What Will Be The Effect of Government Efforts to Constrain Global Warming?

What will the trillions of dollars proposed to be expended buy for us?

Christopher Monkton had the gall to ask that very question of the U. K.’s Climate Change Department that impertinent and inconvenient question a few years ago…

Huhne is no loss

By Christopher Monckton of Brenchley | Watt’s Up With That

When I visited the House of Lords’ minister, Lord Marland, at the Climate Change Department a couple of years ago, I asked him and the Department’s chief number-cruncher, Professor David Mackay (neither a climate scientist nor an economist, of course) to show me the Department’s calculations detailing just how much “global warming” that might otherwise occur this century would be prevented by the $30 billion per year that the Department was committed to spend between 2011 and 2050 – $1.2 trillion in all.

There was a horrified silence. The birds stopped singing. The Minister adjusted his tie. The Permanent Secretary looked at his watch. Professor Mackay looked as though he wished the plush sofa into which he was disappearing would swallow him up entirely.


Eventually, in a very small voice, the Professor said, “Er, ah, mphm, that is, oof, arghh, we’ve never done any such calculation.” The biggest tax increase in human history had been based not upon a mature scientific assessment followed by a careful economic appraisal, but solely upon blind faith. I said as much. “Well,” said the Professor, “maybe we’ll get around to doing the calculations next October.”

They still haven’t done the calculations – or, rather, I suspect they have done them but have kept the results very quiet indeed…

Click over to the full article to see Lord Monckton’s analysis of the cost to benefit ratio, which makes $500.00 hammers seem quite a bargain.


Hat Tip: Glenn “Instapundit” Reynolds

Weekend Caption Contest™ Winners
Indiana Secretary of State Convicted of Voter Fraud
  • Of course they haven’t done any calculating – there is no way to do it.  None of the models back-test properly, so all projections for the future are mere speculation.  There is no basis in science for any of it.

    Whenever anyone tells you, in reference to ANY subject, that “the science is settled,” you can draw two immediate conclusions:  1) they are no scientist, and 2) they are unprepared for any questions.

    Folks, even Einstein’s work has come into question over time – and even if he was right, there was no way for him to know he was right on some of the issues.  Newton hasn’t fared nearly so well.  Science is NEVER “settled” – the climate change requires FAITH, not science, faith in a secular government as good and powerful as any God.

    Recent research data from deep-core ice borings in Antarctica  suggest that global temperatures warm, causing the production of more carbon dioxide, not vice versa.  The whole global warming scam could be just a great big “Oops.”

    Be that as it may, those with scientific evidence on their side wouldn’t need to engage in the serial deceptions and conspiracies the emails reveal the climate cabal has done.  If you’re right, you don’t need to manipulate or lose data, or block dissenting articles from being published in scientific journals with intense secret lobbying campaigns behind the scenes – and then publicly dismiss the critics for not being published.

    If everything you do makes you appear to be a liar and a thief, Occam’s Razor comes into effect.

  • Walter_Cronanty

    “What will the trillions of dollars proposed to be expended buy for us?”  I really think you’re asking the wrong question.  You must “free yourself” to ask the real question: “How much will the western countries pay to ruin their economies so that they are as piss poor and as equally miserable as third world countries?”  This is what the CAGWs really want.  Doesn’t have anything to do with “climate change” or “global warming.”

    “Basically it’s a big mistake to discuss climate policy separately from the major themes of globalization. The climate summit in Cancun at the end of the month is not a climate
    conference, but one of the largest economic conferences since the Second World War.…we redistribute de facto the world’s wealth by climate policy…One has to free oneself from the illusion that international climate policy is environmental policy. This has almost nothing to do with environmental policy anymore…” IPCC co-chair of Working Group 3, Dr. Ottmar Endenhofer, November 13, 2010 interview

    • MichaelLaprarie

      Exactly.  The whole “carbon trading” scheme was never intended to save the planet.  It was always intended to be a mechanism for transferring trillions of dollars from Western nations to the Third World, and turning a handful of well connected individuals into billionaires along the way. 

      For the last 40 years, no matter what the latest catastrophe du jour is (the ‘population bomb’, running out of oil, the ozone hole, nuclear winter, etc.) the solution proposed by intellectual elites is to transfer a huge amount of money from the West to the Third World.  Funny how that works, isn’t it?

      • Walter_Cronanty

        Since this is a dead thread, I’ll ask you, any reaction to this? http://wattsupwiththat.com/2012/02/06/germany-in-skeptical-turmoil-on-both-climate-and-windfarms/#more-56069
        “Germany in skeptical turmoil on both Climate and Solar/Windfarms”
        “I have two major stories out of Germany to report, one on the rise of
        Climate Skepticism into the mainstream, and the other on the failure of
        solar and wind power in Germany.Today Germany’s national tabloid Bild (which has a whopping circulation of 16 million) devoted half of page 2 on an article called:.“THE CO2 LIES … pure fear-mongering … should we blindly trust the experts?”…
        What has set it all off? One of the fathers of Germany’s modern green
        movement, Professor Dr. Fritz Vahrenholt, a social democrat and green
        activist, decided to author a climate science skeptical book together
        with geologist/paleontologist Dr. Sebastian Lüning. Vahrenholt’s
        skepticism started when he was asked to review an IPCC report on
        renewable energy. He found hundreds of errors. When he pointed them out,
        IPCC officials simply brushed them aside. Stunned, he asked himself,
        “Is this the way they approached the climate assessment reports?”

        Vahrenholt decided to do some digging. His colleague Dr. Lüning also gave him a copy of Andrew Montford’s The Hockey Stick Illusion. He was horrified by the sloppiness and deception he found. Well-connected to Hoffmann & Campe, he and Lüning decided to write the book. Die kalte Sonne cites 800 sources and has over 80 charts and figures. It examines and summarizes the latest science.

        Conclusion: climate catastrophe is called off
        While all that is happening, the wind is going out of the sails in
        the highly subsidized solar and windfarm business in Germany. Michael
        Limburg writes from Germany that:

        We published this very comprehensive study from our author Dr. Günter Keil titled ” Germany´s Green Energy Supply Transformation Has Already Failed”….In a panic reaction, Germany shut down 8 nuclear power plants

        To make matters worse, in a fit of panic and hysteria, the German
        government shut down 8 of its older 18 nuclear reactors in the wake of
        the Fukushima disaster, thus removing a very cheap and stable supply of
        power and further pushing the grid to the limits. Before the shutdown of
        the nuclear reactors, Germany had been a net power exporter; today it
        is a net power importer and is at times severely straining neighboring
        power grids. To compensate for the missing nuclear power, the government
        is now heavily promoting even more weather-dependent wind power, which
        is further destabilizing the German and European power grids. A solution
        to the problem of storing electricity is still at least a generation

        The question of course is how could such absurd decisions have been
        made to begin with? Were there no experts involved in the planning of
        the new power generation infrastructure? The answer obviously is no.
        Power executives are viewed as evil, dirty and greedy polluters, and
        thus were never really consulted. They could not be counted on to give
        the politically correct solutions. Therefore the decision to shut down
        the German nuclear power plants and to massively support renewables was
        done unilaterally by the government, without consulting the power
        executives or even neighboring countries.

      • Walter_Cronanty

        It appears to be a legit story about the book: http://thegwpf.org/best-of-blogs/4867-germanys-top-environmentalist-turns-climate-sceptic.html
        Fritz Vahrenholt, one of the fathers of Germany’s environmental movement, no longer trusts the forecasts of the IPCC. Doubt
        came two years ago when he was an expert reviewer of an IPCC report on renewable energy. “I discovered numerous errors and asked myself if the other IPCC reports on climate change were similarly sloppy. I couldn’t take it any more. I had to write this book.”
        Indeed skepticism has reached a point where now even leading environmentalists are abandoning the movement, as profoundly demonstrated by Vahrenholt’s and Lüning’s book. Many simply feel they have had the wool pulled over their eyes. Although there have been skeptic books in Germany, none had the impact that the soon-to-be-released Die kalte Sonne is expected to deliver. With the book ready to take off in Germany, preparations have already been taken for a possible launch of an international edition in English.
        Thebook cites more than 800 sources, many are peer-reviewed papers that appeared after the IPCC 2007 report. It’s the latest summary of the
        state of climate science out there. It does not dispute CO2 as a driver.
        The book simply cuts it down to size, and backs it up with hard
        literature and data.

        • JayDickB

          If you read the skeptic web sites, as I do regularly (wattsupwiththat is a good one), there are so many questions about the science that none of it seems reliable.  There may be some truth in some of it, but there are so many problems, we can’t tell.

          Almost all of the contentions of the warming alarmists have been questioned, including how much warming has actually occurred and when.  Is CO2 a major driver or insignificant?  Do higher temperatures precede or succeed increases in atmospheric CO2?  Does water vapor cause a positive feedback or a negative one? Skeptics say there are no reliable answers to these and other basic questions.

          The more you read the more you see this is really about money and power.  The environment part is a ruse; it is an excuse, nothing more.

  • GarandFan

    Well there’s “science” and then there’s “$cience”.  Which do you think a politician would prefer?

  • herddog505

    New film by Algore Studios: “An Inconvenient Question”.


    This sort of thing is why the Congress is getting out of the habit of passing an actual budget: when people know how much you plan to spend on this and that, it allows them to ask all sorts of irritating questions about WHY you want to spend the money and what you plan to get in return for the expenditure.  If the budget is just a black hole, it’s MUCH harder to question.

  • In my more cynical thoughts, I see the folks pushing AGW knowing that there’s no way their efforts would make any sort of difference – but knowing full well that the climate cycle would turn cooler fairly rapidly (within a decade or two) at which point they’d be going “Yes! See?  Our efforts are paying off – but we still have a long way to go and we could still start heating again!  Buy more carbon credits today!” – all the while skimming their profits off the top.

    You massage the raw data, you ‘adjust’ it, you ‘modify’ it, you stretch the reading of one point to cover 400 sq. miles – and then you feed it into a program which has various fudge factors inside it to produce a particular curve… and then tout the results of that program as being beyond question?  While losing your original data (which doesn’t much matter anyway, what you’re using to feed the program bears no relation to the original data), and the record of modifications that were used to ‘adjust’ that data, and then keeping the programs themselves close so people can’t pick them apart – all the while insisting the ‘science is settled’?

    That’s not ‘science’.  You don’t have science – you’ve got science fiction.

    You’ve also got a scam.  And that scam looks to be falling apart.

    It’s about damn time, too.

    Bunch of flippin’ shysters…