From NOT A LOT OF PEOPLE KNOW THAT
By Paul Homewood
h/t Ian Cunningham
The Climate Change Committee are getting desperate, as they face oblivion after the next election:
The UK should be prepared to cope with weather extremes as a result of at least 2C of global warming by 2050, independent climate advisers have said.
The country was “not yet adapted” to worsening weather extremes already occurring at current levels of warming, “let alone” what was expected to come, the Climate Change Committee (CCC) wrote in a letter addressed to the government.
The committee said they would advise that the UK prepare for climate change beyond the long-term temperature goal set out in the Paris Agreement.
The committee released their last report in April this year, which said preparations in the UK for rising temperatures were “either too slow, has stalled, or [are] heading in the wrong direction”.
It warned that this lack of progress could leave the UK vulnerable to serious economic and health impacts in the decades ahead, from hospitals and care homes to food and water supplies.
And it said that the impacts of high temperatures were already apparent, for example in schools.
The CCC cited preliminary findings from the Department for Education, which reported there were on average 1.7 days of “extreme overheating”, as well as lost learning time due to heat.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/cx24kllyye1o
We are supposed to have already had 1.5C of global warming, but our weather is no more extreme than it ever was.
So, what does the CCC come up with? Lost learning time due to heat! How many weeks of learning are lost because of snow in winter, when half the teachers seem unable to commute to work?
They say the UK could expect increased heatwaves, drought and flooding, and wildfire season would likely extend into autumn. Yet there is no evidence that any of these things are happening.
This letter from the CCC is a blatant attempt to garner political support to oppose the Conservatives and Reform plans to abolish them if they get the chance.
According to the BBC:
Baroness Brown, chairwoman of the adaptation committee for the CCC, said: “People in the UK are already experiencing the impacts of a changing climate, and we owe it to them to prepare, and also to help them prepare.
“Adaptation in the UK is not keeping up with the increase in climate risk. The impacts on the UK are getting worse and [the government] needs more ambition,” she told the BBC’s Today programme.
The chairwoman also levelled criticism at Conservative leader Kemi Badenoch, who pledged to scrap the UK’s landmark climate change legislation and replace it with a strategy for “cheap and reliable” energy.
Baroness Brown dubbed the promise “disappointing”, and said she hoped that the Conservative leader would “reflect on the fact that the act covers both adaption and mitigation”.
Such blatant interference in party politics is strictly against all the rules for supposedly independent public servants.
And why do the government now need the advice of a bunch of climate crackpots to tell them how to adapt to weather? They managed perfectly alright before Gummer and his little band of con-merchants came along.
Baroness Brown, by the way, is still a Director of the Danish energy company, Orsted, who have made billions in taxpayer subsidies for wind farms. She is still Director of Ceres Power, who make fuel cells and electrolysers, vital for decarbonisation.
But I am sure these well paid jobs have nothing to do with her views on Net Zero policy!
BTW!!
I think that BBC photo neatly sums up the whole climate debate.
“ROAD LIABLE TO FLOODING”
next to a sprinkler!
And who is Tabby? Is she Justin Rowlatt’s cat?
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
Something out of nothing?
The country was “not yet adapted” to worsening weather extremes already occurring.
And yet one could well ask, where are all the global warming induced extreme hurricanes they forecast – in the alarmist networks.
NOAA predicts above-normal 2025 Atlantic hurricane seasonAbove-average Atlantic Ocean temperatures set the stage – NOAA
Now there’s an eerie silence. In fact, I have noticed this year that when a hurricane has formed out to sea and then breaks down to a storm they continue to use it’s former title…
“Will Hurricane Erin end UK’s dry spell? Met Office issues new rain forecast” – The Independent
Sounds a whole lot more scary than a mere gale. The CCC and hangers on have 4 years of grace. But then, who knows…
Local elections may be cancelled for second year running as ‘terrified’ councils admit: ‘We WILL get Reform’ – Learn Common Law
Anything can happen in the next half hour. (h/t Troy Tempest)
I predict River Thames frost fairs will return by 2045. Of course, examples of food served will be falafel, lamb kebabs, hummus, etc., and the most watched games will include stoning.
I think this winter may be a bit of a struggle for the climate anxious…
“Are there any WOMEN here?!”
I predict a knock on your door in the middle of the night with several constables on the other side of the door…
WTH has gone wrong with you guys over there in the UK??? It’s like someone in your government decided to implement select onerous passages from Orwell’s 1984. I hope everyone who posts here from the UK has bugout plans.
These people are lying to us. Always have and always will.
Follow the money. This is all skimming big government’s treasury into the pockets of favored grifters. It’s all a grift and less and less people believe this crap.
Baroness Brown has to be careful. Because she lives in Wonderland ‘off with her head’ is a distinct possibility.
Nope. That’s for males. Stoning or, if they’re more progressive, a swan dive off of a high building is what Sharia law dictates.
Tabby has a bachelors degree in Communications and Media Studies; per my routine CV check.
So she is as much expert as Al Gore with his Bachelor of Arts( of lying),
who became interested in global warming during the ice age scare.
At least the CCC is 75% honest.
If they’d add a P to their acronym they’d be the 1st 100% honest climate bullshiters.
Baroness Brown is an engineer and on the face of it has legitimately accomplished things in the area of materials science. I would be genuinely interested to know what convinces her of an anthropogenic origin of the recently milder weather.
The same thing that convinces people like Neil deGrasse Tyson, Jim Al Kalili, the ever smug Brian Cox etc etc etc
And it isn’t science.
I don’t know about the other two, but climate bed-wetting is far from Tyson’s worst excursion from discernible reality and science.There is nothing to learn from how he got his head where it is.
Jim Al-Khalili is a theoretical physicist and science populariser. He is professor of theoretical physics and chair in the public engagement in science at the University of Surrey. He is a regular broadcaster and presenter of science programmes on BBC radio and television – wiki
Brian Cox is a particle physicist at the University of Manchester. Cox has appeared in many science programmes for BBC radio and television – wiki
Pretty obvious when you think about it. The BBC controls the narrative.
Who controls the BBC?
Richard Sharp – Goldman Sachs
Boss oo Richi Sunak during that time,
Mentor and Sponsor of English Rino Boris Built Back Better Johnson.
Quite a coincidence to always hang around with future state leaders.
His BBC predecessor was also a top banker.
How comes bankers are so ubercompetent in running (pseudo) public Media Companies.
Sometimes they do not just manage state leaders, as Merkel etc.
They become state leaders as in France and in Canada.
And it absolutely does not matter wether they or their pets pretend to be conservative or liberal – they all follow the very same policies.
He has parlayed an astrophysics degree into being a stand-up comedian for people who fancy themselves as having passed a physics course at some time in their youth so “trust the science”.
If you don’t dig into the STEM far enough….it is really easy to assume that CO2 forcing of
5.35 LN C/Co is …..
Hmm Let’s see
Ln 2 is .693 so 5.35 x .693 =3.708 watts of forcing
then let’s multiply by 390/240 which is IR at surface divided by IR at TOA assumed to be equal to incoming sunlight….so accounts for greenhouse effect…
3.708 X 390/240 = 6 watts
Now, if we’re quacks or very poor at heat transfer and fluid mechanics calculations or looking for notoriety like say Baroness Brown or deGrasse Tyson…we can assume a bunch of techno-exaggeration fear-mongering errors:
Like…6 watts is about 4% of surface solar input so “likely” will result in a 4% surface warming. 288 x 1.04=299.52, which is 11 degrees warming. Correct for about 1/3 of the IR heat escaping to outer space through the atmospheric window and you still “only” have 7 or 8 degrees of warming.
Like…H2O absorbs 3 times as much heat as CO2. So you are up to 6 x 3 = 18 watts of warming plus that will evaporate more water from the oceans at 7% more per degree so you are on a vicious cycle of constantly increasing water vapor causing ever higher temperatures, until, well….thermageddon – Venus on Earth…
But it’s exaggerated and erroneous presumptive double and triple-dipping…except maybe the 3.7 watts. Which is about the energy of a laptop computer cooling fan….at the bottom of a 1 meter square by 70 km tall column of air that weighs 10 tonnes….the kinetic energy in convection and advection of the various layers of that column varying by thousands of watts already….that column varying in “cloud cover” by 0 to 100%, (averaging about 63% worldwide) reflecting anywhere between 20 and 80% of incoming sunlight depending on cloud transparency and is already 2/3 responsible for our planetary albedo of 0.3…..with evaporation alone at the bottom of that column varying from about 10 to 300 watts of surface cooling depending on incident sunlight and wind velocity (advection)….that same evaporation causing cloud cover to start with…but today’s evaporation just shows up as clouds somewhere 100 miles away and a day or so later…and probably has resulted in a couple of watts of surface cooling by evaporation yesterday, a couple of watts of additional sunlight reflection off clouds today to outer space, a watt or 2 of IR through the atmospheric window to outer space, a watt or 2 of IR emitted from cloud tops to outer space, a watt or so dissipated by additional convection….you get my drift…
attached Dibbell’s integrated column energy vid …Thanks David
https://youtu.be/hDurP-4gVrY?si=W_Os9ZdvikaR6H0a
The propaganda ECIU outfit founded by an ex-BBC climate activist reckons it was the second worst UK farming year ever. Notice how it says DEFRA data shows, whereas it is their opinion of the data.
https://www.edp24.co.uk/news/25532066.defra-data-shows-2025-harvest-second-worst-record/
It wasn’t brilliant, and very patchy/variable, but if this is near the worst we can expect, I say climate panic over.
https://ahdb.org.uk/cereals-oilseeds/gb-harvest-progress
Best barley and wheat crops ever in Western Canada, despite the prairies being so huge that there were still patches of “CC-caused drought”….
The climate is changing no matter how little fossil fuel is burnt. It always has and always will.
The solar intensity over UK will increase by 80W/m^2 over the next 9000 years. March equinox daily solar at 40N by 2100 will be 2.5W/m^2 above 1850 level. By 2500 daily solar up by 4W/m*2 on March equinox at 40N. But the September equinox will be 5W/m^2 lower.
Warmer summers and much snowier winters. Expect so much snow in Scotland that it will not melt before the next snowfall.
I see an icy future for the NH. All the ducks are perfectly aligned as they were about 100ka.
Along with the desire of tax departments to find ways of increasing revenue…and the desire of bureaucrats to find ways to avoid responsibility for weather disasters….
Story tip: The Energy Security and Net Zero Committee will question the chief executives of the “Big Six” energy companies: OVO Energy, Octopus, E.On, Centrica, EDF UK, and ScottishPower on October 15…
Ed Miliband’s Gas Price Lies Exposed by Energy Company CEOs in Parliament – Daily Sceptic
“Chris Norbury, the chief executive of E.On UK, stated that even if the wholesale price of energy were zero, household energy bills would still remain at their current levels due to the significant increase in non-commodity costs, such as network charges and policy levies.
This highlights that the primary drivers of high energy bills are not wholesale gas prices but rather embedded costs related to infrastructure and government policies.
…
Some of the ESNZ Committee members laughed at Norbury’s suggestion.
https://rhodawilson.substack.com/p/mps-laugh-at-the-suggestion-that
What is interesting about this is the way the emphasis is moving. There was a Guardian story a couple of days ago that emphasized adaptation, flood prevention measures. Now we have this from the CCC, again emphasizing adaptation.
There are still the same lunatic assumptions somewhere in the background: that UK Net Zero is in some way relevant to the supposed global warming crisis and that it is justified by the forecasts of worsening UK weather.
But its fading fast, and when the Guardian and the CCC stop talking about emissions and the global crisis and start talking about the global crisis and local adaptation, take note. The foundations are shifting.
UEA is making dire forecasts about UK food shortages. Can we expect them soon to take the next logical step, and urge the country not only to get ready to live on beans, cabbage and potatoes, but also to stop covering productive farmland with solar panels?
Its not just the Guardian and CCC either. Its the Energy Select Committee now as well. Net Zero is rapidly approaching a crisis. The Telegraph reports
However, Miliband’s promise of lower energy costs has been on the rocks for months as it becomes ever more apparent that far from being the solution to eye-watering bills, his green energy scramble is actually part of the problem.
Much to his embarrassment, Miliband’s pledge was given a thorough roasting in Parliament on Wednesday at the hands of folk who understand how the energy market works better than anyone.
As a slew of energy bosses queued to warn of higher bills, the hearing highlighted the absurdity of Labour’s vow to magically make bills more affordable by building yet more wind turbines.
The revelations from the stinging energy select committee session leave Miliband’s credibility in tatters – if it wasn’t already, of course.
Among the many marmalade-droppers to come out of the session was that from Rachel Fletcher, the director for regulation at Octopus Energy.
She said that, contrary to Miliband’s rash talk of lower bills, households are likely to be spending considerably more on energy by the end of the decade.
This isn’t because of those much maligned fossil fuels that Labour is attempting to eradicate at light speed either, but because of a slew of green policy costs that help to bankroll the Energy Secretary’s obsession with yet more renewables that the grid can’t cope with.
It’s amazing. Schools in the northern US are able to deal with four seasons of weather — hot summers and cold snowy winters separated by comfortable spring and fall. At the same time, schools in the south are able to handle 365 days without snow and a week or two of hurricanes and hurricane threats.
Now we’re being told that we mammals who walk on our hind legs and who have invented television and travelled to the moon won’t be able to adapt to a couple of degrees of “global warming”?
What is really amazing is that humans living in the cold and snowy north keep moving to the hot and humid south — where there are occasional hurricanes. Worse yet, these crazy humans pay a premium to live near the same hurricane-prone waters that regularly rise and flood their homes and businesses.
Perhaps the solution is to outlaw flood insurance.
The solution that is out in front and ignored is…. to eliminate humans.
The Population Bomb
One World Order
It’s a long list.
It’s worse than that, because that 1.5 degrees is not daytime highs getting higher, it’s essentially nighttime lows not getting as cold. So what their argument boils down to is a struggle to “adapt” to something going on when the schools are closed.
😆😅🤣😂
2C of warming in Britain would be a good thing. People might start visiting British seaside resorts again, instead of trekking off to Spanish resorts for warm weather.
A farmer was interviewed on the BBC. He said it had been a great [dryish] year which allowed them to produce some good red wines as well as the usual sparkling wines that are usually favoured by cooler climes.
“2C of warming in Britain would be a good thing.”
Eric, the UAH satellite temperature people tell us that the Earth is only warming at about 0.16 C per decade. (See UAH story at right panel).
“This global temperature record from 1979 shows a modest and unalarming 0.16° Celsius rise per decade (0.28⁰ Fahrenheit rise per decade) that is not accelerating as of 7/1/25.”
2050 is 25 years away or 2.5 decades.
0.16 deg. C times 2.5 = 0.4 deg. C.
My guess is that your CCC is getting their 2 deg. C number from a model that runs hot. Or maybe they picked it out of thin air.
At any rate, I can only ROTFLMAO.
New math.
Take the “scientists say” 1.5 C since whenever and add your calculated 0.4 C and you get ~2.0 C.
Is the CCC talking about 2 degrees of warming since the end of the Little Ice Age or 2 degrees of warming over the next 25 years? I assume that it is the latter.
Exactly, to suggest 2C of warming is bad for the UK is absurd.
So southern England couldn’t survive being like northern France where most of the flora and fauna is already the same? The Midlands couldn’t survive being like the South? The North like the Midlands….. Etc. Etc.
I am astounded that Gummer has not been indicted for official corruption already.
Are you? I’m not. Gummer is a chip off Frau Goebbels’ block…
It’s 25 years since John Gummer, who was then agriculture minister, took part in this publicity stunt involving his unwitting four-year-old daughter Cordelia.
At the time, on that bright spring day in May 1990, fears were growing that the cattle disease BSE could infect humans. The very public feeding of the burger to the child was supposed to convince the nation that British beef was perfectly safe. But, of course, it wasn’t. – Daily Express
From the article: “The UK should be prepared to cope with weather extremes as a result of at least 2C of global warming by 2050, independent climate advisers have said.”
Who are these independent climate advisers? Why should we listen to them?
Assuming a 2C increase in temperatures is just pure speculation. As another poster pointed out, even if the temperatures continued to climb at the current rate, and it’s pure speculation that they will, the temperature in 2050 will increase by about 0.4C, not 2.0C.
From the high point of early 2024, the temperatures have cooled by about 0.5C. What do those independent climate advisers have to say about that?
Human-caused/CO2-caused Climate Change is such a scam! There is no evidence to support this fantasy. That doesn’t seem to matter to some people.
Human beings are so easily led astray.
Who are these independent climate advisers?
The simple answer is political appointees. What else would they be?
“The CCC cited preliminary findings from the Department for Education” – that’s a good one, this department has been so successful in imarting knowledge that it’s students are leaving school semi-literate and semi-numerate and have to be coached to get to a (lowish) standard where they can apply for university courses!
Think of our politicians, the highly intelligent academics Lammy and Abbott (and there are more!)
Story Tip
Judge dismisses youth lawfare against the current Trrump administration:
https://www.theguardian.com/law/2025/oct/15/youth-climate-activist-lawsuit-dismissed-trump-executive-orders
The more they try to decarbonize, the more carbon they end up using.
Story Tip
You mean like biofuels releasing more than they save:
https://cleantechnica.com/2025/10/09/biofuels-globally-emit-more-co2-than-the-fossil-fuels-they-replace-study/
“Global warming” is typically used as a synonym for “climate change”.
“Climate” is usually defined as some variant of “the long-term average of the weather, typically over 30 years (or longer)”.
Even if you disagree with these “definitions”, they are the ones often used by the “alarmist” camp … so let’s see where using their definitions takes us …
.
Within the UK the capital of Scotland, Edinburgh, is located roughly 330 miles (530 km) north of the capital of England (and the entire UK), London.
London is located at latitude 51.5°N, Edinburgh at 56°N (to the nearest 0.5 degrees of latitude).
A train journey between the two cities takes about 4 hours and costs around £35 (if booked 4 weeks in advance, according to the LNER website) to £70 (if booked 4 or 5 days in advance, a “last-minute try for a crowded train” might set you back £220 to £250 …).
.
Data from the “weather-atlas.com” website gives “Average monthly high and low temperatures”, which constitutes “climate” using the above “definition”.
Taking the average of the (24) values for each city gives us the “Annual average temperature” … AKA its “climate” in degrees Celsius.
My results are London = 11.0°C and Edinburgh = 8.7°C (to the 1dp “precision” of the “raw data”), i.e. a difference — or “climate change” — of 2.3°C.
For the mathematically challenged, “2.3°C” is more than “2C” …
NB : I have deliberately chosen not to provide direct links to the appropriate pages on the “weather-atlas.com” website. If you want to contest my figures you should provide references (or links) to your “trusted” data source(s).
.
Every person who got off a train from Edinburgh in London in the 20th century, and stayed there for 30 years or longer, has already endured “at least 2C of global warming [ / climate change ]”.
How many of those people “suffered” as a result of that “climate change” ?
What year’s temperature data are you using for you calculations?
I went to:
https://www.extremeweatherwatch.com/cities/london/average-temperatur-by-year. The Tmax and Tmin data are displayed in a table from 1955 to 2024. The Tavg for 2024 was 13.6°C. For Edinburgh, Tavg was 10.2°C.
The difference is 3.6°C. What does this mean with respect to climate change? The climate is much larger than 2°C.
If you go to:
https://www.extremeweatherwatch.com/cities/london, weather and climate data are displayed. Scroll down to the end for a list of options for display of weather and climate data.
You should check the home page: http://www.extremeweatherwatch.com. The links to many sites around the world are light blue.
I do not know what year(s) the “weather-atlas.com” website uses for their “average high / low” numbers.
It does not matter !
My “methodology” is :
1) Choose your “trusted” source, website X
2) Download “Monthly Tmin and Tmax” averages for “London (UK)” from website X
3) Calculate the “Annual average” of those (24) numbers, T1
4) Download “Monthly Tmin and Tmax” averages for “Edinburgh (UK)” from website X
5) Calculate the “Annual average” of those (24 other) numbers, T2
6) Post the difference of those “Annual averages”, T1 – T2 (= London – Edinburgh)
.
Notes
– You somehow managed to delete an “e” from the “-temperature-” part of URL 1 … been there, done that, got the T-shirt(s) … which resulted in the “extremeweatherwatch.com” website showing a (standard) “404 File Not Found” error page.
– Manually adding he “e” back in gave data for “London, Kentucky (USA)” instead of “London (UK)”. This error was enhanced by your “table from 1955 to 2024” providing numbers in degrees Fahrenheit …
– Some trial and error ended up with me finding out that your URLs required the “london” part to be replaced with “london-heathrow” and “edinburgh” respectively to get the correct data for comparison with mine.
.
Absolutely nothing.
One year’s numbers is either “weather” or “natural variability”.
The data from the “london-heathrow” and “edinburgh” variants of your second link are the “extremeweatherwatch.com” website’s 1991–2020 averages [ = “climate” … ], which provided values of :
T1 (London annual mean) = 11.7°C and
T2 (Edinburgh annual mean) ~= 9.47°C.
NB : The important thing is the difference between these values, and not the absolute temperatures.
Your chosen website’s “T1 – T2” ~= 2.23°C.
Mine was (approximately) 2.3°C.
“Close enough for (inter-)governmental work”, as the saying goes …
Thanks for spotting the typo. I keep making these and it cause lots of trouble. The URL I posted for London was incorrect.
I got the temperature data for London-Heathrow using the “Select City” tab. I had previously had selected Adelaide after: …/cities/adelaide/average-temperature-by-year. I entered “London” in the the “Select City” box and there appeared below the box “London-Heathrow and “London, Kentucky”. I clicked on “London-Heathrow” and got the data. It took me awhile to learn how to use all the features of this site.
I was also able get data for Death Valley and Yellowstone National Park. The temperature data for these sites show increases up to 2024. Since these sites are remote, I was hoping there would no increases in temperature so the temperature data could be used to falsify the claim by the IPCC that CO2 causes global warming.
Shown in the chart (See below) is a plot of average annual temperature in Adelaide from 1857 to 1999. In 1857 the concentration of CO2 in dry air was ca. 280 ppmv
(0.55 g CO2/cu. m.), and by 1999, it had increased to ca.
370 ppmv (0.73 g CO2/cu. m.) but there was no corresponding increase in air temperature. Instead there was a slight decease in temperature. Thus CO2 did not cause warming of the air in Adelaide. Note how little CO2 there is in the air.
At the Mauna Loa Obs. the concentration of CO2 in dry air is currently 425 ppmv. One cubic meter of this air has a mass of 1.29 kg and contains a mere 0.83 g of CO2. a 14% increase from 2001.
The chart was taken from the late John Daly’s website:
“Still Waiting For Greenhouse” available at:
http://www.john.daly.com. From the home page, page down to the end and click on “Station Temperature Data” On the “World Map, click on “Australia”. there is shown a list of weather stations. Click on “Adelaide”. To go back to the list of stations click on back area. Clicking on the back arrow as second time will display the World Map.
John Daly found over 200 weather stations that showed no warming up to 2002. John Daly got his temperature data from the GISS and CRU data bases.
NB: If you click on the chart, it will expand and become clear. Click on the “X” in the circle to return to comment text.
“The country was “not yet adapted” to worsening weather extremes already occurring at current levels of warming”
Yesterday the UK needed food. Today it’s failing to adapt, will it go extinct? That’s it, USA is digging up Michael Jackson. We’ll stick him on an airplane with Sting and get him there by tomorrow morning. Come on Mr president, we can’t let our special relationship go extinct.
From the above article, as attributed to the CCC and as unquestioningly published by the BBC:
“The UK should be prepared to cope with weather extremes as a result of at least 2C of global warming by 2050.”
Hmmm . . . today’s best measurements of global lower atmospheric temperature (GLAT) trending over the last 46 years, UAH satellite data, shows an average linear rise rate of +0.16 °C/decade (see latest update at https://wattsupwiththat.com/2025/10/02/uah-v6-1-global-temperature-update-for-september-2025-0-53-deg-c ).
From now until end-2050 would be an interval of 25 years (= 2.5 decades), which would thus calculate to be an extrapolated total GLAT rise of 0.16*2.5 = 0.4 °C based on hard data, not on some UK Climate Change Committee musings. Only off by a factor of five too high!
Why am I not surprised that the CCC did not consult established climate data and did not perform simple mathematical calculations based on such?
Idiots all!
If Britain has been affected so seriously by rising temperatures, shouldn’t the population be dropping? Instead, it’s pushing 70 million. Meanwhile if school-age children are so fragile that they’ve apparently lost a few learning days annually to supposedly excessive heat, it tells us more about the reduced resiliency of the current and next generations. Or maybe they’re learning less because the curriculum has been so diluted they’re not expected to achieve much in the schools these days anyway. The reality is that the fact that chronically alarmist outfits like the CCC and BBC are trying to publicize this latest theory tells us that it needs to be greeted by derision.
My solution would be to shut down the CCC and all groups like them and use their budgets to install air conditioning in schools and homes but not government offices. It would be better to invest in devices that can cool and heat because the heating element would be used more frequently.