Lifestyles and Diets Must Change, Says Latest IPCC Report of Climate Doom – But Where Are the Scientists?
Even the Fonz only got to jump the shark once. But every day is a happy day for the IPCC, seemingly intent on plumbing new depths of climate alarmist gimmickry with every passing report. Its ‘now or never’ latest offering comes in a long line of sci-fi fantasy episodes, guaranteed to run for many more seasons.
The Guardian reports that scientists have said it is a final climate warning for governments. According to the BBC, scientists say carbon dioxide must peak within three years, and even then we must invent machines to suck the gas out of the atmosphere. The IPCC says diets and lifestyles must change. Having the right policies in place will enable the changes in our lifestyles and behaviours to take place, co-chair of the latest report Priyadarshi Shukla told the BBC.
Mr. Shukla was an interesting choice to co-chair the report. Until August 2017, he was Professor at the Indian Institute of Management, specialising in energy and environment modelling. Amongst his published work is a contribution to Fair Weather? Equity concerns in climate change.
Sucking CO2 out of the atmosphere is typical fantastical IPCC. The technology is expensive, largely untried and uses huge amounts of energy. Maybe, with the face mask fetish still going strong in many parts of the world, humans could be persuaded to wear some kind of attached breathing receptacle to trap the three billion tonnes of CO2 they emit each year. Two figures always missing from IPCC reports are what temperature and CO2 level they consider most suitable for the Earth’s atmosphere.
At the heart of IPCC catastrophising is the prediction of a large rise in the global temperature. The BBC sums it up well: “First, the bad news – even if all the policies to cut carbon that governments had put in place by the end of 2020 were fully implemented, the world would still warm by 3.2°C this century.”
This improbable temperature leap arises from the notion that a doubling of CO2 in the atmosphere will lead to a 6°C warming. There is no credible scientific proof for this guess, but it accounts for years of inaccurate ‘Garbage In, Gospel Out’ climate model forecasts. The detachment of forecasts from reality is clearly shown by the Remote Sensing Systems graph below.
The thick green line shows the actual global satellite temperature as measured at the University of Alabama. The forecasts started to soar upwards about 20 years ago, at a time when the science was declared ‘settled’, and green activists took complete control of the climate change agenda. As we have seen in previous articles, and is confirmed in the graph, global warming started to run out of steam a couple of decades ago, and has been at a standstill for the last 90 months. The suggestion that the green line will suddenly shoot up vertically is an invention of these activists. In order to accommodate the predicted now less-than-80-year rise, the graph would have to double in height.
Why is this IPCC stuff – deeply flawed at best, political propaganda in reality – being continuously produced? As we did with the last IPCC report, let’s look at the people who write it and see if we can spot any actual scientists. By scientists I mean physicists and chemists, people who analyse empirical data and spend their lives trying to prove and disprove scientific hypotheses. One of which, of course, is the still unproven hypothesis that humans cause all or most global warming.
This exacting definition of scientist must necessarily not include those who sign up to notions of post-normal science, where an extended community adds local knowledge and value judgements. As before, we will select a small representative group. There are 239 listed authors including 20 British contributors. We will look at the areas of expertise of the first 10 in that latter group.
Michael Grubb is Professor of Energy and Climate Change at UCL. At masters level he is said to teach a course on the economics and political economy of energy and climate mitigation policy. The home page of Professor Chukwumerije Okereke notes that he is “globally recognised leading scholar” on matters including climate governance and international development, with expertise in climate justice and busines climate strategies. Jason Lowe is Head of Climate Services at the Met Office. Robert Matthews leads the Forest Mensuration Modelling and Forecasting Science Group at Forest Research. Julia Steinberger is Professor of Societal Challenges of Climate Change at the University of Lausanne. Patrick Devine-Wright is a Professor of Human Geography at Exeter University. According to his home page he has been ranked in the world’s top 1% of social science by citation in 2019, 2020 and 2021. Frank Geels is Professor of Systems Innovation at Manchester University. Yacob Mulugetta is Professor of Energy and Development Policy at UCL. Nicholas Eyre is Professor of Energy and Climate Policy at Oxford University. On his LinkedIn page, Smail Khennas is described as a “senior energy expert Energy and Climate Change”.
All these people are no doubt expert in their fields. But it is surely reasonable to ask, where, in what is billed as a scientific report written by scientists, are the scientists?
Chris Morrison is the Daily Sceptic’s Environment Editor
To join in with the discussion please make a donation to The Daily Sceptic.
Profanity and abuse will be removed and may lead to a permanent ban.
Machines to suck CO2 out of the atmosphere?!?!? It’s called a tree, you morons.
Don’t forget seaweed and similar probably absorb more than trees.
Yeah, fair enough, but basically plants, and trees are more obvious to most. My memorable lesson was that apparently each of us needs 4 decent sized trees to produce oxygen for us. Got that figure from several decades ago, so probably needs checking. We’ve destroyed a lot of forests over the last century, and got a lot more people.
Forests have actually recovered somewhat in the last century since we stopped felling trees to keep warm, build ships etc.
Nonsense – the natural forests of the world are being chopped and burned to destruction as we write!
I think he means in this country.
It’s a fact with regards to the UK and some other countries including the US. England’s forest’s and woods had dwindled to just 5.2% by 1905. Since then a steady programme of afforestation has increased England’s forest cover back to 13% not far off the levels of 1000 years ago.
The earth is essentially a sealed system, no gases escape the atmosphere and no gases enter it.
The amount of Oxygen on the planet is the same as it was in the past, and will be the same in the future.
I understand ever person on earth could fit into the state of Texas. All the vegetation on earth couldn’t.
Nothing to worry about.
Not strictly true, oxygen concentration has fluctuated in the past, if memory serves it has reached 30% in the past. Carbon dioxide concentration has been significantly higher in the past as well, which is another fact that is overlooked. You are right the whole human population can fit in the state of Texas (at 262000 square miles is larger than France with a population density of approximately 26000 people per square mile).
Atmospheric CO2 has also been terrifyingly lower in the past, falling to around 180ppm during the last ice age. C3 vegetation (95% of all vegetation) dies at 150ppm.
“Reached” (or declined to) 30% of what?
Sorry, I don’t understand.
Currently oxygen is around 21% of the atmosphere, nitrogen 78%, argon and other trace gases the remainder. In the past oxygen concentration has reached around 30%.
But the atmosphere is not a sealed system … there are massive gains and losses of gas into and out of the crust. it really isn’t sealed at all in any meaningful sense.
Contrary to popular belief the Amazon rainforest are not the lungs of the planet, but the sea is due to the amount of seaweed and other photosynthesising organisms.
Yes, and the Oceans and Seas only absorb around a third of their capacity. Tell that to a Climate Extremist though and they have an apoplectic fit. I find it rather amusing baiting them to be honest because I know more than they do – I do research, and they read the BBC.
apparently if we just scattered “rust” behind most ships as they sailed it would boost sea plant growth.
And potentially trigger the next ice-age. We are already a couple of thousand years overdue for the next ice-age. The only thing that may stop it tipping, is rising CO2 … and the idiots want to reduce it?
Not exactly difficult.
We haven’t destroyed anything in the UK in recent generations. Instead the low point of woodland occurred just before the use of coal (because wood was being used to heat homes), and it was coal that allowed our woodlands to grow back to what we have today. Of course, now the environ-mentalists are having their say, woodland is being cut down, either because it doesn’t fit their ornamental view of “nature” or to grow bio-fuels to replace the coal that saved our woods.
I think an acre of many crops will annually absorb more CO2 than an acre of mature forest. I’m all for forests but if the desire is to absorb CO2 it doesn’t much matter what plant you choose they all do it pretty well.
You may be correct, but I’d think that an acre of mature trees would offer more surface area than an acre of metre-high crops. Unless the crops are greedier per square metre of absorbent area?
My understanding is that mature trees and woodlands are a good store of carbon but absorb relatively little. Young trees and fast growing plants absorb more.
If you want to store Carbon … through your plastic waste into ground fill.
We don’t want to store carbon. Do that, nothing grows. There’s not too much carbon dioxide in the atmosphere but too little.
Depends what the crop is. Grain crops require less CO2 than leafy crops. Very roughly speaking.
There is just the little matter of wildlife habitat to consider.
You have to wonder if such machines could have a detrimental impact on trees and other wildlife…
Think about it.
Being that atmospheric CO2 is 0.04% of the atmosphere, how much air would have to be filtered to extract a single molecule of CO2?
Answer: 99.96% to isolate a single molecule (a clumsy illustration but I hope you get my point).
The energy required is mainly for shifting huge volumes of air rather than extracting CO2.
The energy input for that is massive, and largely wasted as all it’s doing is moving air.
The energy input, from whatever source other than perhaps nuclear, has a CO2 output and being that you get nothing for nothing, the resultant losses (heat, light, expended gasses etc.) from burning any fuel produces more CO2 than it extracts from the air.
So yes, there may be an effect, but in terms of CO2, more will be produced than extracted which will benefit plants.
Good observation. An uncomfortable truth that won’t be acknowledged.
Trees power themselves however
And has been happening since 1930 – vegetated areas have expanded, and margins of deserts greened to an extent twice the area of the continental USA. It seems ‘the Planet’ quite likes more atmospheric CO2.
That area of continental USA vegetation growth has been over 35 years of satellite observations according to NASA. Since the mid 1970’s when they were first launched.
Ah, but someone will get obscenely rich being commissioned to build said machines. Trees don’t have patent protection so not that profitable.
or perhaps the first sentence should read: someone already obscenely rich will become even richer…
“patent” is about rent-seeking i.e. a zero sum whereby one party gains from artificial government mandated shortage and the others (us) loses.
Precisely. So it would help if man, the species, stopped cutting down the bloody things. Stop deforesting the Amazon.
Yes and the greedy Corporates. conveniently for themselves preaching Zero Carbon continue to finance the to cutting down and burning ( CO2 release) of the world’s last natural forests to the ground! “Oh the hypocrisy”!
The trees which Drax burns at a rate of 25 million per year, having cut them down, ground them into pellets, heated them to dry them out and shipped them half way round the World – for which it gets around a million GBP in “Carbon Credits”,you mean?
Even if you think rising CO2 is the problem (debatable!), here in the UK we have done our fair share and our emissions have fallen without having a major impact – although we are now turning that corner.
The fact that the IPCC only pushes this on western nations and does not call out the big polluters who are still increasing their fossil fuel use and plan to do so for at least two decades, that tells you everything you need to know.
The question that occurred to me was: having ‘sucked’ all this CO2 out of the atmosphere, what is then done with it? Perhaps inject it into trees?
Stored in old Oil wells is one proposal.
The problem is that these people think they can break the laws of thermodynamics. You cannot create mass/energy or destroy mass/energy, it has to take more energy/mass to create a machine than the machine can produce. Entropy must increase somewhere even if locally it decreases. No energy producing system is 100% efficient.
Clearly the authors have never passed an A level physics course never mind anything more advanced.
The anti-meat brigade must scarcely believe their luck. Having been comprehensively found out on their claim that they don’t kill any animals as part of their diet (wheat farmers like me have been gently pointing out the nonsense of this claim for a few years now), they have seamlessly moved their screeching rhetoric over to ‘clmate change’. Suddenly, everyone – including the NFU, ffs – is agreeing that livestock is ‘bad’. I look at our meadow with a couple of dozen beef cattle munching their way from end to end, and shake my head in disbelief.
A big steak tonight is my choice and I will carry on doing so and enjoying my form of protest😉
I too prefer this delicious form of subversion. Add a fried egg and you can trigger any number of irrational responses from the brainwashed 🤠
Steak, fried egg, chips and a fried tomato is our favourite. Some of my work colleagues were visibly shaken in our virtual coffee break when I mentioned I had ditched sunflower oil in favour of lard.
I too use lard, along with goose fat and a few other seemingly shocking choices.
I love telling people one of my go to dinners when I can’t be bothered with hassle is an omelette with cheese and bacon cooked in lard. Usually with a salad.
You can imagine the looks.
What’s lard made up of? My Gran used it in spades and her food was the best I’ve ever tasted. Grandad was a butcher by trade and a lot of what we ate came straight from their garden that day. Wood fire in the living room with the butter sitting beside to make it spreadable, suet pudding, steak and kidney pie, oh my, yorkies the size of a dinner plate with gravy as a starter. I miss those days.
She didn’t even have a fridge, just a pantry.
Lard is pig fat.
and dripping beef fat. This boomer’s Mum always had both, and bread and dripping was a family favourite. Seed oils are highly inflammatory and not what your gut needs.
And you survived! Amazing! 🙂
Yorkies with blood from the joint poured in. And yes, my Lancy Gran’s Steak & Kidney Pie was to die for. Suet Pudding – bliss, indeed our local did a steamed suet game pie a couple of years back, exquisite.
My grandparents were similar – they either grew it or raised it – my gran was over 100 when she died. Says it all
Much healthier than a sugar laden vegan/vegetarian choices. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dBnniua6-oM
Us too, and the only veg I eat are grilled toms and fried mushrooms with my full English, which is local bacon, local sausages and the best black pudding you will ever eat – as long as you live near Wincanton 🙂
https://www.kimbersfarmshop.co.uk/
Meat is Murder!
Cumbrian black pudding is far better, there’s less fat and more blood
French with no mealy filler but plenty of onion in it is the best of all – it melts in the mouth!
Actually the best black puddings come from Bury.
Thank you.
Goose fat! A miracle product from the beginning of civilised time.
Have dumb towny vegans ever even heard of a “Goose” ?
Beef dripping is even better for chips.
I rather like it on toast.
One of the chip shops here uses it, and that usually brings on a load of unfavourable Tripadvisor comments from the metropolitan set that inflict themselves on us from time to time.
The only thing to cook chips in.
Ditto re lard. Actually lard, goose fat, beef dripping, butter all enhance the flavour of the foods being cooked.
We have been watching some Rick Stein repeats lately and in his later programmes he is using much more lard and praising the flavour.
Let’s be honest, we have been using animal fats for thousands of years. Seed oils are a very modern introduction.
I believe the addition of a glass of good red wine gives one superlative health for ever. The research that says red wine is good for you ought never to be challenged by anybody, anywhere. That’s where the science should be settled.
Now if someone would produce similar findings for champagne, I’m set.
Well said Alter Ego.
Best move you could ever have made – polyunsaturated oils like sunflower do untold damage to the human body – but you’d have a hard job trying to persuade an NHS dietician of that fact.
Lard and olive oil are good for you – seed oils are not
I’ve not eaten meat for decades, but I’ve always held that what other people eat is their own business. Strangely, though, I’ve had lots of out-of-shape folk tell me how much healthier I’d be if only I ate like them, so the preaching cuts both ways.
Indeed. I’m not one for advocating diets. I do draw the line at being lectured by people convinced they’ve found the perfect diet. To each their own.
I was thinking of trying the Naked and Afraid diet which is guaranteed to lose at least 10kg, but I’m not sure I can take the mosquitoes.
MOH lost 25lbs on the Omicron Covid diet. Not something I’d recommend…
And I respect your choice. But promise me you never think/claim that your diet is free from animal death. Otherwise I’ll be forced to invite you into my tractor for a bit, where I will demonstrate that more animals die in a beef sandwich’s bread than die in the meat! And you’ll have to listen to my Napalm Death CD.
Genuine question here, can you explain the mechanics of that to me? About animals being killed in the process of wheat farming I mean. I’m guessing small animals killed during the sowing/harvesting process?
It’d be my pleasure, Jo. First: seedbed preparation. (Moving the soil, and everything in it, to create a tilth and sow the seed. Deaths would include mice, rats, worms, rabbits, hares – I once ploughed in a seagull.) Second: crop protection. (Deaths include slugs and snails (from molluscicides – horrible deaths, too), crop pests such as aphids and beetles. Orange Blossom Midges have to be killed of in their millions if milling quality is to be preserved. One of my favourite ironies is that if we kill enough bruchid beetles in our pulses, they’ll be of good enough quality to feed humans, many of whom are eating pulses as part of a vegan diet…) The there’s the harvesting, when everything living in the standing crop goes through the combine – watch the spiders’ webs get destroyed in a ripe wheat crop. I’ve cut a hare clean through the spine with my combine – hideous. I had to jump out and finish it off with a hammer. Then there’s crop storage – all those in-store bugs and beetles have to be killed to keep crop quality, and the rats that inevitably live round grain stores have to be controlled. When you’ve… Read more »
Thanks for the reply, seems obvious once explained, I’d just never thought of it before. I feel a steak dinner coming on later 🙂
Oh, Farmer Charlie. What a graphic description. Maybe I’ll eat nothing and be happy after all 🙂
Your information makes a great addition to the knowledge BTL here!
Wholeheartedly agree.
Excellent explanation. Thanks.
I love the pot bellies Vegans all end up with, and their pasty faces. Unlike us skinny blooming Carnivores. You won’t see an overweight carnivore.
You will in my house. 😁
Nomnomnomburp.
Pardon you.
Indeed. A few years ago the obvious absurdity of this would have given me reassurance that, outside of a few fringe cranks, no one would ultimately fall for it.
Now, after watching people alone in cars wearing paper masks, I’m not so sure. Recently a friend I’ve known for decades told me he’d become vegetarian. A little probing soon revealed a mishmash of environmental damage, animal cruelty and existential angst. My occasional laughter didn’t help my case. Nor did the breakfast I’d ordered (black pudding and poached eggs). He is a heavy social media user. That is probably the reason.
What the vegans and climate change zealots fail to point out is… what happens to all the livestock if we all adopt a vegan diet? I’m presuming farmers will no longer want to look after them out of the goodness of their hearts. So they’ll all be slaughtered (a vegans nightmare) or left to run wild through the British countryside.
I pointed this out to a vegan and they didn’t think it was important. They didn’t care that meat animals would be slaughtered en masse and largely cease to exist. I was surprised because I really thought they would go the fluffy bunny route and have retirement farms for out of work cows etc.
Bunnies and squirrels- much under used proteins. Delish.
Some animals will be looked after in order to feed the “elites.”
Billy’s favourite food is apparently a cheeseburger and I am not aware that he has ever claimed they are made of insect protein and vegan cheese.
explains how he looks in his photographs then….
As much to the point, animal waste fertiliser. Without that, what does the soil get fertilized with.
Where do they obtain their essential amino acids, i.e. the ones that can only be obtained from food, not manufactured in the body, and specifically from meat?
Everybody now seems to be promoting an anti civilizational death cult. Bozo the quack quack clown’s own “gullible” father promotes XR. The relentless barefaced lying and propaganda about every important subject is from the top down.
I’m interested in the psychology of this. At its simplest it is a consequence of affluence. No one in Africa is agonizing over climate and its related fetishes.
It may simply be a product of leisure time. The devil makes work for idle hands.
Perhaps not everyone having access to the Internet via a smart phone all day and every day has something to do with it.
60 years ago you had to book an international telephone call, today you can call and text anyone anywhere. so, yes gossip spreads like wildfire. But 60 years ago, the standard way of travelling was still by boat and so a virus in China would have taken months, not days to get to the UK.
Personally, I don’t believe mankind evolved to flourish on a ‘balanced’ diet. Throughout history mankind has largely been a nomadic race until agriculture was established. Tribes would have followed the food, largely surviving on foraging for berries, birds eggs, vegetables, perhaps insects, until hunters brought a catch in. The village would likely have gorged on the meat until it was finished, eschewing the idea of mixing vegetables and bugs with it for a ‘balanced’ diet. Until the next hunt was brought in they would have returned to foraging. If the hunt was bad they would have been forced to supplement their meagre meat rations with foraged produce. More recent history when agriculture was established was a more settled existence. Crop production was more efficient and thereby perceptibly cheaper and animals were expensive to maintain, reflected at the point of purchase. Meat was the favoured food, but only when it could be afforded, probably in small amounts, supplemented by cheap potatoes, grains etc. My point being, mankind largely divided his diet between meat OR vegetables where possible. Meat AND vegetables only when absolutely necessary. It is, however, merely a very general hypothesis (coastal, fish reliant communities may have been very different)… Read more »
Fair points but your summary rather makes the case for a balanced diet. The balance came from the changes in foodstuffs made available as the seasons changed.
Evidence is also appearing indicating that populations became ‘wedded’ to the foods available where they lived. The Innuit have a predominantly fish diet but it is what they survive best on. Ditto Mediterranean diet.
If mankind evolved eating a largely divided diet for 10,000 years then switched to a balanced diet for the last 1,000 I’m inclined to think the benefits of the earlier diet are still dominant.
Bread and potatoes are starchy, protein poor foods but they produce almost instant energy being that they are easy for the body to break down. You can eat a lot of starchy foods without getting fat.
The problem is when you combine them with protein rich foods like meat. It’s slow to break down so the body fulfils its instant energy craving from easy to convert starches and stores the protein as fat.
Eat protein on its own and the body is forced to use that for energy rather than storing it.
Grass-fed cows are not bad – they are good for us – slow beef- and the environment!
If they give a toss about the environment, they’d stop mass immigration, therefore lifting the need to continuously build huge new housing estates on once beautiful green land.
Trees suck CO2 better than anything, but they’re being ripped down to make way for houses.
Unfortunately they don’t really give a toss about the environment. It’s all about changing our lives and controlling us.
Now now, we can’t have this kind of dangerous common sense. You’re meant to skim the climate alarmism to remain alarmed. It is verboten to apply their logic to their other ruinous policies and draw dangerous conclusions.
Immigration is about fracturing the nation state. Nothing more. Parallel societies disintegrate. Much easier to control.
And when was the last time anyone heard of Extinction Rebellion blocking the roads to Persimmon/Belway builders?
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-6927195/The-faces-Extinction-Rebellion-climate-change-chaos.html
Hallam, the organic farmer who couldn’t farm, so went bust and blamed everyone else for his failures.
I thought immigration was about people trying to improve their situation and their lives.
It no doubt is for the immigrants. Less so for the recipients of their cultural uplift.
“cultural uplift”
“That’s a cracker” as Frank Carson would have said. I will probably nick that so tip o’ the hat.
Free meat arriving on the southern shores every day!
“Despite initially being appalled by the cannibalism, public opinion in Falmouth started to change”
https://www.cornwalllive.com/news/history/ships-crew-admitted-cornwall-eating-4507904
Are we talking legal or illegal immigration here? After all, much of Europe has emigrated to, and colonised, innumerable places on earth.
Laughably, we celebrate people like Michelle Roux yet vilify ‘immigration’ in the mistaken perception that most are coming across the Channel in RIBS.
All immigration, legal or otherwise. Specifically, immigration from countries where they can barely build roads and are bringing absolutely zero value to us.
As for the argument we colonized the world etc. I didn’t, and nor did you. A country without borders isn’t a country and ours seem more porous than ever. It can’t end well.
Yes, I did.
Yes I did.
Blimey .
What else can I say in response to that?
My folks emigrated to Hong Kong following WW2 and helped rebuild the Colony following Japanese occupation.
Strictly speaking we weren’t the first colonist’s on the island, but amongst the first white Europeans since the war.
How old are you, you Colonialist b’stard? 😉
Yours is an historical perspective. Vax is taking a current day view and is I believe more pertinent.
Thousands of third world immigrants to this country bringing no education and little in skills and no connection to our way of life cannot have ANY benefits to the indigenous population, indeed can only be disruptive.
Which of course is the intention.
It still doesn’t answer my question. Are we talking legal or illegal immigrants.
As for bringing no education, my recent experience of the NHS was with a Greek consultant, Iranian Junior Doctor, several other foreign doctors and numerous nurses from overseas including two delightfully kind and caring (more so than most of our English nurses) ladies from the Punjab.
My wife’s university department was notably multi cultural, many people with PhD’s.
I don’t believe any of them were here illegally.
Correct, as I have oft repeated on here.
There must be something very wrong with my brain that I skim the climate alarmism and dismiss it as just that, alarmism, snigger to myself and am not one bit alarmed.
Trees are being removed for 5G. That is what was behind the wanton destruction in Sheffield and doubtless other smaller removals across the country.
Same has happened in my area. I could almost weep at the destruction.
Surely if we were in the middle of a genuine climate catastrophe you wouldn’t be doing that for that reason.
But it is surely reasonable to ask, where, in what is billed as a scientific report written by scientists, are the scientists? This is akin to reading a political manifesto during an election and asking, where are the historians to guage which of the proposed policies have been tried and to convey their success rate? Such a thing would negate the purpose of a manifesto, which is to paint a pleasing picture for the duration of the election and nothing more. There is no role for the state in the food we eat or any of our private lifestyle choices. It has to be a hard NO, not a nuanced negotiation about how much they can get away with. It is irrelevant whether they use actual scientists or anyone else. The last two years has taught us anyone can be bought. I’m beginning to suspect this kind of thing is what people mean by controlled opposition. By questioning the credentials of the authors and ignoring the absurdity of international panels of self-interested clowns dictating our lifestyle choices, we implicitly endorse the notion that someone ought to be looking at these important issues. The opposite is true. We must reject the intrusion… Read more »
Back when I did my physics degree, one component was a course on atmospheric physics. It was built around the mechanisms of heat transfer through the atmosphere, all the equations for heat gains and losses, effects of the oceans, different gases, latent heat of vapourisation etc etc. Basically energy in (sun) has to get out again, and different molecules in the air have different effects for different wavelengths of radiation. So we went in to all the various transport mechanisms to get heat up to the upper atmosphere again where it can radiate away. It is not all to do with carbon dioxide!
Trees are, however, essential and significant producers of oxygen and absorbers of carbon dioxide. All you have to do is plant more trees, but of course there is no profit or tax opportunities for vested interests there….
“All you have to do is plant more trees, but of course there is no profit or tax opportunities for vested interests there…”
Oh yes there is!
https://www.fwi.co.uk/business/markets-and-trends/land-markets/productive-farms-being-sold-to-investors-for-planting-trees
https://www.gov.uk/government/collections/tree-planting-and-woodland-creation-funding-and-advice
Post normal science is simply a means of explaining the science field – it is where: ‘facts are uncertain, values in dispute, stakes high, and decisions urgent.’ ´Funtowicz, S. O., and Ravetz, J.R. (1992) ‘Three types of risk assessment and the emergence of post-normal science,’ in Krimsky, S., and D. Golding, ed. Social theories of risk. pp. 251-274. Westport, CT: Praeger. Those who developed the idea were not necessarily climate alarmists. The problem is that bolted onto this is the precautionary principle, which says we need to err on the side of cutting CO2, driven by the use of fear. ´“As Mr Blair’s guru, Lord Giddens … laid down in this context in a speech last year, “In order to manage risk, you must scare people”.” Lawson, N (2006) An Appeal to Reason: The Economics and Politics of Climate Change, Centre for Policy Studies, 1st November 2006 – from ´Lord Giddens, Lord’s Hansard, Vol. 670, Part 45, Line 150, 1 March 2005 Nigel Lawson was critical of the Stern Review and saw the commitment as 80 to 1100 billion pounds pa – effectively unaffordable. He thought it better to spend money on mitigation strategies against severe weather in the developing… Read more »
And cushioned by the £2000+ pay rise that will offset (and more) such rises for our MPs.
You’ll eat nothing and you’ll be happy.
I think it is more along the lines of you’ll eat grasshopper burgers and live in a pod made from recycled coke bottles, and be happy of course.
If the farce of fleets of private jets arriving to the climate conference is anything to go by, WE will be eating grasshopper burgers and THEY will be gorging on real meat.
Of course. You can’t expect our great visionaries to be malnourished.
Why is this IPCC stuff – deeply flawed at best, political propaganda in reality – being continuously produced?
If you payed me 1/10th of the money going to the IPCC I would generate very similar scare stories, and I would keep on doing so until the money ran out.
I guess that, in practice, more than half the readers of this blog would do the same…
This stuff would be amusing if it weren’t so concerning.
I’m not surprised that the number of ‘experts’ grows when a subject (if such it is) becomes mainstream. Of course, they’re experts only at what they’ve learned by rote from those who went before them. I have witnessed this on many ‘courses’ I attended via work. What you’re expected to do is turn up, listen, and then regurgitate what you have just been told. Thinking and questioning, if even allowed, are limited to fine detail, not the nub of the matter.
My favourite in the list of experts has to be ‘Head of Climate Services at the Met Office’. One can only imagine what such ‘services’ might be. And to whom – or what – they might be provided. Surely, the climate does not require services?
“Two figures always missing from IPCC reports are what temperature and CO2 level they consider most suitable for the Earth’s atmosphere.”
When there is a juicy, lucrative bandwagon to jump on, you don’t need to bother asking where it is going; as long as you have the opportunity to jump off it again when you realise it is heading over a cliff. And as for those suckers who wake up to that fact far too late…well, that’s just too bad.
The man made global warming scam is brought to us by the same cabal that brought us the covid scam, the trans lunacy, the relentless mass immigration, Islam is a religion of peace and all the other deranged and peverted policies that are wrecking our lives.
Just wait for TransIslam. That’ll be fun.
That’s the most brilliant and succinct summary I’ve seen yet, absolute genius, Mr Tea…..it should be up on posters everywhere!
‘… that scientists have said it is a final climate warning for governments.’
I’ve lost count, how many ‘final’ warnings are we up to? We must be close to Peak-Final warning, becquse wecpast Peak Tipping-point a few years back.
Exactly, a good source of debunking info is Tony Heller he’s been exposing all these now expired predictions for donkey’s years. https://odysee.com/@TonyHeller:c/Early-Spring-Climate-Crisis:f
Indeed. Why aren’t we under ten feet of water lamenting the eradication of the polar bears? Explaining to children the concept of snow.
Maybe there is a new variant of “peak tipping” that has been found in the upper atmosphere; previously unknown to “scientists.”
If anyone, “expert” or not, tells me my lifestyle and diet has to change, they can jog on.
Unfortunately they don’t just tell you, they legislate.
Perhaps mankind should take a hint from a higher authority, Mother Nature.
C3 plant life, 95% of all plant life on earth, flourishes at 1,000ppm – 1,200ppm (part per million atmospheric content) of CO2.
After millions of years longer on the planet than mankind it’s logical to assume plant life knows what’s good for it.
Animals dependent on vegetation weren’t suddenly wiped off the face of the planet when CO2 rose to much higher levels in the past.
Good points, but ultimately insignificant when considering that humanity is only responsible for ~3% of CO² emissions.
I didn’t mention, or suggest mankind had anything to do with atmospheric CO2 production. It does, but it’s meaningless.
What I’m saying is that if higher CO2 concentrations are good for plant life we might take the hint that it’s not going to do us any harm.
I wasn’t disagreeing with you. I agree completely, but we shouldn’t have to even get to your argument to understand that the CO² crisis is a lie.
The people I hear expatiating about climate change are good souls who have decided that the planet is their God, and that they want to serve it by saving it from the forces of darkness – which turn out to be human beings.
None of them would have any idea of the complexity of the issues discussed here or be able to enter the argument at all.
Their beliefs are as “scientific” as the views of those who were convinced that God had made the world in six days. In fact, they’re a reverse image of that. They think that unless they are virtuous, mankind will destroy the world in six decades or less (and we’re about into the third, by their reckoning).
Telling them that there is no crisis is assaulting what they have turned into the moral justification for their existence.
Professor Ferguson who has a PhD in feckwitology tells us that we must all stop eating food in order to save the planet. ‘Very complicated models tell us that very bad things will happen unless you stop eating food’, the Professor said and, ‘No you can’t see my workings’. Professor Ferguson made it clear that his ground breaking research proves that war and disease all happen as a direct result of food.
Luckily Bill Gates has developed a food substitute made from human sewage that will now be delivered to everyone by Amazon using Tesla electric trucks.
Boris Johnson (who definitely isn’t taking bribes from Mr Gates) has declared that emergency legislation banning the sale or consumption of the dangerous substance ‘food’ has been imposed and that anyone using the new class A substance ‘food’ will be cut off from the banking system and starved to death.
Boris Johnson said that rumours that he and his staff and been seen stuffing their fat faces with copious amounts of food in the gardens at no.10 were simply untrue and that he wasn’t even aware of what food looks like.
What a blessing we have all these virtuous folk to watch over us, and keep us safe from harm. Perhaps I’m being ungrateful when I say that a lamppost is required for each and every one of them.
Yep. Let’s reduce their carbon footprint the old fashioned way 🤠
Right now, nothing would give me more pleasure. They will hang from lampposts, we will be happy.
And think of all the CO2 they will no longer expel. Everyone’s a winner.
Indeed 🙂
Love it.
Back in the good old days of March 2020, all those people hoarding loo rolls got it badly wrong. They should have been shoving bags of pasta into their under stairs cupboards!!
More people die from starvation, I have the graph
How does that fit in here?
I can’t be certain which IPCC report Morrison is referring to as the link doesn’t work. However, judging by the list of authors, it is this one, which is working group three – climate mitigation. It is not their task to assess the link between CO2 emissions and climate (working group one) or the impact of climate change (working group two) but rather to examine what can be done assuming the conclusions of the first two working groups. This is a multidisciplinary problem including fields such as economics and politics. The contribution of hard sciences is quite limited. There are plenty of hard scientists contributing to working group one (the physical science basis).
It’s not that difficult to find on the web – try Google. As to which report I am writing about, the clue is in the word “latest”.
Of course there are few actual scientists writing this report. But that doesn’t stop them being constantly described as “scientists” and the report being full of supposedly scientific “facts”. The global temperature will rise by over 3C in less than 80 years, being one ludicrous example.
We all know that if they identified themselves as lefty, state-obsessed social activists, nobody would pay a blind bit of notice.
I did Google it and find it. All I said was I can’t be absolutely certain this is the right one because there was no link to it. “Latest report from IPCC” is hardly a definitive description! Anyhow, I am glad to know that I did get the right one.
The global temperature will rise by over 3C in less than 80 years, being one ludicrous example.
I can’t find this quote in any of the three levels of the report (summary for policy makers, technical summary, or full report). Perhaps you can provide a reference? It sounds like a prediction of working group one which this group is referring to, not their own conclusion, and such predictions are usually accompanied by assumptions and given a level of confidence.
We all know that if they identified themselves as lefty, state-obsessed social activists, nobody would pay a blind bit of notice.
Yes. The same would apply if they identified themselves as hard right neocons. Their politics should be irrelevant.
We all know that if they identified themselves as lefty, state-obsessed social activists, nobody would pay a blind bit of notice.
Yes. The same would apply if they identified themselves as hard right neocons. Their politics should be irrelevant.
Absolutely, MTF. To invite scorn, disrespect and contempt for the views of others because they are (in your opinion) “left” or “right”, is intellectually lazy at best. It damns and dismisses an enormous range of people for undefined offences.
We should be interested in what others actually think and say, rather than deciding that nobody should “pay a blind bit of notice” because they belong to the wrong tribe. That’s the point of these labels: to invite self-satisfied tribalism and insularity.
I’m sick and tired of these hucksters. Hucksters everywhere. Hucksters trying to sell me a pandemic. Hucksters trying to sell me systemic racism. Hucksters trying to sell me non-categorical terms such as ‘trans’. Hucksters trying to sell me ‘multiculturalism’. Hucksters trying to sell me an anti-Putin/Russia narrative. Hucksters trying to sell me a climate emergency…
What is worse is the fact that people buy what the hucksters are selling.
Often it is purchased by others on our behalf. Multiculturalism being a key example.
See Matt Le Tissier has stepped down from his role as ambassador for Southampton FC because he cannot step back from his views on Ukraine (he questioned the veracity of some of the ‘journalism’ on this) and likely also covid and the jabs. Man of principle!
Matt le Tissier is a fine, courageous and moral man. I have the utmost respect.
I assume they are already promoting all kinds of “non-traditional” marriages. I bet they’ve also worked out ways to make it racist and sexist as well. I assume we’ve already had warnings about “Alcohol leading to globule warning” and anything right of Mao, being certain to warm the plan it. No doubt watching woke plays has an immediate cooling effect, and turning to the wrong TV channel immediately warms.
Are they currently for/against caffeine, if so we can guarantee that caffeine does/does not cause globule waning.
Globule waning sounds dangerous. Can we expect the Nudge Unit to begin inserting this into the Covid-22 narrative later in the year? We’d need a vaccine to maintain globule integrity after all.
Co Chair of this dross is Prof Jim Skea a Mathematical Physicist by trade and non exec director of Blackrock New Energy Investment Trust Plc (no vested interests there then).
Nice catch.
Blackrock you say. Fancy that.
Can someone, the DS perhaps, make a clear note about what needs to be done within the next 3 years and what will happen if it isn’t so that when we don’t achieve their insane goal and the catastrophe doesn’t happen we can shove the specific prediction back in their psychopathic, totalitarian faces.
Excellent idea! seconded.
The elites will be able to it Wagyu and fly where they want, and the roads will be empty so self-driving cars will be a thing for them. They will also be able to keep warm in their mansions while we live in tents eating bush tucker.
That’s the intention. It was never about CO², it’s about conserving resources away from the proles and towards the elite (oil, precious metals, caviar etc). They think they don’t need us anymore because of AI and robotics. Hopefully the stupid masses of sheep will eventually realise that we don’t need the elite.
Or we could ALL be elite
Hmm? That sounds a bit woke.😀
Why woke?
AI and robots do all the hard graft while humans put their feet up on the beach. That was the utopian dream in decades past.
There is that.
Can any scientist with an funding agenda say anything now and have reported as gospel
Only if it supports a narrative.
Things didn’t go to plan over Christmas.
Despite their best doom models Boris couldn’t impose a lockdown because of the Owen Paterson corruption being expsoed along with Boris’ endless party fun.
As a result we all saw that no lockdown made no difference.
Same thing with the global warming con, who is to say what the temperature would be if we were all using cheap reliable coal as opposed to all these expensive unreliable eco options?
My money is on there being no difference at all.
Come winter, I’m going to be burning coal to my heart’s content.
as long as there are farms rearing cows pigs and chickens, i shall continue to buy it.
One wonders if their parents didn’t read to them at night when they went to bed. Most people, presumably, know the story of The Boy Who Cried Wolf too many times.
How Big Banks Conspire to Wreck Reliable & Affordable Energy Supplies
https://stopthesethings.com/2022/04/06/how-big-banks-conspire-to-wreck-reliable-affordable-energy-supplies/
by stopthesethings
Stand for freedom with our Yellow Boards next events
Thursday 7th April 5.30pm to 6.30pm
Yellow Boards By the Road
The Meadows (A321) Marshall Rd
College Town
Camberley GU47 0FD
Saturday 9th April 2pm to 3pm
Yellow Boards By the Road
Loddon Bridge, A329 Reading Rd,
Winnersh (Outside Showcase)
Wokingham RG41 5HG
Stand in the Park Sundays from 10am – make friends & keep sane
Wokingham Howard Palmer Gardens
(Cockpit Path car park free on Sunday)
Sturges Rd RG40 2HD
Bracknell
South Hill Park, Rear Lawn, RG12 7PA
Telegram http://t.me/astandintheparkbracknell
Patrick Devine-Wright is a Professor of Human Geography at Exeter University.
Splendid name – I thought that ended with the Stuarts.