Monday, 15 February 2010

Follow the money

Rushed science is bad science… and if proof of that were needed, the latest revelations in the global warming scandal show us that scientists aren’t always the perfect white-coated boffins we believe them to be.

American meteorologist, Anthony Watts, has produced a report that may explain why global temperatures were recorded as rising in recent years. Watts has discovered that many of the weather stations used to report temperature readings used by the Intergovernmental Panic on Climate Change (IPCC) are sited in areas that have become urbanised and therefore warmer. It was also discovered that some of the stations were located next to air-conditioning plants or heating flues. One station at Rome Airport was even in the direct path of hot exhaust being expelled by passing jets. Could this be a partial explanation of why an increase in temperature of 0.7 degrees Celsius has been recorded in recent years?

But something bothers me about the whole global warming debate. Why has there been such a scramble towards adopting the orthodoxy of climate change? What’s the big rush? It couldn’t have anything to do with money, could it? You don’t think the trading in carbon credits could be responsible, do you?

For example, the UK Government has just spent £60 million on buying carbon credits to enable it to heat government buildings, including the Ministry of Defence. So, financial resources are being withdrawn from troops on the frontline in Afghanistan so that civil servants can be kept in comfortable, guilt-free warmth. The government used carbon permit traders to buy the £60 million of carbon credits and those traders skimmed off 15% in commission. Why couldn’t the government buy its own carbon credits? Why did it have to use a carbon trader? How much longer will it be before we begin to see ex-politicians and gangsters becoming carbon traders? The whole thing reeks of corruption

History may well conclude that global warming was the biggest scam since the South Sea Bubble or Tulipomania. To find out more, read Extraordinary Popular Delusions and the Madness of Crowds by Charles MacKay.


  1. Personally, I'm grateful to (almost) anything that reduces pollution... we've been there, done that. But like you, I'm both suspicious of scientific zealousness and disturbed by the parallels between the oh-so-rational world of science and fundamentalist religion.

    Don't think it's in our genes, do you?

  2. Rreducin pollution and fossil fuel use has to be a good aim but the religious fervour, lies, big moneys and hectoring tones of the climate scientists make me suspicious. Something smells wrong about the frantic fanaticism.

  3. Ps: can you tell I typed that last comment on an iPhone. I need smaller fingers.

  4. Or a better phone - that actually has buttons to press.

  5. GK Chesterton was quoting Emile Cammaerts when he said, ‘When people stop believing in God, they don’t believe in nothing — they believe in anything.’ [The Laughing Prophets (1937) – a somewhat ironical title for the way our leaders are in 2010.] Thank God that the world’s politicians have discovered Climate Change for us.

  6. Carbon dioxide is NOT pollution. Plants need it to live. 12 thousand years ago North America and much of Europe were under a mile of ice. A thousand years ago there were vineyards in England. In the 16th century there was 3 ft of ice on the Thames. Was man responsible for any of those changes? Climate is constantly changing...end of story. If Britains want to ham string economic recovery by using tax payers money to make it difficult for their own industries to compete, by having to buy carbon credits...could someone explain to me how this will make one bit of difference to the climate?

  7. Throwing our economy back to the Stone Age won't affect the climate but it will make a lot of money for someone and bring misery to millions.

  8. T man may I suggest you Google...Elaine Dewar and her book "Cloak of Green". It connects the dots quite nicely.

  9. Who knows? Even if Global Warming is happening and no one really knows, perhaps humans will adapt and develop scales like desert snakes.

    Or perhaps we'll all disappear off the face of the Earth like the dodo.

    I can't imagine Mother Nature will care one way or the other.

    The first rule of nature is adapt or die. The second rule is balance will be achieved by any methods necessary.

    So if we turn the heat too much one way or the other, nature will eventually turn it back. And if we get burnt in the process? Not Nature's problem.

    I figure the planet will last the next 30 to 60 years, which depending on my saturated fat intake (ha-ha), my lifespan should fall into that range.

    So I don't worry about it overmuch.

  10. Did you know in America that Al Gore is invested heavily in 'Green' technologies? So guess who pushes green friendly legislation all the time...exactly, Gore.

    He gets rich and no one really knows if the crap he's requiring actually helps anything at all.

  11. The Australian government is putting a tender out for a carbon trader for some stupid reason or another. And they haven't even got a trading system through the Senate yet. Idiots.