Little support for extension of Kyoto to combat Global Warming


        One figure stared out of Mr Davey’s Statement about the Doha Climate Change Conference. He reported that the “countries taking part in the second Kyoto period (2013 to 2020) account only for around 14% of world emissions (of CO2) – by 2020 this could be less than 10% of global emissions”.

          Mr Davey sagely concluded that “This underscores the need for the future climate regime from 2020 to involve action by all”. In effect just the EU and Australia agreed Kyoto II. China, India, the USA and even Japan are not in or no longer part of the Kyoto targets.

          The EU has signed up to cutting emissions by 20% compared to 1990 by 2020, with an option to make that a 30% cut. It has confirmed its promise of Euro 7.2bn of aid for climate change payments to developing countries  in the period 2010-12, followed by maintaining the average level of support from that period in future years.

            This will be a disappointing outcome for all who believe in Global Warming theory. Surely if the theory is right the emissions of the whole world have to be cut, not just 14% of the emissions coming from the EU? As the EU deindustrialises and Asia and other faster growing economies go through their own industrial revolutions, they will generate an ever higher proportion of the CO2. The EU needs to negotiate multilateral reductions, not just unliateral reductions in its own contribution to the world totals.

          Those who do not believe the theory will wonder why the EU is imposing this expensive burden on itself. They will also question the wisdom of accepting the moral obligation to compensate other countries for past CO2 emissions in the EU, and wonder how well spent is  the current fasttrack climate change aid.

This entry was posted in Uncategorized. Bookmark the permalink. Both comments and trackbacks are currently closed.


  1. Mike Stallard
    Posted December 12, 2012 at 6:40 am | Permalink

    I wonder if “Chicken Licken” has been translated into Belgian or Portuguese?

    • Disaffected
      Posted December 12, 2012 at 8:54 pm | Permalink

      George Osborne capitulated to waste billions of taxpayers’ money on the issue. It appears to the public at large the Lib Dems have a free hand in DECC and it is going to devastate industry and people will not be able to afford to light or heat their homes. Today it is reported there will be another another soar in energy prices (presumably created by taxing coal powered energy stations), two days ago we saw the horrendous immigration figures, last week we saw the horrendous economic figures when is the Tory led coalition going to take action rather than concentrate on key policy issues that matter to the public and country rather than issues such as gay marriage for which they do not have a mandate?

      • edgar
        Posted December 20, 2012 at 3:14 pm | Permalink

        Rising fuel bills are being driven by the wholesale price of gas – it has added £390 to bills in the last 8 years – and every forecaster and investor predicts that the future long term trend for gas prices is also up. North sea gas is in terminal decline, and profits falling fast. Political parties can promise us the moon, but they can’t change the facts.
        That’s why the Conservative energy ministers are proposing to reduce dependence on gas imports – through a combination of nuclear, more renewable energy, and perhaps shale gas if it turns out to be affordable – to protect consumers and keep fuel bills down.
        The right thing for politicians to do is protect the Brits from expensive, volatile imports from dodgy countries like Qatar or Russia. That means saving energy, insulating homes better (the vulnerable first especially the fuel poor, the elderly and infirm), upgrading the national grid, nuclear and building renewable energy that costs nothing to run.
        The idea that a 21st century Britain can run on an antiquated energy infrastructure is just plain wrong.

  2. Brian Taylor
    Posted December 12, 2012 at 6:50 am | Permalink

    As a pensioner in Fuel Poverty I hope the EU feel good about these hand outs to these countries,the very countries that will be able to keep expanding and out perform the EU.
    I wonder if those struggling to find work in the EU realise the irony of it all?

    • APL
      Posted December 12, 2012 at 1:24 pm | Permalink

      Brian Taylor: “I hope the EU feel good about these hand outs to these countries,the very countries that will be able to keep expanding and out perform the EU.”

      The handouts are for the international extension of the political class, the likes of Greenpeace, Save the children and all the other NGO organizations that spend billions of tax funds with zero accountability.

  3. lifelogic
    Posted December 12, 2012 at 6:53 am | Permalink

    It is insanity, merely exporting jobs, emissions and whole industries for no reason. It is hardly likely that controlling c02 gas from 14% of the emitting countries is going to make much of a difference. The theory of catastrophic warming is not supported by the measurements or the science anyway. All the evidence is that warmer would, on balance, be better than colder anyway.

    The problem is that the BBC, the politicians, the EU, the Libdumbs, the schools, the “science” text books, David Attenborough types of programs and fools like Davey and Cameron (with his toy windmill in non windy Notting Hill have convinced the more gullible, arty, religious, lefty and emotional members of the public.

    They now find it hard to admit they have been talking drivel.

    Could Cameron or Davy tell us how many KWH of energy one gets out of toy house wind turbine. Did it ever exceed the fuel used in the van that came to fit it? Was it about £50 worth perhaps? How much does it all cost, planning, installation, purchase? £5000 perhaps?

    Sound great, lets all get rich with the “green deal” then perhaps celebrate by lifting ourselves off the floor by pulling on our shoe laces.

    Bikes also are about 30 times more dangerous than cars and as they often use steak, chips, beer and wine as the “fuel” are not in fact more efficient in C02 terms. This despite what the BBC and Cameron would like you to think. Even if you do not have a Lexus following with you bags in.

    • Timaction
      Posted December 12, 2012 at 11:30 am | Permalink

      This confirms for me how stupid our home politicians/EU are. If the evidence to support man made global warming by emissions of CO2 were there, then the rest of the 84% of the global population would support cuts. As they haven’t including the largest emitters and industrialists what is the point of this? The UK accounts for less than 2% of global emmissions yet we have the highest air passenger duty on the planet. Higher fuel bills to pay for windmills that don’t work. The leading politicians are throwing our industry abroad rather than admit they were wrong. With 0.034% of the atmosphere being CO2, most comes from volcanoes and our oceans. The intensity of the Sun has more influence over our weather but that can’t be taxed or controlled. The whole climate change guff is more a religion/sect than any science, but will eventually be outed and cause huge embarrassment for our politicos.

      • Ilma
        Posted December 12, 2012 at 2:57 pm | Permalink

        Not forgetting TA that of that 0.0395% (a correction of your 0.034%), only ~3% in man’s, i.e. 0.00118%, and this is the fraction the greenies are worried about. So 97% of something is quite ok, but the 3% is going to cause the end of the world! As if!

        You are correct, and any politician who votes for any CAGW measure, whether it be a tax, a prayer wheel or exported propoganda, should be taken out and metaphorically shot! We deserve MPs who engage their brain and ask basic questions.

        The climate gabfests are nothing more than an excuse for the ‘morally superior’ to continue jetting to far-flung warm places (rich, when they’re telling us that warm and flying are bad!) and making excuses why the next time will be better.

        At least DC’s dash-for-shale is a step in the right direction. A single digit response to ED 🙂

        • uanime5
          Posted December 13, 2012 at 5:09 pm | Permalink

          Even if you increase the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere slowly you’re still increasing it. Humanity cannot indefinitely pump out CO2 and expect their to be no consequences and more than they can pollute the water and expect their to be no consequences.

      • lifelogic
        Posted December 12, 2012 at 4:47 pm | Permalink

        “The leading politicians are throwing our industry abroad rather than admit they were wrong”.

        Rather a parallel to John Major’s ERM and now the ERM in spades the EURO. They never say sorry or admit what a vast sum of other’s money they have wasted.

        John Major was surely far more culpable for all the suicides caused by the destruction of businesses, homes and lives that followed from his idiotic ERM than the two DJ’s ever were. This, as the outcome of the ERM was entirely predicable from when he pushed us in as chancellor.

        I assume the BBC and all the warmists are wondering how to back track, now that it is rather clear that the thermometers and satellite readings are not going to play ball. I assume they will just claim they have solved the non problem with their idiotic wind turbines and the PV house bling.

      • cosmic
        Posted December 13, 2012 at 12:02 am | Permalink

        Yes, there’s a religious aspect but it also has a huge political aspect – money and power.

        It’s largely a political manouevre for the EU, extending its power and exerting control.

        There’s also a political aspect for the UN, Agend21.

        An enormous amount of political capital has been sunk into the CAGW scam. We have renewable energy subsidies, government departments, taxes and NGOs hanging onto it.

        All sorts of things have been distorted by it, such as the academic and educational establishments.

        The scare is passing but there’s a huge amount of machinery which has been constructed on its back and it will take a long time to get rid of it. It represents an enormous misdirection of effort.

        • lifelogic
          Posted December 13, 2012 at 7:20 pm | Permalink

          Exactly, it is a way to promote a religion (masquerading as science) to line the pockets of parasites with tax payers money and justify more tax and yet more interference and regulation in peoples lives and businesses.

      • uanime5
        Posted December 13, 2012 at 5:07 pm | Permalink

        Given that a concentration of 0.034% cyanide if fatal to human you shouldn’t assume that a very small amount of something isn’t very harmful.

        • APL
          Posted December 14, 2012 at 7:37 pm | Permalink

          uanime5: ” Given that a concentration of 0.034% cyanide ”

          Uanime5 please, stop talking rubbish.

          Cyanide is a POISION which disrupts metabolic processes. By contrast Carbon Dioxide is not but is required for nearly all the flora on the planet.

    • uanime5
      Posted December 12, 2012 at 5:34 pm | Permalink

      No matter how much you post this rubbish it will never become true.

      Scientists have repeatedly shown that global warming is real, and that a warmer planet is very bad for those African countries suffering from drought and crop failure.

      • lifelogic
        Posted December 13, 2012 at 8:20 am | Permalink

        Rubbish they have proved nothing. Precipitation is generally higher when air is warmer and crops grow better with more co2 in the air and more warmth. This is all know and proven and even if C02 does lead to any significant warming, which looks rather unlikely on current science.

        • Disaffected
          Posted December 13, 2012 at 10:28 am | Permalink

          Global temperatures change and they have done since time began. The crux is whether man has caused or is contributory to any change. Until now there is no, no substantive evidence to support the insane green lobby mantra other than to extract further taxes from us by deceit.

        • uanime5
          Posted December 13, 2012 at 5:05 pm | Permalink

          Care to explain why all the crops are dying in central Africa because of the heat and lack of rain. By your logic the higher levels of warmth and CO2 would have resulted in increased harvest, rather than desertification.

          • Edward
            Posted December 14, 2012 at 5:00 pm | Permalink

            “All the crops are dying in Africa”…news to me.
            Crops die in Central Africa ‘cos its on the Equator,uni.
            Its very very hot and very very dry and its very difficult to be successful growing crops.
            Its always been that way for centuries.
            There may be some hope with GM crops adapted to grow in these harsh areas but I expect you are against that too.

          • APL
            Posted December 15, 2012 at 9:05 am | Permalink

            uanime5: “By your logic the higher levels of warmth and CO2 would have resulted in increased harvest, rather than desertification.”

            This is the same oversimplification that linked CO2 with tree ring data at the CRU where they got the data set so badly wrong they had to hide it from actual peer review.

            When a plant is growing, it requires CO2, but it also requires water . Now, given that everything else you say is incorrect, I’ll give you a pass on whether there is a failed harvest in central Africa at the moment, but I guarantee, if there is a failed harvest in Africa, it’ll have more to do with lack of rainwater than too much CO2.

            PS. I have yet to notice any ‘higher levels of warmth’.

      • John Doran
        Posted December 13, 2012 at 9:46 am | Permalink

        Extra CO2 in the atmosphere is very probably contributing to the regeneration of vegetation in the Sahara, which has been happening for over 25 years: is an excellent site.
        Go to Biospheric Productivity in Africa.

        CO2 is not a pollutant. It is the very stuff of life on this planet.

        We breathe it out, & plants breathe it in. Plants breathe out oxygen, which we breathe in. That’s a very sweet deal. Long may it continue.

        • John Doran
          Posted December 13, 2012 at 3:44 pm | Permalink

          Global Warming?

          We’ve had less than 1 Deg C in 100 years. (0.8 deg C)
          & none in the last 16 years.

      • Jerry
        Posted December 13, 2012 at 11:00 am | Permalink

        @uanime5: Science has shown but one thing, climate change is natural and has been going on since the creation of the planet, together with vast (and sometimes wild) fluctuations in temperature and weather, what the AGW ‘scientists’ (and some of the political classes) have shown is how man can distort that science…

    • APL
      Posted December 14, 2012 at 7:24 pm | Permalink

      lifelogic: “Could Cameron or Davy tell us how many KWH of energy one gets out of toy house wind turbine.”

      Betcha it was purchased by the tax payer, you know to, in the modern luvvie parlance ‘send a message’.

  4. Leslie Singleton
    Posted December 12, 2012 at 7:21 am | Permalink

    Which theory? At best it is a hypothesis and it is entirely typical of the EU to waste so much money on it. You just have to look at a graph of carbon dioxide levels back in time with the unarguable huge fluctuations to appreciate that the present levels are not showing any significant change. As well ask people to stop breathing and cows to stop you-know-what-ing. Proponents seem to have some sort of guilt complex about living on the planet. As I say the levels are constant enough but why constancy should be expected at all is beyond me.

    • A Different Simon
      Posted December 12, 2012 at 12:11 pm | Permalink

      Leslie ,

      In times gone by a proof was required to turn a hypothesis into a theorem .

      Now all that is required to turn a hypothesis into a theorem is a consensus .

      Take a look at UN Agenda 21 principle 15 , “The precautionary principle” .

      The words sound noble enough and seductive but they are designed to be turned against the individual .

      A21P15 states that big brother does not have to provide scientific proof that you are damaging the environment in order to stop you farming the land , building somewhere etc . All big brother has to do is decide that you are . No recourse left open to you .

      A Govt can make any decision it wants and invoke the Precautionary Principle in order to prevent a debate even taking place .

      • uanime5
        Posted December 12, 2012 at 5:55 pm | Permalink

        There’s a huge amount of proof that climate change is real, so your precautionary principle rant is effectively demolished.

        • APL
          Posted December 13, 2012 at 7:53 am | Permalink

          uanime5: ” climate change is real ”

          Climate change is real, there isn’t much dispute about that. What is in dispute is that mankind has a significant impact on climate change.

          What is also noted, your change of terminology. It used to be AGW or global warming for short, now it is climate change.

          Tricky, but you’ve been rumbled.

          • uanime5
            Posted December 13, 2012 at 5:10 pm | Permalink

            Global warming is causing climate change. Once again your argument has been destroyed.

        • Leslie Singleton
          Posted December 13, 2012 at 7:54 am | Permalink

          Unanime5–Well up to standard I must say. What you call proof, especially as espoused by Bank i Moon (Sorry if name wrong–he has earned my absolute derision that somebody in his position should promote the drivel he has and I cannot be bothered to check spelling) is a good example of everything from Correlation is not Causation, through Post hoc non est propter hoc, to The difference between Cause and Effect but mostly though simple exaggeration and misrepresentation such as Al Gore and that Polar Bear picture. Of course climate change is real as it always has been but that’s saying precisely nothing.

          • Leslie Singleton
            Posted December 13, 2012 at 2:19 pm | Permalink

            PS to Unanime5–Forgot to add the, extremely important, Prediction and Verification of which there has been very little and what there has has been wholly against, meaning the predictions simply didn’t come true so the hypothesis was wrong. One forgets after all these years but it’s in part the basic, “If p then q, then not q not p”

        • lifelogic
          Posted December 13, 2012 at 8:23 am | Permalink

          Indeed Climate change is real and always has been as we keep telling you.

          A man made warming catastrophe however, is far from even being likely on the current evidence.

          • uanime5
            Posted December 13, 2012 at 5:11 pm | Permalink

            According to NASA global warming is real and man made. I suspect that you don’t post any of your “current evidence” because you don’t have any.

      • lifelogic
        Posted December 13, 2012 at 6:12 am | Permalink

        The precautionary principle has some rather serious logic problems – we do not know if it is going to get hotter or colder anyway, we do not know if controlling c02 will make any significant difference anyway, most evidence shows a little hotter is better and finally it ignores the huge opportunity costs of wasting all that money, destroying industries and jobs for a highly unlikely benefit – what other huge amount of good could have been done instead with the money. It could have paid for inoculations and other basic needs instead and with clear proven benefits.

      • John Doran
        Posted December 13, 2012 at 10:57 am | Permalink

        A Different Simon, hi.

        You’re hitting the nail on the head with UN Agenda 21.


        Since UN Agenda 21’s inception at the 1992 World Earth Summit in RIO, millions of acres of US land have been zoned as “Wildlands”, off limits to human beings.

    • Vanessa
      Posted December 12, 2012 at 12:32 pm | Permalink

      Leslie – well said. In fact ALL politicians who dreamt up this idiocy should stop breathing and then see how much difference they make! They have old ships’ logs going back hundreds of years to see what the temperature was and how it has changed. Of course it is getting slightly warmer, it has been doing the same for the last 10,000 years since the last ice age and a good thing too !

      • Mark W
        Posted December 13, 2012 at 7:12 am | Permalink

        Since the last Ice Age? It’s only 40 odd years ago that was the scare story. The easy way to see that this global warming nonsense is not really serious is that the greatest greenhouse gas is the beyond control water vapour and that the only real human activity that, we’re it true, would be to reduce the children we have. No tax angle there I’m afraid. I guess once the EU is at parity with Somalia they’ll be happy.

    • Leslie Singleton
      Posted December 12, 2012 at 1:47 pm | Permalink

      Postscript–That’s a mighty impressive list of scientists in Bob’s contribution lower down today. What’s missing from lists such as this, though, is an indication of which of the individuals listed are or are not financially disinterested. With all the scaremongering producing the understandable grants and donations I would bet a cheap bottle of wine that it is the alarmists who are most likely to be biased.

    • uanime5
      Posted December 12, 2012 at 5:58 pm | Permalink

      It’s clear from your rant that you haven’t bothered to do any real research. Carbon dioxide levels have rapidly increased since the industrial revolution.

    • Credible
      Posted December 12, 2012 at 6:02 pm | Permalink

      Which particular graph are you talking about? Which scientific paper do you refer to?
      Anyone who thinks the planet is not very likely to warm in the next few decades due to increased CO2 has not properly examined the evidence. That doesn’t mean it it a certainty of course, but it seems to be a distinct possibility.
      Deciding what to do about it is a different matter. Some think it is a risk worth taking because CO2 reduction measures are costly. Some think the potential consequences and cost outweigh the short-term benefits of ignoring it.
      There will always be those who don’t play nicely, who think their self interests are the most important. As John points out, that is the case for many countries in the world and we may well be forced to join them. It may be that in the end all the carbon will be burnt anyway, regardless of attempts to stop that happening, because most economies don’t have the resiliance to cope without burning fossil fuels.
      I just hope that as a result we don’t end up leaving a much more dangerous world for our children and their children. Not because of increased ‘freaky’ weather (which is as yet unproven) to keep TV programmers happy, but because of the more likely implications of widespread food shortages, habit loss, migrations and conflicts. It makes me sad that the possible impact on future generations worldwide doesn’t even seem to be considered in John’s article.

    • wab
      Posted December 12, 2012 at 6:57 pm | Permalink

      “You just have to look at a graph of carbon dioxide levels back in time with the unarguable huge fluctuations to appreciate that the present levels are not showing any significant change.”

      Yes, there have been huge variations over geological time scales. What we have here is significant variation over human time scales. See:

      Note, the graph has lower value 250 on the y axis, which in my opinion is misleading, but even if you look at it starting at 0 instead, the result is stark.

      It is entirely a separate question what one should do about it (“guilt complex” and all). But the underlying physical measurements are pretty clear.

      • Leslie Singleton
        Posted December 13, 2012 at 8:19 am | Permalink

        wab–This graph seems OTT to me and frankly I do not believe it. We have gone from close to zero to still close to zero on CO2 in last few hundred years to which my comment has to be so what? Apart from very subjective correlation, which is not proof, I never see any explanation why this extremely small percentage of CO2 (on any basis) should be cause for alarm. It could hardly be less surprising. If I were to stoop to the level of outright disgraceful baloney spouted to the whole world from the UN I would say something like, It’s been a bit warmer recently (BTW, that is by no means necessarily bad) so “by the Law of Averages” it is likely to cool a bit soon to compensate.

        • uanime5
          Posted December 13, 2012 at 6:27 pm | Permalink

          Carbon monoxide poisoning occurs when the atmosphere contains 35 ppm (0.0035%) of carbon monoxide and is fatal at 800 ppm (0.08%). So just because huge numbers aren’t involved doesn’t mean that something isn’t dangerous.

          • APL
            Posted December 14, 2012 at 4:55 pm | Permalink

            unaime5: “Carbon monoxide poisoning”

            The discussion is about Carbon MonOxide CO? I thought you were obsessing about Carbon Dioxide CO2.

            Two completely different gasses which act on humans in different ways – the first CO binds to hemoglobin in preference to Oxygen among other processes, the second doesn’t.

            unaime5: “Once again your argument has been destroyed.”

            No, but your smoke screen is getting rather thin. Send an order to engineering, make more smoke.

  5. Kevin R. Lohse
    Posted December 12, 2012 at 7:33 am | Permalink

    Apparently, just 31 of 119 nations signed up to the Kyoto extension. The US, which has always been a non-signatory, has in fact met it’s theoretical obligations in the switch to fracked gas. China and India, whose emissions dwarf those of the UK and Europe combined, and Latin America, the third highest emitter, have refused to sign. Doha is, hopefully, the last desperate effort of a discredited scientific/political ideology to force a particularly obnoxious form of authoritarian government upon the World. In retrospect, giving the eco-nuts free rein in the DECC was a ghastly mistake from which the UK will take a generation to recover.

  6. Robert K
    Posted December 12, 2012 at 7:37 am | Permalink

    It is interesting to contrast the way EU-philes and sceptics phrase their arguments. Most commentary from the sceptics is coolly rational, but take this EU-phile example from the FT this morning, written by Jonathan Powell: “In John Major’s time the sceptics were a minority, the ones of the colourful blazers and the wild stares, but now that the lunatics have taken over the asylum Mr Cameron has to tailor his policy to the views of his backbenches and to those of the UK Independence party.”

    • uanime5
      Posted December 12, 2012 at 5:57 pm | Permalink

      I wouldn’t describe the sceptics argument of “it’s from the EU therefore wrong” as rational.

      • lifelogic
        Posted December 13, 2012 at 8:30 am | Permalink

        It is entirely rational on past experience – a very good rule of thumb. Look at the gender neutral insurance absurdity due any day.

        • Credible
          Posted December 13, 2012 at 4:27 pm | Permalink

          My cat uses past experience, but is not rational.

    • Leslie Singleton
      Posted December 12, 2012 at 9:16 pm | Permalink

      Robert–One does have to wonder how Powell can write such nonsense when he himself in mid diatribe clearly acknowledges that the alarmists are back in the minority where they belong. I wonder how he rationalises this in his own mind?

      • lifelogic
        Posted December 13, 2012 at 8:32 am | Permalink

        These sort of people do not rationalise they work with gut feelings and irrational emotions.

  7. Epigenes
    Posted December 12, 2012 at 7:43 am | Permalink

    There is no empirical evidence whatsoever that CO2 causes ‘global warming’ or drives ‘climate change’. The evidence is that, historically, temperature change has preceded increased atmospheric CO2 concentration by several hundred years.

    It is a fraud being peddled by politicians and the so – called scientists that are in receipt of taxpayer largesse, imo. Even (formerly) esteemed institutions such as the Royal Society and Institute of Physics are party to it.

    It was refreshing that the US, China and India refused to comply with the EU’s aviation carbon tax and it had to be scrapped.

    • uanime5
      Posted December 12, 2012 at 5:59 pm | Permalink

      Had you studied basic science you’d find that there is overwhelming evidence that CO2 does cause global warming, which is resulting in climate change.

      • lifelogic
        Posted December 13, 2012 at 8:35 am | Permalink

        I have studied science (Physics) to a high level and there is no evidence that a warming catastrophe will occur due to the higher concentrations of C02. Clearly they will have an influence, as do countless other things and feedbacks.

        • Timaction
          Posted December 13, 2012 at 3:34 pm | Permalink

          Lifelogic you are wasting your time. Uanime5 is the Chief Clansman of Climate change. Can he just explain to me how 0.034% CO2 in the atmosphere can cause so much differene to our weather, of which only a tiny proportion (single % of the total) can be attributed to man-made activity? It is a naturally occurring plant food. Many studies (not religion) attributed changes in weather this year was due to the intensity of the Sun impacting the jet stream forcing it to higher and lower positions than normal. Can’t tax that Sun or control it!!

        • Bazman
          Posted December 13, 2012 at 4:59 pm | Permalink

          You are hoping the free climate will sort itself out are you like the banking system did not. Remember in your fatalism that no self sustaining environment has ever been replicated on a any scale by man. Infection by bacteria usually sees an end to the experiment. Interesting huh? Your faith in everything will be OK is not based on any facts. Just because you have an ology in science. Does not make you a great Sooth Sayer. Had any intervention been made to the banking system your reaction would have been predictable, only this time you are gambling on the world which in reality does not need humans. Go to church on that one.

        • uanime5
          Posted December 13, 2012 at 6:32 pm | Permalink

          How exactly has studying physics allowed you to come to that conclusion?

      • Jerry
        Posted December 13, 2012 at 11:23 am | Permalink

        @uanime5: Science says no such thing, that is what some (AGW research funded) scientists say, now go figure the flaw in your own argument as stated above…

        • Bazman
          Posted December 14, 2012 at 1:59 pm | Permalink

          Most serious science seems to point to this. Interesting that much of the evidence against it can be easily brought down and is political in nature. The speed and effect is the sticking point. Burning trillions of tonnes of fossil fuels has and will not have any effect? Can’t be true and often is said by fatalistic religious types who also believe in the infallibility of the free market and anything else that could be seen to be self balancing. Ram it.

          • Jerry
            Posted December 15, 2012 at 9:45 am | Permalink

            @Bazman: That would be why temperature has actually been failing for a few thousand years then, because man has been burning trillions of tonnes of fossil fuels for the last 500 years or so? Of course if you believe that discredited hockey stick graph then I can understand why you (still) believe what you do! 🙁

        • Bazman
          Posted December 15, 2012 at 11:14 pm | Permalink

          Burning trillion of tonnes of fossil fuel will have no effect?

    • wab
      Posted December 12, 2012 at 6:59 pm | Permalink

      “The evidence is that, historically, temperature change has preceded increased atmospheric CO2 concentration by several hundred years.”

      For discussion of this talking point see, for example:

      • APL
        Posted December 13, 2012 at 8:03 am | Permalink

        wab: “temperature change has preceded increased atmospheric CO2 concentration by several hundred years”

        So the point is conceded at the url you directed us to, that temperature rise precedes increase in CO2, but that once CO2 rises it allegedly amplifies the rise in temperature.

        Surely then, we need to identify the phenomena that caused the initial rise in temperature – always supposing a rise in temperature is a bad thing – and counter that. It being admitted that CO2 isn’t that thing.

  8. APL
    Posted December 12, 2012 at 7:52 am | Permalink

    JR: “China, India, the USA and even Japan are not in or no longer part of the Kyoto targets.”

    1. Our industrial competitors are no longer falling for this ridiculous fairy tale.

    2. Why are we even bothering? A perhaps too many in the political class …. and the civil service stand to loose too many subsidies. Rather destroy the british economy than make an honest penny.

    JR: “The EU has signed up to cutting emissions by 20% compared to 1990 by 2020, with an option to make that a 30% cut.”

    Another reason why we should free ourselves from this nightmare organization.

    A 30% cut in CO2 emissions approximates to a 30% cut in economic activity. They are nearly there in Spain, where unemployment among the younger demographic approaches 50%. Do they really want to cut economic activity by another 30%?

    • APL
      Posted December 12, 2012 at 1:26 pm | Permalink

      ” perhaps too many in the political class …. and the civil service stand to loose too many subsidies. ”

      He he he! A very discrete snip there, covering for your subsidy grubbing colleague. Party before country.

      Reply Shame on you. You should know I regularly delete names of people of whatever party or position where the personal allegation could land you and me in legal difficulties.

      • Winston Smith
        Posted December 12, 2012 at 3:45 pm | Permalink

        Unfortunately, that is why so many corrupt politicians get away with it. They rely on the cowardice of the good guys.

    • uanime5
      Posted December 12, 2012 at 6:00 pm | Permalink

      A 30% cut in CO2 emissions approximates to a 30% cut in economic activity.

      Unless the energy comes from a source that doesn’t produce CO2 then there’s no cut in economic activity.

      • APL
        Posted December 13, 2012 at 8:08 am | Permalink

        unamie5: “that doesn’t produce CO2 then there’s no cut in economic activity.”

        Which source do you have in mind?

        Worth remembering we don’t live in a climate where photovoltaic is economically viable.

        Nor despite the extraordinary diversion of tax subsidies to the wind mania has wind generation exceeded 4% of power generation.

        Looks out the window to an utterly windless day on what is shaping up to be another very cold winter day.

      • lifelogic
        Posted December 13, 2012 at 8:37 am | Permalink

        Yes there is as it will cost more for the energy perhaps 3 times as much.

    • wab
      Posted December 12, 2012 at 8:05 pm | Permalink

      “Another reason why we should free ourselves from this nightmare organization.”

      Well the UK Parliament passed the Climate Change Act on its own volition and that calls for an 80% cut in emissions by 2050. This is not an EU-only issue, as much as the EU haters on this blog would like to pretend it is.

      • APL
        Posted December 13, 2012 at 8:14 am | Permalink

        wab: “Well the UK Parliament passed the Climate Change Act on its own volition and that calls for an 80% cut in emissions by 2050.”

        And the time frame John cited was 2020, so it is perfectly possible that the UK Parliament was simply doing what the Brussels puppet master told it to do, as it so regularly does these days.

        But yes, the CCA was introduced in the UK parliament and it is another reason for not voting Tory that they have been in power two and a half years yet not done a thing about repealing the act.

        That is a mystery.

        • John Doran
          Posted December 13, 2012 at 4:52 pm | Permalink

          3 MPs only voted against Minibrain’s 2008 climate change act.
          Peter Lilley, Christopher Chope & Andrew Tyrie, all conservative.

          463 MPs voted in favour.

          463 are going to have egg on their faces when this scam is laid bare in the mainstream media, but they wont care, they’ll have their index linked pensions, no matter how short a time they’ve served in the House.

          My sons & grandchildren will be paying for their carelessness or corruption, whichever cap fits.

          Reply: Indeed. I refused the whip request to vote for it. All 3 parties were on a 3 line whip in favoour.

          • John Doran
            Posted December 19, 2012 at 7:26 am | Permalink

            Thank you Mr R. I didn’t look for abstentions.
            How many others did likewise?

            Reply: I do n ot know the exact figure.

  9. alan jutson
    Posted December 12, 2012 at 8:11 am | Permalink

    Makes you wonder.

    I was not aware that those who want action were of such a small percentage of the total.

    Why bother if no one else is interested, because it will hardly matter.

    I see energy bills are due to rise for us yet again !
    Thus less disposable income for the population, higher overheads for business, growth even further away.
    Still with so many people now living in the country (latest census figures) and with us being one of the most densely populated areas of the world, we should all be able to cuddle up together and share some natural body heat soon.

    • APL
      Posted December 13, 2012 at 8:17 am | Permalink

      alan jutson: “I see energy bills are due to rise for us yet again !”

      I had the misfortune to listen to the BBC news reporting this today. Even within it’s own frame of reference, the ‘news’ item was internally contradictory.

      But the presenters seemed oblivious to the rubbish they were talking.

  10. me
    Posted December 12, 2012 at 8:22 am | Permalink

    Belief in catastrophic man made global warming, surely group think and insanity on a scale unprecedented in the history of civilisation.

    • lifelogic
      Posted December 12, 2012 at 9:54 am | Permalink

      Well there have been and still are many other daft and evil religions about. It is encouraging that those identifying themselves as having no religion in the UK has increased by 10 percentage points from 15%in 2001 to 25% last year.

      I suspect the figure is well of 70% if you allow for the ones who have no beliefs, but just put a religion down as that was what their parents were or christened them as.
      It cannot be long before Cameron and the EU make being a warming realist will be a criminal offence. Doubtless Keith Vaz types will be pushing for a new thought crime law of non PC thinking.

    • Edward
      Posted December 12, 2012 at 2:08 pm | Permalink

      There were 2 more similar recent hoaxes, although not as big as global warming. One was in the sixties when we were told there was another ice age coming and we would all freeze to death and then in the seventies we were told population growth would mean the end of the world, as we ran out of food and land for humans to live on.
      These are now just forgotten scare stories.
      It seems that there will always be some people who need to predict future disasters for mankind and/or the end of the world.

      • uanime5
        Posted December 12, 2012 at 6:02 pm | Permalink

        Your second “hoax” is already happening in Africa. I believe they call it famine.

        • lifelogic
          Posted December 13, 2012 at 8:40 am | Permalink

          So the end of the World is happening in Africa you think?

        • Edward
          Posted December 13, 2012 at 2:53 pm | Permalink

          There have been famines as long as man has lived on this planet.
          More famines are caused by war or civil war or natural disasters than population growth.
          The hoax on population growth stated that the planet could not support more than a certain number of humans without there being a complete disaster but that maximum number has now already been passsed.
          They failed to allow for the ingenuity and survival insticts of mankind coupled with new inventions.
          This hoax led to dreadful policies of mass compulsory sterilisation programmes and one child only laws.

      • Alan Wheatley
        Posted December 12, 2012 at 6:39 pm | Permalink

        Population growth will mean the end of the World as we know it.

        • lifelogic
          Posted December 13, 2012 at 8:44 am | Permalink

          Population can only grow so far as resources will allow. Either we will control it ourselves as developed countries seem to do or disasters, famine, disease or similar will control it for us alas.

          Some religions seem to prefer the latter route I note.

  11. drjohngalan
    Posted December 12, 2012 at 8:31 am | Permalink

    The new religion to save the planet has to have its rituals and its symbols, to silence its critics and to remain deaf to scientific argument. The high priesthood of new religion has to keep its secrets in order to keep its sources of funding flowing. As with most religions throughout history, the new religion to save the planet is a mechanism to transfer wealth from the poor to the rich.

    Thankfully, the new religion seems as though it is going to have a shorter lifetime than most of its historical counterparts. However, it leaves behind probably the most ridiculous monuments to the late 20th/early 21st century – those arrays of windmills blighting the skyline, but making approximately 0% difference to CO2, whose concentration in our atmosphere follows rather than causes temperature change.

    • uanime5
      Posted December 12, 2012 at 6:03 pm | Permalink

      Calling scientists high priests of religion because you don’t like what the facts show doesn’t make these scientists wrong.

      • lifelogic
        Posted December 13, 2012 at 8:46 am | Permalink

        No I agree it does not “make them wrong” they just are wrong.

      • Jerry
        Posted December 13, 2012 at 11:42 am | Permalink

        @uanime5: Indeed they are behaving like High Priests, placing their own interpretation on the evidence and often doing it for their own ends, becoming annoyed at anyone who is a “non-believer”, accusing them of dancing with the devil etc. Ever ask yourself why these people will not allow the scriptures speak for themselves – in other words why don’t these scientists allow the science to speak for its self?

    • wab
      Posted December 12, 2012 at 7:02 pm | Permalink

      “The high priesthood of new religion has to keep its secrets in order to keep its sources of funding flowing.”

      Given that most climate-related data is freely available this is a strange claim to make. See:

      • drjohngalan
        Posted December 13, 2012 at 7:25 am | Permalink

        Have you read the Hockey Stick Illusion?

      • APL
        Posted December 13, 2012 at 8:20 am | Permalink

        Wab: “Given that most climate-related data is freely available this is a strange claim to make. ”

        Now it may be freely available. But before during and shortly after the CRU East Anglia scandal trying to get the raw data from them was like pulling trying to get blood from a stone.

  12. stred
    Posted December 12, 2012 at 8:53 am | Permalink

    As a previous advisor developing LibDem policy, Mr Davey must be disappionted that the Plan L (for Libdem) in the book, available on his department’s website, has been abandoned. This involves sourcing most of our electricity from solarPV in the Sahara sent via Spain and France and windfarms in the UK many times the present planned number. Last week the doubling of the number of gas stations was announced in order to support the smaller number of windfarms, when they frequently stop working.

    Perhaps this track record is why 86% of the worlds countries do not bother to turn up to listen to him and his EU friends.

    • Martyn
      Posted December 12, 2012 at 11:04 am | Permalink

      Seems as though the plan to power the whole of Europe via hundreds of acres of solar PV panels in the desert has run into a slight hitch and is not likely to be a success in the foreseeable future. Unless, of course, the EU governs each of the countries involved with the collection of solar power and its route through various other countries. Apologies for the link, John, but it seems on topic? See here for details….

      • John Doran
        Posted December 13, 2012 at 6:08 pm | Permalink

        You really do have to laugh out loud sometimes.

        These EU bozos have grandiose plans to run Europe, & they can’t get a coherent power strategy together.

        No more can they get a set of accounts approved, for the last 19 years.

        & we’re paying £50million a day to remain in this economic powerhouse?

        How soon can we get out of the asylum Mr R?

  13. James Reade
    Posted December 12, 2012 at 9:07 am | Permalink

    Simon Wren-Lewis (again, not my supervisor or advisor but someone I have respect for) points out an interesting contradiction in conservative thinking on the climate.

    You assert regularly that by running deficits we impose costs on future generations – but you do so without evidence. Where is that evidence? You claim it’s self-evidence – look all around. But there’s no evidence you can call upon to support this theory.

    Yet with global warming, if indeed (as it likely) caused by human action (and here I appeal to my actual PhD supervisor, David Hendry, who I have the utmost respect for the views of because he basis his on empirical reality not his prior political prejudices), you take the totally opposite view. If global warming is true, this is going to impose dramatic costs on our future generations – yet do you have any real idea about the extent to which there is evidence that global warming is unrelated to our activity?

    Why sieze dramatically on the slightest outside possibility of harm to future generations with the budget deficit, but completely ignore it when it comes to global warming and energy policy?

    Reply The possible harm of a large and sustained budget deficit is not just harm to future generations, but immediate harm to current ones. All three main political parties in the UK agree that excessive deficits are harmful, because excessive deficits lead to high interest rates, to the pre-emption of too much tax revenue on paying interest charges, and damage to private sector growth. The political agrument is not over these effects. Labour when repaying state debt at the end of the last century rightly said they wanted to spend more of the tax revenue on services and less on debt interest. Labour legislated to halve the deficit before leaving office. The only current argument is over the best way and the timing of reducing the deficit to more sensible levels. Opponents of global warming theory do not believe that human CO2 causes warming on a scale likely to harm future generations.

    • Richard1
      Posted December 12, 2012 at 10:28 am | Permalink

      The onus is on proponents of global warming theory to prove their case, since it is they who wish to impose substantial costs and restrictions on the rest of society. The observed data since the 1st IPCC report in 1990 do not match the predictions then made. Therefore the theory – upon which all these climate measures are based – should be re-visited.

      Why do you say there is no evidence of damage from deficits? Interest has to be serviced and debts repaid or re-financed. In the event that debts mature at a time when the borrower does not have access to capital markets, insolvency and all its attendent hardships follow – as some eurozone countries are discovering.

      • uanime5
        Posted December 12, 2012 at 6:04 pm | Permalink

        The proponents of global warming have already proven their case, it is the deniers who cannot prove there’s.

        • Leslie Singleton
          Posted December 13, 2012 at 8:27 am | Permalink

          Unanime5–If you are a scientist I am Lord Lucan. Be sure to take a look at Bob’s comment a little bit lower down.

          • uanime5
            Posted December 13, 2012 at 7:01 pm | Permalink

            Bob’s comment doesn’t contain any scientific information to back up the denier’s claim.

        • lifelogic
          Posted December 13, 2012 at 8:51 am | Permalink

          Why do you think this against all the science, the actual temperature readings and all the logic? Do you believe anything the BBC and Guardian tell you?

        • Richard1
          Posted December 13, 2012 at 8:58 am | Permalink

          You are wrong. The 1st IPCC report in 1990 projected warming of 0.3C per decade (with a range of 0.2 – 0.5C). The outturn has been an increase of 0.14-0.18C, even though actual CO2 emissions have been over 50% higher than then projected. There has been no warming for 16 years, there is no evidence of accelerated sea level rise. So the IPCC projections – upon which the Kyoto Treaty and all climate legislation in the EU and the UK is based – have been proven completely wrong. Therefore the economically damaging policies which have been adopted should be abandoned.

      • James Reade
        Posted December 13, 2012 at 9:13 am | Permalink

        Richard1, if we waited until sceptics were convinced about the case for anything, we’d never see anything happen.

        Sceptics on global warming will never be convinced because they do not want to be convinced. I do not know why, but that is the case.

        Now I’m not saying that the global warming proponents’ case is failsafe – it cannot be, it can only say that with 95% certainty something is the case.

        However, to say that no govt policy should be enacted until a case has been proved it either naive or rather hypocritical. Auterity has been enacted by the Conservatives despite anything but 95% certainty regarding its outcomes, and certainly without the case being proven.

        So again we’re back to Conservatives pushing contradictionary policies, if future generations are really their concern, without the evidence to support either.

        • Richard1
          Posted December 14, 2012 at 1:59 pm | Permalink

          I think your PhD supervisor should enroll on a logic course. It is entirely consistent to say we do not want to burden future generations with debt from deficit financing and to say we do not wish to burden future generations with expensive ‘green’ policies based on projections of the climate which are turning out to be false.

    • forthurst
      Posted December 12, 2012 at 12:06 pm | Permalink

      The short answer is that conservatives believe the deficit to be real whilst significant anthropogenically initiated climate change to be delusional.

      Without any supervisory assistance, I have noted an interesting correspondence between those who believe in the alarmist global warming theory and the corresponding irrelevance of an alarming increase of our third world and EU derived population with its inevitable impact nor only on our quality of life but also to the implemention of the damaging changes they propose contingent on their half-baked theory.

    • James Reade
      Posted December 13, 2012 at 9:09 am | Permalink

      Thanks for that. Now, what I wasn’t talking about was “excessive deficits”, because none of those have happened in the last few years – you see if you’ll recall I showed ages ago some data analysis (and nobody asked me for the data ever to try and disprove what I said there) that the deficit given the size of the downturn in 2008 should actually have been much larger.

      I’m talking about deficits, and I’m talking about specific uses of them that will more than likely benefit future generations. There’s investment (which in its nature must benefit future generations), even without thinking about whether the multiplier is greater than 1 (which recent research appears to suggest particularly when interest rates are low) and the potential efficacy of counter-cyclical policy.

      The point I’m making is that there’s no evidence that deficits such as these will “harm future generations”, yet based on even flimsier evidence – a belief regarding CO2 – bravo! – you reject the notion of global warming and the idea we should do anything about it. But in that rejection you may well be causing much more harm to future generations than any reckless deficit would.

      • Lindsay McDougall
        Posted December 15, 2012 at 11:48 am | Permalink

        Reckless deficits, and attempting to deal with them, have caused Greek real GDP to contract in 6 successive years, with an overall contraction of about 20%. Is that not enough harm for you? Perhaps you prefer the approach of the Obama administration, which has stuck its head in the sand for 4 years and now has total federal public debt well in excess of 100% of GDP, not to mention an additional 30% at state and local level.

  14. Bob
    Posted December 12, 2012 at 9:11 am | Permalink

    According to these climate scientists, the Global Warming scare is unsubstantiated:

    You will not hear about this from the BBC.

    Reply: Indeed – this is a very interesting list of experts against conventional scientific wisdom.

    • lifelogic
      Posted December 12, 2012 at 10:25 am | Permalink

      Indeed no shortage of sensible scientist no it the pay of the government warmist religion. Indeed any one sensible does not even need to consider the issue for very long to see that it is at best a gross exaggeration. Long term predictions (when they cannot even give us accurate short term ones) are clearly in Crystal Balls area of “science”.

      The BBC might try to find the odd scientist that is on the sensible side of this debate. I also note oddly that on the BBC so many scientists seem to be women nowadays are men banned.

      The BBC need to get rid of Roger Harrabin the BBC’s Environment “Analyst” an english graduate I note. Perhaps he should stick to poetry, literature and the amusement industries clearly a grasp of science is not his strong area.

    • stred
      Posted December 12, 2012 at 12:57 pm | Permalink

      There is an interesting article about the reason for the recent cold winters in this months Scientific American by Prof Charles Greene of Cornell. He gives a fairly balanced account of the Arctic and North Atlantic oscillations in circulation of the atmosphere over the areas. These lead to the regular circular motion of the jet stream kinking north towards Greenland and then further south to northern Europe. We may well be in for another cold winter.

      He points out that meteorologists now think that the cold winters of the 1960s were caused by this effect. At the moment the melting of sea ice in the Arctic summer could be causing the pressure differences needed to cause the oscillation. Previously, the El Nino current may have been the cause. The combination of La Nina and an unusual jet stream route caused a mild winter on the eastern US and heavy snow in Europe last year

      He admits that the milder winters of the 1970-1990s period were a natural event. The AO and NAO were positive and lead to the belief that this was due to warming. This came to an end in the mid 90s and they have decided to blame the unexpectedly rapid melting of sea ice , the Greenland ice sheet and glaciers for the current negative AO and NAO.

      Lets hope the wind blows during the continental anticyclonic freeze up this winter and that if, as probable, it doesn’t there is enough spare wood to burn in the converted coal fired stations. There should be plenty of Ash timber available soon.

    • Edward
      Posted December 12, 2012 at 1:58 pm | Permalink

      Yes Bob, these are brave scientists who are risking great damage to their careers by daring speak out in public, questioning the orthodoxy.
      Warmaholics always say that the science is settled and that there is no scientific evidence supporting the sceptical viewpoint, but this is just not true.
      And some of the scientists who have signed the IPCC pledge, if you examine their credentials, are not actual climate experts but scientists from other disciplines.

      • uanime5
        Posted December 12, 2012 at 6:09 pm | Permalink

        Maybe on the world of right wing fantasy speaking out against the orthodoxy is a bad thing but on planet earth scientists who can disprove the orthodoxy with scientific evidence get noble prizes.

        Also being a scientist from a non-climate discipline means that they’re not an expert on climate and therefore are unlike to offer any useful information on the subject.

        • lifelogic
          Posted December 13, 2012 at 8:54 am | Permalink

          Most who describe themselves as “climate scientists” are in the pay of government.

          Physicist and geologists have a rather more rational approach in general I find.

        • Richard1
          Posted December 13, 2012 at 9:01 am | Permalink

          What are you talking about? Look at the list. It is quite clear that there is a real scientific debate on this issue. Your vituperative tone with its repeated and unsubstantiated claims of infallibility do no service to your argument.

        • Edward
          Posted December 13, 2012 at 3:07 pm | Permalink

          Im surprised uni, that you think that warmaholics are all left wing and sceptics are all right wing.
          It’s not my automatic assumption or experience. But if you are right it makes me wonder if the pro warming science is tainted with a hidden political agenda.

          You seem to have misunderstood me ref the IPCC scientists list. These are pro warming scientists and it is some of these I was saying had non climate science backgrounds whereas the 128 sceptical scientists are nearly all experts in climate study.
          There was also a number of scientists on the IPPC list who have been asking to have their names taken off as they said they did not agree with the conclusions made out of their research.

    • Dr Dan Holdsworth
      Posted December 12, 2012 at 3:25 pm | Permalink

      Conventional Scientific Wisdom is generally what the older, more out-of-touch scientists believe. The actual cutting-edge younger research scientists tend to believe all manner of different things; quite a few of these hypotheses will turn out to be incorrect. This is how science advances; by trying out new hypotheses and rigorously testing them to see how true they are.

      The actual problem is that the current method by which science is checked is using the peer review system. Where you have an old, well-established scientific tradition such as paleontology or entomology, or where there is a new but very large scientific field like that of genetic manipulation, you have a lot of choice of scientific reviewers and these scientific reviewers will feel able to be impartial and hold the anonymous paper that they are reviewing to the highest of standards.

      Where you have a very small and new field, however, you have a problem. The field tends to be incestuously small and the researchers within it tend to form something of a mutual backslapping society, which makes peer review something of a nonsense. Climate “Science” is just such a field as this.

      Climate research also has a major problem in that it is an amalgam of biology, physics and computer programming. People tend to fall into technical slots from just one or two of these sort of specialities; I am a trained biologist turned sysadmin, and though I can knock out quick’n’dirty Perl scripts fairly well, I’m not a good programmer. The leak from the East Anglia University’s Climate Research Unit was most revealing, as it demonstrated very obviously the flaws of this sort of an approach.

      The HARRY_README file was, I have to say, one of the saddest yet most revealing parts of the entire release (although the leaked COBOL code was also pretty revealing). This was the diary of a post-doc researcher taking over what he had been told was a mature software suite for the modeling of climates.

      What he was actually taking over (was work of very questionable quality-ed)
      Basically our politicians have been making decisions using research conclusions which, in any normal field of scientific endeavour, would not only not have been funded but which would have (led tyo querstions about the people undertaking the work-ed)

      • uanime5
        Posted December 13, 2012 at 7:07 pm | Permalink

        Given that scientists all over the world have been monitoring the climate of the planet for over a century this field of study is neither new nor small. So all your claims about peer reviewed studies not being accurate are wrong.

        Your attempts to muddy the issue by referring to biology, physics, and computer programming show you have no understanding what what climate scientist actually is.

        The fact that you also couldn’t explain what was wrong with the COBOL code indicates that you’re not a programmer.

        • APL
          Posted December 16, 2012 at 12:09 pm | Permalink

          uanime5: “explain what was wrong with the COBOL code ”

          I don’t think Dr Holdsworth was attempting to give us a masterclass in the COBOL language – although interesting that CRU was using COBOL for climate research, when there may be many other and more fitting languages to apply to the ‘discipline’.

          Does anyone use COBOL anymore?

          Dr Holdsworth: “I’m not a good programmer.

          unamie5: ” indicates that you’re not a programmer.”

          Full marks for observation.

    • uanime5
      Posted December 12, 2012 at 6:06 pm | Permalink

      Did these experts have any scientific evidence to back up their claim or did they just hand over a letter? I suspect the latter.

      Also just because someone is a scientist doesn’t make them a climate scientist.

      • Richard1
        Posted December 13, 2012 at 9:20 am | Permalink

        Well that doesnt stop all sorts of scientists who are not climate scientists stoking fears of global warming, nor people such as Al Gore, or environmental activists or BBC journalists. Why don’t you discount their views on the same grounds?

        The evidence in the letter from those scientists was that there has been no warming for 16 years. The models are therefore wrong, so the policies should be re-visited.

    • Timaction
      Posted December 13, 2012 at 3:49 pm | Permalink

      Mr Redwood can you please share this with your Party, particularly its leaders and perhaps to Ed Davey? He may want to consider withdrawing 2 billion foreign aid of mine and other English peoples taxes to non proven climate change in the third world and stop the building of useless windmills? I bet he won’t though. Perhaps Mr Osborne may want to reconsider the exhorbitant Air Paassenger Duty as well.

  15. merlin
    Posted December 12, 2012 at 9:23 am | Permalink

    Man made global warming is a total myth, there has been none for 18 years, we are now in a 30 year period of global cooling.

  16. Gary
    Posted December 12, 2012 at 9:34 am | Permalink

    This climate theory has nothing to do with the EU, (etc) This is a British scam that some say is to be used to impose a carbon tax on the world and facilitate a revival of broken derivative markets via carbon trading.

    Implicitly or explicitly blaming the EU for everything is starting to look comical and lazy.

    Reply: The Global warming theory has suppoters in many countries and more scientists in support than against around the world. The EU has enthusiastically adopted the theory as the backdrop to some of its policies.

    • lifelogic
      Posted December 12, 2012 at 10:35 am | Permalink

      The supporters (amongst scientists) are mainly either looking for grants and jobs or not in the climate area and just trust the climate experts. Few who have looked at it all with a sensible and independent mind see it as anything other than a gross exaggeration at best. Private industry is just trying to sell things using the back of the “green” feel good religion.

      Even the BBC’s David Attenborough is rather more careful with his words of late I note. Thermometers and satellite measurements will win through in the end, after all, you cannot fake tree rings and the likes for ever.

      • uanime5
        Posted December 12, 2012 at 6:11 pm | Permalink

        No matter how much you post this rubbish it won’t become true.

        Care to explain why all the climate scientists were telling George W Bush that climate change was real even though it would have been easier to get grants by telling the politicians what they wanted to hear.

        • John Doran
          Posted December 13, 2012 at 9:04 am | Permalink

          Because U5, they were getting the grants anyway, through left wing universities & through the UN which is pushing this global warming scare at us.

        • cosmic
          Posted December 13, 2012 at 4:35 pm | Permalink

          Care to talk us through the Hockey Stick and explain why trees make good thermometers, and how Mann got the stats right and Mcintyre and Mackitrick messed up?

          What’s your take on the Hide the Decline affair?

          Care to explain why there’s been no statistically sighificant warming for the last 16 years while CO2 levels have risen aubstantially? Either there has been no CO2 caused warming or there have been much greater unexplained natural variations masking it.

          None of this was predicted by the computer climate models, quite the opposite.

          No matter how much you post your rubbish and prattle about climate scientists, it won’t become true.

      • APL
        Posted December 12, 2012 at 9:26 pm | Permalink

        Lifelogic: “after all, you cannot fake tree rings and the likes for ever.”

        But you can ‘cherry pick’ your sample data.

        An alternative view of tree ring data is that it is more closely correlated with the availability of water, than temperature (suprise!).

    • Big John
      Posted December 12, 2012 at 1:14 pm | Permalink

      “The Global warming theory has supporters in many countries and more scientists in support than against around the world.”

      Scientific research seems to be funded almost exclusively to ‘find evidence for’ and ’causes of’ global warming.

      Last time I checked science worked on facts/data, not opinions. However, global warming seems to be an exception.

      If there was solid evidence for AGW, I don’t think there would be much of a disagreement.

      BTW, most of the preceding 4.5 billion years of earth history was warmer than the present.
      So temperature trends largely depend on the starting and ending points.

      • uanime5
        Posted December 12, 2012 at 6:12 pm | Permalink

        There is solid evidence showing that climate change is real. Unfortunately it conflicts with the views of politicians so they rubbish this evidence while being unable to find any evidence to support their position.

        The same thing happened when scientists showed that smoking caused cancer.

        • Big John
          Posted December 13, 2012 at 3:06 pm | Permalink

          “There is solid evidence showing that climate change is real”

          Nobody said the climate has never changed.

          If you bothered to read my comment, I said :-

          “most of the preceding 4.5 billion years of earth history was warmer than the present.”

          It is AGW part of the climate change argument that is total fiction.

          (personal allegation removed)

        • Edward
          Posted December 13, 2012 at 3:09 pm | Permalink

          unamme5, The phrase “climate change is real” is meaningless.

        • APL
          Posted December 13, 2012 at 8:22 pm | Permalink

          uanime5: “There is solid evidence showing that climate change is real.”

          Once again, this is not in dispute.

    • John Doran
      Posted December 13, 2012 at 8:58 am | Permalink

      The Global Warmist “scientists” are UN, govt or NGO funded. Follow the money
      Many honest scientists have been hounded out of their posts in the last 20 years, & labeled “deniers” in an attempt to associate them with holocaust deniers, because they have refused to bow to this politically inspired dogma.

      It is great to see Anthony Watts name in the list of 125 scientists.

      He has been plugging away for years to expose this scam: is an honest site, unlike many which are Eco-activist supported by organisations such as Greenpeace, the WWF or the Sierra club. The list is long.

    • John Doran
      Posted December 13, 2012 at 6:35 pm | Permalink

      This is a misconception Mr R. The pro global warming ‘science’ produced by the likes of Michael Mann & the discredited University of East Anglia turns out, on closer inspection, to be limited to a small group of about 60 bought & paid for conspirators, who are happy to “peer review” favourably whatever is put in front of them.

      One of these guys was at the scandalous BBC 28gate conference of experts & scientists, which turned out to contain 100% activists.

  17. Brian Tomkinson
    Posted December 12, 2012 at 9:44 am | Permalink

    How much does the Treasury collect from us as a result of this nonsense and how much poorer are we? How many MPs care? It would be funny, if it were not so damaging, to see them extoling the virtues of leading a diminishing band. Do any of them ever wonder how they are going to meet their ludicrous targets when they have allowed unfettered immigration and the population has risen so rapidly in the last ten years? These are the same people who are bemoaning the lack of growth in this country whilst at the same time snuffing it out. The rest of the world must think what fools we are and laugh all the way to the bank.

  18. Richard1
    Posted December 12, 2012 at 9:52 am | Permalink

    I suggest an amendment to any measure put forward by Mr Davey to Parliament to the effect that UK taxpayers wont transfer a penny of money for climate aid until there is actual evidence of catastrophes caused by man-made global warming. The main fear is sea level rise. That is running at about 6ins per century, as it has since the end of the last ice age, with no evidence of any global-warming induced acceleration. If and when the Maldives, Tuvala etc start to look as if they are about to drown of climate change we might give them aid. Until then lets assume its a scam, or at least that the predictions are in error, as seems increasingly to be the case.

    This issue could be a very nice dividing line at the next election if Mr Cameron can wriggle free of his previously greenness.

  19. Retired Scientist
    Posted December 12, 2012 at 10:02 am | Permalink

    I do not believe that in man made CO2 is responsible for changes in climate. The man made component of CO2 in the atmosphere is a small proportion of the total CO2 which is itself only a very small proportion of the atmosphere.

    I do believe that the climate changes naturally following the interaction of a number of cycles that may be too complex for us to understand for a very long time. Climate models are only computer based guesses and are incapable of this task at present. We could have more faith in Nostradamus or Old Moore’s Almanack.

    Many politicians think “Oh good, we could tax or trade something based on this”

    Many politicians have stated that they too are wearing the Emperor’s New Clothes and would lose too much face by admitting they were misled by advice (that was probably based on an Executive Summary of an Executive Summary produced by a non impartial non scientist).

    Too much money and too many careers are based on the myth. There never was a scientific body that would turn down research money or produce as a conclusion that more research needed funding. Is there any public money available to fund research into the anti cause, there is not – it is politically incorrect.

    If we can rise up and turn off the money tap, interest in the new CO2 based religion will cease. Unfortunately many Greens would cease to have a raison d’etre.

    Finally Mr De Barroso in a BBC interview was asked what he thought of the Czech Prime Minister who did not believe in European integration. Mr de Barroso said “he is a nice fellow and I respect his views but:-
    you do realise that he doesn’t even believe in climate change !………”

    • uanime5
      Posted December 12, 2012 at 6:15 pm | Permalink

      I do believe that the climate changes naturally following the interaction of a number of cycles that may be too complex for us to understand for a very long time.

      This sentence shows that you’re not a scientist and you never have been. The rest of your post confirms it.

      If you were a real scientist you’d use scientific evidence to back up your position, not complain about politicians.

  20. Brigham
    Posted December 12, 2012 at 10:22 am | Permalink

    It seems to me that the whole issue of “global warming” is being looked at wrongly. It doesn’t matter how we use the “bad” fuels, because they will all be used up eventually. When they are used up we will be left with Nuclear, Wind, Tide, and geothermal. None of these will contribute to global warning so our problem will be to, if you believe in it, keep the planet warm, and if you don’t believe in it, to also keep the planet warm. As India and China don’t care anyway, I am glad to be in my seventies.

    • wab
      Posted December 12, 2012 at 8:02 pm | Permalink

      “When they are used up.”

      There are hundreds of years of fossil fuel left. Most climate scientists would say this is far, far past the point of no return, all else being the same. If we are fortunate then all else will not be the same, so there could be a technological fix for these emissions.

      • APL
        Posted December 13, 2012 at 8:36 am | Permalink

        wab: “There are hundreds of years of fossil fuel left.”

        1. population of the planet has exploded over the last century. Consequent resource utilization has increased too.

        2. the most easily available highest quality ( most energy rich ) mineral energy resources have been extracted already*. Tar sands for example while plentiful have a lower margin of energy than light sweet crude, that it is takes more energy to mine and refine tar sand hydrocarbons than it does lsc. Essentially we get less surplus energy from refining Tar Sands than lsc.

  21. oldtimer
    Posted December 12, 2012 at 10:52 am | Permalink

    Establishment politicians have a problem. Reality does not support the CAGW hypothesis used to justify the passing of the Climate Change Act, to set up the Climate Change Committee and to pass the legislation and provide the subsidies that feeds the green movement`s gravy train. You will not hear many voices in the insurance industry speaking out against the CAGW hypothesis – it is a gift for justifying higher premiums.

    The political establishment has spent many years funding and supporting CAGW propaganda, aided and abetted by the BBC. But along the way they have found it necessary to change the language from “catastrophic anthropogenic global warming”, first just to “global warming” and now to “climate change” to help sell the message – treating it like any other branded product.

    The comments of Jonathan Powell, quoted by RobertK @7.37am above, indicate a mark of desperation. Establishment politicians and administrators now find themselves on an inconvenient and very exposed hook. The natural world is not bahaving as advertised – it is not doing what it says on the tin. Who will they blame (for assuredly they will not blame themselves)? Their first port of call will be, presumably, the scientists – notably successive Chief Scientists and the Royal Society. When really pushed the scientists will say, in their own defence, that they did not offer absolute certainty, merely an hypothesis that justified extreme action on the basis of adopting the precautionary principle.

    Unfortunately for both of these parties, the propaganda machine does not do uncertainty. It promotes certainty. As the IPPR advice, published in Warm Words in August 2006, so clearly stated in its Conclusions: Treating Climate Change As Beyond Argument:
    “Much of the noise in the climate change discourse comes from argument and counter-argument, and it is our recommendation that, at least for popular communications, interested agencies now need to treat the argument as having been won. This means simply behaving as if climate change exists and is real, and that individual actions are effective. This must be done by stepping away from the ‘advocates debate’ described
    earlier, rather than by stating and re-stating these things as fact. The ‘facts’ need to be treated as being so taken-for-granted that they need not be spoken. The certainty of
    the Government’s new climate-change slogan – ‘Together this generation will tackle climate change’ (Defra 2006) – gives an example of this approach. It constructs, rather than claims, its own factuality.

    Where science is invoked, it now needs to be as ‘lay science’ – offering lay explanations for what is being treated as a simple established scientific fact, just as the earth’s rotation or the water cycle are considered.”

    Meantime UK industry declines as energy costs go through the roof. For the latest evidence see yesterday`s announcement that JLR has signed a letter of intent with the Saudi National Industrial Clusters Development Program (NICDP) to determine the viability of setting up an automotive facility using aluminium components. The idea is to seek benefits from the new Saudi Arabian Mining Company and Alcoa aluminium joint venture at Ras Al Khair. Of course UK aluminium smelter facilities have closed because of the high cost of energy. Expect to see more announcements like this in the months and years ahead.

  22. David John Wilson
    Posted December 12, 2012 at 10:57 am | Permalink

    All the evidence points to the fact that we have a problem with climate change and over the next fifty years will probably have winters in the UK that will be up to five degrees colder, more summer heat waves, more storms and flooding, further loss of polar ice etc.

    The big issue is to what extent this is affected by man made CO2 and methane. The question that we need to answer is whether we can afford, without any real evidence to risk not reducing our contribution.

    There are a lot of economic reasons why the UK needs to reduce its dependence on imported oil, gas and other forms of power. Put these two together and a carbon tax in the UK makes a lot of sense.

    • nemesis
      Posted December 12, 2012 at 6:48 pm | Permalink

      Its not that long ago that they were telling us climate change would mean hot dry summers and warmer wetter winters in the UK. (This info is still to be found on alot of local council websites.)
      I think the clue is in the constant name changes; we had ‘ice age’ scare in the 70s. Global warming in the 80/90s, closely followed by ‘climate change’ and now catastrophic climate chaos. As the shrill gets louder your alarm bell should be ringing.

    • Luigi Galvani
      Posted December 12, 2012 at 7:14 pm | Permalink

      “All the evidence points to the fact…” What a confident all encompassing statement that is. Produce your peer reviewed evidence and methodologies employed in gathering and testing this indisputable evidence.
      As I write, the temperature (which hasn’t risen above O Celsius all day) has plunged to -3 C again. Global warming – I can’t wait for it – bring it on Mr Wilson.
      Oh, I forgot, it’s not Global warming any more is it? It’s Climate Change, and whether it’s hot or cold, stormy, or incessantly wet, it’s all down to human activity. Meanwhile the huge travelling entourage that lives off the GW/GC theory continues to stifle all debate because “The science is settled”
      Well, David, shocking as this may seem to you, ( there’s a little pun in there by the way,) I was taught that one of the foundations of scientific research is that the “science is never settled”, there is always more to discover and apply.

  23. Neil Craig
    Posted December 12, 2012 at 11:03 am | Permalink

    The “catastrophic warming” fraud is totally blown. Nobody informed and remotely honest denies we have had no warming, catastrophic or otherwise for 16 years.

    Since 28gate nobody remotely honest and informed disputes that the BBC have (consistently put just the global warming theory, which is wrong)The problem is that the regulations and laws are in force. Regulatory ratcheting works only 1 way. We have a “climate change act” in force which will cost the people of Britain around £1 trilliion (a million million). We have electricity prices 93% of which are government parasitism. It is not a matter of stopping now. If we want to ever get out of recession this must all be repealed.

    • uanime5
      Posted December 12, 2012 at 6:16 pm | Permalink

      According to NASA each decade has been warmer than the previous decade. But don’t let facts get in the way of your ideology.

      • Edward
        Posted December 13, 2012 at 3:17 pm | Permalink

        Given that there was a 0.75 degree average world temperature increase between the start and the end of the 20th century it follows that individual decades in the 20th century will show rises.
        Its all in the way the statistics are presented and where you start you base year f.rom
        It will be interesting to see the figures for the first 2 decades of this current century as the warming has slowed down since 2000 and is well below the rapid acceleration predicted by Al Gore and the IPCC

  24. John
    Posted December 12, 2012 at 11:32 am | Permalink

    You ask, perhaps rhetorically, about why the EU is in favour.

    I would guess the EU seeks to justify it’s position as a supra-national entity (‘climate knows no borders’) and this MMGW scam suits very well.

  25. Steve Cox
    Posted December 12, 2012 at 11:36 am | Permalink

    The EU should be reminded that when you are in a hole it’s usually sensible to stop digging. Signing up to this AGW fantasyland will only cripple European consumers and industry further, just when they can least afford it due to the dire straits they are in because of the pig-headed refusal of the EU elite to recognise the damage that the Euro is causing. The trouble is that WE are part of the EU, and our ill-educated legislators (how many scientists and engineers sit in the HoC, pray tell?) have already imposed legally binding targets for carbon reduction on ourselves that are even more stringent than what the EU is proposing.

    Action #1: Repeal the stupid UK legislation that forces impossible CO2 reductions on the country.

    Action #2: Opt out of all EU carbon reduction and trading legislation. If this is not possible, then it should be one of the items high up on the list when we come to renegotiate our relationship with the EU.

    Of course, with a Prime Minister (committed to wind farms), I guess that we will see no action on either front until Mr. Cameron is history and sensible heads have reclaimed the Conservative party and found a proper leader, not a vacuous closet liberal.

  26. Martin Ryder
    Posted December 12, 2012 at 12:43 pm | Permalink

    When I voted Conservative at the last election I did so because I thought that the party would bring commonsense to the governance of the United Kingdom by (a) rolling back political correctness; (b) moving away from windmills towards sensible energy policies; (c) stemming the tide of humanity that is flowing into our overcrowded and food, energy and land resource poor nation; (d) dealing robustly with the EU commissars; (e) putting defence and security (including policing) towards the front of the policy queue, rather than letting them languish at the back; and (f) adopting realistic, rather than idealist, policies in foreign and economic affairs. How wrong I was.

    The question I have now is: what do I do in 2015? How do we recover from the mess that Blair, Brown and Cameron have got us into? UKIP? Certainly for the EU elections but what about 2015? The only party that can possibly sort out the mess is the Conservative Party but with the present Liberal leadership what chance is there of the party being allowed to do so, or even being allowed to think about what to do.

    I couldn’t give a damn about gay marriage, diversity, women power and all the other soft social subjects that fully occupy the minds of the pseudo-aristocrats that govern us. I want the lights to stay on, criminals put away, work and houses for my children, room to move on the roads, food on the table, terrorists to be kept at bay, etc. Every day spent being miss-governed by the Coalition means that the chances of my children having these things throughout their lives lessen. A Labour government in 2015 will make matters far worse.

    What the hell do I / we do?

    • Winston Smith
      Posted December 12, 2012 at 3:36 pm | Permalink

      Be brave. Check UKIP’s manifesto. Reject the LibLabCon corporate socialist one government. Their differences are synthetic and marginal. Just look at the Conservative’s adoption of Stalinist big brother legislation that they actively opposed in opposition.

    • Roger Farmer
      Posted December 12, 2012 at 4:37 pm | Permalink

      Persuade the 1922 committee to spell it out to Cameron on the basis of ,change course and no more bullshit or go.

    • Electro-Kevin
      Posted December 12, 2012 at 5:06 pm | Permalink

      “I couldn’t give a damn about gay marriage, diversity, women power …”

      I fear that Mr Cameron sees that we are about to go over a cultural and fiscal cliff and does not want to win the next election.

      Far better to lose the next election whilst standing for ‘nice’ causes. The half hearted attempt at austerity is because not even a full blown attempt will make one jot of difference to our position. No one has the courage to tell the people just how truly awful our situation is and so he pretends and hopes that the semblence of order will continue until 2015.

      Much of what Parliament does has been outsourced to the EU and to the judiciary; it is run on archaic and outdated principles. It refuses to represent its people and the democratic deficit widens. It becomes increasingly irrelevant. In fact worse – it frequently does precisely the opposite to what the majority wants.

      Even the best of politicians refuses to discuss the most important issue – that of mass immigration and its effects on just about every political and economic topic of the day.

      The British public have disengaged from the ‘products’ that Parliament offers. The public sees that it has betrayed them and is a danger to them.

      If the political establishment comprised ordinary workers they would, by now, expect redundancy. Yet when it comes to austerity talk is of nurses and soldiers losing their jobs, not the political classes.

      When coal lost its value and demand faded miners were expected to lose their jobs. As were factory workers when their work was outsourced.

      Why does the same not apply to Parliament ?

      There is potential for massive savings for the British taxpayer to be made here if we apply the same logic that we already have to UK industry over the past few decades.

    • Alan Wheatley
      Posted December 12, 2012 at 6:57 pm | Permalink

      On present trends, after the 2015 election the third party will be UKIP, and if neither Conservative nor Labour have an majority the game changes.

      Reply They came fifth in the last all English and Welsh elections for Police Commissioners.

      • Leslie Singleton
        Posted December 13, 2012 at 8:38 am | Permalink

        Unanime5–It is the very basic tenets of science that are being gone against. For example, Prediction and subsequent Verification is not only totally lacking but such predictions as were made in the last century have been shown to be wrong.

        • uanime5
          Posted December 13, 2012 at 7:13 pm | Permalink

          Do you have any evidence to back up your claims? Thought not.

          Also what you’ve described isn’t how science works. Scientists collect data and draw conclusions from it; unlike climate change deniers who only look for things that support them and ignore everything else.

      • Alan Wheatley
        Posted December 16, 2012 at 2:01 pm | Permalink

        Re reply, Sky News are today, Sunday, saying, as a result of poling, that UKIP are now the third party in British politics, pushing the LibDems into fourth.

    • Lindsay McDougall
      Posted December 15, 2012 at 11:53 am | Permalink

      You ask Mr Redwood to stand against Mr Cameron for the leadership of the Conservative Party. For a number of reasons, Autumn 1973 would be the best time.

  27. Mactheknife
    Posted December 12, 2012 at 1:08 pm | Permalink

    The attitude of some MP’s is both bemusing and appaling at the same time. I’ve included a link blow to the BishopHill Blog where one constituant has written to his local MP in regards to ’28gate’ at the BBC. For thos who dopn’t know the BBC said they had consulted the best scientific expets and therefore there was no need to show any balance in AGW reporting and the Beeb was in full alarmist mode. Sadly they chose to use public money to fight an FOI request by a pensioner to release the name of the “scientific experts”. What both parties didn’t realise was the names had already been released and sat there on a web site for some time, and eventually found by another blogger who published them. Read and weep for our economy.

  28. Roger Farmer
    Posted December 12, 2012 at 1:23 pm | Permalink

    Climate change is a fact of World history, it has happened for millions of years and will continue to happen. Learn to live with it. The nauseating aspect of it is that politicians and others in need of a cause decided to attribute it to man and then to tax him for his supposed bad behaviour. These people have convinced themselves that man can compete with the sun but fail to produce any quantifiable evidence as to how much of this change they can attribute to man. For them it is sufficient to say it is all man’s fault and to tax him for his sins.
    Having said that, it is a given that the more we conserve our raw assets, and the less we pollute the environment the better. This is to preserve the health of our people and improve their quality of life without imposing unneccessary taxes or restrictions. Part of the problem lies with politicians who can only see as far as the next election. An organisation such as Honda will have a twentyfive year developement plan, updated every year.
    Why havn’t politicians come up with a programme to replace all nuclear power stations and to deal with the residue of their closure. They have sat on their hands for decades over this one.
    Why are they not driving hard for all electric vehicles and all the necessary facilities for them. A step that would have more effect that sponsoring a few windmills in Africa or the swiss bank accounts of african politicians.
    Can we have an audit of all the collections of domestic waste. What is the cost benefit in the recycling of glass, metal, plastic etc. Can we see the accounts. They would overcome the rumours that it is all heaped together for landfill or shipped out to China. On the same subject, why must every council have it’s own system with varying numbers of coloured bins. Why isn’t there a national scheme based on enviromental need and financial benefit.
    How about producing thermally efficient housing in factories. The Swedes have been doing it for decades, offering various designs of outward appearance to suit the market in a fraction of the time it takes our building industry to create anything. It would be an opportunity to impose ISO 9001 and 9002 on the industry to the benefit of all.
    What is the problem with building an airport in the Thames Estuary with a high speed link to the city so removing thousands from the constant whine of jet engines and freeing up many acres at Heathrow for domestic and industrial use. Politicians could then build houses for all those immigrants they invited in without consultation with the indigenous population.
    The environment lobby and the EU impose a burden on our ability to compete in the World, a burden we can ill afford. The first needs to be stamped on, and the latter waved goodbye to, not so that we can all pollute at will but that we can act responsibly towards our surroundings and people without taxing them in an ever punitive way.

  29. Lindsay McDougall
    Posted December 12, 2012 at 2:09 pm | Permalink

    How anyone believes that measures to combat climate change can be effective without capping world population is beyond me. And how anyone believes that world population can be capped without challenging head on the leading religions and their determination to increase their ‘flocks’ worldwide is also beyond me.

    • Roger Farmer
      Posted December 12, 2012 at 4:51 pm | Permalink

      As far as I am aware no original profit ie:- Jesus Christ or Mohamed ever advocated reproduction as a means of conquering the World by numbers. However once their mortal followers got hold of the original theme they were quite happy to turn it into whatever suited their purpose. Destroying the indigenous populations of mid and south america or fighting each other in the name of crusades or jihads was just part of the business plan. Neither have any moral credibility nor useful answers to the real problem you pose other than jaw jaw.

    • Richard1
      Posted December 12, 2012 at 5:36 pm | Permalink

      Many enironmental leftists do believe in population control. There is an organisation called the Optimum Population Trust. I dont what it thinks the optimum population is, I heard once that in the UK they think its 20m (I hope my family & friends wont be on the list of 40m who make our population sub-optimal). It seems to be staffed and patronised by decent types such as Sir D Attenborough, but has a leftist tinge, arguing for aid of a min of 0.7% of GDP, despite extensive evidence of the negative effect of aid on recipient populations, and argues without evidence that inequality is incompatible with a sustainable future. It doesnt explore whether equal societies such as the Soviet Union, China under Mao or North Korea had optimum populations or operated environmentally sustainable policies.

    • Alan Wheatley
      Posted December 12, 2012 at 7:06 pm | Permalink

      I was going to make that point, Lindsay, but you have saved me the trouble.

      Belief in AGW and its reduction requires that population size has to be addressed. Seems to me a parallel argument to debt and deficit.

      The other thing to bear in mind is that all the existing “low impact” populations will aspire to the lifestyle of the current “high impact” populations. No one will choose subsistence farming when the iPad world beckons.

    • John Doran
      Posted December 19, 2012 at 8:07 am | Permalink

      Linsay, the whole point of UN Agenda 21 is to reduce world population by 80%.

      Part of this Agenda is the impoverishment of the first world to parity with the third world, which we are seeing in the coming bankruptcy of the UK, EU & US.

      Part of it is unlimited immigration, to depress wages & living standards, & destroy our sense of nationhood, to prepare for one world govt, for which the EU is seen as the vanguard.

      All under the cloak of “sustainable development”, very “Green”.

      Reply No sensible person wants to cut the world population by 80%! Nor do western governments wish to depress living standards at home.

      • John Doran
        Posted December 19, 2012 at 8:24 am | Permalink

        Jonathan Porritt, ex boss of “Friends of the Earth”, is on record as saying that he would like to see UK population no more than 30 million.

        On the religion question, religions are the big worry for “Big Green”, basically because they are promoting family life & old fashioned morality. “Big Green” wants control of our kids outside the family, in the brave new post-industrial paradise they plan for us.

        Google up: what is UN Agenda 21?
        Be prepared to do a little digging, as it is cloaked in very respectable, & even more importantly, very fashionable “Big Green” “sustainable development” lingo.

  30. pipesmoker
    Posted December 12, 2012 at 2:21 pm | Permalink

    There is evidence, if you look for it, that in the past global mean temperatures have risen in advance of increases atmospeheric carbon dioxide and were this to be accepted the whole concept of carbon dioxide forcing global warming or climate change is turned on it’s head.

    The warmists should first prove their case? Then politicians evaluate it on the scientific evidence and act on it if they consider they can do anything about it. The problem today is, SCARE STORIES, and there is a thread in modern living where these win the day against any rational examination of the facts.

    The Open University in it’s Science Matters course, Richard North and others have drawn attention to this and the methods used. Lead in petrol, GM crops, global warming etc etc. We ignore the science and act like lemmings? Lead was removed from petrol for no good reason other than to facilitate the CAT and now children on their way to school breathe in all the aromatic carbon carcinogens the CAT does not deal with until it’s up to temperature.

    Science is not fact but only as good as the most recent, peer reviewed, interpretation of the current data?

    • uanime5
      Posted December 13, 2012 at 7:18 pm | Permalink

      So according to your information what caused the temperatures to rise, which later caused CO2 levels to rise? If you can’t answer this then it’s clear you’ve just made the whole thing up.

      Scientists have proven their case. NASA has a large amount of information on their website which shows climate change and global warming are real. It is the deniers who have constantly failed to provide any evidence to back up their claims.

      Scientific studies have shown that removing lead from petrol has lead to a large fall in crime because these fumes no longer causes children to suffer brain damage.

  31. Pleb
    Posted December 12, 2012 at 3:10 pm | Permalink

    There are many catastrophie theories ….
    The next Ice Age.
    Supervolcano causes nuclear winter
    Running out of food due to overpopulation.
    Peak oil leading to mass starvation.
    HIV goes airborn.
    Bird flue goes airborn
    Runaway climate change due to man made CO2
    Extinction of the honeybee causes mass starvation.
    Megatsunami destroys the entire east coast of America piunging the world into war
    Extraterrestial life could invade us
    Any more?

  32. Electro-Kevin
    Posted December 12, 2012 at 4:37 pm | Permalink

    It’s not fair of the EU to encourage the movement of millions of its citizens to the UK at the same time as telling us we must cut our carbon emissions.

  33. Atlas
    Posted December 12, 2012 at 4:49 pm | Permalink

    As I type this post the total electricity demand for the UK is 56.48 GigaWatts. Windpower is providing 0.52 GigaWatts – that is, windpower is providing only 1% of our electricity needs. And Cameron goes on about us driving cars powered by such green methods of electricity production, which, by the way,would mean even more electricity has to be generated than at present!!!

    If we were reliant on ‘green’ power nearly all the lights would be out this evening and we nearly all be freezing. Back to the Stone Age indeed , just as the Greenies long for.

    • sm
      Posted December 13, 2012 at 11:45 am | Permalink

      Its all about balance,scale mix and technology. 56-60gw is pretty much peak electrical demand for UK.
      Wind (varies but has no import cost) at .53gw is about 10% max wind capacity(metered).
      The demand for energy is also dynamic so we will always need swing capacity.

      Its still early days but no matter how we decide to produce the energy we should not be forcing rationing by price for basic needs to pay for it.

  34. Barbara
    Posted December 12, 2012 at 5:08 pm | Permalink

    I read the amount given for climate change in poor countries with amazement, have we not got poor here too? This is silly and against our own country, the EU would spend any amount without reference to the costs. I’m amazed that Cameron has allowed this man Davey to agree to this amount while we are in such dire straits. It really does beggar belief. I just hope all those in this country who are in fuel poverty, including myself, vote accordingly, for it seems our voices are ignored or rebuffed. We are now getting to a situation where foreign countries are having our money, for schemes which are doubtful and expensive, while the biggest polluters don’t bother. How foolish is that? While they have growth the UK will sink and struggle. My mindset now believes this and past governments are beginning to be against their own, and their policies farcical.

  35. uanime5
    Posted December 12, 2012 at 5:31 pm | Permalink

    John the lack of support for Kyoto doesn’t not undermine the scientific evidence supporting climate change. This will be correct whether the politicians accept it or ignore it. Snide comments like this just show that you lack a real argument against climate change.

    The whole world does not need to agree to Kyoto as the majority of human made CO2 comes from the developed nations. The mostly rural Asian and African countries produce very little CO2.

    What the EU is doing is called “leading by example”, something politicians should do more of.

    In other news unemployment has fallen from 2.51 million to 2.51, which is lower than it was a year ago. In other statistical cover-up those who are on the Work Programme, have been sanctioned for up to 3 years, are underemployed, or on zero hour contracts aren’t considered unemployed.

    Also Gove has intensified his war on teachers by threatening to dock their pay for not working any unpaid overtime. Expect the courts to stop tell Gove just how illegal this is.

    • oldtimer
      Posted December 13, 2012 at 9:27 am | Permalink

      Evidently you have not studied the mapping of CO2 emissions tracked by satellite observations. Most comes from places like the African tropics, not from industrial centres in Europe or the USA. The reason, no doubt, is that most CO2 emission is the result of natural causes; the man made element is relatively small.

      Furthermore understanding of the causes of and rates of CO2 emission and sequestration are imperfectly understood. You clearly do not understand this – or choose to ignore it.

    • Lindsay McDougall
      Posted December 13, 2012 at 8:44 pm | Permalink

      The amount of CO2 produced by India, China etc is rising quite rapidly.

  36. Retired Scientist
    Posted December 12, 2012 at 6:02 pm | Permalink

    Mr Wilson you state “that The big issue is to what extent this is affected by man made CO2 and methane. The question that we need to answer is whether we can afford, without any real evidence to risk not reducing our contribution”. and also

    “the UK needs to reduce its dependence on imported oil, gas and other forms of power. Put these two together and a carbon tax in the UK makes a lot of sense.”

    The first premise is false and illustrates that the “precautionary principle” taken to an extreme would inhibit all human activity and progress.

    My reaction to your second premise is that we all know fossil fuels will some day run out. But we do not urgently need now to abandon them and replace them with very expensive alternatives like windmills.

    In a reasonably run country we would have a referendum as to whether we wished to pay more taxes based on the green religion or not and abide by the result.

    Politicians lack the respect of the electorate because they repeatedly ignore what their masters (the electorate) want. No this is not populism it is democracy.

    • Bazman
      Posted December 13, 2012 at 7:29 am | Permalink

      Fossil fuels will never run out they will become to expensive or to dirty to use. As a retired scientist you should know this basic fact. How will they ‘run out’?

      • Retired Scientist
        Posted December 13, 2012 at 7:56 pm | Permalink

        We are playing with words Bazman. I meant” run out” in the context that they are no longer used as a common energy source because the cost/ difficulty of extracting them exceeds their usefulness and our ability to pay. Please note “cost” of extraction does not include artificial inflation by taxation.
        If you tax anything enough you can make its use (falsely) uneconomic.
        Also please see Jeff Todd’s post that follows.
        Let us have a referendum on the acceptability of the green religion. All governments need to tax less and reduce the size of the state.

        • Bazman
          Posted December 14, 2012 at 1:51 pm | Permalink

          New methods of extraction and value of the extracted product will always be there. There is trillions of tonnes of coal, oil and tar sands left. Like gold the extraction and use of fossil fuels is unlimited. Different sources and types will become unviable and then later on viable. as happens now. Engines will become more efficient too.The catalytic converter is controversial and was dumped on us by a car industry who refused to clean up their engines. The converter like lead was an easy cheap option for them. The lead some claim was less harmful and in fact sat like ball bearings on the side of the road. Lead pipes in Birmingham may have been the real cause of the lead in children. The lead was then replaced by known carcinogenic substances, benzine, toluene, and naphthalene to name but a few. The converter does add to the MPG and reduces power for sure. The new ingredients did not stop ‘pinking’ and I can vouch for that with an old Cortina I had converted to unleaded by hardened valve seats. The premium 100 octane fuel do, but are expensive. The fuel companies are also to blame for putting to much lead in the fuel unnecessarily. The lead was more effective in valve seat recession than they thought. There is still no standard anti knock or ‘pink’ rating for a modern engines fuel and a standard for the quality of the fuel in garages and supermarkets was blocked by the government. The sale, resale and mixing of fuels is opaque. Shell petrol from Shell? Not always. Don’t care? You will when you get a bill for the engine damage on your 50k car.
          Modern motorcycles do in the main not have converters, though some do to meet ever increasing emissions laws. They produce less emissions by being more efficient, though MPG is poor.

  37. Jeff Todd
    Posted December 12, 2012 at 6:14 pm | Permalink

    Ever heard of a catalytic converter? Or rather a 3 phase catalytic converter to give its full name.

    It just performs 3 tasks;
    1 Nitrous Oxide into nitrogen and oxygen
    2 Carbon Monoxide into Carbon Dioxide (nasty CO2)
    3 Any unburnt hydrocarbons into Carbon Oxide (more nasty CO2)

    and a few more by accident;
    1 increased mining for precious metals
    2 shipping precious metals
    3 increases fuel consumption (more tax for treasury)
    4 increases VED (more tax for treasury)
    5 deep hatred of all eco-twits

    These things were supposed to counter the acid rain threat, which was grossly over-stated, and in any case was supposed to be solved by reducing sulphur in fuel.

    So we have a device fitted to our cars, at the insistence of environmentalists, to create a gas which the same environmentalists say causes global warming, cooling, storms, more snow, less snow, hot summers, cool summers, more rain, less rain, more sea ice, less sea ice, etc, etc and increases a vehicle’s fuel consumption by 15-25%. The current shower have tightened the checks on these pointless cans at MOT time.

    Another environmental own-goal. Unfortunately nothing will be done; green infallibility dictates otherwise – admitting to one error is to admit to more errors, and the whole house of cards would tumble down.

    • APL
      Posted December 13, 2012 at 8:45 am | Permalink

      Jeff Todd: “1 Nitrous Oxide into nitrogen and oxygen
      2 Carbon Monoxide into Carbon Dioxide (nasty CO2)”

      CO2 may or may not be a nasty gas. But it is a darn sight better than Nitrous Oxide or Carbon Monoxide.

    • oldtimer
      Posted December 13, 2012 at 9:33 am | Permalink

      How true! Catalytic converters were inflicted on European consumers at the insistence of German politicians. Allegedly it was to stop German forests dying – a current scare at the time – even though it had nothing to do with car usage.

    • uanime5
      Posted December 13, 2012 at 7:32 pm | Permalink

      Given that Carbon Monoxide turns into Carbon Dioxide if there’s sufficient oxygen I don’t know why you’re blaming the catalytic converter for this. Also if you don’t convert the unburnt hydrocarbons then they’ll stop the engine working (hydrocarbons don’t magically disappear).

      Since lead was added to petrol so that the hydrocarbons would all be turned into CO2 switching from lead petrol to a catalytic converter doesn’t actually increase CO2 emissions. Odd that you didn’t mention this.

      Your claim that a catalytic converter increases a vehicle’s fuel consumption by 15-25% is without any merit. Back when leaded and unleaded petrol were both available there was never any indication that leaded cars were somehow superior to their unleaded counterparts.

    • Lindsay McDougall
      Posted December 13, 2012 at 8:40 pm | Permalink

      Whatever happened to Ford’s reasearch into a lean burn engine? It died a death commercially when the EC decided to standardise on catalytic converters.

      • Lindsay McDougall
        Posted December 13, 2012 at 9:04 pm | Permalink

        I got a partial answer to my question by Googleing “The lean burn engine” and accessing the Wikepedia site. Lean burn engines have been put into production by Chrysler, Honda, Toyota, Nissan and Mitsubishi at various times spanning 1976 to 2002.

        So the Japanese were heavily involved. Has the technology been abandoned because of EU and other regulation, or because the Japanse are now heavily into making hybrid cars, or both?

        This subject needs an expert contribution.

  38. nemesis
    Posted December 12, 2012 at 6:39 pm | Permalink

    The climate on earth has been changing mostly of its own accord for four and a half billion years. Thinking you can stop it changing by closing a few power stations is I think a tad optimistic!

  39. Jon
    Posted December 12, 2012 at 7:24 pm | Permalink

    We had our chances for nuclear power why we didn’t take them I don’t know. We are not on numerous fault lines or along a tornado alley.

  40. sm
    Posted December 13, 2012 at 1:28 am | Permalink

    It seems to have helped keep wages down by exporting jobs (which then hollow out the UK). Perhaps it was unintended?

    If the issue is so important then why has no nuclear been built until we have other viable technology like thorium reactors via a global Manhattan type project?

  41. Teresa
    Posted December 13, 2012 at 2:49 am | Permalink

    Why is global warming something that sceptics don’t ‘believe in’? Surely the question of whether the globe is warmer than it was, say a hundred years ago, is a matter of verifiable fact, not a matter of belief. It’s not a religion. I don’t ‘know’ but I hesitate to counter a hundred years of published scientific evidence with an intuitive belief. As far as I can see the only remaining issue is whether the measured increase in carbon dioxide levels in the atmosphere since the industrial revolution is having a detrimental effect. Why is that such an implausible notion? Ruling out the possibility so vehermently seems to me to be an emotional rather than rational response. If the sceptics are wrong I must say that have no confidence in our ability to prevent catastrophe. Animals have very limited ability to link their behaviour to consequences that are not contingent, and I fear that we are no exception.

    • oldtimer
      Posted December 13, 2012 at 9:42 am | Permalink

      The best published guesses about CO2 are these:
      There are about 750 Gt of CO2 in the earth`s atmosphere;
      About 90 Gt is emitted and sequestered annually;
      Of this about 5-7 Gt is man made.
      The amounts emitted and sequestered is not in balance year by year – the balance changes;
      Scientists are still trying to work out the sources and the causes of these processes.

      As others have already pointed out CO2 is a tiny component of the earth`s atmosphere. Sir John Houghton, an early advocate of CAGW was fiercely opposed by his predecessors at the Met Office when he presented them at the Foundation for Science and Technology in the early 1990s – I know this for a fact as I was present at the meeting when Houghton was challenged on the issue.

    • Alan Wheatley
      Posted December 13, 2012 at 2:10 pm | Permalink

      Oh that it could be that simple! “verifiable” and “fact” are not absolutes. I have found that the more you look behind the claims the more complicated it becomes, so unless you are an expert and prepared to put in the time an effort to verify the facts to your own satisfaction you have to go with what seems to be most plausible.

      There does seem to be agreement that the World climate has changed many times, and long before humans walked the earth. And there does seem to be agreement that it is still changing, but what is strongly disputed is the extent to which humans are affecting the current change.

      It is also possible to come at the subject from a different direction. Even if it is accepted that human activity is changing the planet, then for the UK to make a unilateral sacrifice to save the Planet is actually counter productive because loss of economic competitiveness in the UK will drive activity to even more polluting countries. Would it not be better for the UK to exploit its traditional inventiveness to develop cheaper and less polluting forms of energy production and energy efficiency. That way not only would we be doing our bit for the Planet but we would also benefit economically as others adopted our methods, not because of the lower environmental impact but because of the greater efficiency.

    • Edward
      Posted December 13, 2012 at 3:34 pm | Permalink

      I try to keep an open mind about this debate, but I notice that the planet has been through huge differences in temperature and variations in climate and levels of CO2 and this also happened prior to mankind even being on this earth.
      The accepted temperature rise in the 20th century was less than 1 degree and the rapid acceleration predicted to have occurred since 2000 has simply not happened, in fact average temperatures have fallen.
      If you revisit the early IPCC report and the Al Gore film you can see the dire predictions made back then are not coming true.
      I am pleased about that, as their predictions were very worrying and that is basically why I am now a sceptic.

  • About John Redwood

    John Redwood won a free place at Kent College, Canterbury, and graduated from Magdalen College Oxford. He is a Distinguished fellow of All Souls, Oxford. A businessman by background, he has set up an investment management business, was both executive and non executive chairman of a quoted industrial PLC, and chaired a manufacturing company with factories in Birmingham, Chicago, India and China. He is the MP for Wokingham, first elected in 1987.

  • John’s Books

  • Email Alerts

    You can sign up to receive John's blog posts by e-mail by entering your e-mail address in the box below.

    Enter your email address:

    Delivered by FeedBurner

    The e-mail service is powered by Google's FeedBurner service. Your information is not shared.

  • Map of Visitors

    Locations of visitors to this page