Skip to content

The Bank of England is enslaved by green groupthink

July 9, 2017

By Paul Homewood

 

A thoughtful piece by Dellers about green groupthink. From the Spectator:

 

image

I do find it odd that I’m so often having to write about the science of global warming, species extinction and ocean acidification because, though I’ve certainly acquired a pretty useful base knowledge over the years — superior, I’m guessing, to 97 per cent of scientists — it’s really not my main interest. What fascinates me far more is the way the faddish preoccupations of a few green cultists have somehow come to dominate our entire culture, corrupting the intellectual current, suborning institutions, crushing dissent — much as Marxist, fascist and Nazi ideologies did in the 20th century, only with rather more widespread success.

 

Let me give you a recent example of this: an article from the June Quarterly Bulletin of the Bank of England, titled ‘The Bank’s response to climate change’. Nothing wrong with the premise: it is indeed part of the Bank’s statutory duty to ‘identify, monitor and take action to remove or reduce risks that threaten the resilience of the UK financial system’. The problem, argues energy editor John Constable in a critique for the Global Warming Policy Foundation, is the inexcusably one-sided way in which the bank has handled it. The report’s focus is directed almost entirely towards the risks posed by fossil fuels. So we learn lots about the droughts, floods and storms that may be caused by ‘man-made climate change’. And also — a popular campaign theme with the Guardian and Greenpeace, this one — that the world’s remaining fossil fuel reserves (coal, oil, gas, etc) may have to be left in the ground as ‘stranded assets’, unusable because of the damage that burning them will supposedly do to the planet.

But we don’t hear about the more plausible and immediate economic risks posed by renewables. The most obvious one is what will happen if taxpayers around the world tire of being milked to subsidise bird-frazzling solar arrays, bat-chomping eco-crucifixes, river-polluting anaerobic digesters, electric cars whose batteries alone create more CO2 during manufacture than a petrol car does in eight years, and suchlike, and the Potemkin industry that is renewables comes crashing to a sudden halt? It’s not as if clever people haven’t considered this possibility. Warren Buffett once frankly admitted that the only reason for building wind farms was for the ‘tax credits’ And though it’s true that most western economies from the EU to Australia and Canada are now run by administrations broadly in favour of such green crony capitalism, the gravy train may not trundle on for ever. Look at what is now happening in the US under their new president.

I really don’t expect people who write reports for the Quarterly Bulletin of the Bank of England to share my politics. What I do expect is that people in such important positions should do their actual job. If this report was on, say, the insights of Stormzy, the comparative merits of Stilton and Roquefort, or whether the jam or the clotted cream should go first on a scone, it would, of course, be deeply annoying if they got it wrong. But it would not, I submit, be as socially, economically and politically damaging as one which will influence central bank policy in the world’s fifth largest economy.

Consider the repercussions when the Bank of England fails, as here, to do its due diligence: pension funds misallocate their investments; governments and green campaigners alike weave ‘experts at the Bank of England’ into their propaganda and policy justifications; public debate is distracted from serious issues by chimeras; businesses either misdirect their investments or simply give up the fight and jump on the band-wagon; financial journalists who should know better become unthinking mouthpieces for the climate industrial complex; City departments, from human resources to compliance and marketing, devise new ways to entrench environmental correctness into their philosophy; law firms wonder if there’s any money to be made suing firms that haven’t factored in the relevant risks.

When the Bank of England sneezes, in other words, the whole world catches a cold. (In the private sector there are heavy penalties for producing such false prospectuses. You wonder why similar rules don’t apply to our public institutions.) And the only reason we don’t get more angry about it is that most of the time we don’t know it’s going on.

I’m racking my brain to think which newspaper in these dumbed-down, brainwashed times would take a piece critiquing a Bank of England report on climate change resilience. None, obviously, because it’s too esoteric and anyway, the media doesn’t like to rock the boat — either because it subscribes to the official narrative or because it’s sick of fending off vexatious Ipso complaints from green ideologues and climate industry stooges. So the result is that false information on climate change — it would be branded ‘fake news’ if it came from the right — is freely disseminated, is largely unchallenged, and becomes widely accepted fact.

Think of this, next time you chat about climate change to someone who must know what they’re talking about because they’re a high powered financier/a City lawyer/a senior oil industry executive/an actual scientist/a university professor. Likely their opinions will not be borne of personal investigation, but rather will come from simply having taken on trust an official narrative which it would be more than their job’s worth to challenge even if they felt the urge.

This is the nature of groupthink and there’s hardly an institution in the western world which isn’t a prisoner of it. Such a pity that those few of us holding the keys to the cell doors are treated like pariahs.

https://www.spectator.co.uk/2017/07/the-bank-of-england-is-enslaved-by-green-groupthink/

Advertisements
27 Comments
  1. Richard permalink
    July 9, 2017 3:57 pm

    Coherent, intelligent article.
    The ecofascists will hate it as it is truthful.

    • July 9, 2017 9:27 pm

      The eco-fascists will ignore it because it’s by Delingpole!

  2. markl permalink
    July 9, 2017 4:03 pm

    Think of where it started….. the “Greens” in Germany. What could be a better cover for anarchy than “we’re saving the world”?

    • CheshireRed permalink
      July 10, 2017 10:03 am

      “The urge to save humanity is almost always a false front for the urge to rule.”

      HL Mencken.

    • July 10, 2017 11:49 am

      Seems to me they tried that before. Anyone remember the results?

  3. Broadlands permalink
    July 9, 2017 4:10 pm

    “Think of this, next time you chat about climate change to someone who must know what they’re talking about because they’re a high powered financier/a City lawyer/a senior oil industry executive/an actual scientist/a university professor. Likely their opinions will not be borne of personal investigation, but rather will come from simply having taken on trust an official narrative which it would be more than their job’s worth to challenge even if they felt the urge.”

    Yes…and… “97% of scientists trust and agree”? But, what is a solution to this “snowball” of “informed” opinion gathering speed? It seems to me that much more public emphasis on the solution, its costs and timeframe might help? Capture and safely bury hundreds of billions of tons of CO2? Quixotic! Many trillions for technologies nowhere near ready at global scale? Absurd?
    Arguing about the “truth” of global warming seems more of a “He said, She said” standoff. Preaching to the converted? Those denialists” sneered at by the “alarmists”.

    • sean2829 permalink
      July 9, 2017 6:01 pm

      It’s easy to fix. Have a debate or better yet, a series of debates. If people refuse to participate, cut their funding. Some scientists with tenure may stand on principle but the administrators depending on all that cash will make certain at least some will participate. And if they refuse, remember Richard Lindzen said an 80% funding cut would be healthy for climate science.

  4. July 9, 2017 4:21 pm

    The main problem is that Dellers is never going to get any exposure in the MSM. The MSM swamp, particularly the BBC, needs draining. In fact the MSM swamp is more like a septic tank, in that it is full of you-know-what.

    • AlecM permalink
      July 9, 2017 5:46 pm

      Shit is combustible by bacteria in a septic tank.

  5. Athelstan permalink
    July 9, 2017 5:46 pm

    I’m racking my brain to think which newspaper in these dumbed-down, brainwashed times would take a piece critiquing a Bank of England report on climate change resilience. None, obviously, because it’s too esoteric and anyway, the media doesn’t like to rock the boat — either because it subscribes to the official narrative or because it’s sick of fending off vexatious Ipso complaints from green ideologues and climate industry stooges. So the result is that false information on climate change — it would be branded ‘fake news’ if it came from the right — is freely disseminated, is largely unchallenged, and becomes widely accepted fact.

    it’s a fine and beautifully written polemic James, here’s a mote of what was missing.

    Central banks have had their day, they don’t have a CB in Russia, that’s a model we need to follow.

    All government institutions are in a race to [the midden] ingratiate themselves with HMG?…..more likely to Brussels/Berlin more and championing the great scam is, evidently a way to the top.

    Why is george’s boy Carney still in a job, worse, why is the canuck stilll in this country?

    I heard, that car crash waffle and mother theresa’s gobbledegook interview concerning, rattling on about some treaty or other [Paris man made warming emissions redistribution of western funding….stitch-up]. Hamburger meat, with chatting to, per capita poorest nations on earth, India the PRC and the Empire of doom ruled over by the Fatherland and some nominally at any rate not the KSA then? – “FREE NATIONS…named a G20 gabfest.

    She [mad theresa] is, beholden to the green googled one eyed mania, is our mother theresa and here, I quote JD: “the media doesn’t like to rock the boat”

    Thus, erm somethings up. Am I alone in thinking that, since the 2016 September revolution.[wishful thinking?]……………..
    YUP! Instead of reeling in the lies and speculative doodah pertaining to the wonderful EU and endless bbc pleas aimed at saving the polar bears………you know …..I hoped forlornly as it tuns out that, we would hear far less of the great scam rhetoric, less of the PC lies etc..
    ALAS! no! not a bit of it and do you know what, I firmly believe that, HMG told to by God knows who [soros and merkel and the tent dwellers no doubt] has further clamped down on what little resistence there could be found in the UK press, if you look to see what they’ve done to Booker in the Sunday Torygraph – you’ll ken what I mean.

    She, [mother theresa] is proving what I though, that, she’s a purblind arrant authoritarian cloaked in the respectability of a constituency granted mandate but after that there democracy ends with our latest PM.

    When TF will she realize that the real threats to this country are, indeed, impoverishment, Shutting industry and cutting the competitivemess of UK – period, the US where gasoline is < $2/gallon!! Yeah the fekkin nation is going going gone, and all thanks to our unilateral suicide note, due to our fanatic adherence to 'the green agenda' and combatting a chimera.

    All the while, the left grows ever more bold rebellious and violent and the cold claws grip tighter to its ambitions, the wings flex ready to hunt, of the corvids eastern creed.

    So yeah the BoE pumps out expected PC tosh and the toe the line, overpaid yes-men just idly doodling as Britain builds its foundations on grains of sand – BoE advised no doubt. And when the Tsunami hits, lines in the sand ain't going to be a defence – are they?

  6. Tom Anderson permalink
    July 9, 2017 6:02 pm

    Why do the Greens have such influence? I think we all realize, if far from consciously, what Michael Crichton stated — when religion dies, the problem becomes not that people will believe in nothing, but will believe in anything. The Greens and their socialist parthers, heirs to bloodthirsty gothic romanticism have sensed that and dished up ready-made , very marketable pagan frights for the yearning, godless masses to adore and fear. (Och, we’re all dyoomed! What a relief.)

    We skeptics are much too rational. We don’t have fright stories or disaster scripts nearly good enough for gripping audiences by the neck hairs, so who cares?

    • July 9, 2017 9:37 pm

      The original quote — usually attributed to Chesterton — was that when people stop believing in God they don’t believe in nothing …

      It’s a valid point of view. It seems from several millennia of experience that deep down mankind “needs” a God of some sort so when the God of organised faiths no longer fills the bill they become susceptible to cults. “Climate Change” ticks every cultic box! As does environmentalism as currently interpreted by the eco-activists.

      Why else would anyone pay attention to the prattlings of de Caprio, Westwood, and Thompson, to name but three?

  7. Tom Anderson permalink
    July 9, 2017 6:05 pm

    Parthers — meant “partners.”

  8. John Plummer permalink
    July 9, 2017 6:11 pm

    Great article, James. This quote by Mark Twain comes to mind: “In religion people’s beliefs and convictions are in almost every case gotten at second hand, and without examination, from authorities who have not themselves examined the questions at issue but have taken them at second-hand from other non-examiners, whose opinions about them were not worth a brass farthing.”

  9. andy mckendrick permalink
    July 9, 2017 6:23 pm

    I`ve often wondered why we cannot have a debate or a series of debates on so called global warming…how about for starters the noble lord Monckton v His royal highness prince Charles??? I would gladly pay to hear or see that.

    • CheshireRed permalink
      July 10, 2017 10:10 am

      Because alarmists lose almost every time. It’s that simple. Pitch well-balanced opponents (eg 2 x Phd’s) and all other things being equal sceptics wipe the floor with alarmists. The reason is also simple: the facts fall on the side of sceptics and against AGW theory, which is why alarmists have so rigged the playing field. Occasionally alarmists have a good day and turn the tables but on balance sceptics will win 7-8 times out of 10. Hence, they never debate.

      • Gerry, England permalink
        July 10, 2017 12:53 pm

        True, and that’s why they avoid court cases too. So you can imagine their horror when HookeyStick Mann took not just one but two cases of pique to the courts. Let us pray that Tim Ball flattens him in Canada before passing the baton to Mark Steyn in the US.

    • July 10, 2017 11:55 am

      The left has to “stack the deck.”

  10. theguvnor permalink
    July 9, 2017 6:37 pm

    You,re absolutely right Mr Delingpole but unfortunately the CAGW bandwagon is one of the last bubbles floating and when that pops………………………………………………………………….?

  11. Green Sand permalink
    July 9, 2017 7:29 pm

    Nowt going to change whilst ‘Corporal Jones’ remains Governor of the Bank of England. Don’t panic! Don’t panic!

  12. July 9, 2017 7:32 pm

    Another great article by James who will get his story in the MSM but I suspect it will be posthumously. The scam is coming to an end, and probably with a massive economic upheaval due to the level of wealth distribution eventually exploding. However, the facts will only come out for the public much later and then the likes of James and Paul will get their place in history. Unfortunately, they won’t be in a position to appreciate the book rights and royalties.

  13. Broadlands permalink
    July 9, 2017 7:55 pm

    The problem with climate change debates is they always seem to come back to which expert is right; what sources of data are the best, which model is accurate, etc. The blogosphere is filled with experts on both sides throwing out their respective “truths”?

    ACCEPT the impending catastrophes… but keep the emphasis focused on the reality of the solution and its costs…financial and social on a growing population needing energy. There is little “wiggle room” in debating that?

    • Bitter&twisted permalink
      July 10, 2017 11:17 am

      What “expected catastrophes”?
      Even the IPPC has its doubts, expressing “low confidence”.

  14. July 9, 2017 11:48 pm

    Agreed: keep the emphasis focused on the reality of the solution and its costs…financial and social on a growing population needing energy.

    • July 10, 2017 11:57 am

      Go to YouTube and listen to Donald Trump’s full speech/news conference when he pulled us out of the Paris Climate Accord. He laid out the reasoning perfectly and completely.

  15. July 10, 2017 11:25 am

    Tom Anderson, Mike Jackson,

    I think you are quite correct in that global warming/climate change has ceased to be science (if it ever was) and has become a religion. “O Holy Al Gore, be with us now and in our hour of need.”

    The need for a religion exists because, with the demise of most of the old-style religions, there is a gaping spiritual void inside most of us. In our intensely materialistic society, even the most hardened of bargain shoppers sometimes stop and ask themselves what it’s all about, and whether there is any purpose to life beyond the acquisition of material goods.

    Most yuppies nowadays seem to exists in a perpetual orgy of guilt. Not guilt about anything in particular, but a readiness to accept guilt for something over which they they have no possible control – famine in Ethiopia say – because guilt is a replacement for spiritual belief (my term for it is spiritual masturbation, if this gets through the moderator). The climate change movement has battened onto this tendency like a barnacle on a ship’s hull.

    At least we can take some comfort in the fact that the climate change religion is not quite so brutally repressive and destructive as some of its predecessors, such as communism and Nazism. But give it time, give it time, it’s working its way there.

  16. Vanessa permalink
    July 16, 2017 5:53 pm

    I agree with every word. If you read the Global Warming Forum there is a piece there which says that to provide the energy the world needs would necessitate covering the area of Spain in solar panels but there is not enough silver in the world to make that amount of panels. It would need 5 million+ tons of silver but humans only have access to 777 thousand tons. A no-brainer then.

Comments are closed.

%d bloggers like this: