ChatterBank0 min ago
Driving A Daqger Through The Heart Of The Climate Change Religion.....
59 Answers
No one doubts climate change, the planet is continually changing but has it become a religion for some? Beliefs without reason? Illogical deductions? Assignation of blame with no evidence? Just a few of the things this deity tends to do.
Answers
Meanwhile, the UK has spent more than £200bn over the last decade installing wind and solar energy sources. This is very intermittent supply. As I write, wind is meeting 6% of demand and solar, unsurpisingly, nil. Gas, which the UK government has refused to exploit from our own resources, is meeting 55% of demand. Much of his is imported from the USA and...
18:20 Fri 14th Mar 2025
The first of the UN Climate Change Conferences (the “COP” meetings) was held in 1995. These assemblies are where the Great and the Good assemble together with their lackies, bag carriers and hangers-on in vast numbers (over 50,000 last time out) to discuss their plans for controlling the climate. These usually take place in agreeable locations to which almost all of them have to travel by air.
At the end of their jolly, the leaders get their lackies to produce a few “declarations” telling the world what they will do next. They then shake hands with each other, have a hug or two, slap each other on the back and then, after the usual obligatory photographs, they all set off for the airport to head home where most of them carry on exactly as before, with their lackies eagerly preparing for the next bean-feast.
Principle among their discussions is almost certainly the reduction in CO2 emissions which are said to be causing so much harm. So naturally we should all expect these annual get togethers to be producing some results in that respect by now. Alas we will be sorely disappointed.
In 1965, before global leaders turned their attention in any great detail to this, atmospheric CO2 concentrations were 318 parts per million (ppm). By 1995, when the “Global Warming” scam was in its infancy (and the first COP meeting was held) they stood at 361ppm – an increase of 13.5%. After 30 years of COPs, they now stand at 426ppm – an increase of 18% over the same timeframe.
These meetings have achieved absolutely nothing; zero; zilch. And there’s a very good reason: the “big hitters” have no intention whatsoever of impoverishing their people and jeopardising their economies to accommodate CO2 reductions.
The worst offender is China. That country burns more coal than the rest of the world put together. Despite its platitudes, that shows no sign of abating. It has, either in planning or under construction, coal-fired power stations which will add 420Gw to its capacity. This addition – entirely coal-fired - is more than ten times the UK’s total maximum demand.
Meanwhile, the UK has spent more than £200bn over the last decade installing wind and solar energy sources. This is very intermittent supply. As I write, wind is meeting 6% of demand and solar, unsurpisingly, nil. Gas, which the UK government has refused to exploit from our own resources, is meeting 55% of demand. Much of his is imported from the USA and Qatar.
This had led to the UK having the highest electricity prices in the developed world. UK businesses pay three times as much for their power as those in the US and four times as much as those in China. This has led to the widespread loss of industry in the UK, particularly in the steel, chemical and car making sectors. But it has also forced the closure of thousands of small businesses such as in the retail and hospitality sectors who could simply not cope with their energy bills. I haven’t mentioned the scandal that is Drax.
None of this has had the slightest impact on global emissions. The country still needs the goods that are no longer made here. All we have done is export the emissions those industries would have produced here to countries who are not so fussy (or so foolish).
Meanwhile Mr Miliband is on his way to China “for a new start”:
https:/
If he hopes that new start will involve them burning less coal, I think he may be disappointed.
Mr Trump understands all this. That’s why he’s is planning to rid the USA of the eco-zealotry which has assumed the guise of something between a religion and an unfortunate mental illness nd which has caused so much damage in the UK.
So I will ask two simple questions:
1. What is the point of the annual COP jamborees?
2. What is the point of the UK’s quest for “net zero”?
The Climate Change/Greenhouse gas/Polar Bears starving/Glow Bulls rampant campaign is just a scam driven by scaremongering, and swallowed whole by the over emotional and under informed. It is nought but a wheeze to give control to a few, and enrich them, whilst impoverishing the rest of us at the same time. Britain's Climate Change Act 2008 was desired and planned by George Soros and supplied to order by his puppet politicians. Primarily Tony Blair who had been working with George Soros since 1997 and David Miliband who arranged it in 2006/7. Both Tony Blair and David Miliband subsequently received $millions from George Soros in the form of highly paid Soros related jobs. Most significantly, the first chairman of the Climate Change Committee from 2008, Lord Adair Turner, is also a close friend and "ally" of George Soros.
Britain has two separate climate laws based on two separate climate reports. Both reports are connected to George Soros' money through the authors.
The Climate Change Act 2008 is based on a report named The Stern Review of the Economic Effects of Climate Change. The author is George Soros' close friend Lord Nicholas Stern who holds a senior position at the LSE which has received huge donations from George Soros. Possibly even consisting of laundered USAID cash according to the investigation by Elon Musk's Department of Government Efficiency. Legal Net Zero 2019 is based on a report "Hotting Up" authored by Conservative think tank Bright Blue which was part financed by George Soros through his foundation Open Society in the period before Bright Blue wrote the report. Boris Johnson's sister is a non executive director of Bright Blue which has been praised by Tony Blair's friend, Michael Gove, who also praised Greta Thunberg. Scam scam scam. The climate "scientists" are bought and paid for and shame the very name scientist.
With thanks to Polly from another site.
It's not denial of climate change; it's denial of man-made climate change.
I posted on here a few years ago that climate change was natural and I gave reasons for that. They were factual, but some tree-hugging mod removed my answer because he/she, they, didn't like to hear anything factual that undermines the man-made climate change stance.
It is accepted by all scientists that the Earth is currently warming up gradually, as it emerges from the last ice age and will continue to do so for a few thousand years until it starts to cool off and go back to another ice age, as it has done since the planet came into existence. That was just one, factual statement. There were others, but as I said in a post earlier this week, man-mad climate change is about money, self-promotion and manipulation, as also mentioned earlier in this thread.
You may be right about the longer term natural trend 10clarionstreet. But you haven't addressed the evidence that change has accelerated in the last 100 years and it is accepted universally by scientists that this is largely a man-made change linked to increases carbon emissions.
But I agree with NewJudge and others that we are wasting our time on insignificant measures if India, China USa and Russia carry on expanding their emissions.
the thread is not about COP or the hypocrisy of its attendees and it is not about the UK so newjudge has just attempted to drag the subject matter onto ground that he feels comfortable with which is
the scientific proof for man made climate change is extremely strong. the evidence extracted from ice cores give us a pretty good idea of CO2 and temperature fluctuations for the past 800,000 years and it's very clear that both have risen at an unnaturally fast pace in the last century... the atmospheric study i provided also uses data from satellites to measure the role of greenhouse gases in increasing the amount of longwave radiation trapped in the earth's atmosphere
everyone is entitled to their own opinions but nobody is entitled to their own facts. human generated co2 is causing average temperatures to rise and will continue to do so for as long as we emit them. we had decades to do it the easy way but those of you in the older generation failed to take the issue seriously, so now we are stuck with measures that will only get more severe the longer we leave them. politicians being hypocritical and some people profiting from green technology doesn't change the core facts... the greenhouse effect is real and cumulative human emissions over time do influence it.
“the thread is not about COP or the hypocrisy of its attendees and it is not about the UK”
Not specifically, no. But what I’ve written is relevant because the thread is about the current stance of one of the “big hitters”
I referred to. It is quite clear that the USA is having nothing to do with any actions which may impoverish its citizens, destroy its businesses and cripple its economy. The same can be said for at least two of the others, namely China and India. They may not have been so forthright as President Trump and may have offered one or two platitudes to justify their attendance at the COP meetings, but it is quite clear they are of similar mind.
“…but nobody is entitled to their own facts. human generated co2 is causing average temperatures to rise and will continue to do so for as long as we emit them.”
I have not denied or questioned any of those facts; in fact I haven't even menioned them apart from briefly agreeing that CO2 concentrations have continued to rise despite 30 years of COP jamborees and many years of the UK compromising its energy security and destrying its industries. Nor have I made my posts “wordy” to convince the simple-minded that I have.
The only facts I have mentioned are connected with the emissions which continue to grow from some of the biggest producers and which make anything the UK (and largely anybody else) does completely pointless.
So now we’ve cleared that up, would anybody care to have a crack at my two questions? The question about COP doesn’t worry me too much. Politicians and their lackies will always find a reason to assemble in some agreeable place and have their photos taken (especially in the northern hemisphere’s winter). If they no longer did it for COP they would quickly find another excuse - and they would not be open to accusations of ultra hypocrisy.. But the question about the UK’s drive towards the unachievable (and frankly misleading) “net zero” certainly does.
the fact of the matter is that the UK like the rest of the world is at the mercy of what the largest emitters do... of them it seems to me that china is the best hope of humanity given their massive expansion of sustainable energy and their plausible plan to eliminate fossil fuel usage further once they have used it to industrialise. china also makes better EVs than any available in the west and is the only country in the world
for the UK i simply don't accept the premise that green levies are impoverishing people. energy prices in the UK are pegged to gas prices for reasons i cannot fathom, and as such green energy is made far far more expensive than it needs to be. energy prices are high in the uk because of price gouging, nothing else.
“i simply don't accept the premise that green levies are impoverishing people”
There’s a number of things you seem unable to accept. “Green” levies on household electricity bills are around 16%. Electricity is four times the cost of gas and that 16% makes quite a difference to people on low incomes – enough I would suggest to impoverish them. As well as that, high energy costs have seen thousands of small businesses close, especially in the retail and hospitality sectors, thus effecting the business owners and employees. Those that have remained in business have had to either cut staff, raise prices or both in order to stay afloat.
“…it seems to me that china is the best hope of humanity given their massive expansion of sustainable energy and their plausible plan to eliminate fossil fuel usage further once they have used it to industrialise.”
In January this year July last year China had 1,167 operational coal fired power stations with an installed capacity of 1,147 Gigawatts. This can be seen here in the total (row 35) column I:
As well as that, it has a massive construction programme which will add over 420gW (to be found in the same spreadsheet, columns E nd F).
For comparison, the total capacity in the UK from all sources is less than 40 gW.
Under its current plans, between now and 2044, China intends to retire coal power stations which have capacity of just 7 (seven) gW.This can be seen here at row 20:
If humanity is pinning its hopes on China’s “plausible plan” to eliminate fossil fuel usage I suggest someone needs to have a proper look at it because there is not a cat in Hell’s chance of China decommissioning any significant coal fired power capacity any time soon. The idea that they will “use it to industrialise” (which they seem to be fairly well advanced with already) and then it will somehow be no longer required is simply for the fairies.
The troubling aspect of all this is that it is not difficult to find all this information. This country is piddling about spending a fortune in a futile attempt to "decarbonise" our entire electricity supply, at enormous inconvenience and cost, when its total represents just 2.5% of China's current and planned coal fired capacity. And whatever China says, much of that will not be "decarbonised" one jot either when they have finished their "industrialisation" or any time soon after.
So my question #2 remains - What is the point of the UK’s quest for “net zero”?
I've never understood the 'we should set an example' argument - we're a small island in the North Atlantic which, in the scheme of things, contributes very little to climate change. Surely, for a proper example to be set, one of the big hitters should take the lead, but of course for the reasons already given they have no intention of effing up their economies.
china's plan is to become carbon neutral by 2060 newjudge so it is somewhat misleading to choose 2044 as a cutoff. their plan is to have 80% of their energy met by non-fossil fuel sources and at present they meet about a third of their energy needs are being met by nuclear power, solar, hydroelectric power etc. --and that proportion is increasing. they are five years ahead of their target on solar and wind capacity. they are world leaders in EVs and solar panels and battery storage. they have advanced those technologies enormously.
the idea that china is "doing nothing" is for the birds. they are now the only major power that actually seems to be taking this problem seriously and doing anything about it.
energy prices are not high in the uk because of green levies. they are high because of increasing wholesale costs of natural gas:
renewable (and nuclear) energy is far far cheaper to produce than fossil fuel energy but pricing is pegged to the wholesale price of gas and so the market is unable to reflect that. the solution is an energy market that is less dependent on fossil fuels not moreso. as long as we are dependent on them we are vulnerable to these dramatic global price increases.
//ED Miliband has jetted off to China, the world’s biggest emitter of so-called greenhouse gases, trying to get its leaders onside with his insane Net Zero agenda. But, as this leaked transcript of his conversation with his hosts reveals, they seem to have had communication problems . . .
‘Welcome to China, Mr Ed. To start your visit, I will show you around this state-of-the-art factory, which can produce 1,000 tons of plate glass per day.’
– ‘Er, I’m a bit confused . . .’
‘But are you not here to discuss greenhouse glass? Our glass is perfect for building greenhouses so you can grow all those lovely tomatoes, peppers, cucumbers and, of course, delicious pak choi. Salad days are here for you.’
– ‘No, you misunderstand. I’m here to discuss greenhouse gas. I want you to stop churning out pollution from coal-fired power stations. Your leaders should act urgently. They must realise China can’t keep relying on that old fuel.’
‘Please don’t talk about our glorious chairman Xi Jinping in such terms. He may be old, but he’s no fool and we can rely on him.’
– ‘Look, you’ve got to be more sustainable, start recycling.’
‘But Mr Ed, look around you. Everyone in China has started the cycling – have you ever seen so many people on bikes?’//
Haha.
https:/
“…“china's plan is to become carbon neutral by 2060 newjudge so it is somewhat misleading to choose 2044 as a cutoff.”
I didn’t’ choose it deliberately to mislead. I did so because that’s the only reliable data I could find and it ended in 2044.
“….they are five years ahead of their target on solar and wind capacity. they are world leaders in EVs and solar panels and battery storage. they have advanced those technologies enormously. “
You neglected to say that they are also the world leaders in burning coal to generate electricity. Not only that – their consumption for that purpose (already greater than the rest of the world combined) will rise by about 25% in the time the UK expects to reach “net zero”. China haas no plans to decomission any significant coal based generation before 2044. If you believe they will decommission all their coal-fired power stations – many of which are not yet even built –between then and 2060, I think you are easily duped.
“…the idea that china is "doing nothing" is for the birds. they are now the only major power that actually seems to be taking this problem seriously and doing anything about it.”
I’m not suggesting they are doing nothing, But whatever they are doing is completely overwhelmed by their policy of burning coal which will increase considerably over the coming years and will be maintained a high level.
The idea that China should be granted a free pass to burn as much coal as it likes to facilitate their “industrialisation” is laughable. China is already a highly industrialised nation. By contrast the UK has chosen to de-industrialise its economy because industry (and much more besides) simply cannot be sustained whils the current energy policy prevails.
The entire world is subject to the factors which influence energy prices. Yet costs here are the highest in the developed world - three times those in the USA and four times those in China. The reason for this is that other countries are following balanced transition plans which accept that fossil fuels will be necessary for some time and so exploit their resources as far as possible. This country hasn't. Instead it is enthralled by a maniacal plan from n energy minister who appears to have lost all sense of reason.
Incredible as it may seem, demand for the goods which are no longer produced here has not and will not diminish. The result is the emissions that are being “saved” here are simply being exported abroad and the net global difference is zero. Of course the money generated by the lost business comes off the UK’s bottom line.
We are told there is a “climate crisis”. In an (almost certainly futile) attempt to combat this the UK plans to decarbonise its entire grid by 2030. China, however, has said it will take another 30 years for it to achieve the same. Neither of these targets is likely to be met (although the UK may do so by means of some imaginative accounting, such as that which determines that burning 7m tons of wood in Yorkshire each year adds nothing to the UK’s totals).
So back to my question. The UK is spending a stupendous amount of money trying to reach a pointless target in a totally unrealistic timescale. The country will depend on fossil fuels (mainly gas – which it refuses to exploit domestically) for many years, probably decades to come. Why on Earth is this strategy being indulged?
Latest Posts
Quizzes & Puzzles5 mins ago
Quizzes & Puzzles15 mins ago
Brexit – Are You One Of The...
Society & Culture18 mins ago
ChatterBank58 mins ago
Crosswords59 mins ago
Related Questions
Sorry, we can't find any related questions. Try using the search bar at the top of the page to search for some keywords, or choose a topic and submit your own question.