Rees-Mogg On The CCC
February 29, 2024
By Paul Homewood
Common sense from the Mogg:
37 Comments
Comments are closed.
“We do not believe any group of men adequate enough or wise enough to operate without scrutiny or without criticism. We know that the only way to avoid error is to detect it, that the only way to detect it is to be free to inquire. We know that in secrecy error undetected will flourish and subvert”. – J Robert Oppenheimer.
Recent Comments
Phillip Bratby on ‘Green’ renewable… vickimh234 on Labour To Keep Strategic Reser… vickimh234 on Labour To Keep Strategic Reser… vickimh234 on Labour To Keep Strategic Reser… Phoenix44 on Labour To Keep Strategic Reser… Phoenix44 on Labour To Keep Strategic Reser… Phoenix44 on Labour To Keep Strategic Reser… bnice2000 on Global Heating Will Increase P… vickimh234 on How Wet Was The Spring? vickimh234 on Labour’s Green Obsession…
NOT A LOT OF PEOPLE KNOW THAT 
The key word about the Climate Change Committee is “unaccountable”. The BBC and MSM always say that the CCC is “independent”. It is not independent, the members being appointed by politicians with a single purpose, regardless of the science (which it has never examined despite that being part of its original remit).
Phillip, I reckon that what is meant by ‘unaccountable’ is, you can’t sue us if we’re wrong. Personally, I think they should be strung up.
Burnt at the stake seems more apt.
“that is not to say that climate change is not occurring”
What a sad cop-out! He didn’t even bother to qualify that with, ‘natural’ (or, as many alarmists would say, man-made). If Jacob wants to be a sceptic/realist at least be careful of your use if words – something you are normally very good at.
Jacob, have the guts to say what you believe in and leave the politician in you behind!
He’s absolutely right that climate change is occurring. It always is. It has become less cold in the UK over the past 40 years. And it was warmer again between 1910 and 1940. Anyone who disputes that is an idiot. You can see from the data that winters in particular have become less cold. Anecdotally I can confirm that with 100% certainty with regards to a hobby of mine, ice climbing. This is something that’s always been a marginal activity in the Lake District because of the normal temperatures of the place. In the 70s and 80s I could count on there being at least half dozen weekends between mid November and April when it would be cold enough for the climbs to be in condition. By the 2000s opportunities had declined to only a couple of weekends. So it has warmed up a bit. Is CO2 to blame? I’ve no idea and that should be the default position of everyone, until we get to a position where we can say we fully understand how the climate system works.
Climate change is an historical account of meteorological events put in context, like any historical account it is not ‘happening’ – it has happened.
What is happening now with respect to meteorological events and the context, will only be know in the future – about 5 000 to 10 000 years hence when long term comparisons can be made since changes in meteorological patterns are not unidirectional.
”It has become less cold in the UK over the past 40 years. And it was warmer again between 1910 and 1940.”
Being warmer, getting colder, getting warmer again is what happens between lunchtime on Monday and lunchtime on Tuesday. That’s neither climate nor climate change.
The real climate scientists are geologists whose domain spans tens, hundreds of thousands and millions of years.
The only sensible conclusions about climate can be drawn on those timescales.
If climate change were happening now, we would be able to observe it. I have never seen climate, but apparently there are some who see it all the time, and can tell what it is doing.
Spot on, John. It’s indisputable that climate has changed over our history but what we are seeing today is weather – which, in time will be used in any calculation of what effect it had on the climate.
So Guy, I’ve never disputed that the climate has – and will change – but I doubt it will show one way or the other in any great extent within my lifetime.
My impression is that the coldest parts of the year have become less cold, granted occasional exceptions. A friend in southern Germany says they no longer get the severe winter cold spells that were considered normal in the 1980s, when the diesel fuel might freeze.
Rees Mogg still doesn’t realise that CO2 is not a problem so he also is being foolish
Possibly, but in order to make progress with stopping the Net Zero nonsense it makes sense to go down the adaption route such as proposed by Lomborg as an affordable route as and if anything actually happens.
I think there are only 2 options:
Personally, I think only #2 will work.
Why?
As the carnival float of the nut zero googles, hit the tank trap bollards of reality. The googles in the CCC can huff and puff and dream their wet dreams, but mother nature is a climate sceptic.
“mother nature is a climate sceptic”
Wonderful!! A motto for all sceptic blogs. I shall pinch it without shame. Thank you Scottish S.
CO2 is a green gas – it is responsible for greening an area the size of the USA around deserts and in dry areas – according to NASA satellite images over the last 20 years.
CO2 – bringer of life.
I guess we should be glad that an increasing number of commentators are now, at last, questioning the idiotic drive to net zero, set off by arch idiot Theresa May.
However, it is a real cop out that most of them condition their comments with phrases like “hardly anyone questions the need to reduce CO2 emissions”, and “that’s not to say climate change isn’t happening”.
This is cowardly, and is not backed up by any evidence.
He has to say things like that otherwise his comments on the CCC would be completely drowned in denunciations of climate denialism, 97% consensus and the like. Imho it is better to draw attention to the utter impracticality of Net Zero, the cost impact, restrictions on freedoms and so forth. Those are the things which are going to hit the population hard, whatever the climate does.
f
David Frost says it pretty much as it is.
My worry, Chris, is that pretty soon we may be faced with the towering intellect of Milibrain as he drives Labour to a real nett zero country.
Remember OFCOM is looking for any excuse to close down GBNews altogether. The BBC already shut down proper debate by shouting “climate denier”. OFCOM will do likewise unless the cap is doffed.
Climate change IS happening … as climate has changed for the last 4.5billion years. The real deniers are the ones who deny 4.5billion years of climate change.
Wasn’t Rees Mogg an enthusiast for Boris Johnson, the UK’s super-enthusiastic convenor of the disastrous COP26 in Glasgow where/when the IEA’s architecture for “Global net zero by 2050” was finalized?
Correct me please, if I am wrong!
Fair point.
as an aside, i caught a bit of the Welsh Farmers protests over the last couple of days. Spokesperson saying that they were totally aboard with aiming for “zero carbon”.
Mmmm…… so farmers grow crops to sell or grow grass for livestock. Crops need CO2 and grow better when there is more CO2. farmers are in favour of net zero -that is reducing amount of CO2. Ergo, farmers want poorer crop yields.
There are very few people who have any understanding of climate, and what influences it.
Everyone else ECHO what they have been told and have believed, either truth or lies, dependant on their inclination to believe truth or lies. Galloping deception is worldwide.
The evidence is that the earth has been a stable home for human beings for thousands of years, though with continuous climatic variation.
All alarmism is therefore to be distrusted unless there is very clear evidence, WHICH THERE IS’NT.
All computer models to the present day are known for GARBAGE IN = GARBAGE OUT.
All computer models to the present day are known for GARBAGE IN = GARBAGE OUT.
As far as I am aware, there are no accurate climate models based on empirical input data, although my limited understanding is that it is apparently possible to generate accurate output from a model where the data is adjusted prior to input i.e. not empirical data.
The UK Meteorological Office who have offered weather forecasting for many years are still unable to predict three days ahead with sufficient accuracy for most people. This demonstrates the immense difficulty of climatic modelling. To think that you can predict the trends where the underlying system is fundamentally chaotic requires one to suspend one’s reason, don’t you think?
The one mathematical model, devised by Happer and Wijngarten and made public in 2019, that corresponded extraordinarily well with empirical evidence demonstrated that a doubling of greenhouse house gases would possibly cause a 1 degree rise. Needless to say their work has been completely sidelined, and I believe not even published because it highlights the non-problem and exposes the alarmists’ fakery. Worth YouTubing William van Wijngarten.
I was set out to find out what the “scientists” knew about natural variation in the climate. After a great deal of time and some expense buying a book on “climatic variation”, expecting at least a chapter on natural variation, I finally tracked down the only part of the book to deal with natural variation. A single sentence to the effect that climate doesn’t vary naturally. As all systems have noise=natural variation, I was utterly astonished that any person claiming to know anything, would utter such a rash and stupid comment. But they did. They completely deny natural variation.
Jacob should invite Jim Dale onto his show to debate Climate Change hysteria. According to Jim yesterday morning on GB News , Texas was burning up.
If Govt can establish the CCC, it can also change and abolish it, and it really time to abolish it. The CCC must NOT be allowed rule parliament or us, especially as no one voted for it.
Spot on Jacob! Keep up the good work but mind your back… the ungodly will be after you!
Sent from Outlook for Androidhttps://aka.ms/AAb9ysg ________________________________
… mind your back
JRM could become a big target for the believers if he declares that he is a non-believer. The believers from the medjia would be all over him, particularly O’Brien (LBC) .
My guess is that JRM would relish the resultant battle, but would it cause him financial problems with whatever he does outside his duties as an MP ?
I need to check the facts but I have read recently that R M has recently closed down one of the investment funds he used to manage with colleagues. He may therefor be financially self sufficient.
Not unlike J K Rowling in her successful push back against the transgender delusionalists.
An interesting “what-if” is the no-hope Tory party undergo a miraculous transformation into the party of non-believers, led by JRM. The next General Election being fought mainly on a single issue:
“As a country, do we spend £££trillions as believers supporting net-zero? Or do we repeal the Climate Change Act, invest in the UK, and cut taxes?”
Well said.
1:15 “This isn’t to say climate change isn’t occurring.”
Playing their game means you never win. His declaration of orthodoxy discounts everything he says.