December 2023
« Nov    

Climate – is the fightback starting?

Wednesday/Thursday blog

Two issues today

Issue 1: The Amazon review of my book THERE IS NO CLIMATE CRISIS

In my Monday/Tuesday blog I published a review of my book which claimed it was all a load of ‘dangerous misinformation’. I have looked again at the review and see a couple of things:

  • This is not what Amazon calls a ‘verified purchase’. So, as my book is only available through Amazon, either the reviewer has borrowed a copy from someone who has bought the book, or much more likely, the reviewer hasn’t either bought or read it
  • Half of the ‘review’ focuses on just the cover picture for the book and the other half is a rant about how catastrophic global warming is real. This once again suggests that the reviewer hasn’t read the book and is only using his/her supposed ‘review’ to try to discourage other people from buying the book

One thing our hideously-misnamed ‘social media’ has taught us is that there are millions of people out there leading such sad, pathetic and empty lives that they spend much of their time looking for things to be offended by because that makes them feel important.

Issue 2: Challenging ‘Net Zero’ with science

Three US academics have recently published a 47-page report slamming the whole ‘Net Zero’ nonsense. Most of the material in the report will be familiar to readers of this and similar blogs. While I agree with everything in this new report, personally, I find the style of the report slightly over-academic and insufficiently easily digestible for my taste. I’m not quite sure why, but I find this report badly-written, badly-organised and badly thought-through. I think it would have been better with 15 to 20 pages of hard-hitting facts demolishing the climate-catastrophist narrative rather than the rather meandering approach it takes in my humble opinion. But so often that’s a problem with real experts, they’re brilliant in their subject, but not always brilliant communicators.

Anyway, here’s a link to the report so you can judge for yourselves:

And here’s the Executive Summary

Governments around the world are taking actions to implement fossil fuel-free or “Net Zero” energy systems without a thorough examination of the scientific basis for doing so. This paper undertakes that examination by reviewing the scientific support (or lack thereof) that has been used to justify this transition to Net Zero. No attempt is made to address the significant economic, societal or environmental consequences of a near-total reliance on renewable energy and the required battery-backup that is necessary to transition to a fossil fuel free future.

Two of the paper’s authors – Drs. William Happer and Richard Lindzen, professors emeritus at Princeton University and Massachusets Institute of Technology, respectively – have spent decades studying and writing about the physics of Earth’s atmosphere. The third, Gregory Wrightstone, a geologist of more than 40 years, has spent much of the last decade writing and
speaking about the interplay of geology, history and climate.

The authors find that Net Zero – the global movement to eliminate fossil fuels and its emissions of CO2 and other greenhouse gases – to be scientifically invalid and a threat to the lives of billions of people. Among the paper’s findings are:

  • Net Zero proponents regularly report that extreme weather is more severe and frequent because of climate change while the evidence shows no increase – and, in some cases, a decrease – in such events.
  • Computer models supporting every government Net Zero regulation and the trillions of dollars subsidizing renewables and electric cars, trucks, home heating, appliances and many other products do not work.
  • Scientific research and studies that do not support the “consensus” narrative of harmful man-made global warming are routinely censored and excluded from government reports such as the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change and the National Climate Assessment.
  • Conclusions of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change that contradict the narrative of catastrophic global warming from fossil fuels are rewritten by government bureaucrats for public reports to support the false narrative of Net Zero.
  • The many benefits of modest warming and increasing carbon dioxide are routinely either eliminated or minimized in governmental reports.
  • Eliminating fossil fuels and implementing Net Zero policies and actions mean the elimination of fossil fuel-derived nitrogen fertilizers and pesticides that will result in about half the world’s population not having enough food to eat. Many would starve.
  • The adoption of Net Zero is the rejection of overwhelming scientific evidence that there is no risk of catastrophic global warming caused by fossil fuels and CO2.

Net Zero, then, violates the tenets of the scientific method that for more than 300 years has underpinned the advancement of western civilization.

4 comments to Climate – is the fightback starting?

  • Carolyn

    Have you noticed that you can replace “net zero” with “covid” and you end up with much the same narrative. What amazes me is the fact that, with the odd exception, the entire planet has swallowed both stories hook, line and sinker. It’s bizarre.

  • A Thorpe

    I am pleased to read that you have investigated the critical comment about your book. It says everything about social media, nothing about your book and brings no understanding to the climate debate. Social media seems to have replaced thinking with insults. Amazon are unlikely to investigate and ensure that only genuine purchasers can review. I gave up a subscription to The Telegraph because of insulting comments and a refusal by the paper to enforce their conditions for commenting. I think I recall that you have similar experiences.

    I agree about the CO2 Coalition publication. It could even have a negative effect because it is not written to be understandable by anybody without a science background.

    The fightback, if it is coming, is not going to be based on science. I feel that the “science is established” is accepted as the truth and it says we are causing climate change. It is taken as a fact that we have to decarbonise the economy and the debate is about how quickly we can do that. That does not even matter because it will be the decline in living standards that will determine what happens and it will be impossible to reverse the consequences of actions already taken and not just about climate. The economic effects of the pandemic and support for Ukraine are major factors.

    I am coming to the conclusion that humanity is becoming a victim of its own success. Firstly, we have become so efficient that it is no longer possible to provide jobs for everybody and going backwards to create jobs is not attractive. Secondly, our knowledge is so extensive and advanced that we can only understand a fraction of it and this in turn makes it difficult to bring meaning to our lives. Thirdly, there has always been a division between controlling elites and the masses and now technology is being used to control and it is less obvious that it is taking place. The increased living standards in the 20th century could just be a blip that is about to vanish.

  • Roy Hartwell

    If you haven’t already seen it, pop over to The Daily Sceptic site where they have a very good article exploring a scientific paper published two years ago by two American scientists, Princeton Emeritus Professor William Happer and the Canadian physicist Professor William van Wijngaarden, which explores the role of ‘greenhouse gases’.A quick review seems to conform that any increase in CO2 levels above the current 400ppm will have little if any effect on temperatures as the CO2 is already saturated insofar as absorbing IR radiation is concerned!! This publication has clearly been ignored by ‘climate scientists’ and politicians and the article hints as to why!!

  • A Thorpe

    I have just watched Jacob Rees-Mogg, Monday 27 March on GBNews. If you didn’t see it I recommend finding it. He had a young girl from Just Stop Oil, Teressa Dunlop and a lawyer all firmly convinced that we have a climate crisis. Listening to this I’m not convinced the fight back is starting. JRM stated quite clearly that there was a case for reducing carbon dioxide emissions. Not one of them understands the science and it never enters the discussion these days. The GWPF recently issued a report on wind turbines by Wade Allison, an Oxford Professor of physics. It explained the problem of intermittent wind very well but this is nothing new. Has this professor just worked out what many of us know, and millers in the past understood. The IPCC released a statement recently saying there are only moments left to do something about the climate crisis. I don’t know whether Andrew Neil was joking but he said steam trains are coming back because they run on hydrogen. Tony Heller released a video – Artificial Stupidity which deals with this nonsense.

Leave a Reply

You can use these HTML tags

<a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <s> <strike> <strong>