Global warming sorted?

It is unusual for legislation to have such immediate effect. The debate was scarce concluded on the Global warming legislation at Westminster, when the October snows started to fall. There’s a response for you.


  1. Letters From A Tory
    October 29, 2008

    Behave yourself, John. We've just had a ridiculously warm October! I saw someone walking around St James Park in shorts and flip-flops yesterday.

    1. Stuart Fairney
      October 29, 2008

      Ridiculously warm as compared to what? Last year, ten years ago, the mini-ice age, the medieval warm period, the last ice age?

  2. T. England
    October 29, 2008

    Thank goodness for global warming!
    Imagine how cold it would be without it!

  3. Abdul-Rahim
    October 29, 2008

    I'm still trying to understand what the bill will actually do besides force companies to report their emissions. Yes an 80 percent reduction by 2050, but how?

  4. Johnny Norfolk
    October 29, 2008

    Ah yes the global warming scam. It used to be called weather.

    1. aemkid
      October 29, 2008

      I agree and I am glad to see that there are some people in the world that actualy know what they are talking about. Come see my website, it is about this stuff.

  5. Richard lark
    October 29, 2008

    I couldn't find your name John among either the Ayes or the Noes.
    Through your blog I would like to express my thanks to Christopher Chope, Peter Lilley, and Andrew Tyrie who went through the No Lobby and the Tellers Ann Widdecombe and Phipip Davies. It is deeply disturbing that such a contentious and far reaching Bill should go through the Commons with such little opposition.
    The Bill's supporters seem to rely on the alleged view of the overwhelming number of scientists that the increase in anthropogenic carbon emissions are the main cause of climate change. There were, in fact, very few scientists involved on the critical chapter relating to the causes of climate change in the IPPC report.
    I am not aware that there is any dispute that carbon emissions do cause some warming nor that on their own the direct warming is quite small and need not worry us. The difference between alarmists and sceptics seems to be that the former believe that weather processes will significantly amplify the warming whilst sceptics dispute this.
    I must stress that I am not a scientist but I have read enough to know that the the science which we are all supposed to accept is by no means certain. I am not surprised that this Bill has gone through the Commons but very disappointed that it seeems to have gone through with such little scrutiny.

    Reply: Yes, far too little I intervened to point out that past targets had not been hit, and to say it would be stupid to impose taxes and regulations on UK business which led to the carbon generating activities going somewhere else. I wanted to make a speech, but the very short amount of time for this Bill did not allow. I abstained on the 3rd Reading vote.

    1. APL
      October 29, 2008

      JR: "Yes, far too little I intervened to point out that past targets had not been hit, "

      On the contrary, there is a very good chance the UK will meet these targets. Given the governments negligent handling of UK energy policy, we probably will not have any functioning power stations and be too impoverished to import oil by 2050.

      How are this stupid government going to reconcile this policy with the fuel poverty policy?

  6. Neil Craig
    October 29, 2008

    If the cooling continues, as it surely will if the Sun doesn't start producing sunspots, we will have to have Westminster imposing more regulations to prevent cooling as well.

  7. Stuart Fairney
    October 29, 2008

    Is there anything more futile than some transient minister setting a target for 2050? He certainly won't be in office by then and may not even be alive!!

    And if the zero carbon stuff hits wider industry like it's hitting house building, then we may actually achieve more or less 100% cuts in carbon emissions because there really won't be any industry to emit anything.

    1. APL
      October 29, 2008

      Stuart Fairney: "Is there anything more futile than some transient minister setting a target for 2050?"

      If the Tory party wasn't the captive of Zak Goldsmith, another eco loonie, we might reasonably expect this leglislation to be repealed should the Tory party actually get into government.

      But since it is bought and paid for by Zak, abandon hope of common sense from Cameron on this score!

      1. Stuart Fairney
        October 30, 2008

        Yes, I'm afraid I struggle to take lectures from Zacharias and the other eco-elite like Monbiot and Porrit since I need to make my money from commercial activity and not have it impeded by restrictive, anti-industrial eco-lunacy. Unlike Zacharias, the old man wasn't a billionaire financier and so this is not an indulgence I can permit myself.

  8. Richard lark
    October 29, 2008

    I should have referred to the IPCC and not the IPPC.
    Please amend if possible.

  9. Blank Xavier
    October 29, 2008

    It's possible a big effect of global warming will be to plunge British weather into deep cold.

    We're warm because of the Gulf Stream. When the planet get hot, the Artic melts and the fresh water pouring into the North Atlantic stops the Gulf Stream from working.

    We then start to look a lot like Canada.

    Interestingly, in Canada, they are in recent years complaining about unprecedently warm winters;

    "In Montreal, the winter was also exceptional. The average temperature in 2002 was the warmest in more than 60 years at -3.3 °C, 5.4 °C above normal. For the first time since records began in 1941, the overnight lows did not reach the -20 °C mark. The number of days with highs above freezing reached 51, an unprecedented number."

    Okay, so warm for them is -20 C overnight. Every night.

    Montreal is four hundred miles SOUTH of London.

    1. mike stallard
      October 29, 2008

      I believe in global warming.
      (pero si mueve).

    2. DennisA
      October 30, 2008

      Sorry, Xavier, this is another creation by the warmist scientists to justify why their models aren't working.

      This is why global warming had to become climate change and why the Tyndal Centre for Social Engineering, (sorry, that should be Climate Change Research), came up with this in 2005: "To endorse policy change people must ‘believe’ that global warming will become a reality some time in the future.
      · Only the experience of positive temperature anomalies will be registered as indication of change if the issue is framed as global warming.
      · Both positive and negative temperature anomalies will be registered in experience as indication of change if the issue is framed as climate change.
      · We propose that in those countries where climate change has become the predominant popular term for the phenomenon, unseasonably cold temperatures, for example, are also interpreted to reflect climate change/global warming."

      There was of course the 2004 film "The Day After Tomorrow" based on the Gulf Stream scenario but even IPCC don't consider it to be a likely event and Hadley say it "may " slow. That would however, be millennia into the future, if at all and yet we have cooling now, as we did from 1960-1987. Strangely, CO2 is still rising, as it was in that earlier period.

      It turns out that the Gulf Stream doesn't really do what we are told it does and the scientific reasoning is clearly explained here:

      "The Source of Europe's Mild Climate: The notion that the Gulf Stream is responsible for keeping Europe anomalously warm turns out to be a myth"

      I also am disappointed as are other respondents , that the opposition are so in thrall to the Greens that the Party document on energy is virtually that of Friends of the Earth, ( a very hubristic name).

      It gives me no-one to vote for, and yet I sense the mood is there for a strong rejection of the AGW scam if only there were more politicians brave enough to shout that the Emperor has no clothes.

  10. Adrian Peirson
    October 30, 2008

    I'm tempted to think that this is just a Tax scam, Pack em in as tightly as possible and tax them till the Pips squeek.

    John, could you not suggest to Gordon Brown that if he is really concerned about emissions in this country then Reducing the Population and planting Billions of trees might help.
    Come to think of it, doing this might also reduce road congestion, housing shortage, landfill Problems, rising prison populations, Welfare overstretch, rising crime…

    This approach would be Doubly effective in that billions of Trees would capture billions of Tons of CO2 from the atmosphere.

    With a reduced population, we could have a sensible balance between Growing bio fuels and food.

    I use Veg Oil in my car, it releases just as much CO2 as PetroDeisel, the advantage is however that this CO2 is only that which was absorbed by the Plant in the previous years Growing season.
    So despite what the Petrochems would have us believe, Plant Based Biofuels Produce no Net CO2 gain to the atmosphere, IE they do not Pollute.
    The argumemt they replace food crops is dealt with by reducing the Population.
    Get the Population Balance right at around 30 Million, and we could be self sufficient in fuel especially as we still have some Nth Sea reserves, begin Reducing the Population now and Peak Oil need not be a Problem.

    This would be my prefered solution, less people, more trees, billions of them, and our Local Farmers producing food and fuel for the Great Britain and her people.

    but Westminster will not do this, the Petrochems would sell less fuel, the International Bankers, who Own 85% of the worlds Uranium (and the cleanup facilities) would lose out because we wouldn't need as many, if any Nuclear Power stations.
    and of course there would then be no excuse to shame and then tax us for Polluting our country.

    A combination of Power Mad Despotism in Westminster and the Greed of the Globalists are Destroying my country, my childrens Birthright,

    What can I do about it.

    Less People, more trees.

    1. DennisA
      October 30, 2008

      Population reduction? Are you volunteering?

  11. Adrian Peirson
    October 30, 2008

    I love my two children, and would have more.
    Indigenous British women already have only 1.8 children per woman which is below replacement levels.

    So I have already voluteered.

    I'm also suggesting sensible ways in which we can solve, landfill problems, CO2 emmisions, Congestion, Urban Sprawl, Which in turn would allow Our farmers and fishing industry to provide food and fuel security for Great Britain and her Great People that does not involve Taxing them to death, it is not the Great British People that are causing these Problems.

Comments are closed.