- The Politics and Environment Blog

Main menu:


March 2011
« Feb   Apr »




Site search

Please visit


Nature Photographs


Disclaimer: The inclusion of a blog or website in this list should not be taken as an endorsement of its contents by me.

Europe Giving up on Climate, More Interested in Economy?

The Spectator magazine sponsored a debate ‘The global warming hysteria is over: Time for a return to sanity’ held on Tuesday at the Royal Geographical Society in London. 

According to Andrew Montford who attended the event:

“I was a bit disappointed overall – none of the presentations managed to combine slick presentation with a strong coherent argument…

“Here are some of the things that stuck in my mind. The first was the sense of anger in the auditorium. People were just very, very annoyed about what was going on. There were times when the warmists on the stage looked taken aback by the heat that they were receiving.

“Simon Singh’s presentation was memorable, but unfortunately mostly for the wrong reasons. He set up what he called a credibility spectrum, with scientists and academies on one side and sceptics on the other and called on us to trust the establishment on the climate change issue…

“Benny Peiser’s talk was the one that intrigued me. He essentially argued that the science is irrelevant – that the public have made their minds up and that they vote out any party that pushes the green line too far. He also noted that they have moved on to other issues, such as the economy.”

Benny is clearly of this opinion writing in Public Policy Europe that:

“The global warming hysteria is well and truly over. How do we know? Because all the relevant indicators – polls, news coverage, government u-turns and a manifest lack of interest among policy makers – show a steep decline in public concern about climate change.”  

This may be the situation in Europe, but unfortunately we are lagging behind in Australia.   At least, it would appear the Australian media and government doesn’t seem to realize that the public is giving up on the issue even here. 




60 Responses to “Europe Giving up on Climate, More Interested in Economy?”

Pages: « 1 [2] Show All

  1. Comment from: Albert

    Prime Minister Julia Gillard told all her Caucus to scare us to death if we don’t yield to the carbon tax.
    She forgets that Climate Commissioner Tim Flannery used the same scare tactics many years ago, rising sea-level, vanishing snow, floods, droughts and bush fires. None of the predictions of increasing extremes came to pass and to link co2 to bush fires seems insane.
    The only link with bush fires that works is arsonists, the Police will confirm this.

  2. Comment from: Debbie
    And we have more of the obsession and the political manouvres to keep scaring us.
    Check out some of those FACTS(!) taken from their models and then used to make it sound like we’re facing an absolute disaster.
    Take the time to read the original document as well because it makes some amazing sweeping statement about bush fires and droughts and the amount of reduced production and so on.

  3. Comment from: Debbie

    Another phyisicist pointing out the irrelevance of CO2.
    How does this stack up against your work Nasif?

  4. Comment from: val majkus

    Albert, I’ve been away for the day but I’ve read your comment
    About the political manouverings to which you refer I was thinking today I’ve lived in a communist country but I have never seen the propoganda which is currently being fed to us by the MSM
    It’s sad
    and how much does it depend on lazy voters – I don’t know
    I’ve never noticed another Govt before the current Labor Govt starting with Rudd relying so much on left wing media
    Makes me ashamed

  5. Comment from: gavin

    Debbie;it took me a few minuits to find this selection after considering why govts fund this kind of resaeach

  6. Comment from: Another Ian

    Comment from: Mack April 3rd, 2011 at 6:00 am

    From a very early comment at Jen’s blog IIRC Luke used to be a Rover man? If so does he still have the hat?

  7. Comment from: Mack

    Another Ian,
    We’re 3 hrs (daylight savings now here) ahead of you here so it’s not so early, :)
    Not quite sure what you mean about the hat, but funnily enough my car is a 1995 Rover.
    You know the one with the Honda motor . Thought I might combine Jap reliability with prestige! What a joke. :) :) :).

  8. Comment from: Debbie

    Thanks for the links Gavin,
    It looks like a massive investment for a very small return (if any) to Australia.
    I can understand why our present Govt would want to sit at those tables (otherwise Australia could end up on the menu!) but I do not believe it would be necessary to spend that much of Australian tax payers money on a cerebral/political concept.
    It is also rather distressing to see that once again ‘the environment’ is being used as a leverage tool to help advance a completely different and questionable agenda.
    I can’t see any real concern for ‘the environment’ in any of this.
    Rather disingenious I would think.

  9. Comment from: gavin

    Debbie; I don’t know where you are coming from but it seems anti something for another something’s sake.

    In international policy settings, one must have something good on their cake plate to continually get a seat at the luncheon. One should never go empty handed to a private dinner party either however lets say it’s still about one’s contribution to the main conversation that really counts in the end.

    Another aspect is in what one learns at those tables. Monitoring trends is big biz regardless of methods

  10. Comment from: debbie

    I’m sorry, I definitely did not unserstand your point here.
    I can see some jumbled metaphors but that’s about it.
    Maybe that was my fault for using the ‘if your’e not sitting at the table, you’re likely to be on the menu’ metaphor?
    Do you mind explaining your point?
    My point was that I’m tired of seeing the politically popular concept of ‘the environment’ being used as an excuse.
    So your comment “anti something for another something’s sake” is about right.

    The present carbon tax debate is just one of many examples.
    I can see no return to the environment from this tax.
    To me, it looks like a rather poor attempt by our present Government to be ‘seen’ like they’re doing something good for the environment while they collect yet another tax and create yet another federal bureaucracy.
    BTW, that is not a political party stance from me. I believe the coalition’s policies regarding these issues also lack any common sense.
    The ‘deliberative global governance’ funding is also using ‘global warming/climate change’ as an excuse. That one in particular has nothing to do with caring for the environment and everything to do with ‘appearing’ to be doing something politically smart.
    The funding for these type of cerebral projects (and there’s $billions!) is rather disingeniously applied.
    It has also become a very expensive obsession.

Pages: « 1 [2] Show All