Yet more mind-boggling figures on global warming

Last October the House of Commons passed, by 463 votes to three, the most expensive piece of legislation ever put through Parliament. The only MP to question the cost of the Climate Change Act, requiring Britain to cut its CO2 emissions by 80 per cent within 40 years, was Peter Lilley. It was also Mr Lilley who, just before the MPs voted to stop runaway global warming, drew the House’s attention to the fact that, outside, London was experiencing its first October snow for 74 years. [snip]

The cost of the Act has nearly doubled, to £404 billion, or £18.3 billion for every year between now and 2050. However, the supposed benefits are given, astonishingly, as £1 Trillion, an increase of 1,000 per cent. How on earth were such unbelievable figures calculated?

Peter Lilley has written a trenchant letter to Mr Miliband, asking this and a series of other highly pertinent questions. But pending any reply, last week I posed this question to DECC myself. I was assured that the new figures had been worked out by “a method used by the independent Committee on Climate Change, and peer-reviewed by Simon Deitz, an expert in carbon pricing from the London School of Economics”.

Dr Deitz’s website shows that last year he carried out “research for the UK Committee on Climate Change”.

So this "independent" expert was asked to peer review the method used by an “independent” committee - which he was a part of - to produce figures that seem rather to have been plucked from the thin air (of which only 0.04 per cent – one 2,500th – consists of the self-same carbon dioxide) which we are now expected to believe we will benefit by £1 trillion from not emitting.

Truly we are governed these days by stark, raving lunacy – and no one is meant to notice...

READ MORE