UK climate policy discussion thread

by Judith Curry

I have been contacted by a UK politician about climate policy in the UK,

We have a zoom call scheduled for next Thursday to discuss.

I know that at least some of the Denizens are from the UK.  So here is a thread where we educate each other and discuss this topic.

261 responses to “UK climate policy discussion thread

  1. Stephen Heins



    So-called “red team” to challenge science’s claims, evidence and advice.

    GWPF welcomes Government plans to reform scientific advisory policy Calls for ‘Red Teaming’ of science advice

    London, 16 March: The Global Warming Policy Forum (GWPF) has welcomed Government plans to review and reform the role of scientific advice over fears that scientists hold too much power in policy making.

    According to media reports, Government officials have admitted that they “bowed to” scientists too often, rather than appointing a so-called “red team” to challenge their claims, evidence and advice. The GWPF has been calling for the introduction of scientific red teams for some time. We welcome the apparent acknowledgment by ministers that red teaming offers elected policy makers significant benefits if they wish to receive the full spectrum of expert advice and quality controlled information. As European governments and scientific organisations scuffle over claims and counter claims about the AstraZeneca vaccine, the current format of ‘evidence-based science advice’ is facing a momentous crisis of credibility and public trust. Scientific modelling, warnings and predictions based on widely differing assumptions are now exposed as contradictory and flawed as never before. As a result, institutional science advice is haemorrhaging trust while facing the biggest crisis in modern history. Politicians cannot duck political decisions and absolve themselves of democratic accountability by declaring themselves as merely following “the science.” Whether it concerns the pandemic, the environment, energy or vaccines, different scientific views and priorities must be balanced against each other, and against economic, social, and security concerns. This is the very essence of politics and can never be ceded, fully, to politically unaccountable scientists. For the wellbeing of our democracy, the public should be educated in these matters as scientific opinions are playing an increasingly prominent role in public policy matters. “The coronavirus crisis is causing the biggest economic and scientific crisis since the end of the Second World War. The introduction of institutional red teams into the way science is organised and funded in open societies should be the top priority of a scientific reformation after the end of the Covid-19 crisis,” GWPF director Dr Benny Peiser said. “This kind of scientific paradigm shift will be absolutely essential if we want to learn the most important lessons of the coronavirus disaster.”

    See also It Is Time To Adopt A ‘Red Team’ Approach In Science

    Contact Dr Benny Peiser Director, Global Warming Policy Forum e: m: 07553 361717

    “My friends are my ‘estate.’ Forgive me then the avarice to hoard them.”

    Emily Dickinson

    Stephen Heins

    The Practical Environmental, Inc.

    Suite 3, 530 Wilson Avenue

    Sheboygan, WI. 53081



    • Roger Knights

      “Politicians cannot duck political decisions and absolve themselves of democratic accountability by declaring themselves as merely following “the science.” Whether it concerns the pandemic, the environment, energy or vaccines, different scientific views and priorities must be balanced against each other, and against economic, social, and security concerns. This is the very essence of politics and can never be ceded, fully, to politically unaccountable scientists.” …

      Trump for years had the opportunity to set a red team upon the Consensus and failed to do so, missing his chance to go down in history as a statesmanlike hero. He apparently chickened out for a selfish and short-sighted reason—because his advisors, such as General Flynn, thought his poll numbers would suffer as a result.

      • >” … his advisors, such as General Flynn, thought his poll numbers would suffer as a result” [Trump’s no-red team]

        Nope. The scientists nominated for the red team were heavily threatened both by their peers and the MSM gatekeepers. Most then withdrew.

      • Roger Knights

        “Nope. The scientists nominated for the red team ….”

        Trump never nominated anyone for his red team—their names were just floated by outsiders as rumors. Trump’s red team was only floated as a trial balloon.

        “… were heavily threatened both by their peers and the MSM gatekeepers. Most then withdrew.”

        There were three skeptics on Koonins APS review panel. I doubt the any of them withdrew. Do you have a link. There’d have been many others to take their place if there had been withdrawals.

    • Roger Knights

      “The coronavirus crisis is causing the biggest economic and scientific crisis since the end of the Second World War. The introduction of institutional red teams into the way science is organised and funded in open societies should be the top priority of a scientific reformation after the end of the Covid-19 crisis,” GWPF director Dr Benny Peiser said. “This kind of scientific paradigm shift will be absolutely essential if we want to learn the most important lessons of the coronavirus disaster.”

      Red teams imply unofficial, ad hoc “science courts,” to provide a forum for debate, an agenda, a moderator to keep things on-topic and civil, and a respectable venue to attract participants and to moderate the moderator. (Science courts were an idea that fizzled out in the seventies, mostly because of alarmist objections.) The Oxford Union could provide a “court” for red-vs.-blue debates.

    • You Wrote:
      Better to stick to the costs of this exercise, every £1Bn spent on going to zero carbon emissions is a £1Bn that can’t be spent on hospitals, schools, social care, pensions, police, etc, etc.

      In Texas, we had a power and water outage due to freezing weather:
      Every dollar spent on Wind Mills and Solar panels and the billions on transmission lines was not spent on low cost, abundant, reliable energy.
      A fraction of that would have kept our power and water on. A worse freeze in 1989 did not cause loss of power and even with a worse freeze and broken pipes, not a fraction of the water outage.
      Green Energy cannot be protected from foreign or domestic enemies and not from Nature. Foreign Energy can be cut off for political purposes.

      • Actually, the subsidy for renewable energy in the UK is around £12billion per year.

    • You wrote: Government officials have admitted that they “bowed to” scientists too often

      It is a serious error to refer to those people as actual scientists. Actual scientists are always skeptical, they question even their own opinions and test them against facts.

      When they settled the science was when they resigned from being any kind of actual scientist.

  2. Paul Buckingham

    The key point for any UK politician to present the burden of proof, i.e. the scientific method, or with models it needs the closure problem, and when they realise they cannot do this (and finally admit the IPCC also do not have this evidence), then they should be taking a huge step back, because the policy documents on the table right now are crazy (including ending flights and shipping by 2028). They also need to finally get a clue about cost / benefit, as the energy policies are causing not only energy poverty but increased energy deaths. There is not a single policy that stands up to a cursory level of scrutiny.

    • Error “As climate warmed (1983 – 2016), infrared output to space declined” should be “As climate warmed (1983 – 2016), infrared output to space increased”

  3. Richard Titchener

    The big news in the uk at present is that the Secretary of State has called in the decision by a Cumbria local authority to approve a new deep mine for coking coal at Whitehaven. The local authority accepted the case for the mine on the basis it would replace imports of coking coal for steelmaking (making it carbon neutral in the uk) and produce 500 local jobs in an area of deprivation. There has been considerable fight back from the environmental lobby and COT 26 looms so the Govt has intervened. There is currently no substitute for coke in steelmaking and the government case appears to be that it will be found by 2035 when it hopes an alternative will be found as it has said it is its intention to outlaw coke in steelmaking by then. It seems policy is now based on wish fulfilment rather than science.
    The same government bankrolls import of biomass from the US for UK power plants as it is carbon neutral because trees are planted to replace those cut down, irrespective of the time it takes for a tree to grow and sequestrate carbon to the level of one felled. The investment in subsidising this income stream could have achieved clean coal technology for mines a few miles from the plants importing biomass now closed. This is a scandal hidden in carbon economics.

    • Judith

      It is worth bearing in mind that James Hansen intervened saying that Boris would be ‘Humiliated’ if he went ahead on the coal mine and that the UK’s ‘leadership’ and credibility would be destroyed ahead of the COP26 in Glasgow this year-postponed from last year.

      Boris went from Hero to zero -Brexit to gross mishandling of the Corona pandemic -back to Hero again-a genuinely brilliant response in developing vaccines and getting them into peoples arms.

      He wont want to be humiliated as like all politicians he wants to be liked and leave a positive legacy.

      Also bear in miond Boris-previously a bit of a climate sceptic-has been captured by his green activist fiance Carrie Symonds who is often seen as the power behind the throne or certainly those parts of it immersed in green.

      Our energy supplies are already at a critical state and going green is no substitute for building expensive grown up power stations. Fortunately leading light environmentalists such as Michael Moore, Michael Shellenberger and Zion Lights-former spokesperson for Extinction rebellion have all realised we can only keep the lights on with Nuclear.

      You can do worse than point your politician to the latest documentary by Michael Moore, the latest book by Shellenberger and Lomborg and suggests he talks to Zion lights who apparently lives in Devon, my home county.

      No doubt your politician will also be talking to the Devon based Met Office whose head of climate lives about 100 yards from the route of our intended walk this morning.

      There is a genuine lack of comprehension by politicans -egged on by very active green organisations-as to the impossibility of substituting fossil fuel with weather dependent renewables, as the local councils who approve them have no concept at all of the amount of energy they really produce listyening instead to the siren calls that the proposed solar farm will for example produce energy for far more houses than it ever can.

      Your politician is also fortunate in living in a country where the effects of past climate change, warmer and colder can be seen in our uplands (habitation and crop growing at heights impossible today) numerous documents and ironically web sites maintained by govt agencies such as the Dartmoor authority that confirm the warmer climate of the past -such as the Bronze age on their web sites!


  4. I don’t understand what is so hard to understand. If you want 24/7 reliable carbon-free electricity, your only choice is nuclear for the 80% of the time you can’t depend on solar/wind. Period. Yeah, some will argue that we should expect a miracle (affordable electricity/energy storage). I expect fusion will be here before that.

  5. glen ferrier

    Judith: Thank you for all you do. From my perspective I find it incredibly stupid for any government to take drastic action to combat hobgoblins. Prior to taking any action governments need to provide proof of CAWG with properly derived degrees of certainty. This has never been done so the science is indeed settled… We have settled on “we simply don’t know”; what we do know is that when compared to objective evidence the models are extremely poor at replicating reality. Are we really going to ruin billions of lives based on wonky models and a bunch of watermelons having public tantrums.

    Please ask them to stop the nonsense and to apply the scientific method rigorously.

    Thank you,


    • UK-Weather Lass

      Excellent advice, GF, IMHO.

      We have the unknown known that wind and solar never will be anything other than a costly virtue signalling exercise for the chattering classes who believe energy will always be within their budgetary grasp no matter how many others of less favourable economic status perish along the way

      When constant blackouts start spoiling their fanciful green beliefs their debatable intelligence may just click into gear and enable them to understand it is the ability to reliably produce baseload power to meet peaks and troughs at all times that matters most when it comes to electricity generation and transmission.. Nuclear, fission or fusion, with hydro and gas assistance is the answer with no carbon penalty and no mass scale environmental destruction. Wind, solar and EV’s come with a conveniently ignored carbon penalty and that is a disgraceful deceit for which our politicians should be called to answer.

    • These following pieces were about the first anniversary of UK Lockdown. It is all too easy to take the words and translate it directly to the madness the quasi religious climate fanatics would foist on us, and that the people, if they are sufficiently terrified by Mencken’s non existent hobgoblins, will comply with whatever climate measures come down the track

      “I could write several pages analysing governmental actions in the last year, but the overarching aim has been a deliberate campaign to generate fear of a disease which is only seriously dangerous to a small subset of people. If government succeeds in the – surprisingly easy – task of terrifying the population about some external threat, then it can take the most extraordinary actions, cheered on by the Opposition and mass media. A senior Doctor”

      —0-0 —–

      “So I was looking at this freely available information and thinking to myself, well, since eventually this knowledge will filter through to the population and our political leaders, we’ll find a straightforward path through this – protect the elderly, let everybody else get on with their lives. It was just a matter of time. David McGroggan, Associate Professor of Law, Northumbria Law School”

      Our politicians -who for the most part are idiotic, irrational, of poor quality and driven by politics rather than common sense, have been captured by the green blob.

      They have no idea whatsoever about the amount of co2 in the atmosphere/soils/oceans, the UK’s insignificant contribution and the need for vast amounts of cost effective energy. They believe, despite all the evidence, that this energy can be produced reliably and consistently by weather dependent renewables


  6. howard dewhirst

    Coking coal is also essential for making the glass for solar panels, but they are all made in China so that’s OK?

  7. “There is not a single policy that stands up to a cursory level of scrutiny.”. Well, that’s correct, but it’s not possible to do that idea full justice in the English language. How about “Every single energy and climate policy of the Boris Johnson UK government is stark raving bonkers”.

    Still not close, but at least a bit better?

    But then, I should be constructive, if I expect government to listen: Britain needs cheap reliable energy, and it needs energy security. For that, it needs multiple cheap reliable energy sources, and wind and solar have demonstrated over and over that they are neither cheap nor reliable. The more wind and solar that are installed, the more expensive and unreliable the system becomes. Germany is approaching collapse, and Britain should learn from that and pull back while there is still (just) time.
    “Renewables Threaten German Economy & Energy Supply, McKinsey Warns In New Report”

    The argument they always use to defend their policy is that they need to reduce CO2 emissions. It is very easy to see that that argument is wrong: If CO2 emissions really did have to be cut – really really did have to be cut – for the sake of the planet, then China, which is already emitting more than the USA and Europe combined, would have to cut too. But under the Paris agreement it is free to go on increasing CO2 emissions as much as it likes until 2030, and it is showing every intention of doing just that in spades, by building hundreds of new coal-fired power stations. The Paris Agreement is a clear starement that CO2 emissions are not a serious threat to the planet.

    • Dave Andrews

      The UK,s emissions of CO2 are around 1.1% of World emissions yearly. The late David MacKay, Regius Professor of Engineering at Cambridge University and former Chief Scientific Adviser to the UK Dept. of Energy and Climate Change calculated that powering all homes in the UK exclusively by
      renewables would only reduce UK emissions by 4%

  8. There are two aspects of the UK climate action plan that are odd. The first is that it is a national heroism climate action and not part of a global climate action plan. Secondly their goal is not zero fossil fuel emissions but net zero.

    Details in the document linked below and the two documents it links to.


  9. Leland Blair Nicholson

    I would start by asking them what could possibly be said or shown that would change their minds about the current Climate Change policy direction. If there isn’t anything, get them to say so individually in writing for the record — no “science” that would change their minds. Assuming that some might agree that previous incorrectness of the model outcomes and other predictions of disaster relative to actuals would make a difference in their thinking, I would be prepared to show this. I guess I would also ask if they are interested in end-to-end and holistic impact on human well-being or just looking at only a specific sliver or subset of the entire energy chain and/or only certain aspects of human well-being. Good luck with your discussions!

    • Excellent point. But they will just displace it. They’ll say “we do what the experts” ask us to. So your question should be addressed to the “experts”. Alternatively, they’ll answer it with “when expert advice changes, our policy will change”.

  10. My main beef is with their grounds for declaring a climate emergency, which is strongly fueled by false UK heat extremes attribution studies, and baseless UK precipitation projections, from the Met Office.

    Very brief Saharan plumes like in summer 2019, are totally dependent on the negative North Atlantic Oscillation conditions typical during a centennial solar minimum, and the complete reverse of what their models predict for the NAO with rising CO2 forcing.

    Major heatwaves lasting weeks with positive NAO conditions, are all discretely forced by faster solar wind states, and would not otherwise even occur. They are a cause and not a product of climate change, and are predictable centuries ahead. This covers four out the five hottest UK summers in the last 50 years:

  11. Reblogged this on Climate Collections.

  12. Here is the number one most important point for the UK politicians to understand.

    To replace the UK’s current fossil fuel consumption of 1.7 PWh/year by 2050, they will have to site, approve, build, test, and connect to the grid a 1-gigawatt nuclear plant each and every month from now until 2050.

    That’s 346 nuclear power plants.

    They can add renewables if they want, but they’ll still need the nukes for backup for all the times when renewables aren’t.

    And that is a conservative estimate. It doesn’t include the fact that electricity is much less efficient than gas for heating, so they’ll need even more nuclear plants. It doesn’t include the costs in time, energy, and materials to construct the plants. It doesn’t include the costs in time, energy, and materials to upgrade the electrical grid, substations, switches, and power lines to carry the additional power.

    It also doesn’t include the costs in time, energy, and materials to rewire every house and business that currently uses gas for either space heating, cooking, or space heating, including increasing transformer size and delivery wiring for the increased current.

    If you can get them to actually take notice of that and understand what it means, you will have done them a huge service.

    My best to you as always, your blog is a crucial part of the climate discussion.


    • Richard Greene

      Nuclear power is not acceptable for wind and solar backup.

      While solar output is predictable at night (none), wind output is highly variable from day to day, and from hour to hour.

      Natural gas could back up windmills.

      Nuclear power is ideal for baselod, but not for praker plants, or momentary lapses of wind power.

      • During the February Freeze in Texas, we lost natural gas and water because the Grid could not supply the pumps.

      • Richard Greene | March 22, 2021 at 9:10 am | Reply

        Nuclear power is not acceptable for wind and solar backup.

        Thanks, Richard. Generally you are right. However, the modern generation of small nuclear power plants are able to scale up and down quite rapidly. In addition, the nuclear plants can be used for things like water desalinization, or refilling hydroelectric dams, where the pumps can be turned up or down at a moment’s notice.


      • Curious George

        “Small nuclear power plants are able to scale up and down quite rapidly.”
        Replace “are able” with “should be able”. Keep you fingers crossed.

      • joe - the non climate scientist

        Pope comment – :”During the February Freeze in Texas, we lost natural gas and water because the Grid could not supply the pumps.”

        To add some perspective – on Feb 15th, the Texas grid/ercot lost 30% of electric generation from natural gas due to failure of gas generation for a period of 36 hours.

        What is omitted the massive failure of wind and solar, For a 9 day period , Feb 11th through feb 19, wind and solar generation lost approx 75% electric generation for those 9 days, and for the 4 day period from feb 11 through feb 15/16 wind and solar lost between 85% – 95% of generation. Lack of wind, – solar lost due to night time, clouds and snow on the solar panels.

        What is also omitted is that this 9 day lost of electric generation from wind and solar existed across the entire Continent of North America. Fortunately, most of regions of NA have less than 10%-12% wind and solar penetration. (Texas has 23-25% wind penetration). But 100% renewable is 100% viable. only denialists would oppose 100% renewables

      • One major reason the gas network failed was because the Texas Railroad Commission failed to update ONCOR with the status of critical oil and gas infrastructure that should not be disconnected from the grid. When the command came down from ERCOT to shed load ONCOR looked at their list of critical facilities and kept the power on for those who had their paperwork in order – everybody else was subject to being disconnected.
        The big Texas grid crisis was man made.
        “Dozens of natural gas companies failed to do the paperwork that would keep their facilities powered during an emergency, so utilities cut their electricity at the very moment that power plants most needed fuel. The mid-storm scramble to fix the problem exposed a regulatory blind spot.”

      • When the wind is blowing and the sun is shining, fossil fuel facilities lose money.
        When the wind is not blowing and the sun is not shining, wind and solar are subsidized so they do not lose money.

        When coal and/or natural gas companies fail some of their facilities, which causes shortages, any they keep running get paid ten times as much or more for their output. Where is their incentive to keep them all running?

        Federal and State laws and rules only promote bad performance.
        The least reliable energy providers are subsidized and protected and the most reliable energy providers are penalized.

  13. I’ll bet you’re right.
    “That which can be asserted without evidence, can be dismissed without evidence.” – Hitchens

  14. I guess there are three issues to discuss here:

    1. What range of subjects/policies does ‘climate policy’ encompass?

    My interpretation of UK policy the past 20 years is that it is what we British call a ‘cross-cutting theme’, namely an influencing actor which is taken into account across most if not all Government Departments.

    So I think we can safely say that ‘climate policy’ encompasses ‘energy policy’, ‘transport policy’, ‘food/farming/fishing policy’, ‘construction policy’, ‘R+D/innovation policy’, ‘taxation policy’, ‘government investment policy’, ‘banking policy’ and maybe more besides.

    2. How does UK ‘climate policy’ get formulated and who are those with decisive influences on decision-making?

    This is perhaps the most fundamental of all.

    Firstly, it should be noted by all that the UK House of Commons is remarkably free of anyone with sufficient scientific research experience in any field to take on ‘leading scientists’ and examine their evidence with a combination of skepticism, piercing challenge and logical rigour. The vast majority of MPs do not even have a degree in science and, even if they did, it takes a hell of a lot more than an undergraduate degree 10-30 years ago to be up to speed on cutting edge scientific subjects of today.

    Secondly, the same can be said of the Civil Service. There is a preponderance of top civil servants with arts/classics degrees from Oxford, none of whom are in any way scientifically literate. There is a strong argument that both the HOC and Whitehall need to find ways to bring significant scientific expertise into their organisations, rather than contracting out uncritically to outsiders who almost always have unspoken agendas and, quite often, financial interests behind them.

    The third thing to say is that the BBC, the State-owned broadcaster which every UK citizen is obliged to fund to the tune of around $200 a year if they do not wish to be prosecuted for the crime of using an unlicensed TV, is rabidly pushing a climate chaos agenda and has been since 1990. David Bellamy was regarded as the leading media ecologist in the late 1980s but as soon as he expressed skepticism about ‘global warming’, he was subjected to what Donald Trump had the past 4 years. The arch warmer Attenborough filled in and he has been making global warming documentaries under the cover of ‘life on earth’ programmes ever since. The BBC ‘science editor’ has a II/ii degree in Geography (II/ii is the third level of degree after a First or an Upper Second): in other words, not a great intellectual and certainly not a scientific expert. In doing what it has done, the BBC has calculatedly breached the terms of its Charter of Neutrality and always hides behind the ‘97% of scientists agree’ argument. They are a global disgrace and should have been tackled head on a decade ago….

    The rest of the commercial media is basically into sensationalism and being paid to print various ‘story lines’. Some of the most ridiculously inaccurate winter forecasts were repeatedly published by the Daily Express, always implying that a particular winter would be extremely snowy and/or cold. They almost never were. The Guardian and the Independent are inveterate ‘climate bedwetters’, pushing climate chaos with persistent and consistent gusto, whilst the rest of them are just looking for sensationalism like floods, heat waves, cold snaps, droughts, anything to say ‘Disaster, disaster!’ The one person in the UK who has at least a reasonable track record in medium-term weather forecasting, Piers Corbyn (the brother of former Labour Party Leader, Jeremy Corbyn), remains a niche provider of services to those free of the propaganda windmill. The quality of his work deserves far wider integration in to Governmental decision-making, however like true pioneers, he is something of a maverick, his communicational style can occasionally not be as smooth and concise as politicians prefer to hear. The Met Office’s seasonal forecasts became notorious for always being wrong, particularly the winter ones. It is absolutely amazing to me that the Government didn’t simply order that part of the organisation shut down for such ludicrous incompetence that it bordered on taking the piss. If you tossed a coin, you would get it right one year in two…

    In that background, what usually tends to happen is that one expert like Nicholas Stern is deputed to draw up some ‘climate report’ and all too often its contents are not seen as the basis for rigorous debate, counter argument etc, rather taken as a ‘climate bible’ allowing politicians to be ‘seen to be doing something’. If there is one arena where ‘doing something to be seen to be doing something’ is a total disaster, it is the field of climate. It is possible to rack up trillions in debt very easily without achieving a single act of relevance. The UK Government is more than capable of competing in an Olympics of that nature….

    The conclusion I draw from this is that the HOC, Whitehall and quite a wide constituency of independent minds need to consider what structures are most suited to formulating sensible, rigorous, flexible, ongoing policy on UK climate impacts.

    It is certainly not ‘selecting’ a group of unqualified 20-something green fanatics pushing their unscientific creeds/cults onto a whole populace.

    3. Given the location of the UK as an island to the west of a major land mass (Eurasia) and near the eastern extent of a major ocean (the Atlantic), is the climate in the UK likely to be represented by variability described best as ‘noise’; are relentless changes over decades more likely; or is Britain likely to experience very dramatic step changes (if e.g. a period where winter Siberian/Scandinavian highs extended sufficiently far west to generate month-long blocks to Atlantic westerlies)?

    The UK is, after all, at the junction of a lot of competing sources of weather. My uncle, who was a meteorologist whilst serving in the UK navy during WWII, used to say to me that ‘the UK climate would be really good if the Azores high just shifted a bit further north’. That is indeed the case, although parts of northern Scotland might become considerably wetter as a result.

    Britain is also significantly affected by the latitude at which the jet stream tracks and also by how wavy it becomes. Where I live, in NW London, we actually get our heaviest, most sustained bursts of rainfall not from the SW (which brings inordinate amounts of rain to the SW of England, Wales, the NW of England, Northern Ireland and Western Scotland), but rather when depressions push up from further south and we get SE winds on the NE-quadrant of a low pressure system. We do get rain on SWlies, but it tends to be more in the 0.5-1 inch range, whereas a summer SE wind can easily bring us 2-4 inches of rain in under a week. You find similar scenarios along the eastern side of Scotland going inland from the Dundee-Peterhead coastline. Beasts from the East affect the East of the country far more than the west.

    My take on how things might change is that the effects of whatever change comes will be asymmetric on the country. If we get more winds from the East, the eastern half of the country will become wetter and the western half will become a bit drier, thereby reducing the differential rainfall currently found. If winds come increasingly from the SW-NW, then the west-east differences will be exacerbated. If the jet stream tracks further south, England will get wetter and northern Scotland may get a bit drier, the other way around makes Scotland even more of a rain-drenched place!

    Right now, the most relevant topic is that of wavy jet streams and how that can bring rapid changes of weather in short periods of time. In the same summer, that can bring unseasonably cold days (like 13C maximum in July) and unseasonable heat (like 36-37C in NW London). This clearly stresses plants and crops, but from personal experience it need not lead to food crises. That depends on how you plan growing strategies in a period with wavy jet streams.

    • “The one person in the UK who has at least a reasonable track record in medium-term weather forecasting, Piers Corbyn […] The quality of his work deserves far wider integration in to Governmental decision-making”

      Having worked with Piers 10 years ago, I can assure you that his UK temperature anomaly forecasts employing analogue years based on beat frequencies of sunspot cycles and lunar nodal cycles, have absolutely nothing to do with what orders the changes in the solar wind driving the NAO/AO anomalies. Look through a few years worth of his UK temperature anomaly predictions, and the results are predictably around 50% fairly correct. My fair critique that his 2019 UK forecasts had 7 out of 12 months predicted far too cold, was met with abusive denial. He claims to have knowledge and skills which he does not possess, and causes trouble by claiming that CO2 has no effect on temperature. I consider him to be a liability to the field.

    • Very helpful post.

  15. UK-Weather Lass

    Democracy must find its way back into people’s heads. Consensus is the stuff of people who need supporting actors in order to feel good. Mavericks on the other hand may be ostracised for being right when masses of people realise they have just be shown to have been wrong all along. Nobody likes a smarty pants. It is the mavericks who do the most good and the most harm by degrees.

    So far as UK weather is concerned we see ‘extreme rain’ replacing the phrase ‘torrential rain’, which can be found in our ancient history. This new emphasis on ‘worserer and worserer’ by meteorologists who have a political agenda. The consensus wants us to believe it is worse now than ever before and the consensus is b’rain-washing’ a populous into ‘religious’ fear, just as history demonstrates it always has been capable of doing. The latest plague is always the worse ever if you wish to believe it to be so and people incapable of thinking for themselves get their comfort in mass misery.

    My personal weather records show that is very slightly warmer now than it was at a time when this country could have solved its energy issues with nuclear alongside the wonders hidden under the North Sea. That would have been cheap energy for all and a reduction in the hazards of coal mining without wholesale destruction of communities and hard working lives. Of course politicians continued to act as politicians and plainly ignored the science (unless it supported them).

    This belief in consensus is killing healthy debate and the healthy sharing of ideas, and it is proving to be an extremely costly and extravagant in the remedies it thinks it has to the extent that some people cannot afford to keep themselves warm in the winter or even afford a decent home to live in. The billions spent on solar and wind could have saved many more lives than a lockdown ever could do.

    We need original thinkers in the UK and a lot more decent people to start up political parties that are not afraid to call out the consensus for what it is – a fraud. And unfortunately we have a national media which is consumed by the consensus with very little debate in MSM. They are preaching to us and no longer informing us, and if I want a preacher I go to Church.

  16. Please see my latest blog on UK climate policy:

    • Thanks Iain for posting this link. Denizens, this one is definitely worth reading

    • This is what happens when tradeoffs are not considered.

      The UK, just like the US, and other countries in Europe has been on a downward economic trajectory for 50-60 years, as these charts of GDP growth since 1961 show.

      In the US, incomes since 1992 have been bolstered by a 1,000% increase for those making over $1 million per year. The nominal increase for those making under $1 Million was 260%, with real incomes even less.

      When faced with obvious secular threats to a country’s standard of living, why do politicians want to exacerbate the problem?

    • While China eats our lunch and is inexorably on its way to be the global economic behemoth, we work overtime in destroying our economic base by obsessing about imaginary calamity and debasing our culture through self flagellation over the transgressions of Pepe Lepew.

    • That is splendid.
      1) There is no climate emergency at the present time and
      2) No, we can’t do anything about it. It’s a great thermal engine running on its own rules of which we have incomplete knowledge and no means to control.

      • tony it depends, China has a variety of interests in Africa and it isn’t always antagonistic. The built the infrastructure in Ethiopia, Lesotho and parts of Kenya for example.

        The Chinese do have their geopolitical interest, but as Africans we don’t see much difference between their global aspirations and that of America. South Africa’s economy is for example as big as the state of Tennessee’s, there is no way that we can stand up to either great powers.

        I personally would not want a world that is only run by either side and I would like for the West to play a stronger role in Africa. With Brexit over, there might be a vague opportunity to relink parts of the former common wealth and empire.

        Africa has a lot of Sun and Wind, but our grids for example are not very advanced and in many places we don’t have the rivers or catchment basis for either Nuclear or Water to work. So we are left with either Coal or LNG.

        What I would like to remind people off is that by the end of this century 40% of the World’s population will be Africa and that most civil wars in Africa has by now ended, meaning the population is rapidly urbanizing and essentially where China and India was 30 years ago. We have no choice but to give our people affordable energy and if it means going to the Chinese or Indians or whoever then that is what we are going to do. I would like to make the case that the West has to be involved to try and bring geopolitical stability to the region.

      • Hügo, it’s good to hear the inside opinion of someone from Africa. Thank you.

  17. Roger Knights

    Former Obama-Biden federal scientist Dr. Steve Koonin declares his climate dissent
    (Formerly advocated a red team exercise)
    14 hours ago 3/21/21

  18. All UK major political parties are committed to Net Zero without appearing to have much clue about the costs and consequences, while making hay from the virtue-signalling about saving the planet that this currently provides them. It’s not dishonestly done though, no doubt they both believe it is necessary and is doable. Cultural conviction that this is the positive and beneficial way to go is pretty much universal, and very far indeed from any practical considerations. Grid issues / land area / environmental harm / consumer costs from renewables already beginning to bite, but has not yet dinted political motivation, albeit some public disquiet starting. Plans to replace gas central heating that most houses currently use, with heat pumps, very likely exceed affordability for most consumers and are highly unsuited to much housing stock, as are the high insulation standards (Victorian houses are built to breathe and can start to rot if this is prevented). No new petrol cars after 2030 but very many houses cannot support charging points, and indeed this is yet another major grid problem too. Nuclear component is acceptable, but old school mega-expense major facilities only, mean very little new stuff coming online and at very high cost, and more older stuff is going away. Weather extremes infrequent in the UK (no hurricanes, few heat waves, the bigger storms are typically bad not terrible, v little Scandinavian levels of snow except occasionally in Scotland, etc). Winter lows (very cold but with little wind for turbines, not common but not infrequent either). Low-level flooding appear to be more common, and with more damage too. Latter appears not to be due to increased rainfall or increased excess events, according to Met charts; its very probably because the environmental agency hasn’t considered it their mission to dredge / manage rivers for a couple of decades at least (and we are always a wet country!) In line with UK modern cultural convictions about the environment, they appear to favour a ‘back to nature’ policy, which reduces river carrying capacity, and meanwhile many more houses have nevertheless appeared on floodplains. Flooding has become controversial, people and businesses don’t like getting flooded out, unsurprisingly, but the Environmental Agency is not fingered yet, and at least some politicians deflect the blame to climate-change. Incredibly, the EA has put out statements recently suggesting that houses recovering from flood should not just replace stuff, but rebuild to be survivable for future flood. This is utterly bonkers for most housing stock, and unless attempted communally (Dutch dykes around towns) would have no meaningful impact anyhow. Considering how many folks live near rivers in the UK, this is only going to get worse. My own town flooded this year, fortunately not me. River last dredged in the 1970s as far as the old locals say. Locals / farmers no longer allowed to do without permission, and I believe the mud dredged out (which used to be piled onto the banks) is now declared as toxic and must be treated accordingly.

  19. For me the big issue with UK climate policy is the democratic deficit. Politicians are publicly committed to net zero but there is no honest debate with the public as to how this will be achieved – the politicians know the policies will be detrimental to people’s freedoms and prosperity but no one will publicly discuss this. Meanwhile the people have no idea what politicians and civil servants are actually plotting to impose.

    The basic list of net zero policies are:
    * Ban ICE vehicles for public transport by 2030, hybrids by 2035
    * Enforce net zero housing by 2035, effectively banning gas central heating systems
    * Passing energy demand pricing onto consumers
    * Carbon taxing consumer products
    * Green hydrogen

    The implications of these are horrendous, and one imagines that the people will at some point become quite upset when the implications finally start to sink in.

    What is particularly grating is the way politicians impose bad policy that has obvious consequences, and then later the politicians conveniently forget that the subject of peoples ire was their fault. A good example of this was Ed Miliband’s changes to the energy regulator that meant the regulator had to consider emissions as more important than consumer energy costs. Then when he was later Labour leader and fighting the 2015 general election he focused on energy prices and blamed the energy producers themselves.

    A good example of how a democratic deficit can come back to haunt us all is brexit. The UK politicians knew that the people were not keen on losing democratic control of some policy making to Europe but decided they knew better and would impose political integration on us against our will – and we all know how that turned out.

    The game being played out at the moment is that all politicians are playing the green virtue signalling game, with full support from the mainstream media, kicking the consequences can down the road for future politicians to sort out.

    The secondary issue I have with UK policy, is that the overall net zero plan is essentially a fantasy. Renewables, perhaps some nuclear, and then lots of future technologies and lifestyle changes that will make it all add up – but the technologies haven’t been demonstrated and the people won’t follow these lifestyle changes. It is simply beyond belief that the UK is following a trillion pound fantasy plan that has no prospect of success. Not only will it not deliver net zero, it will also lessen our chances of actually decarbonising.

    The correct approach to decarbonisation is not to start from: lets decarbonise the entire economy with a list of all the things that might possibly work at some point in the future, instead it is to start from what steps can we take now to robustly decarbonise sections of the economy – the old “how do you eat an elephant” problem: in bite-size chunks.

    • Gary Moran,

      Excellent comment (mostly). Thank you. I agree with most of it, but not all. What I disagree with is “The correct approach to decarbonisation is … to start from what steps can we take now to robustly decarbonise sections of the economy.

      We should not decarbonise the economy, nor even reduce CO2 emissions. Global warming is beneficial for the global economy and ecosystems, not harmful. Therefore, there is no valid justification for severely damaging the world economy with policies to decarbonise it.

      • Bravo, Peter.
        CO2’s ghg effect declines exponentially, so that the next doubling to 800 ppm will increase it by less than 2%. The boon to agriculture, meanwhile, is increasing linearly. Note that the boon to agriculture includes not merely bulk, but also resistance to drought.
        We have of course decarbonized quite voluntarily over the last millenia by going from wood to charcoal to coal to oil to gas and potentially to nuclear.

      • Thanks Jim double m double double you,

        I am working on estimating the impact of global warming on total world terrestrial biomass. The benefits are substantial, but I haven’t finished quantifying it yet.

  20. The biggest problem we face here in Britain is that all debate has been effectively shut down. All MPs are signed up to Net Zero, even to the extent that they never even discussed the costs.

    The media too is now virtually 100% full on alarmist, and the likes of David Rose are no longer allowed to write about climate change issues.

    Anyone who disagrees is dismissed as a denier, even when they are raising non climate issues, such as the cost of Net Zero or the engineering practicalities involved.

    As you know, the GWPF regularly publishes papers questioning many bof the extreme claims made by politicians, the media and the likes of XR. They are all soundly based on official data and sources such as the IPCC, but they never seem to get into the public arena.

    To sum up, we need someone, somewhere to reopen the debate


  21. Geoff Sherrington

    May you succeed with Britain in ways that can help you follow on it with advice to get Australia out of a similar mess.
    We used to have two major parties so different that the dominant wishes of the voters could be filled by one, with the other seen as backward. Things would flip now and then. Today, we have two smaller main parties and several would-have-beens whose policies are not very different but are all way out of whack with reality. There is no party representing proper engineering, proper medical science, proper economic analysis of factors like electricity supply. This failure of most politicians to learn from history, to tell good ideas from bad, to excuse themselves by mouthing “But we follow the best Science” is immensely harmful and frustrating.
    I wish I could be more helpful, but I never learned to tolerate fools in high office. That is a fundamental challenge for you re Britain. Geoff S

    • Accurate, Geoff. I too have no idea how to change this and have not had for now for more than a decade. The majority of the populace believe the propaganda without question.

      Current flood levels in NSW are touted as due to AGW, yet I’m old enough to have been a sentient adult in 1961 (before the dreaded atmospheric CO2 was sufficiently high to act as a bogeyman) – flood levels in many districts were up to 9m higher than today. Yet we see TV “meteorologists”, all of 35 years old, declaring these to be the worst floods they can remember.


    I think you have to bear in mind the Overton Window, correct as many comments might be regarding exaggeration of threats and shortcomings in the science it is unlikely that an MP will be able to process or indeed act on these sorts of statement.
    Better to stick to the costs of this exercise, every £1Bn spent on going to zero carbon emissions is a £1Bn that can’t be spent on hospitals, schools, social care, pensions, police, etc, etc. The voting population have a right to see & discuss this equation out in the open air and see their elected representatives acting sensibly in their interests and needs in the near future. This is especially the case in the year(s) after this pandemic, voters won’t be impressed to see huge quantities of cash spent on activities that don’t improve their lives in the near(ish) future when they can see China et al getting what is basically a free pass to emit whatever they want.

    Whilst it might feel good to ‘lead the World’, it’s a high risk enterprise. In engineering we call it being on the ‘bleeding edge’.

    • You Wrote:
      Better to stick to the costs of this exercise, every £1Bn spent on going to zero carbon emissions is a £1Bn that can’t be spent on hospitals, schools, social care, pensions, police, etc, etc.

      In Texas, we had a power and water outage due to freezing weather:
      Every dollar spent on Wind Mills and Solar panels and the billions on transmission lines was not spent on low cost, abundant, reliable energy.
      A fraction of that would have kept our power and water on. A worse freeze in 1989 did not cause loss of power and even with a worse freeze and broken pipes, not a fraction of the water outage.
      Green Energy cannot be protected from foreign or domestic enemies and not from Nature. Foreign Energy can be cut off for political purposes.

      In California, some places cut off utilities to people for Corvid violations.

  23. I would suggest to the politician that OFCOM should judge the accuracy of media & news output in climate change, using the IPCC as a datum. MSM is getting more & more inaccurate.

    • Paul Buckingham

      If anyone uses the IPCC as a measuring stick, we get the same problem as we are experiencing via the WHO, i.e. open to just as much corruption and ideological nonsense as we already have to suffer.

      The problem will always be that this plays two sides, whereby one claims the IPCC is the holy grail of all climate fact (including the misinformed members of the Committee on Climate Change), which it isn’t, and then others who believe the IPCC is the leading authority (i.e. not political), which is also not true.

      I have responses, in writing, from all relevant levels of government and then up to the IPCC, whereby not one of them seem to understand who the other is in reality, and nobody can answer anything of scientific significance, to the extent that when the IPCC responded how they determine adaptation and mitigation, they were stumped for an answer when I then pressed further to ask how anyone adapts to or mitigates from something that you have no burden of proof is happening in the first place and would therefore hold no possible metric to prove results.

      The levels of just absolute basic competence completely void in this entire area is truly staggering, so no, the IPCC cannot be relied on.

  24. Judith

    If your politician is an MP what constituency do they represent? THe reason I ask is that we were blackmailed by the EU at the last minute over Brexit regarding the fishing issue. Basically, unless we agreed to give them more fishing rights they said they would turn off the electricity interconnectors by which power is exchanged between us and the continent.

    Macron has already said they will do the same again when Fishing is being renegotiated. If your politician is from a place where fishing is important he will know the anger the Brexit fishing deal caused.

    Unless we urgently address our energy issues we will be held hostage again and your politician will be out on his or her ear.


    • Can’t comment on the ‘who’, but this is key issue i was wondering about; how independent is the UK from electricity generation on the continent.

      • Current interconnects are:

        2GW to France (IFA)
        1GW to the Netherlands (BritNed)
        500MW to Northern Ireland (Moyle)
        500MW to the Republic of Ireland (East West).

        There are also these under construction and not yet online:

        ElecLink France. 1000MW 2019
        NEMO Belgium 1000MW 2019
        NSN. Norway 1400MW 2020
        FAB France 1400MW 2022
        IFA2 France 1000MW 2020
        Viking Denmark. 1400MW 2022
        Greenlink Ireland 500MW 2021

        The maximum demand is about 50GW.

      • Judith

        Bill Bedford has given a good reply. To that I would add that we have come within an ace of not having enough power several times in recent years. This is made worse by the retirement of fossil fuel generators and the failure to build new ones. In particular our nuclear resource is dropping and nothing new is likely to come on stream for a decade.

        To this, add that we are being very heavily encouraged to buy electric cars, and gas boilers will be phased out in the expectation that, miraculously, Heat pumps will take their place.

        Demand for electric is expected to triple by y 2050 and double by 2030 if govt plans come to fruition and zero carbon targets are met. We are being coerced into having ‘smart’ meters so when there is not enough power the energy companies can manipulate it. Two Utility companies have the right to turn off/ration our power via the meters and the rest are taking the powers. Most of our energy companies are foreign owned adding to our vulnerability.

        Add in yet again the astonishing faith in solar farms at our latitude and that-as has happened twice this winter- we have a high pressure system settling over us, which means cloudy and windless conditions. From my weather diary that has been about 22 days in total this year.

        So just when they are most needed-at night in winter- weather dependent renewables don’t deliver. It is not generally known by the green organisation supporters but in recent years a number of back up diesel generators have been quietly installed to provide additional power.

        So we will become ever more reliant on renewables and power coming from the continent exactly as demand for power will ramp up. We will be held hostage again by the EU if we are dependent on them for power, as can be seen with the EU vaccine debacle.

        I am all for the UK being energy independent but the Govt has utterly lost the plot in the way they are going about it. If your politician is a Brexit supporter they will be very concerned about the actions of the EU and dependence on them. They are not our friends.


      • As to that incoming and outgoing, don’t forget that the US and Canada are the only reasons your “biomass” power plants function.
        If North American greens succeed in preventing the destruction of entire forests to produce the something around 6 million tons of North American wood the UK burns every year to produce electricity, Great Britain will be in trouble.
        And yes, activists are going after biomass with all they have:

        Which is funny because the only reason the UK burns diesel fuel to cut down North Carolina forests and ship them across the Atlantic is because the greens demanded they do it.

      • David Wojick

        My latest research may be helpfu:

        It takes reliable generating capacity equal to peak demand plus reserve to make wind and solar work. That is a huge cost.

  25. Hello Judith,

    1. Paul Homewood (see his comment above) does a sterling service to us all with his debunking (using hard data) of the extremist climate/energy nonsense published by most of the mainstream media. See Paul’s site at

    2. To give some references to back up what Paul has said above, here is the link to the Green Alliance web site where in February 2015 three of the main political parties signed an alliance to tackle climate change i.e. thereby taking climate and related policy out of democratic debate:-

    As Paul says, this situation needs to be rectified as soon as possible in order for the UK to avoid further self-inflicted damage, notably to its electrical infrastructure.

    3. The BBC was effectively turned into a green propaganda machine following the meeting on 26th January 2006 (if I recall correctly) between its senior staff and, mostly, green activist organisations. Thereafter the BBC adopted, contrary to its Charter, a policy of “avoiding false balance” i.e. sceptics were kept off the airwaves while green activists had a relatively easy ride. The late Christopher Booker wrote an excellent report for the GWPF on the failure of the BBC in this matter:-

    4. Judith, is your Zoom meeting on 25th March or a week later? i.e. how much time have we got to feed data into the debate?

    In haste.

  26. thecliffclavenoffinance

    There is very unlikely to ever be a red team (skeptics) versus blue team (green dreamers) climate science debate.

    Simply because leftists do not debate anything they believe in.

    They have never debated the coming climate crisis, even though we’ve heard wrong predictions of a coming climate crisis every year since Roger Revelle in 1957.

    If I am wrong, and there is a read team-blue team “debate”, it will only be for show — an attempt to show “all sides were heard”.

    A real debate is impossible because real climate science is concerned with reality — the present and past climate … while green zealots are only concerned about a future climate, that is completely different, because it only exists in their imaginations.

    How can one refute something that has not happened yet … when the green zealots will say we must act now — if we delay, the planet is doomed (the old nonsense precautionary principle)?

    Apocalyptic beliefs, such as the coming climate crisis, can not be refuted with data and logic, because the beliefs were never created with data and logic in the first place.

    Joining a “pretend” red team would be a waste of time.

  27. Since you state that it is a “UK politician”, the only possibilities I can imagine as to who that might be are: John Redwood, Christopher Chope, Lord Tyrie, Graham Stringer, David David, Lord Lilley, David Davies, Sammy Wilson.

    That’s about the extent of so-called ‘climate skepticism’ among UK politicians of any standing or importance – some more rational than others. As in the rest of the world, it is a minority stance that most people would not want to be associated with (or even care about) but it’s a free world and all opinions are able to be broadcast these days, even minority ones!
    My bet is on Christopher Chope

    • A younger Farage would be great. No other UK politician, apart from Boris, has any power to even raise issue the issue of changing climate policy. So if it ain’t Boris or Nigel, Judith is wasting her time. It’s possible it may be a Tory. The Tories must be coming in for some serious flack over the way they subcontracted out climate policy the Climate Change Committee. Tories are also more likely to listen to climate contrarians. I see a lot of angry Tories on twitter.

  28. David Wojick

    Re the Red Team, if there ever is one. What flavor of skeptics will they be? Skepticism ranges from lukewarmers that accept AGW (but as benign) to dragon slayers that reject the greenhouse effect. (I am somewhere in between, being neither.)

    • Richard Greene

      That is a good point I never thought of — quite a few “lukewarmer” skeptics are not that much different than climate alarmists.

      Quite a few lukewarmers believe climate change is a serious problem, but does not require disrupting western civilization, and spending many trillions of dollars in the next 10 or 15 years.

      I find “lukewarmers” to be almost as bad as climate alarmists. Both completely ignore reality.

      Reality is all of us have been living with sea level rise for ALL of our lives. No acceleration of the sea level rise, per tide gauges = no danger to anyone.

      Reality is all of us have been living with actual global warming for up to 45 years, since the 1970s, and it has been pleasant. Mainly affecting the colder, higher latitudes, where warming is good news. With most warming in the coldest six months of the year, and most warming at night, which is even better news. How can warmer winter nights in Siberia be bad news? That’s good news!

      Reality is all of us have been living with rising levels of atmospheric carbon dioxide for all of our lives. Viewing our planet from satellites, the Leaf Area Index shows our planet is greening. That’s good news too.

      So we have the pleasant reality of ACTUAL sea level rise, mild warming, and rising CO2 levels … versus an apocalyptic green religion that has visions of a future climate that is entirely different than the past and current climate (reality). Those visions exist entirely in their minds.

      A real climate change debate MUST be between past and present climate reality, versus the apocalyptic green vision of the future. “Lukewarmers” will never do that. Many skeptics will not do that.

      The problem that most skeptics have is they never realize that real climate science, data and logic will NOT change the apocalyptic climate vision, because that vision was NEVER created from real science, data and logic in the first place. It is like a religious belief.

      There is absolutely no evidence the next 45 years of global warming will be different than the past, very pleasant 45 years of global warming.

      And climate science is so uncertain that the next 45 years could be global cooling, rather than global warming. Not that any scientist would ever say “we don’t know what the future climate will be”.

      • David Wojick

        Actually there is evidence that supports alarmism, namely the modeling results. The alarming projections arise from positive water vapor and cloud feedbacks, so that is where the scientific debate lies.

        Interestingly about half the hundred or so CMIP6 models just got significantly hotter thanks to beefed up cloud feedback. Some now give an ECS over 5 degrees! I see this as a vulnerability for alarmism.

        There are a number of lukewarmers that might make a worthwhile Red Team. Curry, Happer and Pat Michaels come to mind. Happer’s recent revolutionary line-by-line spectral saturation results could be dynamite. Mind you I would prefer me, but that is not likely as I have no grand title.

      • Richard Greene

        Responding to Mr. Wojick’s response to my original comment:

        Skeptics will lose every science debate because the imaginary coming climate crisis is based on junk science.

        Here are the “weapons” we skeptics have:

        — 45+ years of experience with ACTUAL global warming,

        — 60+ years of always wrong predictions of a coming climate crisis,

        42 years of satellite temperature measurements in the troposphere, including the lack of the tropics hot spot, both refuting the nonsense water vapor positive feedback runaway global warming theory.

        Skeptics have been trying to debate the science since the 1980s.

        It has not worked.

        Continuing the same ‘debate the science’ approach, and expecting different results, is the definition of insanity, IMHO.

        Consider what one of the brightest climate scientists in the world, Richard Lindzen, Ph.D., said about refuting the climate alarmists:

      • Richard Greene

        This is a response to Morfuo3 who quoted me and then claimed I was a lukewarmer.
        I’ve never been insulted so much in all my life!

        I did write: “I find “lukewarmers” to be almost as bad as climate alarmists.”

        Let me explain the difference:
        Lukewarmers believe future global warming will be a serious problem, but not as serious as the climate alarmists believe.

        I am in a completely different place, based on real science, and 45 years of experience with ACTUAL global warming since the mid-1970s, along with billions of other people.

        Past global warming has not been a problem at all, especially improving the climate in the higher latitudes of the Northern Hemisphere … and I want more global warming in the future.

        Rising CO2 levels have ‘greened’ our planet, based on the Leaf Area Index, and I want more CO2 in the atmosphere — at least double the current 420ppm level for optimum plant growth.

        Optimum plant growth, with 800 to 1,200 ppm CO2, will support more human and animal life on our planet.

        Anyone who is anti-CO2, therefore, is anti-life.

        Do you STILL think I am a “lukwarmer”?

        I have a climate science and energy website, with over 21,000 page views so far this month, where I provide more details than I can list here, that might interest you:

  29. David Wojick

    GWPF has the lead here, with lots of published stuff. The big issue is cost and I did a cost breakdown here:

    People will only question the alarmist science when mitigation threatens to hurt.

    • “People will only question the alarmist science when mitigation threatens to hurt.’ By which enormous damage will have been done, and the weakened West will be facing an ever stronger and more dismissive China. It seems like a Western death wish to me, with the merits of Western Civilisation being increasingly ignored and forgotten – they are already under siege in countries which most benefited from them.

    • David Wojick

      I doubt the damage will be enormous. But the dismissive part may be correct. My half-joke is the Chinese regard us as barbarians and the may be right.

  30. In warm periods, it snows more in polar regions where much ice is sequestered and it snows more until ice advances and causes colder.
    in cold periods, it snows less in polar regions where much sequestered ice is dumped into the oceans to chill the polar currents and send cold water to the tropics and it snows less until the ice is depleted and has to retreat.
    Polar Sea Ice is the control that turns the ice machines on and off. The thermostat setting is the temperature the Sea Ice freezes and thaws.

    These Polar Ice cycles are considered results of warmer and colder polar climates. These Polar Ice Cycles are the cause of warmer and colder climates. Polar Climate must cycle, there is no middle stable state, there is only a stable, warm and cold alternating cycle. Look at History and Data

  31. Hello Judith,
    Just a bit of UN/IPCC background to put the UK situation in context, especially as we have COP26 in Glasgow at the end of this year when, I fear, our Prime Minister will promise all manner of wonderful green delights to the audience for which the UK public will pay most handsomely in the decades to come.

    1. “This is the first time in the history of mankind that we are setting ourselves the task of intentionally, within a defined period of time to change the economic development model that has been reigning for at least 150 years, since the industrial revolution. That will not happen overnight and it will not happen at a single conference on climate change, be it COP 15, 21, 40 – you choose the number. It just does not occur like that. It is a process, because of the depth of the transformation.”
    Christiana Figueres

    2. “But one must say clearly that we redistribute de facto the world’s wealth by climate policy…One has to free oneself from the illusion that international climate policy is environmental policy any more.”
    Ottmar Edenhofer


    • John

      Pay most handsomely? Yes. You will recall that at the very end of the Theresa May govt she got through parliament, without any debate at all, a two trillion pound sterling package to combat climate change. Subsequently Nature magazine said it would make a 2 hundredth of a degree difference to global temperature if the UK was to become net zero carbon by 2050

      Since then the estimated cost has soared to 4 trillion and the govt has admitted to annual costs of 75 billion plus a year which excludes much infrastructure such as the costs of phasing out gas boilers and their substitution with heat pumps and associated insulation.

      The irony of course is that the electric pumps, solar panels and batteries for electric cars will be coming from China, so the UK money will be profiting China, who of course have managed to stand aside from the CO2 madness.

      It is all like a Monty Python script but with an expensive punch line.
      The West appear to have gone mad.

      • “Subsequently Nature magazine said it would make a .02 degree difference to global temperature if the UK was to become net zero carbon by 2050.”

        If the AMO does what it is supposed to do, in 10-20 years those in the UK and other countries who support reduced CO2 policies will congratulate themselves for the absence of warming since no one will tell them their actions had an infinitesimal impact on temperatures. On the other hand China, who will continue growing their economy the old fashioned way, will say, what was the big deal, we didn’t hamstring our economy and the warming didn’t materialize. They will believe they were vindicated for their actions. Just another chapter in the Western countries self immolation.

      • Tony,
        “Since then the estimated cost has soared to 4 trillion ( for climate change) and the govt has admitted to annual costs of 75 billion plus a year which excludes…”

        This may be the reason why MPs are calling Dr. Curry. There is other news re spending in the UK recently:
        “According to figures from the Office for National Statistics, published yesterday (February 8), the government’s pension liabilities had surged by 22 per cent between 2015 and 2018, to £6.4tn.”,19%20per%20cent%20of%20GDP.

        And, of course, governments around the world are broke from excess Covid spending and the loss of revenue from shutdowns.

        Anyone care to place bets on whether the UK buys windmills instead of paying pensions? This, by-the-by, is why you don’t politicize science. When the left of center politicians discover that climate change really is expensive and the cost of buying Chinese windmills (and moving British jobs to China) will cut too deeply into social spending, who will be the base for the climate activists? The politicians they likened to Holocaust deniers for two decades? And no, the EU isn’t going to abandon capitalism. Sorry to burst that bubble.

  32. If all UK politicians are scientifically illiterate, what difference will a Red Team make? They still won’t be able to tell fact from fiction.

  33. Hello Judith,

    Andrew Montford wrote a history of the Climategate affair [Ref. 1] – I will let you reminder the UK politician what that was and is. However, it is worth quoting from the final pages as Montford describes not only “hiding the decline” but also the decline in standards in public life in the UK.

    It is not clear to me as a UK national that matters have improved since Montford wrote the following.

    “The tale of Climategate and its aftermath is not an edifying one. As we look back over the ten years of the story, the impression we get is of a wave of dishonesty, a public sector that will spin and lie, and mislead and lie, and distort and lie, and lie again. If one lie fails then another lie is issued and if that fails then they simply lie again. And all this happens without fear of the consequences [colon] everyone involved appears quite certain that their mendacity will go unpunished no matter what.”
    “What is worse, it appears that public servants can also break the law with impunity.”
    “Climategate was … a tragedy born of misunderstood motives. The response to it was an extraordinary failure of the institutions and of the people who are paid to protect the public interest – a failure of honesty, a failure of diligence, a failure of integrity. Their failure to seek the truth and to speak the truth condemns them utterly.”

    1. A.W. Montford, “Hiding the Decline”, Anglosphere Books, 2012, especially pages 307 – 308.


  34. Regardless of whether or not carbon dioxide is the climate control knob, whatever Britain does about emissions is pointless. All of the global acceleration of CO2 emissions is coming from China, India and other Asian nations. The UK should simply focus on providing secure, inexpensive power.

    • David Wojick

      Indeed. China gets more electric power from coal than the US does from all sources. Plus many people are buying cars for the first time and of course transport is booming. It is called emerging from poverty.

    • RE jimmww –

      Politicians and decision makers who decide policy are obsessed with emissions, not with atmospheric ppm.

    • Dave Andrews

      Too right. UK emissions amount to 1.1% of global emissions annually.

  35. Hello Judith,

    When confronted with claims that “the science is settled”, it is useful to ask which brand of science is being discussed. Mike Hulme, formerly
    Professor of Climate Change at the University of East Anglia, has written extensively on the subject [Ref. 1] in order to enlighten us.

    Hulme contrasts traditional and post-normal science thus. “Climate change has become a classic example of what philosophers of science Silvio Funtowicz and Jerry Ravetz have termed ‘post-normal science'[colon] the application of science to public issues where ‘facts are uncertain, values in dispute, stakes high and decisions urgent’ … Normal science, science as guided by by Merton’s four classical norms of scientific practice – scepticism, universalism, communalism, disinterestedness – is no longer fit for such purpose.”

    Later in the book Hulme writes, “If climate change is not a problem that can be solved – either through elegant solutions or through clumsy ones – we need to find other ways of categorising it. In order to get a better vantage point I suggest we change our position and examine climate change as an idea of the imagination rather than as a problem to be solved. By approaching climate change as an idea to be mobilised to fulfil a variety of tasks, perhaps we can see what climate change can do for us rather than what we seek to do, despairingly, for (or to) climate.”

    Thus is not Hulme inviting us to bring our own political opinions into the arena of climate science? Is this how the IPCC’s “Reports for Policy Makers” are written i.e. by bringing post-normal scientists together with national and international civil servants so as to incorporate into the text the ideas of, for example, the IPCC’s Ottmar Edenhofer and Christiana Figueres as discussed in my earlier posting?

    In short, be wary of claims that the science is settled!

    1. Mike Hulme, “Why We Disagree About Climate Change”, Cambridge University Press, 2009. See especially near pp 78 -79 and pp 340 – 341.


    • David Wojick

      However “the application of science to public issues where ‘facts are uncertain, values in dispute, stakes high and decisions urgent” is nothing new. Public issues have always had these features and science has been applied to them for hundreds of years.

      • David Wojick

        The alarmist projections are derived from theory via the climate models. They are wrong but not wild guesses. They are actually hypotheses that have been falsified.

      • thecliffclavenoffinance

        Mr. Wojick
        Four decades of climate models predicting more than double the actual global warming, on average, with NO improvement of the forecasts over those decades, is not real science.

        Real science requires fairly accurate forecasts, that get more accurate as the models are “refined” over the decades. It now appears that CMIP6 models will be even worse than CMIP5 models. It certainly appears that forecast accuracy is not a goal.

        Climate alarmists kept repeating wrong predictions of a coming climate crisis for over 60 years, most of those years using general circulation models.

        The models are not based on the infrared gas spectroscopy lab experiments, or else they would be making better predictions.

        Perhaps the Russian INM model more faithfully accepts the lab experiment results?

        But as a group, the CMIP models DO NOT represent climate change on this planet.

        Therefore, they can be called failed prototype models, to be kind, or more honestly described as climate computer games.

        The modelers are just WILD GUESSING that future global warming (allegedly a coming crisis) will be completely different than the past 45 years of ACTUAL global warming (very pleasant).

        Computer “predict” whatever their owners want to predict. They represent the opinions of the owners/programmers.

        If those personal opinions matched the correct science of climate change, the predictions would be accurate.

        But the computer game predictions are NOT accurate.

        And they have not been accurate for many decades.

      • > Four decades of climate models predicting more than double the actual global warming, on average, with NO improvement of the forecasts over those decades,

        Citation needed.

  36. Curious George

    What exactly is a “climate policy”?
    Regarding “UK climate”, a friend of mine summarized his impression:
    Rain, they know how to.

    • Richard Greene

      Response to “Willard”
      Lots of charts showing climate models (averaged) versus actual temperature measurements, are at the link below (mainly CMIP5 models, but the first chart includes the available CMIP6 models):

      • Try this, “Richard”:

        Climate models published between 1970 and 2007 provided accurate forecasts of subsequently observed global surface warming. This finding shows the value of using global observations to vet climate models as the planet warms.

        Next time, try to thread your comments properly.

      • Richard Greene

        On my computer there was no “reply” button for a direct reply to your question. So I responded in a way that put my answer physically close to your comment, as I am doing again for the same reason. Thank you for the scolding, but I didn’t intend to offend you.

        I presented a link to model versus reality data you demanded, showing 1979 through 2015 ,or 1979 through 2019.

        You obviously prefer a left-wing, anti-CO2 biased magazine, while I presented the work of a Ph.D. climate scientist who calculates the UAH satellite global average temperatures used in his charts. No one has ever refuted his data in the six years since he introduced those charts in the mass media.

        The average climate model prediction has NEVER been close to ACTUAL temperature measurements, and anyone who says otherwise, is either cherry picking data, or lying.

        Also, not one annual prediction of a coming climate crisis in the past 64 years has EVER been correct.

        Add that to consistently inaccurate average climate model predictions. of fast global warming, over the past four decades.

        That adds up to a “batting average” of zero, but I suppose that’s good enough for you green zealots?

        The coming climate crisis is an imaginary crisis — nothing more than an always wrong scary prediction repeated for 64 years in a row, until many people believe it.

        The coming climate crisis exists ONLY in the over-active imaginations of leftists who use an imaginary CO2 boogeyman — the “devil in the sky” — to scare people, and convince them that only a powerful socialist government can save the planet. The imaginary coming climate crisis is the biggest science fraud in human history.

      • > On my computer there was no “reply” button for a direct reply to your question.

        Click on the last “reply” you see above the comment to which you which you wish to respond, Richard.

        I did not ask “a link to model versus reality data,” whatever this means. I asked Cliff for a citation to support his complex claim that “Four decades of climate models predicting more than double the actual global warming, on average, with NO improvement of the forecasts over those decades.” All you did was to give me a link to a bunch of butchered graphs of tropical temperatures and JohnC’s crap.

        That being said, I gave the incorrect link. Here it is:

        Do you know Cliff, by any chance?

    • David Wojick

      Mostly killing coal and deindustrialization. Same in the US just not a severe. We have gone from burning a billion tons of coal a year down to 600 million, we only import half the cars we buy, etc.

    • A nice analysis. From the report.
      “Industrial sector electricity use reductions also come from a wide combination of factors, including increased manufacturing efficiency and a shift in the makeup of the UK economy away from heavy industry towards advanced manufacturing and services.”

      The share of the UK economy in manufacturing has gone from 25% in 1980 to 9% currently.

      This reflects the same trends in the US and globally.

      The trend of the last 40 years in the US is one started after WWII. The share of jobs in manufacturing dropped from 40% in 1944 to below 9% now. From 1944 to 1979, 48 million new jobs were created, 45 million of which were NON manufacturing.

      Even more to the point, the manufacturing jobs of 70-80 years ago were “heavy” manufacturing jobs using heavy raw materials and involved in a heavier economy,

      Today we are in a “lighter “ both physically and metaphorically. As a share of the economy, the world is producing fewer things and the things we produce are lighter. We are shifting from the old heavy industrial production centered global economy to one of services and information technology.

      For some global internet companies, the marginal cost of production is virtually zero. Once the initial costs are incurred to set up the internet operations, the marginal costs of servicing 1,000 customers is indistinguishable from the marginal costs for a million customers or a billion customers. Think of producing heavy things for a billion people vs servicing them on a computer.

      Just allowing the evolution of the economy to naturally move forward will reduce the carbon footprint.

      • David Wojick

        This shows the global growth of non-manufacturing economic activity very nicely. It does not show the massive shift of manufacturing from the developed countries to the developing ones, especially China. China now generates more electricity than the US and EU combined, with a much larger fraction going to industrial users.

        One cannot draw any conclusions about carbon footprints from any of this data. Except global energy use continues to grow and something like 85% of that energy comes from fossil fuels.

  37. 1) You might like to know UK consumers can now buy their electricity based upon half hourly wholesale electricity prices. See I’m fairly confident that the growth in battery storage and demand management will help solve the intra day problem of intermittent renewables in the electricity market.
    2) if you are not familiar with Dieter Helm it’s worth looking him up. He’s a Professor of Economic Policy at Oxford University and highly regarded by the UK government. He has a great way of expressing the effect of UK and EU energy policy in offshoring energy intensive industries to China (and to a lesser extent that of the the USA too).

  38. ;)

    If we were properly focused on energy security, greenhouse gas emissions would be a moot point.

    The climate of North America was much more extreme in previous centuries. The past 150 years have been usually kind. We are not prepared for reversion to the mean.


  39. / I won’t let you down /
    / won’t let you down again / ..
    / No help from me to see it through 
    to beat the high tide /

  40. A critical analysis of Michael Mann’s ‘The New Climate War’:

  41. The UK government is committed to achieving net zero GHG emissions by 2050. (Reduce GHGs as much as possible; offset the rest.) According to the site at—and-how-, more than half of the UK’s local governments “have now set net-zero targets more ambitious than the national 2050 deadline.” Recent consideration of Toronto’s net-zero goal focused on the challenge of achieving net-zero for heating buildings — currently the major source here of GHGs (just over 50% of the total; transportation is second at 29%).The conclusion is that because the deepest retrofit of existing buildings will reduce emissions by only about half, net-zero for Toronto that does not use huge offsetting is going to require a city-wide district heating system fed by waste heat from nearby nuclear reactors or deep geothermal heat (if the suspected potential for the latter is realized) — there being no other adequate emission-free sources of winter heat energy. UK winters are warmer (even though Toronto is hundreds of kilometres further south than any UK city), but heating buildings is nevertheless a major source of GHGs that may not have been well investigated in the UK. I’d be pleased to forward a brief article on all of this that’s in development.

    • David Wojick

      Any hint of the installation cost of said city-wide heating system? Hold on while I go out to the truck to get some more zeros.

      • David Wojick questioned the cost of installing a city-wide hot-water grid to allow buildings to be serviced with deep geothermal heat or waste heat from nuclear reactors. The amortized per-household cost would be a few hundred dollars. There would be other costs too, but the total would be lower than current and especially future heating bills. See “The competitiveness of district heating compared to individual heating” at There are already several thousand district heating grids in the UK (also known as heat networks). The challenge is not installing, converting or expanding such systems but figuring out the best heat sources for them.

  42. Paul Buckingham

    One more thing, be very careful about being set up and claims of saying things you did not say etc. These people cannot be trusted at all.

    I know that many responses have made good points, but if you get into the weeds of this, everything will go over the head of whoever it is, so keep it simple and make sure the obligation is on them, rather than being able to misquote you, which is why once again I state that if they want to talk science, the onus is on them to provide the burden of proof, i.e. no theories, no hypothesis, no conjecture and certainly no ‘consensus’ (the most anti-science statement of them all).

    I will clarify the depth of my original statement, whereby the burden of proof means:

    1. Provision of the scientific method, i.e. the null hypothesis, on what basis it has been rejected and complete documentation of process for successful test with additional independent verification and all confounders.

    2. If they want to claim the precautionary principle, then they are reliant entirely on models, therefore there are two critical equations that must be completed in order to then solve the closure problem if any model is not going to be GIGO, so they need to provide evidence of all three equations and list all confounders again.

    In terms of the two equations, you will have to come back to me to check if they are right because I never divulge what they are as part of the test for them.

    I already know, and have written evidence that no UK office can provide this, and I know that the IPCC cannot provide this, so the point of demanding this burden of proof is that it a) removes the obstacle of claims for ‘settled science’ or ‘consensus’, and b) forces discussion as to how any metrics can be established for cost / benefit.

    Anything else will see your responses argued with counter claims and will go nowhere, whilst they can claim they ‘listened to both sides’, i.e. lie. You need to shift the burden onto them.

    • There are a wide variety of salient points being made here. The energy policy is barking mad and utterly unrealistic and impossible to implement .

      It would be useful for Judith to point the politician to this thread and he or she can see what their electorate think of the governments apparent desire to bankrupt our country and send the electorate back to the middle ages by impoverishing us and reducing our standard of living.

      And for what? The UK is completely and utterly irrelevant with their tiny co2 emissions. They really need to speak to nature, china and India, in that order.


    • Bill Fabrizio

      Dr Curry, while I’m confident that you are the best person for this interview, this comment by PB is very important. This will be recorded. Please pay some attention to your delivery and who will be the real audience. It’s just one, limited opportunity to open up debate. This isn’t your first rodeo. You are armed with copious amounts of ‘what’ and ‘why’. But as pointed out in comments above, you will not be speaking to scientists. Call out any loaded question, not only because there are no answers to such questions, but because of their power to obfuscate and lead us astray. Answers are a dime a dozen, but what are the correct questions that should be asked? Be the calm amidst the storm of alarm.

  43. … perhaps because i cited and linked your last blog post at Times online!

    • My Times post. I didn’t give the URL because that often leads to a long delay in posting:

      There is no “tragedy on the horizon,” and the planet does not need saving. Here are climate scientist Judith Curry’s reflections on best practices for adaptation (following a study she did for New Jersey on sea level rise):

      I have been working in the climate adaptation space since 1999, mostly through my company Climate Forecast Applications Network (CFAN), but also on several university-based projects prior to 2006 (when CFAN was formed). During this period I have worked with development banks, corporations, government agencies (local/state/national) and NGOs. I have worked on range of different projects in different sectors and for different countries that address different types of vulnerabilities.

      The single biggest problem that I see in climate adaptation is getting the climate community (broadly defined as scientists and adaptation decision makers) to move away from the ‘predict then act’ paradigm. Apart from potentially misleading the decision making process, the ‘predict then act’ paradigm places undue emphasis on the ‘correctness’ of the prediction. This gives rise to acrimonious disagreements and motivates the ‘consensus’ approach and the stifling of disagreement by the climate establishment, all in the name of promoting good decision making. By contrast, robust decision making approaches explicitly welcome (and actively seek) all plausible scenarios, rendering most disagreements about projected outcomes to be moot.

      The second biggest problem is the perceived urgency of action, which exacerbates the problems associated with ‘predict then act.’ The incremental approach of robust decision making builds in flexibility to the adaptation planning.

      The decision-centric mode that characterizes robust decision making focuses scenarios around specific vulnerabilities or concerns of the decision maker. Too often, climate adaptation interventions focus excessively on climate change and less on examinations of what drives local vulnerability. Reducing vulnerability is the central criterion of adaptation success. Top down interventions by development banks or U.N. agencies have many well-documented failures, owing to failures to consult adequately with local stakeholders and to truly understand the causes of local vulnerabilities (both environmental and societal).

      And finally, it needs to be re-emphasized that climate models aren’t particularly useful at generating future outcomes of regional climate change and extreme weather events, which are targets of adaptation. Hence narrative scenarios developed from historical/paleo data and guided by simple process models and climate model simulations provide a much richer set of scenarios. Which experts are used in developing scenarios also matters quite a bit to the suite of scenarios that are provided. Best practice is to use 2 to 3 different teams with different perspectives/expertise in generating scenarios and evaluating scenarios of the other teams. I have been involved in three projects that used the multiple teams approach, and all parties learned much and the decision makers ended up with a much better understanding of the uncertainties and different factors in play.

  44. The science of climate change is dependent on hugely complex and incomplete computer models that seek to conceal the levels of ignorance, uncertainty, biased assumptions and flawed science used in their construction. A glance at the outputs, where they run much hotter than reality and suggest ECS values in the ludicrous range 1.5 to 5.5 confirms that the models are not fit for purpose.
    The question of the extent to which greenhouse gases absorb IR radiation can readily be answered using the HITRAN database so one wonders why it is necessary to construct a model of the entire inadequately understood climate in order to produce an answer so uncertain that it is useless. I suspect that I have just answered my own second question.
    The second problem is the madness of the policies being introduced to mitigate the extreme projections of the failed models. Willis has eloquently summarised these already so I shall not repeat the list here.
    In the UK, the alleged settled science and the unworkable policies are accepted with zero debate. Decades of relentless daily alarmism about climate change and extreme weather from the BBC and certain newspapers have stunned the public into silence. My own family and friends regard my scepticism as a peculiar form of mental illness.
    Politicians and civil servants know nothing about scientific or technical matters but what has happened to the senior engineers who must understand that net zero is a dangerous fantasy? Why do they not explain the facts of life to their political masters? Perhaps they fear losing their jobs? The problem is the deafening silence. Are we to silently observe the relentless destruction of our transport, energy industry, economy and much more because the entire population has succumbed to green groupthink?
    We need a powerful disruptor to spell out the reality in simple words, very, very loudly. Now I am indulging in fantasy like the rest of them. The BBC and the rest of the media will never question green hysteria. It has enveloped our society like a creeping fungus and is choking the life out of our democracy.

  45. Hello Judith,


    BillBedford commented above on present and future electrical links to the UK from adjacent networks. In the context of a possibly independent Scotland in the near future, how robust will the Scottish electricity network be on a windless winter’s day if it is largely dependent on wind turbines? I wonder what would happen if Scotland’s network was “islanded” in such circumstances i.e. like a sovereign nation might aspire to. Scotland is a long way from the French nuclear power station network.

    Now that the UK has achieved Brexit, how independent is it really if it is still dependent on importing electricity from Europe? I ask because this week we in the UK have had major reviews of foreign and defence policies. These have increased the number of nuclear warheads we will have, but not (as far as I know) increased our electrical self-reliance. This seems the wrong way round to me.


  46. Judith-sama,

    Sorry for the sock puppet. I tried setting up a WordPress blog, and it blew up and ruined everything WordPress for me all over the internet, so I can no longer log in anywhere under my own name or email address. I hope this is acceptable.

  47. Hello Judith,

    Professor Dieter Helm of Oxford University in the UK has made some important contributions to the climate/energy debate. I will try to summarise some of his work, but we need to start with rent-seeking in its most obdurate form …

    Rent-seeking is described below. The Iron Triangle is a well-known phenomenon related to policy making. It is described in written form by Endress in Arsenio Balisacan et al. (editors), “Sustainable Economic Development – resources, environment and institutions”, Academic Press, 2014, especially section 3.4.2 by Lee H. Endress, ‘Public policy – prosustainability or not?’, pages 57 -58. It is worth quoting at length from the latter. After describing the first- and second-best levels of policy making, Endress continues …

    “Third-best is the world of political economy, wherein costs and benefits directly influence the formation of coalitions that compete for political and economic advantage in society. The pursuit of such advantage is called “rent-seeking” in economics and typically involves activities such as lobbying, public relations campaigns, political contributions, and, sometimes, outright bribery. Unfortunately, the expansion of government that accompanies intervention on second-best grounds can facilitate rent-seeking at the third-best level … A particularly powerful type of rent-seeking coalition, long studied in political science, is termed “the iron triangle” because of the strength of the collaborative relationships among a triad of actors [colon] politicians who seek campaign contributions, votes and reelection; government bureaucrats who aspire to expand fiefdoms and budgets; and private sector interest groups who seek special privileges in the form of political access, favourable legislation, subsidies, protection of monopoly positions, and lucrative government contracts. The iron triangle is durable and impenetrable because it functions as a highly efficient, three-cornered, rent-seeking machine.
    Nowhere (except perhaps in healthcare) do third-best politics sink first-best and second-best economic considerations as deeply as in the realm of energy policy. In assessing energy policy in Europe and the United States, Helm (2012) is especially critical of policymakers’ obsession with current technology renewable energy, which is not yet commercially viable without government subsidies and mandates … Consequently, renewables have remained ineffective in lowering energy prices, creating green jobs, and reducing carbon emissions worldwide. The result is high costs for little gain. In a review of [the 1st edition of] Helm’s book, “The Carbon Crunch,” The Economist … highlights Helm’s observation that the entire renewable sector has become an “orgy of rent-seeking.” This outcome is not compatible with the sustainability criterion.”


    • Hi John, thanks much for this summary

    • “The iron triangle is durable and impenetrable because it functions as a highly efficient, three-cornered, rent-seeking machine.
      Nowhere (except perhaps in healthcare) do third-best politics sink first-best and second-best economic considerations as deeply as in the realm of energy policy.”

      That’s interesting because I’m on a change-of-career healthcare course and today we had the unit looking at the historic failings of safeguarding individuals in care. Organisational abuse and the inability to monitor these institutions effectively is an ongoing problem in the industry.

    • Some decades ago I did an extensive survey of econometric studies on the optimal size of government for economic growth. The studies used a variety of technqiues, covering single countries or groups of countries, etc – ther was a very wide range.

      Virtually all of the studies came up with 22 per cent of GDP, the rest were very close to it. Having worked as an economic policy adviser in the UK, Australian and Queensland public services, I have seen in action what Helm reports, amd have long argued in favour of smaller government. Sadly “climate change” and now the pandemic are entrenching ever larger government.

      • Paul Buckingham

        @Faustino aka Genghis Cunn – I would like to know more about your historical work around the optimal size of Government, as I am currently in the process of recreating the Hoskyns Government Wiring Map, performing 4 stages which are: investigation of every existing office (603+), recreation plan, micro economy and macro economy. It will take me some time as I can only do so much per week (3 offices at a time), and I am looking at the political system changes along the way as well, so a full and comprehensive remodelling of the nation, so any input from your studies could prove useful.

        I can be contacted via:

        My work is presented each week in video via Rumble (started on YouTube, but after they banned my ‘Moronovirus’ video, I moved exclusively to Rumble):

        I had also presented one video in regard to climate called ‘Burden of Proof’ (, which had been part of the videos I had put on YouTube prior to their unwarranted actions.

        The channel name on both platforms is ‘Sisyphus Complex Solution’, and I do have to give fair notice that I am not shy with my language :-)

      • thecliffclavenoffinance

        I am not a professional economist, but I do have a finance MBA, and edited a for-profit financial newsletter — ECONOMIC LOGIC — from 1977 to 2020.

        I have always considered capitalism to be a system where total government spending, at all levels, was under 20% of GDP. Increasing numbers means socialism is growing.

        But one measurement is not enough. Governments can control the economy with mandates and regulations that do not require a lot of spending to enforce.

        As a libertarian since 1973, one of my favorite quotes on politicians is from Groucho Marx:
        “Politics is the art of looking for trouble,
        finding it everywhere, diagnosing it incorrectly,
        and applying the wrong remedies.”

  48. Hello Judith,

    (Part 2 – HIS BOOK ‘The Carbon Crunch’, Yale, revised & updated, 2015).

    Here are a good number of key, highly critical quotes [with their page numbers] related to British, German, European and world energy/climate policies. The quotes come from the revised and updated version (Yale, 2015) of Dieter Helm’s book, “The Carbon Crunch”; they are well worth reading as he challenges the mainstream’s fantasies. I have added some comments of my own in curly brackets.

    [page xii]. “Climate change policies are a magnet for rent-seeking lobbyists and vested interests – especially those associated with current renewables and nuclear.” {This comment by Helm contrasts strongly with those in the Establishment who claim that there is literally no incentive for anyone to exaggerate current global warming, and that to believe in such exaggeration is to believe in a global conspiracy. I do not believe in a global conspiracy, but I do believe that there is a convergence of many vested interests which are benefitting hugely from the climate hysteria}.

    [page xiii]. “Indeed the only players in the climate change debates who appear to ‘know’ the answers are those who are certain that their chosen – subsidized – technologies are the right ones. Unfortunately there is a climate change ‘pork barrel’ and there are lots of snouts competing for a share of the spoils. The scale of their lobbying is awesome.”

    [pages xiii – xiv]. “The NGOs and the green political parties remain resolutely unwilling to entertain any serious role for gas, and too often stand by watching as the dash-for-coal goes on, committing the world to an enormous expansion of coal power stations in the coming decade.” {Perhaps le mieux est l’ennemi du bien in this case. See also the quote from pages 6 – 7 below in relation to Germany’s new but very dirty coal generation}.

    [page xiv]. “Yet facts will out. The reality of rising emissions cannot be avoided … New initiatives and new policies will be needed. They are unlikely to come from Europe. Its bid for world leadership failed at Copenhagen, and the future of the climate lies mainly with China, India and the US.”

    [page xvi]. “I [Dieter Helm] saw at first-hand how Brussels works. It was not always a pretty sight … My experience of the conduct of the lobbyists – particularly the green politicians and green NGOs – was very disillusioning to someone who is both deeply concerned about green issues and who has been deeply pro-European, …”

    [page 4]. “The economic illiteracy is astonishing [colon] for a long-term problem the Europeans chose a short-term target … But it has not stopped them trying to repeat the folly with another set of targets for 2030.”

    [pages 6 – 7]. “Faced with what its leaders think of as a major threat, the Germans decided to enhance their contribution to tackling global warming by instantly closing eight nuclear reactors in 2011 (following the Fukushima nuclear power plant incident in Japan), presumably on the grounds that a tsunami might reach Munich. This low-carbon generation had of course to be replaced, and Germany fast-forwarded its development of more fossil fuel electricity generation – including several new coal power stations, some of which are based on yet more lignite. Lignite-based electricity generation is about as dirty as you can get. Germany is the largest lignite producer in the world, and the planet’s fourth largest coal consumer … The British decided to push on with one of the most expensive ways of generating low-carbon electricity known to man – intermittent offshore wind – and, copying the Germans, found an even more expensive option [colon] rooftop solar and solar ‘farms’ for its northern climate … how could such expensive options be chosen first – and made all the more expensive as and when fossil fuel prices fell back? Moreover, what is the question to which offshore wind and rooftop solar are supposed to be the answer? It can’t be global climate change – wind farms in the North Sea will make no difference to climate change. They will not even make much difference to Britain’s carbon footprint.” {See also the quote from page 212 below}.

    [page 8]. “… the emphasis has been on the production of carbon emissions in Europe … the reality is that Europe’s carbon consumption has been going up. In Britain’s case … focusing on carbon consumption reveals the true scale of the deception [colon] whilst carbon production fell by 15% between 1990 and 2005, carbon consumption went up by 19%.” {See also the quote from page 239 below}.

    [page 9]. “Far from running out of fossil fuels, we have more than enough to fry the planet …” {cf. the Peak Oil hysteria}.

    [page 11]. “Economic illiteracy is at the heart of the failure so far to tackle the climate change problem, and although it can be solved, it won’t be if we go on wasting so much money to so little effect.”

    [page 17]. “When they [the public] are told that ‘scientists say . . . ‘ it is not unreasonable to ask [colon] what are their interests? Have they got ‘skin in the game’? The grants, the money, and indeed the career prospects and the status go to those who conform to the paradigm. Those following the scientific consensus tend to control the key journals; they are the heads of the departments, and they are members of the grant-giving bodies … Aided and abetted by the green groups and lobbyists for particular technologies like wind, the way to undermine those who challenge the conventional wisdom is to question their motives, discredit the individuals, create a ‘them and us’ division, and never to question the mote in their own eyes.”

    [page 18]. “These writers [Lawson and Lomborg] found that even questioning the relative importance of climate change was unacceptable not only to activists, but also (and more worryingly) to sections of the mainstream media. All this is frighteningly akin to the treatment of minorities in the wider social and political sphere. Not surprisingly, the public smell a rat.”

    [page 20]. “As William Nordhaus put it, ‘the Stern Review should be read primarily as a document that is political in nature and has advocacy as its purpose.’” {cf. page 244 below}.

    [page 22]. “The mantra about the sunny uplands of decarbonisation just keeps on getting trotted out. It’s hard to take seriously – that the world’s carbon-based economy can be decarbonized in a few decades without economic pain; that we will all be better off. Even more surprising is that apparently intelligent people actually seem to believe it.”

    [page 35]. “The global demand for coal is awesome. Between 2000 and 2010, it grew by over 70%. China and India accounted for more than 90% of this growth.”

    [page 80]. “The press releases of the wind lobby tend to be regurgitated by the media with few caveats and little questioning.” {Perhaps it is here that I should quote the late Leonard Shapiro, an eminent student of soviet communism and professor at the LSE, who warned that “the true object of propaganda is neither to convince nor even to persuade, but to produce a uniform pattern of public utterances in which the first trace of unorthodox thought reveals itself as a jarring dissonance.” The largely one-sided discussion (= fake news?) of energy and climate policies by Establishment politicians and media suggests to me that the green movement has largely achieved this propaganda goal. Thus, when I ask myself, “What scientific results could ever make alarmists reconsider their position?”, sadly I have, as yet, been unable to find an answer}.

    [page 99]. “How did Europe end up in this mess? How could so much money be spent to so little effect?” {See also the quote from pages 100 -101 below}.

    [page 100]. “… by 2015 perhaps a quarter of all British households would be spending more than 10% of their disposable income on domestic energy, and will therefore technically be in fuel poverty. Similar numbers may also arise in Germany, and indeed elsewhere across Europe.”

    [pages 100 – 101]. “…the EU failed to see that the [Renewables] Directive might have no impact on total emissions. A major dash-for-coal has been the result … It is a remarkable achievement to drive up costs, reduce competitiveness and security of supply, and still make little impact on emissions.”

    [page 101 -102]. “There can be little doubt that Europe’s preference for wind has been in large measure driven by the rise of green political parties and green NGOs. This green preference for renewables is not, however, sufficient to explain how the EU ended up with the 2020 Renewables Directive. For this to be achieved the greens needed to gain political power, and that is precisely what has happened in the last two decades in Europe. Political power is not just about winning seats in parliament. It is about influencing the behaviours of all the political actors … Courting the greens inevitably meant ceding control over energy policy … The price has been an anti-nuclear stance (notably in Germany), and then a large-scale renewables programme.”

    [pages 102 – 103]. “This is how Europe got its short-term 20% renewable energy target. But it would be too great a compliment to the green political movement to give them all the credit for the Renewables Directive. They have been aided and abetted by industrial interests for whom renewables represent a very large carbon pork barrel. Subsidies attract industry, and with guaranteed contracts and political support, major European companies began to sing the greens’ tune. Siemens led the way in Germany … The renewables lobby groups grew in size and influence, and the lobbying became overt, loud and very effective, funded by the companies that stand to gain most from the subsidies.” {Helm does not say so, but I presume that The City of London got its share of the spoils by providing the capital funding for many of these renewables projects}.

    [page 167]. “As long as China kept expanding its coal-burn, emissions would go on rising. Climate change since 1990 has been largely about China and coal.” {So why is the EU obsessed with renewables?}

    [page 175]. “The realistic conclusion is that there is not going to be any serious, legally binding, international and enforceable deal for at least a decade, and possibly never …. this is unlikely to solve global warming. For a solution we have to look elsewhere. The practical question is whether these summits are ultimately even positive. By carrying on a largely fruitless process for years, pretending progress is being made, the need to explore alternatives is not given the priority it deserves. A credible Plan B struggles to get off the ground, whilst world leaders continue to chase the deeply flawed Plan A.” {The mainstream media should have been all over this story}.

    [page 212]. “With the immediate closure of some of Germany’s nuclear capacity … there is a stark choice [colon] build new gas or build new coal generation … The choice they are making is bad news for the climate and makes a mockery of the Energiewende … It is understandable that many greens do not want to get their hands dirty with gas, but they have to face up to the alternative [colon] more coal, more emissions, and more climate change.”

    [page 238]. “None of this should be at all surprising. For it is based on what to all intents and purposes is analogous to a fairy tale. Along comes what could be one of the greatest threats in human history, and it is claimed that the energy sector can be converted from an overwhelmingly carbon-based one to almost zero carbon in the space of half a century, all at just a small cost, or even a profit … For some in this fairy-tale world, we do not even need new technologies, but can achieve it all on existing technologies – namely current renewables and energy efficiency … The fantasy is that it will cost us little or indeed nothing more than we would have paid anyway, and this is the deceit that lies at the heart of the failure to achieve much over these two and a half decades of trying. It is easy to see how seductive politicians find this apparent win-win scenario. It is stitched together by a conventional wisdom of ever-rising fossil fuel prices … so that however high the costs of current renewables might be, the future would be worse without them. If only it were that simple. It isn’t, and the cracks are there to see for anyone who is prepared to look.” {Except that the Establishment press doesn’t look and won’t look!}

    [page 239]. “Anyone deluding themselves that we will be forced to decarbonize because we won’t have enough fossil fuels needs to look at the facts. That isn’t going to happen in the relevant timescale for tackling global warming – if ever.” {Contrast this with the Establishment media’s infatuation in recent years with the Peak Oil spin).

    [page 240]. “Few politicians stand up and spell out that climate change is all about coal, economic growth and population growth. It is as if the three new coal power stations that have been opening every week in China and India don’t matter, as long as we open a few wind farms in Europe and install some insulation in our houses …

    Contrary to what many politicians would wish us to believe, energy policy cannot deliver both sustainable and cheap energy simultaneously … all across Europe we have been led to believe in this miracle, but it is just not happening.

    The cost of the decarbonisation of entire economies is likely to be very high, and it is going to involve sacrifices.” {Have the press and the politicians simply swallowed the green fantasy without thoroughly questioning it?}

    [page 241]. “Decarbonizing requires the coordinated replacement of almost all of the capital stock – of the world.” {So, for me, an independent ‘due diligence’ check on the need to decarbonize is a necessary and sensible starting point!}

    [page 242]. “Regardless of whether all these green jobs materialise, there is a darker side to Europe’s obsession with current renewables [colon] the so-called brown jobs … are destroyed in the process …

    Neither would a wind farm state be affluent.

    Telling the truth is an important starting point.” {Truth telling, notably from the greens, politicians, and the press is long overdue!}

    [page 243]. “Everyone can see that there are price increases coming to pay for all the subsidies that have been doled out on their behalf to wind farm developers, land owners, and those quick enough to get in on the super-subsidies for rooftop solar – not to mention the numerous levies that pay for insulation.” {Where was the mainstream press to point out these costs and inequities?}

    [More from page 243]. “Trashing those who do not ‘believe’ in current renewables policy, or who question the scale of energy efficiency opportunities, merely reinforces the dangerous suspicion that climate change is more religion than well-supported hypothesis.

    The green NGOs and the green parties have a particular responsibility for what has happened. They have had few scruples about exaggerating … Their websites are full of hyped-up scare stories, and they often play fast and loose with the science. But as their political wings have grown, so too has the reluctance to spell out the full implications of their policies.” {Which brings us back again to truthfulness … or its absence!}

    [page 244]. “Greens are very good at telling us what they are against. The trouble is there is not much left. They are against nuclear of course, they don’t like coal and oil, and they really hate shale gas, since they rightly realize that it is a direct threat to the economics of their preferred wind farms … Scientists have not always helped the cause of tackling climate change … Economists have added to the credibility gap by claiming that the costs of mitigation may be low and that they may not be detrimental to living standards. The Stern Review is a clear case in point.” {See page 20 above}.

    [page 245]. “Setting the fairy tale aside, what is needed is a realistic energy policy based on a recognition that resources are scarce … Less consumption means lower standards of living. It is no longer the fairy-tale world set out above [colon][start italics] decarbonisation cannot be done with zero pain [end italics]. On the contrary, the sorts of investment programmes required could be very painful indeed.” {Those are Helm’s italics in the quote, not mine}.

    [page 246]. “Tackling climate change does mean lowering our standard of living …There is no magic climate change free lunch. This sort of political deception has probably run its course.” {I am unconvinced; I think the deception/delusion continues largely unabated in the West’s mainstream media.}

    [pages 246 – 247]. “Economists tend to be very keen on introducing a carbon price … It allows the market to find the cheapest ways of reducing emissions, free from all the lobbying and vested interests; and it bears down on governments when they are foolish enough to try to pick winners.”

    [page 249]. “… there is a further inconvenient fact that has to be faced. Even if we devoted all our resources to current wind and solar technologies, they would not be anything like enough to solve the problem of climate change. There simply is not enough land and shallow sea seabed, given how little intermittent power each turbine creates. Even desert solar with long-distance transmission links would not be enough. An inescapable conclusion follows [colon] we will need new technologies.” {Again, where was the mainstream press to point out these simple truths?}

    [page 250]. “These … represent a plan – but one that involves eating a sizeable chunk of humble pie. It involves an admission not only of failure, but also of misleading the public about the costs of the policies that have been adopted.” {Have not the mainstream press been as culpable as the green NGOs and politicians in this deception?}

    [page 251]. “Kyoto has achieved nothing of substance … World leaders have a lot to answer for … Climate change is a problem that can be cracked – but it won’t be on current policies.” {Is it time to wake up and get real with a Plan B that works for ordinary people and not just for the current policy’s rent seekers?}

    How to summarize Helm’s book in a few lines? Here is my attempt …
    (i) For decades many stakeholders in the West have not told the truth (=fake news) about renewable energy technologies – current renewables are technically inadequate and overly expensive since they are often in the hands of rent seekers.
    (ii) The Kyoto process has been a political and technical failure (and thus largely a waste of time and money, except for rent-seekers and their many allies).
    (iii) New renewable technologies will be very, very expensive to develop in a short time frame; living standards will be (severely) degraded during the transition to the new energy technologies (except perhaps if gas is used during the transition).

    Finally, Helm’s report for the UK government towards the end of 2017 showed that while energy prices should have fallen for everybody in the UK (and not just for those who were fortunate enough to get a subsidy for, say, home insulation), prices had actually risen by about 20% or more. Ouch!

    Furthermore, the 2017/2018 winter was particularly cold in Europe such that the number of excess winter deaths was about 50,000 in the UK when it is usually about 40,000. Clearly a large number of the 10,000 extra deaths would be among people who found themselves in the eat-or-heat dilemma. Cheaper energy would probably have reduced this death toll.


  49. Hello Judith,


    In his Cost of Energy Review of 25th October 2017 prof. Dieter Helm of Oxford University wrote, “These excessive costs are not only an unnecessary burden on households and businesses, they also risk undermining the broader democratic support for decarbonisation. In electricity, the costs of decarbonisation are already estimated by the CCC to be around 20% of typical electricity bills. These legacy costs will amount to well over £100 billion by 2030. Much more decarbonisation could have been achieved for less; costs should be lower, and they should be falling further.”

    Helm also wrote, “The cost of energy is too high, and higher than necessary to meet the Climate Change Act (CCA) target and the carbon budgets. Households and businesses have not fully benefited from the falling costs of gas and coal, the rapidly falling costs of renewables, or from the efficiency gains to network and supply costs which come from smart technologies. Prices should be falling, and they should go on falling into the medium and longer terms.”

    (For the quotes above please see especially the Executive Summary and the Key Findings in …

    As we see from all the above, CURRENT renewables are the road to ruin in so many ways. Fortunately, a route out of our current pickle towards a sustainable, renewables future is described by prof. Dieter Helm in his book “The Carbon Crunch” (Yale, revised and up-dated, 2015) where he warns:-
    (i) [page 174] of the problem of unilateralism and Free Loading e.g. on the UK’s “leadership” during the COP26 process;
    (ii) [page 175] of a need for a Plan B as the Paris/COP process is not reducing greenhouse gases;
    (iii) [page 243] of the need to tell the truth as a starting point for planning future energy strategy;
    (iv) [pages 19, 22, 238, 245] of the need to challenge the group-think of the current fairy tale world of very low costs to achieve decarbonisation;
    (v) [pages x, 10, 238, 251] that Kyoto has achieved nothing of substance other than grandstanding opportunities for politicians.

    An eventual move away from the finite reserves of fossil fuels is not in doubt, but the CURRENT technologies are not up to the task by a very large margin – this is, I’m afraid, not a view that one commonly encounters in the media. Thus, would it not be wonderful if the UK could lead COP26 to face up to the real costs of decarbonisation and adopt, as Helm suggests, a world-wide research project for a NEW generation of cost-effective and resource-effective renewables …
    … If not, who is going to pay the energy bills of those in the UK (and the West in general!) who are driven deep into energy poverty by the CURRENT unreliable and hugely expensive renewables?


    • There won’t much left that works, People will die, Much less energy will be needed in countries that can’t do anything and with less people doing nothing or anything.

    • The agenda is actually, power, money and, eventually, population control.

      • jungletrunks

        “…eventually, population control.”

        Yes, the elites really are thinking about population control; Bill Gates for example. It might surprise some people, but Bill really does know everything. From climate, to COVID, food and farming; you name it. His foundation actually co-sponsored a symposium, Event 201, about what would happen if a global COVID pandemic were to hit (a year before the real deal). It’s good thing elites such as Bill plan way ahead of time, he’s saving us all. As an expert, Gates is much sought after and speaks regularly on Network TV on assorted topics; Climate Change, COVID, food (i.e., he wants us to stop eating meat), and much more.

        Bill Gates, “…top driver of administering experimental vaccines to everyone on the planet as well as a man who has waxed poetic about eugenics and population control”. He’s buying up enormous amounts of U.S. farmland, so I imagine there’s much we can look forward to in his plans to improve our lives.

      • If by ‘last winter’ you were referring to the Texas grid crisis then the single biggest failure was human error. The Texas Railroad Commission failed to notify ONCOR about critical oil and gas infrastructure that should be excluded from the ERCOT load sheading orders. That’s a man-made crisis.

        As to population control, I think we should look into genetically modifying human DNA* to shift and extend the female gestation period from 9 months to 24-32 starting no earlier than 18 years old. Would editing our species to reduce and stabilize our population, and by extension, lessen humanity’s pressure on the environment and it’s finite resources be a moral and ethical solution?

        * Using CRISPR and gene drive.

      • jungletrunks

        “As to population control…..Using CRISPR”

        The Chinese are exploring modifying humans, exciting enough for ya? And a Nazi shining star known as Mengele would be envious about this too if he weren’t so dried up; dead.

        Geez Louise; nothing to concern yourselves here folks, just move along.

      • jacksmith4tx:
        You wrote:
        As to population control, I think we should look into genetically modifying human DNA* to shift and extend the female gestation period from 9 months to 24-32 starting no earlier than 18 years old.

        We are here because what happens naturally caused us to be here.
        Don’t mess with modifying human DNA. You may not live to see all the disasters you create.
        As population has increased past barriers that were forecast as drop dead barriers, every generation after the barriers saw a much larger percent of a larger population living better than before.
        No one alive today can predict how many times in the future this improvement of the living standards of humans will cycle to better and better conditions with more people working together and contribution of more and more better ways to make things better.

        Abundant, Affordable, Reliable Energy is the only factor that always correlates with the state of human condition.
        Energy from Fossil Fuel is the most important of all the factors that provided Energy that humans had any control of.

        Even Rich Royalty of past centuries did not live as well as middle class and many poor people today. They did not have central heating and cooling systems, they did not have clean running water and flush t
        toilets in their very expensive places to live. Energy from fossil fuels provide most of the low cost affordable reliable abundant and convenient energy for the lucky in the world.

  50. UK weather lass: wind and solar never will be anything other than a costly virtue signalling exercise

    BPL: Look again:

    • David Wojick

      My latest research may be helpful:

      It takes reliable generating capacity equal to peak demand plus reserve to make wind and solar work. That is a huge cost. LCOE is irrelevant to reliability.

    • UK-Weather Lass


      I am not entirely sure that wikipedia (very pro-human caused climate change) is a reliable source for anything other than solid facts brought in from elsewhere. So far a wind and solar are concerned I would recommend you watching ‘Planet of the Humans’ (which was taken down by YouTube) but is an honest attempt at climate mitigation debate rather than quasi- religious prognostication.

  51. cerescokid: in 10-20 years those in the UK and other countries who support reduced CO2 policies will congratulate themselves for the absence of warming

    BPL: Considering that the temperature trend for the past 170 years is positive and accelerating, why would it there be an absence of warming 10-20 years from now?

    • Takahara

      We can trace warming in the UK through Central England temperature, maintained by the Met Office and dating back to CET.

      I suggest you put the data in a spread sheet and you might be surprised at the absence of warming since the start of the century. There was a distinct upsurge around the 1990’s but equally there was a similar surge from around 1710 to 1739.

      Bearing in mind the very long established rise I am inclined to believe that it will continue, but the current equilibrium for two decadess is surprising bearing in mind the rapid rise in CO2


  52. wagathon: California, for example, is a state run entirely by liberals that is choking on job-killing regulations, productivity-sapping lawyer taxes and anti-business Leftist dogma.

    BPL: And yet they have lower unemployment and higher growth than the average for the other 49 states. I wonder how they managed that?

  53. Hello Judith,

    CURRENT RENEWABLES – Energy Return On Energy Invested (EROI)

    There is also the major problem of the energy consumed in the construction of the CURRENT renewables; they are unsustainable or even anti-sustainable as can be seen from Cambridge University’s prof. M.J. Kelly’s paper ‘Lessons from Technology Development for energy and sustainability’, MRS Energy & Sustainability: A Review Journal of the Materials Research Society, 2016. (See especially Fig. 2 in … )

    In the above paper professor Kelly calculates, for several energy production methods, the EROI i.e. the ratio of ‘the energy each method generates through its lifetime’ to ‘the energy used in the production of that generator’. As Figure 2 in the above paper makes clear, solar (both PV and CSP), wind, and biomass are all poorer than CCGT, coal, hydro and nuclear even when they are unbuffered against the vagaries of intermittency; when buffered against these vagaries they are all much worse. Furthermore when buffered only solar CSP amongst these renewables reaches the level needed to maintain a modern economy,

    The ABSTRACT for the above paper gives further insights. “There are lessons from recent history of technology introductions which should not be forgotten when considering alternative energy technologies for carbon dioxide emission reductions. The growth of the ecological footprint of a human population about to increase from 7B now to 9B in 2050 raises serious concerns about how to live both more efficiently and with less permanent impacts on the finite world. One present focus is the future of our climate, where the level of concern has prompted actions across the world in mitigation of the emissions of CO 2 . An examination of successful and failed introductions of technology over the last 200 years generates several lessons that should be kept in mind as we proceed to 80% decarbonize the world economy by 2050. I will argue that all the actions taken together until now to reduce our emissions of carbon dioxide will not achieve a serious reduction, and in some cases, they will actually make matters worse. In practice, the scale and the different specific engineering challenges of the decarbonization project are without precedent in human history. This means that any new technology introductions need to be able to meet the huge implied capabilities. An altogether more sophisticated public debate is urgently needed on appropriate actions that (i) considers the full range of threats to humanity, and (ii) weighs more carefully both the upsides and downsides of taking any action, and of not taking that action.”

    We have been warned! When in a hole, stop digging and seek an alternative exit strategy!


  54. Hello Judith,


    Prof.essor Gordon Hughes (School of Economics, Uni. Of Edinburgh) at pages 39 -40 in dated 2020 writes …
    “The assumptions which underpin the BEIS estimates of the cost of generation for wind and solar power are fanciful, and do not withstand even cursory scrutiny; under close analysis they disintegrate. Indeed, they are so far from the actual costs incurred by current operators and recorded in audited accounts that they are not worth further consideration. The question is how a government department in a major economy can have strayed so far from the real world.”

    In he writes at 04/Nov/2020 …
    “There is a larger issue behind the story of individual project risks. This concerns the stability of the financial sector. In the UK and several other European countries governments, central banks and financial regulators have actively promoted green finance. They argue that banks, money managers and pension funds should increase their lending to and investment in wind farms and similar projects as part of their wider social responsibility. However, if many such projects are very risky – as is clearly the case – this pressure is a betrayal of their fundamental duty to protect the stability of the financial system. It is no different from urging financial institutions to finance speculative property developments at the beginning of a property crash.
    The likely response is that general advice does not override the obligation of lenders and investors to identify good and bad projects. That position highlights the central problem. There are no good offshore wind projects without either huge subsidies or much higher market prices. Government policy is based on assumptions that can be shown to be wrong with any reasonable amount of due diligence. Financial institutions that do their job properly are likely to be condemned for failing to support the shift to green energy. Most of them will prefer not to look too hard and to go along with the short term pressure.
    This is an old and disreputable story with only one outcome, so everyone should face up to what will happen. Financial institutions will do as they are told and join the party. In roughly a decade the likelihood of large future losses will become all too obvious and asset write-downs will jeopardise both loan security and investment returns.”

    Further on professor Hughes continues:-
    “In stark terms a significant portion of wind output is expensive to produce and of no value in terms of its contribution to national wellbeing. Other than sheer ignorance there is no excuse for policymakers tolerating, let along promoting, this outcome.
    I [Gordon Hughes] will conclude with some general lessons from the study:
    1. Stop pretending! The projections of the costs of achieving Net Zero put out by government bodies and many others rely on cost estimates that are just wishful thinking. They have no basis in actual experience and a realistic appraisal of trends in costs. As a very broad brush calculation the cost of meeting the Net Zero target by 2050 is much more likely to be 10+% of annual GDP than the claimed 1-2% of GDP ..…
    3. Bailouts of wind farms and financial institutions are inevitable. The Government is creating a situation in which it will have no option other than to bail out failed and failing projects simply to ensure continuity of electricity supply. There will be a game of pass the parcel over how the losses will be distributed but ultimately they will fall largely on taxpayers and energy customers. Any business investor outside the renewable energy sector should plan on the basis that electricity prices in 2030 will be 3-4 times in real terms what they are today …..
    5. As a rich country, the UK can afford Net Zero by 2050 at the aggregate level. However, it will mean allocating the proceeds of 10 or 15 years of economic growth to that single goal. Past experience shows that the UK’s political system cannot handle the structural and redistributive consequences of following that path. A strategy that acknowledges the real economic costs and difficulties of trying to make the transition too quickly is much more likely to be accepted and implemented.”

    Hughes’s conclusions are similar to those he drew in 2012 and similar to those of professor Dieter Helm that I reported on earlier today. Hence, the question arises, “Why have the media not been shouting these results from the roof tops?”

    Once again, we have been warned. But will we and our politicians listen?


    • David Wojick

      Hughes asks “The question is how a government department in a major economy can have strayed so far from the real world.”

      Answer: The entire Government has so strayed, along with many other governments. It is an adverse political movement of global proportion.

      Climate change uber alles.

      • Climate policy is an excuse for a giant, expensive mistake. The EU started building windmills, solar panels and wood-burning power plants because they bought into the peak oil nonsense hook, line and sinker. Go back and look at energy “forecasts” made in the 1970s and 80s- we were supposed to be getting a big percent of the fuel for our cars right now from coal according to the experts.
        If that had been true, they’d need a new source of electricity to keep the cost of coal from going through the roof. And they believed, for some unknown reason, the hucksters pusher windmills and solar panels and the activists who were attacking attoms.
        Policy wise, the reality is that the fracking revolution has completely ended renewables and “climate policy.” Some are simply coming around to this fact faster than others.
        The US is already switching to natural gas and the EU is right behind us. That is why, today, places like Germany are issuing press releases about climate, but approving the switch to natural gas for Volkswagen’s giant factory (and town) and Germany and France are funding the NordStream 2 gas pipeline.
        The only policy debate at this point is what will replace gas in circa 2050.

  55. Judith: Although I’m thrilled to see the focus of Climate Etc. return to climate, there has been an enormous develop relevant to your now-closed “The Big Cancel” post of 1/12/21 about censorship by social media platforms. When responding to Dominion’s massive defamation lawsuit, Powell has replied:

    “Even assuming, arguendo, that each of the statements alleged in the [Dominion] Complaint could be proved true or false, NO REASONABLE PERSON WOULD CONCLUDE THAT THE STATEMENTS WERE TRULY STATEMENTS OF FACT.

    So the unprecedented censorship you complained about was partly in response to unprecedented and self-admitted lies make by an attorney who was representing President Trump at one time and who continued to file highly publicized lawsuits in support of his claims of fraud. Powell’s claims were among those cited by then President Trump when he incited his supporters to attack the Capitol.

    I don’t claim to have an answer to the dilemmas posed by such lies. The danger comes when many users are only exposed to a single perspective and are no longer “reasonable people” capable of recognizing that Powell’s words were not “statements of fact”. If Internet Platforms were “marketplaces of ideas”, her lies probably would have been discounted. However, freedom of speech in today’s Internet echo-chambers has created an effective news monopoly: When Trump tweeted an average of 35 times a day in the second half of 2020 and his themes were echoed on social media, right-wing cable news and right-wing internet news site, few Trump supporters had time to listen to other perspectives. The cancel cultures on college campuses function the same way by trapping students in an environment where free speech becomes an effective monopoly on speech by drowning out other points of view. Everything on the internet is funded by advertising, which means users are presented with information that supports and entertains their current biases.

  56. Ceresco,

    Thanks for your civil replies. Apparently I wasn’t up to date on California.

    When I regress temperature anomalies for the past 170 years on a variety of possible contributing factors, the AMO index does contribute a few percent of variance, but not enough to offset the overall trend (and nowhere near the 80% or so contributed by carbon dioxide). BTW, one of the original AMO researchers now says it may not even exist:

  57. David Wojick

    The SciAm article is from E&E “news” which is mad dog alarmist so no reason to believe them. I thought NASA just confirmed recent greening. Generally speaking, global averages put out by alarmists are statistical junk, up to and including the GISS and NOAA global temperature estimates.

  58. David Wojick

    Pure crap. The emails speak for themselves, hundreds as I recall. In particular they really did discuss hiding the decline, though of course not in that language. They did use the word “trick” however. The proxy data in the hockey does not show the warming in the blade. It continues the decline of the handle. To this day they have never shown that. They are still hiding the decline!

  59. Future integrated – electricity, heat and liquid fuels – energy has to include nuclear in a can. Make 50.000 by 50 MWe helium cooled canisters and see what happens to marginal costs.

    The photo is of a UK version. And I suspect the crowd sees the sense of a nuclear reliant energy future.

    • “the European Union achieving climate neutrality could serve as a blueprint for other regions and encourage other countries to take bolder action.” And pigs might fly.

    • The paper says that five sectors emit the bulk of the European Union’s greenhouse gases: 28 percent comes from transportation, 26 percent from industry, 23 percent from power, 13 percent from buildings, and 13 percent from agriculture. Across sectors, fossil fuel combustion is the biggest source of GHGs, accounting for 80 percent of emissions.

      The paper acknowledges that air and sea transport will be forced to shift to high-post fuels, that refitting buildings would be a mammoth task, that the most expensive sector to decarbonize, industry, would need some technology that is still under development, and that by far the hardest sector to abate is agriculture because more than half of agriculture emissions come from raising animals for food and can’t be reduced without significant changes in meat consumption or technological breakthroughs.

      So my immediate response (I’ll read on – interrupted by a long phone call) is that this pro-decarbonisation paper gives some good reasons not to decarbonise.

    • But remember that McKinsey is embedded into most government in Europe. So their conclusions may not be entirely independent of the views of their employers.

  60. Pingback: UK climate policy discussion thread

  61. Hello Judith,


    Your UK politician should be aware of the cost of subsidies to the wind-farm and solar-farm rent-seekers. Paul Homewood has done a good job of recording this on his blog …

    These subsidies are roughly equivalent to those the UK is going to spend annually on the new and controversial high-speed railway link between London and Birmingham (and ultimately points further North).

    Incidentally, Paul also does a very good job of calling out the errors in the BBC’s reporting on climate and energy issues – but that is another sorry story for another day.


  62. Hello Judith,


    This is not my area of expertise so all I can do here is put in one place for your politician some links that point to the major changes that are taking place in UK company law and in the wider financial environment and which bear on climate and energy policy. Note that some of these changes make failures in green reporting into criminal offences!
    See text page 1 for Summary;
    page 20 for Reverse Takeover of one UK government department by another;
    pages 1, 12, 23 and 28 for “Lawfare”;
    page 31 for Third Parties and Climate Activists;
    pages 23 and 25 for advantages for Larger Businesses.

    For Michael Bloomberg’s presentation to Mark Carney of the final report of the TASK FORCE ON CLIMATE-RELATED FINANCIAL DISCLOSURES see
    Note that Mark Carney received this report in his capacity as Chairman of the
    Financial Stability Board of the Bank for International Settlements.

    For those of us who are not steeped in international finance it may be more palatable to read what Mark Carney said in his BBC Reith Lectures last year. Here is the transcript of the final lecture, which is the one I found most enlightening.

    However, not everybody is convinced that these changes will end well. I quote from the opening of the article linked below, “Central banks are rushing headlong into climate policy. This is a mistake. It will destroy central banks’ independence, their ability to fulfill their main missions to control inflation and stem financial crises, and people’s faith in their impartiality and technical competence. And it won’t help the climate.”

    You will note that, just as in most of the other areas I have commented on, it is not possible to isolate the UK from changes occurring in, notably, other parts of the Western world.


  63. DW: The emails speak for themselves, hundreds as I recall. In particular they really did discuss hiding the decline, though of course not in that language. They did use the word “trick” however. The proxy data in the hockey does not show the warming in the blade. It continues the decline of the handle. To this day they have never shown that. They are still hiding the decline!

    BPL: You didn’t actually read the article I directed you to, did you? All those points are wrong, and they were explained a long time ago. The fact that you’re still clinging to this indicates you haven’t paid attention to any of the many, many refutations. Don’t just read things that agree with your biases. Read everything. That’s why I’m here on this blog, despite being an “alarmist.”

    • thecliffclavenoffinance

      We don’t need to read biased articles about the ClimateGate e-mails, Taco Miserable
      Because we have downloaded the e-mail files and read them ourselves over 10 years ago.
      The coming climate crisis belief biased the science to show the predictions were correct .

      But predictions of a coming climate crisis began with Roger Revelle in 1957, and never stopped. Where is the crisis thatt has been predicted for 64 years in a row?

      In fact, the ACTUAL climate is better than it has been in over 300 years. Good News. Siberia is warmer. Good News. And the Eartth is greener. More Good News. And you are a gullible green dreamer f=o=o=l. That’s the Bad News

  64. Tonyb,

    Central England is how much of the world’s surface area?

    Global warming does not mean every part of the world will warm monotonically. Some parts will warm faster, some may not warm at all for a long time. It is, by definition, an average.

    • Takahara

      The UK Met Office, the Dutch Met Office, The University of East Anglia, Mike Hulme, Hubert Lamb, and many others thought CET is a good but not perfect proxy for the Northern Hemisphere precisely because of our position and that measurements are taken by 3 stations in a large geographic area of the Country. At one time Hansen said we could measure the changes by the use of one thermometer.

      Around a third of the World is currently cooling according to Muller of Berkeley. Similarly some parts of the world are seeing a sea level rise in others it is dropping irrespective of isoastatic movement.


  65. Judith

    There are three books your politician would find worth reading, as 2 are by environmentalists who realise the futility of renewable energy. The third is a satire along the lines of 1984 that describes the climate hysteria and the consequences, as we shut down industry and exist in the dark and hysteria.

    The first book is ‘False Alarm’ By Bjorn Lomborg-it is packed full of facts and figures

    The second is ‘Apocalypse Never’ By Michael Shellenberger, again lots of facts and figures as the author realises the solution to the worlds environmental problems is not as simple as he thought .

    The satirical book is ‘The Denial’ by Ross Clark which brilliantly exposes the inanity of our rulers who are being bullied into doing nonsensical things, with little proof they are necessary, by an influential group of Greens, including latterly, the Prime Ministers Fiancee.

    I would be happy to send them all directly to your UK politician at no cost. A chat with Devon based Zion Lights, formerly of Extinction Rebellion, might also open his eyes as to the futility of renewables.


  66. Hello Judith,

    Many contributors to sceptical blogs and writers in general [e.g. Ref. 1] consider that climate and energy policy developments in the Western world are in many respects socialist or Marxist in character. However, I suspect that, given both the changes in the financial environment and the uniformity of the UK’s political parties’ approach to climate, there is another narrative that fits these developments, namely an incomplete version of the corporate state.

    The corporate state is discussed in Ref. 2 and from which I quote, “State whose economic and political life is based on trade and professional corporations … The arguments in favour of such a system are that it would exclude party politics, prevent the state from becoming too powerful and correspond to the links which truly bind people … and that it would end class warfare. Believers in such a system have no particular bias to right or left …”

    However, the quote above continues with a warning from history, “… although the societies which have come closest to being corporate states were Italy under FASCISM and Portugal under the dictator Salazar (1928-74).”

    Looking at the UK over the last couple of decades it seems, to me at least, that climate and energy policy has essentially been captured by alarmist and green advocacy groups, while politicians of all parties (plus the mainstream media) have been supine in their acceptance of the hysteria. What space has been given in the climate/energy debates to energy consumers and taxpayers (i.e. to those who ultimately fund such policies)? Where have the cost-benefit analyses been when we adopted the Climate Change Act in 2008 and Net-Zero about a decade later? The absence of these key stakeholders suggests that the corporatist approach has been incomplete and thus lacks true democratic legitimacy (i.e. there is a huge democratic deficit in the present settlement).

    For example, the recent Climate Assembly [Ref. 3] here in the UK was simply an attempt to put a democratic gloss on a process led by the elites of the Iron Triangle towards pro-green conclusions they favoured.

    It is interesting in this regard to look back at the insightful comments [Ref. 4] written by a deeply committed UK environmentalist over a decade ago …
    “Green is fast emerging as the new Black. I despair a little at the emotional brutality of a formerly sensible environmental movement. … This is not to talk of conspiracy. That is a word commonly levelled at anyone who raises the issues of ‘who gains’ and it covers a dangerous naivety or blatant denial that such issues exist. I would rather use the term collusion of interests.”

    Later in the book Taylor writes, “That the green economy will be wearing a black shirt is not yet obvious, as such things seldom are at the outset.”
    Certainly, for me as an observer of Western politics, there are disturbing echoes of the intolerance of the 1930s in our current discourse, for example the no-platforming and the cancel culture. Unfortunately history seems to suggest that matters will get worse (possibly much worse) before they get better.

    1. James Delingpole, “Watermelons”, Biteback Publishing Ltd., 2012, especially page 146.
    2. Chris Cook, “A Dictionary of Historical Terms”, 3rd ed., Macmillan Press Ltd., 1998.
    4. Peter Taylor, “Chill – A reassessment of global warming theory”, Clairview, 2009, especially pages 14 and 367.


    • Hi John,
      Is technology agnostic in your analysis? What technology poised to make the biggest changes in humanity’s future and who will control it?

    • Dave Andrews

      Yes Peter Taylor’s book is excellent and deserves to be widely read.

  67. Consider the basic principles of formal decision analysis. It seems we have primed the pump to use “evidence”, so there is effort to gather it and convey it, but then no logical framework within which to use said evidence to inform a decision.

    Without that logical framework it falls to my ‘science’ vs your ‘science’ and all sorts of manipulations. If you setup a decision framework in advance you will not be able to stop all the nonsense, but you can at least make them look silly when they try.

    If a decision process cannot articulate what piece(s) of evidence would be required to change the decision, then it was not really a decision process, just a bit of theater to try and legitimize an emotional and/or political decision.

    Taking it one step further you could recommend structured decision making where multiple perspectives and stakeholders are included early and throughout. There’s a good introduction to the concept, workflow, and some of the common tools on

    • I have attended multiple lectures about “formal decision analysis”, then they fail to ever apply it to the problem of understanding the “internal dynamic responses of the climate systems”

      They always apply as something that uses CO2 as a factor in a Static Energy Balance, or some such.

      Climate changes with natural internal dynamic response cycles. Set up a Formal Decision Analysis to figure out what really goes on in Climate Cycles.

      • popes: Set up a Formal Decision Analysis to figure out what really goes on in Climate Cycles.

        BPL: We’ve pretty much known what goes on in the Earth’s climate cycles since Milankovic’s work in the 1930s. There’s no real mystery there.

    • At Takahara
      So, science was settled in 1930 and no one should question settled science.

      That is the problem!

  68. The global warming issue requires a coordinated global response. I don’t think there is an opportunity here for climate heroism by nation states and at any rate I don’t think that the UK’s “NET ZERO” program is a viable climate action program.

  69. Hello Judith,


    At the risk of patronising your UK politician please may I suggest the following bedtime reading as I found these books useful for understanding our present situation after I discovered, some 10 years ago, that the alarmists’ climate scare stories were not coming true. It was thus necessary for me to read less (post-normal) science and more about (non-partisan) politics.

    Colin Crouch, “Post-Democracy”, polity, 2004, pp 135.
    Crouch uses the analogy of the parabola curve to represent the West’s approach to the high point of democratic engagement in the post-World War 2 decades, and our subsequent retreat from it towards democratic deficit.

    Jason Stanley, “How Propaganda Works”, Princeton University Press, 2015, 351 pages.
    Jason Stanley, “How Fascism Works – the politics of Us and Them”, Random House, 2018, 218 pages.
    I found the latter of Stanley’s books to be the more readable.

    Yanis Varoufakis, “And The Weak Suffer What They Must – Europe, austerity and the threat to global stability”, Vintage, 2017, 319 pages.
    Varoufakis is an economist with a broad historical understanding of macroeconomic issues. His other books, “Adults in the Room” and “The Global Minotaur”, cover related ground and are both well worth reading – including the detailed notes he gives for each chapter.

    Bjorn Lomborg, “Cool It – the skeptical environmentalist’s guide to global warming”, Marshall Cavendish, 2010, 353 pages.
    On page 226 Lomborg gives a table of annual costs comparing “Feel Good (i.e. Kyoto)” and “Do Good”. The price tag for the former is $180 billion, but only $52 billion for the latter. He has released a book very recently but I am not familiar with its contents.

    T. Cave & A. Rowell, “A Quiet Word – lobbying, crony capitalism and broken politics in Britain”, Vintage, 2015, 386 pages, note especially the preface and chapters 1 and 2.
    Page 8 says the UK has the world’s third largest lobbying industry; Washington and Brussels are bigger. The UK industry is estimated to be worth £2 billion per annum. However, the book’s front cover gives a figure of only £200 million – but as lobbying is secret who knows which figure is closer to the truth!

    Roger Eatwell & Matthew Goodwin, “National Populism – the revolt against Liberal Democracy”, Pelican, 2018, 344 pages, especially the Introduction and Chapter 1.
    The authors introduce us to their ‘4 Ds’ of DISTRUST of politicians and institutions, DESTRUCTION of group identity and ways of life, DEPRIVATION relatively speaking given rising inequality of income and wealth coupled with loss of faith in a better future, and DE-ALIGNMENT from the traditional political parties. I would like to add ‘two Ds’ of my own if we wish to return to greater political stability.
    1. Politicians to stop DOING DUMB things to the electorate whom they are there to serve i.e. work for your people before subjecting them to the demands of lobbyists, rent-seekers etc.
    2. Reduce the DEMOCRATIC DEFICIT of your policies to zero by genuinely subjecting those policies to popular scrutiny.


    • John

      I am pleased to say I have already read all those books except ‘A quiet Word”

      It is a shame the UK politicians did not read ‘Adults in the Room’ before they embarked on the Brexit Discussions as Varoufakis gave them a blueprint as to how the EU would conduct them.

      A little upthread of your post I gave 3 Book climate related recommendations. Ross Clarks satirical novel ‘The Deniers’ demonstrate starkly the way society is heading. Highly recommended especially if you like George Orwell, as it has distinct flavours of 1984 and Animal Farm


  70. Steve Gouldstone

    If you are talking to a politician, I suggest you keep it simple …

    1. The UK has about 1% of the world’s population.
    2. We produce a little over 1% of CO2 emissions.
    3. Accepting the AGW theories, the UK achieving net zero will only reduce the temperature by about a hundredth of a degree – unmeasurable and un-noticable.
    4. The cost to us will be somewhere in the trillions – (assuming £2 trillion that makes it about £30,000 per person over the next 30 years).
    5. At the same time China and India – amongst others – will have increased their emissions by far more.
    6. So we will have spent an enormous amount of money and resources and have achieved NOTHING.

    Instead of wasting this money think what we could do with it instead.
    * We could promise to fund Covid vaccines for countries that can’t afford it for the forseeable future
    * We could pay for (and deliver) clean water and sewerage to all countries that the UK colonized
    etc etc

    I’d much rather commit money to these, than just throw it down the drain as a virtue signalling exercise!

  71. Dr. Curry,

    in your conversation with the British legislator you might want to point out a few tidbits to him (or her), to provide an appropriate predicate for your discussion.

    – is he aware that carbon dioxide constitutes only about 20 to 25% of all greenhouse gases? The remainder are water vapor, clouds and various other gases, like methane and nitrous oxide.
    is he aware that only about 5 to 10% of the total 25% CO2 is human caused? Theoretically it could never be more than one quarter of this 25% i.e. growth from 300 to 410ppm from preindustrial times. Or more likely 2 to 4% of all greenhouse gases, the driver for all zero carbon emission thrusts.
    it should be emphasized that the whole interaction between low and high altitude water vapor, low and high altitude clouds, sun radiative intensity, aerosols and CO2, methane, etc. remains a murky global warming science that has so far eluded near-accurate simulation.
    is he aware – re. 100% renewable energy – that the replacing up to 70% of presently used diesel and petrol products would require doubling the current level of UK electrical power generation? Of course, according to present edicts, this must be accomplished with 100% renewables!
    is there an understanding that ‘conventional’ lithium based batteries for vehicles and electrical utilities will forever be insufficient, since the world’s reserves will have run out early on during such implementation?
    does he know that all the windmills and solar panels have a functional life of only 20 to 25 years? Who pays for the replacement? What will happen with these ‘cemeteries’? Will there be moneys to clean up or recycle any or all of these skeleton yards and visual and environmental ugliness? Who will go out in the ocean and topple all those scrappy windmills?
    what kind of back-up could be available for one or two weeks effectively total deadness of solar and wind during dreary ‘black swan’ events?
    note that there is hope in environmentally benign Thorium based molten salt nuclear power – check Thorcon/Indonesia progress.

    Hopefully it will be a fruitful exchange.

  72. Judith, you should include John Cullen in your online discussion – he has a wealth of relevant information.

  73. A lot of people here don’t seem to understand that the British Government don’t know anything about climate science nor policy. Some of them may have read the IPCC “Summary for Policymakers”. Only the responsible minister is likely to read the Climate Change Committee’s reports. In 2008, UK enacted a “Climate Change Act”, which saw the creation of a “Climate Change Committee”, CCC. What does this mean? Imagine the USA created a committee of ex-Democrat politicians and EPA officials, and its science advisors, etc. Subcontracted out the job of climate policy to them. They never retire, but if they die or do retire they’ll be replaced, most likely, by some professional climate wonk or some politician fanatical about climate change.
    That’s how it goes in the UK. The Government doesn’t have to do what he CCC say, but has to be seen to do it.

    Politicians created institutions, IPCC, CCC, etc. which entirely insulate them from reality. Why would they go against advice from the institutions they made?

    • Paul Buckingham

      The IPCC and the CCC ‘insultation’ barrier has been breached, as I have written responses from both of them admitting they have zero science to back up their nonsense. So, it’s less a case of them not going against these institutions, and more a case of explaining how they can side with them when evidence demonstrates guff.

    • “Politicians created institutions, IPCC, CCC, etc. which entirely insulate them from reality. Why would they go against advice from the institutions they made?”

      That’s a ridiculous way of looking at it. Politicians need to seek advice on matters,especially scientific ones, about which they are ignorant or less able to come to a judgement about because of their limited abilities to know everything about anything.
      Judith is being asked for advice by a politician because she is a scientific expert (and, I imagine, being asked about matters on which she has greater knowledge than many other people in a similar field) and, I imagine again, because she has opinions different from many other experts in the same field.
      However, because politicians cannot question every expert on every subject, some having different points of views, it stands to reason that international or national bodies are set up to gather all the relevant information and pass on a review to those politicians It has always happened and it will always happen. Just because many here are not happy with what the vast majority of experts say (either in climate science or vaccine/lock-down policies, for example), doesn’t mean that they are not a good idea (or not correct), and the fact that some politicians look elsewhere for advice does nothing to negate that idea.
      In fact, it seems that politicians can’t win – seek advice from the majority of experts and they are criticised (especially for not listening to outlying opinions); ignore scientific advice and opinion, and they are criticised. Sheesh.

      • The history is that such bodies get captured by people/countries which wish to pursue what they perceive best serves their interest and do not pursue policies based on good science. The classic case is the UN’s constant condemnation of Israel. International bodies also tend to get swamped by smaller countries which vote in accordance to the biggest bribes or pressure, often Chinese or Russian. I would have disbanded the UN years ago as no longer fit for purpose (if it ever was).

  74. thecliffclavenoffinance

    Using Scientific American as a source for climate science is like using The New York Times as a source for information about Donald Trump = biased and worthless.

    Here are charts and links to real science:

  75. thecliffclavenoffinance

    “Politicians created institutions, IPCC, CCC, etc. which entirely insulate them from reality. Why would they go against advice from the institutions they made?”

    That thought is so brilliant I thought it should be repeated.

  76. “The IPCC and the CCC ‘insultation’ barrier has been breached,”

    I would like to think you mean ‘insultation’ rather than insulation, as certainly our Govt is insulting our intelligence and abusing our wallets


    • I think they’re hoping you’ve not noticed the insults. If you have, they’ll blame someone else for your hurt: “it wasn’t us – we followed the best advice experts gave”. Experts are a perfect get-out clause. “We did the best thing = took expert advice. If we did wrong, it was the experts what dun it” AKA “give us all the credit, but none of the blame”.

  77. Hello Judith,
    1. Climate is always changing. Recent changes are not unusual. CO2 is loved by C3- and C4-metabolism plants and thus the world is some 10% to 30% greener than it was a few decades ago. Higher CO2 in the atmosphere is not to be feared, unless you are hysterical (see below).

    2. There in NO climate emergency. But there is climate hysteria from which various groups are trying to benefit via lobbying, rent-seeking, changes to UK company law (see above in this thread), and changes to UK energy policy as per Climate Change Act 2008 and Net-Zero.

    3. The UN/IPCC is trying to change the world’s economic model (as per Edenhofer/Figueres above in this thread). But who will gain and who will lose as only the West is responding?

    4. (i) The national and international financial sectors in the West are evolving to take advantage of the new economic environment (e.g. see the Task Force on Climate-Related Finance above in this thread). Specifically, these sectors are beginning to favour green investments over fossil fuels – they now characterise the latter as potential “stranded assets”. China and India etc. take a very different view and are developing their economies largely based on a huge expansion of fossil fuel stranded assets!

    (ii) Prof. Gordon Hughes (see above in this thread) has shown that CURRENT renewables are hugely expensive requiring electricity price rises of a factor of 3 or 4 to become competitive. How can such prices be borne by the “Just About Managing” or JAMS that former prime minister May was concerned for? And how and why has government been so misled as to these costs? A ‘renewables’ financial crisis beckons in about a decade unless we take corrective action. Such a crisis will be yet another instance of “moral hazard” in the financial community i.e. the financial sector will take the short-term profits from these green investments but the public will again(!) be exposed to the losses.

    (iii) Prof. Dieter Helm (see above in this thread) has reported upon the power of the various lobbies for CURRENT renewables and upon the influence of these hugely expensive technologies on present and future electricity bills. Fortunately, he has also charted a possible route out of the current impasse, namely COP26 adopting a world-wide search for a new generation of cost-effective and resource-effective renewables; UK unilateralism is to be avoided so as to reduce the free-rider problem. In addition, we must tell the truth about the monstrous costs of the (largely unnecessary) decarbonisation strategy. The money saved could be usefully employed elsewhere.


  78. jungletrunks

    There appears to be a good amount of interest in climate debates these days. The Hudson Institute hosted a climate debate in DC just last week, it had UK participation:

  79. Gautam Kalghatgi

    To replace just 60% of current fossil fuel use (rest from efficiency improvements etc), UK will need to install an additional 120 GW of continuous CO2-free energy capacity – 300 GW of wind if we assume a generous capacity factor of 0.4. In addition in the next 30 years, aviation, steel, cement and livestock industries need to be largely shut down and existing energy infrastructure has to be dismantled – 26 million gas boilers replaced, oil production, refineries to be shut down …As for transport policy, it is e3ven more foolish and it will all end in tears! see

  80. TheCliff: Where is the crisis thatt has been predicted for 64 years in a row?

    BPL: Miami, Florida. Houston, Texas. New Orleans, Louisiana. Norfolk, Virginia. Tuvalu. Bangladesh. California. Australia. Follow the news. Global warming is already killing people and destroying property, and it’s only going to get worse.

    • Takahara

      That is an extraordinary thing to claim. Please actually identify the CO2 inspired weather carnage you describe, by way of a specific reference to the event, the day it occurred and preferably a link describing why the event is human caused and the worst ever..

      I have a vast collection of weather related items dating back to Roman times. Past storms, freezes, heatwaves, rains etc were at times far worse than we currently experience.

      We are currently living in relatively benign times. You must remember there are far more people to see an event, be affected by it and to report on it, which does not mean to say the event itself was worse than ones in the past.

      Provide evidence


    • Richard Greene

      Taco Miserable
      You are the most uninformed person making comments on this website.

      There has been no harm caused by the slight warming since the 1970s.

      In fact, it is unusually cold weather that causes far more deaths than unusually warm weather. So the warming, that most affected the higher latitudes of the Northern Hemisphere, probably saved lives

      And the greening of our planet, from more CO2 in the atmosphere, certainly improved food crop output. More food supports more human and animal life.

      What you have listed is weather events, that have happened throughout history. Climate is an average of weather over a long period of time, at least 30 years.

      There have always been hurricanes/typhoons, floods, tornadoes, earthquakes and other natural weather events that kill some people. In fact, none of them are in a rising trend.

      And climate related deaths have fallen by about 99% since the 1930s.

      Why do you make up numbers, and make claims, so easily refuted?

  81. pots: No correlation is discernible.

    BPL: I’m not sure you’re using the word “correlation” correctly. It has a precise mathematical meaning as used by scientists. The correlation between CO2 and temperature is actually quite high. Here’s more information:

    Not sure why Judith-sama removed my posts from this morning. Perhaps because they were made from a different computer?

    pots: The authors, led by Rolf Philipona, show experimentally that 70 percent of the rapid temperature increase is very likely caused by water vapor feedback. They indicate the remaining 30 percent is likely due to increasing manmade greenhouse gases.

    BPL: Very true, but the CO2 was the driver, and the water vapor was, as the article itself says, a feedback. It amplified the warming due to the CO2.

    • This thread is about climate policy and politics in the UK, not a thread to rehash all elements of climate science debates. I am deleting comments not relevant to the topic, since I anticipate a readership on this thread that extends beyond those commenting.

      • thecliffclavenoffinance

        You might want to leave a little information in the comments about climate science, as you can’t expect politicians to know much, if anything, on the subject.

        Most people believe the 60+ year old claim that a climate crisis is coming, not realizing a coming climate crisis is just a prediction, not a fact.
        A prediction that has been 100 percent wrong for over 60 years !

        Three simple climate science points:
        ‘A climate crisis is coming’ has been predicted since 1957, starting with oceanographer Roger Revelle, and we have been waiting 64 years, while the actual climate keep getting better.

        Warming since the mid-1970s most affected colder areas, mainly in the winter, and mainly at night. Think of warmer winter nights in Siberia.

        We have all been living with global warming since the mid-1970s, and it has been harmless to people, while the extra CO2 in the atmosphere benefits plants, greening the planet, and

        (3) Since the 1970s, climate alarmists have used climate models that predicted the rate of carbon dioxide growth should be causing more than twice as much warming, as actually happened.

        And they still make the same prediction.
        The same CO2 growth rate input, as in the past 45 years, but a very different average temperature outputs.

        For 40 years that prediction has been wrong, and there is no logical reason to believe it will ever be right.

      • Curryja: “I am deleting comments not relevant to the topic…”

        Thank you for trying to keep discussion on topic. In 23 days this month, Drroyspencer’s blog has over 3,100 comments; most appear to be off topic. My time is better spent and I learn more at Climate Etc. Your time, effort, and expertise are appreciated.

      • A simple climate science point:
        ‘A climate crisis is coming’ has been predicted since 1957, starting with oceanographer Roger Revelle.
        Roger taught this to Al Gore.
        Roger later changed his prediction, but it was too late, Al Gore was already using it for his friends and himself to get rich with the alarmism.

    • thecliffclavenoffinance

      The planet is 4.5 billion years old

      The only known “correlation” of CO2 and the global average temperature is between 1975 and 2021 … but from 2003 through mid-2015, CO2 rose a lot , while the average temperature barely changed.

      So that is 45+ years, less the 12+ years from 2003 through mid-2015, which equals 33 years!

      Very impressive!

      33 years correlation out of 4.5 billion years.

      Why do you waste your time posting here?

  82. David Wojick

    My big backup article now in German

    Renewables do not work in German any better than in English. Neither the English or the German Governments realize this.

  83. Ok, I just finished my conversation. It went very well. He had already spotted this thread and had read some of the comments.

    This particular politician is smart and charismatic (keep guessing :)

    • Smart and charismatic? A British politician?

      Let’s hope he has read enough of the thread to know we think the UK climate policy is mad and the energy policy is beyond belief.


    • jungletrunks

      Will there be a link to the debate to replay?

    • Smart and charismatic?

      The first one that came to mind was known as Winnie. Crossed him off since he has been dead for decades.

    • Good news. Let’s hope he has a positive influence on policy.

    • His opening argument about covid could equally apply to climate change:

    • Bill Fabrizio

      So glad it went well! Would love to read the transcript, or even better, a video clip. I can’t thank you enough for all you give and your bravery.

    • UK-Weather Lass

      I’ll guess from the information Dr Curry has thus provided -UK politician, smart, charismatic- the person is not necessarily a mainstream party and/or sitting MP.

      One or two of our Lords and/or Peers are noted as climate knowledgeable, but it has to be someone who sees Dr Curry as a balanced and informed expert on climate policy rather than an out and out sceptic.

      Nigel Farage, back in 2015, admitted he didn’t have a clue about global warming. He is not one to be threatened by MSM in any shape or form but he does like to have facts in front of him when calling out the more ignorant he finds in his company. He is also rather smart since in 2015 he also said “We’re almost back to Galileo. Whether it’s Galileo or Darwin, you challenge consensus, whether it’s in science, whether it’s in politics, and you are demonised for doing it.” Farage clearly wishes to ‘Reform the UK’ which is a view shared with of a large proportion of the population, especially since our MPs lost all sense of reality and responsibility at the sight of a virus last year … such small things are microbes and particles they cause us the greatest angst and misunderstanding.

      • “Nigel Farage, back in 2015, admitted he didn’t have a clue about global warming. “

        I’m sure that is true for 99% of the members in the US Congress. Although, they would never admit it.

  84. Ireneusz Palmowski

    Is La Niña making a comeback? A renewed weekly temperature drop in the Niño 1.2 region.

  85. But if CO2 is the thermostat ..?

    • But if alien lizard people have taken over our governments? Then they’d want us to think that CO2 is a climate control knob. Likewise, were insane greenies to take over.

      Do we really want to de-industrialize further, and completely cede world power to China? That bastion of non-democracy. Ask your politicians that question.

  86. UK-Weather Lass

    “I think they might disagree in the areas that have suffered record droughts, flooding, etc”

    Where there is weather there are events which breach our species best efforts at prevention.

    There is no sure zero risk remedy for anything and we really need to be much wiser and looking at investing in protective measures in flood risk areas rather than killing people in winter because they cannot afford to burn the electricity required to heat their homes because fossil fuel is evil. It is a situation made worse by requiring people to stop using gas for efficient heating something that electricity is much less effective and more costly at doing. Surely we should be using fuels efficiently for the purposes in hand and not kidding ouselves that windmills and photovoltaic cells can do the same thing a large scale generator can do i.e. supply baseload.

  87. Ireneusz Palmowski

    Daily mean temperatures for the Arctic area north of the 80th northern parallel, plotted with daily climate values calculated from the period 1958-2002.

  88. Ireneusz Palmowski

    Temperatures above the 80th parallel are holding to the 1958-2002 average. Strong fluctuations in the sea ice surface can be seen since 2006, when solar magnetic activity collapsed.

  89. thecliffclavenoffinance

    You wrote:
    “As temperatures equalise between the poles and the Equator science tells us storms should become LESS energetic not more energetic.”

    I think it would be more correct to say:
    As the temperature differential between the tropics and the Arctic declines, the weather in the Northern Hemisphere should get milder, according to meteorologists.

  90. Coeur de Lion

    Do suggest to anyone who will listen that now the COVID crisis is lessened, the Climate Crisis demands similar treatment with the Climate Change Committee at a podium at least weekly to explain their ‘science’ and their costings. If they refuse?

    • I doubt the Climate Change Committee could explain anything. Putting them on a podium even once strikes me a cruel in the extreme. The beauty of the man-made climate change narrative is that no one needs to explain anything – one simply cites authority: IPCC, “simply physics”, Royal Society, 97% of scientists, experts (I’ve even watched Judith do this). There are an almost infinite number of abstract authorities one is told one must “believe” on climate change but we’re never told what it is we’re supposed to believe except a) some extremist knows best and b) planting windmills and solar panels, cycling, vegetarianism, or driving EVs will solve it.

      • Mark4asp,

        I’ll tell you and the rest of the world what we should understand.

        It is that global warming is overall beneficial for the global economy, human well being and ecosystems. Therefore, we should welcome it, not try to reduce it. All policies aimed at trying to reduce global warming should be stopped.

        For more on this see Figure 15 and sections 4.7, 4.8 and the Conclusions L&G2019:

  91. “Even given strenuous efforts to limit the cause of global warming, further climatic changes are inevitable in the future and the UK will need to manage the growing risks from climate change.”

    The growing risk, is from policies and legislation founded on baseless weather projections, and false extreme weather attribution.
    While they model drier summers, they admit that summers have become wetter since 1995, and then concede that they were as wet in the 1800’s. Because there’s no long term rainfall trend in any season for England and Wales, and the wettest times are during low solar periods.

    “The summer of 2018 was the equal-warmest summer for the UK along with 2006, 2003 and 1976. Climate change has already increased the chance of seeing a summer as hot as 2018 to between 12-25%. With future warming, hot summers by mid-century could become even more common, near to 50%.”

    The main issue here, is that they have failed to grasp to most fundamental physics of weather and of climate change. Which is that all those major heatwaves were discretely solar forced during the actual weeks in which they occurred. They have absolutely nothing to do with chance, and climate change cannot possibly alter their frequency.

  92. David Wojick

    How is the U.K. handling the Kigali Amendment, which calls for phasing out benign HFCs due to their high “global warming potential”? This expensive piece of junk just hit the US. See my sometimes humorous account, just published:

    Kigali by the back door, so allowances will be based on decade old data, if that. A train wreck in progress, just leaving the station. So stupid I had to laugh.

  93. Dear Judith

    I am particularly concerned about the world bank and the IMFs decision to stop funding c02 based projects in Africa, leaving many of our economies forced to go to China for loans.

    The reality is that Africa doesn’t have a carbon footprint at the moment and that the Western World’s rationing of emissions to people who don’t have electricity is going to be seen is another form of neocolonialism.

    • Agree that this is a HUGE problem, an issue that I often raise

    • There are indications that some of those who push development in Africa toward the Chinese are actually profiting from that.
      Just my thoughts.

      Just like the immigration problem at our southern boarder, the evil people oppose those countries having low cost affordable energy that could make staying at home more attractive. When any country does not have low cost affordable energy that they control, it is not a nice place to live.

      • ” When any country does not have low cost affordable energy that they control, it is not a nice place to live.” – pct

        Agreed. The entire world needs equality.

      • There you come to a big part of the Chinese policy, which has brought them such influence. They don’t pontificate or moralise, they just supply what the customer wants, be it clothing or power plants.

        Often provided with huge strings such as through China leasing resources/land or providing soft loans, often impossible to repay, thereby triggering further dependence on China. But building a much needed power plant is highly attractive and the downsides to a deal usually arise way down the track.

        Try and do a deal with the west and countries in Africa have to jump through moralising hoops which the rulers, for whatever reason, will likely not want to do.


      • In 50 years after decades of moribund growth in the standard of living for the West while China has reached global economic dominance, we will be wondering how did that happen. This is one piece of that puzzle.

    • David Wojick

      I too write about this problem. But on the other hand China, India, Russia, etc., are a powerful counterweight to climate alarmism.

  94. China no-show at latest U.K. climate conference

    This is the predicted result of years of orchestrated racist hostility to China and Russia dressed up as various flavours of self-righteousness. China and probably Russia are going to give a very simple message in return:

    To take the whole climate agenda and put it where solar panels don’t work.

    • Hatter Eggburn | March 31, 2021 at 5:00 am | Reply

      China no-show at latest U.K. climate conference

      This is the predicted result of years of orchestrated racist hostility to China and Russia dressed up as various flavours of self-righteousness.

      Me, I’d say it’s the predicted result of the Chinese being too smart to fall for the CLIMATE EMERGENCY!!! nonsense. They’re building coal plants at a rate of knots, and as a result, they would be dumped on and dissed by a bunch of whining liberals, climate “scientists”, and assorted climate rentseekers at any such conference … so why go?


      PS—”Racist hostility” towards Russia? You sure you’re clear on this whole “race” thing?

      • jungletrunks

        Willis: “I’d say it’s the predicted result of the Chinese being too smart to fall for the CLIMATE EMERGENCY!!! nonsense”

        Indeed, but for the multitudes of hard Leftists like Eggburn: you can’t have your red cake, and eat it too, such is self defeatist; therefore protect communist and radical Left climate ideology (essentially the same) in one fell swoop by blaming western democracy while building Chinese cred to boot. It’s simple.

    • Thomas Sowell had it about right.

      “The word ‘racism’ is like ketchup, you can put it on practically anything.”

      If Democrats didn’t have racism as a crutch, they wouldn’t be able to stand on anything. The word use to have something to do about race.

    • Is antisemitism racism? Was the holocaust racist?
      Jewish people are not distinguishable from Causacians.
      Did someone say big noses?
      We could get Willis onto that one but I guess it would not hold up statistically.
      There has been so much mixing that it is not a race at all.
      As someone commented, Jewish people left Israel black and returned white.
      None of this matters.
      Their distinctiveness is in religion and culture.
      This makes it valid to call antisemitism racism.
      It is also valid to call inchoate predjudice against Russians “racism”, their culture and mindset are much more different to that of (say) English and Americans than many races whose skin as as black as black could be.

      Well America’s political campaign by Rep’s and Dem’s alike to stir up hate against Asians has worked. Now every day trained monkeys beat up Asians in America’s public places. And here and there people weakly pretend to protest.

      • No, antisemitism is antisemitism. Prejudice and discrimination based on race is racism. You can use other terms of prejudice for the Russians, but it’s not racism.

        There are prejudices and bias and discrimination against white southerners, and using your logic it would appropriate to call it racism.

        We don’t get to create new words and definitions just because it feels good.

      • I’m willing to accept that “racism” should only apply to visibly obvious race.
        The unifying attitude and behaviour of prejudice and discrimination are what matters.

        It’s interesting to follow up what that means. Most racial diversity of humans is within Africa only. That’s because a few hundred Africans exited the continent via the Red Sea about 60,000 years ago and all humans alive today are descended from that group. (Yes there were other exits at different times including of archaic humans millions of years ago but genetics shows that only the 60 kya exodus was ancestral to all non-African humans today).

      • jungletrunks

        “Now every day trained monkeys beat up Asians in America’s public places.”

        You’re obviously cluelessly woke, Eggburn, your statement is a racist comment. You don’t see it do you?

        Regardless, you’re just another ideological evangelist running with the program, facts be damned. Interestingly, that you’re wrong is irrelevant, it’s how you feel that matters:

  95. jungletrunks

    “…orchestrated racist hostility to China and Russia dressed up as various flavours of self-righteousness”

    A very odd, uninformed comment.

    China and Russia are two of the most racist countries on the planet; or do you care to break down the evolving demographics of these multicultural nations? China’s culture is getting more pure by the day, just ask the Uighurs.

  96. Hello Judith,

    BOOKER’S REPORT, “The BBC and Climate Change: A Triple Betrayal”.

    Christopher Booker’s 74 page report, “The BBC and Climate Change: A Triple Betrayal”, GWPF Report 5, 2011, ISBN: 978-0-9566875-5-5.

    I include below a short extract (with page numbers) for the record.

    [Author’s Foreword, pages 9-10] “In the very years when the global warming issue was becoming more controversial than at any time since the scare was first launched on its way in the 1980s, the BBC continued to promote the received orthodoxy on climate change and the political response to it without ever exposing either to serious questioning.”

    “The BBC’s journalists went out of their way to publicise almost every alarmist claim the promoters of the scare could come up with, even after these had been shown to be without scientific foundation. Almost the only occasions on which they have paid attention to the views of dissenters from the orthodoxy has been when they have produced programmes designed to trivialise and caricature those views, portraying them as being held by only a tiny and disreputable minority of ‘deniers’.”

    “They [BBC journalists] have lent enthusiastic support to every political measure proposed to ‘fight climate change’, while consistently failing to explain the immense financial cost of those proposals and their enormous economic implications. In their relentless promotion of the benefits of ‘renewable energy’, such as wind power, they have consistently endorsed the often absurdly exaggerated claims of the commercial interests involved in ‘renewables’, while failing to explain their practical shortcomings.”

    “In doing this, as this report will try to show, the BBC has not only failed in its professional duty to report fully and accurately on one of the biggest scientific and political stories of our time: it has betrayed its own principles, in three respects.”

    “First, it has betrayed its statutory obligation to be impartial, using the excuse that any dissent from the official orthodoxy was so insignificant that it should just be ignored or made to look ridiculous.”

    “Second, it has betrayed the principles of responsible journalism, by allowing its coverage to become so one-sided that it has too often amounted to no more than propaganda.”

    “Third, it has betrayed the fundamental principles of science, which relies on unrelenting scepticism towards any theory until it can be shown to provide a comprehensive explanation for the observed evidence.”

    “In all these respects, the BBC has above all been guilty of abusing the trust of its audience, and of all those compelled to pay for it. On one of the most important and far-reaching issues of our time, its coverage has been so tendentious that it has given its viewers a picture not just misleading but at times even fraudulent.”

    [Summary, page 11] “The purpose of this report is to measure the BBC’s coverage of all aspects of the climate change issue between 2005 and the present day [2011] against its statutory obligation to report on the world ‘with due accuracy and impartiality’.”
    End of short extract.

    I have just reread Booker’s report in full. Although about 10 years old it still makes compelling reading since it highlights that a major part of the West’s current problems regarding climate matters are associated with serious inadequacies in our media.

    I have also made a compilation of Booker’s report’s key passages thereby reducing his 74 page report to about 10 pages (or 5,700 words) i.e. my summary is still rather long. I will, therefore, not post it here unless specifically requested by you, Judith, to do so.


  97. I am too late for the Zoom but will give the answer anyway.

    The only question that matters is this: how much effect will a giv
    UK action have?
    It may have results in one of two ways, and the proponents should
    be made to list the effects for each.

    One way is by the direct reduction of global emissions. UK direct
    action might with a following wind reduce global emissions by
    1% over what they would otherwise have been. This does not
    mean any actual reduction. Just the subtraction of 1%, while
    they most likely continue to rise globally by how much? 30%?

    So the first point you need to make is that no UK policy can do
    anything to ‘tackle’ or in anyway make any dent in global
    emissions. The various proposed actions are always argued to be
    doing something about the global climate. But some basic
    math shows you immediately that this is impossible.

    Point two is that the UK would supposedly be setting an example
    which others will follow. Fine, make them say just how many
    tons of emissions this example will cause to be reduced, and who
    will make the reduction.

    No-one is looking to the UK for an example on this, no-one will
    make any reductions just because the UK has. But if they think
    differently just say who and when and how much.

  98. The point is well and clearly made here (better than I made it)

  99. No, its because they realised there was money to be made from the booming Pakistani casino market. There’s absolutely no casino in Pakistan yet. Its perfectly legal to have property in casinos but to not run more than four cards at one time in a live casino and to just have two land cards at a hand in an internet poker game. But how could locate a casino if there wasn’t any Pakistani cities with sufficient population to support you? That’s where I come in. How do you find a casino in a country with no single casino on its doorstep?
    The authorities of Pakistan has banned all online casinos from the nation. Why is this so? Could it be because they do not like their guests spending money in casinos? Can it be because the government is concerned about organised crime running rampant in the nation and the risk that online gaming can bring?

    I have been working in the slot and casino business in the UK for the previous ten decades and I’ve played many online and offline casino games. My occupation as a consultant has given me some insight into how to use this Betting Exchange to generate income and I will tell you that its quite simple to earn money working with the exchange. You can use your charge card to deposit into a”blind” or even non-player accounts and play against the casino live players, who will have placed their bets prior to you entering the room. Playing on a live casino having real individuals additionally gives you the chance to utilize a top roller bonus and the opportunity to win big jackpots that you would not be able to achieve in your house country. Though casinos use different terminology to call what’s basically the same thing, I will use the very same terms to describe what it is you are doing while playing on an online casino.

  100. No, its because they realised that there was money to be produced from the booming Pakistani casino industry. There’s zero casino from Pakistan yet. Its perfectly legal to own property in casinos but to not operate over four cards at one time at a live casino and to only have two land cards in one hand in an internet poker game. However, how could find a casino when there was no Pakistani cities with sufficient people to support one? That is where I come in. How do you locate a casino in a state without a single casino on its doorstep?
    The authorities of Pakistan has banned all online casinos in the nation. Why is this so? Could it be because they do not like their guests spending cash in casinos? Can it be because the government is concerned about organised crime running rampant in the country and the risk that online gambling may bring?
    I have been working in the casino and slot industry in the united kingdom for the previous ten decades and I have played many online and offline casino games. My job as a consultant has provided me some insight into how to use the Betting Exchange to make money and I can tell you that its quite easy to earn money utilizing the exchange. It is possible to use your credit card to deposit into a”blind” or even non-player account and play against the casino’s live players, who will have placed their bets prior to you entering the room. Playing on a live casino using real individuals additionally gives you the chance to utilize a high roller handle and the chance to win big jackpots which you wouldn’t have the ability to accomplish in your house country. Although casinos use different language to predict what’s essentially the exact identical thing, I’ll use the exact terms to describe what it is you are doing if playing on an internet casino.

  101. No, its because they realised that there was money to be produced from the booming Pakistani casino market. There is absolutely no casino at Pakistan yet. Its perfectly legal to own property in casinos but to not run over four cards at one time in a live casino also to only have 2 land cards at a hand in an internet poker game. However, how could find a casino when there wasn’t any Pakistani cities with sufficient people to support one? That’s where I come in. How can you find a casino in a country with no single casino on its own doorstep?
    The government of Pakistan has banned all online casinos from the country. Why is this so? Can it be because they don’t like their guests spending money in casinos? Could it be because the government is worried about organised crime running rampant in the nation and the risk that online gaming can attract?
    I’ve been working in the casino and slot industry in the united kingdom for the previous ten decades and I’ve played many online and offline casino games. My job as a consultant has provided me some insight to how to use the Betting Exchange to generate income and I will tell you that its very easy to earn money using the market. You can use your credit card to deposit into a”blind” or even non-player accounts and play against the casino live players, who will have placed their bets prior to you entering the area. Playing on a live casino with real people additionally gives you the opportunity to utilize a top roller bonus and the opportunity to win big jackpots which you would not have the ability to achieve in your house country. Though casinos use different terminology to call what’s basically the identical thing, I will use exactly the very same terms to explain what you are doing when playing with an online casino.