So Copenhagen is over. A deal to “save the planet” from the ravages of global warming have failed. Meanwhile, in spite of all the hot air blowing in from Scandinavia, almost the entire of the UK has been under a sheet of snow and ice. Some parts of the UK have recorded temperatures as low as -16C.
What people will say to this is that weather is not climate. It’s a fair argument. But this weather is colder than the average by more than the amount of warming that alarmists get their knickers in a twist about. My point here is that while people are panicking about a rise of 2 or 3 degrees C over the next 100 years, a bigger drop in temperature has left many thousands of people across the UK – myself and my neighbours in Yorkshire included – stranded. It has caused travel chaos. It has caused accidents. It has cost a lot of money. It is cold weather that kills and costs.
Environmentalists will say that climate change will increase the frequency of extreme weather events. But there exists virtually no evidence that this is either happening, or will happen. Wild claims about increased storm intensity have proven to be sheer bunk. “But what about floods and droughts, Godfrey”, I hear the Greens whinging. To the first, I would point out that – if it is true that we face, or have faced increased rainfall as a result of climate change, which I happen to doubt – floods are more easily prevented than we like to imagine. We simply need to get off our arses, much as our Victorian great-great-grandfathers did, and start building the kind of things they managed to build over a century ago. Huge dams, reservoirs, and artificial lakes and channels were constructed during the industrial revolution. The stuff about droughts we can answer in the same way. Why was this possible over a century ago, but not now?
“But what about the thousands of people who died in the 2003 European heatwave, Godfrey”, the whinge continues. The fact that old people aren’t looked after properly on the continent has nothing to do with climate change. All that was needed to protect these people were air-conditioning units and glasses of water. Anyone who thinks that not driving your car will make life better for old people is already senile. And it is of course the cold which has always done for old people far worse than hot weather.
So there we have it. Three solutions to three problems of climate change – if it exists – solved in just two paragraphs.
But it’s not so easy to solve the problem of cold weather. Imagine the same conditions we are experiencing now, after Brown, Mandelson, and Miliband have constructed their Green Utopia in the UK. The snow rolls in. The ice grips. Temperatures plummet. What happens next? First, thousands of wind turbines stop moving as they either seize up in the frost, or the wind stops blowing as high pressure develops over the UK. This leads to blackouts, leaving millions of homes without electricity, heat and light. Nobody has gas anymore – it’s too polluting. And few people can afford to run a car on the measly carbon rations that the government doles out. People are stuck in their freezing homes, and unable to reach isolated and elderly friends and relatives. It is only now that we realise the value of things like 4x4 cars, and coal-fuelled power stations. Britain will be well and truly broken.
The deal that was sought last week at Copenhagen was intended – if you believe the hyperbole – to address the problem of climate change. If it turned out to be successful, would sea-level remain static? Would there be no more floods in Britain? Would there never be a drought again? No. No. And no.
Changes in sea level, and weather-related problems would continue, just as they always have. All that would happen after a deal in Copenhagen is that we would be poorer and less equipped to deal with them. By being poorer, the same weather might in fact affect us more severely. The world’s leaders are worried about climate. But what affects us is weather. We can deal with weather if we’ve got the right stuff... a functioning energy supply, good vehicles, and plenty of money to throw at problems when they turn up. ‘Climate’, to us folk who know what weather is because we live in it, is a nonsense term. It is a political invention, an absurd and useless abstract idea. I don’t care about the climate, I care about the weather. It’s not the climate that’s going to stop you getting to work, it’s the weather.
So, thank the heavens that a costly and dangerous treaty has been avoided.
In fact, thank China. The disappointed delegates returning from Copenhagen have started pointing their fingers at the East, saying that the Chinese delegation prevented a deal being reached.
It is curious, isn’t it, that it is a non-democratic country like China that is being blamed by representatives from ‘democratic’ countries like the UK for the failure of undemocratic conferences like the one in Copenhagen. As I’ve said in previous blog posts, polls show that most people in the UK aren’t buying the government’s green agenda at all. So the government’s campaign to get the entire world to sign up to a legally-binding treaty is a decision they have taken against the public mood and against the interests and will of individuals, and the country as a whole. Our arrogant politicians took it upon themselves to act without winning, let alone having, the public debate. It is China – where nobody votes – that best represented the interests of its own, and our populations. What does that say about our democracy?
Copenhagen is dead. But the ambition has not gone away. New ways will be found to ram the green agenda down your throats, whether you want it or not. The feckless and reckless at Westminster and Brussels won’t stop this nonsense just because they didn’t manage to bully the rest of the world into agreement. The new year, in the wake of Climategate, and the failure of Copenhagen, the way in which the debate has changed will become clearer.
But the next week is about ignoring environmentalists’ complaints about our Xmas-carbon-footprints, and eating until we pop, drinking until we drop, and enjoying ourselves. I wish you and your families a very happy Christmas, and a prosperous new year.
Gordon Brown made his appearance at the Copenhagen talks today.
Brown says,
Friends, I do not as my country or your country to suspend its national interest, but to advance it more intelligently. For nothing matters to any nation’s interest more than the fate of the one world we have.
Brown recognises that climate change laws will damage the national interest. But, he reckons, damaging the national interest is better than facing the end of the world.
Then he puts a different spin on it.
Environmental action is the most powerful engine of job creation in an economy urgently in need of millions of jobs.
Spot the difference?
Which is it? Either environmental action creates jobs, or it damages the national interest. It cannot do both at the same time.
Then Brown dresses up as Churchill,
It is no use saying that we are doing our best. You have to succeed in doing what is necessary.
Churchill spoke these words to Roosevelt to ask for his support with the war against the Nazis. Brown is not an imaginative fellow, and so has to steal from Churchill to persuade Obama to come to Copenhagen, to sign up to the ridiculous agreement.
I consider myself to be something of a military historian, and it irritates me that Brown should flatter himself with this hollow recital. Here is Churchill’s speech in full,
The other day President Roosevelt gave his opponent in the late Presidential election a letter of introduction to me, and in it he wrote out a verse in his own handwriting from Longfellow which he said 'applies to you people as it does to us.'
Here is the verse:
. . . Sail on, O Ship of State!
Sail on, O Union, strong and great!
Humanity with all its fears,
With all the hopes of future years,
Is hanging breathless on thy fate!
What is the answer that I shall give in your name to this great man, the thrice-chosen head of a nation of 130,000,000? Here is the answer which I will give to President Roosevelt.
Put your confidence in us. Give us your faith and your blessing, and under Providence all will be well.We shall not fail or falter. We shall not weaken or tire. Neither the sudden shock of battle nor the long-drawn trials of vigilance and exertion will wear us down. Give us the tools and we will finish the job.
Brown is an empty vessel, a cipher. He stands for nothing. Zilch. He shall not be remembered for saving the planet. He won’t even be remembered for trying to save the planet. If he is remembered for anything, it will be for being the Chancellor of the Exchequer in the time leading up to the biggest economic crisis for generations, and the unelected Prime Minister of a nation who signed up to an agreement that surrendered what sovereignty it had not yet given to Brussels.
The planet does not need saving. Gordon Brown does.
That is why he insults our history and the memory of millions of people murdered by the Nazis, by pretending to be standing as Churchill stood: at a moment in which the future of the world hangs in the balance. This whole scam is more and more a platform for the likes of Brown to stand on to pretend that they are saving the planet. I’m not exaggerating. Brown concludes with these silly, silly words.
Let us prove today and tomorrow the enduring truth that is more telling than any passing setback. That what we can achieve together is far greater than what we can achieve unilaterally and alone. In these few days in Copenhagen, which will be blessed or blamed, for generations to come, we cannot permit the politics of narrow self interest to prevent a policy for human survival. Because for all of us, and for all our children, there is no greater national interest than the common future of this planet.
UK climatologists “probably tampered with Russian-climate data” to produce a report submitted to world leaders at this week’s Copenhagen summit, it is claimed. The Met Office’s study, which says the first decade of this century has been the warmest on record for 160 years, is being used to trumpet claims that man is causing global warming. But experts at the Moscow-based Institute of Economic Analysis say the British dossier used statistics from weather stations that fit its theory of global warming, while ignoring those that do not.
If Brown’s pleas in Copenhagen are to be compared to a historical moment, then the most fitting moment would be the signing of the Molotov–Ribbentrop Pact. The agreement that Brown wants is a cowardly and dangerous treaty grounded on lies, delusion, and ignorance.
The world’s leaders are set to descend on the Copenhagen climate talks. To make way for them, grubby eco warriors have been pushed out of the picture. According to some news reports,
Friends of the Earth campaigners have been suspended from the Copenhagen climate talks as part of a security clampdown on protesters. Every member of the environmental charity’s international campaign group arrived at the Bella Centre (where the talks are taking place) this morning, to find their badges were no longer valid.
Well, I’m not shedding any tears for FoE. But it does make me wonder what’s going on. What are all these scruffy protesters doing at Copenhagen anyway?
They are protesters, obviously. But what are they protesting about? What is it that they want... Now? They want an international deal on climate change. But that is exactly what the government, and all the other governments want. So the climate warrior’s protests in Copenhagen are like a protest for more tax. This is like people marching on Westminster, demanding less freedom, and fewer rights. It’s just madness. It gets worse.
‘It is a crisis of democracy when campaigning charities like Friends of the Earth are prevented from speaking up on behalf of communities around the globe within the talks themselves’, said FOE’s executive director Andy Atkins.
Hold on a minute. Who appointed FOE to “speak on behalf of communities around the globe”? I’m an elected representative of the people of Yorks and Lincs, but I didn’t get a seat at the table. Our government hasn’t asked us what we want them to do at Copenhagen. Instead, Ed Miliband and Gordon Brown have decided for us, in spite of the fact that so many people don’t believe the hype.
46per cent of those quizzed did not believe mankind was largely responsible for the global temperature rise. ... On the other side were 23per cent of respondents, who said climate change was the most serious problem man faced.
Yet our Dear Leaders aren’t that interested in listening to, or trying to win over the majority,
Gordon Brown invited protest representatives to a hastily arranged meeting at Downing Street after Parliament was encircled by protesters calling for the Prime Minister to make their voices heard at the summit. Climate Change Secretary Ed Miliband also met protesters and told them: 'I will do my damnedest to get the best possible agreement we can.'
So the whinge-bag minority get special meetings with the Prime Minister, and special assurances from the climate change Secretary, and they pretend that they speak for “communities around the globe”. Meanwhile, as I pointed out in my previous post, sceptics have been prevented from asking awkward questions, and had their free speech denied them by exactly the same types invading their meetings at Copenhagen. The hypocrisy, double-standards, and double-think are truly breath-taking. Back to the FOE’s gripes...
‘We were stunned to discover that every Friends of the Earth delegate has been banned from attending these crucial talks - if this is a consequence of our role as one of the most prominent groups calling for a strong and fair agreement, this is even more disturbing. This draconian measure is completely unjustified - the Copenhagen conference is fast becoming an international shambles’, he said.
I will take the FOE’s complaints about ‘draconian measures’ seriously when they stop campaigning for draconian measures. This is what they wanted. This is what Friends of the Earth have spent decades campaigning for. They wanted strong laws that are imposed upon people, no matter what those people wanted. These scumbags are only interested in "democracy" and "rights" when they get a taste of the medicine they want everyone else to swallow.
Ever wondered what people actually do and say at big, important, pompous 'save the planet' meetings?
It’s all gone a bit pear-shaped in Copenhagen.
Today, delegates from poorer countries walked out of negotiations, because they didn’t feel they were getting a good deal. Talks were suspended for the day. The BBC reports,
The countries that have suspended co-operation are those which make up the G77-China bloc of 130 nations. These range from wealthy countries such as South Korea, to some of the poorest states in the world. The G77-China bloc speaks for developing countries in the climate change negotiation process.
You have to feel sorry for them. They were lured to Copenhagen on a promise and a threat. They have been offered parcels of cash for their obedience, but told that if no deal is reached, their lands will suffer floods, drought, and chaos. But on the other hand, you have to admire the playing of the game.
G77-China chief negotiator Lumumba Di-Aping explained why the bloc had taken the decision to withdraw its co-operation. "It has become clear that the Danish presidency - in the most undemocratic fashion - is advancing the interests of the developed countries at the expense of the balance of obligations between developed and developing countries"
Trouble started brewing last week, when a secret agreement between certainly developed countries was leaked.
The UN Copenhagen climate talks are in disarray ... after developing countries reacted furiously to leaked documents that show world leaders will next week be asked to sign an agreement that hands more power to rich countries and sidelines the UN's role in all future climate change negotiations.
This is pretty grim. Richer countries may end up being embarrassed into a deal. Maybe it’s all a stunt. Or maybe the negotiators at Copenhagen really are this stupid.
It wouldn’t surprise me. Two years ago, at the end of UN climate talks in Bali, Executive Secretary of the UNFCCC, Yvo de Boer started blubbing.
"He wasn't just wiping his eyes, he was in floods of tears," said one observer. "Three colleagues - one of them a woman - formed a protective group around him and escorted him out of the hall. It was all very dramatic."
Mr de Boer's breakdown came after nearly a fortnight of squabbling over proposals to cut carbon emissions.
The crying dutchman’s breakdown begins 9 minutes into this clip.
Mind you, if you had to sit through 9 minutes of this boring, boring meeting, you’d want to run to the toilet like a little girl too.
But these are the people making the decisions that will affect us all. Shouldn't they be able to take a bit of knockabout?
As you can see, when China asks de Boer difficult questions, he can’t cope. That was two years ago.
The organisers of this conference have got their act together, as director of the film Not Evil, Just Wrong, Phelim McAleer discovered as he tried to ask questions of climate-alarmist, Stephen Schneider.
And here is McAleer again, trying to ask Al Gore an inconvenient question.
And when the armed thugs aren’t available to prevent free, democratic, and legal discussion...
... send in the youth wing of the eco-fascists to close it down.
There you have it, ladies and gentlemen. This is what happens in and around UN climate “negotiations”.
Until today, I believed that there are two main types of people on the “other side” of the climate debate. First, there are the innocents. And we cannot blame them, because it would be nice, wouldn’t it, if we could just trust the government, the press, and scientists to act in our interests. Generally, they don’t get involved in debate, they just tend to believe what they are told, and do as they beleive. Let’s call them simply “naive”. Then there are the others: The believers. They proselytise, harass, whinge, and generally cause a nuisance. At the top there are Ed Milibands and David Camerons and high-profile scientists like those caught out in the recent Climategate scandal. Then there are the irritating Monbiots and Harrbins in the media, and the activists at Greenpeace and Friends of the Earth. At the bottom are the grubby activists who populate things like Climate Camp, who’ve never seen a shower, barber, or tucked into a nice roast beef and Yorkshire puddings. These things, they will whine, are ‘unsustainable’.
So it's day three of the Copenhagen conference. Yesterday I mentioned the term "scientific consensus" that is used again and again to try to win the climate change debate.
Today, a group of scientists have issued yet another challenge to the "consensus" view of science.
141 highly qualified scientists have written to Ban Ki Moon, expressing their concern about the unsound foundations of the Copenhagen conference.
Dear Secretary-General,
Climate change science is in a period of ‘negative discovery’ - the more we learn about this exceptionally complex and rapidly evolving field the more we realize how little we know. Truly, the science is NOT settled.
Therefore, there is no sound reason to impose expensive and restrictive public policy decisions on the peoples of the Earth without first providing convincing evidence that human activities are causing dangerous climate change beyond that resulting from natural causes. Before any precipitate action is taken, we must have solid observational data demonstrating that recent changes in climate differ substantially from changes observed in the past and are well in excess of normal variations caused by solar cycles, ocean currents, changes in the Earth's orbital parameters and other natural phenomena.
We the undersigned, being qualified in climate-related scientific disciplines, challenge the UNFCCC and supporters of the United Nations Climate Change Conference to produce convincing OBSERVATIONAL EVIDENCE for their claims of dangerous human-caused global warming and other changes in climate.Projections of possible future scenarios from unproven computer models of climate are not acceptable substitutes for real world data obtained through unbiased and rigorous scientific investigation.
Specifically, we challenge supporters of the hypothesis of dangerous human-caused climate change to demonstrate that: [READ ON]
This will be interesting. No doubt the alarmists will find a conspiracy theory to explain why these scientists cannot be trusted, while accusing 'deniers' of creating conspiracy theories and character assassination.
It’s the second day of the Copenhagen talks on climate change. But what is it really about?
Aside from the usual clap-trap about ‘tipping points’, rising sea levels, polar bears and floods, if you listen, read or watch what has become known as MSM – the mainstream media – you will hear the same words used to describe this purpose of this conference.
You will, of course, hear the word “consensus” bandied about. This is the key word in the environmentalist’s dictionary. It is used to imply that all the scientists in the entire world agree with the same thing.
You will hear the word “deal” being used. The nations of the world are allegedly coming together to arrange a “deal”.
This deal implies an “agreement”.
When the agreement has been reached, “targets” will have been set for emissions reductions, throughout the world.
Finally, it is hoped that these targets will be “legally-binding”.
In other words, on the basis of a scientific consensus, world leaders are at Copenhagen to achieve an agreement about a deal to set legally-binding emissions targets.
The worn-out term “scientific consensus” is used as a stick to beat down any opposition to climate nonsense. Politicians and other players seeking the service of their own interests at these negotiations need to hide their interests behind a greater good. So when any questions emerge about the soundness of the science being used to make decisions, instead of answering them, the big players in the climate debate just trot out the same old lines. Take the words of non-climate-scientist IPCC chair, Rajendra Pachauri yesterday for instance. He said,
“The internal consistency from multiple lines of evidence strongly supports the work of the scientific community, including those individuals singled out in these email exchanges, many of whom have dedicated their time and effort to develop these findings in teams of Lead Authors in the series of IPCC Assessment Reports during the past 21 years.“
He’s talking about the Climategate emails, and the damaging effect they have had on the credibility on the IPCC’s work. Instead of admitting that there is a problem, he tries to make those involved in the hacking who have something to hide, by saying
“The recent incident of stealing the emails of scientists at the University of East Anglia shows that some would go to the extent of carrying out illegal acts perhaps in an attempt to discredit the IPCC”.
But the truth of the matter is that if the scientists involved in the Climategate scandal – for that is what it is – had shared their data in the first instance, there would have been no hacking. But the scientists at CRU did not share their data. As the emails show, they went out of their way to make sure that anyone who did not agree with the so-called consensus weren’t able to see it. So there is only a “consensus” because, in any area, those who do not agree with it are not invited to participate in research. Consensus, my arse.
There is no consensus, so what kind of a “deal” is being forged in Copenhagen? Well, it’s a deal like any other that is made between rich and powerful individuals. It’s a deal only as far as any of the negotiators are concerned. They are only concerned with their own interests. It’s no deal as far as you or I are concerned. Whatever deal they come up with between themselves, we get less. Meanwhile, they will be left in positions which secure their own freedom to quaff expensive drinks, gobble expensive food, lounge around in swanky hotels, fly in first class, and pat themselves on the back at conferences organised to save the planet at our expense. They will make sure that they are able to take full advantage of the deals they make, whether that means making jobs for themselves after they leave public office, or by putting their public roles above public scrutiny. Yet even the delegates at the conference aren’t equal. As the emerging “Danish Text” scandal reported by the Guardian today reveals,
The UN Copenhagen climate talks are in disarray today after developing countries reacted furiously to leaked documents that show world leaders will next week be asked to sign an agreement that hands more power to rich countries and sidelines the UN's role in all future climate change negotiations.
Being a COP15 delegate doesn’t guarantee access to the biggest table. For a long time, climate change activists and politicians have argued that there needs to be a climate deal for the sake of the world’s poor, but this new scandal gives the lie to the claim. As the text reveals, the deals being sought at Copenhagen are secret. Small numbers of players do secret deals with each other, and then use their power to bully and bribe others. COP15 pretends to be a conference, but in reality, there is nothing open or democratic about the shenanigans. The details of the negotiations aren’t public. The interests being bargained for are not transparent. It stinks.
So what kind of “agreement” is it? Well, do you remember ever being asked what you wanted your “democratically elected” representatives to argue for in Copenhagen? That’s right, no one ever asked you. If you told them, they would have just dismissed your opinion as simple “denial”. Their agreement is not something you’ve ever been asked to agree with. The Telegraph reports today that
The Prime Minister wants EU countries to promise to reduce carbon emissions by 30 per cent, rather than the 20 per cent they are currently offering.
So who told Brown that this is what the UK wants? Who told Brown that this is what the people of Europe want? Does Brown even care what either want? Of course not. He’s only interested in getting a deal that will give him an advantage. Stuff what you want. And stuff your interests. There are around 6.7 billion people in the world, but just 20,000 or so of them will be at this meeting, deciding our fate. They will set the terms of the global agreement to which the rest of the world has to endure for the duration of global warming alarmism. If the farce at Copenhagen results in an agreement, it is an agreement between elites, between members of the establishment, about who gets which slice of the pie.
The targets they set will have nothing to do with preventing climate change, and everything to do with regulating the day-to-day live s of every single person in the world. Targets suit our government’s ever-increasing desire to control individuals and their behaviour. Our government loves targets. Except where those targets apply to them, of course. When targets apply to them, they are spun, squeezed, and swept under the carpet. Ultimate, the only target they are interested in is you and your cash. By setting targets, the government can limit your freedom to travel, to consume, and to do things, which makes life easier for them, because once targets are in place, they don’t have to make sure that people can get from A to B, or that there is adequate energy provision. They can explain their failure to deliver the things people need and want as “meeting the targets”.
And there is the rub. When you rightly complain about the effect of these targets, they can say “it’s out of our hands, we’re just meeting internationally agreed targets”. This is the point of making the agreements “legally binding”. Agreements don’t bind our government. They bind you. It lets governments off the hook. Governments seeking “legally binding” agreements at Copenhagen because once these agreements are in place, government’s will no longer be accountable to the public in the way that they have been in the past. Where they once had the role of doing what the public elected them to do, now they are in charge of monitoring what you do and making sure you do as you are told.
Legend has it that Cnut the Great, Viking King of England, Denmark, Norway, and Sweden, 985-1035, once commanded the waves to stop. Two versions of this story exist, one holding that Cnut really believed that he could do such a thing, the other telling that Cnut’s stunt was merely intended to show that he possessed only the power of any other mortal. Either version contains a lesson in humility for the leaders of the world now assembling in Copenhagen.
They believe that with just a stroke of their bureaucratic pens they can control the elements. A directive can be issued, and LO! Climate change will be stopped in its tracks.
There is a gulf between the minds of the Great and the Good and reality. They are under the misapprehension that we can command the natural world. Even worse, for us, they think that their meeting to create a ‘global deal’ on CO2 emissions will result in world peace, environmental utopia, and every single human on earth dancing for joy at the prospect of being subject to carbon laws, regulation, and taxes. Yippeeeee! No more flights! Waheeey! No more cars! Yahooo! No electricity!
One complete bunch of Cnuts – the editorial team at the Guardian newspaper – believes that it, along with 56 other publications throughout the world, can rightly issue instructions to the world through their editorial columns. The group of 56 newspapers today issued a statement simultaneously urging that there were just 'fourteen days to seal history's judgment on this generation'.
The science is complex but the facts are clear. The world needs to take steps to limit temperature rises to 2C, an aim that will require global emissions to peak and begin falling within the next 5-10 years. A bigger rise of 3-4C — the smallest increase we can prudently expect to follow inaction — would parch continents, turning farmland into desert. Half of all species could become extinct, untold millions of people would be displaced, whole nations drowned by the sea. The controversy over emails by British researchers that suggest they tried to suppress inconvenient data has muddied the waters but failed to dent the mass of evidence on which these predictions are based.
There is no science which says that 2 degrees is a special point, and that a temperature rise of 3 to 4 degrees will produce the consequences that the Guardian’s biblical prophecies foretell. These are just political targets, dreamt up by political activists. There is no scientific ‘evidence’ on which such predictions are based, and there are no predictions, just the Guardian’s fantasy. There is nothing like this in the IPCC reports. They have made it up. If you can show me otherwise, please be my guest.
Complete Cnuts ex-Beatle, Paul McCartney, and IPCC Chair, Rajendra Pachauri were in Brussels last week, pushing lentils. They want to persuade the EU to persuade its citizens to stop eating meat because, according to them, eating meat causes climate change. This is the kind of nonsense that the Copenhagen conference (and the EU) is all about – bossing people about, telling them how they should live their lives and what to have for dinner. We had a barbecue in Brussels to let McCartney and Pachauri know what we thought of their silly plan.
Paul Nuttal and me, eating sausages at McCartney and Pachauri.
Silly Cnut, the Prince of Wales has been invited to Copenhagen by the Danish government, according to the Times.
He will travel to the Danish capital in a seven-seat RAF aircraft. His spokeswoman said that it was not possible to travel on a scheduled flight because of prior engagements and the risk of being delayed. ... In Brazil earlier this year the Prince warned that fighting global warming should have a higher priority on the world’s agenda than fighting poverty, and that there were only eight years left to save the planet.
It’s easy for Cnut’s like Prince Charles to convince themselves that private jets are necessary for their job of saving the planet, and that poverty is just a trivial problem. He ought to be setting an example, and cycling to Copenhagen.
But Charles won’t be the only Cnut travelling to and around Copenhagen in luxury. The Telegraph reports that
On a normal day, Majken Friss Jorgensen, managing director of Copenhagen's biggest limousine company, says her firm has twelve vehicles on the road. During the "summit to save the world", which opens here tomorrow, she will have 200. ... The airport says it is expecting up to 140 extra private jets during the peak period alone, so far over its capacity that the planes will have to fly off to regional airports – or to Sweden – to park, returning to Copenhagen to pick up their VIP passengers.
You see, while the world’s top brass pat themselves on the back, arranging for international agreements about what to do with your money, and how to tax and regulate your life, they will be tucking into some of the finest grub in the world, staying in luxurious hotels, and swanning about in carbon-guzzling vehicles, all under the pretence that they are ‘saving the planet’.
The Telegraph mentions some other Cnuts...
As well 15,000 delegates and officials, 5,000 journalists and 98 world leaders, the Danish capital will be blessed by the presence of Leonardo DiCaprio, Daryl Hannah, Helena Christensen, Archbishop Desmond Tutu and Prince Charles.
What possible use is there for actor Leonardo DiCaprio at an international conference on climate change? Is it a movie? It’s certainly based on fiction. Maybe he’s playing the Cnut?
Remember, you can’t go to this conference to have your say about your own future, and nobody has asked you what you want the British or EU governments to do in Copenhagen. But DiCaprio is given VIP treatment. All you need to get a seat at this table, it seems, is the right number of millions of dollars in the bank. Then everyone will celebrate your heroic efforts to prevent Armageddon. Meanwhile, you and I will have to pick up the tab for this face-stuffing opportunity for the rich and famous, and live with the aftermath.
Our Prime Minister, who is widely regarded as perhaps the biggest Cnut in the whole country, said in the Observer, yesterday,
Let no one be in any doubt about the overwhelming scientific evidence that underpins the Copenhagen conference. The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change brings together over 4,000 scientists from every corner of the world. Their recent work has sharpened, not diminished, the huge and diverse body of evidence of human-made global warming. Its landmark importance cannot be wished away by the theft of a few emails from one university research centre. On the contrary, the pernicious anti-scientific backlash that the emails have unleashed has exposed just what is at stake.
Like his idiot pal, Prescott, Brown has plucked the figure of 4,000 scientists out of thin air. There aren’t 4,000 contributing scientists to the IPCC, as I pointed out a few weeks ago. Why aren’t our most senior politicians in command of the facts? How can they expect us to beleive that they can control the weather if they can't get such basic matters clear in the minds?Simple numbers like 4,000 and simple facts about the structure and operation of the IPCC ought to be well within their grasp.
The purpose of the climate change deniers' campaign is clear, and the timing no coincidence. It is designed to destabilise and undermine the efforts of the countries gathering in Copenhagen today.
Too bloody right we want to destabilise and undermine the big party at Copenhagen, Mr. Brown. The reason is that you’re a bunch of self-serving Cnuts, who can’t even get your own facts straight. This much is plain: you don’t know what you’re talking about, nobody voted for you to be PM, and nobody voted for the action you are committing the UK to at Copenhagen. You should worry less about the made up 'scientific consensus', and think more about what public opinion says.
