I hope the Climate Activists are proud of the effect their lies are having on the younger generation

Peter, I mentioned the CO2 data, and as you know very well, it shows no decline at all during the last 2 years, when it is known that fossil fuel use declined by something like 25%. I asked why you thought this to be the case, no reply in scientific terms.

I asked you two very important questions at the heart of the subject, again no reply. I assume that you are reasonably numerate, and therefore you must understand that adding a positive “feedback” term to the energy equations used for modeling has no scientific basis and that the result of such a feedback term is the only reason that there is a predicted temperature increase. Lord Monkton's team (not him BTW) that is very highly qualified and capable, has made a calculation of the alleged feedback term from actual data, and the term must be either zero or very small. All the climate models except the Russian one do not match the known data, as I have pointed out, and run hot because of this implied term. Therefore it is plain stupid to use them to predict the future, it is like betting on a horse that came last many times to win, but for some reason climate is different. 

I understand you wish to have a discussion about this, and you will note that I have posted many times here and elsewhere that “electric everything” is simply not possible for many reasons, but the biggest one is that it is completely unaffordable. The only solution to that problem is to change lives in the developed world to put us on a par with the several Africa Countries I have been in, where electricity only works a few hours a day, and life is subsistence at best. At least these tropical countries are reasonably warm, in Britain, it would kill millions of people.

I note that for COP26, a considerable number of people arrived from all over the world, many in the most hypocritical way possible, on private jets. Some brought large numbers of IC vehicles. They have all feasted on the finest food, and none of them are poor. This behaviour is always that of one group trying to repress another group, it is political. The main problem is as I stated above, the science has also become political. Funding is only available for the “believers” any dissent is punished by loss of work or tenure or both, by Universities around the globe. This has made a billion dollars for Al Gore, yet done nothing for the poor. Unfortunately, it never will, any money passed over will be “lost” or end up in the pockets of politicians, very little will ever make any “climate change” improvements. This is almost always the outcome in poor countries, I have seen what happens to charity or UN money, the effect is small or zero for those in need. The charity staff live in luxuary.

We can discuss all this if you wish, but I rather expect that you consider all the above irrelevant?

Peter, I mentioned the CO2 data, and as you know very well, it shows no decline at all during the last 2 years, when it is known that fossil fuel use declined by something like 25%. I asked why you thought this to be the case, no reply in scientific terms.

I asked you two very important questions at the heart of the subject, again no reply. I assume that you are reasonably numerate, and therefore you must understand that adding a positive “feedback” term to the energy equations used for modeling has no scientific basis and that the result of such a feedback term is the only reason that there is a predicted temperature increase. Lord Monkton's team (not him BTW) that is very highly qualified and capable, has made a calculation of the alleged feedback term from actual data, and the term must be either zero or very small. All the climate models except the Russian one do not match the known data, as I have pointed out, and run hot because of this implied term. Therefore it is plain stupid to use them to predict the future, it is like betting on a horse that came last many times to win, but for some reason climate is different. 

I understand you wish to have a discussion about this, and you will note that I have posted many times here and elsewhere that “electric everything” is simply not possible for many reasons, but the biggest one is that it is completely unaffordable. The only solution to that problem is to change lives in the developed world to put us on a par with the several Africa Countries I have been in, where electricity only works a few hours a day, and life is subsistence at best. At least these tropical countries are reasonably warm, in Britain, it would kill millions of people.

I note that for COP26, a considerable number of people arrived from all over the world, many in the most hypocritical way possible, on private jets. Some brought large numbers of IC vehicles. They have all feasted on the finest food, and none of them are poor. This behaviour is always that of one group trying to repress another group, it is political. The main problem is as I stated above, the science has also become political. Funding is only available for the “believers” any dissent is punished by loss of work or tenure or both, by Universities around the globe. This has made a billion dollars for Al Gore, yet done nothing for the poor. Unfortunately, it never will, any money passed over will be “lost” or end up in the pockets of politicians, very little will ever make any “climate change” improvements. This is almost always the outcome in poor countries, I have seen what happens to charity or UN money, the effect is small or zero for those in need. The charity staff live in luxuary.

We can discuss all this if you wish, but I rather expect that you consider all the above irrelevant?