The Green Machine (sometimes likened to a blob that spreads on all sides gagging opposition with gobbledegook) is a bit like a black hole, devouring matter greedily (in this instance, tax revenue). Peter Lilley MP (not everyone's cup of tea and probably not my favourite chap either) is the author of a meticulous study into the financial effects of CAGW policies implemented by New Labour, the Lib-Con coalition, and the present government. He reveals that costs will be eye watering and claims a figure of £319 billion pounds will be wasted as a result of parliament signing up to the Climate Change Act in 2008 – by 2030. The numbers have caught the eye of all the sceptic blogs – but are studiously ignored by mainstream media (as one would expect). It seems very much like the media have dipped their fingers into the pie and come up with a nice fat plum.
You can go as far as Australia to read the story – http://joannenova.com.au/2016/12/if-only-free-energy-was-free-uk-govt-sp… … which is reblogged at https://tallbloke.wordpress.com/2016/12/11/uk-govt-spending-319bn-on-que… … where the emphasis is on the futility of a group of people on green leather seats thinking they have the ability to actually change the earth climate system by holding up their hands to the loonies. There are a couple of court cases knocking around at the moment where we are told that parliament should decide on our future rather than Joe Public. The Climate Change Act is an example of why we should NOT rely on parliament to make all the decisions.
The study itself was published by Benny Peiser's 'Global Warming Policy Foundation' on the 11th December 2016. You can access it at www.thegwpf.org/report-reveals-300-billion-cost-of-britains-climate-chan…. According to Lilley the study is based on official figures. It can't be dismissed as this is what government is reporting. Lilley has access to the numbers which are out of reach of Joe Public – and you may wonder why. He actually says some mischievous attempts have been made by ministers, and no doubt by the civil service big wigs, to disguise the true costs. I like the phrase mischievous but it gives a false impression, such as a naughty boy hiding something under a pillow. These ain't naughty boys – these are big boys feeding at the trough. The idea is of course to pull a fast one, hide the real impact from the voters. As it involves all the major political parties one is left feeling helpless – which is what they like. Lots of voters confused by the messages they are receiving. Some people even have faith in politicos and are prepared to take whatever they say at face value – if it is from the particular party they support. If it is from an opposition party they might bleat a bit and thrash their arms around in a pointless manner but how can anyone even do that when they are all into the same scam. The answer of course is to look at the numbers – but it takes a fellow MP to be able to get at the official numbers and this is where Lilley has provided a service to Joe Public. Unfortunately, the media is not playing ball. You won't find anything about this on your television screen or radio. It is blanked out. You may have to look for a passage in the dead tree page tucked away with the obituaries. I'm exaggerating of course but I haven't heard a peep from the BBC propaganda people about the Lilley report. They are too busy telling us we will have to eat squid with our chips as global warming will somehow make the cod disappear. They told us in their serious very solemn tone of voice too – like a vicar at a funeral telling us what a nice chap the rogue in the box was. The idea is to lull the electorate into thinking green energy is free – after all the wind is a natural phenomenon, as they are keen to tell us. Looking at it that way so is oil and coal and natural gas as they come out of the ground -a natural product of the earth's geology (you might say). It's like a magician on stage pulling rabbits out of the hat – which one can I use next to pull the wool over the eyes of the audience.
Given energy is free at source. Where are the costs? Peter Lilley covers everything in a meticulous and long study that will take a while to read in its entirety – but if you want a snatch of what it says you only have to take onboard the fact that Britain and the EU have outsourced their carbon emissions to China and other developing countries. He calls this an act of self harm as it will not just be the jobs of the lower classes that will disappear into the world beyond Europe but the jobs of everyone are at risk, eventually. Industry is in the process of disappearing – yet people out there think this is a good thing. These are usually persuaded by financial arguments from the likes of investment companies making a killing from selling them off to the highest bidder. The Green parties may think it's all about the environment – but it is really about greasing palms and making a buck. The environment takes a back seat as woodland in Europe and N America is chopped down and pellitised, or rainforest in Indonesia is converted into palm oil plantations. However, what Lilley says next should make everyone sit up (but it won't because of I'm Alright Jack). The rising cost of Britain's climate policies are borne disproportionately by the less well off, the elderly living on a fixed pension income, and the vulnerable. However, it doesn't affect the homeless we may note (and the politicos can take some solace in that as the homeless rely on cardboard boxes to keep warm and the warm air ducts of city buildings). However, think about that. Electricity prices will continue to rise and the people at the bottom of the food chain will have to decide on whether to eat or heat. What then will the MPs on their green leather seats do? They will berate whatever party is in power and demand they find more money to subsidise the poor and ill-prepared. Meanwhile, the people at the top of the food chain, you know those people that can pay for a case to go to the High Court in order to keep the gravy train online, they will continue to bribe the NGOs to turn a blind eye to dead raptors and bats, and pass brown envelopes across to anyone with a bit of influence in the lobbies. Hedge funds have enabled some people to amass extraordinary amounts of wealth – but what is that money worth if it is being used to deprive a little old lady huddled around her electric heater the means to pay for that luxury?
Over at https://wattsupwiththat.com/2016/12/10/what-is-next-for-weather-and-clim… … is a post on a similar theme by Dr Tim Ball, a former climate scientist who is a great fan of HH Lamb. His take on what might happen in the US when the next president is sworn in is interesting to say the least. I'm not so keen on the comments but you can't have everything. As the US environmentalists have been at the forefront of the CAGW mischief, and they are subsidised by the renewable industry, it will impact on all of us, not just people in N America. The US largely funds the UNs IPCC and Ball aims a carefully measured sling ball at that project. If the IPCC falls short of funds what will that mean to all the enrichers? Will they have to dig deep into their pockets? The interesting thing is that if they did that, in the hope of a more amenable government reappearing in four years time, they would seriously deplete their winnings – and their ability to destroy the life-style that ordinary people have grown accustomed to. It is delightful to listen to the angst of the great and the good, and the media celebrities in their mansions. One cannot help but think of George Orwell and 'Animal Farm', search lights blazing on their lawns and security systems at full blast while the less advantaged are encouraged to consume less, and they do this with a smile on their faces, look at me cos I'm famous and I know what's best as my mates at the shindig in the mansion up the road told me so, struggle to pay their electricity bills. Perhaps they should stop charging up their i-phones and x-boxes and get their bills down – but who would then have access to the wisdom of the wealthy set?
See also https://judithcurry.com/2016/12/12/shifting-sands-of-the-climate-debate/ … which is also about what might be in store for climate research over the next four years, but from the perspective of a working climate scientist, albeit one that is not on the CAGW song sheet. She is optimistic that published research will have more to do with the real world rather than the models in the coming few years.