James Delingpole’s article “Global Warming believers are feeling the heat” should certainly warm your cockles — it certainly did mine. Wonderful, resonant phrases: “The science used to ‘prove’ man-made global warming looks increasingly threadbare … Al Gore’s “consensus” is about to be holed below the waterline … those still aboard the SS Global Warming are adjusting their positions”.
The IPCC hopes (in James’ phrase) to “brazen it out for a few more years”. Dr. Ravendra Pachauri, Railway Engineer and IPCC Chairman, has insisted that global warming continues because we’ve just had the warmest decade on record. No prizes for logic here. We’ve seen a rather small, slow and uncertain warming for the last 150 years, as the world has recovered from the Little Ice Age, and appears to be moving into a new 21st Century optimum, comparable to the Roman Optimum and the Mediæval Warm Period. On that basis, it would be no surprise at all to find that we’ve just had the warmest decade on record — given that records don’t go back as far as the Mediæval Warm Period. But that is entirely consistent with the fact that warming has stalled since 1998 — the point Pachauri is seeking to deny.
But I was most struck by a point James makes towards the end of his piece. EU Environment Commissioner Connie Hedegaard, challenged recently by the Telegraph’s Bruno Waterfield, replied: “Let’s say the science some decades from now said “We were wrong. It was not about climate”. Would it not in any case have been good to do many of the things you have to do in order to combat climate change?”.
No, Connie. No, No, No! It would not. You are creating an economic disaster. Do you not talk to your colleagues in the College of Commissioners? Were you not there when Energy Commissioner Günther Oettinger said that Europe can’t afford to pursue a unilateral climate policy? Or when Industry Commissioner Antonio Tajani said the EU was facing an “Industrial Massacre” as a result of energy prices?
You have driven energy prices up to hopelessly uncompetitive levels. You have forced families and households and pensioners into fuel poverty. You have driven industries out of the EU altogether, taking their jobs and their investment with them. You have undermined competitiveness. You have jeopardised energy security. In the process you have littered our historic landscapes with wind turbines and obsolescent solar panels.
Hedegaard’s suggestion that renewable investment will enhance energy security shows she hasn’t bothered to read the research showing that intermittent generation fails to deliver significant amounts of energy, or significant emissions reductions, because of the inefficiencies imposed on the conventional back-up by intermittency.
Her green energy policies are totally destructive in social and economic terms, and she can’t even see it. We in UKIP have been making these points for years, and it is encouraging that at least two Commissioners are waking up to the problem. But Connie Hedegaard is still lost in her green dreams — or nightmares.
P.S. I’m sure that James will not take it amiss if I suggest a small correction to his terminology. There is of course no such thing as “a fine toothcomb”. No one combs their teeth. The item is “a fine-tooth comb” — that is, a comb with fine teeth.