Happy Climate Fools’ Day | James Delingpole

October 28, 2010

Today is Climate Fools’ Day. To celebrate, here is an essay courtesy of Simon Barnett to show how your money is being squandered by the Coalition on “Climate Change”.

The 2008 Climate Change Act commits Britain to cutting its CO2 emissions by 80 percent by 2050 at a cost of £18.3 billion every year for the next four decades (according to the Department for Energy and Climate Change website).

This is being funded by top slicing the cash from your energy bills. The figure does not include other costs, such as the losses incurred due to the economic damage and opportunity costs of these measures. And obviously the law only seeks only to address CO2 emissions from the UK.

Without pausing to question how that 80 percent target is to be attained short of closing down the entire economy I’d just like to demonstrate the sheer scale of the cost of this bill with a little help from my beautiful assistant, H.R.H. Queen Elizabeth II. Here she is below on the fifty pound note, the largest denomination note in common circulation, and guaranteed to win friends and influence people wherever she goes…

Delingpole-she-goes-1

Also assisting me in my demonstration will be “red stick man” who is participating primarily as a visual reference to scale, but you can call him “Red Ed” if you’d like (to apportion blame). Here he is demonstrating that a million of the above notes (50 million pounds) will fit neatly onto a standard pallet… (h/t)

Delingpole-standard-pallet-2

And here he is again, this time demonstrating what one billion pounds sterling looks like (now we’re getting into the real money and Ed seems to have started sweating)…

delingpole-started-sweating

So the governments own estimate of £18 Billion per year is a huge pile of our cash that would look like this (Are you alright, Ed? You seem to have gone a bit green)…

delingpole-bitgreen-460

Remember, our light-green-fingered politicians (of all political stripes) want us fork over a similar pile of cash to their chums in ‘green subsidies’ every year for the next four decades!!! That soon adds up to quite a tidy pile. So now let’s play: “where’s Ed?”…

delingpole-wheres-ed

Assuming that at least some of that cash doesn’t get spent on duck houses, that is one hell of a cure! But can we visualise the size of the problem it is supposed to fix?

Let’s see…

The majority of greenhouse gasses are water vapour. Carbon dioxide represents 2% of greenhouse gasses, and of that carbon dioxide 2% is attributed to human activity (including livestock). So let’s consider the following visualisation of 1000 (double stacked) 55 gallon drums.

delingpole-last-460

The blue drums represent water vapour and the yellow drums represent naturally occurring Co2 (from the oceans, rotting vegetation and volcanoes – note here that a good volcano could easily wipe out several years of any anthropomorphic Co2 savings we might make). We can’t do anything about the anthropomorphic Co2 in the red drums because it is produced in developing countries like China and India who have no intention of hamstringing their economies to keep up with the latest eco-fad.

Anthropomorphic Co2 from the industrialised nations is represented by the green barrels… but wait! Remember the political slush-fund described above is for the UK only. There are over a billion people just in Europe and the US alone, and only 60 million in the UK. So what Co2 reduction does our £18 billion a year buy us in real terms? Out of 55,000 gallons the UKs total contribution is arguably *drum roll* less than one gallon (about six and a half pints). In that context even an 80% cut is – quite literally – a drop in the ocean.

Commentary

Maybe it’s just me, but doesn’t the “cure” sound worse than the problem? A bit like amputating your leg to “cure” your in-growing toe nail? A bit Nongqawuse? But surprisingly few of the politicians, bankers, civil servants, trans-national bureaucrats, academics, activists and energy companies who stand to receive a slice of this funding bonanza seem to see it that way. And who can blame them? Remarkably few of those pallets would be enough to turn most of us into true believers.

After 15 years of what climate science calls “negative warming” (i.e. cooling; and despite unchecked Co2 levels) I must confess I was already sceptical about the likelihood of human Co2 having the catastrophic outcomes described in some academic requests for funding. Especially not when much of their proof comes from weather monitoring stations sited within feet of air conditioning outlets and when we discover that their results are “homogenised” by interpolation with hardcoded variables.

I know what you’re thinking and I’ve heard about the “consensus” too. But when you can actually prove something you don’t need a consensus. That’s why you never hear about the consensus on gravity, or the consensus on evolution. Saying that 97% of climate scientists believe in global warming is an awful lot like saying that 97% of priests believe in God. If they didn’t at least pretend to believe in global warming climate change climate disruption they wouldn’t be climate scientists – not of the sort that get public funding, anyway. And when those “scientists” have to delete their own source data to prevent it from being released under freedom of information laws they deserve the scare quotes because at that point they have stopped being a credible science and have become just another bunch of religious extremists.

Simply put, the shoddy and disreputable field of climate “science” still has an awfully long way yet to go to actually prove that our six and a half pints of co2 are a problem of sufficient magnitude to justify such an obscene amount of public cash. Not when we are the only nation currently prepared to eviscerate our economy in such a way, making the entire exercise a futile gesture from the outset.

Related posts:

  1. Finally BBC asks: are we maybe a bit biased on ‘climate change’?
  2. Sun Causes Climate Change Shock
  3. This government simply hasn’t a clue about ‘Climate Change’
  4. Oh no, not another unbiased BBC documentary about ‘Climate Change’…

5 thoughts on “Happy Climate Fools’ Day”

  1. Groper says:29th October 2010 at 11:16 pmOh dear Delingpole, green energy bad but spending on wars for oil is alright. Countless £££ billions wasted not to mention the lives lost. All you can do is bash investment into our future energy needs keeping us at the mercy of fossil fuel price fluctuations, taking us back in the stone ages whilst other developed countries are looking to the future. Yep! Looking at this board you certainly are building up a big following to your religion of denialism and hate.
  2. Neil Craig says:2nd November 2010 at 1:03 pmSo Groper if your honest primary objection is to demand for oil creating wars you will be on record as saying we should be allowing mass building of nuclear palnts which can provide immense amounts of energy cheaply, cheaply enough it would even be practical to synthesise oil & of which there is an effectively unlimited supply in seawater.

    In the same way ever single “environmentalist” who honestly believes in the catastrophic warming swindle is on record as supporting mass nuclear as the only practical way of producing virtually CO2 free power.

    Perhaps Gopher you could name some eco-fascists who, by that standard, are not provably personally supportive of resource wars against the 3rd world or some who are not perfectly aware that warming catastrophism is a total fraud by political parasites. I look forward to you doing so & providing evidence that you are entitled to claim membership of either handful.

  3. Groper says:7th November 2010 at 12:14 amNuclear is an option, but if the UK went full nuclear, we would be facing £140 billion cost of decommisioning and disposal after they come to the end of the lifespans. So it can only part of a solution. With China and the US, fossil fuel hungry nations, the biggest investors in renewbles, recognise the world’s ever increasing demand for energy. Delingpole doesn’t offer any solutions. Just disinformation and hate.
  4. Velocity says:25th November 2010 at 9:16 pmGroper

    Know much about markets do you?

    I’ve spent my life as a businessman and the last year as a private investor in the markets. Let me tell you what I’ve learned. Oil, like coal and gas, is coming out of our ears. The only problemo is Gov’t involvement (regulation, subsidy, legislation etc etc) i f**king it up!

    There is NO (ie. zero) issues with oil/gas/coal prices. They are cheap 95% of the time, except for the odd (ie. exceptional) 40 year spike. There is no issue about this BS called ‘energy security’ either. We’ve had a constant reliable safe and secure energy supply for 100 years, and it gets better by the day because ever more countries are finding the stuff.

    Every piece of crap you’ve ever heard from the shrill green empties and the fascist political scum is a big fat lie.

    So don’t worry your little head. Leave it to the free competitive market. It does ALL the work for you. No socialists required.

  5. Groper says:25th November 2010 at 10:53 pmWell if you spent your life as a businessman you haven’t learnt much. Like I said in other post, there’s plenty of oil around. With the Arctic opening up, they’ll be plenty more. But eventually, we’re going to have to dig deeper etc. The price goes up to the point where it becomes economically unviable. When it will happen is the point.

Comments are closed.

Post navigation

Liked it? Take a second to support James on Patreon!