Blah, Blah, Blah–Latest News Update
November 9, 2021
By Paul Homewood
Rejoice, we are saved!!!
Clearly COP26 has made huge strides again today, boldly discussing gender issues. Ignore the Moaning Minnies at Climate Tracker.
And tomorrow will be a real humdinger!
So that’s alright then!
45 Comments
Comments are closed.
NOT A LOT OF PEOPLE KNOW THAT 
Can we get an award – for the least number of words believed 🤣
I just submitted an article to CFACT on a wee fact that might destabilize the alarmism. According to IEA the commitments made to date are (if kept) enough to keep the temp at 1.8 degrees. This is well within the Paris target so no one has to do anything more! The planet has been saved. The alarmists should be celebrating, not demonstrating.
Actually the IEA, in its latest report, added up all of the sources of CO2 removal (Direct air capture, including bioenergy). They came up with a total of 7,600 million metric tons by 2050. That amount is not even ONE ppm and the climate wouldn’t even notice it. We have been swindled…again. And the alarmists don’t even realize that they too have been scammed.
Sorry but I do not see how this comment is related to mine.
For thirty years I have started every day with my coffee and two papers, one regional and one national. At no time have I ever found reporting to be one sided or excessively slanted. The only time that the media in focuses solely on one side of any subject is where it is a clearly an outrageous aberration of societal morae’s in our liberal, democratic society. Rape, murder, child molestation or any other obvious criminal or social outrage will receive full, one sided, unrepentant dissent, as is due. One topic however falls from that contract of balance within the entire spectrum of media reporting . . . Environmentalism. In-depth investigative reporting, it seems, has no place examining the facts presented by “Our Friends” in the Environmental movement. Frankly, why should we, the movement is working towards making our world cleaner and healthier for us all. Given!
Within all this goodness, however, is a soft underbelly of mistruths without substance and outright mythology that have become common ‘knowledge and or fact’ repeated endlessly without the slightest contextual review. It is almost as though these good people and their ethical movement are beyond reproach or clinical review. It is a form of secularism almost religious in nature. Challenging statements or facts presented by members of the environmental movement would be akin to saying that someone’s God does not exist.
Where are the under-cover stories of “Environmental Charities” ripping off unsuspecting citizens? Has the planet ever been this warm before? Yes – twice in just the last 2000 years, the Roman Warming Period and the Middle Ages Warming Period – it was 2.5 degrees warmer than present. When was the last time that the glaciers of the world receded this far in the Rockies or the Andes or Greenland? Again twice. Why is it so hard to show that if you add up all the glaciers in the world outside of Antarctica and Greenland, they represent only 2% of Total Global Glaciation? Globally meaningless, yet probed with zeal. When the glaciers melted 700 years ago were major cities like London, Venice or Barcelona under 20 feet of water? Why not? How is it possible that we are in “an unprecedented period of Global Warming” when 60-foot birch trees and barley used to grow 700 years ago in Southern Greenland? . . . Today . . . this would be impossible!
These are simple questions to ask and the answers are complex but clear. Should it not be the role of our enlightened media to dig into these questions, in search for the truth? Are we so enthralled with the concept of being a part of saving the World that we brush over the fact that the radiation emitted from the tailings pond created while making the magnets for wind turbines in China, the ‘radiation-glow’ can be seen from space at night? There are over 800 lbs. of Rare Earth Magnets in every wind turbine. Are electric cars so important to the environmental movement’s credibility that the mainstream media refuses to show that from a purely clinical, scientific and analytical perspective it probably would be less harmful environmentally to put that electric car in the back of a Hummer and drive it around? Why is it so difficult for our media, who most of us would consider our best and our brightest, to challenge the status quo of mainstream Environmentalism?
I do NOT ask that we return to the bad old days of unrepentant hyper polluting, but please, become Global in your perspective, show respect for verifiable facts and at least occasionally review the voice of reason from those who challenge the questionable “Facts” of the environmental movement. A little review is long overdue.
Thank you for considering my perspective
Well said
Jim. I am surprised that you persist with the print media. I have given up on the print media, the radio and the TV as sources for critical or unbiased reporting (up until 10yrs ago I was an avid consumer of all 3). I now puruse the internet for news and critical journalism and will daily view this site, zerohedge, and several others to get a considered view of the world. Newspapers were nice, but since Christopher Booker departed I have found the dearth of critical or inquisitive ournalism has rendered them redundant.
“I do NOT ask that we return to the bad old days of unrepentant hyper polluting, ”
I hope you’re not including CO2 in that, I really dislike the way the media hype what they call carbon pollution. I seriously doubt that globally pollution has reduced, just moved location. Like Bobn I’ve virtually given up the MSM in all its forms. I only read the latest “we’re all doomed by CO2” nonsense on free news sites, basically the Daily Mail, as a know your enemy search, the only thing I look at on the BBC is Friday’s pictures of Scotland but even they include more and more pictures of pets and families as opposed to interesting places and weather events
Jim, You mention Greenland. After a Tory conference fringe meeting, I asked Sir John Houghton (once our chief scientist and now deceased) why Greenland was called Greenland. He said the warming that allowed the Vikings to grow barley there was confined to the North Atlantic – not a universal warming period! I don’t think is the accepted view at present, but it shut me up at the time! Maybe others will furnish a better response than I managed…
I believe I’ve seen it commented that the MWP and other warming periods, covered in hundreds of scientific papers, were global not local. This ‘localisation’ line is an attempt to deflect and deny.
These reports of ‘Localized Warning’ have been attributed by Environmentalists to ‘The North Atlantic Oscillation’, a condition that may last 30 or 40 years. The Middle Ages Warming Period was Global and lasted form about 900 to 1300 (officially 950 – 1450). The whole Northern hemisphere was dramatically warmer.
By the end of the 9th century life was getting much better in Northern Europe and there was once again prosperity. Stability was returning to the known world. “Law and order” were gaining ground in the world, and civilization was once again taking root among the nations. By 950 and well into the first millennium weather conditions had improved dramatically. Vineyards were said to be growing in parts of England again. “This Climate Change resulted in warmer and drier conditions throughout Northern Europe. Farming in Scotland therefore could be expanded to higher altitudes that were previously too cold for agriculture” (H.H. Lamb 1964). “In Greenland clamshell data suggests that between 800 and 1300 regions around the fjords of southern Greenland experienced a mild climate several degrees higher than usual for that part of the North Atlantic. With trees and herbaceous plants growing and livestock being farmed. Barley was being grown up to the 70th Parallel”. (C. Arnold 2010 & Bucher 2009)
Professor Michael Pidwirny of The University of British Columbia, Okanagan in Physical Geography, suggests that “during the “little climatic optimum” (The Medieval Warming Period) it represents the Warmest Climate since the “Climate Optimum” (4,000 years before). The snowline in the Rocky Mountains was about 370 meters (1,200 feet) above current levels”. Vaganov et al., 1996; Briffa et al., 1998 and Naurzbaev et al., 2002 all concur that “the Warmest Period over the last 2000 years in the Taimar peninsula of Northern Russia above the 70th parallel was during the Middle Ages Warming Period”. Should we think that maybe during this time some of the Glaciers may have receded far beyond the points where they are receding today? The trees that grew during this warming period are the ones that are being found Worldwide today as, again, the Glaciers recede. This is substantiated proof that a mere 800 years ago our Planet was a much warmer place, Globally than it is today! Contrary to Environmental Propagandists and their unsubstantiated propaganda.
My thoughts . . .
OH . . . see 9 warming periods and CO2 during the Holocene . . .
https://www.academia.edu/49421861/CO2_Cradle_of_Life_on_Planet_Earth
It wasn’t just barley. Wheat (and oats) were grown in Iceland and around Trondheim in Norway. Barley growing restarted in Iceland about 1924 after a 400 year hiatus.
Also grave sites in Greenland in the permafrost have tree roots preserved in them. Proof that there were trees (or some sort) there as moisture seeking roots don’t grow in permafrost.
You should have asked him if he was going to write up the discovery of a 400-year blocking high.
Doubtless this week began, and will end with, discussions at COP(out)26 as to how best present the non-progress made over two weeks of wasted time, newsprint, fuel, and vast amounts of money.
What resounding successes will they present to the media – the Guardian and the BBC gobbling them up without a moments critique?
How utterly pathetic that this complete charade continues conference after conference and no one but climate sceptics question it.
Money grubbing charlatans leading their hangers on fleecing the public for all they can get.
HERE ! HERE !!
I think you meant “Hear, Hear”. As is hear him or hear her. Nothing to do with where the speaker is!
Jim, Just read your piece in full – but not your treatise as referenced. I just wish you had been standing alongside me when I questioned Sir John Houghton. Might have made a better impression than I did. Funny – one normally expects to respect our “Chief Scientists” but Sir John and then David King are not great role models…
Why would you expect to respect a “Chief Scientist” ? His functions are entirely political. The first is to represent the scientific Establishment to the Government, and make sure that no dissenting opinions get through to it.
The second function is to give ammunition to the Prime Minister so he can blind the Cabinet with science and see off civil servants who do not share the prejudices or pet ideas of the Prime Minister.
The first person who could really be said to fulfill the second role explicitly was Professor Lindemann, who was eminence grise to Churchill. This is from the economist Harrod, who was part of Lindemann’s staff:
“The normal machinery of government churned up certain proposals which eventually came to the Prime Minister; it was our duty to counter-brief him on what we knew to be the lines of his own thinking.”
So the chief requisites of the “Chief Scientist” are to be “sound” in the eyes of the academics who control main-stream, dogmatic, science – an effective hit-man for them – and to be a skilled flatterer and yes-man for his employer.
At worst the man in such a position becomes emboldened by the ease with which he can manipulate his boss, and ends up making the decisions.*
So I repeat. Why respect such a creature?
Such a relationship does not always end well. Think Tiberius and Sejanus,
Henry VIII and Wolseley – followed by Henry VIII and Cromwell!
Why does no one call out the ludicrous announcements of a direct link between ‘commitments’ and the supposed future global temperature?
It’s crazy stuff. The estimates of the effect of CO2 vary so much, it’s complete nonsense, pretence.
The saner science suggests that 700ppm might only cause ~1.5C warming cf Pre-Ind anyway; which is probably why they plucked that particular limit out of thin air anyway.
Cloud cover variation affects short-term albedo, CO2 doesn’t. They’ve been barking up the wrong tree for decades.
To understand this farrago you have your understand it has literally nothing to do with some future climate for the vast majority of participants. Climate change succeeds because it offers a wide-range of people an excuse to force their agendas upon us:
The new Left who hate markets & capitalism
The Messiahs who want to save the world
The Puritans who hate plebs enjoying themselves
The Romantics who fantasise about “communities” and rural life with local food
The Totalitarians who want to be in charge
The Banners who hate things
The scammers, troughers and opportunists who see a way to make money or political capital.
All the worst people we have, all housed under one cause for the moment.
“All the worst people we have…”
Add in the monstrous regiment of totally innumerate women recently wafted to the top of our institutions.
Amanda Pritchard, the Chief Executive of NHS England, said yesterday there were 14 times as many people in Hospital with Covid-19 as a year ago.
November 8, 2021 8,900
November 10, 2020 10,760
My wife has just told me that the silly thing* is the daughter of a Bishop, and is an Oxford modern history graduate who, in 1997, was put through some conversion scheme by the NHS to recruit potential managers without medical or scientific or technical knowledge. ‘Nuff said.
Lord Mountbatten liked to tell a story about being sunk in WW2. He was swimming about when a Chief Petty Officer was borne up by his life jacket next to him. One look at his Captain and the seaman said,
“Have you noticed, Sir, how, on occasions such as this, the scum always rises to the surface!”
* She gets 400,000 pounds a year. I should be so silly.
You’re not wrong there ’44.
And all housed under one roof – Parliament!
Relax, Greta agrees with you!
It looks like the Evergrande saga, the property collapse in China, is the sort that is going to rumble on, and on: the financial dominos are falling as the company owes so much to so many. Its suppliers, many of whom have been working on building sites that they cannot complete, have been offered the incomplete sites! Other property development companies are in difficulties with property assets losing value.
Any economic contraction in China will hit their raw material suppliers and customers will be indirectly affected: goods made in China will dry up in the West, so goods will be less plentiful and prices are likely to increase. Currently, the West relies on China for so much manufacturing that I would expect it will hit NET Zero rollout.
Western banks are unlikely to get back most of their loans. Because of this, more and more are predicting it to be a substantial issue. Without wanting to cause alarm, I am hoping that its possible ramifications are being investigated by the appropriate people to minimise the damage. The current quality of leadership in the EU, the US and even in Britain, does not inspire confidence, especially when ‘Blah, Blah, Blah’ sums the situation, and that’s without any Evergrande impact!
https://www.express.co.uk/finance/city/1518970/Global-financial-crash-China-property-market-china-evergrande
YT videos tell a more complicated story, and will need competent people who have an eye for detail, yet tohe UK Government appears to be throwing money at anything that moves, and with little understanding or thought. A billion here, a billion there, I remember when a billion was a lot of money. Following on from the HS2 saga, the wind farms, the solar farms, the link between Northern Ireland and Scotland, the nonappearance of the Cumbrian coal field, the fracced oil and gas, and a working Carbon Capture and Storage plant. And there’s the development of a Hydrogen Economy, but do we have a path to economically produced Hydrogen that is suitable for consumption? Does anybody know? And will they tell the Public, so we can judge this government at the next election?
“Tens of thousands of jobs, billions of pounds in investment and new export opportunities will be unlocked through Government plans to create a thriving low carbon hydrogen sector in the UK over the next decade and beyond. This is all part of the government’s aim of becoming a ‘Hydrogen Economy’”
https://www.businessleader.co.uk/uk-makes-reveals-plans-to-become-a-hydrogen-economy-but-what-will-actually-change
And, amazingly, the Private Sector is joining the fray:
British firm to unveil technology for zero-carbon emission flights at Cop26
https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2021/nov/05/british-firm-to-unveil-technology-for-zero-carbon-emission-flights-at-cop26
“…[rubbishy] goods made in China will dry up in the West…”
It may hurt for a while but, eventually, make us more secure.
Provided it is not already too late for Western Civilization.
Looks like Arctic sea ice extent might almost reach 10 ‘Wadhams’ by the end of the Glasgow jamboree. I’m so looking forward to hearing Al Gore, and Professor W himself, explain how the ice extent has grown at a rate almost inversely proportionate to their claims that it was melting despite a simultaneous and inexhorable rise in recent global co2 levels. In the meantime, despite temperatures recently recorded in Antarctica being the lowest in the modern era, I also look forward to hearing from our sagacious former chief scientist, Sir David King, explaining where he wants to build his first city on the continent he claims will be the only habitable plot of land on earth by the end of the century unless we seemingly live like the Flinstones. There was a time when most idiots stayed in their own villages. It seems like a town called ‘Climate Science’ has scoped the bloody lot up.
‘the world is heading for 2.4C of warming’
A big, fat false precision fallacy.
They use a decimal point to show they have a sense of humor.
And its a “new analysis”…
Weird how every study shows it’s actually worse than we thought and never better.
And exposes their ‘projection’ fallacies, as if all previous analyses are not correct, necessitating new ones, we can also safely assume each new one is not correct and that there’ll never be a correct one.
Well, we’re already at 1.2 degrees (if you are prepared to believe the temperature products), so we’re half-way there and nothing objectively bad has happened.
Some semblance of commonsense from our “friends” across the Channel :
https://www.rt.com/news/539835-macron-france-nuclear-climate/
Macron proposing new nuclear reactors to guarantee energy security for France (and of course for us as we will be sucking on France’s nuclear teat for a good while yet).
I have just read an article by Brendan O’Neill which refers to a report commissioned by Sky and authored by the Behavioural Insights Team, which is part-owned by the Cabinet Office. Its title, ‘The Power of TV: Nudging Viewers to Decarbonise their Lifestyles’. Flash screens, overemphasis, constant plugging, dire outcomes, the wholesomeness of the converted,. classic propaganda. It started, for me, as an enquiry as to the sudden ubiquity of faces of colour in advertising and Sky sport’s (read the FA) dogmatic proliferation of a campaign relating to racism in sport, not to mention their advertising clips of referencing Global Warming). One way or another, whether debatable or not, the people with the real power are going to resort to anything for their view to prevail; without substantiation or the need for viability. Propaganda, as the National Socialists proved, does not need a basis in fact. Yes, one way or another, we’re all doomed.
Oh the old “wimin and girls are disproportionately affected/disadvantaged” chestnut.
Where is the evidence?
They just run with these pathetic fashionable mantras hoping/expecting that no one will dare challenge under threat of being bullied and cancelled if they date.
They tried to push the politically motivated wimin and girls are victims ploy with Covid until real data were showed that actually showed men were more likely to die from Covid than women so the claim was quietly put back on the shelf no doubt to be rolled out again when everyone has forgotten about the empirical data based rebuttal.
Same goes in klymutt chaeynge with Polar Bears and the Great Barrier Reef. Up they pop with no empirical data offered in support as usual, then real scientists use their time to rebut the baseless claims and down they go for a few months to pop up again when the weasels think everyone has forgotten. It shows just how shockingly poor the basis of their argument is that they have nothing else in their shop window.
The political subversion and exploitation of both klymutt chaeynge and COVID are unmistakable and there to be seen because the language and pathetic whining rhetoric around all the victim groups are identical.
To bring things into perspective on the CO2 conundrum lets start at the beginning with a quote from the UN’s 1992 Rio Conference by the Chairman Maurice Strong.
‘” Isn’t the only hope for the planet that the industrialized nations collapse? Isn’t it our responsibility to bring that about? How better to accomplish the collapse then to create mass hysteria proselytized by the willing dupes in our education system that CO2 is going to destroy the world because allegedly it will cause the temperature to go up 3C”
It all seems to be going to plan for China, India, Russia and Asia in general, who must be laughing at Western Leaders and rubbing their hands in anticipation of unprecedented wealth. The West’s poor will be rubbing their hands to try and keep warm.
CO2 is a rather benign life-giving trace gas in our atmosphere. It is the “C” which is the negative driver because it is a component of dirty coal and all fossil fuels and can and is being be taxed. To further demonize CO2 it has been classed as a pollutant which is a mendacious lie. As we all know the largest component of “green house” gases is water vapor which cannot be taxed. Therefore, good old CO2 has become the driver of todays madness.
‘Global warming’ is not about the science – UN Admits: ‘Climate change policy is about how we redistribute the world’s wealth’ | Climate Depot
A whistleblower who formerly directed NOAA’s climate data section has recently charged that the agency hurriedly prepared and released unverified and flawed global temperature information in order to push policy agendas favored by the U.N. and Obama administration at the U.N.’s 2015 Paris climate conference. The goal was to influence advanced nations to commit to sweeping reductions in their uses of fossil fuel and huge expenditures for climate-related aid projects.
The Great Global Warming Swindle – Full Documentary HD – Bing video
Global Warming: Fact or Fiction? Featuring Physicists Willie Soon and Elliott D. Bloom – YouTube
I have today received this from my MP, Greg Hands.
Thank you for your correspondence regarding climate change.
The overwhelming consensus of international climate change scientists is that climate change is occurring, and being exacerbated by human activity. The fact that uncertainty exists in climate science, as it does in other fields, does not negate the value of current evidence and there is a strong correlation between global warming and rising greenhouse gas concentrations from human activity since 1900.
The UN’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change’s (IPCC) report on climate change lays clear the stark consequences climate change is having on the planet, detailing what will happen if decisive action is not taken.
The report warns that without urgent action, warming, heatwaves, heavy precipitation, droughts, and loss of Arctic Sea ice, snow cover and permafrost, will all increase. In addition, the report highlights that immediate action is required to reduce emissions to net zero by 2050 to give a good chance of limiting global warming to 1.5C in the long-term.
The independent Committee on Climate Change (CCC) found that meeting net zero by 2050 is feasible and consistent with avoiding most damaging climate change.
The CCC’s latest estimates put the net cost of achieving net zero at less than 1 per cent of GDP through to 2050 when taking into account the benefits from the falling prices of low-carbon technologies, with scope for the economic effect to be net positive as resources shift from imported fossil fuels to UK investment.
In the UK, ambitious targets such as a 68% reduction in greenhouse gas emissions by 2030, compared to 1990 levels, and a 78% reduction in emissions by 2035, also compared to 1990 levels, have been enshrined in law.
In addition, the Prime Minister’s Ten Point Plan will mobilise Government investment and support up to 250,000 green jobs, thereby creating a green industrial revolution.
Throughout COP26, the UK will bring together world leaders, climate experts, business leaders and citizens globally to agree ambitious action to tackle climate change. Further, the UK will use its Presidency to work to four clear objectives:
To ask countries to commit to net zero by mid-century, with more ambitious nationally determined contribution targets for 2030;
To urgently protect and help adapt our communities and natural habitats from the destructive effects of climate change;
To increase funding to support these aims, making good on the $100 billion annual climate finance goal affirmed through the Paris Agreement; and
To close off the outstanding elements of the Paris Rulebook, and accelerate delivery of the Paris Goals through collaboration between Governments, Businesses and Civil Society.
Ultimately, these aims will keep the prospect of limiting global temperature rises to 1.5C alive, thereby avoiding the worst of climate change damage.
Thank you again for taking the time to contact me.
Kind regards,
Greg Hands
Member of Parliament for Chelsea and Fulham | Minister for Energy, Clean Growth and Climate Change
House of Commons, London, SW1A 0AA | 0207 219 6801 | http://www.greghands.com
Personally I find it terrifying that people can believe this sort of thing and actually work towards the destruction of our economy in this way.
‘ees ‘aviv a larff, i’nt ee?
Old Hands needs a little new education, me thinks. My MP trots out the same verbiage, and having asked him for the actual evidence for these assertions, have received nothing.
If MPs are going to vote to impose such draconian and destructive policies on us, they should at least have the evidence in their hands, understand it and be able to articulate it, beforehand, shouldn’t they? Seems they are just blind sheep.
I reminded my MP of the parable of the Good Samaritan, who didn’t go off to form a political movement to fight the ‘robber’ problem but cared for the mugged person right there and then. Climate change is a future hypothesised issue, created from guesses (bad computer models), not a present real issue, and is putting gaia before man. This gaia-first or Net-Zero path leads to fascism and totalitarianism. I reminded him also that the person who makes my life decisions is me, not him or the oinks who flew to Glasgow in private jets to tell us to stop flying.
Alan, I could not agree with you more !!
In 2001 a United Nations sponsored study looking into the causes of Global Warming was published. The Inter-Governmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) had been struck. The Third Scientific Assessment Report published in 2001 on Climate Change resulted. It has become the ‘Holy Grail’ upon which modern Environmentalism and ‘Man-Made Climate Change’ has been founded.
Before that report – Pollution alone – Smoke Stack Pollution . . . was the Enemy.
Chemicals like DDT and other Pesticides, Freon and Asbestos, these were clearly defined Pollutants
Understandable and Clear-Cut Effects on Planetary Life were the Obvious Enemy.
In the late 1990’s a Correlation was found between Global Warming, Climate Change and elevated CO2 – since Pre-Industrial times. They could be seen as three parallel lines from the mid 1700’s to present.
Three Scientific Facts were Inadvertently and . . . Falsely combined . . .
• One . . . James Watt, and Mathew Bolton started selling steam engines that burned Fossil Fuels. 1775 became the end-date for ‘Pre-Industrial’ life and the beginning of Industrialization and the introduction of Man-Made CO2 . . . Before that . . . The much-used phrase . . . ‘Pre-Industrial Times’
• Two . . . From 1300 -1750 Temperatures had fallen dramatically – Globally. By 1450 it was so cold the Vikings ended their 500-year life of Trading and Farming in Greenland. By 1750 the world had reached its Coldest Temperatures in 2500 years . . . The second coldest in 10,000 years.
That’s why it is Normal for temperatures to be Rising now!
• Three . . . From 1724 up until today we have had the Mercury Thermostat invented by Fahrenheit. Giving us the third parallel line . . . Recorded Temperatures . . . the start of . . . ‘Recorded history’. (written down)
We get these Three Scientifically Verifiable Parallel Lines. Co-joined by Activist Researchers in the late 1990’s Authoring and Submitting their assumptions to the United Nations. This then became the New Narrative on Climate Change based on the 2001 IPCC document. Combined, those Three Parallel Lines created the ‘indisputable’ demonstration of Climate Change, from ‘Man-Made’ sources. Proof it was said, comes from the increased burning of Fossil Fuels and a simultaneous rising trend in temperatures recorded daily by Scientists from all over the world since 1724. The action resulting from publishing this 2001 IPCC report at the United Nations evolved into the Foundational Narrative for Environmental Activism World-Wide . . . However, . . .
None of these factors have ever been linked, Directly . . . Scientifically . . .
All three events occurred Independent of the other two . . .
Correlation must Never be described as Causation . . . Scientifically
Yet . . . the Environmentalist Narrative, thanks to the IPCC, has done so . . . Without Open Challenge . . .
Global Warming with even Higher Temperatures has happened on 5 other occasions in the last 8,000 years. Each of these 5 Warming Periods took place without burning Fossil Fuels, without writing down temperatures, and the CO2 had remained constant at 280 ppm in each of these Warming Periods and also during the cooling periods in-between. So why Now do we blame Climate Change on Co2 when it Can Not be linked to previous periods of Climate Change of any kind, with 10,000 years of Scientific records, from History?
Every recent study describing Climate Change has failed to look back at these 5 Warming Periods before 1750. This all happened during our current Inter-Glacial Period on Planet Earth. The Roman Warming Period and The Middle Ages Warming Period must be used and compared to the current 20ieth Century Warming Period. This is only looking back to the times of Anthony and Cleopatra or to the years of Henry the Eighth and Charlemagne. It’s not some intentional distraction with Dinosaurs and Early Creation. In planetary terms, this is just looking back to Yesterday Afternoon, in Planet Earth’s long and dynamic History . . .
Failure to do so is a Scientific Travesty . . . that MUST be Corrected!
See the following Graphic proof . . .
https://www.academia.edu/49421861/CO2_Cradle_of_Life_on_Planet_Earth
Personally (being rude) I would reply “the overwhelming consensus of members of the Labour Party locally is that you are an ignorant, gullible git”. From your “believe the consensus” approach I MUST believe them, right?
INSERT adjectives of your choice and feel free to reword the reply.
“…overwhelming [sic] consensus…”
An interesting meta-message here. ‘Overwhelming’ is not an adjective which can modify the word ‘consensus’ – it has no meaning, it adds nothing. This is obvious, because ‘an overwhelming number of people agree’ would simply be a correct definition of ‘consensus.’
The meta-message, the real message here, is “Shut up, or we will overwhelm YOU!”.
OT Bookers mucker Dr Ricard North is struggling with his Petition for referendum on net 0 by 2050. Please assist/ circulate if I’m not already preaching to the converted.
https://petition.parliament.uk/petitions/599602
I do hope someone is keeping score on all the commitments the UK is making in Glasgow. Probably the most eye-catching to me so far is the methane reduction commitment. That means probably no new gas fields, and also for sure a big attack on meat via taxes and impositions on farmers and other forms of rationing for consumers. Vegan totalitarianism never appeared on any government manifesto I’ve seen.
We need to have a round up, and assessments of the consequences.