British Scientist Admits Climate Change Committee’s ‘Net Zero’ Goals Based on Insufficient Data
Meanwhile, it appears that US is “quiet quitting” net zero as oil production surges.
The United Kingdom implemented rigorous policies to reduce the use of fossil fuels and to achieve “net zero” greenhouse gas emissions.
It works so well for them that a grid operator is paying customers to lower use on short notice.
Britain’s grid operator has paid households and businesses over £9 million ($11.4 million) so far this winter to curb their power use under a program to save energy with customers asked to shift demand at much shorter notice.
The program has seen 2.2 million businesses and households sign up to the so-called Demand Flexibility Service, which encourages eligible properties with smart meters to shift power usage outside of peak hours, the National Grid’s Electricity System Operator said in a statement Thursday.
In a first, consumers are being asked to take part in energy saving on the same day or a day ahead this winter, shorter notice than in previous years. The UK, along with much of Europe, is more aware of the need to control demand after the Russian invasion of Ukraine sent power prices soaring across the region.
Now comes news that a British climate committee assigned to develop “net zero” goals may have used ‘insufficient data.’
Sir Chris Llewellyn Smith, who led a recent Royal Society study on future energy supply, said that the Climate Change Committee only “looked at a single year” of data showing the number of windy days in a year when it made pronouncements on the extent to which the UK could rely on wind and solar farms to meet net zero.
“They have conceded privately that that was a mistake,” Sir Chris said in a presentation seen by this newspaper. In contrast, the Royal Society review examined 37 years worth of weather data.
Last week Sir Chris, an emeritus professor and former director of energy research at Oxford University, said that the remarks to which he was referring were made by Chris Stark, the Climate Change Committee’s chief executive. He said: “Might be best to say that Chris Stark conceded that my comment that the CCC relied on modelling that only uses a single year of weather data … is ‘an entirely valid criticism’.”
Interestingly, it appears some of the British want to follow the American energy plan…which now seems more inclusive of fossil fuels.
According to a report by the International Energy Agency, the US is now producing more oil than any other country ever. Likewise, Canadian production is hitting fresh highs, with the Alberta province reaching an all time record for energy output in November. Fracking is exceeding all expectations, with dramatically better yields, and a far better safety record than anyone foresaw when the industry was started a decade ago.
Quite sensibly, Joe Biden has called on producers to increase output to keep prices down. Yet while the UK has vast reserves of shale oil and gas, we banned it. We could be generating massive amounts of wealth this side of the Atlantic, and have chosen not to.
It’s hardly as though the Offshore Petroleum Licensing Bill, which progresses through Parliament this week, will add much to our domestic energy production. Companies will be allowed to apply for new licenses for the North Sea, although with a headline tax rate of 75 per cent, and with the Labour Party seemingly wanting to call time on the industry as quickly as possible, it is hard to understand why anyone would bother.
It appears, at least, that the US is “quiet quitting” net zero.
Guess what is really “net zero”….the credibility of climate experts!!!
More than 2,800 families are about to lose good jobs in Wales.
With no reduction in global emissions.
This is the world net-zero fans want.
They shouldn’t be proud of this.
The “angry god of net zero” is a cruel, immoral contrivance.
No decent person should worship him. https://t.co/uWoGbuUQmQ
— Mike Lee (@BasedMikeLee) January 22, 2024
DONATE
Donations tax deductible
to the full extent allowed by law.
Comments
Curious, not sure how you can declare that climate experts have zero credibility when citing a report as a critique that still says climate change is an issue. All it does is provide different mechanisms for resolving net zero.
I am always reminded of this 2014 article by Dr. Roy Spencer when I read about climate change. I don’t think he was wrong
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2014/02/95-of-climate-models-agree-the-observations-must-be-wrong/
Spencer is demonstrably wrong – studies indicate that the climate models have accurately indicated the temperature trends
“Studies indicate”. DId any of those “studies” look at actual weather rather than at the models?
Yes the models were from the 70s and 80s and thus compared to the actual temperature trends experienced globally.
Records from the 70s “showed” global cooling so, when taken independently or averaged along with adjacent decades, anything would appear to be global “warming.” So much for that argument!
.
DSHornet
Why on earth are you cherry picking the 70s ? There is a long data set to make the comparison and we know the cause of global cooling in the 70s. If you compare adjacent decades upto the present day you get the hockey stick
I especially like when he said this, 10 years ago
“ I am growing weary of the variety of emotional, misleading, and policy-useless statements like “most warming since the 1950s is human caused” or “97% of climate scientists agree humans are contributing to warming”, neither of which leads to the conclusion we need to substantially increase energy prices and freeze and starve more poor people to death for the greater good.”
I hope I don’t get in trouble if I got those quotation marks wrong
A handy tool when doing quotes with nested quotes are the <blockquote> </blockquote> tags, It produces a nice separation of the section of the quoted article
and it works in a lot of comment sections.
…but newbies at this particular website may want to be aware that starting your comment with one of these blocks magically disables the voting buttons (and maybe the Reply button too, I don’t quite remember), which is why they are less popular here.
No, it doesn’t. As you can see by the fact that I’m almost guaranteed to get at least half a dozen downvotes on this comment, just because my name is on it.
From the article “Climate Cultists” published at The Weekly Standard, 6.16.14
Where did this 97 percent figure come from? When you explore the lineage of this cliché, it appears about as convincing as a North Korean election. Most footnotes point to a paper published last year by Prof. John Cook of the University of Queensland, which purported to have reviewed the abstracts of over 11,000 climate science articles. But the abstract of Cook’s paper actually refutes the talking point:
We find that 66.4% of abstracts expressed no position on AGW [anthropogenic global warming], 32.6% endorsed AGW, 0.7% rejected AGW and 0.3% were uncertain about the cause of global warming. Among abstracts expressing a position on AGW, 97.1% endorsed the consensus position that humans are causing global warming. In a second phase of this study, we invited authors to rate their own papers. Compared to abstract ratings, a smaller percentage of self-rated papers expressed no position on AGW (35.5%). Among self-rated papers expressing a position on AGW, 97.2% endorsed the consensus. [Emphasis added.]
http://www.weeklystandard.com/articles/climate-cultists_794401.html?page=1
When did insufficient become a synonym for mostly garbage, manipulated and falsified.
If someone with a private jet, multiple homes, or a trophy wife, or a combination thereof, is saying something about climate change, I tend to ignore it.
“How dare you!”
Totalitarians tend not to like it if you ignore them.
What is required is a tens of thousands of temperature stations equidistant around the globe that measure temperature to at least 1/10th of a degree. And, you need 100 years worth of data. If you want to project 1.5 degree rises a century out.
In reality, NOAA has closed down 30% of its long term temperature stations and is currently using “Estimated” data from those stations. So, if they estimate high, it supports global warming. And of course, they are restating old data colder rather than using the actual observations from previous periods. So, that supports global warming as well.
No they took old data which used old instrumentation which measured temperatures in a different way to be comparable to modern data sets. There is well over 150 years worth of data plus ice cores. The models produced have demonstrably been shown to be accurate with respect to predicting temperature trends.
Are you arguing that Michael Mann’s ‘hockey stick’ graph is accurate? Claiming the models are ‘accurate’ if they predict a warming trend while their actual temperature predictions and the much hyped (but yet to arrive) impact of the Oceans inundation of low lying coastal areas are far from correct is much different thing.
You keep invoking the trend. Well no kidding. No one, at least no serious person, disputes there is a trend towards warming. The warming trend is totally foreseeable without any modelling. We are still moving out of the little ice age period.
The hubris of the hucksters claiming we must do X immediately or ‘the seas will rise to devastate the coast’ or other BS claims is as impressive as the their temperature predictions are inaccurate. Yet some still claim to ‘know’ that we must abandon modernity immediately or else! These are some of the same people and groups hyping an ice age in the ’70s, they moved on to extreme global warming when the ice age didn’t materialize and now seem to have settled on ‘climate change’ as their hobby horse.
Yes, for two reasons. The first being that the statistical complaints made about the hockey stick didn’t meaningfully change it and second because the temperature trend shown by the hockey stick has been demonstrated by real world data.
You seem to be claiming that the temperature trends haven’t yet arrived, that’s just demonstrably false. Just take a look at the global average temperatures over a period of time.
You seem to be arguing against reality, good luck with that
No. You keep invoking the warming trend as if it is an incantation to obscure legitimate questions about the failure of the models to accurately predict future temperatures.
No one, certainly not me, questions the FACT that we are indeed in a warming trend and have been since the little ice age.
We don’t need a model to predict the fully foreseeable warming trend following a period of lower temperatures. The true issue is the policies offered as a prescription based on the inarguably false predictions of amount temperature rise.
Past that very important point is the lack of ability by net zero and climate crisis alarmists to sufficiently explain what the causes of the trend are. They seem to reject any hypothesis which casts doubt on their preferred policy prescription; including well researched, commonly accepted items such as the influence of solar activity which at lower levels of activity causes a cooling effect such as the Maunder Minimum.
If you want to defend the unquestionably inaccurate temperatures predictions of the models then be prepared to offer a defense of every temperature measuring station going back the entirety of the 150 years for the data set you claimed. Are all of these stations still active? Have any of these locations changed in character from rural to urban? Are any locations compromised by heat sinks?
Unless you can affirmatively disprove those objections to the data set that is input into the model then its garbage in and garbage out. After that you must allow the methodology of the alterations made within the model to ‘tweak’ the temperature data to made public and subjected to rigorous review. That’s something the climate crisis alarmists, such as Michael Mann, generally refuse to do.
If you want to convince us then provide an actual argument based upon facts. We ain’t arguing the trend isn’t for increased temperatures. The question is the amount of rise and the amount of influence on the rise of multiple inputs both human and naturally occurring. Simply reverting to chanting ‘trend’ sidesteps these questions and reveals your inability to make substantive fact based arguments which undermines your case irreparably.
“No. You keep invoking the warming trend as if it is an incantation to obscure legitimate questions about the failure of the models to accurately predict future temperatures.”
What failure of the climate models, they have real world data showing them to be accurate. This study provide a good analysis https://agupubs.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1029/2019GL085378
“No one, certainly not me, questions the FACT that we are indeed in a warming trend and have been since the little ice age.
We don’t need a model to predict the fully foreseeable warming trend following a period of lower temperatures. The true issue is the policies offered as a prescription based on the inarguably false predictions of amount temperature rise.”
I refer you once again to the FACT that the models have accurately predicted the temperature trends
“Past that very important point is the lack of ability by net zero and climate crisis alarmists to sufficiently explain what the causes of the trend are. They seem to reject any hypothesis which casts doubt on their preferred policy prescription; including well researched, commonly accepted items such as the influence of solar activity which at lower levels of activity causes a cooling effect such as the Maunder Minimum.”
We know full well what is causing the temperature rises, human activity and more specifically gases like Carbon Dioxide. Scientists know very well how solar activity and Maunder minimum interplay with climate temperatures. More particularly the FACT that these factors don’t resemble the temperature trend from the global data set at all.
If you want to defend the unquestionably inaccurate temperatures predictions of the models then be prepared to offer a defense of every temperature measuring station going back the entirety of the 150 years for the data set you claimed. Are all of these stations still active? Have any of these locations changed in character from rural to urban? Are any locations compromised by heat sinks?”
You keep saying the temperature predictions are inaccurate, on what basis do you actually make that claim?
Scientists know full well what stations have changed, or had instruments updated. Etc This is why adjustments take place and these processes are peer reviewed. And don’t pretend that the adjustments somehow prove climate change wrong. The FACT is that the raw data sets make the temperature curve look worse not better. Your argument appears to be that its impossible to measure temperature because temperature stations and the world has changed, which is patently absurd are you seriously suggesting that the record breaking temperatures we have experiences over the last 20 years or so have been made up!?
“Unless you can affirmatively disprove those objections to the data set that is input into the model then its garbage in and garbage out. After that you must allow the methodology of the alterations made within the model to ‘tweak’ the temperature data to made public and subjected to rigorous review. That’s something the climate crisis alarmists, such as Michael Mann, generally refuse to do.”
What lol. Tell me Commochief how many peer reviewed papers support the contrarian viewpoint. Zero. The fact is that the contrarian view point which you so dearly hold has no scientific validity,
“If you want to convince us then provide an actual argument based upon facts. We ain’t arguing the trend isn’t for increased temperatures. The question is the amount of rise and the amount of influence on the rise of multiple inputs both human and naturally occurring. Simply reverting to chanting ‘trend’ sidesteps these questions and reveals your inability to make substantive fact based arguments which undermines your case irreparably.”
I’ve provided plenty of facts, I think perhaps you should take your statement and reflect on your own knowledge of the subject. The tired arguments you state have been debunked for decades.
And they pulled these “adjustment factors” out of their nether regions, deliberately chosen in order to make older measurements look colder than they actually were.
All of which have been massaged and adjusted by the charlatan James Hansen and therefore unreliable.
Just because your ignorant doesn’t mean that adjustments have somehow been pulled out of some ones nether regions. The fact of the matter is that if the adjustments weren’t made comparing them is problematic. To further compound how bad your point is if you take the raw data the temperature trend is worse than that shown by the adjusted data sets.
https://www.carbonbrief.org/explainer-how-data-adjustments-affect-global-temperature-records/#Adjustments%20to%20Ocean%20Temperatures
Lol seriously you think James Hansen is the only one doing climate science. There are thousands of scientists doing climate research, taking measurements etc etc. Its not really clear to me on what basis you consider James Hansen unreliable either. That appears to be a baseless assertion.
I have a passing interest in this, in that, I haven’t bought into the global warming theories. One of my go to guys makes a lot of sense to my potentially biased mind
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=Cn0pSud8aig
A second video by the same climate scientist is also enlightening
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=AIgfzAgYDjE
I am not a scientist, but I do appreciate common sense discussions
Net Zero is insufficient. We have to make up for the last 500 years of people driving SUVs and owning 3 homes. The world needs to go to Net -10% for the next 1000 years.
Did Chief Black Thunder drive a Mazda Navajo?
Did Geronimo drive a Chevrolet Apache 10 pickup?
Does Chuck Hoskin fly around his nation in a Piper Cherokee?
Geronimo would have driven a Toyota Hilux, with a DShK mounted in the bed.
Actually Geronimo drove a Cadillac
Climate reparations?
Great idea! Lets hold the Romans accountable for destroying Carthage; they ‘made a desert and called it peace’. All future ‘climate change’ is therefore a result of this action as the key butterfly effect. /S
Show me the climate science model that accounts for volcanic eruptions, wildfires, changes in earth orbit, and changes in solar activity. Or that the earth’s climate has been changing for millions/billions of years before human activity as per the earth’s geologic history.
Why the deafening silence??
Me, I’d settle for one that accounts for clouds. Water vapor is the real, dominant greenhouse gas.
or trees. Canadian trees absorb something like 17x more CO2 (not a pollutant) than Canadians emit
One wildfire caused by lightning strike in wilderness in CA, will produce more greenhouse gases than all cars on the road in CA in one year. Buying EV wont change that.
I agree with Kamala and AOC. If you want to reduce greenhouse gases, just smash all those greenhouses.
Achievable or not, there is no pressing reason to do so because apocalyptic anthropogenic global warming/climate change is a fraud. But I guess that topic is off limits these days.
The “climate scientists” have forgotten the scientific method. The models they use do not agree with reality (the CO2 based models predict a warming of 0.26C/decade while actual experience has been 0.14C/decade). When models disagree with reality, it is the models that must be rejected; not reality The “climate scientists” like the “covid scientists” are singularly focused on reducing what they think is the cause of all warming: CO2. They neglect the findings of economic scientists regarding the substantial economic costs of implementing schemes to reduce CO2. Another way the “climate scientists” have forgotten the scientific method is that they ignore that science is contingent. Insofar as we are not God, we can never be certain if our theories are correct. Scientists must be humble and admit error or its possibility. Yet these scientists will brook no dissent labeling dissenters as denialists and anti-science, when in fact, they are the ones who are anti-science.
I don’t know where you got your data but its wrong
https://www.carbonbrief.org/analysis-how-well-have-climate-models-projected-global-warming/#Hansen%20et%20AL,%201981
You jackass frauds have been screaming about ‘climate change’ for DECADES.
If you still have ‘insufficient data’, it’s because you DID NOT WANT TO GET THE DATA, because you knew goddamn well what it would show.
We are through with this fraud.
Not in this case. In this case the data were readily available, they just didn’t bother gathering them or looking at them. It was too much work and Minecraft was calling.
My position on man-caused global warming is pretty cynical.
Even if it might be true, there is nothing that can be done about it.
North America, Europe, and Japan comprise roughly 1 billion (16.6%) of the 6 billion people on the planet. Unless China, Africa, and India stop (or reduce their use of oil and/or coal by, say, 75%, a reduction of 50% by the 16.6% is both worthless and pointless.
And…who are we to tell the people of those countries that they can’t cook, heat their homes, travel by car, or have electricity ….while we, the middle-class West, do?
The point of these exercises is NOT to raise anybody else’s standard of living, but to lower ours–hence the efforts to force people into cities, reduce their ability to own cars, and now, to curtail gardening.
its demonstrably the case that it is true, no other factor or group of factors explain the temperature curve.
With respect to doing something about it, again this is demonstrably not true. It becomes harder the longer meaningful changes are delayed. Its a question of engagement from society and politicians.
No one is saying to 3rd world countries that they cant cook or heat there homes. Rather they are being encouraged to build sustainable infrastructure
The “climate change” insanity has always been about political power