Surely not another cold spring?

 

          According to global warming theory we should be getting early springs and warmer winters. The most enthusiastic global warming theorists were busily forecasting the end to snow in the UK winter looking forward to this decade. They said the winters would not be cold enough to kill off unwelcome bugs. They said spring would come a lot earlier owing to the global warming trend.

         The last three years have seen some tough and snow ridden winters here in the UK. This March we have sub zero temperatures, and on Tuesday morning people were still stuck in their cars in the snow near Gatwick airport from the night before.

          Doubtless we will be told this is just more weather, and less climate. We will be told that the long term trend of temperatures is still upwards, despite the apparent hiatus in rising temperatures worldwide for the last 16 years. The fact that our fuel bills are so high, and that it is so perishing cold in March makes global warming theory a difficult sell to many people. Understandably many people are far more worried about keeping warm and how much it is going to cost. Many businesses are worried about whether it is still economic to make things needing lots of energy in the UK, or whether the intention of EU policy makers is to ensure more and more of the high energy using activities take place outside the EU altoegther , where energy is more realistically priced.

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

264 Comments

  1. lifelogic
    Posted March 13, 2013 at 6:37 am | Permalink

    An extremely hard sell particularly as they cannot predict the weather well in just a weeks time let alone 100 years. Furthermore the solutions they push clearly do not work, even in there own warped c02 terms. They merely push the industries and emissions overseas to no net world benefit.

    They do not even know the suns outputs for the next 100 years, the volcanic activity, any technology break throughs, the future agriculture, any asteroid impacts, the populations and countless other things they would need to know.

    How do these baffoons have the temerity to claim they can predict the future, let them predict the temperature and rain falls for a few places on Saturday week. If they can get that spot on then let them move on to two weeks. Until then tell them to shut up and repeal the absurd climate change act.

    They have no real reason to suppose hotter is not better anyway as clearly seems to be the case on balance.

    Also give the Department of Energy & Climate Change a sensible name just The Dept of Energy and get rid of all the silly, state subsidised, quack energy schemes that litter their documents and web sites and destroy UK jobs and industry so efficiently.

    Ed Davey, another Oxford PPE man, needs a church not a department to push his barmy expensive religion in. Replace him with an atheist, Cambridge engineer/physicist and quickly.

    Let him invest his own money in (sometimes) rotating, symbolic, bird and bat exploding crosses, not mine please.

    • APL
      Posted March 13, 2013 at 8:02 am | Permalink

      Lifelogic: “Also give the Department of Energy & Climate Change a sensible name just The Dept of Energy .. ”

      It’d be better called what it is, The department of Voodoo.

      Or The Department for the enslavement of British Industry.

      Don’t rename it, just abolish it.

    • Single Acts
      Posted March 13, 2013 at 8:36 am | Permalink

      It is quite interesting just how far ahead of mainstream political views many ordinary people seem to be. Just another disconnect.

    • Graham C
      Posted March 13, 2013 at 9:33 am | Permalink

      Doesn’t the stupidity of it all make you want to weep?

      It make me very angry that we have so little say in the matter the idealogy just keeps pushing ahead.

    • uanime5
      Posted March 13, 2013 at 1:54 pm | Permalink

      Confusing climate and weather just shows you don’t know what you’re talking about. Two countries can have the same climate but different weather.

      The sun’s output is easy to predict because it follows a specific pattern; the activity of many volcanoes is also easy to predict; asteroid impacts have no effect on climate; population growth can be factored in based on current population growth; and if technological and agricultural improvement are created then they can be factored in but until then they have no place in the calculations.

      Just because you don’t like climate change doesn’t make it wrong.

      • nTropywins
        Posted March 13, 2013 at 6:55 pm | Permalink

        Confusing knowledge with ignorance just shows you don’t know what you are talking about.

        The IPCC bless their cotton socks set out in detail in AR4 the extent of our known ignorance.

        Table 2.11 from the Fourth Assessment report of the IPCC sets out the uncertainty assessment of forcing agents. Listed below are the agents and the level of scientific understanding

        LLGHGs – high
        Stratospheric ozone – medium
        Tropospheric ozone – medium
        Stratospheric water vapour from CH4 – low
        Direct aerosol – medium to low
        Cloud albedo effect (all aerosols) – low
        Surface albedo (land use) – medium to low
        Surface albedo (BC aerosol on snow) – low
        Persistent linear contrails – low
        Solar irradiance – low
        Volcanic aerosol – low
        Stratospheric water vapour from causes other than CH4 oxidation – very low
        Tropospheric water vapour from irrigation – very low
        Aviation induced cirrus – very low
        Cosmic rays – very low
        Other surface effects – very low

        So this is the stuff we don’t know and the list of the stuff we don’t know we don’t know may be even longer. And one of the big unknowns is how all this stuff interacts. And yet you appear to believe that computers can model the climate based on this level of scientific understanding. Sounds like you have confused science with religion.

        • uanime5
          Posted March 14, 2013 at 2:46 pm | Permalink

          Here’s a link to the actual table 2.11 in the Fourth Assessment report by the IPCC. This table it explains why there are uncertainties.

          http://www.ipcc.ch/publications_and_data/ar4/wg1/en/ch2s2-9-1.html#table-2-11

          I suspect that you just read a post on a climate change denier website and decided that this shows all evidence for climate change is wrong, even though all this table shows is that we don’t know what effect these specific factors have on climate change. It doesn’t change the fact that the effects of CO2 on global warming have been proven time and time again, or that the average global temperature is rising.

          You seems to have confused biased commentary with real science.

      • APL
        Posted March 13, 2013 at 6:57 pm | Permalink

        uanime5: “asteroid impacts have no effect on climate .. ”

        There is a good chance this one did.

        uanime5: “Just because you don’t like climate change doesn’t make it wrong.”

        Mostly, sensible folk don’t care about climate change. Many of us simply don’t agree with the high priests of your cookie religion. Neither do we agree that human activity has a significant affect on naturally occurring climate change.

        • uanime5
          Posted March 14, 2013 at 2:48 pm | Permalink

          Care to provide any evidence that this meteor effected the climate of the region in any way? Thought not.

          Also just because people don’t like or care about climate change doesn’t make it wrong.

          • APL
            Posted March 15, 2013 at 8:14 pm | Permalink

            uanime5: “Care to …” bla bla bla.

            That’d be a no. I have no more patience for an individual who seems to be suffering from (strange views-ed).

            uanime5: ” doesn’t make it wrong ”

            Climate change isn’t a moral issue, it is a naturally occurring process – it cares neither about your nor my concept of right or wrong.

      • David Price
        Posted March 13, 2013 at 7:25 pm | Permalink

        If all these factors are so predictable and can be factored in why did your high priests of AGW get their climate predictions so wrong? They got it so wrong they had to (select?-ed) data (aka the hockey stick) which has since been disappeared in met office reports and drawn rebuke from hundreds of qualified scientists. (personal allegation removed-ed)
        Like most fields of endeavour science allows for mistakes, it positively thrives on them, however it has no room for dishonesty. AGW people need to understand that no one believes anything you say any more, even if you dishonestly try to camouflage your old rants with different labels like “climate change”.

        • uanime5
          Posted March 14, 2013 at 2:49 pm | Permalink

          Care to provide any evidence that these predictions have been wrong. Surely if they’ve been rebuked by “hundreds of qualified scientists” you should be able to find one scientific paper to prove your point.

          • David Price
            Posted March 16, 2013 at 1:46 pm | Permalink

            Go find the open letter to the UN Secretary General sent 29th November 2012 from 125+ scientists. Then go argue with each one of those qualified scientists and see how far you get.

      • Nick
        Posted March 13, 2013 at 7:56 pm | Permalink

        uanime5 – the climate does change. They’re called seasons. We’ve had them for millenia.

        Liking or not liking is irrelevant. It’s not a question of affection but facts. The lie of green must end. It is money thrown away and destroying our country, reducing investment, capital and worth.

        Far from ‘wrong’, it is simply nonsense. Nonsense that should be ignored.

        • uanime5
          Posted March 14, 2013 at 2:51 pm | Permalink

          Climates are annual, not seasonal. Just because you don’t know what “climate” means doesn’t make climate change wrong.

      • lifelogic
        Posted March 13, 2013 at 9:32 pm | Permalink

        You have surpassed yourself – so may incorrect statements in one submission.

        I do not confuse climate and weather – climate is just weather averaged over a longer time scale.

        “The sun’s output is easy to predict because it follows a specific pattern” – complete rubbish there are some historical patterns but they are not any guarantee of the future patterns.

        “asteroid impacts have no effect on climate” -tell that to the dinosaurs perhaps, if you can find many left they will put you right.

        “population growth can be factored in based on current population growth” well it can but does it allow for a major meteor impacts, or a huge bird flue epidemic or major war – they are just a guess after all?

        “If technological and agricultural improvement are created then they can be factored in but until then they have no place in the calculations.”

        This is like saying I can predict the outcome of some lottery balls or some dice but until I can deal with the dust and lack or roundness of the balls or squareness of the dice yet, so they have no place in the calculations until I can do – so in fact I cannot predict at all!

        I do not like or dislike “climate change” it just is a fact of life and always has been we adjust as we have always done. Indeed as we do adjust from summer to winter and day to night.

        • uanime5
          Posted March 14, 2013 at 2:59 pm | Permalink

          You have surpassed yourself – so may incorrect statements in one submission.

          I do not confuse climate and weather – climate is just weather averaged over a longer time scale.

          Climate isn’t average weather. You just made that up because you don’t know what climate means or how it’s measured.

          “The sun’s output is easy to predict because it follows a specific pattern” – complete rubbish there are some historical patterns but they are not any guarantee of the future patterns.

          Just because you don’t like something doesn’t make it wrong. The sun follows a very predictable pattern, which is why scientists were able to determine that it’s not the cause of global warming.

          “asteroid impacts have no effect on climate” -tell that to the dinosaurs perhaps, if you can find many left they will put you right.

          No one knows why the dinosaurs died and there’s no evidence of an asteroid impact.

          “population growth can be factored in based on current population growth” well it can but does it allow for a major meteor impacts, or a huge bird flue epidemic or major war – they are just a guess after all?

          Given that all of these have had almost no impact on the countries that are producing the most CO2 (they also have had little impact on the populations of countries they’ve effected) they’re unlikely to effect climate change in any meaningful way.

          This is like saying I can predict the outcome of some lottery balls or some dice but until I can deal with the dust and lack or roundness of the balls or squareness of the dice yet, so they have no place in the calculations until I can do – so in fact I cannot predict at all!

          That’s not what I said, you’re misrepresenting it because you can’t rebut my argument. Until these new technologies exist they shouldn’t be included in the calculations. As the size and shape of dice and lottery balls is already know they can be included in the equations.

          I do not like or dislike “climate change” it just is a fact of life and always has been we adjust as we have always done. Indeed as we do adjust from summer to winter and day to night.

          None of these examples are examples of different climates.

          • lifelogic
            Posted March 16, 2013 at 4:44 pm | Permalink

            @uanime5

            So how on earth do you define Climate if not average weather? Is it some apparition of a ghostly presence perhaps in the AGW religion.

            Climate definition:- encompasses the statistics of temperature, humidity, atmospheric pressure, wind, precipitation, atmospheric particle count and other meteorological elemental measurements in a given region over long periods. Climate can be contrasted to weather, which is the present condition of these elements and their variations over shorter periods.

            Please give us your definition by all means.

      • Max Dunbar
        Posted March 13, 2013 at 11:28 pm | Permalink

        You omitted to mention predictions according to the lunar cycle.

      • A different Simon
        Posted March 14, 2013 at 1:04 am | Permalink

        How do you explain changes of the temperature on Mars being almost a correlation of 1.0 with changes of temperature on Earth ?

        • Simonro
          Posted March 14, 2013 at 12:35 pm | Permalink

          By the simple fact that they are not.

      • Monty
        Posted March 14, 2013 at 1:38 am | Permalink

        uanime5
        Posted March 13, 2013 at 1:54 pm | Permalink
        —————
        I swear I have never read such a load of fatuous drivel, in all my born days. And I’m no spring chicken.

        • uanime5
          Posted March 14, 2013 at 3:00 pm | Permalink

          Let me know when you actually have evidence to rebut any of my claims.

          • lifelogic
            Posted March 16, 2013 at 4:46 pm | Permalink

            You claims are so vague and ill defined and self contradictory it is hard to even fathom what you are trying to say, let alone rebut them.

      • lifelogic
        Posted March 14, 2013 at 5:09 am | Permalink

        @uanime5

        “the activity of many volcanoes is also easy to predict” Sure, it is very simple, did you predict the Iceland volcano ash cloud and make a killing going short on airline shares then?

        Perhaps you can give us a list of the next ones due to erupt together with dates and volume of emissions, then we can see how your predictions span out? Are you good at predicting asteroid impacts and earth quakes too?

        • uanime5
          Posted March 14, 2013 at 3:04 pm | Permalink

          What effect did the Icelandic volcano ash cloud have on the climate? Oh that’s right it reduced CO2 emissions because the amount of CO2 it produced was less than the amount of CO2 that would have been produced if the planes could fly.

          Also some volcanoes erupt frequently so it’s easy to predict when they will next erupt. Here’s a GCSE guide to predicting when they’ll erupt.

          http://www.bbc.co.uk/schools/gcsebitesize/geography/natural_hazards/managing_hazards_rev1.shtml

          • lifelogic
            Posted March 16, 2013 at 4:50 pm | Permalink

            Well you tell us when they are going to erupt with dates and we will see if your are right. Which will be the next one for example and when?

      • Bazman
        Posted March 14, 2013 at 9:16 pm | Permalink

        Nothing to do with climate and all to do with blind religious fatalism and belief in the free market despite much evidence to the contrary. Of they cannot see this then how can they see any further?

    • livelogic
      Posted March 13, 2013 at 4:17 pm | Permalink

      MEPs reject EU spending cuts and demand an extra 1.7bn from British cash cows.

      http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/europe/eu/9927439/MEPs-reject-EU-spending-cuts-and-demand-extra-1.7bn-from-British-taxpayers.html

      I assume Cameron will just cave in again as usual? What was all the pointless late night negotiation for, just PR theatre one assumes?

    • Simon
      Posted March 13, 2013 at 5:27 pm | Permalink

      I don’t know about replacing Davey with someone from the ‘Cambridge crowd’, as many of them are ardent warmists themselves.

      I would say Davey needs a cult rather than a church. Also, many Christians/religious people are sceptical of the warmism ’cause’, so the two groups don’t necessarily correlate (although I would agree that all the mainstream churches have fallen for the warmist cult, hook, line and sinker, even though much of the warmism/environmentalist rhetoric is anti-christian).

      • A different Simon
        Posted March 14, 2013 at 9:01 am | Permalink

        Simon ,

        It’s a very small step from soft warmism to hard warmism .

        Even if man’s CO2 emissions were radically reduced and renewables were the dominant source of energy this would not be enough for the elites , environmentalists and the establishment .

        Underlying the Green Religion is a hatred of mankind .

        They don’t want engineers to solve these manufactured problems .

        What they are after is population reduction .

        Just listen to Bill Gates .

        • uanime5
          Posted March 14, 2013 at 4:03 pm | Permalink

          Judging by your post the ones who have a hatred of others are the deniers.

    • Acorn
      Posted March 13, 2013 at 7:00 pm | Permalink

      Lifer, after his TV appearance against Paul Krugman, I would like to nominate another PPE man for the position of top pompous arrogant (person-ed) of this tory administration; Matthew Hancock MP (notice the Hebrew double “t” in Matthew). He must have duct out of the economics lectures at Cambridge. He certainly demonstrated that he hasn’t got a clue how a fiat monetary economy actually works. If there is one single reason not to vote tory at the next election, it will be this guy.

  2. Edward.
    Posted March 13, 2013 at 6:45 am | Permalink

    Quite John but you must have a word with that green fantasist – Dave -“the boss”.

    Our Prime Minister David Cameron, who is beholden, nay transfixed to and by the green madness.

    Mind you, Dave is a EU boy through ( and has family members who participate in the green moveament and economy-ed) keep it in the family eh?

    Nice one Dave, nice one the Tory party – the party of EUrope and the champions of the green agenda.

    Reply I suggest you read Mr Cameron’s Europe speech – far more Eurosceptic than any speech by any party leader who has ever held a seat in the Commons.

    • Leslie Singleton
      Posted March 13, 2013 at 7:35 am | Permalink

      Comment on Reply–John.please, what you just said about Cameron says nothing at all given the wrongheadedness of previous leaders

    • lifelogic
      Posted March 13, 2013 at 7:36 am | Permalink

      Indeed the speech was fine but he has a history of ratting, saying one thing and doing the complete opposite.

      A promise of action, after he will clearly be out of power, is worse than worthless. Also the idea that he can negotiate anything serious, while taking the stance that he wants to remain in come what may, is also absurd.

      It is PR delaying tactics until he is replaced by Miliband and perhaps rewarded with a nice EU job.

      We can only judge a man like Cameron by his actions, on the cast iron promise and the inheritance tax promise, the gender insurance nonsense, energy certificates, no retirement rules, soft loans to pigis, increases in EU funding, EU fixing bankers bonuses ……………..for example

      The record is just abysmal and dishonest through and through.

    • zorro
      Posted March 13, 2013 at 9:11 am | Permalink

      Reply to reply – Talk by him is cheap, let us see what actually happens…

      zorro

    • Bob
      Posted March 13, 2013 at 9:18 am | Permalink

      “Reply I suggest you read Mr Cameron’s Europe speech – far more Eurosceptic than any speech by any party leader who has ever held a seat in the Commons.”

      Words are cheap.
      I hear we’ve had another u-turn today (min. alcohol pricing).

      O/T I see that the parachute regiment will no longer be issued with parachutes. So now we have aircraft carriers with no planes, a tank regiment with no tanks and a parachute regiment with no parachutes.
      I think Mr Cameron should remember the adage, if you desire peace, then prepare for war.

    • me
      Posted March 13, 2013 at 9:24 am | Permalink

      And according to Mr Redwood Mr Cameron’s euroscepticism has nothing to do with people turning to UKIP and everything to do with him listening to backbenchers.

      Pull the other one.

    • Brian Tomkinson
      Posted March 13, 2013 at 9:25 am | Permalink

      Reply to reply,
      The speech designed to halt the hemorrhage of support to UKIP in which he said:
      “So I speak as British Prime Minister with a positive vision for the future of the European Union. A future in which Britain wants, and should want, to play a committed and active part…..I want the European Union to be a success. And I want a relationship between Britain and the EU that keeps us in it. ……… And just as I believe that Britain should want to remain in the EU so the EU should want us to stay.
      With courage and conviction I believe we can achieve a new settlement in which Britain can be comfortable and all our countries can thrive.
      And when the referendum comes let me say now that if we can negotiate such an arrangement, I will campaign for it with all my heart and soul.
      Because I believe something very deeply. That Britain’s national interest is best served in a flexible, adaptable and open European Union and that such a European Union is best with Britain in it.
      Over the coming weeks, months and years, I will not rest until this debate is won. For the future of my country. For the success of the European Union. And for the prosperity of our peoples for generations to come.”

      Didn’t sound Eurosceptic to me but typical Cameron duplicity. The man is a Europhile and stop pretending that he isn’t. His cover has been blown and he can’t recover.

    • lifelogic
      Posted March 13, 2013 at 9:33 am | Permalink

      Oh well as least Dave has, it seems, dropped the silly minimum alcohol pricing which would have had done little, but encourage more home brewing and smuggling perhaps.

      • lifelogic
        Posted March 13, 2013 at 9:34 pm | Permalink

        Was it Dave’s initial idea? It sound like his sort of mad socialist plan.

    • Edward.
      Posted March 13, 2013 at 9:40 am | Permalink

      Mr. Cameron’s words differ greatly from his actions more especially betwixt Westminster and another version when he arrives in Brussels Mr. Redwood and we could spend many an hour discussing that point.

      I appreciate you ‘printing’ my comment.

      Fair play to you but the editing was a little draconian John – I hear tell…… that we are still living in a democracy.
      Although, when I see the waste, peculation, view the idiocy of the green agenda and the way the state moves to protect it’s own and as the police ‘service’ moves away from being a civilian force to a European-esque Gendarmerie – and mark my words: a police state is only a small jump away.

      That’s what Brussels would enforce and Westminster and Whitehall would acquiesce to total obeisance tomorrow morning if not yesterday.

      • uanime5
        Posted March 14, 2013 at 4:43 pm | Permalink

        The UK already has Gendarmerie, though they’re usually called riot police or armed officers (such as the armed officers at airports).

    • Dan
      Posted March 13, 2013 at 10:22 am | Permalink

      Good God, do you seriously expect that people should take what he says with more than a pinch of salt?
      He’s a chancer, and you Sir lose more credibility with each passing day.

    • Timaction
      Posted March 13, 2013 at 11:05 am | Permalink

      This green nonsense is a genuine as the “Millenium Bug”. It is a religion based on no scientific facts. It is ignored by the vast majority of countries on the planet. CO2 accounts for 0.034% of the Earths atmosphere and has little baring on the weather or climate. It is naturally occurring trace gas that feeds plantlife. Mankinds contribution to the total is tiny in comparison with volcanoes, our oceans and wildlife. The UK produces less than 2% of mankinds contribution which is less than the annual increase in China alone. Our mainstream political leaders are brainwashed by our EU leaders to do this. Our industry is and will continue to go abroad to compete in the global markets whilst our energy costs go through the roof for no reason. I’m sure Mr Camerons father in law will be pleased, whilst our poor and pensioners can’t afford to heat their homes.

      • lifelogic
        Posted March 15, 2013 at 7:21 am | Permalink

        Indeed the government waster a huge amount of tax money on a millennium bug scare unit too. Just like the renewable scare drivel.

    • ian wragg
      Posted March 13, 2013 at 3:35 pm | Permalink

      actions not words are what matter.

    • Scottspeig
      Posted March 13, 2013 at 3:38 pm | Permalink

      John,

      Yes, Dave talks the talk well, no doubt about that. But I don’t trust him to walk the walk.

      Have you seen what’s happening with constant bombardment from the EU and we just seem to take it like we have to. Quite frankly I’m disgusted and disappointed with the Conservative party. Hopefully the vanguard of conservatism (you, Carswell, Bone et al) can rise up and defeat the “Cameroonism”, otherwise it will be the end of the party.

    • Roger Farmer
      Posted March 13, 2013 at 3:56 pm | Permalink

      The point is Dave is a busted flush. He could confirm that the moon is made of cheese and even the type of cheese, but he has no credibility either now or up to 2015. After that it does not matter because he will be out of number 10. Being eurosceptic is totally inadequate, to survive he should be planning an in out vote by the end of 2014 and executing the decision before the election in 2015. Sadly I suspect he is in hock to the banking fraternity and they are pulling the strings.

    • Paul
      Posted March 13, 2013 at 4:36 pm | Permalink

      Quite, John – Mr Cameron is so Eurosceptic he will campaign with all his ‘heart and soul’ for a vote to stay in. So Eurosceptic that rather than hold an in/out referendum now he plans one for 2017 which he knows he won’t have to deliver because the Conservatives do not have a chance of winning in 2015.

    • con
      Posted March 13, 2013 at 6:05 pm | Permalink

      Reply to reply:

      It may have been the most eurosceptic speech, but it did not contain any references to the crazy energy policies we have signed up to.

      I just wonder why. Are the lunatics truly running the asylum? Why do we want to disadvantage ourselves on energy costs?

      Unless and until our competitors sign up to these policies it is economic suicide and anyway we are too small to make any difference to CO2 or the climate.

    • APL
      Posted March 13, 2013 at 7:14 pm | Permalink

      JR: “I suggest you read Mr Cameron’s Europe speech – far more Eurosceptic than any speech by any party leader who has ever held a seat in the Commons.”

      It is the same old Tory tactic. An election approaches – Huff and puff eurosceptic noises, make promises one never intends to keep, once the election is in the bag, abandon all promises and it’s full steam ahead on the European Union express.

      Because in the words of one who has a cabinet post & comfortable salary but no portfolio, we don’t want to be in a two speed Europe, nor do we want to be left in the slow lane.

  3. They Work for Us
    Posted March 13, 2013 at 6:57 am | Permalink

    The solution is clear.

    Immediate repeal of the “Climate change Act” and to give a “green tax” cut to consumers and industry energy bills to stimulate growth.

    Declare a moratorium on promoting the man made global warming/ climate change myth with no more funding for it and any PC promotion of it to be career limiting.

    On another matter – with the depressing but predictable results of handing out housing benefits and other benefits to individuals “to do their own budget planning and pay bills” – surely the time has come for all such benefits to be always paid directly to landlords and local councils to stop the feckless spending the money and build up arrears for us to fund (again). Similarly the use of vouchers/ precharged cards that can not be used to pay for alcohol, tobacco, the lottery etc should be widespread. The rumours that minimum pricing for alcohol are to be dropped is also depressing.

    • lifelogic
      Posted March 13, 2013 at 7:39 am | Permalink

      Indeed it clearly need to be paid to landlords or the government is just encouraging theft from landlords and pushing up landlords legal costs hugely.

      • Bazman
        Posted March 14, 2013 at 9:18 pm | Permalink

        As pointed out to you many landlords are renting ex council property of which some own hundreds,to social tenants at great subsidy from the government. Where are all the private tenants willing to pay market rates?

    • uanime5
      Posted March 13, 2013 at 1:57 pm | Permalink

      If the Government tries this expect them to be humiliated by real scientists who will show just flawed this plan is. Also expect a lawsuit for violating the right to freedom of speech.

      Vouchers, precharged cards, and other ways of punishing the unemployed for being unemployed don’t work because people sell them for real money.

      • Nick
        Posted March 13, 2013 at 7:58 pm | Permalink

        Again, they can talk about it as much as they want. No one wants to squash science but green is not about science. It is not about facts. It is simply about puff and waffle. If there were proof then the green lobby would not be so vociferous in defending the lies they spread.

        There is no such thing as man made global warming. It is a nonsense.

        • uanime5
          Posted March 14, 2013 at 4:45 pm | Permalink

          Just because you don’t like the conclusions of scientists doesn’t make these conclusions wrong.

      • lifelogic
        Posted March 13, 2013 at 9:37 pm | Permalink

        We do not mind people saying what they think – just not being paid to talk b**** with public money.

      • Monty
        Posted March 14, 2013 at 1:26 am | Permalink

        “If the Government tries this expect them to be humiliated by real scientists…… ”

        The government are indeed mainly composed of credulous dorks. But your serried ranks of “real scientists” are getting their heads bitten off at the ankles, by independant third parties with an alarming habit of putting their entire rationale up on the internet for all to see.

        • uanime5
          Posted March 14, 2013 at 4:47 pm | Permalink

          Given that these third parties don’t have any evidence to back up any of their claims they are constantly losing every battle they fight against real scientists. The only people who believe these third parties are the very gullible and those with similar ideologies.

    • Bazman
      Posted March 14, 2013 at 9:21 pm | Permalink

      Not your business what they spend their money on. The clue is in the word entitlements. Which they are entitled. Should you employer say what you spend your wages on? Many would like to.

  4. R.G.
    Posted March 13, 2013 at 7:01 am | Permalink

    It was never a theory, it was barely a hypothesis and its predictions have failed to stand up to scrutiny from the very beginning. Meanwhile the sun is, as it has been for some time now, asleep and we are approaching a climate minimum, at just about the time that the uselessness of successive governments and the malice of moron bureaucrats in Brussels is ensuring widespread brown-outs and possibly phased power cuts. I fear there may (worse political trouble-ed) before this is played out.

    • ChrisXP
      Posted March 13, 2013 at 7:59 am | Permalink

      According to NASA we are actually supposed to be at a solar maximum in 2013-14, when sunspot numbers are at their highest. As it is, the spot numbers are rather low right now, although I wouldn’t say the sun was asleep…..it chucked out quite a few major flares last year. The normal 11-year cycle from min to max is, however subject to Nature’s wishes; and right now the sun isn’t doing quite what the experts expected…..it could be saving its energy for some almighty black spot. Time will tell.
      As for warming and cooling, well I know that the last few springtimes have seen us starting off our carrot seeds in tubs on the window-ledges rather than out in the garden….far too cold for little seedlings. Only ten years earlier, we would normally have had the greenhouse cleared out and set up with lots of planted seed-trays by late February/early March.

      • uanime5
        Posted March 14, 2013 at 5:16 pm | Permalink

        Given that it’s only the beginning of 2013-14 it’s way to early to determine whether sunspot number are too low or high.

        Also do you have any scientific evidence to back up your claims that this 11-year cycle is any different from the previous 11-year cycle.

    • lifelogic
      Posted March 13, 2013 at 8:13 am | Permalink

      Just another “the world will come to a fiery end, if you do not do exactly as we tell you (and pay us your money) religion”. History is littered with them, but the public foolishly still fall for them, just as they do for the lotteries, roulette, the horses, tv evangelists and ponzi schemes. The fool and their money are always quickly parted and there is not shortage of fools.

    • A different Simon
      Posted March 13, 2013 at 12:50 pm | Permalink

      The requirements for acceptance of a hypothesis as being theory have been lowered from a proof to a consensus .

      UN Agenda 21 ; the authorities don’t have to prove you are doing something detrimental to the environment , they just have to claim you in order to penalise you , confiscate your belongings or force you to move and there is no legal recourse .

      • uanime5
        Posted March 14, 2013 at 5:18 pm | Permalink

        UN Agenda 21 is non-binding and can only be enforced by national Governments. Your scaremongering is no match for real evidence.

    • uanime5
      Posted March 13, 2013 at 1:58 pm | Permalink

      Repeated scientific studies have shown that climate change is real. If is the deniers’ claims which don’t stand up to scrutiny.

      • Tony Wakelig
        Posted March 13, 2013 at 7:22 pm | Permalink

        The climate is always in perpetual change. The null hypothesis is that it natural. The proponents of AGW have to PROVE that it is not. Please direct me to that proof. I do not accept “there is nothing else except human activity that it could be” as constituting a proof.

        • uanime5
          Posted March 14, 2013 at 5:20 pm | Permalink

          The proponents of climate change only have to prove that global warming will result in the climate changing to be correct. Also claiming that something is natural isn’t a “null hypothesis”.

          • cosmic
            Posted March 17, 2013 at 1:26 pm | Permalink

            Well since as a chaotic system, the climate always changes, it isn’t hard to prove that it changes. It would be remarkable if it stayed constant.

            The problem they have is linking warming, which has been taking place since the end of the LIA, to human emissions of CO2, which have only been significant since 1945.

            There is no correlation as the past 15 years or so have shown.

      • David Price
        Posted March 13, 2013 at 7:28 pm | Permalink

        Who exactly is denying climate change happens?

        • uanime5
          Posted March 14, 2013 at 5:20 pm | Permalink

          Most of the people on this blog.

          • lifelogic
            Posted March 16, 2013 at 5:00 pm | Permalink

            No one is denying climates change – always have always will.

      • Edward2
        Posted March 13, 2013 at 7:36 pm | Permalink

        Uni, the phrase “climate change is real” is completely meaningless.

      • Nick
        Posted March 13, 2013 at 7:59 pm | Permalink

        So why does all the evidence show the exact opposite as fact and what you’re saying as utter fiction uanime5?

        • uanime5
          Posted March 14, 2013 at 5:21 pm | Permalink

          All the scientific evidence shows that I am right and you are wrong. that’s why you’re never able to rebut anything I say using scientific information.

      • Max Dunbar
        Posted March 13, 2013 at 9:20 pm | Permalink

        If the first scientific study was valid why did it have to be constantly repeated?

        • uanime5
          Posted March 14, 2013 at 5:45 pm | Permalink

          Well scientists needed to debunk all the flawed claims that denier kept making.

      • lifelogic
        Posted March 14, 2013 at 5:21 am | Permalink

        “climate change is real” – yes – we all agree on that. Always has, always will – the question is, are the predictions of man made c02 climate catastrophe and Armageddon real?

        And even if true will windfarms, PV and exporting jobs and industry make any difference? Clearly not says the science.

        • uanime5
          Posted March 14, 2013 at 5:46 pm | Permalink

          As constantly raising the level of CO2 and warming the planet will eventually cause major problems it’s clear that the catastrophe claims are real.

        • Bazman
          Posted March 14, 2013 at 9:24 pm | Permalink

          Most of you references on anti global warming are to sites and sources of dubious reputation. What does that tell you?
          They are not? Which ones? No reply again? LOL!

  5. Leslie Singleton
    Posted March 13, 2013 at 7:06 am | Permalink

    Warmists should stay in more and read books on Prehistory. A single paragraph from one I am reading (originally out of interest in early population movements and not to obtain anti warming ammo) is:

    Begin Quote
    The Atlantic period…..marked the climatic optimum of the postglacial. July temperature means…..rose as much as 2 deg C above those of the present day. Warm temperatures continued to prevail during the succeeding two millennia, but after roughly 2,500 years ago, they began to fall as much as 1 deg C below current levels…..A slightly warmer interval took place between roughly AD 1000 and AD 1450 (Mediaeval Warm Period). This was followed by the “Little Ice Age” (roughly 1450-1850) when mean…..temperatures dropped one or two degrees below current levels.
    End Quote

    The whole book is full of ups and downs like this. Warmism seems ever so unlikely and even if that were not so (it is) the risk is nowhere near justifying the stratospheric costs we are suffering in trying to do whatever it is the warmists have persuaded themselves we need (we don’t) to do. In any event what would be so wrong with a small temperature rise? It’s cold that kills people and costs money to combat.

    • Vanessa
      Posted March 13, 2013 at 11:33 am | Permalink

      I agree wholeheartedly. I am reading “Scaared to Death” by North and Booker which charts every idiotic scare and its consequences, including asbestos, unleaded petrol and global warming – what idiots politicians are to believe all the ACTIVISTS and not listen to all the SCIENTISTS.

    • uanime5
      Posted March 13, 2013 at 2:00 pm | Permalink

      If you read scientific literature you’d know that present day global warming has already exceeded these levels over a period of 100 years, rather than several centuries.

      I suspect you also ignored the reasons given for past changes in global temperature because none of these factors are causing the current rise in temperature.

      • Leslie Singleton
        Posted March 13, 2013 at 7:45 pm | Permalink

        unanime–Firm reasons do not tend to be given for past changes, for the simple reason that nobody (except maybe you of course) knows with any certainty what they might be, no more than anybody knows for certain what is causing the rise you say is occurring today especially as it is (or was 16 years ago) on any basis small. Have you given up your mantra about NASA and the extremely small rise between decades (or maybe that is out of date now)? If you resume with this or indeed anything else about temperature change (such as it is–or was) please explain why you would expect temperature to stay exactly the same over time because there is no reason why that should be the case: equilibria do not work that way, especially not with the sun, our source of heat, changing all the time. Even were you right, which you are not, how many thousands of billions would you be willing to spend (translation: waste) on this (words left out-ed) scaremongering which you could otherwise spend on your well-known pet causes. Everything has its price as I am sure you will agree.

        • uanime5
          Posted March 14, 2013 at 6:29 pm | Permalink

          If you don’t know why the average temperature has changed in the past then you can’t claim that the temperature is changing in the present for the same reason.

          A small but constant rise in temperature will become a large rise in temperature over a longer time period. Humanity cannot indefinitely raise the temperature of earth without any negative consequences.

          I never claimed that the temperature of earth would always remain the same, you made this up because you didn’t want to address my point that the temperature is rising far faster than your examples.

          Just because there’s a high price to pay for stopping global warming doesn’t make the science wrong.

          • Leslie Singleton
            Posted March 15, 2013 at 7:43 pm | Permalink

            unanime–“A small but constant rise”. Can you be serious? First of all there has been no rise at all for the last 16 years and secondly even if there had been it could scarcely called constant: it wasn’t but about 20 years ago we were told to worry about another ice age. The temperature today is not so very different from that a millennium ago and who cares it it were? I am happy for you that you apparently have so little to worry about. Next you could try the Martians are coming.

      • Edward2
        Posted March 13, 2013 at 7:47 pm | Permalink

        Your first paragraph is wrongUni,
        There was just 0.75 of one degree increase in global temperature in the 20th century.
        There have been much bigger changes up and down in centuries well before this.

        • Leslie Singleton
          Posted March 14, 2013 at 9:39 am | Permalink

          Edward2–Absolutely right

        • uanime5
          Posted March 14, 2013 at 6:34 pm | Permalink

          Do you have any scientific evidence to show how much the temperature changed in times before thermometers where invented? If not then how do you know that there have been larger temperature changes in the centuries before the 20th century?

          • Edward2
            Posted March 15, 2013 at 5:56 pm | Permalink

            Uni,
            There are huge amounts of temperature data and many written accounts of climate before thermometers were invented, even the warmists quote them.
            So look it up yourself I am not your unpaid researcher.

          • Leslie Singleton
            Posted March 15, 2013 at 7:56 pm | Permalink

            unanime–Absolutely up the pole again and beggaring belief after your telling us about the “scientific literature” you are supposed to be so familiar with.

            Quote
            Sources of information on climate change during the past 7,000 years are abundant…….an oxygen-isotope record is available from ice cores…….dated pollen cores extracted from lakes and peat bogs provide the primary framework for this time range. Additional sources of data include plant macrofossils, beetle assemblages, molluscs, tree-ring data, and others. [Also] during the last few thousand years, written historical sources provide especially valuable information on past climate.
            Unquote

            Pick the bones out of that. Yes of course I can provide a reference but then John would feel obliged to check it and he has better things to do.

      • Jon Burgess
        Posted March 13, 2013 at 10:19 pm | Permalink

        Where’s the warming again? Are you saying global warming is responsible For colder winters? It’s blooming taters in my house, but according to Al Gore I should by now be living in the mosquito ravaged swamp lands of the North West.
        Maybe there’s a mini ice age on the way.

  6. Robert K
    Posted March 13, 2013 at 7:07 am | Permalink

    No, no, no. You don’t understand. It’s not global warming any more, it’s climate change. The fact that it’s really cold proves the climate change theory. Last spring it was really warm, but this spring it’s really cold, so that proves that the climate is changing and that it’s our fault and we need more wind farms and nuclear’s no good and coal is evil and we shouldn’t frack shale gas and we should all wear organic clothes and go to the office in horse drawn carriages only we shouldn’t in offices any more because offices are so, so, like where greedy bankers work and we can get all we need by living off the land if only the population was cut by three quarters and no I’m not talking about the number of kids that I have because that’s nothing to do with you.

    • lifelogic
      Posted March 13, 2013 at 7:44 am | Permalink

      Indeed “Climate Change” then all weather events can then be blamed on human activity and c02 – with no humans the weather would, I assume, be the same every year like clock work according to these loons. Just as it was (not at all) before humans arrived.

    • uanime5
      Posted March 13, 2013 at 2:02 pm | Permalink

      Global warming causes climate change because the climate of a region is dependent on it’s temperature (along with other things).

      The rest of your post is nothing more than a rant with no facts to back up any of your claims.

      • Edward2
        Posted March 13, 2013 at 7:42 pm | Permalink

        So nowUni, you are telling us that global warming causes temperature reductions.
        Orwell would be so proud.

        • uanime5
          Posted March 14, 2013 at 6:35 pm | Permalink

          I never claimed that global warming causes temperature reductions. You just made that up because you don’t have a real argument.

      • Leslie Singleton
        Posted March 13, 2013 at 7:49 pm | Permalink

        unanime–Correct apostrophe please and you are the proverbial kettle calling the pot black with your many meaningless references “to reading the literature”.

        • uanime5
          Posted March 14, 2013 at 6:39 pm | Permalink

          Leslie Singleton I have read the scientific literature and often post it show show why your claims are false. By contrast you’ve never been able to provide any evidence to back up your claims.

          Robert K provided no evidence to back up his tin hat conspiracy and I pointed out how farcical it was. Hardly kettle calling the pot black.

      • Nick
        Posted March 13, 2013 at 8:01 pm | Permalink

        There are *NO FACTS* regarding the green lie. It’s a complete myth! Debunked gibberish that is utterly without basis in scientific process. Please, stop trying to say that black is white. It only makes you look silly uanime5

        • uanime5
          Posted March 14, 2013 at 6:40 pm | Permalink

          Only the deniers lack facts to back up their claims which is why Governments are treating them like the fools they are. This will not change no matter how much you whine about it.

      • lifelogic
        Posted March 13, 2013 at 9:42 pm | Permalink

        @uanime5 “Global warming causes climate change because the climate of a region is dependent on it’s temperature (along with other things).”

        Is this sentence supposed to make any rational sense? Climates change we all agree on that sometimes they warm some times they cool c’est la vie, just get over it.

        • uanime5
          Posted March 14, 2013 at 6:45 pm | Permalink

          Well lifelogic since you’re having trouble understanding the obvious allow me to simplify it for you.

          The climate of a region is dependent on its temperature throughout the year.

          Increasing the temperature of a region changes its climate.

          So global warming cause climate change.

          Also your failure to understand this doesn’t make the science wrong.

          • Leslie Singleton
            Posted March 16, 2013 at 11:35 am | Permalink

            unanime–Temperature is indeed a part of Climate and (forgetting whether you are right or not) according to you something is causing temperature to rise but whether that something is what you and yours mean by Global Warming is simply an independent question. It might mean that the Martians have a new hot death ray which they have turned on Earth.

      • Max Dunbar
        Posted March 13, 2013 at 9:48 pm | Permalink

        “Along with other things”. I like that one. You summarised your in-depth knowledge of the subject more succinctly than anyone else on this site could have done.

        • uanime5
          Posted March 14, 2013 at 6:47 pm | Permalink

          I didn’t list all the things that are used to determine a climate because only temperature was relevant to this example. While I could have given a complete list it would only have confused the people in this board who have no idea what a climate is.

    • Denis Cooper
      Posted March 13, 2013 at 2:57 pm | Permalink

      But we know for sure that there’s climate change because since the Treaty of Lisbon came into force it’s been specifically mentioned as something that we’re committed to combat.

      Indeed, for some advocates of the treaty that was a strong selling point during the referendums in Ireland: for the first time, there would be an explicit commitment to dealing with the global threat of climate change, hurrah!

      Of course we were told that without approval in a UK referendum that treaty would lack democratic legitimacy in this country, but never mind that.

    • Roger Farmer
      Posted March 13, 2013 at 4:00 pm | Permalink

      Movements in climate are only a means to an end, they just want your money and don’t give a damn if it destroys the economy in the process, all their loot is offshore.

  7. colliemum
    Posted March 13, 2013 at 7:18 am | Permalink

    Wow!
    That post read like something which could have been written by James Delingpole – and that is a compliment to both him and you.

    It is getting close to one minute past midnight in regard to repealing the Climate Act.
    This is not only about saving a few quid on household energy bills. This is much more about the insanity of unintended consequences, such as the insanity of forests being felled for the manufacture of wood pellets – which then have to be transported from the USA, to be burned at the Drax power station.
    Then there’s the insanity – now demanded by the EU – of adding ethanol from corn to petrol. And we don’t even need to talk about the insanity of those wind turbines, still promoted by those lobbyists of the renewables industries – who are actually being supported by EU grants which of course come out of our pockets.

    When ideology drives politics, especially an ideology which is closer to a religion, then such results are the outcome. As usual, we in the UK are following the EU Edikts to the letter, while other countries do not.

    As so many have been urging this government: repeal the Climate Change Act – it is insane to legislate for something which isn’t happening, to the detriment of the economy and indeed the population as a whole.

    • Mike Stallard
      Posted March 13, 2013 at 7:49 am | Permalink

      Amen.

    • me
      Posted March 13, 2013 at 9:26 am | Permalink

      Excellent points, could Mr Redwood put forward a motion calling for the repeal of the act? It might allow him, and others who failed to vote against it originally, the chance to redeem themselves.

    • lifelogic
      Posted March 13, 2013 at 9:36 am | Permalink

      Insane indeed unless you have shares in the green subsidised quack energy industry or want an excuse for yet more taxes.

      Oh well as least Dave has, it seems, finally dropped the silly minimum alcohol pricing which would have had done little, but encourage more home brewing and smuggling perhaps.

    • matthu
      Posted March 13, 2013 at 10:01 am | Permalink

      It won’t be too long now before there won’t be a school age child that remembers what global warming was like, despite all the EU and government propaganda that is forced down children’s throats in the name of climate science.

      In my day they taught proven science in the classroom. Not consensus science and alarmism that is looking shakier by the day. I pity the science teachers who are forced to defend this discredited shower of politicians while there are inches of global warming lying on the ground.

      And now we hear that Chris Huhne, ex-MP, ex-DECC and liar extraordinaire, wants to be recognised as the next Al Gore when he comes out of jail.

      • uanime5
        Posted March 14, 2013 at 6:50 pm | Permalink

        In my day they taught me that just because some people dislike a particular science doesn’t make it wrong. I’m glad that my school didn’t refuse to teach evolution simply because some Christians object to it.

      • lifelogic
        Posted March 15, 2013 at 7:27 am | Permalink

        It would not surprise me at all to see the Chris Huhne/Al Gore type talking drivel on the BBC endlessly.

        • Bazman
          Posted March 16, 2013 at 1:54 pm | Permalink

          What about your drivel of right wing fantasy?

    • Electro-Kevin
      Posted March 13, 2013 at 10:31 am | Permalink

      Colliemum – The ideology here isn’t Greenism but plain old Socialism replete with an arrogant political and celebrity class who dictate how the rest of us must live whilst refusing to live that way themselves.

      Foremost in mind is Chris Huhne but most of those declaring ‘tragedy’ seem to be of the same mindset too.

      This ‘ideology’ is nothing less than Socialism by the artificial limitations (by taxation) of the size of car, size of house, amount of holidays and size of wheelie bin that you are *permitted* to have.

      What becomes of those taxes ? They go to enlarge the State. My evidence ?

      The fall in revenues resulting from lower car usage has not been met with “It’s worked. Our policies have reduced carbon emissions.” but by “We must find other ways to tax motorists to recover revenues.”

      This under a supposedly Tory administration.

      The greatest of the unintended consequences was the near total destruction of British miners. Without this the Left would not dared to have embraced Greenism for fear of losing a large part of its electorate. We substituted a subsidised working class for a subsidised dependency class in those regions – the irony of which is that they are living a better standard of living than the miners ever aspired to.

      What’s done is done.

      It is a mistake to get embroiled in the muddied waters of scientific argument (a delaying tactic beloved of the Left.) The battle has to be, I’m afraid, ad hominen against the personal hypocrisy of the proponents of Greenism and the utter futility of British unilateralism in the switch away from carbon emitting energies.

      • Electro-Kevin
        Posted March 13, 2013 at 10:37 am | Permalink

        Clarification:

        “The greatest of the unintended consequences was the near total destruction of British miners.”

        Should read:

        “The greatest of the unintended consequences was from the near total destruction of British miners.”

      • uanime5
        Posted March 14, 2013 at 6:54 pm | Permalink

        So because you don’t like global warming it’s now a form of socialism. In other words you don’t understand either but have decided to oppose them for some reason.

        It is a mistake to get embroiled in the muddied waters of scientific argument (a delaying tactic beloved of the Left.)

        So rather than use evidence and reason you want to do things based on ideology without any evidence to support it. Well that’s what I’d expect from someone with no evidence to back up any of their claims.

    • uanime5
      Posted March 13, 2013 at 2:05 pm | Permalink

      You’re clock’s wrong because there’s no chance of repealing the Climate Change Act as long as the Conservatives need Lib Dems support to pass any bills.

      Why isn’t the UK planting fast growing trees to supply the wood needed for Drax? This would be much cheaper than importing it.

      Also just because you don’t like climate change doesn’t make it a religion. Especially when it’s supported by scientific literature.

      • Edward2
        Posted March 13, 2013 at 7:39 pm | Permalink

        “supported by scientific literature”….but not by current temperature statistics, Uni that the problem you face

        • uanime5
          Posted March 14, 2013 at 6:55 pm | Permalink

          All the temperature records shows that on average each decade has been warmer than the previous decade. So the temperature statistics do support me, which is why denier never quote temperature statistics.

          • Edward2
            Posted March 15, 2013 at 5:57 pm | Permalink

            No rise since 2000 is a bit of a problem for you.

      • Nick
        Posted March 13, 2013 at 8:03 pm | Permalink

        No, it is not supported by ‘scientific literature’. It is promoted by greedy men who falsify evidence and deliberately avoid scrutiny.

        • uanime5
          Posted March 14, 2013 at 6:56 pm | Permalink

          Wrong. Climate change and global warming are supported by scientific literature. It’s capitalism that’s promoted by greedy men who falsify evidence and deliberately avoid scrutiny.

      • Chilli
        Posted March 13, 2013 at 8:51 pm | Permalink

        Unanime5
        > why doesn’t the UK plant fast growing trees to fuel Drax

        Because the station requires a forrest over half the size of Wales to be chopped down every year. Forrests of such size are only available in North & South America – so that’s where the trees are coming from. I believe this is what you green pillocks refer to as ‘unsustainable’. If only we could find a compressed & concentrated form of wood buried underground near Drax. A fuel with over twice the energy content of wood and without the flamability risks. We could even give it a name – perhaps ‘Coal’.

        • Leslie Singleton
          Posted March 14, 2013 at 9:43 am | Permalink

          Chilli–Very good comment

        • Bazman
          Posted March 16, 2013 at 1:53 pm | Permalink

          Ohh! living next to Drax must be like having your house next to a cosy wood fire. The particulates are harmless and the same will be tucking into processed food with no qualms. Lets build more. Knocked back after public protest at Roosecoat power station. Centrica withdrew the application. It was coal then gas and is next to one of Europe’s largest gas terminals. Next to? About a mile maybe less. You could not make it up.

      • JimS
        Posted March 13, 2013 at 10:09 pm | Permalink

        It is estimated that 1.2M hectare of forest will be needed to supply half of Drax’s generation units. That implies that 2.4M hectare would be needed to supply all of Drax’s needs.

        Why don’t we grow our own trees? Well the total area of the UK is about 24 M hectare or ten times the area needed to supply Drax.

        Drax supplies 7% of the UK’s electricity so if we went totally ‘local’ we would require 34M hectare of forest or the whole of the UK plus another 40%.

        We just cannot switch from high density energy sources like coal and oil to 15th century fuels like wood and, heaven help us, wind, (a millionth of the energy density of coal) unless we cut the population or demand accordingly.

      • A different Simon
        Posted March 14, 2013 at 1:14 am | Permalink

        Not a bad idea so long as we let the trees die and their carbon be absorbed into the subsoil over few thousand years . Yes carbon not the associated oxygen .

        Otherwise , harvesting biomass would just be a good way of depleting what is left of our soil .

        I hope that shale gas is turned into ammonia and urea fertliser but even that would not replenish the soil from that act of vandalism .

        The whole plan of running Drax on imported woodchips ranks with sending household waste in containers over to Asia for sorting which is something the UK has been doing for about a decade to massage figures .

        Given only two choices would you prefer to deplete our soil or burnt trees which existed hundreds of millions of years ago ?

      • Monty
        Posted March 14, 2013 at 1:18 am | Permalink

        “Why isn’t the UK planting fast growing trees to supply the wood needed for Drax? This would be much cheaper than importing it.”

        And how much of that timber do you suppose will be germinated, grown, matured, chopped down, and dried out, in time for the Drax conversion?

        • Morningstar
          Posted March 14, 2013 at 3:48 pm | Permalink

          Also the cost of the energy required to turn the wood into chips would make building the facility unviable…. so we would have to grow the trees, ship them to another country to be processed and ship the chips back to the UK for burning……….. sounds like a good plan ! I expect Mr Cameron & Co. will get enthusiastically involved with this plan then…..

          (words left out ed)

      • stred
        Posted March 14, 2013 at 5:52 am | Permalink

        Uni. Try reading the DECC book Sustainable energy, free on the website.
        P244 The cost of sucking. (co2 out of the air)
        P245/6. What about trees.
        final line. ‘If anyone proposes using trees to undo climate change, they need to realise country-sized facilities are required. I don’t see how it ever could work.’
        If the trees are transported to be burned to put the co2 back in the air, expect further losses.

    • Peter Davies
      Posted March 13, 2013 at 2:52 pm | Permalink

      To add to your point

      “the insanity of forests being felled for the manufacture of wood pellets – which then have to be transported from the USA, to be burned at the Drax power station.”,/i>

      As I understand it the treaty which (India,USA,China stayed out of) which led to the Climate Change Act left out the emissions from Merchant shipping which by my understanding don’t use wind power anymore so your example of trees getting cut down in the USA to burn in the UK is a good one – how on earth do they get transported here? Magic?

      So by not harvesting coal and burning it in the UK we are saving what?

      • Peter Davies
        Posted March 13, 2013 at 2:52 pm | Permalink

        sorry didn’t close the brackets

        • tckev
          Posted March 14, 2013 at 3:01 am | Permalink

          Oops sorry.

    • James Reade
      Posted March 13, 2013 at 3:23 pm | Permalink

      “When ideology drives politics, especially an ideology which is closer to a religion, then such results are the outcome.”

      Rarer has a truer thing been said by someone exhibiting all the hallmarks of someone whose ideology drives their politics, especially an ideology which is closer to a religion.

  8. Single Acts
    Posted March 13, 2013 at 7:25 am | Permalink

    Science is theory checked against data. If data does not support the theory, the correct place for said theory is the bin. It is not about consensus (even if it did exist). One certainly does not conclude the data is ‘wrong’ in some way.

    Indeed, the retreat from calling it global warming (note its now climate change) is a tacit admission the alarmists know the world isn’t warming but still want the funding and jobs. And that’s what this whole thing is about. Lobbyists get money and reputations, politicians get to boss us around even more and have another excuse for the taxes, windmill suppliers/solar panel hawkers like it, landowners like it, and the rest of us, get expensive and increasingly unreliable energy.

    Who will take an even bet ~ I propose that at some point before 31st December 2020, there are power cuts in the UK due to lack of supply capacity. Any takers?

    • uanime5
      Posted March 14, 2013 at 7:03 pm | Permalink

      The data does show that global warming and climate change are real, that’s why there’s a consensus among scientists that it’s real.

      Also as long as the UK can purchase extra power from France you’ll lose your bet.

      • Leslie Singleton
        Posted March 15, 2013 at 8:02 pm | Permalink

        unanime–There might have been a consensus of sorts at the height of the self-induced pseudo panic something like 10 years ago but that has gone–it is simply not true to say that there is a consensus any longer and with each passing year of non-rising temperature any vestiges of consensus are going to disappear

  9. alan jutson
    Posted March 13, 2013 at 7:35 am | Permalink

    Its all very simple

    Its just another excuse to extract more cash (tax) from the population, so that the political bribery of the people with their own money, can continue for just a little bit longer.

    There will be further nonesense like this over the next few years. Just like the carbon taxes, airport taxes, road tolls, tax on insurance, tax on hot food etc etc.

    They will never be satisfied until they get all of our money, and just give us some pocket money back.

    Then they will have complete control…….or will they ?????

  10. nina andreeva
    Posted March 13, 2013 at 7:39 am | Permalink

    Go ahead keep denying it . Increased temperatures do not indicate warmer weather all round, break the gulf stream by melting the Arctic and then the UK will have climate similar to Murmansk.

    JR, regardless of the climate thing and sticking to most of this weeks topics, I am rely amazed that you are concerned about “energy intensive” industries like steel making. If the UK is to get going again it will be by making things that are hard to replicate elsewhere and demand a premium price, like the Germans do. Steel is effectively now a Third World industry you can do it anywhere (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_steel_producers).

    • nina andreeva
      Posted March 13, 2013 at 7:46 am | Permalink

      If you want cheaper energy you can do it now by stop debasing sterling, reduce regressive taxes like fuel duty and seriously regulate the utilities. Have you not thought why so many of them are foreign owned? Where else but mug UK can you get such a great return on your capital?

  11. wab
    Posted March 13, 2013 at 7:40 am | Permalink

    If people actually care to read about the science, instead of pontificate because their nose happens to be cold when they walk out the door, then realclimate.org is the place to get the facts, written by scientists rather than newspaper columnists and bloggers. As it happens, they had a long article about this very issue last month:

    http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2013/02/2012-updates-to-model-observation-comparions/

    As they point out, one of the biggest contributors to short-term variability is ENSO (El Nino/La Nina–Southern Oscillation). They have a graph trying to take that into account, but of course non-scientists might get hysterical about that kind of analysis.

    Their final paragraph:

    “The conclusion is the same as in each of the past few years; the models are on the low side of some changes, and on the high side of others, but despite short-term ups and downs, global warming continues much as predicted.”

    And don’t forget the word “global”. There are regional variations.

    • stred
      Posted March 15, 2013 at 3:35 pm | Permalink

      The ‘realclimate’ link was interesting. In particular the delay of 800 years average after a temperature rise before co2 levels rose. The graphs show this clearly and it the took another similar period after temperature reduced for co2 to fall back. The correspondence following is interesting. The argument has been going on ever since Al Gore went green. The author is at pains to explain that it was the co2 which made the rise much worse, following the original, which was probably caused by a change in orbit distance to the sun.

      However, the graphs show no sudden rise following the co2 arrival- they just bump up and down and then end. He admits that the co2 only ’causes’ about 1/3 of the rise, the rest being caused by CH4 and N2O.

      I found a thesis by a Swiss – sphahni 06phd which puts together a study of papers relating ice core analyses and in it is’ Greenland Temperature Record and CH4 over MIS3′. This shows the temperature variations there in the past and the relation of Methane. Skip to p 37 and they conclude that there is a time lag of 25-70 years for methane to increase following the temperature rise. They call it a good correalation but it is still later.

      The many temperature rises were 8 to 15 deg c.and all started before the greenhouse gas. In one case without any real methane increase. Yet methane has an effect 20x+ greater than co2.

      The rise in Methane and N2O has been far greater than CO2 since about 1870 -an increase of 2.5, and is probably due to oil extraction and flaring together with pipeline leaks. Fortunately, it only has a life of 8-10 years and unlike co2 which is 10x this. CO2 increased 1.4. In the last 10 years it has levelled off.

      It would be surprising is this huge increase in methane had not caused some of the global warming that is measured. And interesting that the levelling off coincides withe the levelling of of warming over a similar period. The effect on arctic ice and glaciers is proved on the NASA sites, but the effect of the previous natural rises of 8-15 deg c must have been far greater.

  12. stred
    Posted March 13, 2013 at 7:40 am | Permalink

    Having arrived at Heathrow and taken an unheated tube journey taking over an hour on Monday, I am glad you brought this up. I arrived at the home station shivering with teeth chattering and had to take refuge in a pub and take a taxi instead of a 10 minute walk. It gave a clear idea of what it would be like if the power was cut. No heating, no communications, no light, no cooking, no coal fire, hypothermia.

    However, the Warming argument is a bit more complicated. It may be that the Arctic ice melt is natural or caused by greenhouse effect. But ithere has been melting and this could have affected the Gulf Stream. This could mean that we are in for cold wet summers, cold winters and cold sea- permanently.

    Whether there is any warming globally is also arguable both ways. The increased CO2 level, although very small in absolute terms, is there and Warmists argue that this follows the pattern of previous hot periods. The research and graphs are convincing. However, it is possible that the CO2 was CAUSED by the warming rather than the other way around. I have been trying to find out more.

    There is a very interesting site -www.co2science.org- which publishes the latest info on from the antis and pros. Go to the current issue and the 2011 Interim Report, then co2 and interglacial warmth. There is a video of a professor explaining the graphs. It is quite clear that the co2 line FOLLOWS the temperature line, showing that the warming preceded.

    On other subjects, they explore the effect of methane CH4 and this is a far more potent greenhouse gas. They show the graphs published by Warmists and warning of catastophe. However the trend was been DOWN for decades with spikes when volcanic or changes in el Ninio happened. The tops of the spikes are lower in later years. The Warmists ignore this clear reduction. Methane was higher during the early industrial revolution.

    The above scientist makes the point that, if co2 is so high and compares with the previous warm periods, then why are we not experiencing much more warming?

    In other subjects, research shows clearly that increased co2 is very helpful to all crop growth including corn and peas, with better water requirements too. The prospect is raised that this may offset any problems caused by drought, if there is any warming in tropical areas, no matter what is causing it.

    • uanime5
      Posted March 14, 2013 at 7:32 pm | Permalink

      The research and graphs are convincing. However, it is possible that the CO2 was CAUSED by the warming rather than the other way around.

      Then what caused the warming.

      There is a very interesting site -www.co2science.org- which publishes the latest info on from the antis and pros.

      This website is written by deniers who use it to promote their own views, rather than anything of scientific merit.

      In other subjects, research shows clearly that increased co2 is very helpful to all crop growth including corn and peas, with better water requirements too.

      Here’s what this website says about these studies:

      When the CO2 increase was not exactly 300, 600 or 900 ppm, we have computed a linear adjustment to the nearest 300 ppm interval. For example, if the CO2 increase was 350 ppm and the growth response was a 60% enhancement, we would calcualte the adjusted 300 ppm CO2 growth response as (300/350) x 60% = 51%.

      This methodology is seriously flawed because they don’t have any evidence to prove that an increase in CO2 produces linear increases in biomass. They also neglect to mention that the earth’s atmosphere contains 391 ppm of CO2, so increasing it by 300 ppm would nearly double the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere.

      • stred
        Posted March 15, 2013 at 3:50 pm | Permalink

        The site is run by a professor who worked in agriculture and is qualified in physics. Some family members assist him. They also quote warmist material and even the doom and destruction stuff with music. They allow sceptic scientists to speak.

        The research on plant growth was done in lab tests and not only by the site owners. Are you saying that CO2 does not enhance growth?

        I have posted what I found about the delay to greenhouse gases following warming above- from other sites- and these confirmed the conclusion. Have a look at the graphs. The argument has been going on for years. The author on realclimate explains the initial rise to solar distances.

  13. matthu
    Posted March 13, 2013 at 7:45 am | Permalink

    Sorry, John.

    The sad fact is that the CP remains shackled to the LibDems, both are shackled to the EU and all three are shackled in some unholy alliance to green quackery which embraces global warming and unfalsifiable “climate change” as an argument to force energy prices up. Unfalsifiable in the sense that any manifestation of weather is consistent with “climate change”.

    Green jobs never materialised. Electric cars are dead. Windmills are a blight on our countryside and stand idle when needed most. Solar panel manufacturers are going bankrupt across the world as they have fail to live up to expectations. Renewable energy made out of crops that would otherwise be eaten simply drives up food prices.

    A passing reference to this madness by the likes of you, John, once a quarter does not manage to disassociate your party from the harm that has been done and the lies that have repeatedly been told (be Chris Huhne / Ed Davey / David Cameron et al.) about green policies having a net effect of “reducing” costs for the consumer.

    There is only one party with a significant following that sees through all this nonsense – and it is not the Conservative Party who remain wedded to it.

  14. Mike Stallard
    Posted March 13, 2013 at 7:48 am | Permalink

    All true. Most people have seen through AGW, Climate Change, Global Warming and Mr Pachouri and are slowly coming round to the view which Christopher Booker first put forward some five years ago in the Daily Telegraph.
    And the EU response is…….?
    And the Conservative/LibDem government’s response is (even after the imprisonment of the Minister in charge of Global Warming)……………?

  15. Andyvan
    Posted March 13, 2013 at 7:51 am | Permalink

    Britain could do with some global warming. It would be nice not to freeze all winter and get drenched all “summer”. Indeed it would be nice to have something that is recognizable as a summer. Bring it on, 3 or 4 degrees increase would be very nice. We might get vineyards as far as Northumberland as they had in the Middle Ages. Whole areas of northern Europe might be a pleasure to live in.
    Unfortunately there is no global warming, it’s a fantasy maintained by fanatics and those that seek to benefit from the whole charade. (names left out ed) Just another con.

    • uanime5
      Posted March 14, 2013 at 7:35 pm | Permalink

      There were never vineyards in the UK in the Middle Ages. Even the Romans wouldn’t get grapes to grow in the UK so they had to import huge amounts of wine.

      While global warming will make northern Europe warmer it will make large parts of Africa into a desert, where people can no longer live.

      Just because you don’t like global warming doesn’t make the science wrong.

      • David Price
        Posted March 16, 2013 at 2:10 pm | Permalink

        The Doomsday book commissioned in 1085 seems to disagree with you on matters of fact.

  16. APL
    Posted March 13, 2013 at 7:57 am | Permalink

    JR: “The fact that our fuel bills are so high, and that it is so perishing cold in March makes global warming theory a difficult sell to many people ..”

    The two are of course directly related, the subsidies that make it economic for various members of the establishment to erect ridiculous ‘wind farms’ are drawn directly from the fuel bills of the poor, the rich too but they hardly notice.

    Looks outside the window on one of the coldest days of the year yet – not a breath of wind and the windmills are stationary. There you have it, the utility of green philosophy, maximum demand for electricity – minimum supply from ‘green sources’, is nil.

    (personal attack on an MP removed ed)

    • APL
      Posted March 15, 2013 at 7:30 am | Permalink

      (personal attack on an MP removed ed)

      No. Attacks on his conduct – that is entirely appropriate.

      By the way, as I recall – there were no names either.

      • Bazman
        Posted March 16, 2013 at 1:46 pm | Permalink

        Stop swedging APL you know what these MP’s are like after a drink.

  17. margaret brandreth-j
    Posted March 13, 2013 at 8:06 am | Permalink

    When I was reading the first couple of paragraphs I was about to say ‘Oh , you out and out sceptic’ then it became clearer you were viewing from a highly sceptical position, although the doubts are simultaneously there,Yes?
    I remember as a child scratching the ice off my bedroom window and shivering all through the winter. I remember looking at older ladies with brown mottled patches on their shins where they had been close to the fire keeping warm.Those older ladies were probably in their forties . The life span was shorter.
    The wind blows in many directions bringing many weather fronts and I do believe that the earths crust is generally becoming warmer, but it corrects itself , just like a collection of cells in the body where if challenged in any way to radically change homeostasis ,other cells will attempt to neutralise the scale tipping effects. What really makes me wonder is my recollection of school lessons where my geology teacher informed the class that the planets core was gradually cooling .How balanced is the warming/ cooling process to maintain a continuim for the next million years or so?

  18. Winston Smith
    Posted March 13, 2013 at 8:54 am | Permalink

    You will feel even colder when Ashcroft starts funding UKIP. He’s cut funding your Party and now he’s praising UKIP policies.

  19. oldtimer
    Posted March 13, 2013 at 8:58 am | Permalink

    There are those who assert that, on the issue of “global warming”, the science is settled. This is not so as the science chapters of the IPCC`s Third Assessment Report pointed out. The earth`s climate is is a chaotic, non-linear system. Many of its components are not understood – indeed there may be some that have not even been recognised. Still less is there an understanding of their interaction with each other. No one has demonstrated how they propose to isolate the many influences on climate – a step surely necessary to prove their hypotheses? Most well-informed commentators seem to agree that there was a slight warming, c 0.7C, in the past century with colder and warmer spells along the way. No connection has been demonstrated between man-made CO2 and temperature; it is in fact a very small percentage of total atmospheric CO2, and an infinitessimally small percentage of the total atmosphere. There is no evidence of the forcing effects on which the alarmist predictions rely.

    Even if you are prepared to suspend your critical faculties and accept the alarmist predictions, the economic case for dealing with it (the Stern report) was fatally flawed as Peter Lilley MP so clearly demonstrated. He says that government economists now privately agree with his opinion.

    Then again, if you are still prepared to suspend your critical faculties and accept the Stern Report, the measures mandated and subsidised by Parliament through the Climate Change Act and the statutory instruments at the disposal of Ministers do not work on their own terms. The renewable energy schemes so beloved by the PM do not work as advertised, require duplicate, gas fired standby capacity, add hugely to consumer and business costs and emit more CO2 than the alternative fossil fuel solutions!

    Recently MR Graham Stringer MP, wrote to the Daily Telegraph in these terms:
    …”There is agreement between the front benchers on an energy policy that is going to be unnecessarily expensive for the consumer and place the security of supply at risk. I disagree with the policy and applied to go on the committee to give detailed scrutiny to this Bill. For the first time in 16 years, I was denied a place without explanation by my whips’ office.

    The public will be more than cynical if the lights go out after energy bills have increased and it is evident that critical appraisal that could have averted this catastrophe had been stifled.”

    It sounds to me as though there is a concerted effort to suppress debate on this issue.

    Mr Stringer, a Labour MP, has been a member of the HoC Science and Technology Committee in both this and the last Parliament; he is one of the few, if not only, member of that committee with a science background.

    • uanime5
      Posted March 14, 2013 at 7:40 pm | Permalink

      This is not so as the science chapters of the IPCC`s Third Assessment Report pointed out. The earth`s climate is is a chaotic, non-linear system.

      The IPCC never claimed this. You just made it up because you aren’t able to criticise the science in this report.

      No connection has been demonstrated between man-made CO2 and temperature;

      This has been proven time and time again. Just because you don’t like this evidence doesn’t make it wrong.

      it is in fact a very small percentage of total atmospheric CO2, and an infinitessimally small percentage of the total atmosphere.

      Just because it’s not present in a huge volume doesn’t make it harmless. You only need a small amount of arsenic and Carbon Monoxide to kill someone.

      • oldtimer
        Posted March 15, 2013 at 9:29 am | Permalink

        I do not make things up, as you assert. Working Group 1: The Scientific basis of the IPCC Third Assessment Report (TAR 2001) says: “In climate research and modelling, we should recognise that we are dealing with a coupled non-linear chaotic system, and therefore the long-term prediction of future climate states is not possible.”

        (link left out ed)
        The rest of us are bginning to understand the truth of this comment:
        “…we redistribute de facto the world’s wealth by climate policy…One has to free oneself from the illusion that international climate policy is environmental policy. This has almost nothing to do with environmental policy anymore…” IPCC co-chair of Working Group 3, Dr. Ottmar Endenhofer, November 13, 2010 interview

      • Leslie Singleton
        Posted March 17, 2013 at 12:56 pm | Permalink

        unanime–Could what you say about As and CO vs CO2 have anything to do with the fact that As and CO are deadly poisons whereas CO2, even at many orders of magnitude greater concentrations, is benign, indeed essential to life on earth. You are turning yourself in to a joke the way you automatically scrape the barrel on this subject especially. I say again, think what you could be spending the staggering sums of money on rather than wasting it in support of the EU with their attempts aimed at looking big on the world stage. Even your left wing causes would be better than just throwing it away as now.

    • stred
      Posted March 14, 2013 at 10:23 pm | Permalink

      Excellent summary. Today I found a research site which observed a lag of 35-70 years between warming in Greenland, as found in ice cores, and methane, no2 and co2, measured by some sort of isotope. the more you look the more you find. a lag means atmospheric gases result not cause.

      Not allowed to post it but may email it.

  20. James Reade
    Posted March 13, 2013 at 9:13 am | Permalink

    It never ceases to amaze me what an expert being a politician makes one on all kinds of matters.

    You’re able to comment with authority, and people listen to you, on all kinds of matters, regardless of your actual level of expertise.

    Your followers believe your pronouncements on the economy despite their obvious flaws, and they listen to you when as an expert on meteorology, you explain to them how much of an obvious lie global warming is.

    Because looking at weather systems over the entire globe and making forecasts is really easy – it’s the kind of kids play a politician could easily get to grips with. Forget all those PhDs and careers spent trying to understand more and better the patterns we’re observing, and may expect to observe in the future.

    Pick out a few erroneous forecasts that sound particularly laughable, confuse climate and weather, forget about the concept of probability (have you looked back to see if those forecasts were produced with an associated probability, btw?), cast doubt as an outsider (with no actual understanding of what’s going on) on a profession attempting to help us understand more about the world about us. Bravo!

    Forget it all – it’s all about the EU forcing us to have more expensive energy! How dare they! Everything ultimately boils down to the EU. I mean, it’s not like there are international agreements on these kinds of things, is it? It’s not like, if we were outside the EU we wouldn’t be pursuing similar if not identical policies is it? Because generally it’s good to stick to one’s word isn’t it? Oh wait, when it comes to the EU, it no longer remains good to stick to one’s word – sod the ECHR, sod Brussels, let’s stick two fingers up at them.

    • Edward2
      Posted March 14, 2013 at 1:30 pm | Permalink

      James, you are right, it is about facts and figures.
      Just 0.75 of one degree world temperature rise in the twentieth century..
      Not what I would call an unmanageable level of climate change.

      If you were to revisit the Al Gore film and the first IPCC report, you will see the predictions made have not come true.
      Islands still stubbournly not under water.
      We were told that from 2000 temperatures would rise exponentially and they have not, in fact there has been no significant warming since 2000 as the Met Office has said.
      Im happy to listen to the educated voices of scientific authority as you suggest but their dire predictions from just a few decades ago do not seem to be coming true.

  21. Forester 126
    Posted March 13, 2013 at 9:14 am | Permalink

    I agree with R.G. above except that it is worse than he says because he says “we are approaching a climate minimum” unfortunately that is not true. We are actually supposed to be approaching the Solar maximum this year of Solar cycle 24 which looks as though it it will be similar to Solar cycle 5. That occurred during the little Ice age and many solar scientists think we are going to suffer 30 years of cooling.

    One of the problems is that we only started measuring temperature during the little ice age, and we know that temperatures started rising about 0.5 degrees C per Century, well before we were putting a lot of extra CO2 into the Atmosphere. However this oscillated around a 30 year cycle. So we know it warmed for thirty years up to 1940, it then cooled until the 1970’s (when incidentally climate scientists were claiming we were going into an ice age) The warming then started again until the turn of the century, so we can expect cooling for the next 30 years magnified by the low solar activity.

    Now is not the time to be taking huge gambles with our energy policy.

  22. Latimer Alder
    Posted March 13, 2013 at 9:31 am | Permalink

    Great article, John

    But now you need to start doing something about it with your fellow MPs.

    You may know Graham Stringer, MP. and though he is of an opposite political persuasion, he too is very sceptical about ‘climate change’ and has aired his views in the House and its committees.

    Please find common ground with him and other like-minded parliamentarians and try to bring some sanity to the discussions. It is clear that the LibDems in charge of DECC are away with the fairies on this one, and we need a firm and authoritative voice to bring the debate back to earth

    Nigel (Lord) Lawson – with his excellent Global Warming Policy Foundation – has made a start, but even he needs some heavyweight help.

    Please join the fray.

    And for commentary particularly about the disastrous effects of the green delusion on our energy policy, see the ‘Bishop Hill’ website.

  23. backofanenvelope
    Posted March 13, 2013 at 9:35 am | Permalink

    Were those green shoots I saw on TV this morning? A U-turn on alcohol? What next – smoking allowed in pubs?

  24. Brian Tomkinson
    Posted March 13, 2013 at 9:37 am | Permalink

    Please quote one reference from Cameron in which he has shown one iota of sympathy to the arguments you make here. Don’t let him hide behind his Lib Dem pals (with whom he is in much more agreement than his own party) he was the husky hugger and the green tree logo proponent. Last year at the world energy ministers’ climate summit in London he said :”When I became prime minister I said I would aim to have the greenest government ever and this is exactly what we have”. What he didn’t tell us was that in the process he is impoverishing most of us, enriching a few and undermining our competitiveness in world markets. Yet you and your colleagues keep supporting him.

  25. Bob
    Posted March 13, 2013 at 9:41 am | Permalink
  26. Roger Longstaff
    Posted March 13, 2013 at 9:49 am | Permalink

    Several people here have commented on the absurdity of the Climate Change Act. Please note that there is an e-petition to repeal the Act here:

    http://epetitions.direct.gov.uk/petitions/42784

  27. English Pensioner
    Posted March 13, 2013 at 9:54 am | Permalink

    If one is fair, it is really wrong to blame the councils, airport authorities and the like for not being able to clear the snow.
    After all, any sensible business takes professional advice before making major investments, and if that advice from a consensus of experts tells us that snow is going to be a thing of the past, why on earth should the councils/businesses waste money on buying snowploughs, etc, which according to the experts, will never be needed.
    If you are stuck in the snow, or your services such as electricity have been cut due to snow, blame the global warming “experts”, not someone who has taken their advice.

  28. Man of Kent
    Posted March 13, 2013 at 10:04 am | Permalink

    And beware of rising sea levels!

    Not so very long ago the Government of Kiribati was asking Australia and New Zealand to give their country refugee status and were sending a recce group to Fiji to select and buy land [to be paid for by the polluting nations].

    It seems that ,at the most ,the Pacific sea level has risen 20mm in the past 50 years-while some harbour high water marks have hardly changed at all.

    Now amazingly satellite photos show that the land area of Kiribati has expanded over the past 15 years.Some atolls by as much as 30%.

    Darwin’s theory of atoll formation has been proved correct -in brief that they adjust their own height with coral polyps growing most vigorously at mean low water mark.

    The lesson is that mother earth is and always has been infinitely adaptable as are the humans who populate it.Let’s understand it better rather than going off at half cock with costly and unnecessary ‘solutions’.

  29. MichaelL
    Posted March 13, 2013 at 10:06 am | Permalink

    Now that Green man is happy homing at her maj’s pleasure (something all us taxpayers are funding) can’t the government just build some Thorium nuclear reactors. Areva could build them, the size of the contract could mandate some work carried out in the UK. No stupid schemes like the Severn barrage (which wasn’t very green at all ….)

  30. Liz
    Posted March 13, 2013 at 10:21 am | Permalink

    Skiing in Europe was supposed to be a thing of the past, solemnly reported by the BBC a few years ago – this year there has been lots of snow and excellent skiing.
    The decision to fuel Drax by imported wood chips defies all reason. The green climate change lobby are in the grip of a mania – one which will inflict great suffering on the general population of Britain in the not too distant future and ruin industry and commerce as this Government, like those before them, is still dithering about securing fuel supplies in the next few decades.

  31. Atlas
    Posted March 13, 2013 at 10:22 am | Permalink

    What can I add to your summary except to say “Yes ! ” to all of it.

    The problem now is one of pride: that is to say, those who swallowed the Global Warming hypothesis are unlikely to admit their error for ‘loss of face’. The result will be artificial fuel shortages due to the headless chicken responses of the EU and others.

  32. Malcolm Shykles
    Posted March 13, 2013 at 10:35 am | Permalink

    Global warming is the greatest hoax in human history.

    (personal allegations removed)
    The result was the Kyoto Protocol, the more intelligent Governments stayed out of it.

    It is hard to believe that our Scientific Advisers could fall for it. Our politicians, actually puppets to their lobbying masters saw revenue and the masters’ profit.

    The public who have known it was a hoax for years are not as dumb as politicians think.

    Windmill Cameron therefore lost all credibility and the victim is the Conservative Party.

  33. Slim Jim
    Posted March 13, 2013 at 10:54 am | Permalink

    I am looking forward to the impending power cuts, brought on by slavish adherence to EU policy. Only, this time it will be much worse than those in the 1970s, since we rely on computers so much now. I am ready for such eventualities, but I wonder how many people in this country are? Also, combined with the crisis in the eurozone, and our own fragile cancerous economy, will people finally see sense about the contradictions of the entire EU philosophy? Oh, and carbon taxes will stop China continuing to produce coal-fired power stations, and they will save the planet. Really. Yes, the lunatics are still in charge of the asylum!

  34. Neil Craig
    Posted March 13, 2013 at 10:58 am | Permalink

    Rising electricity prices, rightly, scare a lot of people, pensioners in particular. I was recently at a stall for UKIP and while not everybody was on our side almost everybody hated the rise in electricity prices (which a Conservative recently said he expected to see rise to £3,500 per family) but not one single person had anything to say in support of windmillery. Of course the effect on industry is similar to that on pensioners except that industry can move more easily.

    Personally I find it difficult to see why any sensible person would vote for the LabConDems when this is their policyand when they have deliberately lied to us for decades to take this money from us.

  35. Acorn
    Posted March 13, 2013 at 10:59 am | Permalink

    It was a cold spring in parliament yesterday, a museum of ideas frozen in times past. I think we can be fairly sure that Treasury ministers are overwhelmed by any form of econometrics beyond NVQ2. There were a couple of good question about debt finance and equity finance and the different tax treatment that favours banks profits over business costs; but, these mainly fell on stony ground, the assembled MPs appearing to not understand the questions let alone the non-answer.

    We have a private household sector and private business sector, up to its knackers in debt. Ahhhh but we still need to get those banksters lending that essential finance to SMEs etc (that still have no customers), so they can get into even more debt. Only the government can get into more debt without consequence of ever having to pay it back. My pension fund doesn’t want them to pay it back either; cash don’t pay interest. The stats’ show we are currently increasing our savings, towards 8% of disposable income. Most of that is probably paying down debt, not deposits in savings accounts. We ain’t going out on a spending spree any time soon, and now we have to start worrying about importing inflation of dollar denominated essential commodities, OMG!!!

    As Prof. Michael Hudson said yesterday; “So governments from the United States to Europe face a choice: to save the economy, or to save the banks and bondholders from taking a loss by keeping the debt overhead in place and re-inflating real estate prices to a level high enough to cover the debts attached to the property whose underwater mortgages are weighing down the banking system.”

    Yesterday’s edition of Punch and Judy financial politicking, left me with very little hope for the future. Still, I did get the ironing done; thankfully resisting the urge to throw the iron at the TV.

    I am still holding out for a hero. I am not sure if he should be a technocratic populist or a populist technocrat; Punch and Judy politics that is very poor value for money has passed its sell buy date IMHO.

    If we have to have a democracy, I want to get a say / vote more than once every five years. No politician / political party, should be more than two years away from a primary election that allows write-in candidates. With apologies to our host; continually voting for incumbents because it is the enemy you know, is leaving too much dead wood in the forest.

  36. Robert Taggart
    Posted March 13, 2013 at 11:50 am | Permalink

    Better the cold than the unbearable heat – the latter causes some of us ‘porkers’ to sweat like pigs on a spit !
    Blighty be geared-up to fight the cold – fires, radiators, insulation…, but, fighting the heat be altogether harder – air conditioners, cold air blowers, fans (which just move the warm air round)…, be harder to come by, and, near impossible if outside !

    • APL
      Posted March 16, 2013 at 10:29 am | Permalink

      Robert Taggart: “but, fighting the heat be altogether harder – air conditioners, cold air blowers, fans”

      And all require energy to run, which if you believe the doctrine of the high priests means it’s gonna get hotter.

      Robert Taggart: ” if outside !”

      The best natural air conditioning, is a pub, some shade and a cool breeze.

  37. behindthefrogs
    Posted March 13, 2013 at 11:55 am | Permalink

    The predicted climate change was always global. A lot of the scientists supporting this prediction actually included the probability of this causing a weakening of the Gulf Stream and as a result the UK having much colder winters. Our reecent weather has been mainly caused by a movement of the Jet Stream, which can in turn be attributed to the melting of the arctic icecap.
    I find it extremely annoying that people with little or no understanding of the science involved interpret a fraction of the available evidence to support their often misguided views.

    • Edward2
      Posted March 14, 2013 at 1:38 pm | Permalink

      But global temperatures since 2000 show no significant increases as the Met Office have said and yet those with “understanding of the science” made predictions that there would be rapid global rises in temperatures from 2000.

  38. J. Watson
    Posted March 13, 2013 at 11:55 am | Permalink

    Mr. Redwood. Did you vote for Milliband’s 2008 Climate Change Act? If so, you are partly responsible for all this nonsense, which is going to cripple our businesses, increase prices generally, and put more people in energy poverty.

    Reply No I did not

  39. Ross Lea
    Posted March 13, 2013 at 12:12 pm | Permalink

    I continue to be dismayed by the current energy policy especially the recent agreement to subsidise the burning of wood (biofuel) at huge cost to the taxpayer and the natural environment. The poor in the third world see a potential source of food turned into bio ethanol for first world transport. Instead of investing in useless wind turbines and solar panels we should be investing Liquid Thorium Fuelled Nuclear reactors. These cannot be used to make nuclear weapons and produce much more energy than Uranium. They produce a fraction of the waste which has a much shorter half life. They can also use conventional nuclear waste as a fuel. They can safely produce electricity and hydrogen gas which can be used for pollution free surface transport via hydrogen fuel cell technology.(the bi product of a hydrogen fuel cell is water). I realise that even if we start developing this technology today it will be sometime in the future before it will become available (India and China are stealing a march on us as usual the technology was tried at Oakridge in the USA but was abandoned for reactors the produce weapons grad material). In the mean time we can extend our coal fired power stations (Germany is building new ones !) exploit our shale gas reserves and continue to import oil which is now in abundance. (The USA is about to become self sufficient thanks to shale oil technology and OPEC production is down by a third – they cannot possible maintain the current price). If you are to have any chance of winning the next election you must adopt a sensible and forward looking energy policy and most importantly explain to the public at large the case for the changes that I have laid out here. (video deleted ed)

  40. cosmic
    Posted March 13, 2013 at 12:32 pm | Permalink

    “According to global warming theory we should be getting early springs and warmer winters.”

    Which particular Global Warming theory? Years back some supporters were saying that it would lead to more chaotic weather, others talked of the ending of the Gulf Stream and a colder climate for North West Europe. The BBC was preparing us for drought resistant gardening etc. Any sign that temperatures were rising was hailed as proof positive. All of these are lurking there and when one looks like rubbish, another is dusted off and pushed.

    However, even if you accept the dubious proposition that human generated CO2 is significantly changing the climate in dangerous ways, the fact remains that the measures being taken in the UK are not effective; they are not reducing emissions globally, (out contribution is minimal anyway), they are not improving energy security, they are not creating jobs. They do represent a huge misdirection of money and effort and put a ball and chain around the ankles of the economy. They are likely to cause widespread misery and possibly, social upheaval.

    We have to come to our senses PDQ and repeal the CCA.

  41. Simonro
    Posted March 13, 2013 at 12:47 pm | Permalink

    “Doubtless we will be told this is just more weather, and less climate.”

    Yes, the UK is ~1% of the earth’s surface, thus our weather accounts for ~1% of the global trend. Record breaking weather, from the snowfall in the US & Canada, to the heat waves in
    Australia and Russia are all added up, and far outweigh what happens here.

    “We will be told that the long term trend of temperatures is still upwards…”

    Yes, because this:

    “…despite the apparent hiatus in rising temperatures worldwide for the last 16 years.”

    is a lie.

    This graph shows both a rolling 12 month average (blue) and a rolling 10 year average (red) global surface temperature. Notice the last 16 years being flat? Nope Neither do I.

    This stuff is really easy to do, the data is all available on line, you don’t have to believe what the scientists say, or what some pseudo-charity propaganda machine & lobby group (or “Think Tank” as they call themselves) trots out for cash reward, you can look for yourself.

    • stred
      Posted March 14, 2013 at 10:33 pm | Permalink

      Methane production has also gone flat, with a slight end peak. All accountable from natural events. Methane has 20x the effect of co2 in the same concentration.

    • Mark
      Posted March 15, 2013 at 1:57 pm | Permalink

      You give no provenance for your chart. Why should anyone believe it?

  42. Tad Davison
    Posted March 13, 2013 at 1:13 pm | Permalink

    Well at least the political climate promises to get appreciably warmer, Nick Robinson, speaking on the BBC’s Daily Politics Show, says that the EU have voted down Cameron’s fabulous reduction in the EU budget increase. The very one Tory MPs were recently falling over themselves to congratulate him on. Talk about clutching at straws, when something so tenuous and infinitesimally small, can be imbued with all the merits of a resounding victory!

    But there’s no comfort for the Labour party either. It was mainly the socialists who voted it down.

    Strange, that when there is such a squeeze on incomes here at home, and groups like the genuinely disabled are continually having to jump through hoops, despite lots of medical evidence to support their claim, there is always money for the bloated and wasteful EU.

    Perhaps now, Cameron will see the error of his ways, and acknowledge that only Britain’s complete withdrawal from the EU will suffice. Unless that is, we are to be plunged into a political winter after the next election, to rival any ice age, with the prospect of another Labour government.

    And what does this say of the Lib Dems? Does this not show their lack of political judgement, when they are so willing to give so freely to the EU, when our own people are in despair?

    Great God almighty! The political class needs to get real!

    Tad Davison

    Cambridge

  43. EJT
    Posted March 13, 2013 at 1:29 pm | Permalink

    Mr. Redwood,

    I think many, if not most, people now are indifferent to politicians’ words. It’s deeds that count. After the Lisbon referendum promise, and irrespective of the “small print”, can you blame us ?

    • EJT
      Posted March 14, 2013 at 10:48 am | Permalink

      PS – intended as a reply to the “I suggest you read Mr Cameron’s Europe speech”. ( Some issue with the “reply” button, dpending on browser settings ?)

  44. Johnny Norfolk
    Posted March 13, 2013 at 1:32 pm | Permalink

    Global warming has gone the same way as the the hole in the ozone layer.

    • lifelogic
      Posted March 13, 2013 at 9:47 pm | Permalink

      Or the way of serial liars like Chris Huhne, who, had he got of on a technicality, would, no doubt, be back in the cabinet lying with gusto again joining David Laws and other Libdem climate loons.

      • APL
        Posted March 16, 2013 at 10:34 am | Permalink

        lifelogic: “Chris Huhne, who, had he got of on a technicality, would, no doubt, be back in the cabinet lying with gusto ”

        Yes, Chris Huhne (did lie about his corut case-ed), it’ll be interesting to see which government or NGO will take him on board, sort of as an award for ‘services to lying’.

        But we are entitled to ask, how many of the others are prepared to break the law and lie through their teeth in pursuit of their careers?

        Indeed, how many of the others have broken the law?

    • A different Simon
      Posted March 14, 2013 at 1:17 am | Permalink

      Yep ,

      It’s a dieing religion .

      All that will be left in a couple of years will be some acid induced flashbacks over a Glastonbury weekend .

      As an investor in my SIPP in gas and tight oil I really should not be happy that King Coal has won over !

    • uanime5
      Posted March 14, 2013 at 7:52 pm | Permalink

      The hole in the ozone layer was fixed because CFC were banned. Were CO2 to be tackled in a similar manner global warming wouldn’t be a problem.

      • Edward2
        Posted March 15, 2013 at 6:04 pm | Permalink

        Will we continually adjust CO2 ?
        Tweaking our global output up and down to maintain a steady temperature which suits all nations.
        It will take some global agreement and auditing of output.
        Mankind in charge of the climate instead of nature.
        What if it starts to get colder. Do we then try to increase our output of CO2 back up again?

  45. Jon Burgess
    Posted March 13, 2013 at 2:03 pm | Permalink

    Now this has reminded me again. What does it take for a Government to decide that a previous piece of legislation was an absolute mistake, and then get on and repeal it? The Climate Change Act fits this bill, but I’m sure we can all think of plenty more. What is the point of Government if it blithely continues on a path that was never proven and is now shown to be absolute cobblers? Why is a Government applauded for endlessly adding to law and regulation and never chided for failing to lighten the load and correct past mistakes?

  46. uanime5
    Posted March 13, 2013 at 2:06 pm | Permalink

    According to global warming theory we should be getting early springs and warmer winters. The most enthusiastic global warming theorists were busily forecasting the end to snow in the UK winter looking forward to this decade.

    Care to provide any evidence by scientists to back up these claims. If the temperature in winter is -3°C and global warming raises the temperature by 2°C then you’re still going to get snow because the temperature in winter will be -1°C.

    We will be told that the long term trend of temperatures is still upwards, despite the apparent hiatus in rising temperatures worldwide for the last 16 years.

    Well that’s not what the evidence from NASA shows.

    http://climate.nasa.gov/key_indicators

    Care to provide any evidence from reputable scientists to back up your claim that global warming hasn’t occurred for 16 years.

    The fact that our fuel bills are so high, and that it is so perishing cold in March makes global warming theory a difficult sell to many people.

    Fuel bill are high because of a lack of competition in the energy industry. One day of snow doesn’t change that fact that March has on average been warmer than February.

    • Edward2
      Posted March 18, 2013 at 10:50 pm | Permalink

      Uni,
      If you care to look on the Hadley Centre website and the Met Office website and look at the graphs for temperatures since 2000 you will see that temperatures have not risen since 2000
      Sorry to disturb your beliefs but its there in black and white.

  47. Wokingham Mum's
    Posted March 13, 2013 at 2:10 pm | Permalink

    Blogs this week are depressing us….
    Why oh, why can’t the powers that be agree, set a course of action and sort this country out.

    • alan jutson
      Posted March 17, 2013 at 11:05 am | Permalink

      Wokingham Mums

      Yes very frustrating I agree.

      But why can’t they agree.

      Because they are politicians, and many simply cannot bring themselves to agree with any other party’s ideas.
      The majority it would seem, would sooner act like sheep and do as the leader dictates through the whips.

      One is now forced to ask, is our present system working, and do we really have a democracy, or an elected dictatorship.

  48. Mike Agg
    Posted March 13, 2013 at 2:11 pm | Permalink

    Mr Redwood repeats the claim that there has been no recent warming. That claim is false.

  49. John B
    Posted March 13, 2013 at 2:17 pm | Permalink

    You have to take careful note of warmist words.

    Manmade global warming was the amount of warming over and above what would happen naturally and was directly linked, and correlated to CO2 emissions.

    It is true that correlation does not prove causality unless supported by external data, but if there is causality there MUST be correlation.

    It is also a matter of time line. There certainly is a ‘warming trend’ if you take a time line over three centuries, or even two, and maybe global warming will start up again in the near future, but global warming is not the same as, nor evidence of Manmade global warming, and most importantly, the temperature record does not correlate with CO2 emissions from fossil fuels.

    And we have more than thirty years of data because the Manmade effect supposedly started in the late 70s, before that, it is claimed warming could be attributed to natural causes.

    No correlation, no causal link.

    It really is that simple.

    The fact that the ‘Government’ cannot grasp that, means there can be no hope they can grasp what is needed to provide the best conditions for the free market to sort the economy out.

    Which is what of course we can see.

  50. Edward2
    Posted March 13, 2013 at 3:04 pm | Permalink

    The predictions were for expoential rises in temperature after 2000 and for greatly increasing sea level rises from 2000.
    They said the 0.75 of a degree rise in the twentieth century global average temperature was dangerous was all caused my mankind and that it was just the start.
    They spoke of reaching a tipping point. They fortold rises of 5 and 6 and 7 degrees.
    They spoke of disaster and catastrophy and of islands disppearing under many feet of rising water.
    It simply hasnt happened as they predicted.

    • lifelogic
      Posted March 13, 2013 at 9:49 pm | Permalink

      Did anyone sensible think it every would, did even the Huhnes, Gummers and Yeos every really think this? I suspect not.

      • Bazman
        Posted March 14, 2013 at 9:27 pm | Permalink

        Sensible? Meaning any idea that you like?

        • Edward2
          Posted March 18, 2013 at 10:52 pm | Permalink

          I like them Baz, because the statistics from the Met Office and the Hadley Centre bear out the comments I have made.
          Look them up yourself.

  51. forthurst
    Posted March 13, 2013 at 3:42 pm | Permalink

    “whether the intention of EU policy makers is to ensure more and more of the high energy using activities take place outside the EU altoegther”

    Berlaymont is surrounded; on all sides are the massed armies of the NGOs intent on ensuring that the policies their institutions promote are heard with favour and incorporated into EU law. The commission itself draws up the legislation which is then given to the Parliament (consisting in the main of troughing mediocrities) to vote in favour of. Who do these NGOs represent? Business groupings in favour of building fast rail networks and other huge schemes with no positive payback, the UN, organisations which themselves are funded by other NGOs based in the USA, high net worth individuals whose wealth is entirely derived from banksterism etc. There is nothing wrong with lobbying per se; e.g. parliamentarians are often totally ignorant about how particular industries operate and what is good or bad for them. That is why it was suprising that the passage of the Climate Change Act was almost unanimous, albeit with three line whips; but why had those industries which would be destroyed in this country, not been heard by at least a few MPs?
    Why do so few MPs seem to care that not only will energy become progressively far more expensive, but without extensive and reliable base load provision, the lights will inevitably go out?

    When lobbying achieves legislation which has detrimental effects, it is time to question whether this is deliberate. It is hard to see how the AGW scam, ‘gay marriage’, feminism, multiculturalism, the invention of thoughtcrimes, the destruction of the nation state, the destruction of Western cultural identities etc can by anything but deliberately destructive. Furthermore when attempts to destroy our nations and replace them by a superstate, causes widespread unemployment and poverty through the imposition of the Euro, the arrival in our countries of people we do not need, it is time to consider whether we can ignore the enemy within and his machinations any longer.

    • oldtimer
      Posted March 14, 2013 at 4:24 pm | Permalink

      I think it is deliberate – just as the successful attempt to undermine British industry, by making large parts of it unmanageable, in the 1970s was deliberate

  52. Mark
    Posted March 13, 2013 at 4:09 pm | Permalink

    The appointment of Duarte Figueira as the new chief quangocrat at the Office for Unconventional Gas & Oil (a.k.a. shale gas regulator) is (interesting?-ed).

    Linked In offers these career details:

    Current

    Head of Strategy, UK Business Delivery, Technip Offshore Wind at Technip Offshore Wind Ltd

    Past

    Head of Offshore Renewables, DECC at Department of Energy and Climate Change
    Director of Infrastructure Projects, UKTI at UK Trade & Investment
    Director of Non-Proliferation, DTI at Department of Trade and Industry

    Head of UK Export Licensing, DTI at Department of Trade and Industry

    In short: (experience in?-ed) of the oil and gas industry is zero while green credentials are maximum.

    • stred
      Posted March 14, 2013 at 10:35 pm | Permalink

      A Green Guy Burgess?

  53. Bickers
    Posted March 13, 2013 at 4:16 pm | Permalink

    JR is one of the very few politicians who has bothered to do some independent research into ‘Man Made Climate Change’ and come to the conclusion that it’s an over hyped ‘scam’.

    I don’t doubt that mankind has an impact on the environment (we have been doing so for thousands of years). Regarding the government’ response to CO2 emissions (and their possibly part in global warming/climate change) it’s like me going to the doctor with an ingrowing toe nail (which has a big impact on my ability to walk) and the doctor prescribing amputation of the leg below the knee to cure the problem. Sure, it’ll cure the problem but render me disabled (much like our economy will be if we continue to implement Milliband’s ludicrous Climate Change Act.

    • Barry
      Posted March 13, 2013 at 8:14 pm | Permalink

      Your doctor is in denial about the toenail and the condition gets worse with a serious serious infection. The doctor is still in denial because he has an alternative belief about your swollen black leg. You die.
      ingrowing toenail denial …. climate change denial….

      • Bickers
        Posted March 14, 2013 at 10:54 am | Permalink

        Nope, I don’t deny that the climate changes, it has & will continue to do so without our presence. The claims of the AGW supporters have been shown to be wildly exaggerated, after all even Phil Jones of East Anglia Uni has admitted that there’s been no statistically relevant increase in World temps since 1998.

        As usual follow the money to understand the scam.

        • Barry
          Posted March 14, 2013 at 11:42 am | Permalink

          We owe a lot to the natural production of CO2. It was an important element of changing our planet’s climate for life to prosper hundreds of millions of years ago. More recently, its impossible to explain the unusual high rate of increase of CO2 without human intervention over the past century or two. We are changing our planet climate.

          Those that wish to ignore our influence on climate change have a moral duty to provide clear evidence that lack of intervention is safe for the planet we leave for our children’s children.

          Returning to your example of the doctor, you would expect him to provide treatment based on best scientific understanding rather than some vague unsubstantiated belief. The care of our planet demands our best understanding rather than vague unsubstantiated beliefs such as climate change is some kind of financial scam..

          • Bazman
            Posted March 14, 2013 at 9:29 pm | Permalink

            The believe that putting unlimited amounts of co2 into the atmosphere by burning fossil fuels will have no effect. Why is it will have no effect not even considered.

          • Edward2
            Posted March 15, 2013 at 6:09 pm | Permalink

            If you do believe there is a direct correlation betwen CO2 output by mankind and temperature increases, then we have had a 0.75 of one degree increase in global average temperatures in the twentieth century and little or no increase since 2000 when rapidly increasing temperatures were predicted.

          • Bazman
            Posted March 16, 2013 at 1:38 pm | Permalink

            You believe that it has no effect and this is conclusive proof? The melting of the ice caps and extreme weather conditions are just freak weather that can be blamed on ‘weather. Seems not to be the case. However no evidence will convince these people who some still believe that the banks crashing was the governments fault for letting them crash, which of course it is. Individuals like liflogic who claims that much of the country is involved in ‘think’ except himself. When challenged just goes silent. What does that tell you?

  54. Christopher Ekstrom
    Posted March 13, 2013 at 4:49 pm | Permalink

    Send in the clowns! Cannot wait to witness the BBC’s next climate change campaign. This IS a conspiracy, pure & simple. And it’s punter/plebs in the “labor” que too stupid to realize they are being swindled each time they fill their car with petrol.

    • Barry
      Posted March 14, 2013 at 11:45 am | Permalink

      On what evidence do you place your assertions?

  55. Dr Aister McFarquhar
    Posted March 13, 2013 at 4:53 pm | Permalink

    At last an MP with courage sceptic on DAGW
    and on a suicidal UK Energy Policy enforced by EU
    I doubt the present cold is evidence of a return to long term cooling
    We had a similar cool trend from 1942 -75 and return to longtern gentle warming less than 1 degree per century
    But sun activity is consistent with the possibility of long term cooling
    But so what?
    CO2 emissions are not positively correlated with GT warming
    any evidence of correlation between GT and CO2 suggests temperature precedes CO2 by some centuries
    Cooling or warming its evidently not caused by mans emission
    But dont count on finding a scientist sceptic in Cambridge atheist or not
    and not retired
    IPCC propaganda rules in Academia

    • Barry
      Posted March 14, 2013 at 11:48 am | Permalink

      On what evidence do you place your various assertions?

  56. Simon
    Posted March 13, 2013 at 5:19 pm | Permalink

    Occam’s Razor – The simplest explanation is usually correct, and you’ve hit the nail on the head John. The question posed is: why hasn’t the temperature continued to rise despite the continued CO2 rise. The Occam’s Razor answer is that CO2 doesn’t drive temperature.

    Now replace “Occam’s Razor” with “scientific”, and you’ll understand why those selling the global warming guff have got it so very very wrong. They are NOT scientific! They do not use the scientific method, and as so clearly expressed last week by Lord Deben, “it’s the deniers who have to prove themselves”, i.e. reversing the scientific method and asking for the null hypothesis to be proved, which it can’t.

    There is also very good scientific argument that the Greenhouse Effect, i.e. warming by (man’s) CO2 back radiation is utter bunkum, completely violating thermodynamic laws and the laws of quantum mechanics.

    This climate craziness is just another reason why we need to be free of the EU, as much of this comes from there.

    As for energy policy, you would do well to campaign for the repeal of the Climate Change Act, for all CO2 based regulations and taxes to be rescinded, and any obstacle to fracking removed to let the market get on with it. The removal of subsidies to renewables and fracked gas will have a huge impact on reducing energy prices.

    Looking forward, if the government is keen to promote energy technology, then LFTR (Thorium nuclear) is the obvious choice. There’s a lot of work on LFTR going on around the world, and the UK is in danger of being left behind.

    • uanime5
      Posted March 14, 2013 at 8:01 pm | Permalink

      The problem with your argument is that temperature and CO2 levels have continued to rise. so the Occam’s Razor answer is that CO2 levels do drive temperature.

      If the deniers wish to claim that climate change isn’t real they have to provide evidence for these claims. It’s not for the scientists to disprove every claim made by deniers, but for the deniers to prove that their claims have merit. Something the deniers have constantly failed to do.

      There is also very good scientific argument that the Greenhouse Effect, i.e. warming by (man’s) CO2 back radiation is utter bunkum, completely violating thermodynamic laws and the laws of quantum mechanics.

      Given your inability to explain this it’s clear you’ve just chosen some random scientific terms and tried to use them to support your claims, failing in the process.

      • Edward2
        Posted March 15, 2013 at 10:13 pm | Permalink

        Again Uni, you use that meaningless phrase “climate change is real”
        Both sides accept that the climate changes.
        The debate is about what causes climate change.

  57. Richard1
    Posted March 13, 2013 at 5:45 pm | Permalink

    In order not to commit Global Warming Denial within the meaning of the Thought Crimes Act (2005), the best thing perhaps would be to say to Global Warming alarmists something along the lines of ‘no doubt CO2 is a warming gas as is proven, and perhaps man-made activity has accounted for some of the rise in temperature over the last 150 years, although it is unproven. But it is clear the apocryphal forecasts made by the IPCC in 1990 (c. 0.3C per decade) upon which most anti-fossil fuel legislation is based, including our own absurd Climate Change Act, are proving to be a huge exaggeration. Therefore the legislation should be altered’. This could be a big vote winner for Conservatives, even if it requires a bit of a piroutte from David Cameron himself. People just dont believe global warming alarmism any more, the observed facts dont match the theory.

  58. Iain Gill
    Posted March 13, 2013 at 5:47 pm | Permalink

    Global warming may well be nonsense. Certainly pollution should be avoided where possible, but not at all costs.

    As lifelogic says above “They merely push the industries and emissions overseas to no net world benefit” the biggest problem with current UK and European policies is that they simply result in production being shut down here and restarted in India and China with significantly more pollution once moved than it ever had here. End result is world pollution going up. There is a trade off between pollution and need to produce things which does need to be made but simply making it far too expensive to produce anything here and forcing production to other countries with no qualms about accepting production with much higher levels of pollution – not a good result.

    This is an issue which needs multi lateral action. A little bit of pollution reduction in the UK is trivia in the context of the vast amounts of pollution being put into the atmosphere in India and China.

    The UK should broadly aim to be in the top quartile of least polluting countries per each individual industrial process, and NOT the least polluting country in the whole world as that is far too expensive and is not consistent with having a vibrant industrial sector.

  59. P O Pensioner
    Posted March 13, 2013 at 6:23 pm | Permalink

    We live in a country controlled by a minority. Look at some of the legislation that has been introduced , Climate Change Act, Gay Marriage, Banning Foxhunting (I’m not a supporter) and there are others that I can’t recall at the moment. It looks like the people in power are introducing their own agenda regardless of what the electorate think or want.

    It has often been said that the civil service actually run the country and politicians do what they are told on all the major issues and take the blame when things go wrong but the mandarins carry on unchecked and unaccountable. I can’t remember which minister of the coalition recently said that it was extremely difficult to get legislation through because the civil service mandarins used all sorts of blocking tactics that stopped ministers from doing what they wanted to do. You can imagine the “Sir Humphries” doing just that.

    The Climate Change taxes are an excuse to extract more money from the population with the excuse that it will provide more sustainable energy sources. Fossil fuels will eventually run out but covering the landscape with wind farms and putting solar panels on every roof in the UK will be of no use when the wind doesn’t blow and the sun is not shining. We need Nuclear and Coal fired power stations to do this job for us otherwise our lifestyles will return to what it was 200 years ago. I don’t think the vast majority of the population would want to live like that!

  60. Brigham
    Posted March 13, 2013 at 6:58 pm | Permalink

    Having read all the letters in this section, the only certainty as far as I’m concerned it that uanime5 is (wrong-ed).

    • uanime5
      Posted March 14, 2013 at 8:02 pm | Permalink

      Your failure to provide any evidence to explain your position is typical of a denier.

      • Bazman
        Posted March 16, 2013 at 1:44 pm | Permalink

        His church does not allow heretics. Ask him the same about the free market. Self regulating like the climate. It is if you are rich enough.

  61. Single Acts
    Posted March 13, 2013 at 7:41 pm | Permalink

    Your software seems to have deleted some posts?

    • Single Acts
      Posted March 13, 2013 at 7:53 pm | Permalink

      Now they are back??

  62. David Langley
    Posted March 13, 2013 at 7:53 pm | Permalink

    Its getting really cold now, a majority of MEPs have chucked out the budget deal agreed by heads of Government. The reason is that they are duty bound by the treaties we have all signed to spend spend spend. Also they have now committed to contracts all the planned increases regardless of the possibility the budget could be amended. Hows that for financial confidence?
    The whole shebang goes back to the commission now and of course it will be ratified and goodbye our dosh and probably good bye dear Prime Minister. This is just an expensive farce.
    Welcome to the financial ice age.

    • uanime5
      Posted March 14, 2013 at 8:05 pm | Permalink

      The budget has to be approved of the heads of Government and MEPs elected by the people of Europe to make EU law. So the fact that MEPs rejected this budget doesn’t mean the MEPs make the wrong decision.

  63. Barry
    Posted March 13, 2013 at 8:03 pm | Permalink

    This article is full of errors and fails to address an important issue. “According to global warming theory we should be getting early springs and warmer winters.” I think you are referring to climate change which holds that some regions may face a decrease in temperature.

    Leaving aside the initial erroneous stuff, we almost get to an important issue with
    “the fact that our fuel bills are so high”, but digress to an apparent climate change denial. We almost get back to the real issue with ” Many businesses are worried about whether it is still economic to make things needing lots of energy in the UK” but veer off with an irresistible EU bash.

    Climate change and EU excuses do not explain this and past Governments’ inability to resolve our future energy needs affordable or not. Currently, much of our energy relies on foreign supply with risks for continued delivery and France who may not care that our energy costs are high. We need a strategy for secure affordable energy with or without climate change and the EU.

    JR when will we see a proper energy strategy or is our strategy not to have a strategy and leave it all to market forces as we did with our banks and past industry?

  64. Jerry
    Posted March 13, 2013 at 8:06 pm | Permalink

    What is the point of inviting comments if you never ‘get around’ to publishing them?

  65. Barry Sheridan
    Posted March 13, 2013 at 8:16 pm | Permalink

    In response to the comments posted by ‘uanime5’ (why no name?).

    While it is correct to assert that global mean temperatures have risen over the last 150 years or so, something we can be reasonable sure of given the existence of publicly available records, it still leaves us to determine why. The primary problem surrounding this on-going debate is that the so called green movement, religious in its intensity, wants to lay all this at the door of human activity. This is not an outcome we can yet prove, though I don’t doubt our presence and actions has influenced the rise, the real quandary remains by how much and is the current trend with dangerous consequences and if so what we can do about it without committing economic suicide.

    We are a long way from understanding global climate, it is after all highly complex with all sorts of conflicting factors. Your assertion for example that the sun’s output can be determined is only partially true, as the current cycle demonstrates. Further more what we cannot tell is how this subtle shifting influences the earth’s climatic patterns. There are a number of thoughtful theories going the rounds, but we are some way from separating the cosmic from the planetary.

    At the practical level, and this is what Mr Redwood is aiming to express, is the need for sensible solutions to the means to power factories and homes. Frankly I have no desire to get cold in the winter, so what I am looking for are realistic solutions to be implemented. Britain unfortunately has so far eschewed this path. Mr Cameron being rather too much in thrall of EU stupidity and his own lack of basic sense. What we can be certain of is that fast growing trees are no answer, I am not sure why you even suggested this, fuelling a power plant the size of Drax with wood is impossible. What is needed is a solution based on the nuclear process, one not restricted to Britain but one for the world, be this using thorium or perhaps a fast breeder.

    • uanime5
      Posted March 14, 2013 at 8:09 pm | Permalink

      I do not have to post with my name and many other on this board choose not to.

      It has been proven for some time that man made CO2 is causing global warming. It is only the deniers who refuse to accept this and instead claim that’s it’s impossible to know why global warming is occurring so they don’t have to prove their position using evidence.

  66. Mark
    Posted March 13, 2013 at 8:46 pm | Permalink

    Is it the cold weather or the winds of the Climate Change Acct 2008 that have led to the following shocking performance of our production industries (percentage changes in chained volume output indices since 2008)

    -11.7% ___Production industries

    -37.9% ___Mining and quarrying

    -7.3% ___Manufacturing

    -4.7% ___Electricity,gas, steam and air conditioning

    -6.3% ___Water supply,sewerage andwaste management

    -46.3% ___Oil and gas extraction

    -13.4% ___Consumer durables

    -5.7% ___Consumer non-durables

    +8.4% ___Capital goods

    -17.0% ___Intermediate goods

    -26.7% ___Energy

    +5.1% ___Food products,beverages and tobacco

    -10.4% ___Textiles, wearing apparel and leather products

    -18.6% ___Wood and paper products and printing

    -14.7% ___Coke and refined petroleum products

    -21.0% ___Chemicals and chemical products

    -23.8% ___pharmaceutical products and preparations

    -24.3% ___Rubber andplastic products and non-metallic mineral products

    -14.0% ___Basic metals and metal products

    -9.2% ___Compter, electronic and optical products

    -14.7% ___ Electrical equipment

    -1.9% ___Machinery and equipment not elsewhere classified

    +30.8% ___ Transport equipment

    -3.7% ___Other manufacturing and repair

    • uanime5
      Posted March 14, 2013 at 8:10 pm | Permalink

      Do you suppose that some industries may have declined because demand has declined since the financial crisis, or because they could make these products cheaper due to the lower labour costs in another EU or BRIC country?

  67. Max Dunbar
    Posted March 13, 2013 at 10:02 pm | Permalink

    I think you put these “warmist” posts up just to annoy the 2 or 3 loony-lefties who comment here. Its good for a bit of sport though as they invariably take the bait in a frothing feeding frenzy.

    • Bazman
      Posted March 16, 2013 at 1:41 pm | Permalink

      The looney seem to be in the right wing camp. Come up with some credible and respectable sources if you can. Watts Up? Have to do better I’m afraid. The lack of replies giving sources to this post is telling of who the (questionable people-ed) are.

  68. Barry
    Posted March 13, 2013 at 10:49 pm | Permalink

    This article is full of errors and fails to address an important issue. “According to global warming theory we should be getting early springs and warmer winters.” I think you are referring to climate change which holds that some regions may face a decrease in temperature.
    Leaving aside the initial erroneous stuff, we almost get to an important issue with
    “the fact that our fuel bills are so high”, but digress to an apparent climate change denial. We almost get back to the real issue with ” Many businesses are worried about whether it is still economic to make things needing lots of energy in the UK” but veer off with an irresistible EU bash.
    Climate change and EU excuses do not explain this and past Governments’ inability to resolve our future energy needs affordable or not. Currently, much of our energy relies on foreign supply with risks for continued delivery and France who may not care that our energy costs are high. We need a strategy for secure affordable energy with or without climate change and the EU.
    JR when will we see a proper energy strategy or is our strategy not to have a strategy and leave it all to market forces as we did with our banks and past industry?

  69. tckev
    Posted March 14, 2013 at 2:58 am | Permalink

    Well done John it’s about time the truth of this AGW/climate change scam was shown for all it’s dubious stupidity.

    uanime5

    Confusing climate and weather just shows you don’t know what you’re talking about. Two countries can have the same climate but different weather.

    Which part of Europe has had ‘normal’ weather this spring? 17 years and the planet shows no discernible warming. Is 17 years climate or not?

    The sun’s output is easy to predict because it follows a specific pattern;

    So how come NASA and SOHO failed to predict the very low sunspots that there are currently. Predictable I think not!

    the activity of many volcanoes is also easy to predict;

    You obviously know more that most volcanologists or geologists. They have not been nor will be in my lifetime.

    asteroid impacts have no effect on climate;

    That depends on how many and how often. There is some historical evidence that large down pours of asteroids have happened before and may have cause climate effects. As for larger objects please find a paper called “Tunguska meteor fall of 1908: effects on stratospheric ozone. by R P Turco, O B Toon, C Park, R C Whitten, J B Pollack, P Noerdlinger” .

    population growth can be factored in based on current population growth; and if technological and agricultural improvement are created then they can be factored in but until then they have no place in the calculations.

    No comment as it has no point when discussing climate and weather.

    Just because you don’t like climate change doesn’t make it wrong.

    So the modern fashion of not liking the latest climate and weather and blaming it all on human activity is, by your measure, irrelevant.
    That is to say a bunch of self appointed ‘experts’ with too much time on their computers have discerned that humans are destroying the planet so that they can gain evermore grant money from the embattled tax payer.
    Here I whole heartedly agree with you.

    • uanime5
      Posted March 14, 2013 at 8:23 pm | Permalink

      The fact that deniers lack any evidence to back up their position shows their dubious stupidity.

      Which part of Europe has had ‘normal’ weather this spring? 17 years and the planet shows no discernible warming. Is 17 years climate or not?

      Given that there has been warming for 17 years your whole point is wrong.

      So how come NASA and SOHO failed to predict the very low sunspots that there are currently. Predictable I think not!

      Do you have any evidence to back up this claim? Thought not.

      Also NASA is aware of how many sunspots there are.
      http://www.nasa.gov/mission_pages/sdo/main/index.html

      You obviously know more that most volcanologists or geologists. They have not been nor will be in my lifetime.

      In the region known as the “Ring of Fire” 50 volcanoes erupt each year. Perhaps you should research what a volcano is.

      http://www.esa.int/Our_Activities/Observing_the_Earth/Space_for_our_climate/Volcanoes

      There is some historical evidence that large down pours of asteroids have happened before and may have cause climate effects.

      Do you have any evidence to back up these claims?

      As for larger objects please find a paper called “Tunguska meteor fall of 1908: effects on stratospheric ozone. by R P Turco, O B Toon, C Park, R C Whitten, J B Pollack, P Noerdlinger” .

      This paper is about effects of an asteroid on the ozone layer, not the climate.

      So the modern fashion of not liking the latest climate and weather and blaming it all on human activity is, by your measure, irrelevant.

      That’s the opposite of what I said. If seems my post was too complex for you to understand.

  70. stred
    Posted March 14, 2013 at 6:01 am | Permalink

    My piece recommending (unchecked site-ed) and showing that in the previous warm periods, the rise in co2 came after the initial rise in temperature, has been held in moderation. There is nothing in it which is false. The graphs are the same as the warmists use.

    Reply If bloggers refer to unknown sites and sources and do not summarise the finding sensibly they will be held up as it takes a lot of time to check

  71. EDMH
    Posted March 14, 2013 at 6:03 am | Permalink

    Look at the longer term to assess climate change.

    Never forget that the last millennium 1000 – 2000 AD, according to ice core data, was the coolest of the current benign Holocene epoch, since the last real ice age. At ~12,000 years our happy Holocene, the period responsible for the development of all human civilizations is getting long in the tooth.

    Overall it has been cooler than the previous Eemian epoch and its end is now overdue when compared with earlier shorter more intense warmer interglacials.

    So whether the diminishing sunspot cycle and changing ocean circulation patterns lead to another Little Ice Age or perhaps to the impending real end of the Holocene epoch during this millennium, the one thing that the world should not be concerned about is a little Global Warming, well within the level of natural variations that have been seen in the past 12,000 years.

    A cooling, rather than a warming, world leads to both a reduction in agricultural productivity with huge deprivation for all natural life including mankind worldwide. It also probably leads to more extreme weather events, (possibly even like hurricane Sandy). There is very good reason to expect worsening weather events in a cooling, rather than a warming world because the temperature differential between the tropics and the poles is enhanced.

    But now the Western world is continually being pressured by propaganda and has widely enacted legislation about “Global Warming / Climate Change / Global Climate Disruption”. These definitions have meant that any adverse weather event can be ascribed to “Climate Change” and thus be blamed on the destructive actions of Mankind.

    The Catastrophic Climate Change Alarmists back every horse whichever way it runs. Nonetheless all Alarmist policy recommendations are only intended to control excessive Global Overheating by the reduction of Man-made CO2 emissions. This has to be a blinding paradox.

    It is not clear how reducing CO2 emissions would help save the world from a climate change towards a cooling world which now seems to be occurring nor how it could ameliorate severe weather events.

    It may be that the climate establishment is gradually coming to its senses. Not only has the Met Office admitted that warming has stopped but also NASA, no doubt much to the chagrin of James Hansen, has now released information that it believes that the sun, rather than CO2 influences climate.

    See http://science.nasa.gov/science-news/science-at-nasa/2013/08jan_sunclimate/

    • uanime5
      Posted March 14, 2013 at 8:30 pm | Permalink

      A cooling, rather than a warming, world leads to both a reduction in agricultural productivity with huge deprivation for all natural life including mankind worldwide.

      Unless you live somewhere very hot, such as sub-Saharan Africa, where the rising temperature results in droughts and crop failure; which results in a reduction in agricultural productivity.

      It may be that the climate establishment is gradually coming to its senses. Not only has the Met Office admitted that warming has stopped but also NASA, no doubt much to the chagrin of James Hansen, has now released information that it believes that the sun, rather than CO2 influences climate.

      Nowhere in the website you posted does NASA make this claim. It seems that you have no evidence to back up your claims, so you’re just including random websites.

  72. frank salmon
    Posted March 14, 2013 at 8:30 am | Permalink

    Excellent post and responses.
    John, please circulate this page to all your colleagues in Westminster, and in particular, the people who really run the country – the civil service and the public sector. We are on to them!

  73. PaulDirac
    Posted March 14, 2013 at 9:54 am | Permalink

    The real question is: Should the UK government participate in the futile attempt to lower CO2 emissions?
    First issue is – Global warming is predicted only by computer models, which suffer from great many deficiencies and in any case are not “science”.
    It’s possible that they are partially or even wholly correct, but no one actually knows how to test them for the 100 year predictions they make. They are speculation – no more.
    Second issue – We in the UK produce 0.5% of global CO2 emissions, while the majority of the CO2 producers (China, USA, Africa, Asia, South America etc.) who produce over 85% are not committed to ANY reductions, how silly of us to wreck our economy and make millions more of our most vulnerable people “fuel poor” just as a quixotic gesture.
    The LibDem’s have always been the party of unrealistic ideas, now the uneducated “greens” have piled in with their mindless quest for an ideal world based on turning back the clock on all industrialization.
    The current energy policy is completely wrong and it is a great pity that Cameron is heading us in the wrong direction.

    • APL
      Posted March 14, 2013 at 6:53 pm | Permalink

      PaulDirac: “how silly of us to wreck our economy and make millions more of our most vulnerable people “fuel poor” just as a quixotic gesture.”

      It would be silly Paul, if it were *us*. But since it isn’t *us* but a group of imposters who claim to govern in our name, then it becomes treasonous.

    • uanime5
      Posted March 14, 2013 at 8:32 pm | Permalink

      First issue is – Global warming is predicted only by computer models, which suffer from great many deficiencies and in any case are not “science”.

      Wrong. Global warming have been proven to occur by measuring the rise in temperature over the past 150 years.

      We in the UK produce 0.5% of global CO2 emissions

      We in the UK produce 2.0% of global CO2 emissions.

      while the majority of the CO2 producers (China, USA, Africa, Asia, South America etc.) who produce over 85% are not committed to ANY reductions

      Do you have any evidence that they produce 85% of the CO2?

  74. Roy Grainger
    Posted March 15, 2013 at 8:36 am | Permalink

    When it became clear that the eatrth’s temperature was not in fact rising the warmist enthusiasts renamed “global warming” first “climate change” and then “climate disruption” – this enables them to point to any particular weather event such as unseasonable warmth, or cold, or rain or drought, or wind as being a consequence of man-made CO2 emissions. This is convenient for them as every single weather event of whatever sort now supports their theory in thir eyes. The other article of their faith is that any climate change of whatever description is by definition a BAD THING and they want it to stop – this interestingly shows them to be very deeply conservative.

  75. Martin
    Posted March 15, 2013 at 9:12 pm | Permalink

    An alternate theory could be that adding lots of CO2 to the atmosphere could cause an ice age. I just hope that theory is wrong….

    Nuclear Power and deep mines for nuclear waste – anybody?

  76. chris
    Posted March 17, 2013 at 10:21 am | Permalink

    The green issue is a money making exercise. There is no sense in taxing the population of this land with absurd taxation in the name of climate change, when the rest of the world continues to pump out “so called” polution. Let us mine coal again and create some jobs!

  77. Giles
    Posted March 22, 2013 at 9:47 pm | Permalink

    Correct me if I am wrong but I was sure that global warming always meant increases in the temperature of the sea by quite small increments, enough to say change the path of the jet-stream over the UK and resulting in a colder climate. There is nothing wrong with having a considerate attitude and making a policy which looks out for and respects the state of the only place we have to live in the universe. The Greens started out as a fringe party in Germany and are well respected these days. Denmark has run power-stations (they have no oil) on bio-dedegradable household waste for years now, all very sensible ideas which are not driven by any ideology. Human-kind has definitely made an impact on the planet in terms of the level of pollution inflicted on it over the last hundred years or so. It will not destroy the planet but the natural change in equilibrium needed to restore the balance may well render our little species extinct. If you think that global warming refers to weather and/or climate directly then you need to read about the subject perhaps.

  • 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