« Menzies thinks we are "still unpleasant" | Main | Anyone out there describe themselves as right-wing? »


Do you doubt that Indy readers can save the planet after they get back from a weekend away in New York? Tsk, tsk.

But there is another eminent scientist whose name escapes me at this minute, who has stated that the whole global climate is cyclical, and this cycle has more or less finished, and we are due to freeze shortly? My history books tell me the Romans used to grow grapes pretty far up country, and in another century, that the Thames froze over. Just who is the average punter to believe. It may be a truism that if the global warming lobby have to pack up, it will cause said global warming industry to go "into administration!" Just being provacative you understand! Now have to wrap up warm against this cold april and meet my fellow activists.

This remind me of something I encountered recently.

A liberal democrat friend of mine told me recently that he was jetting around the world on holiday. I asked him what contribution he would be making to aleviate the environmental impact of his travelling, especially as his party had expressed clear concerns on this.

He replied 'nothing' and when asked why, he replied, 'because I don't want to.'

Do as I say, not as I do seems to be the message here.

Incidentally, does anyone else find the BBC headline a little 'Day Today'-ish?

We better kill of humanity now. We are obviously doing far too much damage to the planet. I mean, a 3 degrees rise (which again is just one scientist's speculation based on random statistics) hasn't happened before, has it? Of course not.

There are 2 issues here: cause and effect.

There seems to be agreement on the effect - there is a global increase in temperatures and the effects will be felt all over the world. But that's not unusual if you apply a long enough timeframe.

However, lots of people disagree on the cause - some believe it to be the fault of capitalism, and scientific advances which have helped populations to grow, live longer and live better by consuming more. Others point out increasing sunspot activity and note that cattle and volcanoes create more pollutants than we do.

It's tempting to dismiss the whole thing as quackery and irrelevant, but there's a really important point: we are rich enough to help our fellow human beings cope with the effect of climate change, but not if we cripple our economic growth and technological innovation on the spurious grounds of meeting targets for CO2 reduction that have been invented by a bunch of freeloaders trying to get state handouts.

We would be better off spending money to counter the effects of climate change while modifying our personal behaviours to reduce pollution, rather than wasting it on bad science and worse economics.

We could give coal smoke-scrubbers to China, India, etc. to clean up their emissions, or fund solar-powered desalination plants to give people clean drinking water and reduce the risk of acquifer depletion. Or maybe implement a large-scale insulation programme for the UK to reduce the amount of energy we consume. But we need a strong economy to afford it.

The doom merchants seem to have gone too far. If 3C means we have passed the tipping point, then taking action is pointless. If their prediction is wrong then we can accuse them of crying wolf and no one will take them seriously.

The one problem that no one even mentions any more is the continuing huge rise in population, which in the long term will surely present a massive problem. From 1990 to 2025 the world's population is due to increase from 5 billion to 7.5 billion. Why does no one, even Bob Geldof ever suggest a serious attempt to reduce the birth rate?

The Independent comes across as sickeningly sanctimonious and has a bee in its bonnet about global warming. What else is new?

There are many scientists who are deeply disturbed by the pseudo-religious hysteria being generated about man-made climate change. They question the science of the models and believe that it is possible these are natural changes and ones that we may not be able to change anyway. One wonders whether it suits leading greens to use the environment to push for more controls that achieve there left wing objectives. Are they more anti-capitalist than anything else?


Bjorn Lomborg is the man to read on global warming.

In short, its cyclical, and there ain't much we can do about it. Most of the environmental lobby are watermelons, green on the outside and red on the inside.

I like the watermelons analogy, Andy. Thanks!

we dont know enough about the various cyclical movements that have taken us into ice age or tropical periods in the past to pass judgement just yet me thinks.

China is worried about the encroaching gobi desert so is planting 5 bn trees then on the other hand is digging up millions of years of naturally sequestered CO2 in the form of coal and burning it - mental .

Anyway the head in the sand approach which then reverts to 'oh well its too late now anyway' just results in it being worse

Well, duh!!! Anything less than a mass suicide by all those who are green-minded is hypocrisy.

Every minute they live they are taking up my precious resources. Every time they pay taxes they subsidise this countrys biggest single polluter, the government. Every time they interact via the market system they are subsidising someone elses callous disregard for the environment. Unless they are Hermits i guess. Not many hermits in Notting Hill though. I wish they would all just shut up or die. Not for my satisfaction, but for the earth!

The lack of good science teaching in the UK. Many commentators are using exceptionally sloppy scientific reasoning when they jump from "average temperatures have increased over the past decade" to "CO2 produced by humans is to blame and large tracts of land will soon disappear under water". This may indeed be true - but at present it is only a hypothesis.

Andy is correct that CO2 levels are cyclical - we're starting to break out of that cycle at the moment, CO2 levels have risen dramatically, and have departed from the standard oscillations quite markedly since the industrial revolution, but I do think that there is an awful lot of scaremongering by the "watermelon" lobby, and not a whole lot of genuine scientific debate in the media.

Besides, who lives in Norfolk anyway?

The rate of climate change that we are seeing now has not been seen before.

To dismiss the scientists as "watermelons" is one of the most idiotic and shallow things I have read on ConservativeHome. To see the editor applauding it is a great surprise. I imagine that the watermelons would call you coconut heads - sweet but empty.

Mark: the point of tomato environmentalism and watermelons is to jokingly point out that a lot of environmentalism is camouflage for big state, socialist policies. There is a 'blue environmentalist' response to environmental problems that stresses market mechanisms, technology and property rights etc. Michael Novak, the Catholic theologian, has written about it here.

coal and oil are just naturally sequestered carbon as is limestone which covers 1/5th of the land of the globe, left over from much warmer times when coral must have been everywhere. We need to find a way of locking the CO2 back up or were heading for warmer times.

The comments to this entry are closed.



ConHome on Twitter

    follow me on Twitter

    Conservative blogs

    Today's public spending saving

    New on other blogs

    • Receive our daily email
      Enter your details below:

    • Tracker 2
    • Extreme Tracker