Disappointingly, you once again appear to be creating bogus arguments from quotes taken out of context. For example, your first two comments are in response to quotes taken from this simple statement:
"I'm afraid you've not grasped my point. My example of seasonal variation was to highlight the enormity of natural variability. It's completely beyond our control, hence the focus on CO2 and the other greenhouse gases."
Is it not clear that the reason for my mentioning seasonal variation was for its being a fairly obvious example of the strength of the forces governing natural variability? As I said above, their immense power is such they are entirely beyond our ability to control them.
By using bad science, alarmism and humankind’s predilection for pessimism, the IPCC has carefully crafted a narrative which claims CO2 (a minor atmospheric trace gas) to be the ultimate bogeymen. The primary driver of climate change, no less. That it is singularly responsible for just about every natural (and unnatural) ill one could ever possibly imagine. Can this be true? That after millions of years of evolution and numerous climatic conditions, some immeasurably more severe than what we're experiencing today, one of the essential building blocks of life will be the source of our doom? This is what Andy May thinks:
"99.9 percent of the Earth’s surface heat capacity is in the oceans and less than 0.1 percent is in the atmosphere. Further, CO2 is only 0.04 percent of the atmosphere. It beggars belief that a trace gas (CO2), in an atmosphere that itself contains only a trace amount of the total thermal energy on the surface of the Earth, can control the climate of the Earth. This is not the tail wagging the dog, this is a flea on the tail of the dog wagging the dog."
In comparison to the other obviously immense forces involved, I see it as being arrant nonsense claiming CO2 is the driver. Indeed, to say that it 'controls' climate is akin to saying a drop or two (more or less) of water, can 'control' the boiling of a kettle. However, its association with the greenhouse effect makes it a convenient pretext for action and the reason why, above all else, the IPCC focuses on it.
With this in mind, your first comment is, effectively, meaningless.
"I'm afraid you've not grasped my point. My example of seasonal variation was to highlight the enormity of natural variability."
"But that variability is a known factor. I have a lawn more because I know I will need to mow my lawn because it won't be white all year. I have a snow blower because I also know that there will be months where I will need it and not my lawn mower like I will do a bit later today. Last year when I took off my winter tiers I made an appointment to put them back on the car on Nov 4."I think we're all well aware of seasons.
And your second comment completely ignores the issue implicit in the original comment: that natural variability is precisely that and is thus wholly beyond our control.
"It's completely beyond our control."
"Not at all. If I wanted to live in a place that is snow and ice 365 days a year I would move to the Yukon. If I want a place that is hot and dry all year round I would move to the Sahara. As a person it is extremely easy for me to control where I live. and there are always other options like this guy I know that spends Jan/Feb/Mar/Apr in Jamaica and the rest of the year here. Or when it is -35 outside staying inside where it is 20
A bigger issue is the natural world, polar bears need a frozen arctic , maple trees need the weather in the end of winter/beginning of fall to be warm enough for the ground to thaw, cold enough to be bellow zero during the nights and the days too short to start their spring buds.” What you, perhaps, don't appreciate though, is that your actual answer is one advocating adaption to, rather than combating, climate change, which is the course of action I favour. Note as well that Polar Bears do not require a frozen Arctic.1 - 3
*
"There may be warm periods, there may be cold, but there's no such thing as ultra-warm periods. There are, however, ultracold periods: glacials."
"What are you one of those marketing execs that name the three sizes Medium large and extra large. So that people think they are getting more? if there is an ultra cold then by definition and no BS there is an ultra-warm which is the opposite end of the spectrum."The natural inclination of the planet is to be cold. There is no comparison between the extreme cold of a glacial and the warmth of an interglacial. This is beyond question and can be seen in any climate reconstruction; e.g. the Vostok ice cores.4
*
"A cold period during an interglacial may cause severe hardship to millions, but glacials are civilisation killers."
"I see it differently. Look at the last ice age, you had mammoths, giant sloths, giant buffalos.. and cave man running around hunting them the warming period after that meant mass extinction. You keep on bringing up the medieval warm period to counter global warming but you fail to realize it also coincides with one of the worst periods in European history.
Cold is always easier to deal with then massive heat. Water trapped in snow helps create land bridges, frozen water is easier to cross without technology. MY uncle has 4 fig trees in his yard and my grand father had a pomegranate. Neither of those plants are native to Canada and neither can naturally survive here, but once fall hit they used to bundle them up to protect them from the harsh cold and the plants survived and thrived."Either you are trolling me, or you're demonstrating incredible naïveté over the extremity of a glacial period.5 I'm sure the residents of Montreal will be more than happy to discuss your comments about mammoths, giant sloths and cavemen when they're next under a mile of ice.
References to the MWP are to illustrate that the level of warming we are experiencing now is not unusual. I'm sure there are many reasons for life being unpleasant then (lack of internet access being just one of them), but life did flourish nonetheless.6
Cold weather increases mortality rates,7 reduces the growing season and as a consequence food production.
*
"As for not wanting to rush back to warmer climes, what profoundly negative effect has the slightly warmer world had?"
"So you don't consider people's homes being flood a bad thing?"I said profoundly negative. The flooding of people's homes is indeed unfortunate, but if building on or adjacent to a floodplain (or potential floodplain), one has to accept or adapt to the possibility of it occurring — caveat emptor.
*
"I'm afraid you’re comparing apples to oranges. In Earth's atmosphere, the relationship of CO2 to temperature is firstly logarithmic (for every degree of temperature rise requires a doubling of CO2) and secondly, when it reaches saturation point temperature rise stops. The Earth's atmosphere can never replicate that of Venus."
"First what you say makes no scientific sense second studies of Venus show that many millions of years ago Venus and earth would have been very similar, and during that time Venus would have had water and possibly life on it."Whether you believe what I say makes no scientific sense is irrelevant. It's accepted science.8 & 9 It is also the reason why methane is regularly ignored in calculations: its active IR wavelengths already being saturated by water vapour.
The study you link to shows no such thing. It's a model based hypothesis concerning itself with what might have happened – and, of course, they're doing such an excellent job modelling Earth’s climate.
*
"If, as the IPCC would have us believe, CO2 is the primary driver of climate change, then does it not follow that dabbling could have profound, unknown counter effects?"
"Not necessarily. IF there is a post in the ground and I decide to push it a) if I push it hard enough it will fall in the direction I am pushing it in, right? b) if I don't push hard enough nothing will happen and the post will continue being vertical. c) If I stop pushing on it would that mean there is a chance that the post will fall towards me? a and b are realistic, c just sounds dumb.
same here. If artificial CO2 is a big enough issue then it can cause a problem , if it can't affect anything then it won't be a problem, but stopping its production can't have a negative impact either. the only way stopping it can be an issue is if the earth is naturally getting into a glacial period and our artificial CO2 is enough to counter it and enough to cause bigger issues, then stopping would be an issue but severely slowing down would reach a balance."As previously mentioned:
"Svante Arrhenius is credited with developing a theory of the greenhouse effect and the role of CO2 within it. However, his original calculations were severely compromised by the many assumptions he made and his attempts to link it to glaciations; i.e. he grossly overestimated its effect. Early in the 20th-century Knut Angstrom carried out experiments which clearly showed that Arrhenius was wrong in that he had attributed all the greenhouse effect to CO2, whereas we now know it's barely a small cog in a vast machine and that the primary greenhouse gas, by some considerable margin, is water vapour. This has been confirmed by further research, but in much the same way as Michael Mann's zombie hockey stick graph remains in the minds of those who ignore the bogus way in which it was created, so too does Arrhenius's theory of the effects of increased atmospheric CO2."
Calculations continue to indicate CO2's influence on climate to be limited,10 and no amount of CO2 pumped into the atmosphere will ever prevent a glacial. CO2 is a component of the climate system, as much as oil is component of a transmission system, but it is not the primary driver.
I think one needs a better understanding of the complexities of the climate system.11 & 12
*
"As previously commented, we've now had 30 years of 10 years to save the planet, but the 'reality' is that little has changed."
"Depends what you mean by little has changed. Don't get me wrong if someone lives in the Sahar desert and it was hot and dry and it is hot and dry that might be true. But glaciers have been melting, sea levels have been rising, places have been getting flooded... You said your summers have not changed much but your winters have become noticeably more mild..... aren't all those big changes? even if one sees them as positive or out of natural causes. For me like I said before, here it means more flooding, colder winters with more snow sticking around and hotter dryer summers." Yes, I believe our winters have become noticeably milder, but it's not a profound change and nothing like the changes being advocated by alarmist doom and gloom merchants. There is talk of a colder winter this year. If so, it will be interesting to see how resilient the National Grid truly is.
As previously mentioned, sea level rise has continued at the same rate for the past 160 years, which is not unusual for a planet emerging from a cooling phase. And arctic temperatures are cyclic and have a better correlation with the AMO than CO2, as discussed by Tony Heller here.13
*
Your next comment is another response to a quote taken out of context.
"As previously commented, we've now had 30 years of 10 years to save the planet, but the 'reality' is that little has changed. Thus in fear of a further 10 years of nothing happening completely undermining the alarmist rhetoric, agencies have now stooped to brazenly rewriting the US historical temperature database, made claims about sea-level rise, severe weather events and wildfires which bear absolutely no scrutiny, and engaged the services of a cosseted and emotionally unstable teenager to rally the gullible young (who, ironically, have experienced virtually no climate change) into supporting a political agenda that will make their life far worse than doing nothing. In this regard, I believe you're saying the following..."
"And yes maybe it will be futile, and we can't make a difference. But you know what IMHO only losers give-up before even trying so, yeah if we can try and keep it stable by helping mother nature or working against it then I say let's go for it."
"...is indeed a knee jerk reaction for it takes no account of the emotional, social, and financial hardship wrought upon those being expected to pay for this agenda. Impoverishing a country merely to claim the moral high ground is plain madness and will solve nothing."
"I don't agree with you on that.
First I think doing nothing has a"motional, social, and financial hardship" right my guess my friend paid between 600k and 700k for his house, the gouvernment (aka my tax dollars) in 2017 helped pay for him to take his basement apart and fix it and again and again this year now the gouvernment said enough is enough and they will pay 200k to buy the house and demolish it. Hydro Quebec used to have more fossil fuel based electrical capacity, in the sixties it built two nuclear power stations started a third one and had a plan for a total of thirty. Until someone decided to go hydro in huge way. Now the electrical grid is for the most part hydro with a bit of solar and wind that is bought from local third parties and a small emergency oil plant that is barely ever used. Yes it took a lot of money to build those plants and the network to move the electricity those distances but not having to pay for consumables means that our electricity is dirt cheap (6.08 cents per kwh) three years ago I changed my furnace and went from oil/electric heating to just electric.
I don't have to pay for annual maintenance any more , I don't have to pay for an oil contract any more, I am paying less on electricity then I was paying for oil + electricity before doing that "green" move had emotional and social gains because I gained the space taken by the tank, and financial, yes I had to spend a bit of cash for a new furnace but I would have needed that anyways, but there were annual financial gains."Well, thank you for thinking it perfectly reasonable I should lower my living standards because of your friend's flooding issues and your tax dollars being spent in aiding repairs. Perhaps you'd care to contribute to the UK's EU divorce bill?
*
"This may sound heartless, but in building within a floodplain, as with building alongside a river, one has to accept the risk of flooding."
"I don't think it is heartless and I agree, but the issue is when those homes where built it was not a flood plain, Quebec redrew the maps this year to deal with the new reality, the new reality that I think we both agree is happening because of global warming."According to this article,14 climate change may indeed have played a role, but to what extent do you think CO2 was involved?
"Spring thaw and moderate rainfall has brought significant flooding to parts of Canada, with various reports of nearly 3,000 properties flooded and more than 600 isolated by floodwaters, at the time of writing. Officials warn of continued rises in water level and further melting of snowpacks."
Graph shows the average daily temperature from gauges at Quebec City and Ottawa International Airports. Temperatures have been seen to slowly increase over April, leading to increased thawing of snowpacks. This, coupled with moderate rainfall, has led to significant flooding in the Quebec region. Data source: Government of Canada.
It appears to me that even removing two or three degrees of warming (which is considerably more than that being attributed to CO2) would have had little effect.
*
Now an out of context quotes in response to an out of context quote.
"I think my quote has been taken a little out of context insofar as the fear the Met Office is trying to invoke is to bolster demands for political action. I don't believe UK summers are particularly different, as my comparison between this year’s summer and that of 1976 demonstrates. Winter's, however, have become noticeably milder, which I'm none too concerned about given the parlous state of the National Grid.
Yes, in some areas weather systems, and thus climate, may have changed, but which course of action do you think the more logical? Adapting by building a larger pond, or spending trillions, impoverishing millions, in the unproven hope your friend doesn't have to?"
"Yeah but the issue is 1) the UK is not the whole world it is natural that some places will be more affected then others and in different ways 2) that is what has happened so far, things will continue to evolve. 3) it is a bit of everything. I don't know where you live in the UK , but global warming means glaciers are melting and that means more water and that means more flooding in areas near large bodies of water (like maybe London)"I think my follow up paragraph answers your comments well enough.
Flooding happens.15 Most vulnerable cities and towns have invested in flood prevention measures, but of course, there are no guarantees.
"I think my quote has been taken a little out of context insofar as the fear the Met Office is trying to invoke is to bolster demands for political action. I don't believe UK summers are particularly different, as my comparison between this year’s summer and that of 1976 demonstrates. Winter's, however, have become noticeably milder, which I'm none too concerned about given the parlous state of the National Grid.
Yes, in some areas weather systems, and thus climate, may have changed, but which course of action do you think the more logical? Adapting by building a larger pond, or spending trillions, impoverishing millions, in the unproven hope your friend doesn't have to?"
"Neither being smart with money :)"?
*
And now the most egregious example of missing the thrust of my previous comment.
"Once again, I fear one has not fully engaged with the enormity of the CCC's proposals and the cost to the consumer.
Quebec has a population of circa 8.5m and covers an area of almost 600,000 square miles. The UK has a population of 67.5m and covers an area of 93,500 square miles. The scale of energy demand and supply are by several orders of magnitude greater. Indeed, such is the population density of Quebec, little old backwaters Hereford would rank 10th in a list of Quebec's Largest Metropolitan Areas. (Little known factoid. With so many French ex-pats living there, London would rank 6th or 7th in a list of the largest French cities.)
I think it only logical governments would prioritise the use of local resources for generating power. In this regard, the UK has barely any hydro and no geothermal. What it does have is North Sea natural gas, though that's now significantly diminished, and coal. (See the GridWatch website for the complete breakdown of generation fuel types.) For continued use, both would require the installation of CCS.
As for CCS, the SaskPower project you linked to cost $1.5b Canadian (£925m), for a risible output of 115MW, and it's operating history is nothing like as good as suggested:
"In 2015, internal documents from SaskPower revealed that there were 'serious design issues' in the carbon capture system, resulting in regular breakdowns and maintenance problems that led the unit to only be operational 40% of the time. SNC-Lavalin had been contracted to engineer, procure, and build the facility, and the documents asserted that it 'has neither the will or the ability to fix some of these fundamental flaws.'"
And units 4 and 5 are not going to be converted as gas is cheaper:
In July 2018, SaskPower announced that it would not retrofit Units 4 and 5 with CCS, with minister responsible Dustin Duncan saying that the units were approaching their mandated shut down in 2024 and that natural gas is a cheaper option.
CCS on the scale imagined by the CCC is still a pipe-dream and renewables are no replacement for present dispatchable generation."
We can discuss the relative merits (or lack thereof) of the UK and Quebec electricity grids if you like, but my focus was on the way in which the CCC is demanding change without offering any set plan for how the changes are to be paid for, undertaken, implemented and, above all, considering their ramifications for our society as a whole – which includes those gullible youngsters.
Brexit has already exposed the contempt for democracy held by some of our MP’s: that they do not care about the will of the people in voting to leave the EU. So it is for climate policy, where each party is falling over itself to be greener than green. Watch then the reaction to Sajid Javid’s comments on climate policy at the latest Conservative Party Conference – (at 25 minutes).16
It's time to stop the virtue signalling and cant and ask the electorate if this is what they really want, as the plans presently being put forward are beyond madness, far too expensive and completely unworkable; as any engineer worth his salt will testify:
"SIR – As a chartered engineer who worked in the electricity supply industry for 39 years, I despair to hear politicians like Rebecca Long-Bailey claiming that renewables will provide for most of our energy needs by 2030.
Renewable generation – solar, wind and tidal – is, by definition, non-synchronous and it is technically impossible to operate our electricity transmission system solely on non-synchronous generation. There is a real danger of system instability and consequential widespread blackouts once non-synchronous generation exceeds around 30 per cent of total generation at any one time.
The National Grid report on the recent major outage makes numerous references to the lack of inertia in the system. This resulted from insufficient large synchronous generators (nuclear, coal, gas) being connected.
Given the need to reduce carbon dioxide emissions, the only option is to increase significantly nuclear build rapidly. Both Labour and Conservative governments have been unwilling to commit themselves to this, which has led us into the problems we now face.
It is unfortunate that politicians and environmental campaigners are ignorant of the technicalities of energy supply, or wish to ignore them. MPs may have the power to change the laws of the land, but not to change the laws of physics."17
*
"I think it only logical governments would prioritise the use of local resources for generating power. In this regard, the UK has barely any hydro and no geothermal. What it does have is North Sea natural gas, though that's now significantly diminished, and coal."
"And in the 40's that was one of the reasons they looked at wood/coal here and in the 60's atomic. Yes sometimes consumable sources are the only option but the issue with consumables like you pointed out and I bolded is they get consumed and so the price of producing that electricity becomes more expensive.
But I agree, things can't change over night and you need to look at what makes sense in your neighbourhood. My point was green energy is expensive to build but over time it becomes cheaper compared to energy based on consumables."Does one not recollect seeing the following image?
Regardless of North Sea Gas being diminished, it is still almost four times cheaper than the electricity for heating. Indeed, all fossil fuels are considerably more affordable. The CCC’s plans though are to remove all domestic FF’s for electricity generated by renewable systems utterly unfit for purpose. Green energy (wind and solar) doesn’t become cheaper when it’s the only energy supply available.
*
And finally, yet another out of context comment.
"By proportion, the number of EVs in the UK, even with government incentives, is tiny. When reality finally dawns, I believe the forcing of change to electric will, by itself, be the cause of significant social unrest – between those who can/cannot afford to buy one and those who can/cannot afford to charge the thing. Perhaps we should follow the latest Dutch example."
that is where you and I differ. I look at scientists and say "they studied this more than I have and if they say it is an issue in 10 (20, 30...) years I should listen to what they have to say. But when politicians say in 10 (20, 30...) years what they are saying is "I don't want to appear like I am doing nothing so I am making it the next guys problem." Take it this way, it is election time and the vast majority drive gas guzzlers. party A) "next year only EVs will be allowed on the road" party B) " we won't do that"
do you think A has a chance of winning?There is a defender of the 'faith' stalking the comments section of my local rag who continues to claim that in 30 years sceptics have failed to produce any evidence countering the consensus view. This opinion, however, rather conveniently ignores the fact the consensus have, themselves, not actually proven their case. (Would we be here discussing it if they had?) Indeed, so weak are their claims they resort to theatricality, political manoeuvring, statistical artifice, threats, intimidation, and malfeasance to enhance their narrative.
The 'plight' of the polar bears is, for example, a complete fabrication, but the story spun in the right way (with an added veneer of scientific expertise) plays on the instincts and willingness of the public to meekly accept what they're being told as gospel – because, well, they're the 'experts'. But the public is only being allowed to see one side of the story. What they don't hear of is the expert opinion of the likes of Dr Susan Crockford,18 who has been at the forefront of the efforts to quash this specious nonsense. And the response from 'the team'? A libellous 'hit piece', in the guise of a scientific paper; authored, amongst others, by those luminary polar bear experts, Michael E. 'tree ring circus' Mann and Stephan 'moon landings' Lewandowsky, a professor of psychobabble and mentor of John Cook of 97% infamy.19
Contrary to those ridiculous 97% claims,20 there is no real consensus. There is a wealth of peer-reviewed literature, some from quite esteemed researchers and scientists, whose conclusions are opposed to those of the IPCC. (Pierre L. Gosselin has collated a number of these papers at his website No Tricks Zone.21). You’ll likely not have heard of them, though, because they run counter to the preferred narrative of the left-wing dominated MSM. Even now on the BBC is running this story 22 about the displaced of the Mekong Delta. The reporter, by his mentioning it every few seconds, is clearly unequivocal in blaming climate change. Look a little deeper though, and a different picture emerges.23 - 26
Quoting the 'news wise' article:
"In the late 1980s, Vietnam transitioned towards a market economy, which resulted in increased agricultural production, population figures, and urbanisation, all of which heightened the demand for ground water. But as Minderhoud wrote in his dissertation, pumping out ground water exacerbates the problem of soil subsidence. 'The area also has a soft, shallow soil layer. The growth in infrastructure that has accompanied the past few decades of economic development has placed an extra burden on the soil. This is another reason the soil is subsiding, which makes the sea level rise more quickly in relation to the land. It's as if the delta is sinking into the sea. Plus, salt water is pushing ever farther land-inwards, so the delta also faces the problem of salinization.'"
And now the South China Morning Post:
"How the sinking sands along the Mekong River are leaving Vietnamese residents homeless. Damming and extensive sand mining of the riverbed are causing currents to strengthen and the land in Vietnam’s delta region to sink. With the Mekong running through six different countries, there is very little cooperation between governments to resolve the worsening crisis."
So for the past 25 years, the delta has been affected by an increase in agricultural production and water abstraction resulting in the delta sinking, on average, 18cm. Adding to this is sand dredging further upstream increasing flow rates. In contrast, sea-level rise has remained constant at circa 2mm/year, which equates to just 5cm over the same 25 years. So, by studiously ignoring both former problems, is reporter Ashley John-Baptiste's report a dispassion view of the complex issues facing the people of the delta, or just another case of climate change propaganda? This is but one example of the BBC daily drip-feeding the public (particularly the younger generations) an overtly partisan view of climate issues.
The BBC's bias was exposed some years ago in what came to be known as 28gate, where senior executives were lectured on climate change by 28 of 'the best scientific experts' leading them to declare they would no longer sanction the sceptic view. Well who were the experts a pensioner asked? We're not telling you said the BBC. And so it went on all the way to the High Court, where the BBC was happy to lavish expenses on several barristers to defend the right (?) of a publicly funded company refusing to answer a simple question from a member of the public who helps fund it. The case was lost, but the names emerged anyway. Were they 'the best scientific experts'? No! Only three were current scientists (all alarmist), the rest were either activists or journalists.
The game is clearly rigged.
Right from the outset, Hanson’s testimony was presented in a room where the air conditioning had been rendered ineffective - the sweating being seen to enhance the message.
Santer overruling the consensus of his IPCC working group to get his 'discernible human influence' message into record - followed by his clearly bogus paper written in support of it.
Jonathan Overpeck writing to scientists bemoaning the existence of the MWP - and along comes 'tree ring' Mann with a graph which does precisely that.
Mann's graph is shown to be little more than statistical prestidigitation, but who cares (the IPCC certainly don't) for once again, imagery trumps everything.
Attempts to publish a rebuttal are hampered by threats to journals and journal editors. In contrast, papers in support are fast-tracked through. Pal review becomes endemic.
The Climategate emails reveal collusion on a grand scale.
Investigations are launched, but become infamous for their lack of rigour. Primary witnesses are not called or interviewed, the senior investigator in one inquiry failing to attend interviews, the department under investigation being allowed to select the evidence to be assessed by the investigator.
Consensus science is being picked apart by respected climatologists, so a place-man distorts Wikipedia and a series of bogus consensus studies are published.
Imagery manipulation sees the polar bear, becoming the poster child of alarmism. The claims of them dying out is based on bad science and the expert revealing this becomes the subject of a smear campaign.
Rumours of fossil-fuelled denialism appear, though no cheques have ever been found.
An Exxon knew campaign starts, though documents reveal it's clear they 'knew' no more than anyone else.
Opportunism sees left-leaning politicians jump on board the 'climate emergency' bandwagon.
Reputable scientists find themselves becoming the subject of investigation because the committees they're presenting evidence to don't like the evidence being presented as it undermines their arguments.
Alarmists turn to conflating weather with climate and claim an increase in severe weather events and wildfires; claims which are utterly unsupported by empirical data.
In a similar fashion, claims of accelerating sea-level rise are seen to be merely an artefact of cherry-picked data.27
The latest climate models once again claim it's worse than we thought, but surely everyone knows that the quality of results is dependent on the quality of the data used. How can they be worse when the present models already show a significant divergence from reality?
But it must be true since it's now reflected in empirical datasets - until one discovers that said datasets have been rendered completely worthless by calculated and deliberate adjustments to make them 'correlate' better with model predictions. If the evidence doesn’t fit the facts, then change the facts.28
To me, it beggars belief that anyone can take the IPCC and the alarmist cause seriously, but it's become so ingrained in society that anyone challenging 'the cause' must surely be a denier. But that definition encompasses a whole slew of respected scientists and climatologists. These are men and women of principle who have refused the filthy lucre of alarmism for the pursuit of real understanding. Few young scientists today though, with a career and a family to feed, have the luxury of principles. Such is the toxic working atmosphere; if you don't believe, you don't have a job.
Dr Bill Gray, the father of hurricane forecasting, was one such man of principle. For decades he received funding from NOAA to further his research and teaching programs. In 1993 he was invited to attend a conference being organised by Al Gore, the then newly minted US Vice President. He responded by saying he would be happy to attend, but wasn't an adherent of Gore's views on climate. He never received another cent of funding from the government. 29
Dr Peter Ridd is another. Sacked from his role at James Cook University for speaking out over the lack of quality assurance in Great Barrier Reef science, he took his former employer to court on the grounds of unfair dismissal. Not only did he win, he won on all counts. The University, however, has now decided to appeal knowing that the costs involved may prevent Dr Ridd from pursuing the case. (This is a similar tactic to that being employed by Mann in his actions against Tim Ball and Mark Steyn.) Dr Ridd himself laments the waste of money, but academic freedom is an important principle and is thus hoping to raise enough funds to take the case all the way to the High Court if necessary.30
Regardless of all I've written, not only do you still appear incapable of appreciating the level of deception being employed in the effort to convince us of there being a climate emergency, but also the mind-boggling cost of the climate action being demanded. Perhaps it's the rose-tinted prism of a little over 6 cents a unit clouding your judgement, but you're not the one facing the prospect of spiralling costs and power rationing.
Doing something simply for the sake of doing something is fine and dandy if one can afford to do it. This is not kicking the can down the road, like the IPCC regularly do with their climate conferences, but simple economics. I already pay the equivalent of nearly 31 cents a unit for my electricity and in Germany (with their Energiewende) it's even worse at a little over 45 cents a unit.31 This is the reality of energy markets destabilised by wind and solar renewables. And it can only get worse.
The loss of fossil-fuelled transport and gas, the latter being the primary source of heating for the majority of this country, will, unlike the relatively benign climate change we've presently seen, definitely have a profoundly negative effect on society. No matter how one cuts the cake, if common sense doesn't prevail and present plans continue unabated, there is going to be an immense backlash against the spending of so much to achieve so little. I kid you not; this truly is the stuff of revolution.
