June 2024

Net Zero fair game? But Climate Change off limits?

Wednesday/Thursday blog

Is Net Zero fair game?

There seem to be an increasing number of newspaper articles attacking the cost and practicality of Britain’s ‘Net Zero’ policies.

  • In the Sunday Times, Dominic Lawson exposed the idiocy of the way the UK’s CO2 emissions were calculated. If the UK produces oil and gas from the North Sea, these count as UK CO2 emissions. But if the UK buys oil and gas from Qatar or Saudi Arabia or wherever and ships it to the UK using dirty diesel-using ships, this counts as CO2 emissions from the countries selling us the oil and gas. So, closing down our oil and gas industries helps the UK government become ‘a green energy superpower’ and ‘win the race to Net Zero’ even though this will destroy 50,000 to 100,000 UK jobs and lose billions in tax revenues. And given that Sir Kneeler Keir ‘Just Stop Oil’ Starmer’s Labour party is run by middle-class North London virtue-signalling activists, rather than the workers its was supposed to represent, It’s likely that the next Labour government will wreck our economy so they can boast of their green energy ‘triumphs’. The world truly has gone mad
  • There were two articles in Monday’s Daily Telegraph. One from Ross Clark exposing the lunacy of trying to replace cheap efficient gas boilers with ludicrously expensive and largely useless heat pumps. And there was one by Andrew Orlowski titled ‘Green zealots want to downgrade Britain in pursuit of ideology’ in which he criticises the vast amount of British taxpayers’ money which will be wasted trying to find supposedly ‘green technologies’ to replace cheap, efficient and reliable coal, oil and gas
  • I had an article in The Daily Sceptic, based on one of my blogs, in which I show that the price a country pays for its energy is directly linked to the source of that energy. The more coal, oil and gas a country uses, the cheaper its energy. The more wind and solar a country uses, the more expensive its energy. The title of the piece is ‘Sir Keir Starmer’s Plans to Turn Britain into a ‘Green Energy Superpower’ will Bankrupt Households and Cripple the Economy’. You might find it amusing to look at the readers’ comments on my article:
  • The Daily Mail published an opinion piece titled ‘Starmer’s dangerous dash to net zero:
Is Climate Change off limits?

What we’re not getting, in spite of the increasing number or articles questioning the wisdom of the rush to Net Zero, are any articles daring to suggest that the whole idea of anthropogenic Climate Change is a load of nonsense.

Last year, I started making a 30-second TV ad to promote my book THERE IS NO CLIMATE CRISIS on GB News. But the company which vets TV ads for several TV stations rejected my ad claiming it breached Advertising Standards Authority rules by ‘spreading disinformation’.

I have recently watched a little Talk TV while in my gym and suspect that Julia Hartley-Brewer and Mike Graham know that anthropogenic Climate Change is nonsense. Possibly some of the presenters on GB News also think this. But I also suspect that none of them dares say this as they’re terrified of Ofcom doing a ‘Mark Steyn’ on them – fining the station for supposedly spreading disinformation.

In my book THERE IS NO CLIMATE CRISIS I quoted an announcement from the U.S. magazine Scientific American in April 2021:

This is complete madness. Scientific American, and the ‘major news outlets’ the announcement mentions, should be focused on examining existing scientific theories and suggesting new ones. But instead they have all become propagandists for one single narrative – that we have a ‘Climate Emergency’ because evil humans are destroying the planet with our CO2 emissions.

It’s this propagandising and decision that there is only one acceptable narrative about climate which mean we never get any articles or media figures daring to suggest that the whole anthropogenic Climate Change cult is utter garbage with absolutely no scientific basis.

6 comments to Net Zero fair game? But Climate Change off limits?

  • Paul Chambers

    Spot on climate change is beyond scrutiny as its so useful for those who want to usher in global communism. The age old adage of building heaven on earth with (a few wealthy) folk playing god.

    Climate science is mostly a science of theories that are incredibly difficult to test empirically. We are talking about a very small amount of warming which is very hard to measure and making big assumptions about forcings and feedbacks. We don’t understand clouds role in all this.

    And so we’re building models using our own assumptions and tuning them to fit the climate record. But I don’t believe these simulations can usefully measure the costs and benefits of something so complex. All they do is confirm already-held assumptions and impress the unsophisticated.

  • A Thorpe

    You are correct. Nothing will change until the science is understood. The climate always changes but now in addition the change has turned into alarmism and short timescales to act.

    We discussed the views of the GBNews presenters a few days ago. Last night Michael Crick said he though Moggy did not support global warming and the Mogg remained silent. But later he discussed the importance of the freedom of the press in relation to other issues. He failed to see that there is no point in a free press if they don’t get their facts right and the same applies to all media. There is a fundamental issue here which I have raised before and that is if there is a debate between “scientists” presenting opposing views, how can people decide who is right if they don’t have a scientific background? The search for truth seems to be replaced by a search for the majority opinion. You and many others focus on empirical evidence which is much easier to understand and people will not accept that either. Tony Heller had a video a few days ago talking about Obama’s views claiming his policies were already lowering sea levels. Why doesn’t the MSM follow up on what both of you have done? The media might be at fault but perhaps the bigger problem is that we can’t rely on universities to provide debate and the truth, and the schools seem to be teaching propaganda to children.

    I spotted a YouTube video yesterday, “How clever of the climate to know exactly the boundary between private and federal” discussing forrest fires.

    We have also discussed that money is another driver and when there is a lot to be made from government subsidies, the truth and the effect on civilisation does not seem to matter. I am watching a documentary about home movies from the war and one was of a group of Jews in hiding. They were betrayed because the Nazis were paying £46, a lot of money at that time. Politicians will also do and say anything if they think it will get them elected by people who also expect short term gains from it.

  • Carolyn

    I am not a “climate change denier”. NOBODY is a climate change denier, we all know that the climate has always changed and always will. Driven by forces well beyond man’s ability to control it. The sheer hubris of imagining that we can is unbelievable as is the gullibility of the public.

    Never mind teaching maths to age 18, some basic science wouldn’t got amiss instead of the indoctrination that goes on in schools nowadays. It’s a wonder they have any time left for actual education after all the brainwashing “lessons”.


    Starmer when (if ) he becomes PM has stated he will block all future none oil and gas extraction from the North Sea?
    He claims that renewables is alone the way of the future.


  • Stillreading

    Sir Kneel and his crew will constitute the final nail in the coffin of the UK’s economy. Nothing new there though; Labour always trash the economy and this time things are already so bad that maybe only via total financial catastrophe will recovery occur. It’s clear the current lot don’t know what to do about any of the problems facing us. They can’t – or rather, won’t because they don’t want to – stop the boats, net zero is utter rubbish and unachievable other than by imposing poverty, deprivation of basic amenities, and actual death from cold upon the weakest and most vulnerable of the population. There comes a time when you can’t paper over the cracks or prop up the crumbling edifice any longer. The only remedy is to knock the lot down and start again – NHS, Education, Policing, Government national and local, the Civil Service which now seems totally unfit for purpose. We hear daily of ever more restrictions on where, in what and how we can drive and are told to use public transport while rail strikes are widespread and when the service is operating it costs more to go to Scotland by train than it does to fly. ULEZ set to impoverish thousands of small businesses within the M25 as well as making life all but impossible for hard up families who will be forced either to upgrade to newer vehicles, costing £thousands they don’t have, or to pay £12.50 every day they use the car to take the kids to two or three widely dispersed schools and themselves to work. Apparently throughout Wales w.e.f. 1st September a 20 mph speed limit is to be imposed in ALL built up areas – towns, villages, hamlets, with thousands of speed cameras to enforce – aka photograph and fine. Well, that’s one place I’ve never visited, have always intended to (land of my grandfather!) and now never shall! Hope it hits your tourist industry hard Drakeford! What planet do these idiots like him and Sadist Khan live on? So yes. Let Sir Kneel do his worst. Let him take the REAL stick when the entire population is on its knees, cold and dark truly do start to bite and we decent, normally pacific, non-woke majority decide we’ve had enough and take action to make our opinions felt.

  • Eric Legge

    Of the Tarantulas

    This piece from a profound book of philosophy written in the 1880s and read by Jordan Peterson, says it all. There are analyses on it on the web. The psychologist, Carl Jung, held a seminar on the book and wrote a two-volume analysis of it.

    ChatGPT: Jung’s seminar on Nietzsche’s “Thus Spoke Zarathustra” has been published as an abridged edition by Princeton University Press. The original two-volume edition of Jung’s seminar on Nietzsche’s “Zarathustra” has been an important source for specialists in depth psychology . For Jung, “Zarathustra” was an invaluable demonstration of the unconscious at work, one that illuminated both Nietzsche’s psychology and spirituality and that of the modern world in general .

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>