Patrick Moore and his fellow sceptics have been proved right all along - this is a scam , using deliberately faked “science” to drive damaging policy and spread fear amongst electorates . The western perpetrators, the Rockefellers , the billionaires , the WEF , the eugenicists , must be identified and neutralised - the useful idiots ( John Kerry , King Charles , Socialist politicians ) must be punished harshly and removed from public life .
The physical premise of Climate religion is a deletion of ¾ of the Sun and then the invocation of magic energy creating cow farts (GHG’s) to reconcile observations.
This is how f’ing stupid it and its indoctrinates are.
BEEELIEVE or else you’re a heretic denier! A return to the primitive where undeserved guilt is being used to cause people to morally compromise themselves.
The article covers a lot of ground. Probably too much for a sixth former or undergraduate to take on board, especially for those who have already been through 12 or more years of English education with its training in thinking within narratives.
What is needed is a switch in thinking, based on the metaphysical nature of greenhouse gases and the logic of economics.
CO2, methane, and other trace greenhouse gases are well-mixed in the atmosphere(1). This is why CO2 levels measured at 3400 metres above sea level in Hawaii are very similar to readings taken elsewhere, especially when averaged over a year.
The IPCC accepts this when it models emissions pathways. In the 2021 AR6 WG3 SPM, the central estimate for the 1.5 °C pathway requires a 43% reduction in global emissions this decade, global net zero in 2050, and then increasing global net negative emissions through to 2100(2).
Now apply a bit of economic logic. Suppose we follow the Stern Review 2006. It gives the impression that there is a stark choice. We spend 1% of global GDP now, or accept future climate costs of at least 5% of global GDP in the future. Stern did not say that this 1% spend would only constrain warming to about 3 °C, so there would be some residual warming costs.
This applies to the world as a whole. Here in the UK, we followed the 1% of GDP policy(3) until about 10 years ago. But that alone was only going to reduce future climate costs from 5% to maybe 4.95% of global GDP. These benefits are spread globally, so for the UK alone, its spending of 1% of UK GDP, will benefit future generations in the UK by less than 0.05% of UK GDP(4). The logic is that if the rest of the world were to follow Britain’s lead, the world would effectively act as one. But, all countries are not equal as
a) Developing countries would have policy costs much more than 1% of GDP. Cutting emissions would massively constrain long-term economic growth. But becoming significantly richer, will make them far less vulnerable to climate change.
b) For a number of countries, a significant part of their GDP comes from the extraction and export of fossil fuels. These include Russia, Iran, Saudi Arabia, UAE and Kuwait. The cost of keeping their fossil fuels in the ground will be much more than 1% of GDP.
So there is a paradox. For UK emissions reduction policies to be worthwhile, pretty much all of the world must follow a similar pathway. But for many countries – probably those with more than two-thirds of global emissions – the policy costs exceed the policy benefits, even as part of a collective global effort. Thus, UK emissions reduction policies cannot be net beneficial to the UK. This factor alone means that it is not in the long-term British national interest to cut or regulate emissions. There are, however, many other factors that make the cost-benefit ratio much worse.
1. Water vapour, the most abundant greenhouse gas, is anything but well-mixed in the atmosphere. I will follow the climate consensus and ignore this issue.
2. When UK governments promote net zero, they conveniently omit the negative emissions bit. It is also in the 2C pathway, and was also present in the 2014 AR4 pathways.
3. If one ignores the wider economic costs.
4. The narrative is that the poorest nations will be disproportionately affected by climate change. UK GDP per capita is well above the global average
Brilliant account. Favourite line, "the self-sealing cult of ‘green’ energy which has, for two decades, sustained a cosy symbiosis of fanatics filling the God-shaped hole in their lives and rent-seekers filling their boots". Perfect summary.
Except "in the name of a provabale lie about the causes of climate change and many more about its claimed and well subidised cures"
Patrick Moore and his fellow sceptics have been proved right all along - this is a scam , using deliberately faked “science” to drive damaging policy and spread fear amongst electorates . The western perpetrators, the Rockefellers , the billionaires , the WEF , the eugenicists , must be identified and neutralised - the useful idiots ( John Kerry , King Charles , Socialist politicians ) must be punished harshly and removed from public life .
The physical premise of Climate religion is a deletion of ¾ of the Sun and then the invocation of magic energy creating cow farts (GHG’s) to reconcile observations.
This is how f’ing stupid it and its indoctrinates are.
BEEELIEVE or else you’re a heretic denier! A return to the primitive where undeserved guilt is being used to cause people to morally compromise themselves.
The article covers a lot of ground. Probably too much for a sixth former or undergraduate to take on board, especially for those who have already been through 12 or more years of English education with its training in thinking within narratives.
What is needed is a switch in thinking, based on the metaphysical nature of greenhouse gases and the logic of economics.
CO2, methane, and other trace greenhouse gases are well-mixed in the atmosphere(1). This is why CO2 levels measured at 3400 metres above sea level in Hawaii are very similar to readings taken elsewhere, especially when averaged over a year.
The IPCC accepts this when it models emissions pathways. In the 2021 AR6 WG3 SPM, the central estimate for the 1.5 °C pathway requires a 43% reduction in global emissions this decade, global net zero in 2050, and then increasing global net negative emissions through to 2100(2).
Now apply a bit of economic logic. Suppose we follow the Stern Review 2006. It gives the impression that there is a stark choice. We spend 1% of global GDP now, or accept future climate costs of at least 5% of global GDP in the future. Stern did not say that this 1% spend would only constrain warming to about 3 °C, so there would be some residual warming costs.
This applies to the world as a whole. Here in the UK, we followed the 1% of GDP policy(3) until about 10 years ago. But that alone was only going to reduce future climate costs from 5% to maybe 4.95% of global GDP. These benefits are spread globally, so for the UK alone, its spending of 1% of UK GDP, will benefit future generations in the UK by less than 0.05% of UK GDP(4). The logic is that if the rest of the world were to follow Britain’s lead, the world would effectively act as one. But, all countries are not equal as
a) Developing countries would have policy costs much more than 1% of GDP. Cutting emissions would massively constrain long-term economic growth. But becoming significantly richer, will make them far less vulnerable to climate change.
b) For a number of countries, a significant part of their GDP comes from the extraction and export of fossil fuels. These include Russia, Iran, Saudi Arabia, UAE and Kuwait. The cost of keeping their fossil fuels in the ground will be much more than 1% of GDP.
So there is a paradox. For UK emissions reduction policies to be worthwhile, pretty much all of the world must follow a similar pathway. But for many countries – probably those with more than two-thirds of global emissions – the policy costs exceed the policy benefits, even as part of a collective global effort. Thus, UK emissions reduction policies cannot be net beneficial to the UK. This factor alone means that it is not in the long-term British national interest to cut or regulate emissions. There are, however, many other factors that make the cost-benefit ratio much worse.
1. Water vapour, the most abundant greenhouse gas, is anything but well-mixed in the atmosphere. I will follow the climate consensus and ignore this issue.
2. When UK governments promote net zero, they conveniently omit the negative emissions bit. It is also in the 2C pathway, and was also present in the 2014 AR4 pathways.
3. If one ignores the wider economic costs.
4. The narrative is that the poorest nations will be disproportionately affected by climate change. UK GDP per capita is well above the global average
Excellent
Epistemology - that’s a lovely word.
Prof Richet wrote a cracker of an epistemological essay about ice cores:
https://climatecite.com/wp-content/uploads/icecore-reappraisal.pdf
It is clear that carbon dioxide concentration in the atmosphere follows temperature changes. Following cannot be leading. Effect cannot be cause.
That means there is nothing wrong with “carbon” , co2, so there is no need to decarbonize. Repeat until tired.
Unless you want a tax on everything we make and do. Oh, wait…
Brilliant account. Favourite line, "the self-sealing cult of ‘green’ energy which has, for two decades, sustained a cosy symbiosis of fanatics filling the God-shaped hole in their lives and rent-seekers filling their boots". Perfect summary.
Except "in the name of a provabale lie about the causes of climate change and many more about its claimed and well subidised cures"
Or similar...
Brian
CEng, CPhys, MBA