For the uncommitted

To begin with, a short explanatory note…

I know that many people consider the climate change arguments to be dull, boring and of no relevance to their lives and interests; we frequently hear it dismissed as little more than a squabble between two sets of extremists. In my experience, far too many people refuse to intellectually engage with the subject because it’s ‘scientific’ or ‘too complex’ or ‘of no significance’.

None of these are strictly true – least of all, most of the so-called scientific ‘evidence’ – but these sorts of response suit the politicians because they, like we so-called deniers, know very well that climate – as it is defined in the current ideology – has nothing to do with weather systems and everything to do with politics; specifically, the politics of tax, control and the upward redistribution of wealth.

I make no apologies for returning to the subject time after time: the climate debate, such as it is, is the perfect example for the disconnect that is now prevalent between governments and those they govern. It is symptomatic of a new autocracy affecting politics in which the world is increasingly run for the benefit of a privileged few at the expense of the liberty and prosperity of the many. Unless you are one of those privileged few, refusing to engage with the climate debate is as good as a vote for serfdom.

And so to today’s madness. For those who have avoided involvement in the past, you should know that one of the government’s ‘big beasts’ has been Professor Sir David King who was once the government’s Chief Scientific Adviser.

“Whoaah, Time Traveller!” I hear some of you exclaim, “I don’t think I can deal with climate science at that rarefied level.”

But fret not, for all his fancy titles, King probably knows little more about climate change than you do; he certainly knows a lot less than the well-informed scientific sites you’ll see listed on the right of the page. Just bear in mind that the climate has always changed and always will.

Of course, King will be able to reel off lots of well-rehearsed buzzwords but the only real difference between him and you is that he earns more money – but then, so do professional footballers and they’re paid for their ball control (insert Giggsy joke here) rather than their intellectual qualities.

Proof? No sooner asked…

Read this letter: it not only shows King to be a complete bluffer and cheap propagandist in the climate department but better still, it describes the delicious moment when he came up against some real scientists – causing him to storm out of a meeting in a pompous huff. I enjoy it so much that I read it aloud to my family and friends quite regularly.

Mrs Time Traveller always returns home eventually.

But I digress. Today’s Guardian informs us that Professor Sir David King has been bloviating again;

“David Cameron must end his silence on climate change and “step up to the plate” to provide international leadership, the former government chief scientific adviser Prof Sir David King says on Wednesday.

Writing in the Guardian, King also reveals that after his declaration that global warming was a greater threat than global terrorism in 2004, then US president, George Bush, asked Tony Blair, then prime minster, for [sic] to have him gagged.

King’s warning made headlines around the world at the time. “But I refused to be gagged, and that statement and others spurred the UK to develop a leadership role on climate change among the international community.”

George W was widely derided as some sort of idiot but he certainly had the measure of King. Thousands dead on 9/11, 52 killed on 7/7, thousands of civilians and our military slaughtered in the “War against Terror” in Iraq and Afghanistan and many thousands of other casualties along the way but 7 years ago, King thought that global warming was more dangerous. Meanwhile, in June 2011, deep global warming still affects Mount Rainier in Washington: that’s how much King knew – and knows.

And yet, the Guardian regards his blather worthy of headline news, urging Cameron on to building more windfarms, installing more acres of solar panels and making us pay for the privilege of the blackouts that will inevitably follow – all in the name of reducing CO2 emissions that King falsely claims to be causing ‘runaway warming’.

Lest there be any doubt on that point, while CO2 emissions continue to rise, the following shows what is actually happening to temperatures compared to what the useless King and his public enemy friends at the IPCC have been predicting:

Courtesy of - especially for the Time Traveller Girls who derive so much amusement from graphs.

As you can see, all the temperature series are diverging considerably from even the lowest predictions of the IPCC’s models.

At this juncture, you’re possibly consoling yourself with the precautionary principle; it’s worth paying a lot more for our energy just in case that CO2 really does come back to fry us with another couple of degrees of heat.

But you’ve not taken account of the utter duplicity of the political class and its total disregard for your interests. Not only have they been taking your money to despoil our countryside with far more hardware than a coal mine or a nuclear power station would involve (and for a lot less benefit), they’ve been taking your money to give to foreign aid. That money is routed through the World Bank – and guess what they’ve been doing with it?

The Mail has the answer.






There you have it. We pay for useless windmills to ‘cut CO2’ and in the process, make energy so expensive and unreliable that we render our industry globally uncompetitive: many of us are being forced to choose between food and fuel while, at the same time, we are paying for other countries to build the efficient, coal-fired plants that we’re not permitted. These coal-plants not only produce the CO2 we’ve been saving but also provide the cheap energy that enables their industries to undercut our own – and King wants more of this so-called international leadership!

I told you he knew nothing. And I told you that you’d need no scientific knowledge to understand that the climate change agenda is a total sham.

Now that you know that you know more than the government’s ex-Chief Scientific Adviser, join those of us who have always known – and fight to restore some sanity to our energy policy and to keep some of your money in your pocket.

This entry was posted in Adventures in Time Travel, Big Brother, Environment, Liberty, Over-regulation, Politics and tagged , , , , , , . Bookmark the permalink.

2 Responses to For the uncommitted

  1. A K Haart says:

    Good post. I resigned from the Royal Society of Chemistry over their supine attitude to climate science. I used to treat climate change alarmism as poor quality science until I read Professor Harold Lewis’ comment in his resignation letter from the American Physical Society:-

    “It is the greatest and most successful pseudoscientific fraud I have seen in my long life as a physicist.”

    Prof Lewis tells it as it is – climate change alarmism is a massive fraud rather than poor quality science. Technical arguments, however good they are, fall on deaf ears

    • Harold Lewis’ letter was admirable – so was your stand AKH.
      Integrity in this field appears to be in short supply but it must take a lot of courage to speak out against the ‘consensus’ when there are mouths to feed.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s