And another thing…

Riiiight, that’s why actual Greens are trying to:
1. Cut fuel bills and tackle fuel poverty through insulation.
2. Reduce the cost of public transport, predominantly used by the less well off.
3. Achieve “energy independence”, because even if you decide not to worry about climate change, energy price volatility hurts.
4. Reduce resource over-use through reductions in packaging and waste, and through recycling, again cutting our long-term costs.
5. etc etc

Your Straw Man Party that revels in economic downturns is a long way from the reality, but that’s not surprise.

somewhat cynical i know but those promoting ‘man made global warming’ all seem to be onto a ‘nice little earner’ ranging from those in the scientific consensus to those writing about it in the gaurniad

Moonbat. Sigh. Indeed, the Moonbat is always with us. The Moonbat knows best. The Moonbat leaves a negative carbon footprint. The Moonbat walks or cycles to all UK appointments. Same abroad, with the addition of swimming, rowing or by yacht.

All hail the Moonbat.

I can’t imagine that the IPCC, an organisation that relies for its very existence on global warming being a man-made problem, will ever declare that man-made global warming isn’t a problem.

A bit like turkeys voting for Christmas…

Well I can tell you there are no signs of climate change in Norfolk.

The time scale is far to short to make the asumptions that have been made on the climate.

If the government is so worried why are they expanding air travel by building more runways.

The whole climate change argument has always bothered me. Personally, I see it as simply as “not trashing your back garden”. The planet is small, and getting smaller by the day, the population is exploding and there is ever greater demand for finite resources, so isn’t it just common sense to try and generate energy that both doesn’t damage your back yard, and can be used long term, well after oil and gas has run out? Isn’t it common sense to try and make products that don’t damage your back garden, and that can be recycled so that those same resources can be used time and time again rather than dumped in some landfil?

However, isn’t it also common sense to try and maintain your standard of living, as in, building a third runway for Heathrow as to give a massive economic boost to the south east and Britain as a whole in not only construction and maintenance, but ensuring that Heathrow continues to be one of Europe’s main airports? I suppose we could stick to the principal of the thing and adhere strongly to Climate Change policies, but then one of our European neighbours would just take the opportunity to improve their infrastructure and userp Heathrow altogether?

You’re correct Tom, there are a lot of enviromental activitists and animal rights loonies who are anti-capitalism and anti-human.

Whatever happens they’ll sit comfortably and recommend that we return to pre-18th century methods of living and kill most of the human population. Except for themselves of course.

It would be a pleasanter world if those in favour of forcibly reducing the population started by setting an example and offing themselves.

The problem is that around the world governments are no longer merely paying lip-service to the idea of global climate change but are starting to genuinely consider taking positive (and expensive, and wholly unnecessary) action to lower their carbon output.

The irony is that if there any drop in the average global temperature the IPCC will claim victory and insist on even more radical cuts…

Tom, I agree with James – your Straw Man party is far from the truth.

And Johnny, you maybe don’t see evidence of climate change in Norfolk, maybe find out about the effect on the people of the Pacific Islands, or read Christian Aid’s reports on the effect on the poorest people in the world? It’s not all about you.

Even if global climate instability was not a looming factor in all our lives, there would still be a a case for action on a number of fronts:

1. Energy – We are near(or more likely past) Peak Oil. Our gas supplies depend on an unstable oligarchy. We’ve seen unstable energy prices over the past few years. Why not invest in a diverse portfolio of non-fossil sources of energy to help stabilise our own energy supplies, and also use similar technology to assist developing nations build their own energy capacity and reduce their dependence on a dwindling number of fossil fuel suppliers. Look at how Germany has built up it’s own energy industry by investing in feed-in tariffs. The US are likely to do the same.

2. Quality of life. You’ve been on the M8 during the rush hour. Is it fun to sit at junction 22 for half an hour each morning. Or would fast, efficient public transport give people a decent choice?

3. Health. Are better insulated homes safer for older people than draughty homes that they can’t afford to heat? Are children really healthier because of the school run in the Giffnock Tractor? Maybe we should encourage people to walk and cycle more.

There isn’t a choice between Prosperity and Planet. Prosperity will only come from sustainable use of the limited resources we have on this planet. Otherwise, like the financial “prosperity” we’ve all enjoyed until very recently, it’s just a mirage.

@ John Adams

Your comments might as well come straight from the Greenpeace propaganda playbook…

-=-=-

“We are near(or more likely past) Peak Oil”

- No we’re not. The concept of peak oil is a myth, largely popularised by its use in the TV show “The West Wing”. If you go onto wikipedia and search for Shale Oil you’ll find that there are megatonnes of oil just waiting to be retrieved. Yes, its more expensive to get but there’s not going to be an oil shortage, at least for the next thousand years.

-=-=-

“Quality of life”

Standards of living across the world have been consistently rising for past two hundred years apart from a couple of blips caused by war. By reducing our consumption sufficiently to lower CO2 output we’re likely to see the first peacetime decline in SOL’s for two centuries.

-=-=-

“Maybe we should encourage people to walk and cycle more”.

The government has spent vast sums of money encouraging people to walk and cycle, without much impact. For many people this is simple impossible and punishing those who can’t, because some people don’t, is a work of idiocy.

-=-=-

“Prosperity will only come from sustainable use of the limited resources we have on this planet”.

Can you actually name a resource that is limited? Yes, there are local shortages caused by the vagaries of climatic allocation (e.g. not enough water in the Sahara, too much in Peru) but can you actually name one substance that’s run out because of human usage?

“there’s not going to be an oil shortage, at least for the next thousand years”
As I recall there was a pretty spectacular one in this country in 2000. All that took was a couple of blockades and a week.
That should alert you to our overdependence on a product not under our control.
Peak oil doesn’t say oil will run out it says that getting it out will increasingly become more expensive and the quality will get worse. You probably find that idea scary which is why you prefer to simply call it a myth. A read up on it first.
Can I name a resource that is limited? yes, land. Islands in the Pacific are in the process of disappearing because their ’substance’ is running out due to human usage of CO2.
I think Tom has offered a false choice: prosperity or an end to environmental vandalism.
I would have thought Labour MPs would be wise to such sophistry. It’s a bit like when unions are told jobs or wage increases.
Come on Tom, show some imagination. It’s the least I expect from a party formed to show that things didn’t have to simply be a case of Liberal v Tory.

@Richard,

By the very fact that the hydrocarbons take millions of years to generate and we’ve consumed most of the conventional reserves within a few generations, surely they’re finite? Unconventional sources may delay the peak, but only until the middle of this century.

While we’re talking about finite resources, how about:

Coal (there are no working mines in the UK any more, are there?).

Agricultural land.

North Atlantic cod?

Richard has some great points, we haven’t run out of any resource – well except whale oil…

but that doesn’t mean we won’t, and just because our actions haven’t dramatically changed the world we live in doesn’t mean they won’t.

There are a few very basic statistics that concern me:

1. OECD countries represent ~1.2bn of the world’s 6bn people (~20%) – and have per capita consumption that is 10-20x that of developing countries (sp energy, but other consumption metrics). BUT, the rest of the world is catching up quickly

2. The world’s population has hitting a tipping point in growth – people are living longer, but still procreating at the same pace. Yet we only have so much land that can house people, provide adequate farm land, provide other resources we need (e.g., timber for building, palm oil for heating), AND still have enough vegetation to process all the carbon dioxide we create (whether through maintaining our SOL or just by existing)

3. We already HAVE changed the atmosphere – CO2 ppm are up almost 30% in the last 20 years. I don’t know about you, but when I get out to the country, I can breathe a while lot better. I don’t think that will be possible if we continue at this rate.

I think back to my freshman biology class where we first learned about ecosystems by using a petri dish with some bacteria – the first few weeks it grows slowly, then suddenly one week it goes from half of the dish to the entire dish, then a week later the entire bacteria culture is gone because it consumed all of the agar.

The world is a very complex system, and in the past 100 years we have changed it dramatically and I think we have hit a tipping point where we have overwhelmed many of the balancing forces, so many of the things we take for granted (e.g., clean air, consistent weather, inexpensive food) are going to be strained more and more, and decline exponentially not linearly. I think access to energy sources is always possible. The other resources are more finite.

Paul

@ John Adams
“By the very fact that the hydrocarbons take millions of years to generate” – What about biodiesel? That takes about two years to generate…

Coal – There’s plenty of it still under the North of England, it’s just less economical to get it from there then from China where labour is much cheaper and the deposits are much closer to the surface.

Agricultural land – There would be no shortage of arable land if people weren’t wasting millions of hectares growing biofuel.

North Atlantic cod – The evidence that cod stocks were reaching a critical level is based on some very shaky evidence and is widely disputed. It’s also worth pointing out that while we’ve decimated our North Sea fishing fleet the Spanish and Norwegians (by ignoring European fishing quotas) have enjoyed record catches due to the lack of competition.

“The world’s population has hitting a tipping point in growth”

Says who? In the 1970’s there were many books written about the ‘population explosion’ stating that it would inevitably lead to mass starvation by the 1980’s and 1990’s.

The major failing of these books was to assume that resources are static and that farming had already reached the limits of productivity. Modern pesticides made fools of these writers, just as genetic modification (and other scientific enhancements) will make fools of people who think the population has reached a new tipping point.

Having said that, which country do you suggest we try to depopulate first?

If the government is so worried why are they expanding air travel by building more runways. (Johnny Norfolk)

Exactly. And how can we believe the government is telling us the truth about either the alleged essential importance of their policies to minimise the effects global warming or the alleged vital importance of airport expansion while they push through totally contradictory policies like these?

@ Auntie Flo.

The policies are contradictory because the reality is that “Global Warming” is a crock. Even if it weren’t a crock (which it is) then our country’s contribution to it is negligible, even with an expansion in air travel.

Tom, quick, the loonies are out.

Yes, because anyone who believes that man-made global warming is a myth must be a loony.

Don’t bother to debate, or provide proof, or argue your points. There’s no need because anyone who disagrees with your opinion must be mentally ill.

Just not willing to work at understanding the science.

The problem is that I’ve taken the time to understand the science and have found it wanting. The majority of politicians and about 30% of laymen seem to be happy to be advised by experts who are themselves desperate to get their piece of the “global warming” bonanza.

My fear is that not only will we do immense damage to the economy to avert a fake disaster but that now that “geo-engineering” is being seriously talked about, we may find that some enterprising government has taken it upon themselves to “fix” something that was never broken in the first place.

@John Adams
“By the very fact that the hydrocarbons take millions of years to generate and we’ve consumed most of the conventional reserves”
Even that is not necessarily a fact, John try googling Abiotic oil production!
The Russians have had for many years a theory that oil is made in the earth and is made all the time and recent finds in areas where oil or gas was not expected to be found seem to bear that out.
So peak oil would not be anywhere near or possible if that is proved to be true.
Even if it is not, there are enough reserves in Canada alone for the next 100 years, also many of the existing oil fields have had less than half the oil extracted but are now being looked at again with better techniques.
More than enough until Nuclear fusion is perfected.

@ John Adams – Following on from Chris.

Except that we’ll never perfect Nuclear Fusion (or whatever comes next) if we cripple the economy in an attempt to play “who can make the biggest cuts”.

Scientific research is invariably costly in both buildings and materials, both of which would rise substantially in price if we start implementing carbon taxes. Every penny wasted on tax is one penny less to pay researchers and scientists.

These islands in the Pacific which are disappearing. Can you name one?

I think he’s referring to Tuvalu. Gore mentioned it in a bunch of articles.

It turns out that it’s just another lie, like the hockey stick myth and the retreating glaciers that are actually growing and the shrinking ice-caps that are larger than ever.

http://tinyurl.com/ahczt2

john r. – Niue. Tuvalu. Marshall Islands. Plenty more.

Are you really too lazy to do a google search?

And don’t get me started on those bloody polar bears…

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/comment/columnists/guest_contributors/article2852551.ece

Ah, I’ve worked it out. The UK Climate Change Deniers’ Club has decided to meet here on Sunday nights.

I can see why they’d feel so welcome – the title of the post was a pretty explicit invitation, and our esteemed host’s support for airport expansion no doubt sealed the deal.

@ James
Feel free to add something to the debate.

Perhaps you could provide a link to some of this irrefutable evidence that we’ve heard so much about…

“Now, I know that won’t happen because the IPCC were right…”

No. The IPCC almost certainly was not right. I suggest you look into the process of the IPCC. It has nothing to do with science. It has little input from scientists, at least in their areas of expertise. It produces a political summary, decided by politicians and special-interest groups. The rules under which the full report is subsequently written demand that it is distorted to support the political summary.

The IPCC is almost certain to be wrong; it is structured to make that almost inevitable.

Tom said: Now, I know that won’t happen because the IPCC were right, but bear with me here, okay?

Clearly you’ve not read any of the science and just been taken in by the rubbish spouted by the IPCC. The AGW industry is the most self-serving industry I have ever known – and I’ll include the spivs in The City in that comparison.

OK, so we all know Climate Change is real. That’s not under dispute. Very hard to look at the rising Global Mean Temperature and say it’s not been rising when clearly it has.

Most (and when I say most, I mean nearly all the peer-acclaimed and renowned scientists in their fields, minus a few who seem to be taking a lot of money from companies with a vested interest in the status quo, hello Shell, looking at you here) scientists in the field agree it is very likely that we are causing climate change, and that if we’re not the sole cause we are at least a major cause.
The only people not excepting this are the types that accept it privately but quite like making money, and require that status quo, and the “loons”; the ones that claim the Earth is flat, the ones that think an invisible Charlton-Heston look-a-like lives in the sky, the ones that think Gordon really does want to have a referendum on the EU constitution. You know, stupid people, morons.

The problems start though when you get the vested interests. The companies that trade carbon credits. The ones that get rich making energy efficient lightbulbs (that are also really bad for the environment if you dump them in a landfill), the science labs hoping to cash in on some government subsidies by dropping the “environment” excuse every couple of weeks. These people like to drum up business by claiming we’re all a few short months from Day-After-Tomorrow.
Add to them the green’s own special brand of loon, a few misanthropes and you have a good base for the naysayers and oil-oligarchs to attack saying “look, see? It’s al rubbish, no such thing”.
Sadly, we are heating the planet up. That’s the least of our concerns though. Sure, an awful lot of people will be killed or made destitute from coastal erosion and submersion. They’re just the first few though.
The real problems start when you consider that the human population, that was under 100 million for millennia is now hitting 6.6 Billion. It could hit 10 Billion in my lifetime.
The planet cannot support that many people. Simple plain fact. Something has to change.
Then you’ve got our usage of resources. We recycle nothing. Think about that. We throw away millions of tons of refined metals and instead go after more in the Earth! That makes no sense at all, except from a monetary one.
Money is *just* a number. If you pollute the environment to the point where the planet is unliveable, no amount of pretty bits of paper will fix it. This isn’t hippy propaganda, it’s basic facts.
Some parts of China, the American midwest and other places are already so polluted that it’s not fit for human habitation.

I guess the point of this mini-novella here is that looking at the environment in terms of money is very short-term thinking. You need to step back, and remember that if we destroy the Earth, the money doesn’t matter.
So get used to the idea of zero-waste. It can be done, there’s a town in Japan that generates no waste at all. Everything is recycled.
If we could all manage that, the climate change problem would pale into the relative insignificance that it is.
Tidal waters rising and taking a few islands here and there isn’t a major issue. Sure, we’ll lose a few million unique species, and a lot of pacific islanders will be learning to swim. Ditto the value of London Docklands will be a bit less.
And if we can do anything to halt climate change, or reverse it, we should work towards that.
But we can live in the hills. We can survive a warmer winter and hotter summers. Al long as there aren’t 10 Billion of us. As long as the (reduced) rainfall we do have isn’t polluted with sulphuric acid. As log as the crops we grow to feed our peoples aren’t riddled with mercury, lead or even Strontium.
I’m brought to mind of an old Native-American saying; “Only when the last river has dried, the last tree burned, the last fish caught and the last buffalo killed will the white man realise that money can’t be eaten.”. The Earth doesn’t belong to us. We don’t own the waters. We hold them in trust, for our children’s children’s children. Let’s make sure they have something good to inherrit.

Where to start, where to start…

“OK, so we all know Climate Change is real. That’s not under dispute”. – Actually there are many people who dispute it but who’s counting?

“Very hard to look at the rising Global Mean Temperature and say it’s not been rising when clearly it has.” – Well, the Global Average temperature levelled off in 2007/2008 and 2009 is predicted as being lower.

“the ones that claim the Earth is flat, the ones that think an invisible Charlton-Heston look-a-like lives in the sky, the ones that think Gordon really does want to have a referendum on the EU constitution. You know, stupid people, morons”. – Yes, because anyone who doesn’t believe in global warming (at a time when the world is cooling, I might add) is clearly an idiot.

“The planet cannot support that many people. Simple plain fact. Something has to change.” Excellent idea. I vote we pick an heavily populated country (India, for instance) and tell them not to have any more children. Job done.

“there’s a town in Japan that generates no waste at all.”. The Kitakyushu City project cost nearly a billion pounds to house just over 600 people. At best guess it would cost (even counting discount for bulk purchasing) about fifteen thousand times the GDP of Japan to house all of its ciizens in the same way.

“the white man realise that money can’t be eaten”. True, but then again the American Indians don’t seem to be doing too badly given that their population is back up at the same level as it was before the white man got to America (http://tinyurl.com/d6hxg4) and their “Standard of Living” index is vastly higher than it was at any time in the previous millenium.

The earth has warmed and cooled for as long as it has existed, and nature has a way of killing off the dominant species every now and again. I see no reason to believe that humans, who have existed on this planet no-where near as long as the dinosaurs will eventually suffer the same fate.

Bad luck for Andy Murray in the Australian Open, who now reverts to being a Scottish tennis player. Let’s hope he finds winning ways soon, and can be British again.

Good post, Tom. From now on I expect you to be rather less rude about Fraser Nelson, one of the best political commentators in the country, who spotted Gordon Brown was hopelessly over-rated as a wise custodian of the economy years ago.

On the broader point, though, this does suggest to me that some of the wiser souls on the liberal/left are tiring of the Green movement and its essentially puritanical, even reactionary, agenda. The old Labour movement, whatever its foolish addiction to central planning etc, did at least want to see ordinary people better off, better fed, to have more fun and travel. That goes directly against much of the “limits to growth” agenda of the Greens.

Interesting times.

This is what the greens want:

“Global Sustainability requires the deliberate quest of poverty, reduced resource consumption and set levels of mortality control.”
- Professor Maurice King

There should be common ground between elements as diverse as the libertarian free marketeers, progressive socialists and even elements of the “scientific” hard left (the RCP for example) all of which are “for” mankind and the working classes but have huge differences about the means whereby. All should be able to make common cause against the deep greens who want to put the lights out, impoverish and kill us.

More lovely deep green quotes here: The Green Agenda

Environmentalist lies, misconceptions and delusions:

“Cut fuel bills and tackle fuel poverty through insulation.” – yes, using money stolen off the taxpayer.
“Reduce the cost of public transport, predominantly used by the less well off.” – as above, but people choose freely to use cars which they pay for personally.
“Achieve “energy independence”, because even if you decide not to worry about climate change, energy price volatility hurts.” – all we need to do is build new nuclear plants.
“Reduce resource over-use through reductions in packaging and waste, and through recycling, again cutting our long-term costs.” – Over-use. Compared to what? At what cost? Who pays?

“And Johnny, you maybe don’t see evidence of climate change in Norfolk, maybe find out about the effect on the people of the Pacific Islands, or read Christian Aid’s reports on the effect on the poorest people in the world…” – The case for sinking Tuvalu has been completely discredited, even the IPCC don’t expect huge sea level rises any more, and as for the world’s poorest people, how about allowing them to get rich by developing?

“Energy – We are near(or more likely past) Peak Oil. – google peak oil myth.

“Quality of life. You’ve been on the M8 during the rush hour. Is it fun to sit at junction 22 for half an hour each morning. Or would fast, efficient public transport give people a decent choice?” – People already have a choice. They vote with their feet. Who are you to steal taxpayers’ money because your preferred end “justifies” the means? And in what way is public transport “fast” from A to B in non-city situations?

“Health. Are better insulated homes safer for older people than draughty homes…” – drafts are not caused by lack of insulation. And at what cost? Who pays?

“Maybe we should encourage people to walk and cycle more.” – Newspeak: for “encourage” read “coerce”, “legislate” and “threaten with violence”.

“There isn’t a choice between Prosperity and Planet. Prosperity will only come from sustainable use of the limited resources we have on this planet. Otherwise, like the financial “prosperity” we’ve all enjoyed until very recently, it’s just a mirage.” – Actually the financial prosperity was permitted by state intervention – see mises.org – baillout reader. As for sustainability read “Lomborg – The Skeptical Environmentalist” for fully referenced debunking of environmentalist activism.

““there’s not going to be an oil shortage, at least for the next thousand years” As I recall there was a pretty spectacular one in this country in 2000. All that took was a couple of blockades and a week.” – industrial action is the same as running out of resources in environmentalist lexicon is it? And how much does oil cost today?

“Peak oil doesn’t say oil will run out it says that getting it out will increasingly become more expensive and the quality will get worse. You probably find that idea scary which is why you prefer to simply call it a myth. A read up on it first.” – So it gets more expensive. Read and understand the law of supply and demand first.

“Can I name a resource that is limited? yes, land. Islands in the Pacific are in the process of disappearing because their ’substance’ is running out due to human usage of CO2.” As before, the sinking of Tuvalu has been exposed as environmentalist lies and propaganda. Land, in the West, has continually gained in value over the years, according to supply and demand. Although environmentalists think its quality degrades as it becomes “depleted”.

“Coal (there are no working mines in the UK any more, are there?).” – because it got so cheap we had to subsidise all the mines and thousands of jobs connected with it.

“Agricultural land.” – Supply and demand applies, and there has been more than doubling of productivity since WW2.

“North Atlantic cod?” – the tradgedy of the commons. Rare = pricier = lower demand.

“We already HAVE changed the atmosphere – CO2 ppm are up almost 30% in the last 20 years. I don’t know about you, but when I get out to the country, I can breathe a while lot better. I don’t think that will be possible if we continue at this rate.” – Convert that to percentage of total atmosphere compared to oxygen and nitrogen and you have an increase of 0.016%. You must have a better sense of smell than a dog. CO2 is not a pollutant.

“OK, so we all know Climate Change is real. That’s not under dispute. Very hard to look at the rising Global Mean Temperature and say it’s not been rising when clearly it has.” – the world has been cooling for 10 years now. There is no compelling evidence for AGW. See http://scienceandpublicpolicy.org/scarewatch/climate_doom.html.

I don’t think I’ve ever come across such a disingeneous movement, with such contempt for facts and such a propensity for propaganda and lies.

Tom Harris is entirely correct and the proof is that the same climate change hysterics who regard fossil fuels as the work of the devil are also strongly against nuclear power generation despite the fact that it is, in carbon and climate change terms, clean and efficient, more or less carbon neutral, and the only realistic way forward for the future. Their objections are little to do with the environment and everything to do with being anti capitalist.

I am always fascinated by the heat that this subject generates.
I think we can probably agree on these propositions, can’t we?

Christopher Booker is always right.
The IPCC is sometimes right and sometimes wrong.
Science seems to be divided and not at all united either one way or the other.
Figures are bent, twisted and sometimes truthful. They are regularly misinterpreted by both sides too.

There seem to be three possible positions:
1. The world is warming up and it is all the fault of mankind.
2. The world will warm up very slightly over the next hundred years anyway, so don’t worry about it.
3. Global Warming is a downright lie.

Why is it that some subjects create such interest (abortion, death penalty, paedophilia, global warming) while others, which are also quite important, don’t?

I wonder are the skeptics running scared because Obama has entered the Whitehouse and Dick Cheney has left? US policy will now be based on science.

No John we’re running scared of monster like you because you want to put the lights out, impoverish and kill us.

@ John Adams.

Surely you mean “US policy will now be based on pseudo-science”?

It’s a common typo.

John, please do not assume that science (whatever you mean by that) is on the side of man made global warming.
Science doesn’t work like that. It is based on hypotheses which are tested constantly to see how they work. These hypotheses are never stable enough to be relied on.
This means that, in any scientific idea, there will be scientists testing and examining it all the time and their research will suggest other possibilities.
There never can be unanimity. There never can be a “correct” answer to a problem because each problem leads on to another one.
Whenever “science” has “got it right” ridiculous things have happened. Remember Galileo? Or Einsstein?
I am amused because it is usually the Church which has fallen into this trap.

For a man who trained as a journalist and now has a copper bottomed government pension awaiting, his comments are more nauseating than those from the Greens. The IPCC is a political organisation, which filters results from the 50 or so (yes that’s all) CLIMATE scientists within its ranks to produce reports that the funding governments want to hear. Many of it’s reports have caveats which are never reported on and many, many professional scientists still can’t agree if CO2 (which is certainly increasing) is the main cause of warming.
A precipitate response will not succeed. Like most Labour policies, it’s former in the bar, tried out on the newspapers and then (possibly) dsicussed in cabinet or the house. To spend $180bn a year (global cost of Kyoto implementation) with no regard for the economic consequences of that spend, is irresponsible.
We should be taking a long term view and pouring money into long term blue skies research on alternative energy sources. …and I think Tom should expand his reading list.

How does a party local committee select a fool like Harris who is blinkered to say the least!First he mentions the High Priest, Monbiot and then its “because the IPCC were right”!

Right about what exactly?

The IPCC should be disbanded and criminal proceeding brought against all who connived and led this huge fraud.

At some point, this whole packs of cards con will tumble (the cracks are to be seen everywhere) but I bet people like Harris et al will slide under the stone they truly should all ready be under.