In the week a UN study warned of dire consequences for the planet, predicting a 6-deg. rise in the Earth's temperature, Tory climate-sceptics gather in Europe.
Conservative MEP Roger Helmer is today hosting a “climate sceptics’ conference” in Brussels. The news once again undermines David Cameron’s claims to that the electorate can “Vote Blue, Go Green“.
James Delingpole, wrote yesterday on his Telegraph blog, that:
“Today I’m off on the Eurostar to Brussels (”a carbon neutral journey” it boasts on my ticket – which rather makes me wish I were flying instead) to speak at the European Parliament on Climate Change.
“No, don’t worry. The Goreistas haven’t got to me. It’s a sceptics’ conference – Have Humans Changed Climate? – being staged tomorrow by Tory MEP Roger Helmer. Many of my science and eco-heroes will be there, including Patrick Moore (the co-founder of Greenpeace who subsequently bailed when the charity turned far too red), Prof Fred Singer (who’ll be talking on Can We Trust The IPCC?) and Professor Ross McKitrick (who famously helped expose the notorious Hockey Stick curve).”
Sessions at the conference include “Why can’t we trust IPCC?”, “How the Sun and its solar winds affects our climate” and “Media Bias, Climate Alarmism and the Rise of the New Media.”
In his “Straight Talking – September 2009” newsletter, Helmer writes:
“Far too often there is an assumption that everyone is in agreement on the climate change issue; I am pleased to be able to go some way to demonstrating that that is simply not so. I shall keep you posted on the event.”
The climate sceptics conference comes in the same week as the warnings from the UN’s Global Carbon Project study of a six-degree rise in the Earth’s temperature this century, which could lead to a climate not seen for 100 million years, extinctising almost all life and reducing humanity to a few struggling groups living near the poles
This statement will, no doubt, concern David Cameron who said in his conference speech, “The dangers of climate change are stark and very real. If we don’t act now, and act quickly, we could face disaster.”
The conference comes on the back of news this morning that shadow health secretary, Andrew Lansley, has campaigned against a wind farm close to his Cambridgeshire South constituency on the spurious grounds of noise pollution.
Minister of State for Energy, Joan Ruddock told Left Foot Forward:
“While serious politicians wrestle with getting a deal to tackle climate change in Copenhagen, David Cameron lets one of his MEPs convene a meeting of climate change sceptics. It shows how two-faced the Tories really are on climate issues. The Tories are out of step with the science and the politics and would put all our efforts to tackle climate change at risk.”
UPDATE 4:25
Speaking from Beijing, former Deputy Prime Minister John Prescott has just said:
“Who are the real Tories? David Cameron may talk green but the Tories either deny climate change is happening or don’t want to deal with it. Cameron lets one of his MEPs get a motley crew of sceptics together while one of his key allies Andrew Lansley says in Not In My Constituency about wind power.
“The world has only a few weeks to get a deal at Copenhagen to tackle Climate change and the Tories are turning their backs on the truth. Here in Beijing the Chinese understand the challenge of climate change and want to tackle it.
“The Tories would leave us left behind not just in Europe on this but across the world.”
UPDATE 10.08 19/11
Political Scrapbook reveal that “Star of Tory climate change conference [Fred Singer] was paid to deny effects of passive smoking”.
Other speakers include Ross McKitrick, a libertarian with a track record of broader anti-environmentalism; Fred Goldberg, an expert in welding technology who claims that polar bears are increasing in number; and Benny Peiser, a social anthropologist who has only published three research papers in peer-reviewed journals, none on human-induced climate change.
To reach hundreds of thousands of new readers and to make the biggest impact we can in the next general election, we need to grow our donor base substantially.
That's why in 2024, we are seeking to generate 150 additional regular donors to support Left Foot Forward's work.
We still need another 124 people to donate to hit the target. You can help. Donate today.
38 Responses to “Tory MEP hosts “climate sceptics'” conference”
willstraw
Anon,
Debate is all well and good but it should be put in context. People are entitled to believe that God created the world in seven days about 6,000 years ago, but the scientific community is equally entitled to call them evolution deniers. The same is true in relation to climate change. As our update shows, the conference in Brussels was hardly full of peer-reviewed scientists.
In relation to the IPCC, the process takes the existing peer-reviewed work of scientists in relevant fields, and formulates a consensus view from it. The whole process is open and all the wrangling over specific points is published.
The IPCC process produces material that is a peer reviewed consensus of peer-reviewed material from the scientific community. So all the most authoritative individual scientists will have contributed, first by writing their own papers (which are peer reviewed), and then probably by participating in the consensus process which reviews those papers.
More here: http://blogs.abc.net.au/events/2009/11/conspiracies-and-the-ipcc.html
Suggesting that the IPCC was a stitch-up, or a conspiracy to produce a specific result, is akin to suggesting that the whole scientific community plus all world governments (incl Saudia Arabia, the US) were in on it. That doesn’t strike me as plausible.
Of course there’s uncertainty but that doesn’t make it speculative. Not that this will convince you but the IPCC say there’s greater than a 90% chance that climate change is man-made.
All the best,
Will
Anon E Mouse
Will – this is a cyclic discussion and we both know that there is not a single scrap of evidence, none that climate change occurs due to man made CO2.
You talk about “peer reviewed scientists” but since the majority of people in this country do not believe this phenomenon exists then why should a paper that is peer reviewed have any more credence than one that is not?
Both are baloney to the silent majority who simply believe the whole thing is made up nonsense.
When evidence that CO2 is absorbed more than is ‘speculated’ by the planet and this evidence is from ice cores and not “peer reviewed speculation” it is completely ignored.
As progressives why aren’t you demanding the evidence to support your (flawed) case? Is there not a thirst for the truth by progressives?
I put back to you Will that if the minority view of (man made) CO2 causing global warming was truly believed then this government wouldn’t have approved either the third runway at Heathrow or coal fired powered stations. And please don’t mention “Carbon Capture” which is just an excuse to go ahead with the builds – it doesn’t exist. Like Mandelsons electric cars really.
If people believed your “evidence free” case of global warming they would have rioted about runway 3. If the silly alarmist comments by people were to be believed we would all be in a blind panic.
So either (man made) CO2 causes global warming in which case no Runway 3 or the government, like the majority of people in Britain, know it not to be true and go ahead.
I simply refuse to believe that if the government believed this pathetic “56 days to save the world” and other such nonsense they would not go ahead with expanding motorways, airports and power stations.
They would not be able to sleep if they believed they were irresponsibly risking “the survival of the species” by their actions.
Show me the evidence Will and I may join the minority view espoused here but in the meantime I’m afraid common sense has to prevail.
Katryn Wright
Tory climate change deniers https://www.leftfootforward.org/2009/11/tory-mep-host-climate-sceptics-conference/
Anon E Mouse
Will – I’ve just read http://blogs.abc.net.au/events/2009/11/conspiracies-and-the-ipcc.html.
It ends with a frankly rewriting of what adds up to evidence with waffle about peer reviews and stuff – all to further the flawed case. The last comment is bizarre – since when “Has the idea been built upon to create new understanding” been the same as scientific fact.
New understanding of what? Show me the evidence of (man made) global warming.
I drop an apple, it falls to the ground. The effect is caused by gravity but the climate-change-brigade want me to believe it’s some other worldly super force that can’t be proved and because they have others that agree with them I have to suspend reality and accept what they say is true?
That’s what you are asking people to do when most just believe it’s gravity.
This psycho-babble-mumbo-jumbo is then adopted by governments desperate to show the people we have a reason to spend money on them because they can “Save the banks”, “Save the planet”, “Take on the big decisions”, “Get on with the job” blah blah blah
If the climate change lobby didn’t advocate extra taxes, which they always do, I might believe them. I remember Question Time when it was revealed that Polly Toynbee flew to her villa in Italy every month. After her constant climate change drivel over the years what would she do that? Would Al Gore fly anywhere if he really believed it might kill his grandchildren? I think not.
Ian Bolton
Anon E Mouse. How do we prove evolution apart from collecting information over hundred and thousands of years. Still people believe in creationism. Climate change has only been relevant over the past 10 years, and as science progresses we will understand more from it. Surely, even if we’re not changing the face of the earth by constantly trying to control nature, we must understand that recycling and looking after our planet is much more natural and rewarding than sat in a 12litre Hummer jeep burning more fuel than the planet can possibly keep up with.
It’s like the Japanese’s love of endangered fish. They won’t last forever, so do we milk it dry, or try and preserve it? There’s too many sceptics out there. To many people who don’t seem to care or try to understand. How do we convince these that life can actually be a really great thing and our inconsiderate lifestyles do eventually need to change??