Tel. +44 (0)20 7287 4414
Tel. +44 (0)20 7287 4414
The Bruges Group spearheaded the intellectual battle to win a vote to leave the European Union and, above all, against the emergence of a centralised EU state.
The Bruges Group spearheaded the intellectual battle to win a vote to leave the European Union and, above all, against the emergence of a centralised EU state.

Bruges Group Blog

Spearheading the intellectual battle against the EU. And for new thinking in international affairs.


fantasy-2847724_1920 Net Zero Terrorism

This paper was written in November 2022 by:

Stuart Agnew. MRAC (Agricultural science)
Roger Helmer. M A Cantab (Mathematics)

It is published by the Bruges Group as an Important contribution to a debate we should be having.


Within the last 20 years a belief has become established that the planet is imminently destined for catastrophic climate change, triggered by human activity that emits CO2 "and other harmful Greenhouse Gases".

To challenge this doctrine is to be labelled a "Denier", to be cancelled on social media and vilified in academic institutions.

This report does challenge the orthodoxy and its circulation is encouraged to those who are concerned by the lack of balance on the topic demonstrated by the BBC and others.

Technical history of climate change

The climate is in a constant state of change and in the last 2000 years we have witnessed three specific climate change events.

The Roman Warm Period. It was warmer then than now with grape vines being grown against Hadrians Wall.

Over the next 800 years the world gradually cooled until being reversed by:

The Medieval Warm Period. Again temperatures were higher then than now as established by tree rings and ice cores.

A significant cooling then occurred as populations, coal burning and industrial activity rapidly increased, known as:

The Mini Ice Age. This was a consequence of two separate solar events:

The Maunder Minimum Period 1645-1715

The Dalton Minimum period 1797-1827

The world has been steadily emerging from this mini ice age ever since and we now sit comfortably between the two previous extremes.

A Brief history of recent human reaction/hype to climate change.

In the late 1970s a book was published entitled "The Cooling" forecasting a return to colder weather in the next century due to solar activity.

It was therefore quite a surprise in the mid 1980s to hear a new term "Global Warming".

Scientists at the University of East Anglia and elsewhere had noticed the steady rise in temperature and had also noticed a rise in the levels of atmospheric CO2. They drew a false conclusion from this (as will be later explained) and the UEA hosted a conference circa June 1986 in which the audience were informed of the following:

1) Within 30 years (2016) the UK would warm enough to experience a Mediterranean climate.

2) Within 30 years (2016) Sea levels would rise world- wide by at least one metre, probably five metres and possibly even 10 metres. Maps of the coastline of Norfolk were displayed showing the loss of land at these various measurements.

3) Children would grow up in England never seeing snow.

The cause of all of this was entirely due to human activity emitting CO2.

A number of farmers (including the author of this report) attended the conference and believed they could get ahead of the game by growing durum wheat. This was a crop grown in Spain and Italy, which supplied the raw material for pasta and spaghetti.

The food industry got on board as well, constructing a factory at Gt Yarmouth to process this new crop of the future.

Unfortunately the climate didn't follow the script. The yield of the durum wheat crops grown over the next 15 years were usually badly damaged by late spring frosts, or the quality of the durum was
ruined by heavy rainfall in July.

The farmers lost money, hope and pride before abandoning the crop.

In 1988 The International Panel for Climate Change (IPCC) was set up by Governments to advise on anthropogenic climate change. It is important to note that word "anthropogenic". The IPPC's task is not to study and advise on possible reasons for climate change (which had been occurring without human assistance for four billion years). It starts from the assumption that climate change is anthropogenic, and proceeds from there.

The IPCC has hundreds of accredited experts nominated by member states, and it would be natural to assume that they were all experts on climate. Natural, but wrong. Whilst climate scientists are included, there are also civil servants, economists and other scientists from various fields, and frequently also strident campaigners from environmental organisations. For example, a recent and widely quoted Chairman of the IPCC, Rajenda Pachauri was a university graduate – with a degree in railway engineering.

The IPCC publishes occasional voluminous reports. These consist of chapters on various aspects of climate change, each preceded by a "summary for policy makers". These summaries inevitably eliminate most of the ifs, buts and nuances of the full chapter, and therefore presents a more alarmist picture. They are also strongly influenced by member states' political attitudes. Whilst the panel of experts is extensive, the editing and therefore the editorial line is dominated by a small group of a couple of dozen scientists (sometimes referred to as "the hockey team", by reference to the notorious hockey stick graph), who know each other well, support each other, peer review each others work, and are passionately committed to the alarmist narrative.

Typically politicians, and especially the press, read only the "summary for policy-makers" and ignore the more nuanced full chapter. Moreover they usually skip straight to the worst case scenario. Naturally the IPCC offers models based on a range of assumptions about future emissions, ranging from aggressive emissions reductions through to "business as usual". Alarmist headlines in the media always quote outcomes from the most extreme scenarios, which are generally regarded as very unlikely.

A point worth noting. A key factor in any modelling or forecasting of climate is the "climate sensitivity" of atmospheric CO2. This is usually defined as the amount of global warming caused by a doubling of atmospheric CO2. It is customary to use doubling as a reference rather than any absolute measure because the climate impact of CO2 is exponential, so geometric rather than arithmetic). The astonishing fact is that the IPCC doesn't know what the climate sensitivity of CO2 is! They offer an estimate between 1.5 and 4.5 degrees C. How can this be? Physicists could calculate an accurate estimate based on a theoretical model of a static and featureless sphere. However the earth's climate is a complex, chaotic non-linear system with a range of positive and negative feedbacks which are impossible to model accurately. Indeed some scientists have suggested that the climate sensitivity of CO2 could even be negative, as a result of negative feedbacks. If initial warming increases water vapour in the atmosphere, leading to more cloud cover and an increase in the Earth's albedo, the consequence could be cooling. Nevertheless it is clear that our climate policies, representing perhaps the most expensive global project ever undertaken , are based on a massive level of uncertainty.

The IPCC made little impact on Government policy until an event in America in 2006. This was the release of the film "An inconvenient truth" starring Al Gore, a failed Presidential candidate. The film was premiered on a hot summer afternoon in a building where the air conditioning had mysteriously malfunctioned. It depicted a doomsday scenario of accelerating temperatures and submerging Islands. Strangely Al Gore had recently purchased a condominium on the West Coast which was doomed according to his own charts. One of his charts came to be known as the "hockey stick chart" alarmingly demonstrating world temperatures going completely off the scale by the mid 2020s.

The film should have been entitled "nine convenient lies" and it became the subject of a UK court injunction banning its performance without the prior distribution to the audience of 13 pages of 'clarifications'.

However the sensational nature of the film won the day with Left leaning political parties favouring the idea that the rich industrialised parts of the world were spoiling the climate of the poor countries and must therefore transfer wealth as a penance.

A Climate Summit in Copenhagen in December 2009 was given considerable media attention with attending politicians promising to reduce global warming by restricting CO2 release.

The summit was undermined by the release of hacked emails between climate scientists, some based at the University of East Anglia. The emails demonstrated scientists behaving unprofessionally and trying to make facts fit a conclusion. This event became known as "Climategate".

Many years later in 2021 a TV production entitled "Trick" sought to minimise the damage of Climategate. Nevertheless Phil Jones, a climate scientist featured in the film admitted he used data supporting his view, and rejected contrary data. This is, of course, the antithesis of science.

Following the Copenhagen summit Mother Nature intervened with a 'convenient truth' of her own. Across Europe the winters of 2010/11, 2011/12 and 2012/13 were particularly cold. Indeed the author lost a third of his sugar beet crop in January 2011 as the roots thawed into mush after being frozen solid by global warming.

The effect of these three winters changed the parlance. "Global Warming" was dropped in favour of "Climate change". Now all bases are covered. Any ongoing meteorological events anywhere in the world that are either very warm, dry or wet are depicted as "incontrovertible evidence of climate change ", and widely reported. Extended periods of bitterly cold temperatures go unreported or are dismissed as "just a bit of weather".

What are the actual causes of climate change?

1) Solar cycles/winds/spots. The sun is the overwhelming power that dominates our climate both long term and short term. Solar activity is not influenced by varying levels of atmospheric CO2

2) Position of the moon. This can alter barometric pressure. Higher pressure increases the temperatures of air parcels below. The moon governs the tides which in turn affect the micro climate. The position of the moon is not affected by varying levels atmospheric CO2

3) Position of Jetstream(s). These are narrow bands of strong westerly wind in the upper band of the atmosphere. In the Northern Hemisphere if this band (Jetstream) shifts to the North it drags hot air from the Sahara behind it, increasing temperatures quite noticeably. The position of the Jetstream is not affected by varying levels of atmospheric CO2.

4) Ocean Currents. Play a very big part in regulating the climate by transporting water of different temperatures around the world. These currents can be predicted and monitored. There are five principle currents. The two best known are El Nino and La Nina. The behaviour of ocean currents is not affected by varying levels of atmospheric CO2.;

5) Gravitational pulls on our planet. These will slightly affect our relationship with the sun (and solar activity). Gravitational pulls are not affected by varying levels of atmospheric CO2.

6) Stratospheric winds. These circulate in the polar vortex. If they weaken or change direction our climate is affected. The behaviour of stratospheric winds is not affected by varying levels of atmospheric CO2.

7) Water Vapour. This has a significant effect on our climate which is discussed fully in the section entitled: "The five greenhouse gases".

8) Cosmic rays. Are a form of high energy radiation originating from astronomical bodies outside the solar system – stars, novae and so on. However, according to Svensmark, they may have a significant role in climate. When they hit the Earth's atmosphere, they promote the creation of particles which facilitate the condensation of water vapour, creating more clouds, and thus increasing the Earth's albedo, promoting cooling. Therefore – a complex chain of causation. Sunspots, which are cyclical, are associated with a strengthening of the sun's magnetic field. This field in turn tends to protect the inner planets, like Earth, from cosmic rays. So less cloud, less albedo, more warming. Before Halley, it was believed that sunspots would make the sun, and therefore the earth, cooler. Halley showed that in fact sunspots correlate with warming. Cosmic rays are not influenced by atmospheric levels of CO2.

9) CO2. (of which only 4% is a consequence of human activity) is the last, and least important cause of climate change. Professor Fred Singer states-: "CO2 is lost in the background of other factors" CO2 is discussed fully in the section entitled: "The five greenhouse gases".



CO2. A trace gas that occupies on average about 0.04% /400 parts per million of our atmosphere. The highest levels are found above the rainforests and the lowest over the cooler latitudes of the large landmasses.

As seen above CO2, is an irrelevant factor in seven of the nine causes of climate change.

No professional weather forecasters rely on CO2 levels to shape their forecasts.

There is as yet no peer reviewed scientific paper that demonstrates a positive link between human induced emissions of CO2 and a consequential change in the climate.

CO2 is crucial to plant growth, and there is no substitute for it. Where other factors such as moisture, nutrients, temperature, soil structure, disease and pest levels are satisfactory, then CO2 becomes the limiting factor for plant growth. Such a situation will occur in a commercial glasshouse where there is total control over the above. CO2 is therefore purchased and pumped into these structures. Tripling the CO2 level from 0.04% to 0.12% is cost effective.

The present level of 400 parts per million (ppp) CO2 is at a relative historic low. If the level dropped to 270 ppm plant growth would suffer. A further drop to 180 ppm would cause failure.

There is indeed a link between Atmospheric CO2 and global warming, but it is the opposite of what we are told.

When solar activity warms our planet, the oceans warm slowly as well, albeit lagging behind.

As they warm, they release CO2. The relationship between the temperature of water and the amount of CO2 that can be dissolved within it is well understood. It is also easy to demonstrate this in every day terms.

Select two bottles of fizzy drink. Shake them equally. Place one in a fridge, the other in the presence of warmth. Open both two hours later. The one from the fridge will 'smoke' slightly. The warm drink will expel its surplus CO2 in a violent emission of foam and froth.

Hence increased atmospheric CO2 is a consequence of global warming not a cause of it.

Despite the crucial nature of CO2 to our very survival there is a fashionable aspiration to remove it permanently from the atmosphere known as 'carbon sequestration'. There is an erroneous assumption that tree planting on a massive scale will help achieve this. This is nonsensical, because trees are carbon neutral. During their life they do indeed absorb more CO2 than they emit (in the form of annual leaf drop and fallen boughs). However ALL trees die. When this occurs the rotting process will emit ALL CO2 previously absorbed.

Many trees will burnt for firewood, emitting all previously absorbed CO2.

Many trees will be used in the timber trade. Products made of wood will ultimately fatally suffer from dry-rot, or wet-rot. This can only be avoided by treating wood with highly toxic preservatives. These of course carry their own "carbon footprint".

Farmers are being persuaded to incorporate organic matter into their soils as a way to permanently "sequester Carbon". This will work up to the point where an equilibrium, or balance is achieved. In a well-structured soil the rotting of this organic matter will produce CO2, (because Oxygen is present in a well structured soil). This CO2, through a process of gaseous exchange and soil microbe activity, works its way to the surface and into the atmosphere for the benefit of more plant growth.

Indeed fen soils are steadily shrinking, becoming net emitters of CO2 as cultivations introduce oxygen. Converting these soils to permanent grass will slow this process, but the fen soils are an organic material, and therefore will ultimately degrade.

The two world maps overleaf demonstrate the absurdity of the vilification of CO2. They blow apart the entire climate 'religion'.

The top map is the EDGAR map. This is a calculation by "experts" of where they assume the CO2 hotspots are likely to be found. That is, above the main centres of population and industrial activity.

The lower map shows the actual concentrations of CO2 observed by SCIAMACHY using the ENVISAT satellite. These are accurate measurements, as opposed to theories and show quite categorically that the worlds CO2 hotspots are found exclusively above the tropical rain forests. However the atmosphere above industrial heartlands of North East America, North West Europe, and China contains no more CO2 than the atmosphere above Alaska or the Australian desert.

These measurements also agree with Japans BUKU data.

These measurements are an anathema to The Green Lobby who view the rain forests as virtuous victims valiantly attempting to purify the air above of "harmful CO2" .

The rain forests operate in a virtuous cycle . Warmth and moisture stimulate rapid growth stimulating rapid transpiration of water vapour leading to rapid breakdown of dying vegetation. This emits CO2, Methane and Nitrous Oxide. All these fuel the next generation of growth. The heavy CO2 is trapped under the water vapour for the benefit of the trees beneath stimulating them into faster growth.

The inconvenient truth for the Green Lobby is that the easiest way to reduce atmospheric CO2 is to clear fell all the rain forests. The BBC which prides itself on investigative journalism and exposing scams cannot bring itself to confront them with this paradox.


A transitory trace gas occupying 0.0002% (2ppm) of our atmosphere. Methane is produced from rotting organic matter in anaerobic conditions (the absence of air) and the presence of water. Such conditions are found in the rumen of ruminants and the bottom of rain forests. Termites are also a major source of methane.

Once emitted from its anaerobic origins, Methane combines with the oxygen in the atmosphere to produce CO2 and water vapour. Each of these gases are of course essential to plant growth. The conversion process takes about 12 years.

Ruminants are quite unfairly accused of negatively changing the climate. Ruminants are not a recent man-made introduction to the planet. Wild ruminants roamed the world in vast numbers until being displaced by human activity and replaced to an extent by domestic ruminants.

There is a fashionable opinion that states that a reduction in farm ruminants will result in a reduction of methane, and accordingly a better climate. This is utter nonsense. Ruminants graze grass. If the grass is left un-grazed it will run to seed and rot through the winter, emitting CO2 (and methane, if the rotting is in anaerobic conditions). Un-grazed grass in the summer is a fire risk. If a fire occurs, all the organic matter in the long dry grass will be released as CO2.

Grass occupies about 60% of the UK's agricultural area. It cannot be easily digested by humans, but with the help of ruminants, grass produces meat, milk, leather and wool.


A transitory trace gas that occupies 0.00005% (0.5 ppm) of our atmosphere.

Nitrous oxide is a consequence of plant growth. About 62% of this gas is produced by natural vegetation, with the rain forests being a major contributor.

The human element (38%) is mainly associated with the fertilisation of crops using either synthetic or organic Nitrogen. However leguminous crops also emit Nitrous Oxide, but to a lesser extent.

The rate of ultimate breakdown is much slower than methane taking 114 years.

Eliminating the human inspired element of this gas is very easily achieved: Cease fertilisation of crops and do not rear livestock. The certain negative consequence of such a "cure" is mass starvation. The possible benefit being an unproven slight improvement in the world's weather.

Modern plant breeding techniques can produce varieties of grains that require less synthetic nitrogen to maintain the same yield. Perversely those individuals who campaign about the evils of Nitrous Oxide are the same individuals who campaign about the evils of the modern plant breeding methods!


The amount of water vapour in the atmosphere varies substantially, but averages about 0.4% (4000 ppm). Water vapour is essential for the whole of the biosphere – without water, no precipitation, no life. However Water Vapour is the most important greenhouse gas (GHG), providing around 90% of all the GHG warming effect, with CO2 contributing 7% and the others the remainder.

While we can strive, rather ineffectually, to limit our emissions of CO2, we can clearly do little or nothing about water vapour, which will be there as long as the wind blows over the oceans. Nor should we try, for obvious reasons.

Water vapour has one other key impact on global temperature. Water vapour leads to cloud formation. Clouds prevent direct sunlight reaching the surface of the earth, and reflect much more solar radiation back into space. Clouds increase the reflectivity or albedo of the earth. Recent studies suggest a casual link between sunspots and cloud formation. Sunspots are associated with a stronger solar magnetism. The solar magnetic field tends to protect the inner planets from cosmic radiation from outside the solar system. Cosmic rays are associated with cloud formation in the upper atmosphere. So sunspots > stronger solar magnetism > lower cosmic ray flux > less cloud cover > warmer temperatures.


A trace gas occupying 0.00004% (0.4 ppm) of the atmosphere.

Human activity has reduced the levels of this Greenhouse Gas, but that has not been a cause for celebration. CFCs, (gases used in aerosols and refrigerators) when released into the atmosphere have unintentionally degraded the Ozone layer in parts of the Southern Hemisphere. The consequence has been to allow stronger intensities of Ultra Violet Light to penetrate the atmosphere leading to a greater susceptibility to sunburn.



450 years ago a scientist, Galileo, was a lone voice declaring that our planet rotated around the sun. 99% of scientists disagreed with him. In fact his view was so unpopular that it was considered blasphemous, a crime punishable by death. Fortunately for him he had the patronage of the Medici family who prevented his punishment. No one disagrees with Galileo's theory now. Science is never settled. It is always open to challenge.

There is a reason why most of the serious scientists who challenge the alarmist consensus are elderly and retired. Within academic institutions there is enormous pressure to conform. Those who challenge the group-think consensus can be denied promotion, denied tenure, denied publication. At best they are likely to be ignored. The fear of being "cancelled" on social media for being a "climate denier" is a highly effective method of intimidation. This ranks alongside being a racist, Neo Nazi, homophobe or TERF.

A very high degree of moral courage and/or large bank balance is required here to resist such pressures. Scientists with mortgages and modest salaries are understandably reluctant to put their heads above the parapet. There used to be a "green" narrative that the fossil fuel companies far outspent green campaigners in making their case. If that was ever true, it is certainly no longer so. It is fairly difficult to get accurate figures, if only because the definitions of what constitutes pro – and anti- alarmist activity are so ill defined. However published estimates of spending on lobbying by fossil fuel companies suggest that the industry may spend of the order of $200 million annually (by no means all of it challenging the climate consensus), while spending on the alarmist side runs into hundreds of billions.

Whilst on the topic of "green" propaganda, it has been widely reported for the best part of ten years that Russia has provided very substantial funding to green organisations campaigning against shale gas. See Guardian article 19/6/14. Russia's commercial interest in stopping Western gas extraction and protecting Russian gas exports is self-evident.


For the last Four billion + years there has been a climate. Mankind has only been regularly recording the weather on a global scale for about 150 years. It is ridiculous to assume that all extremes have been visited in such a relatively tiny time span. Records will regularly be broken. This might warrant a casual mention, but not to draw a dramatic long term conclusion.


We constantly hear extreme weather events hyped as the dire consequences of man-made climate change. Floods in Bangladesh or wildfires in California are awful warnings of where our disregard for our planet is leading us. Newspapers and other news media live by headlining dramatic events and even more dramatic warnings.

So it is reassuring to look at the data, and find that things are not as bad as the headlines imply. Let's start with a surprising statistic: from 1900 to 2000, death rates from extreme weather events (drought/flood/storms/extreme temperatures) fell by 80%. Yes, fell. Meantime average global temperatures rose by 1.2 °C. The alarmist narrative would lead us to expect more weather-related events – but there were far fewer.

There is, of course, far more, and more dramatic and immediate news coverage of such events, causing an impression of greater disasters. Of course warming advocates will point to increasing insurance pay-outs on such claims. However the increase in insurance pay-outs is a function of more people, more development, more property, higher value property = more insurance. If we insist on building houses on flood plains, there will be more insurance claims.

Annual numbers of hurricanes in the North Atlantic show only modest changes over 1850/2010. Drought statistics from mainland USA show no strong trend (1910/2010), with the biggest feature being the dry conditions of the "dust bowl" in the 1930s. The area burned globally by wildfires (2003/2015) show a marked downward trend.

For once let's take the IPCCs word for it. Its AR5 WGI reports: "low confidence" in any trend in magnitude or frequency of global floods. "Low confidence" in any global scale trend in droughts since the mid 20th century, similarly "low confidence" in trends in small scale severe weather such as hail and thunderstorms, and also "low confidence" in any large-scale changes in the intensity of extreme extratropical cyclones since 1900".

The World Meteorological Organisation makes a key point: "any single event, such as a severe tropical cyclone (hurricane or typhoon) cannot be attributed to human-induced climate change, given the current status of scientific understanding".


Many countries and organisations around the world are committed to reducing net CO2 omissions to zero by 2050 or thereabouts, including the UK, where the net zero by 2050 target is enshrined in law.(Though it remains unclear who goes to jail if the target is missed).

It is simply assumed that the benefits of Net Zero are self-evident, and self-evidently outweigh the very substantial costs of the project. "Surely the survival of the planet is worth any cost?" They argue. Yet this is one of the most expensive programmes ever undertaken by the British Government, and it seems extraordinary that it should be launched without any attempt at a cost/benefit analysis. Of course at this early stage it is very difficult to create a likely cost estimate, but a figure of US$275 trillion by 2050 has been suggested for the global cost. To give this some perspective, global GDP is estimated at $103 trillion in 2022, so we are talking about a cost of 260% of annual global GDP. For the UK, a figure of £3 trillion has been mooted, or 130% of UK GDP. These are vast sums.

A key point is raised in Lord Lawson (former chancellor Nigel Lawson)'s 2008 book "An appeal to reason". Lawson points out that the costs are immediate, whereas the benefits foreseen accrue largely after decades. Accordingly we should apply the principles of "discounted cash flow". Clearly £100 today is worth a great deal more than, say, £100 in 2050. Indeed if inflation were to average as little as 3%, our £100 today would be worth less than £43 in 2050. The costs of Net Zero will largely occur in the first half of the 21st century, whilst the supposed benefits occur in the second half, when they will be worth less than the headline figure. Lawson also points out that the benefits are speculative. We invest vast sums today, for indeterminate benefits that may or may not occur many decades hence.

Another key insight: The consensus of many projections and models is that a temperature rise of 3°C by 2100 is unlikely to reduce global GDP by more than 4%. However on very modest growth estimates, GDP by 2100 is likely to be 300% of todays figure. If climate change reduces that by even by 4%, It's still 288% of todays figure. So we are invited to spend massively today so that our great-great-great grandchildren can be three times richer than us, rather than 2.88 times richer. Add in a huge measure of speculation and uncertainty and Net Zero looks a very bad deal indeed.

Is it even possible? It is just conceivable that it could be achieved, if the whole world were committed to it. This is extraordinarily unlikely, given the social, economic, financial, political and diplomatic barriers in the way. Indeed we see a perfect illustration of the problems in the energy crisis currently unfolding alongside Russia's wholly unnecessary and illegal invasion of Ukraine. There are massive CO2 emissions as a direct result of this war, with Russia flaring off gas apparently out of spite, and the breaches of the undersea Nordstream pipeline. We see European countries competing for gas supplies, urging investment in oil and gas, keeping open fossil fuel power stations previously scheduled for closure. We see China, India and developing countries building new coal fired capacity. We see Western companies moving production to Asia, no longer for cheaper labour, but for cheaper energy.

At the IPCC's annual COP conferences, we see developing countries agreeing in principle to Net Zero, but arguing (with some justification) that they want a share of the economic growth that the West has already achieved on the back of fossil fuels, and making wholly unrealistic demands for massive cash transfers as compensation. A pattern seems to be emerging of Western countries agreeing in principle to massive climate aid subventions, but in practice failing to deliver.

It seems to be an iron rule of economics that economic development requires energy. To bring poor countries up to Western standards requires huge increases in energy consumption. Bear in mind that the global population is projected to rise by another billion plus by the mid century and most of this growth will be in developing countries, creating more energy demand.

Where will this energy come from? Indeed, closer to home, where will our UK energy come from? We talk of banning internal combustion engines from cars by 2030 (at a cost, according to a recent press report of £14,000 per household for all UK households). We talk of banning the installation of new gas boilers and switching to heat pumps. However even today, as a result of decades of under-investment, we struggle to keep the lights on, yet we intend to double electricity production whilst closing down fossil fuel?

The irony is that this could well be a problem that solves itself. New technologies like nuclear fusion could well be the future of energy production, and industries and countries could turn to this and other wholly new technologies not because of fear of global warming, but simply because the new, carbon-free technologies are eventually more economical. Doom-sayers have been predicting the end of fossil fuels at least since 1980. "they are finite, they will run out" we are told. Maybe, but not for a long time yet, and hopefully we'll have new and better alternatives before they do. After all the Stone Age didn't end because we'd run out of stones. It ended when we found better technologies.


All of the above arguments are plausible and cannot be easily dismissed. So why have the Establishment embraced the theory of man-made Climate change so wholeheartedly?

Socialism and Capitalism are both at work here.


The narrative here is that the evil Rich West is destroying the climate for the impoverished innocent South by burning fossil fuels on a very large scale. The Rich West must therefore transfer wealth to the poor South in the form of 'Carbon Credits'. The fact that the rain forests are the biggest emitters of greenhouse Gases, and that rain forests are mainly in poor countries is conveniently overlooked.


The drive for sources of renewable energy has created enormous opportunities for the large scale manufacture of wind turbines, solar panels, big batteries and electric cars. This has involved a massive investment that will be seriously jeopardised if Carbon Dioxide is proven innocent.

The Combination of socialism and capitalism holding hands in this way is an unstoppable force at present. We are seeing the modern day equivalent of building temples, sacrificing virgins and burning witches to please the Gods.


The solar cycles which dominate changes to our climate indicate that the next event is a "Grand Solar Minimum" presaging a cooler world. It is apparently very imminent. It's arrival will no doubt be 'spun' as the successful result of building temples.


Climate: The great delusion. Christian Gerondeau

Climate: The counter consensus. Prof Robert M Carter

The neglected sun – Why the sun precludes climate catastrophe. Fritz Vahrenholt and Sebastian Luning

The Hockey Stick Illusion – Climategate and the corruption of science. A.W.Montford

Font size: +

Related Posts

Contact us

Director : Robert Oulds
Tel: 020 7287 4414
Chairman: Barry Legg
The Bruges Group
246 Linen Hall, 162-168 Regent Street
London W1B 5TB
United Kingdom
Founder President :
The Rt Hon. the Baroness Thatcher of Kesteven LG, OM, FRS 
Vice-President : The Rt Hon. the Lord Lamont of Lerwick,
Chairman: Barry Legg
Director : Robert Oulds MA, FRSA
Washington D.C. Representative : John O'Sullivan CBE
Founder Chairman : Lord Harris of High Cross
Head of Media: Jack Soames