Does Lansley think global warming is a “bourgeois, left-wing” conspiracy?

Andrew Lansley yesterday failed to condemn a Tory council leader who said global warming "may not exist" and was dreamt up by “bourgeois left-wing academics”.


Failed former health secretary Andrew Lansley yesterday failed to condemn a Tory council leader who said global warming “may not exist” and was dreamt up by “bourgeois left-wing academics”.

He was asked by Lib Dem MP for Cambridge, Julian Huppert:

“The leader of Cambridgeshire county council recently wrote that global warming “may not exist” and that if it does, it is “not caused by human activity”.

He described it as a theory espoused by “bourgeois left-wing academics”. Does the Leader of the House join me in condemning this irresponsible and anti-scientific position, and will he find time for a debate about evidence-informed policy?”

Failing to criticise in any way the climate denying Tory council leader, he replied:

I will not join my Honorouble Friend in that respect, although that does not mean that I agree with the leader of Cambridgeshire county council. We are all allowed our views, and he is allowed his.”

He may not agree with him – but he clearly fails, when presented with an open net, to say he disagrees with the view global warming “may not exist” and is a “left-wing” conspiracy.

Just as worrying as a Tory cabinet minister in the “greenest government ever” being ambivalent on climate change conspiracies is the fact a man such as Cllr. Nick Clarke could join from that famed repository of sane science-believers UKIP and rise up the ranks of David Cameron’s Conservatives to lead a council.

Then again, given the prime minister’s pitchfork-wielding contempt for “the intellectuals of other parties”, maybe it’s not so surprising his dimmer colleagues think as they do…

As you’re here, we have something to ask you. What we do here to deliver real news is more important than ever. But there’s a problem: we need readers like you to chip in to help us survive. We deliver progressive, independent media, that challenges the right’s hateful rhetoric. Together we can find the stories that get lost.

We’re not bankrolled by billionaire donors, but rely on readers chipping in whatever they can afford to protect our independence. What we do isn’t free, and we run on a shoestring. Can you help by chipping in as little as £1 a week to help us survive? Whatever you can donate, we’re so grateful - and we will ensure your money goes as far as possible to deliver hard-hitting news.

38 Responses to “Does Lansley think global warming is a “bourgeois, left-wing” conspiracy?”

  1. Selohesra

    I’m with Lansley on this – not sure about left wing conspiracy but real science certainly far from settled. Those pesky warming/cooling cycles pre mankinds very existance for a start

  2. Newsbot9

    Yes, yes, after all 0.6% of Climate Scientists is “not settled”.

    Far less settled still are things like evolution, of course.

  3. newton

    science doesn’t do ‘settled’. Only a non-scientist would think science on any subject is ‘settled’. Non-scientists shouldn’t be allowed the vote – they’re not capable of weighing up the issues properly.

  4. Newsbot9

    Ah right, a relativist, who mistakes his views for science. Keep hating on evolution and AGCC!

    (And lol, yea, of course you love the concept of a “science test” you can fix for the vote…good old Jim Crow!)

  5. newton

    My views are science – I am a scientist. The climate is certainly warming (the science suggests this) but the science doesn’t suggest we are heading for a human induced climate catastrophe. It was far warmer in the last interglacial.

  6. Newsbot9

    Ah yes, a false appeal from authority. So what are you, a phlebotomist?

    Because nobody remotely familiar with climate science would utter the arrant nonsense you just did.

  7. newton

    “assuming it remains under control” – you really are a twat.

    and can you point me to a study which shows that england will become uninhabitable? no – you just made it up. problem with the global warming debate is it contains liars like you.

    a warmer climate overall will free up large tracts of land in northern canada and siberia. it will make money rather than cost. most of the last 8000 years was warmer than now.

  8. Newsbot9

    DOI 10.1126/science.1224126

    “Lethally hot temperatures during the Early Triassic greenhouse.”

    You’re the liar, the desperate short-termist. You won’t bother to read the paper I just provided you the DOI for, and won’t bother to think about the consequences! An important feedback mechanism your argument relies on simply does not EXIST.

    And wow, some remote woodland which won’t be economical to use will become “freed up”. Yes, keep thinking this will up foe the megadeaths and trillions in spending which you want!

    A typical anti-science crusade ignoring all externalities to line your profit!

  9. newton

    you claimed that “The latest worst case scenario would have much of England uninhabitable.” and I am calling you a liar. Now why don’t you link to the latest research which shows this rather than something barely related?

    the left has really chained itself to this hobby horse but – though climate change is real and certainly affected by humans – there is no evidence for the more alarming predictions – such as an uninhabitable england. Climate change researchers find this sort of extremist fear-mongering embarrassing.

    I met an idiot from a green/climate catastrophe NGO once who said we couldn’t ‘save the planet’ and have democracy. We would need an “environmental dictator”.

    Now, can I have that link?

  10. Newsbot9

    I gave you the link. A DOI is Digital Object Identifier, copy/paste it into google. And unlike a URL, it does not require moderator approval to show up, and hence is instantly visible.

    You are calling me a liar for believing in Science, I understand. Never mind that the previously believed maximum temperatures would have left the UK simply very hot, now we knot that limit does not exist.

    And darn straight the vast majority of the left (not the greens) believe in science.

  11. newton

    the link you provided is not about england being uninhabitable due to climate change. try again.

    how about a link that substantiates your ludicrous claim that “The latest worst case scenario would have much of England uninhabitable.” Not a paper about temperatures at the equator 200 million years ago.

  12. Newsbot9

    No, I will not “try again” after providing you with the evidence. Do the temperature curve – an expert like you will have no problem.

    Or are you just a whiner?

  13. SatnV

    Another madcap catastrophic fantasy with no evidence to back it up

    No wonder the general public won’t buy it

  14. Newsbot9

    Yes, your fantasies are.

    Back in reality, belief in AGCC is rising.

  15. newton

    I believe in AGCC as do most scientists. It’s you and your fellow travellers’ catastrophe scenarios that have no basis either in fact or in rational discussion.

    For example, you claimed “The latest worst case scenario would have much of England uninhabitable.”

    There is no evidence for this and you could not provide evidence in that link. It is this sort of nonsense that skeptics point to and say ‘they’re making it all up’ – and in this case you are.

  16. Newsbot9

    So you are claiming to believe in something which you then say you don’ believe in. The evidence is there for people to read, you’re a typical denialist who hasd teracted to evidence by rejecting it.

    That you are making it plain that your job is sabotaging science is just sad. I’m sure you take government cash to do it, too.

  17. newton

    AGCC is that humans affect climate and that the climate is warming. that you can’t differentiate between this reasonable position and the EndTimes, catastrophic ‘were all going to die’ nonsense says a lot about you

  18. Newsbot9

    Yes, I believe in AGCC and you don’t. You’ve said this repeatedly.

  19. newton

    still waiting for the evidence that “The latest worst case scenario would have much of England uninhabitable.”

    a link to a paper will do. not a link to a paper about equatorial temperatures 200 million years ago.

  20. Newsbot9

    You’re ignoring the evidence for it, rather. A good climate scientist like you can do the basic calculations about heat distribution, right?

    Unless in fact you’re NOT a climate scientist, but a shill for big coal and gas. Well?

  21. newton

    you said “The latest worst case scenario would have much of England uninhabitable.”

    now – please link to this work. otherwise people will think you made it up

  22. newton

    and in your opinion, a basic calculation about heat distribution will be sufficient to back up your claim that “The latest worst case scenario would have much of England uninhabitable.”??

  23. Newsbot9

    Ah yes, because I provided evidence your multiple personalities think I made it up. Typical evidence rejection from a paid shill/

    Provide the name, address and pay rate of your employer and I’ll give another link.

  24. Newsbot9

    No, it’s not my opinion. It’s basic mathematics. The mathematics you can’t do, completely disproving your claims to be a scientist, or anything to do with climates beyond shilling.

    Who’s paying you? Name and number! Are you paid per word or by post? Is it general anti-science or just anti-AGCC?

  25. newton

    still no link to this so-called evidence that you read that england is going to be uninhabitable.

    I am genuinely interested. if you have the link please post it. I see claims about several degrees of temperature rise worldwide averaged. But your claim is possibly the most extreme I have ever heard. I’d love to read the original paper.

    I’ll assume if you don’t post the link it’s because you made up the ‘evidence’.

  26. Newsbot9

    The link is there. You refuse to read it because you are a paid shill. That’s all there is to it!

    A DOI is, of course, a link and your complete failure to recognise it as such speaks to your level of education.

    How did you get recruited as a shill? Do you consider the ethical and moral consequences of your job? Have you recruited others as shills?

    Start answering the questions, honestly, and I’ll provide more links for you, as I said.

  27. Marxist Nutter

    The environment should be the natural home turf of the new left. It is clear the right have abandoned any pretence for caring about the future of the planet. Can Green Politics become a nodal point that uites the various factions of left?

  28. newton

    so, no evidence then.

  29. newton

    having concerns about the future of the planet is something most of us share. Making up lies such as “The latest worst case scenario would have much of England uninhabitable.” just puts people off.

  30. Newsbot9

    No, you’re just a shill.

  31. newton

    “A shill, plant, or stooge is a person who publicly helps a person or organization without disclosing that he has a close relationship with that person or organization.”

    So,anybody that doesn’t believe that”The latest worst case scenario would have much of England uninhabitable.” when that evidence can’t be presented is a shill? Or just me?

  32. Newsbot9

    No, you’re just a shill.

  33. newton

    who do you think is paying me? or more to the point, what do you think I would be worth?

  34. Newsbot9

    Given the bad government-paid trolls who I’ve actually helped catch, competence doesn’t seem to be a factor.

    Also, the going rate appears to be £7.60 per hour.

  35. stew

    when you caught the trolls, what did you do with them? steal their gold? or are you getting confused with World of Warcraft?

  36. Newsbot9

    Nope, unlike you I know what’s reality and what isn’t. You’ve been very careful not to deny being a shill, I note.

  37. newton

    and you have been very careless in not providing a link for your absurd claim that “The latest worst case scenario would have much of England uninhabitable.”

  38. Newsbot9

    Newton / stewport- I have provided it, shill. You’ve rejected the evidence, as you would any evidence, because that’s what you are paid to do.

    Keep shilling!

Leave a Reply

You must be logged in to post a comment.