Global warming, climate change, all these things are just a dream come true for politicians. I deal with evidence and not with frightening computer models because the seeker after truth does not put his faith in any consensus. The road to the truth is long and hard, but this is the road we must follow. People who describe the unprecedented comfort and ease of modern life as a climate disaster, in my opinion have no idea what a real problem is.
h/t Dr. Willie Soon; So what should be done about these dangerous deniers?
Mann tells his audience climate change deniers are endangering your children, but mostly avoids urging specific action. If a “denier” gets murdered by a climate nut who thinks his act of violence will protect the children, Mann’s hands are clean – he never told the climate nut to pick up a gun.
If I’m calling out Mann for always being at the rear ranks of the angry mob, then I’m not going to emulate his cowardice.
So what do I think should be done about Michael Mann?
The answer is – nothing. Mann’s personal failure is punishment enough. Mann is already mostly an irrelevance. The pinnacle of his political efforts, the COP climate conferences he helped build into a significant global political event, have degenerated into an annual oil and gas sale bazaar run by Arab petro-sultans. Major CO2 emitters like India and China barely even pretend to care about the Western climate obsession, both are openly competing with each other to expand coal powered industrial capacity as rapidly as possible.
Mann’s life’s work is in ruins, and every passing year further hilights his utter failure. He can keep ranting all he wants – outside his audience of climate diehards, Mann’s words simply don’t matter any more.
I don’t feel intimidated by Mann’s climate rants – in my opinion Mann’s wild tweets are entertaining parody. Other than the remote possibility a violent ecolune will take him seriously, reading or watching Mann’s latest rant is like watching an angry hand puppet on the Muppet Show.
Mann will not be remembered as another Einstein or Newton, as one of the science greats. At most Mann will be a historical footnote, someone who made a few wild climate predictions which didn’t come to pass, an uninteresting one liner in a history of science book whom people of the future browse past and rapidly forget.
As it has been doing for decades, the United Nations is once again planning to hold its annual “Conference of the Parties” (COP28) to tell the world we face impending doom from manmade climate change.
Over the next two weeks, expect to see news reports covering how brave delegates, flying in on private jets to glitzy Dubai, are hard at work protecting us from the SUVs, gas ovens, red meat, pharmaceuticals, cosmetics, plastics and other fossil-fuel consumer products we foolishly enjoy. Human Events has the Story.
Having attended some 25 of these COP meetings, I expect few surprises. But that doesn’t mean there won’t be some oddities. Among them is that the United Arab Emirates has been chosen to host the COP-28 confab. That sounds like a joke, but it’s not.
As everyone knows, the climate cabal is all about limiting fossil fuels. The UAE, on the other hand, is all about producing and using them. A lot of them.
In fact, last year the UAE employed fossil fuels: 607.25 terawatt-hours of oil and 698.48 TWh of gas, to meet over 95 percent of its electricity consumption. Solar and wind, by contrast, supplied a minuscule fraction of that, less than 20 TWh (barely 1 percent).
Making matters worse for climate worrywarts, the UAE is also planning to surge its development of fossil fuels. According to the UK Guardian, ADNOC (the UAE’s national oil company) “announced a $150bn investment over five years to enable an ‘accelerated growth strategy’ for oil and gas production.”
One might think ADNOC’s president, Sultan Al Jaber, would be run out of town by the climate faithful for making such a proclamation. But they’re doing nothing. In fact, he’s set to preside over COP-28.
The big news at this year’s conference will likely center on its attendees. King Charles III, who famously predicted in 2019 that the world only had 18 months to save our planet from climate change, is set to give the opening address. He will be joined by Britain’s Prime Minister Rishi Sunak and potentially Pope Francis. Notably missing are the leaders of the two biggest carbon-emitting nations, China and United States.
Both President Biden and President Xi will stay home, but they did meet right beforehand to discuss climate change during their November powwow in San Francisco. Both pledged to “work together … to rise up to one of the greatest challenges of our time.” What this actually means is unclear.
Some experts believe all that was achieved during their San Francisco rendezvous was that the U.S. pledged to gut its fossil-fuel infrastructure and replace it with unreliable solar and wind. China only agreed to sell us the equipment to make that happen.
This is the hard, rarely mentioned reality, since China already controls 40% of the polysilicon used to make solar panels, 70% of the lithium-ion battery cell production, and 80% of the globe’s rare earth elements.
What it clearly doesn’t mean is that China is planning to limit its fossil fuel use anytime soon. In 2022, for example, China built or issued permits for the construction of brand new coal plants at the rate of two per week, quadrupling the number of new coal power approvals. Overall, it is constructing six times more coal plants than the rest of the world combined. That Xi is losing sleep over climate change or carbon emissions seems a stretch.
Other things to look for at COP-28 are the “Global Stocktake” and financing a new “Loss and Damage” fund.
The Global Stocktake is a review of how nations are meeting their climate commitment goals. According to the Paris Climate Accord, each country is supposed to do what it can to keep the world from reaching a 2-degree Celsius warming (or 1.5-degree C if they want extra credit).
Although this is scientific nonsense, the Global Stocktake can be seen as a sort of “report card” on how countries are faring. Expect the USA and Europe to be sent to the principal’s office for bad behavior, while China and India receive kudos for simply pledging to do better in the distant future.
The Loss and Damage fund is supposed to compensate poorer countries for any climate hardships (droughts, floods, hurricanes, refugees, et cetera) they believe are imposed on them by richer nations that have used fossil fuels for a century or more.
Among the countries vociferously championing this idea is the island of Tuvalu, which claims it is sinking into the ocean like Atlantis from rising sea levels. In reality, the University of Auckland found that Tuvalu actually grew in land mass by 2.9 percent over the past 40 years. While this might calm their fears, don’t expect it to stymie Tuvalu’s efforts to get money out of wealthier countries anyway.
So there you have it. The world is set to endure another fancy UN shindig about climate change. Be prepared for the lectures, dire warnings and proclamations. Annoying, yes. But don’t let the charade ruin your holiday season.
UAE’s Sultan Al Jaber says phase-out of coal, oil and gas would take world ‘back into caves’
The president of Cop28, Sultan Al Jaber, has claimed there is “no science” indicating that a phase-out of fossil fuels is needed to restrict global heating to 1.5C, the Guardian and the Centre for Climate Reporting can reveal.
Al Jaber also said a phase-out of fossil fuels would not allow sustainable development “unless you want to take the world back into caves”. The Guardian has the story.
The comments were “incredibly concerning” and “verging on climate denial”, scientists said, and they were at odds with the position of the UN secretary general, António Guterres.
Al Jaber made the comments in ill-tempered responses to questions from Mary Robinson, the chair of the Elders group and a former UN special envoy for climate change, during a live online event on 21 November. As well as running Cop28 in Dubai, Al Jaber is also the chief executive of the United Arab Emirates’ state oil company, Adnoc, which many observers see as a serious conflict of interest.
More than 100 countries already support a phase-out of fossil fuels and whether the final Cop28 agreement calls for this or uses weaker language such as “phase-down” is one of the most fiercely fought issues at the summit and may be the key determinant of its success. Deep and rapid cuts are needed to bring fossil fuel emissions to zero and limit fast-worsening climate impacts.
Al Jaber spoke with Robinson at a She Changes Climate event. Robinson said: “We’re in an absolute crisis that is hurting women and children more than anyone … and it’s because we have not yet committed to phasing out fossil fuel. That is the one decision that Cop28 can take and in many ways, because you’re head of Adnoc, you could actually take it with more credibility.”
Al Jaber said: “I accepted to come to this meeting to have a sober and mature conversation. I’m not in any way signing up to any discussion that is alarmist. There is no science out there, or no scenario out there, that says that the phase-out of fossil fuel is what’s going to achieve 1.5C.”
Robinson challenged him further, saying: “I read that your company is investing in a lot more fossil fuel in the future.” Al Jaber responded: “You’re reading your own media, which is biased and wrong. I am telling you I am the man in charge.”
Al Jaber then said: “Please help me, show me the roadmap for a phase-out of fossil fuel that will allow for sustainable socioeconomic development, unless you want to take the world back into caves.”
“I don’t think [you] will be able to help solve the climate problem by pointing fingers or contributing to the polarisation and the divide that is already happening in the world. Show me the solutions. Stop the pointing of fingers. Stop it,” Al Jaber said.
Guterres told Cop28 delegates on Friday: “The science is clear: The 1.5C limit is only possible if we ultimately stop burning all fossil fuels. Not reduce, not abate. Phase out, with a clear timeframe.”
Bill Hare, the chief executive of Climate Analytics, said: “This is an extraordinary, revealing, worrying and belligerent exchange. ‘Sending us back to caves’ is the oldest of fossil fuel industry tropes: it’s verging on climate denial.”
“Al Jaber is asking for a 1.5C roadmap – anyone who cares can find that in the International Energy Agency’s latest net zero emissions scenario, which says there cannot be any new fossil fuel development. The science is absolutely clear [and] that absolutely means a phase-out by mid-century, which will enhance the lives of all of humanity.”
Prof Sir David King, the chair of the Climate Crisis Advisory Group and a former UK chief scientific adviser, said: “It is incredibly concerning and surprising to hear the Cop28 president defend the use of fossil fuels. It is undeniable that to limit global warming to 1.5C we must all rapidly reduce carbon emissions and phase-out the use of fossil fuels by 2035 at the latest. The alternative is an unmanageable future for humanity.”
One day into meteorological winter and already global warming has gone missing. As ‘cold health alerts’ are activated, renewable energy has all but dried up leaving gas to take the strain of electricity generation. Even coal is outperforming wind power. Update: Flights resume at Glasgow Airport [announced at 1020 am]. – – – Weather warnings for snow and ice are in place across swathes of the UK as temperatures plummeted below freezing overnight, reports Sky.com.
Forecasters have warned the wintry conditions could affect some road and rail journeys with icy surfaces posing the risk of injury from slips and falls.
Glasgow Airport has suspended flights due to heavy snow, with passengers urged to check with their airline for updates.
Yellow warnings have been issued by the Met Office for the northern coast and southwest of Scotland, as well as southwest and the eastern coast of England throughout Saturday morning.
Amber cold health alerts are also in place for five regions: the East Midlands, West Midlands, North West, North East and Yorkshire and the Humber until 5 December.
This means the impact of the cold weather is “likely to be felt across the whole health service for an extended period of time”.
Temperatures dipped as low as -10C (14F) in parts overnight, with Tulloch Bridge and Eskdalemuir in Scotland recording -8C (18F).
The freeze is expected to continue over the weekend, with several sporting events cancelled due to snow and icy conditions.
The #Glasgow Airport was forced to suspend operations few hours today morning due to #heavysnow, later reopened – although passengers are advised to contact their airlines. The big chill is expected to continue over weekend & could impact road & rail journeys #ukweather#uksnowhttps://t.co/Coj95rjOK9
It comes as the Met Office has issued yellow warnings through Saturday morning for the northern coast and southwest of Scotland.#Glasgow… pic.twitter.com/4O6lFP3vGA
The National Academy of Sciences (NAS) released a lengthy report on what is known as the “dead ocean” threat with a focus on the Nantucket region, specifically what are called the Nantucket shoals. This is a major feeding ground of the desperately endangered North Atlantic Right Whale. It is really a good case study for all major offshore wind installations.
The report uncovers something strange but true. The physics is technical, but the basic idea is simple. Wind turbines take a lot of the energy out of the air, creating a lower energy wake behind the wind turbine facility. Lower energy wind causes lower energy waves so there is much less mixing in the ocean surface layer. This depletes the oxygen level in the water, which can reduce the amount of living food sources that whales eat, which can harm the whales on a population level. This is why it is called the dead ocean effect.
The primary threat arises because the world’s biggest animals feed on the world’s smallest animals. Fifteen-ton Right Whales feed on what is called zooplankton, which are microscopic animals of various sorts. That these huge marine mammals can filter out and live on tons of almost invisible animals is a natural miracle in itself.
The dead ocean threat, to be even more specific, is that the reduced energy in hundreds of wind turbine wakes combined can greatly reduce the zooplankton population. This could lead to malnutrition or even starvation in the whales. It can also require the whales to do a lot more hunting for their food, which can also cause them harm. This is especially true if it increases the risk of ship strikes and fishing gear entanglements, the leading causes of whale deaths.
In fact, there are at least two very different wake effects that adversely affect whales. Note that the term wake effect often refers to the fact that the turbine sucks out roughly 50% of the energy in the air, so turbines have to be spaced far apart in the wind direction lest the first turbine rob the second of energy.
This energy-sucking effect can cause a reduction in mixing wave action far behind the turbines, which lowers the oxygen content of the water, which lowers the biological productivity, which lowers the whales’ food supply.
The second adverse effect has an opposite cause. The huge turbine blades create close in turbulence downwind, which stirs up the sediment, creating a suspended sediment plume that can be large and long-lasting. This opaque plume would certainly decrease biological activity. The lack of mixing would tend to prolong the plume. Moreover, turbulence takes energy, which further reduces downwind mixing.
What is most interesting is that these two adverse effects might cause the whales to avoid the area, like harassment does, pushing them into more dangerous waters. Thus, in addition to harassment, we now have simple avoidance as a potential cause of death.
Nantucket shoals is just East, that is, downwind, of nine major offshore wind lease areas. If these areas are developed as planned, it will create a wall of hundreds of enormous wind-sucking turbines. Each turbine removes roughly half of the energy from the wind that drives it. The stronger the wind, the more energy gets drawn out.
The primary conclusion of the NAS report is starkly simple: While the risk is clear, nothing is known about its magnitude. This is said repeatedly in carefully couched, highly technical, and very scientific language. There are numerous good recommendations that lay out the need for a research program that is sorely needed in order to understand the threat posed by offshore wind.
Here is a central conclusion from the NAS Report: “Given the state of understanding of the effects of hydrodynamics on zooplankton supply, abundance, and aggregation, as well as uncertainties regarding how turbines will affect the hydrodynamics of the Nantucket Shoals region, it is unclear how wind development will affect right whale prey availability in this region. There are mechanisms that could support an increase, a decrease, or no measurable change in right whale prey availability. Future research supporting observational studies and model development are needed to support accurate predictions.”
Of particular interest is the recommendation for the first two Atlantic wind facilities, presently under construction, to be heavily instrumented so as to measure their wake effect. These are South Fork and Vineyard Wind, both in the Nantucket area. Of course, it will take several years to get good data.
Oddly, the one NAS recommendation that is conspicuously missing is that construction of new major wind facilities be put on hold until this serious threat to endangered whales is better understood. This is not surprising given that NAS has also just released a report espousing the “accelerating decarbonization” of the US economy.
NAS is devoutly on board the alarmist climate change bandwagon, so their idea of how to research potential threats to marine life is the same as the Biden Administration’s: namely, first to build monster wind facilities, then assess the damage they inflict on the environment somewhere down the road. Actually, preventing damage before it occurs, including the extinction of the Right Whale, is not part of the plan.
Given this recent NAS study detailing the clear and present danger to the already desperately endangered North Atlantic Right Whale, let’s hope cooler heads prevail. The proper course of action is to put this research ahead of any more offshore wind construction, not after it.
The creation of the hockey stick graph laid the very foundation of climate alarmism.
This video examines how normal scientific methods were thrown aside as the politicians took control and started what has become the mass mania of climate alarmism.
The animation shows the continuing growth of Arctic ice extent during November 2023, from day 305 to yesterday, day 334. For all of the fuss over the September minimum, little is said about Arctic ice growing back rapidly; that’s 4 Wadhams in October, plus another 2,2M in Nov to total 10.6M km2, or 10.6 Wadhams. The Russian side on the left froze over in October, and now at the center bottom you can see Beaufort sea and Canadian Archipelago icing over completely. At top center Kara and Barents are adding normal ice extents. On the right side are the two lagging basins: Baffin and Hudson Bays, though freezing has started in Hudson bay in the last ten days. That basin is shallow and likely to freeze over in the next two weeks.
The graph below shows the 30 days of November 2023 compared to the 17 year average (2006 to 2022 inclusive), to SII (Sea Ice Index) and some notable years.
Taking the average extent for the final 5 days of October 2023 compared to same for end of November, the added ice extent is 2.2M km2. The growth slowed at the end resulting in a 290k km2 deficit to average. Sea Ice Index (SII) is ~200k km2 lower than MASIE.
The table below shows the distribution of ice in the Arctic Ocean basins.
Region
2023334
Day 334
2023-Ave.
2007334
2023-2007
(0) Northern_Hemisphere
10626375
10921303
-294928
11009948
-383574
(1) Beaufort_Sea
1070966
1069463
1503
1058872
12094
(2) Chukchi_Sea
722477
788533
-66056
687829
34649
(3) East_Siberian_Sea
1087137
1083567
3570
1082015
5122
(4) Laptev_Sea
897845
897822
23
897613
232
(5) Kara_Sea
799640
792930
6710
826319
-26679
(6) Barents_Sea
262074
248861
13213
216525
45549
(7) Greenland_Sea
607148
533255
73893
618844
-11696
(8) Baffin_Bay_Gulf_of_St._Lawrence
591970
671268
-79298
708497
-116527
(9) Canadian_Archipelago
854826
853266
1560
850249
4577
(10) Hudson_Bay
379047
574308
-195261
751382
-372335
(11) Central_Arctic
3220511
3192296
28215
3183073
37438
(12) Bering_Sea
47829
145731
-97902
72645
-24816
(13) Baltic_Sea
16936
3593
13343
0
16936
(14) Sea_of_Okhotsk
63947
62153
1794
53052
10895
As shown in the table above, the deficit is due to lagging growth in Hudson and Baffin Bays, along with less ice in Chukchi and Bering Seas. Typically these basins are among the last to freeze.
As even CBS own chart shows, the number of hurricanes and major hurricanes has only been average.
Instead it is those named storms, which did not reach hurricane strength, that have been above average. And as we know, this is simply because we are able to spot many more of these short lived, weak storms with the help of satellites, along with the fact that many storms are now named which would not have been categorised as Tropical Storms in the past.
First, let’s look at the actual data.
The best record we have is for US landfalling hurricanes, with reliable data back as far as the 1900. According to the US Hurricane Research Division (HRD):
Because of the sparseness of towns and cities before 1900 in some coastal locations along the United States, the above list is not complete for all states. Before the Gulf of Mexico and Atlantic coasts became settled, hurricanes may have been underestimated in their intensity or missed completely for small-sized systems (i.e., 2004’s Hurricane Charley).
And this strongly points the finger at changing observational practices out in the middle of the Atlantic.
Even the BBC, in a lapse of its usual editorial standard, admitted a couple of years ago:
Over the past 10 to 15 years, though, named storms have formed prior to the official start about 50% of the time.
And the way they are defined and observed has changed significantly over time.
“Many of these storms are short-lived systems that are now being identified because of better monitoring and policy changes that now name sub-tropical storms,” Dennis Feltgen, meteorologist at the US National Hurricane Center (NHC) told BBC Weather.
The number of named storms has increased over the decades, but there is no real evidence this is the result of a warming world.
The overall increase from 1961 is also likely to be due to better technology, along with observations over the Atlantic Ocean.
Since satellites came along in the 1980s, we can spot and monitor the development of tropical cyclones and name them when they meet the threshold.
We are simply able to record more.
As well as better satellite coverage, there has been an increasing tendency in recent years to “name storms”, which in the past would not have been.
Dr Neil Frank, who was Director of the US National Hurricane Center from 1974 to 1987 goes further, maintaining that many of the storms now named would not have been in his day.
He made two particular complaints about current methods in 2021:
1) Many named storms are actually winter storms, not tropical storms. He states that the first six tropical storms in 2020 would not have been counted in his time.
2) Nowadays the NHC rushes to name a storm, simply based on wind speeds. His team would have waited until the central pressure dropped to confirm that it really was a tropical storm, and not just a thunderstorm. This often explains why named storms are often so short lasting now.
Just because we now name all storms does not mean that there are actually more than when we did not!
NOTE
I need to make clear that these “named storms” are tropical storms/cyclones, and not the storms which cross the UK and which are routinely given silly names by the Met Office.
A few weeks ago, the Wokeist faction at the National Trust defeated the Anti-Wokeists in the Battle of Swindon (i.e. their AGM). One imagines the fatal blow was struck, not with a Welsh halberd, but a Devon scone. The victory was just in time for the NT to serve up their latest failed climate soufflé, which was however eagerly bolted down by several media Labradors.
In fairness, the Anti-Wokeists made their stand on matters more colonialist than climate, but one likes to think that they had their heads rather more screwed on in that department than the present shower. They also had the dice stacked against them, or so the rumour has it:
The group, which describes itself as opposing a “woke” agenda, also put forward two motions to the AGM. Its resolution to remove the “quick vote” system, where members’ ballot papers have recommendations from the National Trust’s Nominations Committee highlighted on them, was defeated with 60,327 in favour and 69,715 against.YP, ibid.
Why does the National Trust have climate scientists?
No, it’s not the setup for a cracker joke. The answer is because they have too much money.
Anyway, the climate report (mentioned by Mark here) wants us to believe that climate change is damaging the Trust’s historic buildings. I have my doubts about that.
Now, let us suppose you had been told – just now, by me – that the National Trust had a climate report out. What perils would you predict that their buildings, mostly built on the wealth produced by slave labour, etc, would be facing?
You would probably suggest flood, storm, and rising sea levels. I know I did. You might also throw in heatwaves, without a sensible idea about how heatwaves were going to damage old buildings. You might be developing a cynical idea that what we are actually dealing with here are weather events that would have happened anyway, but have been relabelled as climate events because everything is climate now and climate is everything. You might be right.
You can obtain said report here, should you be so inclined.
It starts off badly, in the Foreword:
As I write we are once again experiencing flooding in many parts of the country, and more storms are on the way. There is a lot to learn about the best approaches to climate risks, but we can’t wait for more academic research, we can see the impacts of climate change all around us (even at our favourite National Trust properties!) and we must learn on the job.
If you guessed that weather events were going to be conflated with climate change, you may recharge your glass. And have another two fingers if you have “storm” and “flood” on your bingo card.
After having got off on the wrong foot, the report then opens up by misreporting the IPCC, quoting the latest WG2 report as saying,
Many species could be ‘pushed past their physiological tolerance’ and there would be ‘irreversible phase shifts’ in marine ecosystems.
However, while there are several mentions of “irreversible phase shifts” in marine ecosystems (in my view erroneously), the first quoted excerpt is not to be found anywhere in the 3,000 page document, unless my browser got tired of searching it. The only mention of “physiological tolerance” is in connection with montane possums. Note to the author of the NT report: only put direct quotes in, er, quote marks.
But I digress. How is climate change actually damaging the buildings?
Well, a newsworthy snippet picked up by our local media in Norfolk had to do with Blickling Hall. Blickling is a nice estate to walk around, with some veteran trees including small-leaved limes, a bizarre pyramidal mausoleum and a couple of cafés, including one attached to the hall itself, in what was once presumably gardeners’ quarters or something.
[See featured image.] From the article, this nonsensical statement:
Patrick Begg, outdoors and natural resources director at the National Trust, said: “Climate change presents the single biggest threat to the places in our care and the single biggest challenge to our mission – to look after places of nature, beauty and history for everyone to enjoy, now and in the future.”
No it doesn’t, you idiot. That would be entropy. But what are the alleged threats to Blickling Hall from climate change?
Today, new extremes in both rainfall and drought are threatening the structure of the building.
Actually the threats number 3. So far. They are the Silvergate Stream, which is apparently bringing more water than before, which cannot be handled [asterisk: it sometimes runs dry and the clay shrinks]; the increased rain, which the gutters cannot handle; and death-watch beetles, caused by damp, which is itself perhaps caused by the inadequate guttering, although as much is not spelled out in the report.
First, the stream. I don’t know whether stream flow peaks have gone up. I don’t know if stream flow peaks are measured. The cynic in me says they are not. The stream itself is an interesting matter.
The mansion is built on a seam of clay that follows the line of the Silvergate Stream up to the lake.(from the report, and cut’n’pasted into the EDP story.)
That sounds like a dubious plan. Why would anyone build a mansion there rather than safely out of the stream’s path? Well, the answer is quite obvious if you think about it for a few moments.
I’ll wait.
Yes, the original reason for the location’s choice was to make it easy to build a moat. In these decadent days of mostly peaceful protests, it is easy to forget the uncivilised manners of our uncouth forebears. [Asterisk: from what I have read, the moat was mostly dry by the time the present house was built in the early seventeenth century. It was by then a pretend defensive structure, when in the original Medieval circumstance, it was a genuinely defensive structure.] Peruse a map, or an aerial photograph of Blickling, and you will see a narrow stream heading northwards and then, just as it reaches the house’s curtilage, disappear out of view under the road. It reappears to the north of the house just before the (artificial) lake.
From the report:
At one time the Silvergate Stream – a tributary of the River Bure – ran through the walled garden, feeding the nearby lake to provide fresh water to the house and help with waste management. Over time this developed into a more complex water system, with a series of culverts, drains, sewers and chambers installed by the Victorians.
And when it floods, they blame it on
The Hall’s connection to the water continues today, but the effect that climate change is having on the river, as well as local rainfall, is making the estate more difficult to manage.
You can apparently listen to live audio from the Silvergate Stream here.
In this case, the attempt to blame climate change is entirely spurious. The stream wants to go where it wants to go, and after heavy rain, it is hard to dissuade. Keeping it trapped in a mid-Victorian drain system is going to be difficult. Every so often, the stream is going to burst forth and find a faster way to the lake.
Next, we have the gutters. I do not know whether rain has become harder, but even if it has, the gutters are only going to be overmatched on very rare occasions. It is far too easy to blame an increase in rain, without demonstrating that one has occurred.
Finally, the death-watch beetle infestation. What has this to do with climate change? Well, the beetle eats oak timbers, but only after they have been partly digested by dry rot. The dodgy gutters seemingly allowed water ingress, and consequently damp, with fungus and the beetle following on.
And as everyone knows, nowhere in the UK suffered infestations of death-watch beetle until the climate catastrophe began. That’s why Thomas Browne, who just so happened to be based in Norfolk, did not mention it at all in his 17th century writings, as he hadn’t heard of it. Oh, wait:
Few ears have escaped the noise of the dead-watch, that is, the little clickling [sic] sound heard often in many rooms, somewhat resembling that of a watch; and this is conceived to be of an evil omen or prediction of some persons death…
The clickling sound is due to the males and females of the species signalling to one another by banging their heads against the wood. Not unlike the males and females of our species today.
This note is already long enough, so I will surrender the stage now. But I would like to make an observation about artificial structures. As soon as they are finished, they begin to fall to pieces. Left to itself, a house’s roof is unlikely to keep the rain out for more than a couple of decades. After the rain gets in, the dry rot gets in, and everything turns to powder in another decade. After the roof has come down, the walls might stand for another few decades, ultimately to be smashed apart by the hydraulic forces of tree roots.
There is no point blaming all this on human emissions of carbon dioxide. There just isn’t. If your building is proof against today’s weather, it will be proof against tomorrow’s.
Finally, the National Trust do good stuff. They look after the nation’s heritage. They keep old buildings from collapsing. We should praise and salute them for that. But it is sad to see that they, like so many charities, are fully signed up to the climate cult.
Will Blickling Hall crumble? Certainly, eventually. But let us hope the day that happens is far in the future.
Cop28 will have the biggest carbon footprint in the history of the annual climate summit because the UAE has invited record numbers of people, experts have said.
At least 400,000 people are expected to travel to Dubai for the two-week event, organisers claimed, the biggest attendance on record. The Telegraphhas the story.
This includes 97,000 official delegates, more than double Cop26 in Glasgow, the previous biggest of the summits.
The Glasgow summit led to emissions that were equivalent to the annual carbon footprint of around 8,000 British residents, mostly stemming from transport to the conference itself.
“Given the number of people expected here, yes this probably will have the highest carbon footprint of any Cop to date,” said Richard Black, senior associate of the Energy and Climate Intelligence Unit think tank.
He added that the size of that footprint “is absolutely dwarfed by the emission cuts that a deal can produce” and put pressure on the UAE to deliver a good outcome.
“So the ball is really at the feet of the UAE – they’ve chosen to host the biggest Cop in history, now they need to make it have the biggest impact of any Cop in history.”
Attendance at the annual summit has risen steadily in recent years, particularly as the presence of corporations and NGOs has grown.
Chris Stark, the chief executive of the Climate Change Committee, recently told The Telegraph the conference was “too big” and had become more like a trade fair.
Among this year’s attendees, Rishi Sunak, the King, Lord Cameron and US envoy John Kerry will all travel by private jet.
A spokesman for Cop28 said: “Everyone is welcome at Cop28 because everyone is needed to deliver climate action.”
A sustainability report produced after last year’s Cop in Egypt, during which the UAE had a record number of delegates, recommended reducing the number of accreditations.
The UN has also acknowledged the tricky optics of increasing travel to the event. In a guide for host countries titled “How to Cop”, it says scrutiny has been focused on “the apparent irony of the GHG (greenhouse gas) emissions generated by thousands of participants flying in from all around the globe to discuss how to reduce GHG emissions.”
It adds: “The conferences generate considerable GHG emissions. Host countries will need to take proactive steps to achieve carbon neutrality.”
The UAE has promised to offset emissions from the event, but will not provide details of exactly how this will be done until after the conclusion of the summit. There is widespread scepticism about the value of carbon offsets.
Climate Realism by Paul Burgess
You must be logged in to post a comment.