wind’

And don't forget, we won't be allowed to use animal muscle power, as that would be cruel.

Studying the upward curve of CO2 at Mauna Loa* reveals absolutely no impact from all the renewable energy, whatsoever.

There is no argument. Renewable energy has completely failed to either generate cheap reliable electricity or to lower atmospheric CO2

Of course, No one wants to make a clear statement like 'renewables have done diddly squat'

All you have to do is look at CO2 data

They are worried we might eat meat and get brave and challenge them

Kobe steaks are s*it really.

Actually no, I haven't. I have noticed a massive upswing in *reporting* weather events, as 'extreme'...

I am sure you have never researched 1930s USA and the Dust Bowl.

God hates Christians apparently.

Britain's climate has changed a bit in terms of rain distribution. Why, the highest temperature in the last couple of years just exceeded that in... 1976, when there was a real drought. I remember walking across the bed of a dried up park lake.

Repeat after me, 'correlation is *not* causation'.

Don't forget, most predictions by 'climatologists' such as Al Gore and Michael Mann have *not* been fulfilled. We'll ignore Greta, as she appears to know nothing about anything. I'm sure you know about the 1970 Earth Day predictions, which are now laughable, and if you don't, Google does. I believe the *consensus* then was that we were heading into an ice age, and all science is based on consensus, isn't it?

Even the IPCC agrees that there has been no increase in 'extreme' weather events, such as hurricanes, nor in their strength. Forest acreage burned in the US is steadily declining over many decades, and some of the recent big fires have resulted in arson charges. If forestry practices in the US to minimise fire damage had been continued over the last decade or two instead of being abandoned for 'environmental' reasons, there would be loss burning still.

Now, show us the *evidence* that a higher concentration of CO2 in the atmosphere causes, not warming, but rearrangement of climate patterns around the world. Eliminate all confounding factors, such as alterations of ocean currents we still do not understand, and movement of magnetic and rotation poles of the Earth, and ignore what the Sun is doing. No hand waving, now.

And if you want some light reading, try the Climategate emails, and see what you make of the scientific integrity of some of the prime movers in the whole climate thing.

Show me the evidence, but don't ask me to 'believe' as a matter of faith. Religions do that.

Or, ultimately, to eat only what comes out of factories.

Which God?

No, thanks anyway, I meant UK whole costs - concrete, steel etc. - most of which will be offshored and not show up on domestic data. I don't think global trends are a very good indication of the UK's adoption of renewables.

I wouldn't have thought renewables produce much CO2 once they're operating.

In some respects your reply proves the point. You mentioned the Texas incident only because it made the news. I'll bet that the previous 10 flash floods in Texas didn't make the news because they were normal occurrences.

Look at all the publicity about the LA fires. Climate change or just irresponsibly building in an area that is known to catch fire. California has had a service to fight these kind of fires since the 1880s.

What do you get when you build a new housing estate on a flood plane? What do you get when you build on a wooded hillside when in the past the undergrowth was eaten by grazing animals before it could become a source of tinder dry fuel? What do you get if you build in a area where the native trees only shed seeds after a fire or the trees protect themselves from being eaten with volatile oils?

Oh dear. Oh dear oh dear.

No, but the maintenance vehicles, backup plant and spare parts do...

The one in charge of floods.

A spelling mistake?

-- “It is hard to imagine a more stupid decision or more dangerous way of making decisions than by putting those decisions in the hands of people who pay no price for being wrong.”

Thomas Sowell

Actually, "doing our part" is giving us heat pumps that cost more than a gas boiler to buy and cost more per kilowatt in use. Batteries for electric vehicles currently require rare earth elements that we have to buy in even if we want to make the batteries ourselves, whereas we have access to untapped supplies of fossil fuels that our blinkered Governments refuse to use. If the UK succeeds in getting to nett zero, it would be about as noticeable in the world as taking a single bucket of water out of an Olympic sized swimming pool, and for that target we have the most expensive public transport and the highest fuel prices of any of our competitors so our exports face stiff competition in the world's markets.

Not only that, but having exported production abroad, we produce (but don't count as ours) a significant amount of CO2 shipping the goods from where they are made to where we want them.

The average member of the public doesn't mind making a reasonable effort towards "being green" but really objects to being forced to do things that cost more and doesn't benefit the individual. A few years ago I was talking to a milk roundsman, who was complaining that his company had scrapped a perfectly serviceable diesel vehicle and gave him a EV one instead. He discovered that if he ever used the cab heater in the winter, he ran out of battery before he finished his round. Same job but made unpleasantly colder by being forced to go electric.

I have no recollection of that, and can only find one other unreliable report, plus MSN echoes. Where else was it reported?

CO2 is the chosen enemy because human activities that produce CO2 can be banned or taxed.

The science does show that CO2 is a greenhouse gas. However the science also shows that water vapour is also a greenhouse gas in that it blocks a range of wavelengths that include the range that CO2 blocks. Water vapour is far more plentiful in the Earth's atmosphere than CO2 is, so even if CO2 production doubled it wouldn't make any noticeable difference to the climate.

The mathematical model that produced the "hockey stick"forecast of doom to come did cause scientists to take a closer look at the model, and it was noticed that the water cycle wasn't included. So the model was updated with latent heat of evaporation and condensation and the transfer of heat from clouds to the ground via precipitation. What the models still lack is the water vapour in the atmosphere that isn't visible as clouds or precipitation, so they are still useless at producing credible predictions.

Global warming and global cooling are natural cyclical events. The current pattern of climate change is very similar to that seen 8000 years ago, but the Anthrpocene converts are convinced that nothing happened before the Industrial Revolution so any research to earlier times is ignored.