The 1.5 deg C sham
IN THE run up to COP26, the climate jamboree in Glasgow next month, you will hear a lot about the target of limiting global warming to 1.5 deg C. Don’t be fooled: it is a mirage designed to mislead you.
First some background. The figure of 1.5C refers to the amount of warming since pre-industrial times, which the UN climate panel, the IPCC, say we must keep to in order to avoid all sorts of cataclysms. We are told we have already had about 1C of this warming.
Whilst the 2015 Paris Agreement set a target of 2C as a ‘goal’, and if possible 1.5C, there was nothing in the agreement that would actually lead to either target being achieved. On the contrary, as the agreement itself pointed out, emissions would carry on rising regardless.
Each country submitted INDCs, ‘Intended Nationally Determined Contributions’, at Paris. Not only were these pledges not binding, but when they were added up annual emissions in 2030 were projected to be 12 per cent higher than in 2010.
By contrast, the 2C target needed emissions to start declining rapidly. Paris, in other words, achieved nothing at all.
Comparison of global emission levels in 2025 and 2030 resulting from the implementation of the INDCs and under other scenarios –
UNFCCC
A recent study found that global emissions would have to be cut in half this decade, and in half again in the 2030s, to achieve the 1.5C target. Plainly this is an impossibility even for developed nations, never mind the rest of the world’s countries who account for two-thirds of emissions and are determined to carry on expanding their economies.
Nevertheless, the stage is being set to present COP26 as a ‘success’ which will put us back on track for 1.5C. This will be used as ammunition to persuade an unwilling public to accept the increasingly unaffordable Net Zero agenda.
We will be told that China, India and the rest of the world are now fully committed and signed up to the same agenda, when in reality they will have done nothing of the sort.
We were, of course, promised the same six years ago, that the planet had been saved and that the world was going to step up to the plate.
We were duped then. Don’t fall for it again.
Fake fact-checkers
One of the biggest scandals to emerge from the Climategate emails in 2009 was the systematic suppression by a small cabal of climate scientists of any research which did not agree with their own views.
Scientific journals were intimidated into not publishing work which disagreed with the alarmist mantra. Their co-conspirators in the media could be counted on simply to ignore sceptical opinions.
Sadly this state of affairs still goes on, courtesy of what are ironically called ‘climate fact-checkers’. These self-appointed arbiters of the truth nowadays regularly get inconvenient studies and reports either banned or red-flagged as ‘fake news’ by Facebook and YouTube, which means that circulation of the studies is severely restricted and discredited.
The so-called fact-checks have little to do with ‘facts’, but more to do with censoring the truth. A very good example happened earlier this year, following the publication of a book by Steve Koonin titled Unsettled.
Koonin was Barack Obama’s Under Secretary for Science in the US Dept of Energy. As such he was privy to all the data concerning climate change. Having weighed all the evidence, he came to the conclusion that most of the climate hype had been wildly overstated.
In short, whilst the world’s climate had become slightly milder, there was no evidence at all for the claims of climate apocalypse widely forecast. Sea levels, for instance, were rising no faster than a century ago, there was no evidence that storms, droughts and floods were becoming more extreme, wildfires were less common than they used to be and, far from diminishing because of global warming, food production has been rising in leaps and bounds.
None of this is in any way controversial, because the data consistently confirms all this.
Nevertheless the ‘fact-checkers’ got straight to work on this threat to their dogma, and issued their response before the book was even published. Needless to say this response was grossly inaccurate, and Steve Koonin quickly shot it down in flames. But the damage had been done. Once Facebook have censored a story in this way, they refuse to reverse their decision, no matter how absurd and unjust the decision. The only way to correct the miscarriage of justice is to get the fact-checkers to admit their error, which they never do.
There was a similar case last year, when an organisation called ‘Friends of Science’ reposted on Facebook a report about the Australian wildfires by the NSW Firefighters Association. It went into great detail to explain how the severity of the fires was mainly due to poor forest management, such as the failure to carry out controlled burns and clear undergrowth.
The climate mafia did not like this, as it went totally against their belief that everything bad must be due to global warming. With remarkable speed they issued their ‘fact-check’ which Facebook used to label the post as ‘misleading’.
The fact-check was by a Swansea University geography professor who knew nothing at all about wildfires. Yet for some reason Facebook preferred his opinion to that of the experts who have been fighting wildfires in Australia for years.
The BBC and the crank from the Valleys
Most days there is some sort of fake climate news on the BBC. Recently they wheeled out a firefighter who claimed that wildfires in South Wales were getting much worse because of climate change. He even ludicrously suggested that fires there would soon become as bad as in Greece.
All, he says, because of the ‘very hot and dry weather’ which is apparently now the norm in Wales. This being the BBC, no supporting evidence was offered, probably because none exists! This ‘very hot and dry weather’ is a figment of our firefighter’s imagination.
This is not to say that wildfires in South Wales are not a real problem. So much so that the Forestry Commission in Wales published a report on the topic ten years ago. The problem, they said, was not climate change but arson. The clues were obvious. Over 99 per cent of the fires occurred within 500 yards of a road or public right of way. A disproportionate number started after 4pm or at weekends. The last time I checked, climate change was not limited to roadsides or out of school hours.
The 107-page report failed to mention climate change once as a factor, but did produce dozens of pages of investigations into the social problems linked to arson and how they could be tackled.
The BBC of course have no interest in inconvenient facts like these, as all they are concerned about is the propaganda value of the story.
Maybe Facebook’s factcheckers should be let loose on them!
Prince Charles understands Greta’s anger!
In an interview this week with Justin Rowlatt, one of the BBC’s army of environmental reporters, Prince Charles said he understood the frustration of eco-nutters such as Greta Thunberg and Extinction Rebellion.
He tells us he is doing his best to save the world, including installing a biomass boiler at Birkhall, his holiday home at Balmoral, which conveniently burns wood from the estate’s forest. He has spent tens of thousands on heat pumps, a hydro plant and converting his Aston Martin to run on biofuel. You know, the sort of things we should all be doing.
Maybe Charlie should try to understand the anger and frustration of the millions of ordinary people who will have to pay the bill for all of this eco lunacy!
