The Demise of Climate Change

If antismokers seem to have lost out with the departure of Andrew Lansley and Anne Milton, the Greens also seem to have lost out with the appointment of Owen Paterson as Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs. From Bishop Hill:

Paterson is no treehugger. In May, he reportedly told the Cabinet that it should end all energy subsidies, such as those for wind and solar power, and fast-track shale gas exploitation…As MP for North Shropshire, Paterson has spoken against wind farms and the new pylons needed to carry their power to the national grid.

From the same Bishop Hill page:

Paterson is widely seen as being on the right of the Conservative Party and green groups were quick to highlight his previous hostility to environmental campaigns.

In addition:

In a surprise move, Energy Minister Charles Hendry has been axed in the government’s reshuffle to be replaced by Tory MP John Hayes…

Hayes appointment will cause concern amongst renewable energy firms given his opposition to wind farms in his constituency, having previously describing wind turbines as a “terrible intrusion on our flat fenland landscape”.

It’s not just the UK. It seems that Barack Obama has cooled on global warming, to the distress of many Democrats.

Democratic Donors Withhold Contributions Over Absence of Climate Change from Obama Campaign Message.

Al Gore included.

Al Gore is boycotting the Democratic National Convention because he doesn’t get along with President Obama and is disappointed that Obama hasn’t pushed harder for a cap-and-trade law that would force Americans to use less fossil fuels, sources tell Flash…

“He’s been missing in action. It’s not just the convention. Gore hasn’t made any speeches for for Obama, or campaign appearances, or fundraising solicitations … nothing,” said our source.

Perhaps it’s quite simply that Climate Change has lost its buzz. Five years ago, Global Warming was all the political rage, and you were nobody if you didn’t pay fulsome lip service to it. But now, after Climategate and other scandals, it’s all looking a bit threadbare, and, well, … a bit yesterday. And politicians like to back winners, and Climate Change is looking more like a loser than a winner these days. And so politicians like Obama and Cameron are trimming their sails accordingly, even if it means breaking campaign pledges – like Cameron’s “greenest government ever” -.

And perhaps the departure of Lansley and Milton signals a realisation on the part of Cameron that an awful lot of people are sick to their back teeth of nannying healthism, and an awful lot of them just happen to be voters too.

It probably all comes down to focus groups and private opinion polls. While they show that people are worried about global warming and passive smoking, the policy will remain green and antismoking. The moment it flips the other way is the moment when the green and healthist programme gets quietly shelved. It’s a cold, simple calculation: which policy wins more votes? It has nothing to do with “principles”.

They just want to be re-elected.

P.S. Shale: the hidden treasure.


About Frank Davis

This entry was posted in Uncategorized and tagged . Bookmark the permalink.

24 Responses to The Demise of Climate Change

  1. harleyrider1978 says:

    Sure signs of policy change is whats needed now,not just cabinent repostings.

    Im sure thats what everyones waiting to see next……………Hope and prayer go out to you Brits for your win from nannyism, its a road that will travel the world should repeal come.

    • churchmouse says:

      Thanks, harleyrider!

      Hope and prayer go out to you Yanks for your win from Democratic Party leftism. ‘It’s a road that will travel the world’ should you vote them out in November. :)

  2. Curmudgeon says:

    It’s good to see the climate change edifice slowly but surely crumbling. Let’s hope the same happens in the next few years to healthism. Great news that the vile harridan Milton has lost her job.

  3. wobbler2012 says:

    Gore is mighty pissed off because it was he himself that started the whole scam, he would have stood to make billions (mainly at the expense of the poorest countries in the world) if the biggest scam in history had been pulled off.

  4. jaxthefirst says:

    It occurs to me that these new non-Green appointments and the previously-mentioned less-than-totally-anti-smoking Health ones – apart from (possibly) indicating a much greater awareness of public feeling than we might previously have given the Government credit for – might also be a sign that the penny has finally dropped amongst the higher echelons of Parliament that We’ve Got No Money!! It could well be that, much as Cameron et al would like to remain staunchly anti-smoking and pro-Green, they might just have realised, on inspecting “the books” that the hard fact is that there just isn’t any money left in the coffers to support what are, after all, really “luxury” expenditures for the Exchequer. So they’ve appointed Ministers who are less likely to be keen on splashing out finances for various lobby groups in the hope that they’ll quietly cut the funding without them (Cameron etc, that is) having to make any big “announcements” about it. The Tory Party have, after all, always traditionally been regarded as the tough realists in Parliament, whereas Labour have always been the more idealistic of the two. Maybe – just maybe – there’s still a semblance of that realism lurking underneath the politically-correct surface appearances of NuTory?

    If so, then ASH and the likes of Greenpeace must be quaking in their boots. And about time, too! Every dog has its day, as they say!

  5. Junican says:

    I only caught a few seconds of Cameron’s question time statement. But I caught the bit where he said that every government department is to focus on economic growth. We know that policians speak with forked tongues, but this might just be true. That being the case, what can the Health Dept contribute NOW to economic growth? I would say ‘nothing directly’, but it can stop limiting and reducing growth by getting rid of the jonahs in public health who have been riuning the pub, club, bingo hall, etc trade, along with all the support service connected thereto. It can also stop throwing money down the drain of of ASH ET AL subsidies, along with all the fake charities it supports.

    I have a little dream which is similar to Frank’s ‘idle time’ idea. It is this:

    Long ago, humans spent all their time hunting and fishing and carrying water pots and so on, just to survive. At some point (lots of points) ways were found for one person to produce enough food for a thousand people. Also, streams were redirected so that clean water ran through villages. Wigwam-like structures, which could be easily erected and dismantled, replaced caves. Fire was discovered, and thus the ability to use metal. The result was that people had time on their hands which they could devote to other things, like singing and amusing and designing pretty necklesses.

    But here is the important thing. Even if the free time was used only to write songs to amuse the workers, it had a worth-while result in that it made people happy. But what we have been seeing recently has been the Healthists and Warmists using their time to destroy, with no actual gain or benefit other than some vague assertion regarding future expectations.

    Is it possible that Cameron and his advisors have woken up and observed how much the policies advocated by the warmists and the healthists damage economic activity while producing no actual physical or economic gain?

    • Frank Davis says:

      Sounds very like Idle Theory.

      I read yesterday (I think it was something Harley posted) that some American politician was saying that the UK was heading for a 1930s-style depression. It wouldn’t surprise me if the whole of Europe is heading that way. And that this is beginning to concentrate a few minds.

      Smoking bans are destructive of economic activity. People stay home and don’t spend. This delights the killjoys, but does serious damage. Environmental measure are also destructive of economic activity. EU regulations are destructive of economic activity. Taken all together, they’re killing everything. And a few people are beginning to notice.

      Not sure Cameron is one of them though.

      • harleyrider1978 says:

        Now its starting to come to light that the ECB move to start printing billions of EUROS to buy up debt of EU members was a staged set up for Owebama at last nites DNC convention in North Carolina…..From what I can gather its against the ECB charter to buy the debt thru bonds but there doing it anyway. Point is,it will have no effect other than buying time for these EU eletists and will hasten the complete collapse of the EU itself rather than a few drop outs here and there.

        • harleyrider1978 says:

          As we all know the governments have been padding the economic reports for years especially since 2007. Todays job report in America is big news since the election and I have no doubt it will be manipulated to no end to make Owebummer look good. But next week as per the norm the uneemployment report will be revised up as it has been every month since 2008.

  6. harleyrider1978 says:

    Its simple UK government broke

    ASH deficit to government creates no revenue

    Tobacco is umpteen billions of pounds in revenue each year

    Smoking ban repealed hospitality industry creates new jobs

    Revenue starts rolling in>>>>>>

  7. What has not particularly helped the green scum case in Europe is the “new” members. Poland, Slovakia, Bulgaria, etc, are MUCH more likley to tell the E.U parliament to “go screw yourselves sideways”, than are the “older” members. And it is these very countries that are MOST reliant on “non green” technology for their industries. (Brown coal power stations, for example).

  8. “Don’t forget, smoking tobacco causes pollution and contributes to global warming!” Yes, I have hear people say this in all seriousness. You do wonder quite how stupid people are.

  9. waltc says:

    OT. A little truth in numbers about the newly-enacted ban in Lebanon (which of course has nothing more serious to worry about than secondhand smoke).

    “”The Association of Restaurant Owners in Lebanon commissioned a study by Ernst and Young that found the ban on smoking could have a significant impact on the country’s GDP and its tourism, according to a local media report.

    The study found that the ban could decrease revenue by as much as $280 million for restaurants, pubs and nightclubs. The study also claimed that tourism revenue could drop by as much as $46 million. Much of Lebanon tourism is driven by its relaxed lifestyle culture where tourists frequent cafes, bars and restaurants.”

    But even in Lebanon,, there are wussy smokers. RTWT:

    and scroll down about 8 or so to the perfect jab by a Jerry-1903677 about cell phones.

  10. Margo says:

    ‘They just want to be re-elected.’
    When was it ever otherwise, Frank?

    • harleyrider1978 says:

      Margo if thats true then we should expect to see Govmnt policy changes in th UK against these healthists…….After Cameron sacked the top nazis!

      • Margo says:

        Depends how many healthists there are voting. Personally, I don’t think the antismokers and environmentalists are at all the same people. These are two quite different ball-games, I think. I know quite a few environmentalist/greenies and they aren’t anti-smoking. They tend to be anti-Big Pharma, though, and pro personal choice about how to keep themselves healthy.
        I’m wondering – if every adult smoker in the UK voted for Farage, and he kept his promise to repeal the ban, would he become Prime Minister?

  11. Frank Davis says:

    Totally OT.

    ScienceDaily (June 5, 2008) — The number of bacteria living within the body of the average healthy adult human are estimated to outnumber human cells 10 to 1. Changes in these microbial communities may be responsible for digestive disorders, skin diseases, gum disease and even obesity. Despite their vital imporance in human health and disease, these communities residing within us remain largely unstudied and a concerted research effort needs to be made to better understand them, say researchers

    “This could be the basis of a whole new way of looking at disease. In order to understand how changes in normal bacterial populations affect or are affected by disease we first have to establish what normal is or if normal even exists,” says Margaret McFall Ngai of the University of Wisconsin, Madison…

    The bacteria in the digestive tract could also play a role in obesity. Ruth Ley of Washington University in St. Louis is part of a team that has been investigating the relationship between bacteria in the gut and weight. Several years ago they discovered that obesity was associated with changes in the relative abundance of certain types of bacteria in the digestive tract.

  12. Margo says:

    Interesting. Which comes first, though, chicken or egg? Instinct tells me that a disease/obesity will affect bacteria, rather than the other way round? It’ll be nice if they find that smokers have healthier bacteria in their guts than non-smokers (that’s another thing instinct tells me).

  13. harleyrider1978 says:

    Human lungs ‘brush’ themselves clean of contaminants
    Friday, September 07, 2012 by: David Gutierrez, staff writer

    Human lungs contain a tiny network of constantly moving “brushes” that flush contaminants out of the respiratory system, according to research conducted by scientists from the University of North Carolina and published in the journal Science.

    Scientists have known for a long time that the respiratory system protects itself by means of a coating of mucus, which is sticky enough to trap pollutants and keep them from reaching the body’s cells. When needed, the body can expel this mucus through a runny nose or a cough.

    “The air we breathe isn’t exactly clean, and we take in many dangerous elements with every breath,” said lead researcher Michael Rubinstein.

    “We need a mechanism to remove all the junk we breathe in, and the way it’s done is with a very sticky gel, called mucus, that catches these particles and removes them with the help of tiny cilia. The cilia are constantly beating, even while we sleep.

    “In a coordinated fashion, they push mucus, containing foreign objects, out of the lungs, and we either swallow it or spit it out. These cilia even beat for a few hours after we die. If they stopped, we’d be flooded with mucus that provides a fertile breeding ground for bacteria.”

    But until now, researchers have never understood why the mucus does not stick to or even infiltrate the respiratory cells themselves. The foremost theory, known as the “gel-on-liquid model,” posited that an as-yet-undiscovered watery “periciliary” layer kept mucus and cilia separate. The problem with this theory was always that to the best of scientific knowledge, mucus should eventually dissolve into such a watery layer, not remain separate.

    “We can’t have a watery layer separating sticky mucus from our cells because there is an osmotic pressure in the mucus that causes it to expand in water,” Rubinstein says. “So what is really keeping the mucus from sticking to our cells?”

    To get to the bottom of the mystery, the researchers used modern imaging techniques to examine the interior of the lungs. They found a dense network of brush-like structures that sit atop the cilia. These brushes are composed of protective molecules that keep both mucus and contaminants from getting to the respiratory cells beneath. These molecules also function as a second line of defense against viruses or bacteria that manage to penetrate the mucus.

    Stephen Spiro of the British Lung Foundation said the findings could help significantly improve scientific understanding of lung function.

    “Mucus has a complex biological make-up and forms a vital part of the lungs’ defense mechanism,” he said.

    “Research such as this helps our understanding [of] how this system works, and of the complex mechanisms deep within our lungs which protect us from the atmosphere we breathe in.”

    Rubinstein and his fellow researchers noted that their findings may also explain previously mysterious lung disorders from asthma to cystic fibrosis (CF) and chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD). These diseases may stem from a collapse of the protective brushes.

    “We found that there is a specific condition, below which the brush is healthy and cells are happy,” Rubinstein said. “But above this ideal condition, in diseases like CF or COPD, the brush becomes compressed and actually prevents the normal cilia beating and healthy flow of mucus.”

    In such conditions, the mucus would then stick directly to the lung’s cells.

    “The collapse of this brush is what can lead to immobile mucus and result in infection, inflammation and eventually the destruction of lung tissue and the loss of lung function,” Rubinstein said. “But our new model should guide researchers to develop novel therapies to treat lung diseases and provide them with biomarkers to track the effectiveness of those therapies.”

    Sources for this article include:

    Learn more:

    Learn more:

  14. Pingback: Going for Gas | Frank Davis

No need to log in

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s