I would like to see a comprehensive and joined up plan to deliver on the Climate Act targets – one that includes serious money from HM Treasury, and that looks again at the UK’s airport expansion plans which threaten to scupper efforts in all other sectors of the economy.
To reach hundreds of thousands of new readers 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 117 people to donate to hit the target. You can help. Donate today.
No related posts.
2 Responses to “A robust delivery plan for the UK’s climate commitments”
Albert M. Bankment
I would like to see a detached and dispassionate analysis of all the (raw) data which has, until now, been used (and, allegedly, abused) in support of the apocalyptic predictions of climate change. This is in the light of both the partial stance taken by the AGW proponents, as disclosed in even the most cursory reading of the hacked UEA emails, and by the IPCC’s humiliating climb-down this week on the supposed melting of the Himalayan glaciers.
I would like to see an assessment of who has benefited from lavish funding of research into climate change, and who has a vested interest (whether financial or reputational) in inflating the Doomsday claims. I would particularly like to see an analysis of Rajendra Pachauri’s apparent conflicts of interest. He is an engineer, and has no academic background in climatology.
I would like people to read Ian Plimer’s recent book, Heaven and Earth. I would also like people to read Bjoern Lomborg’s book, The Skeptical Environmentalist, which was showing up the extreme claims of the ‘ultras’ a dozen years ago. Both provide more light than heat on the debate.
Of course the climate is changing. It will always change. What remains in doubt is the extent to which the actions of we humans are accelerating climate change. Those doubts can only have been exacerbated by the shenanigans which have come to light in the last six weeks or so. The ‘ultras’ are proposing changes in human behaviour which will be enormously disruptive and expensive for us and our descendants, and yet their data and predictions appear to become increasingly untenable.
Kay Tie
“and that looks again at the UK’s airport expansion plans which threaten to scupper efforts in all other sectors of the economy.”
What about domestic fuel? Shouldn’t that be taxed at the same rate as air travel and cars? Or is there something particularly cuddly about the CO2 that comes out of a gas fire in a little old lady’s living room?
Rather than run around exorcising the inner puritan demons with new sumptuary laws (“air travel is proud!”), how about treating all CO2 equally? After all, if socialists aren’t into equality of carbon molecules, then what equality do they stand for?
2 Responses to “A robust delivery plan for the UK’s climate commitments”
Albert M. Bankment
I would like to see a detached and dispassionate analysis of all the (raw) data which has, until now, been used (and, allegedly, abused) in support of the apocalyptic predictions of climate change. This is in the light of both the partial stance taken by the AGW proponents, as disclosed in even the most cursory reading of the hacked UEA emails, and by the IPCC’s humiliating climb-down this week on the supposed melting of the Himalayan glaciers.
I would like to see an assessment of who has benefited from lavish funding of research into climate change, and who has a vested interest (whether financial or reputational) in inflating the Doomsday claims. I would particularly like to see an analysis of Rajendra Pachauri’s apparent conflicts of interest. He is an engineer, and has no academic background in climatology.
I would like people to read Ian Plimer’s recent book, Heaven and Earth. I would also like people to read Bjoern Lomborg’s book, The Skeptical Environmentalist, which was showing up the extreme claims of the ‘ultras’ a dozen years ago. Both provide more light than heat on the debate.
Of course the climate is changing. It will always change. What remains in doubt is the extent to which the actions of we humans are accelerating climate change. Those doubts can only have been exacerbated by the shenanigans which have come to light in the last six weeks or so. The ‘ultras’ are proposing changes in human behaviour which will be enormously disruptive and expensive for us and our descendants, and yet their data and predictions appear to become increasingly untenable.
Kay Tie
“and that looks again at the UK’s airport expansion plans which threaten to scupper efforts in all other sectors of the economy.”
What about domestic fuel? Shouldn’t that be taxed at the same rate as air travel and cars? Or is there something particularly cuddly about the CO2 that comes out of a gas fire in a little old lady’s living room?
Rather than run around exorcising the inner puritan demons with new sumptuary laws (“air travel is proud!”), how about treating all CO2 equally? After all, if socialists aren’t into equality of carbon molecules, then what equality do they stand for?