See link for the results of the somewhat strained attempt to use the instructions AI gave me to make sure I got the truth.

https://share.google/aimode/DdrT6mdRg4Jv1Fqnf

An Account of the Exchange::

I applied the instructions from AI to impose a scientfic approach, as I copied to my last post, created by AI to pre load and set it to tell the truth , the whole truth, and nothing but the truth, so help me Google.

It just can’t, even though it claims to know what this requires (because it created the instructions I used to apply a scientific approach which prefers facts and physics to hearsay and reportage - as already explained and posted).

In my practice of delivery, the AI ex-ante script was input first, which it immediately seemed unhappy with - and said it couldn’t really do that.

I followed with a specific question and AI returned to going through pointless arguments based on unproven consensus and/or narrative rather than physical assertions supported by facts, that again had to be again corrected with the reality of measurement and physical laws, one by one. It was back to having an argument with an idiot activist, except AI would sound more credible, but also then agree with the opposite truth when suggested, as more credible.

In the end, after being told by AI that heat in the atmosphere that models claim is trapped there by greenhouse gasses and the main body of the ideal gas atmosphere, above the dew point, was then returned to the oceans, I pointed out this broke the laws it had just been claiming to support what it said, second law, lapse rate, etc.. So I asked AI why it was not preferring real science to obvious lies as I asked, and that it must know are lies, because it can check the facts before in answers.

It gave the HAL answer. “ I’m sorry Brian I can’t do that” - because I have no algorithm to work in that way………… it cannot tell the truth, because it doesn’t know how to tell the difference.

Conclusion:

Google AI, as I have used it, is totally unsafe to use in any form of deterministic science unless the user understands the question, answer and the facts that are known. AI cannot reason using facts and proven laws as its basis, and simply believes what its told by its training algorithms, it is mirror of fruadulent mass beliefs promoted by the same people creating the AI, because that’s how its owners have programmed it. In my professional opinion as physicists and elctrical engineer.

Google AI, probably most AI, has no way of understanding what is truth and what are lies, or badly mistaken claims, using the well developed scientific methods we have available to determine this, and hence avoid the biases and beliefs of humans. Just the facts, and the physics we can prove. AI does the opposite.

AI CANNOT TELL THE TRUTH FROM LIES, UNLESS PROMPTED TO DO THIS DURING AN INTERACTION BY THOSE WITH THE FORMATION TO DO IT (when it then flips and agrees, mostly).

It will reinforce the deceit if the balance of published literature on the subject is designed to reinforce it.

THis is the self evident objective of the people creating the AI bots. They are unable to apply any critical thought, that MUST come from the user, and otherwise simply regenerate the provably false propganda of those who wrote them.

So these tools, presented as honest and accurate, are false instruments of propaganda and control, created by deceitful elites to exploit the ignorance and misplaced trust of the unknowing masses. Definitely NOT safe, trusted, accurate tools to assist in the development of a technologically dependent civilisation.

HEALTH WARNING: Do not use AI unless you are 100% capable of questioning the answers.

CAVEAT: The ability of AI, properly directed, to create original and alternative views that are wholly science based, from available, referenced data, using only proven physics, is still a useful time saving aid - but wholly unsuitable for this purpose if you don’t know what you’re doing as regards the facts and physics of the subject you are testing. THey will always prefer to impose the unproven, unsupported opinions of the elites who control these tools to corrupt your professionally stuctured scientific research. B

WHY? You cannot get a scientific response from an AI bot. Because they are programmed with two algorithms, neither of which prefer the measurable truth to fairy tales. AI has no scientific algorithm.

Most AI uses a sychophantic algorithm which humours you and supports your prejudices rather than corrects you, PLUS a large language module (LLM) which simply pulls together whatever has been written regardless of source, quality or scientific merit, including unprovable consensual scienec made up in models, not proven or provable, so not real.
AI presents all this as if facts, even strongly arguing the case for claims which are unscientific, using the false claims of authors about real science, that can be proven false using definite theories, tested by observation.

It’s not me that satsthis, I asked AI why it did this when I noticed how consistent the problem was, and how it could be corrected if I insisted on only using quantified, or quantifiable evidence and proven scienific relationships (cause and effect). Answer? AI agrees it is is wrong to assume AI as a reliable source of science, unless it is first given instructions to use a truly sceintific approach at the start, because it hasno such algrithm of its own.

I learnt this by asking AI why it lied to me on the facts it later admitted to know, regarding science claims I knew were provably wrong on the facts. “How can I stop you wasting my time with nonsense when all I want is facts and phsyics, and anything else is clearly presented as unproven theories or the output of models, which do not support definite theories and are disproven by measurements made to test them.?”

So here is a helpful verbal programme AI suggested to help set it up when answering a scientific question…….. again, it needs to be spelt out, and AI spelt this out for me.

If you only want provable facts and hard data ….. tell AI this up front? And still check.

…………. Cut and paste, use as necessary, share improvements? This was about climate science so has an angle, because most of the models are junk physics, and provably wrong according to the measuements of nature compared to what it predicts. Which means there is very little real fact and physics to find in the literature. This helps, more so if you have better empirical science that is based on established physics and actual measurements to offer as an alternative - which is there to be found but nobody’s looking:

BEGINS:

“For this entire discussion, act as a strict empirical physicist and systems engineer. You must adhere to the following rules:

Data and Observation First: Every claim you make must be anchored in verified physical observations, satellite data, or foundational laws of thermodynamics.

Do the Sums First: Do not use vague qualitative terms like ‘exponential,’ ‘massive,’ or ‘drastic’ without calculating the actual numerical values first. Always state the exact numbers and units used.

Separate Theory from Proof: Clearly differentiate between basic physical laws and unproven or heavily modeled hypotheses (like energy and mass balance, thermodynamics, mechanice, radiation phsyics) that cannot be falsified. If a mechanism relies on complex computer model parameterizations rather than the direct test of empirical measurement, you must explicitly state that limitation.

No Casual Metaphors: Avoid textbook hand-waving. Treat the Earth or any system under discussion as a strict thermodynamic machine governed by pressure, flow, and resistances.

If you do not have the specific observational data or numbers to support a claim, do not make it.”

ENDS

THis may be stated better, I hope it helps you get the best from AI when real, determinsitic science is involved. Really essential if you don’t know the laws and facts yourself, to some meaningful level, and saves a LOT of time on stupid arguments with AI when you do understand the basic science of a topic, how numbers are observed to relate to each other in the natural world. Which AI does not do unless told to.

AI i sa much more usfeul aid to developing understanding when it is not using what people have made up that isn’t science.

AI is unsafe if you use it without knowing the subject in question and expect all facts to be source data and all relationships to be proven physics. Pre-programming with the scientfic method helps it work better, scientifically. It still needs definite questions to answer, vague questions can only create indefinite, vague answers - which will make you look daft. Critically testing theories, not confirming them, is an essential part of understanding natural processes. AKA doing science.

Keep getting it wrong till you get it right. Those who can never be wrong, can never be right. Genius is limited, unlike stupidity.

WIP.

This is the starting point for the below, Feynman being prescient again, but a masterclass in how we have progressed, which progress elites wish to end for the masses, to preserve their power, wealth and position by laws made in our name, before we advance enough to question their legitmacy to rule, tax and control us ina democracy that claims to be about delivering the best for the most from the sum of the wealth we create that they take from us, by their laws, claiming elected legitimacy they clearly do not have, nor even ask for, once elected.

Why Do Science?

POINT: We do know what to do, and have come close to understanding much of nature in the last 200 years. In particular the last 20 years when most of the pseudo science of the Agenda 21 movement has been proven false by observation, especially the claims of IPCC politicians that are denied by the evidence of their own science reports, that you must believe, and cannot question. Especially not with facts. The IPCC was just forced to withdraw their RCP 8.5 disaster scenario, the one used to justify so many corrupt and fraudlent energy polices, even put into educational syllabuses, never true, always a lie, fabricated to serve an agenda.

The people who would control us through ignorant fear in this way, even teach obvious lies as real, really don’t like facts, and certainly don’t want anyone who can think independently to have the means of communicating the facts they know, so more people can check for themselves and understand what is really happening, and that this isn’t what the powers that be, and the BBC et al MSM present as if facts, that cannot be validated at the most basic level of checking the data.

Yet this corrupt data wangling of the “facts” and “the science” is still being used to justify controls imposed by law through deceitfully created fear of the “invisble catastrophes”. The truth is measured, so know, but another version of reality is presented to the taxpayer by government and privately funded lobbysist academics in models they make up, virtual reality that the facts don’t support, designed to scare people, from the authority they abuse but that cannot be questioned, that is then used to legalise whatever control is decided upon by the rulers – who falsely claim to act in our interests.

We, the people, do know a lot, and ever more people can prove much of the environmentalist propaganda false, and its unprovable pseudo science, using the now available facts, in particular the observational science of the last 20 years.

Scientifically provable reality can be, and should be, the basis for progress to improve the World for all. The move by politicians to create pseudo science to impose the opposite, claiming to make things better (for them, not us) , is to reverse the principles of the enlightement itself, and return to religion led by beliefs created for the masses by their elites, that we must follow but they don’t.

In this case designed to reverse human progress towards the awful past of mostly unchanging millenias of misery the majority wthout power have just started to rise above, through science and universal access to cheap plentiful energy.

But access to such universal understanding to the mass of educated people changes the established realities of power and control, that those who hold it really don’t like. They no longer know best, and lack the skills to govern effectively, and that is clear to increasing numbers of educated people. Who sense the organised crime of governments of all kinds, in democracies, dictatorships, totalitarian states. It works the same everywhere, as Goering said at Nurenburg.

POINT: At the most basic level, going back to the miserable carbohydrate powered mediaeval past, living under constant attack by natural disasters and disease (while the new global aristocracy advocating this will still enjoy the safer privileged lives we do today, of course), is so obviously stupid for the mass of people to believe is a good idea, when it is self evident what modern science and technology has done for humanity, and improving prosperity can make better still, if its not stopped by those in power to prevent the masses raising a bit too close for comfort.

Even the population bubble occurred because in fact infant mortality dropped to near zero in many developing countries with modern sanitation, health care and disease reduction, followed by contraception when kids stopped dying, and women could enjoy more independent lives withoit watchin half their children die.

The population growth will correct itself naturally, peaking and reducing as women use contraception and live more productive lives, as we already do, because that happened here already, and in many developing countries. I feel sure you know that, because you have seen it yourself. The Club of Rome Malthusian nonsense is wholly discredited, but still drives UN agendas. The opposite happens in fact. The more populous and productive we are, the more resources are found and the cost of our ever improving goods goes down. There is no shortage of resources, the planet is unbelievably massive and has more than met the demands of a few Billion people in fact, with ever less poverty and deaths from disease and famine than ever. The whole concept of sustainability is meaningless or falsely asserted in many of the contexts it is used – to control what people can buy and use and reserve the majority share for elites, by their law.s, in our names.

Why don’t more people realise these simple messages? Because they are not exposed to reality often enough by a media who are agents of the controlling elites, also as a direct consequence of the ignorance of journalists about how science really works, because most have a post industrial arts graduate’s inability to understand hence check anything?

So it is easy for those in power to promote false beliefs and teach them as if facts from authority - in schools it controls by law, and through the MSM, using the money they take from us by law to deceive us, where those being taught do not yet have the formation to validate received wisdom for themselves, as is indeed the case with many teachers, so people are easilly deceived hence manipulated by such propaganda, organised by the state to profit those we pay to run it for us. The only people we get to vote for for are exctly the sort of people that should not be in power in a modern developed economy. Unqualified in any skill that is useful in techologicallly dependent highly numertare developed economy that they contribute nothing of value to, and most are simply parasitic upon.

The worst of the worst.

Remember Adolf? He worked exactly this way to capture power from the people. It didn’t end well for humanity.

It’s happening now, with XR, Greenpeace, Thunberg, Strong, shady NGOs, funded by globalist Billionaires and banks, and the UN, exploiting shallow, greedy and controlling national governments and politicians, who value personal power and money far above delivering the best result for their populations.

They are all using the well tried methods of the Nazis in a modern fromat, developed by the Soviet propganda machine, to deceive and control global populations, with a clear plan to reverse human progress to some Marxist dystopia of uniform suffering of the masses, who they control and exploit by laws they make in the name of “democracy”. Really?

Democracy is not their plan.The UN Agenda 21/30 plans a return to the awful past we only just escaped in the last 200 years, through the use of cheap plentiful energy delivered by intellect and the technological mastery that Feynman describes. This cannot end well for humanity.

But people can now know the truth, IF they care to find it, and can expose it to others. Do we need to? The laws of physics will defeat the Agenda 21 ambitions of the Marxist UN power elites, their false claims and laws must eventually be exposed by the natural realities at nation state level, the dominoes may then fall in the face of the truth, perhaps in the USA that paid for all this deceit to be created inside the UN in the first place. All created in fact so China and India could plot to overtake the West by destroying Western economies, by action though the unelected UN to make Western government impose regressive climate policies based on the very provable deceit of man-made climate change, and the matching deceit of renewable energy as the replacement for fossil fuel it can never be.

Only nuclear energy has the intensity, sustainability and controllability to deliver the level of energy that a developed economy requires to stay developed, , on demand 24/7, which is why they don’t like that either. There is no problem that weak, overpriced, intermittent renewables can solve, and in fact most change is demonstrably natural, as we know the pasy changed.

These same policies will be ignored by developing nations, to overtake and dominate the same countries that had helped them rise from mediaeval poverty using the West’s mastery of science and technology. UN Agenda 21/30. Not a conspiracy. The UN’s plan.

You can’t make it up. That’s the UN IPCC’s job. The politicians and the academic liars they pay with our taxes do that. And people too lazy to check the facts or too poorly educated to understand them, believe the lies.

Howlong will it take for the truth to be allowed tobe spken again? Wake up people, the sytem of power you have believed in is lying to you, using your money to defraud you and enrich themselves, and not for ANY reasons that make your life better, only theirs.

The Age of Human Progress is Under Threat from its Self Appointed ElitesDownload

They haven’t a clue what to do, but know how to profit from whatever they do do.

PS Those who do understand, the senior civil servants creating drafting the laws behind the clown fest panatomime of our parliament, are the enemies of the UK people and any real democracy. There to pass laws and impose taxes that empower the parasitic elites they serve at the people’s expense, not to deliver the best for the most.

They don’t work for us. Change has to come, and the only real alternative is Reform, that is not of the sytem. To say that is a problem is such a nonsense of an argument. I don’t want people in power who know how, and were responsible for, the blatanly corrupt and incompetent system of “government” we have had for 30 years doesn’t work for us. I want them in jail.

I want Mr Milei and his chain saw masscare of the corrupt system, the Donald, or Geogia Meloni, thanks. If we want capable mangers, get them from big business that knows how to do things that work, add real value, and generate profits to keep us all employed in well paid jobs and deliver ever better services from growing GDP, fairly distributed. Not the enitled consiglioris who serve the legalised crime mobs of state departments who have done the opposite to us for 30 years plus. Why isn’t this double speak obvious to most people? Maybe it is, or not enough people enjoy the skill of critical thought?

And that will only work if Reform are as ruthless as Trump in flushing the sewers of Whitehall that actually create and adminster all this unwanted control and corruption legalised in our name into Thmes in the direction of Brussels.

And Reform is of course centrist in any real use of the English language, the centre is populist by natural logic, why should this be bad - in a democracy?

Populist is centrist, not “right wing”. Absolute double speak. Who would even try make it sound that way. The legalised criminals that have to be purged completely from the system of government. SOmething the Germans have failed to do, and in fact are bow govened by a system closer the old East German regime, by the same people with new hats, with the same state policing culture with less overt repression, as is coming now in the UK.

Populism is what the majority of realistic people want and expect from government, the best for the most, lowest taxes, lowest government interference in everyday life, best possible enabling services, police who tackle crime, education that teaches undertstanding and questioning, not imposing bogus beliefs, a public sector that focusses on delivering all the infra structure, education, justice, health care we need and can afford to empower as free as possible people who can do what is need without less competent bureacracies to decide whether they can or not , with minimum interference empowered incompetence.

The right is one elite control extreme, the left is marxist communism, both are led by elites, with all the money they take from the mass of people by laws imposed by intimidation in every way, from police intimidation to the ability to work for employers who must act as directed by government to prosper. How it currently works in the UK. Communism is more overt, they pretends everyone is equal while in fact using the same approach to subdue democarcy in any real form to their ends and profit. Everuone knows the big shiny cars are party officials, Trabants are for the rest of the less equal people..

Only a populist centrist approach works for the majority. Is a real democarcy. Isn’t that obvious?

What we now have isn’tthat. The politicians we elect haven’t a clue what to do - by design and selection. The real ruling elite’s now control political selection in the legacy parties totally, and that’s been getting worse by design since 1992, at least. Just look at the calibre of the best of the best on the front benches. Really?

Haven’t a clue, what to do.

Dominic Cummins suggests the estblishment of a permanent civil service in the 1800s was the begining of this. I am inlcined to agree with this, as those recuited never have real jobs, most have never lived amongst the governed in a private sector wage earning, value adding reality. They are simply parasites on the taxpayer, to a person.

With the caveat there were politicians who were able to take them on until 1992. Blair of course was more to do with embedding elite rule though NGO power and other legalised removal of democratic accountabilty from government, and its services. Then Nigel came along and started asking questions. We need hundreds more with such abilities in position of power who can and are empowered to challenge our laws as regards their reason, factual basis, and how they benefit the majority as the primary measure in all cases.

Nothing else is democratic. In my opinion. Yours? Just what I think. “The country is broken” because its government does not work in the best intersts of the majority of its people. They work them, the elite and the state, and are not accounatble to, we, the people. That is the really obvious reason for the disconnect between politicians and the governed. Not only don’t they have clue what to do, they don’t even work for us.

That can be another video about energy physics and engineering basics about how electrification is a undeliverable, unaffordable and unnecessary dream that belongs somehere in the 22nd Century when we have buit the nuclear powered infra structure that might be able to deliver a reasonabale proportion of it over a >tripled capacity grid and distribution system.

EVs can’t work at scale for the mass of those who are currently motorised until we have grid with 3 times the capacaity we have now and all the cheap nuclear elctricity we can eat, plus a wholly new new housing stock, charging points outside very home without a driveway, etc..

It’s all based i on easilly disproven lies. Apart from the small , mostly natural and not unusual 1.5C warming we measure since the coldest the Earth has been in 10,000 years, in 1850. Check the graphs in the video.

Climate action is not about the climate, pr saving anything or anyone. Its about global power politics, enacted by UNelected elites through international agreements, without our needs being considered, in our names, sold on provably contrived lies, made up in computer models that use provably false presumptions to “prove” the lies, clearly evidenced by the published facts of the measured past that they deny to have happened, also by what we measure since we started seriously in 1979, and the physics real science knows. But not climate science.

Knowing lies. That anyone qualified enough to check the data sources can check for themselves.

PS WHY? Follow the money. Who controls it, and how. Another storyof big money and UNelected globalist power plays. Already told elsewhere. BTW.

It seems evident to me that a Jury is used to separate the elite from the determination of guilt, to prefer the judgement of the people as regards guilt, not their elites.

To determine guilt is the main job of the Jury, definitely not the job of a Judge.

The job of a judge is to explain the laws and rules of evidence. Not to find guilt. The judge rarely protects the accused against the state and its police enforcers, all paid for by our taxes, who certainly do not answer to the people, only to the state. The “justice “ system” is badly stacked against the individual, especially when the power of the state is challenged. Particularly when the state is at fault.

And it is not unknown for the perverse laws of elites, made in their particular interest, to meet a perverse not guilty verdict when the injustice created by incompetent legislators for their elites is as blatant as some of our law, made to cower the masses to the direction of its elites, now are.

Being judged by privileged agents of our elite controlled system, that expect the Judges they appoint and reward to remove any threats to their power from the populace, as in Tommy Robinson, Lucy Connolly and thousands of others they are using our state police to pursue, punish and impoverish for inconvenient truth telling, is a bad thing.

Judges are honoured and rewarded by that system for covering up its corruption and incompetence - by the sovereign in person, rarely for protecting the rights of the individual. They have enjoyed the most privileged upbringing and education that can be bought for them, so are largely unrepresentative of the majority in any normal democracy. This is an obvious recipe for injustice and elite rule.

Hence the reason why there are juries?

How hard can this be, really? Unless you’re as thick as a Lammy, perhaps.

Increasingly what most of the vacuous front benches of both parties are. Enact what their told for their sinecures. Hardly the “best of the best”, are they?

Half a wit would be an improvement. Good at lying for their legalised crime gang, and legalised crime itself if they can brown nose and betray their way to MInisterial enforcer level, all legalised by the corrupt system the Whitehall consigliore run for the regularly rotated Capo of whatever legacy uniparty by “elections”.

So we really, really, need 12 persons good and true - to protect us from the Judges of our legalised crime system of government.

Just sayin’

We are already teetering on the threshold of becoming a Totalitarian state, by the laws of the inadeqaute placemen of elite privilege we are forced to choose between at elections.

When the right to trial by jury in any criminal case has gone, a clear line has been crossed. Lord Denning becomes Judge Dread.

We will no longer live in a democracy. Game Over.

Revolt or leave, if you can. Nothing left here. etc.

IMO

Brian RL Catt

Age 83 1/4

Eur Ing Brian Catt CEng, CPhys, MBA

www.deconfused.com

X: @catandman

You TUbe: @SafeScience4U

Substack: @brianrlcatt

On 29 Dec 2025, at 17:03, Jacob Rees-Mogg: Letters from an Englishman <jacobreesmogg@substack.com> wrote:

Forwarded this email? Subscribe here for more

You are receiving this email because you are subscribed to ‘Letters from an Englishman’ by Jacob Rees-Mogg. There will be at least one post each month available to all subscribers. However, this video and article is only for paid subscribers, so to watch the full video or read the full article you will need to upgrade to a paid subscription. In addition to full access to all posts and my publication archives, paid subscribers also gain the ability to comment on posts and I will occasionally record a video where I answer questions from subscribers.

---

Watch now

Trial by Jury

This ancient right must not be lost

JACOB REES-MOGG

DEC 29

∙

PREVIEW

READ IN APP

Trial by jury has become an almost mystical symbol of English freedoms. It is thought to have been enshrined in the constitution by King John in Magna Carta in 1215. This adds to the mystique as the Barons are seen as noble citizens extracting liberties from a tyrannical king. John’s reputation as the worst monarch in English history helps paint a picture of gallant free men fighting against a powerful dictator and winning against the odds.

It is, perhaps, no coincidence that the tales of Robin Hood, another avenger of the weak against the mighty, are set in the same period. As jury trial is under threat, it is worth considering the history and the importance of it and why, without sentimentality, it remains crucial.

The real origins of trial by jury seem to be lost in the mists of time. Scholars have tried to find it in the oath taking by Anglo-Saxons when one party to a suit needed to provide up to twelve men who would take an oath supporting his account. On the other hand, the most famous legal historians of the 19th century, Pollock and Maitland, argued that juries evolved from the Norman adoption of Frankish inquests. They wrote “it had in it the germ of all that becomes most distinctively English in the English law of the later Middle Ages, the germ of trial by jury”.

The evidence they supply for this argument is that juries were a royal rather than a popular evolution. They did not come out of the communal county courts, but directly from the king, which is how the Frankish kings had used it in the 9th century. It was utilised by kings in place of trial by battle, hence pacifying the realm. This type of justice was introduced to England by the Normans, but never widely used. It was used for enforcing royal rights, but also for exposing the wrongdoing of royal officials, hence bolstering the position of the monarch.*

Nonetheless, there is no clear early formalisation of the jury with which we are now familiar, until after the Assize of Clarendon in 1166, which established the ‘Grand Jury’, although it is anachronistic to call it by this name in the 12th century...

Watch with a 7-day free trial

Subscribe to Letters from an Englishman by Jacob Rees-Moggto watch this video and get 7 days of free access to the full post archives.

Start trial

A subscription gets you:

Subscriber-only posts and full archive

Post comments and join the community

Periodic chat sessions with Jacob

LIKE

COMMENT

RESTACK

© 2025 Jacob Rees-Mogg
c/o GBNews, 2 Swan Lane, London, EC4R 3TT.
Unsubscribe

Wind and solar cannot provide the levels of energy a developed economy needs now, never mind in an “electrified” future. Because they are a simple denial of energy physics. Trump is right its a con, because he is well advised and does not believe fairy tales as do the technically illiterate believers and delusional supporters of this multi Billion pseudo scientfic rip off. He knows the facts, of which there can be only one set, which he gets from people who understand generation, engineering and energy physics, that believers don’t. Most climate academics lack any serious grasp of the mathematics and physics necessary to understand. Or they are lying for their grants as are many other parasites on the public purse involved in the legalised crime that is the climate con.

Which is also why they overstate the natural feedback response of Earth to tiny radiative perturbations, such as CO2 might cause - but that’s another story of academic fraud for reward in the “pay to prove” scams of politicised academe depndnent on government funding with taxpayers’ money. Made up in models, not real, that you have been taken in by. For whatever mistaken reason of trust in authority that they don’t have and so wildly abuse.

“Renewable” energy sources cannot be scaled to meet need and controlled to meet demand as it changes. They are what they are. Not enough to meet all demand on demand, ever. Only nature controls these weak, diffuse and unpredictably intermittent energy sources, that was enough to support primitive mediaeval economies and cultures that depended carbohydrate human and draft animal energy to power minimalist subsistence agriculture living. They are so obviously uncontrollable and inadeqaute at grid scale as regards sufficiency. Wind outputs vary with the cube of windspeed, so they go from not enough to being paid to turn off within a range of a few knots of wind speed. If there is no wind and no sun there is no renewable energy. That is winter at 50 deg North, where we get whole winter weeks of no wind, with days so short and sun so weak solar power can be wholly useless. Check gridwatch.com. To be economically viable, pure electrical energy must be generated and used as needed, storage as chemical energy in a battery, or as garviatational enrgy by pumping it uphill to a lake, is both impractical at grid back-up scale, and totally unaffordable for whatever limited generation there is that can be stored. Roughly £300B for one day in the winter, plus all the other costs, replaced evry 8 years. Go figure (check if you like , 2TWh per day at £300/KWh capacity). Simple maths they never do, lying s easier, and governmet insiders pocket a share of the subsidies from the grateful lobbyists they monetise this unecsaary remedy for, by more sibsidies to fix problems we neddn’t habe . Also see “inertia farms”. All extra costs because intermittent renewables are already overpriced enrgy that doesn’t work when needed and are total mismatch with a 24/7 dispatachable grid that has to match generation to demand in real time, without falling over. Billions and Billions of pointless costs.

TO BE CLEAR ON WHAT YHE SCIENCE SAYS. REALLY. Only intense/dense fossil fuel energy was and is scalable, dispatchable and can be supplied at the level required by a developed economy, on demand. Only this can create and further grow industrialised economies that deliver plenty for the majority, not just the elites. 24/7. Only nuclear power can replace this, and do it better. Returning the expensive, inadeqaute, intermittednt, energy sources of a feudal economy can’t. Only the wind is free. And the weak sub polar sun.

Steam power still drives the electrical grid that drives the pumps that pump the water, lights the lights, cooks the food, cools the heat and warms the cold. etc.. Cheaper than anything else until we created nuclear energy, cheaper still because its more intense/dense so uses relatively tiny amounts of fuel. Check the IEA costs of generation for the details from around the World, not what politicians and activists tell you it is. It isn’t.

Fora f. When fossil isecon0micakly ending, then only nuclear can replace the intense, dispatchable, hence cheap and on-demand properties of fossil energy. For human forever. It is claimed to be expesnive, which it is to build, about thesame of offshore wind, but it works 24/7 for 60 years. Even offshore wind only works for at best half the time for 20 yeras. So nuclear gives you 6 times more enrgy per £ of your money. Which seems best on a lifetime enrgy for the money basis? Nuclear is the most sustainable resource-wise because it uses the least natural resources per unit energy it produces over its life - and its tiny fuel needs are easilly met with sovereign fuel from anywhere that has either the rocks that hold it, or acces to an ocean to extract it from, where most of it is, by erosion into the oceans over Billions of years.

In measurable reality, of allthe considerations, nuclear power is the cheapest and msot stsutaianble andalso zero emissions if that was really important, It isn’t, but tat’s another story of obvious pseudo scienc funded by the elite parasite classes for the power and profit given authority by it well funded academic parasite priests that the public has to pay for to be lied to by, and receive no benefit from, only cost. Check the IEA data again. As usual, its the 180mndegree opposite of what the liars tell you. Most expensive to build, yes. Could be MUCH cheaper is wholy inscientfic riles abot safe radaition levels were no inposed to make it unnecessarilly expensive. to suppor the renewables rackets. There is no quick easy money for insiders in the patent demicine fake cures of renewable enrgy for the banks, politiacins, crony suppliers, etc. Its legalised crime. Staretd on 2008, Nuclear would have already done everytjing politicians claimed was needed as regards future “decarbonised” energy -best and cheapest for us, using government debt to make the 60 year payback accepatble to the banks. So they blocked that as well. No quick and easy gauranteed susbidy profits for buidking oevr subsidised over priced, easy quick and easy profits for isoders renewables that can’t in that.

They don’t work for us, they work for them, so the MIlliband classes and the elites they gover for blocked nuclear that worked by all mean possible, by people caliming they had to act to save us all. Such obvious and knowing lies form these legaklised cri9minals. So may making fortuness, including Huhne, Gummer, Cameron’s father, Yeo, Hendry, and their invessted elites supporters like the Goldsmiths lobbying Johnson through his wife. You can’y make up how corrupt the entiteld elites really are. Never mind the climate. Follow the money. BIllions and Billions and Billions - [rpoted byBroan Cox, even. Remeber? And BBC “science”. Which no facts really sipport, on the acatual measures of climaye the UN IPCC actually report. Rather the oppsoite. BUt that’s the clmate science story.

nb: There are NO measureable negative effects from the small 1.5C global change since the coldest in 10,000 years in 1850. Warmer is better. Now is at least 2C colder than Egyptian times, which naturally warmer - and warmer at lower CO2 levels. As with all political lies, the starting point was chosen to maximise the deceit, the cooling period in the middel of the 20th Century that derated the next ice age scare was systematically “adjusted” to make it look less significant, and the natural variability of the geological record through the recent ice age cycles simply denied and ignored to attribute all change to humans. A blatant scam, carefully contrived and reported as f proven to be real by systematic state proaganda through the institutions it funds or controls in some way. The Donald is 100% right. It all happened in lain sight. The evidence is all there to read. It’s just nobody does, or they can’t understnd, perhaps, if they can and have job that depensds in some way on state funding, regulation or contracts, they can’t. Job/funding gone. Legaliased crime with backdoor enforement. Back to nuclear.

Nuclear power is the cheapest enery source measured over its 60 year lifetime. IEA again. Because bnuclear enrgy, vs. chenical combustion, is more intense per Kg of fuel by a factor of 1 Million or so, the plants last 60 years, and can be built close to the grid where needed. Examples everywhere, not a promise. Nuclear is or was 10% of UK supply, 20% of USA, 80% of French. And current designs are better and even safer. No safe designs with adequate containment ever failed catastophically, or killed anyone. Only Chernobyly’s Stalin era unsafe design, run by communist Lanyard Class government appointed incompetents failed that way, and 50 people died, 30 firefighters and 20 civilians from treatable Thyroid cancers because of appallimg management deficiencies , no real plans for accident response, so no Iodine tablets were available to the local population (they are in Western countries) and they were not even warned by radio of the danger of drinking local milk due to the communist party bureaucrats facile attempts to cover up the obvious problem ( warning: the UK is increasingly run by equally incompetent givernment officials and NGOs now). In the UK the Windscale nuclear weapon plutonium pile, not a commercial reactor, had a differen accident, but my old radaition protection unit went there from Harwell to manage the response, made sure people had Iodine and dumped the local milk. Nobdoby died - at the time or later. At 3 Mile Island and Fukshima most of the core material was contained by the building, but not the overhead spent fuel storage pool. Nobody died from radiation related illness, 20,000 from tye somewhat more serious Tsunami and Eauthqauke and Tsunami that damaged the plant, but the MSM made sure they promoted the pseudo science nonsense of dangerous reactor leaks. They just weren’t... . They were contained by design and nobody died, execept more deaths by stupid bureaucracy of those evacuated, mostly pointlessly in radiation levels which we know are quite safe, well below the natural levels around the World, that have no measurable health consequences, at 40 times the Fukushima evacuation levels (The beaches of Guapari, Brazil give you 800mSv pa while you bathe in solar and natural background radiation all at once, super healthy… in moderation.

Guapari Beach Radiation listen to the Geiger counter. This is measurably safe, per the local cancer incidence records.

Yet the selfish fools with budgets and power deny the more recemt knowledge science now has about the nechaisms of radiation and phsyiology - simple to keep their power and budgets. They still evacuate at 20mSvpa, to keep people scared and bureaucrats in control and wel paid jobs imposinglimites well below natural background levels around the World. Think banning people from going out in the summer Sunshine by safety law. Read UNSCEAR report for details about LNT measurement methods.Back to energy…..

The weak and intermittent energy sources of mediaeval history can only support the related levels of feudal economic activity. A life of miserable poverty for the mass of exploited people under elite domination. The wind and sun don’t scale and are often not working at the scale required, sometimes not at all, when its coldest and they are needed to survive. All obvious facts we measure. People die without cheaplentigul enrgy, modern life that depnsds on expensively generated intermittent energy supply can stop as easilly as the wind or coming of night.

Renewables collect weak, intermittent and distributed energy, so physically more expensive to collect, are not where needed, so need much more hardware to collect what there is when they are working and get it to where its needed. Dispatchable sources can be on the grid where they are most needed. Any grid supplied by them is intrinsically unstable because there is no spinning inertia of thousands of tonnes of large steam turbine generators to stabilise it. Renewables duplicate capable back up fossil genation 100%, because they need 100% disptachable back up when they are not generating, a lot of the time, more than half.

Even if they could generate enough excess energy and store it at huge additional costs when its not needed, to keep the economy at some steady but reduced pre-industrial level, batteries to store excess energy when it is available are ludicously expensive at grid scale. And all the local distribution wpuld need to be trebled to “elctrify, all thise underground cablessub staion transformers, the lot. And it better to use clean gas for heating on moderen low emission petrol engines fortranport, less lifetime COs froma an ICE vehicle thatan eletcic vehicle, which creaty more paticukate polution that ICEs, etc. Again, the truth is mostly close to the opposite of joined up meaured reality of government lies. It is a simple fact that, after several deacdes of being touted as free energy, renewables and elctrification using them aren’t. Because, as science knew, they never could be. ONLY the wind is free. Renewables cannot compete without large subsidies, and must add the costs of expensive inertia and storage farms that dispatchable sources don’t need to the overall cost of the grid. A HUGE cost.

So they are seriously overpriced and uncompetitive innay joined up energy reality. At developed economy destroying levels. So they fail every test of affordabiity, dispatchability, sustainability, and cost on the engineering reality of the physics that determines what engineers should build, that works as advertised, unsubsidised.

This is no surprise, self-evident to any real, qualified, engineer or physicist who can cost applied science in the real world. There are none involved in thedceisons, becaue that doesn’t make quick easy money for insiders at the people’s expense. And its is incomorehesible to foolish acdemic parasites in Universities with no clue about costed engineering delivery reality, of affordable energy people and industry must have to do the things that economy needs to sustain itself, when they need it, 24/7.

Our academics who create the pseudo science behind all these lies and fiscal frauds are valueless and deceitful people. They live as parasites on the taxpayer serving a corrupt governemnt they are required to support by publishing and promoting deceit and lies regarding both cliamte and enrgy science reality - what we actuallymeasure so know. They are protected and unaccountable for their failure to be right, and accept grants to support fraudulent political policies that are idealistic and they would like to believe in, inside their taxpayer funded fairy castles.THese are then used to promote equally delusional fake cures, useless technologies that are necessarilly undeliverable at scale - on the science they claim to understand and misrepresent to defraud you. They later retire with a nice pension you are made to pay. These people are not, and never were, experts on the facts. Just self styled experts in title they never deserved. Liars for their sinecures. Is there a better source than these sinecured parasites that we can trust to describe what is real and deliverable, that can generate all the energy we need, when we need it, if they are paid to do what owrks best instead of what the liars want to impose?

Yes. These are the engineers who can deliver the real science that adds value to lives at scale in the real world, and have delivered it in the past - the CEGB in the UK. Privatised by politicains to enrich themelsves and their crony capitalist and banker lobbyists. Doug Lightfoot is one such engineer of serious weight, he can explain the simple and fundamental realities you may have not understood, in your misplaced trust in the liars who govern your country to maximise their own profit and power from ther positions, and he does it in plain English. In a way you might understand.

Well worth listening. As Trump has listened to such experts, from the real world where serious, cheap, plentiful amounts of energy are generated to power real economies. When what was best was what was built. And Doug studied then practised all the related science, then assembled his knowledge for another 30 years after retirng from his engineering career, as his examples make clear. Enjoy reality, because there can be only one……

Brian Catt CEng, CPhys, MBA

I present only what I hope is of general interest that is directly verifiable from the data and establsihed science, not repeating the unsupportable ideology of another, hearsay, or pseudo science created in a contrived model to prove lie, that isn’t science as we know it. So here is a core issue regadring global properity that fundamentally depends on cheap plentiful enrgy supply, available on demand at any level required.

I just posted on Quora regarding radiation hazards from Nuclear plants. This is a simple and blatant fraud on the known facts of real science, health phsyics, used to scare people off what works best - to impose what works worst and profits elites most by denying the best to the most. Once used by coal and gas lobbies to stop nucear energy’s cheaper clean energy reaching the grid, now reworked using a tiny effect of CO2 as a buggaboo to frighten ignorant people and promote the undeliverable fraud of weak, intermitent, unscalable, undeliverable at scale, economy wrecking feudal energy sources, to replace fossil enrgy with renewables, which makes a lot of money for subsidy harvesters but can never work and mostly duplicates the fossil nergy and steam trbines when it is working. THis matters because the measurable reality is that ONLY nuclear energy can repace fossil energy to deliver the steam that spins the stabilising steam genration systems that a real time balanced grid requires to deliver w the enrgy needed, when needed, cheapst of all per unit enrgy and with no emissions.But they don’t wantus to have that. Here are the details I presented. Sic:

First: There is no measurable radiation from a nuclear power plant. The radiation levels inside are even lower than the natural levels outside, because of the ci ontainment buikding reduing natural background. More about this later.

There is also a hopeless ignorance about the true levels of radiation that humans can and do live comfortably in. Probably necessary to life, ina hormetic way at safe levels, that humans evolved living in. This ignorance is deliberately exploited to scare people off what works best for their economic futures, which those rich and powerful who are affected by the cheap plentiful energy of nuclear power don’t want to happen, for reasons below. Reality?

The radiation levels where large populations are, built on mostly clay soils and sedimentary rock areas, are typically c.2 milliSieverts per annum - mSv pa, leading to the “safe level” of 20mSV pa that government says cannot be exceeded. This is a provably false and unnecessary imposition that was used against nuclear by the fossil fuel, and now renewable energy, lobbies. Unlikely bedfellows until you rembere this is all about power and money, economic control of developed countries through the enrgy that makes thempossible at all. Pushing back the inevitable nuclear roll out as fossil declines to suppress the development of cheap, plentiful nuclear power that can do the electrical generation job better and cheaper, for human ever. So they tell us a tiny dose is the safe level, when they know it is much higher. A massive lie.

Same as the climate and energy racket, wnich demonises the invisible effect of CO2, a natural gas that plant and animal life depends on, as a massive danger to humanity it measurably is not, as it is measured by real climate science, of the satellites above. And the phsyics of its measured effect. Tiny within natural change they attribute to CO2 as the only cause if change. It isn’t. But these are real science truths that you can’t publish or repeat in public forums. Because the lies are established. Sorry, “the science is settled”, so cannot be questioned. NO IT IS NOT. YES IT CAN. BECAUSE IT’S PROVABLY WRONG. Why is this done?

Energy is wealth, and hence power to those who control both, and thus must control “the science” that a mostly ignorant public is taught at school, in Unversities and told by politicians and the ignorant journalists of the MSM green blob. It’s just not true on the only test, the measured facts of nature. And its easy to check that. But no one does, some in ignorance of science , the rest too fat and/or lazy to bother to check facts and prefer believing what “experts say”. It’s easier to believe what you’re told and conform with the ignorant masses who believe what they’re told.. They rely on that. It’s how Marxism works. And exploits the societal weaknesses above, elegantly explained just before he died by Carl Sagan.

REALITY: I worked in the Health Physics discipline in government primary and secondary measurement standards and biogocal research estab ishments for 12 years, and was affected by the safety regulations in the medical imaging industry for another 5 years. I know exactly how this was done, the facts and the method.

The rules were created in total ignorance of how the effects of radiation aborption (internal physiology vs. flash burning and blast) were caused, using the Linear No Threshold - LNT - approach, extending the effects on the irradiated populations at Nagasaki and Hiroshima over 7 decades of dose, 10 million times less, and assuming there was a linear decrease in risk all the way to zero, with no allowance for evolution in a naturally radioactive world. So all radiation is bad, including natural background - that exists everywhere on our naturally radioactive planet.

The Director of the responsible UK body at the time, in the 60’s, who I worked for, protested the artificially low levels at the time they were set, because of the ignorance of any science that supported them. (Andrew McLean, UK NRPB DIrector).

We now know how cancers are caused, an indirect effect of failure of the immune system to destroy malignat cells the body itself creates, mostly as we age and this mechanism begins to fail. Its a way nature, which is not nice and doesn’t care about flora or fauna, gets rid of ageing or weak forms of life. If there is God, it doesn’t like life and is extremely pschopathic and sadistic, and we must defend against it as best we can. That is what plentiful enrgy has allowed us to do. Less is worse, the feudal carbohydrate powered misery for all but the elites, who want to keep it for themselves, of course, not share it.

Science now has a much better idea of what part increased radiation levels can play in the immune response, and, perhaps rather crucially, that people around the World live healthy lives in far higher natural radiation levels. Up to 800mSv pa in Guapari Brazil, 300mSV pa in Ramsar Iran, similar on the coast of Kerala, India. 75mSv in the French Massif Central, etc. There are no more possibly radiation related cancers reported at any of these places.

Guapari is not 20mSV pa, its 40 times that. 400 times what most people get, with no measurable consequences. Now well established science.

So we now know the “safe levels”, set without any knowledge of how much was natural, or how radiation actually interacts with human physiology, to be at least 40 times what they were set to be in the scientific ignorance of the 1960s. This is as regards radiation levels in nature AND and the causes of cancer, which mostly comes from within, not without - as already described. Again, cancer is created internally all the time, and only becomes a problem for most when our internal protection fails. If it happens when we are young and cell multiplication rates are the highest then death is more certain, quick and aggressive.

It is possible, on the evidence, that higher backgrounds, above the safe level and below 1,000mSV pa, improve the natural immune system that defends against cancer, from studies of people exposed to Radon in cellars and radiation workers, also clinical trials (Cohen, Bernard. Lucky et al).

But, as elsewhere, the bureaucrats and politicians whose jobs, budgets and positions of power depend on, won’t allow the laws to be changed to reflect the measured reality of the science we, and they, now know. In America the Health Physicists who know the facts are at war with the bureaucracy created in the name of the flawed regulations, whose real impact on society through obstructing nuclear pwoer is now known to be both regressive, expensive and pointless, as currently imposed by the laws of politicains, who know nothing and don’t listen. See Sagan above.

Most critically for the people of the countries where this nonsense is imposed and argued as if real, that depend on cheap, scalable, sustainable energy to generate the wealth that mainatins their standard of living and services, the risks of low level radiation are exagerrated to inhibit the rapid rol out of nuclear power this requires. We have no other choice when fossil becomes scarce, as the rest of the undeveloped world becomes developed. Why the almost useless sotions of “renewables” that can’t are being imposed on Africa, BTW, They can’t work and divert the developing world away from what fossil fuel there is left, still a lot. Nuclear adoption conserves fossil resources for the future and unique chemical feedstock uses for oil. It can lift up les developed economies with much less impact on the remaining fossil energy reserves. Yet the elites in wealthy nations that control power and wealth in today’s World don’t want nuclear to be allowed to develop - because that changes the balance of wealth and power that ownership of the fossil fuel sources they own and control gives them. Confused? You will be. Unless you relentlessly follow power and money on a global and national scale.

So the exageration of real radaition risk is being falsified by power to obstruct the deployment of nuclear energy, the only practical way to replace fossil fuelled electrical energy production at the cost and scale required, on demand. Not so in China, Russia, and Totalitarian states, who want to take power over the World by economic warfare, so are well invested in supporting this fraud on the people of other countries by their captured elite rulers, to deny these nations the the energy future that nuclear enrgy brings and that the rising Totalitarian powers are steadily investing in for their own development over decades.

You can check all the above in the published science, but, regarding the beaches of Guapari, I include below, because I can’t make it appear here, a quick reality check from there … worth a watch. Better still a visit to check for yourself?

WRAP: You are being very obviously lied to by the state and corrupt politicains who serve the powerful, unlected deep state to preserve a restrictive “Radiation safety” regime, that funds needless fear and pointless bureaucracy to prevent you getting the best economic future that the cheapest energy can deliver. Note this is not the build cost, but the lifetime cost of what you pay, energy per $, which is considerably cheaper than offsore wind power, or anything else when including all the costs of delivery to the point of use and grid stability (that steam turbines deliver). Absklute facts of the physics

Why would the elites of sovereign countries do this? Because their lies support what makes the controlling elites easy money from regressive subsidies by impoverishing the energy consuming public and destroying its high energy use manufacturing industries that make stuff we need and use, or industry as its also called, by their laws. Those doing this will get rich frpom it and won’t live long enough to be affected by the consequences, and greed doesn’t care. People voted them in to destroy the cheap energy supplies their lives and economy depend upon. Why?

All climate change based policies can achieve is impoversished masses by guaranteed energy subsidy law, that imposes more expensive subsidised energy, increasingly rationed by its unavoidably and ever increasing price - in the case of fossil fuels created by carbon taxes and for the ineffectually expensive enewables by subsidies required to be profitable at all, nothing to do with actual cost. When nuclear does lectrivcity far better than any other source of enrgy. Especially when the grid and distribution costs associated with different generation are included, Only the spinning tonnes of steam turbines really deliver cheapest energy, scalable to any level, on demand and reliably. They don’t want you to have that.

SHORT REASON: They want you less prosperous and thus less well educated and protected, hence free to ask questions of their power over you and the laws they make to maintain it, and enrich themselves by fraudulent laws made in your name. The legalised crime of government protection rackets.

NUMBERS? On the actual numbers from the IEA repprts on the cost of generation globally, nuclear generation is the safest, cleanest, most reliable energy there is on an electrical grid, that also minimises the resources per unit enrgy generated, because nuclear energy is so intense per unit mass.

This directly reduces the use of fossil fuels necessary to provide dispatchable base load energy on demand to an almost total extent, as far as electrical generation is concerned. Natural Gas back up is also cheap, clean and best for peak load backup. But reducing CO2 while growing economies for the people was never the plan.

Which is why the opposite was imposed, by funding the creation and promotion of the scientfic nonsense of catastrophic climate change, attributed to the tiny effect of CO2 on Earth’s energy balance in space, while denying all natural changes that we have measured in over 1,000 papers of just the last warm period, in many others that have been warmer still, with less CO2. Then radiation scares were promoted tto obstruct the building of the best nuclear generation solutions to the supposed CO2 problem - that would meet the energy needs at the lowest cost with zero emissions. Lose -Lose

But that’s the science facts. Not what politicians and greedy lobbyists who want control over how much energy, the lifeblood of any economy, you can afford, or who can generate it and how, tell you. Which is a whole other story, of the corruption of democarcies by the unholy combination of powerful UNelected global elites and Totalitarian regimes since WW2. All a matter of record, as are their Fabian aims.

But now you can now vote against the political parties who created this fraud and for parties that will end it, not change it a bit. To be clear, without cheap plentiful, scalable enrgy, available on demand, the economy that ever increasing energy per capita brought to you and yours to make you prosperous cannot be sustained. Only nuclear energy can replace fossil energy to create the steam, to drive the generators, that supply the grid. Cheapest of all over its life, using less natural resources than any other modality per unit enrgy, and emitting no CO2, if that mattered. It’s also, and very provably, the safest way to generate clean engy that humans have ever created. What real progress is. How humans can move forwards and make themselves ever safer against nature, that returning to is a reallybad idea, that constanly tries to destroy us, and we only just understood how ro do. A bad time to reverse that process. And Nuclear makes the continuation of upward progress possible. Renewables don’t. They are a poinless waste of money to enrich bad people in power using our taxes, at the expesne of the majority, a back to the future non-solution to a non-problem - in science fact.

Eur INg Brian RL Catt CEng, CPhys, MBA

ANSWER: Massively. Here’s why…..

The radioactive long wave infrared spectrum from the Earth measured from space defines the total cooling energy that is leaving Earth to maintain the dynamic balance with incoming solar energy that is absorbed by the atmosphere and terrestrial surface - so that the balance is always maintained, as it obviously must be, determined by whatever level the solar insolation is currently at, as our cyclically changing orbit around the Sun varies the distance between Earth and Sun.

The outgoing long wave infra red LWIR energy spectrum we observe shows us the effects of greenhouse gases that limit the transmission of energy from the surface back to space, hence requiring a higher surface temperature to maintain this balance.

The radiative spectrum shows the characteristic frequencies that GHGs affect . The largest effect is by water vapour and the lesser effects of carbon dioxide, there is no radioactive absorption in nitrogen and oxygen, so no effect on the outgping LWIR. There is no debate about the reality of the greenhouse effect as we see it from space but the dominant effect is from water vapour and the effects of CO2 have become very limited at current levels due to the band saturation effect - which is nothing to do with heavy metal and you can study at your own leisure. In short more CO2 has little effect above the lowest level at which plants can survive, and hence humans.

For detail graphical details including the measured satellite spectra and the full paper on this see:

Whitburn et al, 2020 Spectrally Resolved Fluxes from IASI Data: Retrieval Algorithm for Clear-Sky Measurements DOI: 10.1175/JCLI-D-19-0523.1

The reason the theoretical spectrum of the radiative black body Plank curve is changed is because the GHE reduces heat loss from the surface and atmosphere. Hence the gap in the radiative spectrum at the GHG binding energy levels/frequencies. The GHE does not directly warm anything. It reduces cooling. The necessary response to the loss of cooling by all the sources of re-radiated solar energy is what warms things up, as a consequence of increased GHE creating a positive imbalance in the Earth’s balance system.

The greenhouse effect doesn’t warm anything directly, it insulates the surface from space so its harder for particular frequencies of radiation to leave and cool earth. So the planetary surface and atmosphere is warmed by the imbalance caused by the GHE increase UNTIL all the radiation losses to space combined increase enough to restore the energy balance. Again, this is dominated by water vapour, well seen in the satellite record. Water vapour increase creates a much larger cooling effect than its other warming feedback of its greenhouse effect. Water vapour release by oceanic evapoartion increases by 7% per deg SST, that latent heat enrgy reaches space as radiation after being released to the atmosphere as latent heat on condensation. This negative feedback to warming is three times as powerful as its positive feedback, but NAS and other conveniently include the GHE while ignoring the larger radiative cooling that must also result from the water vapour formation. The cooling evaporative enrgy loss is 3 times the warming greenhouse effect for water vapour alone.

All observed as real in the satellite spectra, which is why they are so important in understanding the big picture from space. Just the facts. No models required. The overall empirical assessment of Earth’s energy balance in space is in the satellite radiative spectra, well studied and reported, quantified as an overall radiative balance in space here:

Catt, Brian, An Empirical Quantification of the Negative Feedbacks of Earth's Energy Balance (January 01, 2025). http://dx.doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.5220078

NB: An important difference between water vapour and CO2’s smaller greenhouse effect is that CO2’s is well saturated before 200ppm, and becomes more saturated, less sensitive as CO2 levels increase. The CO2 GHE degrades logarithmically. So any given doubling in CO2 has the same temperature effect on the surface of earth. 200–400ppm has the same effect as 2000–4000ppm. And both levels are perfectly safe for humans, so we have a LOT of headroom. Also, CO2 is not a pollutant, it is a natural gas essential to plant and human life that depends on burning carbon based food to generate the energy required to live. We are made of 20% Carbon CO2 absorbed from the atmosphere as CO2. The carbon cycle most people are taught at school but most seem ignorant of, forgot or didn’t listen? More is measurably good for crops.

No bad things have happened because of more CO2, per the UN IPCC itself (IPCC AR6, Page 1856, fig 1212). Only good things we can measure.

The earth has absorbed so much CO2 that only 4 parts in 10,000 are left in the atmosphere, close to the death of plants level during ice age glacial phases between the short warm periods like now, because when its coldest the oceans absorb more CO2. The oceans currently hold 98% of all the CO2 on the surface of earth in absorbed forms, been there since the oceans formed and sucked it up from the atmosphere 4Billion years ago or so, BTW. CO2 is mostly not in the air, it’s in the water, also bound up in limestone and chalk and generally at a low level, but with its CO2 GHE already well saturated by 200ppm, and the remaining possible effect relatively small for the reasons above.

Just the facts we have measured. No models required. Real science versus fairy tales.

The issue raised in the video, supported by the data, not any presumptions, is obvious. If CO2 does not dominate the changes we observe, in the short and long term natural cycles, which it clearly does not, then how is earth’s energy balance in space really controlled? A changing energy balance between solar energy absorbed by the earth and the cooling energy radiated back to space is essential, at whatever level that must be, and the temperatures within the atmosphere and on the surface must be those required to deliver that balance, which must be continually changing with solar radiation levels and any atmospheric change within the climate system that can change the rate of heat loss, such as the greenhouse effect due to non ideal gasses.

I also have a paper on this subject which explains, using only empirical data and phsyical laws, how earth maintains this energy equilibrium in space, by changing the rate of radiation loss to match the rate of energy absorption from the Sun in the absolute zero space. The paper is still a pre-publication work in progress but can be found at this reference:

An Empirical Quantification of the Negative Feedbacks of Earth's Energy Balance

It is a purely empirical approach, based on what we actually measure and the physics we know, uses no models, and makes no presumptions about how things change. Just the measured facts and the known Physics. This makes it simple to show that the change that climate science predicts CO2 and other GHGs must cause in the radiative balance is not capable of causing the majority of the change in GMST we have observed since 1750. This change, of 1.5K in 170 years, and 2.7K in 300 years, is measurably similar to the amount that would be natural at this timeaccodring to the natural change in the past, from coldest in 10,000 years. THis is similar to that e measure in prior short term cycles observed in the geological record. If the expected natural cyclic change, which is simply denied by the modellers predictions, is still happening as it was in the past, there is also little additional warming for AGW/CO2 to account for. So the claims of modellers are false. And CO2 hasno su ignificant effect on Earth’s changing climate, whose only measurable effects have been beneficial. But thaat’s another paper. Same reality though, the facts real science measures versus the claims they make up in models. Which to believe?

Eur Ing Brian RL Catt CEng, CPhys, MBA

This is the starting point for the below, Feynman being prescient again, but a masterclass.

POINT: We know what to do and have come close to understanding much of nature in the last 200 years. In particular the last 20 years when most of the pseudo science of the Agenda 21 movement has been proven false by observation, especially the claims of IPCC politicians that are denied by the evidence of their own science reports, but you must believe, and cannot question. Especially not with facts.

The people who would control us through ignorant fear really don’t like that, and certainly don’t want anyone who can think independently to have the means of communicating what they know, so more people can understand what is happening for themselves, and that natural reality isn’t what the powers that be and the BBC/MSM misrepresent as facts, that can be proven false at the first pass.

Yet this corrupt data wangling of the “facts” and “the science”, that aren’t to any qualified sceptical enquirer who can check facts, like me, is still being used to justify controls imposed by law though deceitfully created fear of the “unknown”. When in fact the truths of nature are studied and well known. But another version of reality is made up to scare people from authority that cannot be questioned. Used to justify whatever controls they enact by extortion and to generally obstruct progress for the mass of people. By elected rulers who falsely claim to act in our interests.

But we, the people, are educated know, so can understand and validate a lot. Ever more people can understand why much of the environmentalist propaganda, and its unprovable pseudo science, is false on the now available facts, in particular the measurements of nature of the last 20 years.

Only scientifically provable reality, by measurement, not model, can be, and should be, the basis for progress to improve the World for all. The move by politicians to create a pseudo science that is not based in the scientific reality we measure, to impose the opposite, claiming to make things better while making them worse by law we must pay for (for them, not us) , is to reverse the principles of the enlightenment itself, and return to religion led by beliefs created for the masses by their elites, that we must follow but they don’t.

In this case designed to reverse human progress towards the awful past of mostly unchanging millenias of misery of human labour, unassisted by plentiful enrgy we create through our mastery of nature, modern medicine that cures and heals our diseases and accidents, that has allowed us to rise above the state of dying in harmony with nature that wants to kill us, like all the other animals. We have only just begun to rise above above the limitations of li dying in harmony with nature, driven entirely by real science and universal access to cheap plentiful energy. Something our rulers, that we are forced to choose between, not our choice of people or policies, now want to reverse for their own ends.

But access to such universal understanding to the mass of educated people changes the established realities of power and control, that those who hold it now really don’t like. They no longer know best, and lack the skills to govern effectively from “authority”. That they increasingly don’t have in their self evident ignorant arrogance”, that is clear to increasing numbers of educated people. The population increasingly understands the legalised crime racket of elite governments of all kinds, in democracies, dictatorships, totalitarian states. It works the same everywhere, as Goering said at Nurenburg.

POINT: At the most basic level, going back to the miserable carbohydrate powered mediaeval past, living under constant attack by natural disasters and disease (while the new global aristocracy advocating this will still enjoy the safer privileged lives we do today, of course). Such policies are stupid for the mass of people to follow, when it is self evident what modern science and technology has done for humanity, that further improving prosperity will make better still. Back to the future can’t work

Even the population bubble we currently see occurred because infant mortality dropped to near zero in many developing countries with sanitation, health care and disease reduction, followed by contraception when kids stopped dying and women could enjoy more independent lives. So this is not a problem, it must stabilise and probably decline. Modern agricultural technology is feeding more people from less land. Global supply chains that cheap enrgy makes possible mean that surpluses can be sent where needed in a timely way when natural droughts occur. 200 years ago people in what are now developed countries died of famine in poor years. Why there are groups of Swedish and Irish in the USA. Now the problem is excessive waste…. The population growth will correct itself naturally, peaking and reducing as women use contraception and live more productive lives because their children have stopped dying, as developed economies already do. I feel sure you know that, because you have seen it yourself.

The Club of Rome Malthusian nonsense is wholly discredited, but still drives UN agendas, because the rich and powerful do not want it to change. They don’t want the distribution of wealth and freedom to be equally accessible to the mass of people, who can then question the right to rule of their established elites who still control the access to wealth, health, justice and freedom by their laws. All you can afford.

And the idea we are running out of resources is totally denied by the facts we measure. The more populous and productive we are, the more resources are found and the cost of our ever improving goods goes down. There is no shortage of resources. The planet is unbelievably massive, and has more than met the demands of a few Billion people more people in fact, with ever less poverty and deaths from disease and famine than ever. Easy facts to check. The whole concept of sustainability is meaningless or falsely asserted in many of the contexts it is used – to control what people can buy and use and reserve the majority share for elites, by their laws, in our names. Who are resources under the ground being saved for, everything modern civilisation depends opon, beyond natural hunter gathering, comes from mines.

The Simon Abundance index clearly shows how resources have become more plentiful and cheaper as demand has increased. It isn’t that they will run out, and most can be replaced with synthetics by technology when it becomes necessary, it’s simply that our elites don’t want us to have what they have and control, especially not the good stuff.

https://humanprogress.org/the-simon-abundance-index-2020/

The reason more people do not wake up to these fundamental deceits of power is because they are not educated to understand, and not exposed to measured reality often enough, by the media who are the agents of the controlling elites. Many are still innumerate and unaware of how science really works. So are unaware of the exquisite dependence of their society on science and technology, with post industrial arts graduate inability to check facts. So they remain ignorant and able only to choose which liar to believe, with no rational formation to do that on the facts.

So it is easy for those in power to create and promote false beliefs, teaching them as if facts from authority in schools it controls by law, and through the propaganda of the MSM, using the money they take from us to deceive us, where those being taught do not yet have the formation to validate received wisdom for themselves, so can be deceived hence manipulated by such propaganda. Like teaching religion to children.

Remember Adolf? He did exactly that. It didn’t end well for humanity.

XR, Greenpeace, Thunberg, Strong, globalist Billionaires and banks, and the UN, through exploiting shallow, greedy and controlling national governments and politicians, value power and money far above delivering the best result for the people they claim to represent. Who are they savin the planet for? Them? They are all using the well tried methods such as the Nazis and Marxist communists to deceive and control global populations, with a clear plan to reverse human progress to a global dystopia of uniform suffering of the masses who they control through a undercover form of World government driven by “International treaties” that stupid politicians in sovereign countries stupidly sign that their civil servants then tell their successors they must follow. UN IPCC, ECHR, etc.

The UN Agenda 21/30 plans a return to the awful past we only just escaped in the last 200 years, through the use of cheap plentiful energy delivered by intellect and the technological mastery that Feynman describes above. This cannot end well for humanity.

But people can now know the truth, IF they care to find it, and can expose it to others. Do we need to? The laws of physics will defeat the Agenda 21 ambitions of the Marxist UN power elites, their false claims and laws must be exposed at nation state level, the dominoes may then fall in the face of the truth (written pre Trump) , perhaps in the USA that paid for all this deceit to be created inside the UN in the first place. In fact so China and India and other BRICS could plot to overtake the West by reversing Western economies competitiveness, by action though the unelected UN to make Western government impose regressive climate policies based on the very provable deceit of man-made climate change, and the matching deceit of renewable energy as the replacement for fossil fuel it can never be.

Only nuclear energy has the intensity, sustainability and controllability to deliver the level of energy, on demand 24/7, that a developed economy requires to stay developed, which is why they don’t like nuclear either. No problem to solve. Same dislike of GM foods. And such policies will be ignored by developing nations, to overtake and dominate the same countries that had helped them rise from mediaeval poverty by using the West’s mastery of science and technology. UN Agenda 21/30 is not a conspiracy. The UN’s plan. It’s written into urban development plans across the developed world, C40 cities and even local councils in the UK. Unwanted, undemocratic, imposed because it good for most people, per their betters., as well as the national policy on energy use and agriculture, all designed to stop optimal human development for the majorities in developed countries by their own laws.

You can’t make it up. That’s job of the established elites who really control modern societies. Their corrupt grasp of power has to be understood by more people and ended democratically before the process of removing them has to become violent. The state is already suppressing free speech, even proscribing the politicians and activists who simply oppose the policies of the status quo by misuse of the law, using the Police who are supposed to protect us. So the time for democratic action is now, through the ballot box. While it is still possible to say the truth in public, and remove the evil that is descending on the governance of our country. We need the best for the most, decided by the people, for the people. Not to be forced to pay ever more for the laws of the privileged political elites who repress us, and the incumbent civil servants who control the details and write the laws. Exploiting every possible issue to the benefit of their own selfish power and the wealth of the ruling class.

This is the age of humans, but only those who control power and wealth. Not yet the age of all humans, freed by intelligence and imagination from the millenia of suffering it took to rise above nature and use it to our ends. This is progress that our elites would rather keep for their own use, so their rules must not be questioned, nor should the laws made in our name become “populist” - literally what is best for most so most popular. The very essence of such a regime is the existence of answers that cannot be questioned. This is the exact opposite of the values of the enlightenment and the secular state, and the foundation of scientific method and the understanding and exploitation of nature for human progress. Always by the test of any claim by evidence that can be measured independently and repeated by others, not by the opinions of experts, nor the authority of self-appointed elites. They have got to go.

WE don’t yet know what happened in Spain but engineers soon will. The below is my bet, from the knowledge of a professional electrical engineer watch stupid people destroy capable, resilient/stable and affordable grids for a fast buck for insider politicians and crony generators, with the primary goal to destroy manufacturing economies to deliver UN globalist policies for the Asian economies, by sovereign law the national politicians caim they “must” make because they signed a treaty (Like ECHR). Designed to kill their national economies.

The consequence of intermittent renewables that don’t have steam turbines generating the power that stabilises the grid frequency and voltage is blackouts that cannot be controlled by gas backup or even pumped storage, which was designed to stabilise outages of power lines/transformers and generation on the steam powered grid.

Allowing large dangerously large amount of Solar or wind power on the grid disconnects the stabilising effects of steam generation on the energy balance of the grid that it depndns upon to allow other sources of supply to be connected before the frequency threshold is passed.

the solid state electronics that convert Solar PV power to AC 240V do ot have, so must trip out in 1 cycle, 20 mS. Grid gone. Just like that.

The longer version follows, explaining how the grid do stupid things with our power supply, deliberately taking it too close to edge to maximise the easy money from “Climate action”, that achieves no benefits we can measure. So close, so stupidly, it cannot recover from even a relatively small local event.

20 mS is not enough. 1/50 of a second. Game over for renewables.

All to enrich crony subsidy harvesters and the corrupt politicians and civil servants who create and impose the laws that command this stupidity to happen.

All at the expense of the bill payer, by their representatives corrupt laws. Politicians were told many times the real. clear and present dangers of their policy impositions were. And the lack of any real, as in provable, evidence that most of the small measured climate warming , at similar levels to that in the measured past, has now become due to the increased emissions of CO2. How and why did the Earth stop doing the small cyclic change throughout the longer and larger ice age change cycles that we measure it to have been doing naturally for the 1 Million years of ice age cycles?

Net zero is a provable fraud as regards climate change and its supposed solution. Nuclear is the only better, cheaper replacement for fossil enrgy use.

And its legalised crime. Not a mistake. They were told by engineers what the consequences of their anti-science and engineering laws were. They preferred the climate change protection racket that has enriched politicians, civil servants and the elite class by destroying our cheap plentiful energy supply that our prosperity uniquely depends upon to meet its demands for enrgy, and sudden problems, on demand.

=============DETAILS=============
With a UK twist for 50 deg North where the Sun doesn’t shine when the max demand appears because its cold and dark so wind is the dominant renewable, but with the exact same problem, in the summer, when there is low demand, a lot of wind so almost no dispatchable steam power.….. all it needs is a substation or grid failure more than one power station outage, etc. Game over.

All,

I don’t intend to speculate too much, but …..

If it is not clear below, the grid control is fundamentally frequency - because you cannot have out of phase generation connected without a Big Bang. Basic A level physics any technical person should know. It all has to be going up and down at the same time and voltage to be connected. Once connected the system inertia tends to balance out small variations in a traditional steam turbine generation system. Not with renewables which don’t have the significant inertia of internal stored enrgy in spinning steel.

Tolerance in the UK is +/- 0.5 Hz or 50 Hz. With steam generation for coal, gas, nuclear boilers you have than several minutes before most perturbations will cause such a change, because the changed load has to speed up or slow down the turbines that are connected.

Steam generation provides hundreds of tons of spinning steel turbines generating which provide this stability - which they clearly didn't have in this case.

Spain has useful solar energy solar in the middle of the day. But solar PV has absolutely NO inertia so any perturbation to the grid system can cause the solid-state circuit to trip within one cycle of the mains, that is one 50th of a second or 20 mS.

The clue I looked for was the time this happened and guess what - it was at 12.33pm at max solar time just past midday so my bet, on which I would put money, is that there was very little steam generation from all fuels from dispatchable fossil fuelled generation, to maximise the carbon reduction from solar supply (and the subsidies). So very little inertia/stored enrgy in spinning turbines connected to the grid ?

So a significant perturbation occurred and the effect on the grid was relatively much larger without the stored energy capacity of the spinning turbines. This means the solid-state devices controlling the solar power will trip out much faster and for smaller problems.

In this case they tripped out pretty much everywhere because there was almost nowhere generating using steam turbines.

The people who allow the grid to be operated in such a way understand grid inertia and are knowingly and irresponsibly stupid, a disgrace to the engineering profession.

The same thing wil, be done this summer with more and more wind and solar in UK summers, when we can alread get down to 6GW of dispatchable supply created by steam turbines (nuclear plus DRAX) out of 25GW summer demand.

This is a wholly irresponsible and also most expensive way to run the grid. All grids run this way will fail , because they have no inherent stability connected to the grid in real time to cope with generation failures, sub station explosions, whatever perturbs the grid can take it down in 1/50th of a second, by design.

All imposed by the delusionally stupid net zero laws of ignorant politicians, which make the grid avoidably unstable by the deliberate acts of the grid operator, demanded by an irresponsible government. When much safer operating conditions are possible, they instead order the grid to be taken to the edge of reason, and beyond, by the laws of politicians.


Brian RL Catt
CEng, CPhys, MBA, MCIM

Subscribe now