By Christopher Monckton of Brenchley
Just in time for the latest United Nations Private Jet Conference at a luxury resort in Egypt, the pause is extended again. It is now 8 years 1 month, calculated as the longest period of least squares linear regression trend up to the most recent month available for the UAH global mean surface temperature anomaly:
The trend across the entire dataset for 527 months from December 1978 to October 2022 is 0.59 C°, which equates to a modest and beneficial 1.34 C°/century:
If global warming continues at 0.134 C°/decade for 77 years through the beginning of the next century, there will be only 1 more C° of global warming this century. Is it a crisis, emergency, disaster, cataclysm or apocalypse? No, that’s a good thing.
So why does the global pandemic continue to cause panic about the warmer weather we enjoy? For example, in the UK this summer we had a suitable heatwave for a few days. Where is the net harm in that?
The rationale for hand wringing and bed wetting is that policy continues to be made based on computer predictions that have long been shown to be overstated by mere facts. For example, in 1990, the IPCC predicted that the current rate of warming should not be 0.134 but 0.338 C°/decade:
At the same time, the IPCC predicts that the mid-range equilibrium sensitivity for CO is twice2 would be 3°C. Corrected for the 0.134/0.338 actual/predicted ratio, the long-standing bias should have been reduced to 1.2 C°. But that is below the lower limit of 2 C° which is already harmless in IPCC (2021), and even below the lower limit of 1.5 C° in IPCC (1990).
If global classe policy is not infinite, someone will ask the IPCC how does it justify increasing the lower limit of the prediction by one-third even though the observed warming has been shown to be only 40% of the forecast. initial mid-range guess.
There are some who argue that the IPCC (1990) greatly exaggerates the trajectory of normal business emissions compared to then observed reality. So, why hasn’t IPCC revised its business-as-usual trajectory to match observations, and why hasn’t IPCC therefore downplayed its medium-term warming forecasts?
But let’s pretend that all the snorting and honking, groaning and groaning, swaying and rocking in Sharm-al-Shaikh will lead to anything other than the constant bust of Western economies because of the inability of energy to push our flagship businesses into the willing arms of Communist China.
Let’s pretend that the world will continue to ignore the observed fact that global warming is and will continue to be small, slow, harmless and beneficial, and that all All countries will together achieve net zero emissions by 2050 (UK government economic suicide policy and death).
Of course, that’s not going to happen, because 70% of new emissions these days are in countries that are completely exempt from any obligation, legal, moral, religious or otherwise, to remove their emission sins:
But let us once again ignore mere reality, like the private jets of Sharm al-Shaikh would do, and pretend that by 2050 the whole world will be on its knees, yearning for forgiveness. Gaia for its emissions sins, and completely abandoned the use of coal, oil, and gas for static and electric generation.
In that case, an astonishing fact must be – but so far not taken into account – taken into account. We have a lot of iron and steel, because there is a lot about it. And when we build good, solid coal-fired power plants or gasoline-powered cars, they’ll keep running for half a century. When I was a boy, I used to roam the countryside on a Triton motorcycle when I was only 20 years old. There are hundreds of mirrors still on the streets 70 years after they were built, even though they were quickly ridden by thugs and thugs like me. They endure.
However, in the Brave New World of Net Emissions, iron and steel will play a much smaller role. Instead, we will depend on what metallurgists know as engineering metals, which are rarer, more expensive, much more expensive, less recycling needed to make windmills on earth. onshore and offshore, solar panels, electric trolleys and their batteries, and, above all, stationary batteries to provide backup power at sunset when the wind is down.
Quietly, for several years, a leading geometric metallurgist at a national geological survey somewhere in the West has been studying how much each engineering metal needs to achieve emission levels. net zero.
I must not say who he or she is, for the blanket of darkness is falling, and those who are quietly doing serious work questioning the official story on the climate question will be persecuted. beyond endurance if they raise their heads above the railing. Indeed, a leading conference on climate change from a skeptical angle has just written to me that its next session will be held in secret as the Government in question will likely ban it.
The geometric metallurgist came up with a 1000-page paper proposal, with detailed calculations, just how many engineering megatonnes of metal needed to reach net zero. Based on those calculations, I looked up the prices of just the seven techno-metals mentioned – lithium, copper, nickel, cobalt, vanadium, graphite and germanium:
Just to get to net zero generation of energy infrastructure in the first 10 years, we would need almost a billion tons of lithium which, at today’s prices, would cost nearly $60 trillion. But one billion tons is more than 9,000 times the total global production of lithium carbonate and lithium hydroxide in 2019. Known reserves are only a tiny fraction of the billion tons we need every ten years.
Indeed, according to the Global Warming Policy Fund, if Britain abandons real cars and continues with the current government’s heroic stupid policy of replacing all new cars with electric trolleys by 2030, about three-quarters of the existing annual lithium production would be needed. The rest of the world will have to go without.
China is responsible for about 95% of lithium mining and production. Beijing supported the Taliban by ordering Biden to withdraw all troops from Afghanistan. He willingly agreed not to even retain the fortified defensive positions at the Kabul and Baghram air bases, although the cost of such concentrations would be very low and the Taliban, with their support. Chinese secret, had previously tried but failed to capture Baghram.
In exchange for Beijing’s assistance in making Western troops withdraw so simply and so quickly that $85 billion in valuable military supplies were left behind as a gift to the Army/Navy League. People’s Liberation Army, China has been rewarded with control of the huge lithium mines in Afghanistan, by far the largest in the world.
China is also quietly buying lithium mines and processing plants around the world. When I pointed this out recently during a dinner covered by an American news channel at the Savoy Hotel in London, a spirited commentator present said Britain would be fine because we had large amounts of lithium in Cornwall. “Yes,” I replied, “and China owns 75% of my shares.” The bloviator has no comments.
Recently, this time at the Dorchester, another busy London hotel, I met someone who gave strategic advice to the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change. He must also be anonymous to protect him from Rufmord – Goebbels’ word for intentional assassination of reputation – aimed at all of us who have recognized that climate Communism is a clear and present danger to the West .
He told me that he had recently negotiated an agreement on behalf of China to gain permanent control of all minerals, including large rare earth deposits, in a certain African country. for just $300 million. The ruler quickly spent money on three private jets. China wants us to call such bilateral agreements “belt and road initiatives”. However, within the Communist Party, this is called “wolf warrior diplomacy”. We call it debt trap diplomacy.
In southwestern Greenland, where large lithium deposits have been discovered, the Chinese have a placeholder stake. But if Greenland fails to repay even one loan to China on time, the entire deposit will become the exclusive property of China in perpetuity.
And that’s just lithium. Much more can be said about it. However, after being repeatedly imported by people like me, Western intelligence agencies have finally begun to recognize the strategic threat posed not by net zero emissions but by policies madness, aimed solely against the West, was supposed to be in theory. to solve it. Thus, the Five Eyes – the top five of the West – have now joined forces long and late to try to find new deposits beyond China’s influence or reach. Australia and Arizona have both proved helpful here.
The other six listed metals are also in short supply of total supply to allow global or even regional net zero. China knows this well, which is why Beijing announced a month or two ago that it would build 43 new, large-scale coal-fired power plants. And China is the country praised in the sky by the Communists, who control the conferences of the parties, for the supposedly netless commitment. It is indeed committed to net zero, but only in the obnoxious West.
As anyone who knows anything about finance will understand, the formerly free energy market has now been replaced by a regulated market, resulting in a sudden sign of net zero, even limited (as currently) only to Western countries, will cause the prices of all metals, including the seven listed above, to increase significantly. For the law of supply and demand is irrevocable.
In short, as we tilt our economy in the name of Saving The Planet, Russia’s commodity economy will generate an even greater fortune from the inevitable and dangerous increase in spending. the cost of engineering metals needed for new energy infrastructure compared to the Kremlin has profited from an increase that its economic advisers know is the result of a special military massacre theirs in Ukraine.
China will also gain an even greater fortune from the upcoming rampant rise in the prices of lithium and other tech metals, over which Beijing controls significantly more than it has made from the transfer. the heavy industries of the West to the East when they are forced to close down here by the rising cost of electricity whose sole cause is the pursuit of strategic nonsense, climate nonsense and economically pointless for net zero emissions.
Weak, insignificant figures such as Sunak, Biden, Trudeau, Scholz, Macron, Ardern and Albanese, who stand in the corridors helplessly, are transferring the economic and political hegemony of the world from the hands of democracy. in the West to dictators in the East: from freedom to tyranny, from constitutionalism to communism.
In general, it can be said of the West what the Spanish-American philosopher George Santayana had to say about England: “The world has never had sweeter masters”. When the now-failed West, deceived by climate communism, is finally laid to rest, the world won’t be a happier place for us to go through.
Related
