Public opinion is beginning to shift. Maybe it’s the blackouts.
A year ago I noted that the discourse around climate policy had changed, prompted by the security of supply and affordability concerns emerging in the wake of the Russian invasion of Ukraine, a conflict that sadly continues. The trilemma was back with a vengeance and has not gone away – recently the UK Government announced a renewed desire to see the delivery of more gas power station this decade, despite the lack of available abatement technology. […]
But probably the most seismic change in past year came in July when the Labour Party failed to win the Uxbridge by-election as voters rebelled against the expansion of London’s emissions charging scheme known as “Ulez” (Ultra-low emissions zone). As a result, councils up and down the country abandoned plans for similar schemes, and the unpopular incumbent Conservative Party saw an electoral opportunity, shortly afterwards watering down the electric car mandate and plans for heat pumps. The Labour Party is not immune to climate u-turns having recently abandoned its green-spending pledge.
However, it hasn’t all been good news. In February I took part in IE Week, speaking on the final day of the conference in a session devoted to electricity. Too many of the speakers spouted out-of-date mantras about renewables being “cheap” and painting a naïve picture of a green utopia with green energy, green jobs, sunshine and flowers. I likened it to a child’s picture of a house – ask any child to draw such a picture and you get something along the lines of the image shown – charming, but hardly realistic.
When asked about people sitting in the cold and dark in order to save a few pennies under the Demand Flexibility Scheme, one speaker hailed the “social media buzz” they were generating, failing to recognise that they were driven by poverty and not a desire to be “down with the kidz”. However on a more positive note these remarks did not go down well with the audience, many of whom thanked me for being the “voice of reason” in the room. Still, we need to do more to avoid designing energy markets with the affluent in mind, while ignoring the reality of the majority.
Along the same lines. Maybe, just maybe, people are waking up.
https://www.zerohedge.com/political/europe-scraps-net-zero-biden-should-wont-why
…and Greens are likely to get clobbered hard in the European Parliament elections in June.
You don’t say.
Canadians who stupidly endorse the Liberals policies including Net Zero , are not hurting enough yet , but given Trudeau’s tax and spend agenda, eco-lunacy passion and WEF inspired guidance , come the 2025 election they just might be.
Hopefully the hard core Liberals voters will just sit on their hands.
I don’t have a lot of hope for Poilievre but at this point any reasonable change is progress.
I think we have to find an island for these eco-freaks, ship them there with no electricity or heat sources and let them survive with their green ideology .The stipulation is should they try to escape, they will be exterminated
How about Baffin Island. It would also be a good spot for a penitentiary. Limited security would be needed. All that is needed is to keep the polar bears away. Guests of the government can be employed sweeping snow off of the solar panels and chipping ice off of the turbine blades.
All MP’s have received this:
CANADA’S CO₂ EMISSIONS IMPACT ON GLOBAL TEMPERATURE:
0.000247°C per year, or 1°C in 4055 years.
Canada’s carbon tax impact on global temperature :
0.000041°C or 1°C per 24691 years.
These figures are solid (in the sense that they are from the IPCC! The science is NOT settled.):
Source: Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) AR6, “CLIMATE CHANGE 2023: Synthesis Report:”
https://www.ipcc.ch/report/ar6/syr/downloads/report/IPCC_AR6_SYR_SPM.pdf
“For every 1000 GtCO2 emitted by human activity, global surface temperature rises by 0.45°C (best estimate, with a likely range from 0.27°C to 0.63°C).”
CO2 was not and is not a climate driver or pollutant. How stupid do people have to be to want to eliminate or reduce that on which their very lives depend. Does everyone believe liars that want to kill them?
“For every 1000 GtCO2 emitted by human activity, global surface temperature rises by 0.45°C (best estimate, with a likely range from 0.27°C to 0.63°C).”
Incorrect, the impact of CO2 is logarithmic, not linear.
IPCC claims it to be close to linear. Look it up.
IPCC claims a lot of things that aren’t true
JD, most of the science at the Working Group I level is good.
Once the politicians get a hold of it and write the “Summary for Policymakers” it turns to crap.
The whole first paragraph of the WG1 paper starts with a conclusion… does it get any better from there?
“Once the politicians get a hold of it and write the “Summary for Policymakers” it turns to crap.”
You’re not wrong about that. There were apparently quite a few scientists in the first IPCC report who were outraged to have their work misconstrued, manipulated or sometimes just ignored…anything that did not fit The Narrative never made it into the “Summary For Policy Makers” (or whatever it was called at the time). I remember thinking that releasing your conclusions first, then ‘adjusting’ the data before releasing it (which they ADMITTED doing!) would have ended with criminal charges if they were an actual business/corporation.
It’s logarithmic not linear. The explanation has to do with the molecules ability the absorb energy and wavelengths, IIRC. The best analogy is home insulation. You can keep adding more layers of insulation but the law of diminishing return kicks in. Doubling the amount of insulation will not double the reduction in heat loss.
Logarithmic relationships can for practical purposes appear to to be approximately linear within a relatively narrow range of observations.
That’s what we are dealing with here in the relationship of CO2 emissions and temperatures.
“For every 1000 GtCO2 emitted by human activity, global surface temperature rises by 0.45°C (best estimate, with a likely range from 0.27°C to 0.63°C).”
The nitpicking about the theoretical shape of the curve totally obscures the point. Canada’s emissions have an impact of approximately 0.000247°C per year, or 1°C in 4055 years.
Logarithmic relationships can for practical purposes appear to to be approximately linear within a relatively narrow range of observations.
That’s what we are dealing with here in the relationship of CO2 emissions and temperatures.
“For every 1000 GtCO2 emitted by human activity, global surface temperature rises by 0.45°C (best estimate, with a likely range from 0.27°C to 0.63°C).”
The nitpicking about the theoretical shape of the curve totally obscures the point. Canada’s emissions have a tiny impact of approximately 0.000247°C per year, or 1°C in 4055 years.
The logarithmic function is important because of a couple reasons. 1) CO2 measurements are being done at or near the detection limits of analyzers. 2) Those numbers are being fed into models and then extrapolated with various scenarios.
This means the small differences in measurements produce big errors in the models. Which is why the error bars are very large and why the models are constantly revised – because the previous predictions fail to reflect actual observations and the models even struggle with correctly backcasting historical temps.
Laugh-In famously defined “logarithm” as a method of birth control for lumberjacks.
CO2 the Jesus molecule, Australian Senator Gerald Rennick points out how 1 CO2 molecule has to heat up some 10000 other molecules. According to the law of thermodynamics not the theory of climate change the 1 CO2 molecule has to be at 6600 degree C to heat up the other 10000 by 1 degree C, that is not possible it’s like Jesus feeding 5000 people with a handful of fish.
https://youtu.be/0swtPnN46Vo?si=uB0vLr0RdlEYHY5e&t=244
Maybe its the smell of burning Garden Gnome Barbie:
https://blazingcatfur.ca/2024/05/04/wtf-2264/
Remember when fracking was going to destroy America? Now the USA is touching on 13 million barrels a day and holds the record for highest production ever by a country. Russia is #2. Saudi #3. And the fracking protestors are totally gone.
We suffer because of these arrogant, ignorant, slow-learners.
It’s cute to pretend public opinion has anything to do with election results. Trump won and then the country immediately reverted to status quo. Rob Ford won and slowly reverted to a Communist mayor. I think people are slowly having some type of epiphany over the 4 biggest lies of late. Man’s behavior is effecting the weather. Humans, let alone any mammal, can have their sex changed. There is no way mankind can survive without a synthetic injection for a cold. Immigration is required to continue as a civilization. Doesn’t matter. They know their policies are not accepted and they don’t care because they are staying right where they are.
I will use those 4 points, very “to the point”.
Way past time for “Two Teams”.
An independent Western Canada would be the control group,from which we can banish all our local Gang Green to Ottawa,where they can show us all how their utopia works..
Only without us to loot as they lie themselves into insolvency.
Then I would be hugely entertained,just as all the other insanity and corruption Can Ahh Duh so loves..
It would be great comedy,if I was watching it over a defended border.
For it will take bankruptcy and social collapse before Gang Green will ever begin to think.
I was going to say “learn”, but that would be incorrect.
Remember these..
How can you tell a Liberal?
You can’t. You can’t tell a Liberal anything.
And of course in this Canadian Kleptocracy;
Do not steal.
Your government hates competition.
But you wouldn’t. Calgary and Edmonton are more than 50 percent of the province and are ruled by whack job mayors and councils. If you achieve independence, you’ll end up with a president Gondek. Keep striving for it. I’m an Ontarian, I’d just as soon see the country completely fall apart, but WHEN it does, nothing of substance will change, anywhere.
Am I mistaken but can anyone show me or lead me to a Climate Model that includes the Sun.
The sun rules the Planets climate. Period.
https://www.ipcc.ch/assessment-report/ar6/
What you are looking for will be found in WG1 – the scientific basis for AGW.
But I don’t recomend it. It’s like wading through sewage to understand that it stinks.
In general, IPCC has been claiming for many years that solar variations have no sigificant role in the rise of planetary temperatures.
They have also been “correcting” for the urban heat island effect, which can make up to 3.5 degrees of localized warming…
How much urbanization has been taking place over the last 100 years?
I agree. UHI is a huge effect, and more and more weather stations are now in very high traffic airports. This one alone has created great distortions. What gave WUWT its start over a decade ago was tracking all the stations used by IPCC in its climate reports that did NOT meet US weather station standards.
Naturally IPCC claims that they adjust for UHI effects, but no one credible believes them.
Let’s face it, IPCC is a gang of liars with a purely political agenda. What is also not generally acknowledged is that IPCC is not a scientific institution. It is a political one as immediately evidenced by its name.
It’s the sun, son.
Just say no to solar warming denial.
John western Canada repeatedly rests their hopes in the next saviour. Mulroney, Preston, Harper and now PP.
Successful only in denying reality. We are a colony. We don’t matter in the federal scheme of things.
Dear Leader is good.
Dear Leader is great.
Not that Dear Leader..The other one.
Yes I know.
We are still fat and lazy,hoping someone else will step and do the dirty work,for our benefit.
// But probably the most seismic change in past year came in July when the Labour Party failed to win the Uxbridge by-election as voters rebelled against the expansion of London’s emissions charging scheme known as “Ulez” (Ultra-low emissions zone) //
Uxbridge
The theme of this blurb is that, while being one of the London boroughs, it is in ZONE 6, “well away’
from Central London, proudly at the terminus of the Metropolitan and Piccadilly lines.
https://www.mylondon.news/news/west-london-news/11-reasons-uxbridge-best-place-16836407
However all of London voted recently:
&
//Khan easily secured a third term, increasing his vote share to 44%,
finishing 11% ahead of his Conservative rival Susan Hall.
She had focused her campaign on attacking Khan’s decision to expand the ultra-low emission zone (Ulez). //
Guardian
In socialist London, why would this outcome be a surprise?
London (not the city of London) doesn’t need a mayor, and did fine without one, until they had an attack of the stupids.
Thanks. You just proved my point.
Well, I didn’t call last year’s result a “seismic change” In fact Uxbridge has sent a Conservative to Parliament for the past 17 elections.
Not part of “socialist” London.
focussing on ULEZ when most Londoners do not have a car and do enjoy breathing … they either can’t count or are just very, very stupid.
Perhaps people are tiring of the incessant noise coming from the exclusively pro-warming paid science profiteers focused and modelled on climate being driven by the one variable (that would give politicians control of access to all energy and in effect all human welfare) in a highly complex system likely driven by external variables (solar, lunar, Jupiter’s gravitational influence, interstellar dust and cosmic rays) as much or more than earth-bound climatological factors. Given that there is no correlation, let alone causation between CO2 and global temperature over the last half billion years, the fact that we are locked into the CO2 obsession is proof enough the science has been politically weaponized.
There’s a lot of debate about whether global warming is “real,” the influence of the sun, “urban heat island effect,” etc. etc. I fully agree that most organizations in the field are littered by activists.
However, since 1979 we have had satellite readings of the lower troposphere that are (nearly) global, accounting for the urban heat island issue, replicable and (to me) credible.
They say that the globe has warmed at a rate of 1.5C per century since 1979. What % is natural vs human? Who knows?
https://www.drroyspencer.com/latest-global-temperatures/
“They say that the globe has warmed at a rate of 1.5C per century since 1979. What % is natural vs human? Who knows?”
Only the model knows.
Fact: Today, both poles are covered in ice year-round, this is very rare in Earth’s history. In fact, out of the last 550 million years, the earth has had permanent ice caps on one or both poles only nine percent of the time.
We call the state we are currently in the “Icehouse Earth.” The earth is in an icehouse state when either or both poles are covered in a thick, permanent icecap.
This Icehouse Earth is currently in an interglacial period of warming. We do not know what causes these warming periods. Best bet, but not proven is cosmic rays.
With all the uncertainty about the climate of our planet, we are being fed lies that mankind activity is the main cause for this warming, backed up by pseudoscience and quackery, when in fact, your guess or mine has about as much weight as these IPCC proclamations.
The IPCC is the peak of Policy Based Evidence Manufacturing.
A destructive and doomed practice.
Which the bureaus love.
The policy is always more certain than the evidence.
When you start with evidence ,you have to understand something about science and reality to make workable policy.
But when you start with policy assumptions,your ignorance and arrogance will never be challenged.
Notable that the wind was not blowing in the UK that day. Perhaps Mother Nature’s bank accounts should be “frozen”.
Watch what they do, not what they say.
https://townhall.com/tipsheet/saraharnold/2022/06/18/obama-installs-propane-tanks-at-mansion-while-pushing-green-policies-n2608950
As I stated above, watch what they do…
https://carbon-sense.com/2024/02/09/how-times-change/
Regarding the Earths warming/cooling periods; a 19th century hypothesis involved our approximately elliptical orbit around the sun and it’s regular variation of eccentricity, ie; the orbital path bulges and then contracts (over a period of thousands of years) while the perihelion and aphelion remain the same. When the ellipse path is narrower do the glaciers recede? When the ellipse path is wider does it possibly affect ice-ages?
Politicians and government agencies do nothing but tax and torment the population.. They don’t solve problems, they put problems on government funded life support.. So they can feed off of it forever..
One day government just got too big for its own good.. That would be the day they decided to save the world..
God forbid they fix the mess they already made.. No, off to greener pastures and the crushing debt that’s delivering..
I would say wake up but where is the fun in that..