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.
Each of these news outlets ignored or at a minimum displayed ignorance of the fact that an even worse drought occurred in 1865, well before climate change was even an issue.
Last week my colleague Linnea Lueken published a detailed rebuttal to a story in the New York Times claiming a recent drought in the Amazon was caused by climate change, saying:
Several mainstream news sources, including The New York Times (NYT) and BBC, claim that a new study shows that recent severe drought conditions in the Amazon rainforest were โfueledโ or driven by climate change. The stories are false on two fronts. First, the study in question merely says the drought was made more likely due to climate change, but more pressing, the study does not get into a detailed analysis of the causes of the drought, and real-world data show that severe drought is not becoming more common in the Amazon.
Each of these news outlets ignored or at a minimum displayed ignorance of the fact that an even worse drought occurred in 1865, well before climate change was even an issue.
Peer-reviewed research published in September 2023, titled Drought and Flood Extremes on the Amazon River and in Northeast Brazil, 1790โ1900 reports: โThese extremes in the tree-ring estimates and historical observations indicate that recent high and low flow anomalies on the Amazon River may not have exceeded the natural variability of precipitation and streamflow during the nineteenth century.โ
In other words, the Amazon has experienced floods and droughts of similar or greater severity in the past when the Earth was cooler.
They write in the paper abstract:
The โForgotten Droughtโ of 1865 was the lowest wet-season rainfall total reconstructed with tree-rings in the eastern Amazon from 1790 to 2016 appears to have been one of the lowest stream levels observed on the Amazon River during the historical era according to first-hand descriptions by Louis Agassiz, his Brazilian colleague Joรฃo Martins da Silva Coutinho, and others.
The figure below, also from the paper, shows clearly that in 1865, an even worse drought occurred in the Amazon river basin. As the chart also shows, several other years in the historical record were as bad or worse than the drought being experienced today.
Figure 1. Tree-ring-reconstructed wet-season precipitation totals for the eastern Amazon, plotted for 1790โ2016, along with the multidecadal waveform [from Granato-Souza et al. (2020)]. The upper and lower 10th-percentile thresholds calculated for 1790โ1900 are highlighted. The driest and wettest years during this interval are indicated (with exceptional years in larger font). Source: Journal of Climate 36, 20; 10.1175/JCLI-D-23-0146.1
Clearly these media outlets failed to do their homework preferring instead to immediately blame the present drought climate change as if it is unprecedented. It isnโt. In addition, as Lueken pointed out, they also failed to examine other, more direct, contributing factors to the present drought, like deforestation changing rainfall patterns and shifting El Nino/La Nina cycles.
Itโs yet another example of how badly the media is complicit in pushing a specific climate narrative of worsening conditions rather than examining the facts and history in full, putting current conditions in context. This is why Climate Realism exists; to show media malfeasance in its climate reporting.
The Version 6 global average lower tropospheric temperature (LT) anomaly for January, 2024 was +0.86 deg. C departure from the 1991-2020 mean, up slightly from the December, 2023 anomaly of +0.83 deg. C.
The Version 6 global average lower tropospheric temperature (LT) anomaly for January, 2024 was +0.86 deg. C departure from the 1991-2020 mean, up slightly from the December, 2023 anomaly of +0.83 deg. C.
The linear warming trend since January, 1979 now stands at +0.15 C/decade (+0.13 C/decade over the global-averaged oceans, and +0.20 C/decade over global-averaged land).
New monthly record high temperatures were set in January for:
Northern Hemisphere (+1.06 deg. C, previous record +1.02 deg. in October 2023)
Northern Hemisphere ocean (+1.08 deg. C, much above the previous record of +0.85 deg. C in February, 2016)
Tropics (+1.27 deg. C, previous record +1.15 deg. C in February 1998).
The following table lists various regional LT departures from the 30-year (1991-2020) average for the last 13 months (record highs are in red):
YEAR
MO
GLOBE
NHEM.
SHEM.
TROPIC
USA48
ARCTIC
AUST
2023
Jan
-0.04
+0.05
-0.13
-0.38
+0.12
-0.12
-0.50
2023
Feb
+0.09
+0.17
+0.00
-0.10
+0.68
-0.24
-0.11
2023
Mar
+0.20
+0.24
+0.17
-0.13
-1.43
+0.17
+0.40
2023
Apr
+0.18
+0.11
+0.26
-0.03
-0.37
+0.53
+0.21
2023
May
+0.37
+0.30
+0.44
+0.40
+0.57
+0.66
-0.09
2023
June
+0.38
+0.47
+0.29
+0.55
-0.35
+0.45
+0.07
2023
July
+0.64
+0.73
+0.56
+0.88
+0.53
+0.91
+1.44
2023
Aug
+0.70
+0.88
+0.51
+0.86
+0.94
+1.54
+1.25
2023
Sep
+0.90
+0.94
+0.86
+0.93
+0.40
+1.13
+1.17
2023
Oct
+0.93
+1.02
+0.83
+1.00
+0.99
+0.92
+0.63
2023
Nov
+0.91
+1.01
+0.82
+1.03
+0.65
+1.16
+0.42
2023
Dec
+0.83
+0.93
+0.73
+1.08
+1.26
+0.26
+0.85
2024
Jan
+0.86
+1.06
+0.66
+1.27
-0.05
+0.40
+1.18
The full UAH Global Temperature Report, along with the LT global gridpoint anomaly image for January, 2024, and a more detailed analysis by John Christy, should be available within the next several days here.
The monthly anomalies for various regions for the four deep layers we monitor from satellites will be available in the next several days:
The rate of global greening caused by recent increases in atmospheric carbon dioxide has accelerated during the last two decades, according toย important new findingsย recently published by a group of Chinese scientists.
The rate of global greening caused by recent increases in atmospheric carbon dioxide has accelerated during the last two decades, according to important new findings recently published by a group of Chinese scientists. About 55% of global land mass revealed an โaccelerated rateโ of vegetation growth, compared with only 7.3% showing increased decline or โbrowningโ. Global greening due to higher levels of CO2 is an inconvenient fact that is often ignored in mainstream climate science. In fact there have even been attempts to suggest greening has slowed or reversed. Studies showing higher levels of global browning use sources that โshould be used with cautionโ, advise the authors of the new study.
It is known that the planet has been greening since at least 1980, with some estimates suggesting increased levels as high as 14%. In a detailed paper published in 2016 by 32 authors from eight countries, it was noted that there was a โpersistent and widespread increaseโ in growing-season greening over 25-50% of the global vegetated area. Now the Chinese scientists, including Eco-Climatologist Professor Tiexi Chen, state that โglobal greening is an indisputable factโ.
Satellites enable scientists to calculate a Leaf Area Index (LAI) and the four main datasets are plotted above. It was found that CO2ย fertilisation dominated the LAI trends that are both rising and accelerating. By monitoring different parts of the globe, the authors found that the โdrought trendโ only slowed global greening, โbut was far from triggering browningโ. Climate alarmists, of course, observe drought everywhere โ that is, when they are not pointing to biblical levels of flooding.
The above map averages information from the four datasets and shows that greening accelerated from 2000 in 55.5% of the globe, among which acceleration in India and the European plains was said to be the most obvious (note dark blue colouring). Healthy growth can also be observed in the Amazon region, equatorial East Africa, southern coastal Australia and Ireland.
It has long been know that higher levels of CO2 are good for plants with plenty of scientific evidence showing that they grow faster as a result of the boost. Dr. Roy Spencer, the former senior scientist at NASA, notes the beneficial effect on plants, adding: โThough CO2 is necessary for life on Earth to exist, there is precious little of it in the Earthโs atmosphere.โ Levels of CO2 have been much higher than the present over the 600 million years that life has existed on Earth, and plants evolved when there was more of the gas in the atmosphere. Recent atmospheric increases, whether from natural or human causes, have contributed to soaring crop yields. Better technology, fertilisers and land use have all played a part but higher CO2 has contributed to an estimated annual 2.4-3.8% rise in maize, rice, soyabean and wheat โ four staples that provide 64% of human caloric intake. Under the collectivist Net Zero project, there are attempts to stop CO2 entering the atmosphere, bans on fertilisers, cuts of meat production and moves to โrewildโ agricultural land. Good luck feeding the world, might be the only charitable response to this insanity.
CO2 greening is largely shunned as a topic of polite conversation in the โsettledโ climate mainstream because it helps support the notion that the recent small temperature bounce back from the Little Ice Age has been almost entirely beneficial. There is little evidence that natural disasters are getting worse, be they hurricanes, droughts, floods or wildfires. Exploiting hydrocarbon energy has enabled humans to build better protections against Mother Nature and deaths from natural disasters have plunged by over 95% in the last 100 years. Over the last 25 years, the only global warming outside retrospectively adjusted politicised datasets has occurred as a result of small spikes caused by strong natural El Niรฑo effects. Coral reef growth has soared of late, and Arctic sea ice appears to have started on the upward slope of a cyclical trend. It often seems that the only response of alarmists to all this good news is to point out the window and suggest the bad weather du jour is a sign of imminent Armageddon.
One Italian scientist recently estimated that reducing CO2 back to pre-industrial levels would lead to an 18% decline in the production of many basic global foodstuffs. The climate science site No Tricks Zone highlighted two further scientific studies that showed higher CO2 fertilisation effects were driving global greening and enhancing photosynthesis. Current levels of CO2 in the atmosphere are around 420 parts per million (ppm), and a group of agri-scientists suggested there would be a 30-50% increase in photosynthesis with CO2 in a range from 451-720ppm. This would lead to a 25% increase in crop yields. The scientists looked in particular at barley and found an increase in yield of 54% if CO2 rose to 700ppm.
A great champion of the gas of life is Dr. Patrick Moore, who helped found Greenpeace in the 1970s. He has long pointed to the gradual denudation of atmospheric CO2 as various life forms drew down the once plentiful supplies over 500 million years. He looks forward to the day when governments will meet to sign treaties promising to increase their carbon emissions.
Treble private jets all round.
Chris Morrison is the Daily Scepticโs Environment Editor.
Wood pellets are often viewed as an alternative, climate-friendly energy source, especially for heating. But an analysis shows this is not the case at all.
Wood pellets are often viewed as an alternative, climate-friendly energy source, especially for heating. But an analysis shows this is not the case at all.
CO2 emitted [kg]. Data source: German Ministry of the Environment
Though it is claimed that the CO2 from burning biomass like trees remains in the natural carbon cycle, the CO2-absorbing trees are often commercially chopped down, pelletized and burned, thus emitting years worth of CO2 sequestration in just a matter of hours. Live trees recapturing that same emitted CO2 and storing it in the form of biomass takes decades.
Wood emits the most
How much CO2 does the production of one megawatt-hour of energy emit by different fuels? This is answered at FB by the account Umwelt- und Klimathemen. They write:
Isnโt it almost the same whether I burn wood from a 150-year-old oak tree in pellet form in my heating system or whether I burn coal that has been in the ground for thousands of years? Both the wood and the coal release the carbon dioxide they once filtered out of the air when they burn.
According to the German Ministry of the Environment, burning wood produces even more carbon dioxide than fossil fuels such as coal and gas. โ 202 kg of carbon dioxide for natural gas โ 340 kg carbon dioxide for hard coal โ 403 kg carbon dioxide wood
But for the climate, it doesnโt matter where the carbon dioxide comes from! Thatโs why heating with wood is not climate neutral! Even if we make pellets from our wood, it is still wood that enriches our atmosphere with carbon dioxide when it is burned.โ
Wood emits double the CO2 that natural gas does. Never mind the particulates burning wood entails.
Last week, the Eastern Daily Press was kind enough to print an opinion piece of mine. This was written in response to another opinion article, one which bemoaned the lack of progress at COP28, and how damaging this was for Norfolk.
Last week, the Eastern Daily Press was kind enough to print an opinion piece of mine. This was written in response to another opinion article, one which bemoaned the lack of progress at COP28, and how damaging this was for Norfolk.
I donโt think my opinion made it to the online newspaper, so Iโm posting it here. Naturally it is aimed at a different audience than my usual offerings at Cliscep, one whose members are probably only peripherally aware of things that we obsess over. I skate over a lot of points very rapidly because I only had 600 words to say everything. My original draft was 1000 words, and whole paragraphs had to be sacrificed to reach the word limit (the piece I was responding to was longer).
My goal was to state things that I believe to be true, in a style accessible to a general audience, in a polite way, with none of the snark that sometimes decorates my posts here.
I encourage readers to engage with their local newspapers in a similar manner. It is our duty not to abandon the field to those whose noble aims but incoherent thinking would doom our civilisation.
Finally, much respect to the EDP for airing views that are forbidden in some quarters.
Net Zero is more damaging for us than climate change
[Title slightly modified by the EDP]
Charlie Gardner (Opinion, 15th January) says COP28 failures are bad for Norfolk. That may well be the case. But failure was eminently foreseeable. The clue is in the name: COP28. This was the 28th such shindig, and after almost all of them, global emissions of carbon dioxide have increased โ exceptions being the financial crisis year and the Covid year.
The reason is the different aims of guilt-wracked Western democracies like the UK, and growing countries like China.
China is willing to watch and even applaud as we destroy our manufacturing and are therefore increasingly forced to buy their goods. They are willing to sell us wind turbines and solar panels, especially if it makes our electricity, and our manufacturing, yet more uncompetitive. For China, itโs a win-win scenario. It becomes richer by selling us stuff we can no longer afford to make. And if our reductions in carbon dioxide emissions really do help the climateโฆ why, then the benefits are spread all across the globe, among those doing the work and those sitting in the shade alike.
Dr. Gardner exhorts us all to make individual efforts to save the climate. Such efforts are noble, but pointless. The UKโs per capita carbon dioxide emissions are already now, quite surprisingly perhaps, at or around the worldโs average. Compare that to the United States, which is fond of lecturing us about any backsliding (e.g. in respect of the Cumbrian coal mine), but whose own per capita emissions are now about three times ours. Most people in Norfolk really do not have a large enough ecological footprint to feel guilty about.
The UKโs Net Zero policies are biting Norfolk far more than climate change is โ which is rather ironic. The UK has the second most expensive electricity in the world โ and no, it is not due to over-reliance on fossil fuels! Rather it is because we have installed so much generating capacity that cannot be relied upon to produce when we need it. Prime farmland is carpeted with solar panels โ and produces a big fat nothing at five p.m. on a winterโs evening. Wind turbines occasionally produce too much, and we have to pay them for electricity we canโt use. Often they produce too little. Meanwhile the grid has to do a furious juggling act to keep the lights on. Anyone who tells you that renewables are the answer is not thinking it through. It doesnโt matter how many renewables you install. At points in time, they will still produce nothing. And battery backup wonโt help. It will help its operators make a quick buck every time supply is tight and the cost of electricity is high. But providing durable power over time? No chance. Anyone who opposes nuclear is not serious about Net Zero. (The RSPB absurdly opposes Sizewell C, while supporting wind farms that will kill beautiful seabirds like kittiwakes.)
With Net Zero, every year, the screw tightens. Prosperity is growing in countries that are using more energy, and consequently emitting more carbon dioxide. Meanwhile, cuts in carbon dioxide emissions for countries like the UK become harder and harder year by year, and erode our wealth and freedoms. And thanks to the stitch up between the major parties in Westminster, nobody asked whether you and me were on board with the project. The technocrats simply declared it was happening and that was that.
The problem with Net Zero is that, noble in aim, in practice, it will be ruinously destructive. Sooner or later the UKโs rush to Net Zero will go off the rails. Then we will all be looking at one another wondering how we got here.
Come the election, Iโll be asking any candidate who knocks on my door: Are you for Net Zero? If their answer is yesโฆ my answer to them will be a firm No.
On episode 96 of Climate Change Roundtable, special guest Ann McElhinney joins The Heartland Instituteโs Anthony Watts, H. Sterling Burnett, Linnea Lueken, and Jim Lakely to break down the latest bombshell moments of the trial. We are sure to mention the devastating testimony on Thursday of renowned statistician Abraham Wyner who exposed Mannโs hockey stick to be the fraud Steyn and Simberg (and many others) say it is.
In the third week of the defamation trial in which climate โhockey stickโ inventor Michael Mann is suing Mark Steyn and Rand Simberg, Mann rested his case. And now the defense has begun to make its devastating case against the nasty serial litigator in the Climate Trial of the Century. The hockey stick itself is being broken into pieces in public.
On episode 96 of Climate Change Roundtable, special guest Ann McElhinney joins The Heartland Instituteโs Anthony Watts, H. Sterling Burnett, Linnea Lueken, and Jim Lakely to break down the latest bombshell moments of the trial. We are sure to mention the devastating testimony on Thursday of renowned statistician Abraham Wyner who exposed Mannโs hockey stick to be the fraud Steyn and Simberg (and many others) say it is. Join us LIVE at 1 p.m. ET (12 p.m. CT) to get caught up on the trial and join the chat to ask questions of your own.
Our panel delves into the claim by the COP28 President, who said there is โno scienceโ behind demands for the phase-out of fossil fuels and that doing so would take the world โback into caves.โ
The episode also aims to debunk common climate change myths presented at COP28, focusing on a comprehensive understanding of the conference’s implications and strategies. We will compare the fantasy of claims and goals with the reality of the hard data.
Plus, weโll have Crazy Climate News of the week.
Join our live broadcast today at Noon Central Time (12PM ET). Whether you’re a climate enthusiast, a policy expert, or just someone curious about the different facets of climate change discourse, this episode promises to provide another fresh and insightful take on the discussions from COP28.
In January, most of the Arctic ocean basins are frozen over, and so the growth of ice extent slows down. According to MASIE January on average adds 1.2M km2, and this month it was 1.1M. However, 2024 started above average and quickly grew to 14M km2 (14 Wadhams), before slowing down and ending January slightly above the 18 year average. The few basins that can grow ice this time of year tend to fluctuate and alternate waxing and waning, which appears as a see saw pattern in these images.
On the left is the Pacific seesaw with Bering below and Okhotsk above. This year Okotsk added ice steadily, and slowed at the end, while Bering waffled up and down mid month before gaining ice at the end. The Atlantic seesaw is Barents top center and Baffin on the right below Greenland. Barents grew ice steadily until mid January, then gave almost all of it back by the end. Baffin added ice slowly all month, then accelerated the last two weeks.
While the seesaws are tilting back and forth on the margins, the bulk of the Arctic is frozen solid. And with limited places where more extent can be added, the pace of overall growth has slowed. Note that at 14.4M km2 Arctic ice extent now has about six weeks to break the 15M km2 annual ceiling mid March.
The graph shows the 18-year average gain for January is 1.2M km2. 2024 started with 275k km2 surplus ice extent and ended slightly above average, while and other recent years were lower. SII showed lower extents most of the month with a 253k km2 deficit to MASIE at the end.
Region
2024031
Day 31
2024-Ave.
2018031
2024-2018
(0) Northern_Hemisphere
14396470
14360118
36352
13792271
604199
(1) Beaufort_Sea
1070983
1070351
632
1070445
538
(2) Chukchi_Sea
966006
965973
34
965971
35
(3) East_Siberian_Sea
1087137
1087059
78
1087120
18
(4) Laptev_Sea
897845
897823
22
897845
0
(5) Kara_Sea
894933
918701
-23769
895363
-430
(6) Barents_Sea
473076
569199
-96123
481947
-8872
(7) Greenland_Sea
711708
607586
104122
501411
210297
(8) Baffin_Bay_Gulf_of_St._Lawrence
1272213
1331684
-59471
1406903
-134690
(9) Canadian_Archipelago
854860
853430
1430
853109
1752
(10) Hudson_Bay
1260903
1260770
133
1260838
66
(11) Central_Arctic
3214505
3210272
4233
3184817
29688
(12) Bering_Sea
665225
647841
17384
382207
283018
(13) Baltic_Sea
71817
62350
9467
41714
30103
(14) Sea_of_Okhotsk
910937
818756
92181
704398
206539
The table shows regional ice extents in km2. The few deficits are in Baffin Bay and Barents, offset by sizeable surpluses in Greenland and Okhotsk seas. Everywhere else is close to maximum for the year.
The polar bears have a Valentine Dayโs wish for Arctic Ice.
And Arctic Ice loves them back, returning every year so the bears can roam and hunt for seals.
Footnote:
Seesaw accurately describes Arctic ice in another sense: The ice we see now is not the same ice we saw previously. It is better to think of the Arctic as an ice blender than as an ice cap, explained in the post The Great Arctic Ice Exchange.
Gwythian Prins is quite right to express his concerns about the impact of Net Zero on the U.K.โs national security in a piece published the other day on this site, โNet Zero Threatens National Securityโ.
Gwythian Prins is quite right to express his concerns about the impact of Net Zero on the U.K.โs national security in a piece published the other day on this site, โNet Zero Threatens National Securityโ.
Iโve been racking my brains to think of a time in human history when a kingdom or state consciously chose to retro-equip its army with inferior technology or compromise its capability by seeking to introduce unreliable equipment. And I canโt think of one โ what can I think of is all those who lost because they didnโt keep up.
Back in the middle of the 16th century BC, northern ancient Egypt was controlled by a group called the โshepherd kingsโ or Hyksos. Theyโd invaded from what is now Syria and pushed back native rulers, establishing their own regime. Theyโd achieved this with one very simple tactic: they had chariots.
Now, the Hyksos chariots were a bit cumbersome and seem to have had four warriors in them. But when the Egyptians didnโt have chariots, the Hyksos behemoths were cutting edge.
When an Egyptian leader called Ahmose materialised on a cometh-the-moment, cometh-the-man basis, he didnโt try to push the Hyksos out with slower and more cumbersome chariots. Indeed, the Egyptians didnโt have any chariots.
So they started making chariots. And whatโs more, they made their chariots smaller, lighter and faster so that they could fight a Bronze Age Blitzkrieg war. Ahmose led these vehicles into battle and, just like Heinz Guderianโs Blitzkrieg war of 1940, he pulverised the Hyksos whose chariots had become obsolete in an instant.
The blistering Ahmose established the 18th Dynasty, reunified Egypt and ushered in its greatest line of kings who presided over an unprecedented era of wealth, power, and โ most important of all โ national security.
One of the last of the kings of that dynasty was Tutankhamun in the late 14th century BC, whose tomb was famously found almost intact in 1922. On his body was an iron dagger, made of iron from a meteorite. At this time this spectacularly hard metal, which cut through bronze like a wire through cheese, was beyond the wit of man to smelt. Only a king could own one.
Within a few centuries the secret of the high temperatures needed had been discovered and humanity, for good or ill, entered the Iron Age. No-one went to war with a Bronze Age sword after that unless he wanted to lose or be conquered. The Roman Empire was an Iron Age state.
When the Romans went to war against the Carthaginians in the First Punic War (264-241 BC) they were not a naval power, even though the Carthaginians were. The Romans used a wrecked Carthaginian ship as a template and built their own, adding improvements in the form of the corvus boarding ramp. Yes, it was trial and error, but they won their first engagement with the Carthaginians in the Battle of Mylae in 260 BC because their ships were better.
It was a long and hard struggle with catastrophes along the way, but Rome won that war, and the next two wars against Carthage and ended up as the most powerful naval force in the Mediterranean.
There are so many other stories like this that I could go on for hours. The principle is always the same and the dynamic is the process of technological development, which at its fastest is and always has been driven by warfare. The unavoidable fact that it is impossible to stand still or diminish the effectiveness of a nationโs armed forces without making that nation a sitting duck for a more ambitious nationโs greed.
Yes, of course arms reduction treaties can and do exist, and theyโve been a mechanism for trying to inhibit the recklessness of unrestrained militarisation by encouraging mutual compliance in stepping back. They can and do work โ up to a point. But there has never been a situation where everyone is prepared to play ball at the same time.
In the world of realpolitik there is simply no conceivable possibility of any serious nation unilaterally trying to cripple its capacity either to manufacture the raw materials or the hardware with which to defend itself, and expecting to survive. Extraordinarily though, that is quite literally what seems to be happening in Britain today.
There is no future for Net Zero in warfare, the armed forces or manufacturing. We cannot defend ourselves with electric tanks made of papier-machรฉ steel, to use them as a metaphor for any other aspect of military technology.
We canโt have a situation in which during a war our factories are at the mercy of windpower generated by turbines in the middle of a sea beyond us to defend in a meaningful way or canโt function at full bore simply because itโs a cloudy day. Nor can we depend on an energy source that isnโt up to the job, however much of it we have, just as in the same way the Bronze Age fizzled out in the face of iron.
It might be better for all of us if we were all susceptible to such limiting factors, but the world doesnโt work like that. The โenemyโ, whomever that turns out to be and whenever that is, will kit itself out with whatever will make it most likely that it wins and seizes what it wants, whether that is territory or resources or just power. And if that means the enemy goes to war with faster, more reliable and more powerful equipment then thatโs exactly what its troops will have to hand.
Look at how the Germans spent years preparing themselves for 1939. That they ended up losing isnโt the point. In 1939-40 they were streets ahead of other European countries, which is why their advance was terrifyingly fast. They lost in 1945 because by then the Allies (which means the U.S.) had poured unlimited resources into record-breaking technological development and manufacturing capability on an unprecedented scale. The Germans probably had some of the best equipment, but they couldnโt produce it in sufficient quantities, despite resorting to synthetic oil. And thatโs just as important as the equipment itself. The Tiger tank might have been as good as ten Shermans, but the Allies had eleven Shermans.
It may be an unpalatable aspect of human society, but if thereโs anything that history tells you, it is what people are like. And in a world of nation states, you must be in a position to defend yourself. I hope beyond anything else there isnโt going to be a war, but one of the best ways of making sure there is one is to make yourself look like a pushover.
Cyber assaults are all too likely in the future. Thatโs a whole other story too, but it wonโt change the fact that if we ever need to pull ourselves together and fight back then weโll have to kiss Net Zero goodbye on the spot. The only question now is whether itโs already too late.
Hereโs hoping we donโt have to find out the hard way.
You must be logged in to post a comment.