The new pause grows by a month to 7 years and 7 months – Increased by that?

By Christopher Monckton of Brenchley

Amidst all the fabricated panic about a “climate emergency” caused by global warming, one truth will be found nowhere else but here. As the totalitarians tighten their grip on all news media and the internet, any facts inconvenient enough to oppose the ruthlessly enforced Party Line will be rejected. extinguish. Here, however, you will find the still, small voice of calm. This is the truth. There was no global warming – not at all – for 7 years and 7 months. During that time, however, a significant portion of humanity’s influence on the climate by energy-rich industries and businesses has occurred, without a rapid response from the global average surface temperature. .

The revisionists, of course, maintain that the Long Pause is exactly what one would expect even with a potential warming trend. But they could only get around that by saying that each Pause begins with the warming of the Southern El Niño Oscillation prominent in the eastern tropical Pacific, such as occurring in 2016 and to a slightly lesser extent, in 2020.

It is, however, an admission that, at least on a decadent scale, natural variability in climate is sufficient to mask long-term trends. But it can only do that because the long-term warming trend is very small. Here it is: just over half a degree Celsius per century:

“Aha!” They say, “But just look at the evolution of the trend from 1976 on.” Yes, yes, but CO was₂ concentration spike in the 1970s compared to previous decades? No: it continues to increase at the same rate as before. It was another natural event – this time the Great Pacific Shift of 1976 – that coincided with and exponentially had no small effect on the more rapid increase in temperature over the 20 years to the end. 1990s, when this trend faltered to zero for almost 19 years, only to continue before the Great El Niño of 2016, since there was no global warming at all.

As Willis Eschenbach recently pointed out in one of his columns of discriminative data analysis, it is difficult to detect any particular signal, whether natural or anthropogenic, once one is modeled. describe the signal as absolute temperature (in which case it is all warming since 1850, the average global surface temperature increased by less than 0.2%) or as a plotted trend. plot against annual variations in regional temperature (in which case the trend is barely distinguishable from noise). Willis rightly concludes that in a rational world this sort of conventional view would apply.

My favorite example of a regional temperature record is the Central England record, which in fact covers almost all of England and has been kept since 1659. It’s been that record ever since. 1945:

Certainly, the entire 1.1 C° warming trend since 1945 is not even a tenth of the annual change. As a result, global warming is proving to be a non-trivial event. It is simply not enough to justify the childish panic that has gripped science illiterate politicians, people, people, people that all of us who dare to question our way The Communist Party’s climate has suffered, has failed. to ask the right questions can immediately expose the scam because of that nonsense: huge profits for Messrs. Putin and Xi, influencers embraced the environmental movement a few decades ago, and cost the rest of us immensely as well.

Now, one cannot expect anyone as cognitively challenging or temperamental as Mr Biden, or anyone as scientifically challenging or temperamental as Mr Johnson, to understand. What is the case where the Communist climate is scientifically meaningless. However, the White House has an army of advisers, and so does 10 Downing Street these days. When I was a policy won there during the Golden Age of Thatcher and Reagan and Pope John Paul II, there were only six of us in the Prime Minister’s policy unit. Now there are 43. Surely at least one of these efficient drones can do a basic macroeconomic analysis. Surely one of them can count how many peas make up five. Suggest: The answer is five.

Margaret Thatcher is very responsive (but she is the exception). One method I used when explaining to the more seasoned (for him the rule) type of Minister what his proposed cucumber-to-moon policy would cost is to say how much an average family of four will have to pay for it.

So let’s keep our noses and pretend that global warming is actually going to happen at an officially predicted average rate of 3 C° per century or per CO₂ double (two is the same). Of course it won’t be that much, but let’s make this funny.

The current estimate of IPeCaC is that every 4 units of radiant force will cause 3 degrees of final or equilibrium global warming. So, each reduced unit reduces by 3/4 of the level of warming that would otherwise occur. Over the past three decades, among us, we’ve all added a total of 1 unit of force, less or more in a straight line at a rate of one-thirtieth of a unit per year.

Over the next 30 years, we should add another unit to business as usual. Therefore, if the whole world were to reduce net emissions to zero by 2050, we should reduce that by about half that unit, and thus three-eighths of warming. With me so far, Minister? Here are some beautiful counter samples for you to follow. If you notice, the Private Secretary will bring you some delicious chocolate with your milk at teatime.

Trouble is, the whole world won’t go to real zero by 2050. For the most prominent feature common to so many international treaties and agreements, treaties and agreements and protocols on global warming. is that each one of them is guided only in the West, with the flimsy excuse that our past emissions sins constitute a “historic climate debt”. Everyone else is exempt.

No, Minister, I will not go into the strategic reasons why Western economies are seen as the sole target of climate treaties: you should be reading intelligence reports every day. and attend weekly briefings, but, like Mr. Johnson and Brother Biden, he doesn’t mind.

Let’s play the “Let’s Pretend” game, Minister. Let’s assume that the West accounts for a third of all emissions, and that the West will actually reach net zero by 2050. No, of course not and won’t, Minister, but let’s pretend.

In that case, warming eased by 2050, compared with what would happen in business as usual, would be only one-eighth of a degree. Yes, Minister, that’s right! One-eighth degree is one-third of three-eighth degree. Are fractions not interesting?

Now, Minister, let’s take England as an example of how much all of this will cost. The UK emits about 1% of the world’s emissions each year. So our contribution to the West’s reduction in global warming would be 1% of three-eighths of a degree, or less than 1/250 of a degree. No, not very much, Minister.

After correcting the fundamental physics of climatology (they forgot the Sun was shining, Minister, and together they added the feedback feedback from the warming of the Sun and from the warming of greenhouse gases and to blame for both on greenhouse gases alone), the reduction in global warming by UK net zero emissions would be no more than one thousandth of a degree.

How much will we have to pay? That’s the right question, Minister. The Government’s Climate Change Commission says £1 trillion (if you believe it’s just that much, you would believe anything, as the Duke of Wellington once said). The National Grid Corporation said £3 trillion. McKinsey, a leading consulting firm, said £4 trillion, with a deeply conservative estimate.

Let’s go with McKinsey’s number. In that case, apply UK mitigation costs globally, reducing the warming to 3 degrees that the IPCC predicts will occur in 21^st century would cost three times 1000 times 4 trillion pounds. That’s 12 million pounds, Minister.

Global annual GDP is £85 trillion, or £8.5 trillion over a century. Of course, if it weren’t for the economic devastation caused by a global zero-emissions policy, GDP would likely increase over the century. For now, however, the entire global GDP, and then some, will have to be spent on reducing emissions. So no one will be able to eat or do anything else. That’s how silly all this non-network nonsense is.

There are 8 billion people in the world, or about 2 billion families of four. So the cost of mitigating global warming this century will total $6 million, or £60,000 per year, for a family of four. In dollars, that’s $75,000 per year per household, well ahead of the global median annual household income.

Of course, none of that spending is necessary because, after correcting the silly physics of climatology, there won’t be enough global warming to do any harm. It will bring net benefits.

So why are we doing any work to reduce this global warming? That’s also a good question, Minister. It will be worth your while to attend intelligence briefings from now on. Then you will find the answer. Okay, I’ll give you a clue: where do you think Mr. Putin got enough billions over decades to rebuild the Soviet armed forces now bogged down in Ukraine in pursuit of a special military massacre. his distinction?

That’s right, Minister: selling gas in Siberia in ever larger quantities and at ever higher prices to the countries that Putin’s influencers persuaded to shut down competition. competition from coal-fired power plants that used to produce electricity for no more than a quarter of the cost of gas. Do you really think Greenpeace and Extinction Rebellion are real environmental groups? Don’t be silly, Minister.

And why do you think Mr. Xi spends so much time and effort buying and controlling almost the entire global production of lithium carbonate for electric trolleys?

Now you’ve got it, Minister. The two most brutal Communist regimes in the world profited from the wretched, willful ignorance of Western governments about primary science and economics, and from the fear of the Ministers. Mr. Xi and Mr. Putin laughed all the way to the Moscow Narodny Bank.

Should we stop them by removing all the climate emergency nonsense they so seductively sell, and by eliminating net zero emissions policies in both sides of the Atlantic?

Yes, Mr. Minister.