Chjris' Global Warming Blog

Yet more mind-boggling figures on global warming
Are we really to believe that the benefits gained from the Climate Change Act will amount to £1,024 billion, wonders Christopher Booker.

By Christopher Booker
Last Updated: 4:17PM BST 04 Apr 2009

Last October the House of Commons passed, by 463 votes to three, the most expensive piece of legislation ever put through Parliament. The only MP to question the cost of the Climate Change Act, requiring Britain to cut its CO2 emissions by 80 per cent within 40 years, was Peter Lilley. It was also Mr Lilley who, just before the MPs voted to stop runaway global warming, drew the House’s attention to the fact that, outside, London was experiencing its first October snow for 74 years.
I remember the snow of last October. It was terrible. I had to go to the Post Office and because it was close to the hospital (where my mum works), my mum gave me a ride up there, but it took about an hour and a half to get a less than a mile.

What made the MPs’ lack of interest in the cost of this Act even more curious was that the Government’s own “impact assessment” showed that, whereas its benefits were estimated at £110 billion, its costs were £205 billion. The MPs thus happily voted for something that would be twice as costly as any benefit.
Can you really put a cost on the Earth, Mr Booker?? Haha. Ok, we all know by not that this is useless spending by the government. So you have to ask the question “cui bono?” or “who benefits?” Well, it’s certainly not the people of the country who’ll benefit. An 80 per cent drop in CO2 would certainly send the population into the dark ages. . .or at least the 19th century. And the drop in CO2 would cut agricultural harvests, so we’ll be living in near famine. So, cui bono?? The government?? Sure they’ll still be driven around in their two Jaguars and have their two houses paid off, but I’m sure that won’t cost £205 billion. Cui bono?? Generation Investment Management?? BINGO!! That £205 billion, or most of it anyway, will go directly into the pocket of Al Gore and his friends at Generation Investment Management.

But these figures were based on the Government’s original plan to cut CO2 emissions by only 60 per cent. A last-minute amendment had this to 80 per cent (a target which can only be achieved by closing down most of Britain’s economy)(as well as half the population stopping breathing), so our “climate change minister”, Ed Miliband ~spits on the scumbag~, was obliged to produce new figures. These he has now belatedly slipped out via the Department of Energy and Climate Change website – no thought of reporting them to Parliament – and truly mind-boggling they are. The cost of the Act has nearly doubled, to £404 billion, or £18.3 billion for every year between now and 2050. However, the supposed benefits are given, astonishingly, as £1,024 billion, an increase of 1,000 per cent.
Yeah, well, Christopher Booker, the new IPCC report out later in the year will justify it all, and plus the number for sea level rise has been pushed up by 50CM. . .still not quite Al Gore’s 20 foot, but still, it’ll make a difference. I want to move to Amsterdam you know. I don’t want to have to wade to get to my favourite coffee shop. Haha. I think I might go to Copenhagen to demonstrate at the IPCC’s meeting there later in the year. . .anyone got a bullhorn I can borrow??

How on earth were such unbelievable figures calculated? Peter Lilley has written a trenchant letter to Mr Miliband, asking this and a series of other highly pertinent questions. But pending any reply, last week I posed this question to DECC myself. I was assured that the new figures had been worked out by “a method used by the independent Committee on Climate Change, and peer-reviewed by Simon Deitz, an expert in carbon pricing from the London School of Economics”. Dr Deitz’s website shows that last year he carried out “research for the UK Committee on Climate Change”.
I bet if you asked them, they’ll tell you the same thing as the US bailout bill. . .they just wanted a really big number

So this independent expert was asked to peer review the method used by an “independent” committee (which he had already been working for) to produce figures that seem rather to have been plucked from the thin air of which only 0.04 per cent – one 2,500th – consists of the self-same carbon dioxide which we are now expected to believe we will benefit by £1 trillion from not emitting. Truly we are governed these days by stark, raving lunacy – and no one is meant to notice.
Wow. It’s like. It’s like nothing I’ve ever seen before. That’s like the IPCC (the Independent Police Complaints Commission this time, not the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change) being run by Scotland Yard. Maybe all these “think tanks” are getting a cut of the now £404 billion.

And this brings an interesting point. A lot of these independent organisations are, in fact, interconnected, but because they’re independent and represented as such in the media, you never question it, but once you do the research, you’ll see a different story. It works out like two pillars propping each other up. If Simon Deiltz didn’t peer-review the paper, the ICCC would collapse because no one else would review it (as the consensus is on the other foot now). And equally, the ICCC are propping up Mr Deiltz because without the ICCC, Mr Deiltz wouldn’t have employment.

Take Al Gore for example (oh yeah, him again). If he didn’t make his film, An Inconsistent Lie, his company (Generation Investment Management) would be nothing.

It’s called “invested interest”. And if you look hard enough, you will see it everywhere in the world of climate change because, pure and simple, climate change is a fraud.


~Chjristopher Toms