Blog Post

Climate Conundrums II

Higgs Boson • Feb 24, 2020

Global Warming

It seems that people are confusing climate change activism with environmentalism - both are not one and the same. In my view there is a world of difference between climate science fanatics, who advocate forcing people to accept a plethora of questionable legislation and those of us who shun modernity and simply want to take care of our immediate environment by preserving natural habitats, trees, woodlands etc.

Greta Thunberg says that we should 'follow the science'. However, journalist Sherelle Jacobs argues that the UN's 'woke' climate change propaganda is an insult to science. Here is a link to her article published in the Daily Telegraph. Thought: is it not science and so-called progress that has created most of the problems we face? Add to this the fact that the human population has doubled in the space of 45 years - mention the need for a reduction, and sit back and prepare to be flayed alive with some really quite peculiar arguments.

Recently, the conservative commentator Charles Moore issued a blistering attack in his Daily Telegraph column on Boris Johnson's new govt for its eco-ban on coal and wood - even Shropshire's Owen Paterson MP has joined in the attack - according to Paterson " The false doctrine of climate emergency is treating people from somewhere as if they were people from nowhere. If Boris Johnson is not careful, he will face both electoral and economic emergencies as a result."

Now, to start with it is not a ban on burning wood, as I understand it, it is a ban on the sale of wet logs, the burning of which causes a lot of damage. I can testify to that - I live in an area where three neighbouring properties burn wet wood. Consequently, if we open a window we can't breath - it is bloody toxic, especially at night for some reason. Also, burning wet wood causes tar to build-up in your chimney - when that happens and it catches fire, it's a danger to property and life. So I'm afraid on this HMG have got a point and for me it's nowt to do with C02 driven climate change.

Talking of which, the extremely troubled Greta Thunberg recently tweeted "New record of measured daily average concentration CO2 in the atmosphere:416.08 ppm. In February(!!)" So, let's start with a technical question:

Have the scientists adequately explained how 4 parts per 10,000 of CO2 in the Earth's atmosphere drives climate change?

As I understand it, they haven't - one thing is for sure, Professor David Bellamy would take issue with the notion that it does; Bellamy, who lived in county Durham, later attracted criticism for dismissing global warming. In 2004, he described climate change as “poppycock” and later said the stance cost him his TV career. Speaking to the Independent in 2013, he said: “All of the work dried up after that. I was due to start another series with the BBC but that didn’t go anywhere, and the other side [ITV] didn’t want to know. I was shunned. They didn’t want to hear the other side.” Asked by the paper if he stood by his statement, Bellamy said: “Absolutely. “It is not happening at all, but if you get the idea that people’s children will die because of CO2 they fall for it.”

Whatever you think of Bellamy's statements it was a sad end to a distinguished career and now of course he has sadly died, but his legacy of climate scepticism lives-on - I wonder why? It could be argued that it lives-on largely thanks to the very people who denied him a voice. Surely if Bellamy's theory lacked credibility it would've been far better to engage with him - other scientists could have confronted him and publicly disproved his theories - thus ending the negative speculation?

All this is not helped when they say the science community is unanimous abt climate change - clearly it isn't, and when you discover that almost anyone can be identified as a climate scientist - in fact Journalist Rob Lyons asks 'can anyone identify as a climate change scientist? Apparently their list of scientists included Mickey Mouse and the headmaster of Hogwarts et al.

Channel 4 News recently held a Climate Debate - Boris Johnson did not attend but other so-called leaders did. Apparently, CH4 allowed opposition parties to veto Michael Gove taking part. Anyway, I have never heard so much confused patronising guff in my entire life. They all seem to be saying that we need carbon neutrality by 2030 whilst achieving growth in the economy, courtesy of a growing ageing population. A population incidentally that is constantly on the move! Mr Corbyn said in his opening statement that he will "kick-start a new industrial revolution". Is it not his policy to build 1 million new houses? Did he not also advocate untrammelled immigration? How is that compatible with environmentalism? How will that reduce our carbon footprint? It won't. Blimey, it wasn't that long ago Corbyn wanted to reopen old coal mines - get everyone working down the pit. In fact, a Labour council recently gave planning consent for a new coal mine - a coal mine that is claiming to be, wait for it, carbon neutral.

Intermission > if you have bothered to read this far you deserve a break: below is my 1995 track Synthetic Spring

Flood Alert!!

Are floods caused by climate change? Rob Lyons, the science and technology director at the Academy of Ideas says no, the floods are not caused by climate change. The UK has always experienced floods and always will. The levels of rain in recent decades is not, historically speaking, unusual. We need better flood defences, not more green panicking.

I share Rob's view - I was raised on a farm in Devon, at a place called Marsh Farm - there's a clue in the name 'Marsh'. The farm was on the outskirts of Bideford in the Kenwith Valley - when I was a child, almost every year we, along with half the town, were flooded - eventually my father was prevailed upon to sign an agreement with the water authority allowing them to back water onto our land as and when required. This agreement allowed them to construct what is now known as the Kenwith Valley Flood Protection Scheme/Barrier. Now, here's the thing - the Kenwith Valley was once part of the River Torridge, it was in fact tidal, which is why it was a 'marsh'. Over the years people have built on and around the marsh which has obviously exacerbated an existing issue.

The above photograph is Marsh Farm (right) as it is now - in a very sad state, boarded-up. To the left was the little home of Nurse Fursey. It was once a railway station/signal post for the Kenwith Valley Railway. I have the very first timetable dated May 20, 1901. The foreground was known as 'The Jungle' where I played as a child. Recently, the trees have been felled - I don't know why - presumably TDC have granted permission to build?

Above > Kenwith Valley in 2000 - phase two of Londonderry Farm build - delightful isn't it?

Add to this the fact that Torridge District Council has approved massive housing estates, such as Londonderry Farm - thousands of houses where once stood a beautiful farm! Londonderry Farm was owned by farmer Peter Brooks who became a very wealthy man - can't really blame him but still - the water run-off from this unwanted development is, as you might imagine, absolutely huge.

The point is this, if this has occurred in my little corner of England one has to assume it's been replicated throughout the entire country? If so, then the obvious question is, where does all the water go? The answer is of course back to the river, which would then inevitably create pressure-points everywhere else upstream. Add to this the fact that EU rules have prevented us from dredging rivers and I think that adequately explains the causes of flooding - very little to do with climate change. Try telling that to our state funded deaf-eared propagandists at the BBC.

So, what is the answer? Well, according to a science report, planting billions of trees is the best climate change solution available today - and I wouldn't disagree with that.

Higgs Boson™ 🎹

PS. Amazon Music is offering a good deal - click the banner below

< Older Post Newer Post >

Mail

Thank you for visiting my blog - a small donation will be greatly appreciated - please use the PayPal button below.

Made in England

by Higgs Boson • 17 Jan, 2022

For some strange reason I feel uncomfortable with the title 'Made in England' - I've been brainwashed into thinking that it's a phrase only used by racists and bigots. Brexit certainly brings into sharp relief that which has largely been ignored - making stuff and methods of manufacturing. A while back my wife wanted to send a gift to a relative in Japan; she wanted something that was specifically 'Made in England'. Our search went on for days and much to our dismay almost everything was, well, made elsewhere basically. She was very disappointed, as was I. This negative experience was not helped when I casually asked a shop assistant "got anything made in England"? It seemed this question was almost deemed to be slightly racist - why? Comedian Stewart Lee famously made a joke about it, saying that a taxi driver said to him "call yourself English these days and you get arrested and thrown in jail" to which Lee repeatedly replies "what, arrested, in jail"?' The taxi driver ends-up giving-in and has to admit he's wrong - the joke being an exaggeration for comic effect. However, as far as I can tell, that joke is now actually not far from reality. In Japan it's the exact opposite, although to be fair, a lot of stuff in their shops is also made in China or Korea, but it wasn't anywhere near as difficult to find something Made in Japan. Of course, they, the Japanese, are proud of their ability to make stuff, and rightly so. Anyway, I suppose we've known for some time that our manufacturing base has been lost, so perhaps I shouldn't be so shocked. In a way, Brexit has highlighted the issue of where stuff is manufactured. Cars for instance; its various component parts are made all over Europe and having to cross the channel 3 to 4 times before final assembly only to be exported back to Europe. It's hard to see how this chimes with the alleged sentiments of the Paris Climate Change accord, that President Trump gave the finger to. And what sort of country can't even make its own sandwiches without recourse to foreign interference? I have purchased the odd sandwich from various Supermarkets and I thought, in my naivety, that they were built onsite, or at least in some shed down the road, but no - I had no idea just how pathetic Britain has become. It would appear that we are totally dependant on the EU. Of course, to an ardent Europhile this is all par for the course, perfectly normal, music to their ears bla bla - but to those of us with only the smallest semblance of national pride left, it is a source of acute embarrassment mixed with a realisation of the sheer insanity of it all. There is now such a gulf between those who believe in the EU and those who do not, the divide has manifested itself in what I like to call a Tower of Babel syndrome - everyone talking a different language and nothing, as far as I can tell, is going to bridge that chasm. Whatever your view 'Made in England' is now a thing of the past and, as far as I am concerned it's a very sad state of affairs indeed. I recall my grandfather having a huge sense of national pride about the quality of almost anything Made in England. To him, it was a benchmark of excellence. Unfortunately, it would appear that politicians have sold us down the river to a bunch of unelected corporate bureaucrats in Brussels - whose main purpose in life is to spread the work about at the behest of the multi-nationals - companies, who wouldn't actually exist were it not for the efforts of people like my grandfather. Higgs Boson