Bishop Hill Guilty men and guilty women
Sep 27, 2011 Climate: Parliament I've just been sent this video and transcript of Baroness Worthington speaking at an seminar called the CDKN Action Lab (H/T Barry Woods). In it she explains the roles she, David Cameron and David Milliband played in bringing the UK's Climate Change Act into being. When the time comes to point the finger of blame this will be a good place to start.
I started out in climate change, possibly like other people. My main passion after leaving university was environmental protection and biodiversity and habitats protection and species conservation.
I think it was around the mid-90s when I realised that all the work I had been doing to try and conserve species and habitats was about to be hit by this massive tidal wave of a problem which was global climate change. And, it was quite soon after that I tried to shift from the work I had been doing on legal protection of species and habitats to working on climate change, and I was fortunate enough to be employed by Friends of the Earth as their UK climate change campaigner. So that was my very first job that was specifically looking at climate change.
And after joining... I started to get very interested in the data...so I’m a little bit of a data geek I’m afraid. I like spread sheets and numbers. And I feel safe knowing the number tell you something and you can rely on them hopefully. So I looked at what was going on in the UK’s emissions history...of its record. And I realised that although we had been doing reasonably well in reducing our emissions. It had nothing to do with government policy. It was almost an accident, and it was largely down to the shift to gas. We discovered North Sea gas, we exploited it and built a lot of gas fired powered stations and those replaced pretty filthy old coal powered stations and we had a double benefit. So not only is gas a much cleaner fuel, but the stations themselves were newer and more efficient. So the government was very happy telling everyone, “We’ve got climate change licked, you know, were are doing very well". But actually it was an accident of economic policy. Nothing to do with the environment really.
And, so what then happened was in 1997 we had a Labour Government come into power. And their view of the world was slightly different to the preceding government and they actually brought in a moratorium on the building of gas fire powered stations, because they could see what was happening, which was essentially our coal base was being destroyed. Our miners were being put out of work and our power stations were shutting down. So they stopped the building of gas.
And pretty much things stood still for a while and what then happened was emissions started bouncing around a bit. So global commodity prices started shifting and you would see that if coal was particularly cheap, and gas was very expensive you would see these sudden spikes in our emissions when everyone switched back to coal. Those power stations that had been there since the 60’s were turned back on re-powered and started producing electricity again and this meant that really as a country we had no real control over our admissions.
We like to think we have this very sophisticated handle on the mitigation of climate change, but actually we were really at the mercy of global commodity prices. And, I felt that this was something that needed to be addressed if we were going to really seriously track down our emissions steadily over several decades we needed levers and tools which would enable us to control these forces...these uncontrollable economic impacts.
So, it was also slightly coloured by my background which I had been working on a campaign for new laws for biodiversity and I felt a legal solution for climate change was needed. The government policy at the time was to have policy documents. Every five years they would produce, a very nicely produced, very well written, very well meaning, but actually full of tiny, little policies. You know, a little bit of energy efficiency here, possibly a little bit of support for renewables over here, but no comprehensive view of: What are the big drivers of the economy? How do we get a handle on making these go in the right direction?
So we had two of these lovely looking climate change programmes, which did nothing really to drive emissions down and we at Friends of the Earth wrote a submission in the review before the third one to say, “Look guys are going to have to stop doing this and start a new approach, because this bottom up kind of tinkering with bits of policy is not delivering." And so we wrote a document which called for the introduction of carbon budgets, which is not a new idea, anyone who knows how the Kyoto Protocol works knows that, that sets the world’s carbon budgets. It says this is the amount we should be emitting as developed countries. And over this five year period you developed countries have to stay within that carbon budget - you can trade, but you know there’s a limit on how much you can emit.
So we thought take that idea and make it a national policy, so we will create a legal framework, with the UK Government is not just facing one five year budget created by the UN, but a succession of five year budgets leading out all the way to 2050. So that you have a line of emissions that’s known in advance, that is reducing over that period of time and everyone will...that will be a legally binding commitment. So that was Friends of the Earth’s suggestion.
And as with anything, when you are an NGO and you’re on the outside lobbying...you kind of hope that you are going to have an impact, you’re never really very sure. So we sent this document off. We had some signs that it was being well received, Elliot Morley who was environment minister at the time invited us in, and you know, he is a lovely man and said, “This is the sort of thing we should be doing”, but we never really thought he’d have the power to do it.
But, then something changed, we then had a newly elected leader of the opposition. So David Cameron came in and wanted to reinvent the Conservative Party. And he decided to take an environmental theme. He changed the logo to a tree and he’d obviously listened to the focus groups. He’d realised that the environment was actually an issue for the electorate. So he was lobbied by the Friends of the Earth and he said, “Yeah, I’ll deliver you a Climate Change Act. If you vote me in I’ll give you the bill you want that will bring in this legal framework.” And that was hugely important, that Friends of the Earth campaign that enabled that got the opposition to take up this policy was really important.
At the same time David Miliband had just been made secretary of state for the Department of Food and the Environment and Rural Affairs I think it was then, the bit of government that did climate change. And he was also a young very powerful, dynamic character and he wanted to make his mark and I think initially he was quite sceptical about needing legislation, but there was David Cameron saying he would deliver a bill. So very quickly it became Government policy that they would also deliver a bill.
So already you can see that this process for change was dependent on things that you could not have predicted. That you needed certain characters in certain positions to really take this agenda forward. And, the degree of luck really involved was really quite astounding. And, it did really come down to these personalities these big people who wanted to make a difference.
So by the time David Miliband joined DEFRA, I had left Friends of the Earth, having set up the campaign, I spent some time in a power company learning how things work there, which was very interesting and they had then seconded me into DEFRA. So when David Miliband arrived and said, “Right it looks like we are going to have to have a Climate Change Bill, who do we know in the department who can help us with this?
Then someone said, “Well, Byrony wrote the document that Friends of the Earth, that kicked this whole thing off. Why don’t we get her in and see if she can help?” So I got shifted off my...I was doing some work on public awareness and a campaign about educating about climate change and told, “Right, you’re going to be part of a team of civil servants. We want you to draft a bill.”
And I mean it was quite a challenge. We were a team of I think about eight of us working full time - tasked with preparing a draft bill, and not just a fairly large bill but also in a quite short period of time David Miliband was convinced he was going to be reshuffled off to another department. So he wanted action fast. So he said,”I want this bill in three months”. So the lawyers all said,”No, no, no... you can’t get a bill done in three months. It will take six or may be a year”. And we said, “Well, we’ve only got three months so let’s try it.
And that speed was another key factor, that looking back on it was really important, because one thing that Whitehall is very good at doing is producing huge amounts of documents, and papers, and concepts, and notes, but if you are moving fast often if you bombard people with huge amounts of information they will usually find a couple of things that they object to and then you have to have a process of negotiation on those one or two issues as opposed to the minute of every single clause, every single policy.
So we were fortunate in away that, because.. Let’s not pretend that the Government was united in wanting this. The Department of the Environment was very in favour, DFID was in favour, FCO was pretty much in favour, but certainly the Treasury thought this was a terrible idea and the Department of Business thought it was a terrible idea and largely because they felt the UK acting alone would be really detrimental to our competitiveness. And here we were proposing a self-imposed target that was going to last until 2050. And it would introduce costs and force businesses to move overseas...and the world was going to end, according to the Treasury. And we kept saying, “We don’t think that’s true. It’s all very moderate, very manageable and it’s important, because we have got to show leadership”, and it was.
So we ended up arguing with the Treasury more on the principle than on the detail. Because we were moving so fast that they had may be one or two policy people covering our brief, whereas we had a team of lawyers and us and all our special advisors and we were - basically, were able to outwit them a little bit by moving quickly so that was another element that led to it being successful.
And the draft bill come out with I think elements that were true to the Friends of the Earth concept. Friends of the Earth always wanted it to be more ambitious, or slightly different in its format, but it had the basic premise there which that was a legally binding cap, that would make the whole government responsible for delivering emissions reductions.
It had adaptation clauses in there. It had enabling powers that meant that in the future if the government wanted to introduce policies to constrain emissions they could do so easily.
And importantly it created an independent body called the Committee on Climate Change who would advise the government on how the budgets should be set and met over time. And those elements, those sort of key elements are what are now in the bill today.
And I think, where are we now? 2011. It was finally signed off by parliament in 2008. And has it made a difference? Well, I think the major difference it’s achieved is it’s made government take this issue more seriously. I don’t think it’s necessarily driving down emissions exactly the way we wanted it to, but every department now has a responsibility towards meeting the requirements of this bill.
There is an independent body - the Committee on Climate Change - who are able to talk to the media and create a sense of pressure on government to do the right thing. And we will know in the next few months, the fourth carbon budget is going to be set. Now the proposals from the committee are quite impressive they are quite tight, they are quite challenging and we are going to be seeing now how government is going to respond when that goes through parliament in terms of, will government stay true to its ideas of being a green government? And back a tight fourth carbon budget. So we will see what happens in the next few months. And actually, I should say my role since doing all this - I’ve just been made a baroness so... in the House of Lords and so my role having being involved in this, in quite a number of ways, my final role will be seeing how it goes through in the House of Lords and I’m hoping to be able to use my position to make sure it is as tight as it possibly can be.
Bishop Hill
Barry Woods points to some of his earlier research about Bryony Worthington.
Reader Comments (172)
Why?
Why does this twonk have so much influence?
A unbearable and insufferably, biased eco campaigner.
Trying to extract blood from a stone, would be an a more 'useful endeavour' , than, attempting to seek an objective opinion from this Lady.
But then and in synopsis, this tale, highlights, no, pinpoints - exactly how the AGW palaver and scam of the century has been hijacked by people who really command no particular expertise or relevant scientific knowledge - and all too evidently, arrive at the 'table', with an big axe to grind - Ms. Worthington a perfect exemplar.
If [maybe] a few suitably trained engineers were consulted [in the climate Act, draft] then OK, but these people who have no real applicable skills -BUT, who have an inordinate input. A two-penneth, completely out of proportion, indeed an input which, is in an inverse proportion, ie, as their influence grows on Government 'green policy': the more you don't know = the more influence you wield.
What is going on here? Does, has she for even for an instant, considered the impact her much desired batty schemes and barmy targets have on; industry, manufacturing and the nations future?
I'll be willing to bet she loves her gizmos and gadgets and lecky - computers and laptops galore - where is all that glorious juice going to come from in the future - has she given that one some thought?
Perhaps she thinks power will come from gaia's good wishes and green ectoplasm, or perhaps Ms. Worthington has invested in a large diesel generator?
Roger Longstaff's very first post on this comment thread made me realise just how unaware of its own insignificance the UK climate denial 'movement' is:
Please may I remind everybody here that there is an epetition to repeal this disgusting legislation:
http://epetitions.direct.gov.uk/petitions/2035
This has been running for over a month now and there have only been 555 signatures.
Can you not see the irony of this? No-one believes you, or worse no-one cares. The petition against EU Anti-tampering proposed legislation for motorcycles has 20 times as many signatures, while the petition to Keep Formula 1 Free To Air in the UK has fifty times more signatures.
@ScotsRenewables
Thanks for the prompt - yes, indeed this must be signed by everyone!
Do you have talk-back radio in the UK? I would be surprised if you didn't.
Here in Australia a couple of talk-back radio hosts and print journalists have swung public opinion by
(a) getting (real) expert advice (engineering as opposed to post-modern science)
(b) disseminating the core messages that the stupid policies of our government cannot possibly have any significant impact on climate and will inevitably be economically harmful.
Watch what happens at the next Federal election. Many are predicting a train wreck for Labor who seem to think they can bribe their way back.
Why is the camera angle like that?
Don Pablo,
My reading of Geoffchamber's remark re libel was more along the lines that he suggested that if you step off a curb into traffic one outcome is that you may be hit by a car - not a threat from him at all, but more speculation on one possible reaction to your assertions.
@Dreadnought> "Better an idle fool than a busy one."
Yup.
Let's hope the don't put her in charge of inventing jargon for the GCMs.
Additional Bryony-vision: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=f4i8SUCnZyE
Does not seem to be very honest, e.g.
'...if you are making reductions in your home, to maybe reduce your electricity consumption, you are actually just releasing permits, that can be used by someone else...'
Probably a frustrated climatologist...
Don Pablo Sep 27, 2011 at 9:37 PM
I wasn’t challenging your credentials or the correction of your diagnosis, just making the point that, bipolar or not, she’s utterly typical (better than “normal” - thanks) of a section of the British middle classes to which I happen to belong. The power they wield in all three main UK parties is illegitimate and frightening.
My mention of libel action wasn’t a threat, more a suggested tactic - the Marquess of Queensberry gambit - since there is no platform in British politics or the media on which her views can be effectively challenged.
Your mention of inbred Siamese cats is suggestive. Mental inbreeding within the British educated classes is a possible explanation of what’s happening. The bipolar, the priggish, the ignorant, and the plain off-the-wall are with us always. The point is to try and understand how they came to take over the asylum.
"Mental inbreeding within the British educated classes is a possible explanation of what’s happening."
I attribute it to the presence of mutagenic compounds in WWI poison gases.
geoffchambers
I accept your explanation. However, you must realize that your words can be interpreted as a bully tactic which the British are well known to have used for against the Irish since Elizabeth I decide to teach us a lesson. I am the family historian and genealogist and well versed in Irish history. I bring to your attention the Black and Tans let loose in Ireland after WWI. You might consider me sensitive to your remark, but you do not know what these bully boys did to my own family. Enough of that, however.
And as you might realize, I am in no fear of the absurd libel laws of the UK. First, of all, even if trumped up charges were filed, I am well outside of the Pale. And should charges be filed successfully, you must remember that I was describing symptoms which are very clearly there. The question of what they mean was carefully avoided. And the defense I would use to defend myself would be the only one possible under British libel law, which is to demonstrate that they are in fact true. I would simply show the video and have other competent authorities testify that those are symptoms consisting with manic bipolar syndrome. Do you think that they would want the risk that getting into the Daily Mail or whatever?
I think not.
The other points you make are interesting. In breeding is a very possible cause. We should run genetic tests testing for DRD4 . I might point out that bipolar is also genetically linked, as are many other problems. I do not know if Siamese cats carry these genes in their genotype, but given the way many demand attention, constant petty, and endless kitty treats, I suspect they may. But that is just speculation.
My bad --- not "petty" but "petting"
Also, any videos of my latest research subject standing while talking? I am willing to bet she does "knead".
I might reiterate that I have seen this behavior elsewhere, but have no references to point to.
An interesting lady and disturbing video - which demonstrates just how much the unelected NGO activists (and their apparently unfettered handwaving) now influence the political parties and government. If Holyrood and Westminster are riddled with NGO activists (as Donna has so clearly shown is the case with the IPCC), surely WWF and FoE are being overtly political and should lose their charitable status?
Has anyone ever asked Baroness Worthington the key questions which Steve Price and Andrew Bolt asked Jill Duggan (of the European Commission Directorate General of Climate Action and the UK government's head of international emissions trading) on their Australian radio show earlier this year, i.e.
- How much is cutting carbon emissions (by 20% by 2020) target going to cost?
- How much, even if you meet this target, how much will this sacrifice reduce the global average temperature by?
http://www.mtr1377.com.au/index2.php?option=com_newsmanager&task=view&id=8095 (interview starts at 19 minutes - [ interview transcript - http://www.coalpowermag.com/commentary/310.html ]
As Jill Duggan clearly didn't know the answer to either of these questions for the EU region, perhaps Baroness Worthington (who we now know like numbers and spreadsheets, and was so instrumental in bringing about the UK's Climate Change Act) could be so kind as to answer for the UK ? In the hope that Barony Worthington reads this, I'll ask the questions now:
- How much will reducing the UK's CO2 emissions by 80% by 2050 to meet the Climate Change Act (2008) cost the UK economy?
If the targets are met, how much will this have reduced the average global temperature by in 2050, and how much will the reduction be in 2100 if the target is met and sustained until then?
Considering the socio-economic implications of decarbonising the UK, a reply would be very much appreciated.
Can anyone assure me that 'Call-a-Tumbril' has her address correctly recorded? We may need a rush job from them.........
I couldn't watch it all the urge to slap my screen was becoming too strong...
@ Toad Sep 27, 2011 at 11:10 PM and Sep 27, 2011 at 11:19 PM
Thank you for the links. The first reminded me that I read about Samantha Cameron`s affiliation with Greenpeace in that Geoffrey Lean article. Your second link also reminded me that, during the election, she was reported by political columnists as always sitting in on meetings where policy was discussed; the implication being that she had a significant, if not decisive, input.
One day an investigative journalist, who is not a lobby hack, will investigate and publish the full story. When the lights go out, the sewage pumps fail (as described by the Aggreko CEO in my earlier link here:
http://www.aggreko.com/media-centre/video-centre/rupert-soames-speech.aspx) we shall know who to blame.
My own view is that nothing will change until the present party leaderships (Cameron, Clegg and MilibandE) and Huhne are ejected from their respective positions and are replaced by practical politicians (if such still exist). At least the Conservative party has a deserved reputation for ruthlessness when it comes to its leaders. The only question is whether we have to wait until the pending energy crisis actually strikes the UK.
Oldtimer
"My own view is that nothing will change until the present party leaderships (Cameron, Clegg and MilibandE) and Huhne are ejected from their respective positions and are replaced by practical politicians (if such still exist). At least the Conservative party has a deserved reputation for ruthlessness when it comes to its leaders."
Sadly, even the Tories have now shown themselves to be more influenced by image and style than substance - how else can you possibly explain Stuntman Dave's rise to a position of power?
Practical politicians I think are sadly an aging and now dying breed, and until there are major changes to UK politics (three parties offering policies that you have to look hard to tell the difference), the media and the influence of NGOs and lobbyists, things are going to stay much of a muchness.
Anyone else spot this howler: "So we sent this document off. We had some signs that it was being well received, Elliot Morley who was environment minister at the time invited us in, and you know, he is a lovely man and said, “This is the sort of thing we should be doing”, but we never really thought he’d have the power to do it."
In case you didn't recognise the name, the very same Elliot Morley who was: MPs' jailed for 16 months for expenses fraud.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/2011/may/20/mps-expenses-elliot-morley-sentenced
There's never even a hint that this woman has ever considered asking ordinary people if they might want to do any of these things. Govt is something for her and her friends to use to their own ends. She exists in a bubble of confirmation. She wouldn't speak this openly, damning herself with ever sentence, if she had the slightest doubt about her fitness to rule. That is what we are looking at here, one of our rulers.
Truly a 'Let them eat cake' moment.
Stuck-record:
according to his Guardian article from 2006
http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2006/nov/15/sleepwalkingtooblivion
Elliot Morley was “president and chair of Globe International 2006 and the prime minister’s special representative to the Gleneagles Dialogue on Climate Change”
some prophetic gems from the lovely man himself:
“The EU emission trading scheme is a success ... Tony Blair has enormous international respect for the international lead he has given on climate change ... Gordon Brown[‘s] incisive economic analysis will be crucial... Many look to Mrs Merkle to give a lead internationally ...”
“Yeah, I’ll deliver you a Climate Change Act. If you vote me in I’ll give you the bill you want that will bring in this legal framework.”
Is that not touching on electoral fraud, buying votes etc...
Give me your votes and I'll give you the legal framework your lobby wants?
In my opinion, this is another GATE moment but for the life of me, I cannot think of the best prefix.
Baronessgate
Bryonygate
Worthingtongate
Bi-Polargate
Help
This is a disturbing insight into how modern government works. It is not deeply considered policy making but reacting to modern fads by throwing money at them in order to further some positive "image".
This the level at which cameron and milliband operate.
The problem is that they think that it's a free image. However once the policies start to bite and hurt people's quality of life and AGW is shown to be an exaggerated claim then they will wake up. The only question is how many years and billions of pounds will be spent between now and then.
"This is a disturbing insight into how modern government works."
Amazing. The glee with which this apparat-chick relates how not scrutinising the proposed legislation line-by-line, clause-by-clause, as is usually done, is actually an advantage of rushing the Climate Act through Parliament.
Starting at about 5 mins in this video should be required viewing for every UK citizen who imagines that their vote counts.
NGO-Gate
NGO-Gate
Like it
Some interesting links about our Bryony (curtesy of Euref).
Turns out she is a board member of 10:10. And a cheerleader for Carbon sequestration scam. Also anti-nuclear.
http://www.foe.co.uk/blog/Bryony_19_11_10_26029.html
http://www.realclimategate.org/2010/11/climate-connections-an-alarmist-in-the-houses-of-parliament/
http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/blog/2010/nov/19/labour-peer-bryony-worthington
http://www.joabbess.com/2009/06/17/irony-bryony-worthington/
Bryony thought that Tata was taking revenge for her Carbon Budgets, when Tata announced thousands of job losses in the UK, due to carbon taxes
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2011/06/07/green-economic-thinking-revenge-not-economics/
Baroness Bryony Worthington clearly has no undestsnding of business or economics in the private sector.
NGO -gate only works in the UK
How about
Greeniegate
Hippygate
BRYONYGATE
Hi I found the video on my nightly GREEN WATCH and typed out the transcript and sent it to Barry Woods.
I am sure it will lead to an inquiry. It exposes a number of issues from lack of democracy, accountability, vested interest, due process, careerism, and incompetence.
I also think there is something odd about Bryony's manner. It could be another case of psychosis, she is speaking on camera and her hair is a total mess. Is this a sign of self-care deficit? She is also very monotone.
This is proving to be a repetition of the Iraq policy blunder. There we had the student Phd. document and of course Alastair Campbell, who suffers from paranoid schizophrenia, chairing key meetings.
Now we have Bryony's non-peer-reviewed paper on carbon budgets and signs and symptoms which need explaining.
There is also the issue of Bryony's employment - she always seemed to be in the right place, at just the right time. She has clear links with carbon trading vested interests, so was someone telling her what to do and where to go next?
On the point of the Campaign to Repeal the Climate Change Act - it is difficult to get a bunch of conservatives on a demo. All of the activists are on the other side of this debate, which is a bit of a block on action. We need to be more radical if we want change to happen.
My first reaction to the vid was "how on earth can someone talk that long without having to pause to think." My second reaction was that it all makes perfect sense. I don't buy the conspiracy theories.
Worthington thought that global warming was going to cause a catastrophe. Her actions follow logically from that premise.
The disconnect happened long ago, at the moment she failed to address the prophecies of armageddon caused by CO2 with a sceptic's eye. And it's another case of someone who cares about species extinctions and yet has taken their eye off the ball to be seduced into Carbon Catastrophe. As far as I know, no species have yet been exterminated by CO2.
The almost Shakespearean tragedy is that, from naive, principled actions, may come the consequences of anti-CO2 policies - *provable* excess deaths this winter via the spiraling cost of heating homes.
I have tried to calculate how much Renewables Obligation Certificates and other policies are adding to my bills, but I just can't find the data to do it to my satisfaction. Anyone else have a figure on it?
I wondered for a while if this new baroness might be, at last, an example of a worthy proponent of climate alarmism - as opposed to the remarkably large number of decidedly unimpressive prominent proponents. But she fails for me for a couple of reasons. First and foremost, she is probably more of a victim of climate alarmism than one of its primary pushers and plotters. Secondly, she was a board member of the 10:10 campaign who produced, rejoiced in for a while, and published the execrable 'No Pressure' video. I cannot regard anyone associated in any executive way with that 'piece of work' as admirable. Unless perhaps they subsequently resigned, went on an extensive pilgrimage or other penance, and have since devoted themselves to good works rather than being involved in scaring people, and serving as useful idiots for that very destructive political initiative known as climate alarmism.
The video above is however useful as a source of insight into the vulnerability of our political system, and deserves further study for that reason alone. Barry Woods has more insights and relevant names and actions here: http://wattsupwiththat.com/2011/06/07/green-economic-thinking-revenge-not-economics/
This casestudy from the Institute for Government sheds more sunlight onto the behind-the-scenes activity leading to the climate change bill.
http://www.instituteforgovernment.org.uk/pdfs/IfG_policymaking_casestudy_climate_change.pdf
with most energy players in the UK pulling back from nuclear without Governmental guarantess, it is hard to see how anything could emerge from a thorium reactor....
Does she really believe that? Can she really be so naive as to believe these "big people" weren't looking after themselves first?
Oh, I see my question was answered already. Thank you.
" I spent some time in a power company learning how things work there"
Which is how big crony capitalist businesses work. If you are an ignorant parasite in the revolving door between being paid by a government funded alarmist hobgoblin factory and official government employment you are sought out by the bosses of power companies in a way that mere engineers aren't.
The only way to end crony capitalism is to make government far smaller and its decisions more transparent.
This a very telling example of the nepotositic relationships between the rich and government.
They all know each other, the rich throw these great parties.
The rich marry the powerful and then sit on the boards that influence the powerful.
The retired political figures join well funded boards of the NGO's.
The NGO's mislead and misrepresent and give a huge voice to splinter groups in policiy debates.
This is much worse than lobbying.
Jeremy writes:
"Does she really believe that? Can she really be so naive as to believe these "big people" weren't looking after themselves first?"
Bertolt Brecht is really good on this question. Read his play "The Measures Taken." She believes in The Cause and the authenticity of her brothers and sisters as fully as any member of a communist cell. Not to say that she is actually a dedicated communist. But the emotional resonance is the same.
Faye Kelly - Tuncay writes:
"I also think there is something odd about Bryony's manner. It could be another case of psychosis, she is speaking on camera and her hair is a total mess. Is this a sign of self-care deficit? She is also very monotone."
This is the prescribed manner for radical feminist academics in the USA. Maybe the UK should consider creating a department of feminist studies in each and every college no matter how small. Bryony would be far less harmful if she were lecturing on the thesis that Maleness is the root of all evil.
I enjoyed your post immensely. I wish you great success in your stated endeavors.
Please tell me what an English Literature graduate can contribute to the climate change debate except
ignorance of the scientific method and hot air.
The more I listen to and watch this video, the more important I believe it to be. I hope that someone will ensure that it is not withdrawn.Unfortunately I do not know how to make a copy but it needs to be preserved. I will be very surprised if Bryony is not taken to task for being so frank and at the same time reveal just how naive she (and posibly some of her co-workers) is/are?
A further thought re Cameron`s involvement. When he became Conservative leader there were comments about he came to be given a job in Conservative central office in the first place. It was said there was a "call from the Palace" highly recommending him? If true, who could that have been? Surely not HRH Prince Charles?
I also think that the update link to Barry Woods site contains some very significant information, in particular this quote from Futerra the PR company:
"To help address the chaotic nature of the climate change discourse in the UK today, interested agencies now need to treat the argument as having been won, at least for popular communications. This means simply behaving as if climate change exists and is real, and that individual actions are effective. The ‘facts’ need to be treated as being so taken-for-granted that they need not be spoken [emphasis added]. "
This sounds like a deliberate intention to mislead. I believe the Met Office now says that it has always qualified its statements about the causes of global warming. Their latest posts appear to offer get out qualifications and comments.
One day someone will join the dots and the definitive organogram that links them all together in the wind farm swindle that is costing the nation dear.
Pesadia. Don't worry. I downloaded it as soon as I watched it. Not going to disappear anywhere.
Well, if you would like some insight into how these people think, here is an eyeful of what Solyndra did with the $535 Million it got from the American tax payer. This is what the Green Jobs mantra has got us.
Gold plated Solyndra Factory
By all means sign the e petition Roger, but please do not expect it to lead anywhere. The guilty men, Cameron and Miliband still lead their parties and the LibDems are even steeper green stained than either.
The only party that wants to scrap the Climate change Act is UKIP. They are fighting by elections this month in Meopham in Kent and in the East Midlands. Me, I am off to volunteer. The only way this will ever change is through the ballot box.
@ Neil Craig, Sep 28, 2011 at 3:42 PM
" I spent some time in a power company learning how things work there"
"Which is how big crony capitalist businesses work. If you are an ignorant parasite in the revolving door between being paid by a government funded alarmist hobgoblin factory and official government employment you are sought out by the bosses of power companies in a way that mere engineers aren't.
The only way to end crony capitalism is to make government far smaller and its decisions more transparent."
Amen to that Neil,
Big goverment = bad government and rotten to the core government, it's time for a massive pruning.
Ye gods!
She probably only speaks when she has the floor to herself.
This woman wouldn't last 5 minutes in a proper debate. She'd be shown up for the shallow ignorant eco loon that she so obviously is.
Sorry Guys...Its been a long day but the first thing was "Baroness" Worthington! Secondly it was the
"and I was fortunate enough to be employed by Friends of the Earth as their UK climate change campaigner"..........
I am sorry but after my Chemo I really do need to go throw my head down the bog! Baroness my ass! Double puke! And they have a pop at another "Lord"! (Viscount, whatever!)
Has she ever held down a real job? Grrrrr! Next thing you know she will hold a title somewhere in Truro! " I started to get very interested in the data...so I’m a little bit of a data geek I’m afraid. "
I look forward to her ripping S.M. to bits over at C.A.......should my treatment keep me going for the next millennium at least I will have a laugh at bimbos!! (Bish! Sorry about the Bimbo comment but it was you that caused it! Give me a warning but I will still get up in the a.m. laughing!)
Fay Kelly-Tuncay
Good catch.
Let's hope this shining example of what another Green activist (Gene Hashmi, I think it was*) called 'the cheat codes of democracy' being employed to get the Green agenda through irrespective of the wishes of the electorate.
*It was indeed 'Green Gene' who wrote:
Oh, the irony.
Many here will remember that in the same blog post, he also wrote (emphasis added):
Many here will recall this little outburst.
While I am entirely convinced that AGW is real and a grave potential risk, the above quote is also a thinly-veiled threat to anyone with the necessary knowledge to state, categorically, that this is a lie:
I repeat, this is a lie. Not a mistake, or an exaggeration, just a flat-out untruth.
Lobbying by Green energy fantasists is a direct threat to the social and economic health of the UK. What's the difference between Hashmi and Worthington?
Presentation.