From NOT A LOT OF PEOPLE KNOW THAT
By Paul Homewood
The Guardian has got its knickers in a twist again!!
There are actually no emissions created by Stuart’s flights, as the plane was flying anyway!
Apparently Guardian readers are too stupid to work this out!!
” ….. Guardian readers are too stupid ….. “.
I would add the staff as well.
There are more of the latter than the former.
“”More Important Things To Do…””
Like getting behind his dear leader for the Rwanda bill? More than likely. It was make or break after all.
The Guardian is run by a bunch of sixth formers.
That disparages sixth formers
Given what sixth formers have been indoctrinated with, I disagree entirely. It is a most fitting monicker
“Climate change and its effects are of great concern to young people today. Teachers have a role in raising awareness of the climate crisis and helping pupils acquire the skills and knowledge for a sustainable future.”
https://neu.org.uk/advice/classroom/teaching-resources/climate-change/resources-tackling-climate-crisis
They have a role in creating climate anxiety in their students.
‘climate‘ is unnecessary there – anxiety is all that’s needed – in the sure and certain knowledge that paying more tax and relinquishing liberty & personal freedoms will assuage said anxiety.
HL Mencken had it well sussed decades ago
Having been a Sixth Former years ago, back when schools taught one how to think, I shall assume that you are referring to a more recent group of Sixth Formers, and not take offense.
Anyway, why should anybody care? CO2 natural or human is not a problem.
You won’t find my front or back garden complaining.
Then he returned to the COP after his 3 votes, apparently it would not look too good doing his day job of voting!!!
He emits CO2 so that you won’t be able to.
Obssessing over a few kilograms of CO2!
These people are really ate up with the dumbass.
(Definition: “Ate up with the dumbass … It’s fairly self explainatory. It means you’re beyond stupid. I believe this phrase comes from the Texas backwoods.”
We say it here in Oklahoma, too. 🙂
Sums up all of climate science, on both/all sides of the fence.
Science has now become a quest for ever greater depths of minutia, trivia and irrelevance = ‘Information’ in the broadest sense of the word
Wrong: Science is about Knowledge and just as in the endless confusion of Temperature with Energy, one is NOT the other
That is all they’ve got. Climate ‘science’ never advanced beyond the basic premise established in the 1979 JASON group report as there are no factual avenues of research beyond that. Everything the climate enthusiasts have produced since that point is irrelevant trivia at best, nonsensical fantasies at worst, all based on supposition and poorly understood scientific principles.
Sounds like THEY (Grauniad Staff) want US (everyone else) to live like they (the average citizen) do in Kenya, Mali or Tanzania
About those 48 countries where “the average person emits less CO2 than Mr. Stuart’s flights” (whatever that means) … I’m sure that low CO2 emissions goes hand in hand with a low standard of living. Sometimes referred to as, “poverty.”
Perhaps the Guardian Staff would like to demonstrate, first hand, the virtues of living the lifestyles of those “Average People” in those other 48 nations by doing so themselves.
Sever their electric grid Inter-ties
Cut off Gas service at the curb
Tear down their well insulated homes
Donate their cars and bicycles
Walk Everywhere
Grow ALL their own food (no grocery stores)
Build and live in straw huts on dirt floors
Limit their health care, dental care and prescription medication
Install a hand pump water well (or dig out an open well by hand)
make their own clothes and shoes
Limit spending to no more than the average annual salary in those nations
…Mali $1,500 USD
…Tanzania $1,890 USD
Demonstrate to the rest of the world that you can live like your chosen beatified comparison countries live or stop using poor countries as comparisons
This idea of being able to “phase out” fossil fuels is ludicrous! They do not understand anything, certainly not chemistry or manufacturing or energy. HA HA HA!
COP28 a flop?
Think again
Phasing out or phasing down fossil fuels, purposely leaves in place high energy consumption per capita in the Western world, while preventing such high energy consumption per capita in Africa, without which their economies cannot develop.
That leaves plenty of fossil fuels available for the Western world, because Africans will not be allowed to use them.
They will be reminded by the West, with a big stick:
“You are in phase-out/phase-down mode”
“You are allowed to use high-cost wind, solar and batteries which we, the West, will provide,
“We, the West, will loan you the money, at high interest rates, to hang yourself forever.
Africans would stay soooo screwed, and stay soooo colonized
Be prepared for more migration to the West.
People do what they gotta do.
Notwithstanding internal economic strains I’m sure China will happily fund coal power stations in Africa if it buys them local influence
China will finance, own and operate these coal plants, which is commonly done throughout the world by thousands of companies, already for hundreds of years. China is a latecomer to that international game.
Maybe. The added twist is that it is the Chinese state which will finance and own these coal plants, and the Chinese state which will take land in lieu of the debt incurred in building new infrastructure.
Al Jaber is Right: There Is no Science Showing a Fossil Fuel Phase-Out Will Achieve 1.5C
https://www.windtaskforce.org/profiles/blogs/al-jaber-is-right-there-is-no-science-showing-a-fossil-fuel-phase
.
EXCERPT
Sultan Al Jaber, president of the Conference of the Parties 28 (COP28), has injected some pragmatism into the meeting in Dubai this week with his comment, “There is no science out there, or no scenario out there, that says the phase-out of fossil fuel is what’s going to achieve 1.5.”
But real science can do a lot better than Al Jabar’s claim, it can show, the United Nations’ (UN) imperative of eliminating human emissions of CO2 from fossil fuels by the year 2050 (a.k.a., Net Zero 2050) is unwarranted.
Here are three recent scientific advances that, each, could invalidate the need for Net Zero by 2050:
1. Current carbon dioxide emissions alone cannot cause an additional 3.5°C of global warming by 2100.
The most recent Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC)report (AR6) warns of a worst-case scenario wherein the global average temperature is 3.5°C warmer in the year 2100 than today, mainly due to human emissions of the greenhouse gas CO2.
The 3.5°C predicted forecast is based on computer models that are riddled with pro-warming assumptions and biases that have a long history of running too hot.
They are accepted by the IPCC, based on the consensus of the political appointees from the UN.
In 2019 two eminent physicists, Dr. W. A. van Wijngaarden and Dr. W. Happer, developed calculations to predict the warming effect of CO2 in the atmosphere, and their results matched public-domain satellite observations, since 1979
This complies with the scientific method, which relies on observations of natural phenomena that others can replicate and challenge, and disproves the IPCC consensus.
Van Wijngaarden and Happer found, if CO2 concentrations were to continue to increase at the same rate as they do currently, which is 2.3 parts per million (ppm) each year, global warming of approximately 1.8°C over 180 years would occur. That would equate to only a 0.8°C increase by 2100.
The results of Wijngaarden and Happer’s equations are not a surprise.
We will see below that buried deep in its 2023 report, the IPCC scientists came to similar conclusions.
2. The IPCC uses amplified carbon dioxide equivalent emissions to reach 3.5°C of warming.
When the IPCC states, by 2100 the average global temperature may be 3.5°C higher than today, that represents the net effect of all the human-emitted greenhouse gases (and to a minor extent human land uses).
Their models predict CO2 emissions will cause only 70% of the warming, the rest being made up of four other greenhouse gases.
The statements fail to make that distinction and convert those other gases to a carbon dioxide equivalent.
MORE…..
When human cut their CO2 production by 6% in 2020 when COVID-19 hit and businesses closed and countries went into lockdown the CO2 increases in the atmosphere didn’t change a bit.
That natural experiment shows that the CO2 increases aren’t caused by human activity.
https://www.co2.earth/monthly-co2
The Fuel capacity of an A380 is 250 metric tonnes which is less than the Co2 emitted according to the calculation .
Did you add in the 0x?
Approximate Jet A1 as C12H26 for a total m.w. of 12×12=144+26=170. Carbon fraction is 144/170, multiply by 44/12 giving 3.106 tonnes CO2 per tonne of fuel.
Not to worry….Czar Ras-Putin the Great is eliminating CO2 emitters at a staggering rate….and most are Russian….just give thanks to him.
Just for you, antigtiff 🙂
https://www.youtube.com/shorts/dMBvZG0BLDc
Do us all a favor and set up a live cam of DRAX burning wood pellets from North America.
Falling real GDP tends to do that.
Allegedly an increase in payload of 100kg uses an extra 15kg of fuel on a 2,500 mile flight in an A330: probably not much different on alternative aircraft. LHR-DXB is about 3,500 miles as flown (avoiding Iraq/Kurdistan), and 100kg is a good estimate of a passenger plus baggage. So that’s 21kg of fuel per leg, emitting 65kg of CO2.
At under 12g/km it will beat the emissions of an EV almost anywhere. Most certainly for the countries overflown en route, which are mostly over 300g/kWh or therefore 62g/km.
I must have missed the Guardian article screaming about how COP28 should be moved to all virtual to stop CO2 emissions from ~70,000 people flying to the UAE. Oh, they don’t care about that, only about one single minister flying? There are hacks and there are hacks…
Britain is bad, everywhere else get’s a pass.
What kind of second rate country makes a Minister fly commercial to a COP meeting?
I’ll bet John Kerry didn’t have to be humiliated by that type of indignity. He undoubtedly flew in one of the Air Force C32As.Unless of course he was relegated to the family Gulfstream.
Of course it’s way beyond the ability of anyone on the Guardian employee list to suss that all the COP get togethers have been a grotesque waste of energy. The Guardian wasn’t always such a waste of space but it rapidly went downhill when that guy who bought C/PM and became a billionaire got involved – just like the affliction the BBC has.
Also to be noted is Rishi Sunak being virtually told to shut up by a KC when he mentioned lockdowns may be rather more harmful than useful … Britain really has gone down the pan – no justice, no freedom, no truth except from those who have been disenfranchised, refuse to play socialist games and want the truth to be heard all the time especially from the media. That would be a start. .
Someone should tot up the carbon footprint of Guardian’s daily operations, just for comparison.