Preposterous climate idiocy


Michaela Koller of Insurance Europe

I have just received an e-mail from Michaela Koller of “Insurance Europe” asking me to sign up to a petition ahead of the Paris Climate Conference demanding that climate change be kept within a 2oC limit.  The absurdity is mind-blowing.  When the predictions of the climate models on which the alarmists rely have already been demonstrably wrong by several degrees, the idea that we can define policies which will achieve such a precise result is preposterous.  I have replied as follows:

Dear Michaela,

Surely you don’t believe this arrant and unscientific nonsense?

It is not clear that the rise in atmospheric CO2 is anthropogenic, nor that atmospheric CO2 has anything like the effect postulated by the IPCC.  Nor is it clear that the policies advocated by climate alarmists would have any material effect on atmospheric CO2 levels or on climate.  What is absolutely clear is that we are utterly unable to predict precise changes (all the predictions so far have be falsified by events), and that these policies will do far more economic damage than anything that could be envisaged as a result of climate change.

Let’s stop this nonsense.


This entry was posted in Uncategorized. Bookmark the permalink.

16 Responses to Preposterous climate idiocy

  1. omanuel says:

    Thank you, Roger, for responding candidly and frankly to the deceit being used to increase totalitarian control of all Earth’s inhabitants.

    George Orwell correctly predicted this future for mankind in the book he started writing in 1946: “Nineteen Eighty-Four.”

  2. Ex-expat Colin says:

    Never heard of her/them…thankfully. Their Word Cloud don’t work, rather like their brains by the look of it.

    After mystic Carney opened his trap I guess they are all reviewing/raising their risk premiums. At least they know how to prepare and collect money for any old risk. Whereas generating false risk is a speciality of a bunch of others, True..where there’s junk there’s money!

    BBC last night on history of the Serengeti. Would you believe that the climate there changed the terrain and not surprisingly the terrain there changed the climate. Over a million or so years you know, flip-flopping. The bloke stating it had lived adjacent for some considerable time and he wasn’t an employee of the BBC and likely not a UK Uni associate. And no blame apportioned to cows and a multitude of indigenous animals. Climate mentioned of course, but not hooked up with Change….the all upward variant.

  3. ian wragg says:

    If Charlotte Church says it’s so it must be true. After all she is one of Wales leading academics.(not) I am always amused how the great and good like Bono and the Boom Town Rat killer think their musings are of any interest or indeed value. They should stick to what they know.
    I see CMD couldn’t bring himself to mention Europe at the conference and Mrs May is pinching Nigels soundbites. Of course they are only racist when coming from UKIP.

  4. Despite the model’s winsome, pleasant appearance, “Michaela K.” Is probably a figment of a computer Model’s imagination, just like AGW, in fact!

  5. Anne says:


    I hope we never have to see,
    Waving in the wind at you and me,
    A flag that is the colour WHITE,
    For we the people once more must fight
    The JANUS Politicians who
    Continued with their rhetoric, yet knew
    An EU Treaty, which stands to reason
    Will bring about the crime of treason.
    Yet so eagerly they went along
    From the same old song sheet, sang the song,

    “To lead in “Europe”, in right at the start,”
    “To be right there, right at ‘its’ heart.”
    Yes, the people will indeed have to fight
    Not the traditional foe, with all their might,
    But the ones that were often so ashamed
    To admit to being “British”, or us they named
    As Xenophobes, little Englanders, or of BNP,
    Yet the latter are honest in what they want to be.
    Forked tongued politicians, their dark night has come
    So switch off the light, their worst has been done.

  6. barrymx5 says:

    Well said Roger. Completely with you.

  7. DICK R says:

    Why were you so polite to the stupid cow ?

    • Charles Wardrop says:

      Good manners are more effective for the argument than bad, even with disreputable people, who are probably computers anyway, even though they are controlled by trolls!
      Well said anyway, Mr H.

  8. Brin Jenkins says:

    Roger has laid it out so often very clearly.

    Arguments may be won by insistence that the other party is wrong, even when it is shown to be untrue! This is intellectual bullying.

    This arguing down is used by those who say, they know, and they believe. When questioned they are often unable to explain why, or how this is so? Linkage does not prove a cause, and cherry picking events over a short time in long term cycles unreliable. Certainly not a route to wealth on any stock market.

    Joining a consensus of those who are unable to understand the theory supports ignorance. Entertainers are often not well informed outside of their own profession, it was a fact post WW2 that a few out of work actors turned to being confidence tricksters, skilled in making people believe what was being presented.

  9. carl maguire says:

    Roger a good reply, but alas I think your superb use of language will go right over her head.
    You need to treat these fools as idiots, which they are anyway, and so provide simple word answers or replies that they can understand.
    Keep up the good work!

  10. Ex-expat Colin says:

    And it gets much more serious about here:

    (Robin Guenier on Philippe Sands, QC and Professor of law at UCL)

    “Yet he goes further: having noted that some “scientifically qualified, knowledgeable”
    people, despite “a broad emerging consensus”, are unconvinced that
    mankind’s actions were the main cause of recent atmospheric warming,
    he says – and, interestingly, this is not in his text – “the courts could play
    a role in finally scotching those claims”. He added that a finding of fact on
    such a matter “would be significant and authoritative”.

    The fools (ICJ et al) are seriously going for it…to silence all debate and/or recognition of science and to simply transpose with authority.

  11. Ex-expat Colin says:

    While I’m at it. Peter Lilley has complained to the BBC (Tony Hall directly) here:

    Thats in response to the crass apology that the BBC issued about airing the story regarding the useless Met Office.

    It goes well beyond slapping heads I think..!

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 )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ 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