By Paul Homewood

h/t Dennis Ambler

There have been mixed reactions to the latest splurge of taxpayer money into engineering climate cooling:

https://www.aria.org.uk/opportunity-spaces/future-proofing-our-climate-and-weather/exploring-climate-cooling/

What they are talking about is solar radiation modification (SRM), also known as solar geoengineering, aka dimming the sun.

Representing the Raving Loony Party is Prof Stuart Haszeldine, Professor of Carbon Capture and Storage, School of School of GeoSciences, University of Edinburgh said:

“Humans are losing the battle against climate change.  Engineering cooling is necessary because in spite of measurements and meetings and international treaties during the past 70 years, the annual emissions of greenhouse gases have continued to increase.  The world is heading towards heating greater than any time in our civilisation.

Dr Naomi Vaughan of the Tyndall Centre is alarmed at the prospect though:

“SRM methods do not address the causes of climate change – SRM methods seek to cool the climate by reflecting more sunlight back to space to offset the warming we are causing by increased concentrations of greenhouse gases in our atmosphere that come from the burning of coal, oil and gas and deforestation.

“Deployment is a major issue for SRM ideas, because the way that SRM balances out the warming we’ve caused is not a perfect offset.  Deploying SRM would create a new risk to global society – the risk of stopping the SRM whilst greenhouse gas concentrations were still high, as it would cause very rapid warming.  To stop SRM once it had been deployed safely, would require global society to reach net zero emissions and pay to remove large amounts of CO2 from the atmosphere.

“It’s for these reasons that many scientists are cautious about SRM research because of how it could be used or misused in the future.”

Mike Hulme, formerly of the notorious UEA, is also worried:

“£57m is a huge amount of tax-payers money to be spent on this assortment of speculative technologies intended to manipulate the Earth’s climate.  I say this because these technologies will always remain speculative, and unproven in the real world, until they are deployed at scale.  Just because they “work” in a model, or at a micro-scale in the lab or the sky, does not mean they will cool climate safely, without unwanted side-effects, in the real world. 

There is therefore no way that this research can demonstrate that the technologies are safe, successful or reversible.  The UK Government is leading the world down what academic analysts call ‘the slippery slope’ towards eventual dangerous large-scale deployment of solar geoengineering technologies.  This is public money that would be far better invested in enhancing technologies to reduce dependence on fossil fuels or to remove carbon dioxide from the atmosphere.”

via NOT A LOT OF PEOPLE KNOW THAT

https://ift.tt/ORwG5Wd

May 9, 2025 at 03:15AM

By Paul Homewood

Last Friday, Conservative MP, Esther McVey appeared on Mike Graham’s Talk TV show, to discuss Tony Blair’s road to Damascus moment on Net Zero.

McVey dismissed Net Zero as “a dud”, and stated that she had “always been sceptical and questioned Net Zero”. You can see the interview here at 2 hours 6 mins in.

Could this be the same Esther McVey, who is still listed a member of the Conservative Environment Network (CEN), an organisation that promotes the Net Zero agenda and has called for the acceleration of the transition away from fossil fuels. Surely not!

We are of course used to hypocrisy from our politicians. But this little saga has exposed a much greater problem.

CEN was set up twelve years ago as an independent forum for conservatives and now has a network of more than 50 Tory MPs, 30 Tory peers and 500 Tory councillors. The whole purpose of course is to influence government policy.

Parliamentary groupings have long operated with the same intention in mind. But the CEN seems to be a much bigger, well funded and altogether more sinister organisation than we are used to seeing. Its latest accounts, for instance, show they have £391,000 in the bank, and they are well staffed, with six Board members and twelve senior staff listed on their website.

As with most climate lobby groups, the CEN is extremely well funded by the Green Blob. Three quarters of their income comes from familiar far left foundations, such as the European Climate Foundation, Pooled Fund on International Energy, Clean Air Fund and WWF.

At the heart of this spider’s web is the billionaire, Sir Christopher Hohn, who owns the Children’s Investment Fund Foundation (CIFF). Hohn, it is reckoned, has ploughed more than £670 million into climate campaigns in the last decade, including £17 million to the aforesaid Clean Air Fund.

The CIFF are also major funders of the European Climate Foundation (ECF), together with left wing US foundations, including Rockefeller, Bloomberg and Hewlett. ECF also receive money from the Grantham Foundation, another outfit at the heart of the climate scam in this country.

Why is the Tory party allowing its MPs and peers to be members of a subversive network, bought and paid for by billionaires and set up to bypass normal democratic protocols. Who matters most to the Esther McVeys of the world – voters or wealthy donors?

If she wants to be taken seriously, Kemi Badenoch needs to get a grip and ban her MPs from being members of the CEN.

via NOT A LOT OF PEOPLE KNOW THAT

https://ift.tt/3wYWN9g

May 9, 2025 at 03:00AM

The article linked below contains a few graphs which illustrates exactly why we should not trust the headlines put out by the Met Office. Exaggeration is a form of lying, by not including all the background data. The Met Office cherry picks one temperature figure taken in one place at one time and publicizes it to make a spurious claim. It is high time they were seriously taken to task very publicly over this, but no one wants to do it. 

 Hottest Start To May? | NOT A LOT OF PEOPLE KNOW THAT

via climate science

https://ift.tt/NgJGzDl

May 9, 2025 at 01:34AM

“The phrase ‘non-alarmist’ suggests that climate science is exaggerated or hysterical, rather than rooted in rigorous research. You may also re-consider your brazen ‘ comment flooding ‘ strategy: I will block any of you adding your usual anti-science tirades & nonsense.” (- Zsolt Lengyel, February 14, 2025)

And he did just that, but not before I copied some things for the record. History matters, and the history of climate alarm is one of exaggerated harms and intolerance toward the loyal opposition.

Climate activist (zealot?) Zsolt Lengyel [profile now blocked to me] describes himself as:

Policy-focused climate action dinosaur – having worked on the World’s two pioneering Kyoto Protocol flexible mechanism JI/CDM programmes, the Prototype Carbon Fund of the World Bank and the Dutch Government’s Carboncredit.nl – ERUPT/CERUPT – but with a fresh mind assuming that the future is not what will happen, but what we will do.

Seasoned climate mitigation and energy transition expert with various Team Leader/Chief of Party and Key Expert experiences globally.

Former auditor and head of Climate Services of an UNFCCC accredited entity (DOE, AIE), the Swiss Association for Quality and Management Systems (SQS).

Co-founder and elected Chairman (2015-20) of the Institute for European Energy and Climate Policy (IEECP) [www.ieecp.eu] dedicated to scientifically sound and evidence-based policy making.

Founding Member of the first European climate & energy auditor cooperative, verico SCE (Societas Cooperativa Europaea) [www.verico.eu] & an assessor at true&fair.expert.

Recent Skirmish

Recently, Lengyel stated:

Pete Bonk & Rob Bradley & all of your comrades: with your anti-science views please get prepared to be called a ‘climate change denialist’, what you are in your hearth.

The term “climate denialism” should be always used instead of “skepticism,” “realism,” or “non-alarmism” because it accurately reflects the rejection of established scientific evidence and distinguishes it from legitimate scientific inquiry.

1. Skepticism is a Scientific Virtue – Denialism is Not
True scientific skepticism involves questioning evidence and refining theories based on facts. Climate science, like all robust fields, has gone through rigorous peer review and overwhelming consensus-building.

Climate denialism, by contrast, ignores or distorts scientific evidence despite overwhelming proof. It is not genuine skepticism but a strategic rejection of facts to avoid inconvenient conclusions.

2. “Realism” is a Misleading Label
Some of you who deny climate change label themselves as “climate realists”, implying they are grounded in facts while climate scientists are not.

However, climate realism should mean acknowledging the reality of human-driven climate change, not dismissing it. Using “realism” as a shield for denial is a deliberate misrepresentation.

3. “Non-Alarmism” Downplays the Crisis
The phrase “non-alarmist” suggests that climate science is exaggerated or hysterical, rather than rooted in rigorous research.

You may also re-consider your brazen ‘ comment flooding ‘ strategy: I will block any of you adding your usual anti-science tirades & nonsense.

With the vast energy and time at your disposal, please dive into the attribution studies of past or future extreme weather events supercharged by climate change. Change your mind, build resilience & stop your attempts blocking climate action . Sooner than later it will be you, your family & friends who will be hit by the climate crisis.

Katharine Hayhoe , Michael Mann , Joe Romm, Ph.D. , Diana Urge-Vorsatz , Robert Vautard , Oliver Geden , Bill Hare, Niklas Höhne, Zeke Hausfather

His “I’ve had enough” diatribe followed this complaint:

I have unleashed a 𝐜𝐥𝐢𝐦𝐚𝐭𝐞 𝐜𝐡𝐚𝐧𝐠𝐞 𝐝𝐞𝐧𝐢𝐚𝐥𝐢𝐬𝐭 𝐭𝐬𝐮𝐧𝐚𝐦𝐢 with my post about Trump ordering to delete climate change related materials/information from US federal servers , as experienced by USDA (- > https://lnkd.in/ej4A8VNk ) The somewhat coordinated ( triggered by Rob Bradley?) flow of misinformation/disinformation and ‘ opinions presented  as (scientific)  facts’ is a reason for grave concern (i.e. how an unscientific, selfish and scapegoat-seeking World-view can easily emerge).

However, it can be converted into a useful preparatory exercise to refute these ideas as and when facing them (I expect that right-wing populism globally will feed and amplify such approaches). So to save time, here comes a summary of the denialists’ arguments and the way how to (try to) refute them.

Final Comment

Cancel culture is the last refuge of the climate alarmists who cannot handle the critics asking the obvious, hard questions. Cancelling the intellectual competition only increases the confirmation bias of the zealots, which dooms them to a life of disappointment if not anger and emotional blight. And if they really have “climate anxiety” ,,,,

Zealot Zsolt’s parade of climate terribles– Katharine Hayhoe, Michael Mann , Joe Romm, Ph.D. , Diana Urge-Vorsatz , Robert Vautard , Oliver Geden , Bill Hare, Niklas Höhne, Zeke Hausfather–allows me to understand Lengyel’s problem (and rest my case).

——————————

The post Zsolt Lengyel Goes Censorship (the outliers named) appeared first on Master Resource.

via Master Resource

https://ift.tt/C6FdK0P

May 9, 2025 at 01:08AM