Disgusting! A Minister Turns down an Offer of ‘Advice’

Some months ago, it was reported that Cameron had said that he wanted less of this climate stuff. Now it appears that the Environment Secretary, Owen Patterson, turned down an offer of  ‘a briefing on climate change’ From a Prof Slingo, who is head of science at the Met Office.

The process by which this terrible event came to light is a bit odd. It appears that it came out as a result of a FoI request by Friends of the Earth.

Just think about that for a moment. All that happened was the Patterson said, “Sorry, Prof Slingo, I haven’t time right now” (or words to that effect). This Prof Slingo, is multi-contacted with the UN, the EU, the IPCC, and God know who else. She’s a bit upset that she, a TOP EXPERT in climate control, has been rebuffed. Naturally, she tells her mates in the Climate Control Industry and they get their heads together. Who might be a good sucker to do the FoI request without directly involving the NGOs? Who better than ‘Guy Shrubsole, a climate campaigner at Friends of the Earth.…’?

A couple of links are in order:


where I got the main facts from and:


which has more detail and, of course, the political sleight of hand to suggest that the Environment Secretary should take his instructions from his betters in academia. The Independent couldn’t help having a sly dig at Patterson by blaming him for the floods in Somerset, when everyone who can read knows that it was Baroness Young who stopped the dredging of the rivers so that the Levels would flood for the benefit of mice and birds.

But there is another oddity about this affair. Patterson is Environment Secretary. He is not in charge of the Climate Change and Energy Dept. Slingo might well brief the Climate Change and Energy people, who, in turn, might need to brief the Environment people. Why should she personally brief the Environment Sec as well? Many commenters on the Independent article said that Patterson just does not want to know the FACTS so as to be able to deny all knowledge later. (!!! Do they not mean the latest horror story?) There was one commenter who actually said that the ice caps were melting and would soon be gone, bringing devastation due to rising sea levels! These people amaze me. Do they not know that there are places in the Arctic and the Antarctic where the ice is miles deep? In the 17th/18th centuries, it was common among ‘the better sort’ to have chambers underground which were packed with ice taken from the surface of lakes during the winter. One might assume that they would not have done so had the ice melted as soon as spring arrived. No …. The packed ice, insulated by rock or brick, would have lasted throughout the Summer. What force (in the form of heat in the atmosphere) could possibly melt the compacted ice in those deep recesses  at the poles?


What we have been seeing, as regards global warming, is the same sort of exaggeration that we have seen with SHS. In fact, the more that you think about it, the more that you realise that the exaggeration is deliberate. The effects of global warming are described (without much detail) in glowing red colours of extreme danger. Such things as real time-scales are only lightly brushed in grey. With SHS, the blatant unseen elephant, which is waving its trunk, flapping its ears and making very loud trumpeting noises, is the time-scale over which any harm from exposure might occur. If the Doll ‘Doctors Study’ is to be believed, it takes about 30 years for even the heaviest smokers to suffer any harm. Even then, most of the ill effects occur in old age. (No sensible person would accept Doll’s re-definition of ‘middle age’ as extending to the age of 69) The study also revealed that the less the smoking, the less are the effects.  But even as I say that, we must remember that the Eugenicists, like Doll, made some terrible errors of judgement. The Doctors Study revealed that, at around the age of 50, SOME doctors dropped dead, but the numbers were small, whether they were smokers or not. In so far as the numbers were very small, the fact that the study involved 34,000 male doctors is irrelevant. Only those that dropped dead were important. Thus, among that very small number, factors other than smoking were likely to be far more important than the smoking. The only other alternative would be that the individuals who died so young were particularly susceptible to tobacco smoking – or whatever.

The Surgeon General of the USA deliberately distorted the truth when he/she said that there is no safe level of SHS. I guess that it would claim that, statistically, if 400,000 were killed by smoking, maybe a computer program might calculate that some 4,000 would be killed by SHS. Maybe the statistical program would be right – provided that the time-scales were held constant.

If it takes 30 years for heavy smoking to have an effect, how much longer would it take for SHS to have an effect? 100 years? 200 years? 1,000 years? But that does not eliminate the remote possibility that an individual person somewhere on the planet might be on the verge of death by heart attack and that the whiff of SHS might just possibly be the last straw. But even then, there would be no way whatsoever to ‘prove’, in any sense that you might chose, that the death was caused by the effects of the SHS.



So what ARE the time-scales for global warming? The hockey stick projection has disappeared, having been found to be as near the opposite of science (being superstition) as it is possible to get without falling off the edge of the flat Earth. The IPCC Zealots have been talking about the possible effect of global warming (as in the ice caps melting) as though these effects are imminent. The Zealots say that we must do something NOW in order to avoid catastrophe in the distant future. But how do we know what scientific advances in the production of and storage of energy might be discovered in the next 100, 200, 300 years? We have no idea (obviously).

Windmills are no use whatsoever, and the Government knows it. They finance it because it makes work for the working man to do. But the Zealots never say that the jobs created are ‘backward facing’. That is, they need lots more effort to create less value. Perhaps, when the wind does not blow, donkeys could be used to turn the windmills to produce electric power.


NOW THEN! Suppose that the Minister of State for Health, in collusion with Health England, did likewise (refusing to be ‘advised’) with the Health Zealots. Suppose that he recognised that their blandishments about the danger of SHS were really speaking about an effect which might take 300 years for a person to suffer any ill effects? Any such persons would be long dead before they could be harmed.

That is very important because the Doctors Study showed that the time-scales are long. The less tobacco you smoke, the longer is the elapsed time before your chances of suffering the health effects is. As regards SHS, the elapsed time becomes longer than the longest recorded human life-span.

The Tobacco Control Industry know these things very well, and it is for that reason (among others) that the TCI is a criminal enterprise. The TCI is a ‘racket’.



2 Responses to “Disgusting! A Minister Turns down an Offer of ‘Advice’”

  1. The Blocked Dwarf Says:

    “In the 17th/18th centuries, it was common among ‘the better sort’ to have chambers underground”

    Our local one (ie the local National Distrust Stately Home’s one).
    Goes down 28 ft apparently.

Comments are closed.

%d bloggers like this: