Brian O’Hara’s Letter To The Telegraph
By Paul Homewood
Brian O’Hara sent me this:
I sent the following letter to the Editor of the Telegraph at the end of February. Not heard anything since. I failed to mention that Senator Kennedy asked Dr. Rob Letterman whether he believed in the Easter Bunny or the Tooth Fairy.
Dear Editor,
In the past decade this country has gone to the dogs. Politicians once had the population’s interest at heart and made tough decisions with that ethos in mind. At the moment – and this goes for the USA as well – strange ideologies have been able to manifest themselves and thrive in the on-line world of ‘dogmatism’. The most pervasive of these ideologies is ‘Climate Change’. I’ve reached the ripe old age of 80, so I remember the time before the term ‘climate change’ was coined and such phenomenon was referred to as the ‘seasons’. I used to read Christopher Booker’s Sunday column in which he debunked the outlandish claims made by the UN’s propaganda machine, pompously known as the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. This whole circus was kickstarted by Al Gore’s DVD entitled ‘An Inconvenient Truth (2006)’. Regrettably, ‘The Great Global Warming Swindle (2007), was not given the same hype and the apocalyptic scenario of Al Gore’s DVD gripped the imagination of the UK and the USA. As a result, the green blob now hold sway by dictating the government’s energy policies; which, put mildly, are catastrophic. In the US, at their Senate Budget Committee Meeting (15th Feb 2023) Senator Kennedy asked Dr Oltz-Eakin the question, ‘What would it cost for the US to reach net zero’. He estimated the cost to be, approximately, 50 trillion US dollars. Senator Kennedy then asked Dr Oltz-Eakin another question, ‘If the US spends 50 trillion dollars on climate solutions, how much would it reduce the earth’s temperature’. The answer was, ‘I don’t know’. The question was put to Dr. Rob Letterman – another climate expert – and his answer was, also, ‘I don’t know’. I can only guess that if the same question was put to our own climate tzars the answer would be the same. If that would be the case why is the government hell bent on bankrupting the country and making a nonsense of having an energy policy when they don’t know what it would cost for this country to reach net zero, or what effect it will have. Is it because this ideological zealotry that has gripped the subconscious of our politicians, to such a degree, that to question the ‘consensus’ would upset ‘Extinction Rebellion’ and the rest of the ‘green blob’? Surely, when the Country is experiencing an energy crisis, that in itself is causing other crises, the government should ask itself the same question, ‘If the UK spends X trillion pounds making the UK reach net zero, by how much will it reduce the earth’s temperature’? If the answer is, ‘I don’t know’, then why are they taking the Country, and its population Soviet style, over the cliff like Lemmings?
Yours sincerely,
Brian O’Hara
Brilliant Brian!
I would add that the aforesaid Senator Kennedy is the GOP member for Louisiana, who has a reputation for not taking these fools lightly.
NOT A LOT OF PEOPLE KNOW THAT 
An excellent letter; which is why it has not been published.
It is actually too long. Letters to virtually any paper need to be shorter to be published.
In addition very few letters are actually published out of the 1000s the paper still probably gets each week.
Finally I see climate change sceptical letters published fairly regularly so there is no DT conspiracy against such.
As a regular reader of the Telegraph I am more surprised that they still publish letters which support the ‘climate change’ hysteria.
When they exposed the way MPs were abusing their expenses they didn’t publish any letters saying it was all just an unfortunate administrative error.
DGJ: Sorry again. My posts further in this thread were intended as a response to your comments.
Excellent letter. It wasn’t answered because the Telegraph, like most other media thinks because it is contrary to MSM opinion they will lose customers and advertising. This is our problem. Getting an honest discussion and having our scientifically justifiable views compared with the fear mongering claptrap which we are told will destroy the planet.
You’re right. So I send an email every week to my MP on the subject, each time with a different subject pointing out how CAGW is non-existent, or how DESNZ has no plan or costing according to the NAO, or how there appears to be no plan for any storage according to the published energy flow diagrams etc. for I believe it will have some effect eventually.
If an MP receives sufficient emails on a subject (and it doesn’t have to be many) they do sit up and take notice.
So I recommend everyone who believes Net Zero is taking the country to the dogs to email their MP regularly. There’s more than enough excellent information from Mr. Homewood each week to use as subject matter/information for their MP.
Wrong, you fairly often see sceptical letters on the DT
My working hypothesis is that, as the ‘Western World’ is in deep financial distress – the UK in £2.5tr debt and USA $90tr debt, we have to comply with the desires of the international bankers or whoever we owe so much to. They wish to refincialise into a digital currency that will cover up the mismanagement of the present system and also enable them to control every aspect of our lives. This will be accomplished by a series of crises including ‘climate problems.’
I suspect you are correct about the CBDC.
The current system of fiat, irredeemable currency, is reaching its limit. Look up Monetary Metals, for a way back to honest money
Well said and you are over the target: https://austrianpeter.substack.com/p/the-mad-mad-world-of-crypto-arbitrage?utm_source=post-email-title&publication_id=762792&post_id=108343689&isFreemail=false&utm_medium=email
Why would people who have lent us money want to wreck our economy?
As for some cabal of “international bankers” there is no such thing. There are bankers who work internationally but we all live somewhere and have citizenship somewhere.
They are clearing the ground so they can ‘Build Back Better’ and bring in the Fourth Industrial Revolution. After which, they will have a reduced population of the useless (those who use resources but no longer have a useful function) and will enjoy total control of those who are left.
The agenda is being driven by the fascists of the WEF and their acolytes, not the mention their Hitler Youth graduates such as Adolf Trudeau, Arden, and our own Sushi.
” As for some cabal of “international bankers” there is no such thing. ”
A list of WEF ” Banking & Capital Markets Partners”
https://www.weforum.org/communities/banking-and-capital-markets
Just to clarify his name is Douglas Holtz-Eakin
‘If the UK spends X trillion pounds making the UK reach net zero, by how much will it reduce the earth’s temperature’? If the answer is, ‘I don’t know’…
But there is an answer. Reducing CO2 emissions does nothing to take CO2 out of the atmosphere to lower the Earth’s temperature. It just leaves X tons of carbon in the ground. The cost, however, will be the loss of fuels for the transportation involved to make the transition to the all-electric world of renewables and EVs. That could be substantial in any currency.
It didn’t get printed as its far too long for the letters page. The last paragraph is the most pertinent and with very little adjustment it now reads;
Dear sir
Surely, when the Country is experiencing an energy crisis, that in itself is causing other crises, the government should ask itself the question, ‘If the UK spends 5 trillion pounds making the UK reach net zero, by how much will it reduce the earth’s temperature’? If the answer is, ‘I don’t know’, then why are they taking the Country, and its population Soviet style, over the cliff like Lemmings?
yours sincerely
Brian O’ Hara
Much better. I remember many years ago, being instructed by a reviewer to cut a scientific paper I had submitted to half its length. I was annoyed at the time, but he was right. Brevity gets the message across best
Much better, but it still leaves the question of what is the benefit of reducing the temperature by that much? In today’s money? It is literally lunatic to make ourselves much poorer so that future generations who will be much richer than us avoid a small cost.
They do know how much global warming will occur from increasing levels of CO2. Firstly by examining past history and secondly from the work of Wijngaarden & Happer – covered recently by the Daily Sceptic’s Chris Morrison:
https://dailysceptic.org/2023/03/08/according-to-two-distinguished-atmospheric-scientists-net-zero-is-completely-pointless/
The answer is almost zero.
The amswer is definitely zero!
(Manmade) CO2 has been exonerated.
The sun and water vapour control the planet’s climate.
CO2 has next to no effect.
See Lightfoot and Ratzer, 2001,2,3.
Correct John and this little video makes the data clear:
Well experts on the Dark Age climate change are constantly changing their opinion see
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kWhn0rXlzeI Justinian and the Bubonic Plague plus the climate change of his reign are examined with new information and interpretation.
Why cannot we have changing views in the press when more investigations are carried out?
Climate Change and it;s presumed causes seem to be set in concrete in the minds of the news media. The politicians have to conform or be deleted from news reports. The newsmedia are those who need reeducation but are too proud. IMHO
The author of the letter has placed himself into a potentially awkward position by stating that climate change is an ideology. Climate change is a scientific fact and has been occurring for approximately 4,500,000,000 years.
The belief that humans are responsible for dangerous climate change is an ideology, which needs to be challenged with the simple question: where is the proof that humans are responsible for dangerous climate change?
My views summarised:
The Contingency Theory of Climate Change
Everywhere on the planet is very slightly different. So:
Climate change is the net result of all local, regional and global climate change variables, and CO2 is not the planet’s temperature control switch. You cannot dial up and down the temperature you want.
CO2 is just one of many climate change variables, including:
1) Earth’s orbital and orientation variations towards the Sun (aka planetary geometry)
2) Changes in ocean circulation. Including ENSO (El Nino) and others
3) Solar energy and irradiance, including clouds, albedo, volcanic and manmade aerosols, plus possible effects of cosmic rays and extra terrestrial dust
4) Greenhouse gas emissions (of which CO2 is one, and water vapour the most abundant)
5) Land use changes (cities growing – urban heat island effects, logging, crop irrigation, etc.)
6) Unknown causes of variations of a complex, non-linear system
7) Unpredictable natural and manmade catastrophes
8) Climate measurement errors (unintentional errors or deliberate)
9) Interactions and feedbacks, involving two or more variables.
So climate change is a soup of pretty much whatever flavour you like somewhere. Carbon dioxide is at most a very minor part of the equation.
—————-
The effect of this theory on people is negligible – eyes glaze over and people still say 97% of scientists say it is all caused by carbon dioxide.
A year or so ago, when a by election was on, a scruffy old man came into my garden canvassing for the Lib Dems and who, I realised after a minute or so, was Vince Cable. So I banged on about the folly of Net Zero etc and how the Climate Change Act numbers were fiddled in the Stern Report – and he just shrugged – Lord Stern was believed and virtually no MPs had objected to the Climate Change Act. The Lib Dems won the election.
—
The Net Zero folly will continue; the country will continue to impoverish itself, the planet’s climate will not change very much; and in a generation or two some people will say the heretics and sceptics were probably right after all.
—
A slow version of realising lockdown was an over reaction.
Correct, David.
And one reason for the Plandemic and associated lunatic interventions was that the steam had obviously gone out of the Climate debate and it was desired to pep it up and try some CCP agit-prop, kill some people and see if “they could get away with it” (in Professor Pantsdown Ferguson’s immortal phrase.)
Of course the brown envelopes from Big Pharma nicely supplemented those from Big Wind and Big Solar.
What’s not to like?
Local and National elections are looming in the UK.
Lithium batteries needed to power Zero Carbon, include rare earths like cobalt.
Child slave Labour in D R Congo is used to mine the cobalt.
This is reported by the UN and The Guardian.
So don’t just moan, ask ALL the candidates seeking election, why they support CHILD SLAVE LABOUR.
We plebs need to take control of the narrative.
Yes, we’re promised Europe’s largest a mile out of town. The local greens called me a lunatic when I said I’d prefer a RR SMR.
https://www.favershameye.co.uk/post/project-fortress-previously-known-as-cleve-hill
There is no proper justification for locating solar plants or BESSs near conurbations, apart from minor cost savings to the grid. Solar farms could easily be mounted on barges, offshore, as could BESSes. The right place for a BESS (if there really is one) is next to the remote generating sites.
^^ Do the job properly: build coal-fired power stations.
The $50 trillion matches Michael Kelly’s estimate. Christopher Monckton, using IPCC figures, gets a figure of 1/4,000 C for every trillion dollars spent.
About 4% of the carbon dioxide in the atmosphere is man made (approx. 16 parts per million). If this small amount can change the climate why doesn’t the other 96%?
The foolishness of NetZero will be defeated by intelligence.
It’s much too long. One should take only a couple of linked points and try and generate an eye catching use of language and keep it under 150 words
I have followed that advice regularly, without any success. Maybe they don’t like my sceptical perspective!
dbb: the advice is correct. I have had occasional letters published and they have to be concise, to the point and preferably not too controversial.
It will take one generation to reduce Earth’s temperature, simply by helping Couples to have 1 child only.
Consequently :-
** Farming beef, sheep with less methane.
** Vehicle, mining, aircraft, pollution etc.
It’s a no brainer to be investigated 🙂
If you think that humans are responsible for climate change, how do you think the earth warmed up after the ice age before we existed?
” It will take one generation to reduce Earth’s temperature, simply by helping Couples to have 1 child only.”
Do you have any proof to support this unconditional statement?
Where is the proof that humans are responsible for dangerous climate change?
I am certain that a letter addressed to the Easter Bunny would have exactly the same effect. But just maybe, it could irritate somone briefly in the corridors of Power.
Myself, I think we are at the stage where only pitchforks and flaming torches will have any effect, and no signs of that so far.
Say what you like about our French chums, they don’t just suck it up with hardly a grumble.
An example of how French energy workers hit back at Macron using modern day pitchforks :-
France’s energy workers have made it clear that their special regime is something that they are willing to continue defending with tactics that extend beyond the strike. On 9 March, CGT workers cut the power to the Stade de France, and clandestine actions will presumably continue. As Fabrice Coudour told Novara “Robin Hood is nowhere, and he is everywhere all at once”.
“France’s ‘Robin Hood’ Energy Workers Are Sending Cheap Electricity to Schools and Hospitals | Novara Media” https://novaramedia.com/2023/03/14/frances-robin-hood-energy-workers-are-sending-cheap-electricity-to-schools-and-hospitals/
Quite so Douglas. During the Miners’ strike 1984-85, as Technical Management I was part of a not-so-merry team responsible for ensuring that mines still existed and were operable once the strike had ended. I remember drinking a pot of tea in the Mine Manager’s office at the end of one shift when we were joined by a very senior Police Officer. Those in the office enjoined a discussion about the strike, tactics and strategy on both sides and likely outcomes.
I pointed out that the stage that had been reached by that time, with more excitable striking miners dropped concrete blocks from motorway bridges onto cars driven by working miners, whilst Scargill resolutely refused to condemn any actions by his Members, seemed unlikely to end well for anybody. Not least his Members.
Untactfully, I suggested that we were perhaps fortunate that Scargill hadn’t the wit to thunderously condemn the concrete block droppers whilst, behind the scenes, using those of his Members and some sympathetic Deputies and Shotfirers in NACODS, well used to using explosives, to see if they could have an adverse effect on a few strategically located electricity pylons out in the sticks.
Blanched faces and a break in the conversation suggested that such an eventuality had not occurred to any of those present.
Note that I didn’t and don’t suggest either that the Miners didn’t have very real grievances, on one hand, nor that even if Tony Benn (who may have been a mad Socialist but was also an excellent constituency MP) had been PM, he would have absolutely had to win a battle with Scargill and his Marxist chums, on the other.
Aux barricades mes amis 💥💥
This morning (Sunday) I noted a distinct lean to the right in the Telegraph from its mushy centre ground editorial policy. There have been big changes at the top and I notivce that Camilla Tominey is now calling herself Camilla Turner and is Chief Political Editor. I greatly respect this lady and I hope she will change the DT’s position on “climate” and related matters. By the way, the first Chair of the IPCC and lead editor of the First Assessment Report was Sir John Houghton, former head of the Met Office and fervent Methodist (Plymouth Brethren) and he is on record as saying that global warming is a message from God to change our ways!
If Houghton believed in one religion then believing another, especially as ‘God’ sent the message, would be all the more powerful to him. How do flakes like this get into positions of power where their beliefs trump reality?
“If Houghton believed in one religion then believing another, especially as ‘God’ sent the message, would be all the more powerful to him”
Mike Graham and Peter Hitchens re: failed climate change predictions from the believers, with reference to the believers and their “apoplectic religion”
Maybe God is messaging us to change – to change the senior officers of our institutions like the Met Office.
Aren’t those messages sent by well directed bolts of lightning?
What a delicious thought!
I shall keep a look out.
I have forwarded this post to Camilla Tominey, Associate Editor of the Telegraph.