A recent petition calling for the repeal of the UK Climate Change Act has triggered a response from the government. But what the reply reveals is yet more of the intransigence that caused its crises.
All 'climate' legislation is based on the demand of the Club of Rome, the UNEP and all who want to de-industrialise, control population sizes and rewild the planet. These folk are supported by very wealthy individuals, fund managers, renewables energy companies and the wealthy banks (World Bank, IMF) who directly and indirectly support the ideology to keep the poor and working people poor and powerless. Carbon dioxide emissions cannot absorb infrared radiation after the gas reached 280 parts per million (pre-Industrial Revolution time) and we are now at 417 ppm.
The Club of Rome and UNEP ideology is perpetuated by hate, power, money, hubris, ignorance and greed. Our MPs and civil servants will never repeal the 'climate' legislation. Why would they when they, including the CC Committee and staff earn so well? Those who read this substack and comment already know all of this. Only Reform UK plans to 'scrap net zero.'
I fear that even if the petition reaches 100k or a million signatures, it will not cause the government to give pause to its ideological ambitions. I fear that we are headed for increasing civil unrest as Labour double down on Net Zero targets and completely dispense even with the pretence of adhering to democracy or indeed of adhering to governing in the public interest, arguing instead that abandoning the Net Zero target will cause more harms to 'future generations and the planet' than the necessary harms to be imposed upon the public now.
Perhaps so Jaime. But I think the advent of a Labour government will be when ideology at last comes face to face with harsh reality. And, when that happens, reality must win. For example, there won't be nearly enough money for Net Zero. But arguably the biggest dose of reality will come from the the mundane but unavoidable fact that the UK doesn’t have anywhere near enough skilled technical managers, electrical and other engineers, electricians, plumbers, welders, mechanics and other tradespeople to do the multitude of tasks essential to achieve Net Zero – a problem hugely worsened by Labour's much touted plans for a massively increased house building programme.
Reality must win Robin, but when, and at what cost? The 'climate crisis' and Net Zero fantasies are dug in very deep into every single British institution now and they are bolstered by the rule of law. Five years of Labour trying (and failing) to get to Net Zero may sound the death knell for British industry amid widespread civil unrest, not to mention the collapse of the economy. Starmer is going to have to face reality very quickly if the worst is to be avoided. I don't see that happening, especially with Miliband in office.
If I'm right about the acute lack of funds and especially about the unavoidable fact that we don't have nearly enough skilled people to do the work, the costs should be relatively minimal. The ideology may be dug well into every British institution (and I think it is) but that cannot make the impossible possible. And that's true whatever even the Supreme Court may determine.
Robin (and Jaime too), I understand your arguments but am inclined to ask general Patraeus's question, "Tell me how this ends!" We need, in the modern idiom, off-ramps for the political classes (and Mr Miliband in particular) so as to allow them to save face while retreating towards a safe, sensible and affordable energy policy. I do NOT yet see those off-ramps; do you? If so, what are they? Without them, matters are going to become much, much worse before they level out at a much reduced standard of living for the country.
But John surely I've indicated how Miliband can save face. All he has to do is to say: 'We cannot do what's needed because the stupid, irresponsible Tories (a) have made such a mess of the nation's finances and (b) haven't had the foresight to ensure that we have the skilled people needed for the essential tasks of the twenty-first century.' R
Hello Robin, he could say those things right this minute, could he not, and thereby (i) kick Net Zero into the very long grass, and (ii) change course for a realistic energy policy? But he has NOT done so. Thus, I fear, he is digging in for our continuing immiseration and the enrichment of the predatory rent-seeking class.
As always great stuff Ben. But there’s one thing I don’t understand. The petition is concerned with the UK’s Net Zero policy, not with what’s happening globally. Therefore, when the government says that ‘The costs of global inaction to tackle climate change significantly outweigh the costs of action’, it’s not responding to the petition.
The global picture is clear. Most major non-Western countries – the source of over 75% of GHG emissions – don’t regard emission reduction as a priority and, either exempt (by international agreement) from or ignoring any obligation to reduce their emissions, are focused instead on economic and social development, poverty eradication and energy security. As a result, global emissions are increasing and are set to continue to increase for the foreseeable future. The UK is the source of less than 1% of global emissions – so any further emission reduction it may achieve cannot have any impact on the global position.
I appreciate that this may have only limited relevance to ‘scientific debate’ or the claimed ‘scientific consensus’. But surely it’s important enough for you to have mentioned it?
Thank you for doing this superb comprehensive analysis and dissection of the government's response to the petition. As mealy mouthed a response as was expected. These people, like Sunak and Starmer( the next Uniparty hopeful) never fail to mention 2030 ( or 2035, 2050). The UN's SDG's are the driver, and, these lying corrupt politicians are vying with one another to meet those goals, knowing they will never be touched by them.
Ben, you touched on the crucial point that I don’t think is hammered enough: data precision. Climate science is perfectly fine as an academic field but what they are trying to do is apply it to the real world without real world verification.
The 2016 Water Act goes into detail of how measurement devices should meet standards thus requiring those users to verify their equipment is suitable to measure defined levels with good signal to noise. Same as with bridge tolerances, airplane loads and on an on.
Climate science has no such standards. It is unbelievable the cultish behaviour on display. I asked the government by FOI where were the verification reports or even procedures. They just pointed to the IPCC. Even after review. Natural England the same.
They are making projections to tenths of a degree and less when the temperature record in reality is maybe good to -/+ 2degC. We can’t even tell if temps are going down since 1930.
It is blatant fraud. And we should be forcing them to verify it before applying it. Everything else is noise. Get them to justify in real world terms their stated precisions and uncertainties of their source inputs and the whole thing crumbles.
I run a satellite position aggregator. Even though those models are backed up by observations I’m not that concerned if a satellite is 10 or 1000m close to another. Just that it looks close. These people argue over millidegrees.
Chapters 11 and 12 contain serious errors and misconceptions.
288 K – 255 K = 33 C cooler is rubbish.
Nobody agrees 288 K (390 W/m^2) is the GMST plus it was 15 C in 1896.
255 K (240 W/m^2) is the spherical ToA (not surface) equilibrium OLR with a 30% albedo not a GHE.
Without the “GHE” there is no 30% albedo and the equilibrium OLR becomes 278 K (342 W/m^2) 23 C warmer than the 30% case. (And w 30% more Q GMST would also rise by 23 C to 311 K.)
The Earth is 23 C cooler (278-255, 311-288) with the atmosphere/water vapor/30% albedo not warmer.
396 upwelling LWIR is the BB calculation for a 16 C surface that fills the denominator of the emissivity ratio. (emissivity=radiation from system/radiation from system as BB at temp) This 396 up/333 “back”/duplicate 63 GHE radiative forcing loop is “extra”, not real and has no business even being on the GHE balance graphics.
And, no, it is not measured.
IR instruments do not measure flux directly. They are designed, fabricated and calibrated to deliver a relative, comparative, referenced temperature assuming the target is a black body. If the target is not a BB the operator is advised to paint it or tape it black to mimic such or insert the known emissivity. In the case of the K-T graphic: 63/396=0.16. SURFRAD & USCRN also do this wrong.
There is no such thing as “air flux.” This requires energy flow from cool to warm w/o work violating LoT 2. (page 229 “radiative fluxes” is LoT nonsense!)
This apparent cooling is actually produced by the kinetic heat transfer processes of the contiguous air molecules. (conduction+convection+advection+latent)
More kinetic action produces cooler temperatures and less radiation and less kinetic action produces higher temperatures and more radiation.
Temperature is a function of the kinetic processes, radiation is a function of temperature, radiation is a function (inverse) of the kinetic processes.
The kinetic and radiative heat transfer processes are inversely joined at the hip as demonstrated by experiment, the gold standard of classical science.
GHE theory fails because of two erroneous assumptions:
near Earth space is cold & w/o GHE would become 255 K, -18 C, ball of ice
&
radiating as a 16C BB the surface produces “extra” GHE energy aka radiative forcing.
Without the atmosphere, water vapor or 30% albedo Earth would become much like the Moon, a barren rock, hot^3 on the lit side, cold^3 on the dark.
“TFK_bams09” GHE heat balance & its legion of clones uses bad math and badder physics. 63 W/m^2 appears twice violating both LoT 1 and GAAP. 396 W/m^2 upwelling is a BB calc for a 16 C surface filling denominator of the emissivity ratio, 16/396=0.16, “extra” & not real. 333 W/m^2 “back” radiating from cold to warm violates LoT 1 & 2. Remove 396/333/63 from graphic and solar balance works.
The kinetic heat transfer processes of the contiguous atmospheric molecules render a terrestrial BB impossible as demonstrated by experiment, the gold standard of classical science.
Since both GHE & CAGW climate “science” are indefensible rubbish alarmists must resort to fear mongering lies, lawsuits, censorship and violence.
The whole edifice has been built on lies and it's why they don't want a debate. At some point reality will bite and it isn't going to be pretty. The governing classes (Govts, NGOs, civil servants, big corporates) are in essence a cabal seeking to impose their will on the wider population. There are no real choices for the electorate (you always get green whichever way you vote). We can see evidence of populations waking up across Europe as they vote for more independence. It will come to the UK but take a bit longer. Until then I'm hunkering down. As ever Ben a fantastic article which utterly demolishes every single claim of the Govt (remember any member of the Governing class would say almost exactly the same as the current Govt did). As an aside I'm reading Hitchins, The Cameron Delluison. I don't think I've ever read such a prescient pice of work in my life. It's almost 15yrs old now and he articulates beautifully what has happened because of the utter disdain the Governing classes have for us plebs.
As clearly stated in the government's response (supported by all mainstream political parties), they are sticking to an ideological position not open to reason or debate. Net Zero is an attack on us (as was the covid "pandemic" and experimental injection coercion) . It is virtually a declaration of war against we the people. The system has gone rogue.
If a critical mass continue to question and refuse to comply, the climate emergency narrative will crumble, the political system of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Six Counties of Ulster will lose it legitimacy and will fade away like the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics before it.
We can start by legally stop paying tax to this evil entity.
"large majority (74%) agreed that they could make changes that would help reduce climate change". None of us can make any changes that reduce climate change. Who the hell do we think we are that we seriously consider we can do this. Outrageous hubris!
All 'climate' legislation is based on the demand of the Club of Rome, the UNEP and all who want to de-industrialise, control population sizes and rewild the planet. These folk are supported by very wealthy individuals, fund managers, renewables energy companies and the wealthy banks (World Bank, IMF) who directly and indirectly support the ideology to keep the poor and working people poor and powerless. Carbon dioxide emissions cannot absorb infrared radiation after the gas reached 280 parts per million (pre-Industrial Revolution time) and we are now at 417 ppm.
https://www.brugesgroup.com/blog/more-carbon-dioxide-cannot-absorb-more-infrared-radiation
The Club of Rome and UNEP ideology is perpetuated by hate, power, money, hubris, ignorance and greed. Our MPs and civil servants will never repeal the 'climate' legislation. Why would they when they, including the CC Committee and staff earn so well? Those who read this substack and comment already know all of this. Only Reform UK plans to 'scrap net zero.'
I fear that even if the petition reaches 100k or a million signatures, it will not cause the government to give pause to its ideological ambitions. I fear that we are headed for increasing civil unrest as Labour double down on Net Zero targets and completely dispense even with the pretence of adhering to democracy or indeed of adhering to governing in the public interest, arguing instead that abandoning the Net Zero target will cause more harms to 'future generations and the planet' than the necessary harms to be imposed upon the public now.
Perhaps so Jaime. But I think the advent of a Labour government will be when ideology at last comes face to face with harsh reality. And, when that happens, reality must win. For example, there won't be nearly enough money for Net Zero. But arguably the biggest dose of reality will come from the the mundane but unavoidable fact that the UK doesn’t have anywhere near enough skilled technical managers, electrical and other engineers, electricians, plumbers, welders, mechanics and other tradespeople to do the multitude of tasks essential to achieve Net Zero – a problem hugely worsened by Labour's much touted plans for a massively increased house building programme.
Reality must win Robin, but when, and at what cost? The 'climate crisis' and Net Zero fantasies are dug in very deep into every single British institution now and they are bolstered by the rule of law. Five years of Labour trying (and failing) to get to Net Zero may sound the death knell for British industry amid widespread civil unrest, not to mention the collapse of the economy. Starmer is going to have to face reality very quickly if the worst is to be avoided. I don't see that happening, especially with Miliband in office.
If I'm right about the acute lack of funds and especially about the unavoidable fact that we don't have nearly enough skilled people to do the work, the costs should be relatively minimal. The ideology may be dug well into every British institution (and I think it is) but that cannot make the impossible possible. And that's true whatever even the Supreme Court may determine.
Robin (and Jaime too), I understand your arguments but am inclined to ask general Patraeus's question, "Tell me how this ends!" We need, in the modern idiom, off-ramps for the political classes (and Mr Miliband in particular) so as to allow them to save face while retreating towards a safe, sensible and affordable energy policy. I do NOT yet see those off-ramps; do you? If so, what are they? Without them, matters are going to become much, much worse before they level out at a much reduced standard of living for the country.
Regards, John C.
But John surely I've indicated how Miliband can save face. All he has to do is to say: 'We cannot do what's needed because the stupid, irresponsible Tories (a) have made such a mess of the nation's finances and (b) haven't had the foresight to ensure that we have the skilled people needed for the essential tasks of the twenty-first century.' R
Hello Robin, he could say those things right this minute, could he not, and thereby (i) kick Net Zero into the very long grass, and (ii) change course for a realistic energy policy? But he has NOT done so. Thus, I fear, he is digging in for our continuing immiseration and the enrichment of the predatory rent-seeking class.
Regards, John C.
As always great stuff Ben. But there’s one thing I don’t understand. The petition is concerned with the UK’s Net Zero policy, not with what’s happening globally. Therefore, when the government says that ‘The costs of global inaction to tackle climate change significantly outweigh the costs of action’, it’s not responding to the petition.
The global picture is clear. Most major non-Western countries – the source of over 75% of GHG emissions – don’t regard emission reduction as a priority and, either exempt (by international agreement) from or ignoring any obligation to reduce their emissions, are focused instead on economic and social development, poverty eradication and energy security. As a result, global emissions are increasing and are set to continue to increase for the foreseeable future. The UK is the source of less than 1% of global emissions – so any further emission reduction it may achieve cannot have any impact on the global position.
I appreciate that this may have only limited relevance to ‘scientific debate’ or the claimed ‘scientific consensus’. But surely it’s important enough for you to have mentioned it?
This is an excellent read once again Ben - as you say, it’s unlikely it’ll change the government mind, but might provoke more kick back from voters
Thank you for doing this superb comprehensive analysis and dissection of the government's response to the petition. As mealy mouthed a response as was expected. These people, like Sunak and Starmer( the next Uniparty hopeful) never fail to mention 2030 ( or 2035, 2050). The UN's SDG's are the driver, and, these lying corrupt politicians are vying with one another to meet those goals, knowing they will never be touched by them.
Ben, you touched on the crucial point that I don’t think is hammered enough: data precision. Climate science is perfectly fine as an academic field but what they are trying to do is apply it to the real world without real world verification.
The 2016 Water Act goes into detail of how measurement devices should meet standards thus requiring those users to verify their equipment is suitable to measure defined levels with good signal to noise. Same as with bridge tolerances, airplane loads and on an on.
Climate science has no such standards. It is unbelievable the cultish behaviour on display. I asked the government by FOI where were the verification reports or even procedures. They just pointed to the IPCC. Even after review. Natural England the same.
They are making projections to tenths of a degree and less when the temperature record in reality is maybe good to -/+ 2degC. We can’t even tell if temps are going down since 1930.
It is blatant fraud. And we should be forcing them to verify it before applying it. Everything else is noise. Get them to justify in real world terms their stated precisions and uncertainties of their source inputs and the whole thing crumbles.
I run a satellite position aggregator. Even though those models are backed up by observations I’m not that concerned if a satellite is 10 or 1000m close to another. Just that it looks close. These people argue over millidegrees.
“the Inconvenient Skeptic”
John Kehr
Chapters 11 and 12 contain serious errors and misconceptions.
288 K – 255 K = 33 C cooler is rubbish.
Nobody agrees 288 K (390 W/m^2) is the GMST plus it was 15 C in 1896.
255 K (240 W/m^2) is the spherical ToA (not surface) equilibrium OLR with a 30% albedo not a GHE.
Without the “GHE” there is no 30% albedo and the equilibrium OLR becomes 278 K (342 W/m^2) 23 C warmer than the 30% case. (And w 30% more Q GMST would also rise by 23 C to 311 K.)
The Earth is 23 C cooler (278-255, 311-288) with the atmosphere/water vapor/30% albedo not warmer.
396 upwelling LWIR is the BB calculation for a 16 C surface that fills the denominator of the emissivity ratio. (emissivity=radiation from system/radiation from system as BB at temp) This 396 up/333 “back”/duplicate 63 GHE radiative forcing loop is “extra”, not real and has no business even being on the GHE balance graphics.
And, no, it is not measured.
IR instruments do not measure flux directly. They are designed, fabricated and calibrated to deliver a relative, comparative, referenced temperature assuming the target is a black body. If the target is not a BB the operator is advised to paint it or tape it black to mimic such or insert the known emissivity. In the case of the K-T graphic: 63/396=0.16. SURFRAD & USCRN also do this wrong.
There is no such thing as “air flux.” This requires energy flow from cool to warm w/o work violating LoT 2. (page 229 “radiative fluxes” is LoT nonsense!)
This apparent cooling is actually produced by the kinetic heat transfer processes of the contiguous air molecules. (conduction+convection+advection+latent)
More kinetic action produces cooler temperatures and less radiation and less kinetic action produces higher temperatures and more radiation.
Temperature is a function of the kinetic processes, radiation is a function of temperature, radiation is a function (inverse) of the kinetic processes.
The kinetic and radiative heat transfer processes are inversely joined at the hip as demonstrated by experiment, the gold standard of classical science.
https://principia-scientific.org/debunking-the-greenhouse-gas-theory-with-a-boiling-water-pot/
There is no GHE, no GHG warming and no CAGW.
GHE theory fails because of two erroneous assumptions:
near Earth space is cold & w/o GHE would become 255 K, -18 C, ball of ice
&
radiating as a 16C BB the surface produces “extra” GHE energy aka radiative forcing.
Without the atmosphere, water vapor or 30% albedo Earth would become much like the Moon, a barren rock, hot^3 on the lit side, cold^3 on the dark.
“TFK_bams09” GHE heat balance & its legion of clones uses bad math and badder physics. 63 W/m^2 appears twice violating both LoT 1 and GAAP. 396 W/m^2 upwelling is a BB calc for a 16 C surface filling denominator of the emissivity ratio, 16/396=0.16, “extra” & not real. 333 W/m^2 “back” radiating from cold to warm violates LoT 1 & 2. Remove 396/333/63 from graphic and solar balance works.
The kinetic heat transfer processes of the contiguous atmospheric molecules render a terrestrial BB impossible as demonstrated by experiment, the gold standard of classical science.
Since both GHE & CAGW climate “science” are indefensible rubbish alarmists must resort to fear mongering lies, lawsuits, censorship and violence.
The whole edifice has been built on lies and it's why they don't want a debate. At some point reality will bite and it isn't going to be pretty. The governing classes (Govts, NGOs, civil servants, big corporates) are in essence a cabal seeking to impose their will on the wider population. There are no real choices for the electorate (you always get green whichever way you vote). We can see evidence of populations waking up across Europe as they vote for more independence. It will come to the UK but take a bit longer. Until then I'm hunkering down. As ever Ben a fantastic article which utterly demolishes every single claim of the Govt (remember any member of the Governing class would say almost exactly the same as the current Govt did). As an aside I'm reading Hitchins, The Cameron Delluison. I don't think I've ever read such a prescient pice of work in my life. It's almost 15yrs old now and he articulates beautifully what has happened because of the utter disdain the Governing classes have for us plebs.
Why the UK? Why has institutional capture been so complete in the UK? Who benefits? And why?
Attacking the government of the day will not get this resolved, the fight needs to be far more focused.
Yes our 1% will make a massive difference. Insanity
As clearly stated in the government's response (supported by all mainstream political parties), they are sticking to an ideological position not open to reason or debate. Net Zero is an attack on us (as was the covid "pandemic" and experimental injection coercion) . It is virtually a declaration of war against we the people. The system has gone rogue.
If a critical mass continue to question and refuse to comply, the climate emergency narrative will crumble, the political system of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Six Counties of Ulster will lose it legitimacy and will fade away like the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics before it.
We can start by legally stop paying tax to this evil entity.
"large majority (74%) agreed that they could make changes that would help reduce climate change". None of us can make any changes that reduce climate change. Who the hell do we think we are that we seriously consider we can do this. Outrageous hubris!
Climate change is a natural process, reworded into scaremongering the public into conformity