Wednesday
May222013
by 
Bishop Hill
Bishop Hill Donoughue fights on
May 22, 2013 Climate: Parliament Lord Donoughue continues his lonely struggle to get peers of the realm to give the time of day to people struggling under the burden of UK energy policy. His speech in Lords last week is well worth a read.
Last week, a global warming campaigner from this House denounced those who question green orthodoxy as, revealingly, the “forces of darkness”. I say revealingly because the language is religious or religiose. Much of this debate is conducted in those terms. The greens claim the high moral ground, pursuing the virtue of—ambitiously, I must say—saving the planet. “The end of the world is nigh”, they say. Those of us who question them are evil sinners.
Reader Comments (9)
Not sure if Hansard has made an error, but the claim of "...since 1880 has warmed 0.8% of 1 degree" doesn't seem right.
Other than that, he seems to have grasped the main points.
"Even media commentators have started to question, although not of course the BBC, which is still a propaganda branch of the green faith."
Michael Hart,
That figure of 0.8 deg C since 1880 is in fact the figure given to him in response to a previous question and on which I commented here at that time that they (MetOffice who provided the computation) were dammed by faint raise. I understand that half of the increase was prior to the 1950's and of course, none for around the last decade and a half. But yes, it is difficult to comprehend that all this brouhaha is based on such a number.
And if you should be wondering why you have seen scary looking graphs it is because temperature anomalies are employed to generate them b ecause a graph of average temperature to any reasonable scale would indicate an apparent straight line.
"My own Labour Party is rightly attached to environmental values and should continue so, but in a balanced way and not with excessive green faith and global warming ideology. It should remember our historic concern for jobs and not damage the competitiveness of the economy, and it should show concern for poor people freezing in winter with rocketing energy bills. Labour should be wary of elitist green policies which pay rich Scottish and Welsh landowners and big corporations billions, derived from green taxes on ordinary people in tower blocks in Glasgow, to rent out their estates for wind farms. This could involve the greatest transfer of wealth from the poor to the rich since the 18th century enclosures."
This is quite an insight. How did the Labour Party become a party that is so ready and willing to sacrifice jobs and to help wealthy landowners??
Sarah,
Blair and therefore off topic. UKIP now picking up the torch!
My picture of the House of Lords is of a mostly quiet and civil chamber, with a scattering of snoozing lords and ladies happily dreaming of how they will spend that day's attendance allowance - a case of wine, a visit to the opera, a special dinner? Nevertheless, I would nominate Donoughue for some level of Danny (Weston) award. A Danny should be considered for anyone standing up on their own in prominent public view to challenge, in no uncertain terms, establishment 'thinking' on climate matters.
Sara Chan
Quite so. And precisely why I resigned in disgust from the Labia party after Eddie Milipede's 2008 Climate Change Act was passed into law - to almost universal acclaim.
The biggest political betrayal in a generation.
Incidentally, on Brown's watch, not Blair's.
ssat,
Hansard quoted 0.8% of 1 degree, not 0.8 degrees. I was wondering if it was a typing error, or if Donoghue had actually said that in his speech.
Michael: Aha! See your point - teach me not to skim in future. Point eight of one degree - Point eight percent of one degree. The units would be relevant also. Doesn't detract from his point though.
ssat
That's interesting data supplied by the MO
I understand that half of the increase was prior to the 1950's and of course, none for around the last decade and a half. But yes, it is difficult to comprehend that all this brouhaha is based on such a number.
So half the rise occurred in the first 75 years and half in the next 60, so where does the manmade CO2 part come in? It looks to me like nothing different happened after the 1950s than before it using this information.
As you say why all the brouhaha; perhaps Richard Betts or someone from the MO could enlighten us?