Skip to content

Booker On The Looming Energy Disaster

April 3, 2016
tags:

By Paul Homewood

 

image

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/opinion/2016/04/02/were-following-germany-to-an-energy-disaster/

 

Booker takes from three of my recent posts in his column today:

 

A far darker shadow is hanging over Britain than that of the collapse of our steel industry. As she is the sister of a leading figure in the campaign to keep Britain in the EU, we may not be surprised by the warning from Amber Rudd, our Energy and Climate Change Secretary, that “Brexit” would raise our energy bills by £500 million a year. Her brother Roland, as a key behind-the-scenes strategist for Stronger in Europe, might be described as “the Rudd who doesn’t want us to leave the sinking ship”.

But in making that “half a billion a year” claim, Ms Rudd must hope that we don’t recall those recent figures from the Office for Budget Responsibility projecting that within four years – due entirely to her own Government’s policies – we will be paying £13.6 billion a year in climate change levies alone, up a further  £7.6 billion from the year just ending.

Even this is only a small part of the disaster Ms Rudd is heading us towards, as she sets about “decarbonising” our economy by closing down all the fossil-fuel power stations which, until recently, were supplying two thirds of all our electricity, in order to rely instead on ever more “renewables” and those new nuclear power stations which simply aren’t getting built.

Thanks to those rocketing energy costs, many of Germany’s top manufacturing firms, such as Siemens and BASF, are moving their production facilities abroad, with the loss of hundreds of thousands of jobs.

Just where this policy is leading us, as I predicted five years ago, can be seen by looking at the one country still ahead of us in the rush for the cliff edge. A long article in Handelsblatt, Germany’s leading business journal, paints a devastating picture of the chaos now resulting from its pursuit of a “green” energy policy remarkably similar to our own (except that, post-Fukushima, their 17 nuclear power stations have been closing down even faster than ours).

Already 77 nuclear and fossil-fuel plants have closed. Their largest power companies, RWE and E.On, have run up debts totalling £43 billion. And after £170 billion was poured into “green” subsidies, giving it the largest number of windmills in Europe (26,000) and causing huge problems for its grid when the wind isn’t blowing, Germany’s electricity bills have soared to the point where last year 350,000 customers were cut off because they couldn’t afford to pay.

Thanks to those rocketing energy costs, many of Germany’s top manufacturing firms, such as Siemens and BASF, are moving their production facilities abroad, with the loss of hundreds of thousands of jobs. Those jobs are going not least to the US, which has energy costs less than half of Germany’s (the same effect is seen here in Britain, where our “carbon tax”, crippling energy-intensive industries such as steel, is now four times higher than anywhere else in the world).

Yet the irony is that last year Germany’s “carbon emissions”, due to increased demand for heating and the burning of cheap “dirty” coal to keep costs down, actually rose. Ms Rudd may claim that her energy policy is “setting an example” to the world. But if she wants to know what happens next, even before our lights have gone out, she should look instead at the example being set to us by Germany.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/opinion/2016/04/02/were-following-germany-to-an-energy-disaster/

73 Comments leave one →
  1. AlecM permalink
    April 3, 2016 10:11 am

    Talk about Rudderless, but the plan of the elites is dramatically to increase winter excess death rates to reduce benefits whilst subsidy farmers and carbon traders become very rich.

    This was predicted in a 1926 essay by H. G. Wells; landowners farming wind whilst the poor are driven into foetid inner cities to die in their millions; welcome Agenda 21.

    The key question is; when will proletariat frogs in now rapidly heating saucepans realise they are being sacrificed?

    • April 3, 2016 11:50 am

      The BBC are a major player in pushing this agenda, countryside programmes are now all about getting farmers to grow biofuels or to host wind and solar farms, any land remaining must be devoted to increasing biodiversity.

  2. Robin Guenier permalink
    April 3, 2016 12:44 pm

    “the plan of the elites is dramatically to increase winter excess death rates …”

    “countryside programmes are now all about getting farmers to grow biofuels or to host wind and solar farms …”

    This is a hugely important subject. Foolish comments such as these are seriously unhelpful.

    • April 3, 2016 3:42 pm

      As foolish as the decision to falsify nuclear and solar physics in 1946 to hide the source of energy that destroyed Hiroshima and Nagasaki from the public?

    • ClimateOtter permalink
      April 3, 2016 4:25 pm

      What, in your mind then, would fuel poverty, skyrocketing electricity and food prices (due to climate policies) and major economic crashes end up leading to?

    • AlecM permalink
      April 3, 2016 6:16 pm

      Agenda 21 is real. Planned population reduction is real (see the spreadsheet of sustainable populations on the ‘Population Matters’ website).

      The plan, publicised by Crispin Tickel, leader of the ‘Green Blob’, is for 45 million early deaths in the UK. it’s 150 million for the USA. Jonathan Porritt, the FoE puppet master for his estate neighbour jug ears, wants just 35 million deaths, so he’s a bit kinder, I suppose.

      Porritt allegedly indoctrinated Call-me and Miliband in fake IPCC science at Oxford.

      • AlecM permalink
        April 3, 2016 6:19 pm

        PS patrons of ‘Population Matters’ include Eugenicist Paul Ehrlich who in 1975 co-organised the ‘Endangered Atmosphere’ conference at which fake CO2 science was cooked up to pursue globalisation and Marxist World Government, Pol Pot on Steroids.

      • Robin Guenier permalink
        April 3, 2016 9:22 pm

        “The plan, publicised by Crispin Tickel, leader of the ‘Green Blob’, is for 45 million early deaths in the UK”

        Citation please.

      • ClimateOtter permalink
        April 3, 2016 10:39 pm

        Robin, again I ask:

        What, in your mind then, would fuel poverty, skyrocketing electricity and food prices (due to climate policies) and major economic crashes end up leading to?

    • tom0mason permalink
      April 4, 2016 1:28 am

      Robin Guenier,
      Such comment as —
      “the plan of the elites is dramatically to increase winter excess death rates …”

      “countryside programmes are now all about getting farmers to grow biofuels or to host wind and solar farms …”

      are hugely important on this subject as they reflect these citizens’ concerns. It is foolish and seriously unhelpful to try and belittle such remarks with haughty and high-handed put-downs. But then again that is all you have!

      • Robin Guenier permalink
        April 4, 2016 8:53 am

        “… that is all you have!”

        Far from it. See this: https://ipccreport.wordpress.com/2014/04/03/why-uk-climate-change-policies-are-pointless-robin-guenier/ That was two years ago: Post Paris my position is, if anything, strengthened.

        Current UK policies, if continued, are likely to have widely and seriously damaging consequences, potentially national disaster – ClimateOtter please note. There are however encouraging signs that this may at last be beginning to be recognised in influential circles: see yesterday’s Sunday Times leader and the current Spectator editorial: http://www.spectator.co.uk/2016/04/how-is-britain-going-green-by-shutting-down-industry/

        We may be getting somewhere. But hysterical assertions that mysterious “elites” are behind these polices specifically because they plan “to increase winter excess death rates …” are totally unhelpful.

      • tom0mason permalink
        April 4, 2016 9:10 am

        Robin Guenier
        As I said these are important matters and consensus get us to do the same stupidity as all other nations.
        Indeed there is no measurable greenhouse effect as Professor Wood proved back at the beginning of the last century, an experiment that has been successfully repeated many times (see http://www.biocab.org/Wood_Experiment_Repeated.html ).
        You wish to have some personal evidence? Get some CO2 (from a CO2 extinguisher) and verify it for yourself just like I did — and note NO computer model is required.🙂 Or prove me wrong.

        The UN-IPCC is NOT based on science — it is based on unproven opinion.

      • April 4, 2016 9:17 am

        Robin, you don’t need conspiracies or elites to push the extreme “green” agenda, all you need are like-minded people to join powerful organisations such as the UN and the BBC, vote seeking politicians then do the rest. The unlike-minded people need to organise and influence public opinion, and blogs such as this and yours are vital.

      • Robin Guenier permalink
        April 4, 2016 10:50 am

        tomomason:

        I’m not a scientist, so I’ve no idea whether or not you’re right. But I’ve been involved with this issue since 2007 and one thing I’ve learned is that trying to persuade believers that they’re wrong about the policy because they’re wrong about the science is a total waste of time and effort. All you get is the usual “denier” accusation. Far more effective is to demonstrate that – even if their view of the science is accurate – their policies can make no difference and are therefore pointless.

        It’s effective because they have no answer. See this for example: http://climatenewsnetwork.net/past-emissions-force-faster-climate-change/#comment-2090

      • tom0mason permalink
        April 4, 2016 2:27 pm

        I do not believe in your methodology — it smacks of elitism and leading the argument away from the ordinary voter.
        Take the argument to the public, not the science deniers. Use crass words, use humor, use showmanship and flair. Continuously highlight how Joe and Jane’s tax being wasted. Show the holes in the so called science with easy experiments like that of Professor Woods.

        What the die-hard science denying, climate change advocate believes is irrelevant — get to the people…

      • Robin Guenier permalink
        April 4, 2016 10:57 am

        climanrecon:

        True. One useful thing we can do, I suggest, is to take the fight into our opponents’ camp. Two examples:

        http://www.climatechangenews.com/2016/03/30/new-fossil-fuel-plants-post-2017-risk-2c-warming-limit/
        http://www.campaigncc.org/node/1693

      • Robin Guenier permalink
        April 4, 2016 4:14 pm

        tom0mason: show me what you’re doing in pursuit of your methodology. Thanks.

        “What the … climate change advocate believes is irrelevant”

        No it’s not – it’s they who have the ear of the Establishment.

      • Robin Guenier permalink
        April 4, 2016 4:53 pm

        I cited above yesterday’s Sunday Times leader and the current Spectator editorial as evidence that we may be getting somewhere. Well, here’s another valuable article (originally published in the Times this morning): http://www.rationaloptimist.com/blog/green-policies-and-the-steel-industry/

        Obviously serious and detailed articles such as these are only read by a minority. But, even so, I’m sure they are far more likely to have an, albeit indirect, influence on public opinion than the sort of stories – e.g. hysterical assertions that mysterious “elites” are planning “to increase winter excess death rates” – that tom0mason seems to favour.

    • April 5, 2016 11:46 am

      +1 for first part ..Yep no point in pushing UNEVIDENCED conspiracies.

      but second comment is legit . BBC Green zombies do put GreenDream bias into such progs

  3. Broadlands permalink
    April 3, 2016 12:47 pm

    Increasing biodiversity. Another dire “hand-wringing” problem for us to worry about and legislate?

    “The IISE… International Institute for Species Exploration, which is dedicated to finding 10 million new species of life on Earth during the next half century, says about 18,000 new species were discovered in 2012. Scientists estimate that they’ve only identified about 2 million of an estimated 12 million living species, with millions more species existing in the microbial world.”

    http://www.esf.edu/top10/

  4. April 3, 2016 2:11 pm

    Reblogged this on Tallbloke's Talkshop and commented:
    We need to keep stressing these important points even if they do start to sound repetitive. Paying more and more for less reliable electricity is simply not going to work.

  5. markl permalink
    April 3, 2016 3:27 pm

    Vote while you still able.

  6. Jackington permalink
    April 3, 2016 6:02 pm

    Just as I thought we were leading the world in climate lunacy, dang me now I find Germany has jumped ahead of us. Never mind, when it comes to Overseas Aid idiocy we are way out in front Can somebody please bang DECC and DoID heads together? Or just do something to get us out of this madness!

    • davec permalink
      April 5, 2016 1:46 pm

      Take a look at Scottish Govs. proposed CO2 reduction targets. Self-proclaimed ‘world-leading’ targets expressed within their 2009 Climate Change Act. Scottish Power, which owns southern Scotland’s grid, just shut Longannet – citing prohibitive network costs. 1.8/9 baseload just got zapped so we are now entirely reliant upon Englands interconnectors. Independence? To add to the undoubted failure Keith Brown – my local MSP – and a so-prescribed ‘energy’ spokesperson – proposes that by 2030, 65% of all Scottish vehicular traffic will run on batteries. Keith, have you any idea about physical reality?

  7. John F. Hultquist permalink
    April 3, 2016 8:03 pm

    Booker takes from three of my recent posts in his column today:
    Take a bow, Mr. Homewood. That’s great.
    ———————————————–

    Related is this matter:

    “350,000 customers were cut off because they couldn’t afford to pay”

    It seems to me this issue needs a serious look.
    What is going on? What rules exist and how are the rules implemented?
    What are the characteristics of the “cut off” episodes? Is there a warning before cut off? If a family moves to another town and leaves a balance, then the service is cut – is that characterized as hurting the poor or hurting the utility’s bottom line? Just a few of the questions about the number 350,000 that leaves me wondering.
    Our local (Washington State, USA) utility partners with a charity. The utility allows clients to pay a bit extra each month (I think there is a minimum of $3) and the amount is credited to the charity. Folks can apply to the charity for financial help with their utility bills. The payers do not have to deal with the charity nor does the utility. There are other sources (ways) for a poor person to get help. See:
    LIHEAP

    • David Young permalink
      April 4, 2016 12:16 pm

      UK energy deals/prices, in this instance electricity, can be a little bizarre.

      At the beginning of 2015 we were paying circa £120 per month. However, due to our increased usage over the preceding 12 months (elderly dogs with elderly dog issues) we were over spent by £250. Because of this Npower wanted to increase our monthly payment to circa £190 per month. Thinking a 58%, thereabouts, increase a little steep we change to a different plan that would cost us only £110 per month – which would also cover the overspend.

      Due to loosing our dogs through 2015 our usage dropped significantly and our revised plan for this year now has us paying circa £90 per month.

  8. Manfred permalink
    April 3, 2016 9:46 pm

    UN post-2015 Development Agenda: Transforming our world: the 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development
    28. We commit to making fundamental changes in the way that our societies produce and consume goods and services.

    Read between the lines and see the writing on the wall. The goal is hidden in full view. This is biggest take-down in human history orchestrated by UN eco-globalists. Without easily available, plentiful and cheap electricity 21st Century life quickly regresses to resemble the mid-19th Century or earlier. But it doesn’t stop there does it? This is about the control of a bigger picture, the control of all sources of energy and their conversion to do work, indeed right down to making fire to boil water.
    It is the stuff of delusion and the fuel for revolution.

    • AlecM permalink
      April 4, 2016 9:11 am

      Agreed. The Crispin Tickel comments were reported a long time ago – he wanted 20 million UK population. It was a serious aim with fake climate science being used to justify the scare.

      The indoctrination of 1980s PPE student was a master stroke because by getting them into Marxist Common Purpose as an EU 5th Column, the eugenicists got two bites at the cherry.

      The recent comment by Leadsom, asking for zero carbon emissions is presumably to curry favour with her CP boss to stop her being dumped for incompetence.

      • Robin Guenier permalink
        April 4, 2016 11:05 am

        Please provide a link to that Tickel comment. Thanks.

        In any case, it’s a pity you’re so entrenched in evil conspiracy theory.

      • AlecM permalink
        April 4, 2016 2:16 pm

        Do a search of the press reports about 25 years ago.

        Failing that look at the spreadsheet f sustainable populations in the supplemental material of the ‘Population Matters’ website, which used to be called the Optimum population Trust.

        The ‘planned’ 20 million UK population is there in black and white.

      • Robin Guenier permalink
        April 4, 2016 4:02 pm

        No AlecM, I’m not falling for that. You made this claim:

        “The plan, publicised by Crispin Tickel, leader of the ‘Green Blob’, is for 45 million early deaths in the UK”

        I asked for evidence. If you have it, produce it. If you haven’t admit it. Thanks.

      • AlecM permalink
        April 4, 2016 4:39 pm

        Go to the offices of Nature Climate Change, the house organ of the Green Blob, and visit Tickell in his adjacent office, which coordinates the scam. Also visit Porritt in his Gloucestershire estate; he has talked of 30 million UK population.

      • Robin Guenier permalink
        April 4, 2016 5:00 pm

        In other words, you don’t have any evidence.

        But here’s an idea: you should visit Nature Climate Change’s offices, visit Tickell and report back. Oh and maybe you’d like a trip to Gloucestershire – nice at this time of year. I look forward to the outcome.

      • AlecM permalink
        April 4, 2016 5:44 pm

        Here is the evidence. It backs up all my claims: http://www.independent.co.uk/voices/commentators/dominic-lawson/dominic-lawson-a-retort-to-the-population-control-freaks-399128.html

        ‘ Thus, on BBC Radio 4’s Today Programme, Sir Crispin Tickell GCMG, KCVO said that we should be pursuing policies that would reduce our population to 20 million – a third of its current level……..

        I was surprised to hear Sir Crispin Tickell citing 20 million as the appropriate number of residents for the UK; only four years ago, on BBC 2’s Newsnight, he spoke in support of a figure of 30 million. Numbers, numbers. In his earlier broadcast, Sir Crispin remarked: “Someone has said that constantly increasing growth is the doctrine of the cancer cell. You just get out of control.”

        This metaphor, in effect describing the birth of children as like a metastasising tumour, is truly disgusting. Who, though, was that “someone” Sir Crispin airily quoted? His name is Paul Ehrlich and he is a patron, along with Tickell and Sir Jonathon Porritt, among others, of the Optimum Population Trust, an organisation that campaigns tirelessly for an organised reduction in human life.’

        It’s up to you to get the transcript of the BBC radio and TV programmes.

      • Robin Guenier permalink
        April 4, 2016 7:01 pm

        Well done, Alex, that’s very helpful. It’s certainly interesting – but it doesn’t “back up all [your] claims”. Far from it. It’s not, for example a “plan … for 45 million early deaths in the UK”. There’s no timescale, no methodology – your interpretation is simply alarmist. Moreover it doesn’t begin to support your original claim of “the plan of the elites is dramatically to increase winter excess death rates …”

        I’ve had dealings with Crispin Tickell. He’s a charming, intelligent and interesting man – but (how shall I put this?) he’s rather odd. In any case, that comment was made nearly 10 years ago. Do you really think he’s part of the current “elite”?

      • AlecM permalink
        April 4, 2016 7:08 pm

        Did pol to have any Plan?

        What he had was a direction, and, apparently, no conscience.

        Was he just as odd as Tickell?

      • AlecM permalink
        April 4, 2016 7:09 pm

        Meant Pol Pot

      • Robin Guenier permalink
        April 4, 2016 9:11 pm

        Not only is he rather odd, Tickell is nearly 90. You haven’t answered my question: do you really think he’s part of the current “elite”?

    • Robin Guenier permalink
      April 4, 2016 11:24 am

      “But it doesn’t stop there does it? This is about the control of a bigger picture, the control of all sources of energy and their conversion to do work …”

      Even if that’s true, Manfred, it’s – as you say – “the stuff of delusion”. Can you see, for example, the Chinese politburo for even one moment considering the possibility of ceding such control to the UN? Or the US Congress? Or the Indian government? Or Vladimir Putin? There may be a few EU officials who might like the idea. But that’s about it.

      I suggest you stop bothering about this and instead look for practical ways of changing the West’s pointless energy policies.

  9. marchesarosa permalink
    April 4, 2016 10:34 am

    I agree with Robin. This redneck style imputation of malevolent, genocidal notions to Greens is barmy. The Bish should keep this sort of juvenile prattle in check. Please.

    • Robin Guenier permalink
      April 4, 2016 11:08 am

      True. (Note: Paul is not “the Bish”.)

    • tom0mason permalink
      April 4, 2016 2:11 pm

      “juvenile prattle” for most (voting) people is what drives their world —
      see figures for popularity of soap-operas, facebook, most twitter comments, comments about cat videos, inane TV shows, etc. Take a day out on crowded public transport and actually listen to what people talk about.
      Most of these people regard ‘climate change’ as real or at best not for them to question. In their world of winners and losers, the skeptics have lost the scientific, social, and political arguments.
      Talking above and beyond your definition of “juvenile prattle” only exposes you as not wishing to connect with the majority of the voting public.
      Using such phrases as —

      “the plan of the elites is dramatically to increase winter excess death rates …”

      “countryside programmes are now all about getting farmers to grow biofuels or to host wind and solar farms …”
      may help to get ordinary people engaged and willing to connect even if that is initially in a negative way.
      So as with most subjective assessments it depends on your point of view, what you call “juvenile prattle” I call an outreach phrases.

      • Robin Guenier permalink
        April 4, 2016 4:09 pm

        “Most of these people regard ‘climate change’ as real or at best not for them to question. In their world of winners and losers, the skeptics have lost the scientific, social, and political arguments.”

        Your evidence for that?

      • catweazle666 permalink
        April 4, 2016 6:45 pm

        “Your evidence for that?”

        Try reading – and putting into action – the line above.

        “Take a day out on crowded public transport and actually listen to what people talk about.”

        Hint – reading posts before asking questions that have been answered will improve your credibility.

      • Robin Guenier permalink
        April 4, 2016 7:18 pm

        catweazle666:

        “Take a day out on crowded public transport and actually listen to what people talk about.” I commonly travel on crowded public transport in London. Do you? And I can report that I’ve never heard anyone even mention climate change, let alone discuss whether or not the sceptics have lost the argument.

        As for evidence, see this: http://data.myworld2015.org Nearly ten million votes worldwide – and climate change dead last. The reality is that most people are not concerned about it – they’ve got other worries. Unfortunately the tiny minority that are worried about it have the ear of Government. That’s the challenge we have to overcome.

      • catweazle666 permalink
        April 4, 2016 10:27 pm

        “As for evidence, see this: http://data.myworld2015.org

        Funnily enough, I’ve been posting that very link all over the Internet for a year or more now, and it wouldn’t surprise me if it wasn’t one of my posts that drew it to your attention in the first place.

        “I’m sorry but my approach is to keep chipping away at the Establishment.”

        You keep chipping away to your heart’s content sunshine, but as this is a democracy, it is the views of the electorate on whether there is any point in blowing billions on a non-existent problem that will make the difference, which is why the result of the UN survey is very heartening indeed.

        This survey by the BBC carried out before the Paris party might interest you too:

        Public support for a strong global deal on climate change has declined, according to a poll carried out in 20 countries.

        Only four now have majorities in favour of their governments setting ambitious targets at a global conference in Paris.

        In a similar poll before the Copenhagen meeting in 2009, eight countries had majorities favouring tough action.

        The poll has been provided to the BBC by research group GlobeScan.

        Just under half of all those surveyed viewed climate change as a “very serious” problem this year, compared with 63% in 2009.

        The findings will make sober reading for global political leaders, who will gather in Paris next week for the start of the United Nations climate conference, known as COP21.

        If there is no public support for action on climate change, then as other issues displace it in the public’s consciousness, the government will quietly demote it as an electooral issue.

        “What are you doing to make a difference?”

        A great deal actually, and I have been doing so for a number of years – probably longer than you have, you patronising, self-important little man.

        In any case, you are STILL treating AGW as a purely political issue, which it isn’t. Currently, the Earth is approaching the mid-point of the negative phase of the ~60 year cycle which appears to correlate with the Atlantic multi-decadal oscillation, which will become uncomfortably apparent to the public at large and even the most dedicated AGW evangelist quite soon now, the intriguing thing will be precisely how the “too big to fail” CAGW lunacy will be rolled back when it becomes obvious it was just as big a mistake as the 1960s/70s Global cooling scare – and as I was in a position to do so, I publicly and openly disagreed with that too.

        You see, there is one exceptionally important sceptic who is on our side, and who will not be gainsaid.

      • Robin Guenier permalink
        April 5, 2016 7:47 am

        catweazle666:

        Good morning – from the “patronising, self-important little man“. Not very nice CW – but I suppose there might be something in it. How would you describe yourself? At least I publish my name and background.

        A few points:

        1. “I’ve been posting that very link [the UN MyWorld survey] all over the Internet for a year or more now” – me too.

        2. The GlobeScan survey (which I hadn’t seen – thanks) shouldn’t be a surprise in view of the MyWorld result. (Although it’s perhaps disappointing that, in the UK, 52% still support action.) So here’s something to ponder: people overall don’t think climate issues are very important – yet Western governments press on with damaging action. Why might that be?

        3. “…the government will quietly demote it [climate change] as an electoral issue.” But it hasn’t been an electoral issue for some time. And still they press on. Why might that be?

        4. You say you’ve been doing a great deal to make a difference – for a long time. Well done you. So how about some specifics? (BTW I only got involved in 2007 – and it was several years before I resolved to try to do something about it.)

        5. You may well be right about it one day becoming apparent that CAGW is a big mistake. The trouble is, CW, our Government is pressing on with damaging and pointless actions now. If there’s to be any hope of changing that, it has to be questioned now. People such as Booker, Ridley and Montford are doing that. And, I think, having some impact. I cannot hope to emulate them, but I can hope to make a contribution (I’ve provided some examples**). Once again: how about you?

        6. Yes, we’re exceptionally lucky to have Josh on our side.

        ** Here are two:

        http://data.parliament.uk/writtenevidence/WrittenEvidence.svc/EvidenceHtml/4191

        https://ipccreport.files.wordpress.com/2014/07/notes-on-rsa-_stealth-denial_-report-v-2.pdf

        A waste of effort?

      • Robin Guenier permalink
        April 5, 2016 1:57 pm

        CW: further to the above, this may interest you. It’s quite hard to get a comment published on Climate Home while the story is still current. But I got one today: http://www.climatechangenews.com/2016/04/01/uns-paris-climate-deal-could-enter-into-force-this-year/.

      • catweazle666 permalink
        April 6, 2016 12:16 am

        James Hansen, father of climate change awareness, calls Paris talks ‘a fraud’

        The former Nasa scientist criticizes the talks, intended to reach a new global deal on cutting carbon emissions beyond 2020, as ‘no action, just promises’

        Mere mention of the Paris climate talks is enough to make James Hansen grumpy. The former Nasa scientist, considered the father of global awareness of climate change, is a soft-spoken, almost diffident Iowan. But when he talks about the gathering of nearly 200 nations, his demeanor changes.

        “It’s a fraud really, a fake,” he says, rubbing his head. “It’s just bullshit for them to say: ‘We’ll have a 2C warming target and then try to do a little better every five years.’ It’s just worthless words. There is no action, just promises. As long as fossil fuels appear to be the cheapest fuels out there, they will be continued to be burned.”

        http://www.theguardian.com/environment/2015/dec/12/james-hansen-climate-change-paris-talks-fraud

        As does John Kerry:

        Speaking in Paris, Kerry said:

        The fact is that even if every American citizen biked to work, carpooled to school, used only solar panels to power their homes, if we each planted a dozen trees, if we somehow eliminated all of our domestic greenhouse gas emissions, guess what – that still wouldn’t be enough to offset the carbon pollution coming from the rest of the world.

        If all the industrial nations went down to zero emissions – remember what I just said, all the industrial emissions went down to zero emissions – it wouldn’t be enough, not when more than 65 percent of the world’s carbon pollution comes from the developing world.

        http://dailysignal.com/2015/12/11/john-kerrys-surprising-comments-on-international-regulations-and-climate-change/

        The probability of the US Senate ratifying COP21 is precisely zero.

        You can bet the farm on it.

      • Robin Guenier permalink
        April 6, 2016 6:59 am

        The probability of the US Senate ratifying COP21 is precisely zero.

        That’s almost certainly true. But Obama/Kerry believe the text agree in Paris was, with Chinese help, so worded that the US can ratify it without Congressional approval. It’s an extremely interesting story – but there’s little point in expanding on to here as it’s way off topic. And I suspect that only you and I are following this thread.

  10. marchesarosa permalink
    April 4, 2016 11:13 am

    You beat me too it, Robin. Sorry, Paul!

  11. April 4, 2016 2:15 pm

    Reblogged this on Patti Kellar and commented:
    Ontario and Canada must be aware they are leading us over a cliff?

  12. markl permalink
    April 4, 2016 4:28 pm

    Robin Guenier commented: “…it’s a pity you’re so entrenched in evil conspiracy theory…”

    Despite your thoughts otherwise I conjecture to say you are doing more harm than good by repeating the ‘conspiracy theory’ narrative of the alarmists. That would make you a useful idiot by definition. Reduction of population, industry, prosperity, and freedoms are stated and published goals by the organizations supporting the AGW meme. Surely you’ve read about these goals as well and to refuse their existence is either pure denial or elitism. Which is it?

    • Robin Guenier permalink
      April 4, 2016 5:38 pm

      markl: I suggest that you may not be paying attention.

      The sole point of my contribution to this thread is to discuss how best to persuade the UK Government to rethink and change its climate and energy policies – or at least to consider the possibility of so doing. It’s my view that the best way (and probably the only way) to achieve this is to demonstrate that current policies are damaging and are, in any case, pointless.

      Others seem to think that a better approach is to draw attention to the scary assertions of some CAGW advocates that population must be reduced, global governance introduced … etc. I disagree. OK, I accept that such goals have been published; but fail to see how drawing attention to them is remotely likely to persuade the Government to change course. All it’s likely to do is reinforce “the ‘conspiracy theory’ narrative of the alarmists” to which you refer.

      • markl permalink
        April 4, 2016 5:59 pm

        Robin Guenier commented: “…Others seem to think that a better approach is to draw attention to the scary assertions of some CAGW advocates that population must be reduced, global governance introduced … etc. I disagree. OK, I accept that such goals have been published; but fail to see how drawing attention to them is remotely likely to persuade the Government to change course. All it’s likely to do is reinforce “the ‘conspiracy theory’ narrative of the alarmists” to which you refer….”

        The way to change the government is to vote. If people don’t realize what’s at stake then they don’t know what they’re voting for. Correct? Nobody said it’s a “better approach” but you. It’s an added approach. It’s obvious….to me at least….that the average voter is so overwhelmed with misinformation about AGW that they truly believe it’s all about altruistic scientists warning us about impending disaster. The “conspiracy theory” claim is nothing more than an attempt to divert attention from another possible motive and you are supporting that narrative when you repeat it.

      • catweazle666 permalink
        April 4, 2016 6:51 pm

        “The sole point of my contribution to this thread is to discuss how best to persuade the UK Government to rethink and change its climate and energy policies”

        In order to do that, you are going to have to persuade the electorate not the Government, because the Government is not going to take any notice of you.

        That means lowering yourself to their level.

        Does the thought of that scare you?

      • Robin Guenier permalink
        April 4, 2016 7:38 pm

        markl;

        Let’s get one thing clear: I’m not repeating the “conspiracy theory” claim – I’m observing that, as marchesarosa put it, imputing ” malevolent, genocidal notions to Greens” is foolish. All it does is play straight into the hands of those alarmists who subscribe to the “conspiracy theory” allegation.

        And yes it would be a fine idea to get some sound information about AGW to the average voter. But how are you going to do that? Good, well intentioned people have been trying for years. But the forces arrayed against them are so powerful, so well funded, so obiquitous that – apart from a few successes – they’ve got nowhere. And, in any case, the average voter has climate change right at the bottom of his/her list of priorities – if indeed it’s there at all. They have (in their view) far more important things to worry – and vote – about.

        I’d be most interested to learn how you think all these obstacles might be overcome.

      • markl permalink
        April 4, 2016 10:26 pm

        Robin Guenier commented: “…Let’s get one thing clear: I’m not repeating the “conspiracy theory” claim …..And yes it would be a fine idea to get some sound information about AGW to the average voter. But how are you going to do that? ….. They have (in their view) far more important things to worry – and vote – about….’

        Correct, but you are putting the claims into that class by alluding to them being worthless and hurting the credibility of AGW opponents. Yet at the same time you admit they are valid. I submit that they answer the question….”why would anyone lie/make up/falsify AGW when there’s nothing in it for them?” It’s only a peace of the puzzle that gets immediately discounted because it seems so far fetched and that’s exactly what it’s designed to do. I submit any and all valid information should be supported. When the top secretary of IPCC states AGW is not about temperature but about economics and destroying Capitalism we should beat that statement into the ground so everyone understands the playing field. Instead we allow the alarmist to put us on the defensive by claiming ‘conspiracy theory’ and use it against us. Propaganda works both ways and you have to get dirty when wrestling with pigs. It’s obvious the voters and government officials don’t respond to scientific evidence so we either change our tack or suffer the consequences. Waiting for the next LIA isn’t working. Incidentally, I appreciate what you are doing….just not all of it🙂

      • Robin Guenier permalink
        April 4, 2016 7:49 pm

        catweazle666: see my reply to markl – perhaps you’ve got some ideas about how the obstacles to which I refer might be overcome.

        I’m sorry but my approach is to keep chipping away at the Establishment. This, for example, has been widely discussed (including in a Westminster debate): http://data.parliament.uk/writtenevidence/WrittenEvidence.svc/EvidenceHtml/4191

        And this too attracted a lot of useful attention and support: https://ipccreport.files.wordpress.com/2015/10/notes-on-sands-lecture_ty.pdf

        Moreover I have the support of my MP, Peter Lilley

        What are you doing to make a difference?

      • Robin Guenier permalink
        April 5, 2016 8:32 am

        Thanks, markl.

        I suggest AlecM (see above) has made my point for me. He’s claiming that a mysterious “elite” (led by the 86 year old Crispin Tickell) has a “Plan” – just as Pol Pot did – “for 45 million early deaths in the UK”, the idea being to thereby “ reduce benefits whilst subsidy farmers and carbon traders become very rich”.

        Surely you agree that that’s worthless and would hurt the credibility of AGW opponents if used in debate? As I wrote in my opening post here, “ Foolish comments such as these are seriously unhelpful”. I stand by that. And I agree that “any and all valid information should be supported”. But that should be done in context. For example, there’s unlikely to be much point in referring to that extraordinary Figueres comment in an article criticising the Government’s energy policy. (It’s interesting BTW that she’s utterly failed in her ambition to begin“ to change the economic development model that has been reigning for at least 150 years, since the industrial revolution”. It was clear in Paris that the major emerging economies are just not interested – nor is it likely that, for example, the US or Russia would be.)

        Finally, I very much agree with you that “ government officials don’t respond to scientific evidence”. That’s been my view for several years. And it’s not always been popular.

      • AlecM permalink
        April 5, 2016 9:00 am

        I am simply voicing the fears of others.e.g: http://www.independent.co.uk/voices/commentators/dominic-lawson/dominic-lawson-a-retort-to-the-population-control-freaks-399128.html

        ‘The Optimum population Trust’, now ‘Population Matters’ is using provably fake IPCC/GISS climate science to push for a reduction in population of the World.

        For the UK, 20 million people to be left alive, for the USA about 160 million. The others are, apparently, to die in foetid inner cities awash with sewage from the power cuts.

        It seems this dystopian nightmare was dreamt up by someone who saw ‘Soylent Green’. However, instead of sweltering heat, it will probably be bitter cold because we’re heading into the new Little Ice Age.

      • Robin Guenier permalink
        April 5, 2016 9:34 am

        Yes Alec, I know there are some people with such ghastly ideas. But that’s not the same as your absurd claim that a mysterious “elite” (led by the 86 year old Crispin Tickell) has a “Plan” – just as Pol Pot did – “for 45 million early deaths in the UK”, the idea being to thereby “reduce benefits whilst subsidy farmers and carbon traders become very rich”.

      • AlecM permalink
        April 5, 2016 11:41 am

        So, when he called for a UK population of 20 million and is leader of the the ‘Green Blob’, right up to the senior politician’s wife whose family are subsidy farmers and BTL bludgers, he is joking?

        This is the guy who convinced Margaret Thatcher to support Kyoto, which she later bitterly regretted, on the basis of Scientific Fraud from 1976, easily proved, and admitted 24 years later by James Hansen.

        They are campaigning to deindustrialise the country and make the poor live without heat, light, sewage, water or food when the supermarkets close in the power outages, whilst getting rich subsidy farming.

        I knew one of them, now dead: in 2001 he told me how rich he was going to become because they controlled NuLaber’s energy policy. They are our version of the Carpetbaggers, raping and pillaging our society on the back of the CCA 2008.

  13. April 5, 2016 11:59 am

    @Robin : Conserve your energy mate
    ..It looks like you are wrestling with a pig.
    .. From the beginning it was obvious you could back up with citations, whereas he couldn’t.

    • AlecM permalink
      April 5, 2016 12:19 pm

      I suggest you read my citations!

    • Robin Guenier permalink
      April 5, 2016 12:43 pm

      Thanks stew. Well he does bluster a lot. And there’s a tiny element of disjointed historical truth behind some of what he says. But, of course, there’s nothing that supports his absurd claim that current UK policy is driven by a mysterious “elite” (led by the 86 year old Crispin Tickell) that has a “Plan” – just as Pol Pot did – “for 45 million early deaths in the UK”, the idea being to thereby “reduce benefits whilst subsidy farmers and carbon traders become very rich”.

      • AlecM permalink
        April 5, 2016 1:09 pm

        Oh Dear, your dissembling is going too far.

        I wrote “The plan, publicised by Crispin Tickel, leader of the ‘Green Blob’, is for 45 million early deaths in the UK. it’s 150 million for the USA. Jonathan Porritt, the FoE puppet master for his estate neighbour jug ears, wants just 35 million deaths, so he’s a bit kinder, I suppose.”

        Note the use of the term ‘publicised’. And as for ‘The Plan’, it is all there in black and white, firstly on the ‘Optimum Population Trust’ website, now ‘Population Matters’.

        So, I do not claim it’s Tickell’s ‘Plan’. It’s originally the OPT, now PM’s. Tell me: will excess population migrate to the EU or Syria when the power goes off?

      • Robin Guenier permalink
        April 5, 2016 1:46 pm

        This gets increasingly daft. Are you seriously claiming, Alec, that David Cameron is planning “45 million early deaths in the UK”?

      • AlecM permalink
        April 5, 2016 3:16 pm

        Oh Dear, to which add a tendency to failure of comprehension!

        No direct article before ‘PM’s”: it’s Population Matters’ Plan.

      • Robin Guenier permalink
        April 5, 2016 4:48 pm

        But that’s no better. You assert that current UK policy is driven by a mysterious “elite” (somehow associated with the organisation Population Matters – but see below**) that has a “Plan” – just as Pol Pot did – “for 45 million early deaths in the UK”, the idea being to thereby “reduce benefits whilst subsidy farmers and carbon traders become very rich”.

        ** Yet what PM actually says (unsurprisingly) is that it “opposes coercive population restraint” and that “governments should set a national goal of stabilising and then reducing numbers to a sustainable level“. Nothing there about “45 million early deaths in the UK” and the resulting reduction in benefits. So your elite must be basing its mad Plan on something else.

        Sorry, Alec, but I’ve had enough of your absurd claims. Goodbye.

  14. AlecM permalink
    April 5, 2016 4:53 pm

    And good riddance……

  15. November 26, 2016 5:49 am

    Hmm it looks like your blog ate my first comment (it was super long) so I guess I’ll just sum itup what I wrote and say, I’m thoroughly enjoying your blog.I as well am an aspiring blog blogger but I’m still new to everything.Do you have any points for rookie blog writers?I’d definitely appreciate it.

Leave a Reply

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

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com 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 )

Google+ photo

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

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: