Sunday, November 28, 2021
HomeNewsThe climate scaremongers: A weekly round-up

The climate scaremongers: A weekly round-up

-

Sleepwalking to disaster

THE Committee on Climate Change (CCC) was set up in 2008, supposedly to advise the government on emissions targets. However it has been accused of explicitly directing policy, despite being totally unelected and unaccountable.

Headed by our old friend Lord Deben, aka John Selwyn Gummer, the CCC fought long and hard to keep its calculations of the cost of Net Zero secret, rejecting a Freedom of Information request from the Global Warming Policy Foundation (GWPF). When it was finally forced to release the data, it was found to have misled Parliament by grossly underestimating the costs by as much as £1.8trillion.

I covered this story last month, but further investigation of those details provided by the CCC has shown it has also used wildly over-optimistic assumptions about wind power, which it claims could be supplying more than half of our electricity by 2040.

According to the GWPF, the CCC has assumed a dramatic fall in the number of days of calm weather, when wind power is low. This reduction is so significant as to be fanciful. Indeed, where energy security is at stake, the CCC should have been using worst-case scenarios, not rose-tinted glasses.

To get a feel for the size of the problem, the UK currently needs about 70GW of firm, reliable capacity to keep the electricity grid supplied. Because of increased demand from electric cars and heat pumps, this figure is likely to rise to at least 100GW by 2040.

Yet the CCC’s plans, included in its Sixth Carbon Budget published last December, are based on just 15GW of firm power, i.e. nuclear and gas power with CCS (Carbon Capture & Storage):

CCC Projected Capacity in 2040

We may, if we are lucky, be able to get 18GW via interconnectors from Europe, assuming they don’t need the power themselves. But that still leaves us dangerously reliant on intermittent wind and solar power.

Solar power, in all honesty, is a waste of space in winter, when demand for electricity is at its highest, as it produces at only about 5 per cent of capacity then. Which leaves wind. But even 65GW of wind power would not be enough to meet peak demand, even on windy days.

So what is the CCC’s solution? It says a combination of storage and flexible demand should do the trick. However, storage, in other words batteries and pumped hydro, usually have enough capacity for only an hour or so. They are fine for smoothing out peaks in demand during the day, but are next to useless when we go for days on end with little wind power.

Similarly, smart meters, Demand Side Response and the like shift electricity demand only from peak times during the day. As with storage, this is no answer to shortages of power for consecutive days and even weeks.

And shortages there will inevitably be. In April this year, for instance, wind power operated at a mere 17 per cent of its capacity for the month as a whole because of low wind speeds. Worse still, at times like this similar meteorological conditions often exist over much of NW Europe, leaving them short of electricity too.

Government strategy is of course based on the CCC’s plans. But the Committee on Climate Change, both as an organisation and individually in its membership, is wholly devoted to forcing through Net Zero on ideological grounds, regardless of the cost and societal impact involved. It is time it was wound up before it does real damage.

Charles meddling again

In comments to the Daily Express this week, Prince Charles urged a radical rethink of how we live to fight climate change. According to the Express: ‘The long-time campaigner wants the days of long commutes to end, and envisages a society in which workplaces will be a short journey from our homes. The Prince of Wales argues there should be green corridors allowing people to walk or cycle safely without having to weave through traffic and supports rapid transport systems to make travel easier and cleaner for the environment.’ 

What right does Charles have to tell us how we should spend our lives?

But at least he has let the cat out of the bag. This has nothing to do with climate change: it never did. After all, even lockdown last year reduced UK emissions of carbon dioxide by only 16 per cent. His proposals won’t make the slightest difference to the world’s climate, never mind restricting warming to 1.5C which he ludicrously claims.

No, what he really wants is fundamentally to change our lifestyles, to live more ‘sustainably’, just for the sake of it.

Take a closer look at what he is asking for.

Workplaces are not suddenly going to relocate to where we live. Hospitals, factories and businesses are not going to break into small units and reappear around every street corner.

No, what he wants is for us to move out of our comfortable suburbs and live once more in crowded cities. Quite where he expects all these new dwellings to be built is a mystery. You can be sure they won’t be anywhere near his multiple mansions.

In Charles’s ideal world, private car ownership will be a thing of the past for the little people, and we will have to make do with public transport, cycling and walking. None of this will, of course, apply to Charles who will continue driving limousines and flying in private jets.

He thinks we will all be much happier if we do as he tells us. Does he think we are a load of docile rabbits, happy with a hutch and an odd carrot or two?

We have had plenty of hints about this new Build Back Better agenda, the Great Reset as the World Economic Forum calls it.

Only the other day, Joanna Lumley called for rationing to save the planet. And the global elite have long made clear their intention to revamp society.

The alarming thing is that, sadly, the Queen will not be around much longer. Will Charles continue to interfere in matters that don’t concern him when he is King?

Glasgow airport threatened by 26ft sea level rise!

Prize for the most ridiculous climate story of the week must go to the Telegraph‘s Chief Business Correspondent, Oliver Gill. Presumably with a straight face, he informed readers that Glasgow Airport is at risk of sinking into the sea by 2050 thanks to global warming

A minute’s Google search would have told him that the airport is 26ft above sea level. Even the most extreme projections forecast a sea-level rise of only a few inches in the next 30 years.

Gill’s gullible cut’n’paste came from a report by S&P Global Sustainable1, which claims to be a market intelligence company (‘intelligence’ seems to be a misnomer here!)

S&P also warns that the airport is at increasing risk from heatwaves. Glaswegians must be falling about laughing. Most cancelled flights are due to snow, ice and fog, not a bit of sunshine.

This Telegraph article encapsulates just how far standards have fallen in the media.

hundred years of climate change

Last month was unusually mild in England. Indeed it was the 16th-warmest October in the Central England Temperature Series, which dates back to 1659. Curiously though it was not even as warm as October 1921, a hundred years ago:

In fact, as the figures stand at the moment, temperatures for January to October were a full half a degree higher in 1921 than this year:

While the global elite are trying to restructure our society in the name of the climate, we need to understand just how little our weather has actually changed.

Transforming the economic model

If anybody is any doubt about the true purpose of COP26, they need only read the words of Christiana Figueres in 2015. Figueres was at the time Executive Secretary ofthe UN Framework Convention on Climate Change, set up to co-ordinate international action to ‘fight global warming’.

These were her exact words at a press conference in Brussels: ‘This is probably the most difficult task we have ever given ourselves, which is to intentionally transform the economic development model, for the first time in human history.

‘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.’

It has nothing to do with climate. It has nothing to do with renewable energy. It has nothing to do with the environment.

To the UN, as well as many parties attending Glasgow, the sole objective is transforming the western economic model, in other words capitalism, and replacing it with socialism.

- Advertisement -

If you appreciated this article, perhaps you might consider making a donation to The Conservative Woman. Unlike most other websites, we receive no independent funding. Our editors are unpaid and work entirely voluntarily as do the majority of our contributors but there are inevitable costs associated with running a website. We depend on our readers to help us, either with regular or one-off payments. You can donate here. Thank you.

Paul Homewood
Paul Homewood is a former accountant who blogs about climate change at Not a Lot of People Know That

Sign up for TCW Daily

Each morning we send The ConWom Daily with links to our latest news. This is a free service and we will never share your details.