What is it about global warming that turns sane men into ranting alarmists?

The science of climate change is far from settled, but one thing’s for sure: energy bills are set to rise. So why don’t Labour’s gurus offer practical policy ideas instead of doom-laden prophecies?

Stern is just as cheerful, if less melodramatic. He says we’re all doomed unless the world halves its CO2 emissions by 2050, which requires a cut of 80 per cent in the developed world. Well, Nicky old boy, forecasting is always difficult, especially for the future, but if we need to cut four-fifths off our energy use in just 42 years, I can tell you we won’t do it, not even if oil goes to $500 a barrel. The existing pledge for 20 per cent of energy from renewables by 2020 hasn’t a prayer of being met either, as the government knew full well when it made it. Of course, even if Labour is in power then, those making the pledge will have long since gone.

The fatuous slogan for the Scottish Climate Change Programme is ‘Do a little, change a lot’, as if we can save the planet by switching to those dismal low-energy bulbs and turning off the stand-by on the telly. This is gesture politics at its most pathetic, but it’s hardly surprising that people believe it when bodies like the Royal Society have abandoned science in favour of polemic.

In June last year, the society presented eight ‘misleading arguments’ to counter the climate-change sceptics. The paper attacks those who disagree with the party line as seeking ‘to distort and undermine the science of climate change and deny the seriousness of the potential consequences of global warming’. It has taken the Centre for Policy Studies, a right-wing think tank, a whole year to respond, but it is at least a scientific response, and it highlights the weaknesses and plain mistakes in the global warmers’ bible, the report from the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change.

Previous page 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 Next page

More articles from: Neil Collins | this section

Print this article | Email to a friend | Permalink | Comments (2)

Post this entry to: del.icio.us | Digg | Newsvine | NowPublic | Reddit

Post comment

Kit

July 4th, 2008 12:41pm Report this comment

I assume Abby Taubin's "little financial encouragement" will mean higher taxes and energy bills for the rest of us. No thanks.
If micro-generation was financially viable or an efficient method of generating energy we would all be doing it.

Amelie

August 7th, 2008 2:47pm Report this comment

Over the last few years I have read/watched with interest all the coverage on Global Warming and would like some straight answers.
Who are the main greenhouse polluters, I've read that 20% come from cows, and that 20% actually comes from the leaf degredation in the forests around the world, so my question is what percentage of the harmful gases are actually created by man, industry and driving cars ?
My impression is that we can actually have little affect overall, since we account for very little of the greenhouse gas creation.
Therefore is this just over hyped ? Is the Global warming industry too big for us to have a good look at the real facts and get back to reality ?

Post comment