Climate change alarmism is a belief system

I thought the role of a monarch was to stay above the fray. This is the kind of stupidity, both economic and political, that could turn even me into a republican, although, no doubt, we would elect a president even worse than this.

Prince Charles has called for an end to capitalism as we know it in order to save the planet from global warming.

In a speech to business leaders in London, the Prince said that a “fundamental transformation of global capitalism” was necessary in order to halt “dangerously accelerating climate change” that would “bring us to our own destruction”.

He called for companies to focus on “approaches that achieve lasting and meaningful returns” by protecting the environment, improving their employment practices and helping the vulnerable to develop a new “inclusive capitalism”.

But with a different perspective, and in this case from someone who understands politics in a way HRH never will, there is this, by Nigel Lawson, former Chancellor of the Exchequer, in a presentation with the title, “The Trouble With Climate Change“. And the trouble for him is that many of those who have a different view are beyond any rational discussion of this issue, something he knows from first hand experience. Here is the text:

There is something odd about the global warming debate — or the climate change debate, as we are now expected to call it, since global warming has for the time being come to a halt.

I have never shied away from controversy, nor — for example, as Chancellor — worried about being unpopular if I believed that what I was saying and doing was in the public interest.

But I have never in my life experienced the extremes of personal hostility, vituperation and vilification which I — along with other dissenters, of course — have received for my views on global warming and global warming policies.

For example, according to the Climate Change Secretary, Ed Davey, the global warming dissenters are, without exception, “wilfully ignorant” and in the view of the Prince of Wales we are “headless chickens”. Not that “dissenter” is a term they use. We are regularly referred to as “climate change deniers”, a phrase deliberately designed to echo “Holocaust denier” — as if questioning present policies and forecasts of the future is equivalent to casting malign doubt about a historical fact.

The heir to the throne and the minister are senior public figures, who watch their language. The abuse I received after appearing on the BBC’s Today programme last February was far less restrained. Both the BBC and I received an orchestrated barrage of complaints to the effect that it was an outrage that I was allowed to discuss the issue on the programme at all. And even the Science and Technology Committee of the House of Commons shamefully joined the chorus of those who seek to suppress debate.

In fact, despite having written a thoroughly documented book about global warming more than five years ago, which happily became something of a bestseller, and having founded a think tank on the subject — the Global Warming Policy Foundation — the following year, and despite frequently being invited on Today to discuss economic issues, this was the first time I had ever been asked to discuss climate change. I strongly suspect it will also be the last time.

The BBC received a well-organised deluge of complaints — some of them, inevitably, from those with a vested interest in renewable energy — accusing me, among other things, of being a geriatric retired politician and not a climate scientist, and so wholly unqualified to discuss the issue.

Perhaps, in passing, I should address the frequent accusation from those who violently object to any challenge to any aspect of the prevailing climate change doctrine, that the Global Warming Policy Foundation’s non-disclosure of the names of our donors is proof that we are a thoroughly sinister organisation and a front for the fossil fuel industry.

As I have pointed out on a number of occasions, the Foundation’s Board of Trustees decided, from the outset, that it would neither solicit nor accept any money from the energy industry or from anyone with a significant interest in the energy industry. And to those who are not-regrettably-prepared to accept my word, I would point out that among our trustees are a bishop of the Church of England, a former private secretary to the Queen, and a former head of the Civil Service. Anyone who imagines that we are all engaged in a conspiracy to lie is clearly in an advanced stage of paranoia.

The reason why we do not reveal the names of our donors, who are private citizens of a philanthropic disposition, is in fact pretty obvious. Were we to do so, they, too, would be likely to be subject to the vilification and abuse I mentioned earlier. And that is something which, understandably, they can do without.

That said, I must admit I am strongly tempted to agree that, since I am not a climate scientist, I should from now on remain silent on the subject — on the clear understanding, of course, that everyone else plays by the same rules. No more statements by Ed Davey, or indeed any other politician, including Ed Milliband, Lord Deben and Al Gore. Nothing more from the Prince of Wales, or from Lord Stern. What bliss!

But of course this is not going to happen. Nor should it; for at bottom this is not a scientific issue. That is to say, the issue is not climate change but climate change alarmism, and the hugely damaging policies that are advocated, and in some cases put in place, in its name. And alarmism is a feature not of the physical world, which is what climate scientists study, but of human behaviour; the province, in other words, of economists, historians, sociologists, psychologists and — dare I say it — politicians.

And en passant, the problem for dissenting politicians, and indeed for dissenting climate scientists for that matter, who certainly exist, is that dissent can be career-threatening. The advantage of being geriatric is that my career is behind me: there is nothing left to threaten.

But to return: the climate changes all the time, in different and unpredictable (certainly unpredicted) ways, and indeed often in different ways in different parts of the world. It always has done and no doubt it always will. The issue is whether that is a cause for alarm — and not just moderate alarm. According to the alarmists it is the greatest threat facing humankind today: far worse than any of the manifold evils we see around the globe which stem from what Pope called “man’s inhumanity to man”.

Climate change alarmism is a belief system, and needs to be evaluated as such.

It is beyond rational argument and into the realm of good and evil. We must reform capitalism, ruin our economies, devastate living standards in the name of a forecast change in global temperatures for which evidence has evaporated over the past fifteen years.

This entry was posted in Global warming and climate change policy. Bookmark the permalink.

44 Responses to Climate change alarmism is a belief system

  1. Rabz

    First again

    Exactly the sort of facile idiocy I’d expect from a bog standard gerbil worming bedwetter.

  2. Token

    I thought the movie The Young Victoria was interesting as it showed how Queen Victoria grew into the role of being the constitutional monarch of Britain during its golden age.

    The girl Victoria over-stepped the prescribed boundaries of the monarch and the result was people rioted. After that she reflected and evolved.

    One would hope they are playing the movie on repeat for the the future King Tampon, making sure he understand how the frugal and canny Albert’s conservative values were critical in ensuring the survival of the institution.

    Nah, we all know he is too thick to get it.

  3. Habib

    I wish that wingnut inbred sausage-eater would STFU. Who give a shit what that anarchronistic arsehat thinks about anything, whether climate change or reincarnation as a sanitary product? He’s nuttier than squirrel shit, and nowhere near as entertaining as his pater.

  4. hammy

    Poor old Rabz. Shitty because he could only manage second. Boo-hoo little petal.

  5. will

    Tell us more about your religious dogma, Hammy, about Gaia and other belief systems more suited to an age when humans howled at the Moon.

  6. Tom

    Simples. Just provide the empirical evidence we were promised (but mysteriously has never arrived) that anthropomorphic CO2 is the primary driver of global temperature. With real science in hand showing that the ACO2 atmospheric concentration can be reversed, we can begin modifying human behaviour accordingly.

    Every year that the “science” fails to prove the hypothesis and continues to rely on a totalitarian “consensus” to silence dissent hardens the conclusion that the hypothesis is merely an extremist political doctrine designed to smash the existing economic system and funnel money to the new ruling class’s technocrats.

    Q.E.D.

  7. I am the Walrus, Koo Koo K'Choo

    I think you mean ‘anthropogenic’, Tom.

    It’s the ALP’s front bench wot’s anthropomorphic.

    Love your work, by the way.

  8. Yon Toad

    This inbred goose, Prince Tampon of Parker Bowles, is just so wet.

  9. cynical1

    that anthropomorphic CO2 is the primary driver of global temperature.

    Actually, that’s wrong.

    The hypothesis is that increased C02 would cause more heat to be trapped and therefore, it
    could only be an upwards primary driver of temperature.

    The rules only changed when further observation provided proof that it’s a load of bollocks.

    EG: 17+ years of ever increasing emissions and sweet FA on the warming front.

    Orwell had these fuckers pegged.

  10. Ant

    Charlie’s never been the sharpest tool in the shed.

    It’s funny to hear the left embrace this bumbling privileged doofus who had it not been for luck of birth would be cleaning out street gutters somewhere.

    But he’s a Global Warming Dreamer, so he’s at least loved for that.

  11. To paraphrase, Karma is running over their dogma.

  12. Tom

    Woops, Walrus. Thanks for picking that up. I must be spanked forthwith by His Wordship, the Deadman.

  13. Eyrie

    Someone one called Prince Charles “Dagenham”. Two stations further out than Barking.

  14. jupes

    … for which evidence has evaporated over the past fifteen years.

    No no no. Sydney is currently experiencing its hottest May EVER.

  15. jupes

    Q.E.D.

    Q.E.D. my arse. No warming for 17 years and the official view of every western government is still the alarmist one.

    We are due for an El Nino and then the howler monkeys will be baying at the moon.

  16. Dr.Sir Fred Lenin

    Charlie is not taking his Meds again,must be all that German Inbreeding,German is bad enough ,but cousins marrying cousins causes major problems.

  17. Robert Blair

    Eyrie:

    Awesome! Love that English humor.

    If they could only shrug off the EU, and the Irish and Scottish, hopefully even the Welsh, they may become a great nation again.

  18. Token

    No no no. Sydney is currently experiencing its hottest May EVER.

    They invented the term “Artic Blast” to explain an intense cold spell in Northern America, then had to keep evolving the term across the longest and coldest winter for about 40 years.

  19. Dr.Sir Fred Lenin

    Grandfathers Colonel was of old Anglo Saxon Aristocracy he used to call the Royal Family “Those Demmed Germans”,well after all they had only been in England for onehundred odd years.New immigrants they were ,wonder what the Honorable Godfrey would call Charlie ? Something uncomplimentary I think.

  20. Max

    If they could only shrug off the EU, and the Irish and Scottish, hopefully even the Welsh, they may become a great nation again.

    The problem is that for 150 of the last 200 years they have had a queens and not kings.

    You cant underestimate the effect of a nation wide Oedipus syndrome that has had on national psychosis .

    Indeed World war 1 was started by first cousins, all grandsons of Queen Victoria. (King George V of Great Britain and Tsar Nicholas II of Russia on the one hand, and the German Kaiser on the other)

  21. Max

    http://www.bbc.co.uk/history/british/britain_wwone/cousins_at_war_01.shtml

    And no ww1 = no hitler = no ww2 = no holocaust = no cold war = no feminism

  22. Leo G

    UK Climate Change Secretary is wilfully ignorant of the philosophy of science, in implying that only universal blind acceptance of dangerous man-induced global warming can save mankind from its prophetic destruction by a climate catastrophe.
    Even the name ” Global Warming” is a farce. Is that globe terrestrial or celestial? The earth’s combined atmosphere and hydrosphere is not literally global in any sense- it’s shape approximates a spherical shell, not a globe (ie not a sphere). Or does anthropogenic carbon dioxide warm the earth to its core?

  23. Jeff T

    Mr Parker-Bowles is much admired you know. He laid down his wife for his King.

  24. John Comnenus

    The debate will be over when Anthropogenic Climate Change is declared a scientific Law! Until then, skepticism is the hallmark of the true scientist.

  25. Robbo

    Three cheers for Nigel Lawson, not only for having a totally delicious daughter, but also for being prepared to stick to his guns and demand sensible debate on the climate change issue. This vilification of those who question the “science” on this issue is the defence mechanism of the intolerant and bloody ignorant who demand that “because I have said it is true then you must accept what I say because I am a whole lot smarter than you”.
    If that less than bonny Prince Charlie continues to blither on about those who do not agree with him on the subject then I might well move over very quickly to support the republican cause. I will not be happy seeing him as titular head of Australia. He should be taking a leaf out of the book followed by his illustrious and intelligent mother. Some well meant advice to Charlie boy, shut up, smile a lot more and stop thinking that because you are a member of the Royal family you are smarter than a lot of the people who do not agree with you.

  26. jupes

    The debate will be over when Anthropogenic Climate Change is declared a scientific Law!

    Or when politicians accept that AGW theory has been debunked.

    Until then, skepticism is the hallmark of the true scientist.

    Or more likely we are stuck with the status quo: Politicians continue to ‘believe the science’ and spend billions of taxpayer’s dollars on a fantasy while simultaneously knobling industry.

  27. maurie

    Why the surprise? Hitler managed to con an at the time modern & mostly literate nation simply by appealing to their selfish emotions! Our union owned Labor/Greens have applied that same method since their inception. Even they must be so surprised & even disgusted at how easy it was for them to enact their vote buying scam tax! Sadly, in the long run they then will view the electorate with even more contempt. Sadly for Australia, a frighteningly large slice of the coalition are either too brainless or too scared to denigrate this selfish deliberate national destruction!

  28. Robert O.

    The real problem about global warming has nothing to with fact; it’s that people who have supported it, and for the most don’t understand science, cannot admit they are wrong. If there were some evidence relating levels of carbon dioxide to an increase in temperature let’s see it. Genuine science has nothing to do with consensus and the precautionary principle which have been dragged into the justification of the dogma. We should all believe in climate change, because it has in the past, does now, and will do so in the future.

  29. manalive

    In a politically-charged speech at the Inclusive Capitalism conference, the Prince said: “I remember when the Iron Curtain came down there was a certain amount of shouting about the triumph of capitalism over communism. Being somewhat contrary, I didn’t think it was quite as simple as that …”

    Both dopey Charley and his mad dad believe in reincarnation, him as a tampon (so he could live inside Camilla’s trousers) and Pip as a deadly virus (to lower population levels).
    That might explain how Charley can remember the Iron Curtain coming down because Churchill’s famous speech “from Stettin in the Baltic to Trieste in the Adriatic an iron curtain has descended across the Continent” was made two and a half years before he was born.

  30. Joe Goodacre

    An interesting read, thanks for the post Steve.

  31. Boambee John

    “And no ww1 = no hitler = no ww2 = no holocaust = no cold war = no feminism”

    I saw a comment on a US blog recently, asking if the 1960s would have been the same if abortion and birth control had been readily available in the 1940s – how many of the 1960s radicals would never have been born?

  32. JohnA

    Hmm, I could start a rumour to the effect that Claridge House is being re-decorated – in shades of green.

    But that could be construed as a Cla(b-)ridge too far…

  33. danger mouse

    Long live the Queen

  34. Walter Plinge

    Sshh…don’t mention Duchy Originals. Nice little capitalist earner.

  35. Our royal family are inbred cretins [and so forth]

    Oh, no they’re not.
    John III of portugal had only ten unique great-grandparents instead of sixteen and one of the great-great-grandparents was also a great-grandparent; Phillip III of Spain (and Portugal) also had only ten discrete great-great-grandparents and four of them were also great-grandparents and two other great-grandparents were also grandparents; poor old Charles II of Spain had only nine discrete great-great-grandparents, and all eight of his great-grandparents were descended from Joanna the Mad); Alfonso XII of Spain had only four discrete great-grandparents (and one pair of those were parents and parents-in-law of the other two), and only seven great-great-grandparents: that’s inbreeding. The Queen, however, has sixteen discrete great-great-grandparents (though one, Queen Victoria, was the niece of another, Prince Adolphus, Duke of Cambridge); her husband—and third cousin (which is not all that close)—the Duke of Edinburgh, also has a full set of sixteen great-great-grandparents: that’s not particularly inbred. The royal family are in fact a lot less inbred than many notable aristocratic families of Britain.
    Egyptian pharaohs, however, or your average “asylum-seeker” from Afghanistan or Pakistan…
    The Prince of Wales may justly be criticised on many grounds; his supposed inbreeding is not one.

  36. Though “anthropomorphic” be an error for “anthropogenic” in AGW, the former adjective is, sadly, more appropriate for most awarmists: they constantly resort to the pathetic fallacy, and are ever complaining, unscientifically, of vicious weather and angry summers and furious storms and so on.

  37. Bruce of Newcastle

    Patrick Moore, the founder of Greenpeace a fortnight ago described environmentalism as a religion.

    When one of your own leading lights says this I think it means the duck really is a duck.

  38. Bill

    England has always had ageing eccentrics in castles – they are a valuable tourist attraction.

    (It’s people who take Wingnut seriously that you should worry about).

  39. wmmbb

    Great reference Bruce.

    I pick out this quote at the beginning of the interview:

    I have always been left in terms of social issues and right in terms of economic policy.

    I don’t know it is logically consistent for Patrick Moore to claim he is an centrist. Aside from lack of knowledge and understanding the use of demonization makes conversation impossible. I don’t understand why it is that an economic philosophy would predispose toward climate change denial. No doubt that is a large gap in my understanding. Economics and climate are both studies of systems, so positive feedback might be possible, even expected. I accept some of what Patrick Moore says. For example, energy efficiency is an economic good, and if battery technology is to developed and used, specific minerals will be required, as presumably will be economies of scale.

  40. Bruce of Newcastle

    Wmmbb – Be careful. Dr Moore has been anathemised by the green left so badly that Greenpeace has been airbrushing him from their own history.

    James Lovelock has been saying much the same thing: that the climate data does not support a high sensitivity for CO2. Therefore the environmental movement are damaging their credibility by backing a horse which is unsupported by the real world data.

    The thing which frustrates scientists like me (I’m a R&D chemist) is that I cannot engage in a scientific discussion of the merits of the IPCC high sensitivity hypothesis vs the climate sceptics low sensitivity hypothesis. I can provide very extensive data and publications which all shows empirically that CO2 doesn’t have much impact, but whenever I try to discuss this and compare the scientific background to the respective hypotheses the global warming people refuse to debate. Dr Moore and Dr Lovelock appear to have looked at the same data as I have and have come to the same conclusion – that there is nothing to fear.

    But if you, Wmmbb, say that within the hearing of someone in your side of politics…well my counsel to you is don’t do it. You will not get a sympathetic hearing. A pile of wood, a stake and a match is much more likely.

    I think the Left is committing suicide by pushing nonsense…or non science…but I’ve yet to find an argument which breaks them out of the dogma which is prevalent. Which makes me sad. Science should be based on the data irrespective of politics.

  41. Bruce of Newcastle

    if battery technology is to developed and used, specific minerals will be required, as presumably will be economies of scale

    That is another area I comment upon often. Batteries are good. Unfortunately when you get into the technical aspects and resource economics, there are problems when you read the fine print.

    Lithium batteries are the best, and usually are the ones the left push: like Elon Musk and his recent announcements. He is talking of hundreds of Li-ion battery “gigafactories”.

    Anyone with an internet connection can rapidly work out that the world currently produces about 50,000 tonnes of lithium a year. And lithium is rare because its not favoured by cosmological nucleosynthetic processes. So massive expansion of lithium mining isn’t very feasible (it comes mainly from salars and spodumene – look them up). There just isn’t much out there and the lithium mines now operating tend to be based on the richest deposits. Extra mining capacity will therefore be more costly, being from lower grade and more difficult deposits.

    Nothing in any of Mr Musk’s announcements make me think he understands the resource limits for lithium. If you expand lithium battery production massively you need proportionate amounts of lithium. The 50kt/a of Li now produced is only enough to support 2-3 million Tesla S cars per year – which is less than a quarter of the US market, let alone the world market. And ignoring its use in mobile phones etc. As soon as lithium mining fails to keep up with consumption the price will skyrocket – making Teslas even more expensive than they are now.

    This is what bugs me badly. These people waft out ideas and thought bubbles without thinking through the consequences. It is so easy to show these things are infeasible and/or astoundingly uneconomic. When I see, over and over, that they cannot even do simple logical sums correctly, it does not inspire me to believe their claims of climate apocalypse.

  42. Steve D

    So peak lithium is more real than peak oil. When do the protests start?

  43. Alfonso

    Oh dear…..Kings and Queens need to be reserve power fete openers and otherwise Shut The F Up.
    That’s what we need to avoid a President like say an ex Justice Kirby type turning the country into a version of Lateline.
    A Presidentless Republic would get my vote.

Comments are closed.