What a fine year it has been

I have rather enjoyed 2008, rarely a day went past without something interesting happening and some events were truly monumental even if not yet understood as such. The saddest note is that the year ends just as it began with justified public outrage at the failure of the powers that be to secure a knighthood for Bruce Forsythe. Clearly he has failed to make substantial donations to the Labour Party, a change of government is required so that justice can be done.

The state of the economy has dominated the year. In January thoughts were predominantly on the credit crunch and the state of the housing market. Northern Rock had recently been nationalised and the government was seeking to assure everyone there were no systemic problems, a rogue lender caught a cold but all was otherwise well. They were desperate to halt the slide in house prices which had begun in the summer of 2007 because they knew the illusion of increased wealth caused by prices forever rising was necessary if they were to be able to afford the grossly bloated state machine. Even the budget in March failed to acknowledge that the continued slide in house prices combined with a lengthy period of food price inflation was having a significant effect on peoples perception of their ability to live as high on the hog as in the recent past. Their delicious incompetence in abolishing the 10p tax rate combined with staggering mendacity in asserting that no one would be affected adversely brought home to even the least avid observer of matters economic that poor Gordon and the hapless Mr Darling were utterly adrift from reality, swimming in a sea of their own defecatory product and inviting all to "come on in, the Brown water's lovely".

And then, of course, that which was in the sea rose up and hit the fan. Northern Rock was not an isolated player in the game of incompetent lending, merely the tip of the iceberg. Bank after bank was seen to have made loans to people who never had any realistic prospect of being able to repay them, secured against properties which were reverting to their true value. Poor Gordon's response was to hide away behind a bank of denials. It really was a delight to hear the pitiful oaf boasting that it was full steam ahead along exactly the path which caused the problem in the first place. No change of tack, no change of speed, no acknowledgment of the problem, all we heard were the rantings of a deluded incompetent that he was correct all along and therefore things must continue as before.

By late summer poor Gordon was nowhere to be seen. Even he could no longer deny there was a serious problem so he hid away again, this time behind a bank of accusations. It was America's fault, it was the greedy bankers' fault, it was the Bank of England's fault, it was the regulators' fault. He claimed to have been warning them for years, oblivious to the recorded fact that his speeches contained no warnings and were packed to the gills with praise for the economic miracle they had brought into effect by following his wise guidance. He it was who needed the tax from the bankers' massive salaries and bonuses to pay for his pet gimmicks. He it was who removed the Bank of England from day-to-day supervision of the banking industry. He it was who set the parameters for banking regulation by the Financial Services Authority. They were all doing exactly what he wanted them to do and, indeed, what he required them to do. To read his press releases and hear his occasional witterings in the House of Commons you would have thought he was the only Chancellor of the Exchequer for more than 150 years not to have had anything to do with the economy. It really was such fun.

The curious upshot of the disaster poor Gordon manufactured is that some people seem to believe it really did have nothing to do with him. Almost overnight he became the man who can save us from the monster and his ratings in opinion polls rose sharply. Of course that is the way of the world. Nobody is obliged to take an interest in the economy or to follow politics. Many are guided in their assessment of a Chancellor of the Exchequer by the state of their own budget. The man on a £30,000 salary who sees his house rise in value by £15,000 in a year sees himself as having made £45,000 only £30,000 of which was subject to tax, £15,000 tax-free is equivalent to a salary of about £20,000 so he could perceive himself as being a £50,000 a year fellow. Yippee, well done Chancellor. Because Chancellor Brown made him rich he listens to Prime Minister Brown for an explanation of why his wealth is diminishing and hears that it is all the fault of matters beyond the government's control. But, not to worry, just as Chancellor Brown made him rich so Prime Minister Brown must be the man to restore that wealth now that wicked outsiders have attacked it. There is a degree of myopic logic to that approach so it is hardly surprising that many people take it.

Perhaps the greatest challenge for the Conservative opposition in 2009 is to hammer home the message that there never was a massive increase in personal wealth over the last decade. It was pretend money manufactured at poor Gordon's behest in order to take as much of it as he could in tax without taking so much that he lost the votes the pretend money bought him.

The other great feature of 2008 has been the dramatic collapse of the great global warming hoax. There is still a long way to go. This year we saw the annihilation of the hockey stick graph by devastating analysis of both the source data and the statistical method used in its compilation. Its author, a redoubtable fellow with a Brownian approach, claimed to have answered all the criticisms and to have proved that the hockey stick was correct after all. He created a new hockey stick using what he claimed was a different method. This was reduced to rubble in a matter of moments. The English High Court was invited to examine some of the claims made by St Al of Gore in his film and concluded them to be an inconvenient pack of distortions. St Al himself was exposed for having bought a hugely expensive seaside property which will be destroyed if his claims about rising sea levels prove to be even a quarter true and to have a main home which uses more electricity than many towns. And the naughty planet has frustrated every single prediction the hoaxers' computers have made. We have now reached the truly farcical position of hearing today apocalyptic warnings about the next ten years which match exactly the apocalyptic warnings of ten years ago. "Ten years to save the planet" they said then, "ten years to save the planet" they say now. With any luck when they say it again in 2018 they will do so to the only remaining receptive audience, the convention of those convinced they have seen Elvis behind the bacon counter at the Co-Op.

Of greatest interest has been the back-tracking of sensible governments. Canada elected a government opposed to cap-and-trade schemes and handed a thorough drubbing to the main opposition party which proposed a wholly unaffordable system of carbon taxes. Australia elected a government committed to wholesale slaughter of industry, only to realise after the event that this was the plan, so now that government cannot bring in 90% of what it proposed because of the risk of a popular uprising. The German government decided carbon taxes are a jolly good thing provided they don't affect Germany and the Baltic states won't have any of it. Most significantly both India and China continue to laugh at the absurdity of the west taxing its heavy industry out of existence and continue their steady path of modernisation for the continued betterment of their people. Only in the UK and America are there signs of suicidal lunacy continuing to rule the roost. I'm optimistic that the cost will eventually hit home as it has with Germany's political leaders, time will tell.

So much more has happened to make 2008 a fun year, but these are my favourites. We will read and hear a lot more about them in the twelve months ahead. I look forward to chipping in my contribution for the continue delectation of both my regular readers.

A very Happy New Year to everyone

Sarkozy and the Poznan pantomime

As I throw another carbon-free coal on the fire to sustain me through the bleak midwinter my mind turns to the unstoppable global warming from which we are currently suffering. And where better to experience the full scorching effect than Poznan in deepest darkest Poland. Yes, it's international junket time again. Evidencing the self-sacrifice for which they are noted, the great and good from 192 countries have gathered to take the next step in the elimination of carbon dioxide from the face of history. The Poznan whine and cheese party is the latest in a series of conferences in which the successor to the Kyoto Protocol is expected to the formed. Kyoto hosted the conference at which specific targets were set for reductions in the emission of greenhouse gases by 2012 (the reductions being below 1990 levels). The overall desired reduction was 5.2% with larger targets set for industrialised countries or regions and smaller for developing nations.

It goes without saying that the Kyoto targets show no sign of being met without fraudulent manipulation of statistics and it is almost 2009 already, 2012 is just over three years away. Oh my ears and whiskers! What are we to do? The preferred solution of those benefitting from business class flights and five star hotels at taxpayers' expense is to hold more conferences and make further pious pronouncements which, again, will come to nothing. The next formal agreement, the successor to Kyoto, is due to be made next year.

Alongside the discussions towards a global plan, the EU wants to have its own plan, and this is where the fun begins. There is a small Frenchman currently at the top of the EU tree. All Frenchmen like to feel important, this chap is the President of France so he is required to feel extremely important; add to his status the presidency of the EU and it is impossible for Nicholas Sarkozy not to believe himself the most important person in the world. He has until the end of this month to secure agreement to an EU anti-greenhouse gas plan or his arrogant edifice will fall around him, like cheap underwear exposed to a 60 degree wash. His big chance comes at the upcoming EU summit meeting on the 11th and 12th of December, less than a week away. Mr Sarkozy has a problem. His big idea is for a cap-and-trade arrangement and it is too late for him to switch horses now, but some EU countries don't want to play that game.

As I understand it the way a cap-and-trade scheme works is that a figure is agreed for permissible levels of emissions of greenhouse gases (carbon dioxide in particular). Once the overall level has been set for a country, and individual level will be set for different industries. Those who produce less than their allowance will be able to sell their surplus allowance to someone else who is struggling to stay within his permissible limit. Heavy financial penalties will be imposed on anyone who produces too much carbon dioxide so you buy someone else's spare allowance in order to avoid the fine. Of course politicians like schemes which give them lots of other people's money to play with, so the initial levels are not just allocated, they are sold at the highest price they can possibly squeeze out of business.

Our German friends aren't very keen on this because they still make things and making things results in the production of carbon dioxide. Germany simply cannot make as much stuff as it does now and reduce carbon dioxide emissions; not unless a means is found to trap or filter the carbon dioxide before it gets into the sky and fries us all like sausages on a griddle. Our Polish friends are even less keen because almost all their electricity comes from burning coal (of which they have vast natural supplies). They cannot switch to nuclear because it is too expensive for them and would take a decade or more to come on line, so they either burn coal or they convert to gas and find themselves dependent on importing it from Russia. As Ukraine has found to its cost, Russia keeps the stopcock on its side of the border. France doesn't care much because it produces most of its electricity in nuclear power stations and doesn't have much heavy industry. For France, and Mr Sarkozy in particular, it is about being important not about whether the plan will work.

One aspect of all this that is, it seems to me, given too little attention is the obvious question: why has the world failed to meet the Kyoto targets despite apparent willingness all round? The answer is in three parts. First, industrialised countries have to increase their wealth just to stand still. Most of them have expanding populations which requires an increase in total wealth for the wealth per head to remain the same. So they need to expand industry, much of which produces additional carbon dioxide. Secondly, developing countries want toasters and microwaves, as well as option extras like warm homes and enough food, so they need to expand their industries to create the wealth required to provide these needs. That means making more electricity at the lowest cost, which means burning coal. Thirdly, no one is prepared to be the first to take a hit. The USA did not ratify the treaty containing the Kyoto Protocol because it was not prepared to sign-up to reducing its industrial base while its competitors were expanding theirs. In passing, let us not forget that it was President Clinton and his Vice President, St Al of Gore, who first decided not to submit the treaty to Congress for approval.

The current stage of EU negotiations looks to be floundering, even according to the well-spun piece published by the BBC on the matter. Try though they might, they cannot hide the fact that some countries would be crippled by a cap-and-trade scheme unless they are given such extensive concessions that the scheme might as well not exist. There is talk of a compromise such that the countries most heavily dependent on coal will be given generous allowances for free while others producing less will have to pay a lot for a smaller allowance.

And that leads us to the essential problem with cap-and-trade schemes in this area. How can they result in lower emissions? For so long as we require manufactured goods, aeroplane flights, electricity and everything else that makes life comfortable, we will produce those things. There are only two paths to follow, either we give up some of the comforts of modern life or ways are found of producing those comforts without also producing current levels of carbon dioxide. Seeking to force people to give up comforts they take for granted is political suicide for any government. Have you ever heard a government minister say their electors should suffer a reduction in standard of living? Of course not. Now that a reduction is being forced on people through recession we see why it cannot be part of overt government policy.

So how does a cap-and-trade scheme cut emissions? The obvious answer is that it sets the cap at a lower level than current emissions. But how is that actually going to be enforced? The very nature of the scheme is that there are no physical means of lowering emissions, only financial penalties if you exceed your allowance. Build in distortions, such as Poland and Germany being given allowances for free because of their current industrial base, and there will be renegotiations tomorrow, next week, next month and until the end of time as those distortions prove unfair to other countries. Poland and Germany won't budge an inch, they won't need to, so restrictions elsewhere will have to be relaxed. Enforce the penalties in such a way as to require a reduction in living standards and countries will elect new governments committed to withdrawal from the scheme, unilateral withdrawal if necessary. It is not realistic to expect emissions to fall simply by imposing financial penalties. Perhaps they will fall for a time as businesses are bankrupted or goods are priced out of the reach of potential consumers, but that can only be temporary because practical politics will bring in governments committed to reversing the lunacy.

So that leaves us with new technology to reduce carbon dioxide emissions through some form of trapping or filtration. Some progress is being made in that field but we still seem a long way from it being of any great effect and still further away from it being even remotely affordable. In the meantime a cap-and-trade scheme might be introduced which will add vast additional costs to business, costs which must be passed on to consumers or result in the businesses closing. We don't even need to see whether there is sufficient evidence of runaway global warming to justify such a crippling blow to the economy, of itself it is utter madness to even think of going down this path.

The Germans and Poles are saying all these things now because they will suffer the harshest consequences most quickly. My greatest hope is that Mr Sarkozy will not be able to fudge a deal before the end of the year. The enviro-realist leader of the Czech Republic takes over the EU presidency next month and we can then expect a nice spell of common sense to prevail.

"Unnatural", a new definition

It wasn't very long ago that everyone would snigger behind their newspaper when reading reports of an actor caught committing "unnatural" acts with a man in a public lavatory. Many careers were ruined, fortunately a few were saved such as that of John Gielgud who entertained us for decades after an unfortunate encounter in a public loo brought him before the magistrates. We all knew where we stood then, "unnatural" meant homosexual.

Times have changed and so have general attitudes. Those who like to dip their nib in the alternative inkwell are no longer considered perverted sinners by the law. Of course there are still many people with a genuine belief that homosexuality is unnatural and some of those believe the law should criminalise all or some homosexual activities. But the criminal law should not pander to minority opinions, it should reflect the standards of society in general (insofar as they can ever really be measured). Live and let live is a thoroughly unfashionable notion in these enlightened days of regulation, so-called equality and human rights; but it still prevails in much of the criminal law and long may that be the case. Do what you wish with your willy or labia, but only do it with a living creature if that creature freely consents.

One consequence of the relaxation of the laws relating to homosexual activity is that we have lost the previous meaning of "unnatural" acts. Indeed, were any newspaper today to describe George Michael's historical deeds in America as "unnatural" it would be inundated with letters and emails condemning its antediluvian attitude. Homosexuality is no longer "unnatural". Yet the word is still in the dictionary, it needs a new meaning.

As luck would have it, at almost the same time that George Michael's closet was opened, so was a new definition of "unnatural". Today it means "industrial". I will not linger on the question whether we need to find a new use for "industrial" because my concentration is all on "unnatural". And how convenient it is that I said concentration because that is the key to the new meaning of today's mot du jour. I mean, of course, the concentration of CO2 in the atmosphere. Being astute people, you might observe that no one has suggested CO2 to be anything other than a naturally occurring gas and you would be right. It is a very clever sleight of hand, you see, we can recognise CO2 as a natural product while implying that some CO2 is unnatural because of the way it is produced. Let me illustrate what I mean.

Whenever I breath out, from the shallow depth of lung remaining after a lifetime of smoking cigars and cigarettes, I produce a tiny little bit of CO2. It results from a process I cannot control. It is approved, ecologically sound, harmless, natural CO2. How do I know that it has all these qualities? Because St Al of Gore and the IPCC have not told me to stop the process. Whenever a peasant farmer in Eastern Europe burns logs to heat the family home in winter he produces a little bit of CO2. This is also approved and harmless because no embargo is planned by the great and good. The same applies to camp fires, vegetarian barbecues, flights by government ministers to international climate conferences and St Al's home. You see the way the process works, if it is not on the list of things we should not do it is natural.

We are told we must worry about the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere. But we must not worry about any CO2 which is produced naturally, only about the unnatural bit. The oceans can pump it out by the giga-tonne but that's fine, carbonate rocks can deteriorate and release it but that's fine, animals and humans can exhale it but that's fine, humans can produce it in every manner known before the start of the industrial revolution but that's fine. They are all natural processes. What is left, and therefore what is unnatural, is human production of CO2 by industrial processes.

I find this a curious concept because I cannot understand how man's discovery of fire as something which benefits his existence is different in principle from his invention of the internal combustion engine. To my simple mind they are both the result of humans using their brains and their physical skills to make their lives more comfortable.

For all I know there was a time when all birds laid their eggs on the ground, as some still do, rather than building nests. Every living twig a bird takes to form its nest removes a little bit of CO2-absorbing material. That material can be replaced within a few weeks or months but in the meantime the bird has changed the CO2 balance. The great and good will tell us that that's fine because it is natural. But it wasn't natural in the days before it happened. I can picture the outrage of the crows at the sight of a cheeky little robin stealing twigs: "What on earth do you think you're doing? Lay your eggs on the ground like the rest of us, you are an unnatural pervert." Except that the crows would not have said that, they are far to sensible, they would have taken one look and said "thank you Mr Robin, what a terrific idea, we'll do that now."

We are told that CO2 from every source other than human industrial activity is natural whereas CO2 from such activity is "anthropogenic" or, in the tabloids, "man-made". To describe it as anthropogenic (or, indeed, man-made) is to state a truism because anthropogenic means man-made. It is the contrast with "natural" which catches my eye. Why call CO2 emitted by the oceans as "natural" rather than "emitted by the oceans"? The only reason can be to give it a quality to distinguish it from other sources of the gas and it follows that sources which are not described as "natural" must be "unnatural".

Since when has the seeking of physical comfort by human beings been unnatural?

Silly question.

Since the start of the industrial revolution. St Al tells us so.

Let's Be Nice About Global Warming

The more I read about global warming / global cooling / climate change the more I see personal attacks being made on those who offer opinions and analyses. To my mind this is a very strange way to conduct a debate on something so important because personal attacks tend to detract from calm investigation of the facts. Can they have any legitimate part to play in the debate?

My approach to such a question is guided by what I know. I am a lawyer with a good few years under my belt so I look at how we conduct cases in court and, in particular, on the part personal attacks play in the effective presentation of an argument.

The facts are king in almost all cases. He who wins on the facts usually wins the case. Examination of facts is not, however, an entirely unemotive exercise. It can be observed that there are two ways to attack a witness. You can attack the story he tells and you can attack him. In other words you can say "do not believe what he says" or "do not believe him", on some occasions you have the opportunity to say both.

In order to succeed with the "do not believe what he says" argument it is necessary to attack the substance of what the witness has said. You try to expose factual errors by reference to other, known, facts. Where what the witness has said is not credible because it is inconsistent with established facts, the result is that the witness's evidence will be rejected. This does not, however, mean that the witness himself is being deceitful. Far more often than one might think, a witness is absolutely convinced that what he says is true when in fact it is false. That might be because he has deceived himself, or he saw only part of the picture, or he took something out of context. You risk doing more harm than good if you attack him and try to expose him as a liar and a cheat because he is neither of those things, he is just someone who is mistaken and examination of the facts proves that to be the case.

The "do not believe him" approach necessarily requires the witness to be attacked personally. What he says might not be open to challenge in any other way. For example, if only the witness and the Defendant were present and the witness claims the Defendant said or did something against the law there will often by no independent means of assessing the truth of his evidence. Exposing him as someone with a criminal record for dishonesty might be the only weapon in your armory, in which case you have no choice but use it and attack the man. It also works in more subtle ways, perhaps by showing the witness to be short-tempered or to overstate his case; you have ammunition to undermine the witness himself and, thereby, to undermine his evidence.

Attacking the witness personally cannot succeed, however, where there is clear independent evidence establishing that what he said is true. It is an obvious point, but "do not believe him" has no weight when the court can say "ok, we'll reject him, now what about the other 15 witnesses?"

Anyone who follows the great global warming debate will be familiar with the personal attacks thrown out by both sides of the argument. Those supporting St Al of Gore accuse those questioning the warming theory of being right wing extremists in pursuit of an ideology or in the pay of the oil industry or closed-minded bigots resistant to change. Exactly the same accusations are made against St Al and his merry men but in reverse - they are part of a socialist plot to destroy western economies, they are in it for the money, they are quasi-religious zealots. The only insult they each make in the same terms is the accusation that their opponents are too stupid to understand the science.

What I find interesting about these insults is that they are often used in a wholly irrelevant way. This irrelevance can be exposed by looking at the substance of the debate and, in particular, by remembering that the debate has two strands, the scientific and the political.

The scientific strand is concerned with facts and just facts. The starting point is the question: "how has the earth's surface temperature changed"? People collect temperature measurements from various sources, analyse it and produce averages. Questions arise about the weight to be given to various sources of data and various methods of analysis. It does not further the issue by saying "he has selected certain data only because he wants to prove warming/lack of warming". Maybe someone did select certain data because he feels they prove his preconceptions, but if the data he chose are the most accurate his motive is irrelevant and if there are better data available they can only be proved to be better by objective analysis not by insult. The same applies when examining the method of analysis applied to the data. Choosing the best possible analysis for a bad reason is the same as choosing it for a good reason and either is better than choosing a less reliable method. At this stage of the debate the personal attacks are utterly meaningless and do nothing but expose the accuser as someone unwilling or unable to be objective. The same goes for the other aspects of the debate which are purely scientific.

The political strand of the debate is a different kettle of fish, it involves forming assessments of what should be done, it is all about value-judgments. Even here, ascribing motives and hurling insults is of limited use. If the position is that the world is doomed but can be saved if, and only if, we scrap all motor cars there is no difference in substance between someone who argues for scrapping motor cars simply because it is necessary and someone who argues for scrapping motor cars because he has failed his driving test ten times and has a chip on his shoulder about motorists. The motive behind the suggested solution to the problem is wholly irrelevant. Where, however, there is more than one possible solution to a problem the motives of the person suggesting a particular solution might help us evaluate whether his argument for that option is skewed by his preconceptions or his vested interests. Knowing his motives and his interests can be relevant in making a value-judgment because the proponent of a particular course of action is, of necessity, putting forward his opinion. We cannot know how much weight to give someone's opinion unless we know whether he has a motive or a hidden agenda which causes him to argue for one result rather than another.

Too often we see people trying to discredit a piece of research or analysis by attacking the researcher or analyst. They seem not to realise that such an attack does nothing to undermine the substance of the research or analysis. If a scientist involved in the debate seeks to undermine opposing work by attacking the authors he makes a rod for his own back because the objectivity of his own work comes into question. His work will, in the end, stand or fall on its own merits but he will be known forever as a partisan scientist. "Partisan scientist" is an oxymoron, and someone carrying that label runs the risk of the last five letters of oxymoron being given more emphasis than the first three.

Is Global Warming a Left-Right Issue?

The classification of opinions as being "left-wing" or "right-wing" seems less fashionable these days than it once was but one area in which we regularly see people using these labels to denounce their opponents is the ever entertaining global warming debate. I want to examine one example of the attachment of the label "left-wing" to see whether it throws any light on the substance of the debate.

The example I will use is an accusation I see made quite regularly - that the IPCC, the UN, the EU and Al Gore are part of a socialist consipracy to overthrow international capitalism and subjugate the world to rule by totalitarian leftist diktat (to keep things manageable I will refer to the UN only in what follows).

It seems to me that such a view could be held before one has heard or read anything about the global warming debate or it could be formed as a result of the debate itself. If the view is held before one is exposed to the debate it could be either a concluded view or a presumption. If it is a concluded view then nothing in the debate itself can change it. On the other hand, if it is a presumption it could be rebutted by exposure to the debate.

That, of itself, tells us little of the effect of the presumption on the mind of the presumer. By definition presumptions can only be rebutted by evidence of sufficient weight to counter-act the weight of the presumption itself. When you are dealing with an individual applying a presumption it is necessary to know how he views that presumption. Can it be displaced by a moderate weight of evidence or do you need to utterly persuade him of the contrary before he will change his mind? One can often answer that question by examining the presumption itself. The nature of the presumption in this example is extreme - that there is a conspiracy to overthrow the established economic order - and it hard to see how anyone could form that view unless they were persuaded strongly by past events that the allegation is justified. Of itself that will tend to make a presumption to that effect a very strong presumption. In other words, someone who approaches the subject by applying that presumption will almost certainly require very powerful evidence that there is a reason other than the desire to overthrow the established order behind anything the UN does.

From this we can conclude that anything said against the anthropomorphic global warming theory by someone who entered the debate holding that view of the UN is likely to be influenced by his preconception. We bear that in mind when we assess how much weight we give to his opinions. It makes us less likely to accept what he says because we think "from his starting point, he would say that wouldn't he?"

In theory the position is different if someone only formed that extreme view of the UN after listening to the global warming debate. In that situation the criticism levelled at the UN is a conclusion from the debate not a preconception about it. We might be inclined give more weight to this person's criticism because we see him as someone who entered the debate with an open mind and was so swayed by what he heard that he drew an extreme conclusion about the motives behind one party to the debate. Nonetheless, the fact that he drew an extreme conclusion might make us treat him with caution because there is no difference in substance between drawing that conclusion from the UN's stance in the global warming debate and drawing it, prior to the global warming debate, from the UN's stance on any other issues. Our response is likely to be "that's a harsh conclusion, how can he justify it?"

I suggest that the mere fact that someone denounces the UN's stance on global warming as being part of a conspiracy is likely to cause most people to look with great circumspection at that person's analysis in the debate itself. If he entered the debate espousing that view we ask ourselves whether his preconception has skewed his conclusions and, therefore, examine his analysis more closely. If he entered the debate without that view but formed it during the debate we ask whether it is a fair and balanced conclusion to draw and, therefore, examine his analysis more closely. In either event we treat his analysis of every part of the debate - whether man is causing warming, what the consequences are, what can be done about it and what the consequences are of the cure - with a more critical eye than if we were examining the conclusions put forward by someone who did not seek to attribute a sinister motive to those with whom he disagrees.

The same approach can be applied to those who throw out other labels to seek to discredit their opponents - "liberal", "neo-con", "sheep", "fascist". Rational debate is about assessing facts and assessing the substance of arguments. Labels and insults both detract and distract from the debate and they cast doubt on the objectivity of the labeller. This does not mean that subjective matters are irrelevant, however, because only part of the global warming debate has an objective element, the science.

There has been such a concentration on the science that we seem, at times, to have ignored the rest of the debate and concluded that if the science supports the AGW theory we must do what Mr Gore tells us must be done. The conclusion does not necessarily follow from the premise. In order to reach that conclusion it is necessary to examine whether the steps Mr Gore tells us to take will alleviate the problem and, if so, whether those steps themselves are a price worth paying. That is a value judgment and is, therefore, a political issue. It is at this stage that global warming becomes a left-right issue, not before.

What is the point of emissions targets?

Let us assume that Saint Al of Gore and the IPCC are correct in their direst predictions and that Lord Stern and his ilk are correct in their assessment of the cost of global warming. What possible benefit can result from slashing emissions in the west when India and China are committed to industrialisation and its consequential CO2 production?

And let us be clear about one thing, neither China nor India will allow Saint Al to stifle their efforts to improve the material standards of their people (and in China's case the status on the international stage of their autocratic leaders). The head of China's State Council said last year: “our efforts to fight climate change must not come at the expense of economic growth.” The Indian Council on Climate Change made the same point: “It is obvious that India needs to substantially increase its per capita energy consumption to provide a minimally acceptable level of wellbeing to its people.”

One can, of course, see that cutting emissions in the west will stabalise matters while the east is increasing emissions: one tonne saved in the west + one tonne produced in the east = no change. But India and China have vast populations and a long way to go before their people enjoy anything like the standard of living we have taken for granted for the last two or three generations. It is impossible to predict with any accuracy the level of emissions India and China will produce and, therefore, impossible to say how much we have to cut in order to maintain equilibrium.

One can also see, because we are presuming Saint Al to be correct, that maintaining equilibrium will not avert the imminent disaster. So what exactly do we have to do here in the west? On the face of it we have to cut our emissions by a vast amount very quickly. Consumption of oil, gas and coal must become a thing of the past almost in the blink of an eye. And even if that is achieved we must then keep our fingers crossed that India and China will reach their target of economic well-being and then ... well, and then do what? Switch instantly away from oil, gas and coal just as they have built prosperity on the energy produced by those very fuels and, significantly, when China in particular has vast reserves? There is as much chance of that as there is of me holing every tee-shot I play in my next round of golf. It's pure La-La-Land.

Then along come Brasil, Colombia, Mexico, Pakistan, South Africa, Egypt, Algeria and the rest, one by one as they create political stability they will aim for economic progress.

All the while our standards of living in the west will fall as our governments vie for the title of greatest grandstander in the alternative energy handicap. They will pump countless billions of whatever currency they wish into the speculative hunt for the miracle cure. Every penny of it will be raised by additional taxes which will hit the poor hardest.

I simply cannot help concluding that the approach of the British Labour Party government (and the Conservative opposition) is fundamentally wrong. They are looking at the matter from the wrong perspective and can learn a valuable lesson from the words quoted above explaining the Chinese and Indian positions. Instead of insisting that their first priority is to cut emissions they should recognise that their first priority is to protect the standard of living of their people.

Some would say the first priority of government is security, as it was in 1939. They are right, but security for what purpose? What is it that security defends? It defends our way of life against the risk of a less palatable way of life being imposed against our will. That is why we fought Hitler's Germany, it is why we armed ourselves against the USSR and it is one of the reasons why we maintain a military force today. There is no immediate military threat to Britain but there is a massive economic threat - the threat of material impoverishment at the shrine to Saint Al of Gore.

I started this musing by saying we should assume Lord Stern's armageddon scenario to be accurate. He said our continued pumping out of CO2 will have dire financial consequences for us all so how, you might ask, can we preserve our material standards if we do not cut our emissions enormously? On the hypothesis that Lord Stern is correct the answer is simple, we can't - on that hypothesis our CO2 will bankrupt us. If that hypothesis is correct for our CO2, it is equally correct for India and China's CO2 because CO2 does not hover in little packets above the country that creates it, like a catchy tune it spreads itself rapidly all over the globe. On his hypothesis we are going to go bankrupt come what may. The government wants to accelerate the process by introducing an additional crippling cost which cannot possibly provide a return if China and India's CO2 will destroy us anyway.

Why not let us enjoy the last brief moments of life as we know it?

Will children's shoes become a priority?

With a general election two years away and the economy suffering deep torment I wonder whether we are likely to see a change in priorities from the major parties.

When the people are feeling good about the economy you do not grab their attention by saying "we propose more of the same" and you do not grab their agreement by saying "you might think it's working but it's actually a mess", the reaction to such policy announcements from the crucial Mr & Mrs Average is "it's working nicely for me thank you very much, kindly go boil your head".

Similarly, the once fertile ground of immigration had become pretty stony. Mr & Mrs Average are concerned about immigration if it either threatens their financial well-being directly or results in benefit scroungers bumming a free ride off the good British taxpayer. In recent times there has been enormous immigration from, in particular, Eastern Europe and the public's reaction appears to have been generally favourable. Mr & Mrs Average could suddenly get a plumber at an affordable price. And when they chatted to their new plumber they found he had not dragged over six generations of spongers in a large suitcase, rather he is sharing a small flat with five other chaps and sending home every penny he can; his intention being to return to his home country in 3 or 4 years once he has earned enough to buy some land and a car and saved enough spare cash to build a house. Perception of "immigrants" as a class was affected by these direct experiences and the perception was that immigrants were a benefit not a burden.

Politicians must often deal with perceptions rather than concrete facts because Mr & Mrs Average's perception of what has caused them to feel better-off is hard to dislodge by quoting statistics and academic theories. It is entirely logical and fair for them to presume that a sense of well-being and bon homie is caused by the government's policies, after all they now have no difficulty paying for their children's shoes whereas before it was a burden. Even if a theory or a statistic might make them think the government is in error, they will only accept that proposition if they are also satisfied that the alternative offered will make things better - always keep tight hold of nurse for fear of finding something worse.

So other areas had to be addressed in an attempt to tap the public mood and swing it in favour of the proponent of a new idea. David Cameron appeared to tap the public mood with his emphasis on so-called environmental issues. This was entirely understandable while Mr & Mrs Average were satisfied with the economy, he had to find something they were worried about and portray himself as the man who can allay their fears. While the only message being received by Mr & Mrs Average was that the seas will soon engulf us all, concern about their children's prospects was always likely to influence them in favour of the eco-friendly candidate.

But nothing brings a dose of reality and balance like a great big slap in the wallet. All of a sudden Mr & Mrs Average see prices rather than tidal waters rising fast, fixed-rate mortgage deals rather than fluffy animals becoming extinct and ordinary families rather than gas guzzling fat cats being hit with punitive motoring taxes. Because they have to live real lives in the real world their priorities will change, marginal issues will be downgraded in importance, economic policies will be examined more carefully, a more critical eye will be cast on the government's record but through all of this their children will need shoes.

We have recently seen an announcement that £100billion must be spent on such quaint oddities as wind-power generators. Yes, that is £100,000,000,000 of real money. Mr & Mrs Average remember that only a few weeks ago the government was criticised from all quarters for borrowing £2.7billion to pay for their miscalculation of the effect of abolishing the 10p tax rate. Suddenly 37 times as much must be found, that is another 37 tax increases identical to the increase required to pay for a partial cure for the appalling consequences of one of Mr Brown's ego trips. Mr & Mrs Average ask "is it really necessary? what is the real risk from global warming?" They become instantly more skeptical about Saint Al of Gore because a warm and fluffy policy has turned into a massive burden which will cause them to make real sacrifices. And it is all against the background of what they have been told about the economy. "You told us it was ever onwards and upwards Mr Brown. You told us there was no boom or bust just steady irreversible growth. You told us we could plan for the future because everything was stable. We did what you said and now you expect us to pay HOW MUCH?"

The winners at the next general election will be the party whose priorities match those of Mr & Mrs Average. "You must suffer so we can save fluffy polar bears" will be met not with a polite "kindly go boil your head" but with a stern "bugger polar bears, our children need shoes." Blaming the need to spend £100billion on an EU directive will be answered by "bugger the EU, our children need shoes." Children always need shoes.

Mr Cameron should do exactly what brought his party to power in 1979, he should reflect the concerns and perceptions of Mr & Mrs Average. The most successful single message Mrs Thatcher ever put across was that government budgets should be run like household budgets. Mrs & Mrs Average accepted that message because their children need shoes and shoes have to be paid for.

Let the government roll-out its hugely expensive eco-wonk initiatives. These will appear one-by-one not as a coherent single package because they want to show themselves as a party with new ideas, particularly when being accused of staleness. Stand back and say "we are looking carefully at every aspect of this issue". All the while there will be more and more properly researched scientific evidence undermining aspects of Saint Al of Gore's sermon. The time will be ripe, probably 6 to 9 months before the election, to say that the people are hurting too much and it is irresponsible to commit endless quantities of taxpayers' money to a cause which is now questionable.

Mr & Mrs Average will love it because their children need shoes.