show what those in power want them to show.

Vuk
Reply to  griff
November 19, 2021 5:51 am

Griffo
Just link title you quoted is a fib. Nothing has happened that had not been seen before, except media exaggeration, building on flood plains, not maintaining rivers banks, measuring temperature next two runways of a busiest world airport, increased cities population, …. need I go on. There is a 60+ years cycle in the nearby Atlantic, 30+ years of warming, 30+ years of cooling, just if it escaped your ‘goldfish’ memory span we happened to be at the top of warming cycle.
Griffo get grip of your intelligence and start thinking for your self not ‘paroting’ any nonsense you read in papers or online.

griff
Reply to  Vuk
November 19, 2021 8:18 am

but we do maintain rivers: rivers in Cumbria are now dredged annually. The things which flood are not usually new build on flood plains… many places flooded have gone 100 to 300 years unflooded till this century.

Vuk
Reply to  griff
November 19, 2021 10:23 am

Griffo, old boy
Most of things have happened before. I mentioned 60 year cycless that the Atlantic imposes on the UK’s climate. We are on the top of such cycle. Exactly two cycles ago Cumbria had even worse floods, but then there was no BBC to tell us that the world doomed.
“Estimating areal rainfall during the 1898 flood in the English Lake District and the implications for probable maximum precipitation”

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/249882355_Estimating_areal_rainfall_during_the_1898_flood_in_the_English_Lake_District_and_the_implications_for_probable_maximum_precipitation

Last edited 14 days ago by Vuk
MarkW
Reply to  griff
November 19, 2021 1:12 pm

Now dredged annually. Should have been all along.
The fact that these areas flooded 100 to 300 years ago, long before much of the much of the country was built up (And no, it’s not just building in the flood plain that matters, it’s any building anywhere in the watershed that matters) proves that the flooding is not being caused by CO2.

LdB
Reply to  griff
November 20, 2021 3:16 am

You have to dredge them to get rid of the build up of raw sewage you dump in them. A Cumbria sewage plant ranked number 1 last year at 8000hrs of dumping raw sewage.

Carbon500
Reply to  griff
November 19, 2021 7:22 am

Show the actual measured observations you’re referring to Griff – data, figures, graphs.

griff
Reply to  Carbon500
November 19, 2021 8:18 am

The Met Office, the gold standard for world weather recording, has all the figures you need.

Zig Zag Wanderer
Reply to  griff
November 19, 2021 12:24 pm

The Met Office, the gold standard for world weather recording

Now, that’s better griff. Some properly funny stuff for our amusement!

MarkW
Reply to  griff
November 19, 2021 1:13 pm

And who says the Met is the gold standard? The Met.
Sounds like the definition of a climate scientist. That being anyone who agrees with those who already call themselves climate scientists.

Carbon500
Reply to  griff
November 20, 2021 2:40 am

You haven’t produced any figures in support of your comments Griff.
Once again, you sidestep such a request.

Dave Fair
Reply to  griff
November 19, 2021 2:45 pm

So what if the UK is slightly warmer and wetter? The Met Office report has not shown that storms and flooding have increased beyond historical ranges, despite alarmist language concerning some recent storms. The report is official misdirection, implying damages that are not occurring.

Bill Toland
Reply to  griff
November 19, 2021 1:43 am

Griff, according to your favourite newspaper The Guardian, Britain’s carbon footprint has not fallen at all. We have just exported all of our heavy industry to countries which don’t care about global warming. We have replaced domestic co2 production with imported co2 production.
https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2019/oct/21/britain-is-g7s-biggest-net-importer-of-co2-emissions-per-capita-says-ons

griff
Reply to  Bill Toland
November 19, 2021 4:28 am

Well I think they are wrong on that…

why? because the things we reduced CO2 on are the things which are still in this country – UK power generation principally.

Bill Toland
Reply to  griff
November 19, 2021 4:52 am

The main reason why UK power generation produces less co2 is because coal fired power plants have been replaced by gas fired power plants.

griff
Reply to  Bill Toland
November 19, 2021 8:19 am

Yes.

LdB
Reply to  griff
November 20, 2021 3:19 am

What bird choppers aren’t saving the day?
That is a bit of an admission Griff you are still reliant on evil fossil fuels then.

MarkW
Reply to  griff
November 19, 2021 5:35 am

I see griff actually believes that if manufacturing is moved over seas, that Britain has reduced over all carbon emissions.

griff
Reply to  MarkW
November 19, 2021 8:20 am

Not all UK reduction in CO2 is accounted for by moving industry overseas. In fact I submit that most moved before the start point of 1990 for measuring the reduction

MarkW
Reply to  griff
November 19, 2021 1:14 pm

You can submit whatever you want, still doesn’t make it true or relevant.

Bill Toland
Reply to  griff
November 19, 2021 5:36 am

Griff, you can see from the graph that the reason for the fall in co2 emissions is due principally to two sectors, business and energy supply. Energy supply emissions have fallen because coal power stations have been replaced by gas power stations. Business emissions have fallen because Britain’s heavy industry has been exported to countries which don’t care about global warming. Renewable energy has had no measurable effect on Britain’s co2 emissions.

1024px-UK_CO2_emissions_by_sector_(1990-2019).png
Bill Toland
Reply to  Bill Toland
November 19, 2021 5:45 am

As I explained in the link from the Guardian, when imports are allowed for, Britain’s co2 emissions have barely budged over the last 30 years.

Gordon A. Dressler
Reply to  Bill Toland
November 19, 2021 6:55 am

Bill,

Great rebuttal, but cease trying to convince griff of anything . . . his/her/its mind, as they say, is already made up.

For proof of this, look no further than his/her/its post immediately above where he/she/it states, verbatim:
“Well I think they are wrong on that…”
with no objective evidence being provided to support that opinion.

Oh, and griff is a troll too.

MarkW
Reply to  Gordon A. Dressler
November 19, 2021 8:14 am

I’m convinced that there is more than one griff. The posting style changes too much from day to day for their to be only one.

Bill Toland
Reply to  MarkW
November 19, 2021 10:12 am

Mark, you might be right. Griff now seems to be agreeing with all of my posts. Maybe he is is having trouble rebutting them or perhaps this is a different Griff.

griff
Reply to  Bill Toland
November 19, 2021 8:22 am

Yes, we both agree there’s been a substantial fall from the change in energy production.

I would argue that not all or even most business reduction has been from exporting trade.

Look at the US – massive export of production, far more than the UK. No real drop in CO2 output?

Bill Toland
Reply to  griff
November 19, 2021 8:53 am

Co2 emissions in the USA fell by 14% from 2000 to 2018.
During this same period, the population of the USA rose by 16%, so this was a huge reduction in co2 emissions by capita.

https://www.macrotrends.net/countries/USA/united-states/carbon-co2-emissions

Abolition Man
Reply to  griff
November 19, 2021 1:58 am

griffter,
Either get yourself some new writers, or see about getting your meds adjusted; you seem to have lost that vein of comedic genius we have come to know and respect! Well, know, anyway!
How can merry olde England do a whit to reduce global CO2, when it is being driven by the oceans pumping out more due to the recently ended warming cycle?
The ocean deeps will continue to pump out more of the Gas of Life as the warmth penetrates the bathysphere, but the cooling cycle has already begun! Perhaps it will be the onset of the next glaciation; the long sought fulfillment of your prayers and dreams!

griff
Reply to  Abolition Man
November 19, 2021 4:29 am

Really? someone is writing this for me or I am ‘on meds’?

what a childish response on a serious issue. I take it you have no evidence or reasoned argument to advance.

Abolition Man
Reply to  griff
November 19, 2021 5:31 am

griffter,
When you throw out your cherrypicked bombs you are usually able to illicit a few laughs! Trying to seriously defend Net Zero only makes you sound like a pompous boor!
Maybe you’d care to explain the steady drop in CO2 over the last 50,000,000 years, or the complete lack of correlation between CO2 and temps in the geologic record!? What about earlier warm cycles that were warmer than the present, like the Minoan, Roman, or Medieval!? How about debunking some of the excellent work posted here by writers like Prof. Jim Steele or Willis Eschenbach!?
Trying to pose as a reasoned voice while ignoring everything prior to about 1850 does not work; it only serves to highlight your denial of science AND climate!! Advocating for a return to the Little Ice Age may seem sensible to you; but most people prefer tropical living over polar, except when they want to go skiing!

griff
Reply to  Abolition Man
November 19, 2021 8:23 am

There are of course natural climate cycles.

what you fail to appreciate there is also an additional human driven climate impact from CO2 on top of them, currently the major climate driver

Reply to  griff
November 19, 2021 10:02 am

Please show the evidence that the previous cycles were “natural” but that those influences ceased and the current rise and fall episodes since 1850 are due to human driven CO2.

Note: We will NOT accept the “true believer” scientists “proof” that “We have looked at all other possible causes so it MUST be human driven CO2”. That logic might be proof in Christian apologetics, but not in actual science.

MarkW
Reply to  griff
November 19, 2021 1:18 pm

You can make the claim that CO2 is a major climate driver all you want, but until you can find evidence of this it remains nothing more than your belief.
And showing that things that have been happening for at least thousands of years, are still happening, is not proof.

Dave Fair
Reply to  griff
November 19, 2021 2:54 pm

The UN IPCC CliSciFi climate modelers also assume that CO2 is a major climate driver. The sad thing is that they are running at least 2 times hotter than observations. Going from CMIP5 to CMIP6 models has increased the deviations, even in hindcasts.

MarkW
Reply to  griff
November 19, 2021 5:36 am

Since griff has never once presented evidence or reasoned argument, I find this statement of his quite amusing.

griff
Reply to  MarkW
November 19, 2021 8:23 am

and your counter argument is…?

Richard Page
Reply to  griff
November 19, 2021 9:24 am

No counter argument is necessary until you put forward a valid argument, with any form of evidence to back it up. Just throwing out unsubstantiated claims and wild accusations is not an argument, it’s idiocy.

Dave Fair
Reply to  griff
November 19, 2021 2:55 pm

UN IPCC CliSciFi models vs reality.

Chaswarnertoo
Reply to  griff
November 19, 2021 5:47 am

I’m afraid I also assumed you are medicated. If not, you should be.

griff
Reply to  Chaswarnertoo
November 19, 2021 8:24 am

And there you go again.

I present an argument which differs from your point of view and it has to be because I need meds.

Play the ball sir, not the man!

Richard Page
Reply to  griff
November 19, 2021 9:27 am

Again, you have yet to put forward an argument and, since all you have are wild and unsupported ramblings, you must expect them to be treated as the ravings of some ill or unsound mind.

MarkW
Reply to  griff
November 19, 2021 1:20 pm

It’s not that you have a different point of view. It’s that you are so obviously delusional and disconnected from reality.

Bill Toland
Reply to  griff
November 19, 2021 2:00 am

Griff, according to the Department for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy, fossil fuels accounted for 79.6 percent of the primary energy used in the UK in 2019, while wind and solar accounted for 3.47 percent of the total.

griff
Reply to  Bill Toland
November 19, 2021 4:30 am

Primary energy includes transport, so you are shifting the argument away from looking at electricity generation, the stats I quoted

Bill Toland
Reply to  griff
November 19, 2021 4:58 am

I thought that it was total carbon dioxide emissions that counted, not their source. You also didn’t mention that the renewables figure you quoted includes Drax, Britain’s biggest power station, which burns American forests. I don’t regard that as very renewable.

Last edited 14 days ago by Bill Toland
griff
Reply to  Bill Toland
November 19, 2021 8:25 am

Drax is not renewable.

I am pleased Watts readers share Greenpeace’s view on that

MarkW
Reply to  griff
November 19, 2021 1:21 pm

We here at WUWT were ridiculing Drax back when Greenpeace was still supporting it

Ben Vorlich
Reply to  griff
November 19, 2021 2:36 am

Gruff already has dossiers on his colleagues, friends and relatives for handing to the Climate Stasi in anticipation of the glorious climate revolution.

Tom Abbott
Reply to  Ben Vorlich
November 19, 2021 4:06 am

I think the U.S. is on the verge of getting its own “American Stasi” enforcers.

The spending bill currently about to be voted on in the U.S. House of Representatives, has a provision in it to hire 300,000 climate change activists. That number was whittled down from 1.5 million, supposedly to reduce the spending a little bit.

Three Hundred Thouand Climate Change activists. AOC is rubbing her hands together with glee, thinking about which climate change skeptic she is going to sic the Climate Change Brownshirts on first.

griff
Reply to  Ben Vorlich
November 19, 2021 4:30 am

Seriously?

MarkW
Reply to  griff
November 19, 2021 5:36 am

That’s what loyal socialists do.

griff
Reply to  MarkW
November 19, 2021 8:25 am

I’m not a socialist, so I wouldn’t know.

Richard Page
Reply to  griff
November 19, 2021 9:28 am

Judge a man by the company he keeps.

MarkW
Reply to  griff
November 19, 2021 1:22 pm

Spout socialist drivel, but your not a socialist. OK, if that’s how you want to play it.

Lrp
Reply to  griff
November 19, 2021 2:55 am

Losing manufacturing is hardly an achievement

griff
Reply to  Lrp
November 19, 2021 4:31 am

and I think that happened in the UK well before the Millenium

Chaswarnertoo
Reply to  griff
November 19, 2021 5:48 am

You? Think? 🤣

MarkW
Reply to  griff
November 19, 2021 8:15 am

It’s a continuing process.

Joao Martins
Reply to  griff
November 19, 2021 3:45 am

“Let’s start by reaffirming that climate change already impacts the UK.”

A VERY controversial statement with which MOST people with a moderate level of scientific education will disagree.

So, starting something with that statement will end all conversation with anyone with a moderate level of scientific education, no matter what his conviction in refusing or accepting such a statement.

BECAUSE anyone with a moderate level of scientific education will PRAISE debate and search for truth, and will ABOMINATE “magister dixit” or conclusions fixed before searching or analysing the facts.

Last edited 14 days ago by Joao Martins
griff
Reply to  Joao Martins
November 19, 2021 4:32 am

Well the reputable authority I quoted thinks it does and advances evidence based on observation, not modelling.

why is the Met Office wrong?

MarkW
Reply to  griff
November 19, 2021 5:37 am

Cooked data is not observations.

griff
Reply to  MarkW
November 19, 2021 8:26 am

The Met Office in recording rainfall and temperature is ‘cooking data’?

why would it do that? It gets funded whether the climate changes or not.

Richard Page
Reply to  griff
November 19, 2021 9:33 am

True, but the funding vastly increases when it starts screaming about climate change – it’s a common bandwagon to jump on, can’t blame them for getting in on the act if there’s more money to be had. Despite that, we don’t have to believe the lies and exaggerations they’re using to get all that extra funding. Didn’t they buy that brand new, shiny super computer a few years back on the basis of the climate change work they were supposedly doing?

Reply to  griff
November 19, 2021 10:06 am

The level of funding for the MET Office as well as Climate related agencies in the US is dependent on the Climate Scare.

Just look at Biden’s current BBB boondoggle.

MarkW
Reply to  griff
November 19, 2021 1:23 pm

If it’s not raw data, it’s cooked.

Joao Martins
Reply to  griff
November 19, 2021 2:36 pm

Should the Met Office do what is implied in its name (Meteorology), it would be a reliable source of meteorologic opinions. The problem is, they emit opinions about climate. Two completely different branches of science, two non-overlapping specializations.

It is not because a bureaucratic state department gets money to do some task thet it will do that task correctly! (shame on the people who in government give them money carelessly and who in the government have no capacity to evaluate the output obtained from that money)

I would take the opinions of the Met Office from UK or any other country about climate with the same mistrust as if they were giving opinions about how to play chess.

Dave Fair
Reply to  griff
November 19, 2021 3:01 pm

The Met Office “evidence” is minor warming and wetting, nothing more. There have been no adverse climate changes asserted by them. Warmer and wetter is better for all life on the planet. I do admit they implied storms are getting worse, but they presented no data to back it up.

Tom Abbott
Reply to  griff
November 19, 2021 3:58 am

“Let’s start by reaffirming that climate change already impacts the UK.”

Let’s not. There is no evidence that CO2 is impacting the UK. It’s a figment of your imagination. It’s called “seeing what you want/expect to see”.

griff
Reply to  Tom Abbott
November 19, 2021 4:32 am

and you would say to the Met Office stats…?

Tony
Reply to  griff
November 19, 2021 5:08 am

Made up,like the tooth fairy.

Chaswarnertoo
Reply to  griff
November 19, 2021 5:49 am

Modelled data is not observations.

griff
Reply to  Chaswarnertoo
November 19, 2021 8:26 am

If the rainfall recorded is greater, that’s not a model

MarkW
Reply to  griff
November 19, 2021 1:24 pm

Is the rainfall greater, if the increase is less than the confidence interval?

Dave Fair
Reply to  griff
November 19, 2021 3:03 pm

Slight warming and minor rainfall increases benefit all life on the planet, as does the greening of additional CO2 in the atmosphere.

Tom Abbott
Reply to  griff
November 19, 2021 7:19 am

“and you would say to the Met Office stats…?”

I would say, where’s the connection to CO2?

Carbon500
Reply to  griff
November 19, 2021 7:25 am

Which Met Office stats?

Mark BLR
Reply to  griff
November 19, 2021 4:12 am

Let’s start by reaffirming that climate change already impacts the UK.

FAR (1990), “SPM”, page xxviii : Climate varies naturally on all time-scales from hundreds of millions of years down to the year-to-year.

SAR (1995), SPM, page 7 : Future unexpected, large and rapid climate system changes (as have occurred in the past) are, by their nature, difficult to predict. This implies that future climate changes may also involve “surprises”. In particular these arise from the non­ linear nature of the climate system. When rapidly forced, non-linear systems are especially subject to unexpected behaviour.

TAR (2001), Chapter 1, page 91 : But even without changes in external forcing, the climate may vary naturally, because, in a system of components with very different response times and non-linear interactions, the components are never in equilibrium and are constantly varying.

Climate varies naturally on all time-scales.

AR5 (2013), Chapter 1, pages 121 and 138 : The processes affecting climate can exhibit considerable natural variability. Even in the absence of external forcing, periodic and chaotic variations on a vast range of spatial and temporal scales are observed.

Internal or natural variability, the natural fluctuations in climate, occur in the absence of any RF of the Earth’s climate (Hawkins and Sutton, 2009). Climate varies naturally on nearly all time and space scales, and quantifying precisely the nature of this variability is challenging, and is characterized by considerable uncertainty.

AR6 (2021), section 4.2.5, pages 4-19 and 4-20 : However, the long-term perspective to the end of the 21st century or even out to 2300 takes us beyond what can be observed in time for a standard evaluation of model projections, and in this sense the assessment of long-term projections will remain fundamentally limited.

Still other uncertainties ⎼ such as further pandemics, nuclear holocaust, global natural disaster such as tsunami or asteroid impact, or fundamental technological change such as fusion ⎼ are not accounted for at all.

griff
Reply to  Mark BLR
November 19, 2021 4:33 am

Yes. climate always changes.

And now it ALSO changes from human CO2, while other climate drivers of warming aren’t in current operation (e.g low solar output over last 38 years)

Tony
Reply to  griff
November 19, 2021 5:08 am

No it doesn’t,humans have nothing to do with it.

Chaswarnertoo
Reply to  Tony
November 19, 2021 5:50 am

Well. Very, very little. Probably not measurable.

Mark BLR
Reply to  Tony
November 19, 2021 7:05 am

… humans have nothing to do with it

An exaggeration.

One of the most famous quotes from the TAR (in the TS on page 78 and Chapter 14 on page 771) is :

The climate system is a coupled non-linear chaotic system, and therefore the long-term prediction of future climate states is not possible. Rather the focus must be upon the prediction of the probability distribution of the system’s future possible states by the generation of ensembles of model solutions.

Check out “The Butterfly Effect” in relation to “chaotic systems”.

In the particular case of climate (and weather) models, while it is often possible to distinguish between “natural variability” and “anthropogenic” stimuli to the system, it is virtually impossible to separate the resulting individual “extreme weather events” into just those two (overly simplistic / cautionary example of “binary thinking” / …) categories.

It doesn’t stop people from trying though, as seen in the multiplication of “Attribution Studies” over the last decade or two.

Dave Fair
Reply to  Mark BLR
November 19, 2021 3:07 pm

See Ross McKittrick’s takedown of the statistics behind the basis of attribution studies.

MarkW
Reply to  griff
November 19, 2021 5:39 am

Since nothing that is happening now, has not happened before, how do you know that this time it’s being caused by CO2.
The world is still cooler than it was during the Medieval, Roman, Minoan and Egyptian warm periods, to say nothing of the Holocene Optimum, and none of those warm periods were caused by CO2.

griff
Reply to  MarkW
November 19, 2021 8:28 am

well there isn’t a Milankovitch cycle with a warming effect in operation, the sun is in a low activity period (has been for 38 years), there various natural cycles in operation over the last 50 years do not account for the warming observed or other effects like more rapidly receding glaciers, melting sea ice etc.

MarkW
Reply to  griff
November 19, 2021 1:28 pm

Since we know that the Holocene Optimum, Minoan, Roman and Medieval warm periods all occurred and all were warmer to much warmer than it is today, please explain what caused them and then give a detailed explanation as to why this cause is no longer operational today. Just whining that the models have proven that CO2 must be the cause is not an explanation, it’s just a dodge. Especially since the models are unable to model any of the previous warm periods.

There is also the problem that the models have predicted 2 to 3 times more warming than actually occurred.

Gordon A. Dressler
Reply to  griff
November 19, 2021 7:06 am

griff,

What objective evidence can you offer to support your assertion that human CO2 is now a climate driver (your words)?

You may, or may not, be aware of the caution that “correlation does not necessarily equal causation”.

MarkW
Reply to  Gordon A. Dressler
November 19, 2021 8:19 am

Apparently the models have predicted that there will be floods, droughts and heat waves.
Since there have been floods, droughts and heat waves, and since such things have never happened in the past, this proves that the models are correct and we are all going to die unless we convert to socialism.

griff
Reply to  Gordon A. Dressler
November 19, 2021 8:29 am

I refer you to the output of world science. go argue with NASA and the world’s universities.

Gordon A. Dressler
Reply to  griff
November 19, 2021 12:42 pm

Ummm . . . where can I find the “output of world science”?

Is “NASA and the world’s universities” the totality of “output of world science”?

So incredibly stupid!

MarkW
Reply to  griff
November 19, 2021 1:29 pm

So appeal to authority is all you’ve got.
The claim that the majority of scientists agree that CO2 is a major driver of climate has been refuted even more times than you have.

philincalifornia
Reply to  griff
November 19, 2021 1:47 pm

If the output of world science is so wonderful, then why can’t you post just a couple of teeny weeny bullet points instead of answering with a lame appeal to authority.

By the way, you don’t need to answer that for me. I already know the answer as to why you can’t and haven’t ever been able to, despite being asked on dozens of occasions.

Jay Willis
Reply to  griff
November 19, 2021 2:46 pm

“I refer you to the output of world science. go argue with NASA and the world’s universities.”

You lost it right there.

Dave Fair
Reply to  griff
November 19, 2021 3:10 pm

Don’t have to; nature does a good job itself of arguing with the UN IPCC CliSciFi modelers.

Dave Fair
Reply to  Gordon A. Dressler
November 19, 2021 3:09 pm

Especially since there has been no correlation of CO2 and warming over the past few decades.

Richard Page
Reply to  griff
November 19, 2021 9:36 am

Provide the link to a reputable scientific study showing the connection between CO2 and climate change, please?

Gordon A. Dressler
Reply to  Mark BLR
November 19, 2021 7:02 am

Mark BLR,

42^42 intergalactic credits for your post!

Newminster
Reply to  griff
November 19, 2021 5:04 am

Let’s start by reaffirming that climate change already impacts the UK.

Let’s not. Climate change is not “evident across the UK” just because the Warmunists in the Met Office say it is. Nothing that I have seen, even in the Met Office’s own charts and figures (as well as 80 years of personal experience) tells me that UK climate is doing anything out of the ordinary, even allowing for dubious records from the middle of Heathrow Airport and sun traps in the middle of Cambridge.
Not to mention relatively recent rain gauges installed on sites guaranteed to produce records sooner rather than later.
Wind is actually doing well at the moment — 25% of a 40Gw demand. Add in 4% from solar and 1% from hydro and you’re still 28Gw short. Where is that supposed to come from? And don’t say biomass — because that’s cheating and you know it is and anyway it’s only good for another 6% and that’s top.
There is no reliable energy alternative to gas/nuclear for electricity generation or oil for transportation. If you have discovered one, please let us know.
Meanwhile get back in your box — at least until you know what you’re talking about.

Chaswarnertoo
Reply to  Newminster
November 19, 2021 5:51 am

Griff lives under a bridge, AFAIK.

MarkW
Reply to  Chaswarnertoo
November 19, 2021 8:20 am

And not a high class bridge.

griff
Reply to  Chaswarnertoo
November 19, 2021 8:29 am

and there you go again.

MarkW
Reply to  griff
November 19, 2021 1:30 pm

When you insult everyone’s intelligence by repeating tired old lies, over and over and over again, you have no right to expect genteel responses.

MarkW
Reply to  griff
November 19, 2021 5:32 am

There no lie so venal that griff won’t repeat it ad infinitum.

griff
Reply to  MarkW
November 19, 2021 8:29 am

and yet never do you cite that critical link which proves me wrong

MarkW
Reply to  griff
November 19, 2021 1:31 pm

griff repeats a lie 50 times. I refute the lie 49 times. Griff claims that the fact that I didn’t refute him on the 50th time proves that I can’t.

Tom Abbott
Reply to  griff
November 22, 2021 4:38 am

Griff, I think you have it backwards. Skeptics don’t have to prove you wrong, you have to prove yourself correct.

When you make an assertion, it is up to you to provide evidence for that assertion. Just making an assertion is not enough. Anyone can make an assertion about anything. It’s what you can prove that counts.

Last edited 11 days ago by Tom Abbott
Gottlob
Reply to  griff
November 19, 2021 6:19 am

Energy intensive heavy industry such as aluminium smelting, iron and steelmaking are gone or on their last legs and cannot compete on the world market. All that does is externalize manufacturing and the associated energy use and carbon emissionns.

griff
Reply to  Gottlob
November 19, 2021 8:30 am

aluminium smelting always chases the current lowest cost electricity…

Though I notice renewably powered Germany still has a sizeable aluminium industy

Dave Fair
Reply to  griff
November 19, 2021 3:13 pm

Subsidized aluminum industry using subsidized electricity.

Dave Andrews
Reply to  griff
November 20, 2021 6:41 am

If Germany is “renewably powered” why is it keeping its coal fired plants going till 2038?

Carbon500
Reply to  griff
November 19, 2021 6:20 am

Griff: You should stop reading the nonsense that the Met Office puts on its website and look at its actual records:
https://www.metoffice.gov.uk/research/climate/maps-and-data/uk-temperature-rainfall-and-sunshine-time-series
Now explain to me where the impacts in these graphs covering over 100 years can be seen – and I’m not interested in the occasional rainfall or temperature spike being touted as evidence of meaningful change, because these occur throughout the record.
You refer to ‘alarmist stuff’ – so what’s ‘climate change’ as touted by Gore, Thunberg, and many others if not ‘alarmist’?
You state that the UK has reduced its CO2 emissions by 48.8% from 1990 levels. Where does this information come from, and how are the nation’s CO2 emissions measured or estimated, exactly?
If you’re going to quote figures, state your sources. It’s normal scientific practice.

griff
Reply to  Carbon500
November 19, 2021 8:31 am

I see: so when they summarise their own records, then they fake them, is that what you are saying?

MarkW
Reply to  griff
November 19, 2021 1:32 pm

Have you ever compared the IPCC chapter summaries to the data that is actually in the chapters?
Summaries are where most of the lies first appear.

Carbon500
Reply to  griff
November 20, 2021 8:09 am

Griff: you’re deliberately sidestepping my question, which was:
“Explain to me where the impacts in these graphs covering over 100 years can be seen.”

philincalifornia
Reply to  griff
November 19, 2021 8:08 am

Climate change impacts every part of the globe griff. It always has. What’s under discussion here and behind your baby-talk sleight of hand is your stupid-ass, non-existent, bogus climate change.

Dave Fair
Reply to  griff
November 19, 2021 2:33 pm

Griff, did you read, much less understand the Met Office report? It said the UK has become slightly warmer and wetter over the past decades. While it did mention some storms, it in no way stated they were out of historical normal annual variations. It used mendacious wording (percent of average) to imply they were out of normal climatic variations. Dirty political/ideological misdirection to engender hysteria within the populace. The Met Office is attempting to persuade rather than inform. Gross ideological lies.

IanE
November 19, 2021 1:26 am

The only bit of that which I don’t believe is that Sunak will EVER be Prime Minister!

Steve Case
November 19, 2021 1:38 am

“…the only statistically significant climate impact that has been observed to date has been a 1 inch rise in globally-averaged sea levels, which hardly appears ‘catastrophic’. “
_________________________________

To date the tide gauge record hasn’t been adulterated by the climate cult, but by the fourth decade of the 21st century that will probably not be the case.  

The Axis powers did not win the second world war, but so far it sure looks like the modern day Bolsheviks are on the road to victory. Currently they don’t have the power to eliminate the Iain Aitkens of this world but it’s coming. We are not too far away from the reality of Climate Crime.

MarkW
Reply to  Steve Case
November 19, 2021 5:40 am

Making any disagreement with government a crime, is rapidly becoming standard in most countries of the world.

Right-Handed Shark
November 19, 2021 1:39 am

I have sent a link to this essay to my MP. I doubt anything will come of it, but I live in hope.

Janice Moore
Reply to  Right-Handed Shark
November 19, 2021 12:15 pm

Good idea, RH Shark. Given the article author’s slight hesitation about this assertion, you might want to add the following:

About that 97% “Consensus”…..

It has been completely debunked.

Here are 97 articles refuting that grossly flawed propaganda-masquerading-as-data:

http://www.populartechnology.net/2014/12/97-articles-refuting-97-consensus.html

(Me at about 12:10pm, PST, today)

Phillip Bratby
November 19, 2021 2:06 am

I think this narrative is far too optimistic. The UK’s decline will happen sooner and at a faster rate.

spock
November 19, 2021 2:09 am

What historians will definitely wonder about in future centuries is how deeply flawed logic, obscured by shrewd and unrelenting propaganda, actually enabled a coalition of powerful special interests to convince nearly everyone in the world that CO2 from human industry was a dangerous, planet-destroying toxin. It will be remembered as the greatest mass delusion in the history of the world – that CO2, the life of plants, was considered for a time to be a deadly poison.

Richard Lindzen

Tom Abbott
Reply to  spock
November 19, 2021 4:12 am

Richard has it correct. Where are all the other clear-thinking scientists? Isn’t it about time to speak up, here at the brink of policy disaster?

Albert H Brand
Reply to  spock
November 19, 2021 12:38 pm

Richard, I agree that CO2 is the life blood of the world but obviously Oxygen comes in as a close second at least for animals. Here is my question which I have never had a satisfactory answer to is : If Oxygen is only made by plants from CO2 how can the earth maintain a 20% level with a feedstock of only 400 parts per million? Thank you very much. Al Brand class of 1958 course IIB

Abolition Man
November 19, 2021 2:10 am

It is indeed appropriate to use a work of fiction to do battle with the major works of propaganda and disinformation pouring from the spigot of the Climatariat! How else can one do battle against mindless minions, but to laugh at and ridicule them!
The future will look back in shock and disbelief at the way in which seemingly intelligent and well-educated elites could be SO VERY far off the target! We must make certain that our descendants can plainly see that most were just stupid or greedy; the truly evil purveyors of civilizational collapse were only a small, but effective, cadre within the Green Blob!

Tom Abbott
Reply to  Abolition Man
November 19, 2021 4:23 am

“the truly evil purveyors of civilizational collapse were only a small, but effective, cadre within the Green Blob!”

With the help of the Leftwing Media who have brainwashed the public with their distortions of the truth about CO2.

“Communists must always consider that of all the arts the motion picture is the most important” –Vladimir Lenin

Having the media on their side gives the Alarmists a huge advantage. The Media promotes every climate change distortion the Alarmists put out.

Gregory Woods
November 19, 2021 2:42 am

Death by a thousand cuts…

Malcolm Chapman
November 19, 2021 3:05 am

Thanks for this – it’s a good try at dealing with this monster.

Two comments/queries:

What will an enormous pile of useless Lithium ion car batteries look like? It won’t I think be explosive and poisonous electrolyte leaching into the soil – or at least it won’t be only that. Will it just fizz away quietly to itself, somewhere in the desert plains?

There will surely be a democratic upsurge against this nonsense, sooner rather than later, and energy prices will be the provocation. It is difficult to see exactly what form this will take, given that both major parties believe in this tooth fairy. But this coming winter, or the next, we will surely start to see individual MPs bailing out – they are already there, as far as I can tell, in the form of Net Zero Watch. We can only hope.

MarkW
Reply to  Malcolm Chapman
November 19, 2021 5:43 am

If somebody drops one of those batteries and exposes the lithium inside to air and water, then the ensuing fire will consume all of the batteries in the mountain of batteries.

John H
Reply to  Malcolm Chapman
November 19, 2021 6:38 am

Who do you vote for to stop this insanity, all the major parties are signed up to it, Boris was thinking the right way until he became PM and allowed his dick to rule his head, but can you trust the rest who have not stood up to his change. All that’s left is voting for a protest party like UKIP who with look would get the Conservatives back in line as UKIP/Brexit parties did over the EU.

Tom Abbott
Reply to  John H
November 19, 2021 7:52 am

“Who do you vote for to stop this insanity”

I would vote for legitimate scientists to challenge the notion that the Earth is currently experiencing unprecedented warming.

If there is no unprecedented warming, then CO2 would be a minor player in determining the Earth’s temperatures, since there is much more CO2 in the air now, than in the past, yet it was as warm or warmer in the past than it is now.

The claim there is unprecedented warming today is easily disproved. The Mann Hockey Stick global temperature chart has been shown to be not fit for purpose, and the written, historic temperature records disprove Phil Jones’ instrument-era Hockey Stick chart.

CO2 does not need to be fixed because the Earth is not experiencing unprecedentd warming, which is the reason the alarmists give us for trying to fix CO2.

There is no unprecedented warming today. It’s a big lie, disproven by the written temperature records, and by the National Academy of Sciences blowing up the credibility of Mann’s Hockey Stick unprecedented warming chart.

The Powers-that-Be have all the evidence they need to decide to stop wasting money trying to corral CO2. It’s right there in front of their faces. Open your eyes! Stop punishing the People with your delusions of unprecedented warming.

Last edited 14 days ago by Tom Abbott
Gordon A. Dressler
Reply to  Malcolm Chapman
November 19, 2021 7:18 am

Lithium is a type of medicine known as a mood stabilizer. It is used to treat mood disorders. It is widely used to treat bipolar disorder, also known as manic depression.

Hence, the fact that lithium will be leaching into the world’s environment from disposed Li-ion car batteries may, in fact, just be Mother Nature’s way of giving humans exactly what they will be needing in the future course of “fighting climate change”.

Dave Andrews
Reply to  Malcolm Chapman
November 19, 2021 8:16 am

“In time it is anticipated that the supply of used EV batteries will far exceed the quantity which the second use market can absorb”

“Stockpiling of waste batteries is potentially unsafe and environmentally undesirable”

“However the hazards associated with battery disassembly are also numerous”

“electrification of only 2% of the current global car fleet would represent a line of cars – and in due course end-of-life waste – that could stretch around the Earth”

“There is widespread acceptance that, for environmental and safety reasons, stockpiling (or worse, landfill) and wholesale transport of end-of-life EV batteries are not attractive options”

From ‘Recycling Lithium-ion Batteries’ Harper et al, Nature 575, 75-86, (2019)

https://www.nature.com/articles/s41586-019-1682-5

Last edited 14 days ago by Dave Andrews
Tom Abbott
Reply to  Malcolm Chapman
November 22, 2021 4:58 am

“What will an enormous pile of useless Lithium ion car batteries look like?”

It might look like a huge, toxic fire burning in a lithium battery landfill.

Those pushing electric cars need to find a battery that doesn’t spontaneously combust, and then cannot be extinguished after it starts burning. We don’t want billions of these hazards laying around.

The alarmists haven’t thought things through to their conclusions.

Mac
November 19, 2021 3:29 am

Here’s more bad news! An author named Mary Beth Pfeiffer has written a book called “LYME” The First Epidemic of Climate Change. Be very afraid (sarc).

Tom Abbott
Reply to  Mac
November 19, 2021 4:37 am

Yes, we get an endless supply of disaster stories from the alarmists, all based on nothing but the assumption that temperatures are definitely going to go higher from here. That’s what they have been told, and that’s what they believe.

I bet they would be shocked if they found out that the unprecedented warming claims of the climate change alarmists have never been validated. They are merely claims by a few dishonest climate change scientists who expect the rest of us to take their word for what is happening. Don’t take the word of dishonest people. In this case, taking their word will lead to massive destruction of the current human condition.

cerescokid
November 19, 2021 3:42 am

As former Prime Minister Rishi Sunak put it in his recent memoirs With the Best of Intentions, ‘Each step we took on the path to net zero appeared sensible and responsible at the time, and anyway was necessitated by the legally-bound commitments of successive British governments to achieve net zero by 2050. But we never stood back and asked fundamental questions such as, ”How reliable is the science behind all this?” or “Is the adverse socioeconomic impact on our citizens acceptable?” or “Would it actually be more cost-effective to adapt to the warming?” or “Will Britain achieving net zero actually have any detectable effect on anyone’s climate?” – or even “Is net zero actually technologically possible?” 

This is what happens when sloganeering replaces hard fact analysis and critical thinking.

griff
Reply to  cerescokid
November 19, 2021 4:22 am

Well warming mostly affects the UK in the form of floods and flash floods. already we spend billions on new flood defences, yet still it floods…

Tony
Reply to  griff
November 19, 2021 5:09 am

There’s no warming in the UK.

Chaswarnertoo
Reply to  griff
November 19, 2021 5:42 am

Um . Try the Somerset levels disaster. Caused by greentards.

griff
Reply to  Chaswarnertoo
November 19, 2021 8:10 am

I’ve seen the after flood report, which says that even with dredging and an increased number of high capacity pumps, more than half the severe flooding would still have taken place.

and there could have been no floods without an extreme amount od rain, provided by the UK’s changing climate.

See also multiple Cumbrian floods – second series of floods followed extensive dredging and new flood defences and were higher

Dave Fair
Reply to  griff
November 19, 2021 3:18 pm

Even the UN IPCC reports flatly state that the increase in rain has not resulted in increased flooding. You need to up your game.

MarkW
Reply to  griff
November 19, 2021 5:45 am

The billions being spent are the result of decades of not spending money on flood defenses.
The reality is that Britain, and every other country in the world has been spending money on flood defenses for hundreds perhaps thousands of years. The only thing unusual is the incredulity of idiots like griff who actually think this is something new.

griff
Reply to  MarkW
November 19, 2021 8:11 am

Because we didn’t need those defences in the second half of the 20th century.

Infrastructure which has not failed or flooded since Victorian times now routinely gets damaged. Check the actual weather records again: more rain, more intense rain events

MarkW
Reply to  griff
November 19, 2021 1:36 pm

You didn’t need the defenses because the existing defenses had already been built and hadn’t been allowed to decay away.

If you think that the only thing that has changed in Britain since the Victorian era, is the amount of CO2 in the air, you are either delusional, or a very bad liar.

cerescokid
Reply to  griff
November 19, 2021 7:36 am

Griff

Just like all AGW fanatics you ignore all other variables. Read this study how UK floodplains have been degraded and that means a greater risk of flooding.

“Lewin 2013observed that floodplain degradation has been occurring for the last 400 years and notes how the disruption to geomorphological process associated with the disconnection of rivers from their floodplains impacts patterns of erosion and deposition influencing channel dynamics and altering flood risk”

https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0341816218305058

griff
Reply to  cerescokid
November 19, 2021 8:13 am

and the huge amount of extra water is not a factor?

How does this study explain the great increase in number and severity of floods and flash floods since 2000?

cerescokid
Reply to  griff
November 19, 2021 9:30 am

Try reading the study again. What would not have been a flood a century or two ago now, because of the loss of floodplain and wetlands become more severe.

MarkW
Reply to  cerescokid
November 19, 2021 1:37 pm

griff is committed to advancing the narrative that CO2 is responsible for everything. His mind is no longer capable of processing any data that refutes what he wants to believe.

cerescokid
Reply to  griff
November 19, 2021 10:00 am

Study of NA and Europe, of which UK is a part found “Overall, the number of significant trends in major-flood occurrence across North America and Europe was approximately the number expected due to chance alone.”

https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S002216941730478X

“A long-term dataset of reported flooding based on reports from the UK Met Office and the UK Centre for Ecology and Hydrology is described. This is possibly a unique dataset as the authors are unaware of any other 100+ year records of flood events and their consequences on a national scale. Flood events are classified by severity based upon qualitative descriptions. There is an increase in the number of reported flood events over time associated with an increased exposure to flooding as floodplain areas were developed. The data was de-trended for exposure, using population and dwelling house data. The adjusted record shows no trend in reported flooding over time, but there is significant decade to decade variability.”
https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/02626667.2014.950581

Dave Andrews
Reply to  griff
November 19, 2021 8:33 am

And there has been a huge amount of bulding of new homes on floodplains in the UK this century despite warnings fron the Environment Agency.

Floodplains are called floodplains for a reason!

Tom Abbott
November 19, 2021 3:48 am

From the article: “But we never stood back and asked fundamental questions such as, ”How reliable is the science behind all this?”

And alarmists still haven’t asked this question.

The truth is there is no evidence on which to base regulating CO2. CO2 is a benign gas that needs no regulation.

There is no unprecedented warming.

CO2 is supposed to cause unprecedented warming. But it’s no warmer now, with more CO2 in the air, than it was in the past, with less CO2 in the air. Apparently, the amount of CO2 in the air doesn’t make much difference in the temperatures.

So, the UK and all the rest of the alarmists are chasing a Phantom. And spending all their money and comfort doing so.

The people of the future will not treat this case of Mass Delusion kindly. They wll see it for what it is: The biggest science scam in human history.

A huge, ongoing scam. The UK should ask Mann and Jones to prove their claims of unprecedented warming. Anybody on the alarmist side ever thought of that? It might save you a lot of money and trouble.

griff
Reply to  Tom Abbott
November 19, 2021 4:21 am

Of course they have… and it is very reliable. I refer you again to what our own Met Office says about how climate change is affecting the UK, for example

Chaswarnertoo
Reply to  griff
November 19, 2021 5:42 am

Slingo’s Met. Office? 🤣

MarkW
Reply to  griff
November 19, 2021 5:46 am

Every prediction ever made has been a total failure, but don’t worry, the science is solid.
What’s sad is that little griff actually believes that models are science.

griff
Reply to  MarkW
November 19, 2021 8:08 am

If they are reporting the temperatures and rainfall over a long period of time and clearly showing those observations indicate a wetter and warmer climate, that’s not a prediction, is it?

MarkW
Reply to  griff
November 19, 2021 8:23 am

The problem is that the quality of the data is not sufficient to show what you so desperately want to believe it shows.
Beyond that, there is more than one way to interpret the data, and all of the other ways are more believable than the one you so frequently push.

In other words, just because you are paid to believe that the data shows one thing, is not evidence that the data actually shows that.

Last edited 14 days ago by MarkW
MarkW
Reply to  griff
November 19, 2021 1:41 pm

Temperatures have been increasing since the bottom of the Little Ice Age. There is no evidence to indicate that this rate of warming has changed in any way. Prior to around 1950, temperatures increased steadily while there was little to no change in CO2 levels. Since 1950, temperatures have gone up, gone down, and done nothing at all for decades at a time, all while CO2 levels went up steadily.
The claim that CO2 is the primary driver of climate is easily refuted by just studying the climate.

Dave Fair
Reply to  griff
November 19, 2021 3:26 pm

No it is not a prediction, it is an observation. Warmer and wetter are a boon to mankind.

Gordon A. Dressler
Reply to  griff
November 19, 2021 7:59 am

griff posted: “Of course they have… and it is very reliable.”

So,

a) Why then does humanity need the various “scientific” global climate models used by the IPCC?

b) Why then do those same “scientific” climate models disagree with one another by a factor of 7 (max vs. min) in predicting climate change (GLAT) in the 2002-2003 timeframe?

c) Why then has the composite average of those same “scientific” climate models, when starting from 1979, failed miserably (over-predicting by a factor of more than 4 relative to measured data) in establishing the rise in GLAT over just 30 years?

Reliability? Pfftphptttt!

See attached composite graph.

Failed_Models.jpg
Philo
Reply to  griff
November 19, 2021 8:40 am

Knowing you have a packet of temperature readings, with date, times and locations you have enough data to say “Yes it was xx degC in Mechistan at 3:10 pm.

There is NO DATA that would allow you to say “this data shows us that the climate is 2% wetter than last year.” There are NO climate models that accurately explain the climate, much less predict it. The models are all based on a gridded map of the earth with the “cells” used in calculation are about 100km by 150km. They can vary by latitude, some models reduce the number to keep the size the same as you go from the equator to the poles.

Doesn’t make any difference. The effects of molecules in the atmosphere bouncing around and in the lakes and oceans occur on a scale at best about a 4mm(!) cube. When a single drop of water hits the surface of a calm pond it forms a little vortex about 4mm in diameter. Over the course of a couple minutes it disappears, dispersing its energy into the background level and increasing it ever so slightly.

Computers are hard pressed to handle models with a 100km grid. Multiply 100km x 1000to get meters. Multiply by 1000mm in a meter. Gack!

Rough calculations show that a 1mm model would take the current age of the universe to calculate one iteration would take, very roughly, all the estimated mass in the known universe to build such a computer.

So, no. The climate models are like looking out a window and counting the blades of grass in a 100 sq. meter field by eye.

Cheers, at least the solar scientists can model the sun well enough that they predicted the current on going Global Maximum ten years ago.

Dave Fair
Reply to  griff
November 19, 2021 3:25 pm

The Met Office data show only minor warming and slightly increasing rain amounts. All flood data must be considered in light of significant changes to the floodplains. U.S. data show no increased flooding in unmodified drainages, even with minor rainfall increases.

Lurker Pete
November 19, 2021 4:15 am

The reality in 2021 is almost double electric costs (14p pkw/h to 22p pkw/h) almost double heating oil costs (~£660 p.a. to >£1200 p.a.) +£20k insulation costs on a 2k sqft building renovation, and impossible £40k cost (I have the quote) for the most efficienct heat pump set-up (2 bore holes [only 8M deep req’d], + heat exchanger/pumps etc.) where it made more sense to install an £800 efficient oil boiler.

griff
Reply to  Lurker Pete
November 19, 2021 4:20 am

..and all down to fossil fuel costs, not renewables

Tony
Reply to  griff
November 19, 2021 5:10 am

You need to be locked up.

Chaswarnertoo
Reply to  Tony
November 19, 2021 5:41 am

Sectioned. By surgeons…

griff
Reply to  Chaswarnertoo
November 19, 2021 8:06 am

And you resort to abuse instead of facts…

Like these
What is behind soaring energy prices and what happens next? – Analysis – IEA

MarkW
Reply to  griff
November 19, 2021 8:24 am

So the fact that home energy prices have been rising for years, and oil and gas prices have only started going up recently just doesn’t matter. You’ve been told what to believe, and by god, you won’t waver.

MarkW
Reply to  griff
November 19, 2021 5:46 am

How many times will you repeat that lie?

griff
Reply to  MarkW
November 19, 2021 8:07 am

why is it a lie?

the price of gas drives UK electricity bills: gas prices ahve risen dramatically.

MarkW
Reply to  griff
November 19, 2021 8:26 am

The lie is the claim that gas prices are the sole determinant regarding home energy prices.
The lie is your ignoring the role that the regulatory environment you support has had in causing energy prices to rise.

Lurker Pete
Reply to  griff
November 19, 2021 8:29 am

Mostly down to greenwash, forcing increased fuel costs to pay for the unreliables that will soon fail us, that and inept gov planning based on said greenwash. Then the greenwash of “affordable” geothermal, where no-one but a professional administrator can negotiate the minefield of EA legislation to prevent DIYing the system, jobs for the boys and all that, just the administrative compliance cost was £8k, and that’s in a perfect location for it. The “affordable” insulation costs was mostly labour, something not included in all the greenwashed cost anaysis.

The real world is not as simple as you clearly are.

November 19, 2021 5:03 am

Possibly helpful:
https://www.cfact.org/2021/11/19/the-silly-science-of-climate-alarmism/

The core science of alarmism is ridiculous.

Tony C
November 19, 2021 5:06 am

The only real problem is the old chestnut that Britain or should I say England will change. I can’t speak for the other countries but England never really changes. We have had the same type of people running the place for well over a thousand years and people keep predicting that England will die(the latest by leaving Europe with the Brexit vote) but England is still there. Now if you had done this funny about Spain or Italy or even Germany and parts of the USA, then maybe it would have been quite funny and fairly true. In the end there will be three countries that won’t really change and that’s England, Russia and China. The rest, who knows?

Gerry, England
November 19, 2021 6:43 am

I think his tale is flawed as it misses out the point at which China takes over as the sole World power. It will be long before 2050.

John K. Sutherland
November 19, 2021 6:47 am

This is a brilliant piece of Satire, to go along with ‘Swift’, and with overtones of ‘Orwell’.

Nicholas Mearing-Smith
November 19, 2021 7:01 am

This piece is worthy of Lionel Shriver at her best. Unfortunately, the comments have been hijacked by unscientific and unsupported comments by Griff, which makes it more difficult to find the informed comments.

Do you suppose that Griff watched the GWPF broadcast of Prof Steve Koonin’s GWPF lecture last night, if he wanted to be educated by a genuinely world-class scientist?

griff
Reply to  Nicholas Mearing-Smith
November 19, 2021 8:03 am

When the GWPF explains how it is funded, then I’ll consider watching its propaganda.

I based my comments on the statements by the Met Office: what please is unscientific about those?

MarkW
Reply to  griff
November 19, 2021 8:28 am

How typical of griff. Finds any excuse to ignore what it doesn’t want to see.

According to griff, anything paid for by government is pure and must be believed.

BTW, GWPF has explained where their funds come from, you just refuse to see anything that doesn’t match what you want to believe.

Last edited 14 days ago by MarkW
Dave Fair
Reply to  griff
November 19, 2021 4:01 pm

The Met Office stated that the UK warmed slightly and had minor increases in rainfall over the last few decades, nothing more. With artful (deceitful) wording, it implied that storms were getting worse. In reality, a warmer, wetter and greener planet is a boon to us all. The UN IPCC CliSciFi reports clearly show no climate metric has deteriorated.

Their full data set shows minor warming since the end of the Little Ice Age, with cyclic warming and cooling periods. You seem to get your panties in a wad over reaching the peak of the latest warming part of the cycle.

Your refusal to consider other sources of information is indicative of a closed mind, Griff. I suggest you read Koonin’s book “Unsettled.” Also read anything by Roger Pielke, Jr.

Last edited 13 days ago by Dave Fair
Sara
November 19, 2021 7:25 am

That was quite refreshing. Now, I can conceive and embrace the Fake Climate Panic Rebellion of 2025 here in the good ol’ US of A.

And for a brief moment, I took that article seriously, then realized that it is what it is and started thinking about Henry II’s decree that the peasants could not cut down trees in his forests, which meant that they would freeze to death. Why would he care, anyway?

We do have an individual whose research into the 18th century and how things were made and how people cooked food, made bread, etc., is not just entertaining, but also informing. Also, I understand Georgette Heyer’s thorough research into the Regency Period a lot better when she describes the way more ordinary citizens lived. You do not have to have a big, expensive house with all sorts of modern junk to be healthy, happy, well-fed and cozy. Yes, I do love the Renaissance Faire in the summers. It isn’t just about jousts and hawking, it’s also about promoting some historical accuracy into the mix.

Thank you for the entertainment! I will add happy Friday to one and all.

Last edited 14 days ago by Sara
Richard Page
Reply to  Sara
November 19, 2021 2:00 pm

Sara, come across to the UK and see some of the living history re-enactors over here. It’ll give you a whole new perspective on the ‘historical accuracy’ of Renfair’s.

Sara
Reply to  Richard Page
November 19, 2021 5:56 pm

Oh, I have seen some of that, but only on TV. The re-enactors are going after real history, and the Rennies are out to have fun, especially for the kiddies, so it’s mostly for fun. But the food…….! Oh, my word, I could live there just chowing down on beef or chicken pasties and curly fries.
They do have real falconers at the one near me, plus the Kid’s Kingdom – safe place for the kiddos – and plenty of entertainment. We all need our spirits lifted these days.

In regard to re-enacting real history, there is a man in Indiana whose research on the 18th century has really paid off in reviving some of the skills that have been lost, like making bread the way it was done prior to modern ovens and stoves.

So yes, I do like the re-enactments of the real stuff, along with the “fun” stuff, too.

Last edited 13 days ago by Sara
Alba
November 19, 2021 7:37 am

As former Prime Minister Rishi Sunak put it in his recent memoirs With the Best of Intentions,… With a forward by former Minister of Enlightenment and Propaganda, Alok Sharma.

Mark BLR
November 19, 2021 7:47 am

From another post, which I think (probably incorrectly …) deserves separate consideration.

The grid stayed working.

NB : We are talking about the “island of Great Britain” (GB) grid here.
Northern Ireland is integrated with the “island of Ireland” (NI + RoI) grid, connected to the GB grid via the low-capacity Moyle and “East-West” interconnectors.

Another WUWT post a couple of months ago stimulated my interest in checking out just how soon the coal and nuclear power plants in GB were actually scheduled to be shut down.
My “research” took too long to provide a timely contribution to that comments section, but “happily” (?) for everyone this post has reopened the subject when just having to update my information can be done relatively rapidly.

Notes

1) Wikipedia is a good starting point for “dry facts / numerical data”, especially :
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_active_coal-fired_power_stations_in_the_United_Kingdom
and
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_commercial_nuclear_reactors#United_Kingdom

The Drax website supplied the detail that their two “Capacity Market (standby)” coal units (5 & 6) each have 660MW capacity.

2) I’m assuming there are no more delays for Hinkley Point C’s two units to come on line (in June 2026 and summer 2027, 1.6GW capacity per unit).

3) Data on “Coal” and “Nuclear” contributions to the GB grid are available from the BM Reports website :
https://www.bmreports.com/bmrs/?q=generation/fueltype/current
This is “easily” converted to daily energy sums (in GWh) or power averages (in GW, as shown in the graph below).

– – – – –

After updating the BM Reports data to yesterday (18/11/2021), looking at the resulting graph (see below) my personal “conclusions” include the following.

i) GB (and the UK) is likely to “muddle through” the upcoming winter (2021/2), the real problems are (much ?) more likely to become apparent over the next two winter peak demand periods (2022/3 and 2023/4).

ii) Managing to “muddle through” is likely to increase the calls by environmental activists for early closure of the 3 (of 4) Ratcliffe on Soar coal units (the 1.5GW of capacity from September 2022 to September 2024).
It is also likely to increase support for the “argument” that the natural gas turbines (CCGT plant) currently providing 40-50% of GB’s electricity supply can “safely” be shutdown immediately “in order to save the planet” …

iii) While reducing the “Coal” capacity will result in “trimming” of the black line on my graph up to the autumn of 2024, the closure of Hartlepool and Heysham 1 in March 2024 could well result in the “Nuclear” (red) line “running into a wall” at that time.
The interval from that point until Hinkley Point C (Unit 1) comes on line, just over two years later, could well count as “interesting times” for the GB grid operator(s).

GB-Electricity_Coal-Nuclear_Jan2020-July2026.png
Last edited 14 days ago by Mark BLR
griff
Reply to  Mark BLR
November 19, 2021 8:01 am

We have 3 coal plants: 2 will close by end of 2022 and the last must close by October 2024.

Currently for last 2 years coal has supplied 2% of UK electricity.

Mark BLR
Reply to  griff
November 19, 2021 8:22 am

You managed to click on the first link in my post … and read its contents !

Well done.

Have a biscuit.

MarkW
Reply to  griff
November 19, 2021 8:31 am

Those coal plants are the only thing that saved Britain from a total grid collapse when the wind stopped blowing earlier this year.

Tom Abbott
Reply to  MarkW
November 22, 2021 5:19 am

Good point.

If UK leadership had any sense they would be building more fossil fuel powerplants as fast as they can.

Mark BLR
Reply to  griff
November 19, 2021 8:50 am

Currently for last 2 years coal has supplied 2% of UK electricity.

Data from BM Reports and ESO since the 1st of October (the last 7 weeks or so).

Which source of electricity is “currently” making up for the vagaries of the intermittency of “renewables”, especially wind, in GB ?

GB-Electricity_0110-181121_Percentages.png
Dave Fair
Reply to  Mark BLR
November 19, 2021 4:17 pm

Take it from an ex-Electric Power Systems Engineer: That graph shows an insanely inefficient electric power system. And you are not even into winter yet! That is what you get when you let ideologues run the power system.

Dave Fair
Reply to  griff
November 19, 2021 4:13 pm

2% because of unreliable subsidies. Please note coal provides about 3GW when unreliables fail. Where will the UK get that energy when coal is gone?

Peta of Newark
November 19, 2021 7:52 am

Quote:”How could the people of Britain have chosen such a disastrous path

The people of Britain didn’t especially ‘choose it’
As the saying goes:
The Good Men Said and Did Nothing

The technique was described by a brilliant and intelligeny guy name of Anthony Wedgwood Benn. A socialist unfortunalty but epic debater and raconteur. Very clever fellow.

What he did, after giving up politics and taking on ‘raconteuring’ semi-professionally, was to explain his technique..
He said: At the start of any argument or discussuion, what he did was introduce a small falsehood, a little lie.
This would be something that ‘the other party’ would blatantly disagree with but, near the start of the argument (the pleasantries part) – the person being argued with would ‘let it slide’ – certain that they could correct the error/falsehood later on in the discussion

This is where Wedgewood Been always won his arguements because, at the crux of the discussion, the White Heat Moment, he’d remind the other party of the little small (wrong) thing they’d agreed with at the start.
Thus completely cutting the legs out from under them

Geddit now…
See now why it was wrong to say your understood the Green House Gas Effect?
Remember that angry woman ‘interviewing’ Morano at whatever climate conference – how she constantly played the Science Denier card whenever Morano had her on the defensive?

Nobody should have EVER have said they understood the GHGE.
All it needed was:
Er excuse me Mr Hanson. Your theory seems to violate the 2nd Law. Please explain how it doesn’t

griff
Reply to  Peta of Newark
November 19, 2021 8:00 am

Net zero and all current govt green policies were in the 2019 manifesto of the victorious party.

Lurker Pete
Reply to  griff
November 19, 2021 8:31 am

the illusion of choice, all parties were pushing it, idiot.

MarkW
Reply to  Lurker Pete
November 19, 2021 1:44 pm

In Europe a right winger is some who wants to slow down the rate at which government is growing.

Dave Fair
Reply to  Peta of Newark
November 19, 2021 4:28 pm

It is the assumption of 3X amplification that is indefensible. The physics as described by the Wijngaarden & Happer (2020) paper and other sources show a very minor impact of marginal increases of GHGs on global temperatures.

Janice Moore
November 19, 2021 12:10 pm

About that 97% “Consensus”…..

It has been completely debunked.

Here are 97 articles refuting that grossly flawed propaganda-masquerading-as-data:

http://www.populartechnology.net/2014/12/97-articles-refuting-97-consensus.html

ATheoK
November 19, 2021 4:20 pm

It’s just more fiction.
i.e., telling as alarming a story as is possible.

alex jarvie
November 20, 2021 12:46 am

Some of us saw this coming 10 years ago. We were ofcourse referred to as the “deniers”. A more infantile term you could not get back then. Now we are classed as “prophets”, but in reality it was not hard to see what was coming so long as you were not prepared to be brainwashed for political purposes and conned by bought and paid for mainstream media

Ulric Lyons
November 20, 2021 8:24 pm

An alarming essay. Something needs to break before 2026 then.

Matthew Sykes
November 21, 2021 4:43 am

the wider electorate believed in the climate emergency” do they heck!