It has long been my view that the whole climate scare thing will fade away and disappear once the costs and risks of the insane zero carbon agenda become clear to the voting public. As much as I’ve been deeply involved in efforts to expose the fake “science” behind the scare, the science arguments so far have had very little success in convincing anyone, particularly anyone (and this is most people) who is subject to appeals to fear. But now, over in the UK, the costs and risks of pursuing an aggressive “climate” agenda are starting to hit home. And with the selection of a new Prime Minister now getting started, we can see the first glimmerings of political impact.
You might think that, since I am on the board of an organization that is an affiliate of a group based in the UK, I might have some special insights on where the PM race is going. In fact, what my UK contacts tell me is that the PM race is wide open, and anything could happen. But there is one remarkable thing, which is that suddenly it is no longer disqualifying to express skepticism about green orthodoxy. As of this writing, an actual overt skeptic — at least, a skeptic as to fossil fuel suppression — might even win; and whoever wins is likely at the minimum to start a quiet retreat from the existing Net Zero program.
Here in the U.S., we have had climate skepticism in the Republican Party for a good while, although only in the last several years — really, since the election of Trump in 2016 — has opposition to fossil fuel suppression become near universal among Republicans. (Recall that the Republican presidential candidates in both 2008, McCain, and 2012, Romney, were on board with fossil fuel suppression to “save the planet.”).
But in Europe, including the UK, it has been different. Even today, there is no major political party anywhere in Europe taking an avowedly skeptical position on anything relating to the climate alarm movement. This is true not just as to questioning the underlying “science,” such as it is, but also as to questioning the demanded mitigation measures of suppressing fossil fuels and building wind turbines and solar panels everywhere. There has been something as close to political unanimity on the issue as one ever sees.
In the UK, the push for Net Zero has been backed by all political parties. The first targets for greenhouse gas reductions were set by the Climate Change Act of 2008, when a Labor government was in power; but significantly more ambitious targets, including a legally-binding net zero commitment by 2050, were then adopted by amendments to that Act in June 2019, during a Conservative government led by Theresa May. According to the BBC here, the amendments passed in Parliament on June 24, 2019 “without a single objection”:
It was a rare display of parliamentary unity that the government said would set a benchmark for the world to follow.
Boris Johnson then became Prime Minister the next month, July 2019, and, along with his cabinet, he has enthusiastically and aggressively pushed forward with the Net Zero agenda ever since, without significant opposition.
The ground really only began to shift in the latter part of 2021, as prices for fossil fuels including oil and natural gas began an increase that has continued since. The UN COP 26 climate conference in Glasgow in October was the catalyst for the first steps to form a Parliamentary group to question the aggressive Net Zero program. Then on January 1, 2022 five members of Parliament came into the open with a letter to the Telegraph newspaper (behind paywall) calling for action in light of impending massive increases in household energy bills. In a piece on March 3, 2022, the BBC interviewed Conservative MP Craig Mackinlay on the subject of how the group came to be formed:
Mr Mackinlay and the net zero rebels were alarmed by “some of the more outlandish and unachievable proposals” being put forward. “There were so many daft policies being proposed that would make Britain colder and poorer,” he said. “We thought it was time to have a proper debate about these things.”
As of March, the BBC said that there were approximately 19 MPs in the group, which had taken the name Net Zero Scrutiny Group. At that time, the war in Ukraine had just begun, accompanied by an additional large spike in energy prices, to which the UK had been left completely vulnerable by, among other things, a total ban drilling for oil or natural gas by means of fracking. Energy prices to consumers, which had been suppressed by price controls for several months, then were allowed to approximately double in April, and further large increases are expected later in the year, which will take energy prices to consumers to triple or more where they were at the start of 2022. There are currently approximately 50 or more members of the Net Zero Scrutiny Group in Parliament.
And now on to the race for Prime Minister. Since the Conservatives hold a majority of seats in the Parliament, the race is held within the Conservative party on rules that it sets internally. The rules call for multiple preliminary rounds, where the voters are the Conservative MPs. In each round, a higher number of votes is required to make it to the next round, until finally the number of candidates is reduced to two. The final two will then go to a vote of the full “membership” of the Conservative party, something of which we do not have an analog here in the U.S. I understand that there are around 180,000 “members” of the Party.
As of today, after two rounds of voting have been completed, and several candidates eliminated, here are the remaining contenders:
- Rishi Sunak, until a week ago Chancellor of the Exchequer. (He resigned just before Johnson resigned.)
- Liz Truss, current Foreign Secretary.
- Penny Mordaunt, former Defense Secretary under Theresa May who has since held lower-level cabinet positions.
- Kemi Badenoch, former “Equalities Minister” (yes, they have such a thing).
- Tom Tugendhat, a back-bench member considered a “moderate.”
Of the five, Badenoch has given strong signals that she is not on board with the Net Zero program, primarily because of its cost. Launching her campaign, she gave an interview with the Telegraph, quoted here in Business Green,:
Badenoch insisted she was “not someone who doesn’t believe in climate change”, but she argued it was “wrong of us to set a target without having a clear plan of the cost and knowing what it would entail. . . . “Setting an arbitrary target like that is the wrong way to go… There is a better way of going about these things,” she added.
Badenoch is also running as the “anti-woke” candidate. She was born in London of Nigerian parents, and grew up mostly in Nigeria. She was initially considered an outsider and total long-shot, but has survived two rounds of balloting so far. Here is a picture:
Meanwhile, the other candidates have been much quieter on their positions as to Net Zero. But Mordaunt and Truss have been talking up tax cut proposals, which one might say are inconsistent with massive government spending to promote Net Zero. And according to the BBC March 3 piece, Sunak has “pushed for six new North Sea oil and gas fields to be given licences this year.”
Reality takes hold ever so slowly. I would suggest to my Conservative friends in the UK that the abandonment of Net Zero is inevitable, and they need a leader who can take them through that process without being embarrassed about it, and who can proudly stand up and accuse the other side of seeking to impoverish the middle class.
Only Kemi Badenoch opposes what she calls ‘unilateral economic disarmament’.
“Climate experts, business leaders and senior Tories stress need to protect policy, as several candidates express scepticism”
https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2022/jul/15/uk-net-zero-goal-tory-leadership-race
The Graun can’t even be honest about that
If she won I don’t know what the left would do.
Well, here in the States, every media piece about her would start with “White Supremacist Kemi Badenoch…”
That’s because she doesn’t think along racial lines
“Kemi Badenoch, former “Equalities Minister”” Exactly what’s an “Equalities Minister” supposed to be doing?
She pushed back against wokeism – pretty rare these days
Kemi could introduce legislation to put back net- zero until 3000 at the same time confirming a long term commitment to net-zero; then some yet unborn future Conservative PM could put it back to 3050 at the same time confirming a long term commitment – until it finally dawns no action is required.
Might be slightly brilliant to appoint a black woman. Can’t be attacked as White, male privileged. Strange that someone almost the antithesis of Margaret Thatcher is now the standard bearer for true conservative principles. But once we reject the tropes of the Left, it becomes clear that people of very different backgrounds can see the light at any time. Thatcher’s viewpoint cane from her background as a shopkeepers daughter. Not from being white or even middle class.
With a strong endorsement like “White Supremacist Kemi Badenoch…”, she’d be a
front-runner to get my vote!
“If she won I don’t know what the left would do”
That would be beyond my wildest dreams!
Bring it on!
I would like Kemi to become PM because every time she faces Sir Keir Starmer at Prime Minister’s Questions every Wednesday Starmer will be reminded what a woman is and also how much more diverse the Tories are compared to the ideologically driven Labour left.
If she is genuinely anti Net Zero, how come she was part of a Cabinet that signed off on these lunatic pipe dreams? As a point of principal, if she truly believes that these policies will deliver true harms for no evident and scientifically robust results, why did she not resign? She is as much a woman of straw as the rest of them, which is imho why the UK is in such a mess given the opposition parties are so hell bent on jumping on any bandwagon they see as a means to get re-elected so where is the distinction – there is very little effective opposition despite some MPs coalescing to express opposition; sadly they are not in positions of policy influence.
The Tories are just as ideologically driven as the hard/soft liberal Left – please do not forget that there was very little genuine outspoken opposition to SARS COV2 jab and lockdown strategies – in the main they acted like Turkeys getting nervous in late October.
Given the Germans very rapid unilateral abandonment of “green” mantra driven drivel, a harsh winter will mean more craven climate change blinded politicians will consign Net Zero to the incinerator – especially if poor people sadly die of the cold because they cannot afford the bills – what century are we living in?
The Labour left is antisemitic, mysoginist and committed to state ownership and control of industry as practiced in the former Soviet Union. Their commitment to LGBTQ rights is at odds with their Soviet heroes.
Maybe she’ll call out the Left academia for its obvious white bias and privilege! Lol
They would throw temper tantrums, riot, assault people in restaurants, and say mean things on social media. Like they always do.
“Climate experts, business leaders and senior Tories stress need to protect policy, as several candidates express scepticism”
We have to protect our phoney baloney jobs.
Blazing Saddles
Dream on. There are over 133 MPs in the Conservative Environment Network (CEN). That’s half the Tory backbenches.
The CEN supports the following principle:
ACTION ON CLIMATE CHANGE
We believe that climate change creates severe risks for global stability and prosperity, and that the UK must therefore continue to lead the way not only in promoting adaptation but also in reducing greenhouse gas emissions.
All part of the Parliamentary dictatorship
What exactly is this “parliamentary dictatorship” in the UK? Is it the fact that it has
held free and fair elections for several hundred years? Or that the prime minister can be removed at any time by a simple vote of the MPs? If that is a dictatorship then most people would consider themselves lucky to be living in one.
It’s an electoral dictatorship. No choice, say, for a voter who wants to vote for a major party that does not adhere to the Net-Zero agenda.
All the main parties in the UK promote Net-Zero.
fretslider is correct.
And by that definition all democracies are electoral dictatorships since in any democratic country you can always find some issues where major parties agree.
Here in the UK (and most of the west also), all of the major parties and most of the minor ones have the same mantra and are filled with people who have drank the kool aid and have the same mindset. As regards climate, there is no choice.
This is a democracy in the same way that you can vote for whoever you like in China, but they will be a member of the communist party.
I think it’s part of the Kool-aid that was drunk to fit in in Europe. The UK is not a natural partner of the EU, so those who were desperate to be European believed what ever they associated with the EU. Mentality. It was and is pathetic. It’s just an anti-competitive , Socialist trade block
The UK is not a functioning democracy. Yes, people vote = demos. But they have no power and therefore no kratos. We get lied to in election campaigns and once the election is complete have no power to bring the liars to account. The government ’employs’ at least 150 of the 650 MPs and then there are the government wannabees so around half of the Tory MPs will be thinking of themselves not their electors. And the electorate of the Prime Minister’s constituency are certainly not represented in Parliament. The role of Parliament is to hold the executive to account on behalf of the people but that is not possible with so many MPs being in the executive. The UK needs to introduce a system of democracy such as The Harrogate Agenda.
Power is actually very concentrated in Parliamentary systems. Canada has some similar problems and I believe we need a new constitution that more strictly limits the powers of the cabinet and parliament generally.
Only five MPs in the entire house of 650 MPs voted against the Climate Change Act. So 19 is a fourfold increase.
Whooopeee! 🙂
For an MP to vote against his own party’s Government bill means he doesn’t care much about his political future. A Canadian MP would be expelled from caucus by the PM. The only exceptions are free votes which are not whipped. We had one of those over hanging murderers back in the 1970s I think.
A dissident MP has to bide her time and hope to have some influence when the leadership or the political realities change. That or leave politics.
Jody Wilson-Raybould refused to perform unlawful acts for Trudeau and was kicked out of cabinet. Just an example of what you point out. With a corrupted and willfully blind press on his side, they can do what they want until their arrogance oversteps their ability to buy votes. Hopefully that’s where we are at now, but we need to change the constitution because the voters are too stupid nowadays to protect themselves from self serving crooks lie Trudeau.
Yes there most certainly are and, according to one prominent activist MP, he is disgusted that over 100 of them are there to show green credentials but do nothing, say nothing and ‘sit on their arses’ about climate change. Apparently the vast majority are there so they can have some sort of green credentials without having to lift a finger, it’s only a small minority that believe in actually doing something. Check out recent comments made about the CEN and you’ll see what I mean about the GINO’s (Greenies In Name Only).
I suspected as much, Richard, but it is still disconcerting that so many are prepared to not face reality.
Not surprising when you realise how incompetent almost all politicians are on any subject involving technical knowledge! Where are the Engineers with any political ambitions?
Kemi Badenoch studied Computer Systems Engineering at Sussex University and has an MEng degree.
Pretty close to the mark, the word ‘green’ is optional but is the Rave du Jour
The UK Parliament has been a finishing school and university for Cronies for some considerable time.
Folks want to be Members of Parliament (MPs) so as to learn how Government works but esp to learn who actually ‘pulls the strings‘
i.e. To ‘make friends in high places’
In a nutshell, the Sir Humphrey Applebys of this world
Quote:” “I went on to explain that it is an honour, and also that we need a transport policy.
“If by ‘we’ you mean Britain, that’s perfectly true,” he acknowledged. “But if by ‘we’ you mean you and me and this Department, we need a transport policy like an aperture in the cranial cavity.”
more here
MPs never last long and when they are deselected (lose their election) they are much sought after by The City and also by Industry
They almost instantly become esteemed ‘Members of the Board’ of large banks and firms because, with their knowledge and contacts from within Whitehall, can get the heads up on new regulations, new taxes, new subsidy opportunities, new infrastructure contracts etc etc long before such things are enacted and enforced.
Thus they know how much to quote for various projects, who the competition is and, because there is Honour Amongst Thieves, don’t tread on each other’s toes.
Many will assert that it was Cronyism that destroyed Ancient Rome – everybody became a ‘Father of the City’, everybody was either a tax collector, tax spender or on the receiving end of that spending
A very quick simple basic BoE calculation will tell you that of everyone in the UK, easily 65% of their entire Gross Annual Salary is taken right off either before it gets into their bank or shortly immediately after – via direct taxation, tax on their spending and mandatory takes like pension contributions
Pension contributions are only mandatory so that the pension companies can lend the money to Government (Gilt Edge Securities) and then let Government systematically devalue it via ‘managed inflation’
Inflation (and money printing when rates are low) is all that’s keeping the country afloat, while Government repeately tells everyone how bad and awful inflation is.
It is sickening because once you realise what’s going on, there is No Way it can have a happy ending.
The Federal Reserve is the manifestation of that scheme in the US – they print money out of thin air then charge Government (tax payers) a Service Charge for doing so, said charge having to be paid in Real Money Dollars.
neat huh
Actually, all she has to do is come second in the MP rounds. The Conservative Party membership would then give her a resounding win!
QED
No doubt a large number of the minor “nobility” in that number. The same people that Monty Python skewered regularly as inbred fools.
I could be wrong, but the impression I get from Sunak is he’s not really on board with the whole climate change nonsense, but his ambition forces him to fall in line until he thinks the time is right.
Penny Mordant – Thatcher wannabe, which isn’t a bad thing but she’s not up to it
Tugendhat – who?
Liz Truss – don’t make me laugh
At the moment, I could get behind Badenoch simply for being anti-woke
Did you see Liz Truss – that’s a Thatcher wannabe in all her wooden, stilted and somewhat seedy, glory!
Kemi is very confident and a good debater. She trained and worked as an engineer and later banking. She also spent time in Florida when growing up. (her mother was a University professor)
She has certainly been impressive since she entered the campaign.
Sunak is a millionaire ex-banker with a green card, a house in California and a billionaire non-dom wife. How deeply is he tied to the UK?
mordant can’t define a woman and is a WEF plant
Tungenhadt is a woke remainer
Badenoch is the only one I could describe as conservative
As far as I am aware, Sunak is a self-made millionaire as is Keir Starmer – nothing wrong with that
He doesn’t have a green card, he did have one whilst studying in the USA and held it until last year. He is no longer the holder of a green card.
Yes, his wife was a non-dom (nothing illegal in that)
But, yes, I would agree Badenoch is my personal choice.
“I could be wrong…”
You are, most definitely.
we’ll see
Net Zero isn’t possible technically, let alone economically. UK still not following the first rule of holes. But that is OK, because I believe it will take a really big and awful ‘crash’ somewhere to finally wake the climate zealots up. UK is among the leading candidates for this event.
Showing the ‘settled science’ isn’t hasn’t worked.
Showing renewables are uneconomic hasn’t worked.
Showing that there is no feasible storage solution for intermittency hasn’t worked.
A big net zero ‘crash’ might work in general for politicians, but not for the likes of ‘climate scientists’ Mann, Oreskes, Dessler. They simply have to much invested in AGW.
The UK: the crash test dummies of net zero 😉
With the vast majority of the media on the alarmist side, the “showing” so far has been like shouting into the wind. The media is in the same camp of “too much invested in AGW” to switch yet. Fear sells. That will remain until the fear of freezing in the dark this winter becomes much more real than the fear of warming a fraction of a degree next year.
That’s been my position for some time, Rud.
It really is too hopeful for us to expect the Climate and Sustainability teams to just disband themselves over something as petty as the truth. Their prime function is to find more and more reasons why their jobs are of critical importance. There are careers to protect and mortgages to be paid.
I understand Germany is currently constructing an experiment along the lines you suggest.
And again to highlight Charles MacKay’s prescient observation –
“Men, it has been well said, think in herds; it will be seen that they go mad in herds, while they only recover their senses slowly, one by one.”
Hopefully, as Francis Menton writes, we’re starting to see the “only recover their senses slowly, one by one” part of MacKay’s observation.
Because we’re certainly still seeing the “going mad in herds” part of his observation.
I tried common sense with my dog once. It didn’t work
It usually works with my cats – must be the dog’s fault /sarc
Only for as long as it suits them and you continue to provide free bed and board.
Remember: dogs have owners; cats have staff!
What they do not want to admit is that NetZero is a massively regressive tax.
They are also unwilling to look across the North Sea at Germany’s Energiewende, which is a miserable failure.
The long game is that when this begins to get painful and there are rumblings along those lines, they simply cut a check. This is about securing absolute power, which means eliminating the middle class and upward mobility.
On the cusp of the UK facing its warmest temperatures on record (80% probability, Monday & Tuesday, July 18th & 19th), and all this in the midst of a double-dip La Nina, the comedy continues at WUWT.
1976.
?
I remember the heatwave in 1976; ladybugs everywhere. But overall it was fractionally the 4th warmest summer in the UK record (where summer is June-July-Aug); behind tied first place, 2003, 2006 and 2018.
The warmest in 359 years.
Summer (June–August) 17.77 °C (63.99 °F) 1976
https://www.trevorharley.com/hottest-summers-in-britain.html
Ladybugs?
Wrong. What a giveaway
Ah, the classic climatista dance – “The Pivot!”
Also the “bait and switch” as well as the old favourite of FinalNail, “the twist” – go through everything he posts carefully because the twist is that whatever evidence he uses to support his argument won’t have been what you were talking about!
1936…
But then most older officials records have been “Adjusted” (Karlized) down so those heat records from the ’30s are now cooler
1936 was the 67th warmset summer in the UK. Are you getting mixed up with US temps?
Ah yes, those 1930s US heatwaves….I wonder where they came from….
Irrelevant – you are comparing modern, contaminated urban temperatures with older uncontaminated rural temperatures. That they are clearly apples and oranges has clearly never occurred to you (or rather, apples and oranges with a slice of UHI mango on top!).
Don’t you know that any record, whether it’s heat, cold, rain, drought, is proof that CO2 is the climate control knob and will kill us all if we don’t get it under control?
Even in a cooling world we would expect record warm temperatures in some places at some times. Even if this was some harbinger of warming, it doesn’t change the fact that the cure is worse than the disease and not by a little bit. You would blithely sentence billions to poverty and early death while calling your critics comedic fools.
We’d say the same of you except that there is nothing remotely funny about the results of your intended foolishness.
But it’s not a cooling world, is it? Not if a reasonable timescale that filters out short-term fluctuations is applied.
So all these recent local and regional record warm temperatures across Europe and China and elsewhere, which, by the way, are occurring during a period of supposed natural La Nina cooling, are not a ‘harbinger of warming’; they are occurring in tandem with scientifically observed prolonged global warming. These episodes are entirely to be expected, as the scientists have been telling us for decades now.
Regarding my “intended foolishness”: I don’t have any intentions. I’m just pointing out the fact that surface temperatures are warming more or less in line with scientific projections. I don’t offer any prescriptions for this, other than that acknowledging reality is usually a good start.
Who said I was denying reality? Is the earth warming? Yes, and it has been for 400 years, ever since the LIA. Is CO2 a factor? Yes, though we really don’t know by how much. I simply pointed out that your single data point is meaningless in the big picture.
You called the discussion of net zero impacts comedy. There’s nothing funny about it.
Please research this further. No global temperature data set shows continuous warming over the entire period of record. HadCrut shows zero warming between 1850 and 1930.
It’s easy to check this using the various sites available and I encourage you to do so.
How does this fit with ‘continuous warming since the LIA’?
Split hairs much?
You should take your own point seriously, that natural variability is large. And you dodged my point which is that you are dismissing the impacts of net zero as if they were comedy. Every time someone points this out to you, you change the subject. Why is discussing the real impacts of a net zero policy so uncomfortable for you that you insist in changing the subject?
Since you are fond of links like woodfortrees (which I have spent much time on) perhaps you should do some work of your own on global climate on a larger scale than since 1850. Multiple records show a warming trend over the last 400 years, it is clear in almost all paleoclimate reconstructions:
https://wattsupwiththat.com/paleoclimate/
You’re saying that my pointing out that a period of ~80 years of no warming during this ~170 period of supposed ‘continuous warming’ is ‘splitting hairs’?
Most odd.
Nothing odd about it. If you understood even the basics of natural variability you would understand that you are splitting hairs. You don’t want to look at the big picture though, you want to restrict all discussion to your cherry picked 170 years.
You continue also to ignore the consequences of net zero and continue to change the subject.
Contrary to what you think, all your data sets are just opinions, not
proven facts! Anyone can write numbers & draw squiggly lines, even
my great-niece. This event is just weather. Get over it!
IIRC, 1910-1940 there was a considerable rise in temperatures, followed by a cooling period from 1940-1975. Whilst CO2 was rising..
Huge rise in temps running up to 1880, steady decline in temps running from 1940 to 1975. Plot using TheFinalNail’s preferred data source:
https://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/hadcrut4gl/from:1850/mean:24/to:1975
None of which detracts from his inability to admit to the negative impacts of net zero.
Refine it a bit. There was a distinct warming from about 1910-1940. But even IPCC AR4 SPM Fig 4 said it was natural, because there was insufficient rise in CO2. OTOH, there was a cooling from about 1940-1975 during a period when the same IPCC report said there was sufficient rise in CO2. Makes the same natural variability point twice, in two different ways.
Some further points
1. The Hadcrut4 30 Yr warming rate 1910-1945 is almost identical to 1980-2010 but the climate models have a factor >2x difference for those two periods. Therefore the forcings cannot be correct and other (natural) factors must be at work
2. Both sea-level and glacier retreat data imply linear warming trends from as early as 1830-1850 (recall sea-level and glaciers are lagging temp indicators) but CMIP models only show warming from about 1910 (as does HadCrut).
Trailing 30yr moving slopes for Hadcrut4 and CMIP6 mean models. Data downloaded from AR6 SPM Figure 1
Highly cooked data shows what the cooks want it to show. Impressive.
“Hadcrut shows zero warming between 1850 and 1930”
Explain then why
” In Spitzbergen the open season for shipping at the coal port lengthened from three months in the years before 1920 to over seven months of the year by the late 1930s. The average total area of sea ice seems to have declined by between 10 and 20 per cent over that time”
Hubert Lamb, Climate, History and the Modern World, 2nd Edition 1995 p 260
Indeed I think the evidence is that Hadcrut is wrong prior to about 1910. Its contradicted by a wealth of sea level and glacier data. I posted some above.
I suspect the problem with Hadcrut before 1910 is the coverage declines very quickly the earlier you go
Is it getting warmer? It appears so. But it started warming at the end of the nineteenth century, way before our see-oh-too levels of production allegedly mattered. Hence, the only logical conclusion is the warming is perfectly natural and nothing that you and your chums can control with windmills and rainbow catchers.
Hence, why should I pay a fortune for my energy bills because you and your mob refuse to accept the science of natural variation?
Sea-level and glacier retreat data imply it started warming as far back as 1830 – 1850, not end of C19th
Good point well made.
Thanks. Sea level and glacier retreat data calibrated to temperature by peak cross correlation (to get the lag) and linear regression to scale against all HadCRUT4 data in C20th. All data aligned to 1961-1990. Note how early the rise in sea level and galcier retreat is and contradicts Hadcrut4 until about 1910 (after which they are calibrated to fit). Glacier and sea level data show three distinct warming pulses, the first being through the C19th.
Note also CMIP6 mean model accelerating away up from Hadcrut4 and UAH post 2000. And CMIP6 shifted to 1961-1990 mean shows how appalling a fit to temps it is in the early part as well.
Once again, an excellent example of how hopeless CMIP is.
So a large number of record highs is meaningful, on other hand, and even larger number of record lows, is just weather and should be ignored.
The world still hasn’t returned to the warm temperatures enjoyed during the Medieval, Roman, Egyptian or MInoan warm periods. Nor did any of them reach the levels enjoyed during the Holocene optimum.
“…even larger number of record lows…blah, blah…”
No Pinocchio, you just pulled all that out of your arse.
https://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/sotc/global/202107/supplemental/page-3
https://www.nature.com/articles/s41597-020-0530-7
Dude just stop lying, you’re acting like a pre-schooler.
Again, prove it’s not just natural variation. Oh yeah, you can’t.
Why are you getting all sweary about a bunch of complete non-events?
What you should be getting sweary about is the energy crisis we’re in and the sky high prices people are having to pay.
It’s your gang’s obsession with unicorn breath machines and rainbow catchers and your irrational fear of fracking that has got us into this economic mess. Well done champ, hope you’re proud of yourself.
Straight out of Michael Mann’s fraudulent prayer book.
The warmest temperatures on record currently were possible back in 1906.
Highest temperatures in UK for September.
September 35.6 96.0 Bawtry South Yorkshire 2 September 1906 35.0 95.0 New Malden London 1 September 1906 35.0 95.0 Maidenhead Berkshire 1 September 1906 35.0 95.0 Colly Weston Northamptonshire 1 September 1906 35.0 95.0 Barnet London 2 September 1906 34.8 94.6 Epsom Surrey 2 September 1906 34.8 94.6 Old Southgate London 2 September 1906 34.6 94.2 Raunds Northamptonshire 8 September 1911
CET (mean)
July16.46 °c August16.23 °c September13.72 °c
Back in September 1906, 35.6c was recorded in South Yorkshire.
This month is 2.74c cooler than July so there would had been potential for July measuring 38.34c in South Yorkshire.
In 2022 there is potential of 38c being recorded for the first time in South Yorkshire.
Back in 1906 this temperature was possible so it is not surprising that this could occur now. Although it has took a very long time doing so to get the perfect weather pattern in delivering it.
What’s this got to do with September records?
36c in September over 115 years ago is a big deal when this month is now 2.74c cooler than July.
Ageed, but what has it to do with this thread?
By the way, the warmest average September temperature in the UK occurred in 2006, with 2021 a close second.
What it has got to do with this thread is related to you mentioning about the potential record temperature forecast on Monday and Tuesday.
I am explaining that it is not a big deal because it could have been expected all the way back in 1906. That is if it had occurred in July 1906 it would had been around 3c warmer giving 38c/39c.
So why is it a big deal that this value maybe recorded in South Yorskhire when it could have been recorded all the way back in 1906?
Come back and comment Wednesday.
Everything t do with CAGW is always MAY or COULD.
The UK Met Office is reporting an 80% probability (a 4/5 chance) that UK temps will pass 40C in the next day or two. Even more likely then that the current record high temperature, 38.7C, will fall.
But even if it doesn’t, the general point remains: real world evidence suggests that this particular “Contrarian” idea, that the scientific consensus is going to just ‘fade away’, is risible .
Perfect weather patterns lineup very rarely and when they do we get hot or cold records. This can happen anytime and has no suggestion towards climate. May need a 1000 years until any very rare pattern doesn’t occur for the first time in any given month.
A record warm temperature says nothing more than record cold did back in 2010 and 2018. Global temperature could be the same for the next 500 years and we would still be getting high and low records during months.
What’s going away is people’s willingness to pay massive energy bills just to indulge the green fantasies of the champagne socialists.
Will you come back with a comment on Wednesday if the UK record is broken?
Will you go away if it isn’t???
What will it “prove” if it is, or isn’t?
I will. I’ll come back and ask you to provide the empirical proof (not models) that our see-oh-toos were the driver of those temps.
It’s called weather, Nail old chap.
Hot weather isn’t going to make people any more willing to pay energy bills they can’t afford.
This past northern hemisphere winter, when places all of the world were setting all time record cold records, weren’t you among the loudest, declaring that this was just weather and anyone who would declare that records meant something knew nothing about science?
Yep, that would be Nail. Choosing records when they agree with his wing-nut beliefs and ignoring them when they don’t fit the crazy CAGW narrative.
Sunak is the favorite, and he’s basically the same as Boris, only he seems to view the public as an infinite source of revenue. Atlas would have to do more than shrug to get rid of that grifter.
Mordaunt and Truss are firm Believers. I don’t think there’s any chance whatsoever, given endorsements and current voting that the MPs would let either of the other two reach the final two.
The UK is just as screwed as they were the moment Boris converted to the climageddon religion. The Conservative party has never really challenged this narrative. While Badenoch at least has functioning brain cells, they’re not letting her close to the head of the party.
Apparently Mordaunt has been lying about her gender identity beliefs, saying in a debate she is for natural gender and “mother”, when in her previous position, you know that “equality” department she instituted pick your gender and birthing person.
Hopefully that will be disqualifying.
It’s been going both ways – some have accused her of lying and going back on a previous claim and some are annoyed that she’s saying something different now. I still can’t find anyone with an actual quote from her on that earlier trans stance though; all they seem to have is hearsay, no smoking gun quote. It’s a fairly minor issue though – her position on net zero and the green pledges are more important and still somewhat ambiguous.
Ambiguity if the problem and the point. If she has no standards, she is not a conservative.
Main thing to remember. Any law passed by Parliament (e.g. 2008 Climate Change Act) can be repealed by Parliament.
Well, it could, but the timing probably wouldn’t be so good right now.
So coloring maps are your main information source for meteorological events?
Sheesh – I got past coloring-in books by the time I was about 6.
As I suspect most rational adults did.
(sorry TFN if I’ve brought up a flaw in your education or development)
I didn’t color them. Are you 7 yet?
Yes, and I’m still as unimpressionable now as I was at 6.
(Unlike some now in their 70s who seem to be so easily impressionable –
“gee whiz everybody, look at this pretty red map!”)
I suspect the Nail has been struck too many time on the head with the CAGW hammer!
We haven’t yet seen these temperatures, only a shedload of maybe’s and could be’s. Bearing in mind they are still quoting the previous “record”, which has been questioned due to siting issues, I will be interested to see what temperatures are reached and where they are recorded after the event before I decide whether I should be panicking.
https://wattsupwiththat.com/2021/02/12/uk-national-temperature-record-at-cambridge-botanic-garden-an-examination-of-the-data/
Agreed. There’s only an 80% probability of 40C; obviously a higher probability than that for breaking the UK record of 38.7C.
Re the siting issues: I think the last one was at Heathrow, which people seem to think is placed on the end of the runway so that it gets the full benefit of jetblast.
I don’t know where the weather station is at Heathrow, but I would be very surprised if it wasn’t in an approved location, well away from aircraft influences.
Before I retired, I worked at a large regional UK airport with a long-standing Met Office weather statio, and that was about 1/2 mile away from any aircraft activity and was more or less a rural site.
No, the “record” was set at Cambridge, that’s why I posted the link. I doubt even the Met Office are stupid enough to quote temps at Heathrow.
I know exactly where the temperature station is at Heathrow – it’s located on a narrow (10-20m wide) grass strip between a main runway, a busy access road and car park on 2 opposite sides and the concrete side of the airport buildings on a 3rd. A more damagingly contaminated site you could not find – frequent jetwash from the runway, hot cars on the access road and car park, then the heat from the tarmac road, car park, runway and concrete building to contend with. The temperature station is vital for aircraft landing on that runway but tying it into a network of other temperature stations is a complete and utter travesty.
The Heathrow weather station is here:
https://www.google.co.uk/maps/@51.4792309,-0.4505824,58m/data=!3m1!1e3?hl=en-GB
Just yards from the runway, and adjacent to the northern perimeter road. It’s placed there because for pilots, especially those inbound, it’s quite handy to know what air temps, wind direction, wind strength and barometric pressure conditions are like where they are going to put the plane down. They’re not so interested in conditions half a mile away.
Edit: Looks like I was composing my comment whilst Richard was posting his..
Where is your: Well I am SURPRISED! comment to Richard and Right Handed Shark??
BTW, I really liked your above comment to me about 80% being 4/5. If you think it is important to provide the fraction, as if any of the commenters here (less loydo, griff etc.) would need that help, it makes me wonder WHEN you learned to do the % to fraction conversion.
Yesterday?
Temps records these days are like the minutes of committee meetings –
whoever wrote up the minutes says what happened at the meeting. Even if it didn’t.
Interesting that the 40 degree forecast is in London. UHI????
I always thought that the US system was better than a Parliamentary system, however whenever the elected branches are split in the US, the Republicans ALWAYS get blamed by the MSM for anything that can be spun as negative.
In a Parliamentary system, the party in power has TOTAL control if their coalition is strong enough, thus Thatcher selling off the business nationalized by the liberals. So the ruling party is held accountable.
But now, again, I will go with the US system since Parliament is 100% dingbats and woke. At least the US has a SCOTUS returning to constitutional limits and a chance of putting a stop to the leftist overreach.
With the ‘reconciliation” at 50 + 1 vote in the Senate, a Senate cleared of many RINOS a Republican House lead by a conservative Speaker, and a Republican president, the Republicans/conservatives can eliminate almost ALL leftist spending in one swell foop.
In the UK it is the same. Most of the MSM and social media will always blame the Conservatives for anything negative regardless as to who is in “power”. Remember, a party may be in “power” but the simple serpents remain liberal-left. (The Conservatives are also liberal-left)
BoJo became liberal-left as was the majority of his cabinet. The Conservative Party, on the whole, is more right or centre-right – most of the candidates (apart from Rishi Sunak) will likely take the government to a more centre-right position and away from the leftwing policies.
UK politician Nigel Farage one appointed Lord Monckton to be his climate spokesman, so not exactly a net zero fan.
UK politician Nigel Farage once fired Lord Monckton as his deputy and spokesman on climate change after some factional infighting (2013). I could be wrong but I think there is no love lost between the two now.
Politicians need to be judged by what they do not their rhetoric. Politicians usually try to say whatever wins them the most votes, or loses them the fewest votes. Then watch what they do not what they say. It has been political cancer for Republicans running for statewide office or President to openly attack warmunism. Most will say as little about the subject as possible, then they vote as they please. Not defending or attacking anyone in particular – it’s the nature of politics.
The average voter who has no clue on the validity of warmunist doctrine will vote on other matters – party affiliation, other single issues, but mostly based upon pocketbook issues, and personalities.
Some politicians I know say this:
“Of course the whole “fossil-fuel drives catastrophic global warming (cleverly re-labelled “Climate Change”, since global warming has stopped and global cooling has started) is false nonsense, but I won’t get elected if I say that.”
Most people have no critical thinking skills – they believe any falsehood if it is repeated often enough, and the Climate Scam has been promoted by billions of dollars of false propaganda.
REALITY IS “WOLVES STAMPEDING THE SHEEP”.
And once a dumb sheep gets hold of an idea, nothing short of brain surgery will dislodge it.
NO EVIDENCE OF CLIMATE CRISIS
World Commerce Review, June 23, 2022
https://www.worldcommercereview.com/html/macrae-no-evidence-of-a-climate-crisis.html
[excerpt]
Our scientific predictions on climate are infinitely more accurate than the mainstream narratives, which have been false and baselessly alarmist to-date. In 2002 and again in 2013, we published the earliest and most accurate predictions of climate and energy, as follows:
• There is no real global warming crisis.
• Green energy is not green and produces little useful (dispatchable) energy.
• Climate is insensitive to increasing atmospheric CO2 and the burning of fossil fuels.
• Climate at the century-scale IS sensitive to small changes on solar activity.
• Earth will start natural solar-driven cooling by ~2020 or sooner.
• Grid-connected green (wind and solar) energy will prove a huge failure by ~2020.
Contrast the abysmal failure of the global warming alarmists’ predictive track record:
“Rode and Fischbeck, professor of Social & Decision Sciences and Engineering & Public Policy, collected 79 predictions of climate-caused apocalypse going back to the first Earth Day in 1970. With the passage of time, many of these forecasts have since expired; the dates have come and gone uneventfully. In fact, 48 (61%) of the predictions have already expired as of the end of 2020.”
For 60:40 predictions, the odds of being this wrong for this wrong are 1 in 13 quintillion; for 70:30 predictions, the odds are 1 in 13 septillion. It’s not just climate scientists being randomly mistaken – they must have known they were not telling the truth.
To conclude, the alleged fossil-fuel-caused Global Warming Crisis does not exist in reality. The only real, measurable impact of increasing atmospheric CO2 concentrations is improved crop yields – which are hugely beneficial.
Baaaahh! Humbug!
Thank you Allan – as ever, you are bang on the money.
I’d never heard of Kemi Badenoch until a couple of weeks ago. As I’d no idea about her I did a bit research on her background.
She was in Nigeria until the age of 16, so is familiar with life without reliable electricity, or energy of any sort. I grew up without electricity until I left home in my 20s. Both of us are terrified by the prospect of international or failing electricity supply.
Her education includes Computer Science, her employment IT, Systems Analysis and working in Banking.
In terms of what’s normal, a degree in PPE and a working life in politics, for members of the cabinet then I have a vague hope she can do multiplication and long division, understand a graph and ask difficult technical questions. That would be a refreshing change.
Kemi Badenoch is coming across as a strong candidate. However Penny Mordaunt was right in one respect – it’s all very well for Tory MP’s and members to vote for their candidates, but who are the UK public going to vote for in a general election?
Here is my problem with these MP’s: Did any of them publicly stand up to BloJo in the last many years, or were they all just cowardly “yes-men” who protected their careers and their incomes and did nothing while Britain failed?
My observation is that very few politicians actually serve the citizens who elected them – they are selfish, cowardly traitors who serve themselves.
I understand party discipline, but loyalty to the country and the people comes first.
Many will say I’m being naive – but I’ve done major business on six of the world’s seven continents, experienced some of the worst political regimes on the planet, managed two armed hostage crises without bloodshed, and accomplished more major successful achievements than most if not all living politicians – and I never had to compromise my values.
Now, now Allan, we were discussing politicians, not normal people with morals and ethics!
Most politicians would be unemployable in other fields, which typically require a modicum of intellect, education and ethics. How could any individual or group be so wrong, so obtuse, for so long?
I KNEW, based on my Engineering-and-Earth-Sciences education, that the CAGW/Green-Energy narrative was false when I first heard of it in 1985. I studied the subject for 17 years and wrote my first paper on the subject in 2002.
Our Climate-and-Energy predictions published in 2002 are, to my knowledge, the earliest and most accurate anywhere. We wrote then that the was no real catastrophic human-made global warming crisis, green energy was not green and produced little useful (dispatchable) energy, and natural solar-drive global cooling would start circa 2020 – and all are demonstrated to be correct now.
We’ve been submerged in green falsehoods for decades at a cost of trillions of dollars and millions of lives, especially in the developing world. Our accurate predictions of food-and-energy shortages, price inflation and crop failures due to natural global cooling are now happening, and will cause even more suffering and loss of life.
Meanwhile our politicians move at the speed of dark – once a false idea gets lodged in their thick heads, nothing short of brain surgery will dislodge it. We are governed by scoundrels and imbeciles.
The Climate Change Act was opposed by only, IIRR, 5 MPs, dramatic proof that the British Conservative and Labor parties constitute “two cheeks of the same arse.”
You should have read the ridiculous second leader in The Times this morning. What a silly rag it has become. ‘Carbon’
Yes, that one annoyed me too.
Don’t get your hopes up. They will blame winter energy shortages on Putin and then join the Dutch & Canadians in banning fertilizer.
As for the Republicans, Trump was advised to withdraw the GHG Finding of Endangerment but his daughter talked him out of it. The Ryan/McConnell Congress had 2 years to block CO2 & GHG regulations but they were too busy losing control of Congress to do that.
20 years of bad decisions have lead to the current economic collapse. It won’t turn around any time soon.
My big fear about Net-Zero, other than ruinous attempts to achieve it, is its actual meaning. “Net” implies a difference between outputs and inputs. So…
For many years since Kyoto countries have been pledging to reduce GHG emissions. (Canada has never once met such a pledge, but never mind.). It soon became obvious that emissions would never be curtailed enough to meet temperature targets: Not only is 100% non-emitting energy impossible but things like steel-making, cement, agriculture, and marine shipping are probably not possible to decarbonize (or de-nitrogenize, in agriculture.). So we can never get to where we stop emitting GHGs into the atmosphere. What to do?
Technology to the rescue. We are told that we don’t have to stop emitting. No, we just have to remove as much CO2 from the atmosphere (or from smokestack gas) each year as we put into it. Great news! No suffering! (“Moral hazard”, muttered the doomsayers.).
I date the arrival in the language of the expression “Net Zero” with the publication in The Economist of a series of articles in 2019(?) on the state of anthropogenic global warming. It was obvious that they believed the 1.5C iPCCC target could not be met without developing on a vast global scale giant factories to suck CO2 out of the air and store it forever underground, like nuclear waste. The sooner we got started on this, the less painful the emissions cuts would have to be. There was a sweet spot on the graphs that if removal balanced emissions by 2050 we’d escape Armageddon. Hence, Net Zero 2050. It looked do-able
The only wrinkle is that such technology has not been developed and shown to work economically at scale. It is expensive and requires a lot of energy to power a thermodynamically unfavourable process. The energy must be itself non-emitting else you are chasing your tail, so another bunch of mouths for the windmills to feed. By the International Energy Association’s estimates, we are now in the third year behind the required schedule of deploying dozens of plants *each year*, each capable of removing a megatonne of CO2 per year. So far none, zero, have been built at even a small fraction of this capacity. They will be completing for capital and labour with the other Green Agenda items but will have no revenue stream to pay back costs. They will have to be 100% tax-funded. (Technically easier processes that remove CO2 from stack gas or from methane steam-reformers to make “blue” hydrogen could capture their costs in the sale price of what they make but these projects seem to be stumbling also. Greens don’t like them, accusing fossil-fuel companies of green-washing.)
Net-Zero relies inherently and absolutely on CO2 removal from the atmosphere. But CO2 removal at the scale that will make Net-Zero even technically, theoretically possible is not going to happen. Investors are happy to get behind subsidized green power generation that they can make profit off, but no one will invest his own money in a lighthouse. So what, really, are governments going to do to us when it dawns on them, and us, that what they are really pressing toward is as close to *Gross*-Zero as they can get without rioting? Stop farming and cement-making and shipping?
Basically, Leslie, it’s like talking to children…
When I tell stories to my grandchildren, I will tell them that a Direct Air Carbon Capture facility is the sewing machine on which the swindler-tailors made the Emperor’s New Clothes. It sucks in dollars and puts out…..thin air!
“and marine shipping are probably not possible to decarbonise ”
Earlier this week (14th July) the Guardian published a ‘Long Read’ article entitled “Shipping’s new wave. Global Trade depends almost entirely on huge, dirty , dangerous container ships. What would it take to bring back wind-powered cargo?”
It details the efforts of a French firm which is now planning a second larger cargo sailing ship with 10 times the capacity of the prototype (although the latter was not wholly successful) and able to carry 350 tonnes of cargo.
Compare that to the modern container ships which can carry over 20,000 Twenty Foot Equivalent Unit (TEU) containers!
I’m afraid that of the three ladies in the contest Liz and Penny are lightweights. In fact the only true conservative of the lot is Kemi. She is actually rather popular among the party members because of that. But it is the MPs who decide on the final two candidates. The bookies’ money is on Rishi being one of them. The other is at the moment anyones guess.
Kemi Badenoch is more popular amongst the members than Liz Truss but not as popular as Penny Mordaunt, but all 3 are more popular than Rishi Sunak – BoJo has quietly put it out there that it should be “anybody except Rishi”. Kemi has apparently started this weekend to gather support among followers of the other candidates – if this is true then this is what she should have been doing from day one, not leaving it until half way theough the race – it may be ‘too little, too late’. Which would be a shame – I think Kemi would make a superb PM with a good team around her.
Francis, thank you for a very perceptive article. We have another problem here in th3 U.K. and that is the poor standard of journalism. I write as someone who was a senior journalist for many years with several journalism awards to my name.
No journalist – not even those on the right wing Daily Telegraph- has asked the question “If Net Zero is the endpoint of the current policy, what is the starting point?” (ie – what is the current U.K. contribution to global manmade CO2). It is just such an obvious question for a journalist to ask. Not one has. The answer, by the way, is 0.000012% (these figures recently confirmed by the very latest independent scientific survey).
Now, here’s a question for U.K. journalists. The U.K. currently has three coal-fired power stations (which are due to be phased out in three years time) and we currently contribute 1% of global manmade CO2 (or 0.000012% of TOTAL CO2 emissions). China has 1,110 coal-fired power stations and is building another 240 THIS YEAR. According to the latest scientific survey, China contributes some 31% of manmade CO2. So my question is this to U.K. journalists…
Of these two countries, which one has committed to achieving Net Zero and, in doing, is completely destroying its ability to be energy independent?
Yes, it’s like the dog that took off to chase after the passing Vespa, only to realize when it caught up that the noise it got excited by was actually coming from the jackhammer down the other end of the street.
Well as ALL of them still appear to believe in the Progressive AGW climate change religion, its basically just arguing over who is going to boil the water the slowest so the frog doesn’t jump out of the pot. Seems ALL of them still intend on ultimately boiling the frog (ie middle class and its standard of living). Need a real non-believer to be in charge to save us all.
Can I just say it’s the Labour government not Labor.
Well, you can say it – and, whilst I would agree that we currently have a socialist government, we most certainly do NOT have a Labour government.
Can I just say in the UK it’s the Labour Party but the Conservative Government?
I’ll never find it but, some while ago A Story went past on how Dishi Rishi Sunak and BoJo completely did NOT ‘see eye to eye’ on all matters ‘Green’
Despite being next-door-neighbours, Climate was never discussed tween the pair of them.
Unfortunately, Sunak was Chancellor and was thus very acutely aware of the tax revenue stream that all Green Shyte was creating and bringing in
And that Goverment would very quickly be bankrupt if, once started as it is now, it stopped.
Poor guy, what a hideous jam to be in.
Sadly, political Correctness and Wokeism don’t permit him to explain how he’d resolve it – unless he is elected as party leader and we’d find out then.
But by then, it’s too late.
What if he’s decided (in his own mind) to Go With Green – exactly because of the tax income it creates?
And we wanna watch out for Germany’s example, now looking to chop all their trees.
Last time any Serious Tree Chopping was done it was by King Henry 8th – and it set off a an Ice Age
The only possible way Rishi Sunak will become the next PM is if all the other candidates drop out leaving only him. The Tory membership have put him dead last in the remaining candidates so I really don’t think its going to happen.
“Boris Johnson then became Prime Minister the next month, July 2019, and, along with his cabinet, he has enthusiastically and aggressively pushed forward with the Net Zero agenda ever since, without significant opposition.”
Per https://www.bbc.com/news/science-environment-60203674 ,
“While Mr Johnson has urged action on climate change, he previously, as a journalist, expressed scepticism.”
Claims of “not on board with the Net Zero program” when seeking office, is no guarantee that opposition will continue once in office.
How many of the others have been seduced by a rabid green activist? A good point but I think the candidates are more wary after the “Carrie debacle.”
An aircraft carrier costs on average around $6.75 billion:
operating costs are around $400 million / year for US carriers, including the air wing.
At $1mm a throw you can buy 675 politicians for the cost of an aircraft carrier, and another 200 – 300 per year each year after that. And that’s assuming that the CCP would construct an average vessel. In the last 20 years they’ve purchased around 7000 politicians in Europe and the US. Small wonder that left and right both queue up to toe the line on watermelon energy.
“Great Britains Second Industrial Revolution and a New Prime Minister”
The coming of a New Prime Minister got me thinking so here are some thoughts from an Englishman in the USA.
The United Kingdom is a GREAT country but looking at it from the outside for the last 20 years I now fear for the word GREAT in “Great Britain”.
My focus is on something we all use, we all need every day and is required to keep the world moving ……. “ENERGY”
Like in many other parts of Europe and the World it looks to me like crazies have taken over in the UK. Green policies and Net Zero Emissions are leading England into the madness of so called renewable energy. This is not a fanciful observation, UK and European radicals think that Solar Panels and Wind Turbines will power the future saving us from a mild manageable temperature increase which is absolutely no threat to any British person let alone mankind.
They cannot save us from a non existent threat and now Germany is in the midst of that realisation. Germany is the European poster child and has spent vast sums of money over may years to get just about nowhere. What they have ended up with are outrageously high domestic and industrial electrical prices, no Nuclear, dependence on Russian Gas and now the fact that digging up coal is about the only choice they have of keeping the lights on. If they really had been worried about Co2 emissions in the first place they would have followed the French down the Nuclear path and saved them selves a great deal of pain.
Back to the United Kingdom and its prospective new leader. None of them have yet to my knowledge mentioned Green Polices or Net Zero. The British population sits atop a vast potential supply of energy which is in the form of Natural Gas. In a similar way to the USA we could be Energy independent. We already have an existing Gas infrastructure and if we moved forward with Fracking the existing gas under our feet just think how far ahead of Europe and the World we could be in the next few years.
Residential electric bills could come down to sensible affordable levels, domestic heating costs would plummet. Industry could become competitive again which could potentially lead to new jobs. Cheaper fertiliser could be sold to our farmers and then around the world. Our food, our manufacturing industry, our population could flourish. Our people could take advantage of an amazing cost effective natural resource that is the GREAT BRITISH ENERGY of Natural Gas.
All this can be achieved NOW with current technology and in a relatively short period of time. It needs courageous leadership to get the GREAT back in Great Britain and move us forward into THE SECOND INDUSTRIAL REVOLUTION.
A small benefit would be potential reduction in the emission of British Co2 which currently only stands at about 1% so in reality not making a big difference to the world. If we did this and politicians saw the light it could be a transition to a cleaner Nuclear future, we already have the makings of small nuclear power with Rolls Royce. Has someone in our government the courage to pull the United Kingdom out of the “ Green Pit Of Doom “ and up into the Natural Gas Light of a Second revolution.
This energy revolution was achieved already during the last administration in the United States so it is a proven pathway to cheaper energy costs and energy independence. It is also plane to see that the current Green Progressive policies of the current American government have been an unmitigated disaster and do not work, sadly the USA is following the failed policy of Germany back into the pit of doom.
DO NOT let the UK follow like a lamb to the slaughter into the catastrophic madness of so called Green Technology.
WAKE UP and smell the GREAT BRITISH ROSE that is Natural Gas Energy and let it catapult us into a NEW INDUSTRIAL REVOLUTION
.
The Nigerians lead the way! Love it. I’ll trade 5 Americans for 1 Nigerian any day of the week.