February 11th, 2014

SKETCH: Peter Lilley v Tim Yeo

That was a first. Not even Ellis vs Vaz has produced a moment like Peter Lilley flying at Tim Yeo in committee this morning.

”That is disgraceful!” Lilley spat out as Yeo took the questioning away from him. “Absolutely disgraceful! You have protected a witness who cannot answer a question.”

Would not, rather than could not. We had a masterclass in passive aggressive responses from Emily Shuckburgh of the Royal Meteorological Society. Her winsome smile, her quiet, disbelieving giggle, her cosy chuckling with allies in the room, her manner of explaining something really, really difficult to a seven-year-old. And almost effortlessly constructing answers just wide enough of the question to confuse the issue, the audience and the questioners.

Peter Lilley asked: “Since 1997, the amount of CO2 emitted by mankind is a third of all CO2 that mankind has emitted. And there has been no statistically significant rise in the surface temperature. Does that increase, decrease or leave unchanged your confidence that the scale of warming will be as high as previously thought?”

She didn’t say, “Slightly decreased.” They only use short answers when they want to be understood. Such as: “Do you think there’s anything in the latest climate report to justify a change of policy? “No.”

The weather chief used the ever-suspicious beginning: “I think the first thing that’s important to note is”. . . Sceptic-sounding facts or questions always have to be contextualised.

Lilley: “First of all, answer the question. Increase, decrease or leave unchanged your confidence in the projections.”

Shuckburgh: (Smiling winsomely) “Mr Lilley, I’m going to answer your question, don’t worry.”

But to answer a question from Lilley directly is a loss. A defeat. An acknowledgement he has a right to an opinion.

Had she been among friends, and in private, and not-to-be-quoted, she might have said: “We have significantly decreased confidence in short-term warming as rapid as previously thought. The IPCC has, in fact, reduced its forecast accordingly.”

But no. She was dealing with a Lilley and she wasn’t giving him a single bone to chew on. When he repeated his question – increased, decreased, unchanged? – she looked cornered for a moment. Struggled for an answer and then inspiration struck:

“Your question in itself is not well-formed. You ask whether it leaves unchanged future projections of temperature change, but in order for your question to be well-defined you need to articulate over what time period.”

That’s passive aggressive fighting talk.

She gave her answer in such a way as to satisfy her allies and infuriate her opponents.

Lilley: “Witness refused to answer the question.”

Shuckburgh: (Always accuse your opponent of your own most obvious fault) “Oh no, come on, you’re playing politics.

Yeo: (Smoothly) Rather a comprehensive answer.

Shortly after this, Lilley’s burst of anger made his opponents purr with satisfaction. It was a small but significant climate change victory. A sceptic had been made to lose his temper.

As far as I could follow it, Lilley wanted to know why the model projections differed from the expert judgements. Whether the projections had been fudged to make the models produce the desired answers.

Ms Shuckburgh’s explanation was that the models were constructed for 100-year predictions and were no good for predicting climate over the next couple of decades.

And then, by way of finesse, she also said that you could feed other data in and the models could be used to predict the next 10 or 20 years.

The difficulty with – and brilliance of – passive aggressive confrontations is that you can’t quite follow what’s going on. And usually, it’s not worth finding out. But climate change is a multi-trillion dollar issue and deserves better.


  1. 1
    seriously? says:

    So, in short, she won.

    She refused to answer the question and wound Lilley up so much he spat out the dummy.

    It’s why nobodyhas any time for any global warming cultist or any politico. They’re lal as bad as each other.

    She knew the answer. She knew the answer he wanted. But she refused to give him his victory. And yet, were the show on the other foot Lilley or Cameron or Milband or Balls would pull exactly the same stunt.

    Utter fucking scum the lot of them. And infuriating to the point of incoherence when, as you say, absolutely mind-cripplingly stupid policy decisions are being made in the teeth of fuck-all evidence.


    • 2
      Eric Pickles says:

      Buying Mercedes cars for tinpot dictators will help prevent flooding in the south west.


      • 9
        The public says:

        You are a dolt. Eat less and do some exercise.


        • 31
          SarumSea says:

          Not this bit of public.
          Try not to be personal in your attack.


          • Fatty fat-fuck Pickles is a disgrace to humanity says:

            Hmm. Useless fat fuck fatty Pickles insults the intelligence of everyone in the country by pretending that the government’s squandering of £11 billion every year on foreign aid (to countries that don’t need it) is “a good thing” and “will prevent flooding in Britain”.

            Insult the useless fat fuck? I hope the useless fatty fat fuck chokes to death on his own vomit or dies of the massive heart attack he’s been working towards for many many years.


          • The public says:

            In the real world, as with the internet, there are no Marquess of Queensbury’s rules.

            If you think I am wrong and that he is an intelligent and healthy man reaching the full extent of his potential as a human being, who does not need to do some excerice, then your frame of reference must be severely limited for some reason or reasons which people can only speculate about.


        • 45
          broderick crawford says:


          i cant . my joints are atrophied and i have ciculatory and cholesterol problems also my stomach ( like nature ) abhors a vacuum .

          i should have followed tbe advice of my uncle wilfred who was famous for noting ” take phylosan , it fortifies the over forties “


          • Táxpáyér says:


          • Keitho says:

            Considering the handicaps that his physical reality may bring he has done awfully well to get as far as he has. Many folk may find his shape distasteful but he has a better job than yours.

            The triumph of will over adversity. Frankly I like him and he is doing good things.


        • 233
          Eric Pickles says:

          Can we discuss this inside please. (Good line, that one, picked it up from a friend recently).


      • 96
        Dave lessons learnt says:

        I have arranged that everyone will be issued with a voucher to purchase a pair of wellies from G4s. I myself at great risk have put my pair on expensive.


    • 3
      C.O.Jones says:

      They can get that evidence fairly quickly. You would be amazed at what a decent research grant can provide.


    • 7
      It would be fun to... says:

      Publish her address and allow the public to decide on whether the drains around her home should be cleaned and whether or not her home is flooded next time it rains.


      • 14
        Mornington Crescent says:

        She may be Climate Change scammer and I don’t know about the state of her drains but my plunger is available to her at any time:


    • 11
      Surrey man in scuba gear to get to computer says:

      I agree, no evidence of climate change at all


      • 16
        Táxpáyér says:

        So they were expecting rain, and did the one thing to make it worse?

        I always thought they were saying it was going to be dryer…


        • 25
          seriously? says:

          They did more than that. Blair’s idiot token Northerner, Prescott, entrusted with a staff of 2,000 to make him feel important made on single headline decision. He decided to built 100,000 homes on a floodplain.

          It has to be deliberate. They knew it was a floodplain before they started. We’ve had a Thames Barrier for 30 or so years – the risk of flooding purely from isostatic rebound is recognised and yet they still chose to build 100,000 homes on a floodplain.

          They’re actually setting the scenarios up to they can say ‘See – global warming is real – we never had as many as 100K homes flooded before..’

          What the fuck is going on?


        • 34
          Anonymous says:

          Its ‘climate change’ when its cold and wet, its ‘global warming’ when its hot. Their argument changes to suit the weather – isn’t that were the saying comes from?


          • Village Idiot says:

            ……If you pay the full council tax,surely the council in receipt of that tax should ensure that the environment around said property,should be maintained to a suitable standard,failure to achieve this,should result in refunds with costs!..Would these flooded properties ,damaged by negligence of council and EA,over years,be entitled to sue the government?
            Example; If the council did the drainage ,the EA did dredging and clearing,the flood water may reach a depth of 1ft,but if the council and EA neglected the drainage for years,and the flood water was 3ft,is there a case?……..Insurance is separate…


      • 22
        Ancient Egypt says:

        Once upon a time Egypt was green and verdant around the Nile.

        Those blasted biblical car plants pumping out their deadly CO2.



      • 267
        Observation says:

        Yeah right, ‘cos the levels never flooded before right?

        The Environment Agency acting on directions from Brussels stopped dredging.
        Result is now plain to see.

        Out of their £1.2 billion budget the Environment Agency spent £20 million on clearing drains and culverts, and £593 million on staff and pensions.

        They now claim that the problem is lack of funding.


    • 13
      • 46
        All socialists are scum says:

        She’s one ugly fucking munter. Par for the course for socialist vermin and scum with their snouts in the trough.


      • 235
        NE Frontiersman says:

        If she’s only just resigned, they can get away without a by-election held in a mood of outrage, because there’s less than six months to the next election.

        Labour pulled this trick in Waltham Forest recently, when one of their insiders was caught nicking £100 grand from a church charity. Caught in September, but waited until January to plead guilty, then resign. If the idiot had stolen from the council, nobody would be any the wiser. They’re still looking for £11 million that went missing 5 years ago, but a bunch of vicars caught this guy in no time.


    • 101
      In the long term says:

      If ‘winning’ means disrespecting the public and avoiding answering the questions put on our behalf by a member of our national Parliament, she can think of herself as a ‘winner’. But I think that she is really a ‘loser’.

      People like this just come across as untrustworthy.


    • 104
      Jeremiah says:

      Basically she was doing a Maggie, she said what she wanted to say and not directly answer the question, Maggie was a past master at that. There are too many variables which affect the global climate, Methane (like that produced in HoC & HoL, farm animals, and natural emissions), CO2 levels, the solar cycle every 11 years or so, the distance of the earth with respect to the sun, the gravitational pull of other planets, the level of oxygen in the atmosphere, the list is endless. Rest assured, that firm of lawyers Fawkes, Fawkes & Shyster (formerly Fawkes & Co) say there is no such thing as gobal warming.


      • 115
        Táxpáyér says:

        You forget the most important.


        For atmospheres bounded by essentially gravity T==n


      • 138
        seriously? says:

        Indeed there are a huge number of variables. The interaction of which is understood by nobody. Yet we are shown models in (say) 2010 which faithfully inform us that the oceans will be boiling by (say) 2050 and yet come 2014 the temperature has not risen by even the lowest possible limit set back in 2010.

        The models are fucking useless. The ‘science’ is non-existent. Yet we are hobbling our economy pursuing with acts of eco-madness while the rest of the developed/developing world smirks behind its hands.


        • 188
          (Rarely) Dangerous Brian says:

          I clearly remember that great politician, statesman and energy secretary Sir Edward Milliband stating, quite catergorically “The science is proven”.
          Are you perchance saying he didn’t (and still doesn’t) know what he was talking about?
          Does he know where Doncaster is yet?
          Is he a backstabbing attention grabber, a closet commie, a union puppet or all of the above/
          Answers on …….. blah blah blah.


      • 154
        CARBON FOOTPRINT says:

        How can fucking farm animals cause global warming only an absolute IDIOT could believe that utter BULLSHIT !!!


      • 239
        Mine d'Boggles says:

        Read up on the Milankovic cycles.


      • 262
        Anonymous says:

        The irony is no one ever discusses the main drivers of global warming. Water vapour has a total effect 3x than CO2 emissions and it trended up over the last few years. (hmm, better not give them ideas for their water tax).

        i don’t think it even mentions that water is a 3x bigger driver of global warming in any of the UN reports I’ve seen, i think the AR4 and AR5 mentions deep within the techie bit that it went up, but nowhere near the executive summary.


    • 109
      Red line on the map says:

      Labour to demand a monsoon tax on all properties.


    • 268
      CB says:

      Fucking waterboard the slapper.


    • 270
      The Stig says:

      win the battle, lose the war.


    • 271
      Club of Rome says:

      At the root of it all is what one could call a “tick-tock” debating technique. There are two arguments, both flawed. When one is close to being debunked, the cliamatist switches over to the other, with a flourish of “it’s not that, silly, it’s this!”.

      Argument 1 is the historical/empirical one – that temps are rising and fast so panic now! Argument 2 is the predictive/consensus argument that says temps will inevitably shoot up at some point in the future, by the authority of science!

      1 is debunked variously by the fact that temps were already on the up before human CO2, that random fluctuations can and do occur on those timescales, and the pause. 2 is debunked by the fact that without some sort of historical or experimental verification the models are not scientific, and the people who peddle them are really just a small number of activists working in politicized institutions.

      Peter’s question addressed 1, and Emily refused to answer it on the grounds that the debate should be about 2 (the “tick”). What Peter should have done is (a) accept the answer as if it were a concession on argument 1 and then (b) ask the difficult questions relating to 2 (causing Emily to “tock” back to 1).

      PS the giggling is what people do when they feel like they’ve gained control over a greater force using their wits. Just citing falling public approval levels for climate change and the green agenda as a whole would have sobered her up in an instant.


  2. 4
    i don't need no doctor says:

    Shuckburgh spoke in riddles.
    What is Yeo’s agenda?


  3. 5
    Jimmy says:

    “her manner of explaining something really, really difficult to a seven-year-old.”

    And still it went over his head.


  4. 6
    Pissed off says:

    Anticipating global warming and drought they sold dredging equipment invested fuck all in snow ploughs and salt and used unsuitable tarmac on our roads which are now full of potholes.
    Anything else these climate wankers have got right?


  5. 8
    Moley says:

    The fact that these global warming cultists are unable and unwilling to answer direct questions succinctly is in itself an admission, both that they know themselves to be wrong, and that they are incapable of admitting that unfolding reality is destroying their arguments.

    They won’t be getting many new recruits, and for that, we should be grateful.


  6. 10
    Anonymous says:

    You can tell one thing with 100% confidence.
    You can tell they’re lying because their lips are moving.


    • 149
      Mme Guillotine says:

      Of what use anyway is this bloody Qango? Dave, your first target on Monday – stop their funding and close the bloody lot down. If we want to know what the weather is doing most of just look out pf the window.


  7. 18
    The 70s are Back says:

    TV weather presenter Fred Talbot has appeared in court charged with the sexual abuse of schoolchildren between 1968 and 1983. The 64-year-old former teacher is accused of nine offences of indecent assault and one serious sexual assault against five alleged victims. At Manchester Magistrates’ Court, Mr Talbot spoke only to confirm his name, address and date of birth.


  8. 21
    Loosehead says:

    Its a simple question, and there are three possible one-word answers. Pick one.


  9. 23
    Glyn H says:

    Hurrah for Lilley; pity the warmists have not twigged it is sun activity that drives our constantly changing climate and that the CO2 rises historically follow rather than led the temperature increases. And as the modelling can be out by 40% after a few months ( vide the Trrasuary predictions 6 months after PBRs and the like) using 100 year predictions to make policy, such as the 2008 Climate Act, is cretinous.


  10. 27

    Global climate change sensitivites. Globullshit!


  11. 28
    Long John Silver's parrot says:

    Nothing like a Tory crossed in love.


  12. 29
    altruism in industry says:

    the argument is, from the warmers side, that it is a religion, it is not necessary to have facts because it is a belief, a gut feeling and if climate change is shown in one hundred years to have nothing to do with human activity then it is still a good thing to reduce the pollution and protect the creepy crawlies, don’t you think ?
    My view is that pollution and population is causing irrepairable damage to the nature. and I would like to see a reduction in the global population of 90% but I can’t see that happening until all the resources are completely used up. Optimists think that science will always come up with a solution, invent some magical, unthoughtof thing and I can see that scenario working, hopefully.


    • 63
      Anonymous says:

      The educated pessimist point of view has been voiced so many times over the centuries that it certainly cannot be considered the realistic point of view. Reverend Malthus wrote his essay of doom and gloom on population in 1798 he was wrong. There have been a succession of headline grabbing disaster predictions since that have come to nothing. My position is this, fool me once, shame on you, fool me twice, shame on me.


      • 164
        Skeleton Bob says:

        It is hardly logical that with a finite amount of land you can continue to increase population infinitely. And yet some idiots believe that to be the case. We are already seeing the huge damage that overpopulation causes in the world. Whether it be pollution or food and water shortages (increased by droughts) or floods (increased by having to house people in areas liable to flooding) and yes even ‘man-made’ global warming if you believe in it. And then there are all the extra resources (such as fuel) needed to cope with all these billions.


        • 197
          (Rarely) Dangerous Brian says:

          Yes and you will also have continuing limitless growth (boom)
          without ever encountering downturn (bust).
          Just ask Gordon.


    • 136
      Táxpáyér says:

      Go back to malthus and keynsian bullshit sites and stay there


    • 247
      bubble says:

      “I would like to see a reduction in the global population of 90%”

      This is the underlying reality of the green agenda and why breaking the global warming cult is so important. There’s no limit to what they’d do and they’ve been burrowing their way into institutions like the EA and EU for decades.


      • 252
        altruism in industry says:

        I always used to view the world manufacturing / expansion as a gambler on a doubling up system thinking that he must eventually win before he runs out of funds.


      • 255
        Cardinal Biggles says:

        Sounds like a Pol Pot solution to me.

        Good old Saloth Sar and his Khmer Rouge cadres returned the country to an ideal agrarian past by emptying the cities and slaughtering about a third of the population. They obviously didn’t go far enough in the view of the Gaia worshipers.


  13. 33
    Kay should never have put herself under the knife says:

    Kay Burley has the look of the plastic surgery about her. Piggy eyes with tight surrounding skin and a frozen expressionless face.

    What a pity she succumbed. She looks like a freak now


  14. 37
    Persona non grata says:

    Farage objected to flood plain homes in 2003.



  15. 38
    Ed's Holiday Tweet says:


  16. 41
    del boy says:

    If it gets warmer then it gets warmer.

    End of story.

    Not much you can do about it without moving the sun off its axis.


    • 47
      SarumSea says:

      Well said Delboy.
      Instead of wasting billions trying to stop climate change (a laughable notion) the dosh will be better spent learning to live with the fact, while reducing human impact.


    • 55
      Jimmy says:

      I think the rightie argument is still that it’s premature to act on the current evidence. The “too late to act” argument comes later.


      • 64
        seriously? says:

        What evidence? It’s just a bunch of geographers with some numbers they don’t understand. They’re no more scientists than L. Ron Hubbard.


      • 91
        Half a million dead Ragheads murdered by a former memer of CND says:

        It’s a “right v Left” thing is it Jimmy, you narrowminded twat? If you believe the proletariate should own the means of production, then you must also believe that climat change is predominantly man-made, and vice versa.


        • 212
          Anonymous says:

          But it is a right vs left argument. That is why the BBC believe it. The socialist approach has failed so many times in so many circumstances in so many countries that they need a new leaver to pull to make every one do as they say, and this ‘idea’ fits with what they believe… from each according to his (sic) ability to each according to his (sic) need. In other words “I (the lefty) am more able than you (the righty) so you should not get (earn) more than me” If you earn more than me this means that you must be inherently evil because to do so you must consume more than your fair share. All just lowest common denominator stuff.


      • 249
        bubble says:

        The rightie argument ought to be we obviously need better flood and sea defenses and the people preventing that from happening need to be sacked as a minimum and preferably deported to a mangrove swamp somewhere.


    • 248
      bubble says:

      Correct. (Apart from building improved flood and sea defenses to compensate.)


  17. 43
    seriously? says:

    You simply can’t win. The warmists have constructed a paradigm whereby all weather is evidence of ‘climate change’.

    Too wet? ‘Climate change’.

    Too dry? ‘Climate change’.

    Too cold? ‘Climate change’.

    Too much snow? ‘Climate change’.

    Of course the climate is changing – ‘Ah-ha – so you believe in ‘climate change!!!’

    How can you argue with ‘climate change’. You’re fucking well beaten before you start.

    It’s exactly the same rhetorical trick as ‘Doing the right thing’.

    What’s that then. ‘The right thing’.

    But what is the right thing? ‘It’s the right thing to do’?

    But what is the right thing to do? ‘You don’t know what the right thing to do is!!!’

    How can you rationalise with people who are prepared to go down that route?


    • 123
      Indulgences and Tithes says:

      Stop asking questions, and just hand over your money.


    • 144
      Táxpáyér says:

      Green Taxation is mostly economic pollution.

      It leads to greater real world pollution.

      Just look at (and ex-)Marxist countries.


    • 228
      Jim says:

      refuse to call it climate change-keep calling it global warming,all the better to highlight the bulshit claims.


    • 250
      bubble says:

      Always call it global warming. They changed the name to climate change when the warming stopped precisely because “climate change” is a totally meaningless nonsense phrase but most people still think they mean global warming when they say it.


  18. 49
    Datchett Job says:

    How strange that action on the flooding only really happened when multi-million pound homes right on the Thames banks were affected. What do the people who buy such houses expect sitting next to a RIVER on low-lying flood plain. Sure its idyllic in the summer, but what do they expect … a tall concrete wall surrounding their houses to stop the water coming in?


    • 95
      Ed in a bucket says:

      Our pledge is for a wet mansion tax, but we’re actually planning for a monsoon tax.


    • 251
      bubble says:

      “What do the people who buy such houses expect sitting next to a RIVER”

      You know what a river does right? It’s thing that takes rainwater to the sea. They always have done.


  19. 54
    Mark Wouters says:

    Sovietsalami63 Here,
    What we need is NOT another Thatcher, But a CLEMENT ATLEE ,so Mr EDd Milliband what next ??? and Those FLOODY TORIES have done us bad,god has hepled the Labour party and given it a gift ,will it now take notice and win the next general election and give us a LEFTWING GOVERNMENT for the people by the people.
    Thatcherism is dead and so is the Floody tory party ???


    • 60
      seriously? says:

      Floody Tory party?

      Oh, you are a one.


    • 61
      White Dee says:

      Fuck off prat, there aren’t enough bennies to go round.

      We woz ere first


    • 84
      Mr Curious says:

      “god has hepled the Labour party”

      Oh, so that’s what’s happened to them. You don’t want to get hepled.

      Where does hepling come of the list of general nasty things that God in his wisdom inflicts on people? Is it between ‘famine’ and ‘plague of locusts’, or after ‘frogs’?

      I think we should be told.


    • 117

      Clement Atlee another prick who plucked money from the magic socialist money tree , he is the cause of the disastrous nationalisation of industry in the 1940s ,while the Germans were investing their Marshal Plan Dollars into technology and manufacturing ,that idiot was sovietising the British economy into an uncompetative laughing stock ,from which we have never recovered to this day.


  20. 59
    Mark Wouters918@yahoo.co.uk says:

    Sovietsalami63 Here,
    Nearly forgot ! WHERES ALL THE COUNCIL TAX GONE TO ? its not been used to dredge the Thames ,Perhaps the tory partty will dredge itself of Pickles and co ? (is there going to be a Musical ?Flooding and flooding and flooding around ???


    • 62
      The answer you seek is ... says:

      The final salary pension of all the council employed box tickers


    • 126

      Into the pockets of corrupt councillors and local authority kleptocrats most of them stinking socialist Labour filth .


  21. 66
    That's his wellies full then LOL says:


  22. 73
    • 83

      Did Red Ed clear his visit with the local MP? pitching up unannounced in someone else’s manor is a blatant disregard of parliamentary convention. Ed thoroughly deserved his bollocking. his was ecoloon Ed’s time as Minister of the environment where the fateful decisions to carry out lunatic policies was made. Now he has seen what he has wrought, I hope that he will feel justified in flooding out lots of Tory voters.


    • 93

      Here is the classic example of a leftie claiming, in evidence, an alleged video when the link merely provides an article and three pictures.

      Wildly exaggerated claims masquerading as truth. And that goes for your comment too Jimmy!


      • 100
        Jimmy says:

        I think you’ll find that the first picture magically moves when you click on it.

        Have you considered a position on a govt IT quango?


        • 106
          seriously? says:

          Maybe he could have a go at the NHS computer. They seem to have money to burn.


        • 112

          BBC clearly does not want its “evidence” to be seen overseas.

          The first picture I get is captioned “Sir Peter Lilley, right, urges Tim Yeo, third left, not to intervene”.

          However I have looked at the page source found the item and seen there is something there which does not come up on my page.

          The conclusion must be that global warming is happening. But only in Britain.


          • Mme Guillotine says:

            Zat ‘appens all ze time to zose living in ozzer countries. Ze BBC are so zilly as zomvun vill post ze filmlet on ze internet zomevere.


          • Lord Duckhouse of Pondlife says:

            Notice also that they refer to him both as “Sir Peter” and “Mr Lilley” – the latter is correct.


      • 148
        Táxpáyér says:

        “Wildly exaggerated claims masquerading as truth. ” CAGW alarmism in a nutshell


  23. 82


  24. 88

    Simon Carr is the best bit of this blog since Guido sold out.

    A bit of cognitive dissonance for the Millennialist Malthusian Green scum.



  25. 94
    Socratesthegooner says:

    The question I would like someone in government to ask is:
    “What is the optimum temperature for the earth’s climate?”
    If that can’t be answered, then no policy can be formulated.

    For background:
    average global land & ocean surface temperature during 20th century was 13.9 C
    average for 2013 was 14.5 C


    The earth is a bit warmer now than the last century. But is there any reason to think that the the 20th century climate was optimal?


    • 103
      seriously? says:

      Those figures aren’t worth the adulterated spreadsheets they’re entered into. They’re extrapolated/inferred/ignored/’re-evaluated’ as necessary by the warmists to create ‘the world is warming up’ hysteria.


    • 110
      Jimmy says:

      You should send that to Lilley. He’d probably ask it.


      • 119
        seriously? says:

        It’s a fair question. If we’re worried about ‘climate change’ what temperature are we aiming for? What ‘climate’ are we aiming for?

        Why don’t you say what you think? Was the 20thC climate optimal or not?


        • 127
          Emily Shuckburgh says:

          Look the only word you should worry about is change. OK?


        • 145
          Jimmy says:

          As mankind has developed to live and work in this climate then broadly speaking yes. There will be exceptions of course but to take the most stark example if I live somewhere which will be underwater in 100 years then I would have to say the current position is optimal. In any event we may not be talking about maintaining the current position but merely reducing the rate of temperature increase.


          • seriously? says:

            Mankind can and does live in a wide variety of climates. Climates that we know have changed massively over the last 2000 years. Libya was the breadbasket of the Roman Empire. Now it’s a giant ashtray. This all happened long before the industrial revolution ie manmade CO2.

            If you’re going to be under water in 100 years then that is likely due to isostatic rebound in the South of England and nothing to do with ice melting.

            Even if we go along with AGW and say the earth is heating up it just means we’ll migrate (as we obviously did away from the sahara) and into the present day tundra of Canada, Russia and the Antarctic. Indeed, because of the shapes of the continents we’ll actually gain more fertile land than we lose.


          • Jimmy says:

            I hadn’t realised you righties were such big fans of mass migration.

            Can’t see any flaw in that plan


          • seriously? says:

            We own a huge chunk of Antarctica. And Scotland which is much the same thing. We in the UK will be fine.


        • 152
          Táxpáyér says:

          You actually think man can change the global temp?


        • 195
          Socratesthegooner says:

          As far as I know, we are not back to the temperatures of the “medieval climate optimum”. It might be nice to grow grapes at latitude 55 N (again).

          Just like a debate on taxation, when you only take about change, you only talk about the losers. I can’t remember seeing anything published on “Labrador will be improved by climate change” or similar, only stuff about who loses.

          Asking for the optimum value is the right engineering question – independent of whether current trends are anthopogenic or not. (For the record, I think it’s likely there is.) You can’t control a process if you don’t know what the centreline is supposed to be.


        • 229
          Jim says:

          I ask that of global warmists all the time “what’s the earths’ temperature meant to be right now?”
          Watch their little minds implode…..
          Had one on the guard last week, should have heard ‘em.


          • Jimmy says:

            It would range between -100 and 6000C depending on where you were, although perhaps they didn’t think it was quite as a brilliant a question as you do.


    • 269
      Johnny says says:

      I replied to this yesterday but it’s gone awol. Will repeat the gist of it without any links.

      They cannot say with much certainty what the 20th century average actually was due to the relative scarcity of measurements and hard to determine quality of those measurements. Much of the hype about warming could simply be they are getting more accurate at measuring it.

      If you look at the history of that NOAA webpage using web.archive.org you will discover that the NOAA like to revise the figure they give for the 20th century average.

      In 2010 they claimed it was 14 degrees C
      In 2011 it had been reduced to 12.9 degrees C
      By 2012 they had put it up to 13.7 degrees C


  26. 105
    Mike Sugar says:

    It took me a while to navigate the awful parliament.tv website but I eventually found the link to the Lilley v Yeo exchange. It’s well worth watching:


    Simon Carr’s piece is spot on, and Lilley had every right to be angry. Yeo’s future income depends upon “green” renewables.


    • 108
      Jimmy says:

      It does? How shocking!

      Thank God for one honest disinterested parliamentarian.



    • 114
      seriously? says:

      So does a lot of his past and present income.

      I think, rather like watching the 1997 – 2010 Imbecility and wondering why, in the teeth of a runaway housing boom like the one during the 1990s, the Imbecile just sat there and slashed interest rates and stoked the economy with borrowed cash and watched the entire economy implode under housing (and concomitant consumer and public) debt it only becomes clear afterwards why it was allowed to happen.

      It was the expenses scandal that revealed that practically all MPs were building up their property empires using taxpayer money. No wonder they didn’t give a fuck about ballooning house pr*ces. Just as they’re pumping them up again – and for the same reasosns – and no MP – even a Labour one is warning of the obvious madness.

      So it will be with this global warming scam. They’ll all have huge shares in windfarms or solar park subsidies or some fucking angle which is why they’re so keen to carry on the charade.


  27. 113
    Anonymous says:


    • 118
      Paniagua V5.1 says:

      Friday Caption Contest


    • 125
      Ed Miliband says:

      Is it a Bird? No

      Is it a Plane? No

      It’th Thuper Man


    • 151
      i don't need no doctor says:

      Why do people feel the need to stand in the water?


      • 167
        Ah! well says:

        Failed attempt to walk on water.


      • 203
        Ma­q­bo­­ul says:

        More drama in the shot than standing on the dry verge like a normal person.

        Unfortunately these fucking idiots of all parties can’t do a thing, haven’t a clue what’s going on nor have any idea how to solve it. What we are seeing is a free-for-all posturing contest now that flooding is today’s big topic.

        Next week they’ll have all moved onto the next issue.


        • 213
          Fish says:

          They’re still there Ed. You can jump up and down and splash in the water when the cameras have gone.


        • 227

          “Today was an umbrella and puddle day. He’d woken up to the sound of raindrops dancing on the ground and thought “Oh what a lovely day to race between the raindrops and jump in puddles,” so once he’d finished his morning honey, he pulled on his red rubber boots and picked up his brightly-coloured umbrella and wandered outside.” Attr. A.A. Milne, Winnie the Pooh goes Puddle Jumping..


  28. 121
    Memories of being a teen fapping to Kylie videos says:


  29. 122
    EyeSee says:

    The Climate Change scam is exquisite. It shows how stupid we are, in an ‘Emperor’s New Clothes’ kind of way, to believe this arrant, unsupported tosh. It is so obviously rubbish and yet, and yet we are paying billions in taxes to ‘fight’ it. Making the likes of Al Gore ever richer along the way. As Mr. Yeo would not say ‘It’s what we got into politics for’. Now, it is pure sport for these half-wits to claim that they are right and mere proof is of no consequence in their world of argument. Lilley did frame his question wrongly though. There is no point challenging the predictions and her ‘confidence’, he needed to ask why she was confident. After all, every time you run the models against known facts, they get it wrong. Because the answer is already programmed in; Global Warming. Look how Crispin Tickell convinced Maggie about it. When in the early Seventies he wrote a book about the coming apocalypse of Global Cooling.


    • 133
      The British media are cunts says:

      Exactly, billions are pissed away on wind farms when a few million could fix much of the flooding problem.

      This is what happens when Guardian readers take charge.


    • 141
      Ozymandius says:

      In ancient times, people paid good money for monks to chant for the souls of their dead ancestors and loved ones.


    • 142
      Climate change scam = power + $$$ says:

      Climate change, like immigration, is one of those areas the shysters on the left and the right can unite on.


    • 147
      seriously? says:

      ‘After all, every time you run the models against known facts, they get it wrong.’


      They have 100 years of data. If they took out just the last 10 years data and then ran the remaining 90 years data through their model it would ‘predict’ the wrong result for the last 10 years. The model is fuck all use.

      We are making predictions based on a fucking random number generator. We might as well ask the national lottery numbers to predict the climate.


    • 155
      Táxpáyér says:

      The problem is and always is rent-seeking.

      Lab and Con are just two different ways to rent-seek. (lib is to choose both).


  30. 124
    Skeleton Bob says:

    As the European Parliament is the most powerful parliament in the world it is vital that UKIP gets as many seats in it as they can – forget the parochial, castrated British one for now.


  31. 128
    The British media are cunts says:

    What a fucking joke the BBC are. They show Ed Miliband as a hero, Sky News show him looking a tosser getting a grilling off a woman,


  32. 131
    Gordon Brown says:

    I wish Shirley Temple well.


  33. 135
    Environment Agency says:

    There’s a RED risk of politicians flooding constituencies on the banks of the Thames. Despite all our efforts, stopping it is beyond us. The only hope is that the vast amounts of resulting hot air will lead to evaporation of the floods solving the crisis.


  34. 146
    broderick crawford says:


    ah m goin back to mah cahncil ouse now to sink fifteen cans of stella then swith to the shorts .

    then tamorrah ah m going back to rio to finish my holiday

    well .. ah m worth it innnnaiy … for resolving the tube strike .


  35. 153
    The British media are cunts says:

    If climate change is as bad as te warmists claim they why do the warmists still go flying generating more CO2?

    Why don’t they just ban cars? Shut down power stations? Clearly they are not so bothered to stop themselves flying to Goa to snort Cocaine and fuck small boys up the arse.


  36. 161
    Anonymous says:


  37. 162
    n bhgvyfcvjhb says:


  38. 165
    Bazelgette says:

    Why not simply abandon some of the land on the banks of the Thames, such as at Datchett, build a wall round the area and create a new reservoir, thus solving the drought crisis. This would serve London well and save the difficulty of piping London’s water from Wales and blighting Wales with large reservoirs.


  39. 166
    It never Rains but it pours says:

    LOL and now a 50ft sink hole opens up in the middle of the M2


  40. 169
    Holidaymaker says:

    Has it been raining?


  41. 174
  42. 175
    Ah! him says:

    Surely there must be a flooded m0sque for Vaz to visit


  43. 176
    Ed Milibellend says:

    I’ve been down to the floodth today for a photo op. I muth thay ith a cotht of wellieth cwithith.


    • 185
      Blue Peter Goldfish says:

      Duke of Wellingtons, I don’t know what he’ll do to the enemy; but, by God, he frightens me.


  44. 177
    Reverend C Bass says:

    The damage caused by flooding is God seeking revenge for the Tories introducing Gay Marriage, and their attacks on the poor, the sick and the disabled.


  45. 179
    MB. says:

    I was at a couple of talks by meteorologists last year and someone (probably the same person) asked a very leading question about climate change, obviously wanting them to agree with his tree-hugger theories about it all being caused by my car. In both cases the expert just did not want to get involved, I got the distinct impression that they did not believe that there was some big change in the last few clear but the climate has always changed and always will, from completely natural effects.


  46. 182
    Chuka is Flooded with fans says:


  47. 192
    Accountant says:

    Does Chukka get paid when he takes the window lickers for a day out?


  48. 200
    Suckers tea time says:

    Camoron on tv, trying to be Winston Churchill, somebody should tell the frightened mouse nobody believes him.


  49. 201
    Jen The Blue says:

    Good old Tim Yeo, still protecting his investments in Climate Change scams so he can help selection.himself to taxpayers’ cash long after his de


  50. 206
    Just askin says:

    Wirral just had snow, it went dark, it snowed like hell, went brighter and snow stopped, is this due to climate change or could it be global warming?.


  51. 207
    Mr Ed says:

    Generally my outing today has established that no effniks, a seekers or otherwise potential poor people like white D who would always vote for a tosses with a red rosette have been affected by the floods. Only rather horsey posh Wimin with strident voices, forceful manners and Swiss Finishing we’re evident. So, it has been a bit of a bummer day really.


  52. 211
    Mr Tiny todger Dave says:

    Would it be possible Herman for us to forego our £60m per day payout to the EU and Swiss bank account foreign despots in Africa and Muzzie land for a day to drain the country a bit?


    • 215
      Blue Peter Goldfish says:

      Think it caused the blockage in the first place, all that money that’s been thrown down the drain.


  53. 220
    Third world says:

    Really, the army filling sandbags……is that the best we can come up with in 2014 ?


    • 263
      In my view says:

      A simple solution to solving the unemployment crisis instantly. Get the lazy cvnts off the sofa and doing something useful for once.


  54. 232
    Tom Catesby says:

    To refuse to answer the questions of a parliamentary committee is s contempt of parliament for which you can be imprisoned at parliaments pleasure.


  55. 238
    bubble says:

    tip for Mr Lilley: read a book on sociopaths and how their minds book. Things will make a lot more sense afterwards e.g. they are extremely big-headed and can be needled into showing their true face using that route


  56. 256
    Anonymous says:

    Meanwhile, ocean temperatures continue to rise at a fairly steady and forcastable rate, almost completely independent of the chaotic and insubstantial cloud of gas that surrounds us.

    However neither the media or politicians ever bother to pay any attention to this fairly simple and conclusive fact as the ocean is not in front of their noses.


Seen Elsewhere

May SpAd Removed From Candidates List | ConHome
Clodagh’s Law | Press Gazette
Whitehall Bosses Ban Christmas | Sun
Meanwhile, in Russia… | Media Guido
Christmas TV Tips | Laura Perrins
Labour Marginal Fright | Lord Ashcroft
Osborne’ Real Deficit Reduction Record | ConHome
Blameronism | Peter Oborne
Everyone Can Lose | Staggers
Splintering of the Left | Tim Montgomerie
Fallon’s Lawyer Loathing | Quentin Letts

Find out more about PLMR AD-MS

Labour insiders turn on Ed over Powell’s latest gaffe:

“When is he going to stop promoting useless people? He was warned about her.”

Tip off Guido
Web Guido's Archives

Subscribe me to:


AddThis Feed Button

Guido Reads

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 1,641 other followers