Climategate claims its first big political scalp

Australian conservatives have shown the way . . .

. . . by dumping the party leader who was in favour of massive carbon taxes and replacing him with one who stated last month that AGW is “crap.”

This makes Malcolm Turnbull, the suddenly-ex-leader of Australia’s Liberal party, the first major political victim of the Climategate furore. And his replacement Tony Abbott, the first politician to reap the benefits of the world’s growing scepticism towards ManBearPig. Of the three candidates, he was the only one committed to delaying the Australian government’s proposed Emissions Trading Scheme (ETS).

The trouble began last week when Australia’s opposition Liberal party began haemorrhaging frontbenchers, all of them preferring to lose their jobs than be railroaded by their leader into voting with the Government on Kevin Rudd’s new carbon tax.

Aussie blog hero Andrew Bolt has the blow-by-blow details. Particularly stirring is his description of how the Liberals’ newly elected leader Abbott – the Mad Monk as the libtard MSM is already calling him – takes the floor and tells like it is about the ETS (Australia’s equivalent to Cap And Trade).

Already the lines are potent – real fighting words from the Liberals at last: Rudd’s great green tax “is really an energy taxation scheme.” In fact, it is “a $120 billion tax on the Australian public, and that is just for starters.” Power prices will go up, for instance.  “We just can’t wave that through the Parliament.”

To the public, Rudd’s scheme is “a great big tax to create a great big slush fund… run by a giant bureaucracy”. Already Rudd has overseen “a waste of money … worse than Whitlam”.

Too bloody right mate! (As they say in Australia where “bloody” isn’t a swear word s0 I’m allowed to use it as much as I like.)

Further useful background comes from Watts Up With That, with quotes from Abbott’s memoir Battlelines. Here is what he has to say about carbon taxes:

“Without binding universal arrangements, any effort by Australia (on emissions trading) could turn out to be a futile gesture, damaging local industry but making no appreciable dent in global emissions…. Another big problem with any Australian emissions reduction scheme is that it would not make a material difference to atmospheric carbon concentrations unless the big international polluters had similar schemes. Australia accounts for about 1 per cent of global carbon dioxide emissions. At recent rates of growth, China’s increase in emissions in about a year could match Australia’s entire carbon dioxide output. Without binding universal arrangements, any effort by Australia could turn out to be a futile gesture, damaging local industry but making no appreciable dent in global emissions.”

And here he is on climate alarmists:

“It’s hard to take climate alarmists all that seriously, though, when they’re as ferociously against the one proven technology that could reduce electricity emissions to zero, nuclear power, as they are in favour of urgent reduction in emissions. For many, reducing emissions is a means to achieving a political objective they could not otherwise gain.”

Sounds a very sensible fellow. We can only hope that other leaders of conservative opposition parties – not naming any names – are listening to him closely.

Update: Australians have been counting the bitter cost of their failure to implement Kyoto, according to Terry McCrann in Australia’s Herald Sun. Here he ruminates on the miseries they have suffered by not being more eco-friendly:

A reader with a droll sense of humour has come up with an inspired way to achieve the same environmental effect as Kevin Rudd and Malcolm Turnbull’s Emissions Trading Scheme, but without the cost.

Simple, a National Apology on Climate Change. Same effect on global emissions as an ETS, but with zero cost.

More humour came less intentionally from an online commentator who set out to detail “What ignoring Kyoto has cost us”.

Two things it appears. Living in smaller houses.

Damn, if only we’d adopted Kyoto we could have been living in British-style shoe-boxes. Sorry, ‘cosy’ cat-friendly accommodations. Cat-friendly? Well, you can’t swing …

Secondly, not being serious about Kyoto has condemned us to cheap electricity prices. At least 50 per cent below the rest of the world.

If we’d gone for wind farms, nuclear, solar, etc, we could have had more expensive power over the past dozen or more years.

Related posts:

  1. Climategate: five Aussie MPs lead the way by resigning in disgust over carbon tax
  2. Climategate: it’s all unravelling now
  3. Pope Catholic; Obama energy official profits from AGW
  4. Australia shows us all the way by sacking its useless, pointless Climate Commissioner Tim Flannery

5 Responses to “Climategate claims its first big political scalp”

  1. Jeremy Crow says:December 2, 2009 at 8:46 amIt still screws me up that conservatives in Australia are called the “Liberal” party, and that I have to go to a European for good political commentary. Of course being a conservative American I happen to love everything that Australia has done for us over the years, and am happy that they are leading the way in the war against Green Communism!JC
  2. Hilton Gray says:December 2, 2009 at 11:23 amAustralian parliment just voted 41 – 33 to kill their cap and trade (ETS) bill!!
    http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20091202/ap_on_re_as/climate_australia
  3. Jack says:December 2, 2009 at 5:35 pmJames,I just recently started following your work and have already become a big fan. I appreciate your used of pop culture, wit and irreverence for the entire farce we know as AGW. Keep up the fantastic work.
  4. Jack says:December 2, 2009 at 5:38 pmPS I live in a suburb a few miles north of Dallas, TX and we had a fantastic dusting of Global Warming Snow today, Dec. 2, 2009. Greatness!
  5. Duc de Blangis says:December 3, 2009 at 6:28 amWhile I’m heartened to see Turnbull deposed by an opponent of the absurd AGW theory, I hope that Abbott’s less libertarian attitudes are kept in check.

Climate change has nothing to do with the Holocaust or 9/11 | James Delingpole

November 22, 2009

But you’d be forgiven for thinking otherwise from all the hysterical propaganda put out by the ecofascists of the AGW lobby.

Here’s the latest example from those silly trustafarian children at Plane Stupid:

And here, for those who missed it, is a spat I’ve had with the Guardian over an elderly US war veteran who apparently considers it seemly and apt to compare the piles of emaciated bodies he saw being swept into heaps when he helped liberate a Nazi concentration camp at the end of World War II with “Climate Change.”

Sorry but I don’t see the connection at all. 9/11 was a brutal terrorist incident which claimed the lives of 2,976 innocent people. The Holocaust was an evil Nazi genocide which led to the mechanised slaughter of six million mostly Jewish men, women and children. Climate change is an ongoing natural process which last few million-odd years been directly responsible for the deaths of precisely no one.

Related posts:

  1. Did ‘climate change’ cause the Japanese earthquake?
  2. Government’s £6 million ‘Bedtime Story’ climate change ad: most pernicious waste of taxpayers’ money ever?
  3. What the liberal elite feel you should know about ‘Climate Change’
  4. ‘Climate Change’: the new Eugenics

5 Responses to “Climate change has nothing to do with the Holocaust or 9/11”

  1. Emmess says:November 22, 2009 at 9:23 amI see a connection
    The co-leader until recently of the New Zealand Green Party is a Trooferhttp://www.kiwiblog.co.nz/2009/11/jeanette_continues_to_push_911_lunacy.html#comments
  2. Hurf Durf says:November 23, 2009 at 5:01 amYou had every right to challenge that letter, considering no concentration camps were liberated in 1944 and Newsweak never bothered to go into any detail about the incident. The Gradiaun’s response and their quartwit commenters shows that you were right to do so.
  3. AJ McConville says:November 23, 2009 at 10:07 amThe point is whether you think climate change is happening the way most scientists say. He thinks it is, you think it isn’t.
  4. mgaio says:November 24, 2009 at 7:04 am“Climate change is … directly responsible for the deaths of precisely no one”?Not even one?

    I have seen your blog and it is lame.

  5. mgaio says:November 24, 2009 at 7:15 amYou even boast your own “spat” at the Guardian–when the article clearly shows how wrong you were in your uninformed accusations.Lame, lame, lame!

59 per cent of UK population Are ‘Village Idiots’ Thunders The Times

Less than half the British population still believes in Anthropogenic Global Warming, says a new survey commissioned by The Times.

Only 41 per cent accept as an established scientific fact that global warming is taking place and is largely man-made. Almost a third (32 per cent) believe that the link is not yet proved; 8 per cent say that it is environmentalist propaganda to blame man and 15 per cent say that the world is not warming.

Even more interesting than the result, though, is the Thunderer’s appalled reaction. In a leader that might have been easily have been written by the Great Moonbat himself, the Times quite simply refuses to accept that the growing band of sceptics may have a point. Instead, it accuses these ‘deniers’ of being idiots:

It is possible that the collective expertise of brilliant scientists could be wrong. The best minds in the world once held a geocentric theory of the solar system. Before the discovery of sub-atomic particles they believed that everything was made of earth, air, fire and water. Right up to the 19th century, serious scientists wrote recipe books for making animals. But no previous process of scientific trial, error and progress has ever overturned such a well-attested thesis. Lord Rees has reminded us that we now live in a global village and it is, he pointed out, probably inevitable that there will be some global village idiots.

The Times’s approach is not unlike that of a Marxist theorist berating the bourgeoisie for their “false consciousness”; or indeed, a Eurocrat deciding that when sovereign nations keep voting “No” in Euro referendums it doesn’t mean that the EU is an oppressive and unpopular construct but that the voters need working on a bit harder so that they come to the correct “Yes” conclusion next time. It is, in fact, another perfect case of what Jonah Goldberg calls Liberal Fascism.

It is also an example of just how increasingly out-of-touch the MSM is with the views of the wider reading world. Recently, the Times launched a poster campaign boasting that it offered more extensive eco coverage than any other newspaper. Some of the claims made on these posters – such as the one about the North East passage being used as a commercial shipping route for the first time (when actually it has been used since 1934) – have been shot down by the excellent Andrew Orlowski on The Register.

But even if these claims were true, are wall-to-wall horror stories about impending man-made eco-doom really what readers of the quality newspapers want to read these days? My suspicion is not. I’m presuming that the audience which reads and comments on blogs isn’t totally different from the one that reads newspapers in print form. And if that’s the case, then the MSM’s obsession with AGW is looking increasingly out of date.

If you don’t believe me, check out the comments below one of George Monbiot’s columns, or indeed, either of the two Times articles listed above. Commenters who take the Al-Gore-approved line are vastly outnumbered by commenters who believe the whole AGW thing is a load of crock.

And it will take a bit more than bullying accusations that they’re “idiots”, I suspect, to swing them round.

Share

  • Digg
  • del.icio.us
  • Facebook
  • Mixx
  • LinkedIn
  • RSS
  • Technorati
  • Twitter
  • email

2 Responses to “59 per cent of UK population are ‘village idiots’ thunders The Times”

  1. Lauren says:November 17, 2009 at 2:46 amHey James,Loved your newest post about the whole Global Warming issue there in the UK.I found your site, because I clicked on one of your articles about Obama and the whole Nobel Peace prize issue, and I was like “this is so awesome”. It had humor in it, but it was the truth, too, and I instantly became a fan.I’ll definitely be subscribing.

    I’ll be checking out your books as well. Hopefully I can eventually purchase them online if they’re not in a book store here.

    Please keep on writing.

    I’ll keep reading.

    All the best,

    Lauren

  2. Sebaneau says:February 5, 2010 at 2:50 amAnd four days later, the Climategate files were released on the Internet…

Official: UK Law Now Says ManBearPig-Worship Is a Religion to Rank Alongside Christianity, Judaism, Islam, etc.

Oh dear, it’s official (nearly): a belief in man-made climate change grants you the same anti-discrimination protection in the British work-place you’d get if, say, you were a Muslim and your employer forced you to eat pork, or you were a Christian and your boss insisted you sacrifice a big black cock at the stroke of midnight on the Winter Solstice in the middle of a ruddy great pentacle, or you were a Rastafarian, and your boss wouldn’t allow you to pop outside for your statutory religious reefer-break.

At least that’s the maddening situation that one Tim Nicholson, 42, of Oxford is striving to engineer with the help of our crazed, activist-lawyer-riddled legal system.

Nicholson has been given the go-ahead, on appeal, to sue his former employer Grainger plc for unfair dismissal under  the Employment Equality (Religion and Belief) Regulations 2003 which cover “any religion, religious belief, or philosophical belief”.

Nicholson, formerly Grainger plc’s head of sustainability, said he had tried to set up a “carbon management system” for the company. Yet for some mysterious reason we can only guess at, Nicholson says staff refused to give him the necessary information which would have enabled him to calculate the company’s carbon footprint. Grainger claims it got rid of Nicholson for “operational” and “structural” reasons. Nicholson, however, believes it was a form of discrimination against his sincere, deep, heartfelt and passionate views on AGW.

His solicitor, Shah Qureshi, said: “Essentially what the judgment says is that a belief in man-made climate change and the alleged resulting moral imperative is capable of being a philosophical belief and is therefore protected by the 2003 religion or belief regulations.”

I do hope he wins, for it will only serve to bolster the suit I’m currently planning to launch against my own employer UK plc. Under this new belief system I have invented – Delingpolism (currently with only one known adherent – but the rest of you are more than welcome to join) – anyone who proselytises on behalf of AGW, carbon capture, Cap & Trade or wind farms without being able to demonstrate with at least 95 per cent certainty that their cause has any scientific foundation whatsoever, must be exiled immediately to the Arctic Circle, there to dwell among the still surprisingly large population of ravening polar bears until such time as they are gobbled up, digested and excreted into the Arctic oceans ready to pass through the food chain and end up in the beauteous gullets of the mighty blue whale (or similar).

So far, my religion’s precepts have been completely ignored by my employer. I feel sorely discriminated against. Got to be worth a couple of million in damages, at least, wouldn’t you agree?

Related posts:

  1. Burqa ban: What Barack Obama could learn from Nicolas Sarkozy about Islam
  2. ‘Global warming? What global warming?’ says High Priest of Gaia Religion
  3. ‘ManBearPig is real!’ declare top climate scientists. ‘And to prove it here’s a photo-shopped image we found on the internet of a polar bear on a melting ice floe.’
  4. Treating Islam with special reverence is cultural suicide and just plain wrong

 

Sir David King Condemns Green Scaremongering; Herod Condemns Child Abuse; Osama Bin Laden Condemns Islamist Terrorism; etc.

Professor Sir David King – Tony Blair’s former chief scientific advisor and foot-and-mouth massacre guru – has spoken out against climate change alarmism. He has told the Times:

“When people overstate happenings that aren’t necessarily climate change-related, or set up as almost certainties things that are difficult to establish scientifically, it distracts from the science we do understand. The danger is they can be accused of scaremongering. Also, we can all become described as kind of left-wing greens.”

Presumably he is no relation of the Sir David King who claimed in January 2004 in Science magazine that climate change is “the most severe problem we are facing today” and “a far greater threat to the world than international terrorism.” (Hat tip: Benny Peiser)

Nor of the Sir David King who was reported thus in May 2004:

Antarctica is likely to be the world’s only habitable continent by the end of this century if global warming remains unchecked, the government’s chief scientist, Professor Sir David King said last week. He said the Earth was entering the ‘first hot period’ for 60 million years when there was no ice on the plane and “the rest of the globe could not sustain human life”.

Nor of the Sir David King who made the following claim as recently as June 2008:

If all the ice on Greenland were to melt, sea level would rise by seven metres. Is that likely to happen? Well I was saying six years ago unlikely [but] I’m afraid that that’s having to be revised… 80 percent of our human population lives within less than a one metre rise of sea level so imagine the destabilisation of our geopolitical system with a sea level rise of the order of one or two metres. And that is on the cards I’m afraid.

Nor, one hopes, is he any relation of the Sir David King who led the British delegation to a science conference in Moscow in 2004, whose performance prompted the following disgusted after-action report by the conference chairman Alexander Illarionov:

“In our opinion the reputation of British science, the reputation of the British government and the reputation of the title “Sir” has sustained heavy damage.”

If I were sensible, moderate Professor Sir David King I would have stern words with this soundalike character: otherwise some people might be in danger of mistaking him for an hysterical fool.

Related posts:

  1. At last: expert Sir David King expertly reveals true identity of Climategate ‘hackers’
  2. ‘AGW is real!’ insists Al Gore’s new soul mate Osama Bin Laden
  3. Climategate: Science Museum’s green propaganda backfires
  4. Herod orders top UN scientists to investigate mysterious infant slaughter in Judaea

 

Government’s £6 million ‘Bedtime Story’ Climate Change Ad: Most Pernicious Waste of Taxpayers’ Money Ever?

The government has spent £6 million on a hard-hitting commercial warning children of the perils of failing to check under their beds and in their cupboards before they go to sleep.

The advert – “Watch Out – Or The Bogeyman Will Get You!” – has been rushed out by Ed Miliband’s Department of Ignorance And Fear Promotion (formerly Dept of Energy and Climate Change)  in response to  “worrying” statistics showing that 52 per cent of children think the Bogeyman “will never ever crawl from underneath my bed and get me, no not even if I don’t check”, with another 32 per cent saying “Well I suppose I ought to have a quick look, just in case” while another 15 per cent do not know. Just one per cent agree with the government’s statement: “Yes I believe that the Bogeyman exists and that he represents a greater threat to my future than even Al Qaeda, Gordon Brown’s mismanagement of the economy or racist language on Strictly Come Dancing.”

It shows a father reading a bedtime story to a cute little blonde girl, carefully selected because it is thought white middle class households will be most susceptible to this kind of guff. The bedtime story shows pets drowning and nice, middle class neighbourhoods like the little girl lives in being swamped by rising sea levels caused by Anthropogenor – a terrifying, black, fanged beast wearing a giant badge saying “Man Made CO2″, in order to illustrate that white middle class people very much like the girl’s father are largely responsible for this devastation because of their overuse of patio heaters and internet porn sites.

“Daddy, is it twue what some of my fwends at school say that the Bogeyman doesn’t exist so it’s OK not to check under my bed at night?” asks little girl.

At which point, the father snaps the book shut and slaps the little girl hard across the face.

“They LIE bitch!” he says. “The Bogeyman is REAL.”

Since its first broadcast on primetime television on Friday the Government has received numerous complaints from viewers protesting that the advert is brutal, wantonly misleading and, especially in the midst of a recession, the most spectacular waste of taxpayers money.

A spokesman for the Department of Ignorance and Fear Promotion admitted: “Yes we appreciate the evidence for the existence of the Bogeyman is thin and getting thinner by the day. But what you have to understand is that a lot of us here have invested a great deal of life and credibility in promoting the belief that the Bogeyman DOES exist and IS a problem. We simply can’t pull a U-turn like the BBC did last week on “Global Warming”. It would be too damned embarrassing.”

Related posts:

  1. Millionaire Chris Huhne finds new ways to waste your money
  2. Why the BBC cannot be trusted on ‘Climate Change’: the full story
  3. Our island story
  4. Great news: the people responsible for Amazongate, Glaciergate, and Africagate trousered £3 million of your tax money

 

‘Killing parakeets is racist’ – and other green lunacies – James Delingpole

October 4, 2009

Parakeets may be a foreign pest which only settled in Britain in 1969 but shooting them just because they’re a “nasty alien” is “racist” – a form of “eco-xenophobia.” So claims the director of the Environmental Change Research Unit at Sheffield Hallam University.

“Is it because I is green?”

Earlier this week, the director of another eco-body – the Tyndall Centre for Climate Change Research – grabbed the headlines with a similar loopy claim. Britain, said Kevin Anderson, simply isn’t doing enough to combat climate change. What it needs, he argued, is a “planned recession” – with a ban on petrol-driven cars, coal-fired power stations and new airports. Only if Britain reduces its carbon emissions by at least 70 per cent by 2020 can eco-catastrophe be averted.

Gosh I don’t half enjoy news stories like this. They remind us that for all the modern green movement’s claims to sweet reasonableness, scientific integrity, and good, old-fashioned planet-saving commonsense it is in fact stuffed to the gills with activists madder than a giant pantechnicon from Mad Max III with “I’m completely mad” written in ornate golden lettering on the front and on the back “No really I am, madder than you could ever imagine.”

That’s how mad they are. Which would be fine if no one took their ramblings seriously. But unfortunately many people do, and quite a few of those people have control over our lives and our purse strings. President Obama, for example. He believes all this “cut carbon emissions or the world will die tomorrow” drivel. As does our future king. As does pretty much every political administration in Europe, save possibly Poland and the Czech Republic. As does your and my local council. As do most of the teachers filling your kids brains with eco-propaganda at school. As indeed, I’m sorry to say, do lots and lots of your friends, and if you were ever to try to put them right over dinner one night they wouldn’t swing round to your point of view you know, they’d think you were evil and uncaring and very possibly in the pay of Big Oil.

Why do so many people think this way? Well, largely, I think because of a meme which has been spread very successfully by the MSM that the “science is settled” and that the real crazies are the ones who don’t believe in AGW. Earlier this week, for example – on the same day that Kevin Anderson was urging us to bomb our economy back to the Dark Ages in order to save the planet – a story broke which drove a coach and horses right through one of the AGW movement’s most sacred cows. (Yes, can’t you just imagine the mess that mixed metaphor crash made?).

This was the claim made by Al Gore in An Inconvenient Truth – with the help of his scary, dramatically upward-ticking graph – that the last decades of the 20th century were the hottest in modern history. Even hotter, apparently, than the Medieval Warming Period when grape vines grew even in the north of Britain.

As I reported earlier in the week this graph – known as the Hockey Stick, used on two occasions in the IPCC’s reports – has now been debunked beyond all credibility. It’s a complicated story – way too complicated for me, because I got several technical details wrong. If you want chapter and verse try this piece by Andrew Orlowski in The Register, or this by Ross McKitrick – one of the scientific analysts who broke the story – in the National Post. Or, get every last pornographic scientific detail from the Man Who Broke The Hockey Stick , Steve McIntyre at Climate Audit.

McKitrick sums up the problem very well:

“I have been probing the arguments for global warming for well over a decade. In collaboration with a lot of excellent coauthors I have consistently found that when the layers get peeled back, what lies at the core is either flawed, misleading or simply non-existent. The surface temperature data is a contaminated mess with a significant warm bias, and as I have detailed elsewhere the IPCC fabricated evidence in its 2007 report to cover up the problem. Climate models are in gross disagreement with observations, and the discrepancy is growing with each passing year. The often-hyped claim that the modern climate has departed from natural variability depended on flawed statistical methods and low-quality data. The IPCC review process, of which I was a member last time, is nothing at all like what the public has been told: Conflicts of interest are endemic, critical evidence is systematically ignored and there are no effective checks and balances against bias or distortion.”

Or, if you want it put even more succinctly:  AGW is bunk; the scientific “consensus” a figment of Al Gore’s imagination. The only reason anyone could possibly have for believing otherwise is because of the extraordinarily one-sided way the story is reported in the MSM.

Apart from Canada’s National Post – whose editor Lawrence Solomon has written a splendid editorial arguing that “the global warming scare is all over bar the shouting” – the Hockey Stick story has been given next to no coverage in the mainstream media.

This, it seems to me, is a scandal almost as big as the scientific conspiracy just exposed by Steve McIntyre. Every time a climate fear promoter opens his mouth – be he the Prince of Wales, Al Gore or some nutty prof from the Hadley Centre and the Tyndall Centre for Climate Change Research – he is quoted in the Dead Tree Press as if he were the Delphic Oracle. But when evidence emerges to prove them wrong, it’s as if the story just didn’t exist.

Related posts:

  1. ‘Post-normal science’ is perfect for climate demagogues — it isn’t science at all
  2. What Dave and his chum Barack don’t want you to know about green jobs and green energy
  3. ‘Dark Energy’ reminds us: consensus has no place in real science
  4. Killing Ugandans to save the planet

 

Why We Can All Stop Worrying about ‘Global Warming’ for a Bit

Three months to go until the UN climate summit in Copenhagen. Three months in which we will be repeatedly assured by climate fear promoters such as Al Gore, George Monbiot, Ed Miliband and the risible Ban Ki-moon that this really is absolutely, definitely, totally and irrevocably the very last chance the world’s leaders will have to save the planet from ManBearPig.

(Just like they said at Rio and Poznan and all the other “let’s see who can rack up the biggest carbon footprint” global shindigs that eco-campaigners insist on staging, the better to stoke up their self-flagellatory eco-guilt).

But, for the global warming deniers among us at least, the panic’s off. Nothing scary or dangerous is going to happen as a result of the Copenhagen summit. It will be a talking shop, abundant with airy platitudes and earnest pieties, but signifying less than ****er all as far as economy-damaging Kyoto-style legislation goes. There will be a political statement of intent. But no binding “agreement”.

Here are few reasons why:

1. A bit like one of those mutant pandas I mentioned yesterday, the science has turned viciously against the warmists. Not that it wasn’t against them before.  But they have their work seriously cut out if they’re ever going to recover from the  speech given at the UN world climate conference in Geneva last week by Professor Mojib Latif of Germany’s Leibniz institute.

National Post columnist Lorne Gunter explains:

“Latif is one of the leading climate modellers in the world. He is the recipient of several international climate-study prizes and a lead author for the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). He has contributed significantly to the IPCC’s last two five-year reports that have stated unequivocally that man-made greenhouse emissions are causing the planet to warm dangerously.”

Yet in Geneva, Latif was forced to admit that all those An-Inconvenient-Truth-style fantasy projections showing global temperatures rising inexorably with C02 levels were wrong. The world is getting cooler, not warming. It will continue to cool, Latif reckons, till 2020 or possibly 2030. By how much he doesn’t know: “The jury is still out.”

Which begs the rather obvious question: if the IPCC’s doomsday computer models didn’t predict this cooling phase, how can we be sufficiently confident in their other assertions to start basing major economic and social policy decisions on them?

2. The Chinese. Spin it how they will, President Hu Jintao’s two-minute speech to the UN yesterday was a massive blow to the Warmists. In classic “Tell the foolish gwailo what they want to hear, then carry on doing exactly what we want” Chinese diplomatic style, Hu Jintao promised “determined action”, while refusing to commit his country to any binding targets.

The Chinese are not stupid. Their priority number one (and two, and three) is economic growth, not assuaging green lobbyists.

3. People just don’t care about “climate change” that much. Environmental purity is a rich person’s luxury and with the recession most people have other priorities. In the latest Bloomberg poll in the US, for example, just 2 per cent of respondents considered “climate change” the most important issue facing the country.

4. Almost everyone knows deep down that the green lobby’s CO2 targets are pie in the sky. Says Stephen Hayward of the American Competitive Institute in WSJ Online

“Carbon dioxide is the result of complete fuel combustion. Apart from still-unproven technologies, there’s no way to remove it from the process. The only way to reduce emissions is to burn less fuel, which means less energy output.

“So, to meet the target the climate campaigners have set, the U.S., Europe and Japan will have to replace virtually their entire fossil-fuel energy infrastructure. For the U.S., the 80% target means reducing fossil-fuel greenhouse-gas emissions to a level the nation last experienced in 1910. On a per-capita basis, we’d have to go back to the level of about 1875.”

5. If anyone’s going to push these crazy measures through it’s President Obama. But, as Terence Corcoran sensibly points out, after the rough ride he’s had with his healthcare proposals, Obama is unlikely to want to outrage the US taxpayer still further.

“Mr. Obama, already fighting charges his medicare reform will boost taxes on the average American family by $3,000, isn’t likely to simultaneously mount an aggressive push for carbon control legislation that will add another $4,000 a year in taxes.”

6. Right, consider this my serious climate change piece for the week. Now, I can go back to trading childish insults. Phew!

Related posts:

  1. ‘Global warming’: time to get angry
  2. Global warming is dead. Long live, er, ‘Global climate disruption’!
  3. ‘Global warming? What global warming?’ says High Priest of Gaia Religion
  4. Whoops! CO2 has almost nothing to do with global warming, discovers top US meteorologist

 

Is George ‘Jello’ Monbiot Too Chicken to Debate ‘Global Warming’ with an Expert?

Is George ‘Jello’ Monbiot too chicken to debate ‘Global Warming’ with an expert?

A couple of weeks ago, you may have seen, I wrote a piece in the Spectator which drove the  global warming alarmists almost insane with frothing indignation. It was an interview with the Aussie geology professor Ian Plimer whose bestselling book – Heaven and Earth – is being hailed as the great turning point in the debate on anthropogenic global warming.

Methodically, rigorously and above all scientifically, it carefully demonstrates to the lay reader truths that to large swathes of the scientific community are  already quite obvious: viz that “climate change” has been happening for 4,567 million years, regardless of man’s presence on earth; and that “climate” will go on changing regardless of what idiotic, ineffectively and mind-boggling expensive ploys man adopts to try to stop what is in fact a perfectly natural process.

Enough detail: read the piece; then read the book; then make up your own mind.

The climate change alarmists, though, do not even want you to do that. What they’d much rather you did was go onto the internet, find a page of nit-picking quibbles put up by a parti-pris computer modeller from the “man is doomed,  it’s all our fault and we must spend gazillions on windmills now” brigade, write Professor Plimer off as a complete crank.

It’s what they do to Christopher Booker; its what they do to Professor Pat Michaels at the University of Virginia; its what they do to Marc Morano at the marvellous Climate Depot website; it’s what they do to Stephen McIntyre and Ross McKitrick who exposed the “Hockey-Stick curve”; it’s what they to do anyone who produces inconvenient truths which undermine their cause and threaten their claim that there is any kind of scientific “consensus” on climate change.

It’s a classic ploy of eco-fascists and libtards alike: if the facts are against them – as they usually are – they’ll always try to shut down the debate by taking the argument ad hominem instead.

The response of the Guardian’s resident eco-moonbat George Monbiot was a case in point. He sputtered that I knew about as much about the environment as he knew about F1 racing; and wrote a huffy piece effectively saying that Plimer too far beyond the scientific pale to be taken seriously.

Plimer’s response? To offer to fly from his native Australia at his own expense and publicly debate with Monbiot at the time of his choosing. The event would be conducted under the auspices of the Spectator and would, I’m sure, be informative, exciting and sublimely entertaining.

I say “would” because I don’t think it’s ever going to happen. Here is George Monbiot’s response to the challenge:

“Sir, Ian Plimer challenges me to debate his claims about climate change. I accept.

In fact I accepted a fortnight ago, when I began this debate by taking him to task. Along with other critics, I have laid out a list of specific errors of fact and misrepresentations, which he uses to support his argument.

The ball is now in his court. To participate in this debate, he should answer the points I listed, as well as the other issues raised by Tim Lambert, Ian Enting and David Karoly. Then we can reply.

But Plimer, as far as I can discover, has yet to produce any specific response to the very serious allegations made by his critics, preferring to heap insults on them instead.

These are all scientific matters, some of which are complex. To engage in this debate, we need to establish the facts and provide references. This is why it is better to debate these issues in writing; ideally, as Plimer’s critics have done, in electronic format, so that people can follow the links. Attempting to resolve these issues in person is likely either to become extremely boring or to degenerate into a slanging match. The Guardian’s website is open to him, and we look forward to his responses. Is he up to this, or will he keep ducking our challenge?

The floor is his.

George Monbiot”

Now does that read to you like the letter of a man who is happy to venture his reputation in the cut and thrust of open debate?

Or does it read like the squirmy, weaselly get-out of a no-good, snivelling, yellow-bellied, milquetoast loser quite terrified of having the massive holes in his puny argument mercilessly exposed in public by a proper scientist who actually knows his subject inside out?

Plimer, meanwhile, has imposed no conditions on the debate. All he asks is that it be conducted in public and that Monbiot turns up.

The ball’s in your court Monbiot and let’s have no more of that legalistic wriggling. Are you up for this debate?

Or are you – as I strongly suspect – going to bottle it?

Related posts:

  1. On Plimer, climate change and the ineffable barkingness of George Moonbat
  2. George Monbiot: the new Christopher Hitchens?
  3. I have faith in George Monbiot’s sincerity, whoever’s paying him
  4. Climategate: George Monbiot, the Guardian and Big Oil

 

Miliband’s Brilliant Plan to Combat Climate Change: ‘We’ll Export Unicorns to China’

Negative jobs, negative energy

Ed Miliband can't sort out his accent, so what does he have against "climate change"?

Ed Miliband can’t even sort out his accent, so what hope does he have against ‘climate change’? (Photo: PA)

My all-time favourite story from the spot-on news satire website The Daily Mash was the one sending up Alistair Darling’s pitiful attempts to rescue the British economy. Among his brilliant schemes was a plan to breed unicorns and sell them to Chinese millionaires.

“The chancellor would invest public money in up to a dozen unicorn farms across the country churning out thousands of magical horses which would then be vacuum packed and shipped to the Far East.”

“Mr Darling believes that at £250,000 a unicorn the government could have paid back its £120bn of borrowing by the time Star Trek becomes reality.”

So it was with a tremendous sense of deja vu that I heard Energy and Climate Change Secretary Ed Miliband talking on this morning’s Today programme about his radical and costly new measures to tackle “global warming”.

There are, of course, many things to loathe about Ed Miliband: his wonky, slightly sinister face like a giant egg with a hedgehog on top; the way he says “sure” all the time; his Estuarial inability to pronounce his final consonants; the fact that there’s not just him but his ruddy brother too; the annoying missing “l” in his surname; but definitely the worst is the drivel this grinning eco loon is allowed to spout, largely unchallenged, on “climate change.”

This morning he claimed that by 2015 the miseries of his strict new energy policy will be partly offset by the creation of 400,000 “green jobs”. Oh really? These would presumably be green jobs not unlike the ones in President Obama’s much-cited windpowered economic miracle Spain, would they? The ones that actually destroy 2.2 other jobs for every green job that is created?

Yes, this was the truly depressing conclusion of a study published earlier this year by Dr Gabriel Calzada, a Spanish economics professor at Madrid’s Juan Carlos University.

“The study calculated that, since 2000, Spain spent $774,000 to create each “green job”, including subsidies of more than $1.3 million per wind industry job. It found that creating those jobs resulted in the destruction of nearly 113,000 jobs elsewhere in the economy, or 2.2 jobs destroyed for every “green job” created. Principally, jobs were lost in the fields of metallurgy, non-metallic mining and food processing, beverage and tobacco.”

Needless to say his BBC interviewer – the normally sound, but clearly not in this case Ed Stourton – did not call Miliband on this empty claim. Nor did Stourton raise any objection when Miliband produced the still-more-outrageous whopper that the English landscape is in greater danger from climate change than it is from windfarms. (Do read the great Christopher Booker on this subject today)

No it isn’t, Ed. Why do you think, all over the British countryside, there are dozens of campaign groups desperately trying to stop these monstrosities being erected on our beautiful landscape? Why do you think Miliband is now changing the planning laws so that local objections can be more easily overruled? Because no one, except a few politicians and eco-nutters and slippery eco-investors actually wants windfarms ruining Britain. Together with bio-fuels they’re arguably the greatest man-made eco-disaster of the last twenty years.

What a relief it would be to think that when New Labour are finally booted out, and Ed Miliband gets his new job as a mannikin in the shop window of Debenhams, that we’ll finally get a regime talking some sense on climate change.

Sadly, this is not to be. Cameron’s Conservatives are every bit as determined to impose ruinous carbon emissions targets on our groaning economy as Brown’s Socialists. Consider Tory energy spokesman Greg Clark’s pathetic response yesterday to Miliband’s “UK Low Carbon Transition Plan”.

Did Clark talk about the nonsense of green jobs? Did he protest about the 30 per cent rise in our energy prices? Did he point out the economic unfeasibility of trying to cut carbon emissions by 80 per cent by 2050? Did he talk about the imminent threat of brown-outs because of the energy gap caused by successive governments’ failure to duck the issue of nuclear power?

Er, no. He just said – like the joke Irishman giving directions who says “If you want to get there I wouldn’t start from here” – that “households would end up paying because of the Government’s failure to act soon enough.”

Related posts:

  1. Green jobs? Wot green jobs? (pt 242)
  2. Government’s £6 million ‘Bedtime Story’ climate change ad: most pernicious waste of taxpayers’ money ever?
  3. My moment of rock-star glory at a climate change sceptics’ conference in America
  4. ‘Green jobs’ and feed-in tariffs: rent-seeking parasites get their just desserts