Will Green Politics soon be a thing of the Past?

The electoral troubles of the green bullies

greens-politicsEric Worrall writes:

Anyone following the recent G20 will be aware that skeptical politicians, such as Australia’s Tony Abbott and Canada’s Steve Harper, have been subject to intense public pressure from prominent greens like President Obama, to change their public position on climate change. What is less apparent is that all of the most prominent climate bullies appear to be on the brink of losing power, due to a voter backlash back home, against their extreme green policies, and other policy failures.

President Hollande, the greenest of the EU politicians, is plumbing record levels of unpopularity in France;


Prime Minister David Cameron of Britain just got nailed twice (second time in the last few days) by the upstart United Kingdom Independence Party, in high profile by-elections. As an indication of UKIP’s position on climate change, a few years ago, UKIP’s climate spokesman was Lord Monckton.


Chancellor Merkel of Germany is facing electoral difficulties on the home front, losing ground to euro skeptics (it is not clear if the challengers are climate skeptics, but the challengers are strongly pro business, anti EU);


We all know what happened to Obama – how he and his climate policies were soundly rejected in the US midterm elections.

The question – could here and now really be the last show of strength by green politicians, before voters back home sweep them and their policies into the dustbin of history? Will green politics soon be a thing of the past?

0 0 votes
Article Rating
Newest Most Voted
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
Jimmy Haigh.
November 21, 2014 11:09 pm

Let’s hope so. Enough of this madness.

Reply to  Jimmy Haigh.
November 22, 2014 3:10 am

Life without the Green Machine grinding away in the background is my idea of life getting better for everyone.

Reply to  johnmarshall
November 22, 2014 9:05 am

I keep forgetting that I can’t like comments on WUWT, but I like this.

Papy Boomer
Reply to  johnmarshall
November 22, 2014 10:55 am

G+ (Google) maybe? It does the job of getting a blog higher in priority. Use it.

Reply to  johnmarshall
November 22, 2014 11:26 am

The worst part about all of this is that I’ll bet most of the people who post on this site were once environmentalists themselves many years ago. And I’ll bet they’re appalled by the way thier once noble and beloved movement has been twisted and corrupted by politics and big money.
The word ‘environmentalist’ is now a term of derision and scorn. This should never have happened.

Reply to  johnmarshall
November 22, 2014 6:28 pm

Klem says:
November 22, 2014 at 11:26 am
The worst part about all of this is that I’ll bet most of the people who post on this site were once environmentalists themselves many years ago. And I’ll bet they’re appalled by the way thier once noble and beloved movement has been twisted and corrupted by politics and big money.

There was a time when I thought they couldn’t build windmills fast enough.

Reply to  johnmarshall
November 23, 2014 12:27 am

you raise a valid point. I may be a hard line AGW sceptic, but I have always had environmental concerns. A lot of my study in design and engineering has been lifecycle analysis and design for recyclability. Many sceptics like me feel that the whole AGW mistake has become a serious impediment to genuine environmental concerns and progress to real solutions to real problems.
At some stage sceptics are going to have to wake up and realise that they need to fill the ranks of a new, scientifically literate environmental (not political) movement. All the current players have written themselves out of the picture as the Internet record of their AGW advocacy and vilification of sceptics is permanent.
You are right to say “this should never have happened”, but it did. We can’t turn back time, nor can we safely ignore the critical intellectual failings of the activists, journalists and politicians involved in this sorry episode. Now everyone needs to deal with the fallout, and in this it should be understood that some individuals are part of the problem, not part of the solution.

Reply to  Jimmy Haigh.
November 22, 2014 2:05 pm

Indeed, the best way to keep the environment clean is with full prosperity, which means a dynamic and booming economy. Poor, hungry people have but one problem – getting food. They don’t care about pollution.

Reply to  pyeatte
November 22, 2014 5:26 pm

Even before there were ‘environmentalists’, there were ‘conservationists’. These were folks who cared about preserving (conserving) the natural environment. I’ll bet most of the folks who frequent this site are conservationists. So let’s bring back the word.
/Mr Lynn

Reply to  Jimmy Haigh.
November 23, 2014 9:40 am

Klem is basically right, of course.
I was immersed in the gloom-and-doom talk of the 1970s and eighties. As an optimist (i.e., ~90% of intellectuals against me). There was always a legit. concern, but never, ever a correct conclusion (or reaction). I was against even the way the Clean Air act was enacted. (I did want a good clean air act, however.)

Mark Luhman
Reply to  Jimmy Haigh.
November 23, 2014 9:08 pm

Klem, yes I was and yes I am. As long as Green would look rationayl at first order forcings let go forward, second order yes maybe, depends, third is where we are at today, not never nada!

November 21, 2014 11:13 pm

A superb essay by Australian marine biologist Walter Starck exposes how “The rent-seekers, opportunists, third-rate academics, carbon-market scam artists and peddlers of catastrophic prophecy can see the alarmist bubble deflating, so they’re trying harder than ever to sustain the scare. Problem is, Mother Nature isn’t cooperating”
The Climate Scam’s Meltdown: Corruption is now systemic in climate science

Doug UK
Reply to  Hockey Schtick
November 21, 2014 11:22 pm

Love that quote from Starck. His essay should be required reading.

Reply to  Hockey Schtick
November 22, 2014 2:36 am

Remarkably clear and concise essay. Great for recommending to friends who want a good introduction to the sceptic point of view.

Mitzi in Maryland
Reply to  Hockey Schtick
November 22, 2014 6:09 am

Thank you for this link. It sums things up so brilliantly.

Reply to  Hockey Schtick
November 22, 2014 6:29 am

Very good read. Thank you.

High Treason
November 21, 2014 11:17 pm

Please include the uber grun UN. They are the worst offenders of the lot. Please note, the Nazis also loved nature and animals, but hated humans. Perhaps UN stands for United Nazis.

Reply to  High Treason
November 22, 2014 2:39 am

The UN part is tragic. UN has done a lot of good over the years, but now it seems to be past its “best before”-date. However, labelling the UN as you do makes no sense, and is no better than calling sceptics “deniers”.

Reply to  ConTrari
November 22, 2014 6:18 am

Lot of good? I don’t see where.
Are we talking Muslim / Islamic terrorism?
Human rights violations?
Sawing off people’s heads?
African kidnapping?
War in Afghanistan?
War in Iraq?
Nuclear weapons in Iran?
Mexican / Honduran escape from hell hole countries?
North Korea?
Russia / Ukraine?
What do you know that I don’t?
References please.
Feel free to go back as far as you need to in order to find the good from the United Nations.
Hint: It never happened.
The UN takes resources and … I guess…
Stick the money in their pockets for their lavish lifestyles and failed leadership.
Some people( like Al Gore, Hollywood elites, politicians, really rich folks and other well off do-gooders,) live in several large mansions, drive SUVs, fly private jets to meetings (or jet to have lunch 3000 miles away) to save the world and its poor and in general live as if they’re above everybody else.
When their footprint from the damage they do gets down to my level, we’ll talk about lowering everybody’s resource waste and environmental destruction.

High Treason
Reply to  ConTrari
November 23, 2014 12:30 am

Ever notice that the UN comes in to conflicts after most of the killing is done? Then they wind up having a civil war and more blood shead. Sanctions against Israel while nothing is said about ISIS atrocities? Deathly silence on Islamic inspired atrocities-talk about crimes against humanity. The “good” they do is for show I am afraid.it is there to garner trust. The UN is a massive fraud.

Reply to  ConTrari
November 23, 2014 4:29 pm

I am not sure that the UN is anything but a bunch of parasites. Getting paid in large part by US taxpayers.

November 21, 2014 11:25 pm

I don’t think so. The Greenies are getting louder. As for Abbott, here in Australia, he still is a closet skeptic, and until he comes out in the open he is the butt of jokes and losing popularity fast.

Reply to  wickedwenchfan
November 22, 2014 12:59 am

I am sad to say that you are correct. There are at least 4 elements of society that maintain the AGW campaign : The politicians, the media, the closely linked group of environmental organisations and businesses people who profit from renewables and the scientists generating models and databases.
Most voters now totally distrust the politicians, cannot access or fully comprehend the scientific arguments and are powerless against the forces of business.
As many have suggested here , the most significant group is that of the media and the committed journalists who are not scrupulous about the veracity of their comments and have an influence far beyond that of politicians or individual scientists. That is how the Greens have become so powerful and until the media change , nothing will change.
As an Australian you may have read Germaine Greer’s book , “White Beech” about her attempts to reclaim part of the continent’s natural botanic reserves. The early chapters on the effects of deforestation , the damage caused by overgrazing and introduction of non-native species show that there is so much that Greens could do the ameliorate the damage caused in the last 2 centuries of European settlement that it would actually be more productive to get more involved in that than in pursuing the CO2 agenda.

Reply to  mikewaite
November 22, 2014 1:14 am

And talking of non-natives, the CSRO (Before it became the CSIRO) in 1935 introduced the cane toad.

Reply to  mikewaite
November 22, 2014 1:28 am

“And talking of non-natives, the CSRO (Before it became the CSIRO) in 1935 introduced the cane toad”
Not true. CSIRO started in 1926 (called CSIR), but had nothing to do with cane toads. They were introduced by the
Bureau of Sugar Experiment Stations. An industry group.

Reply to  mikewaite
November 22, 2014 5:50 am

Oh Nick! You are, partly, wrong and so am I. I may have got the acronym wrong (I suffer from dyslexia) but you are also party right. It was the CSIR in 1935 ALONG WITH the Bureau of Sugar Experiment Stations (And the Qld Govn’t) that introduced the cane toad in QLD *BECAUSE* the CSIR wanted to introduce the EUROPEAN toad across Australia for similar reasons. Never left facts get in the way truth aye Nick *WINK*?

Reply to  mikewaite
November 22, 2014 12:33 pm

“It was the CSIR in 1935 ALONG WITH the Bureau of Sugar Experiment Stations”
Evidence? I don’t believe it. The introduction seems to have been a particular enterprise by the Sugar Experimental lab in Cairns. I very much doubt that CSIR even had people in NQ at the time.

Reply to  mikewaite
November 22, 2014 8:58 pm
Reply to  mikewaite
November 23, 2014 1:43 am

An interesting document. But first you said that CSIR introduced the taod. Then it was CSIR along with Sugar. But now your doc shows that it was Sugar all the way. CSIR’s only mention is when Rivett said something vaguely supportive when the toad had already been released and become controversial.
I’m glad to see that the NSW entomologist who raised the alarm was called Mr Froggatt.

Reply to  mikewaite
November 23, 2014 2:27 am

The document shows the the CSIR supported the intruduction of the toad in QLD by the QLD Govn’t and the Brisbane sugar companies *BECAUSE* the CSIR wanted to introduce the European toad elsewhere. It’s clear in the document all those involved with the introduction of the two pest toads to control, pests. No matter which biased way you prefer to read it Nick, the CSIR were involved, supported and approved it along with ALL the other parties involved.

Reply to  mikewaite
November 23, 2014 5:25 am

“The document shows the the CSIR supported the intruduction of the toad in QLD by the QLD Govn’t and the Brisbane sugar companies *BECAUSE* the CSIR wanted to introduce the European toad elsewhere.”
It doesn’t show that at all. Mr Turvey expresses his opinion that that was Rivett’s motivation. CSIR may have looked at the possibility of introducing the common toad for controlling pests in pastures, but I don’t believe they ever did it. Certainly that toad is not present in Australia now. Anyway, this has nothing to do with the introduction of the cane toad in NQ by the sugar industry.
There is nothing in your article that says CSIR even knew in advance of the plan, let alone supported it.

Reply to  mikewaite
November 23, 2014 5:45 am

Nick, I don’t know what form of English you know but the English I know allows me to understand this from the article; “Sir David Rivett, Chief Executive Officer of the Council for Scientific and Industrial Research
(CSIR) – the fore-runner of CSIRO – was brought into the debate but he supported BSES
saying ‘I am very glad to know that Mr C E Pemberton is prepared to defend the wisdom of the
importation despite the decidedly pessimistic forecast of the New South Wales entomologist.
But his support was self-serving because CSIR was working on the release the European toad,
Bufo vulgaris, to control pests in pastures. And there was additional support for the toad from
Robert Veitch, the Chief Entomologist of Queensland, and representation in person from
Arthur Bell in Canberra, but Dr Cumpston was un-moved.”
It’s pretty blatantly ovious and not opinion at all, it’s fact! The CSIR (CSIRO) was at the centre of it.

Reply to  mikewaite
November 23, 2014 5:48 am

And Nick, what you believe is comepletely irrelevant in the face of fact! Go suck a toad!

Reply to  mikewaite
November 23, 2014 12:55 pm

Your statement:
” the CSRO (Before it became the CSIRO) in 1935 introduced the cane toad”
Your text:
“Rivett … was brought into the debate”
That was a debate after the toad had already been released by the Sugar folk in NQ (Cumpston ordered no further imports). No other CSIR connection. No reasonable English makes those things equivalent. Did Mr Veitch also introduce the toad?

Reply to  mikewaite
November 23, 2014 1:32 pm

Nick, spliting hairs. They were involved. Cut it any way you like…they were involved in the introduction of two specise of toad tp conrol pests, that became pests.

Reply to  wickedwenchfan
November 22, 2014 1:05 am

The gibbering media would never let him sleep if he admitted what many of us know to be true. The BBC, ABC, Guardian and all the rest including the Fairfax papers here in Oz would pile on relentlessly.
While they may snipe in suspicion, he can point to the govt’s direct action policies as doing his part.
Better to let one of the bigger fish break cover first.

Sceptical Sam
Reply to  Scratchpole
November 22, 2014 2:28 am

Absolutely, Scratchpole. Tony Abbott is on the right track.
And the alternative is, if the “big fish” don’t “break cover” as you suggest, then let them make fools of themselves as Obama did with his joint announcement with China.
It is clear that Obama has not only demonstrated his foolishness for all to see, but that all are seeing it.
The Chinese have out negotiated him. They get to increase their CO2 emissions while Obama has sentenced the USA economy to a declining future if the Congress or the States don’t deal with his nonsense.
But the really important thing is that everybody – and I mean everybody – greens included, can see how the Chinese have made Obama into a laughing stock. We need more of that.
It is ridicule that’ll win the day in the absence of the MSM’s acceptance of the Null Hypothesis.

Roger welsh
Reply to  wickedwenchfan
November 22, 2014 4:47 am

Love to know who the greenies are and how did Abbott get elected if you Aussies didn’t see the scam?

November 21, 2014 11:28 pm

For far too long, green has always thought to have been good.
In reality, green has become goofy, because of the way it is practiced today.
Friends of the Earth and Greenpeace, two leading activist green groups, use identical tactics to sucker money out of the faithful, similar to those used by pseudo-christian and other religious cults.
The left requires a cause to justify its existence and supposed man made global warming/climate change is one of those causes. Aided and abetted by a bunch of grant addicted, dishonourable pseudo-scientists, our politicians have openly embraced a policy of energy poverty for the least well off, by legislating to swap reliable cheap energy sources with the unreliable expensive types.
Goofy, not green, is the correct description for policies motivated by those with the highly dangerous and contagious ‘Save the World Syndrome’.

Reply to  Peter Miller
November 22, 2014 4:06 am

Yes, Most plants abhor green, They reject that portion of the visible spectrum, and utilize the rest to produce growth and assure reproduction.

Reply to  Peter Miller
November 22, 2014 6:31 am

I like that.
As in “Here’s another Goofy Green idea”

November 21, 2014 11:28 pm

In Australia, we are dealing with the insult of having the president of our major ally of over 50 years, of a country we have supported through thick and thin, deliberately giving a speech that was aimed solely at embarrassing and putting pressure on our Prime Minister on the subject of “climate change”. Never in the Australia-US relationship has either party injected themselves so dramatically into domestic politics. Whats even more appalling is how little criticism this low act has earned.
We are now left with the Greens and Labor, who constantly have lectured conservatives about kow towing to US demands, now insisting that yes we should do exactly what a US president tells us to do.
Incredible. With all due respect, please take back your president and his appalling behaviour. Disgraceful.

Reply to  Brendan
November 21, 2014 11:53 pm

Never in the Australia-US relationship has either party injected themselves so dramatically into domestic politics.
That’s probably not true:
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
However, [Whitlam] also said that in 1977 United States Deputy Secretary of State Warren Christopher made a special trip to Sydney to meet with him and told him, on behalf of US President Jimmy Carter, of his willingness to work with whatever government Australians elected, and that the US would never again interfere with Australia’s democratic processes.
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *

Reply to  Khwarizmi
November 22, 2014 1:11 am

I think the appropriate response on behalf of my fellow Australians to any American interference which might have occurred in Australian politics in 1977 is “thank you”.

Reply to  Khwarizmi
November 22, 2014 1:13 am

Sorry make that 1975 🙂

Reply to  Khwarizmi
November 22, 2014 8:35 am

At least it wasn’t like this:
United States Marine Corps major general Medal of Honor Smedley Butler:
“I spent thirty-three years and four months in active military service as a member of this country’s most agile military force, the Marine Corps. I served in all commissioned ranks from Second Lieutenant to Major-General. And during that period, I spent most of my time being a high class muscle-man for Big Business, for Wall Street and for the Bankers. In short, I was a racketeer, a gangster for capitalism.
I helped make Mexico, especially Tampico, safe for American oil interests in 1914. I helped make Haiti and Cuba a decent place for the National City Bank boys to collect revenues in. I helped in the raping of half a dozen Central American republics for the benefits of Wall Street. The record of racketeering is long. I helped purify Nicaragua for the international banking house of Brown Brothers in 1909-1912. I brought light to the Dominican Republic for American sugar interests in 1916. In China I helped to see to it that Standard Oil went its way unmolested.
During those years, I had, as the boys in the back room would say, a swell racket. Looking back on it, I feel that I could have given Al Capone a few hints. The best he could do was to operate his racket in three districts. I operated on three continents.”
And operations continued & grew after WWII by the CIA.

Eugene WR Gallun
Reply to  Brendan
November 22, 2014 12:35 am

No! No! We won’t take him back! You keep him!
Oh! Noes! He didn’t actually move to Australia? We are still stuck with him? What an O’bummer!
Eugene WR Gallun

Reply to  Brendan
November 22, 2014 1:25 am

The little “o” has been proving his worthlessness as a credible leader in many ways, this is simply one more example of his irrelevance.

Reply to  Brendan
November 22, 2014 5:02 am

“Incredible. With all due respect, please take back your president and his appalling behaviour. Disgraceful.”
No… no… we insist. You can keep him. There must be some community in Australia that needs organizing. I think we’ve been organized quite enough here in the U.S.

Mark Luhman
Reply to  Brendan
November 22, 2014 10:07 am

I do apologize but you have to remember that it not all our fault, since somewhere in Kenya a village let there idiot get loose and he came to the United States and convince our village idiots to support him. Of course that had been made possible by the left taking over our schools last half of the 20th century so now our children are not educated but are indoctrinated. Lastly it was bad enough and very embarrassing to have a village idiot in the but damn the idiot then proceeded to appoint two additional village idiots to secretary of state, the last one being from Massachusetts, all though looking at that state I assume they are both proud and relieved that Kerry is secretary of state. His fellow idiots from Massachusetts are proud the normal people of Masschattits which are only a handful, are relieved he is gone. In reality the United States does owe the world a huge apology for inflicting so much stupidity across the world by our village idiot, the unfortunate part there are going to be so many who we cannot apologize to since the idiot policies have directed lead to them dieing, The only question that remains it the people that will die from our village idiots stupidity is going to measured in hundred of thousands of hundred of millions. That question does really haunt me.

Reply to  Brendan
November 22, 2014 8:04 pm

No thanks, you can keep him. In fact we will even pay for all the golf fees while he is in your country for the next 40 years or so. Do you want Carter too, We keep the Bush’s though…

Reply to  jjs
November 22, 2014 8:09 pm

and here is a song that reflects our thoughts of obama ….obamazilla

November 21, 2014 11:32 pm

Probably another opportune moment to repeat the mantra, “its worse than we thought!”

November 21, 2014 11:45 pm

Like every other party, the Liberal Party under Abbot is pushing legislation that Australians don’t want; policies that we didn’t request or endorse at the polls; policies designed to benefit a minority of vested interests, including the private school system that handed Abbott, while opposition leader, a $60,000 bribe in the form of a secret scholarship for his daughter at a college of “design.”:
The Labor “opposition” didn’t kick up a stink because they have their snouts in the trough too.
Voting just encourages them.

Reply to  Khwarizmi
November 21, 2014 11:54 pm

And of course you have all the required proof that it was a bribe. Even the MSM won’t go there and that includes the far left ABC.

Baa Humbug
Reply to  Khwarizmi
November 22, 2014 12:57 am

Khwarizmi: I think your comment is libelous and should be removed. You’re a Richard Cranium for bringing this up.

Reply to  Khwarizmi
November 22, 2014 1:15 am

That is a Labor/green position. The email you refer too was hacked by the communist newspaper, New Matilda. They hacked it to discredit Abbot and they have hacked other emails because they disagree with the politics of the person.
Which minority of vested interests?
The Abbot government removed the mining tax that cost more to administer than it brought in. They removed the ruinously expensive CO2 tax that did not move the temperature of the planet by even 0.0001C but had pensioners deciding between eating or heating.
The minority are the greens who earn 10% of votes, yet they frighten the Labor party into doing what the want. because Labor is frightened of losing the far left group.
Abbot’s direct action plan is about raising the fertility of our soils by returning organic matter to it. A good plan regardless of warmist hype.
Labor are the troughers. They set up legislation that far favored their unions, then when the Fair Work Tribunal found against one of their MP’s, they closed rank to protect him. Without him, they

Roger welsh
Reply to  Jack
November 22, 2014 4:51 am

Great post

Reply to  Jack
November 22, 2014 8:40 am

First big mistake: Trusting ANY politician, should use a divided score sheet just to pick the “better” side (for you). It’s kinda like trying to pick the better of 2 Mafia bosses.

Reply to  Khwarizmi
November 22, 2014 5:07 am

Sure thing Steve,
When a private education industry that wants to siphon money from the public purse to buttress its reputation for handing out $68,000 badges of merit for “design” secretly offers the daughter of the leader of the opposition a “scholarship” — not available to any other member of the public – at a time when the institution was lobbying for more public funds to feed its private business, I should just pretend it is just business as usual, not graft and corruption.
If it a daughter of Gillard had received the scholarship under the same sombre & secretive circumstances, it would be different.
For the same reason (my team right or wrong) some people who root for “the right” prefer to blame “the left” for Reagan and Thatcher’s Montreal Protocol.
I have a more objective view because I am not aligned to any party.

November 21, 2014 11:47 pm

I have been informed that an “American sherpa” (Not sure what or who that is) at the G20 meetings refused to table any questions about climate change. Also the “agreement” by Obama between America and China is completely meeningless as Obama does not have support from both houses to make any agreement binding. Apart from the sickening rash of articles in the Aussie MSM, it was a farce.

Reply to  Patrick
November 21, 2014 11:54 pm

In politics, a sherpa is a person who does the donkey work for a major politician,in this case sitting up the agenda iaw Obama’s priorities.

Reply to  Kevin Lohse
November 22, 2014 12:03 am

setting up.

James the Elder
Reply to  Kevin Lohse
November 22, 2014 4:05 pm

We prefer the more descriptive term of “b[trimmmed]y”.

Reply to  Patrick
November 22, 2014 12:13 am

Thanks Kevin. What I was told by a friend who was at the G20 summit makes perfect sense now.

Mario Martini
November 21, 2014 11:47 pm

Here in the UK climate was simply not an issue in the recent election. It was immigration and economics that took centre stage.

Reply to  Mario Martini
November 22, 2014 3:07 am

Ten years ago climate was a really big issue in the UK, which is perhaps why Cameron went a-husky-huggin. However, the turnaround in the courts which banned Al Gore’s film An Incovenient Truth, Climategate and the exposure of the UEA fraud, the increasingly frantic attempts to blame almost everything on global warming, The Pause, and the shape-shift from “Global Warming” to “Climate Change” all made their mark in pushing the issue way down the UK public’s shopping list of Things To Do. By the time of the recent Rochester election no politician is going to take the issue to the streets unless they want to be the target of yawns or derision. Nevertheless, I suspect it wasn’t actually the science or the fraud that influenced the voters, but the increasing mis-trust of politicians. This goes far beyond routine matters such as expenses-fiddling, house-flipping, or champagne socialism and crony capitalism. It is the anger of the population at having been lied to repeatedly over practically everything they wanted to influence: immigration and economics certainly are high on the list, but referendum “promises”, EU intervention in the free market, government intrusion into family life, and the endless cover-ups over really inconvenient (for the government) truths repeatedly come up in discussion.

Vince Causey
Reply to  Mario Martini
November 22, 2014 9:11 am

It was both of those plus the fact that voters felt alienated from the political process, felt disregarded, unimportant and that their views were contemptible to the Westminster elite. NB the Thornberry tweet on the eve of the Rochester by election.

November 21, 2014 11:47 pm

I do hope so. In spite of the fact that Spain in supposed to be at the front of solar and wind energy ( that is what we Spaniards are repeatedly told ).
Because here in Spain, the “green” policies for the next few years are going to cost me the possible future profits of my small business .
I would love for Lord Monckton, for Dr Linzen, for Dr.? Lomborg, and for all the common sense scientists and economists to be listened to, and to get the governments to change their policies, in spite of the “politically correct and the green lobbies ”
May the gods smile at us, and help !

November 21, 2014 11:48 pm

Merkel’s in no problem – unless the economy collapses. And that’s a general truth.
All the polls show that Green issues are not relevant to the majority. So not only is it not alarming people it also isn’t swaying their voting with respect to the costs.
There are three types of alarmist:
1 Deliberate Deceivers: Tiljander, Travesty, Roger Harrabin… these are few but doubling down as their careers and reputations depend on it.
2 Cultists: You see them below the line at the Guardian. They can’t read a graph. They believe in a secret cabal of Koch brothers and Jewish bankers who control the world’s governments. They rage more against AGW sceptics than against despoliation of the countryside. They also tell Hot Whoppers. But there aren’t many of them, either.
3 The Vast Majority: They don’t care much. They want a better world and have better things to do than learn about climatology. So long as the tax rises are slow (like the fuel tax escalator on the UK – until the protests when it stopped, just for a while) they won’t complain. Eventually the costs of Green policies will impact them and they will do the research but most of the time they don’t bother to question it. These are the voters. The vast majority are not motivated – either way – by the tales of the end of the world.

November 21, 2014 11:58 pm

Well not all is well in Canada. British Columbia has a carbon tax with Ontario and Quebec possibly joining. Ontario depends on manufacturing but rising energy costs from misdirected green energy policies is chasing manufacturing away. So the Ontario government with its increasing debt will in its wisdom add to the pain by using c02 as the bogyman to introduce a new tax only for raising money, but will not call it a tax.

Reply to  nc
November 22, 2014 12:18 am

Here in Australia, Tony Abbott and the LNP are being blamed for sending manufacturing offshore, specifically car makers Holden (GM) and Ford (They are still here in til 2016). That’s rather interesting because the decision by Holden and Ford was made after Rudd-Gillard-Rudd ALP and Green coalition introduced a “price on carbon”. Holden and Ford cited one of the reasons for moving their core business offshore was energy costs.

Reply to  nc
November 22, 2014 12:43 am

At least in British Columbia, the government halted the yearly increases in the carbon tax and pulled a massive victory in the recent election after the opposition leader, while 20 points ahead in the polls, announced that he would oppose the Kinder Morgan pipe line expansion. The exploratory drilling on Burnaby Mountain began just a few hours ago. Funny thing is, a massive drilling project through the eastern flank of the mountain started at the beginning of this year without a peep of protest :

November 22, 2014 12:02 am

Green politics is just one head of the Malthusian, millennialist Hydra. The fact that Malthus and his representative on earth Erhlich, have been debunked many times, ( remember Simon’s bet?), has no bearing on the matter. Even when the Green blob finally runs out of credibility , the Malthusians will find another vehicle to promote their counsel of despair.

Rick Bradford
November 22, 2014 12:05 am

Don’t forget that the “climate movement” were the big winners in the recent US mid-term elections.
How do I know this? They said so.
***“Despite the climate movement’s significant investments and an unprecedented get-out-the-vote program, strong voices for climate action were defeated, and candidates paid for by corporate interests and bolstered by sinister voter suppression tactics won the day.
“This election marked a pivotal change in how candidates confront the climate crisis, We’re not backing down.
“Public support is solidly behind action to tackle the climate crisis. While we have lost friends in Congress, we are gaining them in the streets, as our movement grows stronger and broader”***
I mean, talk about denial………….they _have_ to blame it on evil corporate interests, or their worldview would collapse.
It ain’t never going to be over while people with such a capacity for self-delusion are taken seriously.

Reply to  Rick Bradford
November 22, 2014 12:51 am

Thanks Rick for the laugh. The same thing in Canada, the MSM here has been doing the same mantra for years against Stephen Harper regarding the global climate disaster (still waiting, supposed to happen any day now). His majority government retained 2 seats last week in by-elections because the country is doing OK in growth and his stand vs Putin at the G-20 and against the Obama agreement with China.

November 22, 2014 12:14 am

I share Erics optimism. Listen to him, he knows stuff.

Reply to  fenbeagleblog
November 22, 2014 1:34 am

Thanks Fenbeagle 🙂

November 22, 2014 12:21 am

Reblogged this on Utopia – you are standing in it! and commented:
Green politics are not popular when the economy is weak. When the economy is strong, the green parties will make a comeback.
What is clear is growth in the party vote of the green parties may have tapped out in terms of growth.

November 22, 2014 12:22 am

The end of green politics will be marked by the failure of the 2015 United Nations Paris Climate Summit (COP21) to come to agreement on another treaty to replace Kyoto. What’s happening now is only a preamble to that.

Reply to  azleader
November 22, 2014 3:06 am

Nah, the summit will be a huge succes, everyone will agree to a text which has all the right words and no binding committments. The media will be ecstatic, the returning politicians will be hailed as saviours of the planet.
While amongst themselves, they will be mightiliy relieved to know that they have saved their economies with a show of climate policy window-dressing.
“Everything must be changed, in order to keep everything as before”; bad version of the famous phrase in “The Leopard”.
Nobody will dream of dissolving the great climate venues. They are harmless outlets of pressure, giving NGOs their illusions of basking in the glory of power, and stimulating artistic creativity in terms of aid for corrupt regimes and ice-sculptured polar bears.
No, the Paris meeting will be the crowning glory of man-made hot air. A failure? In Paris? Unthinkable. The French will never allow it.

November 22, 2014 12:24 am

Ontario, Quebec to craft united stand on Energy East pipeline project
The two Liberals are allies in pushing the climate agenda to the forefront in provincial/territorial talks, arguing there needs to be a national energy strategy that focuses on both pipelines and emissions.

Reply to  brent
November 22, 2014 4:46 am

For those that don’t know, Ontario and Québec together make up about 60% of the population of Canada.

Wayne Delbeke
Reply to  brent
November 22, 2014 6:45 pm

Yeah, so lets split the continent north south making three countries. BC, Washington, Oregon, California and Mexico can be Pacifica. Alaska, Yukon, NWT, Nunavut, Alberta, Saskatchewan, Manitoba, North and South Dakota, Nebraska, Montana, Idaho, Nevada, Utah, Wyoming, Colorado, New Mexico, Arizona, Kansas, Oklahoma, and Texas can be the Flyover, and the rest east of the Mississippi can all be Atlantica.
Just joshin’. But I have had more than a few people in the US suggest us “middle of the continent” folks have more in common than the folks on the left on the west and east coasts. Course the Maritimers also have more in common with us middle country folks than they do with Montreal and Toronto. Same with north east BC.

November 22, 2014 12:35 am

In my opinion green politics is about an attack on the rational in western civilization. It started with Rosseau and the romantic movement of the 18th century, encompassed fascism, nazism, and marxism, and now is culminating in irrational “scientific” scare politics.
Roman civilization collapsed when it looked most promising, symptomatically because of chronic political instability at the top, but profoundly because the Romans were control freaks, and couldn’t leave markets and cultures free.
The greens represent the most visible manifestation of a similar inbuilt tendency to destruction in our own civilization. This conflict has many centuries to run.

Reply to  Peterg
November 22, 2014 3:23 am

All cultures have an irrational element, the climate movement is just the latest trend in ours. I would say that Roman culture looked most promising in the years before Cesar. The Roman Empire lasted a long time after that, in fact it only expired in AD 1453.

November 22, 2014 12:44 am

“Will green politics soon be a thing of the past?”
No the Green Bullies will be around for a long time. The reason Obama is so vocal is that he is paying back those green donors during his election campaign and Hillary Clinton will do the same. Obama will make millions boring everyone in his future talks on how he saved the world. Also the billion dollar big green industry will not give up whilst the money flows in.
When the economic madness of renewables is clearly manifest to all, the Greens will merely change their spots.
Who can forget CAGW > Climate Change > Climate Extremes > weather weirding.
Zealotry has no cure.

Reply to  ConfusedPhoton
November 22, 2014 1:50 am

Zealotry has no cure.
Especially if’s well funded. Here in the UK, Tony Blair gave the traitorous BBC a £67,000 grant to help fund the 28gate conference where a panel of “experts & scientists” who were nothing of the sort determined that the BBC should ditch their charter duty of impartiality, because the “science was settled”. A purely Fascist statement.
The grant was routed through the Dept for International Development, which actually functions to hold developing countries back by bribing their leaders, so we can strip their resources cheaply.This was how the DDT “ban” was achieved : foreign leaders were told :”Order more DDT, you get no more foreign aid.”
Maybe 60,000,000 malaria deaths ? 80,000,000 ? More than Hitler killed, more than Stalin.
All the big “Green” movements are supremely well funded, ironically in large part by donations raised by clever ad campaigns from the public whose severe culling they are dedicated to.
The Media push the message relentlessly. Google 6 corporations own the media. Those 6 corporations are all owned by the eugenicist 1%s who, with the banksters, are behind the whole hysteria/religion.
“Green” politics are suffering a setback. Do not expect the Agenda (21) behind the fake “Green” movement to disappear. It will morph instead.

Mr Green Genes
November 22, 2014 1:03 am

Prime Minister David Cameron of Britain just got nailed twice (second time in the last few days) by the upstart United Kingdom Independence Party, in high profile by-elections. As an indication of UKIP’s position on climate change, a few years ago, UKIP’s climate spokesman was Lord Monckton.
That may be so. However, the most likely alternative Prime Minister, should Cameron’s party fail to win the General Election in May 2015, would be Ed Miliband. He it was, as Secretary of State for Energy and Climate Change (!) from 2008 to 2010, who was responsible for the Climate Change Act, almost certainly the most expensive piece of legislation (in terms of its economic impact) ever to be passed by Parliament.
This, if nothing else, goes to demonstrate that, at least in the UK, CAGW is not a left-right issue, something which a few of us (h/t Messrs Courtney for example) have been trying to get across.
Out of the frying pan …

Nigel S
Reply to  Mr Green Genes
November 22, 2014 1:13 am

Yes, a disaster awaits us. Wallace without the able and essential assistance of Gromit.

Reply to  Mr Green Genes
November 22, 2014 1:26 am

Not so sure, 50:50 at best Millepede will win it.
To win he needs Scottish MPs and the Labour vote in Scotland is going SNP, Wallace wasn’t welcomed here a couple of weeks ago – as welcome as Farrige.
I’d vote SNP over Labour, and I’m English!

Roger welsh
Reply to  Morph
November 22, 2014 5:00 am

I don’t think most folks understand that if sufficient people vote enough UKIP MPs in neither labour or conservative can control Parliament.

Vince Causey
Reply to  Morph
November 22, 2014 9:17 am

One possibility – prepare yourself – is a coalition of a minority Labour and SNP. With an SNP in control of DECC, it will make Ed Davey’s tenure seem like a golden age of the free market.

Reply to  Mr Green Genes
November 22, 2014 1:41 am

Ed Miliband is a multi-millionaire from a Marxist background & an extreme green zealot, a very dangerous combination !!
But sadly most sheepel will vote for the party name…..not the policies.

See - owe to Rich
Reply to  Mr Green Genes
November 22, 2014 1:46 am

That is why UKIP should push the climate-sceptic/lukewarming position in their manifesto. If they get enough seats to form a coalition with either Conservatives or Labour, then as well as insisting on a referendum over Europe they can cancel the green nonsense and claim a mandate to get the 2008 Climate Change Act repealed.
Or am I being too naive? It is a weakness of mine.

Reply to  See - owe to Rich
November 22, 2014 2:16 am

If UKIP wins big I suspect we will see the hilariously inglorious spectacle of a Conservative / Labour coalition to keep UKIP from fulfilling their pledge to leave the EU.

Reply to  See - owe to Rich
November 22, 2014 3:33 am

Heath took the UK into the “Common Market” in 1973 WITHOUT a mandate. And the UK has suffered ever since. Even though I no longer live in the UK I am sure glad the Govn’t did not drop the GBP for the Euro. It will make the job of ditching the EU easier and should be done ASAP IMO.

Reply to  Mr Green Genes
November 22, 2014 2:23 am

Regrettably, CAGW is not a left-right issue as no UK politician understands science. Even Hubert Lamb’s MP son is a lawyer by trade.
The numbers don’t look good for next May. The new SNP leader has already stated she will never do a deal with the Tories but will coalesce with Labour & will move them to the far left. The greens will join them.
You saw it here first: Red Ed Marxiband will be UK PM in May 2015 on a vote that will give right of centre parties 50% of the vote and him 30%. I see trouble ahead…

Vince Causey
Reply to  Mardler
November 22, 2014 9:23 am

It will be a constitutional crisis, if England is seen to be governed by a cabal of Labour and Scott’s Nats with a vote share less than the centre right. I believe such a coalition would try and force through the most extreme renewable policy with dire results, and the Nat’s would probably extract the strongest possible devolution.

November 22, 2014 1:19 am

Strongly green policies have a couple of things against them…
1. They are often of a scientifically dubious nature, such as knee-jerk opposition to nuclear power and genetically modified foods.
2. They are often hard on the economy and on governments’ finances.
They become even more toxic when combined with far-left politics.

November 22, 2014 1:22 am


November 22, 2014 1:29 am

James Abbott
November 22, 2014 1:49 am

What a poor article. None of the politicians referred to are actually Greens. Cameron has long ditched his “Greenest Government Ever” play for votes in the UK. In the real world actual Green Parties are doing OK – particularly in Europe, but nothing spectacular. The rise of UKIP and similar parties in Europe has zilch to do with the Green movement and has not detracted from the Green movement at all. In fact its interesting that in recent UK elections the Greens and UKIP are doing well at the same time.

Reply to  James Abbott
November 22, 2014 2:06 am

The politicians I named are prominently pro-green in their public policy positions, and have been applying significant pressure on skeptical politicians like Abbott and Harper to adopt a greener policy stance. I never suggested they were card carrying members of the “Green Party”.
French President Hollande claiming failure to resolve climate change will lead to conflict.
British PM David Cameron “prodding” Abbott on climate change.
Angela Merkel: “Climate change will not stop at the Pacific islands”
Obama pushing green issues in a speech delivered to voters in Brisbane.

Reply to  Eric Worrall
November 23, 2014 4:54 am

Hello Eric and thank you for your commentary.,
This winter in the Northern Hemisphere is predicted to be quite cold in North America (Eastern and Central), Western Europe and very cold all across Russia, compared to seasonal norms.
Energy costs in Europe are much more expensive than in North America, due to imbecilic European green energy policies to “fight global warming” and irrational green opposition to shale fracking. Many elderly and poor in Europe will not be able to keep warm this winter, due to the unnecessarily high cost of energy.
I am concerned about a significant increase in excess winter mortality rates. Winter cold kills many more people than summer heat – typically about 15% more people die monthly in Europe during the four winter months than in the eight non-winter months. Excess Winter Mortality in Europe and Russia amounts to over 500,000 souls per year – these are real people, not just statistics.
While other factors such as flu deaths contribute to Excess Winter Mortality rates, I suggest that the inability to heat their homes in winter due to high energy costs is a significant cause of death and illness, particularly among the elderly and the poor.
I suggest we can thank the greens for causing widespread suffering and death among the elderly and poor. I further suggest that the greens should be held accountable as the consequences of their irresponsible conduct become fully apparent.
Regards to all, Allan
Excess Winter Mortality in Europe: a Cross Country Analysis Identifying Key Risk Factors
Table 1 – Coefficient of seasonal variation in mortality (CSVM) in EU-14 (mean, 1988–97)
Austria 0.14 (0.12 to 0.16)
Belgium 0.13 (0.09 to 0.17)
Denmark 0.12 (0.10 to 0.14)
Finland 0.10 (0.07 to 0.13)
France 0.13 (0.11 to 0.15)
Germany 0.11 (0.09 to 0.13)
Greece 0.18 (0.15 to 0.21)
Ireland 0.21 (0.18 to 0.24)
Italy 0.16 (0.14 to 0.18)
Luxembourg 0.12 (0.08 to 0.16)
Netherlands 0.11 (0.09 to 0.13)
Portugal 0.28 (0.25 to 0.31)
Spain 0.21 (0.19 to 0.23)
UK 0.18 (0.16 to 0.20)
Mean 0.16 (0.14 to 0.18)

Reply to  James Abbott
November 22, 2014 2:09 am

How’s that campaign against “light pollution” coming along James??

Reply to  brent
November 22, 2014 2:50 am

Frankly I’d like a lot if my fellow citizens learned to direct their light to property they own instead of my eyes.
Pollution or not, ugly bright lights have bad effect on price of neighbours house.

Mr Green Genes
Reply to  brent
November 22, 2014 2:52 am

Whilst I’m normally happy to have a go at Abbott’s nonsensical views on CAGW, on this particular issue he’s right. Excessive light is pollution of a sort. As a libertarian I am all in favour of reducing government (including local government) spending to an absolute minimum and so I’m totally against the unnecessary lighting up of the sky which we see all over the country. There is no justification for street lighting which leaks upwards so much and which is on all night. In my village, where we are the proud owners of about 8 street lights, almost no-one is about after midnight yet all the lights are on. What’s more, from 15 miles away, I can clearly see the orange glow which is Swindon. Frankly, I don’t need (or want) to be reminded of Swindon at all!
This has b*gger all to do with CAGW and everything to do with reducing unnecessary splurging of tax-payers money.
A stopped clock is right twice a day. Mr Abbott has shown himself to be right once (so far) so there is hope, even for him 😉 .

Reply to  brent
November 22, 2014 6:07 am

Europe Goes Green
Sir Edward Grey
“The lights are going out all over Europe and I doubt we will see them go on again in our lifetime”

James Abbott
Reply to  brent
November 22, 2014 12:52 pm

Fine thanks.

Reply to  James Abbott
November 22, 2014 2:20 am

James Abbott:
If you will note, the alarmism of the Greens is falling flat as people start to laugh. As the alarmism goes, so go the Greens. The Greens are nothing but a “warm” air balloon and they have run out if warm air. In the US the movement has collapsed, in Germany they they are ignored, in Australia they are a smelly corpse and everywhere the Greens are foundering.

James Abbott
Reply to  mpainter
November 22, 2014 12:56 pm

Wishful thinking.

Reply to  mpainter
November 22, 2014 4:26 pm

Without the climate alarms, the Greens are nowhere, politically. I’m sure you understand, James.

Alan Bates
Reply to  James Abbott
November 22, 2014 2:43 am

“In fact its interesting that in recent UK elections the Greens and UKIP are doing well at the same time.”
Not true of the Rochester & Strood by-election. UKIP won. The Green candidate got less than 5% of the vote and hence forfeited his deposit, along with the Lib Dems. Indeed, I wonder if the green vote was in part a “plague on all your parties, but especially the Lib Dems (lowest ever % of the vote). By-elections are famous for being expressions of “anti”.

James Abbott
Reply to  Alan Bates
November 22, 2014 12:55 pm

The Green vote went up in the R&S by-election, not by a huge amount, but it did go up. Only UKIP and the Greens saw their vote go up.

Reply to  Alan Bates
November 22, 2014 1:04 pm

James Abbott, don’t extrapolate by-elections to a national trend. Neither UKIP nor the Greens will win the General Election. But they do well in by-elections. So why did the Greens gather extra votes in Rochester and Strood?
My suspicion is that the LibDems are so disgusted with the coalition that they are seeking alternatives. Some LibDems are almost Green anyway (although without the honesty, obviously. A lefty party that backs the Tories has no principles). That is why the Green vote increased.
Now, UKIP have gained MPs from defections – Why haven’t the Green Party?
Some LibDems must be on the cusp, right? If the Greens can win a by-election.

Reply to  James Abbott
November 22, 2014 3:26 am

The only good green is the green served on a plate with a nicely cooked steak with oodles of gravy and mash taties!

Andrew N
November 22, 2014 2:02 am

Obama, the ‘Pigeon President’ of the G20. Flies in, shits on everything, flies out.
From an Australian perspective, Obama, leader of the free world, contributed the least to the G20 conference.

Sceptical Sam
Reply to  Andrew N
November 22, 2014 4:10 am

And with his cowardly retreat from Iraq he contributed nothing to world peace either.
Now there’s a quinella for you.

November 22, 2014 2:36 am

Will Green Politics soon be a thing of the Past?
No, it will not. The ability of the greens to use our love of nature to control us may well abate in the near future but they will continue to be a force for a long, long time.
Part of the reason is that most people want a clean planet and love wildlife. We want clean air, clean water, and all the other warm and fuzzy things that go with good environmental stewardship. The greens play on that desire for good conservation practices to slip in their socialist dreams of total control.
The greens also have a very, very powerful co-conspirator in all of this. Politicians and bureaucrats love power over the “mundane” unwashed masses more than life itself. The greens offer “saving the planet” to the state’s minions as a cover for their power grabbing. It is all for your own good don’t you know.
The press is another powerful co-conspirator. The lazy people in the mainstream media are in reality just printing and mouthing government press releases. You have to dig deep into the alternative press, such as this site, to find out the truth surrounding the green’s claims that CO2 is a dangerous poison that will destroy life on this planet if it passes a certain “tipping point”.
Recall that catastrophic anthropogenic global warming was not the first scare coming out of the watermelons. (watermelon = green on the outside and red on the inside) Once upon a time, DDT was going to wipe out all bird life and was said to have driven the bald eagle to the point of near extinction. I am sure others here could name many other examples dating back before the CAGW hysteria.
Notice that the EPA is formulating a tsunami of new regulations as I write this according to recent reports. The war against the greens will go on for a long time.

Roger welsh
Reply to  markstoval
November 22, 2014 5:03 am

Well put

Reply to  markstoval
November 22, 2014 6:49 am

The bald eagle has a new enemy.
Ronco’s all new Rapture Eliminator.
It will remove those pesky eagles, hawks and owls from your local skies.
(good for removing those nasty bats and sparrows, too)
What DDT couldn’t do, GE will fix it for you.

Reply to  markstoval
November 22, 2014 8:20 am

Good post, Mark. Going Green is cultural, and isn’t going away.
Extremists will continue to exploit it for their own purposes. CAGW will die, but other absurdities will take its place. Skeery ocean pH, for example.

Brian H
November 22, 2014 3:02 am

The idea of Obama “contributing” to anything seems kind of flimsy from the get-go.

Reply to  Brian H
November 22, 2014 3:24 am

With his extensive properties, energy consumption and travel, he contributes to CO2 fertilisation of the planet.

Reply to  Patrick
November 22, 2014 6:50 am

Finally, someone found some good from the Obama presidency.

half tide rock
November 22, 2014 4:46 am

By taking an ideological and fantastical approach to public policy and extending power by false claims rather than one based upon practical analysis ( which wouldn’t serve them) the truth has now become the enemy of the green politicians.They are oul on a limb of their own choice. Unfortunately when we were in third grade most of us learned that turning down the path of “the dog ate my homework” didn’t have a good long term result. Most people when they pay attention are not as stupid as the politicians believe they are. The people are beginning to pay attention.

November 22, 2014 5:14 am

Eric Worrall
November 22, 2014 at 1:11 am
I think the appropriate response on behalf of my fellow Australians to any American interference which might have occurred in Australian politics in 1977 is “thank you”.
= = = = = = = = = =
If you prefer U.S. appointed candidates on the Australian ballot at election time, why not just move to the U.S.?
Then you can vote for our real leader.

November 22, 2014 5:15 am

Will Green Politics soon be a thing of the Past?
With that kind of loot at stake, only over their dead green bodies. Seriously. Like asking “Will Russian Marxism be a thing of the past?” “Will mafia tactics be a thing of the past for the mafia?”

November 22, 2014 5:22 am

Purge all communists from government appointed leadership positions. It’s difficult to identify them because all communists are liars but not impossible when you take apart their policies that will always lead to us having LESS of something and them being more assured of a position of control over us.
Imagine how many sparrows would have been saved if Mao had had “climate change” to blame for famine instead of them? But then again proving that SCF (sparrow caused famine) was a hoax was a LOT easier than proving CAGW is a hoax.

Ged Hession
November 22, 2014 5:24 am

I remember as a child all that scaremongering about the oil running out. I also remember the dissenting voices about using coal instead. In fact, we’ve more known oil, gas and coal reserves than during the energy panics of the 70s. I also remember the scares about acid rain when the evidence proves that lake acidity is natural, not the result of industrial pollution. No doubt there were scares about the motorways yet the evidence suggests nature has benefitted from their existence. Lets see what scares about fracking prove unfounded. There’s nothing new about Green and it will never go away, I’d say it will just plod along from one unfounded scare to another.

November 22, 2014 6:06 am

Firstly, it is not “Steve Harper”. It is “Stephen Harper”. He is not anti-green. He is just cognizant of the fact that Canada’s economy depends on trade with the US and refuses to set policies that will destroy the Canadian economy by imposing green costs that will make industry non-competitive.
Harper is a deeply rational person and as such he is deeply unpopular with the idealistic greens who give no thought to the practical implications of their policies. he will address the science of climate change in a reasoned and deliberate manner. He realizes that his actions have consequences and that he must be careful in ways that bloggers and newspaper columnists do not have to be.

Reply to  TAG
November 22, 2014 6:26 am

Pat, Patrick, Rick…serial? Oi you usually works with me too! I am sure that Steve Harper or Stephen Harper is none too bothered.

Reply to  Patrick
November 22, 2014 4:00 pm

You don’t know that Stephen Harper emphatically does not like being called “Steve” and is always referred to as “Stephen” in Canada. Anyone who refers to him as ‘Steve” does not know Canadian politics.

Reply to  Patrick
November 23, 2014 8:01 am

So, what you are saying is that he’s a bit “anal”? He should get a life…

November 22, 2014 6:21 am

I hope you are right, however there are billions being spent to keep the narrative alive, and money talks. In the case of harper he faces an election next year and his anti GW stance will certainly be a thorn in his side and with most of the media against harper, it’s a very close race right now with harper in second place. Needless to say the other party has all the GW money supporting them.

Wayne Delbeke
Reply to  Scott
November 22, 2014 7:00 pm

And if son of Trudeau gets in, we’ll have another made in Canada recession like the 1980’s, only it will be worse this time with more to lose. Is anyone out there old enough to remember P.E. Trudeau’s National Energy Policy that erased billions of dollars in investments over night. Trillions this time if it happens again like his spawn has suggested.

November 22, 2014 6:40 am

November 22, 2014 at 1:15 am
That [Abbott’s daughter being awarded a secret & unprecedented scholarship from a private design college lobbying for public funds] is a Labor/green position. The email you refer too was hacked by the communist newspaper, New Matilda. They hacked it to discredit Abbot and they have hacked other emails because they disagree with the politics of the person.
= = = = = = = = = =
That’s how they tried to deflect attention from the incriminating content of the climategate emails.
= = = = = = = = = =
The Abbot government removed the mining tax that cost more to administer than it brought in. They removed the ruinously expensive CO2 tax that did not move the temperature of the planet by even 0.0001C but had pensioners deciding between eating or heating.
= = = = = =
1) We didn’t get the original mining tax because the elected prime minister (Rudd) was removed in a coup while the tax was still being discussed in the public arena. Gillard then introduced a deliberately weak and pointless version of the tax to pacify the mining companies … and the public:
quote: “January 2014 poll conducted by UMR Research, however, found that a majority of Australians still think that multinational mining companies do not pay enough tax
2.) Most of the power price increases are driven by an agreement (from the government regulator) to guarantee a 10% profit on an any investments the new energy corporations can dream up. We pay that 10% profit in exorbitant connection fees. The privatization of power in Australia occurred under both Labor and Liberal governments against the wishes of the people (nota bene), and we are much worse off for it. The removal of the “carbon tax” didn’t make much difference in the end, because it represented only a small fraction of the automatic annual price increases.
I’m glad its gone. But I’m still paying John Howard’s 10% GST on electricity, gas, and almost everything else I spend money on. Howard’s regressive tax is much worse than the carbon tax, being responsible for accelerating wealth disparity in our once egalitarian nation to the ugly extremes proudly on parade in the U.S.

Reply to  Khwarizmi
November 22, 2014 9:05 am

The GST REPLACED OTHER taxes, eventually! Check your food bill, Coles/Woolies list items that GST is applied to. It’s NOT almost everything. You want to see a GST applied to EVERYTHING? Go to NZ. Ok, not everything. Female sanitary products are GST free.

Chris B
November 22, 2014 6:50 am

Just short of their goal?

November 22, 2014 6:55 am

‘There’s nothing new about Green and it will never go away, I’d say it will just plod along from one unfounded scare to another.’
In 1967 when I attended grade school water pollution was all the rage with the ‘concerned set’. Education departments across Canada instructed schools to show a film about it and the film was very much like ‘An Inconvenient Truth’. The film showed and proved that pollution was so bad in the Great Lakes that you were risking your health by dipping your toe in that toxic mess. That seemed strange to me because the summer before I had spent holidays swimming in those very lakes. In retrospect I guess it was a time when I learned I had a skeptical nature.

Ged Hession
Reply to  Rick
November 22, 2014 7:15 am

I was also told that around that time there were people eating DDT, so adamant they were that it was harmless to humans and other animals. Remember that? https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wBxNGnBxkSI

Terri Jackson
November 22, 2014 7:04 am

they wont go down without a fight. In the Rochester by-election in Britain this week they came fourth beating the Lib Dems who are in government with Cameron. They are only sustained by the liars in the UK media whose knowledge of climate physics is zero. We need in the UK both politicians and scientists who have courage to speak out against the green nonsense. Maybe UKIP? We shall see. Scientific truth is on the side of the skeptics. Green history in Germany was Nazi history(70 percent were card carrying nazis!)

Reply to  Terri Jackson
November 22, 2014 12:44 pm

I’m no Green but I strongly doubt that most Greens today are Nazis.
They are wrong because:
1) They ignore counter-evidence and so overly assert their certainty.
2) They prioritise their bugbear over reducing poverty and thus propose mass murder – without passion.
3) The models were wrong (whoops).
And yes, some of them tell lies, but I’m sure not all.
Let’s not attack views we disagree with because of unfortunate historical errors. We’d end up condemning all Christians for the Crusades and all Atheists for the Great Leap Forward.
That would make conversations while buying our groceries a trifle awkward.

James Abbott
Reply to  Terri Jackson
November 22, 2014 1:01 pm

Terri Jackson
Did you hit send before you had read that through ? Looks like 2 postings about completely different subjects spliced together. Who were 70% card carrying Nazis ?.

Terri Jackson
Reply to  James Abbott
November 22, 2014 1:29 pm

At least 70 percent of the greens in Germany in the war years were card carrying nazis!

Reply to  James Abbott
November 22, 2014 1:34 pm

James Abbott,
This neo-Nazi is a hero of yours.☺

November 22, 2014 9:14 am

Use of the term “Green” to denote these people is one of the most Orwellian phenomena of our time. Intended to evoke images of flourishing plant life (“unspoiled” by humans), it is the adopted symbol of those whose crusade is to rid the word of the three things that make plant (and, in fact, all) life possible: warm temperatures, carbon dioxide in the atmosphere, and the demon element carbon itself.
I shake my head in wonder every time I hear it. Doesn’t anyone else notice this? Or that Zoolander has just one look?

November 22, 2014 9:31 am

We live in hope Eric.

November 22, 2014 9:50 am

“Prime Minister David Cameron of Britain” – And the alternative is,
Ed Miliband, the author of the UKs Climate Change act – http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2008/27/part/1
Smaller partys are available

Reply to  mwhite
November 22, 2014 9:54 am

Dave’s coalition partners are the Liberal democrats.
“Ban all petrol and diesel cars by 2040 or earlier, say Lib Dems”

Reply to  mwhite
November 22, 2014 12:46 pm

Peter Lillee’s a Tory.
Graham Stringer’s Labour.
There not all bad.
I mean the LibDems have… oh.
Well who knows what Carswell or Reckless think on AGW, anyway? Have you heard?

November 22, 2014 10:45 am

It wasn’t that long ago that Democrats in the U.S. were proclaiming the death of the Republican Party and saying they were fast becoming a thing of the past. Then came the 2014 elections and a resurgence for the GOP. I wish I could be hopeful that extreme-green politics was on its way to extinction, but history indicates otherwise. All they need is one warm year, perhaps caused by an El Nino, and they’re back in the alarmism business, at least for a time. Like the tide, these things tend to fluctuate up and down over the years, similar to the climate.

Reply to  Louis
November 22, 2014 11:02 am

People may not forget your coming winter

November 22, 2014 10:50 am

Will Green Politics soon be a thing of the Past?
In the US, the politics of green is morphing into the tyranny of green. No politics about it. No voting, no public input of any kind. It’s stultifying decrees issued by nameless bureaucrats working behind the scenes to hobble the economy and whittle away at freedom.
Grave new world.

Mike Singleton
November 22, 2014 12:23 pm

I’ll believe they are in full retreat when senior politicians openly challenge or decry or put down, the hypothesis of global warming and when they do not condition their warmist pronouncements with some degree of conciliation to the environmental terror groups.

Mike from the cold side of the Sierra
November 22, 2014 1:47 pm

Hey, people of the world outside the US, get used to OBama, he could be yours in the future. In two years, he’s out of a job here in the USofA. What could be better than community organizing on a world stage. So long as they have teleprompters at the UN, he’s already got the Nobel credential for doing nothing, now he can climb the Peter principal to a new height! Sometimes white, sometimes brown, but always green and red on the inside. I think he would make a great world dicta… I mean leader, when will the UN main chair be available for him? No constitution to shread or trample, just unelected dictation for the foreseeable future…Think on it. The vomitory is on the 9th floor on the Left.

November 22, 2014 2:04 pm

WUWT has habit of doing this – implying that somehow political results are referenda on the green agenda. Yes politician that are sympathetic to the green agenda are polling badly. But the environment is so far down the electoral priority list that I doubt it has any bearing on any vote/poll.

Reply to  cd
November 22, 2014 6:43 pm

Why do you think any politician will stand on a ‘Green’ platform if all the others are losing at the polls? it’s not as though they do these things because they believe in them, they do them becasuse it will give them more wealth and power.

Reply to  cd
November 23, 2014 5:11 pm

So what ?
Nobody is forcing you to read this, or is it a habit.
I’ve heard it takes only 7 days to break a habit, I mostly like my habits so I don’t see myself testing that theory anytime soon.
It seems to me that an implication is a two-way street, it needs a recipient.
Best not to be one ?

November 22, 2014 3:18 pm

Green politics is about to become a thing of the past, but it also is about to become a whole lot more shrill and desperate in coming days, as it realizes that it is about to become a thing of the past. Just like tyrannical regimes, fanatical movements become more and more insane as their time runs out – this happens over and over again, sometimes culminating in unbelievable tragedies such as the one at Jonestown, in Guyana. (we just passed the anniversary of that massacre, that’s why it was on my mind)
The greens won’t go like that, of course (or maybe only a few) but it illustrates that many of the hard-core true believers will choose to go down with the ship, so to speak, rather than change their beliefs, and out of spite many will try to take as much down with them as they can. That’s just how ideologues are – if they were reasonable, rational, people, they wouldn’t be there still clinging on until the bitter end.

November 23, 2014 12:16 am

With the fall of the Berlin Wall and the collapse of the USSR the Marxists had very few options open to them. They are, after all, the greatest mass murderers in human history and their numerous economic and social failures left them only one “get out”, the environment. Thus the explosion of Green groups worldwide.
They dream of world wide Government under the UN, a major crime scene in its own right, and have major supporters in obviously Left Wing political parties.
The Greens will not disappear any time soon, if at all. They have nowhere else to go, at present.

November 23, 2014 1:49 am

Klem said:
The worst part about all of this is that I’ll bet most of the people who post on this site were once environmentalists themselves many years ago.
I am sure Klem is right. In fact I still regard myself as an environmentalist, but one who is a realist. Many “green” technologies are capable of damaging the environment, e.g. dams for hydro-power. Hydro-electric power certainly has its place but nobody would want every beautiful river to be dammed, or damned for that matter!
If wind turbines can produce electricity at a price that is reasonably competitive with electricity from other sources and if there is plenty of back up power available, and if the turbines don’t spoil beautiful views, and if few birds are killed by them, then, as they don’t cause pollution it would be worth building wind turbines, but how many cases are there where all these criteria can be satisfied.
Greens need to grow up.

November 23, 2014 4:15 am

Green politics will never be a thing of the past, and suggesting so reflects a misunderstanding of the Green movement. They are not about climate change, or for that matter, the environment. They are about centralized control (but only if like-minded politicians are in control) and climate change is only the most recent flavor of the moment for the Greens. Once the vast majority (not just the majority) of the public have fully seen through the climate change scam the Greens will simply move on to another cause and there will be plenty of moronic dupes as well as inexperienced and overly emotional youth who will be sucked in.
Stop dreaming. And stop letting socialists control the education process and the new process. It’s all about informed choices.

November 23, 2014 7:42 am

“President Hollande, the greenest of the EU politicians”
Jeez, how stupid, how ignorant can you get? I imagine that this was supposed to read “…of the EU heads of state”.
Be reassured: Hollande has not a shred of greenery in him. He is carrying on with nukes as if nothing has happened, soldiering on with the calamitous EPR project and ignoring renewables.
And to even suggest that Camoron is any way connected with green policies… words fail me.

November 23, 2014 4:38 pm

Unfortunately, leftist tropes, if bad enough, never die.

November 24, 2014 10:25 am

“Global Warming” works in mysterious ways.

%d bloggers like this: