Cambridge Executive Rebels Against Academic Climate Divestment Vote


The Executive of Cambridge University, England, which was originally founded in the year 1231, has rejected a demand by academics to divest from fossil fuels, because they are worried such divestment will impact future ability to fund teaching and research programmes.

Cambridge clashes with own academics over climate change

University executive refuses to implement governing body’s carbon divestment motion

The University of Cambridge has become embroiled in an internal battle after executives at the UK’s richest educational institution clashed with academics over proposals to divest from fossil fuels.

Last month the university’s governing body, which is made up of senior academic and administrative staff from its 31 colleges, passed a motion to divest Cambridge’s £5.8bn endowment from fossil fuels.

The decision came amid investor concern that fossil fuel companies will suffer large losses as governments around the world seek to tackle global warning.

But in an unprecedented break from university tradition, Cambridge’s council, its executive arm that sets policy, has said it will not follow through with the governing body’s calls for divestment within the next 12 months.

The council is reluctant to cut investments in fossil fuel companies without assessing how this would affect funding for its teaching and research programmes.

Read more:

According to the Cambridge Zero Carbon Society, the following is the text of the divestment motion;

“That the Regent House, as the governing body of the University, resolves that none of the University’s Endowment Funds should be invested directly or indirectly in companies whose business is wholly or substantially concerned with the extraction of fossil fuels, and requires the Council to publish a Report to the University within twelve months setting out how this is to be achieved”.


Cambridge is the university which brought us the irrepressible arctic ice alarmist Professor Wadhams.

While I acknowledge the effort by the executive to protect the integrity of the research and teaching fund against pointless virtue signalling, I believe in democracy. People in a cooperative institute like Cambridge should be free to vote their own financial self destruction, even if the institute in question has lasted almost 800 years.

132 thoughts on “Cambridge Executive Rebels Against Academic Climate Divestment Vote

    • Only two things are infinite, the universe and human stupidity, and I’m not sure about the former. – commonly credited to Albert Einstein

      • David,
        Fossil fuels and CO2 have nothing to do with climate change, despite the dumbness displayed by SMC.

      • They allow you to fly from the Sahara to the Antarctic highlands in less than 24 hours, which will get you a 150 deg. C climate change, if you do it about now.

      • @toorightmate
        I should have been clearer. CO2 is what the Watermelons claim causes CAGW. Fossil fuels produce CO2 when burned. That’s the connection, as far as the Watermelons are concerned.

    • Nor arrogance.
      People who make a living (and often a fortune) in the stock market make their selections on the FUTURE prospects of a company. The sum of those selections at any one time is the “price”. If a company is to suffer in the future, for any reason, it will be reflected in a reduction in the price of its stock.
      These days investment houses have specialists who deal only in a narrow group of companies (e.g. energy). They live, eat, and breathe in those segments.
      Cambridge Academics think they can judge future potential of companies better than the brokers who specialize in that market segment.

    • The PhDs know an awful lot about b****r all. When they hope the share price of fossil fuel companies falls the first to dive in and buy them cheaply will be the likes of Soros.
      Their electricity supply should be restricted to renewable sources of solar and windmills. Cambridge is the Fens answer to the US windy city.
      Incidentally, when I was there in the1960s I attended a talk on sustainability, and the speakers main thrust was that the ideal UK population would be 35m rather than the then population of 60m. (Now 70m +)

  1. The pity is that the English Literature professors at Cambridge seem to think Wadhams is an eminent climate scientist.

  2. Universities have student sabbaticals that run their Student Unions (SUs). The sabbaticals are supposedly in charge of the SUs. But in reality the control is held by the people who pay.
    That’s the University administrators.
    This patronising attitude now seems to have been extended to the administration of the grown-ups.

  3. I regret to say I’m a graduate of Cambridge.
    Wadhams and the rest of the idiots who voted for this insanity obviously have money than sense.

    • Dear B&T,
      Do reconsider your regret, dear Tab. You should be very proud to have been accepted to and completed your education at one of the finest universities in the world.
      Here. Perhaps (and I hope!), this will remind you of the good things about your alma mater, there are so many of them….
      Cambridge University (until ~ 11:00, history; ~11:00 on, glorious music! 🙂 )

      With admiration for your distinguished academic accomplishments,
      Janice Moore

      • CORRECTION: Above video relates some history, but is MOSTLY about music at Cambridge, with much video of architecture and some history (but, much narrative is about the music itself). You may find it to be “too much music” — I liked it! 🙂

      • Well and the Cambridge boat team got whipped by The Oxford boat team in the boat race.
        I almost forgot; the Oxford Ladies boating team also clobbered the Cambridge ladies boat team.
        The former Vice Chancellor of MY alma mater became the VC or maybe the C of Oxford University.

      • And I was at Riversdale College of Technology.
        You need to say that with a scouse accent, as it was in that magnificent city – Liverpool.
        A long way from Cambridge or, indeed, Oxford. But very special!
        Went back to do a degree at Liverpool Polytechnic.
        Was there when the Hillsborough Disaster happened. Incredible sense of community. I have not experienced that city-wide. Locally, yes – perhaps a dozen neighbours.
        But that was city-wide – both sides, Blues as well as Reds [Everton and Liverpool, not the political parties].

    • “Bitter&twisted February 5, 2017 at 2:30 pm
      I regret to say I’m a graduate of Cambridge.
      Wadhams and the rest of the idiots who voted for this insanity obviously have money than sense.”

      Easy to vote for divestment when it isn’t their money that is affected.
      Board members who vote for divestment, should clean their own houses first.

  4. I wonder if the cretins are in favor of riding on stone block or log roads? Without oil, there is no asphalt. Without coal, there is no cement.

      • 🙂
        … walking along in their “sustainable” kelp sandals. No deodorant. Teeth falling out. Fingers calloused from using abucuses to try (try — I didn’t say they ever managed to complete the course; most drop out after the first 2 years of trying….) to do their Advanced Calculus and Physics II homework….
        Oh. And with their giant magnifying glasses, wine flasks (no clean drinking water for miles), and bamboo knives (for cutting the nettles for their soup), hanging from their woven kelp belt, clanking dismally as they stride along the cobblestones.

    • Without Petrochemicals and mining, there are no houses, no computers, no iphones, no cars (electric or not), etc, etc. Because you are a Professor, it doesn’t necessarily mean you are intelligent.

    • @ ShrNfr, and I wonder how they are going to send research teams all over the world and get up to date information without computers, GPS, planes, and other methods all possible because of fossil fuels, if this place was founded 800 years ago I wonder how they kept it going for that length of time.
      Hot air?

  5. “The decision came amid investor concern that fossil fuel companies will suffer large losses as governments around the world seek to tackle global warning.”
    Yeah, I’m sure that’s the reason. “Investor concern”. I mean, what else could it be? Governments around the world surely must be chomping at the bit to commit economic suicide, just so they can say “See? We’re helping to save the planet, no matter how much it hurts us.”
    The stupid, it burns.

    • Governments around the world surely must be chomping at the bit to commit economic suicide, just so they can say “See? We’re helping to save the planet, no matter how much it hurts us.”
      The stupid, it burns.

      Yes, the Governments want to virtue signal, and the more cynical ones just play along because they are hoping to pilfer ‘green’ money from the citizens of the First World.
      The reality is that the Governments (which mean, the bureaucrats, politicians and their crony backers) never ‘hurt’. Their pensions remain, their salaries increase for the ‘important work’ they are doing. The people who do suffer are the poor and the politically disfavored (that is, the productive classes, and especially straight white men who pay into the system but are discriminated against for getting any benefits out, the benefits are all targeted for everyone else).
      This is why the bureaucrats are not displaying personal ‘virtue’ but are exhibiting the Left’s substitute for it, ‘virtue signaling’ – the bureaucrats are prepared to suffer private planes to Davos and taxpayer-funded lobster and champagne gabfests while they plot how to regulate and tax the citizens more and more to pay for their narcissistic (and anti-scientific) positions.
      They are ignorant (following Karl Popper’s famous definition of the term), and it is said to “Never attribute to malice what can be attributed to incompetence”, but in the case of people like Christina Figueres it is clear these people understand exactly what they are doing – extorting the wealth of the productive through involuntary means and deliberate deception. That makes them not only stupid, but EVIL too (where evil is the desire to impose one’s will involuntarily on an unwilling victim).
      As they said of the orchestrated Occupy Wall Street invasion, It is “the silly, lead by the sinister”. The lower-level folks are stupid, but the higher-level people are mistaken at all, they are simple EVIL. See the banality of evil now (most people can only identify evil in the historical past, the trick is to see it in the present).

      • Moa, yes: It was a political (leftist/progressive) vote and virtue signaling of the worst sort –> Trying to influence others in a harmful manner without adequate justification.
        They have taken a “scientific” position based on authority. Had they even looked at the issue in a cursory manner, they would have realized there are legitimate questions about climate harm from human activities. It is proven that IPCC climate models are bunk and inadequate for the purpose of fundamentally changing our economies, societies and energy systems.
        I wonder if any of them realize the harm caused by subsidizing renewables and penalizing coal, oil and natural gas? [Evidence Germany and others.] Do they simply take it on authority that renewables are a better investment? What happens when the subsidies end? President The Donald, anyone?
        [OT, but does anyone else see the manner of the New England Patriot’s Super Bowl win as a metaphor for President Trump’s?]

    • I think you meant to say no matter how much it hurts my constituents. I will will be safe and warm in my own house. You don’t expect me to comply with the same laws the normal people have to; do you?

    • “Moa February 5, 2017 at 4:50 pm
      …and especially straight white men who pay into the system but are discriminated against for getting any benefits out, the benefits are all targeted for everyone else…”
      You got that right! Many years ago I applied for a volunteer position at the UN to help people in Africa and India with computers etc, I had the skills required. I was not accepted. The short versions of the rejection reply was that I was not a poor black woman.

    • Well I believe Lord M of B is an alumnus of Cambridge. So it isn’t fatal. There are some voices of sanity.
      That Institution will probably make it to 2231 despite the goofballs.

      • All institutions suffer highs and lows.
        As long as the lows aren’t too low, the institution will live to teach another day.

  6. People (especially the “most academic”) shouldn’t drive or fly or heat their homes or anything else that involves fossil fuels if they’re so willing to lie about CAGW.

    • That’s what the administrators should have asked the academics…have you personally gotten fossil fuels out of your day to day lives? If not, why not, and why do you expect us to do it?

  7. Cambridge, like all Universities, splits into Academic & Functional/Administrative departments.
    Were the latter to inveigh upon the former in like-terms, CAN YOU JUST IMAGINE THE REACTION!
    My case rests …..

  8. I long ago learned there is virtually no relationship between educational level or I.Q. and “gullibility”.

    • Actually Richard Lindzen said that the common man can see right through the climate scam but the educated are quite vulnerable to it.

    • If anything, the highly educated/intelligent are easier to dupe. And have a harder time admitting it when they have been. The smarter you are, the better you are at lying to yourself, and the better you are at rationalizing behavior that could be questionable. Without a disciplined ego and a genuine humility about your own abilities, intellectual dishonesty is almost inevitable.

      • I disagree somewhat. In my experience, the really smart people know how little they know and are happy to change their opinion when new data comes in. It’s the midwits–the kind of people who end up filling most of academia–who are convinced they know everything and should be telling everyone else what to do. Their entire being is based around how ‘smart’ they are, even though they’re dimwits compared to the really smart people.

      • It seems to me that IQ and functional/actual intelligence are often very different . . Approximately; Intelligence equals IQ over freedom of the mind . . It don’t matter much how big your boat’s engine is, if it’s always tied up to the dock . .

  9. It sounds to me like Cambridge’s bi-cameral, quasi-constitutional democracy, is working just as its founders intended. The checks and balances, similar in many ways to those in the representative democracy of the Republic of the United States of America, are doing their job.
    And I feel quite certain that C. S. Lewis, one of Oxford University’s and then, Cambridge University’s keenest minds, would agree.
    Excerpt from a February 21, 1953 letter —
    Your question about Communists-in-government really raises the whole problem of Democracy. If one accepts the basic principle of Govt. by majorities, how can one consistently try to suppress those problems of public propaganda and getting-into-govt, by which majorities are formed. If the Communists in this country can persuade the majority to sell in to Russia, or even to set up devil-worship and human sacrifice, what is the democratic reply? …
    pure democracy is really a false ideal.
    God bless you all. In great haste.
    Yours ever
    C. S. Lewis

    (Source: Letter to Mary Van Deusen from C. S. Lewis in C.S. Lewis — Collected Letters, vol. III at 296)
    He is right. Pure democracy is not the best guardian of either liberty or of truth.
    And even the best constitutional democracy will fail in the end unless good people stand up for what is right.
    Democracy is a good servant. Don’t make it your Master.

    • The best argument against democracy is a five-minute conversation with the average voter.
      These days a quick look at comments on YouTube is enough to convince me.

      • Now, now, Jer0me, limited democracy has worked quite well. It has its faults, I agree, but, it’s the best thing going (benevolent dictatorships always going wrong in the end, I mean). The People, properly educated, bring to bear much native morality and commonsense. To wit:
        1) BREXIT PASSED!
        2) TRUMP WON!
        Your loudmouth American friend,

      • Such arrogance !
        At least the average voter doesn’t hold themselves superior to their fellows. Only deluded elitists do – and it turns out (like the EU’s Martin Schulz) they are quite often intellectually inferior to a significant fraction of the public. The bureaucracy is the only chance that many mediocre people have of attaining resources (by siphoning off those the productive class create in the Free Market of voluntary exchange).
        It is attitude like yours that are the best argument for democracy – in a democracy the votes of the arrogant are deluded by the mass of much more pragmatic and humble people.
        Why don’t you sod off to North Korea where your attitude would be welcomed ?

      • Moa, I can be much more arrogant, believe me. I try not to be so rude, however. Try not taking it so seriously, maybe?

      • Moa. ??? Even though I disputed what Jer0me said to a degree, he DID have a good point. His evidence is, sadly, fairly compelling, too.
        Re: you at 4:50pm — APPLAUSE! for calling Big AGW what it is: “evil.”
        Looking forward to more unvarnished writing from you (and also, I hope….. a bit of an apology to Jer0me…. over what I am sure was just a misunderstanding…..).

      • Thank you for your gracious reply, Jer0me. Yes, we are on the same page! (I didn’t think you sounded arrogant, btw — just exasperated)

      • Moa, there is a valid point in that cooler heads must prevail. The average voter is subject to the winds of change and tides of public opinion that rise and ebb faster than the tides.
        By having dedicated officials hold office for several years, they can both be better informed than a typical person (either personally or via support staff), and since they have responsibilities over several years, they must look to the long term (or at least medium-term) effects of their actions.
        For the best example, look to the early 90s, when California voted themselves a 50% reduction in property taxes by direct ballot. This killed the school systems for years until it was rolled back by elected officials. Direct democracy has it’s drawbacks. On the other hand, it is sometimes a necessary fallback to avoid corruption.

      • I was under the impression that The USA is not a democracy.
        I thought it was a Democratic Republic. And is there not a difference? Please correct me if I am wrong.

      • ben, it wasn’t proposition 15 that killed the school system, it was the politicians and the teacher’s unions.
        BTW, prop 15 was voted on in 1978 if I remember correctly.
        During the previous decades, rapidly rising property values, and the unwillingness of politicians to adjust property taxe rates to compensate had resulted in sky rocketing property taxes. This was a boon to politicians who got to spend lots of other people’s money, and to real estate agents who made a fortune off of individuals who were forced to sell because they could no longer afford the property taxes.
        The schools only suffered because the politicians diverted money away from them in order to create pressure on people to rescind the tax cut.

    • Democracy does have failure modes, for example one of my concerns about the climate “crisis” is that it is a moral slipper slope – nothing is out of bounds, if you believe you are working to prevent the destruction of the world.
      But in this case I think the professors should be free to sample the rewards of their own stupidity.

    • Was it a Winston Churchill saying that ” Democracy is the best form of Government; except for all the rest !”
      or was that Yogi Berra ??

    • Good comments, Janice – as always.
      My grandson started his course in the Natural Sciences at CU last October. Over the years he is well aware of my views on the GW/CC fraud and also realised that you could only answer exam questions on CC the “right” way. No doubt he will meet some of these academic charlatans and it will be fascinating to hear his observations.
      If the current generation of Veterinarians is anything to go by, I am prepared to be disappointed in how his beliefs develop.
      Michael Oxenham

  10. I suggest the “academics” demanding divestment be required to work under the same conditions their eighteenth century predecessors worked under – no electricity in their offices and homes, no automobiles or any other kind of transportation based on internal combustion or electricity, and so on. Limit them to candles for lighting, wood for heating, and transportation by horse or on foot.

  11. This is simple, setup 2 pension funds. One divested and the other not. Employees, academics can opt for either one.

    • As to Pensions, good idea, but there’s a variety of Endowment Funds, some particular to individual Colleges (the richest of whom manage them independently) and some (the rest?) managed by the Estates Management Dept. (my bro, was a Senior Mgr. 30 yrs ago.)
      The fiduciary duty (does anyone subscribe to this antediluvian concept any more?) of the Estate Mgrs. is to maximize the Asset-growth and Income-return, just as any good, honest Funds Mgr. wd do.
      These airy-fairy academics rely on the performance of these funds. They may be inviting a bounced cheque from the University!
      And I’d crack my ribs laughing at their self-induced fate!

      • Even better, professors with named chairs funded by a specific endowment can decide whether they want their pay to come from returns on either option, but that will be their pay, regardless of what happens. Eat your own dog food.

    • I think the problem is deeper than that .
      If it were just individual pensions then individuals could opt out of fossil fuels.
      However the funds support the whole University, its teaching and presumably maintenance of buildings.
      Back in the day at Sydney Uni the problem for block grants and estate distributions was that often money was left to build something with naming rights, but nothing was left to actually run, maintain and staff the building. Money the Uni then had to provide.
      These trusts are so large they could be used now to give free education to students for many years, until it runs out.
      However prudence warrants them not to do this.
      If they decide to divest in a whole class of investments then those benefactors with them, say coal, will not endow to Cambridge, as Cambridge would have to refuse them.
      This would tend to mean that other worthy institutions would be the beneficiary.
      In the meanwhile, with a known policy of divestment,a big pool of funds available to be sold for ‘moral ‘ reasons, they will have to accept the ruling price now, rather than picking the eyes out of the market when they sell.
      Not good in a downturn.

  12. Here in Canada there is similar pressure put upon pension funds to divest from fossil fuel companies and invest in “carbon-free” technologies. It is all part of a campaign to starve oil and coal companies of investments, and drive them toward bankruptcy. For an insight into the deluded chain of suppositions driving the activists, see:
    This is a serious maneuver, Mercer has published a handbook for institutional investors, and they are taking it on board.

    • Sounds more like they want to drop stock prices. Since there are investors out there who will snap up the stocks the academics divested all the academics accomplish will be to lower the value of their portfolio – NOT starve the companies of investments.

      • Baraba, as usual canada runs a few years behind, so I hope 3.5 years from now we will elect O’Leary to straighten things out. As far as Universities divesting away from fossil fuels? I am watching the market . There could be some good buys although I doubt the managers of those funds are going to change anything a political science Prof. tells them!

      • “This is what the CISDL has now become. A centre for activist lawyers.”
        What else would you expect a ‘Centre for International Sustainable Development Law’ to be?
        The sooner Quebec is kicked out of Canada. the better.

      • Quebec residents may not be informed as to what goes on in their province anymore than residents of other provinces are.

  13. Cambridge, as well as other elite universities, need to divest from stupid.
    We create financial instruments based on debt, so can we create financial instruments based on stupid (which is a sort of debt)? There would be lots of money to make in that sector, yes?

  14. Cambridge academics appear to be eager to return to dustroads and horse traction. With the hoi polloi clearing the dung, of course.

    • It’s all about relative power. The left would rather be king in a pre-industrial society than paupers in a post-industrial utopia.

  15. The decision came amid investor concern that fossil fuel companies will suffer large losses as governments around the world seek to tackle global warning.

    That’s not completely crazy. If governments act in an insane manner, it could hurt fossil fuel companies.
    On the other hand, we have yet to see any national government willing to die on the CAGW altar. I think the worry about government action is just a rhetorical tool. In the case of America, there is very little possibility that President Trump’s government will do much that is harmful to the fossil fuel companies.

  16. The council’s decision has angered fossil fuel campaigners and academics at the university. Chris Galpin, campaigns officer at Cambridge Zero Carbon, a student society that has been campaigning for the university to divest, said the council’s “response falls far short of what was called for in the [motion]”.
    He added that there were both moral and financial reasons behind ending investments in fossil fuel companies. “Students and academics are united on this issue; the university must stop investing in climate change.”

    Oh my!

  17. I’m not exactly sure how to express it, but there just seems to be something fundamentally wrong with universities wanting to invest in companies/industries that are being subsidized or otherwise funded by government/taxpayer money. Almost as if they’re expecting the gov./taxpayer to guarantee good and safe returns on their investments, the taxpayer be damned.

  18. Now think about this in terms of the corruption of science. Having made a big financial bet that hydrocarbon companies are a bad investment you have great motivation to make the bet pay. It just so happens that you produce the science which informs the very government policies that will validate your bet. Not difficult to see how inappropriate all this is and frankly how obviously self-dealing its all been from the start.
    I’m afraid we are dealing with the worst type of temple priests in all of this. Blinded by ideology and hubris they casually violate ethical standards. The executive should stand its ground as the protector of the institution against passions of the moment. The government which I am sure shovels money into the university one way or another should legislate a separation of faculty politics and investment management. If that isn’t possible pull funding until the profs get back to the work they’ve been hired to do.

  19. OMG, I can scarcely contain myself at the thought of “Trainwreck TV: Climate Academics Managing Their Own Pension Funds.”

  20. I had a good friend in the 1970’s who shared an office with me in the Middle East for some months. He was gay but quite discreet for obvious reasons. He was the first president and founder of the Cambridge University Gay Society. His stories were outrageously funny.
    Some years later, I met him in London’s High Street Kensington. He looked quite downcast and would not tell me why. A few months later, his photo was on the cover of the Sunday Times Colour Supplement. He was interviewed and essentially complained dreadfully about how the doctors were letting him down as he was dying from a mysterious disease and that he had no idea how he caught it. I did not really understand what it was all about till some time later but did think that he was being disingenuous.
    Moral of this story: not all wisdom comes from Cambridge University.
    I was offered a “reserved place” at Cambridge but chose to go to Imperial College

  21. “University’s keenest minds”
    Those who can do! I think one of the prerequisites for teaching is spending some time doing first.
    The other problem I have with the over educated is that they are often under educated in most everything else. Even worse are actors and journalists. That is not what I mean by doing.

    • WELL SAID! They live in prole-supported Ivory-Towers, immune to those lackeys who fund their privileged existences

  22. Ooops! “…. immune to those lackeys” shd read “immune to the basic needs of those lackeys “

  23. I see no reason for them not to do this, assuming everyone concerned agrees. If not, then they should let people choose a fossil-fuel-free fund if they wish (I’m not sure she’s funds these are or how they are managed and used, TBH). I also think everybody should take control of their own pension fund investements, and ignore fossil fuel investments if they wish.
    In fact, as far as I am concerned, anyone who bangs on about CAGW (or really just GW, because the CA is always implied), and who has not divested their personal pension funds of fossil fuel investements, buys anything except renewable energy, drives anything except electric vehicles, wears clothes made from plastics, should shut up about it until they have done this. I cannot stand being told what to do by people not prepared to do it themselves first.
    And all of these things I suggest should be possible, they are where I live. If enough people believe in CAGW, then doing these things should solve the problem (real or imagined), so there is no real argument against it unless your motivations are purely political. My admitedly meagre research tells me that the average Joe will do as well as a professional investor, once the massive cut for the professional investor has been sliced off the top. BMW and Lambo sales may drop a bit, so don’t invest in those 🙂
    It’s about time these people took responsibility for their own actions, according to their beliefs, before trying to force others to do what they preach.

      (Source: wikip.)

      … Amassing a fleet of 74 luxury cars { } makes perfect sense to the disciples of Bhagwan Shree Rajneesh, the Indian mystic who takes daily drives around the 64,229-acre Oregon ranch bought by his followers in 1981. ….
      Most sannyasins, however, make do with bicycles or the Buddhafield Transport buses that rumble at regular intervals along the dusty main roads of Rancho Rajneesh. ….

      (Source: (July 12, 1985))
      AGW is a cult.

      • IIRC, the formerly mostly-excellent TV show “60 Minutes” exposed Rajneesh in a documentary.
        Now that they are bought and paid for by the enviroprofiteers, I doubt 60 Min. or any other show will expose the Mass Hysteria Cult of AGW. — And that’s fine. Now that we’ve got rational, liberty-loving, people in Wash., D.C., we will be rid of those thugs before too much longer.
        Heh. “There’s the door, pal. Oh — wait….. CATCH! ….. your ‘supercomputer.'” {Trump appointee tosses a handheld calculator at him or her}
        Who did YOU think of when you saw the above photo?
        I thought of Al Gore.

      • Janice, I love the “enviroprofeteers” label, it fits perfectly. I didn’t think of Al Gore. To me a lot of hollywood phonies would fit the bill. Streep comes to mind and what’s his name ? The private plane guy that thought a Chinook wind was the “end days” a few years ago while running around in a bear suit? Lord, Canadians were LOL for weeks!

      • Strangely enough an old friend of mine with a double first from Cambridge is almost certainly in that line of people waiting for the Rolls to pass…

      • Good comments, Janice – as always.
        My grandson started his course in the Natural Sciences at CU last October. Over the years he is well aware of my views on the GW/CC fraud and also realised that you could only answer exam questions on CC the “right” way. No doubt he will meet some of these academic charlatans and it will be fascinating to hear his observations.
        If the current generation of Veterinarians is anything to go by, I am prepared to be disappointed in how his beliefs develop.
        Michael Oxenham

  24. “The Executive of Cambridge University, England, which was originally founded in the year 1231, has rejected a demand by academics to divest from fossil fuels, because they are worried such divestment will impact future ability to fund teaching and research programmes.
    Cambridge clashes with own academics over climate change.”
    Realistic scenario – the old boys at Cambridge network aren’t interested in WHAT to teach – but in getting paid for teaching.

  25. It’s amazing how people’s feelings regarding climate change activism are modified when the impact on the financial bottom line is considered.

  26. It seems to me the alarmists face be classified into six groups:
    1. Academics competing for government funding against such hairy perennials as health and education. How better to bolster their case than predicting disaster if action is not taken (read money is not doled out).
    2. Bureaucrats with supranational aspirations (read cushy, conferences, 5 star hotel, the list goes on but you get my drift).
    3. Hardwired anticapitalists who, since the implosion of the U.S.S.R. in 1989, have been looking for some other stick to belabour the capitalistic beast. How better to strangle it than by raising the cost of energy by government fiat.
    4. Snake oil salesmen flogging windmills and solar panels neither of which can ever supply the energy requirements of a modern economy.
    5. Merchant banks who can see a dollar two being made by trading carbon credits, short positions of course.
    6. Finally, misguided idealists who can’t resist pointing out to others the errors of their ways.

  27. I would love to see the Cambridge Union debating society debate the motion “this house believes that “Until Climate science has been externally examined in open court any restrictions based on it are immoral.”
    We have been found guilty and heavily fined by a detective force, a prosecution counsel, a judge and a jury all pre tested to establish they believe that we are guilty. Any defence is dismissed as amateur, no matter they are way better qualified in some aspects than any climate scientist. Amateurs are not considered worth listening to but the fact that no funding is available for defence so only amateur is possible is not treated as relevant.
    It is poorer future students that will pay the price for misguided failure to invest in viable fuels in the future in favour of what already is proven to be a more wishful thinking than practical future energy source.

  28. If the ‘academics’ don’t like it they can find employment elsewhere. Oh my God what am I saying? Give up tenure ?

  29. Right at the top we get a discussion about ‘stupid’
    Yeah, Right, Absolutely.
    But why? Why are the supposed cream of the cream of educated folks behaving as they are. That they believe in ‘trapped heat’, honestly think they know what Climate is.
    Oh yeah, climate is an average of 30 years of weather.
    Right then, what’s the answer – what is the number that represents 30 years of weather. get out into the real world and see it has very little to do with temperature and that there are probably 7 billion, and counting, different climates on this planet.
    CO2 doesn’t trap heat, it shreds long wave infra-red into even longer wave IR and those long wavelenght photons do not join together again. Cold cannot heat warm.
    So why do they believe that – all these super clever people.
    Because their doctors, advisers, the media and everywhere say ‘you have to eat carbs, to get energy’ and even worse ‘its OK to drink alcohol’
    Those 2 things switch your brain off, they slow your thinking and make you lazy. And that’s what we’ve got here.
    Consider we dodged a bullet this time. Are universities not the (or a truly major) sign of Civilisation. See when Cambridge was founded, just coming out of the Dark Ages.
    And what if these folks had succeeded, divested from fossil fuels and bankrupted the university?
    There goes a major pillar of your civilisation..
    Think on, next time they may succeed…..

    • “Peta from Cumbria, now Newark February 6, 2017 at 3:14 am
      ‘its OK to drink alcohol’”
      Tell that to the French.

    • Oh yeah, climate is an average of 30 years of weather.

      Wrong, Pete, … Climate is an average of 30 years of weather, averaged over an entire globe within a precision of hundredths of a degree. I forget which fairy tale I read that in.

  30. While it might make sense to divest if they believe the stocks will suffer, fossil fuel companies have nothing to do with global warming. No one burns oil to make power anymore – the price of oil long since stopped that. And if natural gas were restricted, what will replace it in this anti-nuclear world that is reliable? Even wind/solar systems depend heavilly upon natural gas. A large portion of oil is used to make plastics, and plastics aren’t likely to be replaced anytime soon. So the fossil fuels they provide to run our cars and trucks and planes can’t be replaced en mase at this time either. Probably soon, given the drop in battery prices, but the current crop of gas powered cars are not going to be thrown away anytime soon. At best divestiture may lead to the loss of competition and the amalgamation of the business into fewer hands, not a good thing. I would love to hear one of these divestiture proponents explain exactly what they expect to happen. I don’t believe they have any logical defense, only an emotional, ignorant desire to be an Earth hero.

  31. Thought experiment: how about determining the amount of income from fossil fuel investments and deducting it from the departmental budgets of those voting for divestment? The virtue–signalers can wallow in self-righteousness and nobody with a mature perspective is harmed.

  32. It is very interesting and strange that so many of us call “scientists” stupefied policy and did not know the power relationship of the sun and planets, according to what we Avak weak stimulate the energy, we can change in relation to climate.
    I have to repeat, climate change and global warming on the planets, to the consequences of mutual relations of the planet, each other and the sun.
    I’m interested in why you are in your newspaper do not have any interest to publish prove to refute all previous stupid ideas and theories on climate change, and on this idea is in vain, spent several tens of trillions of dollars, why?
    Is there any tool that will influence to awaken those who believe in the truth.

  33. The final paragraph contained this text ………
    “I believe in democracy. People in a cooperative institute like Cambridge should be free to vote their own financial self destruction, even if the institute in question has lasted almost 800 years.”
    A democracy assumes informed decisions by an informed electorate . Since when are those opposing
    global warming hysteria allowed to speak freely and debate the issues .

  34. “Oh yeah, climate is an average of 30 years of weather.”
    Now I understand my confusion. I checked wiki. A group of weatherpersons have defined a climate change in such a way that the ‘climate’ is always changing. Of course that is ‘local’ weather.
    That is a circular argument.
    Oh wait, it is now global warming. Still confused! Not by science but what is politically correct.

  35. As has been mentioned many times before in these pages, the USA is not
    a democracy. Our framers were very much against mob rule.
    Anyone who has not studied the outcome of investments in alternative
    energy in the Carter era is doomed to repeat it.
    Never ever invest in anything which competes with hydrocarbons
    as a portable fuel.

  36. “Easy to vote for divestment when it isn’t their money that is affected.”
    Yes, one can imagine the actual conversation:
    Divesters: We need to divest away from oil.
    Cambrige: Ok, we’ll just start cutting professors…
    Divesters: NOT SO FAST!!!!

  37. Founded in 1209 and given royal charter status by King Henry III in 1231 (from Wiki link but I think that’s right since we had a big 800th anniversary fundraising campaign recently). Taking all the negative comments into account but you should look at these numbers too.
    Nobel Prizes
    Cambridge 96 (Trinity College 32)
    Oxford 58
    USA 338
    UK 119
    Germany 103
    France 59
    Sweden 29
    (the rest nowhere!)

    • “Cambridge 96”? Not the magical ’97’?
      So what? Nerdiness doesn’t beget Worldliness, nor Common-Sense.

    • Also Wiki:
      “The Stanley Cup is a trophy awarded annually to the playoff champion club of the National Hockey League (NHL) ice hockey league. It was donated by the Governor General of Canada Lord Stanley of Preston in 1892, and is the oldest professional sports trophy in North America.”
      My hometown team (but not MY team), the Toronto Maple Leafs have won 13 Stanley Cups. Only the #!$%#!!@$# Montreal Canadiens have more.
      However…the Leafs (yes, not Leaves, don’t ask) haven’t won since 1967. In fact, they haven’t even been in the finals since then, and have only made the playoffs once in the last 13 years.
      So, long story short: past performance is not an indicator of future results.

  38. Cambridge is coming to resemble another famous British school, Hogwarts. We don’t need no stinking fossil fuels to turn electrical generators, heat our homes or power our vehicles. We’ll use MAGIC!

Comments are closed.