I was curious to discover what John Gummer had been doing since stepping down as a Conservative MP at the last general election to champion climate change. So I was only too happy to accept an invitation to hear him speak to Cambridge university students and city supporters last night, and join them afterwards for a fine fish supper at Loch Fynes.
Now Lord Deben, I found him a passionate, amusing and articulate speaker. He spoke about his work as president of GLOBE International – a global legislators organisation – and has more than a belly full of fire on this topic. He was more than ready to respond to sceptics, including Nigel Lawson:
“I have to say to the people who doubt this very simply that I know of no other occasion in human life in which I have to prove to you that it is unsafe, in every other circumstamnces you have to prove it is safe, and I think that it is pretty obvious that if you put a whole lot of alien gasses into the atmosphere it is likely to have some effect. We have an exact parallel because we did find that out with CFCS and the rest of them. What did we discover? We discovered that if you stopped using them, the hole in the ozone layer became smaller. We used the science and we proved it.
“Isn’t it much more difficult to believe that it doesn’t have some effect? if you suddenly put – suddenly in terms of the history of the world – suddenly put huge quantities of gas into the atmosphere as you burn all over the world, would you not think that sensible people would say this might have an effect, and then you say to yourself there’s hardly an authentic climate scholar who would not say that the climate is changing and that human beings are responsible for it.
“Nigel Lawson is wrong because even if he is right, we have to do it, but he is also wrong because it is illogical. It is illogical if a very large body of opinion suggests that this is a serious fact and we, because it is convenient for us, take the easy way out. That’s always been wrong. In the end, say the sceptics were right, what harm has it done? We’ve created whole new industries, we have cleaned up our atmosphere, we have a healthier place to live and we have protected ourselves from over use of our resources. I don’t think there is an argument against it.”
He made it quite clear he was not ready to retire, he wasn’t interested in a laid back pipe and slippers lifestyle, and through GLOBAL, he has been assisting China to improve its environmental and climate change record so its people can see its blue sky once again.
“You are very lucky. I suppose if I am lucky I have got another 20 or 30 years, but many people here have got another 70 years, but you have that in the most exciting moment that we have seen since Dante, and that must be worthwhile, and it should give us great confidence and great enthusiasm and a huge sense of responsibility.”
Lord Deben also talked about global population control re climate change (he does not believe it can be prescripted like China which he feels is disastrous as families are meant to have more than one child, and only children tend to be selfish), and that indigenous populations will be forced to flee into other regions if their homes are flooded in their search for a sustainable environment. He also talked about why Britian needs to be in the European Union to strengthen its future prosperity and trade agreements with other nations like India and America.
I really enjoyed listening to his passion on this topic, passions which I share. Aged 71 now, I am convinced Lord Deben will fight this corner to his last breath. Never mind Al Gore, if anyone needs convincing about climate change, then do not pass up an opportunity to listen to Lord Deben. He genuinely wants to leave the world a better place.
The problem is that if the sceptics are right great harm will be done through to misapplication of capital and the lose of opportunity. Due to the scale of what’s being proposed that sort of error will lead to deaths and ruined lives on a significant scale.
As a technical person which knowledge of modelling and computer modelling who started from a position of believing the Warmist position I’ve moved to scepticism and onto cynicism. ( Frankly the bulk of opinion type arguments have been blown out of the water over recent years, and the real scandal is that anyone should ever have attempted to make them. )
Given how extreme the Warmist position is given the evidence of geology and large uncertainties in climate science and modelling, you have to wonder if there isn’t another political motive behind the movement.
http://www.thesun.co.uk/sol/homepage/news/3324456/Murdered-Anni-Dewani-tell-husband-to-face-accusers.html
That was off topic, but it’s not looking good for Shrien. The open letter from her friends is particularly rending.
Of climate change:
There simply has to be money put where mouths are and any superfluos activities stopped forthwith: foreign holidays, rock concerts, adherence to fashion, obsolescence of gadgetry, ironing, driving, books, magazines … everything.
Because until this is done it’s all just a lot of hot air. Those preaching it go first please, and to the point that it really hurts. Then I might believe that they believe and that would at least be a start in moving things along.
(My family has flown only once in the last ten years btw – our carbon footprint is relatively small.)
Do you believe in global legislation, Ellee? Say, through the EU?
I think sensible reponses to climate change, like protecting the rainforests, are being ignored and the movement is being hijacked in the UK to facilitate small stupid things that make a few feel worthy (or richer) or to increase taxes. For example, cutting down the rainforest to grow rape to be manufactured into green fuel = incredibly stupid, wasteful and counter-productive. Yet because of the sudden market in ‘green’ fuels this is exactly the kind of thing that’s going on. People seem to think that if you can’t see the fossil fuel it’s not there (eg.electric cars) and that nuclear is a magic ‘green’ solution – it’s not. It’s an alternative with it’s own problems. Really big ones. The answer is to change lifestyle but every day that goes by we all want another gadget that runs on electricity. At Christmas I wonder if the glow from the UK can be seen from the dark side of the moon, the glow is so bright from all the Xmas lights? And if we stopped ALL our activity China is still making our savings look like witholding a fart (excuse the expression) in a hurricane.
So should we just not bother? No, I think the debate is a useful one and it looks like you had an interesting and enjoyable evening, Ellee. I was perticularly interested in the mention of China. Thank you 🙂
Climate change is natural.
Once we realise that we are demonising a purely natural life giving gas we may be able to move forward and look to the wellbeing of mankind and the environment.
Until then all we will do is offer to the unscrupulous, the absolutely wonderful opportunities that false markets provided them. Those that have profited from Carbon Trading (it has been a dream), legally and/or illegally cannot wait for rationing to be introduced and the benefits to mankind? Short term? – nil! Long term – negative nil!
Benefits to NGOs – Short term – Mega. Long term – Multinational Mega (UN)
With you completely, Green Sand.
“He genuinely wants to leave the world a better place.â€
Cause or correlation?
Rest assured Ellie, either way, it will be.
Gummer puts his mouth where the money is. Always has, always will.
Did you ask him what Directorships he holds for companies reliant on the CAGW gravy train?
“Nigel Lawson is wrong because even if he is right, we have to do it, but he is also wrong because it is illogical”
What gibberish garbage. You call yourself a journalist and yet fail to pull him up on this nonsense?
CO2 isn’t the only thing he’s wrong about.
On the subject of CFC’s he claims: “We discovered that if you stopped using them, the hole in the ozone layer became smaller. We used the science and we proved it.”
The hole is virtually the same size now as it was in 1995
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2011/01/08/new-rate-of-stratospheric-photolysis-questions-ozone-hole/#more-31209
Lord Deben’s speech gathers one of the greatest number of fallacious arguments in one story I have seen:
1. “if you put a whole lot of alien gasses into the atmosphere” – There is no controversy that CO2 is not alien – it is a part of the natural carbon cycle and an essential plant nutrient, to which man contributes only about 4% and nature generates 96%. It is not an alien gas.
2. “you have to prove it is safe” – what, for us breathe out CO2, to heat our homes, to move from point A to B? Lord Deben proposal leads to us having to prove that it is safe for humans to live at all, or live as we have lived for hundreds of years. In any regulatory sense this pre-existing condition would have to be ‘grandfathered’ and onus of proof would be on those wishing to forbid it.
3. “Isn’t it much more difficult to believe that it [CO2] doesn’t have some effect?” – not for real scientists, only for environmentalist fanatics and rent-seekers for whom the such belief is useful. In fact informed sceptics do conclude CO2 has ‘some effect’, as does methane, water vapour, the sun, ocean currents and clouds to name a few. How does Lord Deben equate ‘some effect’ with a planetary crisis?
4.”It is illogical [to not act] if a very large body of opinion suggests that this is a serious fact”- This is argument from authority and does not belong in science. Large body of opinion suggested (based also on models) that subprime loans were safe. Same with Millennium bug and dozens of scares in history, which always miraculously seems to benefit the scarers.
In any case only a handful of mostly activist scientists wrote the IPCC chapter arguing human CO2 was the main driver of climate. Many ‘science societies’ are reevaluating due to pressure from members – APS, Royal Society.
5. “assisting China to improve its environmental and climate change record†– Warmists deceitfully conflate Climate Change with reduction of air and other pollution – from carbon soot and aerosols, sulphates, and various industrial chemicals (which have been cleaned up in the west but are a major issue in China). A crash response to an alleged planetary crisis from one specific man-made CO2 gas will absorb gigantic resources, which will have little to do with reducing industrial pollution or may increase it (e.g. wind turbines use tons of rare earth magnets which are said to be very ‘dirty’ to produce).
6.”In the end, [if] say the sceptics were right, what harm has it done?” – you mean what harm is there in crash decarbonization of world economies with inefficient alternatives and UN bureaucratic world dominance to avert an imminent planetary crisis, when there actually is no such crisis? Well, a huge amount is wrong. Broadly, ‘a state of emergency’ brushes aside opposing and cautious views, it invites rent-seekers and opportunists and makes do with what technology we have to hand now rather than what is best and efficient and allows no time for examining the unintended side effects (e.g. rollout of domestic solar panels costing $350/t CO2 averted when alternatives cost $20, biofuels which avert minimal CO2 but promote deforestation and reduce world food supply to 3rd world).
Incredibly, the last is the justification of many well meaning warmists I have met. A variant of ‘the end justifies the means’. But false premises rarely lead to correct results. What is so hard about believing that.
Gummer is an ignoramus. He has no scientific background or understanding of how science is done.
You are just a vehicle for propaganda, not journalism.
Well done to you, Ellee, for printing the comments of sceptics. Most sites which have a ‘warmist’ view – like the Guardian – simply erase them. I hope you’ll go further and take some time to consider the sceptics’ arguments. Best wishes, Rufus.
Everything about Climate changes and related topics has a political undertone. Sometimes it is good to mention it before the elections and sometimes when they want to make an excuse not to vote for new bans. All movements are related to profitability and economical development. Politicians cannot make joint decision because they have different economical interests (as it was in Copenhagen or Montreal). I guess we can just rely on our ability to survive and start to behave ecologically.