Climate Assembly–Survey
By Paul Homewood
https://www.smartsurvey.co.uk/s/A464RU/
The government has organised a survey of the recommendations of the Climate Assembly. It only takes a minute to fill in, so I would suggest we have a go.
Unfortunately it does not allow us to go into all of the inanities of climate policy, and only asks three questions about:
- Meat eating
- Make do and Mend
- Local involvement
The answers range from Strongly Agree to Strongly Disagree, and also allow an explanation of why.
I have used the latter box to cover more general issues, such as the tiny UK contribution to global emissions, the crippling cost and damage to the economy, lack of any democratic accountability for Net Zero etc,
My guess is that very few people will actually reply to the survey, so if we can get a few hundred negative replies in, who knows!
Comments are closed.
NOT A LOT OF PEOPLE KNOW THAT 
Yes completed it this morning, why so few topics? Has the feel of ‘going through the motions’ so they can say that they asked for wider opinions.
I agree it is a sham, with Boris’s green girlfriend now our Prime Minister, we have the Green Party in charge of No.10… but we must fight to the end!
Boris’s green girlfriend = Prime Mistress?
I agree. I was surprised at how short it was.
If you try ‘strongly agree’ you get asked to list priorities. I had a look before saying I ‘strongly disagreed’. It really is abjectly terrible. I intend to look at the link to the Parliamentary Committee overseeing it and see about writing to them directly to see what a lot of tosh they will come back with.
Like broadcast discussions, a Climate Assembly would/will be as unbiased as a football team’s fervent supporters.
A sham, a deceit, a total waste oflur money, as are almost all things “Green”.
About meat eating
https://tambonthongchai.com/2020/06/19/vegandiet/
What is left out is the fact that ALL animals need plant foods. It doesn’t matter what humans or bovines eat because in the long term all of it will be recycled by the oxygen that plants provided. That’s the carbon cycle. Photosynthesis is balanced by aerobic respiration, mol-for-mol with the long term geological burial of carbon as fossil fuels and carbonate limestones the ‘control knob’. Short-Term thinking is the problem?
Except for energy inputs of course.
Growing crops that can be turned into food versus further refining to be fed to animal in order to provide food requires more energy and additional infrastructure.
Those additional steps are energy intensive versus just the original.
For Dan @ 1:58 pm
We live in cattle country. Humans don’t do well eating the “crops” on which cattle graze. The land and climate are not conducive to human food crops. A thousand feet lower in elevation, the region specializes in fruit trees, berries, grapes, potatoes, and sweet corn.
I do understand the issue you raise. But nothing is simple.
For Dan
That’s pure nonsense. Vegetable crops have very large amounts of wastage and very low energy densities. Have a look at how much wastage when corn is harvested and then how that wastage is health with. Then try comparing shipping beef with shipping make in terms of calories rather than mass. As for processing food for say cattle, in most places it involves having them in a field, perhaps with some hay for the winter. Hay does not take much energy to produce.
These claims about animals versus plants are completely bogus because people either don’t understand farming or fake because they deliberately ignore swathes of energy use and deliberately use the wrong measurements.
Veganism rots the brain. James Hansen is proof.
Lol
I was about to email about this. It’s really important that we realists complete this survey and rebut this nonsense.
Spread the word, then…
Gave them both barrels.
Ditto.
I also completed this survey. In Q3, I suggested that they should ‘consult’ with locals by explaining which ones would still have (menial) jobs.
Despite their closed minds, it’s still worth trying to counter the automatic assumption that non-response somehow means support.
Done my bit!
I just completed it, with some fairly lengthy comments. The whole thing is a sham though, to try to scrape some justification for what they want to do. They will simply ignore comments that are not ‘correct’.
Survey completed. Seems to be, as others have indicated, just an exercise in ” we have consulted” and carrying on with the same green agenda. Can no-one knock some sense into this govt ?
Done it.
Its reassuring to see so many sensible comments.
Keep up the good work.
Done. The questions summed up how fatuous and useless this virtue signalling Climate Assembly is.
I described it as equivalent to a Chinese re-education camp. Only the view of the Party is tolerated.
Have sent lengthy dissertations in response to surprisingly limited questions.
Question 2 is inconsistent. “We should buy less stuff, We should repair things and buy 2nd hand”. Well as an enthusiastic eBay participant I buy a lot stuff 2nd hand and repair/re-condition it to make it what it should be. I have many beautiful things in my house from that route. But … that is ‘buying stuff’ shurely
I did not give that question a Do not agree, I gave it a neutral, because like you I hate waste and come from a generation that always made do.
I have completed it but as many have already noted, it’s a sham.
Done it.
What a pathetic survey.
Done (for what its worth)
The survey is not worth the energy it took to create and send it out.
The Petitions team, UK Government and Parliament seem not to be aware there’s no mechanism to prevent an individual from making multiple responses.
A bot could make thousands of responses a day.
Perhaps they are aware and already have bots working on it?
Already replied:
Q1 Strongly disagree citing statistically insignificant relationship between CO2 emissions and global temperatures since the end of the little ice age in the early 19th century.
Q2 Neither agree nor disagree
Q3 Disagree citing better use for local efforts in addressing things like child abuse/poverty, homelessness, unemployment, domestic abuse etc i.e. real problems affecting real people
Sounds like you copied my homework!
I have said:
There is no evidence whatsoever of a “Climate emergency”.
There is no correlation between temperature and CO2 emissions and without correlation there can be no causation.
The attempt to achieve “Net Zero” will be futile, cripplingly expensive and politically disastrous.
CO2 is 0.04% of the atmosphere. 97% of CO2 entering the atmosphere each year is natural, 3% man made. The UK emits 1% of that 3% and whatever it achieves will be overtaken by the increase in CO2 emissions by China and India who told the Paris Convention that China would double its CO2 emissions by 2030 and India would treble theirs.
The UK electorate was not consulted on the Climate Change Act in 2008 nor has it been consulted on the Net-Zero policy. Where is the democratic accountability?
There will be a revolt by “Workington man” when he realises the consequences for him and his family of the Net Zero policy.
The whole Climate Assembly exercise is worthy only of the Soviet Union – you can ask any question you like provided it does not disagree with the party line!
*****************************************************************************
This is puerile economics and child-like in its immaturity of thought
*****************************************************************************
The big battalions and the big money are on the side of the Climate Alarmists. Greenpeace, Friends of the Earth and WWF for Nature have an estimated annual income of over $1 billion. They are the biggest NGO political lobbying organisations anywhere. Green activists have for now taken over the political process in Westminster, Whitehall and much of the mainstream media, particularly the BBC.
UK MPs and Councillors are, in general, woefully uninformed about the science and observations of climate change and it is emotion, rather than scientific evidence, that seems to determine their views
One day the reckoning will come.
Net-Zero will be a disaster.
Completed. I hope the collator (if there be any) does not take it personally. It seems that currently we are being governed by Boris’s willy, so I don’t think much will come of this, just another box ticked.
Completed this morning and in the process criticised the Government for believing in ‘decarbonisation’ and anything the witless Climate Change Committee recommended. In the promised ‘bonfire of the quangos’ the CCC should be the first to be consumed, not leading the PM by the nose. We need to see the GWPF rise to the top instead and the country will save itself a fortune and stop looking so foolish.
My usual reply…because most people still do not know the overall story of this.
The whole climate crusade, for decades now, has been based on a calculated campaign of exaggeration and fear-mongering, trading on the belief that somehow scientists’ findings represent “the truth”.
Al Gore’s 2007 “Inconvenient Truth” film was a classic piece of propaganda, and judged as such by a UK court under Justice Burton in 2007/8, when school governor, Stuart Dimmock took the Dept of Education to court in an attempt to have it banned. The judge agreed that the film, unfortunately shown all over the UK before the case came to court, broke the 1996 Education Act requirement for political education to be balanced, and he detailed 9 major points of error, including exaggeration. Later the central pivot of this theme, “the hockey stick graph”, as highlighted in Gore’s film was also discredited. It’s simple purposes were, firstly, to eliminate the Medieval Warm Period from the graph which would have shown that climate warming and cooling has taken place naturally over the millennia…i.e not dependant on the amount of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere. And secondly, to create an apparent rapidly accelerating global temperature projection by shrinking the horizontal time scale on the graph. Later again, further alleged deceptions were evidenced after emails between the authors of the research behind the hockey stick graph revealed their wish to get rid of the Medieval Warm Period. And again, later still, further emails revealed their wish to cover their tracks by destroying emails and “losing” evidence of any collusion and of the calculations used in the research..if I remember correctly.
Two public enquiries were held in the UK, but the committees were very small and, according to Andrew Montford, in his book “Hiding the Decline”, their membership was carefully chosen so that the establishment “warmest/alarmist” view was not upset….in other words, it was a careful whitewash and the matter was dropped. But later again, when Dr. Tim Ball of California University loudly proclaimed hockey co-author, Michael Mann, climatologist of Penn State University, to have rigged the hockey stick graph, as part of his collaboration with the University of East Anglia, Michael Mann sued him for libel. This was upheld at the time. But on appeal, in a Californian Court, the verdict was overturned and the judge found the Michael Mann had been “motivated to commit fraud”. Tim Ball was awarded costs.
Does this sound like totally honest science?
I can’t possibly recommend support for all the current climate hysteria, which our predominantly non-scientifically qualified governments of recent decades have latched on to. And in my own experience of writing letters to the local press, the torrent of abuse and now increasing cries to “no-platform” me, and all so-called “deniers”, only go to underline the extremist and desperate attitudes of those driving the policies such as Agenda 30 and “Green New Deal”.
Whilst no sensible person could, or wish to, deny that the climate is changing….constantly and with significant consequences for which we should indeed prepare, pinning this entirely on the production of CO2 by our civilisation is way over the top, and simply a plausible scare-mongering tool to achieve the compliance of the mass of people to knuckle under to the demands of a new world order. Conspiracy Theory?
One notable example was the dodgy surveys, of Australian John Cooke, which purportedly found that “97% of scientists believe in man made global warming”. This was de-constructed by various researchers later, and shown to be a contrived exaggeration of the very moderate conclusions of all but less than 1% of the papers, yet is still trotted out by the ill-informed as if gospel truth.
Look at the whole history of the climate movement over the latter half of the 20th Cent, and you will see the comments made by individuals such as Maurice Strong and Stephen Schneider, who called for “scary scenarios” to be generated to frighten the people and achieve their world government goals.
And isn’t this just exactly the direction everything is heading?
I refuse to support this drive towards a global tyranny.
The problem is, so many people out there haven’t got a clue what’s going on and just follow the MSM propaganda.
I am also left with the impression that the survey is a sham to publicly justify an already decided position. No viewpoint that is not in correct will be seriously considered. I put my email address in as I find it interesting as to what they will actually do. Should I add what they say they will do as sometimes there can be a dichotomy between what government says and does!
To decide on how the country should fight climate change, they appointed 108 people… not 108,000; not 10.8million… just 108 “diverse” members of the public …[quote:] “ aged 16 and above. Together they were representative of the wider UK population in terms of age, gender, ethnicity, educational level, where in the UK they live, whether they live in an urban or rural area, and how concerned they are about climate change. They met over six weekends – three face-to-face in Birmingham and then three online after the arrival of Covid-19. ”
And now they want you to fill in a survey with half a dozen questions NONE of which ask…
*do you believe there is any need to fight climate change?
*do you believe there is any point it trying to fight climate change?
*do you believe that climate change is part of a natural cycle?
*DO YOU THINK THAT THIS SURVEY IS BIASED AGAINST ANYONE WHO THINKS THAT THE PUBLIC ARE BEING BRAIN-WASHED?
You’ll notice there was no room for descent. Climate change caused by us is now a given. They don’t even bother to provide any evidence.
The whole point of the survey is to start to add legitimacy to the People’s Assembly not to get opinions. That’s probably why the survey was so short. Any survey would have been good enough to start the process. We all know the construction and indoctrination of the 108 innocents had 2 purposes. The first was to placate the XR who demanded one and the second was to act as a conduit for Government policies from “Absolute Zero”. HMG now has a false “democratic” tag on which it can hang it’s actions as the people have spoken. The survey has just reinforced it further. What a pathetic country this has turned in to.
That these people were subjected to an exclusive diet of propaganda even from the likes of XR with no mitigation from say a Bjorn Lomborg merely shows how effective the brainwashing camp was. Did they take lessons from Chinese reindoctrination camps in setting it up?
No Point…….Don’t confuse them with the facts, mind is already made up. Confirmed by today’s news to ban petrol/Diesel car sales from 2030. However I will make a concerted effort to respond tonight after a few whisky tots. We are up against Ms Flowry Flocks (express) aka Princess Nut Nuts(daily mail), you know you couldn’t make this up. It all depends which way Boris’s willy is pointing.(Peter Barrett thankyou for your astute observation). Gove must be sharpening his knife this morning.
Completed first thing this morning.
I went down the route of picking two subjects for the free text part.
1. I cited the NASA satellite study which revealed the planet has greened by 14% over 35 years thanks directly to increased atmospheric CO2, making sure to mention that this represents two continents the size of mainland USA, and;
2. The William Happer study from earlier this year which demonstrates that atmospheric CO2 and water vapour are ‘saturated’ so even if there was a doubling of CO2, it will have little, if any effect on global temperatures.
No doubt we will hear nothing.
Meat eating also featured on Face Book today based on the concept of cancer. I went to Cancer UK, did some reading and they present a very reasonable case that in order of priority the risks are from Processed Meat presenting the greatest threat, then Red Meat being notably less risk, with Chicken and Fish Zero risk.But all qualified on how much you eat and how regularly.
But compared to, say, smoking, the risks are negligible, assuming one isn’t having three full English a day.
Interesting read.
https://scienceblog.cancerresearchuk.org/2015/10/26/processed-meat-and-cancer-what-you-need-to-know/
Here are the questions
1. The Climate Assembly UK report says we should encourage people to reduce the amount of meat and dairy products that we eat, as these types of food create a lot of greenhouse gas emissions. Do agree with this idea?
If you do not select anything you get this leading question the same as if you selected Strongly Agree
L1: What are your top three ideas for how to encourage people to change their diets?
If you disagree
D1: What are your reasons for disagreeing with this recommendation?
2. The report says that we need to buy less stuff. This could mean repairing things (i.e. fixing things when they break), sharing things (i.e. renting or sharing items we don’t use very often), and reusing things (e.g. second hand goods). Do you agree with this idea?
If you do not select anything you get this leading question.
L2: What are your top three ideas for how to encourage people to repair, share and/or reuse things more often?
If you disagree
D2:What are your reasons for disagreeing with this recommendation?
3.The report says that there should be more engagement of people in their local areas to inform how those areas tackle climate change. Do you think this is a good idea?
If you do not select anything you get this leading question.
L3:What are your top three ideas for how to engage people in your local area about how they can help tackle climate change?
If you disagree
D3: . What are your reasons for disagreeing with this recommendation?
Any finally (optional)
<b<4Please leave your email address in the box below if you would like to receive updates and information about how this survey is used.
there was another longer survey like this on climate, in the last year, maybe even for the climate assembly. I started to fill it out truthfully as a 72 year old widower from Newcastle with a degree. It came back with a message implying “Already have enough responses, dont need yours”.
So I went back as a Black lesbian living in Kent on benefits, it was suspicious (due to google geolocation probably saying Newcastle) and asked for name of my constituency and name of my MP, any way I got in, so I answered as a green looney and at the end was asked if I would like to become a permanent member of the review board. Totally biassed to engineer the results they wanted, starting by careful selection of questions asked.
“What are your top three ideas for how to encourage people to repair, share and/or reuse things more often?”
Odd that the climate bletheren always seem to have the most up to date iPhone ! 😉
“My guess is that very few people will actually reply to the survey, so if we can get a few hundred negative replies in, who knows!”
Usually these things are spread far and wide through the alarmist/activist network, just like the surveys on more covid street closures and bicycle lanes. Extremists are far more organised, the silent majority won’t get organised until they see the results of all this insanity, and then it’s too late. Unlike inappropriate cycle lanes, national infrastructure, economic, and political decisions are not so easily reversed when the majority opinion becomes evident.
Brighton council said all voices were welcome in response to London and other far away cycling activist groups targeting and seriously biasing its local cycle lane ‘approval’ survey.
Done but seriously doubt it will have the slightest impact. Definitely a sham.
Being realistic Western democracies are now headed into a very dark place indeed.
Done.
They won’t ask me to do another survey !!!!! Both barrels.
Seriously though is this the best they can come up with after all that effort – 3 pathetic questions. It would be a complete joke if it wasn’t being done at the taxpayers expense.
It is a totally worthless survey because you can fill it in as many times as you like. I have currently done it twice. You only need to fill in the email box if you want any follow up. Amateurs.
yES. Ive just done it TWICE! Seems we can all do it 10 times – why not? Lets fill it up with dissenting answers. Afterall, its what democrats do in presidential elections – vote 10 times.
And given the Assembly was rigged with alarmists I feel its fair to equally rig this stupid survey.
Thank you for organising that. I think they’ll find me as disagreeable as other posters here.
Here’s a link to what’s being proposed:
https://www.climateassembly.uk/report/
This was what I wrote in the survey: The idea that humans are causing changes to the climate is nonsense for the following reasons:
1) How did life evolve billions of years ago when CO2 levels were 20,000ppm as opposed to 420ppm now?
2) The figure of an increase from 300 molecules per million to 420 is cited as catastrophic, an increase from 3 to 4.2 molecules per 10,000 doesn’t seem so bad but it is exactly the same ratio. Take 10 litres of tepid water add 3cc’s of warm water measure the temperature and add 1.2cc’s more warm water, Catastrophic warming? No!
3) The effect of CO2 on atmospheric temperature is logarithmic, any CO2 molecule that is in the same trajectory in the atmosphere, but at a lower altitude is irrelevant, since this interaction can only happen once. Compounding this is that there are only a small number (three) photonic wavelengths that can be absorbed by CO2 molecules. Those that are affected release an infra-red photon almost immediately of a lesser wavelength causing cooling.
4) During international lockdown in the Spring/Summer the CO2 measurements at Mauna Loa showed no sign of a slowdown of the rate of CO2 addition to the atmosphere whatsoever. The slope of the graph, beloved by alarmists remained unchanged, why? Because anthropogenic CO2 is minute compared to natural production.
5) What is more likely; we left a 1.5 million year ice age 12,000 years ago and the climate is therefore still warming or a trace gas is responsible?
We have a Conservative government which has sadly fallen for this leftist scam and is prepared to decimate our economy based upon a lie, that has been told for over 30 years with no significant evidence of its occurrence!
I agree that we cannot continue to use finite resources of energy, however until the Holy Grail of fusion power becomes a reality or the actuality of fission, ideally with Thorium is fully utilised, we must continue to do so!
Finally I question the efficacy of bird slicing wind turbines with their foundations requiring 1000’s of tons of concrete and specially strengthened roads whose sole purpose is for construction and maintenance of them. Cutting down mature trees in the USA, with their replacements that take 35 years to reach the same CO2 removing capabilities as their predecessors, doesn’t make any sense whatsoever. When you factor in that the felled trees are dried in kilns, pulverised, reconstituted into pellets and shipped 4,500 miles to fuel power stations sited on UK, coal fields, it makes even less sense! The fact that 7.5 million tons of them reach our shores every year makes me think that this policy was formulated in an asylum!
The Chinese Government clearly don’t believe that CO2 causes the climate to warm if they did they wouldn’t have 50+ enormous coal-fired power stations planned or under construction.
The UK government need to listen to scientists whose living and politics do not depend upon the biggest and most expensive scam ever inflicted upon humankind. If these policies are not changed all the improvements in life expectancy, morbidity and mortality rates and a continuing increase in living standards that we currently enjoy and benefit from, will decline very rapidly and terminally!
Done
Had to do it twice as tried to add more when only 5 useless questions..a waste of everyones time when the Gov will just steam roller it all thru Parliment (no comment there or will end up in the tower)
Paul:
I have been following you for a couple of years and appreciate your frankness and candor exposing the Climate Change Craziness for what it is. I have responded to the survey. Keep up the good work.
Sent in my response, but this is probably just a box ticking exercise and our considered comments will be deposited in the recycling bin
Question 3 asks if I thought there should be more engagement with people about how to tackle climate change. I disagreed and, when asked why, wrote this:
“Because the priority should be to engage with people about the global realities of emission reduction. The problem is that the countries where scientists, the media, academia and leading politicians are concerned about the impact of greenhouse gas emissions on the climate are essentially all in Western Europe, North America and Australasia. That explains why, whereas since 2000 the West has reduced its emissions from 11 billion tonnes p.a. to 9 billion today, the rest of the world has increased its from 15 billion tonnes to 29 billion today: https://edgar.jrc.ec.europa.eu/overview.php?v=booklet2020. Unfortunately the leaders of most non-Western countries are either unconcerned have no interest in tackling climate change or don’t regard the issue as a priority, focusing instead for example on economic growth and poverty eradication. Yet these countries, comprising 84 percent of humanity and all its poorest people, are today the source of 75 percent of emissions.
“Climate scientists say that, if humanity is to avoid potential catastrophe, global emissions must be cut urgently and substantially – i.e. the position of non-Western countries must be completely reversed, starting now. But there’s no sign of that happening. Therefore it’s pointless for the UK (the source of less than 1% of global emissions) or indeed the West (25% of emissions) to ‘tackle climate change’ by embarking on a hugely expensive attempt to get to net zero.“
I replied go and talk to China and India.
Have responded, thank you for linking to this. I suspect they will just heed responses toeing their party line but have pointed out livestock farming with smaller fields and many hedges is better for wildlife than prairie-like arable fields, and for Q3 that if CO2 was the menace portrayed how could there have been ice ages when CO2 levels were 10 – 20 times those of today?
I have also received the survey and am pondering how to answer it. Being asked daft questions that flow from stupid decisions already taken is never going to be satisfactory.
I suspect that if I cram each answer box with criticism of their parliamentary decisions and the science concerned, it will make me feel better but my arguments will not see the light of day.
From Yes Minister:
MINISTER: Humphrey, get me the statistics on housing!
HUMPHREY: Certainly Minister, what is it you wish to prove?
Thanks for all these thoughts. I too will respond in a similar vein.
Completed, not that I think my comments will have any influence.Why have we got so many useless people as our leaders?
FWIW: I also left a few, I hope, pithy comments:
“The ‘Climate Assembly’ is NOT representative of the people of this country. I doubt there is one sceptic (they would likely be called a denier) in the Assembly. It is nothing more than a glorified protest group and has no standing.
Neither does the so-called ‘report’, which was probably written by Greenpeace and XR. Climate zealots do not want to have ‘more engagement of people in their local areas to inform how those areas tackle climate change’: These people are generally, like XR, the types of people who want the country to become a Marxist state, governed by diktat. The only ‘informing’ they want is of that brought to a fine art by the Stasi in East Germany.
Climate change is no more man made nor controllable by man as it is possible to make waterfalls flow up hill. There is no, repeat NO, empirical evidence that CO2 (not Carbon) affects the weather or the temperature of the globe. It is, however, well-known from the Vostok ice cores that temperature drives global CO2 rather than the other way round.
The laws of nature were not abrogated, nor rewritten by Al Gore or Michael Mann. They were just useful idiots – extremely well rewarded – and have been proven to be false in much of their propaganda. But the ‘establishment’, led by the BBC, are determined that this country be left as prey for an expansionist China which we will have no means of resisting when we have given up our reliable power and internal combustion engines.”
I notice Borisconi now wants to criminalise the sale of new petrol & diesel cars from 2030.
More policies from Carrie, I think.
Along with Smarmerconi and Potato Ed no doubt!
Done. what joke issues to “consult on” when we’ve never been consulted on the major issues. Crazy.
Miket: I suspect there is a reason for the ‘consultation’. I am sure that students of Alinsky can fathom the strategy here. In my gut I know that this petition and it’s pathetic questions is not the real point of the exercise. But be sure, that if and when the question ever comes up in future about whether the people were asked about the way forward, the extremist will point to this – long forgotten yet verifiable – ‘survey’ and say, yes, the people were consulted and they came up with this (our) conclusion.
It’s a very old tactic.
I saw on WUWT a comment that went something like this..
Cows cannot take in anymore “carbon” than they put out.
It is chemistry and scientific impossibility
That means that COWS ARE CARBON NEUTRAL
BEAUTIFUL
Conservation of mass. What a concept!
I wonder if it will catch on? //sarc//
The trouble is that politicians are now in love with totalitarian power. They have been conducting an experiment in how to apply it, and will not relinquish the chance no offered easily. This is especially so for the powers behind their thrones. Carrie dice ¡No hay carros!
Done that
well i did comment….here is my comment on Q3
There is little that you can do at a local level to make a significant impact on the alleged problem of greenhouse gases. It can only be achieved at a National level. However there is no need for any action whatsoever as it is all fabrication by interested parties out to make loads of money from promulgating the lies put about by the climate change money machine. Incidentally I watched the first day of the climate assembly presentations and they were so biassed to convince the attendees that action was urgently needed that I could not watch anymore. Taking advice from 108 people of unknown intellect and personal affiliations is a recipe for disaster. What a hopeless waste of time and money.
I commented too, then saw your Post. Here’s a little of my response…
Meat eating.
As a scientist and engineer, having studied climate science in detail for the last 10 years, I understand the arguments for and against the case for anthropogenic (man-made) global warming.
The main premise is that increases in man-made CO2, (and to a very much smaller degree other greenhouse gases such as methane), has caused and will continue to cause an increase in global temperature. Despite what scientist say (who are invested in this perspective), this hypothesis hasn’t yet been proven.
The UN IPCC has (deliberately) set the wrong Question. Instead of asking ‘to what extent does man made CO2 result in global warming?’, they are asking – ‘how can we demonstrate that it does’. The result is that all research funding is naturally skewered towards demonstrating how global warming is caused by man-made CO2, and what impact ‘climate change’ is having around the world.
They usually do this by using Models linked to UN IPCC Scenario’s, based on data inputs that have demonstrably failed to follow current global temperature trends – they are all ‘running hot’. The research scientists also demonstrate the UN Premise, by showing the impact of ‘climate change’ around the world – including the use, as evidence, of: serious weather and natural events (supposedly increasing), global ice loss, unlikely projections of sea level increase, instances of animal, plant and coral death, all of which, when considered in detail, turn out to be naturally occurring trends, or the result of the (understandable) environmental impact of man living on the planet (which has nothing to do with ‘climate change’ – the two issues have become conflated, and for which the remedy is not the reduction in meat eating).
Whilst CO2 is only a minor greenhouse gas compared to water vapour (H20 constitutes up to 95% of all greenhouse, depending on the latitude), it does indeed act as a greenhouse gas – but on an exponentially diminishing scale. We should in fact be thankful that it has greenhouse gas properties, as the Earth would be an ice ball without it. But most of the effect of CO2 in the atmosphere as a greenhouse gas results from the existence of CO2 as a trace atmospheric gas below a value of around 200 parts per million (ppm). As quantities increase in the atmosphere – and we’re now at around 415 ppm, the effect of CO2 on global warming reduces – and reduces significantly. The curve reduces to a relatively flat impact as ppm proportions increase.
We should also be thankful that quantities are increasing – the phenomenon of Global Greening is having a significant beneficial impact on the Global environment – plants starve and die below around 210ppm, and ironically the world’s CO2 levels were in danger of slipping in that direction before the industrial revolution, (they were at around 380ppm at the time). World crop yeilds have shown significant increase recently, in part due to the additional plant food (CO2) in the atmosphere (better farming techniques have also helped), but the growth rate of plants is significantly improved with increased CO2 levels – hence why plant growers push CO2 into their greenhouses – up to 1200ppm to facilitate growth.
It is also worth noting that most plants evolved in prehistory during periods of higher CO2 levels – 1200ppm+, they are adapted to higher levels, and are actually starving in current lower levels. Prehistory was also cooler (and sometimes warmer) in conditions of higher CO2 levels – there is no significant causal link between CO2 levels and global temperature.
So the proposition that ‘reduced meat eating’ will help alleviate ‘climate change’ fails at the first hurdle, since there is no causal link between global temperature and the increased CO2 production because of the use of fossil fuels and fertilizer production in farming.
If ‘reduced meat eating’ is supposedly linked to the fear of additional Methane produced – this is also a non-sequitur. Methane is a stronger greenhouse gas, but it is even more insignificant in atmospheric quantities (2 ppm), it soon breaks up into CO2 and water, and the amount of CH4 produced by man-controlled livestock (compared to the global quantity of animals) is insignificant (aside from all the other sources of CH4 such as natural bacteria).
‘Reduction of meat eating’ appears merely to be vegan virtue signalling at best – and most people know it.
It actually discriminates against those whose diet relies almost solely on meat – many people are discovering the benefits of high animal protein diet – due in part to allergic reaction to highly processed modern carbohydrate foods. It is not without reason that Mankind is an omnivore, let us keep it that way..
Q2 Resource use.
There is no doubt that current global society is Resource-use heavy, and this does impact on the Environment.
But it has nothing to do with Anthropogenic Global Warming or ‘Climate Change’.
In fact the former environmental problem is used as a means for seeking to reduce the use of fossil fuels – using either the (non-existent) danger of CO2 on global temperature (see previous response) or the oft quoted claim that we are going to run out – ‘Peak Oil’, (we’re not – any time soon).
The question is the extent to which anything significant needs to be done about it.
‘Globalists’ and ‘Global Warming Alarmists’ want to legislate and regulate the problem using the imposition of laws, rules and regulations, via Big Government.
The answer in reality is to maintain a relatively light touch – address concerns where they arise and remain vigilant for egregious abuse.
There is very good evidence that as western societies develop, the quantity of raw materials that they use reduces significantly. Innovators in a Capitalist system, naturally find more efficient ways of doing things – without being told to. The opposite is true in over regulated socialist systems.
There is already a degree of repairing, sharing and reusing, and that is increasing – so by all means encourage and incentivise, but we need to be creative and knowledgeable in the ways that that is done, rather than draconian and regulatory. As an example – electric cars, solar panels and wind generators are significantly resource intensive and negatively environmentally impactful, if you consider their cradle to grave lifespan, compared to fossil fuel cars etc – because of the raw material mining needed for manufacture (such as lithium and cobalt for batteries), and the end of life impact of their waste disposal.
1. Incentivise the process of sales facilities offering repaired items.
2. Increase length of warranty time on new items.
3. Apply a sliding tax scale for sales of manufactured items – cradle to grave impact.
[Q3 – answer identified local groups with whom to engage, the need to question the endemic bias throughout UK organisations, and reduce charity status/funding where clear bias exists.]
I am not a UK-citizen, but still, I fill it out. For what it is worth.
Not a UK citizen, but went through it.
Didn’t submit it, because I don’t want those nuts to have my email.
Don’t worry, they have your e-mail already… + a host of other things.
LOL – Yeah, no doubt.
I didn’t leave my email and it seemed to accept my input.
In a few mths time the headlines will be “In a recent government survey 97% said we need draconian measures to fight ‘the climate crises’ : so here is the first list of restrictions”
Thanks for letting us know of this latest wheeze of the politburo to shove through their insane policies.
Here’s my attempt at a response:-
Existence of climate change is not proved.
Reasoned rebuttals to news item claiming that damaging weather events are due to climate change can be easily found on any number of internet websites from well qualified scientists denied a voice on the mainstream media.
Apocalyptic predictions from the 1970’s have not come to pass.
The UK contribution to so-called damaging carbon dioxide emissions is infinitesimal.
This obsession with the weather is now a global religion and is being forced on the entire population in the same way as religious observance was in mediaeval times and with as much justification and basis in reality as it had then.
What is their end game?
Delingpole sets us straight…
Hopeless survey, but I trained the heavy guns on them and linked to the GWPF reports that indicate both the appalling destruction to the planet involved by mining for the humungous amounts of heavy metals that will be needed, and the cost.
done, what a waste of money that survey was.
I think back to the Three Field System where there was an inter-dependency between creatures and crops; it was complimentary.
OTT
For the second year in a row – heavy early snow-fall in the Northern Hemisphere:
https://globalcryospherewatch.org/satellites/trackers.html
Completed the survey.
What else can we do? I have written to my MP more than once about net zero and only ever received a canned reply.
Nice to see some good replies here. I’m still working on mine but, for all the good I think it will do, I will still submit it.
The survey wasn’t created so that a human will actually read your long answers
The best they’ll get is
“X number of people answered B to question1”
.. “Y% of them bothered to write a long answer”
.. “The main key words people used were” ..eg dogma, Greta, clean etc.
.. They might pick a few random people’s answers eg one Green , one anti-green and read their full answers
Above @Mewswithaview has done the leg work of testing the survey
Basically Greens are asked for 3 suggestions each time of how implement the policy
Anti-Greens are made to give open reasons
@Jame Neill said “the survey is a sham to publicly justify an already decided position.
No viewpoint that is not in correct will be seriously considered”
Q1 Meat eating
– Principle #1 Don’t follow GreenDream dogma follow proper science/maths
People are free to believe CO2 is a magic Climate temperature control knob & fear fractionally increased temperatures, but that is not science.
Science is a lot more complex.
– Principle #2 Governments should concentrate efforts of big things not small tokens
Big things on CO2 are New World increasing population, New World having big dirty industry,
… this touches is the UK in the way Open Border policies increase UK emissions
– Principle #3 Citizens should have Personal Choice not be micromanaged by government
..If they want to reduce their own CO2 it’s up to them
The millionaire super consumer vegan family has a huge perpetuating CO2 footprint
.. a poor single pensioner might not have any children, he could eat lots of meat and have a tiny overall CO2 footprint.
– Principle #4 There are problems in details
It is not automatic that converting hilly lands from pastoral farming to arable reduces CO2 per portion of UK diet.
– Principle #5 It is wrong to decide government policies on surveys that assume premises.
Ah If you answer neither agree/disagree
You are not asked to justify it.
Q2 We should buy less stuff
This question is a false dichotomy
Less stuff TODAY, doesn’t actually always mean less overall CO2
– Principle #1 Buying LESS stuff today is good cos it has a lower impact on the environment, doesn’t always hold.
eg Person X buys a caravan to live in, spend loads on heating it
then later on loads on structure around it, which blows away
– Principle #2 Consuming MORE today can save CO2 over time
Person Y buys a well built house, with a huge construction CO2 footprint, but saves CO2 in the future
Person Z doesn’t buy an property, but rents a communist flat in Russia with communal city heating, and has to leave their windows open all the time
and hence has a huge CO2 footprint
Person X might buy ceramic mugs
Person Y might use paper cups instead, and instead of washing use them in the stove for heating.. and thus might have a reduced CO2 footprint over person X
– Principle #3 Businesses Consuming MORE today can save the community CO2 over time
Person C might buy a lot of stuff which he then uses for business, which ends up cutting everyone else’s CO2 footprint
eg he might build a factory so products don’t have to come from China
eg he might buy mininuclear reactor and supply his town with low CO2 electricity
The GreenDream movement itself encourages a lot of extra consumption TODAY that increases environmental impact TODAY
eg shopping for green gimmicks like Electric Cars, Solar Panels, Wind turbines etc.
They argue that overall CO2 falls over time, I’d argue that is not true.
Are the ancient Maoris that killed off the Giant Moa and cut down much of New Zealand’s trees a greener society than today’s fracking America ?
The point is industrial America has generated the money that implements environmental improvement schemes all around the world.
It is in a better situation to deal with any future environmental problem than the ancient Maoris would be.
Q3 More local engagement is good
Again this question assumes the *false premises*
– that local Climate Action is a good thing .. most people have other priorities
– that big government is a good idea
“engagement” Sounds like Marxist BS.
#1 We decide our own Climate Change behaviour
#2 engagement with government comes mainly through elections
Should the public be ENGAGED in micromanagement of council spending ?
No, we should avoid electing GreenDream nuts in the first place
Instead we should elect people who manage to keep spending down to its most efficient
and manage staff in a way that this is done.
Summary : The survey gives us 3 false premises
And instead of asking if they are a thing we desire
..asks us what the best ways to implement them are.
It’s bogus political science of setting the “Cart before the horse”
ie They want the publics opinion to follow the cart of Green Dogma
Thank you for that. What a pile of manure that survey was. A few little nit-picking details about our diets and nothing relevant to carbon emissions, or anything else, really. Still, I wrote some lengthy dissertations which I suspect will end up in the bin.
Ben Pile has a Twitter thread
and their is input from Tallbloke
Perhaps instead of answering a questionnaire from a non-government group we should actually be asking how they got hold of everyone’s names and email addresses from responses to the original petition. Is that normal?
Is it legal?
I honestly don’t know. That’s why I raised it.
I’ve decided to change my reply to question 3. We should take every opportunity to engage with people locally in order to bring down any government that seeks to impose stupid changes costing trillions based on flawed science and ridiculous climate models.
what people have missed. id this survey was sent out to the people that signed the petition to cancel NetZer50 in the UK..
bit of an abuse of process?
I’d rather not stand up and be counted by anything to do with our non existing government. We all know that it’s getting colder and this isn’t due to us, it’s the Sun. I get the feeling that we all become turnip eaters then what do we eat when the volcanoes blot out the Sun that’s already in a deep grand solar minimum? In the 1600’s the peasants survived by bringing in animals into the lower parts of their homes. The animals kept the upstairs warm and provided eggs, milk, wool, fuel from their dung, and occasionally meat. The peasants had to get the straw and turnips in during the short summers.
n.b. note that in the 1600’s the peasants didn’t keep cats except in secret, for fear of being burned as a witch. The dutch used to chuck cats to their deaths from high steeples.