How the Greens annoy many people

 

 When I replied to Caroline Lucas in the Commons during the Budget debate, I wanted to highlight the genuine hardship and economic harm that her party’s policies are inflicting on the UK.

      The Green party has been the most successful of all the single issue parties that have grown up. In  other countries the Green party has made it into Coalition governments, and in the UK they have been in coalition administrations in local councils. They have an MP in the Commons, uniquely amongst such parties, which gives them more of a voice though only one vote on national matters.

             Generally, they have succeeded in persuading many people that

1.  There is global warming,

2 It is caused  by too much human generated CO2,

3. That global warming is far worse than global cooling,

4. That we need to stop the extra CO2 so we can stop the warming

5. That stopping the CO2 has mainly to be done by imposing very high tariffs and charges on people to cut the use of energy by all but the rich

           All of these propositions are challenged, but the general establishment view is that the “science is settled”. It is my view that the policy is far from settled. Dear energy is one of the most unpopular policies being followed today, and needs to be radically changed.

          As I look out of my windows at a deep snowfall in  late March, and wonder just how big the gas bill is going to be to keep the homes warm at a time of unseasonal coldness, my main concern is  not whether this is climate or weather. It certainly makes it much harder to sell to people the idea that they need to make a further financial sacrifice in the name of fighting global warming when it so unseasonally cold.

           That’s why I speak out against fuel policies which force many to turn down the heating at a time of cold weather, oppose policies which make it  expensive for people to drive to work or visit friends, and oppose policies which end up with industry choosing to go abroad to burn fuel  where it is cheaper, costing us jobs.

          How can any of this make sense for a small country like the UK, having to compete to earn its living? I am pursuing my questions over how we could keep the coal power stations going for longer whilst we build some better new capacity, and how we can have cheaper energy so we keep more industry here instead of allowing it to go and burn carbon overseas. We need more conventional power stations, an end to the EU’s closure programme whilst we sort ourselves out, more exploration and development of oil and gas ,and more gas storage. I am raising these issues with Ministers.

 

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

230 Comments

  1. Peter van Leeuwen
    Posted March 25, 2013 at 6:47 am | Permalink

    I seem to remember that a very cold Britain would fit with climate change stories (Gulf Stream slowing down), but a more interesting issue is that the Greens are so minute in your electoral system. Continental Green parties may have 7% of the MPs, which is 45 x as many as in the UK.
    How can there be that much “nuisance” from the Greens in the H.o.C. , with just this one clever woman representing them? With the Czech Mr. Klaus gone, there aren’t many people left on the continent who feel annoyed by Greens. Maybe they are more extreme in Britain, or more “single issue”?

    • stred
      Posted March 25, 2013 at 9:10 am | Permalink

      Best of luck John. If you can get any sensible MPs on your side, Ministers may be more inclined to listen. With the Libdums or Lucas you would be talking to a brick wall. They are funamentalist incompetents.

      You should quote the information in the DECC’s adopted book Sustainable Energy.
      The figure for carbon intensity of electricity is undeniable. P335.

      Denmark 881 -the green wind economy
      Germany 601- the big green party, wind and pv leaders, closing nukes, opening coal
      UK 580 -dash for gas- this figure is prior to opening large scale wind.
      EU av. 353
      Sweden 87 -nukes and hydro- electric cars actually work
      France 83- 80% nuclear ditto

      Re the imminent expensive addition of ethanol from corn to petrol. P.284.
      Bioethanol from corn in the USA
      “The power per unit area from corn is ASTONISHINGLY LOW…… and then we haven’t taken into account any of the energy losses in processing!”- And to this we should add the energy involved in transporting it from the USA to the EU, although merchant shipping losses were conveniently forgotten in the agreement.

      How many MPs realise that the generation and transmission plant is planned to increase by a factor of 8+ in order to back up wind? Is the industry going to complain about this bonanza?

      You should not try to take the line that warming has stopped, because it has slowed below predictions. All that is needed is the reference to the Met Office figures of 0.75 deg C. Greens will quote Sir John Beddington, who has just said on R4 that carbon capture is “well worth doing”. If he thinks so, perhaps he should read CH 31 of the DECC book- “The last thing we should talk about”. – “The energy requirements for carbon capture from thin air are so enormous, it seems almost absurd to talk about it”. Further research is proposed ” as it may be our last line of defense”.

      What does make sense is to insulate and draughtproof our mainly old housing stock. But even here the DECC is putting obstacles in the way of doing it in effective and economical ways. The idea of putting 8 inches of insulation outside the walls or putting 15 inches in the roof but leaving the other main losses is absurd.

    • Nina Andreeva
      Posted March 25, 2013 at 9:13 am | Permalink

      PvL thats essentially the problem with the climate change deniers here they cannot get it into their heads that a warmer planet will probably mean a colder Britain if the Gulf Stream breaks down. If Britain starts to resemble Murmansk all year around it does matter whether climate change is caused by man, the Sun or your favourite ethnic minority that you blame for everything, its something that needs sorting out. Its funny how everything is inter related, the ones who whinge about windmills also tend to whinge about asylum seekers too. I wonder if they have wondered what the underlying causes of the civil war in Dafur were which has led so many to seek safe haven here? Keep ignoring it and expect to have the rest of the Sahel turning up on your doorstep.

      • Single Acts
        Posted March 25, 2013 at 10:59 am | Permalink

        ad hominem much?

      • Denis Cooper
        Posted March 25, 2013 at 12:08 pm | Permalink

        “I wonder if they have wondered what the underlying causes of the civil war in Dafur were which has led so many to seek safe haven here?”

        Please explain how I could have helped reduce population growth in Dafur over the past forty years by sitting indoors in my overcoat, swathed in a blanket, with the heating off, each winter.

        Even the UN cites three causes for the problems in Dafur:

        http://www.unep.org/disastersandconflicts/Portals/155/countries/sudan/pdf/consultations/Darfur_%20Recovery_Beyond%20Emergency%20Relief.pdf

        “Three major trends are analysed in this document: environmental change, demographic shifts, and institutions and governance. Each of these trends has significantly contributed to conflict and vulnerability in Darfur, and the recent crisis has intensified many of them.”

        And the first is itself largely the product of the second:

        “Environmental degradation has intensified in recent years, undermining Darfur’s future prospects. This degradation is chiefly driven by two forces: climate change and human impact on the environment.”

        Because:

        “Since 1973, Darfur’s population has grown almost six-fold, to roughly 7.5 million people. At historic growth rates, the area could be home to 12 million people by 2025.”

        That has been an average population growth rate of 5% a year, and even now it is a forecast population growth rate of 3% a year, and in both cases despite large numbers of people fleeing the region; and that’s part of a general pattern, that people in poor countries are making sure that their countries will remain in poverty forever by their failure to adopt modern methods of contraception.

        Please explain why having followed the previous advice of our government and more or less stabilised the population of our country, before the mass immigration allowed and encouraged over the past two decades, we should now accept an unlimited flow of surplus population from countries where for whatever reasons the people have failed to limit their own fertility when reliable means to do so have been available at low cost for a long time?

        And, finally, please explain how it will help people in Dafur for people in this country to shut down a large part of their economy on the basis of a climatological theory which has always been highly dubious, which has been increasingly called into question, and which now appears to be partly based on false data being given fraudulent interpretations?

      • outsider
        Posted March 25, 2013 at 12:59 pm | Permalink

        It is also funny that Greens are vehemently against atomic power. If the UK, the Netherlands and the rest of the EU27 had the same electricity generation mix as France our total carbon dioxide emissions would fall by a quarter to a third. The argument is more about pragmatic response to uncertainty than “proven science” versus “denial”.

      • Disaffected
        Posted March 25, 2013 at 1:57 pm | Permalink

        JR, you need to change your leader if you want to bring conservatism back to your party (perhaps also get rid of Osborne and Letwin). Perhaps he should have thought about your comments before he went on his husky trip and before he made the coalition agreement and putting the Lib Dems in charge of the useless DECC that will help bring the country to its knees.

        Cameron appears to me to be a pro European, a loony tune green, pro mass immigration social democrat who cannot be trusted. He has consistently failed to deliver and reneged on everything else of substance from his pledges before the last election.

        Where is his stance on todays reports that the IMF is imposing a condition on Cyprus that the amount taken from depositors must NOT be put to a vote in their parliament? Why has he not sent in troops for regime change of the EU to stop the dictatorship?

      • lifelogic
        Posted March 25, 2013 at 5:27 pm | Permalink

        It is not just Britain that has not been warming recently, it is the World average temperature. This despite all the extra C02 concentrations.

        • wab
          Posted March 25, 2013 at 11:03 pm | Permalink

          “It is the World average temperature.”

          This is just false, if you are interested in taking known short term variability into account. Read realclimate dot org (Mr Redwood does not like links) if you want facts instead of regurgitating nonsense.

          • Newminster
            Posted March 26, 2013 at 9:40 pm | Permalink

            RealClimate?
            You are of course joking!

        • Martin Reed
          Posted March 27, 2013 at 11:56 pm | Permalink

          How strange then that Dr Rajendra Pachauri, chair of the IPCC climate science panel states that there has been no warming for 17 years. Seems to agree with prof Phil Jones of the CRU who stated there has been no statistically significant warming since 1995. No wonder the warmists wanted to “hide the decline”!

      • cosmic
        Posted March 25, 2013 at 6:32 pm | Permalink

        Even accepting what you say as true, (which I don’t), there is no way the current measures to tackle climate change are helping.

        If anything they are making things worse and quite likely to cause extreme social economic and social problems in the UK.

      • lojolondon
        Posted March 29, 2013 at 8:16 pm | Permalink

        Yes, we are used to hearing that nonsense. The earth has not warmed since 1998. When we note how cold it is in Britain, the sheep say that ‘global warming will make us cold because of whatever’. Well, global warming is making EVERYWHERE colder, and so it does not exist. Time to make the greens put their money where their mouth is – THEY can subsidise these useless windmills, I would like to pay for electricity on a subsidy-free tariff please?

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

      If you think my green MP is clever, you should listen to her talk and read the (things-ed) she sends out to constituents.

      • alan jutson
        Posted March 25, 2013 at 8:42 pm | Permalink

        Stred

        The Greens want to spend even more money than the LibDems !!!!

        They also want ever more controls on the way we live with ever more Taxation

        Enough said.

    • Bob
      Posted March 25, 2013 at 9:28 am | Permalink

      @PvL
      “How can there be that much “nuisance” from the Greens in the H.o.C. , with just this one clever woman representing them?”

      It not the Green Party, but the LibLabCon Party that are pushing the AGW agenda. It’s also widely believed that this is being done at the behest of the EU.

      Their level of commitment to the AGW agenda is such that the Tory Party even changed their logo from a red, white and blue torch, to a green tree!

      • lifelogic
        Posted March 25, 2013 at 4:40 pm | Permalink

        Indeed fake greenery was Cameron’s bright idea to “modernise” the Tory party, probably one of the reasons he lost the open goal election.

      • John Doran
        Posted March 26, 2013 at 7:19 am | Permalink

        There’s also the Main Stream Media, all of which is bought & paid for for by their International Corporation owners.

        Not forgetting the (biased-ed) BBC, which has been relentlessly pushing AGW at us for years, & is still doing so despite there being no significant global warming for ~16 years. (Our own Met office figures).

        The BBC stooped to lies when they claimed that a panel of 28 ” Experts & Scientists” had persuaded them the “science was settled” enough for them to desert their Charter Duty of impartiality in reporting the global warming debate.

        The 28 turned out to comprise 3 scientists & 25 vested interests. All were global warmist activists.

        The BBC spent 6 years dodging a FOI request from Tony Newberry, a pensioner, for the names of these experts & scientists, using a battery of highly paid lawyers & costing hundreds? of thousands of licence payers money.

        Their defense? They claimed to be exempt from FOI requests as they were a private company. You could not make it up.

        When all your Main Stream Media are feeding you tripe, you know you have to look to the blogosphere for the facts.

        • lifelogic
          Posted March 27, 2013 at 5:10 am | Permalink

          Indeed the BBC have, as usual, behaved appallingly in pushing this religion without question.

    • Mactheknife
      Posted March 25, 2013 at 10:47 am | Permalink

      Peter

      The issue in the UK is that the green movement have been very clever in targeting sympathectic minister and departments and have persuaded them to adopt green policies. One glance at the DECC website will show what a cosy relationship they share with green activist groups and the regular meetings they have.

      Secondly the Labour government drafted in a Labour politician and well known green activist to oversee the Climate Change Act, which as we are seeing now, is utterly wrong and is damaging individuals and the economy as a whole.

      The government use global gas prices as an excuse but a little digging shows a marked decline in world gas prices between 2008 and today. The Renewables Obligations (RO) put on energy companies by the government are costing the consumer hundreds of pounds per year on their utilities bill. This is set to rise with the mass subsidies given to offshore and onshore wind farms which are so inefficiencient its become a source of amusement for those of us who work in the energy industry and monitor these things.

      There should be some immediate steps taken by the government and that is to stop all new wind farm projects, keep open fossil fuel power stations, back off from our EU commitments where the UK has gone much further than any other EU government, remove RO obligations, build gas storage capacity (we are woefully short on this) and renegotiate gas tarrif contracts as some gas producing countries have decoupled gas prices from oil prices.

      • Mactheknife
        Posted March 25, 2013 at 10:53 am | Permalink

        Oh I forgot that we get on with developing our massive (yes its been confirmed that we have even more than we thought) SHALE GAS reserves !!!!

  2. Mark Higginson
    Posted March 25, 2013 at 6:49 am | Permalink

    Though I succumed to the lie of human affected global warming for a while, as time went by, I became angry at what I found to be the truth.

    The truth is: Man affected global warming – climate change is a LIE. Global warming – Climate Change for any planet with an atmosphere near a sun happens because it’s natural for it to happen. Human generated CO2 is miniscule compared to what the oceans of the earth produce.

    • uanime5
      Posted March 25, 2013 at 4:19 pm | Permalink

      Even if humanity is only increasing the total amount of CO2 by a small amount over time this will eventually become a large increase in CO2 because humanity is producing CO2 faster than it can be converted into anything else.

      • oldtimer
        Posted March 25, 2013 at 6:14 pm | Permalink

        And what is your evidence for this? No one has a complete understanding of the many complex precesses involved in the natural emission and sequestration of CO2, which far exceeds any man made CO2. There is evidence that more atmospheric CO2 enhances plant growth – that is why people mgrow plants in greenhouses which typically operate at c900ppm.

      • lojolondon
        Posted March 29, 2013 at 8:18 pm | Permalink

        That is rubbish. CO2 is plant food, plants grow faster with higher concentrations of CO2 and they will absorb all the CO2 they can. Not that there is anything wrong with CO2, it is a trace element, and makes absolutely no difference to the temperature of the earth. As we can see, over the last 20 years CO2 has increased steadily, the earth has cooled. Go figure!

  3. lifelogic
    Posted March 25, 2013 at 6:50 am | Permalink

    Indeed, but even this morning we have the economist and outgoing chief “scientific adviser” come doomsday soothsayer, Sir John Beddington talking the usual drivel on this coldest spring for 50 years is it? Having moved the agenda on to extreme weather events – history is lettered with them as he may not have noticed, even before the steam age.

    The BBC’s endless pushing of the “proven science” at our expense is a total outrage. Also the pushing of the religion in schools, and the exam syllabus has led even intelligent students to swallow the religion whole. But we are led by Cameron, another (believer or I suspect mere user?) of this blatant quack science/religion. We also have The Rt Hon Edward Davey MP and had the proven liar Chris Huhne both chosen by Cameron. One has to question his judgement.

    Looking at your points.

    1. There is no significant global warming beyond normal variations and even if there were they can not be proven to be linked purely to man’s activities.

    2 CO2 is one of very, very many variable factors in a hugely complex and chaotic weather system.

    3. That global warming is far worse than global cooling, all the evidence suggest the reverse is far more probably the case.

    4. That we need to stop the extra CO2 so we can stop the warming – changing one variable is higher unlikely to have much effect further more the PV and wind farms proposed patently do not even reduce c02 to any meaningful degree anyway.

    5. That stopping the CO2 has mainly to be done by imposing very high tariffs and charges on people to cut the use of energy by all but the rich. This will just produce many thousands of deaths in the elderly and poor.

    Extra C02 in the atmosphere may well be a positive thing, on balance the evidence suggests it probably is. It certainly helps plant, crop and tree growth.

    Christopher Booker has it about right on this issue: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/earth/energy/windpower/9949571/Its-payback-time-for-our-insane-energy-policy.html

    • A.Sedgwick
      Posted March 25, 2013 at 12:08 pm | Permalink

      Once again CB is on the money. This dire situation is still recoverable, just, but I do wonder whether most of our MPs are under some mass hypnosis to ignore the blindingly obvious.

    • lifelogic
      Posted March 25, 2013 at 1:28 pm | Permalink

      I see Cameron is prancing about pretending he can do something about benefit payments and services for the new wave of EU immigration he welcomes. He cannot do anything as he must know, because with all his heart and sole he wants to be in the EU and does not want to become a “Greater Switzerland”.

      But he will not give us (or cannot think of) any reasons why!

      Does he realise how daft he looks. Almost as daft as Prof John Beddington wittering on about climate change on the BBC and the “unequivocal evidence” during the coldest March for 50 years. Can someone give the man some satellite temperature readings to study and a thermometer or two perhaps, as a retirement gift.

      • zorro
        Posted March 25, 2013 at 7:29 pm | Permalink

        His new cast elastic immigration policy is unraveling before nightfall…..

        zorro

      • stred
        Posted March 26, 2013 at 8:56 am | Permalink

        During his performance on restrictions of social and health subsidies for immigrants, Mr Cameron said that private landlords would face large fines for accommodating illegal immigrants. He knows that knocking “unscrupulouslandlords” plays well with the majority and probably has worked out that most landlords are not going to vote for him.

        But, given that the Borders Agency has just been criticised for not knowing where many thousands of illegal immigrants are and has programmes to find them which will last for 25 years, would Mr Cameron care to tell landlords how to recognise an illegal immigrant. Do they have special documents?

    • uanime5
      Posted March 25, 2013 at 4:32 pm | Permalink

      1) Given how the rapidly the average global temperature has risen over the past century it’s clear that this is far beyond normal variations. There’s also a wealth of evidence that man’s increased production of CO2 is contributing to this.

      2) CO2 has been proven to be a major factor with regards to the temperature of the planet. Your attempts to muddy the water by talking about weather and pretending it’s complex aren’t fooling anyone.

      3) Given that large numbers of people living close to the equator will die due to global warming, while almost nobody near the north and south pole will die if it gets colder, it’s clear that global warming is far worse than global cooling.

      4) Given that CO2 has been proven to be causing global warming it’s clear that reducing it will slow down and eventually stop the warming.

      Also just because PV and wind farms haven’t magically fixed over a century of CO2 emissions doesn’t mean that there’s nothing people can do to reduce CO2 emissions.

      5) The high cost of fuel is due to the lack of competition in the energy market. Also the winter fuel allowance will ensure that the elderly and poor are able to heat their homes.

      All the evidence shows that extra CO2 is a bad thing and does not help plants because they already have enough CO2.

      • Mactheknife
        Posted March 25, 2013 at 6:56 pm | Permalink

        @ uanime5

        Oh dear oh dear. This is the kind of alarmist nonsense that does your cause no good. Just about everything you have said is wrong. Stop reading alarmist blogs and do some research.

        • Denis Cooper
          Posted March 26, 2013 at 10:48 am | Permalink

          “Just about everything you have said is wrong.”

          Not for the first time.

      • Hope
        Posted March 25, 2013 at 10:16 pm | Permalink

        Socialist drivel. How did the ice age occur?

        • APL
          Posted March 26, 2013 at 6:25 pm | Permalink

          Hope: “Socialist drivel. How did the ice age occur?”

          It was all ’em factories belching CO2, and the wicked capitalists exploiting the poor polar bears.

          • lifelogic
            Posted March 27, 2013 at 5:16 am | Permalink

            I think “unscrupulouslandlords” must surely have been to blame for most of the ice age and probably for allowing it to warm up afterwards. I am sure that must be the BBC’s view.

      • Peter Davies
        Posted March 25, 2013 at 10:33 pm | Permalink

        Where does China, India and the USA fit into this then? They did not sign Kyoto and are China and India not building coal power stations at a rate that we could never hope?

        Do you think that CO2 has borders and what we are doing will really make a difference given the above?

        They don’t even count merchant shipping in Kyoto:

        -so we price ourselves out of the market
        -send jobs to China where goods are produced then sent to Europe via Merchant shipping which runs on ? and produces ? emissions.

        By the way I am an environmentalist at heart but the policy here is so flawed it may as well have been put together by primary school kids.

        The only way to sort this issue out is to ramp up the building of nuclear power stations and innovate in hydrogen or electricity to power vehicles.

        Wind power is only any use for micro generation where it is produced in small enough amounts to be able to supplement local supplies or store it – its no good at all as a main grid provider because you will never be able to close anything down off the back of it – that’s before you factor in costs.

        Lastly, there is extensive research on the Sun and pigmentation changes (NASA website) – these are factors that have caused and no doubt will again lead to huge climate changes with a far greater effect than man could ever hope to produce – sun spots are constantly monitored by NASA and it is predicted that it is moving to a colder period – Why does this never get talked about on the BBC?

      • Joe Public
        Posted March 26, 2013 at 10:08 pm | Permalink

        “All the evidence shows that extra CO2 is a bad thing and does not help plants because they already have enough CO2.”

        And your peer-reviewed scientific source for that statement is ???

        On my allotment, more plant food means more plants.

        I hope your conscience is clear considering the millions of inhabitants of this planet suffering starvation.

    • John Doran
      Posted March 26, 2013 at 7:29 am | Permalink

      Your point 5 is the salient one. Boogle agenda 21 for dummies.

      • John Doran
        Posted March 26, 2013 at 7:31 am | Permalink

        Boogle, sorry, 🙁 , google of course. 🙂

        Depopulation is at the root of the Green man hating marxist agenda.

    • John Doran
      Posted March 26, 2013 at 7:50 am | Permalink

      As always on WUWT, the comments are as good as the article.

      In particular I commend: Pat says: Mar 15 @ 1:16 am Amazon…..
      The Amazon is in large part a man made forest.

      Yes, you read that right, an anthropogenic forest. Amazing.
      52 mins, a BBC film, & most worth your time.

  4. Mike Stallard
    Posted March 25, 2013 at 6:50 am | Permalink

    Good thought Mr Redwood.
    It is the sanctimonious piety that disturbs me most. It always make me ask whether the Greens really do life in unheated houses on Tofu and cold water and never take a hot bath like we are all going to have to when they get their scientifically proven way.

    • David Kelly
      Posted March 25, 2013 at 11:22 am | Permalink

      You’ve just reminded me of a description of the Greens by Damian Thompson in the Telegraph a few months ago. If I remember rightly, Mr Thompson said the Greens were “like the Lib Dems, but without the self-effacing charm.” I’m not sure how Mr Thompson can consider the Lib Dems to be self-effacing or charming, but thewre you go.

    • lifelogic
      Posted March 25, 2013 at 5:33 pm | Permalink

      I think it unlikely that Al Gore, Prince Charles or the Chris Huhne types live like that. Charles even passes us his £1M PA transport bills to pay and has Aston Martins that he drives rather quickly, does he not?

  5. Brian Phillpott
    Posted March 25, 2013 at 6:51 am | Permalink

    Mr Redwood,

    A great article – challenging perceived orthodoxy is never easy.
    So, some basic facts which you might find useful:
    1. Total annual CO2 is 92% of natural origin – humans contribute just 8%
    2. Of that 8%, 6% is space heating and power generation/cooking and just 2% is all forms of mechanised transport.
    3. The UK has ~1% of the world’s human population, and contributes ~2% of all CO2 emissions, or ~0.16% of global CO2 output. Therefore, even if we abolished ALL forms of fossil fuel use, the overall effect on global CO2 output would be so small as to be undetectable.

    To that, one can add that the BRICS are striving to equal the G8 economies in terms of economic output/head of population, which, since they have been historically low users of fossil fuel, means that 40% of the world’s population is going to increase their CO2 output dramatically, as living standards increased, and bikes are replaced by scooters, and then with cars. People now want concrete-built homes, with air-con, fridges, TVs, PC’s etc – all dramatically increasing their power consumption and net CO2/head output.

    Their governments, quite rightly, put economic growth above ‘being green’: we should do too (though any increase in UK GDP above 0.5-1.0% pa is highly improbable for the next 30-50 yrs: once the OBR/Treasury/Westminster appreciates that, we might, just might, get some sensible long-term economic planning!)

    In short, the UK contributes so little to the global climate that any and all ‘Green’ measures, as related to CO2 emissions, are so much lunacy.

    A quick look at any history book shows that civilisations thrive when energy and food are cheap and plentiful and wither and die when the reverse is true: so why are the EU and Westminster so hell-bent on destroying our civilisation?

    Two final points:
    1. Since CO2 is the basis of photosynthesis and so the fundamental building-block of every food chain (rare exceptions around ‘deep-water smokers’), the MORE CO2 there is, the MORE photosynthesis there will be and so the more organic matter for Life to flourish and beget more life: why do we equate what MIGHT be bad for SOME humans in SOME places as being ‘bad for life on Earth?’

    2. CO2 levels at the time of the dinosaurs were not the current 300 ppm, nor the all-time low of 250 ppm (Medieval times) nor the 400ppm the doom-sayers predict – but around 50,000 ppm. Life thrived then, so live will do very well, thank-you, at any levels of CO2 which anyone can foresee.

    AGW is the equivalent of the Church’s belief in a flat Earth: it suits those in power to proclaim it, since it gives them an excuse to raise taxes.

    Reply: Thanks for supplying the figures – as you say the UK human made CO2 figures are tiny, and dwarfed by China’s annual increases in output.

    • Duyfken
      Posted March 25, 2013 at 9:03 am | Permalink

      As one who has, or had been persuaded by sections of the scientific community that there has been some climate change (warming) noticeable in recent decades, but never convinced this has been solely anthropogenic, I do wonder why so little attention is applied to that other but contrary phenomenon: global dimming. This apparently arises from Man’s activities in belting out particulates from such devices as aerosols, car exhausts etc.

      Being facetious, one might expect the Greens to encourage this in the expectation that dimming will counteract warming! It should not be long for someone to suggest a pro-dimming tax. Absurd but still no worse or no more senseless than a carbon tax.

    • oldtimer
      Posted March 25, 2013 at 9:40 am | Permalink

      Just to add, the US Navy is comfortable with the fact of 5000 ppm CO2 on its nuclear submarines when on extended voyages under water.

      • lifelogic
        Posted March 25, 2013 at 1:29 pm | Permalink

        No to mention the methane!

      • wab
        Posted March 25, 2013 at 10:59 pm | Permalink

        “The US Navy is comfortable with the fact of 5000 ppm CO2 on its nuclear submarines.”

        And what exactly does this prove? That the US Navy believes that 5000 ppm does not cause irreparable harm to humans over a matter of weeks or months. That has literally zero to do with whether (say) 500 ppm in the atmosphere in the near future (geologically speaking) will cause severe disruption to life on the planet. (And it is not the level per se but the rate of change that is the problem.) For example, fortunately they have other ways to regulate the temperature on submarines, so the level of CO2 is not relevant, whereas for the planet it is (in spite of the denialists continually claiming otherwise).

    • A different Simon
      Posted March 25, 2013 at 9:42 am | Permalink

      Brian Phillpott ,

      There is a huge range of figures published for human CO2 emmissions as a fraction of the whole . How should we know which ones to believe ?

      I had heard that mans CO2 emmissions were only 2.5% – 3.5% of the total and than 96.5-97.5% of emissions were natural leaks from underground .

      Any figure has to exclude C02 sinks like the sea which can absorb and release it .

      Can the ratio of human and natural CO2 emissions even be established ?

      Or is it a case of the base data with regards to natural emissions of CO2 being little more than a finger in the wind on top of which a whole AGW industry has been built ?

      If natural emissions of CO2 and methane can be measured , how ? I don’t see how this could be done with isotopic signatures unless some pretty convenient assumptions are made about ongoing leakage of methane and co2 from geological formations .

    • Mike Stallard
      Posted March 25, 2013 at 10:46 am | Permalink

      I have adapted this post for a lesson plan! I did not mention your name. Thank you.

      • lifelogic
        Posted March 25, 2013 at 3:06 pm | Permalink

        Good to see some will get sensible lessons that question and get students to think rather than just regurgitate the fashionable propaganda.

    • uanime5
      Posted March 25, 2013 at 4:55 pm | Permalink

      Do you really believe that the developing world is going to reduce their emissions in any way if the developed world refuses to curb their emissions?

      A quick look at any history book shows that civilisations thrive when energy and food are cheap and plentiful and wither and die when the reverse is true

      Why exactly did civilisations need energy when they no electrical devices? Perhaps you could provide some examples of pre-industrial civilisations that thrived due to cheap energy and then withered when it got more expensive.

      1. Since CO2 is the basis of photosynthesis and so the fundamental building-block of every food chain (rare exceptions around ‘deep-water smokers’), the MORE CO2 there is, the MORE photosynthesis there will be and so the more organic matter for Life to flourish and beget more life

      This point shows that you don’t understand basic biology. The amount of photosynthesis a plant can undergo is limited by the available amount of water and sunlight, as well as the type of plant. As a result more CO2 will not result in a proportional amount of increased photosynthesis and in some places won’t result in any additional photosynthesis.

      why do we equate what MIGHT be bad for SOME humans in SOME places as being ‘bad for life on Earth?’

      For some reason people consider being fatal to humans as synonymous with being bad for life on Earth.

      2. CO2 levels at the time of the dinosaurs were not the current 300 ppm, nor the all-time low of 250 ppm (Medieval times) nor the 400ppm the doom-sayers predict – but around 50,000 ppm. Life thrived then, so live will do very well, thank-you, at any levels of CO2 which anyone can foresee.

      At the time of the dinosaurs there were also higher oxygen levels and 7 mass extinctions. So life didn’t always thrive.

      AGW is the equivalent of the Church’s belief in a flat Earth: it suits those in power to proclaim it, since it gives them an excuse to raise taxes.

      If you had bothered to study history you’d know that even in medieval times people knew the earth was round and the roundness of the earth was never used as an excuse to raise taxes.

    • lifelogic
      Posted March 25, 2013 at 5:37 pm | Permalink

      Precisely – and anyway the solutions they push wind/pv simply do not work, even in their terms. Furthermore warmer might well be better than colder anyway, if the c02 did ever make any significant change.

    • TobyG
      Posted March 26, 2013 at 12:43 pm | Permalink

      Brian Phillpott, cite your sources as I couldn’t find anything out there to support those figures.

      Many Thanks

  6. Richard1
    Posted March 25, 2013 at 7:01 am | Permalink

    The green movement has been spectacularly successful until recently in establishing the principle that their doctrines cannot be questioned. We see examples on this blog where green advocates refer to ‘deniers’ and denounce even distinguished scientists who question global warming theory as fools or worse. The BBC is meticulous in refusing to question established greenery. One can well imagine that the new press censorship law will at some point be used to stifle debate on global warming further. It is essential that politicians retain a detached and sceptical view when a policy has such far reaching consequences. After all, it is perfectly possible that it is correct that CO2 causes global warming, but the amount of warming is much less than has been assumed. There should be nothing wrong or humiliating for such a change of view to be adopted, and the rational response to such a change would be the alteration in our expensive and damaging energy and environmental legislation.

    • Man of Kent
      Posted March 25, 2013 at 11:06 am | Permalink

      There is no debate simply because the warmists almost always decline any invitation to do so.

      I saw and read on Whats Up With That ,that there was a 1:1 discussion in Florida and that the warmist got in a hissy fit because he could not support his argument with facts.
      He reverted as is so often the case to ad hominem attacks.

      So it is with the BBC who simply will not entertain anything other than the ‘settled science’ doctrine unsupported by facts.

      To reach a position where the Drax Power Station ,sitting on a coalfield, is being converted to burning woodchip imported from USA gulf states is just laughable.
      [How much CO2 is burned in that exercise?]

      There seems to be no sense of proportion or scale in the ‘scientific ‘judgement of the day.
      The atmosphere includes 1/27th of 1% of CO2
      It seems extraordinary that we are now expected to believe that the world’s climates can be changed by this trace gas,even if its effects can be multiplied by water vapour which is highly debatable.
      In contrast the power of nature is shown on a good rainy day ,say 10mm of rain, when 100 tonnes of water is deposited on the school playing field next door.

      There is so much we do not understand about the factors affecting climate eg cosmic rays -all acknowledged by the IPCC -that it would be much better to research these areas than keep plunging on with discredited models.

    • uanime5
      Posted March 25, 2013 at 4:58 pm | Permalink

      Well given that these “deniers” ignore all the scientific evidence showing that they’re wrong and these “distinguished scientists” consistently fail to provide any evidence to support their claims that global warming isn’t happening the only rational thing to do is treat them as cranks.

      Also just because the warming caused by CO2 has been less than predicted doesn’t mean that there hasn’t been any warming. As such it would be wrong to change the current policies which are designed to prevent further warming.

      • Mactheknife
        Posted March 25, 2013 at 6:58 pm | Permalink

        Oh dear again. Even the warmistas agree there has been no warming for the last 15 years and “they cant account for it” quote.

      • Richard1
        Posted March 25, 2013 at 8:36 pm | Permalink

        Readers will note that you again make the false assertion that there are no scientists who have produced evidence in support of their questioning of global warming orthodoxy. Repeating an untruth like this doesn’t make it true. Many such scientists have produced extensive research and evidence.

        The rate of warming is exactly the issue. In any other field a hypothesis is advanced and then tested against experiments or evidence in the real world. If the evidence / experiment matches the predictions the hypothesis can be adopted as correct, if not it needs to change. If the reality is we face 0.5C – 1C per century rather than the 3C or more forecast by the IPCC and others there is no justification for the green legislation we have.

        • lifelogic
          Posted March 27, 2013 at 5:20 am | Permalink

          Exactly.

    • lifelogic
      Posted March 25, 2013 at 5:44 pm | Permalink

      “The BBC is meticulous in refusing to question established greenery.” Indeed the BBC is totally evil in its propaganda on this topic. Why are they not legally challenged for their absurd bias.

      Also on the glorious EU, the ever bigger state, enforced equality drivel, ever more regulation, plus the cutting the state sector too fast and risking a double dip drivel.

      • John Doran
        Posted March 26, 2013 at 8:25 am | Permalink

        The reason is that the EU is seen as the forerunner for the biggest state ever: One World Govt.

        Google agenda 21 for dummies.

        The (biased?ed) BBC are complicit in this evil plan, as are many of our govt & civil service.

        It is being accomplished by stealth, as with so many left wing policies,
        by Common Purpose:

    • cosmic
      Posted March 25, 2013 at 8:00 pm | Permalink

      Do you really believe that the developing world is going to reduce their emissions in any way if the developed world does curb their emissions?

      See The Guardian, Tuesday 20 November 2012. Over 1,000 coal fired power stations planned, mainly in India and China. I won’t give the link because of JR’s policy, but you can find the article.

      They’re not going to stop that because we close down less than 20.

      Do you imagine our closing power stations is going to make any difference whatsoever?

      Wake up.

  7. Brian Phillpott
    Posted March 25, 2013 at 7:07 am | Permalink

    Oh – a few other points:

    Recent climate conferences in the USA have found that 65% of measurable changes in the Earth’s climate in recorded history (including recent ones) are due to changes in the Sun’s output.

    The steep rise in global CO2 levels since WW2 is NOT mirrored by a corresponding rise in global temperatures – which have remained flat since 1998.
    There are two sunspot-related cycles which cause low temperatures on Earth – the Dalton and Maunder minima.

    These correspond to exceptionally cold periods in recorded history – such as the Ice Fairs on the Thames.

    We’re in a Dalton Minimum at present, suggesting colder weather for some decade or more to come, with the possibility of a Maunder Minimum (which lasts much, much longer), in which case a new ‘Mini Ice Age’ will be just commencing.

    Gaia Hypothesis believers (and I’m not totally convinced) might suggest that such a severe change in our climate would have major repercussions for the number of humans who would be able to survive in a world with so much less food being produced – which would suit most life-forms very well indeed………

    Green adherents are like King Canute with the waves: pointless, useless and deluded in seeking to oppose overwhelming natural forces they do not begin to understand.
    (Some apologists say he did so to demonstrate his limitations to his courtiers: I remain unconvinced of THAT, too!)

    Oh – total CO2 in the world is in the order of 30,000,000,000,000 tonnes, so the few tonnes produced by a single car are less than a drop in the ocean (the same is true of any idiot who quote ‘tonnes of CO2 produced’ as though a number of a few tens of tonnes is significant.
    It cycles through plants > animals > atmosphere roughly every 7 years

    The total mass of Carbon trapped in living, or recently living, organisms is several times that in the atmosphere itself (roughly 5-20x) which further underlines the idiocy of ‘the Green case’ for seeking lower CO2 emissions.
    Saving energy and more fuel-efficient cars are an entirely different matter, but doing ANYTHING ‘because it’s good for the environment’ in terms of CO2 output, it utter nuts.

  8. Sally Preston
    Posted March 25, 2013 at 7:09 am | Permalink

    Bravo! An excellent and succinct article that addresses the concerns of the majority of the British population. When China and India are building new coal powered plants every week to accommodate their ever increasing demand for energy, why is our small, ‘cold’ country made to feel guilty for wanting affordable energy to keep warm? Oh yes, I forgot, the ubiquitous green tax piled onto already extortionate energy bills to compensate for a discredited theory that global warming is man-made.

  9. colliemum
    Posted March 25, 2013 at 7:13 am | Permalink

    I wish you good luck in your endeavour, John. You are taking on a whole clutch of entrenched green dragons.

    There has been and is one single act which would help consumers and industry straightaway.
    That is the repeal of the infamous ‘Climate Change Act’.
    If the Tory Party wants to have a chance of winning in 2015, then they better do this.

  10. Martin
    Posted March 25, 2013 at 7:21 am | Permalink

    What gets me about the Greens is the way they have played their part in turning the population against Nuclear power.

    I was pleased to hear of the new nuclear power station that got the go ahead the other week.

    • lifelogic
      Posted March 25, 2013 at 8:26 am | Permalink

      The greens are interest in votes and what people “like to believe” not actual science. Nuclear is not popular (images of people with three heads and the like) so they are against it as they do not understand it and fear it. Renewable and sustainable sounds good so they do. Even though they clearly does not work and are uneconomic. Numbers and logic are not really their thing.

      These people read books called things like:- Small is Beautiful, Silent Spring and Eat all you like, get Thinner and Thinner and live for ever. The triumph of religion and hope over logic and science.

      • Mark
        Posted March 25, 2013 at 1:18 pm | Permalink

        Perhaps they should read

        Small Is Stupid: Blowing the Whistle on the Greens by Prof Wilfred Beckerman.

        • lifelogic
          Posted March 25, 2013 at 3:14 pm | Permalink

          They only want to read what fits in with their existing emotions and “feelings” and “nice” view of the World in general, I find. They seem to “think” in terms of pretty pictures fluffy polar bears, on mini melting icebergs or similar.

          • Bazman
            Posted March 25, 2013 at 8:29 pm | Permalink

            How do you square off the massive subsidy need for nuclear power to be viable with your free market fantasies? You don’t. The fluffy polar bears and other childish nonsense are very much in your own mind.

      • Bazman
        Posted March 25, 2013 at 8:35 pm | Permalink

        Not three heads, but real evidence such as Chernobyl and the nuclear fiasco in Japan. The rotting piles of nuclear waste at Selafield and the massive decommissioning costs and timescales 9of doing this. The fact that nuclear power is the most expensive way ever devised by man of boiling water and needs massive public subsidy to make it viable show us that numbers and logic are not your thing. Not everyone has such tenuous grasp of reality as yourself either.

      • John Doran
        Posted March 26, 2013 at 8:35 am | Permalink

        You have the essence of the Green Movement right there.
        They fear the future, which they cannot see, & fail to predict correctly.

        They want to return to a non existent, but fondly remembered bucolic past, where big brother will take care of them from cradle to grave.

        The 1%s in control, however, are no fuzzy brained fearful dupes.

    • Nina Andreeva
      Posted March 25, 2013 at 9:18 am | Permalink

      I bet you would be first to protest if one was proposed to be built in your manor. The most economically successful state in Europe, Germany, is busy decommissioning theirs. Going on past performance I know which country is likely to get their energy strategy right and its not going to be the UK

      • ian wragg
        Posted March 25, 2013 at 11:18 am | Permalink

        Yes and they are commissioning 23 coal and lignite power stations over the next 2 years.
        None with carbon capture.

        • John Doran
          Posted March 26, 2013 at 8:38 am | Permalink

          Carbon is not a pollutant, it is the basis of all life.

      • Jerry
        Posted March 25, 2013 at 11:48 am | Permalink

        Yes Nina, but they are also very busy building dirty coal fired power stations and importing electricity from France – most likely generated by nuclear…

        • John Doran
          Posted March 26, 2013 at 8:40 am | Permalink

          CO2 emissions aid plant growth. It is plant food.

          • Jerry
            Posted March 26, 2013 at 9:33 am | Permalink

            @John Doran: I don’t think anyone, other than the AGW pushers, are suggesting otherwise…

      • Denis Cooper
        Posted March 25, 2013 at 12:17 pm | Permalink

        And Germany is busy building new coal fired power stations while we are decommissioning ours, or in the case of Drax converting it to partly use wood chips imported from the US … you’re right, in some ways we should be more like Germany and quietly do as we want in our national interests while deploying EU law to damage other countries.

        • Denis Cooper
          Posted March 26, 2013 at 11:27 am | Permalink

          Actually I could have said:

          “And Germany is busy building new coal fired power stations while a German company is decommissioning ours with the approval of our government”.

          http://www.npowermediacentre.com/Press-Releases/RWE-npower-announces-closure-of-coal-fired-Didcot-A-Power-Station-and-oil-fired-Fawley-Power-Station-118e.aspx

          “RWE npower has today announced that the 2,000MW coal-fired Didcot A Power Station in Oxfordshire and the 1,000MW oil-fired Fawley Power Station in Hampshire will both close at the end of March 2013 under the EU Large Combustion Plant Directive.

          Commenting on the announcement, Volker Beckers CEO RWE npower said:

          ”Both of these stations were built more than 40 years ago, and have been the unsung heroes of our economy ever since, helping to keep the lights on and Britain working 24 hours a day, 7 days a week.”

          “This is a time to reflect on the fantastic teams we have at both of these stations, who have helped to deliver over 80 years of generation for the UK.”

          These closures, driven by Government policy, reflect the changing shape of power generation in the UK with modern, low carbon power generation replacing older, less efficient power stations. RWE has invested more than £3 billion in the UK over the past three years and now operates the largest installed capacity of both renewable and gas-fired power stations in the country.”

      • outsider
        Posted March 25, 2013 at 12:17 pm | Permalink

        Dear Nina Andreeva,
        Our local atomic power station is popular enough and most of us are looking forward to the prospect of having a new larger one, though admittedly not to the prolonged disruption of the huge construction project required to build it.

      • mactheknife
        Posted March 25, 2013 at 1:08 pm | Permalink

        @Nina Andreeva

        Yes they are decomissioning nuclear …..but building 20+ new coal fired power stations……kind of shoots your arguments down doesn’t it ?

        • Nina Andreeva
          Posted March 25, 2013 at 4:23 pm | Permalink

          Mac can you explain how this “kind of shoots (my) arguments down?

          • mactheknife
            Posted March 25, 2013 at 5:21 pm | Permalink

            @ Nin Andreeva

            Based on your comments on this blog you clearly believe in AGW. Yet here we supposedly have Europe’s greenest country building coal fired stations when we are decommissioning ours. Even prominent green activists are supporting nuclear now. So how do you “Warmistas” square the circle?
            Also please do not use the term “deniers” which is so pathetic and seeks to associate those who believe that nothing is proven – in fact the AGW case is looking extremely weak at this point based on all the new evidence over the last few years.

            I could say more but wont bother as it seems John has “moderated” my two earlier comments which criticised the dearth of scientific knowledge at DECC and the closeness of this department with various environmental organisations. I dont know why as they publish the meeting schedule on their own website ?

          • Nina Andreeva
            Posted March 25, 2013 at 6:51 pm | Permalink

            Mac please go and do your research before replying and examine what measures the Germans take to ensure that coal fired stations do not belch out a load more green house gases. Your posts are probably being moderated because they are just baloney!

          • Jerry
            Posted March 25, 2013 at 8:28 pm | Permalink

            Mac, perhaps we should start calling those that believe in AGW “deniers”, after all they seem to be denning that climate changes naturally and has done so for millions -if not billions- of years, before man even knew how to make fire!

      • lifelogic
        Posted March 25, 2013 at 1:32 pm | Permalink

        Properties in Southwold and Aldeburgh Suffolk are much sort after, despite their proximity to the nuclear power station.

        • Nina Andreeva
          Posted March 25, 2013 at 6:53 pm | Permalink

          LL would you care to comment on the incidence of childhood lukaemias around Sellafield?

          • Joe Public
            Posted March 26, 2013 at 10:16 pm | Permalink

            NA

            Would you care to comment on the incidence of increased deaths in the UK this cold winter caused by fuel poverty?

            An extra few thousand, I believe.

          • lifelogic
            Posted March 27, 2013 at 5:33 am | Permalink

            I do not know enough about it, but it is clearly not a major issue relative to the many deaths from people being unable to afford to keep warm or from lack of food due to governments biofuel lunacy.

    • cosmic
      Posted March 25, 2013 at 6:38 pm | Permalink

      They’ve certainly played their part.

      Another part of the problem is that the nuclear power industry in the UK sprang out of, and was a front for, nuclear weapons development. The secrecy was often used to cover up incompetence.

      I think that the rehabilitation of nuclear power has much to do with the realisation that there isn’t any alternative and the example of France.

    • Bazman
      Posted March 25, 2013 at 8:38 pm | Permalink

      Hardly endeared themselves have they? Maybe the nuclear inductor could explain why the Irish sea is the most radioactive in the world?

  11. Roy Grainger
    Posted March 25, 2013 at 7:27 am | Permalink

    It is always amusing to see over in the Guardian CiF section how the inmates 1) Blame the government for not doing enough to reduce CO2 emissions and 2) Blame the government for allowing fuel prices to rise. What they don’t see, as you comment, is that the consensus amongst the Con/Lib/Lab parties is that that is exactly their policy, force a reduction in hydrocarbon-based energy use by making it expensive through carbon credits and environmental constraints , and encourage expensive renewables. I mean let’s step back from this – in what way is it sensible for Drax power station to be shipping woodchips over from North America to burn in preference to local coal ? Clearly the economic regime power companies are under is incentivising dysfunctional behaviour.

    By the way, Glabal Warming is no longer an environmentally-friendly term, you have to call it Climate Disruption so that it also covers the current snowy weather.

    • Bob
      Posted March 25, 2013 at 9:41 am | Permalink

      @Roy Grainger
      “you have to call it Climate Disruption so that it also covers the current snowy weather.”

      Surely the term “Climate Disruption” will cover any variation in climate.

      In other words, the only way to disprove “climate disruption” would be if the climate remained absolutely stable. Something that has never happened in history.

      • outsider
        Posted March 25, 2013 at 12:25 pm | Permalink

        Global warming sounded good to folk in cold climates; hence the switch to climate change. But climate change must be good for some people too. So we have moved to climate disruption, which can be good for no-one.
        This sort of manipulative propaganda explains why many of us no longer trust, let alone believe, campaigning scientists in any field. Which is very sad.

  12. APL
    Posted March 25, 2013 at 7:48 am | Permalink

    JR: “That’s why I speak out against fuel policies which force many to turn down the heating at a time of cold weather .. ”

    Well, thank you.

  13. Andyvan
    Posted March 25, 2013 at 7:53 am | Permalink

    The problem is that despite the very large body of evidence that global warming is nonsense there is no an even larger body of “scientists”, bureaucrats and environmentalists that earn their living from continuing the charade. Governments love it because they can tax more so they support the growing climate change establishment and the losers are working people that get to foot the bill for the whole ridiculous farce. Vested interests rule as is so often the case when government jumps on any bandwagon.

    • lifelogic
      Posted March 25, 2013 at 3:19 pm | Permalink

      Indeed and they will all look rather stupid if they admit they have been talking B**** and wasting billions. So they keep marching for the cliff as Major did with the ERM even when it was clearly insane to all. Soon they will say they were being very sensible and have solved the (non) problem, so they can now ease off a little.

    • uanime5
      Posted March 25, 2013 at 5:04 pm | Permalink

      If there was any scientific evidence that global warming was nonsense the deniers would be using it, rather than making claims unsupported by any evidence.

      • lifelogic
        Posted March 26, 2013 at 8:27 am | Permalink

        We use real evidence all the time:- the actual temperature readings (rather than computer projections), the history of temperature throughout the centuries, the chaotic nature of the weather systems, the upper atmospheric readings, the many unknowns, these all suggest that proven catastrophic, man made, AGW is a religious invention of the green religion, governments and the state sector to justify intervention and yet more taxes.

  14. margaret brandreth-j
    Posted March 25, 2013 at 7:54 am | Permalink

    I am not sure whether it is Caroline Lucas and her Green Party which convinced the Country that global warming, the greenhouse effect and the burning of fossils fuels was ruining the ozone layer . It was more likely to be science programmes and the media who alerted us all to the dangers of continuing in the same old styles of producing energy and keeping us warm .
    I do agree , as in your comment to CL during the budget debate that more is cheaper, which is why more renewable sources of energy would be eventually cheaper.I also agree with you that diversity as a stop gap is needed. The debating and arguing is procrastinative. Shale gas , unmined coal sources and new oil fields are a way to tackle this IF the building of renewable sources continues simultaneously. Why politicians talk of one thing or another always beats me . The polarisation of problems is a problem in itself.
    One thing I am sure of is that these old fashioned ways of producing energy are finite. Waste is fatuous and we cannot keep going the same way.
    Modern science should surely be able to find ways of reducing emissions at source.

    • A different Simon
      Posted March 25, 2013 at 9:54 am | Permalink

      “Modern science should surely be able to find ways of reducing emissions at source.”

      If you are talking about CO2 emissions , no Margaret .

      To turn the CO2 into oxygen and carbon would take all the energy which was released by turning C + O2 into CO2 plus more for inefficiencies .

      It’s not a matter of anything modern or technology or a consensuses of experts , it’s a matter of incontravertible laws of nature .

      The money would be better spent on something which works like insulation .

      To run a country of 70 million people requires more than renewables can deliver which brings us to the true objective of the elite establishment and green movement – they don’t want engineering solutions , they want population reduction .

      • margaret brandreth-j
        Posted March 25, 2013 at 3:51 pm | Permalink

        Quite, but before atomic energy was realised , that was also a matter of incontravertible laws of nature and if it would take energy to actualise then it is not intraconvertible.

    • oldtimer
      Posted March 25, 2013 at 10:01 am | Permalink

      There is no shortage of fossil fuels. It is the price achieved compared with the cost of extraction that determines whether or not it worth the cost of extracting what is already there. Shale gas has emerged as a viable fuel source because a US entrepreneur found a way to develop an established technology (fracking) used in the oil industry and to apply it extract the gas trapped in shale at great depths. In the process he has transformed the prospects for the US economy. Among other things it will become a net energy exporter and low energy costs are persuading industries to return to the USA.

      In the UK the energy market is distorted by the high subsidies and tax breaks required to persuade investors to invest in renewable energy (wind farms and solar), plus the need to provide duplicate backup in the form of gas powered generators which must remain on tick over for the many occasions when renewables do not perform as advertised (eg not enough wind or too much wind). Perversely, you and every other consumer are paying both for duplicated capacity and you are also paying the renewable energy investors even when they do not produce any energy! The other perverse effect is that these programmes have sucked up much, if not all, of the capital investment that should have been applied to replacing generating capacity that is now being shut down. That is why many in the energy industry believe that the risk of the lights going out is very real.

      My advice is to stock up on woolly jumpers, candles and other ways to prepare food and keep warm.

      • stred
        Posted March 25, 2013 at 8:33 pm | Permalink

        The latest Scientific American has an article about oil extraction in Dakota. It is so succesful that flares are all over and wasting as much energy as a major station. Also producing lots of methane.The US is on the way to being self sufficient in oil.

    • Denis Cooper
      Posted March 25, 2013 at 12:20 pm | Permalink

      Margaret Thatcher played a major role in kicking it off as part of her fight with the coal miners.

  15. Nina Andreeva
    Posted March 25, 2013 at 8:01 am | Permalink

    The Greens may annoy people with their energy policies, mainly because they come from very bourgeois backgrounds and can afford to pay through the nose for their gas etc. Whats even more annoying, (MPs – example left out-ed)tend to get big “consulting” jobs when they cease being an MP (in businesses which make money out of the green agenda-ed).

    However I quite like the Greenies because they are probably the most vocal party in attacking the LibLabCon consensus on supporting the banks regardless. Indeed it was the New Zealand Greens who brought everybody’s attention over there to the Reserve Bank’s plans to help themselves to savers deposits, Cyprus style, the next time a bank goes under. Its rather strange that a bunch of bearded lefties should be more vocal in defending private property than their “conservative” counterparts who suck up to the banks.

    • Nina Andreeva
      Posted March 25, 2013 at 9:19 am | Permalink
    • lifelogic
      Posted March 26, 2013 at 8:30 am | Permalink

      Indeed the “consultancy” payments and revolving door that many in the Tory party have with the green industry is much of the problem.

      The electorate should kick them out, but the BBC seems to have infected so many with the green religion.

  16. Jerry
    Posted March 25, 2013 at 8:02 am | Permalink

    When the outward signs (weather) do not agree with the dire predictions it is usual for the AGW pushers to claim “But that is just the weather, don’t mix up climate and weather!” but when does “weather” become “climate”, especially after repeated examples of weather that suggest climatic trends that appear to be going in the exact opposite direction to AGW predictions?! Never mind the fact that there has been little or not global warming for something like 18 years, and then there are those hacked emails from the UEA that clearly show how some within the AGW lobby (those whose funding deepened on proof of AGW ?) were happy to ‘adjust’ the figures and graphs to suit their notions.

    I’m sure that many will remember that about 25-30 years ago many ‘scientists’ were predicting that the world was actually cooling, that we were entering a mini ice-age, as someone commented on the DT the other day -perhaps they were correct!

    But as you suggest, even if AGW is true, a big IF, what is the point in pricing our own industries out of business just to see the release of CO2 (and worse) exported to places like China…

    • stred
      Posted March 25, 2013 at 10:06 am | Permalink

      The global warming, although small, seems to have been concentrated in the Arctic. See Nasa pictures and charts. And guess who are starting to send merchant shipping around the northern Russia to Europe in summer- the Chinese.

    • uanime5
      Posted March 25, 2013 at 5:11 pm | Permalink

      Just because one month has cold weather doesn’t mean that the whole climate of a country has been changed. Nor does it mean that the average global temperature of the whole planet has been lowered.

      Also the scientific evidence has shown that there has been global warming over the past 18 years. That’s why the average global temperature keeps rising.

      • Mactheknife
        Posted March 25, 2013 at 7:02 pm | Permalink

        Absolutely not true. Even Prof Phil Jones of the UEA Climate Research unit ( AGW supporters) has said there has been no statistically significant warming over the last 15 years. Do you ever do any research or just spout nonsense made up by some bloke in the pub?

      • Edward2
        Posted March 25, 2013 at 7:13 pm | Permalink

        Uni,
        You still havn’t looked at Met office/Hadley centre graphs for global average temperature stats showing no warming since 2000 then?

      • stred
        Posted March 25, 2013 at 8:35 pm | Permalink

        Are you a computer? You remind me of Hal, before he died.

      • Jerry
        Posted March 25, 2013 at 8:37 pm | Permalink

        @U5: Is that is right U5, only trouble is the same argument can be used against the AGW pushers, after all 150 years isn’t much more than a pin-prick on the history page of the worlds climate record either…

        Can you cite an acceptable link to your claims about global warming over the past 18 years?

  17. Old Albion
    Posted March 25, 2013 at 8:16 am | Permalink

    In the last sixteen years there has been no global warming at all, none, zero.
    In the two decades prior to that, global temperatures were recorded as having risen by less than .5 degrees Centigrade.
    Global warming/ climate change/ climate disruption, whatever it’s called today, is not happening.
    I’m fairly sure the original concerns were genuine (thirty plus years ago) But the forecasts are wrong. The science inexact.
    This hasn’t stopped succesive governments jumping on the ‘green religion’ bandwagon and imposing extra taxes upon us. It’s time for a complete reappraisal of the whole issue.

    • uanime5
      Posted March 25, 2013 at 5:12 pm | Permalink

      Firstly your claim that there hasn’t been any global warming for 16 years is false. Secondly your claims about the temperature rising by 0.5°C shows that there was global warming.

      • Mactheknife
        Posted March 25, 2013 at 7:03 pm | Permalink

        See my response above. No statistically significant warming for 15 years – prof Phil Jones UEA.

      • Edward2
        Posted March 25, 2013 at 7:14 pm | Permalink

        Give us your source for claiming there has been warming since 2000 Uni.

      • Bob
        Posted March 25, 2013 at 7:41 pm | Permalink

        @uanime5
        a fluctuation of 0.5˚C !

        If it had been 0.5˚C lower, would you be predicting a new ice age?

  18. lifelogic
    Posted March 25, 2013 at 8:19 am | Permalink

    The interview in usual BBC style with Prof John Beddington this morning was a total disgrace. Of the “is there any propaganda that we can help you ram down the throats of the nation today” style. (A style usually reserved by the BBC for pro EU issues, climate propaganda, uncontrolled immigration, disabled, women’s and enforced equality issues and the likes).

    I must be very hard for this Economist and Professor of Applied Population Biology having to contend with all those skeptics who just look at the real evidence, the history of climate change, the thermometers, the lack of predictability of chaotic systems and the atmospheric satellite readings. This, rather than just believing the computer projections of government “experts” who cannot even predict a hurricane a couple of hours in advance.

    Projections that have anyway been proved so very wrong, so far.

    Still he can take a little rest and calm down now that he is leaving, perhaps.

    • Jerry
      Posted March 25, 2013 at 8:47 am | Permalink

      @Lifelogic: If this interview was the one broadcast on R4 Today programme I assume you turned off in disgust before the end of the interview/package as afterwards the BBC journalist did actually contest the AGW position by putting forward the climate sceptic position, and I suspect (because the sceptic position was put last) it will be this that will stick in many peoples minds – the worm is starting to turn, but like a super-tanker (I now, I’m mixing my metaphors) it will take time to either stop or turn fully…

      • lifelogic
        Posted March 25, 2013 at 3:35 pm | Permalink

        No, I heard the tv version today as it happens. The level of questioning of warmists by the BBC is usually absurd, lefty arts graduates the lot of them. It usually starts with the incorrect assumption that there is a scientific consensus on catastrophic man made global warming, amongst the “experts” – when there is no such thing. They talk about renewables (a meaning less word given the laws of entropy) and it is clear that no one has even heard of a kilo watt hour. They often confuse energy and power and even think positive feedback in climate is a good thing sometimes.

        Sensible experts, think that predictions of chaotic systems, especially for the future, are rather difficult. Especially when you cannot even know all the input data.

  19. M Davis
    Posted March 25, 2013 at 8:30 am | Permalink

    John, you talk so much sense but the Greens will have their fingers in their ears when told they are ruining the Country by pushing their hobby-horse.

    You can bet that the high energy bills will not affect the majority of them but they like to be seen as being ‘caring’ people, when really they don’t care at all for the majority of people who have to eat cheap foods and make other sacrifices in order to keep warm.

    I live off corned beef, not roast beef. I live off canned fish, not fresh fish. I buy the cheapest cans of beans and buy items with red stickers on. I could say a lot more but what’s the point, the Greens just don’t want to know.

    There are a lot of already rich people making money out of this scam. They disgust me!

  20. stred
    Posted March 25, 2013 at 9:07 am | Permalink

    Best of luck John. If you can get any sensible MPs on your side, Ministers may be more inclined to listen. With the Libdums or Lucas you would be talking to a brick wall. They are funamentalist incompetents.

    You should quote the information in the DECC’s adopted book Sustainable Energy.
    The figure for carbon intensity of electricity is undeniable. P335.

    Denmark 881 -the green wind economy
    Germany 601- the big green party, wind and pv leaders, closing nukes, opening coal
    UK 580 -dash for gas- this figure is prior to opening large scale wind.
    EU av. 353
    Sweden 87 -nukes and hydro- electric cars actually work
    France 83- 80% nuclear ditto

    Re the imminent expensive addition of ethanol from corn to petrol. P.284.
    Bioethanol from corn in the USA
    “The power per unit area from corn is ASTONISHINGLY LOW…… and then we haven’t taken into account any of the energy losses in processing!”- And to this we should add the energy involved in transporting it from the USA to the EU, although merchant shipping losses were conveniently forgotten in the agreement.

    How many MPs realise that the generation and transmission plant is planned to increase by a factor of 8+ in order to back up wind? Is the industry going to complain about this bonanza?

    You should not try to take the line that warming has stopped, because it has slowed below predictions. All that is needed is the reference to the Met Office figures of 0.75 deg C. Greens will quote Sir John Beddington, who has just said on R4 that carbon capture is “well worth doing”. If he thinks so, perhaps he should read CH 31 of the DECC book- “The last thing we should talk about”. – “The energy requirements for carbon capture from thin air are so enormous, it seems almost absurd to talk about it”. Further research is proposed ” as it may be our last line of defense”.

    What does make sense is to insulate and draughtproof our mainly old housing stock. But even here the DECC is putting obstacles in the way of doing it in effective and economical ways. The idea of putting 8 inches of insulation outside the walls or putting 15 inches in the roof but leaving the other main losses is absurd.

  21. Graham C
    Posted March 25, 2013 at 9:08 am | Permalink

    Politicians do not need much persuading to extract more from its population.

    Given the points clearly made in your piece we can only assume that the average MP is a thick as a short plank.

  22. David
    Posted March 25, 2013 at 9:22 am | Permalink

    Let assume for the sake of argument that the following are true
    “1. There is global warming,

    2 It is caused by too much human generated CO2,

    3. That global warming is far worse than global cooling,

    4. That we need to stop the extra CO2 so we can stop the warming

    5. That stopping the CO2 has mainly to be done by imposing very high tariffs and charges on people to cut the use of energy by all but the rich”
    Why not use the tariffs to cut income tax – then the net effect on peoples pockets will be zero.

    • Bob
      Posted March 25, 2013 at 2:43 pm | Permalink

      @David
      “Why not use the tariffs to cut income tax – then the net effect on peoples pockets will be zero.”

      Because the government would rather use the money to increase foreign aid so that the third world can become more like us and cut down their forests and increase their CO2 emissions.

      ( Google Agenda 21 )

      • mactheknife
        Posted March 25, 2013 at 5:32 pm | Permalink

        @ Bob

        You are so right about agenda 21. The AGW scaremongering by governments, the IPCC and UN is about redistribution of wealth and nothing to do with science. If you remeber back to the Copenhagen sumitt a couple of years ago, then PM Gorden Brown said we owed the thrid world a “carbon debt” and said the west should promptly stump up 100 billion in aid to the developing world. Just a few years earlier when Chancellor, his ‘big idea’ was to eradicate poverty in Africa by….er…..the west stumping up billions in aid.
        The UN has said AGW exists – full stop no arguents and then it gets the IPCC to scare everyone by taking selective inputs which meet their agenda and disregarding scientific papers which go against their ideals. Its a scandal of course but some politicians think there are votes in it also, which further muddies the water. Cue all round farce and wasted billions.

    • lifelogic
      Posted March 25, 2013 at 4:15 pm | Permalink

      Oh I do not think that would suit the state sector very well at all!

      Philip

  23. Edward2
    Posted March 25, 2013 at 9:27 am | Permalink

    Thank you Mr Redwood for yet another excellent and logically argued article.
    And all this in response to a rise of just 0.75 of one degree in the 20th century.

    We can now look back at the original IPCC report and the alarmist Al Gore film and see the dire predictions made then, not coming true.
    To give just two examples :-
    A rapid increase in the speed of global temperature rises after 2000…not happening.
    Islands which we were told would now be under water are still visible.

    If it were right that mans CO2 output was to blame and man was able to agree globally to reduce this output and this did keep the climate steady, do we then manipulate CO2 global output up and down for evermore?
    Assuming for the sake of argument that a global agreement could be reached, which I doubt, who would decide the correct global temperature and the level of CO2 output limit per nation and how would this be audited?

    PS Due to colder than average UK temperatures since January, there has been over 2000 more deaths than in the same period last year which was warmer.

    • uanime5
      Posted March 25, 2013 at 5:18 pm | Permalink

      Just because the temperature isn’t rising as fast as predicted doesn’t change the fact that it’s still rising.

      Also the 0.75°C temperature rise is an average temperature rise. Some placed experienced more warming than others.

      • Mactheknife
        Posted March 25, 2013 at 7:09 pm | Permalink

        Oh dear. Be more specific. Are you talking land temperatures, ocean temperatures or even tropespheric temperatures ? Check our Dr. Roy Spencers site for monthly updates and its tells you what you need to know via the satellite measurements provided to NOAA.

      • Edward2
        Posted March 25, 2013 at 7:17 pm | Permalink

        Uni,
        Oh so my statistic of just a 0.75% increase in the 20th century is finally accepted by you.
        Its taken a year to get this far.
        Well thats a start I suppose.
        What figure for temperature rises are you claiming since 2000 and what is your source?

      • Joe Public
        Posted March 26, 2013 at 10:23 pm | Permalink

        “Also the 0.75°C temperature rise is an average temperature rise. Some placed (sic) experienced more warming than others”

        So you agree then, some places experienced less warming?

    • lifelogic
      Posted March 25, 2013 at 5:48 pm | Permalink

      If only those death were due to warming the BBC would be going on and on about them!

  24. James Matthews
    Posted March 25, 2013 at 9:29 am | Permalink

    The reason the Greens are so effective while continuing to be a fairly small party is that David Cameron thought it would be electorally advantageous to be seen to embrace the Green Agenda. I am not sure whether anthropogenic global warming exists. Behaving as though it does could, in theory, have one advantage, if it was accepted and acted apon across the world – it would reduce the rate at which finite fossil fuels are used up. However pricing industry out of the market in the west so that it can more quickly be transferred to China, India, et al, neither reduces carbon emissions nor saves the world’s resources. That however, will not bother the sanctimonious green meanies because their real objective is to promote socialism by other means.

  25. Brian Tomkinson
    Posted March 25, 2013 at 9:30 am | Permalink

    Good luck with this but I think that, as with other sensible issues you raise, you will be ignored. Ministers bought into this scam years ago and I don’t see much sign of change regardless of the damage they inflict on our county and its people. In this they are ably abetted by the BBC whose approach was vividly illustrated by Peter Sissons in this extract from his book ‘ When One Door Closes ‘ published in the Daily Mail on 9/2/2011:
    “The BBC became a propaganda machine for climate change zealots, says Peter Sissons… and I was treated as a lunatic for daring to dissent…….
    From the beginning I was unhappy at how one-sided the BBC’s coverage of the issue was, and how much more complicated the climate system was than the over-simplified two-minute reports that were the stock-in-trade of the BBC’s environment correspondents…….. These, without exception, accepted the UN’s assurance that ‘the science is settled’ and that human emissions of carbon dioxide threatened the world with catastrophic climate change. Environmental pressure groups could be guaranteed that their press releases, usually beginning with the words ‘scientists say . . . ’ would get on air unchallenged……..
    The BBC’s editorial policy on ­climate change, however, was spelled out in a report by the BBC Trust — whose job is to oversee the workings of the BBC in the interests of the public — in 2007. This disclosed that the BBC had held ‘a high-level seminar with some of the best scientific experts and has come to the view that the weight of evidence no longer justifies equal space being given to the opponents of the consensus’……..
    Meanwhile, Al Gore, the former U.S. Vice-President and climate change campaigner, entertained the BBC’s editorial elite in his suite at the Dorchester and was given a free run to make his case to an admiring internal audience at Television Centre. ……His views were never subjected to journalistic scrutiny, even when a British High Court judge ruled that his film, An Inconvenient Truth, ­contained at least nine scientific errors, and that ministers must send new guidance to teachers before it was screened in schools. From the BBC’s standpoint, the judgment was the real inconvenience, and its ­environment correspondents downplayed its significance…….
    Back in the studio I suggested that we line up one or two sceptics to react to the report, but received a totally negative response, as if I was some kind of lunatic. I went home and wrote a note to myself: ‘What happened to the journalism? The BBC has ­completely lost it.’”
    I see no change in the BBC’s attitude today.

  26. Mike Wilson
    Posted March 25, 2013 at 9:38 am | Permalink

    Whether you choose to believe in global warming or climate change is, surely, academic.

    To me it is common sense not to get our energy by doing something as messy and ugly as burning coal.

    Successive governments have had no coherent energy policy for many, many years.

    Why not stop dithering and build the Severn barrage? Invest the money in tidal energy. Make sure EVERY home in the country is properly insulated. Put solar panels on EVERY roof. And then, if we need more energy, build a few nuclear power stations and some coal fired with carbon capture.

    DO something about our energy needs. And stop wasting my money employing Arts and Communities Officers and Diversity Co-ordinators and their ilk.

    • S Matthews
      Posted March 25, 2013 at 11:09 am | Permalink

      Coal burning is one of the cheapest forms of electricity production, as long as its not made artificially expensive with green taxes.
      The proposed Severn barrage would cost a fortune, not produce much energy, relatively speaking, and is one of the more expensive ways of producing electricity.
      Solar panels? In Britain? Give me a break. Just about the most expensive way to produce electricity, they dont work too well in the dark or in winter either.

      If we want cheap power then its coal and gas. Your proposals would more than double the cost of energy.

    • Mark
      Posted March 25, 2013 at 1:24 pm | Permalink

      The reason not to invest in the Severn barrage is that it is uneconomic. The project has only been dusted down since the offer of 500% subsidies for tidal power was made by Ed Davey. If you want to pay 6 times as much for your electricity, go ahead.

      • lifelogic
        Posted March 25, 2013 at 5:51 pm | Permalink

        Indeed only a fool would build it but there are plenty about in government.

  27. English Pensioner
    Posted March 25, 2013 at 9:47 am | Permalink

    The Government’s Chief Scientific Advisor, a global warming fanatic has just retired.
    I’m curious. How do they choose his replacement? Is it by open competition where the candidates have to show their scientific stature and ability, or are they chosen via the “old boys’ network” because their scientific views agree with those of the current government.
    It strikes me that far too many people like this are in top jobs, not because they are the best available, but because they are prepared to say “Yes Minister” and find “scientific” justification for the government’s current viewpoint.

  28. me2
    Posted March 25, 2013 at 9:55 am | Permalink

    Repeal the Climate Change Act.

  29. Barbara1
    Posted March 25, 2013 at 9:57 am | Permalink

    Well done, Mr Redwood.

    With the closure of Didcot A power station last week (and it will be demolished, not mothballed), this is getting very serious indeed.

  30. Alan
    Posted March 25, 2013 at 9:59 am | Permalink

    I worry a bit that some of the criticism of climate change research is directed at curtailing scientific work on this topic. It seems to me that, whether we find the current evidence convincing or not, there is a need for a much greater understanding of what controls the climate on this planet. I would like to see research into this, and its effects on the world economy, continue.

    One good thing that has arisen out of this controversy is a realisation of how little we understand about something that could be very important to our future. The cost of doing research is very small compared with its importance.

    • Mark
      Posted March 25, 2013 at 11:20 pm | Permalink

      Proper research is probably useful. There are two problems to bear in mind.

      Firstly, much of the current research is not neutral: it starts seeking to prove the climate change agenda, and to deny the existence of other possibilities (so no wonder the climate change community seeks to tar others with the brush of “denier”).

      Secondly, in highly complex systems there are limitations on the ability to make reliable projections. That applies to something as simple as three bodies in orbit in space, even though the physical rules governing their motion are known with great precision (Newton’s laws and Einstein’s Relativity Theory).

      Some research does tell us about the limitations of climate models – such as the CLOUD experiment at CERN, that has demonstrated that the basis for cloud modelling used by the models is not correct. This is rather fundamental, as clouds reflect sunlight back into space. I think more research that delineates the limitations of the models would be very useful.

  31. Atlas
    Posted March 25, 2013 at 10:02 am | Permalink

    Well said John. I make it my business now to remind anybody who will listen that it was not many years ago the Global Warmers were saying that ‘Snow would be a thing of the past in the UK’.

    At what point does reality finally win in this dialogue of the dogma?

  32. Edward.
    Posted March 25, 2013 at 10:09 am | Permalink

    We hear your voice John and you have trodden a lonely furrow with this ploughing – especially with the unsympathetic green loons in charge of the executive [yellow fever] – the carefully sown seeds of doubt have however started to sprout -even in the thick undergrowth.

    HARK! – it needs to be said – the eco lunatic green movement and the green agenda are costing lives [winter death rates] and also through the green agenda, in Britain we are cutting off our noses, hamstringing our industry and deliberately penalising the everybody but particularly the poor – in order to assuage the eco warriors whose voices are few but whose vacuous shrieks and sound reverberates around Westminster out of all proportion or logic.

    MMCO2 does [will] not cause runaway warming, CO2 atmospheric levels rise as a consequence of warming and thus is the inverse of the alarmist supposition MMCO2=warming].

    Now, as the Solar influence moves to an uncertain and most definitely quiet period and volcanicity rises [as it always does during solar minima] by increment the world’s climate cools – and as India confirms a massive coal fired plant building scheme [negating any puny British efforts to limit CO2].
    This is the time to trash the green agenda – either that, or continue on our unilateral industrial suicide.

    Say it loud Mr. Redwood! We need a climate of sanity to return to the Westminster legislature and more importantly to the executive.

    • uanime5
      Posted March 25, 2013 at 5:21 pm | Permalink

      MMCO2 does [will] not cause runaway warming, CO2 atmospheric levels rise as a consequence of warming and thus is the inverse of the alarmist supposition MMCO2=warming].

      Care to explain what is causing the warming then and why it just happened to occur after humanity started producing more CO2 because of the industrial revolution?

      • Mactheknife
        Posted March 25, 2013 at 7:10 pm | Permalink

        Wrong again. CO2 levels have been much higher in the past with lower temperatures.

      • Bob
        Posted March 25, 2013 at 9:17 pm | Permalink

        @uanime5
        “Care to explain what is causing the warming then and why it just happened to occur after humanity started producing more CO2 because of the industrial revolution?”

        Care to explain the warming that ended the ice age.
        Was it too many people making flint tools?

      • Guy Leech
        Posted March 26, 2013 at 9:59 pm | Permalink

        Warming since the Little Ice Age which ended in about 1850 was most likely to have been caused by the same factors which caused the warming in the Minoan, Roman and Medieval warm periods, which peaked about 3,000, 2,000 and 1,000 years ago. There are plenty of theories about what caused these temperature fluctuations but they were certainly not caused by man made CO2. The temperatures during the Holocene Climate Optimum about 9,000 to 5,000 years ago were probably higher than they have been since and each of the warm periods since then has been cooler that the last, including the warming since 1850 whose peak so far was in 1998.

        The Holocene interglacial period started at the end of the last glaciation, about 10,000 years ago, and the previous interglacial, the Emian, from about 130,000 to 114,000 years ago, was certainly warmer than the Holocene – there were Hippos in the Thames and the Rhine then. There have been about 50 glacial/interglacial cycles since the current ice age began about 2.6 million years ago, before which the earth was ice free since the end of the Karoo Ice Age about 260 million year ago. In the current ice age, the glacial/interglacial cycle is generally believed to be modulated by the orbital cycles described by Milankovich, not by atmospheric CO2 concentration. For about the past million years, glaciations have lasted about 100,000 years and interglacials from about 10,000 to 30,000 years.

        This is all GCSE level climate history which is easily researched in a few minutes on the internet. Quite obviously, the warming since 1850 is not exceptional in magnitude or rate of change and does not support the hypothesis that a new cause of climate change is at work, human CO2 emissions. How can the trivial and frankly ignorant comments of posters such as “uanime5” contribute to the policy debate? More importantly, how can the contributions of CAGW supporting climate “scientists” such as Michael Mann, the Met Office, the CRU at UEA or the Grantham Institute at the LSE have been allowed to determine the UK’s and the EU’s suicidal energy policies when they seem simply to ignore the well established history of the world’s climate changes?

  33. Roy Grainger
    Posted March 25, 2013 at 10:28 am | Permalink

    I see it is the coldest March for 50 years. As it is apparently caused by man-made CO2 emissions this time, 50 years ago it must have been caused by something else. I wonder what ? Maybe a Met Office scientist cann tell us ?

  34. backofanenvelope
    Posted March 25, 2013 at 11:03 am | Permalink

    Why not just stop closing coal-powered and nuclear power stations till replacements are in place? Start a programme of refurbishment of both types to extend their life span. Build a prototype national nuclear power station and when it is proven, build a fleet of them. Remove all subsidies from windmills. Expand the tidal programme.

    I might say, that here in Cornwall, the arguments are all centred on windmill farms. While we are not looking they are popping up all over the county as farmers farm the subsidies.

    • Robert Taggart
      Posted March 26, 2013 at 11:16 am | Permalink

      Hot Rocks !
      Seriously, down there in Corny, heat released from the granite beneath could be used to boil water (a common denominator for so many electrical generation systems). Methinks this was looked into during the 90’s, alas, the then Tory government declined to invest in it ?

      • cosmic
        Posted March 26, 2013 at 12:34 pm | Permalink

        As I recall it was being looked into in the 70s, along with the Severn Barrage.

        I’d guess there isn’t enough heat close enough to the surface to make it worth pursuing.

  35. Kenneth
    Posted March 25, 2013 at 11:18 am | Permalink

    I believe there are several problems with the ‘green’ agenda.

    Apart from the cost, I am concerned with the damage such policies have on our environment.

    All living things rely heavily on energy. Human consumption of energy can have side effects. Having carried out some private research into this, my understanding is that there has been little research into the long term effects of removing energy from wind and tides.

    Patterns of movement, seed distribution etc are extremely complicated and we apparently do not have much idea of how these patterns will be affected by directly removing energy from the environment.

    I also have a big problem with the general philosophy of the Green Party which appears to prefer large infrastructure over old fashioned conservation. There is still much scope to improve efficiency in the generation, distribution and use of energy in the UK.

    Finally, I fear the ‘green’ agenda is a Trojan horse to impose socialism on an international scale. Many years of ‘green’ propaganda from the BBC re-enforces this view.

  36. Neil Craig
    Posted March 25, 2013 at 11:49 am | Permalink

    I don’t regard the “Green” party, or even the “Green” movement as the cause of our “environmental” policies but as the effect.

    We have had a state bureaucracy pushing the catastrophic warming fraud nearly 2 decades. We have a state broadcasting mopno[poly that, as the 28 gate scandal proves, is eager to tell any lie, even for years on end, supplemented with more lies to protect the original lie, to terrorise the British people with this scare.

    The purpose of the global warming scare is to encourage the common people to accept more government; more bureaucracy; more regulation; higher taxes; and to put up with this without expecting government to maintain minimum standards of competence.

    It is obvious why state bureaucrats & parasites gain from promoting this scare.

    At which point, if you successfully scare people with lies about the end of the world it is inevitable that a small minority of them will actually vote for a party saying so. However the Greens are not the vessel of this scatre (or indeedf the hundreds of other “envifronmental scare we have had in the last 40 years – global cooling, nuclear radiation, nuclear meltdowns, pollution, acid rain, ozone, and annual predictions of peak oil, gas, coal and every other material, etc etc – all of which have proven false) but merely the detritus pulled along in its wake.

    If you look at the BBC’s unquestioningly supportive coverage of the Greens – 10 times greater than that of the 4 times larger the entorely critical UKIP coverage at the last election – it is obvious that it is state totalitarians doing the driving. Look also at the Brighton election – effectively the LabConDems put up little serious challenge – had it been UKIP does anybody think they would have conspired to get us elected in the same way?

    • John Doran
      Posted March 26, 2013 at 11:00 am | Permalink

      The Global Warming Scare Scam was started in 1988, with a speech by James Hansen arranged to be on the historically hottest day of the year, June 23 I believe. The air conditioning had been turned off also. It was a stitch up from the start. Hansen predicted 1 degC rise within 20 years. We have seen 0.7 degC rise the whole of the 20th century, with no rise the last 16 years.
      Not coincidentally, the powers that be knew the Soviet Union was on the brink of collapse, which duly happened 1989. They needed a new scare story to control us.

      The 1%s bought the Main Stream Media, to control what info we’re fed.
      They control (some? ed) Warmist scientists through grants. These guys believe they are on a mission to save the planet, so (showing-ed) the figures (in a helpful way ed)are perfectly pardonable. These scientists, as well as having mortgages & families to support, are also subject to a thing called ” confirmation bias”, which scientists, researchers & pollsters are familiar with: if you believe in what you’re searching for, you are hugely likely to find it. The science has been a shambles, being very kind.

      The 1%s are a completely different animal.

      These guys have so much money now, that power has become their jolly.

      They believe in a book I first read as a 19 year old student of Architecture, in 1972: ” A Blueprint for Survival”, first published 1972 as Vol 2, No 1 of The Ecologist magazine. I still have a battered paperback version of the Penguin Special Edition. The opening sentence of this 139 page booklet is unforgettable:
      “The principal defect of the industrial way of life with its ethos of expansion is that it is not sustainable”
      The book advocates a bucolic, pre – industrial future, with much prediction of famines, epidemics, social crises & wars if this is not achieved.
      Oil was predicted to run out by the year 2000, to give just one example.

      Their real fear was population growth affecting food supplies.

      The book was endorsed by a team of 34 “scientists & experts” including Sir Julian Huxley, Peter Scott & Sir Frank Fraser Darling.

      (words left out ed)

      According to the blurb on the back cover:
      “Unless we minimize the disruption of ecological processes & stabilize the population, in the knowledge that our industrial way of life, with its ethos of expansion, is not sustainable, we shall inevitably face the exhaustion of food supplies & most resources, & the collapse of society as we know it.”

  37. Robert Taggart
    Posted March 25, 2013 at 12:06 pm | Permalink

    Have never voted Green – vote Green get ‘Reds’.
    That said…
    Watermelons – good for ‘tucking-in’ to !

  38. Bert Young
    Posted March 25, 2013 at 12:28 pm | Permalink

    I don’t give a damn about the Greens – their policies – their party , if I am cold (and I have been for the last few weeks ) I turn my heating up ! My little daughter came home from school on Friday and requested that we turned off our lights for an hour to save the planet ; naturally mum and I fell in line and supported the prompt from her school , however , the heating stayed on ! Her school also believes we should drive an electric car ( I did manage to get out of this one !) .

    • cosmic
      Posted March 26, 2013 at 12:42 pm | Permalink

      Electric cars are a chimera that have been around for about 100 years. The problem is making a battery which is light enough and stores enough energy, is cheap enough and robust enough. You’re hitting fundamental physics before you get halfway there.

      If the idea had any merit, they’d be made and sold because people wanted them. As it is, endless public money has been poured into subsidies and numerous companies set up on the basis of these subsidies have failed.

      When the teachers at that school have been using electric cars successfully for a year, consider it.

      As for the ludicrous gesture of Earth Day, I’d have said no and explained why.

  39. Electro-Kevin
    Posted March 25, 2013 at 12:36 pm | Permalink

    ‘The Greens annoy many people.”

    I’m afraid it’s a lot worse than that. They are getting their way and it is putting us in economic jeopardy.

    Forget arguing the technicalities. As with the EU lobby they are getting their way as the details are ‘debated’. Rather like Goldilocks eating spoonfuls of porridge as the bears try to argue the wrongs of her doing so. No porridge left by the time the ‘debate’ ends. She (the greenists) win.

    Our argument should follow thusly:

    – While America and China are exempt from cuts in carbon emissions our unilateral efforts are both futile, sacrificial and damaging to our country. Our factories go to China where the emissions become worse. We lose economic power and global influence as a result and have less say on environmental issues.

    Secondly comes the ad hominem:

    – Have you disconnected your heating boiler, Mr Green ? No ? And yet you have the temerity to tell everyone else how to live ? Do you really believe in what you are saying ? Your actions suggest that you don’t.

    Having someone like Chris Huhne lecture us little people on our carbon footprint is galling.

  40. Jonathan Kent
    Posted March 25, 2013 at 12:40 pm | Permalink

    “the general establishment view is that the “science is settled”. It is my view that the policy is far from settled.”

    That is a complete non sequitur. The science and the policy are not one and the same. It would make more sense if you made clear your position on the body of evidence climate scientists have presented. There’s no shame in kkeeping scientific consensus under review, as science can be wrong. However to challenge scientific consensus you need to present evidence that disproves it and looking out of your window is not scientific evidence.

    As you should well know the discussion is not framed as ‘global warming’ but ‘climate change’ and climate scientists have suggested for some time that as global temperatures rise and the northern ice cap melts it may kill off the circulatory current of the Gulf Stream that ensures that Britain is warmer than parts of Canada at the same latitude.

    For an intelligent man I think you aren’t sufficiently intellectually rigorous on such an important topic. If you wish to be taken seriously you need to fight science with science not hyperbole and ideology.

    Reply It is my case that current policy does not address the issues, even if you believe the global warming theory.

    • oldtimer
      Posted March 25, 2013 at 6:49 pm | Permalink

      We need to remind ourselves that the original claim was based on the catastrophic anthropogenic global warming (CAGW) hypothesis. C2006-7 it was decided that talk of catastrophe was not helping the cause, (This is well documented – google “warm words”). The language then changed to warning of “global warming”. When a shortage of evidence put that proposition in doubt, it was changed again to “climate change”. This was quite a shrewd move because the climate is always changing. The latest language speaks of “extreme weather events”. This too is unconvincing as records of extreme weather event do not indicate that their contemporary frequency is unusual.

      If, as you suggest, what UK scientists are really worried about is the melting ice cap diverting the Gulf Stream then any hopes you have for an international agreement on controlling man made CO2 drop to zero. Why should China and India worry about our (putative) little local difficulty of a colder climate? They will say – “Get used to it!” like other countries in the same latitude! If this is indeed what this is all about, then it truly is a lost cause. We in the UK really should be preparing for a cooling world, not a warmer world. Policy needs to be put into sharp reverse.

  41. Denis Cooper
    Posted March 25, 2013 at 12:45 pm | Permalink

    We have agreed to a novel system of internal government through external treaties, above all of course the EU treaties.

    Since December 1st 2009, when the amending Treaty of Lisbon came into force, under Article 191 TFEU all EU member states have been committed to “combating climate change”.

    It doesn’t matter a whit whether there is or there is not any climate change; under the EU treaties the UK government is legally required to play a full part in combating it, and to do otherwise would be a breach of EU law and therefore a breach of our national constitutional law as approved by Parliament.

    I’ve asked before what MPs would do if there was ever an EU Directive requiring each of them to stick his head in a bucket of water.

    In some cases it would be far better for all us if they did obey that Directive.

    • John Doran
      Posted March 26, 2013 at 11:15 am | Permalink

      Excellent. Laughed out loud. 🙂

  42. behindthefrogs
    Posted March 25, 2013 at 12:58 pm | Permalink

    The problem is that whether those denying climate change are correct or not, this country has a problem. The effects of flooding, strong winds, drought an heavy snow falls etc. are not being dealt with. We need our representatives in parliament to do something about the effects that these problems are having on our population and economy. The sooner our MPs stop arguing about whether climate change is the problem, the sooner we will get some action on dealing with the real problems.

  43. StateWeShouldbeIn
    Posted March 25, 2013 at 1:25 pm | Permalink

    Excellent article, John. It never ceases to amaze me, as a PhD scientist (in a proper subject, Chemistry, rather than some flaky climatology nonsense) that the Green lobby refuse to engage in debate with those who present evidence contrary to their view. I suppose, however, that that speaks volumes as to their scientific credentials….

    As others have pointed out here, man-made CO2 is a tiny fraction of the total (only the human contribution to sulphur oxides comes close to matching nature), but the other point lost on many is that that ability of CO2 to absorb in the infra red spectrum is remarkably small, far less than water. I suppose it will only be a matter of time before clouds are demonised.

    Climate science is probably the lowest quality major research discipline for two reasons- politicisation on all sides, and generous funding for those seeking to reinforce its dogma. Changing the former in a hurry could be difficult, but we could deal with the latter very easily….

    • uanime5
      Posted March 25, 2013 at 6:55 pm | Permalink

      It never ceases to amaze me, as a PhD scientist (in a proper subject, Chemistry, rather than some flaky climatology nonsense) that the Green lobby refuse to engage in debate with those who present evidence contrary to their view.

      If you were actually a scientist you’d realise that climatology was a respectable subject and that climatologists don’t debate with the deniers because the deniers don’t have any evidence to back up their claims.

      but the other point lost on many is that that ability of CO2 to absorb in the infra red spectrum is remarkably small, far less than water.

      You’ve ignored that humanity isn’t adding more and more water into the atmosphere every year, that areas of high water usage only effect the local area, and that water remains in the atmosphere for a much shorter time than CO2. For someone who’s meant to be a scientist you keep overlooking the obvious flaws in your reasoning for some reason.

      Climate science is probably the lowest quality major research discipline for two reasons- politicisation on all sides, and generous funding for those seeking to reinforce its dogma.

      Neither of which have any effect on the validity of the science. Yet again you’ve proven that you’re not a scientist and have no idea how to assess the validity of scientific research.

      • Denis Cooper
        Posted March 26, 2013 at 11:06 am | Permalink

        As somebody else with a Chemistry DPhil I can inform you that if you burn hydrocarbons then you do release water into the atmosphere.

      • Joe Public
        Posted March 26, 2013 at 10:30 pm | Permalink

        “You’ve ignored that humanity isn’t adding more and more water into the atmosphere every year, ……”

        1st year Biology lessons teach that humans exhale CO2 and water vapour.

        The population of this planet is increasing.

        Your statement is therefore wrong.

  44. Simon
    Posted March 25, 2013 at 1:29 pm | Permalink

    It beggars belief how the Greens can stand up and say “we want to vastly raise energy prices, which we know will seriously harm the economy and kill people, but we know best”!!

    It’s even more unbelievable that ConLibLab have followed this and Milliban’s introduction of the Climate Change Act so sheepishly, with only a handful of exceptions, . The only party that together stands against this extreme foolishness is UKIP. Nigel Farage has it right about this and the EU issue, that whilst David Cameron still leads the party, this will not change. Cameron HAS to go. Alternatively John, join UKIP.

    • uanime5
      Posted March 25, 2013 at 6:56 pm | Permalink

      The Greens never claimed that, you just made it up so he could criticise them.

  45. cosmic
    Posted March 25, 2013 at 1:29 pm | Permalink

    There’s more to this than the Green party. We’ve had a non-stop propaganda campaign from the BBC and the Met Office for years designed to scare us all to death.

    Even if you believe the CAGW line, and even if you accept the fossil fuels are limited, the energy policy we’ve chosen, being panicked into impossible emissions cuts and alternative energy generation which just doesn’t work, is complete madness. As for closing coal fired power stations with no sensible alternative, it’s ridiculous.

    I’m pleased that you are speaking out about this wrong turning we’ve taken.

    First step, repeal the Climate Change Act.

    • uanime5
      Posted March 25, 2013 at 6:58 pm | Permalink

      The emission cuts aren’t impossible as other EU countries have managed to comply with them.

      Also the coal power plants are being closed because of their Sulphur dioxide and Nitrogen oxide emissions; not their Carbon dioxide emissions. So even if the Climate Change Act was repealed they’d still have to be closed.

      • cosmic
        Posted March 26, 2013 at 12:49 pm | Permalink

        The LPCD was designed for the acid rain scare of the 70s, but it’s come in handy for the global warming scare. The tax loading makes it uneconomic to fit scrubbing for SO2.

        It’s disingenuous to pretend that this has nothing to do with the demonising of CO2.

        Other countries had the sense to overstate their emissions as for the base date. Our idiots, if anything, came up with an underestimate.

  46. Pleb
    Posted March 25, 2013 at 1:30 pm | Permalink

    If a small safe nuclear reactor can be fitted into a submarine, such that people can live next to it. Why can we not use these to drive small safe power stations?

  47. muddyman
    Posted March 25, 2013 at 1:47 pm | Permalink

    It seems that the GISS Temperature Anomalies record for Dec.Jan.Feb.2013 show a variation of 0.10 Deg C ,and that those for this period over the past 10 Years show a decline by 0.19 Deg C – so there’s a lot to worry any good Green there then!.
    (Data from notalotofpeopleknowthat) with thanks.

    • uanime5
      Posted March 25, 2013 at 7:02 pm | Permalink

      If you actually got your data from a reputable source you’d know that the average temperature has been rising, not falling, for 10 years.

      http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/graphs_v3/

      • Edward2
        Posted March 26, 2013 at 2:02 pm | Permalink

        Uni,
        Ive just looked at the graphs on the link you have given us and the first graph shows a reduction in global temperatures since 2000
        As do the graphs on the Hadley Centre site
        Both bodies are keen proponents of ACGW and publish well respected research.
        Odd that.

  48. forthurst
    Posted March 25, 2013 at 2:18 pm | Permalink

    Why is there a general correspondence between anthropogenically caused global warming (believers-ed) and ‘multi-culti makes us stronger’ (advocates ed)? The answer is that the (ideas behind them -ed) of both are the same. That is not to deny that there are many disciples of these beliefs who are ordinary people whose opinions are sincerely held, but then a high proportion of the population can be groomed to believe almost anything and certainly do. It is only when the weather fails to follow the direst predictions or they are personally confronted with the (word left out ed) effects on their neighbourhoods of third world immigration, that they start to question their own beliefs. This is why the liars responsible for these scams continually change the nomenclature of their global warming scam to more correspond with the weather patterns, and that the adverse effects of third world immigration (words left out ed) are downplayed.

    There is absolutely do logical reason why someone who believes in AGW should not wish to stop immigration to Western Europe dead in its tracks, because Western Europeans left to their own devices are on a downward population trend and therefore their demand for energy in all forms would diminish. However, those behind these aforementioned scams are not trying to help us, they are trying to (change or damage?ed) us economically and culturally and as a people.

  49. Alte Fritz
    Posted March 25, 2013 at 2:22 pm | Permalink

    It is probably a coincidence, but green issues as a matter of potential social and economic control seemed to come to the fore very quickly after the fall of the Iron Curtain. It was as if the collapse of one system of control inspired the birth of another. It is that question fo control which, to me, makes the whole package dubious. And by now, so many have a vested interest in green politics, policies and economics that one would have to be very naive to take in the lot.

    Schools push the green agenda thus giving Al Gore a second career. I find it all abit spooky. Also, given that we do have hard historical evidence of warm and cold period over the past thousand years, it was striking how seldom this evidence figured in the green debate.

  50. Lindsay McDougall
    Posted March 25, 2013 at 2:23 pm | Permalink

    I agree with all that you say but, as Sherlock Holmes said, the curious thing is the dog that didn’t bark. For 30 years, worldwide energy consumption per head has been broadly flat. You would have thought, therefore, that halting the world’s population growth would be a high priority in preventing global warming. Not a bit of it; poor countries have high birth rates and export much of their population surplus to Europe, with its higher energy consumption.

    To cure matters, we would have to end all immigration from countries with high birth rates. It would also be necessary to take on the world’s organised religions, (words left out ed), who would oppose the policy tooth and nail. This is one of the major challenges of the remainder of this century, to ensure that rational thought triumphs over backward thought. Atheism is the coming big idea and Western European males will be in its vanguard.

    • Denis Cooper
      Posted March 25, 2013 at 6:38 pm | Permalink

      I also submitted a comment about the problem of excessive population growth in poor countries, specifically in Dafur as that was mentioned in a comment further up the thread, but maybe JR needs to check that I am not misquoting from the UN document to which I provided a link.

    • Mark
      Posted March 25, 2013 at 10:10 pm | Permalink

      It might help were emigration to be limited to movements to countries with lower per capita energy consumption. Icelanders and Qataris could emigrate where they choose. Those who wish to emigrate from less sucessful countries would first ave to improve their home economies.

  51. GeoffM
    Posted March 25, 2013 at 2:42 pm | Permalink

    It must be time now to set up one of these petition thingies where 100k signatures is supposed to trigger a debate in the HoC.
    Then we can see who will defend the Climate Change Act.

    • matthu
      Posted March 25, 2013 at 3:36 pm | Permalink

      David Cameron would invoke a 3-line whip to prevent a meaningful debate – just as he did for the vote on whether to hold an EU referendum.

  52. Ken Adams
    Posted March 25, 2013 at 3:00 pm | Permalink

    Once more Mr Redwood you need to address your own party leadership, what was Vote Blue go Green all about!

    If you are not happy with the green agenda demand your party in government stop funding it or any organisation which supports it.

    • cosmic
      Posted March 26, 2013 at 12:51 pm | Permalink

      Vote Blue, go Green, go Green, go bust.

      Vote Blue, go blue (with cold).

      • Robert Taggart
        Posted March 27, 2013 at 11:08 am | Permalink

        Vote Red to put Blighty ‘in the red’ – again !

  53. Leslie Singleton
    Posted March 25, 2013 at 3:01 pm | Permalink

    Dear John, Yesterday I was pleased to see one of my comments stay visible while awaiting moderation (and why not?) and said so. Previously, and today I think (but hard to remember with nothing to see), that did not and has not happened, and at least one a few days ago I am almost certain disappeared and apparently never passed moderation–involving a (fruitless) search going back many days before I was sure of this. A guru neighbour could make no sense of advice on here to the effect that some at least of my problems (in particular spellchecking) are due, it was said, to the set up at my end not yours. Is this the fault of these here cookies one reads about? I know as much about them as I do about the workings under the bonnet of a modern-day car but if nothing else a bit of consistency would be good. Is it me or are you keeping your head below the parapet on this stuff or perhaps you are not even aware of what to some of us at least are problems from where you sit?

    • Leslie Singleton
      Posted March 25, 2013 at 8:45 pm | Permalink

      Dear John Again–Ever so puzzled why you keep schtum on this

  54. sm
    Posted March 25, 2013 at 3:01 pm | Permalink

    Why not tax CO2 embedded in imports of goods and outsourced service?

    If we are to have energychange why not plan it properly and keep existing capacity online until we have replacement capacity in place with new storage options and demand management.

    Why not leave the EU and unecumber ourselves before we damage our supply infrastructure and fully change to a tinpot country.

  55. Simon George
    Posted March 25, 2013 at 3:06 pm | Permalink

    Why do you oppose policies which make it expensive for people to drive to work or visit friends and oppose policies to improve conditions for cyclists? This is not just a green issue but a serious health issue in the UK.

  56. hipchickmck
    Posted March 25, 2013 at 3:52 pm | Permalink

    Wow. You looked out your window, and saw snow. From the, you assume that the planet it in a cooling cycle. The sheer level of scientific enquiry this represents is staggering. OR you could have used, say, some kind of scientific rebuttal to the vast overwhelming scientific community who support the general theory of a warming climate. Well done you. Not.

    • Edward2
      Posted March 25, 2013 at 7:24 pm | Permalink

      Have a look at temperature stats graphs on the Met Office and Hadley centre sites from 2000 and see just how much warming there is.
      Not
      And from 2000 it was predicted by all the warmists there would be runaway temperature rises.
      Not, again

  57. Derek W
    Posted March 25, 2013 at 4:17 pm | Permalink

    Britain is a small player in the world today.These Green Politicians seem to believe that the British Empire still exists with the ability to stop greenhouse gases to the extent that Global Warming/Cooling is under the control of the Raj.The same people tend to believe in small Britain . Many programmes on the T V show the real science of clamate change ove many millenium.A large number of these are generated by the BBC.The BBC has a political agenda at odds with its superb nature programmes.Different employees with different agendas I presume.C’mon Auntie get Your act together

  58. Derek W
    Posted March 25, 2013 at 4:27 pm | Permalink

    I had no wish to spell out more of my pragmatic views, but, the fact that payment is dependent upon politically acceptable reports, eg suborning accurate science, is quite disgusting.Let us get scientists paid a standard rate irrespective of outcome.It won’t happen because of the vested interest by ‘Left and ‘Right’, both derelict of good ideas based upon the people of these Islands.HELP

  59. Mark Piney
    Posted March 25, 2013 at 4:34 pm | Permalink

    I agree with your stance, and write to you about John Beddington, who’s been the UK Chief Scientist for the last five years. As such he’s supposed to have been ‘batting for Britain’. But in today’s Today programme Link
    he listed his three priority issues as; world population, the growth of cities and climate change.

    Within reason, why should the UK care about global population or the growth of cities apart from how these might affect UK supplies, markets, and business opportunities? We definitely haven’t been paying him to worry about the first two things on his list, but what about his ‘more climate extremes’ third priority?

    Well maybe it will get more extreme, but whether that’s due to human carbon dioxide emissions is a moot point. And he sort of admitted that whatever we do emissions wise the extremes will happen. So, surely the priority has got to be for UK society to become more resilient, and able to adapt and cope with whatever nature throws at us.

    But that’s not Beddington’s priority. His plan isn’t for us to become more resilient, it’s in effect, by us ‘renouncing’ the evil of fossil fuels, to become less resilient, with far more expensive power, far slower economic growth, and far less of everything in general.

    So, we’ve had a chief scientist for five years whose main focus appears to have been on things that don’t directly, and won’t directly, affect the UK. Whilst he’s evangelical, about us doing something that’s impossible, and that will do permanent damage to our economy.

    We’ve paid him for five years to be the UK’s chief scientist, not the World’s chief scientist. I hope that Sir Mark Wolpert (the next Chief Scientist) is far less evangelical and far more focussed on the practical needs of the UK, and not ‘the world’. Parochial, yes; and that’s what we pay him to be.

    • uanime5
      Posted March 25, 2013 at 7:13 pm | Permalink

      Within reason, why should the UK care about global population or the growth of cities apart from how these might affect UK supplies, markets, and business opportunities?

      All the things you listed are likely to affect the UK as long as it remains part of the global economy. It also may increase the number of people immigrating to the UK.

      So, surely the priority has got to be for UK society to become more resilient, and able to adapt and cope with whatever nature throws at us.

      That’s a bit like saying that the NHS shouldn’t give people medicines so they’ll become more resilient, and able to adapt and cope with whatever nature throws at them. It’s far better to try to fix problems than needlessly endure them.

      • Edward2
        Posted March 26, 2013 at 2:07 pm | Permalink

        Uni,
        Ive managed to adapt to the 0.75 of one degree rise in temperature in the 20th century without too much difficulty.
        In fact recently due to a holiday I had to cope with a change from 4 degrees to 24 degrees and I did that also without any difficulty
        We humans are a resiliant and inventive lot.

  60. Max Dunbar
    Posted March 25, 2013 at 4:50 pm | Permalink

    A genuine green movement would be appreciated, not the phoney advocates of green policies who use faux green issues as a cover for extremist politics.
    These people are granted an undeservedly sympathetic hearing by the media and hinder any real progress that could be made in preserving what is left of our wildlife and natural semi-wild habitats with silly distractions such as gay rights. Is population control in the UK ever mentioned now? Back in the 70s we were being exhorted to have smaller families and be responsible. I wonder why that subject is carefully avoided by the champions of the environment.

    If, as a conservative, you wish to conserve our countryside, coasts and seas then out-green the “Greens” at their own game.

  61. uanime5
    Posted March 25, 2013 at 5:23 pm | Permalink

    The Green party has been the most successful of all the single issue parties that have grown up.

    What about the SNP? They got a referendum on whether to leave the UK.

    In other countries the Green party has made it into Coalition governments

    They have an MP in the Commons, uniquely amongst such parties, which gives them more of a voice though only one vote on national matters.

    So some Green parties have formed coalitions in other countries but they’re unique in the UK because they have a one MP?

    Generally, they have succeeded in persuading many people that

    1. There is global warming,

    2 It is caused by too much human generated CO2,

    3. That global warming is far worse than global cooling,

    4. That we need to stop the extra CO2 so we can stop the warming

    5. That stopping the CO2 has mainly to be done by imposing very high tariffs and charges on people to cut the use of energy by all but the rich

    Firstly 1, 2, and 4 are supported by scientific evidence. Secondly points 3 and 5 are a strawman you created simply so you could badmouth the Greens because you lack a real argument against global warming. If you want know how the Green party are proposing to reduce CO2 levels why don’t you look on their website or ask their MP; rather than making things up.

    All of these propositions are challenged, but the general establishment view is that the “science is settled”. It is my view that the policy is far from settled.

    Despite claiming that these propositions are challenged you failed to provide any evidence to back up your claim. I suspect the reason is that you don’t have any scientific evidence to disprove global warming, but have decided that because you don’t like it that it must be wrong.

    Dear energy is one of the most unpopular policies being followed today, and needs to be radically changed.

    Unless your plan involves introducing more competition into the energy market, which is mainly run by foreign companies, nothing that you do will radically change this.

    I am pursuing my questions over how we could keep the coal power stations going for longer whilst we build some better new capacity

    Under the Large Combustion Plant Directive these power plants need to be modified so they produce less sulphur dioxide, nitrogen oxides, and dust particles. So if the Government is willing to pay to modernise these plants they won’t need to be closed down.

    an end to the EU’s closure programme whilst we sort ourselves out

    The UK has had 25 years to sort this out so I doubt the EU will give the UK an extension.

    Also since you wrote about how the Greens annoy many people I decided to provide some balance by writing about how the Conservatives annoy many people.

    Osborne’s total failure to manage the economy has resulted in a prolonged recession and increased unemployment.
    http://www.independent.co.uk/voices/comment/osborne-isnt-going-to-get-the-growth-he-needs-8546395.html

    The DWP is continuing to allow ATOS to classify people who are seriously disabled as “fit for work” in order to justify cutting their benefits.
    http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/braindamaged-amputee-fit-for-work-says-atos-8547539.html

    The DWP is trying to retroactively change the law regarding Workfare so they don’t have to compensate people who were illegally sanctioned.
    http://www.guardian.co.uk/society/2013/mar/15/dwp-law-change-jobseekers-poundland

    The DWP is spending £5 billion on forcing the unemployed to go on the Work Programme even though it has been shown to be completely useless.
    http://www.guardian.co.uk/society/2013/feb/22/mps-blast-work-programme

    Gove has overspent £1 billion on academies that no one wants to sent their children to and is shutting down popular schools to force pupils to go to these academies.
    http://www.nao.org.uk/report/managing-the-expansion-of-the-academies-programme/

    http://www.independent.co.uk/news/education/education-news/two-more-successful-state-schools-under-threat-of-closure-as-a-result-of-academy-expansion-plans-8316998.html

    A teachers’ union has passed a vote of no confidence in Gove because of his plans to ruin education. Several other unions have also been protesting against these plans.
    http://www.telegraph.co.uk/education/educationnews/9952410/Teachers-pass-vote-of-no-confidence-in-Michael-Gove.html

    Several nurses unions passed a vote of no confidence in Andrew Lansley because of his plans to ruin the NHS.
    http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/2012/jun/28/andrew-lansley-resign-doctors-conference

    So John feel free to blame other parties for things you don’t like but don’t be surprised if people point out everything your party us doing wrong. As the old saying goes “those in glass houses shouldn’t throw stones”.

    • Monty
      Posted March 25, 2013 at 11:41 pm | Permalink

      uanime5, by my count that was your tenth comment on this thread, and this is your first response, from me: You may as well clear off, because all the regular commentors on this site have got the measure of you, and your hysterical devotion to socialist statism.

      • Leslie Singleton
        Posted March 26, 2013 at 3:04 pm | Permalink

        Monty–How right you are–I confess a lot of the time I simply cannot be bothered with it.

    • Max Dunbar
      Posted March 26, 2013 at 12:22 am | Permalink

      You mention the SNP, another bunch of (people with dangerous views-ed), who were best mates with the Greens at the launch of their separation campaign last year. They seem to have fallen out very quickly with each other but whether it was to do with Gay Warming or anything else is anyone’s guess. Certainly, none of the SNP types are remotely interested in “green” issues.
      The vast majority of Scots are uninterested in ecology and have no respect for the countryside. Littering and fly-tipping is the main problem up here and hand-wringing about things that we have absolutely no control over is a waste of time and energy.

  62. Mark B
    Posted March 25, 2013 at 6:02 pm | Permalink

    Its nice to know that some MP’s are beginning to wake-up to the climate change scam. Just some points I would like to make:

    1. Fossil fuels are the the remanence of ‘carbon’ based life-forms that died millions of years ago.

    2. It is the Sun that controls our weather patterns.

    3. The Sun itself goes through periods of high and low intensity every seven years or so.

    4. The earths climate has never remained constant. Always moving between hot and cold, even before the dawn of mankind.

    5. The UK contributes only a fraction of all the CO2 produced. Even if we ‘de-carbonised’ completely it would not make the slightest bit of difference to current or projected CO2 levels.

    6. CO2 is a gas that is produced by all life-forms that breath oxygen and that same CO2 is used by plants in photosynthesis.

    7. The total amount of CO2 in the atmosphere is about 0.03% (see link below). How is it, that a gas that is barely above ‘trace’ levels and is important too so much like on this planet can be demonized to the extent that it make sane, ordinary people lose their minds ?

    I think we have been had for fools too long. It is time we either changed our energy policy, or our government.

    • uanime5
      Posted March 25, 2013 at 7:22 pm | Permalink

      2) How exactly does the sun control weather such as rain? Also how does the sun control the weather at night.

      3) Scientific evidence has show that these period of high and low intensity have negligible effect on the average global temperature.

      4) The earth’s average temperature have never risen so rapidly before. Also hot and cold aren’t climates.

      7) Your fallacy that “CO2 is only available in trace amounts, therefore can’t be influencing anything” isn’t fooling anyone. Just because something is only present in small amounts doesn’t mean it can’t have any effect. After all you only need a dose of 60 mg (0.06g) to kill someone.

      • Leslie Singleton
        Posted March 26, 2013 at 8:26 pm | Permalink

        unanime–A few off-the-cuff points, viz a) The sun controls the temperature which controls the humidity which controls the rain b) As per your usual response, what scientific evidence are you referring to “exactly”? c) How rapidly is close to irrelevant given that rise so small d) I don’t think there is much mileage in a semantic discussion on hot and cold versus climate–you and yours did the jump from global warming to climate change remember e) This “dose” of yours, is that a burst of pure CO2 (as from a gas cylinder) in which case you may even be right (evidence please for the 60 gm even on this basis) or an accumulation over time mixed in as with air as we breathe (if not why not?) in which case I reckon you are clearly wrong–in any event you need to specify. If CO2 is poisonous (as against straightforward denial of oxygen) then just about everything is. In haste–no longer any time for you.

      • Mark B
        Posted March 27, 2013 at 5:27 pm | Permalink

        @ uanime5

        Sorry to get back to you so late. This has been a very popular topic as one can see from all the posts.

        You have always struck me as a reasonably well educated individual but with unusual and forthright views. But as I am typing this after reading your reply to my missive, thank you by the way, I can only say that I am P***ing myself with laughter !

        Forgive me, I cannot reply to your points in any meaningful way, I will not do your points any justice as they clearly do not deserve them. I just think you have made yourself look extremely foolish to the entire world-wide-web.

        Congratulations.

  63. formula57
    Posted March 25, 2013 at 6:17 pm | Permalink

    A cheap energy policy is facilitating such recovery as there is in the US: we need the same for the present.

    Thereafter, in prosperous times, let us promote sustainable energy with all our might (for as your friend Michael Heseltine says, it is win-win whether there is man-made global warming or not).

  64. Jon
    Posted March 25, 2013 at 7:31 pm | Permalink

    The point that pricing us out of using as much energy moves it too countries where often they have no restrictions on pollution is a good one. It does not mean less pollution it means more in addition to higher deaths and lower unemployment and less money for social spending.

    I don’t know the science enough but I do understand the above. The UK and EU policy will just churn out more un controlled pollution elsewhere in the world and we will suffer fewer jobs and poorer living standards. The UK people repeatedly show themselves as generous contributors to charities and causes. This just reduces that capacity.

  65. alan wheatley
    Posted March 25, 2013 at 7:59 pm | Permalink

    Re your final paragraph, I wish more strength to your elbow.

    You might also like to ask ministers their assessment of the environmental impact of a rising population. Population growth warrants an environmental impact assessment. If humans are causing global warming, and the UK is committed to reduce CO2, then how much bigger a reduction is required per person simply to stand still?

  66. Bazman
    Posted March 25, 2013 at 8:27 pm | Permalink

    Where are all the fatalistic fantasists references to non existent global warming? Watts Up? Have to do better than that. The out going chief scientist Professor Sir John Beddington said the effects of climate change on the weather were already being felt in the UK. Hardly a green wish washy liberal and this line of argument is for those running out of sensible things to say. The global warming whether it be true or not is not the point on this site. The point is that many of the posters have a fatalistic religious belief in the future. The future is preordained and cannot be changed. The very fact I am typing this is already wrote. If you believe this you need to see a doctor. It’s similar to the free market will solve everything approach believing that if left to it’s own devices an equilibrium will be obtained. Despite much real and provable evidence to say different. Lifelogic with his easy hire and fire rhetoric, but when asked about specifics is unable to reply. It is his religious belief and like many fantasists when points are put forward in a scientific way such as. How is this possible? Cannot answer and relies on quack sources such as dubious sites and journalist with no scientific qualification such as Dingbat whilst insisting on real scientific evidence which when provided is ignored. Other posters believe that many on benefits do not work. Almost all do. This is not believed as it is inconvenient to their bigotry. Another is that desperation creates work. How? The list goes on. How any of these people can be persuaded that unlimited amounts of CO2 put there by man will have no effect on the climate is not worth the argument. They do not know why it will have no effect but just believe it will not. To complicated to predict means that their prediction is right without any evidence. If we returned to the days of when viruses and Bactria where being discovered they would laugh at the idea of such tiny animals. Green renewable energy does not work and is not green. Do you think that most intelligent people do not know this? This is the crux of the problem and not pursuing it because of this is short term thinking and yet more blind belief in the free market to provide a solution. It will do no such thing like banking did not. You think letting energy companies do what they want will not produce the same? Ram it.

    • Edward2
      Posted March 26, 2013 at 7:54 pm | Permalink

      Wow, what a breathless rant that was Baz.
      Well I didnt get the same feeling from reading all the various posts on this topic at all.
      What I got was that if you look back at the original IPCC report and the Al Gore film of just a few decades ago the predictions made then, have simply not come true.
      No runaway warming since 2000 as predicted and islands said to be underwater by now are stil l I’m glad to say, visible.
      The Hadley Centre, a respected research body affiliated to the Met Office has graphs on its site showing no rises since 2000.
      Why is that?
      I’m an engineer by training so I like facts and figures and the recent facts and figures show a trend that is at odds with the many dire predictions made years ago.
      And no one on the “warmist” side seems willing to even accept this is happening.
      But time will tell.

  67. 0ldtimer
    Posted March 25, 2013 at 10:25 pm | Permalink

    There has been an interesting exchange of correspondence between Sir Paul Nurse, President of the Royal Society, and Lord Lawson, in his role as Chair of the Global Warming policy Foundation. I found them via links provided on the Bishop Hill blog. Bishop Hill is the blogging name of A W Montford who has written on some of the best accounts of the history of the global warming saga, notably The Hockey Stick Illusion: Climategate and the Corruption of Science.

    I note that Sir Paul is careful to refer to the “possibility” of global warming this century not, note, the certainty; he also disassociates himself from the “catastrophists”. Quite what his motivation is remains open to question. It is possible he wants an accommodation with Lord Lawson: some think he is trying to trap him. Whatever it is, it does not suggest he thinks that “the science is settled” as some proclaim. Instead it appears he holds to the precautionary principle – which conveniently offers him, and the RS, a get out clause if the man-mad global warming hypothesis turns out to be a load of cobblers.

  68. stred
    Posted March 25, 2013 at 10:32 pm | Permalink

    Mark Wolpert. Another medical biologist. Just the sort of qualification needed for the physics ofthe economy. The civil service is clueless.

  69. Pleb
    Posted March 25, 2013 at 11:45 pm | Permalink

    I know this is a bit late but.. Has the EU just commited suicide? They just said that the Cyprus invester haircut is a likely way of dealing with other bailouts.
    Watch the money depart from the EU banks.

  70. Pleb
    Posted March 26, 2013 at 1:28 am | Permalink

    Disapearing comment test

  71. Pleb
    Posted March 26, 2013 at 1:28 am | Permalink

    It works, if your comment vanishes, post anything and it will reapear.

  72. Martin
    Posted March 26, 2013 at 10:02 am | Permalink

    Excellent blog by John R.
    One point that is rarely mentioned is that CO2 solubility in water declines as temperature rises. Most of the worlds CO2 is dissolved in the oceans. If the worlds temperature rises due to, say solar activity, then CO2 levels will rise whatever we do in terms of closing down coal power stations etc.

    • Monty
      Posted March 26, 2013 at 7:45 pm | Permalink

      Martin, is that one of the mechanisms which causes CO2 concentration to actually follow warming (as opposed to preceeding and causing warming)?
      I am no Chemist, my experience is in Physics and Engineering, with a good smattering of computer modelling. I have a fair understanding of the limitations of computer models, particular where the natural world is involved and our basic understanding of the combined affects of multiple variables is far from comprehensive or perfect. The science has never been sound enough to base policy on it. But the political champions of CAGW were always content to write their executive summaries, and make sure the scientific research and reports got dragged along behind them. Policy based evidence.

  73. John Doran
    Posted March 26, 2013 at 12:06 pm | Permalink

    Excellent work John Redwood, thank you.

    Thanks also for your guidance in my comments, I am not always diplomatic. 🙂

    Good luck in the long hard row you have set yourself to hoe.

    Regards,

    JD.

  74. james cooper
    Posted March 28, 2013 at 9:49 pm | Permalink

    just one question . if there are green taxes in my energy bill why are they not shown, so I can see what I am paying for all those ghastly windmill that are blighting this once green and pleasant land. vat is shown?

  • 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