From NOT A LOT OF PEOPLE KNOW THAT
By Paul Homewood
Quite why the odious Sackur thinks he has the right to lecture a foreign leader is beyond me:
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
Disgusting BBC Reporter Put in His Place By Guyana Leader
GUYANA OR GHANA?
Guyana. Major offshore oil and gas discoveries. Hence the BBC ‘horror’ that Guyana would dare develop them.
GUYANA South America
Guyana has an English language newspaper at:
https://www.stabroeknews.com/
After all, they are a part of the Commonwealth.
Africa or South America, close enough for journalism or government work.
Need to correct the title and article.
Nice rejoinder, Mr. President!
NEVERTHELESS: please educate yourself about the facts about human CO2. According to the BEST experts, e.g., William Happer and Richard Lindzen and Fred Singer, the effect of human CO2 on climate (IF human CO2 causes any warming at all)
is
MEANINGLESSLY SMALL.
Thus, negligible.
Bottom line: CO2 is the plant food that feeds your forests and “Net Zero” is a scam by those forcing people to buy solar, wind, EV’s, and like JUNK.
I have made this point before, but it bears repeating.. The “increase” in atmospheric CO2 From 280 ppm circa 1850 to today’s 420 ppm is a difference of 140 ppm, or in terms more readily understood, 0.014% meaning that the composition of the atmosphere has changed by much less than 1 thousandth of 1 percent per decade due to CO2. Only if you accept the dubious claim that a variable trace gas can be measured to that degree of accuracy or that comparing levels from a volcanic island in the middle of the tropical ocean today, with ice cores on the coldest part of the planet is valid. Meaninglessly small is an overstatement.
Yes, and the change in CO2 in terms of greenhouse effect is less than the rounding error in our measurement of average atmospheric water vapor. It is impossible to isolate the warming effect of CO2 from that of variability of WV. A slight increase in WV could account for any actual warming. A slight decrease could totally wipe out the increased CO2 related warming. And that’s not even considering the potential feed-backs from variability in cloud cover. Good luck trying to sort this out with computer models.
I don’t think this is quite right. The usual estimate of the effects of CO2 doubling absent any feedback amplification is about 1C. The total amount of warming with WV feedback is usually estimated to be 3 or 4C. So the CO2 effect is definitely a lot more than the “rounding error in our measurement of average atmospheric water vapor”.
If Curry and Lewis are right, in their central case the water vapor feedback, or some kind of feedback, or some effect other than CO2, is about equal to the effect of the CO2 doubling.
Not quite clear what you mean by that quoted measurement, either. The relevant parameter to be measured would not be the amount of water vapor, but its effect.
The “usual estimate” of 3 – 4C additional warming is based on the idea that 1C warming from added CO2 results in more water vapor (constant relative and higher absolute humidity). But the additional warming should then further increase WV content which should produce even more warming and thus even more WV – in other words runaway warming until the seas boil and earth becomes Venus II. That’s the infamous tipping point prediction that even Steven Hawking bought into. It hasn’t ever happened and won’t happen in the future because WV feedback is negative.
And only if you buy into the theory that all natural warming stopped abruptly in 1975 and all warming since that point is entirely due to GHG’s. The figures quoted are as if this theory is true and do not account for any natural warming whatsoever – if you disregard this theory and assume that natural warming continued after 1975 then the figures become far, far smaller.
My point is not about the theory of global warming. I basically agree with you on that, I think observational studies have refuted the alarmist estimates.
What I am quarreling with is this nonsensical claim:
This is complete nonsense. 280 to 420 is not a percentage increase of 0.014%, but of 50%. This is basic arithmetic.
To go on to argue that because this increase is 0.014% its tiny and can have no effect is equally silly.
I do not think an increase of 50% is going to have much effect. The observational studies indicate that it cannot. But the math above is nonsense.
Or, if you want to make the case, tell us what the 0.014% is a percentage of. Show your workings.
This is a case where what he is talking about is so obvious that it is vexatious to ask to see the work. If you can’t figure this out on your own their isn’t any point in continuing.
No Michel, it is not nonsense, your figures are wrong – changing an amount from 280 to 420 is an increase of around 140 or 133%. However that is NOT what the author of the post discussed – he discussed the increase of 140ppm (parts per million) as a percentage of the total atmosphere and, in that, his figures are completely correct and it is you who are talking nonsense, I’m afraid.
Yes, I entirely agree with you about feedback. Observational studies, such as Curry and Lewis, indicate that the usual alarmist scenarios are vanishingly unlikely.
But the point I am criticizing is this:
This is not very clear, but on the most likely interpretation it is simply not true. CO2 doubling has an effect, other things being equal, ie absent feedbacks either positive or negative, of a little over 1C.
It is not true that the rounding error (whatever that is) of our measurement of average atmospheric water vapour is going to lead to a warming effect less than that.
And the runaway Greenhouse effect requires a tropical tropospheric hotspot, which does not exist.
No Hot Spot blows up this CO2-is-dangerous climate alarmist narrative.
Great comments, Rick C.
And the human portion of this increase is most probably significantly less than 0.014% as CO2 outgassing from the oceans has been occurring as the earth continues to warm after the little ice age.
Not just from the oceans.. Any warming land mass will also become a bigger part of the carbon cycle.
Remember the carry-on about methane hydrates and permafrost melt releasing CO2 and CH4….
Not to mention the greatly expanded zone for methane and CO2 released from decaying materials and from critters like termites.
It only takes a small increase in NATURE’S methane and CO2 release, to totally swamp human’s small contribution.
Not only that, but as CO2 is part of a cycle, the relatively small percentage (3-5%) that is human CO2 emissions, is quickly taken into the natural system.
So much so that isotopic studies can find basically no trace of fossil fuel CO2 in the atmosphere.
What is that 0.014% a percentage of?
Most people don’t realize that any spectrophotometric curve (CO2 as well) is an S-Shaped curve, with two relatively “flat domains at the bottom and at the top of this curve. Only the domain in the middle shows a linear absorption to concentration relationship. At current CO2 levels, we are in the upper part of the curve where a vast change in concentration yields only very small changes in absorption (e.g. the absorption is saturated). CO2 and water are both saturated so there’s no great effect to be anticipated w.r.t. temperature. Furthermore: during all of Earth’s history, warmer was always better.
On the other hand, CO2 is plant food and increasing its concentration leads to a greener and more prosperous Earth for us all. The more CO2 we release, the better, and we’ll still be vastly under the levels the Earth one had … without having had any problems whatsoever.
It was 280 ppm and it is now 420ppm. It has therefore increased by 140ppm.
Percentage Increase = [ (Final Value – Starting Value) / |Starting Value| ] × 100
That is a 50% increase from 280 to 420. Not 0.014%. Where did you get the 0.014% from?
The increase per year, to produce this total increase over 175 years, is also obviously not just a thousandth of a percent per decade.
We may well question whether this increase in CO2ppm has had any significant effects on temperature. The best guide to this question is observational studies, Curry and Lewis estimated 1.75 to 2.7oC per doubling, and that seems plausible. So the increase since 1850, being well under a doubling, would have caused a much smaller increase, nothing very significant.
“is observational studies”
Can’t use surface data.. it is a total load of crap, mostly urban, airport and adjustment warming….
Since 1850… there is ZERO possibility that global temperature fabrications are real..
…. the data just DOES NOT EXIST.
And there is no evidence of any CO2 warming in UAH data.
So.. NO !!
Please do not fall into the AGW mantra scam fallacies.
It’s not that there’s not CO2 warming, it’s that there is no possible way to tell CO2 warming from any other warming. Air masses move around, making some places warmer, some places cooler, at any given time.
I clearly stated that it is the percentage change to the whole atmosphere. Why is that difficult to understand? The total amount of CO2 expressed as a percentage is 42 thousandths of 1 percent of the whole atmosphere. It’s not a difficult conversion.
This “trace gas” is, however, a very heavy lifter, supporting all of life. I agree it doesnt seem to warm climate noticeably, or contribute measurably to extreme weather as claimed. But what it does do for the plant and animal kingdom is miraculous. Its therefore not a strong argument to disparage its puniness! The bubonic plague devastation in Europe and likely elsewhere was the handiwork of very tiny agents indeed.
Well said, Janice. Absent any compelling evidence that our emissions of CO2 have had any impact on global temperatures / climate, the appropriate response to alarmism, particularly from regime media, needs to be that the alarmist narrative and its proposed mitigation schemes are outright scams.
Fred Singer, RIP, is probably not a good contemporary reference as an expert seeing as how he died almost a quarter century ago. Time flies.
The science about CO2 has not changed significantly since his death.
https://www.mdpi.com/2413-4155/6/1/17#B31-sci-06-00017
Yes! I should have had Koutsoyiannis in my list. Sometimes, one can be too brief. 🙂
4 years ago (2020).
You’re right, I thought it was a long time ago. He lived to 95 years old.
The truth is always a good reference no matter how far in the past it was.
Obviously idiotic. Albert Einstein has been dead for 68 years. Isaac Newton has been dead for nearly 300. Marie Curie has been dead for more than 90 years. Are you pretending that none of these are or were experts in their fields? That their work is not worth studying by any physicist?
The theory of general relativity has not changed substantially since Einstein’s death. Rather it received confirmation by the observation of gravitational waves. Similar remarks pertain to Curie and Newton.
It’s typical of any troll such as yourself to seek to degrade the work of those infinitely better than you.
It’s good if they protect the forests from development- but the forests should be managed for “multiple use”: timber, firewood, wildlife, recreation, etc. Not just to sequester carbon.
Yes.
If the profits from the oil and gas gets to the people (I know nothing about the politics there.) then there will more need for the land to used wisely.
They are in a position to learn from and avoid the mistakes made in other countries.
Yes! Trying to be brief, I left out that excellent point. Growing up on the outskirts of a logging community in Washington State, and driving through thousands of acres of Washington and Oregon timberland in various stages of growth in my lifetime, I know that, majestic as those Douglas Firs are, TREES — ARE — A — CROP. And cutting trees responsibly HELPS wildlife. We have PLENTY of ancient “old growth” in our State and National Forests/Parks. We can have “all of the above.”
Exactly, unfortunately, there are powerful forces who want to lock up all the forests- the same lunatics who claim we must panic over the weather and who demand we get to net zero nirvana. I was a forester for 50 years. I’m the first to admit that much forestry has been poorly done. The solution is not to end forestry – but to make it all great. Make forestry great again! 🙂
I wish someone would do some thinning of the local forest.
We slashed the undergrowth on the other side of the road last year as a sort of break…
… but the eucalyptus saplings and thick grasses are already growing back fast.
Mind you… dry eucalypt forests on crappy ground, really only provides firewood… not much usable timber.
Nice hot firewood !!
Eucalyptus wood for a BBQ .. yum !!
And yep.. it burns hot !
Why the “BEST” before scientists?
We don’t need to appeal to authority, that is the favourite game of the alarmists.
Good science is enough.
The be-all and end-all of white privilege, Sakhur’s body-language says it all even before the words tumble helpter-skelter from his mouth.
NOT white privilege, LEFTIST arrogance.
re: “Quite why the odious Sackur thinks he has the right to lecture a foreign leader is beyond me:”
Well, ‘sodomy and the lash’, according to British
sophistryhistory gives him the right …I always thought it was the Royal Navy that had “rum, sodomy and the lash” as their legacy. But that was also the organisation that did the most to stop world slave trade – cost was thousands of sailors’ lives.
re: “I always thought it was the Royal Navy that had “rum, sodomy and the lash” as their legacy.”
Britain … right? Why are you quibbling?Some of you ppl – NO sense of comedic timing. ‘Brevity is the soul of wit’ and all that …
Pellew and then the West African squadron and we mustn’t forget the US Navy’s part with the Barbary Wars – to the shores of Tripoli and all that.
And “the United States Mariiiiiiiines!” 🤨🙂
Back in the days when the US Navy had an overseas naval base in the Mediterranean.
Congrats to that guy shutting the BBC reporter’s mouth shut. Just beautiful !
I still prefer the BBCs James Clayton v Elon Musk
Just listened to it, thank you.
Yes BBC is crud.
Guyana deepwater offshore is a big deal. Work is led by ExxonMobil. So far they have found 11 billion barrels of oil equivalent reserves in 6 fields. In oil discovery parlance, all six are supergiants. Rare. Reserve means producible at current prices with current technology. So OIP must be significantly more.
A seventh major field discovery just south of the others was announced a few weeks ago. Not yet delineated. 160 feet of pay in a sandstone, so will have a high recovery factor.
They are building a natgas pipeline to shore now so that went oil production starts, they won’t have to flare the gas.
Exxon didn’t say, but I bet they will put an LNG train on shore and export it to Europe. Guyana doesn’t (yet) have industry that could use those quantities. Brazil does, but has its own offshore subsalt natgas supply.
Obama gave Petrobas 2 billion US to help them develop one of their fields in the Atlantic. He would develop theirs but not ours.
Those are the Brazil subsalts.
Well if the train runs on solar panels, all will be tickety-boo.
An ‘LNG train’ is actually a massive compressor complex for producing LNG. Industry calls it a train because it is comprised of several linked compressor/cooling units in sequence. Runs off a CCGT generator cause uses a lot of electricity. Know you were probably tongue in cheek.
There have been times when my wife told me stuff and while I was considering what she said she told me more stuff (lather, rinse, repeat) then she asked me what I thought of the original stuff.
I couldn’t say because I’d lost my train of thought. 😎
I worked on the giant offshore Mozambique gas discoveries. Anadarko and ENI had planned to build 4 LNG trains there in the north of the country. Unfortunately Islamist rebels moved in and scuppered the plans. I don’t know what’s going on there now.
Below loading 176,000 tonne LNG destined for Isle of Grain UK! from 3000 ft under the Indian Ocean off Mozambique East Africa.
https://apis.mail.yahoo.com/ws/v3/mailboxes/@ur momisugly.id==VjN-_uqRFsCgI-VBtPvHHpBpZnexVczrfMWsIFl6Gyk7kAGpll4YoeLcuu_HAcPRWOxebK_OxHj2kzyLHw7ldhVWSPOrXP3YtC-IhoaIjondBAE/messages/@ur momisugly.id==AH-DwSIBwLIhZgld9QG1gCjD7XQ/content/parts/@ur momisugly.id==2/thumbnail?appid=YMailNorrin&downloadWhenThumbnailFails=true&pid=2
Venezuela has long laid claim to Essequibo, which comprises two thirds of Guyana, and recently held a referendum which supported annexing the oil rich territory. Expect fireworks.
And to put that in global perspective, it represents a bit over 3 months of oil at the global consumption rate.
OMG the hypocrisy! He uses FF every day of his life so how dare he lecture others. Cringe worthy indeed!
I wonder what the average income of the residents of this country is compared to the UK? This oil will help modernize and could almost eliminate poverty. This BBC propagandist needed to be lectured and then maybe a good right cross to make him think twice before arrogantly pushing his views on another person.
Add to that the evidence shows water vapor is a negative forcing from CO2 downwelling IR. There’s no warming anyway.
Guyana per capita gross income 2023 $14920.
UK 2023 $45850. 3x.
And there’s also the cost of living to be considered along with gross income.
(When we lived in west central Ohio (a more rural area) my wife and I would, at times, order a large pizza from a local store connected to a large chain. When we moved to the Columbus area we were surprised that a large from the same chain was the size of a medium where we used to live!)
“shows water vapor is a negative forcing”
The whole atmosphere acts to totally negate any possible tiny warming from enhanced atmospheric CO2.
You could be right, but the science showing the changing effects of water vapor are described nicely in Miskolczi 2023. I believe it is the big kahuna.
https://scienceofclimatechange.org/wp-content/uploads/Miskolczi-2023-Greenhouse-Gas-Theory.pdf
It is also described in the works of Dr. William Gray.
“Any extra blockage of infrared (IR) radiation to space due to increased CO2, rainfall or cloudiness is usually compensated by increase in albedo from the cloud tops (Figure 8). Increases in global rainfall lead to more net radiation (IR + albedo) flux to space and, all other factors held constant, to a weak global cooling. ”
https://tropical.atmos.colostate.edu/Includes/Documents/Publications/gray2012.pdf
Thanks Richard
Those 2 papers deserve a much wider audience,
Erm, explain why the COVID deindustrialisation did not show up on the enlarged idiosyncratic sawteeth of the Keeling curve at Moana Loa ? Could it be because the increase in atmospheric CO2 is entirely natural? Surely not!
Because it was 10-20% of the 4% share of humans to the cycle. Insignificant compared to even diurnal variation.
I’m surprised none of our trolls have demanded you justify that statement with actual peer-reviewed, published proof.
I’m not sure I’d call that BBC guy “disgusting”. He’s just another cog in the Green Blob machine repeating the same mantra over and over. He’s indistinguishable from the many interchangeable activists acting as climate reporters.
Ok. They are all disgusting.
yes!
The BBC guy Sackur is not only “disgusting” but is also a Self-opinionated, Arrogant, Bully, who still thinks he’s part of a colonial master race.
Good to see him get some of his own medicine.
I disagree, Paul. He is disgusting. This is the mouthpiece of the new environmental colonialism. If he got his way, Guyana would be prevented from developing its oil and gas fields, prevented from breaking out of its cycle of poverty to enter fully the modern industrial world. Seeking to keep people from developing their economies and opportunities and remain locked in poverty is utter vileness.
“. . . utter vileness.”
Utter “disgusting” vileness.
Outstanding!!
And he didn’t even mention that CO2 is beneficial to plant life and that without fossil fuels life as we know it will come to a s screeching halt.
He could have pointed out that the BBC prat’s whole life has been totally dependent on fossil fuels.
Everything he does, everything he owns… every tiny cog in the BBC…
… is there because of fossil fuels.
We can be sure that he neither swam nor sailed (using wind) from the UK to his Guyana interview.
I’m sorry, but I completely disagree that this is anything to rejoice over. The Guyanese leader does not give any indication at all that he disagrees with anything about the climate cult. He just doesn’t want to be hectored by an Englishman. This is, in certain ways, even worse. Third World leaders thinking it’s their job to beat the West at the West’s own stupid game is not encouraging. China does this stuff too, only at a much bigger scale.
It’s like Donald Trump bragging about Operation Warp Speed, thinking it was his job to deliver Covid vaccines faster and more bigly, when his real mandate was to stop the Covidian regime. It’s like Vladimir Putin giving absolutely idiotic answers whenever he is asked about Western weapons in Ukraine, saying that Russia has these kinds of weapons, too.
Has the whole world lost its mind? Why does anyone still crave the approval of Western elites even after all this? They should just be telling them to go pound sand.
I think my mother would slap that arrogant BBC pinhead for lacking manners and talking in a very disrespectful way.
As body language peering over the top of spectacles is an intimidatory technique signalling ‘disdain, contempt, haughtiness, aggressiveness, critical, condescending, and judgmental attitudes are all associated with this posture. The bearers of the posture assume that they have the moral right to be looking down on other people from an elevated position’.
It clearly didn’t work.
Sackur should buy some bifocals. Or maybe he believes that staring at his interviewees over his glasses is a good look.
I wear readers in the “Ben Franklin” style, so I look at people over my glasses. Not to look haughty, but because I find that the reading area of all the bifocals I’ve tried is just too small and difficult to use. My distance vision is 20/20, so I don’t need glass in the way.
I worked as a field Geologist mapping outcrops in the Serrania del Oriente in Venezuela in the 90’s. I don’t have many photos from those days but here is one of an outcrop of the Cretaceous deep marine rocks which form the reservoirs offshore Guyana.
I now work as a wellsite geologist. I’d love to work offshore Guyana and see these rocks again!
Awesome. I posted a similar pic of the California folded and faulted young Monterey shale (meaning no possible horizontal drilling and fracking) in an essay in ebook Blowing Smoke. USG estimate of potential went from 15bbr to zero after they realized their geological error.
In 2022 the Guyanese economy grew by an astonishing 64.4% compared to the UK with 0.1% last year (Trading Economics).
The Guyanese President ought to be lecturing the BBC ponce instead of the other way round.
He did.. 🙂
I guess the real question is, will he become another Kleptocrat with all the newfound wealth from oil?
Fun to watch. 2 grifters calling each other names.
Yeah, he was great. The BBC guy was a pompous, condescending and arrogant ass. And those were his best qualities.
Pity President Ali didn’t add insult to injury by pointing out that the western “cultural imperialists” have nothing whatsoever to say about all the coal-fired power plants being built in SE Asia, mostly in China.
More power to the Guyanan president and may more world leaders step up and tear a new one for the ignorant press of GOVERNMENT owned media like the BBC and ABC and NZBC and Canadian BBC etc. These press grubs live entirely off the taxpayers , are well paid and then presume to tell the those of us who pay for them how to live. Can we assume this particular BBC grub swam to Guyana to interview the president?
Stephen Sakur is an arrogant, hypocritical Cambridge pillock and has long deserved the kick in the balls that he received. His supercilious manner makes me want to puke.
was an awesome wipeout and so VERY truly deserved by that pompous assh*le
The headline says Ghana but the photos say Guyana. The two places are on opposite sides of the Atlantic Ocean.
The president missed the point. The resulting CO2 emissions from burning fossil fuels sourced from his country will increase the productivity of his forests and well as green the whole earth. He doesn’t get is.