• Privacy Policy
  • About Us
  • Contact Us
Climate Change Dispatch
  • Home
  • Videos
  • Who We Are
  • Facts Vs. Fearmongering
    • Real science vs Junk Science
      • 1100-plus Peer-Reviewed Studies
      • 97% – Myth of the Climate Change Consensus
      • Michael Crichton: Aliens Cause Global Warming
      • Climate change and its causes
      • Climate Science Primer
      • CO2 is not pollution
      • Deceptive Surface Temperature Records
      • Editorial: Great Global Warming Hoax
      • Rules for Climate Radicals: Part 1
      • Rules for Climate Radicals: Part 2
      • Rules for Climate Radicals: Part 3
      • Why CO2 Is A Minor Player In Global Climate
      • Why Politicized Science Is So Dangerous
    • Facts Not Fear
      • A Simple Question For Climate Alarmists
      • Climate Change – The Facts
      • Climate Change Fears Are Empirically Baseless
      • Global Warming 101
      • Global Warming Q&A
      • Understanding The Medieval Warm Period
      • Ocean Cycles and Climate
      • Overview of Plate Climatology Theory
      • Precautionary Principle
      • Should We Celebrate Carbon Dioxide?
      • The Skeptics Handbook
      • Weather Versus Climate
      • Why I’m a GW skeptic
      • Winning the climate debate with facts
      • Why Aliens Cause Global Warming
    • Greenhouse FAQs
      • CO2, Plants, & Industry
      • How much have temps changed?
      • How much have temps changed?
      • How much have temps changed?
      • Is global warming real?
      • Measuring temperature
      • Swimming in CO2?
      • Scientists urge caution?
      • Today’s warming trend
      • Variations in temperature
    • Gore’s Greatest Goofs
      • Deconstructing the Truth
      • Fact-Checking Al Gore’s Latest Predictions
      • How Gore Created The Global Warming Hoax
    • Inside Real Climate
      • Closer look at the 97% Consensus
      • GW’s Amazing Story
      • IPCC gets failing grade
      • Real Climate Exposed!
      • Truth about Real Climate
      • We’ve Been Conned
      • What is there a 97% consensus about?
    • Behind the IPCC
      • 1,000 Scientists Dissent
      • Climategate: Caught Green-Handed!
      • Climategate Inquiries
      • Climategate Inquiries 2
      • NIPCC Report Now Available
      • Understanding the Climategate Inquiries
  • Submissions
  • Contact Us
No Result
View All Result
  • Home
  • Videos
  • Who We Are
  • Facts Vs. Fearmongering
    • Real science vs Junk Science
      • 1100-plus Peer-Reviewed Studies
      • 97% – Myth of the Climate Change Consensus
      • Michael Crichton: Aliens Cause Global Warming
      • Climate change and its causes
      • Climate Science Primer
      • CO2 is not pollution
      • Deceptive Surface Temperature Records
      • Editorial: Great Global Warming Hoax
      • Rules for Climate Radicals: Part 1
      • Rules for Climate Radicals: Part 2
      • Rules for Climate Radicals: Part 3
      • Why CO2 Is A Minor Player In Global Climate
      • Why Politicized Science Is So Dangerous
    • Facts Not Fear
      • A Simple Question For Climate Alarmists
      • Climate Change – The Facts
      • Climate Change Fears Are Empirically Baseless
      • Global Warming 101
      • Global Warming Q&A
      • Understanding The Medieval Warm Period
      • Ocean Cycles and Climate
      • Overview of Plate Climatology Theory
      • Precautionary Principle
      • Should We Celebrate Carbon Dioxide?
      • The Skeptics Handbook
      • Weather Versus Climate
      • Why I’m a GW skeptic
      • Winning the climate debate with facts
      • Why Aliens Cause Global Warming
    • Greenhouse FAQs
      • CO2, Plants, & Industry
      • How much have temps changed?
      • How much have temps changed?
      • How much have temps changed?
      • Is global warming real?
      • Measuring temperature
      • Swimming in CO2?
      • Scientists urge caution?
      • Today’s warming trend
      • Variations in temperature
    • Gore’s Greatest Goofs
      • Deconstructing the Truth
      • Fact-Checking Al Gore’s Latest Predictions
      • How Gore Created The Global Warming Hoax
    • Inside Real Climate
      • Closer look at the 97% Consensus
      • GW’s Amazing Story
      • IPCC gets failing grade
      • Real Climate Exposed!
      • Truth about Real Climate
      • We’ve Been Conned
      • What is there a 97% consensus about?
    • Behind the IPCC
      • 1,000 Scientists Dissent
      • Climategate: Caught Green-Handed!
      • Climategate Inquiries
      • Climategate Inquiries 2
      • NIPCC Report Now Available
      • Understanding the Climategate Inquiries
  • Submissions
  • Contact Us
No Result
View All Result
Climate Change Dispatch
No Result
View All Result

Upcoming Climate Summit Mired In Muddy Science And Politics

by Graham Lloyd
August 13, 2021, 12:55 PM
in News and Opinion
Reading Time: 7 mins read
A A
5

earth sunriseThree months out from the Glasgow climate summit there are plenty of lessons for Scott Morrison in how Boris Johnson’s Britain is handling the transition to net-zero emissions by 2050.

An early adopter and leading advocate for action on climate change, Britain is a global poster child for high ambition.

As host of the Glasgow conference, Britain has rolled out a suite of new policies and bans while wagging its finger at Australia for its coal-dependent ways.

In the wake of the IPCC update of climate science earlier this week, Johnson said his COP26 agenda in Glasgow would include an agreement for the developed world to “kick the coal habit entirely by 2030 and the developing world by 2040”.

He wants the world to follow the UK’s lead and abandon fossil fuel internal combustion engine machines and for rich nations to recommit to supporting the rest of the planet to go green with funds of $US100 bn a year.

But as the costs of the low-­carbon transition mount at home, Johnson’s vision is starting to collide with financial and political reality. A plan to ban gas boilers by 2035 in favor of expensive heat pumps has provoked a popular ­revolt.

And Alok Sharma, the nation’s climate change tsar, who wants to mandate electric vehicles, is being called out for driving a ­diesel-powered car himself.

The front page of conservative newspaper The Sunday Telegraph last week declared “PM’s push for net-zero plunged into chaos”.

It said Treasury costings of the UK’s green transition have been delayed amid wrangling in Whitehall over how to achieve the target without disproportionately “clobbering” the finances of working-class families, and plunging the country into hundreds of billions of pounds of further debt.

MPs from across northern ­England have gone public to warn Johnson the so-called “Red Wall” seats, won by the Tories from ­Labour at the last election, are at risk of being lost because of the cost pressures of climate action.

The pushback mirrors the political divide between city elites and rural/mining/industrial communities in Australia that have split the ALP and helped to deliver government to Scott Morrison at the last election.

The same pressures ignited the yellow vest protest movement in France, which has made President Emmanuel Macron wary of EU attempts to extend the carbon market there to a broader range of goods.

In the US, President Joe Biden is simultaneously calling for greater cuts to global emissions while calling on Saudi Arabia and its oil-producing allies to unleash more crude onto global markets, stressing the importance of “affordable energy”.

Biden, like Macron and Johnson, is facing the political reality that voters won’t put up with a steady rise in the cost of fuels.

As business and finance markets agitate for a green deal, a ­farcical two-year legal wrangle to make public the costings of the UK’s net-zero by 2050 transition is reaching a climax.

The Information Tribunal has ordered the Committee on Climate Change to publish the calculations behind its claim that the British economy can be decarbonized at a modest cost.

Before spending two years in court, the CCC said producing the costings would take too much time and effort.

Faced with demands for disclosure, it argued that it had erased and overwritten the relevant information by the time of the freedom of information request, just six weeks after the publication of the Net Zero report.

The applicant, well-known contrarian Andrew Montford, said that by arguing it had overwritten and erased the spreadsheet data, the CCC had essentially admitted that its internal processes were a shambles.

“This is not a competent organization and parliament needs to investigate as a matter of urgency,” Montford said.

“If they can’t even manage simple matters of data retention, what hope is there that they can prepare a plausible costing of a multi-­trillion pound project such as the decarbonization of the British economy?”

During the case, the CCC revealed that its costing does not include any estimate for spending in 2020-2049, but only considered the residual amounts in 2050, after the bulk of the transition.

Montford said this was not made clear to the MPs when they agreed to bring the Net Zero target into law, and it is likely therefore that MPs were misled.

The Information Tribunal has ordered the CCC to hand over the spreadsheets within 35 days.

Rejecting pleas for privacy, the tribunal said it was “clear that any errors in the calculations that led to the CCC’s conclusions, which in turn led to the legislative change, have the potential to have a very significant impact on the lives and finances of large numbers of people, on the spending of large sums of public money, and on the policies of the UK government over the next 30 years.”

The tribunal decision was delivered on the eve of the release of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change update into the science of climate change, AR6.

The report is the justification on which trillions of dollars are being spent on the green transition around the world. The report does not include any costings of the measures needed or make any ­attempt at a cost-benefit analysis.

Rather, it says scientific understanding that rising levels of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere are causing global average surface temperatures to rise is more certain than it was at the time of the last report in 2014.

AR6 says it is “unequivocal” that human influence has warmed the atmosphere, ocean, and land. It says human-induced climate change is already affecting many weather and climate extremes in every region across the globe.

The report says warming since the start of the industrial revolution has been 1.07C and the best estimate of warming if greenhouse gases are allowed to double in the atmosphere is 3C.

It says the Paris Agreement’s more aspirational target to limit future warming to 1.5C will likely be exceeded on an annual basis in a little over a decade.

Without action, the actual Paris Agreement threshold of 2C will be breached in the coming decades. But there is still a chance to meet even the lower ­target if the world can agree to ­decarbonize to net-zero emissions by 2050.

“The bottom line is the AR6 lops off the fat tail of very extreme/alarming outcomes,” US climate scientist Dr. Judith Curry told Inquirer. “In chapter one, they do admit that there is growing evidence that SSP5-8.5 (the most extreme scenario) is implausible.

“They also drop the upper end of the likely range for climate sensitivity to 4C but I think raising the lower bound to 2.5C is weakly justified.

“The AR6 focuses more on extreme events, but at the end of the day they don’t come up with much: heatwaves, agricultural and ecological drought, wildfires, and a slight increase in the proportion of major hurricanes – although the total number of hurricanes looks to be declining.

“They also refer to the climate model simulations as ‘possible climate futures’, which is better than passing these off as projections.”

Not everyone agrees with the AR6 findings, of course. A new peer-reviewed paper challenges the selection of models used by the IPCC to discount the impact of solar variation on Earth’s climate.

It finds that the IPCC may have been premature in their conclusion that recent climate change is mostly caused by human greenhouse gas emissions.

The paper by 23 experts in the fields of solar physics and climate science from 14 different countries is published in the journal Research in Astronomy and Astrophysics.

The paper carries out an analysis of the 16 most prominent published solar output datasets, including those used by the IPCC.

The study found that scientists come to opposite conclusions about the causes of recent climate change depending on which datasets they consider.

The group says using a high variability dataset used by the team in charge of NASA’s ACRIM sun-monitoring satellites implies that most, if not all of the long-term temperature changes are due to natural factors.

Lead author Dr. Ronan Connolly, from the Center for Environmental Research and Earth Sciences, says the findings are inconvenient to a scientific consensus.

“I fear that by effectively only considering the datasets and studies that support their chosen narrative, the IPCC have seriously hampered scientific progress into genuinely understanding the causes of recent and future climate change,” Connolly said.

Nonetheless, the consensus narrative has certainly won the day with campaigners who are using images of wild weather events to push their cause for speedy action.

In Australia, a collection of pressure groups including ACF, the Wilderness Society, Get Up and the Australia Institute took out full-page advertisements in newspapers this week to push for action.

They said on its current path the nation would not reach net-zero climate pollution until 2170.

“The science shows we need to reduce climate pollution by 75 percent by 2030,” the group said.

“We call on the federal government to commit to much stronger targets and policies to slash ­climate pollution this decade,” it added.

It is politics, not science that will determine what happens at Glasgow. Finding a way to bring the whole world together to take action is the key that has eluded the negotiations throughout the IPCC process.

The fact is that without cuts to emissions from developing as well as developed countries, the target laid out in the carbon budget in AR6 to limit future temperature rises has no prospect of being achieved.

Out of total annual global emissions from fossil fuels of 36.4 bn tonnes, China is the world’s biggest emitter at 10.2 bn. Then comes the US with 5.4 bn tonnes, the EU with 2.9 bn, India 2.6 bn, Russia 2.4 bn, and Japan 1.3 bn.

There is a high potential that the Glasgow meeting will end in disappointment in the same way that Copenhagen did in 2009 with developed and developing worlds unable to agree.

Australia will take part in Glasgow in good faith but is realistic about what can be achieved.

The lessons of what is possible must be retained, particularly when it comes to demands for the speedy achievement of a net-zero emissions world.

Read more at The Australian

  • Truth
  • Twitter
  • Facebook
  • LinkedIn
  • Gettr
  • Threads
  • gab-logo Gab
  • Mastodon
  • Buffer
  • Telegram
  • Email
  • Copy Link
  • Share Using More Networks…

Popular Posts

Electric Vehicles (EVs)

The ‘Green’ Scam Of The Century: How ‘Renewables’ Increase Fossil Fuel Demands

Oct 23, 2024
News and Opinion

Antarctica Is Colder, Icier Today Than At Any Time In 5,000 Years

Apr 15, 2024
Energy

30-Plus Signs That The Climate Scam Is Collapsing

Apr 09, 2025

Comments 5

  1. Chaamjamal says:
    4 years ago

    Muddy science, politics, and superstition
    Please see
    https://wp.me/pTN8Y-7CS

    Reply
  2. Spurwing Plover says:
    4 years ago

    And when they arrive they wont be flapping t heir arms or by Magic Carpet and not by Pixie Dust its going to be by Private Jet,(Biden on Air Force One)they will be driven there in their Limos and use many Kilowatt Hours of Electricity and many gallons of Water(When they have to answer the call of Nature)and they will have plenty of armed protection even as they want to disarm us all

    Reply
  3. Chaamjamal says:
    4 years ago

    With regard to the “transition to net zero emissions by 2050”
    The other issue here is the word “net”.

    https://tambonthongchai.com/2020/02/25/net-zero/

    Reply
  4. Spurwing Plover says:
    4 years ago

    Junk Science Liberal Poltics and Money

    Reply
  5. Gumnut says:
    4 years ago

    The whole caboodle is a shambles. Science that isn’t scientific, leaders who don’t lead and voters who don’t even attempt to keep abreast of issues sufficiently to vote appropriately are all contributing to this mess. Then there’s journalism. What may one say about the state of the media? They have too often ceased to be reporters in favour of being gatekeepers of authorised knowledge. Of course, authorised knowledge and propaganda are separated by a very thin line indeed.

    Reply

Comments are welcome! Those that add no discussion value may be removed.Cancel reply

Stay Connected On Social Media

gab-logo

Donate Today

Beating back the alarmist narrative takes time and money. Please donate today to help!

Recent Posts

  • oil rig drillAmerica’s Energy Boom Exposes The Folly Of Britain’s Net Zero Disaster
    Oct 3, 2025
    America’s energy boom and policy flexibility are widening the economic gap with Britain, where high prices and net zero goals are stalling growth. […]
  • Arctic sunsetNew Study Shows Arctic Sea Ice Decline Slowing, Driven More by Natural Variability Than Emissions
    Oct 3, 2025
    New study shows Arctic sea ice decline has slowed since 2012, driven more by natural variability than greenhouse gas emissions. […]
  • Attorney General Rob BontaNewsom Backs Off Climate Fight As AG Bonta Doubles Down On Suing Energy Firms
    Oct 3, 2025
    Two years after launching a high-profile climate lawsuit, Newsom is backing off while AG Rob Bonta doubles down on lawfare against major energy firms. […]
  • Farm irrigationMeteorologist Debunks Reuters’ Claim That Climate Change Threatens Europe’s Resources
    Oct 2, 2025
    Data show Europe’s droughts, weather, and biodiversity issues stem from mismanagement, not climate change, despite alarmist media claims. […]
  • Russ VoughtTrump Nixes $8B In ‘Green New Scam Funding’ In NYC, Blue States
    Oct 2, 2025
    Trump DOE halted billions in green energy projects citing poor economics, DEI hiring, and weak energy impact, sparking backlash in blue states. […]
  • SherrillRising Energy Costs And Dem Green Policies Top Of Mind In NJ Gubernatorial Race
    Oct 2, 2025
    New Jersey voters face rising energy costs as Democratic green policies and offshore wind expansion drive utility bills higher. […]
  • Hochul's green stringsHochul’s Election-Year ‘Inflation Refund’ Checks Can’t Cover Costs Of Her Green Agenda
    Oct 2, 2025
    Hochul’s election-year ‘inflation refund’ checks won’t offset the soaring living costs and utility hikes her green-energy agenda created. […]
  • South Asia monsoonSouth Asia Monsoons Not Becoming More Dangerous From Climate Change, Data Confirms
    Oct 1, 2025
    Claims that climate change is making South Asia’s monsoons more extreme ignore history, data, and other major causes of flooding. […]
  • wildfire carsRick Scott Wants Answers On What California Did With Federal Wildfire Funds
    Oct 1, 2025
    Sen. Rick Scott is demanding answers on how California spent federal money earmarked for preventing and fighting wildfires. […]
  • Biden test driving an all-electric Ford F-150.Ford CEO Warns U.S. EV Sales Could Halve After Federal Subsidies End
    Oct 1, 2025
    Ford warns U.S. electric vehicle sales could drop as much as 5% after the $7,500 taxpayer-funded federal subsidies expire in a month. […]

Get Instant Email Notifications

Subscribe to receive a digest of daily stories, or get emailed once they're published. Check your Junk/Spam folder for a verification email.

Submit a tip

Please enter your email, so we know you're human.

Books You May Like

very convenient warming

exposing great lie

Have a suggestion? Let us know! We swap out books based on your input. We participate in the Amazon Services LLC Associates Program. See here.

  • About
  • Privacy Policy
  • Contact Us

© Portions copyright Climate Change Dispatch

No Result
View All Result
  • Home
  • Videos
  • Who We Are
  • Facts Vs. Fearmongering
    • Real science vs Junk Science
      • 1100-plus Peer-Reviewed Studies
      • 97% – Myth of the Climate Change Consensus
      • Michael Crichton: Aliens Cause Global Warming
      • Climate change and its causes
      • Climate Science Primer
      • CO2 is not pollution
      • Deceptive Surface Temperature Records
      • Editorial: Great Global Warming Hoax
      • Rules for Climate Radicals: Part 1
      • Rules for Climate Radicals: Part 2
      • Rules for Climate Radicals: Part 3
      • Why CO2 Is A Minor Player In Global Climate
      • Why Politicized Science Is So Dangerous
    • Facts Not Fear
      • A Simple Question For Climate Alarmists
      • Climate Change – The Facts
      • Climate Change Fears Are Empirically Baseless
      • Global Warming 101
      • Global Warming Q&A
      • Understanding The Medieval Warm Period
      • Ocean Cycles and Climate
      • Overview of Plate Climatology Theory
      • Precautionary Principle
      • Should We Celebrate Carbon Dioxide?
      • The Skeptics Handbook
      • Weather Versus Climate
      • Why I’m a GW skeptic
      • Winning the climate debate with facts
      • Why Aliens Cause Global Warming
    • Greenhouse FAQs
      • CO2, Plants, & Industry
      • How much have temps changed?
      • How much have temps changed?
      • How much have temps changed?
      • Is global warming real?
      • Measuring temperature
      • Swimming in CO2?
      • Scientists urge caution?
      • Today’s warming trend
      • Variations in temperature
    • Gore’s Greatest Goofs
      • Deconstructing the Truth
      • Fact-Checking Al Gore’s Latest Predictions
      • How Gore Created The Global Warming Hoax
    • Inside Real Climate
      • Closer look at the 97% Consensus
      • GW’s Amazing Story
      • IPCC gets failing grade
      • Real Climate Exposed!
      • Truth about Real Climate
      • We’ve Been Conned
      • What is there a 97% consensus about?
    • Behind the IPCC
      • 1,000 Scientists Dissent
      • Climategate: Caught Green-Handed!
      • Climategate Inquiries
      • Climategate Inquiries 2
      • NIPCC Report Now Available
      • Understanding the Climategate Inquiries
  • Submissions
  • Contact Us

© 2025 Climate Change Dispatch

Share via
  • Facebook
  • Like
  • Twitter
  • Pinterest
  • LinkedIn
  • Digg
  • Tumblr
  • VKontakte
  • Print
  • Email
  • Reddit
  • Buffer
  • Love This
  • Weibo
  • Pocket
  • Xing
  • Odnoklassniki
  • WhatsApp
  • Meneame
  • Blogger
  • Amazon
  • Yahoo Mail
  • Gmail
  • AOL
  • Newsvine
  • HackerNews
  • Evernote
  • MySpace
  • Mail.ru
  • Viadeo
  • Line
  • Flipboard
  • Comments
  • SMS
  • Viber
  • Telegram
  • Subscribe
  • Facebook Messenger
  • Kakao
  • LiveJournal
  • Yammer
  • Edgar
  • Fintel
  • Mix
  • Instapaper
  • Copy Link
  • Truth
  • gab-logo Gab
  • Gettr
  • Baidu
  • Mastodon
  • Threads
  • Bluesky
Share via
  • Digg
  • Tumblr
  • VKontakte
  • Print
  • Email
  • Reddit
  • Buffer
  • Love This
  • Weibo
  • Pocket
  • Xing
  • Odnoklassniki
  • WhatsApp
  • Meneame
  • Blogger
  • Amazon
  • Yahoo Mail
  • Gmail
  • AOL
  • Newsvine
  • HackerNews
  • Evernote
  • MySpace
  • Mail.ru
  • Viadeo
  • Line
  • Flipboard
  • Comments
  • SMS
  • Viber
  • Telegram
  • Subscribe
  • Facebook Messenger
  • Kakao
  • LiveJournal
  • Yammer
  • Edgar
  • Fintel
  • Mix
  • Instapaper
  • Copy Link
  • Truth
  • gab-logo Gab
  • Gettr
  • Baidu
  • Mastodon
  • Threads
  • Bluesky