« Tory lead narrows in new YouGov poll | Main | Liam Fox welcomes ConservativeHome poll on national security »


Screening The Great Global Warming Swindle on Channel 4 wasn't a mistake at all, Mr Ainsworth and you should be ashamed to call yourself a Conservative if you consider it appropriate for people only ever to hear one side of the argument on climate change. You may have found Al Gore's absurd "documentary" more convincing but surely the essence of a free society (assuming you believe in one) is for people to hear as many views as possible and then to make up their own minds?

The government's decision to send Gore's film to every secondary school in the country was the truly outrageous decision - not Channel 4's.

This was the year that the Tory green agenda shrivelled up. All of the difficult recommendations on green taxation and airport expansion from John Gummer were rejected by a politically pragmatic Tory leadership.

Donal I agree with you 100% on this!! There is a lot of "Global Warming Fascism" about and we must be allowed to recognise that there is more than one school of thought on the subject.

I don't know why Peter Ainsworth insists on embarassing himself with this rubbish.

This is the sort puerile leftist tripe that you would expect to find in a student newspaper. The real zero is Peter Ainsworth, for issuing this pathetic list. He attracts very little media attention and was slow to comment on the summer floods - clearly politically and intellectually lazy!

George Monbiot – for being too grumpy about the environment, even though he may be right.

and of cause he may equally be wrong!

The Ed's green comments are 100%.I suspect this unknown lightweight is in the wrong party for conservative he ain't.

I agree with the above comments. I think its time to replace Ainsworth with someone who can talk about the environment in a reasonable manner. When he does get media attention, which is rare, he comes across as out of touch and elitist. Perhaps he'll be better as a PPS to someone in a future Cameron govt.

The warming trend of the late 20th century has flattened out - 1998 is still the warmest year in the last 40.
Meanwhile, corrections to NASA's data show the 1930s were warmer, with 1934 being the warmest year of the 20th century in the US.
So unless the US is mysteriously exempt from global warming, the wheels are about to fall off Gore's bandwagon, and "Great GW Swindle" is going to be vindicated.

What a load of eco-tosh! In my world 'green' will always mean 'naiive gullible and easily conned'. We really need to shrug off this hair-shirt nonsense and the evil combination of dirigiste edicts/front for excess-taxation it has become associated with.

As a party of progress and aspiration we should be encouraging people to want nice cars, a couple of weeks in the sun, a warm house and the chance to enjoy a summer evening round the barbie. Forget the sumptuary taxation and stop giving the likes of Monbiot/Goldsmith a platform for their anthrophobic drivel.

Very Humorous. Complete rubbish, but very humorous.

Ainsworth is sadly typical of the literally ignorant Conservative greenies. Cameron, Goldsmith, Gummer, and Ainsworth - bandwagon-jumpers to a (delusional) man.
His thoughts, as outlined above, reveal a man who knows nothing about his subject, outside of what he is told to believe.
Can't the many millions of voters who see through the lies of the new eco-talibanism have at least one Party for which to vote?

Errm, aren't there a few zeroes missing here? What about all those politicians, film stars, journalists, activists etc etc and another etc who flew to Bali and spent a week there discussing global warming? Quite a few carbon footprints there, I'd say.

If "environmentalism" didn't offer the opportunity to raise taxes in one form or another or to impose yet more controls over people's lives then few, if any, mainstream politicians would have any interest in the subject at all.

Did this go through Andy Coulson? I'd be surprised if it did.

This is the sort of thing a tabloid editor might commission. Not a Government-in-waiting.

Andrew Woodman makes a good point: since Andy Coulson came on board, we have seen discipline in the presentation of the message. And here is Ainsworth breaking ranks - and, worse, attacking Stewart Dimmock in a very high-handed, braying manner that suggests he, at least, isn't up to the job at all. No wonder he polls so poorly in the monthly surveys published on this site.

As a teenager my vote has just been lost!

What a load of crap!

The global warming issue is NOT yet resolved to many scientists' (and others' of course) satisfaction. It is sad then that there is so much concentration on this aspect of the green agenda - much of which is indeed pressing.
Regardless of the validity of man-made global-warming, we surely do have to clean up our act in many ways w.r.t. pollution and conservation. Even more important is the over-riding issue of man's excessive and still growing population! How much easier it would be to be 'green' in a country/world of steady (or preferably slowly shrinking) human population!! When will politicians face this politically difficult issue?

oh come on. Hysterical over-reaction, or what? I notice that your dislike of green laws doesn't extend to opposing the smoking ban in pubs. So you're not philosophically opposed to the state making life more difficult for people not breaking the law, only when it has an energy conservation driver?

I find it very sad that this sort of nonsense is being put out by Peter Ainsworth, I don't know anyone who buys into the global warming scam here in the West Country heartlands. Except maybe the Glastonbury hippys and they don't vote. We believe in respect for the countryside, recycling and not wasting energy we don't need preachers to frighten us into doing it. Plus we especially don't need even more types of tax which go into the general spending pot to cajole us even further.

There is a real opportunity for the Conservatives to own the 'green' debate by adopting a scientifically, yet politically pragmatic, robust position. They should encourage debate whilst accepting the prevailing scientific consensus.

They need to be authoritative and speak with the gravitas of a government. This release in not worthy of the Conservative Party.

Must do better.

It's a good job I'm declining the renewal of my membership next year (unless by some miracle I feel it's worth continuing).

The man's completely hatstand.

Is that the official view from your Platform 10 website, graeme?

Probably the dampest squib of the web year.

Machiavelli's Understudy - how much is your subscription?

The environment is too important to entrusted to the environmentalists. Conservatism and environmentalism are opposites. Conservatives want to conserve, environmentalists want to control through tax, regulation and the law.

Peter Ainsworth is an environmentalist, not a conservative, as his support for Al Gore's pack of lies demonstrates clearly. We need a CONSERVATIVE shadow environment secretary. Ainsworth should be sacked and deselected.

it's not 'my' platform10 website alan:-) was just meaning that I find the press release neither the most wonderful of the year, nor worthy of the intense condemnation it's attracted here. And I do find it a little odd for CH to attack mr ainsworth's dislike of the smoking ban while simultaneously disdaining his support of measures to improve energy conservation. I abhor the ban on smoking in pubs, privately owned establishments which no-one has to enter against their own volition.

Fabulous. Apsolultely fabulous, stupendous news!! Well done!!!!

Agree entirely with Justin Hinchcliffe, now there's a first.

Sir Roy Meadow- I have paid a reduced subscription of £3- next time round it will be £25 (apparently).

I will have the good sense to donate the money to my PPC's campaign instead. Assuming they want it, of course.

Do you think the PPC would prefer it to go to CCHQ and the association instead?

George Monbiot – for being too grumpy about the environment, even though he may be right.

As Mr Monbiot bases all his views on hatred of capitalism, rather than environmentL SCİENCE, he is very much wrong.

Extremists like Monbiot have convinced a huge swathe of the populace that Global Warming is a con. After all, here are the enemies of liberty, salivating at the chance to screw individual freedom even more. Anyone who is really interested in protecting our environment will be pursuing cost effective measures and shunning extremists like Monbiot & Propagandists like Gore.

In respect to the Nobel Peace Prize (what has CO2 emissions got to do with peace?) it clearly went to the wrong man.

Al Gore: Made a film
GW Bush: Partly responsible for record oil prices.

Which of these will have a bigger long term impact on energy use ;)

It is almost beyond belief with all the evidence piling in that there ain't no global warming (let alone that man is responsible) that this kind of one-track minded bandwagonist takes no notice!

All the global cooling evkdence will not stop the Global Warming idiots from shouting even louder and demanding more wasted expenditure to prevent something that isn’t going to happen anyway. Meanwhile the world will starve as good agricultural land is given over to biofuel production.

And it’s the world’s poor who will suffer most, If the price of bread and meat here triples, we can give up some luxuries to have enough to eat. Those already on the borderline will go hungry and some will die.

And the Tory party is condoning such drivel??

A ridiculous article.
We need the evidence weighed up (I posted on another thread to go through some of that).

As for this -
"....with all the evidence piling in that there ain't no global warming (let alone that man is responsible) ...."

What evidence - "piling in"?

There has been some global warming since 1975 (i.e. a warming up) - the question is whether it is a natural change, or whether we are creating more Co2 than the earth can deal with naturally.

Reducing wasted energy is the best target for individual people - by definition that means no almost activity needs to stop.

The market economy is essential to protect the environment because that's the only way to spur on the technology.

I have become more involved in statistical analysis since I was struck off.

"Do you think the PPC would prefer it to go to CCHQ and the association instead"

CCHQ would spend it more efficiently, by about 65 to 1.

Please stop posting as Sir Roy Meadow. I'll overwrite/ delete any further impersonations.

The above posts tell their own story. We now have over 400 scientists dissenting from the IPCC's latest report, and yet our so-called leading politicians still claim there is a consensus. It is people like Stewart Dimmock who are the heroes, as I have already said on my blog.

At least George Monbiot should be applauded for likening the dubious "trade" in carbon emissions to the mediaeval practice of the selling of indulgences.

This issue is not complex. All the party needs to do is say that it is inherently a good thing to encourage energy efficiency as this will save fuel and cut pollution. Then we need to focus on encouraging technology and real practical solutions ranging from strict insulation stds on all new housing to clean coal, marine energy etc with an emphasis on tax cutting "carrots" and less sticks. While we cannot tell the whole world to change we can do practical things here and sell those technologies to China who is going to steam ahead anyway. For example China is going to build coal stations anyway, if we give them clean coal technologies we all benefit. Its win-wins we need.

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