Andrew Bridgen and an Idiot!
May 22, 2024
By Paul Homewood
They are taking us for idiots, and are happy to lie assuming we don’t realise it.
36 Comments
Comments are closed.
“We do not believe any group of men adequate enough or wise enough to operate without scrutiny or without criticism. We know that the only way to avoid error is to detect it, that the only way to detect it is to be free to inquire. We know that in secrecy error undetected will flourish and subvert”. – J Robert Oppenheimer.
Recent Comments
Micky R on Daily Temperature Highs Adrian Kerton on Daily Temperature Highs Micky R on Daily Temperature Highs dave on Daily Temperature Highs Norman Paul Weldon on Daily Temperature Highs Norman Paul Weldon on Daily Temperature Highs dave on Daily Temperature Highs tomo on Daily Temperature Highs John Anderson on Daily Temperature Highs It doesn't add up... on £300 Million Down The Dr…
NOT A LOT OF PEOPLE KNOW THAT 
I have to agree with most of what he said, BUT, he shoots himself in the foot but saying that ‘increase in CO2 is a good thing – plant food after all’. This may, or may not, be true, but to persuade those that are ‘hovering’, it was a mistake to say this. I was going to send link to the video to a ‘net zero’ friend until I saw that bit, so I won’t. What a pity
Yet the increase in CO2 *is* a good thing, the world’s vegetation, including food crops, have visibly increased due to the ‘CO2 fertilization effect’, as measured by satellites. Why shouldn’t we shout this ‘good news’ from the rooftops as a positive message rather than the constant doomsaying from the alarmists?
The question Andrew Bridgen put was regarding net zero policy, and that was what the response in the you tube video should have solely referred to, in my view. As I say, a net zero believer would pounce upon the additional reference to increasing CO2 levels. That is the problem with this debate – we are fully aware that our contribution to World CO2 is now under 1% and China, India, USA are responsible for the vast majority, but when the debate gets confused between responses to climate change (i.e. renewable energy being the darling of the policy makers), to and extended argument to whether CO2 increase is good or bad merely helps the net zero fanatics to cry wolf and ignore the primary argument against renewables.
Have I got this right, Trevor? You seriously doubt that CO2 is ‘plant food’? I can’t work out on which side of the argument you stand.
Please see response above. The arguments are clear, I support the CO2 plant food argument, I though, like most, have absolutely no idea of the optimum levels, neither do I know whether the latest argument of ‘saturation levels’ is reasonable. So don’t question which side I stand on – merely I am suggesting that these arguments get confused. We need to argue against the responses to climate change arguments that we are having to endure.
You might like to send a link to David Turver’s article instead…
‘Debunking the Cheap Renewables Myth’ [May 2024]:
https://davidturver.substack.com/p/debunking-cheap-renewables-myth
Trevor if you require hard , real world, evidence to present to those who would question the CO2 is plant food arguement try this example. “Thanet Earth” is the largest greenhouse area in the UK.
“The glasshouses produce approximately 400 million tomatoes, 24 million peppers and 30 million cucumbers a year, equal to roughly 12, 11 and 8 per cent respectively of Britain’s entire annual production of those salad ingredients.”
Now consider this.
“The complex is powered by combined heat and power systems that create heat, power and carbon dioxide (which is absorbed by the plants) for the greenhouses”
Yes they actually pump the waste CO2 into the greenhouse to improve production levels. 2,000ppm is their target figure – the plants love it, the human workers don’t notice any difference.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thanet_Earth
p.s. I was involved in the design.
Ray, My daughter and her family live on Thanet and I have gazed with fascination at the place each time we go there. I tried to take my grandchildren but Thanet Earth do not do tours – understandable. I wrote asked about internal conditions which they produced but I have two queries you may be able to help me with, namely do they have solar equivalent lights to help on those grey days and for winter, and the internal conditions being in the upper 20’s temperature day and 19 night with 6-800 ppm carbon dioxide. Is it really 2,000ppm? No objections but clarification, thanks.
I wasn’t going to comment further but because you and others have totally misrepresented what I actually meant, I’d prefer you not to respond to something I didn’t mean but has been interpreted incorrectly.
I said I fully support the CO2 is plant food argument – that is basic and uncontested, scientifically proven evidence. What I do not know, however, is whether it is a significant warming gas at it’s current levels (I don’t think it is judging by the scientists on the sceptical side – Judith Curry, Ian Plimer etc., but if it is, what the optimum levels are. to ensure warming stays within reasonable bounds. My understanding is that this remains the core of the argument between realists and scaremongerers.
However, what I did say in my original comments is that ‘it may or may not be true’ – I was actually referring to excessive levels of CO2 and whether there is an optimum level, and I can see how I may have been misinterpreted.
My hope is that the latest research relating to ‘saturation levels’ is sound and not more junk science which I think it may well be (Skepical Science) – though, not being a ‘scientist’ I have only a rudimentary understanding of the scientific arguments.
To me, this comes back to the original points that MPs like Bridgen, and the GWPF board are making – i.e. the responses and introduction of net zero, the delegation of our future to courts and not our designated representatives i.e. MPs; the costs of achieving nothing (renewables etc), the lies, deceit and sheer dishonesty of Ministers when it comes to cost and the criminal misleading of the public.
This is fact not opinion and that is what I was trying to get across.
Finally, NOBODY has EVER shown me how much of the current warming is anthropogenic and how much is natural (cyclical).
It is clear, and has always been, that a percentage of warming has to be cyclical, meaning whatever we spend on trying to mitigate an unknown level of warming is reckless – especially when we are forced down the path of heat pumps (useless), electric cars (useless and more environmentally damaging), renewable energy (useless) and other aspects that benefit only limited, already rich, people and organisations.
ts : Paul Burgess was right to say that an increase in CO2 is a good thing. It is necessary to destroy the myth that increasing CO2, whether anthropogenic or natural, leads to increased GHG warming because the climate crisis activists always say that ANY cost or deprivation or destruction of the West’s wealth and economies is acceptable to save the planet. Thus there is no argument to an XR believer other than to say there is no climate crisis even if they apparently also believe China and India use a different atmosphere….
There is no may or may not be true about it! CO2 is vital to plant respiration. Commercial greenhouses maintain levels of 1 000ppm to 1 200ppm to stimulate quicker and healthier plant growth.
Most plant species evolved at times of much higher CO2 levels. They take in CO2 via holes in their leaves (like we have holes in our faces to take in air). The lower the CO2 levels, the more holes they need, the more holes the more water they lose, and the more water they need. The converse is true. This is critical in arid zones which is why vegetation is poor or absent in such areas.
More CO2 = fewer holes, less water loss, less water needed. As a result of increased CO2 these past 20 years, an area of new plant growth the size of the USA has established itself around deserts, shrinking them.
Furthermore, oxygen molecules can be mistaken for CO2 molecules and incorporated in the respiration cycle, producing toxins which harm or kill the plant. Higher CO2 levels makes it less likely for plants to lock onto oxygen molecules by mistake.
Net Zero fanatics who are so worried about ‘the environment’ and ‘the planet’ need educating. Reducing CO2 will kill off vast areas of vegetation and the animal life it supports as well as reducing crop yields and causing hunger in poorer Countries.
These people need to understand the consequences of their fanaticism.
A depressing illustration of the level of obfuscation, incompetence and wilful lack of consideration for voters’ welfare. As I recently wrote to my m.p. I will not support any party that espouses and promotes the net zero scam
Unfortunately that means that you, like us all, have precious little, or indeed no, options for your vote.
Prompted by your reply I thought I would check the Reform Party (draft) policy proposals.
I think I know where my vote will be cast!
I’m inclined to vote for Reform also, but in the knowledge that, with our first past the post system, they are unlikely to win a single seat on the HoC.
I think the Heritage party and UKIP also have policies to scrap Net Zero and the Climate Change Act. The Heritage Party is also the soundest on Foreign Policy. Its about the only Party that wants to put Peace and Diplomacy ahead of War and Death (the current UK Foreign Policy objectives).
whether natural or Asian coal burning there is not a holy chance of checking the Keeling curve’s inexorable rise. So Net Zero is pointless. Time also to ventilate the science that increases in CO2 won’t affect the climate.
Several months ago I quoted an extract from Professor Ian Plimer’s book, Green Murder, in which he quotes an extract from an IPCC’s Report stating – and I quote – ‘3% of all emissions of carbon dioxide are from humans. Even if human emissions did drive global warming, why is it that human emissions drive global warming but 97% comprising natural carbon dioxide emissions don’t’.’
Nobody was able to answer that question. Any offers? trevorshurmer maybe?
Brian, stop asking awkward questions. Now off you go to the naughty step.
I’m still there from the last submission.
use of the term global warming is unhelpful. The phenomenon is correctly the greenhouse effect and an increase would be the enhanced greenhouse effect. The term arises from the hypothesis of Tyndall (of beam fame) that ALL the gases of the atmosphere might have a warming effect. The term is very seductive but might be better rendered as a greenhouse with the roof missing.
This may send you into hysterics, but I believe the argument is that the natural world is in balance with 97% of natural CO2, but the extra 3% is a tipping point. Never mind that the planet coped happily with ten to twenty times current CO2 levels in the time of the dinosaurs.
jeremy23846: I was given the same answer when I asked this question and I just don’t accept it. All of the CO2 in the atmosphere is only 420 parts per million, so I don’t see how the 3% man made can be the tipping point.
Sorry Brian OHara, I have no idea why you think I would respond to your question, and I don’t understand what you are implying. Already this response thread is revolving around the issues I have no real understanding of and way outside what the initial article posted was about – i.e. Andrew Bridgen’s issues with net zero, which are PRECISELY my issues.
I haven’t read Ian Plimer’s book, but what I think is that human exhale 3 to 4% of the CO2 in the atmosphere which is clearly a different thing to human activities vis a vis everything that happens in the World that does create CO2 emission. So I have no idea which Professor Plimer was referring to.
No Trevor. Its not 3% breathed out, its 3% total from all human activities. Suggest you read several of Prof Plimer’s excellent books.
I came to the same conclusion, independent of Prof Plimer’s book, which I have not read. ‘Natural’ i.e. carbon cycle CO2 apparently does not exacerbate global warming, only the c. 3% “emitted by human activity causes AGW”. However the CO2 molecule is even more magic – only the CO2 emitted by the U.S., UK & EU causes global warming. A truly miraculous molecule.
I sent this e-mail a few days ago to my Welsh MP and MS, both Conservative.
“With the UK government having promised half a billion pounds to Tata Steel to make 2,800 operatives at Port Talbot redundant, (the initial offer was £250 million, but Tata said it wasn’t enough, according to India’s Economic Times), the Hindu Business Line reports that “Tata Steel is scaling up its steel-making capacity in India. The phased commissioning of the 5 million ton per annum capacity expansion at Kalinganagar is underway, while the second phase will go on stream next fiscal.”
(So much for the claims of “green steel production at Port Talbot”, those emissions will be transferred to India and then some. It is globally meaningless and a political sop. It seems convenient that the Port Talbot blast furnace closure was announced just as the Indian plant is almost ready. Tata claim the move could reduce carbon emissions from its Port Talbot site by 5 million tonnes a year by 2030, or 1.5% of UK emissions, so in fact 0.00013% of global emissions, will the climate notice?)
GMK Center, a Ukrainian based think-tank and consulting company with a focus on industrial sectors, such as iron and steel, oil and gas, fertilizers, cement, etc, reports that India’s leading steel companies, including JSW Steel and Tata Steel, plan to invest heavily in increasing steel capacity by at least 22 million tons per year in the 2024/2025 fiscal year.
Between April 2023 and January 2024, steel consumption in India increased by 14.5% – to 112.5 million tons, a six-year high. In 2023, India increased steel production by 11.8% y/y – to 140.2 million tons. It is ranked second in the top ten steel producing countries by World Steel.”
This of course requires much more coal and India’s Economic Times Energy World site has the headline, “India to ramp up coal stock to 150 million tonne by FY24 to meet growing power needs”.
“The minister’s statement is backed by the recent achievement in coal production, with India surpassing 900 million tonne as of March 6, 2024, thus setting a new record and edging closer to the ambitious target of 1 billion tonne by the end of this fiscal year. The Minister highlighted the availability of ample coal stock, with approximately 85 million tonne with coal companies and 43.28 million tonne at domestic coal-based thermal power plants as of March 5, 2024. This strategic reserve is poised to ensure uninterrupted power supply across the nation, meeting the escalating electricity demand.”
We are seriously being taken for a ride with the Net Zero farrago. China coal production for 2023 was 4.66 billion metric tons, a new record.
China CO2 emissions are over 4 times higher than India and 34 times higher than the UK. China produces the UK annual CO2 emissions in 10.6 days, Wales annual emissions in less than a day.
Clearly India and China do not believe the CO2 “Climate Crisis” rhetoric.
The UK produces less than 1% of global emissions, but Net Zero is destroying our economy and punishing UK citizens for no demonstrable benefit, other than to the renewables operators in receipt of government largesse and the Crown Estates renting out our coastal sea bed. Reliable power supplies that work, are being replaced with unreliable supplies that are more expensive, and with up to 20% daily imports from Europe, are responsible for the high cost of UK electricity and a dilution of energy security.
More wind turbines will not redress this. If the wind isn’t blowing for 10,000 turbines, it won’t blow for 40,000. Equally, with extra turbines, when the wind is blowing, there will be times of excess production, invoking expensive constraint payments. The total cost of renewables subsidies is around £12billion per annum, or £600 per UK household, according to Lord Frost in a recent HoL debate. The closure of major UK manufacturing industries has meant we have exported our emissions and receive them back in imports, just so politicians can posture that “UK Climate Ambitions” are “Leading the World in Fighting Climate Change”. There is a Net Zero impact on global climate from the UK self flagellation.
UK electricity prices have risen faster than almost any other developed country since 2019, the International Energy Agency (IEA) has found.
If the Conservative Party wished to regain public support, and current policies suggest otherwise, this is the elephant in the room to address and reverse. However, in view of the government response to a recent petition to repeal the Climate Change Act and scrap Net Zero, (I suspect the Civil Service response) which relies simply on anodyne quotes from the IPCC, it is clear the government is totally committed to this incredibly expensive and socially damaging ideologically based policy.
If the polls are right and Labour do sweep to power, then these policies will be enhanced with the return of the architect of the Climate Change Act, Ed Miliband, who proudly encourages the activities of Extinction Rebellion https://x.com/grantshapps/status/1670446987408293888. The future seems dark in more ways than one.”
No reply yet from either. My MP is a vocal proponent of floating wind turbines and boasts about their massive investment opportunities.
Floating wind farms – only good for harvesting subsidies!
And China produces abut a billion tonnes – 1,000,000,000 tonnes – of steel every year.
Auto
You believe the Commies?
Good letter, Dennis. I wonder if your MP has the smarts to understand it – although I reckon it will be passed to a smart-arsed SPAD who will drown you in platitudes. But the best quote I took from your letter was: ‘There is a Net Zero impact on global climate from the UK self flagellation.” – which you could turn around on the government to say, ‘at least you’ve achieved net zero of something: but destroying our economy does not save the World.’
Well done.
My final comment on this thread – Dennis Ambler, that is a fantastic letter and EXACTLY what this thread should have been about, totally on track and in line with Bridgen’s thoughts on the subject.
100% !.
Well words fail me- ask a simple question and point towards the answer ie: low cost/cheap Renewable Energy and get told that …………well nothing but a word salad that included jobs, jobs as visioned by the Civil Servants who wrote the response. Nothing about the fact that for the many the choice is Eat or Heat/Light, however, the ultimate insult will be when the power is turned off “for our own Good, to both save the Planet and reach Nirvana aka Net Zero, but on a brighter note- Politicos and Civil Servants will still have plenty of Heat/Light as someone must “run” the Country.
This blogger is very good. Here he is ripping into more idiots who appeared on a recent Rees-Mogg show, including the UN climate chief: https://thewhiterose.uk/jacob-rees-mogg-and-three-climate-zealots/.
I totally agree with him on not voting for any political party which supports Net Zero. I’ve just had a paper published which makes the same point: https://metatron.substack.com/p/debunking-the-climate-change-hoax.
Minor Greenhouse Gasses CO2 – CH4 N20 are no longer a problem from 420ppmv onwards, They only enhancing plant productivity and perhaps giving minor increased warmth for increased productivity.
https://edmhdotme.wpcomstaging.com/minimal-future-warming-from-co2-ch4-n2o/