For many people, we just need to ‘look out the window’ to see climate change is real and dangerous. But what we really need is a well-informed, nuanced debate about what is to be done.
I really believed in ( and taught secondary science classes about it) anthropogenic climate change. However, my general scepticism about the stories told by the powers that be which started with transgenderism, continued with the Covid debacle, and I am now certainly a sceptic. Yes, it's happening, but I think the ridiculousness of refusing to develop nuclear power, and tidal power ( we are an island with several suitable sites,) as well as the madness of importing loads of extra people with their various needs for housing, water, power etc is also a factor. And as for Norway harvesting gas from the North Sea which we then buy from them - crazy!! Be nice if the state bought the products of the North sea and thus reduced our energy bills.........
I am wondering how much of the Net Zero climate rhetoric has a political expediency behind it. And what is the ultimate end result they are aiming for?
Because so many of their policies don’t make sense.
I take the examples of the farmer issue in the Netherlands. The politicians have decided to impose a near impossible nitrogen and CO2 reduction on society. Way more than demanded by the EU. And farmers appear in the main firing line.
As a result farmers have to reduce the size of their farms, making these economically unviable. Furthermore some farms are being threatened with removal of their licenses, which is unheard of.
So here you have one of the best run farming industries of the world, also in terms of sustainability, and the second biggest food exporter in the world! And they are asked to stop or significantly reduce farming under the guise of NetZero.
I cannot make sense of this unless there is another motive. More land needed for housing, data centres and solar farms?
Who will supply the food? Will NL become an importer of food?
As I stated, the imposed norms are political and have nothing to do with science.
And when do we ever hear a proper debate on these issues?
Great article, but the climate change is real mantra is a little tiresme. Is it? Some of us know and speak with real scientists who would dissaree or have issues with some of the climare claims. Science isn't dogma or shouldn'tbe. Looking out of the window we see weather, wwhich isn't the same as climate. Whilst perfectly willing to consider the possibility of anthopgenic global warming and the like, one is suspicious when the solution is surrendering liberty to the state and adapting life to suit the state.
I thought it was a terrible article. 2026 is unusual for seeing a drop in area burns across all continents. Now that's actually a sign of warming if you know the hypothesis behind AGW but this author obviously doesn't.
Instead it's the tedious and anti-science attitude of claiming anything or everything as a sign for resentment. Spare me these religious nutters who don't have a clue
So what happens when volcanoes go off and pump more carbon dioxide into the atmosphere than any country? Eco zealots don't mention that or the many times the earth has warmed and then freezes! A complete scam to make money!
I just can't get my head around the concept of "stopping" climate change. It's just so ridiculous as to be unworthy of serious discussion surely? And I say this as a scientist who has analysed and modelled geophysical processes. However, when we apparently live in an age when nothing is off the table, including men demanding to be accepted as biological women, it seems we do need to keep having this discussion. Unless and until we have a sustained public debate between serious scientists on either side of the argument, nothing is going to change. There needs to be a series of such debates covering at least the following topics:
1) Climate science - what can it really tell us about natural versus man-made change?
2) Climate modelling - strengths and weakness, such as uncertainty in predictions, which is never discussed in the mainstream media.
3) The economics of climate adaptation versus mitigation (and not least emphasise what the trillions of dollars spent on mitigation has achieved so far). Look at real world metrics such as impact on manufacturing, jobs and climate resilience.
4) The physics and engineering of power generation - particularly the need for security and reliable supply. The recent summer margin notices could drive this discussion.
5) Climate politics - do climate policies as currently implemented make the world safer or more dangerous? Are climate policies really more important to achieve political ends through increased state surveillance and control? Who really benefits from climate spending?
6) All the secondary climate policies, such as EVs, heat pumps etc - how are these working out and at what cost?
7) Opportunity cost. Imagine not having spent trillions on mitigation, what could be have better spent that vast amount of money on besides better flood defences and home insulation? Alleviating poverty? A first class health service? World class education and R&D?
Unfortunately, we cannot look to the BBC to make this happen, one of the many unforgivable shortcomings of our public broadcasting service. I welcome that Academy of Ideas support this discussion but unless the government backs a fundamental review then the general public are unlikely to be swayed. There is a distinct lack of honesty in how energy subsidies work, which means that most people have no idea of the impact of Net Zero policies on their wallet. A sustained series of real debates between acknowledged experts may not make a difference but at this point I can't see what else might work.
And the climate changes anyway, even if humans didnt exist, it changes. The thing that makes me suspicious about this agenda is how similar it is to the covid propoganda. It is not a subject that has been debated, just pushed. Constant media messaging and enforcement, and the voices opposing it sound pretty sensible and evidence based.
It's worth noting that the Americans recently abandoned the Linear No-Threshold (LNT) model. Longitudinal research on workforces exposed to very low levels of background radiation consistent with very low emissions which are not zero-bounded shows scant evidence of adverse health implications. This has huge regulatory cost implications. Although it's unlikely that we will ever be able match to the East Asians in the high income advanced economies, it's perfectly feasible that with changes like this and Regulatory Red Teams designed to override the normal regulatory adding process, we could quite conceivably get close in terms of costs for large scale nuclear.
This would be a boon by comparison to the failed technologies of wind and solar, which most regression analyses show gets more expensive above 20% of total deployment for intermittent sources and economically damaging to the end consumer above 40%. The exceptions occur where aircon demand is high, because solar and aircon pair naturally.
There are structural issues with fires and water availability due to climate change, but they've only really begun to emerge with significance in the past quarter century. Increased evapotranspiration reduces total water availability. Higher carbon in the atmosphere increases the rate at which plants grow, consuming more water. We should be spending money on mitigation- something we've mostly abandoned in recent decades. The French have a water investment plan which is reasonably well-funded up until 2030. What's the betting the British plan is either a) non-existent, b) a joke, or c) completely unfunded.
Anyone who wants to look seriously at this issue should completely discard LCOE. It's much simpler and more accurate to look at energy cost versus percentage wind/solar deployment by country where the verdict on wind/solar is exceedingly grim from an economic perspective, unless your goal is degrowth, deindustrialisation of high tech industries and enforced impoverishment of the population.
I really believed in ( and taught secondary science classes about it) anthropogenic climate change. However, my general scepticism about the stories told by the powers that be which started with transgenderism, continued with the Covid debacle, and I am now certainly a sceptic. Yes, it's happening, but I think the ridiculousness of refusing to develop nuclear power, and tidal power ( we are an island with several suitable sites,) as well as the madness of importing loads of extra people with their various needs for housing, water, power etc is also a factor. And as for Norway harvesting gas from the North Sea which we then buy from them - crazy!! Be nice if the state bought the products of the North sea and thus reduced our energy bills.........
I am wondering how much of the Net Zero climate rhetoric has a political expediency behind it. And what is the ultimate end result they are aiming for?
Because so many of their policies don’t make sense.
I take the examples of the farmer issue in the Netherlands. The politicians have decided to impose a near impossible nitrogen and CO2 reduction on society. Way more than demanded by the EU. And farmers appear in the main firing line.
As a result farmers have to reduce the size of their farms, making these economically unviable. Furthermore some farms are being threatened with removal of their licenses, which is unheard of.
So here you have one of the best run farming industries of the world, also in terms of sustainability, and the second biggest food exporter in the world! And they are asked to stop or significantly reduce farming under the guise of NetZero.
I cannot make sense of this unless there is another motive. More land needed for housing, data centres and solar farms?
Who will supply the food? Will NL become an importer of food?
As I stated, the imposed norms are political and have nothing to do with science.
And when do we ever hear a proper debate on these issues?
How much? All of it. It's about control.
The European wildfires were started by arsonists, not by "climate change".
In France alone, almost 200 arsonists were arrested—and that's just the ones who were caught.
The real question isn't "What do we do about 'climate change'?"—it's "Who is funding and organizing terrorist acts to perpetuate climate alarmism?"
Great article, but the climate change is real mantra is a little tiresme. Is it? Some of us know and speak with real scientists who would dissaree or have issues with some of the climare claims. Science isn't dogma or shouldn'tbe. Looking out of the window we see weather, wwhich isn't the same as climate. Whilst perfectly willing to consider the possibility of anthopgenic global warming and the like, one is suspicious when the solution is surrendering liberty to the state and adapting life to suit the state.
I thought it was a terrible article. 2026 is unusual for seeing a drop in area burns across all continents. Now that's actually a sign of warming if you know the hypothesis behind AGW but this author obviously doesn't.
Instead it's the tedious and anti-science attitude of claiming anything or everything as a sign for resentment. Spare me these religious nutters who don't have a clue
So what happens when volcanoes go off and pump more carbon dioxide into the atmosphere than any country? Eco zealots don't mention that or the many times the earth has warmed and then freezes! A complete scam to make money!
I just can't get my head around the concept of "stopping" climate change. It's just so ridiculous as to be unworthy of serious discussion surely? And I say this as a scientist who has analysed and modelled geophysical processes. However, when we apparently live in an age when nothing is off the table, including men demanding to be accepted as biological women, it seems we do need to keep having this discussion. Unless and until we have a sustained public debate between serious scientists on either side of the argument, nothing is going to change. There needs to be a series of such debates covering at least the following topics:
1) Climate science - what can it really tell us about natural versus man-made change?
2) Climate modelling - strengths and weakness, such as uncertainty in predictions, which is never discussed in the mainstream media.
3) The economics of climate adaptation versus mitigation (and not least emphasise what the trillions of dollars spent on mitigation has achieved so far). Look at real world metrics such as impact on manufacturing, jobs and climate resilience.
4) The physics and engineering of power generation - particularly the need for security and reliable supply. The recent summer margin notices could drive this discussion.
5) Climate politics - do climate policies as currently implemented make the world safer or more dangerous? Are climate policies really more important to achieve political ends through increased state surveillance and control? Who really benefits from climate spending?
6) All the secondary climate policies, such as EVs, heat pumps etc - how are these working out and at what cost?
7) Opportunity cost. Imagine not having spent trillions on mitigation, what could be have better spent that vast amount of money on besides better flood defences and home insulation? Alleviating poverty? A first class health service? World class education and R&D?
Unfortunately, we cannot look to the BBC to make this happen, one of the many unforgivable shortcomings of our public broadcasting service. I welcome that Academy of Ideas support this discussion but unless the government backs a fundamental review then the general public are unlikely to be swayed. There is a distinct lack of honesty in how energy subsidies work, which means that most people have no idea of the impact of Net Zero policies on their wallet. A sustained series of real debates between acknowledged experts may not make a difference but at this point I can't see what else might work.
Maybe we need to emulate China and build more coal powered electricity generating plants?
And the climate changes anyway, even if humans didnt exist, it changes. The thing that makes me suspicious about this agenda is how similar it is to the covid propoganda. It is not a subject that has been debated, just pushed. Constant media messaging and enforcement, and the voices opposing it sound pretty sensible and evidence based.
Nothing we are witnessing has not happened before.
Vikings once farmed far more of GREENland (name ever baffled you?) than is now possible.
Hannibal drove elephants over the Alps.
Romans grew red grapes in Northern England.
If CO2 is the reason how come the Eemian era was 2 to 3 degrees C WARMER than now - with one third LESS CO2 at 280ppm.
Models have to be used as real world data (that real science uses) blows this nonsense out of the water.
It's worth noting that the Americans recently abandoned the Linear No-Threshold (LNT) model. Longitudinal research on workforces exposed to very low levels of background radiation consistent with very low emissions which are not zero-bounded shows scant evidence of adverse health implications. This has huge regulatory cost implications. Although it's unlikely that we will ever be able match to the East Asians in the high income advanced economies, it's perfectly feasible that with changes like this and Regulatory Red Teams designed to override the normal regulatory adding process, we could quite conceivably get close in terms of costs for large scale nuclear.
This would be a boon by comparison to the failed technologies of wind and solar, which most regression analyses show gets more expensive above 20% of total deployment for intermittent sources and economically damaging to the end consumer above 40%. The exceptions occur where aircon demand is high, because solar and aircon pair naturally.
There are structural issues with fires and water availability due to climate change, but they've only really begun to emerge with significance in the past quarter century. Increased evapotranspiration reduces total water availability. Higher carbon in the atmosphere increases the rate at which plants grow, consuming more water. We should be spending money on mitigation- something we've mostly abandoned in recent decades. The French have a water investment plan which is reasonably well-funded up until 2030. What's the betting the British plan is either a) non-existent, b) a joke, or c) completely unfunded.
Anyone who wants to look seriously at this issue should completely discard LCOE. It's much simpler and more accurate to look at energy cost versus percentage wind/solar deployment by country where the verdict on wind/solar is exceedingly grim from an economic perspective, unless your goal is degrowth, deindustrialisation of high tech industries and enforced impoverishment of the population.