Ceci n’est pas un bonhomme de neige! | James Delingpole

December 1, 2010

snowman

Some of you may be looking out of your windows right now and think that the white stuff floating down from the sky is snow. It is not, of course. What the white stuff actually is the purely imaginary creation of your false consciousness. You see it because you want to see it; because in your evil, selfish, refusing-to-change-your-pampered-Western-lifestyle way you think it offers proof that man-made global warming doesn’t exist.

How can I be so sure? Well, even if you were to discount what the experts at the Met Office are telling us about this being the hottest year since at least the Holocene Optimum, the experts’ expert tells us so.

Who is the experts’ expert?

Why shame on you for not knowing!

His name is Dr David Viner, he used to work at Britain’s world-renowned Climatic Research Unit at the famed University of East Anglia, and in 2000 in the Independent he made the expert prediction that snow would soon become a “rare and exciting event”.

“Children just aren’t going to know what snow is,” he said.

Well some of you cynics may scoff, but I for one am glad that we live in a caring, nurturing Steve Hilton and David Cameron style society which takes care of weapons-grade pillocks and throws more public money at them rather than one of those horrid, efficient Margaret Thatcher and Ronald Reagan type one where people are answerable for their idiocies and don’t get bailed out with taxpayer’s cash.

That’s why I’m delighted to remind those of you who don’t know that Dr David “Nostradamus” Viner now has a plum job, funded by you and me, running a £10 million scheme at the British Council to raise awareness of global warming among young people abroad.

I’m even more delighted to report that as a man of conviction, he has not allowed a few awkward winters get in the way of his pet theory. Earlier this year – ie last godawful winter, not this godawful one – he told the Daily Mail that he stood by his 2000 prediction:

‘We’ve had three weeks of relatively cold weather, and that doesn’t change anything.

‘This winter is just a little cooler than average, and I still think that snow will become an increasingly rare event.’

And while we’re on the subject of expert experts, a reader (pls remind me who you are so I can hat tip you) kindly draws my attention to a side project of Professor Kevin Anderson, director of the Tyndall Centre for Climate Change. Professor Anderson, you’ll recall, was the expert extensively quoted in the Telegraph yesterday arguing that the only way to save the world from the evils of man made global warming was by sharply reining in our decadent Western lifestyles and introducing 1940s style rationing.

Prof Anderson, I note, is a non-executive director of Greenstone Carbon Management, which makes a pretty penny advising clients including Eversheds, Clifford Chance, Fujitsu, Henderson Global Investors, Ocado,and Virgin UK on how to reduce their carbon emissions. Since Greenstone’s function would be entirely redundant were it not for a regulatory climate whose existence owes itself the supposedly independent scientific expertise of research organisations like the Tyndall Centre, you can see why Professor Anderson got his job.

I hope Professor Anderson is properly remunerated for his expert expertise. It’s another of the things I really like about Coalition Britain: as men of the world, people like David Cameron understand that money is far too valuable to let ghastly tradesmen, vulgar entrepreneurs and other sweaty self-employed people get their filthy hands on too much of it. The job of government, the Whiggish Cameron and his crew fully understand, is to ensure that the economy remains just another form of political patronage. “Climate change” keeps money with the right people; the government’s people; people like Dr David Viner and Professor Kevin Anderson and that is entirely as it should be.

UPDATE: I’ve just had an email from Kevin Anderson about his role at Greenstone

My comment simply refers to my position in Greenstone. I DO NOT take any money other than basic expenses (2nd class train) from Greenstone. I spoke on Five Live yesterday evening and was offered £80  – which is being donated directly from the BBC to our research funds where it will likely be used by Tyndall PhD researchers. Over the past few years I have led on about £250k of consultancy along with giving talks for which a fee was proffered. As far as I am aware (a genuine and very rare exception may have occurred – the world isn’t perfect) I have taken none of this money. I broadly hold to your view about ‘elites’ taking money for all sorts of things that in my view they should not be remunerated. I take a view that I should survive on my very good salary (around £60k) and not accept additional funds and I try to persuade those around me to do so also. I can assure you, however much you may disagree with my analysis and conclusions on climate change, I am not working in this area to make more than my salary, and I can also advise you that since working in this area my quality of life has suffered as I make some reasonable effort to reduce my emissions. This has had (and is having) serious family, friends and work repercussions – but I think it is important those committed to the findings of their analysis should broadly abide by what they are requesting others to do.

I must say I’m quite seriously impressed with this. It goes without saying that I continue to think the cause Professor Anderson is fighting for is one of the most monstrous con tricks in history and that the damage the campaigning of institutions like the Tyndall Centre will do politically, economically, socially and indeed environmentally is almost incalculable. But I salute his integrity. Unlike, say, Al Gore, it sounds as if Prof Anderson walks the walk as well as talks the talk. I am glad to set the record straight on his finances and I’m really sorry to have maligned him on that score.

We’re on totally the opposite sides of the fence Prof Anderson and I think you’re a ruddy menace. But after what you’ve told me just now about “elites” – and your not-as-disgusting-as-I’d-imagined salary – I also think you’re a kindred spirit. Professor Anderson, you have just gone from being this column’s hate figure to Hero Of The Week.

One Response to “Ceci n’est pas un bonhomme de neige!”

  1. Velocity says:December 1, 2010 at 5:44 pmLondon is -12 at the mo, Warsaw and Berlin are both having record freezes of -17 as is much of Europe and America.Of course this in only “weather” (this years temps). It’s not “climate” (10 year periods as defined by the UN’s IPCC).

    The UK’s roads have 9 million potholes and once again Councils are bleating excuses for being “unprepared” and “underfunded” by central Gov’t.

    Considering the vast fortunes spent by the very same incompetents on green this and that, Gov’t grafetti and road safety barriers, high wheel crushing curbs and the dumbest machine on earth, the traffic (jam) light, it appears once again the Gov’t are mis-alocating (p*ssing away) resources on all the wrong targets.

    Lord Young was right, the British have “never had it so good”. He was referring to the orgy of spending by the public sector and the armies of staff none of whom has ever added any value to any daily need of the citizen that pays for this clown show of incompetence and corruption.

Why the BBC Cannot Be Trusted on ‘Climate Change’: The Full Story

A story of hysterical warmistry

"Watermelon? Me? But I'm such a lovely old man..."

“Watermelon? Me? But I’m such a lovely old man…”

When the history of the greatest pseudoscience fraud in history – aka “Climate Change” – comes to be written, no media organisation, not even the Guardian or the New York Times, will deserve greater censure than the steaming cess pit of ecofascist bias that is the BBC. That’s because, of all the numerous  MSM outlets which have been acting as the green movement’s useful idiots, the BBC is the only one which is taxpayer-funded and which is required by its charter to adopt an ideologically neutral position.

How then has it managed to breach its social responsibility so frequently and flagrantly?

Thanks to the combined efforts of the great Bishop Hill and the similarly wondrous Tony Newbery at the Harmless Sky blog, we now have the most comprehensive and thoroughly damning account yet of how the BBC became such an important part of a sinister political campaign to promote climate change alarmism. I recommend reading their report in full at either of their sites linked above. But here below are some of the highlights.

The story begins in autumn 2004 when the government’s hysterically warmist chief scientific adviser Sir David King successfully persuaded the then Prime Minister Tony Blair to put action on global warming at the heart of UK government policy. This resulted in the creation of a propaganda body called The Climate Change Working Group which in turn sought PR advice from a company called Futerra communications.

Futerra – Britain’s answer to Fenton communications in the US – recommended the following policy:

Many of the existing approaches to climate change communications clearly seem unproductive. And it is not enough simply to produce yet more messages, based on rational argument and top-down persuasion, aimed at convincing people of the reality of climate change and urging them to act. Instead, we need to work in a more shrewd and contemporary way, using subtle techniques of engagement.

To help address the chaotic nature of the climate change discourse in the UK today, interested agencies now need to treat the argument as having been won, at least for popular communications. This means simply behaving as if climate change exists and is real, and that individual actions are effective. The ‘facts’ need to be treated as being so taken-for-granted that they need not be spoken [emphasis added].

Government policy soon became BBC policy too. In Feb 2007, Newsnight presenter Jeremy Paxman had this to say about BBC “impartiality” on Climate Change:

I have neither the learning nor the experience to know whether the doomsayers are right about the human causes of climate change. But I am willing to acknowledge that people who know a lot more than I do may be right when they claim that it is the consequence of our own behaviour.

I assume that this is why the BBC’s coverage of the issue abandoned the pretence of impartiality long ago.

So when did naked bias on AGW become official BBC policy? Newbery and the Bishop trace to the notorious seminar mentioned before in this blog. (Can anyone find the link? I can’t yet….)

This was the one where the keynote speaker was Lord May, whose warmist bias is elegantly encapsulated in this paragraph of the Bishop/Newbery report.

Although Lord May is unquestionably a distinguished scientist, he is not a climate scientist, and he has been a dedicated and vociferous environmental activist throughout his career. In recent years he has expressed strong opinions on global warming. He has been a trustee of the World Wildlife Fund a leading environmental pressure group and during his presidency of the Royal Society an attempt was made to disrupt funding to climate sceptics. It would not be reasonable to suppose that Lord May could provide the seminar with either an authoritative or impartial assessment of the current state of the scientific evidence supporting the AGW hypothesis.

The BBC has done its level best to keep the details of the seminar under wraps. But we know that “30 key BBC staff” attended; that it was hosted by Jana Bennett and Helen Boaden and chaired by Fergal Keane. We also know that the seminar effected a distinct shift in BBC policy, because the BBC admitted as much in its June 2007 report From Seesaw to Wagon Wheel, Safeguarding Impartiality in the 21st Century.

The BBC has held a high-level seminar with some of the best scientific experts, and has come to the view that the weight of evidence no longer justifies equal space being given to the opponents of the consensus.

As the Newbery/Bishop report drily notes:

There is abundant evidence that this is not an accurate description of the seminar.

No indeed. But this hasn’t stopped the BBC going ahead as if it were. The report details just a few of the more notable examples of the BBC’s flagrant pursuit of the Warmist political agenda:

(a) Climate Wars was a four part television programme which purported to describe sceptic arguments. It could best be described as a four-part ‘hit piece’, with sceptic arguments caricatured by a confirmed ‘warmist’ presenter and in one case, some serious misrepresentation of widely agreed scientific evidence. Despite this, a member of the BBC Trust has described this programme to one of us as representing coverage that balanced the more normal mainstream coverage of global warming, suggesting that the BBC Trust have been misled about how unbalanced the corporation’s coverage has been. We are unaware of any BBC programme that has allowed sceptics to present their own arguments without being filtered through a ‘green’ presenter or being subject to immediate rebuttal.

(b) David Attenborough’s two part series The Truth about Climate Change was broadcast in May and June 2006 as part of the Climate Chaos season. At no point in the series was there any suggestion that there are scientists, albeit a minority, who do not support the majority view on this subject, or that scientific understanding of the climate system remains very limited with major uncertainties still unresolved. Therefore the use of the term ‘Truth’ in the title of the series suggests an exercise in indoctrination rather than education. No claim could reasonably be made that this series was impartial about the science of climate change, but the DVD of this series is still being offered for sale on the BBC Shop website.

(c) The BBC’s partisan coverage of the IPCC’s Fourth Assessment Report (AR4) was particularly egregious.

When the Summary for Policy Makers of the Working Group 1 (The Physical Science Basis) was launched on 2 February 2007, the 10pm News devoted most of the programme to this story. At no point was there any suggestion that anthropogenic C02 emissions may not be entirely responsible for climate change, a claim that the IPCC report did not make. All those interviewed on the subject, as ‘experts’, expressed complete certainty about this.

On the same evening, Newsnight went much further, with an assertion by Susan Watts that scientists were being offered thousands of pounds to challenge the IPCC report, and this claim was reiterated by the presenter, Martha Kearney. This was based on a report that had appeared in The Guardian on the same day. It later emerged that the story had no basis in fact and had probably originated from an environmental advocacy group in the US. The BBC would have discovered this if it checked out the story before using it; an example of very sloppy and inaccurate reporting or worse, a willingness to use a third party report because it appeared to confirm the BBC’s position on climate change. During the programme Richard Lindzen, a professor of meteorology at MIT, and an authority on the physics of clouds, was introduced as a climate sceptic. He was then shown smoking a cigarette while a voice over explained that he had a lot of contrarian beliefs including on smoking. It is most unusual for anyone to be shown smoking on BBC programmes now and the sequence was clearly intended to discredit his sceptical views on climate change.

(d) It is also worth noting that the BBC website has a dedicated area for environmentalists: The Green Room. Searching its archives papers related to climate change gives the following list of contributors: Prof Mike Hulme (Tyndall Centre), Bryony Worthington (from an NGO involved in emissions trading, ‘EU is not doing enough to deliver meaningful cuts’), Chris Smith ‘Climate change is very real’, Sir David King (green activist), Malini Mehra (green NGO), Andrew Simms (‘economic growth cannot continue’), Richard Betts (Met Office), Greig Whitehead (NGO, ‘For millions of people in Africa, climate change is a reality’), Tim Aldred (NGO. World leaders must listen to the people who put them in power and quickly make amends for failing to deliver a binding climate deal’). We have been unable to identify any sceptics invited to contradict mainstream environmentalist views on this site. The Green Room appears to exist only as an outlet for propaganda pieces by environmentalists.

Apologies that this post is so long. And there’s plenty more where this came, not least on the key role played by the BBC’s Chief Guardian of the Warmist Flame Roger Harrabin, which surely deserves a post of its own.

In the meantime, I would appeal to the wisdom and scientific integrity of the geneticist Steve Jones who besides being one of this newspaper’s most distinguished and readable science columnists happens to be chairing the official investigation into bias within BBC’s science covering.

It is to Professor Jones that Newbery and the Bishop have addressed their submission.

They conclude:

It would appear that, through the activities of CMEP [Cambridge Media and Environment Programme – the Harrabin outfit which deserves a blog of its own…] BBC Newsgathering has got very much too close to government, environmental activism, and the climate research community for its reputation for impartiality and accuracy to be preserved with regard to the science of climate change.

I don’t believe any responsible scientist, journalist or indeed human being could read this detailed, thorough report and conclude otherwise. Over to you, Professor Jones. We shall all be awaiting your verdict – in Spring 2011 – with keen interest.

Related posts:

  1. Government’s £6 million ‘Bedtime Story’ climate change ad: most pernicious waste of taxpayers’ money ever?
  2. Finally BBC asks: are we maybe a bit biased on ‘climate change’?
  3. Meet the man who has exposed the great climate change con trick
  4. My moment of rock-star glory at a climate change sceptics’ conference in America

5 thoughts on “Why the BBC cannot be trusted on ‘Climate Change’: the full story”

  1. Steve says:17th November 2010 at 2:10 pmWow… what an uneducated idiot! You’d think a journalist would at least understand the value of properly researching a topic instead of regurgitating the crap found smeared across right wing tabloids.
  2. TIM says:18th November 2010 at 1:21 amWow Steve, what an “educated” idiot! You’d think a Steve would at least understand the value of properly posting a response without regurgitating the crap found inside the mind of a delusional left wing’d mind.
  3. Mark says:18th November 2010 at 10:58 pm“Apologies that this post is so long.”

    Why apologise for that? Are you the one responsible for the fact that the average human has the attention span of a gnat? You must be very powerful!

  4. Velocity says:20th November 2010 at 1:17 amJames

    1. The BBC has become what all Depts of Gov’t become: crones.

    2. The BBC achieves what all depts of Gov’t achieve, the exact opposite of what they say they will achieve. In the BBC’s case, they claim to be a “public service” broadcaster but of course they become a Gov’t propaganda broadcaster. They also do not represent the public but the political elite. They also do not fulfill their mandate to be unbiased. They become biased.

    3. Everything Gov’t touches (ie. manages, subsidises/funds etc) turns to crap.

    Only freedom and the free (competitive) market works.

    This is why we need the scum of society that is Gov’t and their monopolistic power structure out of broadcasting, healthcare, education, housing, the money supply, banking and central banking, transport and evrthing else Gov’t touches.

    Freedom & Free Markets: the only mechanisms that work for the progress of humanity

  5. Groper says:24th November 2010 at 11:49 amHey Delingpole, is it open season? You’ve poured hate on wildlife broadcasters/scientists/enviromentalists/World War 2 veterans? Who’s next for you to attack? Dentists? Mother in laws?

Comments are closed.

Rod Liddle knows even less about Climate Change than I do about Millwall FC

Rod’s clumsy play for publicity

Young Rod - in cap, lower middle - enjoys some clean sporting fun with his pater at Millwall, 1935

Young Rod – in cap, lower middle – enjoys some clean sporting fun with his pater at Millwall, 1935

In a shameless attempt to win some readers for his little known Spectator blog, Rod Liddle has thrown together a desperate post with the highly offensive and almost certainly libellous headline The Politically Correct James Delingpole. It’s about my reaction to Richard Curtis’s ecofascist snuff movie No Pressure, which Rod reckons was overdone.

But there is something which does not quite ring true in his attacks upon a film made by Richard Curtis for the 10:10 climate change movement, exemplified by his piece in this week’s magazine. He has been ranting and raving about this film for ages and I cannot tell if his outrage and lack of humour is real, or post-modern ironic.

It’s puzzling that Rod should be puzzled because I did in fact spell the whole thing out on my You Know It Makes Sense column this week.

So let me explain for those die-hard defenders of ‘No Pressure’ why it wasn’t funny on any level whatsoever. And no, it isn’t because of the exploding children. Not per se. Sure, it’s a risky business, in the age of the suicide bomber, trying to extract comedy out of gruesomely atomised kids. But that doesn’t necessarily put such things beyond the pale. In comedy nothing ought to be beyond the pale, for that is part of its purpose, as the safety valve which allows us to say the unsayable. What matters is its context and its satirical point. Only then are we in a position to judge whether the sketch ‘works’ or whether it has failed horribly.

The reason Curtis’s joke failed horribly, I went on, is because it worked neither as effective satire nor as comedy of observation.

The joke would only work if all reasonable people thought ‘Christ, climate change deniers are a pain. Wouldn’t life be so much easier if we could just — tee hee — kill ’em rather than have to engage with their tedious, action-delaying arguments?’

What I didn’t mention in the piece for reasons of space, though I think it’s quite an interesting paradox is this: though the original No Pressure video was desperately unfunny, many of the pastiches were funny. The one where children were exploded, for example, for not submitting to the “Religion of Peace” had a readily comprehensible satirical point that Richard Curtis’s did not.

Anyway, of course I wasn’t really offended that Rod chose to embarrass himself by getting things so totally wrong and making everyone hate him and think he’s incredibly stupid and smelly. What I am, though, is disappointed.

Here’s the bit that really disappointed me:

You do not have to agree with Curtis, or 10:10 (though I don’t see what’s wrong with cutting carbon emissions, regardless of whether you sign up to AGW) to find it funny.

Do you see the bit I mean? It’s that trite bit in parenthesis where the normally well-informed, clear-sighted and acerbic Liddle ventures an opinion based on little more than WWF and Greenpeace press hand outs.

If Rod ever took me to a Millwall match – I’m not asking, you understand, this is just a theoretical scenario – I think I’d know better than to declare in a loud, fruity voice that the offside rule was silly, very silly, or that the game would be lot more enjoyable if the players weren’t so infernally competitive and the fans so foul-mouthed, and couldn’t someone teach them to sing the Eton Boating Song instead of all this four letter stuff?

I would expect Rod to show a similar degree of diligence in matters he clearly knows eff-all about, climate change being the most blindingly obvious one. And the same applies, though to a lesser extent, to my blog colleague – and Rod’s old mucker – Andrew Gilligan.

Gilligan has been doing some stormingly good exposes, of late, on the unutterable uselessness of wind farms. But blogging last month he went and ruined an intelligent, well-argued blog with this entirely unnecessary paragraph:

The problem with British greens is not that they’ve misdiagnosed the problem – I’ve very little doubt that climate change is real. Even in the unlikely event that the science is wrong, it’s not a gamble we can afford to take.

And your evidence for that statement is what, exactly, Andrew? Or, to put it another way, how would you feel if I were to write a blog astringently critiquing Lutfur Rahman and suddenly declare, en passant, that I’d walked past the East London Mosque the other day and that its calm, peaceful, delightfully mosquey appearance had left me in “very little doubt” that claims of its extremist tendencies were an outrageous calumny.

The sad thing here is that both Liddle and Gilligan are journalists I very much admire: proper, courageous, counterintuitive journalists who do their research, are never afraid to speak truth to power and write with verve and conviction. One day, I’m sure, they’ll come round to appreciate what many readers of this blog already do – that the Climate Change circus  represents possibly the greatest outbreak of mass hysteria in history, that it’s probably the worst pseudoscientific scandal in history and that it’s being used as an excuse to impose on us the biggest bill in history. It’s a story that is worth proper investigation and the sooner the cause of truth and justice has the likes of Liddle and Gilligan fully onside, the better for us all.

Related posts:

  1. On Plimer, climate change and the ineffable barkingness of George Moonbat
  2. What the liberal elite feel you should know about ‘Climate Change’
  3. Climate change has nothing to do with the Holocaust or 9/11
  4. Why the BBC will always be wrong on Climate Change

 

Why Conservatives Shouldn’t Believe in Man Made Climate Change

A rationalist’s blind spot

Ed West: "M'Kay, Mister Gore. If you and Michael "ooh I've been to Greenland and seen some ice melt" O'Hanlon say ManBearPig exists then I guess I have to believe you."

Ed West: “M’Kay, Mister Gore. If you and Michael “ooh I’ve been to Greenland and seen some ice melt” O’Hanlon say ManBearPig exists then I guess I have to believe you.”

But Ed’s stance on CAGW is, coming from a rationalist and a stalwart of the right, so weird it’s bordering on the delusional. It’s sad that Ed can’t (yet) see this, but let me offer up an analogy. One of Ed’s most thoroughly worthwhile campaigns this year has been the one he has conducted against a book called The Spirit Level.

He writes:

I wish that everyone who espoused The Spirit Level would read The Spirit Level Delusion, which explains just how dubious the science behind this grand theory is, and what the real agenda is – massive government expansion.

Now how would Ed feel, I wonder, if someone whose intellect he respected and whose politics he shared began buttonholing him about this marvellous new book he’d read called The Spirit Level?

“Ed, Ed you’ve just GOT to read this book. It explains exactly where we’ve all been going wrong. You only have to look at societies where there’s relative equality and then compare them with ones where there’s relative inequality to realise that massive government intervention and a heavily redistributive tax programme are the only way to sort out our problems. And the authors have got all the facts to prove it!”

I can imagine Ed replying, with growing impatience, how the entire thesis has been based on cherrypicked data. Anything that supports the thesis, the authors bunged in. Anything that didn’t support it, the authors carefully excluded. Result? A veneer of statistical authority disguising a farrago of leftist nonsense.

And I can imagine his friend annoying him further by saying: “Yeah well of course you’d say that Ed. You’re too set in your ways to accept the necessary changes in your lifestyle you’ll need to adopt if Britain is to create a truly fair and happy society.”

Yet on the issue of Catastrophic Anthropogenic Global Warming (CAGW), Ed is doing exactly what that annoying, imaginary friend I have supplied for him has done. He has read (or at least had interpreted for him by the biased Mainstream Media) the four increasingly hysterical Assessment Reports of the IPCC and accepted them with just the same gullible alacrity and reluctance to dig beneath the surface he so deplores in all those left-liberals who’ve been getting big in their trousers over The Spirit Level.

Happily for Ed, there is currently a superabundance of stories which should help steer him towards the path of righteousness. I’m sure if he has a glance at them he will begin to see sense for they all indicate just how thoroughly unreliable is the so-called “consensus” science which charlatans like Al Gore have been citing in support of their bankrupt theory.

Here’s a scoop from John Sullivan showing the flaws in the satellite temperature data which the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) – (the US government agency responsible for one of the world’s main temperature records) – has tried to cover up. No prizes for guessing in which direction (hotter or colder) they exaggerated climatic change.

Here’s a story from New Zealand where the New Zealand Climate Coalition is suing the National Institute of Water and Atmospheric Research (NIWA) – the Kiwi equivalent of our own disgraced Climatic Research Unit at the University of East Anglia – for having exaggerated warming trends in its temperature records using heavily biased data adjustments. (Hat tip: Richard Cumming).

Here’s a story in which Michael Mann’s infamous Hockey Stick has been thoroughly debunked yet again, this time in a prestigious statistical journal. If you’re unfamiliar with the territory – as Ed must surely be if he’s a believer in CAGW – then this story about the new McShane Wyner paper will seem involved and unimportant. And that’s certainly how subscribers to Al Gore’s consensus would wish you to view it. But let me explain, briefly, why it’s not.

Michael Mann’s Hockey Stick was a chart purporting to offer near-definitive proof that late Twentieth century temperature rises were catastrophic, unprecedented and – by inference – driven by man-made CO2. Though debunked – twice – by Steve McIntyre and Ross McKitrick, it is yet still defended by warmists as essentially sound. This latest report uses the same data that Mann used (palaeoclimatological samples from tree rings and such like), subjects them to statistical analysis and shows that even if one were to accept Mann’s claim that his data was not cherrypicked it still doesn’t prove what he says it does.

In other words one of the central planks in the argument for the existence of CAGW has been demolished for a THIRD time. How many more times does it need to be shredded and splintered before the eco zealots who gather to froth and foam at warmist sites like Real Climate accept that their flimsy theory has been falsified beyond credibility?

Related posts:

  1. ‘Climate Change’: the new Eugenics
  2. On Plimer, climate change and the ineffable barkingness of George Moonbat
  3. Are climate change deniers worse than paedophiles?
  4. Sun Causes Climate Change Shock

5 thoughts on “Why conservatives shouldn’t believe in man made climate change”

  1. Russell says:19th August 2010 at 11:52 amWhy you running this blog if all entries merely link straight to the Telegraph?
  2. Tom Forrester-Paton says:22nd August 2010 at 5:50 am@Russell – perhaps James has other reasons for running this blog, but an excellent one is that since the mouth-breathers that run the DT site won’t accept my registration, it’s the only way I can tell him how right he is about most things.
  3. charles nelson says:22nd August 2010 at 7:15 amDear James,
    Just saw that your Telegraph location has been blitzed with comments.
    I think you hit a nerve there!
    You probably know the quote, from Ghandi apparently…
    “First they ignore you, then they ridicule you, then they attack you, then you win.”
    Look into this Satellite malfunction thing a little deeper.
    By the way, I laughed out loud at your ‘literary piece’.
    Keep up the good work.
    Charlie.
  4. Mike Paterson says:22nd August 2010 at 5:42 pmTom F-P: Me too. Have made numerous attempts to be a DT commenter – following their instructions to the letter, and receiving confirmations from them by email – still thwarted. How the other commenters managed it, I can only guess.
  5. yaosxx says:25th August 2010 at 11:54 amMike Patterson – If you sign into the log in box on disqus the cursor doesn’t feature first time round – you need to refresh the page and then the cursor will then appear and then you can comment. If you refresh a third or fourth time you lose the box and have to start the whole process again!!!

Comments are closed.

We need to talk about wind farms…

“Energy prices may rise by a third”

A wind farm near the village of Bothel, Cumbria (Photo: Alamy)

A wind farm near the village of Bothel, Cumbria (Photo: Alamy)

“Energy prices may rise by a third,” says our disastrous secretary of state of energy and climate change Chris Huhne. Rubbish. They’re going to rise by a hell of a lot more than that before he is finished. Alternative energy, let us never forget, is just that: an alternative to energy. Wind power and solar power are so risibly inefficient that the only way they can ever be economically viable is with lashings and lashings of taxpayer subsidy. Nuclear power would be much more effective but Huhne has effectively ruled it out. Why? Because in Huhne’s bizarre Weltanschauung, it’s OK for the taxpayer to subsidise low-carbon energy that doesn’t work (wind, solar) but not low-carbon energy that does work (nuclear).

But it’s not Huhne’s breathtaking hypocrisy, ignorance and eco-fanaticism I want to talk about today. Rather I want to focus on just one aspect of it: his plan to carpet Britain in wind farms. What I should like to know is how many of you are with me on this one. It seems to me that at the moment we are sleepwalking towards the greatest environmental disaster of our lifetimes: in the name of alleviating something distant and imaginary – “Climate Change” – our government is now committed to the destruction of the British landscape. And what I’m not sensing, yet, is any kind of serious, concerted resistance.

We need a figurehead. (Not me, unfortunately. I ain’t got the time or the fame or the diplomatic skills.) We need somebody who can galvanise ordinary British people into saving their countryside before it’s too late. Ideally that figurehead would have been the Prince of Wales. But as I explained in last week’s Spectator the Prince has rather ruled himself out of that one. Alan Titchmarsh? He’s the only name that immediately springs to mind, but perhaps you can suggest others.

Next we need money to counter all the propaganda which is spewed out, much of it at taxpayer’s expense of course, by quangos like the Carbon Trust, by schools, by organisations like Renewable UK (formerly the British Wind Energy Association) – each of them repeating the same fundamental lies: that CO2 is a pollutant (not a plant food); that Man-Made Climate Change is a serious, pressing threat; that wind farms are the solution.

Above all, though, we need to stop kidding ourselves that if only we concentrate on how thoroughly marvellous Michael Gove is or what a splendid idea elected police chiefs are, this nasty, scary energy policy our Coalition has decided to foist on us will somehow magically evaporate. At the moment, we seem to be allowing their spokesmen to get away with all manner of nonsense, such as:

1. Britain needs to set an example on CO2 reduction.

No it doesn’t. At least not unless you believe in futile, suicidal gestures. China’s burgeoning CO2 output alone is more than enough to wipe out any paltry emissions Britain makes by going “low carbon”.

2. It will create green jobs.

Only in places like China, where the wind turbines are manufactured. There will be no benefits to the British economy, just a disastrous replay of the Spanish experience where for every “green job” created by government subsidy, 2.2 jobs were lost in the real economy.

3. It will provide “energy security”.

No it won’t. Because wind power is so unreliable, it has to be backed up by conventional power such as coal or gas. If energy security is really what we want we should go for more coal-fired power. We are, after all, sitting on an island of coal.

4. It doesn’t destroy property values, ruin views, chop birds to pieces, or create a low subsonic hum which drives anyone unfortunate to live by a wind farm mad.

Yep. Sounds like you’ve been taking your daily dose of propaganda from the likes of Renewable UK and Polly Toynbee, who thinks wind farms are rather attractive.

5. The future is low carbon.

Says who? What we need, now more than ever, is cheap power to generate the economic growth the world needs to lift itself out of the looming double-dip recession. Low carbon energy is, by definition, not cheap.

6. But what about “climate change”?

What about it? If it’s “global warming” you’re worried about, it stopped in 1998. Global cooling is a much more imminent and serious problem. Recent changes in the Pacific Decadal Oscillation mean that we’re now set for a 30 year cooling period guaranteed to make a mockery of all our fears about “global warming.” Yet here we are, embarked on a policy guaranteed to raise our energy bills to unaffordable levels, as we enter a period of colder winters.

This nonsense has got to stop. People, are you with me?

Related posts:

  1. I’d rather my wife made land mines than worked in the wind farm industry
  2. Wind Farms: the death of Britain
  3. ‘Wind farms cure cancer, save kittens, create world peace’ says new wind industry report
  4. The best article on wind farms you will ever read

Posted on 29th July 2010Author jamesCategories Blog

One thought on “We need to talk about wind farms…”

  1. Caroline says:7th August 2010 at 10:33 pmTOTALLY 100% with you about wind farms. We shall look back at some future date and think, ‘What on earth possessed us?!’

Comments are closed.

Post navigation

My moment of rock-star glory at a climate change sceptics’ conference in America | James Delingpole

May 27, 2010

Wow! Finally in my life I get to experience what it’s like to be a rock star and I’m loving every moment. OK, so the drugs are in pretty short supply. As too is the meaningless sex with nubile groupies. But what do I care, the crowd love me and I love them. God bless America! God bless the Heartland Institute’s Fourth International Conference on Climate Change!

You’d think it would be quite dull, a conference of 700 climate sceptics (or ‘realists’, as we prefer to call ourselves) cooped up for two and half days of intense panel sessions (‘Quantifying the Effects of Ocean Acidification on Marine Organisms’; ‘Green Eggs and Scam: the Myth of Green Jobs’; ‘Analysis of the Russian Segment of the HADCRUT3 Database’) and lectures (beginning at 7.30 a.m). But I haven’t had so much fun in years.

(to read more, click here)

Related posts:

  1. ‘Climate change sceptics have smaller members, uglier wives, dumber kids’ says new study made up by warmists
  2. Climate Change: an emetic fallacy
  3. ‘Climate Change’: there just aren’t enough bullets
  4. Power cuts are a much more serious problem than ‘Climate Change’

 

Why I keep banging on and on about Global bloody Warming

“Can’t you find something else to talk about?”

someone (a nice, sympathetic person, not one of my house herd of festering libtard trolls) commented below one of my previous blogs.

So let me explain, briefly, why I rarely can – with reference to the ludicrous story which was given the front page of today’s Times (formerly a newspaper of some note).

The story, enthusiastically headlined EU SETS TOUGHEST TARGETS TO FIGHT GLOBAL WARMING goes like this:

Europe will introduce a surprise new plan today to combat global warming, committing Britain and the rest of the EU to the most ambitious targets in the world. The plan proposes a massive increase in the target for cutting greenhouse gas emissions in this decade.

The European Commission is determined to press ahead with the cuts despite the financial turmoil gripping the bloc, even though it would require Britain and other EU member states to impose far tougher financial penalties on their industries than are being considered by other large economies.

The plan, to cut emissions by 30 per cent on 1990 levels by 2020, would cost the EU an extra £33 billion a year by 2020, according to a draft of the Commission’s communication leaked to The Times.

The existing target of a 20 per cent cut is already due to cost £48 billion. The Commission will argue that the lower target has become much easier to meet because of the recession, which resulted in the EU’s emissions falling more than 10 per cent last year as thousands of factories closed or cut production. Emissions last year were already 14 per cent below 1990 levels.

Can you see what’s wrong with this story? Clearly the Environment Correspondent author couldn’t, nor his news editors. If they had they would have reported it in an entirely different way – not, as a largely sensible proposal to deal with a real and serious problem which might nonetheless likely to run into various local difficulties. But as one of the most scandalous outbreaks of hysteria, credulousness and stupidity in the entire history of the human race.

Here’s the problem: the global economy has gone tits up. We are doomed. And nowhere is more doomed than Europe whose Monopoly-money currency is going the way of the Zimbabwe dollar and the Reichsmark, and whose constituent economies are so overburdened by sclerotic regulation and so mired in corruption, waste and the kind of institutionalised socialism which might work just about when the going’s good but definitely not now sir now sirree.

And what, pray, is the European Union’s solution to this REAL problem which has already led to riots and death in one country and which could well lead to many more in the horror years to come? Why, to impose on its already hamstrung, over-regulated, over-taxed businesses yet further arbitrary CO2 emissions reductions targets, which will make not the blindest difference to the health of the planet, but which will most certainly slow down economic recovery and make life harder and more miserable for everybody.

In Britain, David Cameron is wedded to the same suicidal policy – on the one hand brandishing £6.5 billion cuts in government spending as though this were a sign of his maturity and his commitment to reducing Britain’s deficit, while on the other remaining committed to a “low carbon” economy set to destroy what’s left of our industry and cost the taxpayer at least £18 billion (yep – almost THREE times as much as the pathetic cuts announced so far by his pathetic chancellor) a year.

Around the world, in the greatest financial crisis we have faced since the 1930s, our leaders are behaving like imbeciles. And nowhere is this imbecility more painfully manifest than in their approach to the non-existent problem they now call Climate Change.

That’s why I keep banging on about Climate Change. It is, unfortunately, the Key to all Mythologies.

Related posts:

  1. The real cost of ‘global warming’
  2. Why we can all stop worrying about ‘Global Warming’ for a bit
  3. Now even Pravda admits the ‘global warming’ jig is up
  4. Global Warming: the Guilty Men

Only morons, cheats and liars still believe in Man-Made Global Warming | James Delingpole

May 19, 2010

Well of course I would write a headline like that having just spent the last three days in Chicago at the Heartland Institute’s 4th International Conference on Climate Change. This is the event the cackling, cloak-wearing, befanged AGW-denying community attends every year to glorify in their own evil. And naturally, in the wake of Climategate, a mood of uproarious triumphalism has prevailed as distinguished skeptical scientists, economists, and policymakers from around the world – Pat Michaels, Richard Lindzen, Ian Plimer, Bob Carter, Fred Singer.. you name them, they’re here – have gathered to dance on the smouldering ashes of the mythical beast ManBearPig.

Except we shouldn’t use that word “sceptic” any more. Richard Lindzen – Godfather of Climate Realism – told us so in one of the keynote addresses.

“Scepticism implies doubts about a plausible proposition,” he said. “Current global warming alarmism hardly represents a plausible proposition.” Not least, he pointed out, because the various activist scientists, greenies and government institutions pushing AGW theory have failed to “improve their case over 20 years.” So paper thin are the AGW movement’s arguments that pretty much the only defences left to them are desperate techniques like the appeal to authority (“the Royal Society believes in AGW and the Royal Society is, like, really old and distinguished, so AGW must be true”) and cheap slurs.

Consider, as examples of the latter technique, how this conference has been reported in the liberal media. Both the BBC and the Huffington Post have decided to write off the expertise of the dozens of PhDs and professors speaking at this event to concentrate on the issue that really matters: it was funded by Big Oil. (Except it isn’t. Unfortunately Big Oil stopped funding the skeptical side of the argument a long time ago. The Heartland Institute is a conservative leaning think tank funded by a number of business donors, and the main funder of the conference is a local libertarian millionaire who just happens to want a bit of openness and honesty in the debate on AGW. But hey, never let the facts get in the way of a libtard story).

The other main objection I heard – from the BBC’s Roger Harrabin – is how utterly ridiculous it was that a total know-nothing like James Delingpole was speaking on a “Science” panel with meteorologist Joe D’Aleo, climate expert Fred Singer, and economist Ross McKitrick (co-destroyer – with Steve McIntyre – of Michael Mann’s hockey stick). Indeed, when I introduced myself to him, he snapped back “I’m not sure whether I should shake your hand. I want to punch you.” He sounded jolly cross indeed – and ranted that I was utterly irresponsible and had disseminated lots of lies – though he later apologized to me saying he was jet-lagged and had confused me with Christopher Booker. Hmm.

Anyway, I agree with him. As I said when I gave my speech, it was entirely inappropriate that a humble hack like me should be on a panel with such great men – like a lowly swineherd suddenly finding himself translated to Mount Olympus. Then again, I said, it wasn’t such a bad idea that I was there to inject a note of reality to the proceedings. The truth is, I said, that the scientific debate is over. The scientists on our side of the argument have won (which is why no Warmist will dare debate Richard Lindzen, and while Al Gore won’t debate anyone at all: they know they’d lose). Problem is, I went on, this debate was never really about science anyway. AGW is and always have been a political process. It’s the political war that we’re fighting now and it’s going to be much much harder to win.

Especially when you look at the results of our recent General Election which I still find so monumentally depressing I’m not altogether sure I can bring myself to fly home.

Related posts:

  1. I’d rather have Monckton in a foxhole with me than Monbiot
  2. Global warming is dead. Long live, er, ‘Global climate disruption’!
  3. Why we can all stop worrying about ‘Global Warming’ for a bit
  4. ‘Global warming? What global warming?’ says High Priest of Gaia Religion

 

Official: Icelandic volcano with unpronounceable name was caused by Man Made Global Warming – James Delingpole

April 18, 2010

You were getting worried weren’t you? 100,000 British tourists unable to get home from their Easter hols in the Med – possibly stuck there for as long as 10 days. The longest no-fly-zone over British skies since the days of Alcock and Brown. A terrifying plume of volcanic dust which swats aeroplanes from the sky like some cashmere-sweater-owner having a go at clothes moths. But still no sign of anyone prepared to tell us what we were all yearning to hear: that it’s all the fault of yummy mummies in their 4 x 4s, chavs taking too many cheap holiday flights, and evil, AGW-denying journalists encouraging people to boost their carbon emissions by writing hideous lies on their vile Telegraph blogs. (Hat tip: Watts Up With That)

Luckily, Scientific American – via Reuters – has finally managed to unearth one:

OSLO (Reuters) – A thaw of Iceland’s ice caps in coming decades caused by climate change may trigger more volcanic eruptions by removing a vast weight and freeing magma from deep below ground, scientists said on Friday.

Er well, sort of. In the next paragraph they’re forced to concede that the eruption below the Eyjafjallajokull glacier had nothing to do with global warming.

They said there was no sign that the current eruption from below the Eyjafjallajokull glacier that has paralysed flights over northern Europe was linked to global warming. The glacier is too small and light to affect local geology.

But they’re not about to let a good story go that easily:

Our work suggests that eventually there will be either somewhat larger eruptions or more frequent eruptions in Iceland in coming decades,” said Freysteinn Sigmundsson, a vulcanologist at the University of Iceland.

“Global warming melts ice and this can influence magmatic systems,” he told Reuters. The end of the Ice Age 10,000 years ago coincided with a surge in volcanic activity in Iceland, apparently because huge ice caps thinned and the land rose.

Phew. So AGW was sort of involved. Tangentially. This means that the report is able to deliver a nice little homily at the end about the seriousness of Climate Change – and its causes. Just in case any of us had forgotten.

He said that melting ice seemed the main way in which climate change, blamed mainly on use of fossil fuels, could have knock-on effects on geology. The U.N. climate panel says that global warming will cause more floods, droughts and rising seas.

Related posts:

  1. Global warming is dead. Long live, er, ‘Global climate disruption’!
  2. ‘Global warming? What global warming?’ says High Priest of Gaia Religion
  3. ‘Trougher’ Yeo recants on global warming
  4. I’d rather stick my hand in a bag of amphetamine-injected rattlesnakes than put my trust in tonight’s BBC Panorama documentary on ‘Global Warming’

Climategate: The Lawyers Move in – Those Scientists Are Toast!

God bless America and – can I really be saying this? – God bless the legal profession! Despite the best efforts of the Obama administration, most of the world’s other governments (save the plucky Canucks), the United Nations and the Mainstream Media (MSM) to sweep Climategate under the carpet, the lawyers are putting this shoddy scandal where it belongs: in the dock. (Hat tip: Platosays)

The US Department of Energy (DOE) – under pressure, most likely, from Senator Inhofe – has issued a “Litigation Hold Notice” to its various sub-departments asking them to retain any documents pertaining to the Climatic Research Unit at University of East Anglia. Below – reports Watts Up With That – is a copy of the notice sent to the DOE’s Savannah office in South Carolina:

“December 14, 2009

DOE Litigation Hold Notice

DOE-SR has received a “Litigation Hold Notice” from the U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) General Council and the DOE Office of Inspector General regarding the Climate Research Unit at the University of East Anglia in England. Accordingly, they are requesting that SRNS, SRR and other Site contractors locate and preserve all documents, records, data, correspondence, notes, and other materials, whether official or unofficial, original or duplicative, drafts or final versions, partial or complete that may relate to the global warming, including, but not limited to, the contract files, any related correspondence files, and any records, including emails or other correspondence, notes, documents, or other material related to this contract, regardless of its location or medium on which it is stored. In other words, please preserve any and all documents relevant to “global warming, the Climate Research Unit at he University of East Anglia In England, and/or climate change science.”

What does it mean? Big, BIG trouble for the Climategate scientists is what it means. You don’t mess with US lawyers and the reason that what might seem an essentially British affair comes under their jurisdiction is because the DOE has provided funding for these scientists.

Here’s one example from the Climategate files:

From: Ben Santer <santer1@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>
To: lbutler@xxxxxxxxx.xxx
Subject: Re: averaging
Date: Tue, 23 Dec 2008 12:08:14 -0800
Reply-to: santer1@xxxxxxxxx.xxx
Cc: Tom Wigley <wigley@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, kevin trenberth <trenbert@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>

<x-flowed>
Dear Lisa,

That’s great news! I’ve confirmed with DOE that I can use up to $10,000
of my DOE Fellowship to provide financial support for Tom’s Symposium. I
will check with Anjuli Bamzai at DOE to determine whether there are any
strings attached to this money. I’m hopeful that we’ll be able to use
the DOE money for the Symposium dinner, and to defray some of the travel
expenses of international participants who can’t come up with their own
travel money. I’ll try to resolve this question in the next few days.

Mmm. I expect you can buy quite a nice no-strings dinner for $10,000.

And here’s another one of the Climategate emails from Dr Phil Jones.

From: Phil Jones <p.jones@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>
To: “Neville Nicholls” <N.Nicholls@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>
Subject: RE: Misc
Date: Wed Jul 6 15:07:45 2005

Neville,
Mike’s response could do with a little work, but as you say he’s got the tone
almost dead on. I hope I don’t get a call from congress ! I’m hoping that no-one
there realizes I have a US DoE grant and have had this (with Tom W.) for the last 25
years.
I’ll send on one other email received for interest.
Cheers
Phil

Gosh. I wonder why it can be that he doesn’t want congress to know about his DOE grant. Surely transparency and integrity were ever the CRU’s watchwords?

But if I were the DOE’s lawyers, I think one of the letters I’d most like to examine would be this one by the CRU’s former head Tom Wigley.

To understand its significance you need first to be aware of one of the most contentious points about Anthropogenic Global Warming (AGW)  – the reliability of weather station records and the Urban Heat Island effect (UHI). For chapter and verse, your man is Anthony Watts – creator of the now legendary Watts Up With That  and also of this wonderfully informative site Surface Stations.

Put very simply, there is great concern among sceptics that the data records used to support the IPCC’s claims about “unprecedented” and catastrophic late 20th century global warming are untrustworthy. Not only do these records rely on a dwindling number of weather surface stations whose readings have been skewed either by relocation or by the warming effects of the cities which have grown around them over the years. But also, the raw data may have been tampered with by activist scientists with a specific political agenda – as for example we saw in this story about some very dubious temperature records in Darwin, Australia.

In 2007 Steve McIntyre’s Climate Audit blog had identified serious inconsistencies in one such data record – the GIStemp record at NASA, run under the auspices of Al Gore’s favourite scientist James Hansen. He wondered whether similar rules might apply at another surface record, HadCrut, run by Phil Jones of the CRU. But when McIntyre put in a Freedom of Information request for data on the weather stations used by HadCrut, this was – predictably and quite deliberately, as we now know from the Climategate files – rebuffed.

Meanwhile another researcher, British mathematician Dr Doug Keenan had also smelled a rat. His suspicions had fallen on 84 Chinese weather stations whose data was being used by CRU to inform their HadCrut record.

In 1990 – as Christopher Booker reports in The Real Global Warming Disaster – two papers had appeared on these stations, one in Nature by a team led by Jones, the other by a US scientist Professor Wei-chyung Wang, who also contributed to Jones’s paper. The Jones paper stated that HadCrut had chosen stations ‘with few, if any, changes in instrumentation, location or observation times’. This was confirmed in almost identical terms by the Wang paper. Both papers referred to a report produced jointly by the US Department of Energy and the Chinese Academy of Sciences, making a similar claim.

As Booker describes it:

When Keenan examined this report he found that it contained information on only 35 of the 84 stations. But the locations of at least half of these had been moved during the period 1954-1983, in one case five times, by as much as 41 kilometres. This not only cast serious doubts on the reliability of their data but belied the claims made by Jones and Wang in their papers.

Bear in mind that Wang is one of the key players in the AGW debate – especially in the field of climate modeling and data analysis, as he describes in this biog. He is professor in Atmospheric Sciences Research at the University at Albany, in New York. He has received $7 million in grants from US federal agencies. And here he was being caught out in a case of alleged scientific fraud.

This is certainly what Keenan believed and submitted a report on the affair to Wang’s university. How did the university respond? It carried out an internal review, without interviewing – or even referring to – Keenan, and without giving any reasons, announced that the charges were baseless. For the full dirt on this cover up read this report at Watts Up With That.<

Now here’s that letter from Tom Wigley to Phil Jones giving his views on the affair:

(3) At the very start it seems this could have been easily dispatched.
ITEM X really should have been …

“Where possible, stations were chosen on the basis of station histories
and/or local knowledge: selected stations have relatively few, if any,
changes in instrumentation, location, or observation times”

Of course the real get out is the final “or”. A station could be
selected if either it had relatively few “changes in instrumentation”
OR “changes in location” OR “changes in observation times”. Not all
three, simply any one of the three. One could argue about the science
here — it would be better to have all three — but this is not what
the statement says.

Why, why, why did you and W-C W not simply say this right at the start?
Perhaps it’s not too late?

What we see encapsulated here is the corruption at the heart not just of Climategate but the whole IPCC process. Here we have the former head of one of the world’s leading climate research bodies apparently brainstorming with a colleague implicated in a fraud scandal on how best to conceal that fraud from outside investigation.

Meanwhile in a separate case, a US State Senator has written to Penn State University warning that its funding may be withheld if it doesn’t properly investigate the activities of its associate professor Michael Mann.

As Jeffrey Piccola rightly points out:

“The allegations of intellectual and scientific fraud like those made against Dr. Mann are serious against anybody involved in academics but the impact in this case is significantly elevated. The work of Dr Mann and other scientists at the CRU is being used to develop economic and environmental policies in states and countries across the world.”

Meanwhile in Copenhagen, the caravan rolls on. I’m not saying we’re going to win this one easily. Not with so many powerful vested interests backing AGW theory – among them the firms listed in this release from Open Europe: (Hat tip: Msher1 and Alexei)

EU environmental policy awards millions in windfall profits to oil companies and heavy industry
As national ministers meet this week in Copenhagen to discuss a new climate change deal, Open Europe has found that under the EU’s Emissions Trading Scheme (ETS), oil and gas companies’ operations in the UK were granted a surplus of carbon permits worth €28.6m in 2008. For example, ExxonMobil received €4.3m and Total received €5.4m.

Meanwhile, heavy industrial polluters such as Corus received €47m, while cement firms Hanson and Lafarge received €17.3m and €20.2m.

Due to the economic downturn, many heavy polluters, such as oil and gas companies and heavy industrials, have been left with a surplus of carbon permits – essentially a free asset that firms can sell on to bolster their short term profits.

The glut of surplus permits on the market has driven down the price of carbon and led to a sharp increase in the number of permits being traded via carbon exchanges. Open Europe has found that the two largest carbon trading exchanges, European Climate Exchange and Bluenext, which includes members such as Barclays Bank, JP Morgan, Merrill Lynch and Shell, have earned a combined average of €245,000 a day from the trading of carbon permits.