Christmas has come unusually early this year for British climate sceptics thanks to a magnificent scoop by the Mail on Sunday‘s David Rose.
The headline reads:
Tory peer in £600,000 conflict of interest: Climate Change chief John Gummer faces calls to quit over payments from ‘green businesses’ to his family firm where daughter he famously fed a beef burger during the height of the BSE crisis is a director.
If anything, this is even better than it first sounds.
Of the many dodgy geezers in Britain’s Climate Industrial Complex, few are either so influential or conduct their watermelon politicking with such fanatical zeal as the egregious John Gummer.
Gummer — or Lord Deben as he is now known, having been ennobled in 2010 — is chairman of the British government’s Climate Change Committee. Probably no advisory body has been more active than the CCC in pushing forward the green policies which have done so much damage to the British environment and economy, put so much money into the pockets of rent-seeking troughers, and driven up the cost of living, hurting the poorest hardest.
All this from a man who makes a big deal of being both a Conservative and a Christian.
The other day George Monbiot of the Guardian had me round for the weekend at his country seat in Machynlleth, Wales. You’ll never guess what we had for dinner after a fine afternoon’s sport shooting the red kite which infest that region like a verminous plague. First, we had leatherback turtle soup; then a delicious tranche of foie gras à la Nigella; then a superb escalope of cruel-reared veal in a wild okapi reduction on a bed of endangered tropical hardwood; then
then finally, the pièce de résistance, candied polar bear cub paws marinaded in Château d’Yquem. Afterwards, the world’s third most famous Old Stoic (after Perry Worsthorne and his seducer the late George Melly) proposed a toast: ‘To the eco-bollocks that makes me my fortune!’
No, no, really, I jest. Granted, the world of eco-propaganda can be awfully lucrative, what with all the money sloshing around from advocacy groups like Greenpeace and from big oil companies like Shell trying to ‘greenwash’ their image by giving handouts to the Guardian environment pages. But not for a moment do I imagine that George Monbiot writes his paranoid, hair-shirt, anti-capitalist eco-screeds in order to please his paymasters. Nope, I’m quite sure the dear chap genuinely, sincerely believes every word he writes…
Nige Cook says:13th April 2012 at 12:13 pm“George Monbiot, who knows more about climate change that most of us could ever know, rather likes warm, sunny days. What Delingpole wanted to do here [suggesting that George Monbiot would probably ban warm days] was to remind his readers of Margaret Thatcher’s great disdain for what she called ‘the nanny state’ where everything that might harm us is banned.”
– Aussie psychologist Dr Dorothy Rowe’s book “Why we lie” (Fourth Estate, London, 2010), page 234.
Rowe’s book includes a huge amount of “climate change” evidence (which nobody will disagree with), but deceives by making no mention of natural climate variability at all. She assumes implicitly that 100% climate change is unnatural.
Pseudo-science assumes “climate change” evidence by denying the ever present evidence of natural climate variability; the latter is not an unknown since there is evidence for significant climate fluctuations in all the data and statistical averaging is used by the IPCC to suppress the evidence for these fluctuations, producing a smooth hockey stick shaped curve. See Dr Spencer’s latest satellite data: http://www.drroyspencer.com/2012/04/ushcn-surface-temperatures-1973-2012-dramatic-warming-adjustments-noisy-trends/ which shows global warming stopped in 2000, 12 years ago. The mechanism for long duration climate variations is cirrus cloud cover shadowing the surface, produced by the Wilson cloud chamber effect (cosmic rays from the sun produce vapour trails, converting infra-red absorbing water vapour into sunlight-reflecting cloud droplets).
IPCC fiddles H2O feedback parameters to fit its prejudices, starting off with the idea that 100% of climate change is due to rising CO2. It then uses the circular epicycle argument, whereby models are fiddled to fit the data using false implicit assumptions, and the “goodness of fit” through these two fiddled parameters is alleged to support the model.
IPCC models assume about 30% of global warming is from CO2 and 70% is from H2O vapour (not clouds) which evaporates in response to CO2 and amplifies the overall warming. There is no inclusion of any natural climate change mechanism in any IPCC models, so they implicitly assume 100% of climate change is anthropic, and this delusion is the basis for selection of the feedback parameters based on fitting historical data, the “justification” being entirely dependent upon this denialism of any natural climate change.