By: Marc Morano
Climate Depot Special Report
The BBC is reporting that 11 climate slides prepared by activist climate scientists in the UK somehow convinced UK Prime Minister Boris Johnson that the world faces a climate crisis. Mr. Johjnson should be prepared to reconsider his views now that he will get — the rest of the climate story from Climate Depot.
BBC” Climate change: The science briefing that convinced Boris Johnson – BBC: A slide show that Prime Minister Boris Johnson says helped convince him on climate change has been revealed for the first time. …
He called the presentation, given just after he took office, “very important”. The “teach in”, as it was described in email correspondence, took place in the Cabinet Room of Number 10 Downing Street on 28 January 2020. It was organised by the office of Sir Patrick Vallance, the government’s chief scientific adviser. The briefing consisted of 11 slides showing key aspects of climate science and its impacts and the presentation was led by Prof Stephen Belcher, the chief scientist at the Met Office.
“I got them to run through it all and, if you look at the almost vertical kink upward in the temperature graph, the anthropogenic climate change, it’s very hard to dispute. That was a very important moment for me,” Mr Johnson told reporters on the prime ministerial plane. He has also described it as his “road to Damascus” on climate – a phrase from the bible meaning a turning point in someone’s life.
Revealed: The 11 slides that finally convinced Boris Johnson about global warming
Below is a point-by-point rebuttal to the claims that Johnson was “convinced” by. The UK climate slides are presented and rebutted in this comprehensive Climate Depot report.
These are the slides and climate science information that Johnson should have viewed.
UK Climate Slide #1:
UK Climate Slide 1a: “The graph in the top left is known as a Keeling Curve, and shows the increase in atmospheric CO2 levels over 1960-2020, measured in parts per million.”
Climate Depot Response: This is a chart showing CO2 is rising in the atmosphere. This is known. What was not shown to Boris Johnson was a geological perspective of the Earth’s CO2 levels. The much longer CO2 level history of the earth counters the limited snapshot shown to Boris Johnson.
Read Chapter 3 excerpt of Green Fraud: ‘Man-Made Climate Change Is Not a Threat’ – ‘Hundreds of causes & variables influence climate’ not just CO2– Excerpt: University of Pennsylvania geologist Dr. Robert Giegengack has declared, “CO2 is not the villain that it has been portrayed.” Today’s levels of roughly four hundred parts per million (PPM) of CO2 are not alarming. In geologic terms, today’s CO2 levels are among the lowest in earth’s history. “Climate change is governed by hundreds of factors or variables, and the very idea that we can manage climate change predictably by understanding and manipulating at the margins one politically selected factor (CO2), is as misguided as it gets. It’s scientific nonsense,” University of London professor emeritus Philip Stott has noted.
UK climate Slide #1b: “The graph in the bottom left shows the increase in global temperatures over 1850-2020, compared to the 1850-1900 average.”
UK Climate Slide #1c: “The map in the top right shows warming over 2009-19, compared to the 1961-90 average.”
Climate Depot Response:
No wonder the climate activist scientists presenting to PM Johnson only focused on the past 100 plus years or so. The longer geologic view of the earth as shown below in U.S. government charts are very clear that the current temperature of the Earth does not represent a “climate emergency.”
“Preliminary results from a Smithsonian Institution project led by Scott Wing and Brian Huber, showing Earth’s average surface temperature over the past 500 million years. For most of the time, global temperatures appear to have been too warm (red portions of line) for persistent polar ice caps. The most recent 50 million years are an exception.” Source
Greenpeace co-founder Dr. Patrick Moore also puts the amount of the temperature rise since 1880 into perspective by using a more plausible temperature scale.
Temperature baselines can be manipulated by climate campaigners in myriad ways. See:Statistical politics: Prof. Mike Hulme on ‘politically charged’ climate baseline changes from 1961-1990 to 1991-2020: ‘In an instant; today, the world’s climate has ‘suddenly’ become nearly 0.5°C warmer’
Excerpt from Green Fraud: MIT climate scientist Richard Lindzen ridiculed “hottest year” claims. “The uncertainty here is tenths of a degree. It’s just nonsense. This is a very tiny change period,” Lindzen said. “If you can adjust temperatures to 2/10ths of a degree, it means it wasn’t certain to 2/10ths of a degree.”
Award-winning climate scientist Lennart Bengtsson has stated, “We are creating great anxiety without it being justified….There are no indications that the warming is so severe that we need to panic….The warming we have had the last 100 years is so small that if we didn’t have meteorologists and climatologists to measure it we wouldn’t have noticed it at all.”
Global temperatures have been holding nearly steady for almost two decades, according to satellites from the Remote Sensing Systems (RSS) and the University of Alabama at Huntsville (UAH). Many peer-reviewed studies have found the Medieval Warm Period and the Roman Warming Period were as warm as or warmer than current. temperatures.
Climatologist Pat Michaels explained that the world’s current temperature “should be near the top of the record given the record only begins in the late 19th century when the surface temperature was still reverberating from the Little Ice Age.”
So-called “hottest year” claims—based on surface data dating only back to the nineteenth century—are political statements designed to persuade the public that the government needs to take action on man-made climate change.33 In addition, temperature revisions made by NASA and NOAA have enhanced the “warming” trend by retroactively cooling the past.
UK climate Slide #1d & Slide 8 deal with sea level: “The graph in the bottom right shows global sea level from 1993 to 2020, compared to the 1993-2010 average, in mm. The graph uses satellite datasets from organizations including the Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organisation (pink) and the National Aeronautics and Space Administration (light blue).”
Climate Depot Response:Read Chapter 3 excerpt of Green Fraud: ‘Man-Made Climate Change Is Not a Threat’ – ‘Hundreds of causes & variables influence climate’ not just CO2– Excerpt: “Ocean levels have been rising since the last Ice Age. Global sea levels have been naturally rising for ~20,000 years. There is no evidence of an acceleration of ocean-level rise, and therefore no evidence of any effect of mankind on sea levels. According to tide gauges, ocean levels are rising less than the thickness of one nickel (1.95 mm thick) per year or about the thickness of one penny (1.52 mm thick) a year.
The 2018 “State of the Climate Report” by Norwegian professor Ole Humlum explained, “Data from tide gauges all over the world suggest an average global sea-level rise of 1–1.5 mm/year, while the satellite record suggests a rise of about 3.2 mm/year. The large difference between the two data sets still has no broadly accepted explanation.”
As former NASA climatologist Dr. Roy Spencer’s research has shown, “Sea level rise, which was occurring long before humans could be blamed, has not accelerated and still amounts to only 1 inch every 10 years.”
University of Pennsylvania geologist Robert Giegengack has said, “At the present rate of sea-level rise it’s going to take 3,500 years to get up there [to Al Gore’s predicted rise of 20 feet]. So if for some reason this warming process that melts ice is cutting loose and accelerating, sea level doesn’t know it. And sea level, we think, is the best indicator of global warming.”
Chart via Tony Heller’s Real Climate Science: https://realclimatescience.com/accelerating-sea-level-fraud-in-climate-science/
Tony Heller: “NOAA says “the absolute global sea-level rise is believed to be 1.7-1.8 millimeters/year” – about half what NASA is claiming from their satellite data. Sea level has risen 400 feet in the last 20,000 years – almost all of that before 8,000 years ago. It has nothing to do with humans.”
2021 State Of The Climate Report: It was not a good year for the climate narrative
UK Climate Slide #2:
“The black lines show observations of global temperature since 1860, based on datasets including the Met Office HadCRUT4 dataset, while the red and blue lines show model results. The upper chart shows model simulations excluding the influence of human activity on global temperature results.”
Climate Depot Response: What an utter load of nonsense Johnson was subjected to by the climate “experts.” Using climate models to “simulate” what global temperature would have been without human influence is pure speculation.
UN IPCC’s Third Assessment Report admitted: “The climate system is a coupled non-linear chaotic system, and therefore the long-term prediction of future exact climate states is not possible.”
For a climate reality check, read Chapter 3 excerpt of Green Fraud: ‘Man-Made Climate Change Is Not a Threat’ – ‘Hundreds of causes & variables influence climate’ not just CO2The scientific fact is that your heralded “state-of-the-art climate models could “show” any outcome you wish to create. Climate activist Michael Mann admitted in 2017: “Predictions can never be ‘falsifiable’ in the present: we must ultimately wait to see whether they come true.”
Prominent scientists have exposed your climate model con. See: Page 113 of The Politically Incorrect Guide to Climate Change: In 2007, top UN IPCC scientist Jim Renwick admitted that climate models do not account for half the variability in nature and thus are not reliable. “Half of the variability in the climate system is not predictable, so we don’t expect to do terrifically well,” Renwick conceded.
Page 110: Predictions Are Suddenly “Evidence,” Models are Now “Data” – And yet, such is the climate establishment’s attachment to their computer models that they have begun to refer to their predictions as “evidence” and “data.” Scientists affiliated with the federal Oak Ridge National Laboratory in Tennessee claimed in 2011, “We find evidence from nine climate models that intensity and duration of cold extremes may occasionally, or in some cases quite often, persist at end-of-20th-century levels late into the 21st century in many regions.” And Seth Wenger of the University of Georgia has said that “the most dire climate models show temperatures in Idaho rising an average of 9 degrees in 70 years. That would make Boise pretty unpleasant. None of us want to believe that.” But Wenger added, “I have to set aside my feelings and use the best data.”
Models Do Not Equal Evidence: The assertion that models are now “evidence” raised the ire of former Colorado State Climatologist Roger Pielke Sr. “The use of the term ‘evidence’ with respect to climate models illustrates that this study is incorrectly assuming that models can be used to test how the real world behaves,” Pielke explained.
Paper finds IPCC climate models don’t realistically simulate convection: Published in Geophysical Research Letters finds climate models do not realistically simulate convection, ‘a key element of the weather and climate system for transporting mass, momentum, and thermal energy’
Paul D Williams – Published:24 October 2005 – The Royal Society#UK Climate Slide #3:
“The map compares Arctic sea ice extent in 1980 and 2019. Meanwhile, the text states that over this time, September Arctic sea ice extent declined by 12% on average – resulting in an overall loss of almost 3.5m km2. “Climate Depot Response:“A Tipping Point” is claimed! If only PM Johnson had known that so-called climate tipping points go back to the 19th century!
See:Earth ‘serially doomed’: The official history of climate ‘Tipping Points’ began in 1864 Excerpt from Green Fraud: Recent Arctic ice changes are not proof of man-made global warming, nor are they unprecedented, unusual, or cause for alarm, according to experts and multiple peer-reviewed studies. A study published in 2017 in the Hydrological Sciences Journal found that Arctic sea ice extent grew during the 1940s to about 1980 before declining. “The recent period of Arctic sea ice retreat since the 1970s followed a period of sea ice growth after the mid-1940s, which in turn followed a period of sea ice retreat after the 1910s.” The study found that the start of the satellite era monitoring of Arctic ice in the late 1970s “coincided with the end of several decades during which Arctic sea ice extent was generally increasing.”A 2019 study of sea surface temperatures in Greenland between 1796 and 2013 found warmer temperatures from the 1920s to the 1940s: “Temperatures were warmer than today in the 1920s and 1940s and even briefly during the 1800s,” Kenneth Richard wrote of the study, which was published in the American Geophysical Union’s journal Paleoceanography and Paleoclimatology.
Another study the same year, by Danish researchers from Aarhus University, found that “Greenland’s glaciers have been shrinking for the past century, suggesting that the ice melt is not a recent phenomenon caused by global warming.” Glaciologist Jacob Clement Yde pointed out, “Seventy percent of the glaciers have been shrinking regularly since the end of the 1880s.”Arctic September Minimum Sea Ice Extent Trend RISING Over Past 10 Years – Norwegian Data
Meteorologist: Polar sea ice trends are ‘an antidote to climate alarm’Also, Tony Heller of Real Climate Science reported in 2022: “Arctic sea ice extent is about the same as it was in 1991. … There has been no trend in Arctic sea ice extent for the past fifteen years.
According to the National Snow and Ice Data Center in Boulder, Colorado, Arctic sea ice extent finished the year at the highest level since 2003.
Arctic sea ice extent is about the same as it was in 1991.
There has been no trend in Arctic sea ice extent for the past fifteen years.
UK Climate Slide #4:
“This dataset uses daily observations of both variables, taken at thousands of locations across the globe over 1901-2018, to produce “indices” of extreme temperature and precipitation.”Climate Depot Response:Climate activists are always claiming that current weather and temperatures are unprecedented and out of the norm. But historical data and studies prove otherwise.Heatwaves?! Book reveals ‘75% of the U.S. states recorded their hottest temperature prior to 1955’
The following is an excerpt from author Marc Morano’s best-selling book, The Politically Incorrect Guide to Climate Change.
The World Is Not Burning: Al Gore has likened the Earth to a sick child. “The Earth has a fever that is growing more, and more intense,” the former vice president insisted. The Earth does not have a “fever.” Greenpeace co-founder Patrick Moore explains, “I do not believe the earth has a fever because it’s colder now it has been through most of the history of life.”
As Nobel Prize-winning physicist Ivar Giaever points out, “.8 degrees is what we’re discussing in global warming. .8 degrees. If you ask people in general what it is they think—it’s 4 or 5 degrees. They don’t know it is so little.”
And climatologist Pat Michaels explained that in any case the world’s “temperature should be near the top of the record given the record only begins in the late 19th century when the surface temperature was still reverberating from the Little Ice Age.”
The late geologist Bob Carter dismissed warming claims: “I call this sort of stuff kindergarten science…. The fact that the temperature was warmer at the end of the 20th century than it was in the preceding hundred years, is such a piece of kindergarten science. It’s true, and it is completely meaningless in telling you anything about climate change.”
Climatologist John Christy’s research on the United States has found that “about 75% of the states recorded their hottest temperature prior to 1955, and over 50 percent of the states experienced their record cold temperatures after 1940.
Data from the Environmental Protection Agency agrees with Christy: the EPA website features a 2016 chart labeled “the U.S. Heat Wave Index from 1895 to 2015,” and it reveals that the worst U.S. heatwaves by far happened in the 1930s. (END EXCERPT)
New Study Finds No Evidence Of Global Warming Increasing Extreme Rainfall
1000 year rainfall study suggests droughts and floods used to be longer, worse
Study: No Difference Between 20th-century Rainfall Patterns and Those in the Pre-Industrial Era
Analysis: Record Rainfalls A Thing Of The Past:Note from Paul Homewood: “The rainfall from Harvey was the greatest from a single storm. However, this was just in one spot, as Harvey was stuck over Houston for a week. Other storms have dumped more rain, but spread over a wider area.” ‘We keep being told by climate alarmists that global warming is responsible for more intensive rainfall, the theory being that a warmer atmosphere can hold more moisture. Funny then that when we look at rainfall records across the US for all sorts of different timescales, we find none at all since 1981.’
Warmist Blames India Monsoon On ‘Climate Change’ But Annual rainfall trends debunk –India’s monsoon rainfall has been running just above average this year, but within the normal range (regarded as 10% +/-)
Reality Check: Global Cooling Led To More Extremes Of Rainfall – ‘Rainfall actually increased sharply during the period of global cooling in the 1960s and 70s’
Analysis: ‘Extreme Fraud At NOAA’ – ‘NOAA US temperature graphs…being adjusted upwards to track CO2’
Tony Heller of RealClimateScience.com: “This warming trend since 1970 does not exist in the thermometer data, so where does it come from?
There has been a large decrease in the number of stations reporting data over the past 30 years. But in the final adjusted data set, they use temperatures for all 1,218 stations regardless of whether or not there is actually any thermometer data.
In other words, they are simply making up data. More than 40% of the data in the final data set is now fabricated.
NOAA US temperature graphs are completely fraudulent, and they are being adjusted upwards to track CO2.
NY Times Claims ‘Climate Change’ Behind Western Heatwave Using ‘Rapid Attribution’ Study – Physicist Koonin rebuts: ‘It’s like a spiritual adviser who claims his influence helped you win the lottery — after you’ve already won it’
UK Climate Slide #5:
“This slide features a range of images, maps and graphics showing the impacts of climate change. These are grouped under four subheadings – ‘flooding and sea level rise’, ‘heatwaves, health and disease’, ‘wildfires’ and ‘biodiversity’.
Climate Depot Response:
(For sea-level rise & heatwaves, see previous answers above)
“Flooding and sea-level rise”:
Excerpt from Green Fraud: Roger Pielke Jr. of the University of Colorado testified to Congress there was simply “‘no evidence’ that hurricanes, floods, droughts, tornadoes are increasing.”
A 2020 study by Pielke published in the journal Environmental Hazards found that the “evidence signal of human-caused climate change in the form of increased global economic losses from more frequent or more intense weather extremes has not yet been detected.”
On nearly every metric, extreme weather is on either no trend or a declining trend on climate timescales. Even the UN IPCC admitted in a 2018 special report that extreme weather events have not increased. The IPCC’s special report found that “there is only low confidence regarding changes in global tropical cyclone numbers under global warming over the last four decades.”56 The IPCC report also concluded “low confidence in the sign of drought trends since 1950 at global scale.”
Pielke testified to Congress on the current state of weather extremes, “It is misleading, and just plain incorrect, to claim that disasters associated with hurricanes, tornadoes, floods, or droughts have increased on climate timescales either in the United States or globally.”
A 2017 study on floods found “approximately the number expected due to chance alone.”
Another 2017 study in the Journal of Hydrology found no increase in global floods: “Compelling evidence for increased flooding at a global scale is lacking.”
A 2019 study found that the world is the safest from climate-related disasters that it has ever been: “A decreasing trend in both human and economic vulnerability is evident. Global average mortality and loss rates have dropped by 6.5 and nearly 5 times, respectively, from 1980 to 1989 to 2007–2016. Results also show a clear negative relation between vulnerability and wealth.”
Climatologist John Christy has explained why the extreme weather claims are unscientific: “The non-falsifiable hypotheses can be stated this way, ‘whatever happens is consistent with my hypothesis.’ In other words, there is no event that would ‘falsify’ the hypothesis. As such, these assertions cannot be considered science or in any way informative since the hypothesis’ fundamental prediction is ‘anything may happen.’ In the example above if winters become milder or they become snowier, the non-falsifiable hypothesis stands. This is not science.”
Greenpeace Co-Founder Dr. Patrick Moore’s testimony to Congress on UN Species Report: UN is using ‘extinction as a fear tactic to scare the public into compliance’
Excerpt from Green Fraud: Droughts Aren’t Getting Worse, Either— and Neither Are Wildfires
“Droughts have, for the most part, become shorter, less frequent, and cover a smaller portion of the U.S. over the last century,” Professor Roger Pielke Jr. observed.
NOAA (National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration) has concluded there is “no trend in global droughts since 1950.” Other studies found “a decline in drought levels in recent decades,” noted the Global Warming Policy Forum in 2020. “The IPCC says it is hard to say (‘low confidence’) whether global drought has become better or worse since 1950,” said the GWPF.
A 2015 study found that megadroughts in the past two thousand years were worse and lasted longer than current droughts.
There is “less fire today than centuries ago,” as scientists and multiple studies counter the claim that wildfires are due to “climate change.”
Climate Expert: Attribution Science Was Designed To Bolster Climate Lawsuits
“Health & disease” impact from climate?!
After 100 years of climate change, ‘climate-related deaths’ approach zero – Dropped by over 99% since 1920
Meteorologist Anthony Watts: “New data shows the global climate-related death risk has dropped by over 99% since 1920. Despite the near constant caterwauling from climate alarmists that we are in a “climate emergency”, real-world data, release at the end of 2020 shows that climate related deaths are now approaching zero. The data spans 100 years of “global warming” back to 1920 and shows “climate related” deaths now approaching zero. Above is an update of the graph in the 2020 peer-reviewed article by Bjørn Lomborg: Welfare in the 21st century: Increasing development, reducing inequality, the impact of climate change, and the cost of climate policies.”
Study Finds We’re Winning The War On Climate-Related Diseases – ‘A wholesale rolling back of the biggest killers like diarrhea and malaria’
We Are Winning The War On Climate-Related Diseases – ‘Dramatic falls in climate-related mortality over the last 30 years’
New Study by Dr. Indur Goklany: ‘Global Warming Policies Might Be Bad for Your Health’ – ‘Issues of poverty like malnutrition and unsafe water have a global impact of death and disease 70 times larger than that of theoretical climate change
’Watch: Bjorn Lomborg: 95% Fewer Climate-Related Deaths Over Last 100 Years
Meteorologist Anthony Watts issues REBUTTAL to Doctor Merritt: ‘Climate Change’ Does Not Affect Human Health, Weather Does
B.C. doctor clinically diagnoses patient as suffering from ‘climate change’ – ‘Picked up his patient’s chart & penned in the words ‘climate change’
UK Climate Slides #6, #7, #9, #10, #11
“It shows the relationship between accumulating atmospheric CO2, rising global temperatures and climate change risks.”
Climate Depot Response: All the remaining slides (with the exception of the repeated Slide #8 sea level rise claims previously addressed) are just typical scaremongering from the climate activist scientists with more “tipping points” warnings. The slides are nothing more than just more scary predictions of future alleged man-made climate doom based on models and projections that are designed to scare the public and lobby governments for climate action. When current reality fails to alarm, make scarier and scarier predictions of the future.
Book reveals UN’s goal of ‘2 degree’ limit of ‘global warming’ has no scientific basis – ‘Pulled out of thin air’ – Book Excerpt: In 2007, Jones emailed, “The 2 deg C limit is talked about by a lot within Europe. It is never defined though what it means. Is it 2 deg C for globe or for Europe? Also when is/was the base against which 2 deg C is calculated from? I know you don’t know the answer, but I don’t either! I think it is plucked out of thin air.” “Two degrees is not a magical limit—it’s clearly a political goal,” says Hans Joachim Schellnhuber, director of the Potsdam Institute for Climate Impact Research (PIK). Professor Roger Pielke Jr. explained in 2017 that the 2-degree goal “is an arbitrary round number that was politically convenient. So it became a sort of scientific truth. However, it has little scientific basis but is a hard political reality.”Pielke Jr.: How Billionaires Tom Steyer & Michael Bloomberg Corrupted Climate Science – ‘Climate politics’ pursued by ‘corrupting the scientific literature’– “At the center of the corruption of climate science discussed here a highly technical scenario of the future (called Representation Concentration Pathway 8.5 or RCP8.5). Over the past decade this particular scenario has moved from an extreme outlier to the center of climate policy discussions.”
The premise of future warming is based on the unscientific goal of limiting future warming to specific temperature goals. See:
‘Science’ lobbying: UN IPCC Author in 2021: ‘More and more starting to get scared…& hopefully that’ll affect the way they vote’– IPCC Author Jim Kossin, who works for The Climate Service, a consultancy firm which helps corporations navigate Biden’s push for climate risk disclosure,: “I think people are more and more starting to get scared,” said Jim Kossin, senior scientist with climate risk firm The Climate Service who was among the IPCC authors for the chapter on extremes. “I think that’ll help to change people’s attitudes. And hopefully that’ll affect the way they vote.”
Here we go again: New UN ‘IPCC report is apocalyptic, catastrophic’ – ‘It’s really staring us in the face’ – Certain doom unless – we follow UN central planning dictates!
Why should we put stock in more predictions of climate doom when previous predictions have not panned out?
AFTER 50 YEARS OF FAILED PREDICTIONS, SCIENCE IS IN CRISIS
‘Climate Science’s Long List Of Failed Predictions’
Laugh at Discredited Paul Ehrlich’s failed predictions: ‘If I were a gambler, I would take even money that England will not exist in the year 2000.’And the implication of the UK climate slides is that governments can “solve” the alleged “climate crisis.” Of course, that is nonsense.
Shock graph of rising CO2 emissions despite ‘planet-saving’ UN climate pacts shows ‘farce’ of ‘climate action’– Greenpeace co-founder Dr. Patrick Moore: “What a farce the IPCC Paris Accord and all previous ‘agreements’ to reduce CO2 emissions have been. If only the collective billionaire-class would recognize that CO2 is entirely beneficial we could get on with making the world a better place.”
Climate Depot’s Marc Morano: “Get ready for more futility as the Green New Deal will continue meaningless ‘climate action.’”
Boris, admit it, you’ve been had!
Boris, will never admit to anything,
even when he’s caught red-handed & there’s photos.
He’s a liar, cheat & bully … a fine example of the British elitist public school system .
It’s not going to help Boris that the latest UAH temperature update is at +0.03 deg. C, down from +0.21 deg: https://www.drroyspencer.com/2022/02/uah-global-temperature-update-for-january-2022-0-03-deg-c/
From what I can see on the chart, we had the same temperature in 1983. Wow, the last 40 years have really been a time out of control, runaway (hockey stick type) warming! /sarc
To be fair this is what a teacher said of Johnson when he was 17, he hasn’t changed.
“Boris really has adopted a disgracefully cavalier attitude to his classical studies. [He] sometimes seems affronted when criticised for what amounts to a gross failure of responsibility (and surprised at the same time that he was not appointed Captain of the school for the next half).
“I think he honestly believes that it is churlish of us not to regard him as an exception, one who should be free of the network of obligation that binds everyone else.”
““I think he honestly believes that it is churlish of us not to regard him as an exception, one who should be free of the network of obligation that binds everyone else.””
That might explain the hair.
You can’t make it up.
He is advised by a Belcher, and the head of the met police looking at his office parties is a Dick.
Kind of appropriate really, considering her sexuality admission when she ‘came out’ in 2017.
She was also part of the botched Steven Lawrence inquiry I believe.
“CRESSIDA Dick yesterday revealed …. vowed diversity would be a key part of her regime.”
No wonder the met is back to the good old 70s & corrupt 80s!
(cops posting photos of murdered ppl on social media…et al).
Now the corrupt are being invited to investigate the lying greased pig in No10.
What on earth could go wrong?
Why so many words when it all comes down to nut-nuts?
He doesn’t care what is true. What is Truth?
Someone may have convinced him to wash his hair by inserting head into toilet and then flushing.
That’s not hair, that’s his brains.
Only by his Dick, which has ruled his head for most of his life, to assign any logic to his sea change other than his hormones and thinking logic will reverse his decision is madness.
He needs to be sacked.
If Boris Johnson lived in the 1930s, we might have observed something like this: “I was skeptic about Hitler at first, but after seeing an 11 page brochure summarizing his movement, I became a true believer!”
Boris, admit it: you’re lazy and self-serving and your girlfriend will dump your flabby backside the moment she thinks you’re out of a job. Do the UK and its people and take a piece of paper and a pen and resign your position.
And get a decent haircut, will you?
According to Net Zero Watch, the future projections were based on RCP 8.5, a scenario which will now never happen. Do some of your own research Boris instead of letting other people tell you what they want you to hear & what suits them. These are our politicians, people we should be able to trust to do the right thing!
When anybody wants to use taxpayers $$$s to “fight / stop climate change”, you know you’re listening to either a charlatan or a complete idiot.
There are no other possibilities.
Screw global warming. We must stop plate tectonics! It will have devastating geopolitical consequences. 🤣
Great something new to worry about. We must get Mrs Johnson in on it.
Global warming and plate tectonics are small time. The REAL danger is ENTROPY – that’s going to literally wipe out everything.
STOP ENTROPY NOW!
Hahaha. Entropy will stop at the end of time and not a second sooner!
For it to be a problem, first you need to figure out how the only way to stop it is to collapse Western civilization.
Tectonic plates are Gaia’s garbage disposal. They will grind wester civilization to pulp, then melt it in hot magma.
I think that even Brandon can possibly outrun continental drift, Thomas. (He would probably fall down a few times and soiling himself goes without saying).
But 1.5 – 3 mm/yr of sea level rise, now that’s scary stuff 😜
Option #3 – charlatan AND a complete idiot.
Are we seeing the start of a face saving shift ?
Boris (the spider?) should take a lesson from Erin O’Toole who has just been dumped as the leader of Canada’s Conservative party because he embraced a carbon tax after pledging not to. link The new interim leader will be Candice Bergen (say what!).
She’s a good choice
‘There will be no trade barrier in the Irish Sea’ said somebody… I wonder who?
Maybe if you broke the habit of a lifetime and actually did some research, you might’ve found out for yourself, rather than asking other people for the answers?
Anyway, the answer to your question is Theresa May. Boris Johnson repeated her remark a few years later, in 2020, and added the infamous line “…over my dead body.” All of which you would have known if you had actually looked it up.
One of the more convincing lies is from the chart that claims to show “natural” climate factors. It then shows we should be cooling. This lie was proven false by the latest CERES data analysis of energy flows from 2001-2020.
“The drop of cloudiness around the millennium by about 1.5% has certainly fostered the positive net radiative flux. The declining TOA SW (out) is the major heating cause (+1.42 W/m2 from 2001 to 2020). “ – October 2021, journal Atmosphere, Radiative Energy Flux Variation from 2001-2020.
Without the additional solar energy described in this paper, it is likely we would now be in year 25 of the pause. The big tick upwards at the end of temperature graphs would be replaced with a flat or declining line.
Surely this is definite proof that politicians are ignorant in technical matters, and some (such as Boris) are easily swayed by a Greenie in their bed!
Boris is a journalist by profession, and not a very good one either.
Sacked from his first job as a journalist im less than a year for making up a false fact he attributed to his Godfather whose career suffered for several years afterwards. I’ve never seen a proper appology by Boris
Fess up, Boris, how much did the “Nigerian Prince” take you for?
His handlers won’t let him get near this or ….. he already knows the misinformation going on and is good with it. From what little I’ve seen of him I’d say he’s aware and compliant.
UAH temperature set updated today for Jan. 2022 shows that we are now back to where we were during the hiatus from 1998 – 2015. Think about it; it’s been 24 YEARS with no warming trend. Additionally as of June 2020, we are in a grand solar minimum which implies COOLING ahead due to not only solar irradiance but also cosmic rays, fading sunspots, etc. https://electroverse.net/we-entered-the-modern-grand-solar-minimum-on-june-8-2020/
I am definitely not abandoning fossil fuels that’s for sure.
Walter, all sound thinkers are trying to hold onto their fossil fuel options, sadly the Green decision makers are determined to block off your choices.
I suspect the cold dawn of climate reality will catch up with the Green adherents eventually. We can but hope it is before they have blown up all the fossil fuel options we have and need.
As they say in the USA these days. Let’s go Brandon. The west needs a realist in charge.
UAH is a multiply adjusted proxy measure of the upper atmosphere…
A similar dataset RSS differs in its findings… surface temperature readings show no pause.
UAH is no conclusive proof of hiatus.
So why hasn’t it warmed up?
“UAH is a multiply adjusted proxy measure of the upper atmosphere…
A similar dataset RSS differs in its findings”
UAH data correlates with Weather Balloon data. Do you also find fault with weather balloon data?
UAH covers more of the earth than any data set.
We are just over halfway through a very short centennial solar minimum, which implies increased El Nino conditions and a warmer AMO, which reduce low cloud cover, causing an increase in sunshine hours.
There’s no one easier to fool than a political fool…….
Reality has a habit of clicking in.
Doubling of gas and electricity price on April 1.
It couldn’t happen on a more appropriate day, to a more moronic government.
To add misery to it, they propose to hand out cash to people (recycle money) from the extra VAT, then force the energy providers to take out compulsory loans,based on the extremely unlikely basis, a country that wants to be the “Saudi Arabia of wind”, and with v limited solar, can survive into the future,by forbidding fracking, shutting down coal & the mines, while at the same moment disinvest from new sources of gas offshore,while subsidising farmers to produce expensive bio energy, and subsidising importing woodchips to burn via diesel burning boats from the USA.
If you analyse that all, it’s no different from failed policies carried out in the DDR, and most of Eastern Europe under the USSR.
It was the price of energy that brought down the USSR, + Trofim Lysenko and multiple crop failures, based on central government interventions.
Socialism always was a great idea until you run out of cash.
There are going to be people who will struggle with electricity bills. They’ll never turn on a radiator again – it’s too expensive to even heat one small room and eat.
“Until you run out of other people’s cash”
That’s always the flaw in Socialism.
Capitalism isn’t perfect either – a sensible hybrid model would work well, but is no closer to reality than global warming.
From a 1911 article in Popular Science.
“[Since] the earth has undergone such remarkable changes in temperature [in 1911] and has experienced such extremes of drought and moisture [in 1911], it may be asked what the prospects are for the future. It may be answered immediately that these climatic variations are so slow and the these cycles are so vast that there is no prospect of many material changing in the lifetime of a single individual, or even a nation.”
And it closes like this.
“Even [the coal miner] by his toil in the dirt and darkness adds to the carbon dioxide in the earth’s atmosphere so that men in generations to come shall enjoy milder breezes and live under sunnier skies.”
To borrow from Bob Seger, I wish we did know now what we did know then.
Keep runnin’ against the wind.
I sometimes think realists are pissing against the wind
We are, but piss we must. 😉
Let’s face it- they could have duped him using a 5 year old drawing things with crayons. The last PM we had who insisted on seeing the data was Mrs T and we’ve gone downhill ever since. He’s the worst PM in living memory for me- and I remember Jim Callaghan! Sadly, there is no alternative to be seen anywhere.
“they could have duped him using a 5 year old drawing things with crayons.”
They already tried that. Peppa pig land.
“Snort, giggle & play in a theme park, exclusively designed for “little piggies”.
The CBI remain baffled by the “f..k business”, prime minister addicted to his own tomfoolery.
Unfortunately he’s being driven by Princes Nut Nut. She is a very well connected Marxists Eco nutter.
He really isn’t doing this just because of Carrie
The net zero stuff was embraced by the current govt before Boris became leader, before the 209 election (its in the 2019 manifesto)
Wow Griff, this is a moment for me. I agree with one of your posts 👍
Close elections and divided electorate invite a lot of bad compromises under the big tent in order to obtain or keep power. Climate change scare agenda is deemed less bad with manageable short-term costs assuming adequate political management talking skill–except in the case of the UK where the short-term risk is high and now unmanageable. Hiding energy market price signals under the rug will not last and pushing harder on higher-cost alternatives in the process is even worse.
Wrong again, Lucius Septimius Severus was in charge in 209 AD, there was nothing about net zero in his manifesto. In fact, he published no manifesto. And he wasn’t elected.
It is true the green cr*p was in the Tories’ manifesto, as it was in the manifestos of every other party with sitting MPs. But it got barely a mention, the election was down to one thing.
Sheesh! I have a better clue as to what is going on in the UK than you, and I don’t live there any more.
UK Climate Slide #2 ‘Natural forcing’ is a farcical exercise in petitio principii by deducing the effect of CO2 by merely assuming it.
Also the ‘Natural and Human forcing’ graph comparing models and observations from 1860 downplays the divergence of models and observations from 2000, the only time period where genuine model predictions were made.
UK Climate Slide #3 as usual starts the Arctic sea-ice extent at about the lowest point in the 60 – 70 year Atlantic Multidecadal Oscillation (AMO); although there are no satellite records before then it is reasonable to assume the ice extent fluctuates in sync with the AMO as the long term-Arctic temperature record would suggest.
Remember, these activists did not meet with Boris as activists. They were the government’s own senior bureaucratic advisors who are expected to provide government ministers with the very best, thoroughly researched information.
The Marxist “long march through the institutions” has clearly overtaken many of the West’s government bureaucracies. There is no longer any need to wonder why politicians who we believe should know better are singing from the climate cult’s hymn book.
Spot on comment Barry.
Yes. But who chose them? We are all aware that government expert advisers are appointed to their positions to reinforce the governments policies, not for unbiased advice.
Boris was asked for a clear and definitive response to the climate crisis rebuttal.
” Well right, crikey yes. What can I say? Well if we look closely we will see the, erm… evidence is clear. I can say categorically, that I am sure there is something to be said. So with that in mind can I just add, I am late for a wine and cheese business meeting, so I hope that clears things up for everyone”
I believe that when, after about another 50 years, very little warming will have occurred, the whole climate change nonsense will be quietly forgotten, and no doubt replaced by something else to alarm the populace.
Sadly no, they will just say ‘Look we stopped the temperature increase as we predicted’
By which time the majority will have been impoverished.
Isn’t his lady a green nutter?
Agreed Disputin – “All ladies are women, however not all women are ladies!”
An excellent presentation that should be obligatory viewing for our science-challenged MPs and the idiotic Prime Minister in charge (?) of the pantomime at number ten. I despair at the rubbish science being pumped out unchallenged but perhaps, driven by soaring energy costs, the truth on this climate emergency nonsense will finally get an overdue heating.
It is what the kids are being taught, which is even more alarming.
I don’t think any of this is helping much.
The argument over policy in the UK is about a quite specific plan, Net Zero. The plan is
They only have specific plans for one element of this, and that is to outlaw the sale of both ICE vehicles and gas and oil fired heaters. There are no plans to build enough wind capacity, no plans to install the level of storage that would be needed to make wind and solar viable as base supply.
They have admitted that it will be necessary to put both EV chargers and heat pumps onto smart meters, so they can be turned off at peak times.
The result of going down the UK’s Net Zero path will be to increase the country’s dependence on electricity while making the supply uncertain and intermittent.
Climate change and global warming are completely irrelevant to this debate. Its always said in activist circles that this has to be done because climate change, but its perfectly obvious that the UK, doing 1% of global emissions, cannot affect the level of global emissions by making unilateral reductions.
And what’s even more striking is that the government is refusing to reveal just how much emission reductions will result from the various elements of the Net Zero program. Do you wonder why this might be?
The way to approach this is not to argue endlessly about the underlying theory of global warming or the detailed slides which are being criticized in this post. That will change no minds, and whether they are right or wrong makes no difference to the basic argument.
The right way is to point out that its all irrelevant to the policy choices faced by any UK government. It is crazy to be doing things ‘because climate’ that can have no effects on the climate. Its crazy to be doing things which are in themselves even if possible totally impractical.
This is making people buy electric cars and electric heat pumps at great expense while at the same time you modify electricity generation in a way which forces you to turn their use off just when everyone wants to power them. Its complete insanity. This is the point that needs to be made.
It will sink any political party that seriously tries to implement it for a couple of generations.
And by the way – this is not, despite the comments, primarily a Boris Johnson problem. It was Ed Miliband, Labour, who was the architect of the Climate Change Act. There is a consensus in the Conservatives, Labour, the Liberal Democrats, the Greens and the SNP that this crazy program is desirable and necessary ‘because climate’. So don’t think getting rid of Boris will help. It won’t. He will simply be replaced by another conformist to the prevailing climate and energy ideology. Which might be a Labour PM, it will make no difference.
The only voice of sanity in all this is Net Zero Watch. It must be making a bit of a stir because its attracted critical attention from the Guardian. Any Brits who do not want to see their country taken over the cliff should support it, now, before this craziness goes any further.
Net Zero Watch – News on net zero
‘There are no plans to build enough wind capacity’
Yes there are – in fact more than plans: the schemes to be built are already in the delivery pipeline.
There is 30GW of offshore wind, 12GW of offshore/floating wind off Scotland and 12GW of solar/onshore wind with sites already identified, seabed allocated, CfD negotiations complete or in progress etc etc
60GW of wind by 2030 (12GW now)
There’ll never be enough wind capacity no matter how many and what size
turbines millsyou install. In 2021 for long periods wind with 25GW installed managed less than 500MW
On these numbers it would require 2250 GW of windmills to meet current maximum demand, even minimum demand (early hours Bank Holiday Sunday) you’d need 1000GW. That’s before you add in electric heating and vehicle charging to the mix.
Just do some research the numbers are available and prove your claim. It’s Minimum Output versus Maximum Demand where you have problems. You;re just parroting meaningless numbers. It’s simple really so even those in the Home Counties can understand it I hope
Griffy: if we needed 1000GW at 4MW each that is 250,000 units. If we had the largest wind machines at 8MW that would reduce the number required down to 125,000.
Just think, 125,000 units @ 8MW *ALL* over the country. With their current life, we would be building and installing 12,500 per year with a 10 year lifespan. Thats 250 per week forever!!!!!
You know its not going to happen so why destroy existing systems?
Yes, you just cannot build them fast enough. Like you cannot manage to install 600,000 heat pumps a year (up from 30,000 at the moment).
And if you did, there will be no electricity to run them. And if there was, it would make no measurable difference to global CO2 emissions.
Yes, absolutely right. What’s happening is the mindless slogan ‘wind good because climate’.
What’s needed is an energy plan for the country. Which Net Zero isn’t even a start on. In fact, its a way of wrecking what functioning energy systems the country currently has.
This is nonsense. You are talking faceplate, not useful generation when its wanted and not when its not. You also cannot trust the percentage of total generation figures for the UK, because they are distorted by the compulsory purchase regulations.
A more realistic assessment was given by the Independent a little while ago.
This includes a major roll out of renewables, including 40GW of offshore wind.
Ain’t going to happen. And if it did, because of intermittency and lack of storage, it would basically be a non-functional grid.
Just like the ridiculous figures of 100s of thousands of heat pumps to be installed, they won’t happen either. And if they do happen, it will be impossible to use them all in cold weather.
It is superstitious mania. Its like the famous African tribe that listened to their children and killed all their cattle, and then starved.
I would add one other thing in reply to Griff.
At the moment the subsidies going to renewables are around 12 billion sterling a year. That is around 450+ per household. You can see the figures on UK average energy bills here:
The 450 or so is a huge percentage of the current bills. What has just happened in the UK is that the gas price cap has been removed, effective in April, and this will lead to a rise:
So in a situation in which people in the UK are paying through the nose for the wind and solar subsidies they are also now getting hit with the rise in gas prices.
And this rise is coming about in large part because when you rely on wind, you are actually relying on gas generation supplemented by wind. I know this is not how its portrayed, but the combination of gas fired backup and obligatory purchases of wind and solar whether its needed or usable or not means that this underlying reality is being concealed. But its the real situation.
So, when the wind stops blowing, the demand for gas to generate electricity soars. This then causes prices to rise.
Griff is right to say there are wind farm applications in the works. But there are not enough of them and they are not adequate to the other elements of the Net Zero demands. Just erecting them, inadequate in scale as they are, is not going to help, because its just going to reinforce dependency on gas, and via the various subsidies is going to increase prices yet more.
Griff’s enthusiasm for wind and solar, like that of all the activists, is based on the same partial vision as the Government’s plan to reduce emissions by banning ICE and conventional heating. Its just knee jerk decisions on some elements without making a proper plan for the country.
The problem is that no political party in the UK has produced, or would consent to, any rational energy strategy. They just make ad hoc proposals. ICE? Ban them. Gas boilers? Ban them. Wind farms? Build them. Intermittency? Deny it.
This is not an energy policy for a modern industrial economy.
I think the reason they won’t come up with a proper strategy is that if they were to develop an honest one which met their supposed Net Zero goal it would be electoral suicide. It would involve abolition of the auto industry, rehousing and relocation into dense energy efficient housing of half the population, relocation of industry and business into places where people can get to work by bike or walking or bus. Roads replaced by bikeways, the suburbs and shopping centers basically abolished. It would be a total upheaval of business and social life in the country.
So rather than lay this out (and also say what effect it would have on global emissions) the Government just adopts ad hoc bits of proposals one after the other without worrying about whether they are even all consistent.
And this is how we end up with the pretence that life can go on pretty much as now, its just that the cars will be EVs, the boilers will be heat pumps, and the electricity will be generated by wind and solar. In fact any serious attempt to bring this about will mean that people cannot afford cars, cannot afford to replace their boilers, and cannot even run their car chargers and their heat pumps because the energy supply will be intermittent and switched off during peak demand periods.
It is both dishonest, and insane. Support Net Zero Watch, if you have any regard for your country.
There is no way Boris sat through 11 whole slides.
His opinion is formed by whomever he last talked to. Especially if that expert has big boobs.
If I look at the 2019 conservative Party Manifesto on page one I see ‘Boris Johnson’s Guarantee’ and point 5 is:
“Reaching Net Zero by 2050 with investment in clean energy solutions and green infrastructure to reduce carbon emissions and pollution.
I presume he’d actually read that before it was printed? (well you can’t be sure with Boris!)
(Theresa’s 2017 manifesto says that the party will back shale gas extraction !!!)
The later at least would saved you stupid butts and becoming Putins little puppy …dance baby dance or the gas goes off.
I really think you need to look at how much gas the UK gets from Russia compared to other sources…
and it is quite clear that the Tory party embraced Net Zero well before Boris saw any slides (and he put his name to that well before he saw any slides)
When you import almost half your gas, have no real storage capacity then when there’s a shortage of supply over demand you end up paying over the odds for what’s available. It’s called supply and demand.
When you’ve stopped exploiting your own resources then you’ve nobobdy to blame except yourself.
Meaningless without costings.
either way, this is what it really means…
That’s the skeptic on the right there…
It’s my view that Boris became PM on the back of Dominic’s three word slogan “Get Brexit Done” which he managed to screw up; and to a lesser extent “Levelling up” which judging by yesterday may turn out to be less thab impressive.
Net Zero was not im[prtant to electors who have no idea of the implications in 97% of cases
This is a key point. Green policies tucked away in a manifesto were of no relevance to the 2019 election, nor in BoJo’s election as party leader.
Boris became PM because the alternative was Jeremy Corbyn. Not exactly the most convincing or rousing endorsement for a PM, rather the thorough rejection and condemnation of 70’s Marxism outside of the London bubble. And that’s it in a nutshell – this whole climate change green crap is being pushed by the London bubble and some of their useful idiots just outside the M25.
There is more :
“Reaching Net Zero by 2050″ was indeed in the manifesto. But the decision to bring it forward to 2030 was not. Boris has no mandate for current
See the Tory donor climate money….
How the heck can we double the current CO2 emissions in the “baseline ” scenario under the Limiting Clime Change slide. For 50 years beyond 2050 to. Are there enough fossil fuels in the World to do this?
Quick answer is no.
If the 50:1 ratio of CO2 in ocean to air holds it probably can’t happen.
Boris is famous for agreeing with the last person he spoke with. Everyone had such high hopes for him, but he’s turned out to be a huge disappointment who needs replacing. Unfortunately the Tories are wedded to Net-Zero and the green lunacy so we won’t get anything better with an alternative PM.
Everyone had such high hopes for him?
He was sacked repeatedly for lying. He failed as foreign secretary, leaving our girl suck in an Iranian jail.
He has no integrity.
And he is loathed by people who actually know him personally.
Only idiots voted for Boris. He was clearly unfit to be an MP.
Your comments are true.
But the alternative was Corbyn, J.
A lot of folk voted against said Corbyn.
Nope. The 2019 election was about one thing.
Perhaps the “Carrie Rule” determines which way Boris goes?
Give it 5 to 7 years and it will no longer be Carrie but his next conquest as a younger replacement. But hopefully Boris will no longer be in a position he can go harm by then.
Close, but no cigar…
griff, what was the slide (or slides) that you have prepared for BoJo?
Duped or co-opted in exchange for stage time in the political theater?
From the article: ““I got them to run through it all and, if you look at the almost vertical kink upward in the temperature graph, the anthropogenic climate change, it’s very hard to dispute. That was a very important moment for me,” Mr Johnson told reporters on the prime ministerial plane. He has also described it as his “road to Damascus” on climate – a phrase from the bible meaning a turning point in someone’s life.”
Michael Mann and his Hockey Stick Team strike again!
Boris has been fooled, like so many others, by a bogus, bastardized, dishonest, computer-generated, global surface temperature record that is totally made up to promote the human-caused climate change “hotter and hotter” scam, and looks nothing like the temperaure charts recorded by human beings down through the years, which show current day temperatures are no warmer than temperatures in the recent past, which means CO2 is a minor player in Earth’s temperatures.
The Big Lie (Hockey Stick charts) of Michael Mann and Phil Jones is still propelling this climate change scam.
The only thing that will deprogramme current legacy politicians is to be voted out for decades
He had a “road to Dumbasscus moment”? I’ll bet he has a lot of those.
How can anybody expect Johnson to believe otherwise? Just imagine you only hear one side of an issue. Imagine anybody who disagrees is marginalized and silenced. Imagine censorship of facts and opinion that don’t fit the consensus view.
No need to imagine, it has been going on for decades. Global warming/climate change is just the bellwether issue for how to treat inconvenient science.
I was very disappointed with this contribution.
The added inserted graphs etc included in these comment are of very poor quality. In many cases it is impossible to read the graphs, the number and their relevance.
This document is of no use to those of us trying to convince our friends and colleagues that CAGW is bogus because these parts are illegible.
Please can you reissue this document with inserts that can be read!
“The added inserted graphs etc included in these comment are of very poor quality. In many cases it is impossible to read the graphs, the number and their relevance.”
I would have to agree with that. Many of the graphs produced lately are barely legible and I don’t feel like taking out my magnifying glass to look at them.
I found Paul Homewood’s piece shorter and easier to follow.
But the point is, this is a distraction. Even if the Met’s and Vallance’s alarmist view of the world is correct, it makes no difference to the fact that the UK Net Zero program is idiotic.
Of course the alarmists would rather argue about the science, because that means the debate starts from the assumption that if the science shows there is a problem, Net Zero must be right.
Wrong! Net Zero is crazy whether the Vallance/Met Office presentation is right or wrong. Its completely immaterial. Net Zero is crazy because its impossible to do, and even if possible would have no effect, none, on global warming.
This is the argument that has to be made.
And I have been emailing my MP recently with this very argument, but all I can get out of him so far is that he “supports the PM’s position on net zero”. Ever the optimist though, I am not finished yet. I will keep on trying to influence him with facts, even though he doesn’t like them.
The facts I would put to him are pretty simple:
There is an account of how much wind is needed here:
Here is a taster:
And also this:
You notice the usual engineering illiteracy in these matters. The amount of storage in terms of duration isn’t specified. We need a capacity (presumably faceplate?) of 108GW.
Then for some reason not specified in this journalistic piece we need a battery capacity of 140GW. But for how long do we need to be able to deliver this 140GW from batteries? A day? Two days? A week?
Probably, in a world in which all home heating and all vehicles are running off electricity, at least a week.
This is the part that is totally impossible to achieve. There’s not enough battery production in the world to deliver enough batteries to make a dent. The result of this is one of two things. You could conceivably raise the number of turbines so that even during the very low wind periods you get more power. There are some estimates further down this thread in Ben Vorlich’s reply to Griff about what that would imply, and the numbers get absolutely huge and obviously impractical.
Just suppose as a for instance that all the turbines are 4MW. How many would that require to deliver the proposed 108GW? Around 27,000. But that isn’t going to cut it without the impossible levels of battery storage. So if you are going to do it with battery backup you probably need at least 100,000 units to get the storage requirement down to reasonably practical levels, and even then?
Someone more qualified than me could do the numbers, but maybe even this is absurdly optimistic.
The other way you can do it is abandon battery storage. In this case maybe you can do with the 27,000 turbines and 100% backup with gas fired plant. But even putting up 27,000 turbines offshore is an absolutely huge project. And maintaining them, once they are built.
Anyone who regularly goes to the English coast will have seen what are described as huge wind farms under construction. They take years to fully build out, and in some places they even have visitor information centres for the admiration of tourists. This is not like cars rolling off a production line. And their total output is tiny compared to the plan. Look here for numbers:
The supposedly gigantic offshore farms deliver, faceplate notice, not usable power, single numbers of MW.
The total current farms generated in 2020, from this link, 75,369 GW-h from 24GW faceplate.
You can’t even back this up with batteries, the idea of backing up the proposed total of 108GW is ridiculous.
So I don’t believe there is any chance of building out 108GW in the timescales of the Net Zero project. But even could you build it, you could not back it up with batteries. So it will have to be backed up by gas. The result of this will be to increase total dependence on gas. You take it out of the boilers, but you put it back in to the heat pumps via electricity generation. And you take out the gasoline from the cars and replace that with electricity from gas powered generation.
Because the real question to ask, if you are installing all this gas backup, and if its functioning is essential to having a viable grid, why not just install and run the gas? Why bother with the wind? Why embark on a huge national project whose only real result is to increase dependence on gas at enormous cost?
Notice in all of this reasoning there has been no mention of global warming or CO2 emissions. Its irrelevant. The project is impossible in itself, regardless of what happens to global emissions or temperatures. it cannot be done, and any serious attempt will result in a social and political disaster in the UK.
Slide #2a is specious and irrational. The main component of post 1990’s warming, particularly the boreal warming, is weaker solar wind states driving a warmer AMO (via negative NAO conditions), and an associated decline in low cloud cover. Rising CO2 forcing is expected to increase positive NAO, that cannot drive a warmer AMO.
Perhaps the biggest snow job is the belief that the public really cares. They don’t. The public is highly skeptical of the claims of threats from climate change. The concerns of the elite are not in sync with the concerns of the public. That’s true in the US and the UK and probably in many other countries as well.
The problem being that all established political parties are signed up to the green cr*p, with all those further to the left of Boris screaming that he isn’t going far or fast enough. And a lot of people do swallow this cr*p.
“The only thing necessary for the triumph of evil is for good men to do nothing.”
People are staying quiet for the most part.
The BBC journalist writing this article is Justin Rowlatt.
It could contain false information.
Like your stuff but it’s just to convoluted and verbose for the uninitiated
Willis E does a much more cogent takedown of these sorts
Boris must be an idiot to fall for this crap!
And today I read a piece where its conceded that the only way to make the move to EVs work is to implement a per mile charge. The reason being that the current model of taxing the gas they use will vanish as all cars become EVs.
So think about this for a few moments.
First we move all cars to EVs. They cost twice as much, but we do it.
Then we charge per mile, so they cost as much to run as the gasoline or diesel powered cars they replace. Or maybe more.
Then we screw up the grid by moving it to intermittent wind and solar power generation, which we anyway cannot do on a scale to meet the new demand from all these EVs (not to mention the heat pumps).
So we insist that all car chargers have to have smart meters so they can be turned off when they threaten the stability of the grid. Which will be every day at about 6pm.
Think about what this means. This is making everyone spend twice as much for cars to buy them, then taxing them so they cost as much as or more than current gasoline costs, and then making it difficult and sometimes flat impossible to fill them up.
Political oblivion awaits the party and the Prime Minister that presides over any serious attempt to do this.
Johnson is a buffon. In fact at this moment in the history of western culture being a buffoon appears to be de rigueur.
Science speaks, real money whispers.
Carrie Symonds got her political start running the campaigns of Zac Goldsmith. She is head of public relations at the Aspinall Foundation. Goldsmith and Aspinall are top Tory moneybags. Goldsmith’s The Ecologist is the flagship magazine.
Follow the money trail…
To think a slide-show changed BoJo’s mind is plainly silly.
Goldsmith founded the CEN and the EU CDP. Charity Commission for England and Wales has a statutory inquiry into the Aspinall foundation…
In other words the slide-show is for the plebs. Could it be that the US is clueless about UK power structures? Likely, as they follow Prince Charles’ NetZero :
From Alice in Wonderland 1999 :
A look at Met Office series 1991-2020 average UK temperatures shows no warming. Why wasn’t he shown this data which the TheGWPF has published. Somebody is either wrong or right about temperature increase in the UK.Interesting that the world’s longest record of air temperatures is measured from circa 1680 in the UK Midlands temperature charts, showing the end of the Little Ice Age and subsequent periods of hotter and colder variations.