Steve Baker MP Joins GWPF
By Paul Homewood
First crack in the dam?
The Former Brexit minister was elected as an MP to represent Wycombe in 2010. He was previously a consulting software engineer and before that a Royal Air Force engineer officer. He is a Chartered Aerospace Engineer with an MSc in Computer Science. He is also a Fellow of the RSA.
Steve became a Brexit minister after re-founding the European Research Group (ERG) to bring the best ideas for a free-trading, internationalist future for the UK into Parliament. He delivered the European Union (Withdrawal) Act in the Commons and worked right across Government on preparedness for our exit, including on energy policy. His subsequent, successful battles are well-documented.
Steve is the longest-standing Conservative on the Commons Treasury Committee. He also serves on the 1922 Executive, enjoying being a Parliamentarian first, campaigning for social progress and prosperity through honest money, free trade and peace.
Mr Baker said:
“I am delighted to accept Lord Lawson’s invitation to become a trustee of the Global Warming Policy Foundation.
“I’m increasingly concerned about the astronomical costs of the current Net Zero plans. If they were to be carried through to their logical conclusion, it would mean the end of the comfortable lifestyles we have enjoyed for generations. Only the well-heeled will be able to afford private cars or foreign holidays. Increasing numbers of people will be unable to take for granted heating their homes.”
“If ministers don’t obtain and maintain the consent of the public for Net Zero now with full and frank explanations of the costs and changes ahead, eventually there will be a terrible revolt.”
“We need scrutiny and a sober debate about our policy options, and that’s what the GWPF will help to achieve.”
The GWPF’s founder Lord Lawson, said:
“I have long considered Steve the outstanding MP of his generation. I am delighted to welcome him to the GWPF board of trustees.”
Meanwhile Steve Baker has written this article for The Critic, which is well worth a read:
The pandemic and our response to it has hit the country hard. Our economic contraction last year was the worst for hundreds of years and the damage continues to pile up. Millions remain on furlough. Too many businesses have closed their doors for good. That’s why I have worked hard with MPs to promote our collective recovery from this disease.
As we begin to recover, I recall a promise I made to the electors of Wycombe at the 2019 count. After a campaign in which environmental issues were dominant like never before, I promised to pay close attention to climate change policy.
The more I study, the more concerned I become that we are launching a ruinous economic experiment when we can least afford it. With their radical plan to fully decarbonise the entire economy by 2050 — “net zero” — that is just what Conservative ministers are embarked upon.
It is hard to overstate the scale of the transformation ministers intend to deliver. If plans are carried through to their logical conclusion, it will mean the end of the comfortable lifestyles we have enjoyed for generations. Only the well-heeled will be able to afford private cars or foreign holidays. Increasing numbers of people will be unable to take for granted heating their homes.
Full story here.
Comments are closed.
NOT A LOT OF PEOPLE KNOW THAT 
Er… this MP believes in the Climate Change fraud! He just wants the response to be cheaper.
How does bringing warmists into the GWPR help?
My reaction also. Agreed it’s a “starting point” but meaningless unless followed through to its logical conclusion — net zero is not possible, not needed, and not sensible. Anthropogenic (or indeed natural) CO2 is not responsible for global warming and is being demonised by the eco-activists in order to end the use of the one irreplaceable commodity that drives the modern world — affordable, consistently reliable energy.
Until Steve, and others, understand that very simple basic fact he is getting nowhere except back to the Dark Ages along with the rest of us!
Stating the bloomin’ obvious (to us) activates the Cancel Culture, especially at the BBC, so it’s better to ‘slowly, slowly, catchee monkey’.
It leaves us wondering who’s on our side, but Steve does have a reputation to uphold, so I live in a slightly increased hope on this news that things will progress, forwards, avoiding a great leap backwards.
We have been trying to ‘slowly slowly catchee monkey’ for rather a long time already Christopher.
AbsolUtely relevant and right, and esp socially so with Oriental nation’s policies of never curbing CO2, hardly mentioned by our foolish politicians.
COP26 :A completely wasteful sham, like decarbonization.
A wide range of opinions is important, how else do you have a useful discussion? Besides, the true believers (or hangers on) have usurped the levers of power, the most pragmatic option currently is to try to limit the damage that they do with their ‘solutions’.
We have to remember that the GWPF is not, officially, a climate sceptic organisation albeit many of it’s members, donors and contributors are. Indeed it is ‘open minded about the contested science of climate change’. However, it is very sceptical about the costs/benefits of the current pathway to net zero and climate change mitigation attempts in general and deeply concerned about the impacts on society of these measures. As more people begin to question current climate change policies, more will inevitably start looking at the ‘contested science’ that underpins them. As we know here, that science sits on very shaky foundations. The more elected politicians that start questioning the narrative the better for us all. Steve Baker’s appointment is good move in the right direction.
The first concern is to cancel the Net Zero folly. Educating politicians about the unrealities of climate science is secondary – it doesn’t matter if they carry on believing in their climate god so long as they cancel Net Zero.
It seems to me that showing that the Net Zero fantasies, based loosely as they are on models of weather in claiming that they offer a viable future, offer an ideal opportunity to show that these models cannot be relied upon.
For example, there is this:
Click to access Flexibility_in_GB_report.pdf
produced for the Carbon Trust quango. It’s a joke: they insert a 3 day period of Dunkelflaute into their otherwise unchallenging weather patterns, and proclaim that their plans are robust to the weather. Perhaps they should look at the months of 2021 to date? Hidden away are some fairly amazing assumptions – like having over 200GW of gas fired generation as backup. This kind of nonsense can be challenged directly, without resorting to attempts to undermine religious belief in climate.
Brilliant news
Excellent article. This indicates to me that, at least within the Conservative party, there are MPs who are voicing strong objections behind the scenes. I have been pressing my MP Desmond Swayne with the same view.
I have made this point from the article to Desmond on several occasions:
“If ministers don’t obtain and maintain the consent of the public for Net Zero now with full and frank explanations of the costs and changes ahead — as they relentlessly have not during the panic of the pandemic — eventually there will be a terrible revolt.”
I think the backlash from the public is potentially going to be quite spectacular. And hopefully the insane greenies are going to have a hard time explaining themselves.
I just hope the present downturn in global temps results in the return of the “statistical pause” for the 21st century. That gives further ammunition to highlight how climate models actually have no predictive ability at all.
In an unpublished letter I sent to the DT the other day I made the same points. Seems theyre more interested in pets that find their own way around and take themselves for walks.
FWIW, this is what I wrote:
Sir,
Is it not the case that when a government can dictate how and on what its
people may spend their money, or live the lives that they want in the way
that they want, we have arrived at the very definition of a totalitarian
state?
Where, for goodness sake, is the democratic mandate for the government to
tell me what kind of car I must drive (or not, when I can’t afford the
government’s choice); what kind of heating system I must have (or none at
all, when I can’t afford the government’s choice); and, through their agents
in the fourth estate, determine what is or is not freedom of speech and who
is free to speak it? (Think Twitter). We are heading for a ‘Trabant
generation’, where the government determines what we own.
How has it come to this that the beliefs arising from the over-stated
effects of a trace gas – without which we would die and which is now deemed
to be a pollutant(!) – has driven governments and (some) people into a
collective hysteria that foretells the end of the world as we know it?
If, and it is a very big if, there is any merit in the man-made climate
change arguments put about by some with ulterior political motives, there is
very little – ie: nothing – that this country could do about it on a world
scale by loading our country with such an enormous financial burden for such
a miniscule benefit – should such be capable of being determined. The UK is
a very small player in this contrived situation and we benefit nothing at
all by pursuing such ephemeral goals. For the sake of democracy we need to
stop this move to a totalitarian future. The government must draw back from
the undemocratic demand that we dump our petrol/diesel cars and our gas
boilers. In trying to save the planet we could end up destroying our
country. The hysteria has to stop.
Yours,
Harry,
The fundamental problem began when Cameron, Miliband and Clegg signed the joint climate pledge in 2015:
https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2015/feb/14/cameron-clegg-and-miliband-sign-joint-climate-pledge
At that point the democratic process on this issue died. All three main parties now agree on the extreme climate agenda, policies which only attracted 2.7% of the total vote to the Green Party in the last General Election. And at which 440 Green Party candidates lost their deposit.
Why it that the three main political parties think there are votes in this?
Harry
I was very pleased to see your letter. I’m not convinced that the recent activities of Cameron ,Miliband and Clegg ( lobbying , Facebook representation etc ) deserve our continuing respect.
Common sense would sort this out: simple!
The problem is that the likes of Mr Baker would probably be paid off if the government announced 50% grants upto say £20k. The grants of course would have to be paid for through general taxation, but it allows it to be ‘lost’ in the general debt.
I don’t like the feeling that the argument about whether it should even be contemplated is already conceeded. Now we are just talking about how the costs are shared.
When will we see the BBC brought to account for it’s climate propaganda lies?
We’ve had many exposés besides Savile, Cliff Richard, Bashir……….
It may be 3-30 years, but one day we will have the satisfaction of Black/Harrabin etc. exposed.
It’s only taken 26 years to finally bring the BBC to face the truth of their cover-up over the Princess Di interview etc. I hope the cover-up over AGW doesn’t take as long. I’d like to survive long enough too see heads fall.
‘To’ – must have a sticky o key on my keyboard!!
I was thinking the same!
Could it just be the tide is turning against climate and CO2 hysteria? This news and Jeremy Warner’s warning of ‘monster price rises’ from net zero are encouraging signs.
I’m not sure if Steve Baker is challenging climate hysteria (Dodgy Geezer above thinks he isn’t) or just the net zero plans.
ThinkingScientist mentions the current downturn. I have posted before Allan MacRae’s research concluding the natural warming of the last couple of centuries has now turned to cooling, but I think it’s so significant it’s worth repeating – look up Allan MacRae Climate and Energy Primer for Politicians and Media (the link doesn’t always seem to work). He doesn’t claim definitive proof but it looks pretty convincing.
Perhaps the COP26 agenda might be amended to tackle cooling instead of warming? – like heck it will be!
The United Nations (who run the COP conferences) seem to have no interest in global cooling, otherwise you would have expected them to show some concern about the issue back in the 1970s. The UN didn’t actually take any interest in ‘climate change’ until 1988, when they set up the IPCC (Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change). The first chairman of the IPCC was Bert Bolin, who according to the late Nigel Calder was the only scientist in the 1970s who was concerned about global warming (due to increased greenhouse gas concentrations), everybody else back in the 1970s was concerned about global cooling.
One group that did show some interest in global cooling was the shadowy “Bilderberg Group” about ten years ago. It appeared on the group’s meeting agenda (which is the only thing they publish) for 2010. James Delingpole got a bit excited about their interest and wrote an article about it at the time:
https://www.iceagenow.com/Global_Cooling_and_the_New_World_Order_by_James_Delingpole.htm
But looking at the latest meeting agenda (for 2019, presumably they have stopped meeting in the last two years due to the pandemic) there is no mention of global cooling. They discussed ‘climate change and sustainability’, and I would think climate change means ‘global warming’:
https://bilderbergmeetings.org/press/press-release/press-release
We should be grateful at least. I’m always wary of politicians who usually live by the mantra of success being achieved by upsetting the fewest. They will flip-flop to be on message whenever it suits them
However Baker is on topic with this article. The UK stands to reap no benefit whatsoever whilst committing itself to all the costs. The relentless Left-wing authoritarian consensus is finally being challenged.
Off thread, but wow the unspeakable Beeb cops it in The Times today.
The hope is that there are many more politicians in the House (There must be) who are of the view of Steve Baker, but dare not show their heads above the parapet. Now that Steve Baker has had the courage to go further than just expressing his opposition to the cult, he might find other MPs who have the courage to speak out. I would like to see a group of sceptic MPs from all parties get together and collectively express their views against the current madness of the government regarding global warming. This would be much more effective. The dam would then be broken, hopefully never to be repaired. Perhaps Mr Baker could be the catalyst for getting such a group together.
Maybe we should start a little list….how about:
Graham Stringer
Owen Patterson
John Redwood?
An excellent idea. Perhaps that would enable us to email them from time to time to ask them what they are doing that is positive rather than just sitting back and letting it happen.
GL: My understsanding from my MP (David Johnstone, Didcot & Wantage) is that all MP’s receive all the GWPF releases via e-mail. Unfortunately he is not a convert.
Yes, but they need to be informed that the UK’s greenhouse gas release, except for water vapour, is negligible.
(It would make more logical sense to regulate our urine production than that of CO2}
Using the UN IPCC’s own statistics, it is possible to calculate the UK’s current share of global anthropogenic CO2 emissions, which is 0.0000065%. How much closer to zero can you get?
Don’t forget the excellent David TC Davis who has spoken out very clearly in the HoC.See here. Also Phillip Davis MP.
Will he follow Dominic Cummings for upsetting the nut-nuts?
There will be long-knives out among the troughers too.
I suspect you are right Jack, did ANY MP survive a conflict with Miss Crass Wallpaper Champion 2021?
What is needed now is (a) much more publicity about China’s coal fired plans across the planet, earning gratitude from the electrically deprived. (b) much more publicity about the relentless rise in CO2 at 2ppm/ year for the last 30 years and the lack of harm therefrom (c) much more publicity about the low numbers for Equilibrium Climate Sensitivity. (d) exposure of President Xi’s energy strategy supporting the otherwise failing Paris Agreement with his cynical 2060 (!!!) promise while watching our economies kill themselves. (e) remark that we seem to have survived the MWP which was ‘hotter ‘ than now.
Lion… “(b) much more publicity about the relentless rise in CO2 at 2ppm/ year for the last 30 years and the lack of harm therefrom.”
And much more publicity about the impossibility of trying to lower that CO2 by direct air capture and geological storage (under pressure) to meet a huge Net-zero condition.
I cannot believe the energy minister Anne Marie Trevelyan ( who I believe is or was more Conservative than Liberal) isn’t worried about the net zero policy. I keep writing to her asking her to read the articles on your site Paul.
Unfortunately Paul, listening to her most recent ramblings on the subject, she now appears to have been fully converted to the Climate Cult.
[Politics is the art of the possible.” The most famous German advocate of Realpolitik, what was uniquely possible and the applied means to achieve it, was Otto von Bismarck, the first Chancellor (1862–1890) to Wilhelm I of the Kingdom of Prussia.] Wiki
“We are on the path to poverty, misery and a failure to inspire the world to decarbonise. ”
“Saving the planet and protecting the climate are noble endeavours. That’s why proposals need careful examination and considered debate and scrutiny. The time for blind faith in unreliable, expensive renewables is over.”
Steve Baker MP
There are comments criticising Mr Baker for not damning the entire politicised science that has half the politicians in the world jumping to obey the dictats of teenage girl doomsters or troughing chancers who see unlimited wealth from wind farms and solar parks. That ignores the extremely committed stand of our leaders who have embraced the climate cult to such an extent that to admit the least doubt would see their careers destroyed. The LibLabCon is never going to admit that it has swallowed, hook line and sinker, a specious load of fetid dingo kidneys in the guise of real science. The Press and the broadcast media are in the same state — dissent had not been permitted for twenty years, and anyone directly challenging the received wisdom that we are dooooomed will be ignored or mocked.
So changing attitudes is nigh impossible. That means the only option to limit the damage and that is what Mr Baker’s proposals do. As he’s the first to stick his head over the parapet he should have our wholehearted support.
JF
My suggestions for an approach to energy policy which avoids destroying our civilisation to save it are at Independence Daily under the title Growth or the Hairshirt. You know how to find it. I’d put in a link but you never know if they are going to be permitted.
Any advance on Lords Lawson, Donoughue, Ridley and Lilley plus Sammy Wilson (DUP) Graham Stringer (Labour).and now Steve Baker in the Commons? Baker and Stringer are GWPF Trustees, Ridley a member of the GWPF Academic Advisory Council. Does anyone know of other parliamentary climate sceptics? There must be more.
John Redwood is one
Alas, Peter Lilley is no longer in the house.
Perhaps the GWPF should think about appointing a sceptic voice from the Labour party and the Liberals (If there are any) to their board in order to develop a more cross party sceptic voice. I would also like to hear much more from Lord Lawson ridiculing the government from the Lords. He has a reputation for being listened to and could surely gather sceptics around him from the peerage.
They already have Graham Stringer, who is I suspect the only Labour sceptic!
This write-up of the potential scandal behind Covid is another important straw in the wind:
https://unherd.com/2021/05/how-scientists-sacrificed-scepticism/
As of course is the furore over the BBC’s Bashir interview of Diana and subsequent cover up led by Lord Hall.
That the Lancet is once again implicated in propping up a false narrative is surely no surprise. The idea that “the science” is untrustworthy and the media are untrustworthy are starting points through which men may recover their sanity one by one, having gone mad in herds.
Thanks for the link. The interview at the same page is a must-watch for anyone who did not wade through the original (very good but very long) Wade article.
I’m listening to the BBC’s WATO and am fascinated by the – justifiable – pile-in on the Corporation and its once-protected great and good over the scandal of the Princess Diana interview. It is wonderful!
How much bigger would be the hullaballoo if the same exposure was given to the way the BBC treats climate change and its sceptics.
The BBC is far too powerful.
Good news
There is hope yet…
As has been pointed out before on here, the debate should be about Why? not How?
The blind, financially and resource, rush to decarbonise has had no costing. The office for financial responsibility needs some technical guidance to show the politicians the reality of the woke worshipping they are involved in. The cost of change of generation, grid upgrading, domestic energy change has not been published. A direct parallel to the SNP drive for independence.
What most people fail to understand is that the destruction of private enterprise, the impoverishment of the majority of the population and the relentless drive towards totalitarianism, to be achieved via Net Zero and the government’s response to Covid, is the declared aim of the globalist elites (think Schwab, Gates, Soros et al) in order to usher in the Great Reset as espoused by the Davos based WEF and the UN Agenda 2030. The government’s response to Covid has already seen the greatest upwards transfer of wealth in history, destruction of thousand of SMEs and the wholesale destruction of our rights, which are now being offered back to us as privileges, conditional upon adhering to the Covid mantra of vaccination and vaccination certificates (which will morph into global electronic IDs), masks, (un)social distancing, lockdowns etc. Unless the populace wakes up to this massive fraud which has been perpetrated on them very soon and initiates mass protest, I fear it may be too late to reverse direction. Johnson, Gove, Hancock et all have all been bought without realising that they are no more than ‘useful idiots’ who will be ‘terminated’ once they have served their purpose.
Well said!
agreed.
Hit the nail on the head. When is it going to get through.
It would make the perfect plot for a Bond movie to discover that they were all members of SMERSH.
You can imagine Schwab announcing “We’ve been waiting for you, Mr Bond!” followed by scenes of mayhem at the Davos Congress Centre. Perhaps we should suggest it to Barbara Broccoli?
The problem with the Great Reset, UN Agenda, Net Zero, as well any other similar proposals, is that they put the countries which implement them at a great competitive disadvantage. There’s a reason why all the utopian/dystopian social projects fail, and that reason is that they don’t exist in a vacuum. Even radical solutions like the Iron Curtain cannot hold off inevitable collapse forever. With the threat posed to the Western block by nationalist countries that will never accept globalist diktats, any totalitarian transformation isn’t particularly likely. The elites are ambitious, but not suicidal, they know they can’t keep their power if the West falls, so they’ll act cautiously not shoot themselves in the foot. I sincerely doubt anything like the IEA’s plan could ever be attempted in real life, and the covid scare can’t be exploited much further. There’s always going to be more scaremongering, as long as they hold their silly conferences, but the amount of change it brings is hopefully going to be limited.
What you say is entirely logical and I do hope that you are right. However, unless we are able to elect an administration that will repeal Legal Net Zero, which is most unlikely, since the Lib/Lab/Con uniparty and others are all committed to it, I do think that we are heading towards a dystopian interlude, at least, before common sense prevails.
Fixed it for you:-
Steve Baker MP Infiltrates GWPF
Took a while, maybe too long
We need a NetZero opposition, Labour will not do it
As far as I am aware, the only party committed to Net Zero opposition is David Kurten’s Heritage Party, but because of our FPTP electoral system, there is zero chance they will ever form a government. With sufficient support, they might win the odd seat and provide a voice of opposition within government, but there is only a slim chance of that happening.
Michael
Thanks for the reference, just read the manifesto. Not for me. Just an endless vague wish list of conservative aspirations. Fantasy. And why on earth does he bring abortion into it? There are two subjects no politician with sense will raise: fox-hunting and abortion. Not for me.
Will Steve Baker have the courage to form a breakaway political party with anti-Net Zero policies? If only. If it got plenty of support, it would oblige the broadcasters to put the case against man-made global warming, and give people a real choice, He’s got my support.
Don’t forget that at one time the Conservative Party supported remaining in the EU. It was only a small band of ‘rebels’ who advocated holding a referendum on withdrawal. Of course there was Nigel Farage and UKIP wining seats in the EU parliament which threatened to do the same in the UK parliament – though they neve did make any real break through. So the same could happen with climate policy, if enough join Steve Baker then they would have real influence in the party. That is the best way to stop net zero. Even without a Farage character it could work.
Decarbonisation has not yet become a hot topic. I have written to the papers about it several times, but accepted only twice, though good letters!
Once the public realise its unnecessary, insane, completely unacceptable implications, it will be as hot as the world will be cool.
So far the public and most MPs have been ignorant, stupid and completely duped by people not necessarily of malignant intention, but by people like themselves.
Steve Baker must now aquire some basic knowledge to counter the Alarmists’ agenda and then have the guts to use his parliamentary platform to take on the Green zealots and bigots.
It is not hard to learn about photosynthesis and that no CO2 means that there will be nothing green growing anywhere on this planet
Steve Baker is a brave man and he deserves our support. He is a senior member of the very successful ERG group. I know there are many climate sceptics in the Conservative Party. They just need to acquire the courage to ‘come out’. Why don’t the politicians start a review of the effectiveness of their policy versus the cost? That would be a sensible way which would be hard to criticise.
Why doesn’t the GWPF campaign to have the Climate Change Committee get up on a podium to explain the Climate Crisis as was done for the COVID Crisis? The science, the costs, the benefits. I’ve a number of questions from the floor, “What’s the CCC’s figure for Equilibrium Climate Sensitivity today?”
Paul
Do you think there is any mileage in trying to get Steve Baker signed up to receive your emails?