Isn’t this the most punchable face you’ve ever seen?
Lord Deben, formerly John (Selwyn) Gummer, is a climate change evangelist who happens to be chairman of a company (which he formed) to advise other corporates on ‘environmental responsibility’.
But he’s also the chairman of the UK’s Climate Change Committee. So on the one hand he’s driving government policy towards tougher environmental and sustainability requirements, whilst on the other providing advice, at huge cost no doubt, to companies on how to manage those additional requirements. Anyone not able to spot the conflict of interest there?
He also likes spending other people’s money – like when he claimed £36,000 (AU$67,000) on MPs expenses for gardening at his house. Nice work if you can get it, right?
Anyway, along with all the other climate zealots, Gummer likes to lecture others on the folly of their ways, and disparage those who disagree with him – even elected Prime Ministers of other countries – as reported in the FT’s article ‘Lord Deben’s sharp words for Australia’s approach to climate change’:
Lord Deben said he had discussed climate change at length with Mr Abbott before last year’s Australian election, “and I got five different views during that period of time”.
Five? Really?
He said he had a similar conversation with Mr Abbott’s mentor, former Australian prime minister John Howard, whom he said was also “absolutely unscientific about it”, and appeared to have read only one book on the subject, by the former UK chancellor Lord Lawson, who says there is great uncertainty about the potential risk of climate change.
Gummer and his ilk are the only ones being unscientific.
“I have high hopes that people in Australia will recognise that the rest of the world is going in the opposite direction,” said Lord Deben, adding that not every Abbott government minister shared Mr Abbott’s views.
More lies – the world is rapidly retreating from action on climate change (much to Gummer’s disappointment, no doubt). What planet is he on?
“It’s a joy to go and listen to some others, like [communications minister] Malcolm Turnbull who clearly seems to take a more sensible view,” he said. (source)
I just sprayed coffee all over my keyboard – thanks for that.
Well I have a few sharp words for you, pal: mind your own damn business.
The FT has more here.
Australian Climate Madness 
Another greedy little pig with his snout in the trough.
He is happy to listen to someone who agrees with him, as we all are, but he refuses to even consider anything which disproves his position. I seek out any opinion which might nullify my beliefs and so far I have found nothing.
Lew, Have a read of my review of the skeptics arguments and their affiliations. Piers Akerman inspired me to undertake this review as apparently you would be a Luddite otherwise. You can find my posts by googling ” luigifungotoonista” . In addition you get a few fungi photos and toons. Hope you can put me on the right path with some real arguments not just mantra and regurgitated ideology.
Ah, how delightful, a “GWN” troll!
Liv, just had a great holiday in Iceland where they really love their trolls. My understanding is they roam at night and eat naughty children, but if still out at sunrise they become petrified and you can often see them as weird shaped rocks in the mountains? Looked up GWN but can’t figure out what you mean unless you are referring to an Aussie television station ????? Sorry haven’t been in the blogosphere long enough to be offended by being a GWN???
Very good Luigi. I searched your postings to find the error of my ways, but just ended up feeling sad that you are so out of touch. Calls to authority suggest that you cannot consider and reason for yourself. Mann hocky stick, forinstance, is totally discredited, even at IPCC, and nobody believes Gore any more.
Dear Bill, sorry for making you sad, but thank you for taking the time to view at least part of my blog. I can assure you I am not part of any given ideology – loony left or rigid right, in fact I have an allergy to ideology and have exercised my right to vote informal for as long as I can remember. In my profession dealing with large infrastructure projects, I have had to deal with way too many dopey opinionated politicians from both sides of politics who don’t deserve anyones vote. But I was looking for some debate of my current position that the eminent scientists nominated by Piers all appear to be actually paid for their opinions by Institutes that are funded by vested interests. This makes the skeptic criticism of IPCC scientists being paid by nasty leftist governments quite ironic. Also just stating that nobody believes in Gore anymore is a great and unfortunately successful marketing technique for the ideologically right sided when preaching to the converted but it doesn’t make the statement correct.
I prefer to use Bing rather than Google. Got a couple of pages on Luigi from Super Mario.
When I used Google, found the website. Some lists of things that sceptics are alleged to believe, but no real engagement. Don’t rely on my views – check it out for yourself.
Usually I get very similar results from my searches. Normally the differences are either the result of someone doing a number of searches themselves, or paying to push it up the rankings – which is a major source of income for Google.
Any idea of whether the report realistically evaluates the effectiveness of legislation from the respective countries? i.e. cost vs reduction of emissions. We already know Australia’s is totally woeful; I expect most of the others are.
I would doubt it.
John Gummer’s committee recently (Dec-13) issued a report justifying the UK emissions reduction budget for the period 2023-2027. Full of glossy graphs, it tries to justify the billions of annual cost. The justification is crazy.
http://www.theccc.org.uk/publication/fourth-carbon-budget-review/
The standard economic procedure is to calculate the social cost of carbon. Basically a cost of global warming per tonne of CO2 emitted. In 2007 peer-reviewed averaged $12 t/CO2. Stern said $85. No government will evaluate policy against this measure, as there are no policies that come close to even Stern’s extremist measures.
The UK Government replaced this with the “shadow price of carbon”. This is the basis for the claim of the fourth carbon budget review that the average household would save £40 per year through carbon saving policies in 2030, despite unit costs of electricity and gas to them more than doubling through carbon policies, and the total cost to the UK by 2030 being in the hundreds of billions of pounds.
What amazes me is the conflict of interest of this guy. I doubt he even gave it a moments thought as the money rolled in.
No, the most punchable face ever belongs to one of the following: KRudd, Juliar Gillard, Bob Brown, Christine Milne, Adam Bandt, Wayne Swan, Greg Combet, Penny Wong, Bill Shorten, Mark Dreyfus, Craig Emerson, Doug Cameron,Tim Flannery, Al Gore, Will Steffen. Take your pick, Lord Froot Loop is way down the list.
Two things you left out-
1 Conroy, and
2 This is not a death threat!
I have looked at Luigi..s site in order to have my views changed about global warming, What a wally (too many mushrooms I suppose). A long list of calls to authority, including Mann and Gore would you believe? Its down to the likes of Luigi…that we have Gummer and others still in positions of authority.
John Gummer has always had total certainty about whatever he believes at the time, yet must be amongst the most naturally gullible of our parliamentarians.
If his Lordship had any sense of decency or self respect he would recognise the massive conflict of interest in his conflicting positions and resign immediately from the Committee. His presence can only detract from the credibility of government and politicians.
Bill, I don’t smoke or eat the mushies just photograph them as they are so unusual once you start noticing them. Maybe I have breathed in a few spores from authoritarian fungi – I hope not? The conflict of interest argument about his Lordship may or may not hold water. What about being funded by the IPA or the SPPI to promote a given ideology? How does that wash in your Decency-Meter?
This gut looks like the typical scaremonger, ridiculing anyone who does not get in line, name calling, saying to them that they are unscientific while peddling unscientific swill himself, and raking the money in every way that he can, this is a short answer as he deserve only that much of my time. N
Wasn’t he the MP whp fed hs child a burger on TV to prove there was no threat of CJD ( Mad Cow Disease) in UK? I remember arriving home one evening and sayng to my wife ” Don’t buy any more beef and throw away what we have in the freezer, I just heard an MP on the radio announcing that there was absolutely nothing wrong with it – it must be really bad”
Lord Deben has a blatant conflict of interest! But that’s how the UK government has always wanted it on climate change. Remember, it was the UK parliament that gave the UK the Climate Change Act, and so it is vital they have Lord Deben pushing the dangerous man-made global warming barrow. After all, David Cameron leans towards ‘green’, he believes recent British weather is due to catastrophic man-made global warming, even though reputable UK scientists have corrected this view, and he has the ability to bring some impartiality and objectivity to the situation and yet he does not do so.
Merv, your conflict of interest argument is an old favourite. Would you care to comment on whether Tim Wilson employed as a climate skeptic at the Institute of Public Affairs ( read Vic liberal party) had a conflict of interest before he was awarded a cushy $300k pa job with the Human Rights Commission by his benefactors?
Forget the punch. Get me the trench shovel. Courtesy would require the removal of his specs first.
This is the guy who, as Minister for Agriculture, fed beef burgers to his children as a media stunt in the middle of the BSE (Mad Cow) crisis in the UK. Need I say more?