Mar 11 2007
The thought police visit the site
<p>I was not surprised today to be phoned by the Daily Mirror, working in conjunction with a Labour MP, to call me in for questioning about my blogsite. Free discussion and commonsense are clearly not welcomed in some quarters.</p>
<p>The immediate complaint came about global warming. Apparently suggesting that there could be any favourable consequences from global warming is akin to a crime against humanity - we need to concentrate on the gloom and doom that could descend if it was hotter and sunnier in the summer.</p>
<p>Had I not understood the dreadful consequences for people in Bangladesh or Africa, I was asked. When I pointed out I did favour preventive action to tackle water shortages and vulnerability to sea surges, and had made a speech in Parliament about that, I got the impression that did not count. It was still wrong to say anything good about global warming. For much of the developing world it would be great to have a water supply in running taps today, before the future consequences of global warming</p>
<p>So I pointed out that they run the UK at the moment, and carbon emissions are rising. They run the government, whose carbon emissions are rising. If they are so sure higher carbon can damage the people of the developing world, why are they so incapable of controlling their own emissions? Why is their beloved EU pushing up its emissions at a faster rate than the USA? And why are India and China doing so?</p>
<p>If global warming theory is correct we are in for a lot of global warming. There is no evidence that the EU, the US or BRIC are going to curb their emissions anytime soon. So shouldn’t we start planing to handle the consequences?
</p>
John Redwood has been the Member of Parliament for Wokingham since 1987. First attending Kent College, Canterbury, he graduated from Magdalen College...
As with all these scares the politicians and the media will run around like headless chickens. Politicians will get their taxes and photo opportunities and the media their headlines.
Love the Tories new tax plans - really business friendly;(
Where will it end? Once the puritanicals have exhausted diplomatic grounds, and developing countries are still producing more carbon emissions, putting their development ahead of apocolyse theories from jet-setting Western politcans, will they advocate using the military to stop them?
Dear Sir/Madam,
Spelling mistake on 3rd line in 3rd paragraph.
Bring back the Birch.
Dht.
Why is everyone so ready to believe politicians and journalists on this issue? The scientists are saying carbon dioxide has never pushed up temperature but is an effect not a cause. If you watched the Channel 4 programme which gave sensible and measured reasons for its conclusions that the sun is to blame for our hotter climate (to put it simply) why do we have to go on listening to this hysterical out-pouring of nonsense that C02 is poluting everything. I am sick of hearing about the sums involved in trying to reduce C02 and how the EU is trying to steal yet more money from us all in the name of “green” taxes - why doesn’t anyone listen to the experts any more? It frightens me that we are the sole reason why Africa is incapable of development because we are saying it cannot have cheap electricity from its vast reserves of oil and gas but must use solar and wind power which is much more expensive and less reliable. Where do we turn now for commonsense?
King Canute showed common sense when he demonstrated to his subjects that even he could not stop the tide coming in. We know that the climate changes - always has and always will. What do we do? Adapt to meet the changing climate or adapt the climate to suit our ways? I know which is the easier.
By the way, for all those who hope to reverse global warming - how cold do you want to make it?
Hi,
I am pretty sure Mr redwood meant :
Global climate change is an issue,
There is naff all we can do to change what the big blocks, ie the us and china are doing,
therefore why wear the hair shirt.
lets take action, if need be , to spend money , to protect our sleves from the consequences of their in actions. For example push money into sea walls on the east coast , instead of wasting money on meeting which create all of this hot air. (sorry for the pun)
some sort of sense needs to be brought into the debate, and like a previous contributor, I beleive the channel four programme is the first step in that direction. No one should comment unless thay have at least watched the programme and therfore have the other side of the argument. Namely : man made co2 is not a large proportion of the co2. Anyway co2 is NOT the issue, as co2 increases FOLLOW warming & do not CAUSE warming, and there are many more green house gasses which are far more important than co2. Not all of the 2,500 scientits working for the un are scientists, or leant their name to the document, not wanted tobe associated with it..
we have all been mugged by this debate.. and now the plan is for the government to tax us for misleading us.. If it wasnt so serious it would be funny.. what is worse, is cameron seems to be thinking this is a good band wagon.. Just a daft idea to hitch on to
rgds
Bill
To be honest I’m not too worried about Africans and Bangladeshis, but I am concened about the needs of England and the rest of the UK. When we have sorted the protection needed for our own folks it will be time enough to start worrying about those further afield.
John, you speak of the Copenhagen Consensus, that adaptation is a more cost-effective way of dealing with global warming than mitigation.
Surely, the real point here is one about Mr Cameron’s ‘brave’ decision to sack Patrick Mercer?
After the Times scored its unexpected hit, it’s no great surprise that the media has become a bit over-excited regarding its self-appointed role as arbiter of taste and public decency. Which is, of course, why Mr Cameron’s decision was more stupid than brave, although exactly what one might expect from the clique of not-very-successful PR men and journalists who have hijacked our long-suffering Party.
The sad thing is that, in all these cases, the focus is all on the unacceptability of dissent per se, and never on the substance of the topic under discussion. Which is to say, I’d have enjoyed hearing someone, anyone, try to refute, point by point, the arguments you made in your original piece, just as I’d have been genuinely interested to learn whether there’s anyone out there who actually thinks what Mr Mercer said was factually inaccurate.
In regard to this, I find that the present attitude to coastal erosion is very defeatist. Why don’t we build more sea defences? Erosion has always been there - to pretend it is new, and our fault, is very stupid. Also, I find that scare stories of higher temperatures are hardly likely to alarm us in Britain, where thousands leave for Spain every year because it is hotter there.
Other positive aspects of Global warming — crops can now be grown further North — an advantage to us.
Higher CO2 levels make for faster plant growth — plants absorb CO2.