James Delingpole

A Supreme Court justice and the scary plan to outlaw climate change

10 October 2015

9:00 AM

10 October 2015

9:00 AM

How do you make an imaginary problem so painfully real that everyone suffers? It’s an odd question to ask, you might think, but it’s one that has been exercising some of the brightest minds in the legal firmament, led by no less a figure than Lord Justice Carnwath of the Supreme Court.

Last month, at an event whose sinister significance might have passed unnoticed had it not been for the digging of Canadian investigative blogger Donna Laframboise, Carnwath contrived to nudge the world a step closer towards enacting potentially the most intrusive, economically damaging and vexatious legislation in history: an effective global ban on so-called ‘climate change’.

The setting was a rather dull-sounding symposium Carnwath organised at King’s College London called ‘Adjudicating the Future: Climate Change and the Rule of Law’. We don’t know the names of the ‘leading judges, lawyers and legal academics’ from 11 nations who attended because the organisers won’t disclose them. What we do know, though, is that you and I helped pay for this three-day shindig: among the sponsors were the Supreme Court, Her Majesty’s government and (publicly funded) King’s College London.

So far, so very dreary. It probably wouldn’t have got into the news at all if the Prince of Wales (Carnwath used to be his attorney general) hadn’t published a letter of support, urging the judiciary to play a ‘crucial role’ in preventing ‘the disastrous consequences of global warming’. But as ever at these grey convocations where men we’ve never heard of decide our future behind closed doors, the devil lies all in the detail.


We can see this in the opening speeches, viewable online and described by Laframboise as ‘among the most terrifying 90 minutes I’ve ever witnessed’. If you’ve the stomach to sit through the faux-judicious burblings, you’ll see what she means: here are leading, influential, international lawyers proposing to reject the scientific method, bypass democracy and permanently shut down the climate debate by declaring ‘global warming’ illegal under international law.

It sounds absurd. Impossible even. But already there is local precedent. This summer, in response to a case brought by a green activist group called the Urgenda Foundation, a Dutch court ruled that the Netherlands government must drastically reduce its greenhouse gas emissions in order to save future generations from the effects of dangerous climate change. Central to the court’s decision — and widely quoted in its ruling — was the allegedly accepted scientific wisdom that the world simply cannot be allowed to heat up by more than 2°C above pre-industrial levels without disastrous consequences.

Had that court done its homework, it would have discovered that the 2°C figure was the arbitrary invention, at the height of the climate scare in the 1990s when the world still was actually warming, of a neo-Malthusian activist-scientist called Hans Joachim Schellnhuber (who also advised the Pope on his recent, controversial encyclical on the environment). Schellnhuber has himself admitted: ‘Two degrees is not a magical limit. It’s clearly a political goal. The world will not come to an end right away in the event of stronger warming, nor are we definitely saved if warming is not as significant. The reality, of course, is much more complicated.’

Indeed it is. There is evidence to suggest that even were the planet to heat up to 2.5°C above pre-industrial levels, the benefits — for example in increased crop yields — would outweigh the drawbacks. But no one really knows because global climate is a chaotic system which remains ill-understood even by the ‘experts’. Only a fortnight ago, a new study was published revealing that the oceans are producing, abiotically, unexpectedly vast quantities of isoprene, a volatile organic compound known for cooling properties. No wonder then, that with discoveries like this being made all the time, the alarmists’ doomsday computer models are continually failing to accord with reality: there’s still so much stuff out there that the scientists don’t know.

Which, of course, is precisely what is scary about this scheme being cooked up by Carnwath and his green fellow travellers in the judiciary. What they are proposing is to ignore the uncertainty, act as if the ‘science’ really is ‘settled’ and close the argument forever, using the sledgehammer instrument of the International Court of Justice.

This was the shameless proposal of Carnwath’s keynote speaker, Philippe Sands QC. By making the ‘2°C target’ an ‘obligation under international law’, he suggested, the UN’s General Assembly could impose ‘obligations to reduce emissions, including if necessary by phasing out altogether certain emissions of carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases’.

Since carbon dioxide is a natural byproduct of almost every industrial process, you can perhaps imagine the chaos such legislation would cause. It would be great news for lawyers like Sands, of course, and an endless excuse for litigation by the likes of Greenpeace and Friends of the Earth. But for businesses and nation states on the receiving end, it would be a disaster.

Meanwhile, in the real world, for no reason that any alarmist scientist has ever managed plausibly to explain, there has been no actual ‘global warming’ for nigh on 19 years. This point ought not to need reiterating. The only reason it has to be — with Groundhog Day regularity, unfortunately — is in order to counter the specious propaganda of an overmighty green establishment embracing everything from the Obama administration and the Vatican to the BBC and, now, it seems, certain members of our famously neutral and apolitical senior judiciary.

Subscribe to The Spectator Australia today for a quality of argument not found in any other publication. Subscribe – Try a month free


Show comments
  • Sean Grainger

    [In caption] It should be try to not try and. And captions do not take a closing point.

  • WFB56

    The good news is that this would be so outrageous that the backlash against the legal establishment and the UN could galvanise people to put an end to this nonsense.

    • right1_left1

      The legal establishment should have lashed years ago !
      They have too much influence to allow that !

  • Gilbert White

    Only Mark Steyn can handle the Science with a layman’s skill. You could have told us about the World’s largest Muslim Democracy, poisoning its neighbours. The output for this years burning and resultant haze is equivalent to the entire UK emissions. This is Chemical Warfare on the Indonesians part. The UN should make Indonesia pay half a billion dollars to the ordinary people of the region for the next twenty years. Just because these are not white people does not mean they should have their health destroyed and the catastrophically, easterly @ environmental disaster ignored by the UN and the West.

    • Giuliano Maciocci Sr.

      You must be joking, Gilbert! Indonesia (and other countries) is doing it to make space for palm oil, that is biofuel, the greenest of causes, a UN pet project, and it’s for your own good 😉

  • carl jacobs

    International lawyers pretending to be relevant. Aren’t they cute? Next week they will have a symposium on the need for a UN Standing Army.

  • Jeremy Putyn

    no science is settled at least not human knowledge of science – this is nonsense. In centuries to come people will double over laughing at what we believed and how we acted today. Only a few centuries ago settled science told us the Earth was flat, that one of the best medical procedures available was leeching our blood with leeches ! and that cholera was an air borne disease – I could go on you get the point

    • balance_and_reason

      hahaha…not another denier…the flatness of the earth is as proven as its edges demonstrate…it is merely your mind that can’t cope with the scenario.

    • Texas Sunday Morning

      Eratosthenes demonstrated the earth was round over 2200 years ago, using mathematics and scientific observation. The notion that ancient peoples considered the world flat is a Victorian invention. Your other two examples aren’t science.

      • right1_left1

        Is that the chap who estimated the Earth’s diameter to about 2% accuracy ?

        • michael buckler

          Yes, roughly

  • Steven Whalley

    In law in order to show that a plaintiff has a case, it is necessary to show what harm has ben done and that specifically the defendent casued that harm. (IANAL)

    If the cause of the harm is deemed to be CO2 emissions, then the people most likely to be blamed are the BRIC states, whos emissions are rising and have exceeded the West’s. How would Putin, the Chinese, the Indians, and the Brasilians take to being brought up before the Old Bailey?

    • boiledcabbage

      Arrest them all! Entire populations will need to face the beak.

    • right1_left1

      .I remember the condition in some cities in the Eastern zone of Germany.
      The pollution was beyond belief.

      Nations run by coloured people do not do anything wrong.

      • monsieur_charlie

        We’re all coloured, I am a pinky beige colour. How about you?

        • right1_left1

          Be quiet pinky boy Charlie.
          You might also be a batty boy for all I know !

          Its because of types like you that I and my 10 brothers and sistas have to drink polluted water, live in a corrugated walled hovel and couldnt run a railway even when the Chinese gave one away along with 100 million expenses.

          • monsieur_charlie

            Proved wrong.
            Incompetant.
            And well pi$$ed off with life.
            Only one thing will help you – try harder.

          • monsieur_charlie

            p.s. I’m absolutely sure you’re a girl.

          • monsieur_charlie

            pps Try the NHS – I’m told, by other unfortunate souls such as yourself, that they are very good with the problems you find so challenging.
            DTW, there is nothing to be ashamed of. You are what you are. Face up to it and get some help.

          • monsieur_charlie

            Sorry I was so hard with you there. Just feel a lot of love for you really. What you doing on Saturday night? haha!!!!!

          • monsieur_charlie

            By the way I really couldn’t give a flying f**k for you or your poor relatives.

          • right1_left1

            I think you may think differntly when the extended family comes and lives next door to you.

            The future is black !

          • monsieur_charlie

            You coming to the Philippines then mummy’s boy?

      • monsieur_charlie

        OK. You wont talk to me anymore and I’m also fed up with you, so THATS IT! We’re through!

  • TrulyDisqusted

    They’ll be claiming that they can part the oceans and raise the dead next.

  • cartimandua

    The seas are dying due to temperature rise.

    • Radical Rodent

      Evidence?

    • samton909

      What other fantasies do the fairies on your shoulder tell you?

  • TX Ken

    Perhaps they could sue the sun into cooling.

    Quite seriously, if you want to manage emission because clean air is better than polluted air – it is – that’s fine. If you want to be environmentally responsible because God calls us to tend and care for the earth – He does – or because it’s in our long term best interests – it is – that’s fine.

    If you want to plunge the world into economic chaos based,on junk science, that’s not fine. If you want to impose tyrannical governmental controls, which coincidentally benefit a limited number of crony capitalists, that’s really not fine.

  • DennisHorne

    Science is never settled but there is such a thing as the balance of informed opinion. Don’t count a plausible writer with a Piffle Piffle-Extra degree from Oxford.

    • rtj1211

      The balance of informed opinion must take into account the entrenched interests of those claiming to be informed (all grant-holding scientists are interested parties, interested in having more grant money to study ‘global warming’ which they won’t get if climate is not deemed to be dangerous). Green organisations are entrenched interests. Renewable energy manufacturers are now entrenched interests. So are the oil majors. Politicians funded from either side are entrenched interests. The BBC is an entrenched interest for no good reason other than it is stuffed full of self-righteous environmental lefties: it has no legitimate self-interest in being so, but the jobs of a few journalistic yobboes would disappear overnight if traditional standards of journalism were applied in a quasi-judicial journalistic court. I have no idea why the Catholic Church has become an entrenched interest, but it has.

      There are extraordinarily few informed opinions which are not also entrenched interests. The one obvious one, retired scientists and engineers with good enough pensions to be able to speak out openly, are very strongly of the opinion that the whole thing is a scam.

      I suggest you ask yourself if you understand how to evaluate the reliability of ‘informed opinion’. Trust me as someone who worked with scientists up to Professorial level for 20 years: you cannot rely on the words of scientists without doing extremely skeptical due diligence on what they say. I have no grudge with scientists, I merely inform you of the outcomes of 20 years of professional work. I wish you could trust scientists uncritically, it would make a lot of life much simpler. Reality is that you can’t…..

      • DennisHorne

        CO2 is an important greenhouse gas and it’s increased ~40% from 290 to 400ppm since industrialisation.

        I would expect Earth to retain more energy.

        As far as I can make out it has.

        So, I’ll go with the obvious. Even though I know scientists are biased and 90% research is rubbish.

        And that Man is a mad animal.

      • marvin

        I am a scientist! I have studied the weather and climate of the World from when Earth first supported life, long before the issue of ‘Climate Change’ became fashionable. There are absolutely no grounds to support a ‘ Climate Change’ that is detrimental to our well being, although the climate does change periodically as it has done throughout history.
        However – if you were to pay me mega bucks to prove the existence of such a phenomenon – I could dig up hundreds of arguments that would be difficult to disprove, unless one was knowledgeable on the subject!

  • rtj1211

    Our ‘famously neutral and apolitical senior judiciary’ is no such thing, nor has it ever been. It is a fatuous invention of the British Establishment’s organised lying programme to present Britain to the world as something it has never been, never will be as long as the Establishment holds sway.

    Just look at the disgraceful miscarriages of justice in the 1970s over IRA bombings. The official forensics was forged, perjury was committed in court and once the convictions had been secured, successive Home Secretaries, the Press and all other relevant parts of the Establishment colluded to ensure that innocent men spent 20 years in jail, all because the Establishment demanded immediate convictions after the bombings and had to cover up the fact that they didn’t know who did it, so committed every crime possible within a court setting, judicial reviewing etc etc to achieve that aim. Not one person associated with such behaviour should still be in receipt of public funding, including pensions. But they will be, because that is how Britain operates.

    As that is the modus operandum of British justice, namely corruption at every level of the process, neutrality and being apolitical simply do not exist in British justice.

    Not that any of that impinges on your correct arguments about climate change………

  • Robin_Guenier
  • samton909

    You see, they can’t convince human beings that they are right about climate change, so they have taken to pursuing a group who is dumber than the average human being – judges. That way, they can FORCE all the other human beings to believe in all the nonsensical things that they believe in. Just make it a law.

    There. All settled.

  • Freddythreepwood

    These people keep invoking science without realising the damage they are doing to the reputatation of science. There is no point in arguing with them – they are untouchable in their religious zeal.

  • Augustus

    “….there has been no actual ‘global warming’ for nigh on 19 years.”

    There have always been severe droughts somewhere on the planet, as well as floods, forest fires, blizzards and hurricanes. But in the last 19 years there have actually been less of these natural events, as well no increase in warming. But the most important thing about Earth’s climate is that it can only properly be measured in terms of centuries, not years.

  • whs1954

    I used the analogy (which is Iain Macleod’s) fairly recently in respect of Brendan O’Neill, and I’ll use it again for James Delingpole: I go a fair way on Delingpole’s train, but I get off before it crashes into the buffers.

    Let’s not pretend that a polemicist somehow knows better than scientists. Let’s not act as if science and scientists are all in a big left-wing conspiracy to pretend there is something called “climate change”. Climate change is real and is happening. Pretty slowly, but it’s happening. And even if its effects are not being felt immediately, it would be best – it would even be “conservative” – to act as if the scientists were telling the truth, to at as if it MIGHT happen and to prevent its worst effects if we can do so now.

    It’s therefore our responsibility to do something about it without throwing our industrial economy (and with it our prosperity) into the mud. Like everything in the world, it will fall to us on the right and centre-right to deal with it and do something worthwhile, and it will fall to the left and centre-left to sloganize and sneer and pave the road to hell with good intentions.

    What can we do to assist? Here is a small issue – and one which Mr Delingpole might perhaps take up – the 5p carrier bag nonsense. All that is happening is supermarkets are now issuing thick plastic bags at 5p and these will be thrown away in just as great numbers as the flimsy free polythene bags were. But the polythene bags were biodegradable – the thick ‘bags for life’ aren’t – thereby harming the environment in the name of saving it. Good intention, crap result.

    The obvious answer was to make supermarkets put green bins for carrier bags outside (which my supermarket already has and which now will be empty as people save bags). When your kitchen drawer full of carriers (we all have such drawers, admit it) was full, you take the contents to the green bin – of your own volition. Much more logical.

    I digress. We cannot tackle this by alarmism or pretending man doesn’t warm up the planet. We have to face it and come up with sensible solutions. We cannot tackle the rubbish of the left with a nonsense of the right. We cannot pretend we are “denialist” martyrs on a cross constructed by the left. The right exists to do things, not be martyrs which is the preserve of the left.

    • Grizz

      The planet has ever warmed and cooled, and the climate has ever changed. Is the planet still warming its way out of the last ice age, or is it cooling its way into the next? Was the average global temperature in 1800 ideal, such that doom and disaster awaits if the planet does not maintain that temperature evermore? Would the planet really have stayed at that ideal temperature if humans had foregone an industrial revolution, and remained largely poor on the farm? No, I don’t think it is “conservative” to adopt a precautionary principle and use government coercion to avoid hypothetical risks based on great uncertainty. Even if one believes the planet is warming more than it otherwise would have due to mankind’s wicked ways, it is a great open question whether that would be on balance a good or a bad thing.

      • whs1954

        Christ in heaven, this is the sort of whataboutery I expect from the left. If it is happening, of course it’s a bad thing. Here am I, in mid October, at 60 degrees north, sweltering in ‘Indian summer’ style heat. It was not like this 15 years ago.

        And of course it is “conservative” to adopt a precautionary principle and use government intervention to avoid hypothetical risks based on uncertainty. It may be “laissez faire” or “liberal” to do the opposite, but I am a conservative, not a liberal.

        • Grizz

          Interesting. Perhaps our definitions of conservatism differ. Mine would encompass a skepticism about fads, fashions, and the latest apocalyptic predictions – particularly when they are conveniently used to justify restrictions on human freedom. To compel real, actual, undeniable costs on people – today, right now – to avoid highly uncertain potential risks a hundred years hence, doesn’t fit my definition. But no need to get tied up in labels. You can dismiss as “whataboutery” the questions I raised above, but they are real questions, sincerely asked, and to which the answers are not known. And why is it “of course” a bad thing? That is indeed an open question. But not the only one. We do know, from studying the past and not predicting the future, that mankind has flourished during periods of much warmer temperatures.

    • marvin

      Doh!

  • Texas Sunday Morning

    No scientist answers your myth about 19 years of “no warming” because that’s not what the data shows, despite the desperate cherry-picking and contortions of the conspiracy theorists who continue to push it.

    Also, if you object to rule by a legal elite, could you link me to your article denouncing TTIP?

    • Grizz

      “No scientist answers [the] myth about 19 years of no warming …”? You need to pay more attention, Texas. Never heard a climate scientist refer to the “pause” or “hiatus”? How about their attempts to explain the lack of atmospheric warming by claiming the heat is “hiding” in the oceans? That is what actual climate scientists who espouse global warming theory have been talking about. They finally had to acknowledge the “myth” was a fact, and are trying to explain it. Don’t be a denier.

      • Texas Sunday Morning

        A slowing in the rate of increase is not the same as “no warming”, but do continue to believe in the conspiracy if it keeps you warm at night.

        • Grizz

          It wouldn’t seem appropriate to describe a period of “slowing in the rate of” as either a pause or a hiatus, so it’s odd that the climate scientists themselves use those terms. Name-calling things as myths or conspiracies sure beats making an argument, I suppose. Don’t be so anti-science.

          • Texas Sunday Morning

            The naming conventions of individual scientists in specific areas do not translate to general discourse. The continuing misunderstanding over the word “theory” makes that rather clear.

            The overwhelming scientific consensus is for a warming planet. The alternatives are that a) The experts are incompetent or b) the experts are lying. Which do you champion?

          • Grizz

            Goodness – really? You slink away from a rebuttal to your easily disproven claim that scientists have “answered” the pause in warming by trying to dismiss those same scientists? Then you think you’ve set up some clever rhetorical box I can’t escape from, as if you didn’t just get spanked? It’s simple: The global warming boys made a lot of model-based predictions, upon which activists made many scary claims and demands of ACTION NOW! As the years have passed, those predictions have not panned out, and global temperatures failed to rise as predicted. Shouldn’t a bit of humility be in order? Some recognition that – gee, maybe there’s a lot we don’t know? Some experts may be incompetent; and some may lie. But if you read their own reports, you will find a great deal of uncertainty. So it’s nice that these scientists – if not fanboys like yourself – at least recognize reality before trying to explain it away.

          • marvin

            Lying!

          • Nkaplan

            There is of course alternative (c) this is a field of scientific inquiry about which much is still unknown and not understood, therefore, even with a large number of competent experts in agreement, there remains a huge amount of doubt about the conclusions that they have reached. i.e. they are neither lying nor incompetent, but they simply overestimate the ability of people in their field to understand and predict what will occur.

    • Peter Stroud

      Texas: for pity’s sake take off your blindfold and read some respectable scientific articles about climate change, and you will find that the ‘pause’ is real. It is an empirically derived fact.

      • Texas Sunday Morning

        Feel free to link to the peer reviewed literature.

        • Grizz

          Hey Texas: Here’s the link you asked for (a Natue report about a peer reviewed article in Nature Geoscience): http://www.nature.com/news/indian-ocean-may-be-key-to-global-warming-hiatus-1.17505

          Now in the future do your own research. I found that in two seconds, and there are many more out there. And these researchers subscribe to the global warming theory. But they had to recognize the pause, because it is happening. Look how you try to move the goalpost – scientist do “answer” the warming pause. Open your mind, do the homework and trust yourself.

          • Texas Sunday Morning

            From the abstract from that paper:

            “Global mean surface warming has stalled since the end of the twentieth century1, 2, but the net radiation imbalance at the top of the atmosphere continues to suggest an increasingly warming planet.”

            So according to the paper you’ve cited, the planet is continuing to warm. Cheers for making my point.

          • Grizz

            Stay focused – I believe you made my point: “Global mean surface warming has stalled”. “Stalled”, eh? Thanks for finding my money quote. You claimed the pause was a myth and a conspiracy. This climate scientist in a peer reviewed article says warming has “stalled”. He acknowledges as fact what you called a myth and a conspiracy. That he further believes data “suggest” warming will continue in the future doesn’t refute that. You were wrong – so if you won’t admit it at least tone down the arrogant snark. It hasn’t been earned. The climate scientists failed to predict the pause, and denied it for a long time. But (as the peer reviewed article you foolishly demanded to see admits), many have now “answered” it, to use your term. So you were wrong in asserting scientists had not done so. You asked for a peer reviewed example and got it. Don’t try to weasel out by shifting to a “yeah, but”. You owe O’Brien and Stroud an apology. Don’t be so afraid of the facts.

          • marvin

            No court in the World could fairly say that paper provided proof! Take the word ‘suggest’ for instance, where does it state ‘definitely’!

          • mdj

            ‘Continues to suggest’; if weather stations were recording an increase you can bet your life we’d be hearing all about it!

      • marvin

        Do you know, it is an empirical fact that I have fairies at the bottom of my garden! No kidding – I have photographic evidence to prove it, and there are undeniable tiny foot prints in the soil, the presence of which cannot be explained by any other explanation. I have programmed all the information into my computer in order to generate the probability of this strange occurrence and it has provided me with positive results.
        On the other hand, the photographs could have been over developed, the footprints could be explained by other reasoning that I had not bothered to look for because I had the answer I wanted, and the computer will only generate information from the choice of details that I programmed into it! So what do you really believe? Do I have fairies at the bottom of my garden or not?

  • William556

    The question is: who are these lawyers really working for and how much money to they stand to make from such a ruling? Odds are these are people deep in the solar panel and windmill industry at the very least.

  • WJOBrien

    With any degree of luck such legal action shall cause the Ancient Ones to awaken from their slumbers in the lightless depths of the briny foam-tossed sea. Cthulhu, thus rudely cheated out of his sleep, shall then wrap his beslimed tentacles around the parfum’d necks of these slithering dissimulators on the take, squeezing their esophagi until their eyeballs pop out.

  • WJOBrien

    With any degree of luck such legal action shall cause the Ancient Ones to awaken from their slumbers in the lightless depths of the briny foam-tossed sea. Cthulhu, thus rudely cheated out of his sleep, shall then wrap his beslimed tentacles around the parfum’d necks of these slithering dissimulators on the take, squeezing their esophagi until their eyeballs pop out.

  • right1_left1

    Let’s just take a look at the Earth’s surface.

    The Pacific
    Enormous even Ginormous surface area.
    No humans to speak of.
    The North South Atlantic and the Indian Ocean
    ditto

    Both Polar caps.
    Large surface area No humans to cause much trouble.

    Central Western USA Australia and Eastern Soviet Union.
    China South America.
    All having vast land masses where zero industrial activity takes place.

    So I conclude with total confidence that if climate change is taking place it is not caused by humans.
    The energy required is too great and can only come from the Sun.

    One exception to the case might be de forestation.

  • right1_left1

    Let’s just take a look at the Earth’s surface.

    The Pacific
    Enormous even Ginormous surface area.
    No humans to speak of.
    The North South Atlantic and the Indian Ocean
    ditto

    Both Polar caps.
    Large surface area No humans to cause much trouble.

    Central Western USA Australia and Eastern Soviet Union.
    China South America.
    All having vast land masses where zero industrial activity takes place.

    So I conclude with total confidence that if climate change is taking place it is not caused by humans.
    The energy required is too great and can only come from the Sun.

    One exception to the case might be de forestation.

    • mdj

      As a layman I’ve been worried since the 70’s about what the consequences of filling the biosphere with our crap might be, so I’m completely persuadable on the topic of Climate Change. What has turned me against the idea is the level of sustained suppression, lying, distortion, emotionalism and manipulation that its proponents resort to as a matter of routine.

      Why should such an overwhelming and pressing danger not provide irrefutable evidence to silence the doubters without such assistance?

    • △rcticSku△

      Cool science there Einstein!

  • BlackArrow

    Truth … and justice … finally about to catch up with you guys, is it, James? I’m for hanging, considering it is (the very protection of) Life itself you’ve been sabotaging.

    Lou Coatney

    • emily dibb

      Just a question, Black Arrow. If Greenhouses are such very bad things, why do we all long to have one in our back yards, so that we can grow better vegetables?

      • BlackArrow

        On the assumption this wasn’t a joke question, …. 🙂

        We have greenhouses to enable warm climate plants to grow farther north, emily. With the advent of the Cold Blob in the northern North Atlantic, they may become even more important.

        However, The Day After Tomorrow effect … which is now being validated … means that the warmer latitudes will go to extremes too.

        Think of Earth as a glass of iced tea on a very hot southern U.S. day. As long as there is ice, the tea remains cool, but the instant the last of the ice is gone, the temperature climbs … astronomically.

        We shall see if polar re-glaciation can retard the aquasphere and biosphere boiling away … enough that we can implement drastic environmental/fossil fuel/population controls.

        Lou Coatney

        • Richard Eldritch

          Ice tea gotcha….. lol

  • Augustus

    An increase now of 2°C above pre-industrial levels is an improvement on the 6 °C that some earlier alarmists had predicted. Of course, there is no real scientific consensus about the extent to which humans effect climate change through emissions of greenhouse gases. There may be a consensus that greenhouse gases contribute to global warming, but not about how great that contribution is. And that means that If say 90% of the greenhouse effect contributes to global warming one could talk of some kind of imminent danger, but not if that contribution was much lower. This, like the ruling against the Netherlands government, is flagrant legal activism, and only goes to show how prejudiced a court’s ruling can be.

  • Darbeet

    i think folks who remain calm and trust their own judgement against reading whichever article of the day just think… yes, we are rather a group of scumbags and need Greener approaches as they are required given the massive waste and plundering of resources we humans are engaged in- and it becomes ever more transparent as to which characters lack character in such an epic struggle (to change humanity itself). Still at least try and be a hero, how pathetic is this article within such a context!

  • snowshooze

    Hey, it is all about money and power.
    Nothing to do with facts.
    I could have saved you a lot of work…

  • Thomas

    With a bit of luck if this ever gets anywhere it’ll get ignored by either everyone or a country with sense I can then relocate to.

    Maybe if sea levels do get crazy we can concentrate all the rise around the British Isles, put all the environmentalists there and drown them, clean up the muck and open an underwater museum celebrating what once was. Try talking to a student about politics for more than 15 minutes and you’ll be as convinced as I am this basically the best possible future the UK’s got at this point

  • CalUKGR

    We live in the new age of heresies. If you refuse to worship at the altar of the Church of the Holy Consensus you are certainly doomed to social exclusion; to vicious slander and, of course, to complete contempt. The EU, UN, most western governments and countless bottom-feeding NGOs have all signed up to the CAGW catechism – a belief system founded on little more than factually erroneous data models which fail – consistently – to reflect the realities of observable scientific data (such as from satellites).

    James is correct – almost 19 years and no recorded, observably significant warming in the Earth’s overall temperature. That’s what the real scientific data tells us.

    Common purpose trolls such as the BBC, of course, insist on using license fee money to propagate the myth of ‘man-made climate change’ as some sort of approaching cataclysm. But the BBC, just as all their fellow travellers, knows ‘climate change’ (in their context) has little or nothing to do with climate or with science.

  • beef encounter

    Sure, first the Ecofascist build project like this in Bonita Springs, FL…

    http://inapcache.boston.com/universal/site_graphics/blogs/bigpicture/swfla_09_30/s08_00000030.jpg

    …or VeronaWalk, Naples, FL

    http://revuewm.com/media/k2/items/cache/2ce91fa985951ebbfdf6ec9281c769b0_XL.jpg

    …or Cape Coral, FL

    http://inapcache.boston.com/universal/site_graphics/blogs/bigpicture/swfla_09_30/s11_00000019.jpg

    …and then wonder why these and many other projects like it are prone to flooding? Didn’t take me long to figure it out.

    • van Lomborg

      I am neither affected by the automotive engineering emissions crisis nor do I own one of these relentlessly developed housing estates, but if I did I would sue these American imbeciles until Donald Trump himself was caught pleading to Gaia not to be held responsible for this mess he helped create.

    • Bozza ‘n’ Dave

      Amazing photography. They explain everything and say more than words.

  • LIBERALSKILLUNBORNBABIES

    WHO CARES….

  • Dis is how U can get ninty-seven dollars hour… After being without work for six-months , I commenced earning over this web-site and now I possibly could not be more satisfied. After 4 months doing this my income is around five-thousand five hundred $-per month If this interests you: 1)navigate to the site link in the description

  • Terry Field

    I did not know Bradford was in Britain.I thought it was in Pakistan.

    • JohnSmith

      Bradfordistan !!!

    • Mary Ann

      fail.

  • Diogenes60025

    Judges live boring lives, applying mundane laws enacted by other people and compelled to kowtow to the wealthy and powerful (many of whom they feel have less intellect than they).

    So they look for excitement, divertissement, if we would. They take up wacky causes, try to help the poor by giving away other peoples’ money, and misuse the police power of the State for their pet causes.

  • derekcolman

    Passing a law against climate change? That’s brilliant. Why ever didn’t King Canute think of that. All he had to do was pass a law against the tide coming in.

  • Within the last 550 million years the average temperature of the Earth has varied between 12C and 22C. Right now we are at 14.5C. During this period CO2 has decreased from 7,000 ppm to where it is today, about 400 ppm. During this period, there has been no correlation between temperature and CO2.

    The 0.4C rise in temperature since the Industrial Revolution (IR) pales in comparison to the 1.6C increase of the Medieval Warming Period (WP), the 2.5C increase of the Roman WP, and the 3.2C increase of the Minoan WP using the IR as a baseline.

    Do your homework. Get the facts. Global warming and climate change is a 1.5 trillion dollar a year scam.

    http://www.windpowerfraud.com
    http://www.aconvenientfabrication.com

  • Scott Schmitz

    In order for these so-called climate scientists to be correct on their sea level rise at 100 ft. by the year 2100. It doesn’t take a rocket scientist or a huge amount of research to figure out, that sea level rates would have to rise 1.17 ft. per year in order for them to meet their criteria for their predictions. It’s simple arithmetic.Using 1.17 ft. per year if sea levels would have begun to rise in the year 2007 (which it hasn’t while placing importance on Al Gore’s movie as the starting year), sea levels should have already risen 9.36 ft since 2007 in order for the climate change folks to remain correct.

Close