Waning interest in global warming by world leaders

The UN’s summit on global warming, where they hoped to sign world leaders up to more green measures to combat carbon dioxide, is not proving to be a popular affair. The USA, China,  Canada, Australia, Japan and Russia want no part in more targets to cut carbon dioxide. China’s President, Xi Jinping has more pressing matters to attend to, as does Mr Modi of India. More surprisingly, Angela Merkel the German Chancellor and leading representative of the world’s last bastion of anti carbon dioxide enthusiasm, the EU,  is also unavailable to come.

Mrs Merkel would be well advised to stay at home and with her energy advisers to try and work out how to keep the German lights on and the factory wheels turning at acceptable cost. Germany is very dependent on unreliable renewables, and also on Russian gas. As a result, ironically, Germany is turning more and more to depend on coal, one of the worst fuels if cutting carbon dioxide is your main aim. Germany’s anti carbon dioxide policy turns out to be both dearer and less successful than America’s. By going for self sufficiency in oil and gas, and relying more on domestic gas for energy production, the USA has done a better job in curbing carbon dioxide than Germany. The USA refused to join in global target driven approaches. The EU did join in but simply failed to hit the more exacting targets.

The Kyoto agreement ran out in 2012. The planned extension to 2020 agreed at Doha has so far only been ratified by 11 out of the 144 countries involved. It looks as if green is the last decade’s colour when it comes to the main countries of the world. It would be a good time to have an audit of what has worked and what has not when it comes to keeping the lights on, keeping the bills down and producing power that does least environmental damage. We might find that conventional wisdom about who has got it right and wrong is not correct.


  1. Lifelogic
    September 23, 2014

    Engineers/proper scientist have always know what works, but the fashionable green religion has taken over especially the state sector, duff charities, the BBC and politicians. In order to get planning for building now you need some silly green roof or toy windmill on your proposed business park or factory.

    We have the most absurd incompetent rubbish collection services with people driving a few bottles and newspapers to the recycling centre in their fuel devouring 4X4s while thinking they are saving the word. We encourage people to buy new cars with grants when keeping their old ones would be more green.

    Gas, Nuclear, Coal, hydro (but most good sites are already taken), insulation, heat pumps for some applications can make sense. Above all get rid of all the silly grants for wind, PV, electric cars etc. that make people do stupid things just for the grants. Wearing a thicker jumper, not heating all the house, sleeping with someone and hot water bottles are quite good way to save energy too.

    Why do they encourage cycling when it is dangerous and all things considered it is less green that full cars. The O.T.T. building regs are a complete nonsense too.

    As usual the problem is mainly the government, that and irrational religions like the renewable/sustainable one. People who like to belief they are saving the world when they are doing nothing of the sort.

    Off topic is Cameron going to keep to the Scottish Vow, without getting anything at all fair for the English/Welsh/N Irish? Has he really thrown in the towel already on the election?

    Miliband is still doing his best for the Tories it seems. Almost as unpopular as Michael Foot and far worse than the dreadful Blair, Brown, Kinnock even Major. I rather liked Michael Foot though, even if his policies were nearly all bonkers at least he was honest.

    1. Lifelogic
      September 23, 2014

      Some decent roads to reduce congestion would help fuel efficiency too. The South East is hugely under provided with decent road space.

      1. Hysteria
        September 23, 2014

        Two sides to that formula – improved mass transit, for example.

        Evidence is that building more roads simply attracts more traffic.

  2. matthu
    September 23, 2014

    Meanwhile a FOI request has uncovered that the government is quietly shelving its commitment to publishing the annual number of green jobs and presumably it will no longer be possible even to find out what being the proud incumbent of a green job actually entails.

    Or perhaps the government will decide that ALL of our jobs can now be classified as being green. By now they certainly all capture a share of the annually increasing cost of energy and regulation being forced on us.

    But to cease from publishing one of the only datasets that regularly allow green zealots to be held to account is true to form for our government. After all, they also forbade energy companies from providing a breakdown of the rising cost of your energy on your bills.

    Now not only do we not know how much this green crap is costing us, we don’t know how much it is benefittting us either.

    It certainly isn’t affecting the climate.

    Thanks David Cameron / Greg Barker / Ed Davey / Chris Huhne / Nick Clegg / Ed Miliband. The only green jobs you are counting are your own.

    1. Lifelogic
      September 23, 2014

      Indeed take the money off the real & profitable businesses then use the money subsidise green crap & expensive energy. Then watch as all the real job go to where there is cheap energy, sensible government, less green religion, fewer daft regulations a smaller more efficient state sector and far lower taxes.

      It is job destroying nonsense.

  3. Richard1
    September 23, 2014

    Certainly it is time for a rigorous look at this issue without predetermined conclusions. At the same time such a review should look dispassionately at the success of the c!image models upon which the great global warming scare has been based to forecast the climate correctly. If it turns out they haven’t been accurate or even close to it, then the underlying assumptions and the policies based on them need to be questioned. At the moment what happens is the IPCC and other bodies scour the world looking for evidence of ‘climate change’, deeming any unusual developments to be evidence for it and ignoring evidence against – such as the 18 year pause in global warming. Time for rationality.

    1. outsider
      September 23, 2014

      “Time for rationality”. Dead right Richard. If the projections of climate scientists are correct, then global warming is already inevitable and if the research flagged by Mark (below) is anywhere near the mark, there is nothing the EU, let alone the UK, can do to stop it. The rational approach for the UK is therefore:
      1) Prepare and implement a strategic to cope with climate change that may, at the present state of knowledge, cause warming, cooling or just more extreme weather in the UK. The Dutch can teach us a lot here. Zero tolerance of coastal erosion would be a good start.
      2) Have an energy policy that tries to reduce Co2 emissions in ways that make economic sense whether or not most climate scientists are correct. That is likely to be mostly through increased energy efficiency. It is irrational to impose a self-destructive hair shirt policy on ourselves when natural gas is still being flared in enormous quantities at oilfields all round the world.

    2. Lifelogic
      September 23, 2014

      The temperature has not risen for circa 16 years despite the higher co2 concentrations. How many more years of no rise do they need before we at least pause this co2 devil gas religion?

      Predicting the future climate for year 100 years ahead without even all the inputs is clearly a mugs game. Anyway slightly hotter is actually better than slightly colder as that and higher co2 produce more crops, fewer winter deaths and more precipitation in general. They cannot even do it for a week on Friday and what happens on Friday affect the Saturday and so on?

      Spending the money now, on things we know work and work quickly, as the Bill Gates foundation does (such as Malaria, Clean water and basic medical care) is clearly a far better way the spend the money.

      Windturbines in non windy Notting Hill are just bonkers. Other than as a way of advertising that one is a right, unscientific, innumerate, modernising dope.

      They use more CO2 than they can ever save and are economic insanity. Bikes and usually empty busses often make little sense for co2 reductions either.

  4. Old Albion
    September 23, 2014

    I’m definitely in the climate skeptic camp. But i expect ‘lifelogic’ will have more to say on this.
    What i want to know is, how did it go at Chequers yesterday?

  5. Lifelogic
    September 23, 2014

    The problems for the politicians is having sold us the Carbon dioxide catastrophic warming exaggeration religion for so long (through government international organisations, charities, the BBC, the education syllabus, universities and most of the state sector) for so long many now believe all the exaggerations. So backing down is rather difficult for them as they will just look very stupid. As will all the dim art graduates, guardian readers, BBC thinkers, actors and actresses taken in by it all.

    1. Anonymous
      September 23, 2014

      I hope you are not including our own Emma Thompson in that list.

      She is highly intelligent and one of our finest actress.

      She plays Emma Thompson extremely well, at all times.

      1. Lifelogic
        September 23, 2014

        She seemed very good at reading vacuous Greenpeace/BBC think statement.

        I rather doubt that she has a clue about the science and engineering of electricity generation, energy production, entropy, the world weather systems and the likes. But she did have a nice trip to see a glacier I understand. Power on recycled rabbit dropping or something one assumes rather like Charles’s Aston Martin?

    2. Leslie Singleton
      September 23, 2014

      Definitely essential that we pay attention to what actors and actresses (do the latter still exist any more under identity?) have to say–and, per the Sun the other day, 5% of the population think that chicken is a vegetable (no kid for those who didn’t get to see this).

    3. Lifelogic
      September 23, 2014

      Now Miliband jumps on Cameron’s votes for 16 year old’s in Scotland for the UK. What a foolish decision of Cameron’s that was. Had he not conceded that in Scotland he would not have had to run around with his panic vow.

      The price of Cameron’s electoral failure will be high – a rent act, votes for generally lefty non tax paying 16 year olds, a stitched up electoral system for England, price controls on energy, submission to the EU, higher taxes, more employment laws, more government, more mad regulations …….

      1. Lifelogic
        September 23, 2014

        Equal right for the self employed too what on earth is Miliband on about?

        1. Ted Monbiot
          September 24, 2014

          Well they were almost a persecuted minority group under Labours last “reign of terror” so its a change of heart I suppose.

      2. Lifelogic
        September 23, 2014

        Perhaps Miliband’s dad did not hate Britain (he was perhaps was just very misguided) but his son certainly seems set to destroy what is left of its economy?

      3. Lifelogic
        September 23, 2014

        Miliband is certainly helping the Tories as much as he can.

  6. Christine Constable
    September 23, 2014

    John, I thought you would have mentioned something about yesterday? We get the feeling you were “hand bagged” on your English Parliament today’s subject suggests the England issue is already being kicked into the long grass ….

    Reply I was not handbagged. I have stuck to my view, and set it out again today on BBC tv and last night on BBc Radio Tonight programme, and in an article in today’s Daily Telegraph. I am not a one topic politician, and will return to English votes here again ere long.

    1. Kenneth
      September 23, 2014

      Yes but you were ambushed by the BBC last night who followed your short interview with a much longer vox-pop piece from a soup kitchen in Manchester where a manager there stated that “Englishness versus Britishness isn’t really important in our work”.

      Of course a manager in a soup kitchen would say that and I wouldn’t blame them.

      Last night’s BBC propaganda was so clumsily obvious; in fact it was so Pravda-like, as to be almost comical. However, over the coming months BBC propaganda over the issue of English representation is bound be more subtle and harder to counter.

    2. Hefner
      September 23, 2014

      It is true that LifeLogic repeats himself quite a bit. I would think he should be allowed one post per month. This should be enough for him, as it is always the same dribble. Over and over again.

      1. philip haynes
        September 24, 2014

        Perhaps the same “dribble” as you put it – but it is demonstrably true – so why do so many in government, the state sector and the BBC/Guardian thinkers not wake up to reality.

  7. JoeSoap
    September 23, 2014

    So what of the Chequers summit?

  8. The PrangWizard
    September 23, 2014

    It struck me the other day when we heard briefly about the ‘world-wide’ demonstrations demanding more action on climate change/global warming, that their argument might have been lost.

    What is your government’s policy – carry on regardless and pray for a mild winter?

  9. Javelin
    September 23, 2014

    The latest explanation for the drop in global temperatures is that is part of a 11’year cycle. However as temperatures have been falling for 10 years it means that explanation is not valid as you would have expected temperature to start rising.

    What is pleasing is that the online public were calling the environmentalist out on this right from the start. They have been proven right. They will also be proven right on immigration and English votes.

    1. Mondeo Man
      September 23, 2014

      Javelin – It doesn’t matter that we were right.

      We’ve lost the ‘war’.

  10. Bill
    September 23, 2014

    I note that TV news organisations still give publicity to climate change marchers and voice to their activists. This seems to be connected with anti-capitalism and alternative lifestyles.

    1. lojolondon
      September 23, 2014

      Absolutely – there is a TV on the wall in our office, and yesterday on BBC News 24 they replayed Emma Thompson and the march endlessly, all day long, also in the news at 10 last night. Makes you wonder if there really was so little proper news available for broadcast yesterday….

    2. Kenneth
      September 23, 2014

      My feelings as well. It seems like a Trojan horse for Socialism/Communism.

      That might explain why it is a BBC favourite.

  11. Amanda
    September 23, 2014

    I also see that there has been yet more daming evidence coming from Mexico on the environmental and human psychological harm done by wind farms. The farms have been destroying micro-habitats; whilst the low level noise of the ‘machines’ is proving time and time again to cause anxiety in depression. In the US wind farms are now linked with higher suicide rates. A warning to Scotland.

    Further, another report on Danish offshore farms has shown that they have to be renewed more frequently than was origianlly thought, and that they soon loose their ability to run at full capacity (even if the wind is blowing). Whilst, power stations must also cause some damage, it is know by farmers that the emissions help in the fertility of the soil, and they most certainly have a longer shelf life. It really is time this complete scam was shown up for what it is.

    The destruction of Didcot and the removal of the ‘core’ to Germany was vandalism of the highest degree.

  12. anon1
    September 23, 2014

    Green is greed. It is the transfer of wealth from poor people to rich via the use of the statutory instruments that make up the ROC mechanism. Any politician who sought to protect the poor in this country should oppose this system.

  13. Ex-expat Colin
    September 23, 2014

    An audit…thats a good one? Seemingly we all have to be audited periodically with results published and actions identified/taken. A quality thing if nothing else.

    The business of climate change, and it is indeed a business consuming vast amounts of public money often appears to be different. Since it is public money then its processes, people and products should be accountable to the public and often isn’t. A reminder is here and about green jobs:

    Low Carbon Environmental Goods and Services (LCEGS) sector for 2011/12


    To attempt to check the findings therein requires access to the data gathered and used. It required an FOI to discover that Mr Cables BIS dept was reluctant to assist and refused data release due to IPR conditions. BIS = real awkward. No need to say really that Gov spouts a lot about the wonders of green jobs. Trouble is like, Windmills we cannot get to the detail…..the evidence. The FOI was driven by Roger Helmer (UKIP) requiring a report on the LCEGS status.

    This subject rather like Scotlands referendum (Yes) campaign lacks freely available detail and as such one could not sensibly feel confident in making decisions about it except – No Thanks or I don’t believe it!!

    I do not understand why a contract is let to gather jobs data for Gov using taxpayers money and the foundation data is IPR….jobs and IPR ?

    All the time that this kind of nonsense continues and the planet climate don’t change out of known bounds I’ll stay with Christopher Moncktons stories. The real worrying bound is the too cold one!

  14. Lifelogic
    September 23, 2014

    Excellent performance on BBC 1 just now JR, but where are Cameron and the rest of the party leadership to be seen, are you the only Tory who actually wants to win a majority in 2015?

    1. Mondeo Man
      September 23, 2014

      Agreed, Lifelogic.

  15. Sandra Cox
    September 23, 2014

    On the subject of global warming – EU targets and subsequent closure of our power stations – I was interested in a comment on yesterday’s diary on Scotland and the Barnett formula:

    “We should also be spared having to buy wind generation at £150 a megawatt and selling them base load at £45 when the wind doesn’t blow. Conventional power should be sold to Scotland at a premium”

    John, in view of Cameron’s anxiety to bend over backwards to sweeten up the Scots prior to the referendum (eg, protecting shipbuilding jobs in Glasgow while scrapping them in Portsmouth) and the various last-minute bribes, may I have your view on what looks like yet another sweetener, otherwise known as a tax on the rest of us – the purchase of Scotland’s renewable energy? Thank you.

    1. Mark
      September 23, 2014

      It’s also funding all the investment in the grid capacity to connect it, worth many billions on its own.

    2. matthu
      September 23, 2014

      There is no doubt the government would argue that transferring conventional power to Scotland at a discount and importing green power at an obscene premium is necessary “in order to meet our international obligations”.

      Obligations that we make to the EU. That were never properly scrutinised. Or explained to the electorate.

      1. Lifelogic
        September 23, 2014

        Indeed more bonkers energy policy from the coalition.

      2. Sandra Cox
        September 23, 2014

        Thank you to you and Mark for your comments. As a newcomer to John’s Diary, I’m not au fait with all that has gone before, and I do get the impression that the subject of the government’s contract for Scottish renewables has already been discussed in detail.

        However, what strikes me is how often we have to resign ourselves to the fact we seem to be powerless (no pun intended) to do anything about it, but let’s hope recent events have highlighted the democratic deficit in our political process, and encouraged more people to get involved.

    3. ian wragg
      September 23, 2014

      Sandra, that was my comment and I work in the renewable sector. The massive profits are made by my (French) company because we get about £110 per megawatt. This is not intermittent energy but a steady 6 megawatt for 8000 hours per year.
      About half is profit and it creates about 4 jobs. There is absolutely no need to pay these high prices because if there is a profit then someone will provide the equipment anyway.
      The Scottish wind energy is very interesting because Salmond predicted that he could sell 90% of wind output at an average of about £125 per megawatt to the grid down in England but when the wind drops, Scotland will be powered by base load at the pool price of around £45 per megawatt which incidently will contribute to blackouts in England and the use of STOR generation which is expensive, dirty and inefficient.
      We are ruled by idiots and the man in charge of energy policy is a fiscal pygmy but as Ll suggests the idiots are so wrong they would look too stupid if they changed tack.

  16. Shieldsman
    September 23, 2014

    You have joined Peter Lilley in expressing some common sense on the question of global warming.
    Leaving aside the disputed argument that man made carbon dioxide is climate changing by raising surface atmospheric temperatures. There has been no further rise in the last 17 or so years, which proves there is a natural variability in atmospheric temperature and consequent seasonal climate.
    You have pointed out that the USA, China, Canada, Australia, Japan and Russia want no part in more targets to cut carbon dioxide.
    The reason is quite simple, they are not prepared to destroy their economies and reduce their citizens standard of living.
    Some renewables are both expensive and impractical.
    Milibands promise to freeze energy prices and decarbonise the electricity industry by 2030 is pie in the sky. Wind, solar and nuclear have to be subsidised which automatically pushes up the price to the consumer. Wind and solar have an energy density problem, plus offshore wind has transmission problems.
    I am a UKIP supporter for the very good reason that Roger Helmer is very clued up and has designed a sensible energy policy which requires the repeal of the Climate Change Act amongst othe things.

    1. A different Simon
      September 23, 2014

      The threats from NuLabour of price freezes has already increased the politicial risk attached to doing business in the UK .

      The ratings agencies have told the big 6 (which were created by Labours utilities bill) they will have to carry more cash in order to retain their credit ratings .

      Thus they are being forced to sell assets and being prevented from reinvesting the proceeds .

      The politicial risk for energy companies considering doing business in the UK is considered to be extremely high (much higher than more mature countries like Libya which leave energy companies to get on with their business) .

      The Govt proceeded with the many year delayed 14th onshore oil and gas licensing round but doubts over the authenticity of political will put American big-shale companies off .

    2. lojolondon
      September 23, 2014

      Any common sense (Conservative) government would want to repeal most Labour legislation, starting with the Climate Change Act. The single most important oversight of the current government is the ongoing pandering to the Biased BBC, which drives the lemmings of the MSM and thereby public opinion, ever towards the cliff.

  17. Alan Wheatley
    September 23, 2014

    You do not have to decide on whether or not you believe in anthropomorphic global warning to decide on whether or not to join the hair shirt brigade. All you have to do is recognise that if we are in an anthropomorphic hole then the first thing to do is to stop digging. Not until the World addresses the runaway growth in the human population should we do more than take a sensible, economic approach to the use of energy.

  18. David Murfin
    September 23, 2014

    It is a pity that “conventional wisdom” does not seem to mean the laws of physics and basic engineering costings.

    1. oldtimer
      September 23, 2014

      Professor Kelly, a Cambridge Professor of Engineering, has pointed out that there are no demonstrable engineering solutions to achieve carbon capture. That is likely to be so for decades to come.

      It is also obvious that the renewable energy schemes implemented in the UK are grossly ineffective, for reasons of inherent inefficiency and the need for 100% standby fossil-fuelled back up. They do not and cannot achieve the aims for which we were and are told they were and are implemented at obscene cost.

      Quite what Mr Davey and DECC think they will achieve through their mad policies, apart from the impoverishment of the nation, is a mystery to me.

      1. Lifelogic
        September 23, 2014

        If you capture the carbon you waste nearly half of the energy doing so. Thus it end up more than doubling the costs.

        1. cosmic
          September 24, 2014

          And using about double the amount of fossil fuels doing it.

          Aren’t environmentalists supposed to be worried about depleting the earth’s finite natural resources?

          1. philip haynes
            September 24, 2014

            Not if they are going to inspect glaciers, going to save the world conferences in pleasant exotic locations or driving their Aston Martins and Helicopters about.

            Do as I say not as I do it their motto.

    2. Lifelogic
      September 23, 2014

      Indeed the idea that co2 concentrations alone are some king of World thermostat that we can use alone to control the climate in 100 years is scientific drivel of the first order. They cannot even tell us the climate for next month. Thousand/Millions of things affect the Earth’s climate and many are not even knowable.

  19. Chris S
    September 23, 2014

    Can we please have an update on the English Votes issue following your visit to Chequers yesterday ?

    This is the most interesting development at the moment and one where the Conservative party can really back Labour into a corner : especially as they appear deeply divided on the issue.

    It’s interesting that some of the most honest Labour MPs who are respected by supporters of other parties such as Frank Field and Kate Hoey have come out strongly in favour of English-only votes.

    The subject needs to be pressed home at every opportunity.

    Reply I told you all in advance what I believe, and repeated that at the meeting. I have written in today’s Telegraph restating the case.

    1. Denis Cooper
      September 23, 2014

      I can’t find your article on the Telegraph website, JR, do you have a link?

      It’s just inside the main paper

    2. Lifelogic
      September 23, 2014

      Is Cameron not listening to sense as usual. Had he listened to you JR on Cast Iron and Clegg on TV he would surely have had a majority. Instead of being in the complete mess he is in now. Why will he not listen now?

    3. Leslie Singleton
      September 23, 2014

      Dear John–For some strange reason you seem to be getting grief on Chequers so I thought I’d just say that I read your article in the Torygraph today and agreed with every word–Difficult to see how anyone could not.

      Reply Thanks. I thought the article would be enough and I can’t simply run the same thing today as I wrote for them!

    4. Chris S
      September 23, 2014

      Reply to the reply.

      What I am most interested in is the attitude of DC and WH and your view as to how strongly they are going to press the issue.

      Is there sufficient common ground with the LibDems to get the issue through parliament ? They are keen on devolving some powers to the cities or regions. Can their requirements be accommodated without damaging the integrity of England ?

      As so often, those deeply interested in politics have no idea of what is really going on. Your diary goes some way to redressing this but not yet on this important subject.

      I am in France at the moment and for some reason I can’t find your Telegraph piece on their website.

      reply I will write about that when I have a bit more time to set it out. The top line is Mr Cameron reaffirms all he promised in the Downing St declaration and is now looking at various suggestions on how to press it. They now need to sound out the other parties in this Parliament.

      1. JoeSoap
        September 23, 2014

        ” and is now looking at various suggestions on how to press it.”

        Crucial stuff at this juncture.

        It sounds as though Cameron sees this as just another idea to be tried then half-discarded, like hugging huskies or whatever.
        This is actually an election winner for you guys. You should be pressing here there and everywhere. It is probably the one issue in circulation that might tempt UKIP folk back, and save the Country. So he is looking for suggestions on how to press it…. I think we do after all need a leader with passion….

      2. Chris S
        September 23, 2014

        Thank you, John.

        That’s very good news indeed.

        The aim has got to be to get the LibDems on board so that they will vote for the necessary changes to Commons procedures to exclude Scottish MPs.

        I am sure that Conservative strategists can come up with plans for additional powers and/or direct consultations with Regional Councils to satisfy the necessity for more involvement and representation. This should lead to better growth in areas such as the North East.

        1. Denis Cooper
          September 24, 2014

          Back to trying to break up England into EU Regions.

          That is the most crucial reason why we must have an entrenched, separately elected, devolved Parliament and government for the whole of England in a federal UK with four components.

  20. Tad Davison
    September 23, 2014

    It bothers me that there are so many vested interests, and that arguments are so construed to deliberately cancel out an alternative view. I always like an open debate where the facts are laid out in an even-handed way so that people can make up their own minds, not as the BBC is famous for doing, and only broadcasting the side they wish to promote for the most spurious and lop-sided of reasons. That’s why I regularly turn to other media outlets these days to get a balanced picture, and I continually urge others to cast their own nets more widely for that reason.

    I have to confess though, it wouldn’t bother me too much if Germany’s own green agenda saw them diminished as the European Union’s economic lynchpin. It seems they are just about the only ones who have benefitted from the mess that is the EU, and their loss could and should be our gain. Maybe they’ll think twice next time before taking part in the wholesale stoking-up of unnecessary tensions between the west and Russia.

    Tad Davison


  21. Mark
    September 23, 2014

    It’s a seminal moment: China’s emissions now exceed the EU’s on a per capita basis, as reported here.

    Each person in China produced 7.2 tons of carbon dioxide on average compared with 6.8 tons in Europe, 16.4 tons in the U.S. and 1.9 tons in India in 2013, according to the study by the Tyndall Center and the University of Exeter’s College of Mathematics and Physical Sciences.


    China isn’t attending the shenanigans in New York. Meanwhile the idea that setting an example would work to encourage China to limit its emissions can be seen as hogwash. If the Greens are serious they should go to Beijing.

  22. agricola
    September 23, 2014

    The premiss on which climate change is apportioned between the Sun and Man is not credible. As I have said elsewhere, these changes, geographical, geological and meteorological have been in process for millions of years, way before man was ever on the planet. One big volcanic eruption or an asteroid strike would dwarf mans contribution.

    At worst, in the case of the UK it has been used to increase tax on the end user to pay for ineffective alternatives to fossil fuels. At the same time updating atomic power has been kicked into the grass for so long that the technology is no longer in our hands. Taxing is easy, but making sensible long term decisions seems beyond our political class. Possibly because many come with little experience of anything in the real world. You only have to listen to the speeches at Labour’s conference to realise this. Some were absolutely Luddite.

    Technology will reduce and in the end eliminate our need for fossil fuels. Technology has already made it possible to use them more economically and with less environmental impact. The car I bought in June travels about three times as far on a litre of fuel as the one I bought eleven years ago. It also dispenses less pollution. Industry with the aid of filtration has cleaned up it’s act beyond measure. Those who remember the Smog of the 50s and visit a modern car plant will appreciate the change.

    I accept climate change as a reality, but I say learn to live with it, and stop trying to blame it on man for fiscal benefit. Realise that the Sun is the big player in the game, alongside which man’s efforts are insignificant.

    Put your money behind the development of fusion energy, but when it works prepare for even further upset in the Middle East because they will have lost their leverage. On the other hand when you see how our economy is run on borrowed money they could well end up owning the technology anyway.

    1. A different Simon
      September 23, 2014

      At least the Arab countries had the good sense to establish sovereign wealth funds .

      They own so many diverse assets around the World that they will be fine .

      Britain on the other hand just spent the North Sea windfall on the current account .

      Put a bit more money in voters pockets so they could destroy the UK’s balance of payments by buying mainly tat from overseas .

    2. forthurst
      September 23, 2014

      “Put your money behind the development of fusion energy”

      We used to be in the vanguard in the peaceful uses of nuclear energy, which of course does not include blowing up buildings and pretending they were demolished by ‘fires’.

      Nuclear power has had mixed success because of safety failures, of which Fukushima is by far the most notorious and threatening to the environment, the problems of disposal of nuclear waste and the diminishing supplies of Uranium-235. As with all technologies, the optimal solution is rarely achieved at first attempt, and may in fact take many decades of developments and setbacks.

      Fast neutron fission reactors have had setbacks and have been abandoned in many countries including the UK; however, Russia is pressing on with the technology and its latest BN-800 reactor is planned to start production of 880 MW of electricity next month; this plant will use mixed oxides of uranium and plutonium manufactured into fuel from existing supplies of nuclear waste.


  23. Bert Young
    September 23, 2014

    I am not convinced that the world suffers from global warming but I do keep an open mind on this issue . In any event there is no point in in producing a formula for its control unless all the nations of the world subscribe to it and rigidly keep to it . Germany has for some time ignored the EU’s dictat and pursued its own economic goals , we , on the other hand have implemented its instructions and , foolishly , demolished the Didcot power plant . We must put our own economic goals first until such time a world control exists ; China meanwhile has assumed the lead in pollution matters and also the lead in monetary balance .

  24. English Pensioner
    September 23, 2014

    The only solution to global warming, if it is indeed a problem, is a long term plan to reduce the population. Why do we need extra power generation in the UK? Its not because of any major increases in individual consumption, but the because of the increasing population. This in turn increases power consumption by manufacturers and producers to meet their needs.
    China has shown that limiting the number of children per family is difficult, if not impossible, and the only countries to have a decreasing population are those western countries where as wealth increases, average family sizes start to fall. (Germany’s native population is falling due to small families)
    The Indian Prime Minister refuses to attend the conference as he has made it clear that his priority is to increase electricity generation in a country where still most people rely on kerosene for cooking and lighting. Drag these countries out of poverty and in the long run family sizes will fall; unfortunately this will require a peak in energy production and carbon emissions before they will start to fall.

    1. Denis Cooper
      September 23, 2014

      The population of China is set to decline, the main problems will be elsewhere:


  25. Colin Hart
    September 23, 2014

    Mrs Merkel kept her Greens happy by forswearing nuclear energy and is able to do so because Germany has plentiful supplies of brown coal which it continues to burn. Just a chance someone might point this out in New York had she been present.

    1. A different Simon
      September 23, 2014

      The Germans have had to relocate tens of thousands of people to open cast mine their lignite .

      Some of the villages which have recently been bulldozed were medieval . That sort of vandalism is completely incompatible with the German character .

      We still have no explanation from UK politicians why the UK unilaterally insists that new fossil fuel electricity generation is only permitted at a limit of 380g CO2 / kWh whereas the new breed of German coal powerstations produce over 770g CO2 / kWh .

      I’ll take our Govt seriously when they end their war on coal and scrap the Climate Change act .

  26. Denis Cooper
    September 23, 2014

    But implicit belief in the reality and significance of anthropogenic climate change, and the need for EU-wide action to combat it, are still enshrined in the EU treaties thanks to the amending Treaty of Lisbon agreed by Brown and swallowed by Cameron.

  27. cosmic
    September 23, 2014

    As with most scares, the CAGW scare is over, but we have the official and legislative aftermath to deal with. It isn’t going to be easy to repeal the laws, dissolve the QUANGOs and fire the place fillers in non-jobs.

    The fact this ties into the EU gives the UK government less room for manoeuvre.

    Then of course, this foolishness has driven energy policy far off course, with nonsense such wind and solar power and wood fired power stations, and energy policy is long term.

  28. Tom William
    September 23, 2014

    Please forward to Clarence House…

  29. Atlas
    September 23, 2014

    With regards to the man-made climate change proposition what I want is a really independent assessment of the science behind these claims. At the moment we have what economists call rent-seekers who say all manner of things indicate ‘doom’ just in order to keep getting their research grants. It’s a State funded religion.

  30. Peter Stroud
    September 23, 2014

    Mr Redwood, we scientifically trained sceptics of CAGW, rely on MPs like yourself to persuade our esteemed Prime Minister to abandon his warmist views. He removed one of the most sensible sceptics, Owen Paterson, from the cabinet. A very cynical move to appease the LibDems, I suggest.

  31. Eddie Hill
    September 23, 2014

    In the first episode (set in the 1960s) of Series II of “Utopia,” a recent TV drama, one of the main protagonists put forward this blunt analysis (paraphrased) of the human condition:

    “The sun throws a certain amount of energy onto this planet, which we then turn into food, clothing and shelter, etc. It supports a certain amount of people and it took 30,000 years for that amount to become one billion.

    “Then, we found a way to use ancient sunlight; sunlight trapped in oil and coal, and we started to live off that. What happened? In just 130 years, our population doubled, the next billion took 30 years and the 4th billion just 14 years. (In the subsequent 40 years, we have added a further 3 billion people.)

    “So here’s the question – what’s going to happen when that oil and coal runs out, in say 100 years? When there’s 10 billion people living on a planet that can support only one billion?”

    The answer to that question was that we are going to tear each other to pieces, which is probably an understatement.

    This prognosis has been general knowledge for decades, yet no-one has really addressed it properly other than as the occasional vague politician’s formula as “a problem we need to do something about.”

    Indeed, whenever the population debate crops up, most people seem to think it can be resolved by the developed world giving more money to the undeveloped world, producing more food to keep their people alive and consuming less ourselves. The first two “solutions” in fact exacerbate the problem, and the developed world has already cut back on consumption drastically, if not per head, then by virtue of its population growth slowing to almost less than replacement level.

    Leaders of the developed world also occasionally meet up in an expensive resort to set targets to reduce fossil fuel usage, but only as an entirely incidental outcome of reducing greenhouse gas emissions.

    We basically have no realistic way of reducing emissions without reducing power usage, which only increases in line with economic growth, which is required to feed, clothe and house more people.

    Why do we always approach this issue from the angle of the need to produce cleaner energy or more food?

    Why do we NEVER say: “Let’s reduce populaiton growth?”

    That is achievable, whereas endless clean energy and boundless food are not.

    We should be asking 3 Big Questions of our leaders, and if they answer “No” to any of them, they will be shown up as not grasping the issue and thinking about the future:

    Q1: Do you accept that there is a limit to the number of people this planet can support? (It doesn’t matter what that number is; it could be a hundred billion – the question is still valid.)

    Q2: If the answer is yes (which it must be), do you accept that in order to keep limit population below that limit, we will need to start controlling population at some point?

    Q3: If the answer is yes (which it must be), do you accept that we should therefore make a start now while the number is still relatively manageable [which is actually arguable at this point], rather than irresponsibly delegate the task to future generations, who will face a much more difficult task under much more straightened circumstances than we live under at present?

  32. DaveM
    September 23, 2014

    I’m sure the politicians will sign back up when they need the Green Vote, then renege on the promises when a major event occurs to temporarily shift the eyes of the Press elsewhere.

    There’s a famous pub in London called “The Honest Lawyer” – the pub sign is a headless lawyer – I’m sure no explanation is needed. Maybe they should rename it “The Politician with Honour and Integrity”.

    Mrs Merkel should stay at home Full Stop. She’s not the queen of Europe yet, and has no more authority here than my dog.

  33. bigneil
    September 23, 2014

    Not bothering about green energy? – have the bosses had the maximum pocket stuffing of cash out of that little, extremely costly to the public, gem? -Time for another group to come up with another reason to create a tax?

  34. oldtimer
    September 23, 2014

    CAGW, now relabelled climate change, is a phony hypothesis disfigured by phony solutions. Some countries have long since recognised this and have had the good sense to recognise the futility of following the West into this swamp.

  35. ian wragg
    September 23, 2014

    I have just been looking at the pictures of Mars from NASA. There are some lovely simulations as to how green and fertile it was a few million years ago. Surely the Martians would have sussed out that by increasing taxes and banning 4 x 4’s the planet would have remained green and pleasant. It’s good we have CMD and Davey on our side or we may finish up like Mars in a billion years time.
    Here’s me thinking Martians were intelligent and now I’m crestfallen.

    September 23, 2014

    Mrs Merkel possibly had her eye on the extensive lignite and regular coal deposits in Ukraine. But someone seems have put the boot into that idea.

    She had the opportunity, as did the rest of the EU, to avail her country of ridiculously cheap solar panels exported by China but preferred to call it “dumping”; preferred to abandon a “seed corn” of energy production , the better part of employment generated being that of installation rather than production.
    Worse, Mrs Merkel with the wise counsel of the EU then imposed sanctions, fines, tariffs on other Chinese goods equally wealth generating and, countered by restricting some EU exports to China mainly in the chemical field. China responded in due course by imposing its own sanctions on the EU, and of course the UK.
    Everything now in EU terms is hunky-dory and we all pay very much more to generate electricity quite naturally from the light of the sun.

    Mrs Merkel is not the only leader who has presided over the Silly ostensibly in environmental matters. President Bush the Younger gave a wry smile when the world ran short of corn a few years ago resulting in the threat of famine in Russia. He said: “Well the world insisted our farmers turn corn into bio-fuel. So they did! ”

    So many times our Scientific Community appears to derive pleasure from the jibe they are behaving like religious fundamentalists. Everything seems black and white to them ,positive or negative, 1 or 0, But environment whether created by God or Mother Nature and in deed political discourse behave quite differently and nothing should be taken as Gospel unless there are at least four Gospels, a revolving prism of views.
    Politics is said to be the Art of the Possible. I feel it is not possible to trace all the interactions of Nature which are like so many neuron connections between brain cells and place a template over them called “Environmentalism. ” We are not quite clever enough to do that.

  37. Stephen Berry
    September 23, 2014

    I was in Germany in 2011 when the Fukushima incident happened. Day after day the German media would come up with a new scare story. You might almost have believed that the tsunami which killed 15,000 people was dwarfed in significance by the release of radiation at Fukushima which has so far killed no one. One of the consequences was that Merkel’s CDU got hammered in some state elections and she agreed to phase out nuclear power. So, the main methods of mass producing energy have been damned by the Greens in Germany. Expensive energy is the unpleasant consequence for Germans who are even more in love with the Green agenda than people in this country.

    Sad, because I think that much of the hot air is going out of the Global Warming balloon. None of the computer models of the Global Warmers forecast that the world temperature would be static for the last 16 years, but that is what has happened. It looks very much as if the Global Warming scare is heading in the same direction as those other Green hobbyhorses, the overpopulation scare and the running out of resources scare i.e. to the fiction shelves.

    Will the Greens be able to ride this out as they have ridden out the non-occurrence of every other scare they came out with? Do they think that Global Warming will be just like Acid Rain? That one day they can stop talking about it and hope that everyone has forgotten what they said. Seems doubtful. Global Warming is just too big and the fact that they now call it Climate Change won’t make us forget what they were originally talking about.

    Along with war, I believe that the anti-human Green ideology is the major danger to the advance of civilisation in the 21st century. Let’s make sure that when the Global Warming theory is finally nailed, we use that event to nail the Green movement also.

  38. forthurst
    September 23, 2014

    Meanwhile, the Climate Change Act is in force, spivs are still making money from ‘carbon trading’ out of closing down our export industries and shipping it out to the Orient with dowries gifted by taxpayers, HS2 is on, massive migration is inwards and the majority of our elected politicians are out to lunch.

    How are we to save the planet, or that paltry piece that was defended from invasion by our ancestors? Things that should be planted on our ancestral lands: crops, trees. Things that should not be planted on our ancestral lands: windmills, vibrants, white elephants with steel wheels.

    What is the definition of a sophisticated investor? He is one who invests in something which is toxic to but nevertheless by manipulation of the law and public opinion, can be highly profitable for as long as the taxpayer is prepared to take the corresponding loss, such was the liar loan housing scam leading to the 2008 crash, such is the green crap industry: let us hope it does not wreak irrecoverable damage before we have had time to elect a majority of sane politicians.

  39. Elliot Kane
    September 23, 2014

    I have no doubt world leaders would still be interested if they hadn’t already got the maximum tax hikes out of this nonsense that they could.

    But with taxes raised to the hilt and votes under threat caused by their absurd (Lack of) energy policies, nothing is going to induce them to sign up for more.

    Which is just as well. Perhaps this lunatic fad can now fade back into the dust of history where it belongs.

  40. fedupsouthener
    September 23, 2014

    Can I suggest that someone in the Tory party speak with Roger Helmer of UKIP as he is the only politician to talk any sense when it comes to green issues and in particular the scam of wind farms. If we spent half the money we have thrown at green projects on other things we would be better served. The NHS, the elderly, transport etc call all have benefited but instead we have thrown away billions on an inefficient and expensive and unreliable form of power. This must be the biggest scam of the century but all the time the BBC, schools, WWF, FOE get so much publicity and are able to spread their fairy tales our children will go on believing that we are all doomed. If we carry on down this route we will be all doomed and nobody will be able to afford their energy bills let alone industry compete in the modern world. Please would somebody get rid of Davey and Clegg and then we might stand a chance. In the meantime Scotland because of Salmond will be ruined in a few years time and it will be the English paying the exorbitant subsidies for their wind farms and constraint payments when the grid is overloaded. Now he is going on about tidal power but nobody has mentioned the cost to the consumers. Prices will be 6 times higher than conventional electricity. How will industry compete? The whole thing has got out of hand and people’s lives are being wrecked in the meantime. It is all an utter disgrace!

  41. ian
    September 23, 2014

    The wind farm money is run out, now they will trun to hole in ground and waste more money because that what they are good at. when was the last time hear politician making money, they only know how to spend it. Please come back retail invest so we can off load on you because we cannot hang on much longer, They can make the market higher but there no one to sell to. CATCH 22

  42. Graeme
    September 23, 2014

    70% of the public back onshore wind. So, clean energy a vote winner or looser….?
    Just take a look at the facts on the website http://www.british-wind.co.uk

    1. fedupsouthener
      September 24, 2014

      Yes, because they are unaware of the pit falls of wind power. If they did some research they would realise the futility of it, the expense for an unreliable system and the fact that we have to have constant fossil fuel back up for when the wind doesn’t blow. The latter is getting thin on the ground so expect black outs in the near future unless more is done to invest in reliable power sources. You only have to look at Germany to see how expensive and how grossly inefficient it all is. They are burning more brown coal to meet their needs. This is no way to get CO2 emissions down. The USA has had more success by using fracked gas.

      Spain also found it an expensive exercise.

    2. Mark
      September 24, 2014

      Why is the fact that wind costs far more than power from coal or gas not mentioned?

    3. David Price
      September 25, 2014

      Not true,

      70% of 2,087 surveyed individuals (DECC Public Attitudes Survey, Wave 10, 12 Aug 2014), that’s 1460 people had that view

      What about the rest of the population?

  43. ian
    September 23, 2014

    They give you help to buy so they can make profit on your back along with sudent loans what type of people are they, they not happy with just tax they want the lot. You uesd to get 30 pounds from the government for having loan for a house now they you to pay them 20% profit on your house

  44. Terry
    September 23, 2014

    It should never fail to amaze us just how gullible are some Western politicians. Accepting disputed and dubious computer modelling as scientific fact has been the root cause of the daft rush into expensive renewals because of a declaration that it will ‘save the planet’. Even the vital data from the now infamous ‘Hockey Stick’ chart of the planet’s supposedly “dangerously” escalating warming cycle, has been “lost”. Thus another case of an inconvenient untruth bites the dust. Much the same as those very damning emails from the IPCC.
    Global Warming is a natural phenomenon and mankind have little influence upon it. Much the same as King Canute had on controlling the tides.

    On the other hand, it could be that these same politicians used AGW as a scare story merely to take more control of their citizens. Possibly.
    However, adding more costs to our already increasing energy bills and lining the pockets of foreign companies who produce these inefficient white elephants, does nothing to promote harmony with the masses, who are left to pick up the larger tab having witnessed these other interests be rewarded at their expense. I’m sure that without the apparent controlling influence of the LibDems, a true Tory government would have done nothing more than maintained our forests and carefully controlled the man-made pollution in this country. Saving us citizens from the back streets of Britain, a hundred quid a year in the process. Over to you Dave.

    The USA , China and India, along with those “Emerging” economies must laugh their socks off at stupid Britain and the EU for stifling their own growth in this ridiculous way.
    Turning their backs on their own natural resources must be the dumbest move of the century. Please! Somebody here, wake up!

  45. Margaret Brandreth-J
    September 23, 2014

    Of course green is unpopular ,but that does not mean to say that burning fossil fuel is the continuing way to go.It is too convenient to be short sighted.

  46. acorn
    September 23, 2014

    JR, best put the anti global warming thing on the back burner. We only need one big flooding event this winter, which the techies say is likely, to create a media circus. Won’t play well on the election doorstep. Climate change is a given now with the ABC1 electorate.

  47. Brian Tomkinson
    September 23, 2014

    JR: “Angela Merkel the German Chancellor and leading representative of the world’s last bastion of anti carbon dioxide enthusiasm, the EU, is also unavailable to come.”
    Instead she sent her underling, your leader, Cameron, who contrary to all you write and say, was effusive about how the UK is going to meet all those nonsensical targets. The UK which you never even mentioned in your comment. You said that you were unanimous at your meeting at Chequers yesterday and today you write this piece to deflect us from the reality that global warming is certainly not waning with your leader. You are being strung along by Cameron, to whom you have pledged total loyalty, but neither he nor you will succeed in stringing us along with your deception.

    Reply I have not pledged “total loyalty”! As the record shows I both speak and vote against his wishes and the whip when need arises.

  48. Max Dunbar
    September 23, 2014

    Practically, the only achievable way to reduce the impact of pollution including co2 and co is to switch to cleaner vehicles in cities where we have a concentration of traffic. Electric buses and taxis would go a long way to making city living healthier. I appreciate that it probably takes more fossil fuel to charge a battery and that the life of these batteries and their disposal is unsatisfactory at present, but nevertheless we can do something about this because it is within our control and the technology is available and constantly improving.

    Global warming as an issue is clouded in prejudice and speculation because it is a theory and a very inexact one at that. There really is not much that we can do about it as we will never have a consensus and other priorities will always prevail. Furthermore, action to curb global warming and our perceived ability to do so must be one of the greatest conceits of all time!

  49. petermartin2001
    September 24, 2014

    Its been known since the middle of the 19th century that CO2 was a greenhouse gas and that without the Greenhouse effect the Earth would be some 33degC colder that it actually is. Arrhenius, a Swedish physicist, calculated that a doubling of Co2 would significantly warm the Earth’s climate at the beginning of the 20th century. His calculations produced figures which are remarkably close to present ones.

    So why anyone would presume to doubt all that is quite beyond me.

    But whereas, the political right are into the denial of basic Physics the left are into denial of the scale of the problem. They think it can be solved by using renewable energy to reduce fossil fuel energy consumption by 20% or so. That’s crazy too. The only possible solution is to replace fossil fuels by nuclear fuels.

    So, on either side of the political spectrum, we have a bunch of crazies who are setting the agenda. The outlook for the environment looks bleak to say the least.

    1. oldtimer
      September 24, 2014

      The CAGW hypothesis, and the projected global warming models said to result from it, rests on unproven assumptions about feedback accelerating the warming. It is clear that the models that predicted warming up to the present day are wrong – global temperatures have been more or leass flat for the past 17 years.

      The idea that man made CO2 is the principal cause of global warming is nothing more than an unproven assertion. Relatively little research has been devoted to the natural processes of CO2 emission and sequestration – and these are much more significant than the man made element.

      Beyond CO2 it is much more likely there are much more powerful influences at work which control and affect the climate – the sun, the oceans and volcanic activity being among the prime candidates. The idea that man can control climate change in the face of these forces is as absurd as it is arrogant.

      You will find that most of the so-called “deniers” do not dispute that CO2 is a greenhouse gas; they just do not think it is significant in the wider scheme of things. As for the measures, such as the Climate Change Act, they make no sense whatsoever.

  50. Lindsay McDougall
    September 24, 2014

    Meanwhile, the Rockefeller Institute is disinvesting in oil and investing in renewables.

    What is going on?

  51. Mactheknife
    September 24, 2014

    Unfortunately our government and those in the EU would rather listen to organisations such as Greepeace, WWF and the greenwash eco-warriers who have their own agenda. Many of the newer evidenced scientific papers are calling into question previous computer model driven assumptions as we now have actual empiric data to work from. Needless to say the observed evidence does not replicate the wild computer predictions. The doom and gloom scenarios from the IPCC, DECC are now seriously in question.

Comments are closed.