Rupert Darwall, a finance and policy analyst who was a special adviser to the Chancellor of the Exchequer in 1993, is the author of the highly praised The Age of Global Warming (2014). His new book, Green Tyranny – Exposing the Totalitarian Roots of the Climate Industrial Complex, is out now.

In it he traces the disturbing origins of the green agenda, the history of environmental alarmism and how ‘scientific consensus’ has been manufactured and abused by politicians who’ve demanded not only the rejection of abundant hydrocarbon energy resources, but also the total suppression of dissent.

Kathy Gyngell: Green Tyranny is much more than a manual for climate change policy sceptics, though your account of the greens’ irrationality is sufficient for that. What would you describe as the foremost lunacy of the alarmists’ anti-carbon agenda?

Rupert Darwall: Chapter 2 outlines the biggest, most hubristic lunacy of all: that top-down global central planners can bring about the third of mankind’s revolutions, the first two being the Neolithic Revolution (the transition from nomadic hunter-gatherers to settled societies based on agriculture) and the Industrial Revolution, which forms the economic basis of our civilisation, harnessing hydrocarbon energy to raise living standards, extend longevity and vastly expand how people are able to live their lives.

Global warming was first deployed for political reasons and it remains an intensely politicised project. Over the last two decades, it has become the most powerful weapon in the armoury of environmentalism, an ideology that seeks to repeal the Industrial Revolution. As with previous revolutionary and totalitarian attempts to override and crush human nature, it too will fail, but the attempt will come at vast cost.

K G: What sets your book apart and makes it such a page-turner is the shocking fascist early history of green politics, its entry into mainstream post-war politics and its dedicatedly anti-American and anti-democracy agenda. What triggered you to investigate this?

R D: A little background into how the book came to be written might help here. After my first book, The Age of Global Warming, was published five years ago, I was approached by someone with a long and extensive involvement in the politics of global warming. It was, he said, the best book he’d read on the subject, but it missed out crucial developments in Sweden and Germany. I looked at the evidence and saw he was right. The result is this book. The way I’d describe it is ‘Green Tyranny takes the reader up the dark side of the global warming mountain’.

K G: The tale you relate is complex. There are several transformations involved – national socialism to Marxism, 1968 student revolutionaries into the mainstays of EU institutions and a lateral arabesque, so to speak, from pro-nuclear to anti-nuclear pro-renewables policy. What is the common political thread?

R D: Green Tyranny is a tale of countries. Sweden started the war on coal at the end of the 1960s. It was embarking on a huge nuclear power programme and it wanted to scare Swedish voters that the alternative was building lots of coal-fired power stations. First they were told coal causes acid rain (did anyone tell you the science of the acid rain scare turned out to be wrong?) and then global warming. During the 1980s, no country did more to put global warming on to the international agenda and create the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change than Sweden.

Germany is the hinge on which the narrative turns. Sweden’s nuclear plan came unstuck because of the rise of the violently anti-nuclear Greens in Germany. A wave of anti-nuclear protests swept West Germany in the late 1970s. The Greens were formed as a new party to capitalise on these protests. The new party brought together former Nazis and neo-Nazis under the same umbrella as far-Left radicals drawn from the same circle as the Baader-Meinhof terrorists. During the 1980s, the Greens formed a big part of the pro-Kremlin Peace Movement that campaigned to stop NATO putting in the nuclear missiles to counter Soviet SS-20s. Fortunately for the West, they lost, but the end of the Cold War saw the Greens gather strength, and in 1998 the first Red-Green coalition took power in Berlin.

As the Greens were the junior coalition partner, renewable energy was a political must-have if they were to survive. In the event, the Renewable Energy Act was hatched by a tiny cell of MPs, one of whom was also a renewable energy lobbyist, and most MPs didn’t know what was in the law when they voted for it. Having decided to hobble its economy with high cost, unreliable wind and solar power, Germany wanted to inflict the same disadvantage on the rest of Europe.

At the Spring 2007 European Council, Angela Merkel persuaded other European leaders to follow Germany when it agreed the principles of the EU’s disastrous renewable energy directive. Thus the greening of Germany led to the greening of Europe and the people who’d been on the wrong side of the Cold War turned out to be the biggest winners in the post-Cold War era.

K G: What intrigued me reading your book was not only the role of the major NGOs in funding and pushing the green agenda (no surprise there) but the extent to which they’ve been funded by US capitalism – by Silicon Valley oligarchs and progressive foundations they fund – so-called philanthropy. Isn’t this a shooting themselves in the foot exercise? What do they gain apart from virtue-signalling Brownie points?

R D: There’s a quick answer and a longer one. For the Silicon Valley billionaires, being signed up to saving the planet is a great way to protect themselves from being targeted as members of the top one hundredth of the top one per cent. As a strategy, it’s been highly successful.

The longer answer can be found in Chapter 5, where I suggest that the Austrian-born economist Joseph Schumpeter, of ‘creative destruction’ fame, was right in arguing that capitalism brings about its own demise. Environmentalism unlocked capitalism’s fortresses, the doors were flung open and the enemies of capitalism invited in. Already in the late 1960s and early 1970s, captains of industry were debating how industrialisation was going to destroy the planet. The fact they were wrong then hasn’t stopped their modern successors from preaching and believing the same doomsday environmentalist creed.

K G: You detail how a powerful Green/Left network has come to occupy key political positions in Europe and the US, gaining control of institutions that in turn give them unquestioned authority over the subject and which, whether we like it not, now occupies the moral high ground. How do we counter their compelling message that we have to try to control the damage man has done to the planet?

R D: ‘Saving the planet’ should ring alarm bells because it’s not about saving the planet – the planet doesn’t need saving – but a radical, ideological project to change human society. The price paid for this is not only human in terms of the loss of freedom and the loss of prosperity – especially for the less well-off in the industrialised world and people in developing countries. It is also paid by nature. Saving the planet means sacrificing the local, which is how we end up with massed windfarms across hillsides, the massacring of birds of prey, migratory birds and bats (pressure waves from rotating turbines cause bats’ lungs to explode), environmentally destructive biomass policies that involve cutting down trees to use as fuel, and insane ideas like the Severn tidal barrage and the loss of irreplaceable natural habitats.

The book has a chapter on NGOs, quoting Stanley Baldwin: ‘Power without responsibility, the prerogative of the harlot’. In a media-saturated age, unaccountable NGOs have the extraordinary power that the newspaper barons once had, but no responsibility for the malign consequences of the policies they lobby for. The chapter also traces the transformation of WWF (the initials stood for World Wildlife Fund when it was about protecting wildlife) from an organisation founded to conserve natural habitats and preserve endangered species into an ideological one campaigning against population growth, industrialisation, nuclear power and fossil fuels (now WWF stands for World Wide Fund for Nature).

K G: Finally, Green Tyranny – a book I’d class as a potential bestseller with a cast which would find a place in a Robert Harris thriller – has yet to be reviewed by the major newspapers. Is it too challenging and so safer ignored, subjected to the ‘spiral of silence’ you describe in your recent National Review article?

R D: The spiral of silence describes the process whereby people’s opinions retreat into silence in the face of perceived social hostility, when they no longer hear people they meet or in the media voicing opinions similar to their own. This is what we see with global warming – critics are demonised and marginalised and their views are not represented on the media. In this, global warming harbours the political culture of the totalitarian (the idea of the spiral of silence was developed by West Germany’s foremost pollster who, wait for it, worked in Joseph Goebbels’ Ministry of Public Enlightenment and Propaganda). The fact that the ideology of global warming seeks to extinguish criticism reveals its totalitarian nature and is crucial to its success as a tool of social manipulation. For that reason it must be fought by breaking the spiral of silence.

K G: Thank you.

77 COMMENTS

  1. I guess the main benefit of Rupert Darwall’s books is that they give some intellectual underpinning to sceptics concerned that the Green Agenda is a self serving political movement designed to suck resources from the underprivileged in our society
    *
    It will be welcomed by pensioners shivering in draughty dilapidated accommodation because they cannot afford the cost of heating inflated by unnecessary green supplements

  2. Despite Green denials and fudging “Global Warming” in the public narrative seems to have been replaced by “Climate Change” around 2007-8 but the evidence trail of responsibility for the neuro-linguistic change is obscure.

  3. Climate change is undeniable, a few thousnd years ago there was a glacier over Edinburgh.

    Man-made global warming was a construction of the UN, and Bilderberg, to get control of carbon credits.
    They then used these to get some kind of world control.
    Al Gore, and an Indian trainspotter, got Nobel prizes for being idiots.

    The education- controlling Commies then indoctrinated the snowflakes.
    The Paris accord was nonsense, and Trump was right again.

  4. Yes, yes, yes, of course left wing people have been against the use of coal since the 1960s. That’s why during the miner’s strike, all the left wingers were cheering about the closure of all the pits.
    Oh, wait …

  5. “Global Warming” is intellectual garbage, of course. No part of it makes any kind of sense, which largely explains why the True-Believers keep changing the name. Although warmists accuse sceptics of trousering zillions of dollars, the reality is that the megabucks go and have always gone to the Alarmists themselves.

    • “Although warmists accuse sceptics of trousering zillions of dollars, the reality is that the megabucks go and have always gone to the Alarmists themselves.”

      Yes, this is a reversal of reality that in a person who was mentally unsound would be likely to be what is called projection, but in the world of the fully-aware, scheming Leftist organ-grinders is just an example of the tactical use of dishonesty, misrepresentation and fabrication which they deploy in order to impose their will on the millions of people who don’t agree either with the Left’s outlooks on how society works, nor with their intentions for changing it to something more to their liking (and personal advantage, no doubt)..

  6. Remember the ‘green’ committees in Westminster where you had the likes of Debden and Yeo. They sat on the committees and also on the boards of companies interested in funding for the Severn barrage and multiple windfarms etc?

    Then you have one of the half-wit brothers Milliband and his Climate Change Act.

  7. Interesting stuff. At root it is usually the case that those who bang on about ‘climate change’ are really referring to what they believe to be ‘man made’ climate change and, very quickly, it becomes clear that they are pointing the finger at the ‘capitalist’ system. Obviously it is impossible to prove a causal link between what humans do and any long term changes in the climate – there are to many hypothetical factors at work on top of the long term death of the solar system – but, nevertheless, there are other good reasons for getting out of fossil fuels the likes of oil and gas – which themselves, thousands of years ago, owed their existence to the power of the sun being stored up in organic matter.

    Those ‘reasons’ belong elsewhere because all I want to query here is the lumping together of wind and solar power. Below I outline seven reasons why solar is superior to wind as a source of renewable energy.

    The seven cases for Solar Power as opposed to Wind Power

    To begin, the arguments about reducing carbon emissions,
    climate change and the like are irrelevant here as both forms of power are renewables.
    This is simply to outline, broadly, the economic and common sense reasons why
    solar is a preferable to wind as a renewable source of energy.

    1.

    On 3rd of August, 2018, how much daylight will
    there be? The answer is 15.17 hours from sunrise to sunset. Again, on 12th
    of August and 21st of August, 2018, how much daylight will there be?
    The answer is 14.47 hours and 14.15 hours-from sunrise to sunset-respectively.

    Try answering those two questions with regard to how much
    wind there will be on the selected dates and a precise answer is impossible.

    Given, then, that for the latest photo-voltaic (pv) solar
    panels direct sunlight is not essential, as they will generate energy in
    daylight, we can, over a year, say, precisely state the minimum amount of energy
    a given capacity of pv panels in a particular location will generate because we
    know precisely the generating capacity of the panels and we also know,
    precisely, how much daylight they will receive in any given year: see http://www.sunrise-and-sunset.com/en/united-kingdom/london/2015/august.

    Obviously, on top of that minimum, the amount generated
    annually will vary according to how much the total annual amount of direct
    sunlight varies. However, this extra amount, courtesy of direct sunlight, is a
    bonus-a varying harvest of energy-on top of the guaranteed minimum we can
    expect if there is no direct sunlight all year. Wind power, though, is entirely
    dependent on fluctuations in the air pressure systems associated with the
    weather peculiar to particular locations. There is no guaranteed minimum power
    output and, critically, it is impossible to precisely predict when and how much
    energy will be generated.

    2.

    The latest pv systems can be used with their own battery
    storage. Given that the latest pv – with -battery storage systems can feed in to the Grid when
    the battery is full and draw from the Grid when it is empty there is, on top of
    a guaranteed annual minimum amount of energy generated, sufficient flexibility
    to ensure that the energy generated is used as and when required – with no
    wastage. See, for example: http://www.saveenergygroup.co.uk/residential/solar-storage.html

    Wind systems only generate when there is wind and, given
    that there is no storage facility for the energy they generate, there is no
    flexibility in their use: other than to switch them off if the wind is too
    strong and/ or their energy isn’t required. Classically, during cold winter
    anti-cyclonic weather, when energy demand peaks, wind power will generate
    nothing whilst, though reduced due to shorter winter days, pv systems will
    still generate a guaranteed minimum-plus a small winter harvest of extra energy
    during sunny, cold, anti-cyclonic weather conditions.

    3.

    Related to the unpredictability of wind power, and the lack
    of storage for it, is another benefit that pv-with-battery-storage systems
    have. This is that, while the generation of energy for the pv panels in a
    locality will happen at the same time-much as it does, though unpredictably,
    for wind-individual household and business users will not draw down the energy
    stored in their batteries and start relying on the Grid all at the same time.
    At any one point, some will be using the energy stored in their batteries,
    others will be sending energy to the Grid, whilst some will be drawing from the
    Grid until their battery storage has been re-charged from input from their pv
    panels. With regard to the latter, it would seem sensible that the system is
    calibrated to stop drawing from the Grid once the battery storage is, say, a
    third re-charged.

    The result of the above would be an accurate idea as to how
    much energy, at any point in time, the Grid would need to supply in order to
    supplement the energy generated by any given capacity of pv-with-battery
    storage systems.

    4.

    Unlike wind power, most pv systems-if to go on the existing
    roofs of house or businesses-require no planning permission. They can installed
    immediately.

    5.

    Unlike the large capital projects, over a lengthy period of
    time, that wind power entails, pv systems are easy to install and maintain.
    Unlike wind farms, that also require expensive large capital projects simply to
    get connected to the Grid, pv systems are, in most cases, just a few metres
    away from the Grid. Once installed, too, they have no moving parts so that, bar
    a new inverter after about ten years, they require little or no maintenance and
    repair. You would not be able to purchase a wind turbine, online, and install
    it yourself but this is increasingly possible with the latest pv systems: see,
    for example, http://www.buypvdirect.co.uk/PV_Packs?product_id=292.

    6.

    As point 5 suggests. Unlike wind turbines, that benefit
    large companies and land owners, PV systems are easily affordable for, and
    bring immediate direct benefits to, many individual households and small to
    medium sized businesses. Wind turbines cost millions whilst a quick trawl
    through pv system websites will reveal that good pv systems can range between
    £3,000 to £7,000. It is also generally acknowledged that, depending on the size
    of the pv system and the location of its installation, most such systems will
    repay the capital cost after about ten years-possibly sooner. After that, there
    is a period of about fifteen years energy generated at no cost. It is also
    worth noting that, should the property be put up for sale, the capital cost of
    the pv system can be added to the sale price of the property as the new owner
    is purchasing cheaper energy-without the initial capital costs involved.

    7.

    That pv systems are installed by individuals and small teams
    of people-usually a variety of small to medium sized businesses-over a large
    geographical area, is also beneficial to the creation of employment
    opportunities. Large capital projects, of the sort entailed by wind turbines,
    generally create employment for specialized engineering and construction
    workers in a few locations over, bar those involved in maintenance and repair,
    a specified period of time. Pv systems spread the employment opportunities both
    geographically and over a wide range of small to medium sized business where
    engineering, electrical, management, admin, finance and marketing positions
    offer a variety of employment opportunities for local people.

    A final couple of thoughts.

    First. The large energy companies spend hundreds of millions
    a year trying to poach customers from each other and are obliged, by government
    regulation, to install smart meters in the properties of their customers.
    Neither of these activities generate energy. Any benefits to customers from
    competition between utility companies is not easily measured and, if there are
    any, they are too often short lived. It goes without saying that measuring
    energy consumption-necessary for the supplier to calculate what to charge the
    customer-does not generate energy.

    How much more sensible would it be if the energy companies
    devoted the funding and human resources used in their marketing and meter
    installation activities to putting pv systems on the roofs of their customers?
    This would give the energy companies a reliable, easily installed and
    maintained source of renewable energy, while their energy customers could
    benefit from a significant discount on their energy bills by virtue of renting
    out their roofs to the energy companies?

    Second. All the great advances in the benefits technological
    innovation has brought to vast numbers of people have been brought about by the
    market mechanism: or, more precisely, the mass consumer market mechanism. From
    motor vehicles and domestic appliances through to modern day electrical and
    electronic devices, the improvement in performance and reduction in price has
    been in response to the demand from mass consumer markets, together with
    competing suppliers vying to cater for those markets. It is not possible to
    have a mass consumer market for wind turbines but it is a distinct possibility
    to have one for pv systems. Indeed, given the tumbling price and improved
    technological performance of pv systems in recent times there is, even now, a
    fledgling mass consumer market for them.

    • If they weren’t subsidised and competed with conventional power stations on an equal footing then you may have a small point but until that happens I really resent having my electricity bill inflated by these eyesores

      • Each to his own. I personally have no problem with solar panels on roofs. They are no more an intrusion than satellite dishes, TV aerials, chimney stacks, attic conversions or the layer of tiles beneath. Indeed, they are an extra layer of roof insulation that helps prevent the loss of heat from a building. What I do find an intrusion to the eye is wind farms – on land and out to sea – which are capital intensive, heavily subsidised and high maintenance sources of an unpredictable supply of energy that needs much expense simply to connect it to the grid. I also don’t think ‘solar farms’ are an efficient use of land that could be put to better use. There is no shortage of existing buildings with roofs upon which to put solar arrays without taking up land that could be put to better, agricultural, use or, for that matter, new housing – the latter much in demand.
        ….Also, apart from land owners with a few acres to spare for wind turbines, most people, as individuals, cannot get out of subsidising energy from wind turbines but it costs less than what many people spend on a new car to get a solar array that will last 25 years, require little maintenance and recover the initial outlay in about ten years. If moving, then the initial capital outlay can be included in the sale price of the property because the new owners are getting the benefits of solar energy without the initial cost of installation. I have met people with older, less efficient solar arrays, linked to a battery, who, over a year, actually generate more energy than they use. The subsidy for solar power has been reduced recently to reflect the lower costs of solar arrays and battery storage but it is still a good long term investment and way to go ‘off grid’.

        • solar panels would be OK if they understood the dangers from the inverters generating high frequency transients on the electrical wiring which is a health danger

          • 50Hz sine-wave inverters using PWM at around 100kHz?
            Perhaps you can tell me what health dangers there are from these? The output is low-pass filtered, and the internals are in an aluminium case. I design this sort of equipment for a living and all I can say is that you prove the old saying that ‘A little learning is a dangerous thing’.

          • Its the field of bioelectromagnetics which is not taught at any universities in the UK nor many anywhere as yet
            Its linked with the adverse health effects from wireless (RF) radiation.
            Dirty electricity in houses with solar panels on the roof is off the scale.
            Here’re some links
            https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TX_96Ftxw10
            http://www.stetzerelectric.com/
            http://www.sammilham.com/
            https://www.electricsense.com/1825/dirty-electricity-gs-filter/
            http://www.bioinitiative.org

          • I think there’s an opening for ‘designer’ EMC helmets. Perhaps a pretty semi-geodesic half dome using small pentagonal radar-absorbing ferrite tiles (highly polished), carefully epoxied together, with a soft copper-mesh underlayer to cushion against the wearer’s head?
            A snip at £500 each.
            And what’s more, they could be proved to work (yes!) by testing in an EMC shielded chamber.

            Beats a DIY aluminium-foil one any day.

          • Great
            I hope your equipment is safe
            The ones I tested that were creating high frequency transients were obviously not yours then.
            BTW Most people who understand the problem don’t want to go around in weird helmets all day so not much call for them I would think
            They would rather remove the source of the problem. Its whole body 24 hour exposure that is the issue

        • The one thing that nobody really talks about is using thermal generation…politicians love projects that can be seen like solar panels and wind mills,but thermal generation has little to show as it is mostly underground. The idea was started years ago down in Cornwall and called the Hot Rocks project,you bored down from two directions a couple of miles to meet up,put water down one and because of the Earths heat it would come up as steam to run a turbine on the surface,the water then condenses and around it goes.
          Should be investigated again ?

          • Great if you live in Iceland, but a non-starter in the UK.
            Ground-sourced heat pumps using warm water from a borehole as the feed source are OK, but only if the geological conditions are right in your area.

          • Yup, agreed you have to have the right geology,hard volcanic rock is ideal,that is why they tried it down in Cornwall…..I think they tried it in Germany but the geology was wrong…the concept worked but the local town started to sink.

        • It would help the case for ‘micropower’ solar systems if more domestic equipment was dc powered*. Nikola Tesla’s invention of the polyphase ac motor was a work of genius, but modern brushless dc motors, either
          permanent magnet or switched-reluctance, would allow domestic equipment such as washing machines and refrigerators to work off ac or dc.
          It is quite simple (to those ‘skilled in the art’ as the patent wording says), to make highly efficient chargers for sealed or valve-regulated lead-acid batteries that provides the optimum ‘maximum power-point tracking’ loading to the solar panel over a wide range of incident sun strength.
          Domestic storage could be viable without Elon Musk’s expensive Lithium-based batteries.

          * DC-dc converters are more efficient than dc-ac inverters.

          • Well I am sure that, even as I write, there are some very clever scientists and engineers working on improving the efficiency of solar panels. As I understand it, the basic technology is to use the sun’s energy to cause electrons to move from a positive semiconductor layer to a negative semiconductor layer and, by virtue of this, generating an electric current so it seems to me that, along with the improved battery storage operation you note, any further improvements will come from discovering better semiconductor materials and/or improving the performance of existing materials.

            Whatever, a similar ‘chemical reaction’ way of producing electricity is to combine hydrogen with air. The only ‘output’, other than energy, is water (H2o). However, so far as I know, hydrogen fuel cells are still in the early stages of development. They are expensive and, until a cheap, efficient and safe way to produce, store and use hydrogen in fuel cells is developed that will remain the case. However, again, once the consumer mass market takes over for, say, hydrogen fuel cell powered cars, then I don’t doubt that scientists and engineers will apply their knowledge and analytical skills to finding better, cheaper and safer ways to use hydrogen in fuel cells…Just as the application of science and engineering skills has improved the performance, efficiency, quality and affordability of so many of the things we use to get along in our daily lives – vehicles, domestic appliances, mobile phones, computers and so on.

      • As the renewables industry and the green blob keep claiming that reniewables are now cheaper than conventional – then end all subsidies to them But place a responsibility upon renewables generators to provide 24/7 dispatchable power and baseload.

        There would be no takers at open market price and if you made currently subsidised renewable plants provide 24/7 and baseload they would close them down because they can’t do it. Look at parts of Australia where power outages and industrial closures have followed the political drive for renewables.

        Renewables aren’t intended to reduce CO2 emissions and end ‘global warming’ – they are intended to de-industrialise the developed nations.

        And all of this when there is no particular global warming (and arguably already some global cooling with countless examples including inches of snow in southern Morocco for the first time in 50 years) and no warming at all that can be scientifically attributed to CO2.

        • Yes, and closer to home (especially for you) part time electricity, and inability to afford it has started – in Germany. By contrast the German pay about 2-4 times what we do in the US for electricity. The watermelons will kill many people if not stopped.

  8. Tks for alerting me to the book.

    As we speak thousands of OAP’s sit shivering, in terror of death from hypothermia, unable to warm their homes, just so the likes of George Monbiot can feel good.

    Only two types believe in Global Warming, cretins and shysters…Mellons take yr pick.

  9. Whatever else it is, it would be very hard to argue against the fact that, as a political vehicle, the idea that by limiting the development of the planet and by using the scourge of green enforced indulgences, selling the lie about man made warming is the perfect transport and is, a taxation permanent dreamboat of all and any treasury chancellor.

    In the narrative, there are indeed strands of German National Socialism, Swedish excess interwoven but it also should be remembered the part that Maggie played too. Aye maybe, later in life she did recant the green orthodoxy, the trouble is though that, her and Mr. Tickell were derivative, if not the major reason why Britain slunk down the road to unilateral industrial suicide via the green agenda. Bliar, Miliband and Bryony Worthington: just made it worse. And mrs may is equally bamboozled, should i say transfixed, staitjacketed even by the church devoted to the green lunacy.

    I don’t believe for a minute that the great man made warming scam isn’t just what it is – a scam but even if you did believe in the great green faeries, even if you did! How, how is Britain saying goodbye to it’s only reliable and proven generation technology ie coal fired plant, how is that going to help us – if we shut down all the remnants of what was once a vast manufacturing sector – how is that going to solve aught?

    I note in passing that the great green supporters in the Fatherland are and very busily constructing new coal fired generation and for the initiated using Lignite (yes ‘dirty coal’) for their purposes, funny that our ‘friends’ the Germans via Brussels require Britain to adhere to its green policies while they erm…………. do the exact opposite – strange huh?
    China, India and Japan are all happily building new coal plant and totally oblivious to the Obama green ‘Paris’ pact – pusillanimity doesn’t even come close to describing it and yet – lil ol’ Britain falls for it – dumb huh?

    But just think if, we didn’t abide, stick to the cultural Marxist deconstructionists siren, ignore the green agenda and the EU green carbon limitation agreements (of which bliar signed up to – it must be noted) what if, we didn’t have the combined weights of the leg irons EU&green agenda dragging us deeper into the mire – and what if……………. we started to make things again? A rich economy first and foremost requires cheap, plentiful and copious amounts of electrical energy – we could do that, we could.

    The tools are there, the coal is there, the gas is there, all that is needed is a government with vision and a government which gives a nod to not only the truth but to the REALITY.

  10. I recommmend Surplus Energy Economics blog by Tim Morgan.

    Nothing, literally nothng can replace fossil fuels, a recent comment by Thomas Malthus puts it very well:

    Cubic mile of oil is a powerful means of understanding the difficulty of replacing oil energy by other sources. SRI International chemist Ripudaman Malhotra, used it to describe the looming energy crisis in sobering terms. Malhotra illustrates the problem of producing one CMO energy that we currently derive from oil each year from five different alternative sources. Installing capacity to produce 1 CMO per year requires long and significant development.

    Allowing fifty years to develop the requisite capacity, 1 CMO of energy per year could be produced by any one of these developments:

    4 Three Gorges Dams, developed each year for 50 years, or
    52 nuclear power plants, developed each year for 50 years, or
    104 coal-fired power plants, developed each year for 50 years, or
    32,850 wind turbines, developed each year for 50 years, or
    91,250,000 rooftop solar photovoltaic panels[19] developed each year for 50 years

    The world consumes approximately 3 CMO annually from all sources. The table shows the small contribution from alternative energies in 2006.

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cubic_mile_of_oil

    • All the more reason to encourage people to have fewer children, so that the population reduces gradually over 3 or 4 generations.
      (Still have to find the energy for the transitional period of course).

      • We are already below replacement level in western countries. However those newcomers who have several wives are making up the shortfall and we will all be bowing the knee to Mecca if it continues.

        • Yes indeed.
          All the more reason to start coming down very hard on the alien hordes in our country who are breeding like fruit flies.

      • “So what you’re saying is!”
        It is okay for the politically backed and funded climate industry to shut down any opposing science by just labelling them deniers but not okay for sceptics to call them alarmists when their predictions are proved wrong time and time again?

  11. How to we stop schools teaching this to children as fact as soon as they hit primary school and continuing through until they leave age 18?
    We’re probably moving into a min ice age where there will be crop failures and mass starvation. This could be quicker than anyone realises as the sun’s energy has greatly reduced in this solar cycle.

    • My son regularly has homework where the adherence to this ideology is required and he repeats the usual mantra in his answers.
      I sometimes comment, but reality will prove or disprove this theory and it will become obvious to him as he grows up that the world is not ending as he is being told.

        • At 10 he is more interested in playing games. I’ll give him a bit of leeway to form his own thoughts and then guide him as necessary.

    • Once upon a time indoctrinating children was reserved for Nazi’s and Communists and rightly considered a terrible crime…..

      The only good news here, is that a serious period of cooling is upon us, which will make the disciples, look very stupid indeed. Though most are immune from criticism, as it is all they recieve, from anyone sane.

      • The people running most of the Western world are out of the same stable as the Nazis and the Communists, but they call themselves “progressives” or, with great irony, “social democrats”. Of course they’re going to attempt to indoctrinate children – it’s what ideological zealots do. I mean, from their point of view, they know that they’re right, so why give themselves and their political descendents the hassle of having to deal with numbers of people who don’t accept the correctness of the existing order?

      • “Once upon a time indoctrinating children was reserved for Nazi’s and Communists and rightly considered a terrible crime..”

        Try telling that to our teachers or to Common Purpose ……… the belief, as in Post Normal “Climate Science”, appears to be that the end justifies the means. The end being an unelected, unaccountable, anti-democratic global government presiding over a socialist-marxist society.

        For anyone who wants to see what that style of government would look like – I think that the EU is quite a close approximation ….. seems to me it has been an exercise in removing democracy and accountability behind a fig-leaf to fool the ‘little people’ who are considered by the EU as incapable of making the right decisions ……

  12. Thorium atomic reactors would be a very valuable source of energy without producing incredibly long lived radioactive waste products.

      • That was important, preWWII, but the problem today is the legacy nuclear industry, of which a lot has been sold off to foreigners, and the years of short-term ‘fixes’ in response to misinformed, agitated environmentalists lacking in basic Science.
        We also think funding pointless Green ‘saving the planet’ projects are more worthwhile than developing new methods and designs in Nuclear Technology. That, however, requires knowledge of the Natural Sciences, not the Political Sciences.

        • I am sure there are a number of factors, but new players in the the market are doing it for the byproducts and the US definitely do it for the byproducts to keep there arsenal stocked.

  13. I see now that many mayors from around the world are attending “The Global Covenant of Mayors for Climate and Energy”
    So if you are wondering why local councils are suddenly acting like the sub section of the green party maybe this is it.
    Just watch the local TV news programmes and see the kids on a witch hunt for any shops or people using plastic.

  14. I have always been dubious about the climate change/global warming agenda but it was compounded when I read the following —- “ it is strange what weather we have had all this winter;no cold at all,but the ways are dusty and the flyes fly up and down,and the rose bushes are full of leaves;such a time of year as never was known in this world before here “
    That was quote by Samuel Pepys on the 21st January 1661.

    • And the Romans grew grapes at Hadrian’s Wall
      And Iceland was covered in a dense forest not an ice cap 1000 years ago

  15. There is another aspect; a massive increase in lower quality science since the expansion of universities post 1945. If one looks at science in Britain prior to WW1, there were very few scientists but of an exceptionally high calibre. They were the apex of a pyramid. Expansion of universities post 1945 has increased the number of scientists but the base of the pyramid has been lowered. Today, the top scientists work in the fields of physics, chemistry and medicine/related subjects and mathematics which can lead to Nobel and Fields Medals. Eisenhower warned about the expansion and increase in power of technical experts as did MacMillan and C Northcote Parkinson joked about it.

    The real World is very complicated and as Freeman Dyson has pointed out we cannot yet mathematically model clouds which cannot be defined by fluid mechanics, which we understand ( well a few do). Prof R Lindzen, Prof of Atmospheric Physics at MIT has pointed out many of the climate scientists lack adequate knowledge of maths and physics to comprehend the complexity, let alone solve it. Steve McIntyre pointed out the statistical mistakes in M Mannn’s papers of Hockey Stick Fame.

    The expansion of climate/environmental science since the late 1960s has resulted in very wide standards; there is much which is poor and is not worth spending money on. If we look at The University of East Anglia and other similar universities which has come to dominate climate science, I would question whether they have expertise in maths, statistics, physics, chemistry, computer modelling and engineering to appreciate what Lindzen and Dyson have said. Dyson was inolved in developing climate models decades ago and said they had to oversimplify the earth and the fundementals have changed little. The proof is that the computer models greatly over predict warming as shown by satellite and balloon temerature measurement.

    Cutting edge physics, chemistry, medicine/physiology/biochemistry and maths has higher entry standards and is easier to judge and attracts the best scientists. Look at entry standards for someone reading physics, chemistry or maths at Imperial / Cambridge compared to Environmental Science at UEA, Lancaster or any other similar degree. The academic assessments of universities which started in the mid 1980s was recognition that there was at least 10% dead wood amongst lecturers. A Sampson talk about this in his Anatomy of Britain 1982. Consequently, Global Warming has enabled mediocre scientists in the fields of environment, oceanography, ecology, geography, zoology and botany to obtain grants.

  16. Calling all Climate Change Aficionados

    I’d like to be able to reveal to the world that Mr Darwell is in the pay of Big Oil. I know that he must be, because no one could possibly write what he writes for the reason that he actually believes it to be true. They would only write it because they knew that their livelihood depends upon doing so. But I have a problem in that I’ve got no idea which of the Big Oil companies he actually gets paid by, or if they all chip in their share to a central pool. Do any of you have any provable evidence that would tell me this so that I could pass it on?

    • Below are some quotes from Strong and other leading figures in the UN and IPCC
      which show that we have a ‘Global Warming / Climate Change’ “crisis” solely
      for political reasons:

      Strong’s statements explaining why he set up the IPCC and what it was to achieve :

      “In searching for a new enemy to unite us, we came up with the idea that .. the threat of global warming.. would fit the bill…. the real enemy, then, is humanity itself….we believe humanity requires a common motivation, namely a common adversary in order to realize world government. It does not matter if this common enemy is a real one or…. one invented for the purpose.” (Maurice Strong – speech to Club of Rome – and “invented” referred specifically to ‘Global Warming’)

      “Isn’t the only hope for the planet that the industrialized civilizations collapse? Isn’t it our responsiblity to bring that about?” . and those encapsulate what lies behind and is the reason for ‘Global Warming / Climate Change’ .

      (They also explain the current political decision to force electric vehicles on us by Michael Gove – that coupled with a shift to unreliable and wildly expensive renewables will shift sections of industry and jobs to countries like India and China and help achieve the aim of de-industrialising the developed economies …. see also below)

      Ottmar Edenhofer, who co-chaired the U.N.’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate
      Change (IPCC) working group on Mitigation of Climate Change from 2008 to 2015. “One has to free oneself from the illusion that international climate policy is environmental policy. This has almost nothing to do with the environmental policy anymore, with problems such as deforestation or the ozone hole …… We redistribute de facto the world’s wealth by climate policy ……….. the next world climate summit in Cancun is actually an economy summit during which the distribution of the world’s resources will be negotiated. ”

      As an aside to Edenhofer’s statement if you research the Copenhagan Climate Conference, which came before Cancun, you will find that it’s proposed Treaty wasn’t ratified following the US refusal to do so – you will find in the Treaty Annex the clauses which would have created a Global Environmental body, a de facto World Government, under the UN with the power to set global policies which would over-ride any national environmental or economic policy …. it was to be unelected and unaccountable (as was the USSR and the EU) and it was this attempt at creating an anti-democratic embryo World Government that led the USA and other nations to refuse to sign it.

      Christiana Figueres, executive secretary of U.N.’s Framework Convention on Climate Change “This is the first time in the history of mankind that we are setting ourselves the task of intentionally, within a defined period of time, to change the economic development model that has been reigning for at least 150 years, since the Industrial Revolution ”

      That must be taken in the context of Strong’s statements quoted above and the intent to de-industrialise which likely means a return to lifestyles of the 15th and 16th centuries.

      The Paris Climate Conference was heralded and publicised as a breakthrough agreement which would limit ‘Global Warming’ to 2 deg C – it was widely touted that this
      meant an end to increasing CO2 emissions. But the public hype is very different to what actually was agreed !

      What Paris actually agreed was that CO2 emissions would Increase by 46%++ between
      now and 2030 – that included China Doubling and India Trebling their respective emissions through hugely increasing coal fired power generation !! It was agreed that every nation could set its own future emissions targets through INDCs (Independent Nationally Determined Contributions), and these can be modified at will and so are not even legally binding.

      The actual Agreement reached in Paris should raise the question in your mind – why if CO2 is believed to cause ‘Global Warming’ was the Paris Climate Agreement (and IPCC) quite content to see CO2 emissions Increase by 46% in the next 14 years ?

      The answer, I believe, is that they know it will have no effect on Global Temperatures but the fiction of Global Warming and ‘Saving the Planet’ is a prerequisite to forcing the
      economic changes on an unknowing public – a public who would fight them tooth and nail if they knew what was actually going on.

  17. The OPEC rise in oil prices brought in a concept of strategic minerals, that there was limited supply. This was false because rising prices result in discovery of new reserves and new technology reduces the cost of production from existing ones. The 1970s also coincided with a global cooling and some bad smogs in cities. The power of the NUM worried Thatcher. The result was a fear about whether affordable resources were available which fed the Greens ideology.
    Attaching mystical qualities to Nature evolved in Germany in the late 19th century with people like Steiner. By 1919 there was the Thule Society and the back nature Volk Party was absorbed by the Nazis. The Nazis came up with the idea of turning Eastern Europe into a nature park. The back to nature largely upper middle class and upper class movement of the 1960s reconnected with Steiner and similar people and fed the Green Movement. The failure of Baider Meinhof and similar movements from the mid 1980s resulted in them joining the Green Party. Joschka Fischer is an example of someone who went from radical communist to radical Green.

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joschka_Fischer

    The Greeks said ” Those the Gods wish to destroy they send mad “. The confluence of Steiner and similar mystics, Back to Nature Volk /Nazi Party, Revolutionary Communists and upper middle class hippies and academics looking to justify tenure to form the Green Movement shows perfectly the madness of the affluent West at the end of the 20 th century.

  18. The green movement are part of the Marxist agenda, which simply seeks to destroy business and create top down control of the masses by an unelected self defining ‘elite.’ Political correctness is its other tool.
    The renewables industry would not exist without subsidy, and that subsidy comes from levies on electricity bills, regardless of ability to pay, all for the benefit of rich landowners and foreign manufacturers. Wind-farm owners are actually subsidy farmers with a sideline in producing part time electricity.

  19. I’ve followed the whole global warming to climate change thing very closely since the late 1990s. It became very clear to me that the whole scientific basis for alarm is contrived junk; the foundations of sand upon which the entire climate alarm industry was built and will eventually fall because nature refuses to comply.
    Climate mitigation policies are always promoted instead of adaptation. The undoubted benefits of warming are ignored. Climate mitigation policies are invariably authoritarian in nature and promote the creation of supranational bodies to enforce climate policy. We have the EU for that, but at the international meetings such as Copenhagen 2008 activists push for the creation of such bodies. By controlling carbon, you gain control of the economy and they know it – communism by stealth.
    These people hold to an ideology with Malthusian ideas at its core, an ideology which has been repeatedly proved wrong. See Paul Ehrlich vs Julian Simon from the 1980s.
    The policies advanced by Greens cause more harm than good. A good example for this was the ban on the use of DDT to control malaria in Africa. 10s of millions of people died so that some middle class Westerners can by indulgences, signal their virtue and feel good about themselves whilst sneering sanctimoniously at those disagree.

  20. The thing I have a big problem with is how is it possible that “Holocaustic run-away global warming” can be forced by 400PPM CO2 atmospheric concentrations, when this is amongst the lowest CO2 levels in the planets history?

    When the CO2 levels were at 8,000 PPM or higher, why did the planet not “burn up” then?

  21. Interesting that Germany is such an advocate for global warming when greater than 40% of their power is from coal, especially lignite which is the poorest and dirtiest form and yet the dummies in the UK parliament are so anti coal!

Comments are closed.