David Craig, on June 21st, 2024Friday-weekend blog
More ‘record heat’ lies
I have an article on The Daily Sceptic today about how the Met Office and BBC fool us with their ‘hottest ever’ lies.
dailysceptic.org/2024/06/20/how-the-met-office-and-bbc-try-to-fool-us-all/
In my article, I predict that, as June in the UK has been miserable weatherwise, the Met Office and BBC will find somewhere with some decent weather and use that as proof of human-caused global boiling. Sure enough, yesterday there were long reports on the BBC about supposedly ‘extreme hot weather’ in Delhi and New Mexico. I haven’t looked at the New Mexico situation. But if we look at Delhi, here’s the population growth for Delhi:
(Apologies that there are no dates on the chart. But if I wanted that I’d have to pay �159 a month)
Just in the last 12 years, Delhi’s population has shot up from 17 million to around 35 million. A lot more people means a lot more traffic, a lot more houses, a lot more buildings with airconditioning blasting out hot air. So with the Urban Heat Island effect, of course cities like Delhi are getting hotter. But, while bleating about the heat, the BBC will never mention inconvenient facts like the massive increase in Delhi’s population.
A disaster from our supremely stupid court
There’s an important article on The Daily Sceptic – Landmark Supreme Court Net Zero Ruling Threatens Entire U.K. Oil and Gas Industry
dailysceptic.org/2024/06/20/landmark-supreme-court-net-zero-ruling-threatens-entire-u-k-oil-and-gas-industry/
Apparently some idiotic judges have decided that emissions from burning fossil fuels must be considered�when approving new oil and gas drilling sites. This is complete madness for at least four reasons:
- It doesn’t consider that preventing oil extraction in the UK will lead to increased oil and gas imports which will produce even more CO2 due to the transport emissions
- It sets a legal precedent that any fossil fuel development of any kind can be blocked by legal action claiming that such development will increase CO2 emissions which prevent the country reaching its legally-imposed Net Zero targets
- CO2 is plant food, more CO2 means improved crop yields and an ideal level of CO2 would be around 1,000 parts per million (up from today’s 413 parts per million)
- There is no climate crisis, CO2 doesn’t affect the Earth’s temperature and Net Zero is economic suicide
But let’s take the Supreme Court ruling to its logical conclusion. Any company wanting to build a factory or warehouse or whatever could find itself facing years of legal action from eco-crazies claiming that such a development might lead to an increase in CO2 emissions. What company is going to bother investing in the UK when any investment risks being challenged in the courts by well-funded eco-nutters?
Or we could even go further. Maybe you could take legal action against any pregnant woman (or man?) on the basis that them having a child will increase the UK’s CO2 emissions?
Or to go one step further, is this clown of a judge saying that the Industrial Revolution is illegal because it may have led to increased CO2 emissions and therefore never should have been allowed to happen?
Our once great country has gone mad and we deserve our imminent impoverishment and bankruptcy.
Category: 
I had a quick look at your Daily Sceptic article but I don’t need to read it. I know there is no Climate Crisis. I was wondering what people who belief in the crisis will make of it and I think the highest scored comment from “varmint” gives a good explanation. But I admire you for continuing to challenge the met office interpretations.
What concerns me is that the science has been forgotten. It was the science of a real greenhouse that started all this. The claimed science of heating a greenhouse was wrong and it was then transferred to apply to the climate. A greenhouse is not heated by trapped radiation. It is warmer than the outside because the air is trapped if all the windows and doors are closed. Prof RW Wood carried out experiments with model greenhouses in 1909 to prove that it was not trapped radiation. Prof Nahle repeated and verified the work in 2011. John Tyndall in 1861 added to the confusion with his experiments with gases in a tube because he assumed that radiation that entered the tube at one end was trapped if it did not appear at the other. He took no account of radiation being returned down the tube or heating the sides of the tube. These experiments were done before there was a good understanding of radiation but it is astonishing that they are the basis of the climate crisis science. The genuine scientists have been silenced by the politicisation of science and science education in schools has also been corrupted.
Some years ago I had a disagreement with two of my ex-work colleagues, both highly qualified electrical engineers, and one with a PhD. The both believed that radiation transferred thermal energy in any direction, so cold bodies transferred thermal energy to a hot body. They refuse to do any research to discover that this is not correct. What chance is there correcting the false science when such people will not do the research to confirm their views are not correct.
You mention the Supreme Court and what I believe has happened is that the government has created UK regulatory bodies, but there are also many international agencies, which have replaced laws with rules that have to be interpreted by courts. Essentially, science has been made illegal where is does not support political and social views.
This is the crazy world we live in and we can see it on display on TV with all the election debates and discussions.