The Strange Death of the Great Climate Scam

As Britain battens down the hatches for yet another cold spell, the Observer reports that most Conservative MPs, including six shadow cabinet members, have deep reservations about our climate change policies.  Some simply reject man-made global warming.  Others are doubtful, but believe we can’t prioritise the massive costs of climate mitigation in the face of our current economic problems.  Both views are correct — it isn’t happening, and we can’t afford mitigation anyway.  And the prevalence of sceptical views is very much in line with what I have found in private conversations.

Yet only a few MPs have spoken out.  In today’s Conservative Party, it seems that it is easier to “come out” as a homosexual than to come out as a climate sceptic.

This must change.  Global Warming theory is being shot to pieces as we watch.  There is a real debate to be had.  Indeed in a sense, the debate is over, and the public has made up its mind.  After decades of research, and billions of dollars spent, we have been unable to establish a clear link between CO2 and temperature.  In fact the correlation is rather poor.  The current long, slow and unsteady increase in mean global temperatures started at least a century before the Industrial Revolution, and clearly represents a natural cyclical recovery from the extreme cold of the Little Ice Age in the 17th and 18th centuries.

Our current mitigation plans would inflict vast economic damage, and (even if you accept AGW theory) would make very little difference.  They are bad policy, and bad politics.  Large number of Conservative MPs, and a majority of Conservatives in the country, and of the public at large, just don’t buy it.  It’s a vote loser.  My impression is that a majority of our Conservative Group in the European parliament would tend to take a sceptical line, for what it’s worth.

The task now — clearly not in the weeks before an election, but soon afterwards — is to reconfigure our policy around energy security, not carbon emissions.  They are not the same thing.

As I commented on the Observer/Guardian web-site: “The walls come tumbling down!  The Great Climate Scam is over.  We don’t believe it, and we won’t pay for it.  The only problem now for the political parties is how to achieve an elegant climb-down”.

This entry was posted in Uncategorized. Bookmark the permalink.

14 Responses to The Strange Death of the Great Climate Scam

  1. I have the feeling that Ed Miliband will be the last person to admit it. Probably why he was given the job.

    There is a conspiracy theory which says that the climate change fraud is to de-industrialise the West.

    I no longer think it is just a ‘theory’.

  2. Daniel1979 says:

    The world would not be in the position it now is if open and honest debate had been the course followed on all climate change discussions.

    But, better late than never!

  3. Brian Johnson says:

    I emailed David Cameron about the myth of climate change when it was still called global warming and up to Dec 2009. The last reply, via his secretary said in effect that David Cameron felt that mankind was affecting the planet’s climate and that my views were noted but not considered relevant.

  4. steve says:

    I am so exasperated by the Tory party on (non) man made climate change that I will definitely vote UKIP. I have never voted for anyone else than Tory before but following the replies I have had to emails to Cameron, my local candidate and Tory head office enough is enough. They are missing the boat.

  5. Johnathan says:

    “The common enemy of humanity is man. In searching for a new enemy to unite us, we came up with the idea that pollution, the threat of global warming,
    water shortages, famine and the like would fit the bill. All these dangers are caused by human intervention, and it is only through changed attitudes and behavior that they can be overcome. The real enemy then, is humanity itself.”
    – Club of Rome,
    premier environmental think-tank,
    consultants to the United Nations

  6. Otter says:

    Good luck! These agw jokers are not going to give up easily.

  7. John Catley says:

    I have personally emailed a number of MPs and responded to the “blue blog” several times and I know that many others have done the same to clearly show that AGW is not something that should be in the manifesto.
    Whether Mr Cameron will actually take any notice remains to be seen.
    My simple promise is that my vote will NOT go to a party which accepts the AGW line.

  8. John Catley says:

    I just checked the latest “blue blog” and my recent comment had been deleted. Nothing rude or inflammatory. Just noting my objection to AGW policy.
    Out of 123 posts, only one mentions climate change as a reason for any concern over policy.
    That seems a little suspicious given the avalanche of comments in the previous blog.
    Surely Mr Cameron wouldn’t be censoring his blog would he?

  9. Phil Burrows says:

    I find it outstanding the way you manage to reference the Observer, but cannot reference any data showing your belief that there is no correlation between C02 and recent (last 250 years) climate change.
    Surely if it is true, then you can show us a graph?

  10. David Hughes says:

    When Darwin put forward his THEORY of evolution, many people thought he was correct. After 150 years it remains UNPROVEN; it’s still just a theory – a theory in crisis. The THEORY of global warming looks set to be a somewhat similar affair. I just hope that its accompanying extra taxes now being imposed on us will not last for the next 150 years.

    • Philip Burrows says:

      Climate skepticism and creationism. A match made in heaven.

      • alexei says:

        @ Phil Burrows

        “Climate skepticism and creationism. A match made in heaven.”

        – The usual sort of sarcastic ad hominem comment one has grown to expect from those who are intolerant of another viewpoint but unable to disprove it.

        Thinking outside the box of the prevailing orthodoxy does not win popularity contests. Good scientists, however, tend to keep their minds open to other alternatives and despite what we so often hear from the “AGW” brigade, the science is NOT settled, there IS no consensus amongst the world’s scientists and at present, there are only theories on all sides. Your comments demonstrate either your ignorance of recent revelations relating to those official bodies involved in deceiving the public with their manipulated data, or your reluctance to re-evaluate the situation – a stance shared by our leaders.

        Your reference to “recent” climate change suggests you might envisage another reason for all the previous known instances of climate change throughout the earth’s existence, such as long before MANKIND was around???? If so, why would that particular cause no longer apply today but be replaced by “man’s activities”? Perhaps because it just doesn’t fit the prevailing political agenda? But if, according to AGW theory, man WERE conceivably the culprit, why isn’t there a call for curtailing population growth?

        You ask for data showing there is no correlation between C02 and recent climate change – presumably you know that simply showing an increase in one particular variable amongst many others, does not correspond to proof of its causative effect? Nor the reverse. Isn’t it possible that because the climate has always changed, is in a continuous process of change, or that there might be many factors we are as yet unaware of, that it might simply change regardless of man, and that perhaps there is absolutely nothing we can do to prevent it?

        Though personally unconvinced by the AGW theory, and with my doubts reinforced by all the lies, deceit and increasingly compelling control and tax agenda of government bodies, I am nevertheless all in favour of mankind generally cleaning up his act, and most especially requiring major corporations and industry to really absorb the costs of their polluting activities, without constantly passing on those costs to us (though I doubt any of our current governments capable or willing to enforce this). It would be astonishing if politicians generally showed as much concern for all the other pollutants and detrimental practices contaminating our environment now, as they appear to show for future climate change. Moreover, alternatives to oil should have been developed decades ago – ever since the Arab states first held the West hostage in 1973 – what has taken them so long?

      • simon beasley says:

        well said, I agree with everything you said, just one thing though, there are calls for curtailing the population. Look at the UN’s population division, look at the Optimum Population Trust (Attenborough, John Porrit (Royal Advisor), Crispin Tickle and many more). The OPT want to halve Britains’ population in something like 30 years. There are hundreds of characters on the far left calling for this. Not just in activist circles but some in government like John Holdren, Obama’s Science Czar, he calls for population reduction, forced abortions, covert sterilisation through water and food supplies, and a planetary dictatorship to carry all of this out world wide. Read his book Eco-science. Paul Erlich, Holdren’s predecessor is another malthusian eugenicist. You can also look at the links I’ve posted below for more people calling for this. It’s a long held idea amongst very powerful people. A new earth based religion, would provide the perfect ideology for normalising these ideas in society. Use Start page instead of google to research these things as google will get you nowhere. This is not theory, or conspiracy as you just have to look at the published writings of these people and see it in their own words.

  11. simon beasley says:

    if you have any doubt that these eco fanatics have an agenda as bold as de-industrialising the west then read this article. you have nasa’s james hansen (of climategate fame)promoting a guy who is encouraging eco terrorism, like blowing up damns, and destorying factories.

    this is quite moderate when you look into the depopulation comments from people in very high places, when reading the folowing link make sure you wikipedia the names if you don’t recognise them

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s