Skip to content

Gummer Stamps His Tiny Little Feet

July 17, 2019

By Paul Homewood


While I was away last week, the Committee on Climate Change were stamping their tiny collective feet, complaining that nobody was listening to them.



The UK has been dealt a "brutal reality check" on its climate change ambitions, environmentalists have said.

The government’s official climate change advisers warn ministers are failing to cut emissions fast enough, and adapt to rising temperatures.

Committee on Climate Change chair John Gummer likened them to the hapless characters in 1970s comedy Dad’s Army.

The government said it would soon set out plans to tackle emissions from aviation, heat, energy and transport.

The prime minister recently announced that the UK would lead the world by cutting almost all greenhouse gas emissions by 2050 – so-called net zero.

Theresa May also aspired to the UK hosting a hugely important global climate summit next year.

But the CCC said that the UK was already stumbling over measures needed to achieve the previous target of an 80% emissions cut.

Its report says new policies must be found to help people lead good lives without fuelling global warming.

Policies are needed to ensure that people living in care homes, hospitals and flats can stay cool in increasingly hot summers.

And ministers must show how funds will be found to protect critical infrastructure – like ports – from rising sea levels.

The committee said unless it delivered on these issues, the government would not have the credibility to host a global climate change summit of world leaders, likely to be held in the UK next year.

Doug Parr from Greenpeace UK said: "This is a truly brutal reality check on the government’s current progress in tackling the climate emergency.

"It paints the government as a sleeper who’s woken up, seen the house is on fire, raised the alarm and gone straight back to sleep".

The committee’s deputy chairwoman Baroness Brown told BBC News: "There’s an increasing sense of frustration that the government knows what it has to do – but it’s just not doing it."

The committee said the government’s 2040 goal to eliminate emissions from cars and vans was too late.

New ways must be found to nudge some drivers into walking, cycling and taking public transport, it believes.

There’s palpable annoyance from the committee that their recommendations are often ignored.

In the list of actions needed to meet emission targets, such as improving insulation of buildings and increasing the market share of electric vehicles, the committee found only seven out of 24 goals were on track.

Outside the power and industry sectors, only two indicators were on track.

Committee chairman Lord Deben, the former agriculture minister John Gummer, said: "The whole thing is really run by the government like a Dad’s Army. We can’t go on with this ramshackle system."

At current rates of global emissions cuts, the world may be heading for a temperature rise of more than 3C by the end of this century – but the report says England appears unprepared for even a 2C rise in global temperature.

It warns that the UK is failing to insulate itself from the knock-on effects of climate change overseas, such as colonisations by new species, changes in the suitability of land for agriculture or forestry, and risks to health from changes in air quality driven by rising temperatures.

The report says: "Last June, we advised that 25 headline policy actions were needed for the year ahead. Twelve months later, only one has been delivered by the government in full."

It complains that in some ways the UK is going backwards.

Green space in parks and gardens cools cities and helps reduce flood risks. But as more homes are crammed into cities, green spaces have shrunk from 63% of urban area in 2001 to 55% in 2018.

Heat magnifies the production of pollutants, so more people are expected to suffer breathing problems.

Meanwhile, the proportion of hard surfaces in towns has risen by 22% since 2001, even though they make floods worse.

The report says the government’s planning should consider the risks that the world may warm by as much as 4C by 2100.

It warns that the new net zero target requires an annual rate of emissions reduction that is 50% higher than under the UK’s previous target.

It is 30% higher than what’s been achieved on average since 1990 – a period when the UK has benefited from a relatively simple switch from coal to gas for electricity.

The report says: "The need for action has rarely been clearer. Our message to government is simple: ‘Now, do it.’"


The government, of course, has only itself to blame. For years, it has been only too happy to pander to these puffed up panjandrums, instead of telling them what to do with their advice.

But the simple fact is that all successive governments have done is throw tens of billions in subsidies at inefficient renewables. They have managed to convince the public that the resultant hikes in electricity prices have been the fault of wicked energy companies.

As I have repeatedly pointed out, the really difficult stuff starts now.

While politicians are happy to virtue signal by setting ridiculous targets for many years time, when they will be safely departed, none are willing to bite the bullet and present the public with the real impact of their policies.

Joe Public will, I suspect, be extremely angry when they see the costs and disruption imposed on their lives when natural gas is turned off at the mains, EVs are made compulsory and air travel rationed.


The CCC’s proposals are all predicated on fanciful rates of warming, which simply are not supported by real world data, which shows that temperatures in Britain have been stable for the last three decades:


Suggestion of more green space in cities, and fewer homes, does not recognise the urgent need for more homes, given demographic trends.

Meanwhile, the CCC fail to recognise that virtually no drivers want to buy EVs, for the simple reason that they are not fit for purpose. This is despite the obscene subsidies thrown at them.

Billions have already been spent on free insulation for homes, and there is no evidence that further spending will be cost effective or affordable.

In short, the CCC want the government, AKA the taxpayer, to spend hundreds of billions on solving or adapting to a problem that simply does not exist at the moment.

If in the unlikely chance that temperatures do start to rise rapidly in a few decades time, future governments will be more than capable of dealing with the problems then.

Unfortunately, the CCC is established by law, under the Climate Change Act. But I see no reason why its wings cannot be clipped and funding drastically reduced.

  1. July 17, 2019 10:44 am

    Reblogged this on Climate- Science.

  2. July 17, 2019 10:57 am

    I encourage all readers to fight back against the Green Mafia. Write to your local newspapers pointing out the denial of income, energy and freedom that awaits. Place notices on EV charging installations reminding observers of the subsidies they are unwilling donating to the wealthy. Write to your local council to ask for more details of their ludicrous climate emergencies.

  3. July 17, 2019 11:03 am

    A lone electric scooter rider has recently started terrorizing the cycle/pedestrian paths where I live, going way too fast, way too silent (nowhere for a bell), and with no means of stopping quickly. The MSM see these scooters as a way of getting more clicks, including a normally hard-headed economist who writes for The Telegraph, quoting the tonnes of CO2 that will be saved, this is not going to end well.

  4. cajwbroomhill permalink
    July 17, 2019 11:06 am

    There is no need or utility in our taking any of these CCC demands, which would be mere token virtue signalling.
    O.13% of global CO2 release from UK. Great bulk fronm noncomplying China, USA, Russia, India etc .
    Greenhouse gases of unknown importance on influencing cLimate.
    Cosmic ray induced cloud formation, Earth’s tilt and variable orbit and sunspots may well exceed CO2’s importance.
    The money is needed not for CC but our health and welfare, education, infrastructure and defence.
    Therefore, close CCC and sack corrupt Deben, without compensation, and all the rest of these useless parasites..
    Vital to wise up Parliament and sack those guilty of corruption, who should answer in Court.

    • Mike Jackson permalink
      July 17, 2019 1:00 pm

      You can’t close CCC without repealing the Climate Change Act but what you can do is ignore their advice and find a minister who will clean out the departmental swamp, replace the CCC membership with people who know what they are talking about, and then start a major campaign explaining the facts.

      Unfortunately finding such a minister will be tricky. As will replacing post-modernism (thinking with your emotions) with what used to be called reality (thinking with your brain)! Good luck with any of that till nature does her share!

      • Harry Passfield permalink
        July 17, 2019 3:17 pm

        In my professional life ‘we’ would offer free advice to customers on their systems requirements, etc., but my Director decided that we should charge them for the advice in future, which we did.
        He worked on the philosophy that a client would value advice based on what it cost him, so free advice was worth nothing. When he had to pay for it it had value.
        My thoughts are that Deben and his anti-democratic committee should be ignored, at the very least, until he can come up with a cost-benefit pitch that does not include unicorns and CMIP models.

  5. July 17, 2019 11:37 am

    ‘Reverend’ Deben goes to a climate change meeting.

  6. Peter Azlac permalink
    July 17, 2019 12:09 pm

    The warming shown in the CET record at the end of the 20th century is largely and artifact resulting from the use of data from UHI dominated sites like Manchester Airport and Rothamsed – close to Luton Airport and the M1 and subject to substantial growth in local housing since the late 1940’s. It is also subject to the impact of different climate zones and as such is not fit for purpose.

  7. Ariane permalink
    July 17, 2019 12:14 pm

    The CCC should be disbanded like the Energy and Climate Change Committee was. And there should be a referendum to decide whether all climate legislation should be repealed or not. When the matter is discussed openly, Joe Public will obvioulsy vote to repeal, and the true nature of ‘Green’ will be exposed.

    • Dave Ward permalink
      July 17, 2019 2:05 pm

      “When the matter is discussed openly, Joe Public will obvioulsy vote to repeal, and the true nature of ‘Green’ will be exposed”

      Yes, the Greens will immediately demand a new vote, and claim that we didn’t understand what we we voting for…

    • Ariane permalink
      July 17, 2019 7:02 pm

      I meant the Energy and Climate Change DEPARTMENT was disbanded – as should the CCC be.

  8. theguvnor permalink
    July 17, 2019 12:38 pm

    It would be good to have views on this very interesting piece on the economic case for renewable energy. It suggests that whilst ‘renewables’ cannot currently ‘stand on their own two feet’ they may need to for future prosperity.

    • John F. Hultquist permalink
      July 17, 2019 3:30 pm

      That article is difficult to read/understand. However, I did get to this:
      Now, though, the maturity of the oil, gas and coal industries is such that the benefits of scale and reach have arrived at their limits. This is where the third factor steps in to determine ECoE – and that factor is depletion.

      At that point, realizing the author (Tim Morgan ?), doesn’t understand how resources and humans interact — I stopped reading.

      • Harry Passfield permalink
        July 17, 2019 4:45 pm

        Good point, John. It looks like Tim Morgan is a ‘Peak-Oiler’. I bet he has a well-thumbed copy of ‘Limits to Growth’. Probably thinks of it as his Bible.

      • Theguvnor permalink
        July 17, 2019 9:46 pm

        The point of the article is that we have taken the low hanging fruit and now put more energy into extracting energy than what we gain from it which is the ECoE ratio. This results in an econmic deficit which the article goes on to explain has happened in the west hence massive debt which is slowly happening to emerging markets. Outside the environmental argument something like renewables which can’t stand on their own is needed to lower ratio and get us in the black again (excuse the pun)

  9. Athelstan. permalink
    July 17, 2019 12:40 pm

    gummer is the conshie ‘Godfrey’ in dad’s army – ain’t he?

    • Mikep permalink
      July 17, 2019 1:05 pm

      Except that Godfrey turned out to be a hero and won the Military Cross in WW1. I doubt Gummer will ever be seen as a hero!

      • Athelstan. permalink
        July 18, 2019 6:29 pm

        re Gummer – very true and yes, I’d rather forgotten dear old Godfrey – stretcher bearer during WWI and MC.

      • Robert Jones permalink
        July 18, 2019 8:14 pm

        Unless Godfrey was a commissioned officer it would have been a Military Medal, more scarce than Military Crosses.

  10. It doesn't add up... permalink
    July 17, 2019 12:41 pm

    Any news on the investigation into Deben’s private benefits from his public position?

  11. Broadlands permalink
    July 17, 2019 12:42 pm

    “The report says: “The need for action has rarely been clearer. Our message to government is simple: ‘Now, do it.'”

    It has become increasingly clearer that the sole reason for doing any of this is because of climate models that predict and forecast “dangerous and catastrophic” futures. Take away all of that scary rhetoric and you are left with a temperature rise of less than one degree C and a sea level rise of less than a foot after several hundred years of increasing atmospheric CO2 by 45%. The scam and the hoax is believing humans can actually move the climate by moving CO2 around and storing it by the hundreds of billions of tons…by 2050? A question for governments: What happens if we can’t? Where is “plan B”?

    • Dave Ward permalink
      July 17, 2019 2:07 pm

      “Where is “plan B”?”

      It won’t matter even if there is one – by then the coffers will be empty…

  12. Ian Wilson permalink
    July 17, 2019 12:50 pm

    On one of NASA’s websites they state the SABER spacecraft has been showing global COOLING since 2018. Combined with reports from several parts of the world that glaciers which had been retreating for centuries are now advancing again and the presence of the solar minimum, are a number of parties going to be looking very foolish before long?

    Just as when standing on a beach it is hard to discern when a tide starts to ebb, so it will be with climate. Some glaciers are still receding, Antarctic ice has dropped and doubtless more heat records will be broken, so it will be some time before it can be claimed for sure that Earth is cooling.

    • Broadlands permalink
      July 17, 2019 1:32 pm

      Many years ago the climatologist Dr. Reid Bryson was asked about that in an interview:

      BRYSON: We’ve been in the current inter-glacial period for approximately 10,800 years now. So if you take these researchers’ work seriously—and I’ve heard no real scientific arguments against what they’re saying—the only question you’re left with is, “How soon will we find ourselves in the next ice age?” One hundred years from now, or 9,000 years from now?


      BRYSON: The odds are very small for 100 years and approach a certainty for 9,000 years. There is, to put it another way, just the barest hint of a possibility that we could start a transition into a glacial epoch during the next century.
      The difference between the climate we have now and the climate we’ll have as we enter a new ice age will be so small here in North America that, for the most part, you won’t even notice the change.

  13. Sheri permalink
    July 17, 2019 12:58 pm

    “Policies are needed to ensure that people living in care homes, hospitals and flats can stay cool in increasingly hot summers.” That would be internal misting systems with battery powered fans for cooling. Short of that, there is no known way to cool such buildings. A/C was and is the only answer. Before A/C, people died.

    Still not insulating. Fascinating……

    “Suggestion of more green space in cities, and fewer homes, does not recognise the urgent need for more homes, given demographic trends.” That would be the uninvited “guests” turned permanent residents, correct? Does anyone know islands have limited space? Looks like building up is the only way to save “green spaces” and I’m not sure what all those skyscrapers do to the weather and climate of an island.

    • Dave Ward permalink
      July 17, 2019 2:11 pm

      “Does anyone know islands have limited space?”

      Lot’s of us do, but say it in public and we will be derided as “Wacist”

  14. Martin Howard Keith Brumby permalink
    July 17, 2019 1:03 pm

    “the proportion of hard surfaces in towns has risen by 22% since 2001”

    Think of all the towns you know. How many have had anything like 22% increase in ‘hard surfaces’ since 2001?

    I call complete bullshit on this. Name one town that has increased 2.2% since 2001, with proper verification.

    These bar stewards are just making stuff up again.

    I’m buying piano wire futures…

    • ianprsy permalink
      July 17, 2019 1:32 pm

      You should look up council Local Plans, Martin. Despite (being Labour) signing up to the “Climate Crisis”, they plan 29000 jobs and 22000 new homes between now and 2033, not realising that the world will end before then. this is happening all over the country. When asked about the obvious inconsistency, answer came there none. What hypocrisy.

      • Martin Howard Keith Brumby permalink
        July 17, 2019 6:19 pm

        I’m not suggesting it is impossible to increase hard surfaces of A town by 22%. Obviously it is feasible. But if “towns” (plural) have already increased even 2.2% since 2001, then I’m a 22% ‘bigger boy’ than John C Holmes.

  15. Mike Jackson permalink
    July 17, 2019 1:26 pm

    The more governments cravenly acquiesce with the idiocies of those with an agenda or an axe to grind the more extreme their demands will become.

    Currently on the table:

    1 The Times campaign for clean air. Worthy in itself but as with all these campaigns overly simplistic. If you want air pollution come back to the 1950s with me; I’ll show you air pollution. Or come and join me when the false acacia is spreading its seed “fluff” everywhere round here every May, worse than dandelions; it’s like being in the middle of a snowstorm. Just because it’s “natural” (like pollen?) doesn’t mean it isn’t hazardous. Just because diesel particulates aren’t natural doesn’t mean they necessarily are hazardous — or at least enough so to upend modern civilisation. And there is no absolute “human right” to have “clean air” as defined by government or media campaigners!

    2 Government is now about to tell us how many hours sleep we need. After all these millennia how on earth have we managed to survive without “them” telling us when to go to bed and how long to stay there?

    And we could all name several dozen similar inanities, many of them recorded here or by Booker (of blessed memory) over the years, and the more governments “virtue signal” by adopting crazy plans the more the crazies will think up even crazier ideas if only — like the average five-year-old — to see just how much they can get away with!

    Will somebody please call a halt?!

    • Phonenix44 permalink
      July 17, 2019 2:06 pm

      Diesel particulates are mostly carbon are they not? Carbon is pretty natural, as are its compounds. The whole nonsense about particulates is built around this bizarre notion that because they come from cars they are not “natural”. It’s just a weird outgrowth of the even weirder chemophobia.

      • Athelstan. permalink
        July 17, 2019 2:22 pm

        “to have “clean air” as defined by government or media campaigners!”

        Govrernment by diktat demands it, ordaining that the country needs ‘clean air’ and describing, setting the amounts of so called “impurities” and attempting to reduce them to nothing, to that end. Thus, it then creates all manner (manna?) an infinite set of possiblities to cosh, browbeat, keep the masses worried, a pols wet dream and to control and to contort, excused by the meme “this is for your own benefit”.

        Madness in their malignant methodology, we have witnessed the exact same, with acid rain, Ozone layer disappearing, global warbling – now morphed into plastics and “air quality’.

      • George lawson permalink
        July 17, 2019 4:12 pm

        Your point is well made by the fact that millions of people visit our busiest cities as workers and tourists every day of the year, tourists who enjoy the cities even though diesel fumes have been part of their everyday lives, and have been for all of the population for the past 80 years Yet we do not see people suffering respiratory problems in those cities with ambulances chasing around to pick up the afflicted. All of us will happily return to the cities and enjoy the delights without suffering health problems. And it was only recently that over 100 respiratory specialists in Germany concluded that there was no proof at all that diesel fumes had any effect whatsoever on health. Why do the Goves and Debens not understand this? There must be an underlying motivation that they have that we lesser folk don’t understand..

  16. Hugh Sharman permalink
    July 17, 2019 1:31 pm

    While I have little time for the CCC and much less for Gummer, that Central England summer temperature annual anomalies chart looks awfully like a hockey stick? Note my ?

    • Douglas Brodie permalink
      July 17, 2019 2:50 pm

      Except that it has been a Z-shaped hockey stick as shown by this snapshot from 2013: In fact the moving average anomaly fell to about 0.25ºC before rising again thanks to renewed natural El Nino warming. Anyone who believes that these rapid up-down-up transitions are due to man-made CO2 is deluding themselves.

      The CET graph’s modern-day “hockey stick uptick” is small compared to larger upticks which have occurred in the distant past, in particular the dramatic uptick which occurred between about 1695 and 1735, way before the start of global industrialisation, see

      The establishment has worked itself into a lather of hysteria over alleged man-made global warming when the minor temperature changes of recent decades have clearly been due to natural climate variability, as back in 1695.

    • John F. Hultquist permalink
      July 17, 2019 3:54 pm

      A chart of CO2 concentration (Mauna Loa Observatory) goes up regularly and doesn’t look like a hooky stick.
      The CET does have an upward trend (since stopped) at about the time of the “1976 Pacific climate shift”** so a person might want to look at natural factors to explain these short term changes in temperature (aka weather).


    • July 17, 2019 6:13 pm

      Check out the red running average trend line Hugh. Although it has gone down and up in recent years, it is a similar level as in the 1990s, and peaked in the early 2000s.

      (BTW – it is annual temp, not just summer)

      • richardw permalink
        July 18, 2019 2:28 pm

        As we have seen from other posts, this reasoning is just too subtle for public consumption – and the red line does still look like a hockey stick albeit with a notch in it. If as suggested elsewhere this is due to the siting of weather stations, then this graph should not be used as by doing so we are just doing the alarmists job for them.

  17. ianprsy permalink
    July 17, 2019 1:35 pm

    “Heat magnifies the production of pollutants, so more people are expected to suffer breathing problems.”

    On Politics Live this lunchtime, Moonbat stated authoritatively that 800000! people in Europe die every year from air pollution. Not challenged, naturally.

    Sooner or later, the basic maths will catch up with HMG, even if they continue to ignore the valid arguments against action.

    • Phoenix44 permalink
      July 17, 2019 2:11 pm

      Nothing more than statistical deaths, where a very, very small increase in deaths in some areas with higher pollution are taken to be “deaths from air pollution”. And to get that number, they as many deaths from as many causes as they can, then ignore all sorts of confounding factors (like poverty which often means living closer to roads). And we don’t even know if those supposedly dying from air pollution have actually been exposed!

      Yet air pollution has fallen by three quarters since 1970. If it was such a huge killer, that decrease should have produced extraordinary reductions in deaths. But oddly enough, they cannot be shown to exist, but reducing the current levels by a bit will have a huge impact.

  18. richardw permalink
    July 17, 2019 1:59 pm

    Perhaps he needs to get his daughter to wave a magic wand to show everybody that it works.

    What an idiot!

  19. July 17, 2019 2:10 pm

    One of the real ironies in the business of cars is that their engines have never been so efficient, eco-friendly or low in emissions, All the dangerous particulates come from tyres and brakes, which of course will still be the case with EV’s.

  20. Phoenxi44 permalink
    July 17, 2019 2:13 pm

    What, politicians refusing to make people deliberately poorer when there’s no way to hide behind something else? This was always going to happen, once the easy and invisible stuff was done.Now we will really see how Green we want to be.

    Maybe the BBC should lead the way? Go off air for say six months to save the planet?

  21. July 17, 2019 2:18 pm

    Reblogged this on ajmarciniak.

  22. July 17, 2019 2:46 pm

    As we are reminded this week of the Space Race. We know have the Green Race and the UK politicians all say they are determined to win the Green Race and get to Zero Carbon first. But there is some serious competition. The woman nominated to head the EU Commission, Ursula von der Leyen, has pledged to launch a “green deal for Europe” and has made it clear that they are determined to win the Green Race.
    Do we have a Green Gap can we win this Zero Sum Game. Yes it is a race to the bottom and we can get there first. Its Green or Bust!

  23. July 17, 2019 2:54 pm

    I know you don’t do twitter, but you might be interested in this bizarre reference to your blog from Carbon Brief propagandist Simon Evans:

  24. Ajax Ornis permalink
    July 17, 2019 3:10 pm

    We all know that Gummer is addicted to grabbing even more money from the “Climate Change Money Tree” and is thus far from reputable. But to liken the government to Dad’s Army is not worth the air of publicity it is getting. At least the Home Guard were fighting a real war, which Bummer & cohorts are not.

  25. George Lawson permalink
    July 17, 2019 3:28 pm

    What a conceited man Gummer is. All he sees from increased spending by the government is bigger illegal payments into his back pocket. Both he and Gove are trying to bring this country to its knees. The sooner they are deposed by a new administration in Whitehall the better. Gummers insults to Ministers as being likened to Dads’ Army, and Gove’s ridiculous outpourings on top of his ruination of the car and other industries, will, I hope help to hasten their demise to the benefit of government and the whole of society..

  26. Vernon E permalink
    July 17, 2019 3:55 pm

    As touched on above the Moonbat presented himself today as a total fantasist and conspiracy theorist – the UK government’s long term strategy has been to become a satellite of the USA! But reaction from the BBC came there none.

  27. Peter Azlac permalink
    July 17, 2019 4:21 pm

    Re my earlier comment on CET, I note that a new paper finds that the UHI effect has added 1.7K to minimum UK temperatures. The graphic in this article shows that the largest effects are in three of the geographic areas where the CET data is derived from!

  28. July 17, 2019 4:39 pm

    ” Hugh Sharman permalink
    July 17, 2019 1:31 pm

    While I have little time for the CCC and much less for Gummer, that Central England summer temperature annual anomalies chart looks awfully like a hockey stick? ”

    The differnce is the CET shows a much bigger temp rise 1700-1750 than 20thC warming. In other words nothing unusual in 20thC. Original Mann hockey stick shows 20thC warming dwarfing anything before.

    Click to access File:T_comp_61-90.pdf

  29. MrGrimNasty permalink
    July 17, 2019 5:20 pm

    After the EU bio-fuel mandate disaster, they want more of the same – are they thick or senile?

    “Using biodiesel for transport was supposed to reduce CO2 emissions but instead it’s set to increase Europe’s overall transport emissions by almost 4%, according to a new analysis of the European Commission’s latest study on biofuels. These extra emissions are equivalent to putting around 12 million additional cars on Europe’s roads in 2020…”


    • It doesn't add up... permalink
      July 17, 2019 5:35 pm

      I think the idea is to wreck petrol engines and fuel pumps.

  30. July 17, 2019 5:47 pm

    A note written in response to the passing of Net Zero CO2 emission policy in the UK House of Commons.
    When will people realise that any CO2 reduction policy should also be seen in a longer-term context:
    · The modern short pulse of beneficial Global warming stopped ~20 years ago and recent global temperatures are now stable or declining.
    · According to reliable Ice Core records the last millennium 1000 – 2000 AD was the coldest of our current Holocene interglacial and the world had already been cooling quite rapidly since before Roman times, in fact since ~1000 BC.
    · At 11,000 years old, our Holocene interglacial, responsible for all man-kind’s advances, from living in caves to microprocessors, is coming to its end.
    · The weather gets worse in colder times.
    · The world will very soon, (on a geological time scale), revert to a true glaciation, again eventually resulting in mile high ice sheets over New York.

    The prospect of even moving in a cooling direction is something to be truly scared about, both for the biosphere and for man-kind.

    Spending any effort, without true cost benefit analysis and full due diligence, let alone at GDP scale costs, trying to stop the UK’s 1% of something that has not been happening for 3 millennia is monumentally stupid.


    • Harry Passfield permalink
      July 17, 2019 9:44 pm

      Then, perhaps we – the TPTB – need to maximise the warming trend (non-AGW, as it is) so as to buffer the cold that is to come?

  31. Robert Jones permalink
    July 17, 2019 8:21 pm

    I have learned much from all these comments but, to some extent, we are talking to each other in an echo chamber. The glaring horror of the way that the CCC is able to operate is that a massive majority of the 650 MPs and an even bigger majority of the 800+(?) Peers blessed the Climate Change Act (2008) with only a vanishingly small opposition. Why are our legislators so poorly educated, so short on common sense and apparently unable to look out of the window to spot reality? They are costing us a fortune in their stupid endorsements of the CCC’s latest scare and I am puzzled! Smart meters, electric vehicles, preventing fracking, encouraging wood-burners, banning nuclear and subscribing to carbon reductions to zero, where will it all end (apart from penury)?

    • MrGrimNasty permalink
      July 17, 2019 10:35 pm

      Because it’s not and never has been about the climate/environment.

      This movement will never be defeated by arguing science and logic.

      Sadly, it will inevitably lead to civil unrest, yellow vests times 10 million, when the public finally realise just what the future under this regime will be like.

    • Ariane permalink
      July 18, 2019 9:59 am

      Robert Jones, yes, Parliamentarians’ lack of due diligence and the false economy in the Stern Review were dreadful. Virtue signalling is what motivates politicians. When they don’t have to pay for their policies, their jobs are sweet.

  32. Mike O permalink
    July 17, 2019 10:38 pm

    We’re doomed, I tell you. We’re doomed! Private Frazer Dad’s army

  33. Gerry, England permalink
    July 18, 2019 1:30 pm

    Given the disagreement over the cost of the madness Andrew Montford requested their working out. After some bluffing he finally got a document. Out of interest he checked the properties which showed that this document had only just been created following his request. What’s more it was written by a person who is supposed to work for the CCC but the computer used to draft the document thinks otherwise saying they work for DEFRA. Hmmm…..

    • MrGrimNasty permalink
      July 18, 2019 4:39 pm

      One would have thought Paul Johnson’s name would be all over the finances/costs/economics, else what is his point on the CCC?

      The dates on the spreadsheet are easily explained away, and could be a red-herring. But perhaps it was indeed just produced out of a hat for the query – it’s what you’d expect from these clowns!

Comments are closed.

%d bloggers like this: