https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2022/07/10/ditching-net-zero-would-electoral-suicide-conservatives/It is not just the UK, the whole world is facing a crisis energy and food supplies. Though mainstream media, owned and controlled by a few corporations that are fully signed up to the globalist agenda of the billionaire psychopaths who have used their immense wealth and their corrupt and unethical influence over governments and political figures is still trying to push the COVID scare and the narative that the environment is under imminent threat from Carbon Dioxide emitted by human activity, the fact is that that instead of leading the transition to cleaner world, 'green energy' policies and the politicisation of science have plunged the world into a perfect storm of inadequate and failing energy generation and distribution systems, food shortages due to over reliance on technology in agriculture and the growing threat of global war.
Energy insecurity and the consequent doubling of our energy bills is
directly linked to our misguided efforts to abandon reliable, energy intense fossil fuels in favour of intermittent and unpredictable generation technologies such as wind turbines and solar panels.
And yet governments, their tame scientists whose research ALWAYS produces the results the billionaire psychopaths have paid in advance for, and the media, the function of which is no longer to report accurately but instead to shape public opinion, absolutely refuse to abondon the idiotic 'net zero' pledges made by politicians in response to emotional blackmail by fifteen year old retards and unwashed environmental activist crusties as if electricity is the only thing we get from oil and natural gas.
Omitting to tell us that a world without fossil fuel would be a world without plastics, detergents and cosmetics, many of the cvhemicals and pharmaceuticals essential to modern life, and without domestic heating and artificial light, the UK, in an orgy of virtue signalling from politicians of all shades has spent vast amounts of taxpayers money to lead efforts to protect the Congo Basin rainforest in central Africa, because the wholly unscientific results of mathematical modelling predict a humanitarian disaster should that ecosystem be lost (but do not explain exactly how or why the rainforest will disappear unless we long suffering taxpayers lavish money on saving it.
The virtue signalling habit at the top runs deep. It is the UK that leads the world in sacrificing domestic food
production for the sake of 'rewilding' (paying farmers to let good
arable and pasture land return to a wilderness state,) while shipping our food supplies half way round the world by (fossil fuel driven) ship or aircraft. It was the UK that demanded and secured
historic pledges from G7 member states on nature finance last month. It
is the UK that leads coalitions of more than 100 countries calling for
protection of 30 per cent of the world’s land and ocean by 2030.
The propaganda narratives of mainstream media suggest that voters care pasionately about issues like climate change. Opinion polling has consistently shown that fighting to save the environment through policies like 'net zero' are top of most people's priorities.But polls take the views of small samples of the population and respondents are not chosen randomly but cherry picked. Listen to the conversations in any public bar, clubhouse or look at the comments in any uncensored internet discussion thread and a very different picture emerges.
If the Conservative party don't ditch "Net Zero" they will lose the next election catastrophically. Not only will the 'red wall' be rebuilt higher and stronger but the 'blue wall', that swathe of conservative safe seats that stretches from the south west to the shores of Dover will collapse too.
It's well accepted in serious engineering and science disciplines that computed models or simulations/predictions (particularly when using extrapolated rather than interpolated data) have little to no validity unless proper validations to real data measurements have taken place. In the case of climate change models the validation has not been done properly because of unavailable/unreliable real measured data in a time frame of more than a couple of hundred years during which only some reliable, consistent measurements have been available. Matching of models before this time frame, especially going back tens of thousands of years (which is necessary if one wishes to know the long term behaviour or any potential correlation of temp and CO2) is fraught with difficulties because the methods of matching - tree rings and/or ice samples produce perceived results which are open to 'interpretation' (could be read as manipulation) due to temp/CO2 data potentially being out of phase by thousands of years, and the unclear understanding of feedback loops. I.e. whilst there is an apparent correlation with CO2 content and temp it's not completely clear which is leading which. Hardly a 'settled' science, and certainly not a reliable tool for informing government policies.
No credible scientific body has ever said climate change threatens the collapse of civilization much less the extinction of the human species
The environmentalists who waily hysterically that unless we return to the lifestyles of medieval peasants life on earth withh be fried to extinction by rapid warming are the very worst kind of idiot, they are rich, educated idiots who have no idea how the majority of families in this country and around the developed world are having to make choices of food, fuel or heating because of our reliance on other countries for oil & gas when we have a good supply under & around us
That is why the cost of energy has spiralled and is now so exorbitant
The reason we are now being fleeced for our energy is that Barmy governments around the world have for years been strangling new fossil fuel projects because of the AGW scam and because Klaus Schwab has farted and they have inhaled his odious neo - Nazi nonsense about the Great Reset. The first state casualty So far is Sri Lanka which has bankrupted itself after banning artificial fertilizer use by its farmers .
Our climate is driven principally by the Sun and the IPCC acknowledges that.
CO2 levels follow global temperature, which determines how much CO2 is released from the seas and rotting vegetation, resulting in global greening, which tends to absorb CO2.
Also note the UN WMO statement that the economic slowdown (due to lockdowns) had “no discernible impact” and that CO2 concentration “rose in 2020”, despite the dramatic fall in human emissions.
It seems that there was around 3,210 Gt of CO2 in the atmosphere. in 2018 and around 750Gt of CO2 is added to it pa - about 6Gt of which (0.8%) is from human activities.
So the 1% emitted by the UK equates to around 0.06Gt tonnes of CO2 pa. Thus the UK contributes 0.06/750 = 0.0008% of the annual CO2 increase.
Put another way, the annual increase in atmospheric CO2 levels is 12,500 times what the UK emits.
Also if the Greenhouse Effect (GHE) is influenced more by water vapour than by CO2.then the impact of human emissions on the GHE is even smaller in % terms.
No wonder physicist Prof Richard Lindzen said that “The influence of mankind on climate is trivially true and numerically insignificant.”
Yet £5 trillion is to be spent to eliminate the UK’s contribution of less than 1/12,500th of the annual global rise in CO2 - causing more poverty by totally trashing what is left of our economy after the COVID fiasco, driving more businesses overseas - where they will emit more CO2.