Author Archives: Tim Lenton

Having struggled against a pretty strong tide for some years in a bid to get the causes of climate change reconsidered, I suppose I should be delighted to find the water suddenly flowing in the other direction.

Even such august institutions as the BBC and the Guardian newspaper have switched from being unquestioning backers of human-caused climate change to asking awkward questions about the methods used to arrive at such a verdict.

E-mail messages that somehow slipped out of the University of East Anglia’s Climate Research Unit have revealed that crucial climate data was omitted, manipulated or mislaid, and that dubious methods were employed to silence sceptics and get round the Freedom of Information Act.

It has been revealed elsewhere that the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change made a hugely inaccurate claim about the speed that Himalayan glaciers are melting, and that this claim was made specifically to encourage politicians to take “concrete action”.

In similar vein, IPCC allegations that global warming is linked to natural disasters such as hurricanes and floods have been shown to have no scientific basis, but were based on publicity from organisations with political rather than scientific motives.

Interviewed by the Sunday Times, disaster loss expert Dr Roger Pielke Jr said: “All the literature published before and since the IPCC report shows that rising disaster losses can be explained entirely by social change. People have looked hard for evidence that global warming plays a part but can’t find it.”

According to Dr Pielke, “as much as 40 per cent of the Stern Review projections for the global costs of unmitigated climate change” derive from this miscalculation. The original figures, I understand, have now been altered in the Stern Report, but the wrong conclusions remain.

All this is now being discussed openly. So why am I not delighted? Because of the capacity of politicians to carry on regardless.

The Tories who, like nearly all UK politicians, ignore all the counter-evidence being thrown up against human-caused climate change, are now intending to ally themselves with Lord Stern to advise on the creation of a “Green Investment Bank”.

And Climate Change Secretary Ed Miliband says it would be “profoundly irresponsible” to allow recent controversies over scientific data to undermine the fight against global warming, because it would be “devastating” for future generations if the world community did not continue with its efforts to cut carbon emissions.

And that’s another reason I’m not delighted. In any other scientific field, so many problems concerning the data would result in a total rethink of the conclusions, and probably of the whole hypothesis. In climate science, it seems, the conclusions exist independently of the data.

What has happened in effect is that the whole process in dealing with so-called human-induced climate change has proved so much to the liking of politicians that they are not interested in whether it’s true any more.

In fact, it would be so embarrassing for them if it were not true that they will ignore the possibility as long as they can.

As a result, pieces of “evidence” of human-induced climate change that had been hyped and widely publicised to get support from the well-intentioned now magically become minor errors of little significance.

Of course there are good things to come out of the policies being pursued. Energy saving and eco-awareness, for instance. But there are bad things too: massive unnecessary costs imposed on industry in a recession; hectares of ugly, inefficient windfarms despoiling the countryside; reduction of road-building; unrealistic and draconian traffic restrictions; the carbon credit money-making scams.

So no, I’m not delighted. I’m not delighted at being called a denier, as in holocaust. I’m not delighted at being accused of not caring about the future.

I’m not delighted that respected scientists are abused and silenced, and their work being described as “voodoo science” when it is actually rigorous and precise. I’m not delighted at the politicians, lobbyists and engine-drivers on the IPCC masquerading as scientists and altering research to fit their own ambitions.

I really am hard to please, aren’t I?

There’s a reason for this

A pleasant weekend among the hills and dales of Derbyshire recently was marred by the bizarre speed limits – not in the hills but on the roads.

Even more annoying than the ridiculously low limits were the patronising signs reading “It’s 50 for a reason”.

Of course it’s 50 for a reason. Even I don’t think it’s a totally random figure. But is it a good reason?

Too often the reasoning seems to be: take a perfectly safe speed and subtract a minimum of 10mph.

Deeper down, the reason could simply be that the highways authority are a bunch of hopeless drivers.

If you want to see theatre used in a clever, original and funny way, Bertolt Brecht is your man.

Like Leonard Cohen, he has a reputation for being depressing. Both men, if you pay attention to them, are inspiring, uplifting and brilliant.

I saw Brecht’s Man is Man in Norwich, at the Playhouse, performed with great energy by Theatre Paradisum. In a joke that Brecht would have appreciated, the cast was all-female.

It was stunning. Mesmerising. But the theatre was nearly empty: I counted 60 in the audience.

Why the lack of interest? Well, there was no-one from television in the cast, and it wasn’t Shakespeare. Nor was it opera, ballet or pantomime.

It is not the first time I have seen first-rate theatre sparsely attended in the city. Do we have no further need of it? Is high culture the only temptation for some, and the paralysing deadness of reality TV opium enough for the rest?

Playwrights like Brecht take life seriously, which is why they can be so iconoclastically funny. Perhaps we are not serious enough about life. Or at any rate, not serious enough to want to find out more.

In the wrong place to judge

In Haiti untold thousands of people are dying. We sit at home and watch, and some of us send money.

Some of us know exactly what is going on, because we have newspapers and televisions. Or do we know? I rather like the story about Mother Teresa, who “knew exactly what was going on in the world, because she never read a newspaper”. Ben Hecht said that “trying to determine what is going on in the world by reading newspapers is like trying to tell the time by watching the second hand on a clock”.

We are not there; so while we can imagine what is going on, and see a minute part of it, we are in no position to pass judgement on those who try to help.

Some people see prayer as useless: they are entitled to their point of view, though of course they are wrong! But what is 100% certain is that being judgmental is worse than useless. Always.

Pause: glance at rear-view mirror: engage cliché. Another year comes to an end, but not a decade, despite the convictions of several editors. It works like birthdays: your tenth birthday is at the end if your tenth year, not at the beginning. It really isn’t difficult.

It just sounds wrong. And people like things to sound right. In fact we are so fond of things sounding right that when they do, we stop thinking about them.

Take the slogan “Speed kills”. This sounds so right that newspaper reporters – never people to buck a trend – are more than happy to precede it by the phrase “everybody knows that”. Of course speed kills.

Except that it doesn’t – at least no more than knitting kills, or eating, or water. Speed can be efficient, safe and even exciting. Hitting things at speed can certainly kill, but then a further question has to be asked: why do we hit things?

Unfortunately, however, we’ve stopped thinking now, because speed is so obviously the answer that we are not interested in further questions. And so we never reach the point of considering whether moving at a responsible speed and not dawdling may in fact be the safest way to drive. And constant checking of a speedometer may not be the surest way to avoid danger ahead.

Danger ahead? Brings us nicely to climate change. Here again many people like to think that the earth is warming because it can be made to sound obvious. Pictures of melting ice in various forms; temperature statistics over an appropriate time frame; the guilt factor.

People have other views? They are right-wing, or financed by energy companies, so we don’t have to listen to them. Doctored or hidden data? Pressure on publishers? We’ve stopped listening, because we’ve accepted the scenario. So Copenhagen continued totally unaffected by allegations of data-fixing. Doesn’t fit what we’ve accepted? Ignore it.

In the words of one group, it’s pollution industry lobbyists against youth climate activists. Which says it all really, because pollution is not the issue at all. Carbon dioxide is not dirty. The young activists just like the idea that adults are to blame for screwing up the world, and the details are irrelevant. Can’t blame them really: adults do screw up the world in one way or another. But if children were in charge, they would screw it up worse. They would probably invent something like carbon credits or sub-prime mortgages.

My hope for the New Year is that we might get reconsideration and open discussion about road safety measures and the causes of climate change. These things matter.

Oh, and one more thing. Be careful. Watch out for eating and water, and especially knitting. Pause: glance at rear-view mirror: release cliché.

Rosemary Taylor

On our way through the world, we occasionally come across good people. They lay their lives on the line, sometimes in extreme circumstances, sometimes in very ordinary ones.

Rosemary Taylor was a friend for about 18 years, and during that time she looked after the church hall of St Augustine’s in Norwich. It would not be an exaggeration to say she kept it going over that time, ensuring that the building was in good shape and well presented. She was also the face of the church to the local community.

She was welcoming, encouraging and enthusiastic. Now, after a difficult illness, she has died. It remains to be seen whether someone – or more likely, several people – will step forward to do the many things she did so unobtrusively and well. It won’t be easy.

April may be the cruellest month, but December is the most bizarre. December 2009, anyway.

Some time during the night – I will not say which night – the Earth has split and is now inhabiting two parallel universes.

In one, a summit meeting is going on, the purpose of which is to control the Earth’s climate. Not so long ago, such an idea would be confined to the world of science fiction, but now it seems perfectly reasonable to governments, scientists and the media that we can alter the climate simply by reducing emissions of a particular gas.

In the other, slightly different universe, this idea seems not only arrogant but seriously misguided, in that the gas is not the problem anyway – or at least not a major part of the problem.

You would think, in a sensible reality, that these two universes would merge and sort out their differences. But no, each of them proceeds on its way.

So in one universe we continue to be surrounded by media assurances that we are on the brink of disaster if we do not reach an agreement on controlling the climate. And in the other we are inundated with accusations that the climate control world has falsified parts of its data and hidden other parts, as well as – through undue influence – preventing publication of work by scientists with different views.

The people with power to influence our real lives reside in the climate control world, and maybe they believe that all they have to do to succeed is ignore the existence of the other universe. This policy has been in force for a long time.

Recently, however, the cloak of invisibility has been breached. Ordinary people living in the climate control world know there is another world out there, very close by.

Can the climate controllers hold out? Will the barrage of insults which turns out to be their main defence continue to pour across the parallel gap? Or can they in fact, against the odds, control the climate as well as they have controlled the principalities and powers of their own world? That would be a neat trick.

Watch out: it’s high up there

I see that climbers and walkers in Scotland are being urged by the country’s Public Health and Sport Minister, Shona Robinson, to take precautions to help them stay safe while out in the hills.

It’s nice to see a Minister doing something useful at last. So mountains can be dangerous, can they? Thanks for mentioning it.

I knew they were big tall, pointy things with rough, steep bits miles from anywhere, and with practically no public conveniences, but dangerous? How could I have missed that?

I understand that talks are under way to introduce speed cameras on the slopes of Ben Nevis. There are already plenty of humps.

On one side we have what is known as a scientific consensus on climate change, but it is really a political consensus, with many scientists in supporting roles. On the other we have perhaps a smaller number of scientists who are resisting the consensus.

The scientists on one side receive Government funding; others, we are told, are funded by oil companies, the assumption being that oil companies have a vested interest, and the Government doesn’t.

One lot of scientists, backed by most politicians and huge numbers of predominantly young citizens without special knowledge, is very keen to get us all to stop emitting carbon dioxide. The others say it doesn’t matter, because carbon dioxide emitted by human activity has no effect on climate change – or very, very little. Action or inaction on this may have a huge effect on whole countries, as well as impacting on poorer people across the world, and on you and me. There are many implications.

Publicity for the consensus has been huge, including unquestioning support from such huge media outlets as the BBC. The Government has even put ads on TV, targeting children. But those supporting the consensus suggest that right-wing media, in giving publicity to sceptics, are blocking attempts to save the planet.

In the last few days files have been leaked or hacked from the University of East Anglia’s Climatic Research Unit. They seem to indicate certain questionable behaviour by the consensus scientists in the area of data concealment and cherry-picking, as well as exerting influence to prevent publication of articles expressing different views and putting pressure on publications and organisations to stick to the orthodox line. Those backing the consensus suggest this is all trivial and will soon blow over.

Confused? You should be. But least the files are out there on the internet, and they have been admitted to be genuine. They are not a hoax or concocted by opponents. This is the time, surely, to read those files and come to a conclusion as to what sort of people wrote them, and how they operate. And what sort of people made them public.

I am not going to direct you to a site: they are easy to find, if you really want to know. And why wouldn’t you?

Victory for free speech

I have no desire to criticise homosexual activity or lifestyle. I am too aware of my own shortcomings in the lifestyle area to pick holes in the way other people live.

But I am delighted that the House of Lords has ensured this month that such criticism is possible. This is not a sexual issue, but a free speech issue.

We live in a liberal democracy, but within that democracy that there are a disturbing number of people who would like to insist that we all think the same thing, and that some things must not be said.

Promoting hatred is abhorrent to me, and to everyone I know. But hatred and criticism are not the same thing, and as long as a belief is generous and based on love, it should be expressible without fear of legal penalty.

Strange emissions that may or may not have an effect on the future of the planet have been detected this month. Scientists not funded by anyone in particular have got to the bottom of it, and have found that these emissions are caused by thinking.

Until now, thinking about climate change has been forbidden. We have been told: “The debate is over.” The number of scientists happy with that amazing statement reached alarming proportions, and politicians, who find not thinking a good basis for winning elections, bought into it enthusiastically. UK politicians in particular, who think at an extremely low level, bought into it so enthusiastically that it shaped all their policies. No, I mean all their policies. Health and safety, everything.

But now, in the words of one editorial, the “climate tide is turning”. People are starting to think. So much so that even the BBC, which for years has given unquestioning backing to the theory of catastrophic climate change, has published an article on its website which asks: “What happened to global warming?”

In it, climate correspondent Paul Hudson admits that there has been no increase in global temperatures for 11 years, even though carbon dioxide emissions have continued to increase.

And climate models, which we are asked to believe are close to infallible, “did not forecast it”. Further on in the article we read that solar scientist Piers Corbyn says that solar charged particles “are almost entirely responsible for what happens to global temperatures”. And Professor Don Easterbrook suggests that global temperatures follow ocean warming and cooling cycles.

None of this is new. What is startling is that the BBC is admitting it. It is not conclusive either. But nor is it wacky, irresponsible, or the work of people who are “not really scientists”.

Also on the BBC site is an article admitting that this summer’s melt of Arctic sea ice was not as profound as in the last two years. To put it another way, the extent of the ice was larger than seen in the last two years, which makes you wonder about all those television programmes about Arctic ice disappearing.

Among the reasons for the less drastic melt are that “Arctic temperatures have been cooler this year than last, researchers said, and that winds have helped disperse sea ice across the region”. Interesting, Holmes.

Asked why this should be, scientist Walt Meier said the reasons for the somewhat cooler temperatures this year “were not entirely clear yet”.
Which is fair enough. Nevertheless the BBC site is still full of articles that assume what should still be open for debate, and present wild predictions as if they were definitely going to happen.

Another emission: last week the Sunday Times News Review published a massive front-page article headed “Why everything you think about global warming is wrong”.

In it, current climate predictions are described as “enormously crude” and climate models as being determined to a large extent by funding: in other words, if your model doesn’t match the mainstream, you don’t get the money.

Carbon dioxide, we are assured, is not only not poisonous but not even the major greenhouse gas. It is probably not responsible for any warming that has taken place, and the current amount in the atmosphere is nowhere near the highest in the earth’s history: “overall, more carbon dioxide is probably a good thing for the biosphere”.

What about sea levels? According to the Sunday Times article, rises in sea levels are not driven primarily by melting glaciers but by warming water. The sea has been rising for “roughly 12,000 years”, and the likely rise by the end of the century is about 18 inches, which is “much less than the twice-daily tidal variation in most coastal locations”.

Despite the heavy emphasis on the effect of personal transport on the atmosphere, we are now told that “transport is not that big a sector” – in other words it has very little effect. And “coal is so cheap that trying to generate electricity without it would be economic suicide”. Solar cells could make global warming worse because 88 per cent of the light they absorb is re-radiated as heat.

There is much more in this article, including a very simple and cheap method of combating warming by introducing sulphur dioxide into the atmosphere. It is well worth reading, but I have not quoted from it here in order to refute all you thought you knew about climate change. The point is that here are extremely intelligent scientists who dispute the propaganda that is changing our lives so remorselessly – changing our lives because because no-one challenges it. We should listen, and think about it. Politicians should take it on board.

Instead they plunge on regardless. The latest ludicrous idea from the Government’s Climate Change Committee is that motorists should be forced to pay to drive on the busiest roads “to slash greenhouse gas emissions”. Drivers are also told they “should not brake suddenly”, which will present eco-enthusiasts with one or two interesting conundrums. Shall I hit that cyclist, or shall I save the planet? Tricky.

They haven’t noticed the tide turning, and nor have the disaster-loving Met office, who have just predicted a 4C temperature rise by 2060. The study that suggests this is of course based on computer modelling. The Scientific Alliance comments: “Given the source of the funding, the timing of the announcement and, indeed, the very topic of the conference, it is difficult not to suspect that this was a piece of contrived political theatre to raise pressure for a deal in Copenhagen.”

The UN climate change conference in Copenhagen is certainly in need of help, Many potential delegates have not registered in time, and apparently 2500 beds have been cancelled. Climate pledges made so far are “nowhere enough to avoid dangerous climate change” – though this should not worry us unduly as the calculations that give rise to this assumption are highly suspect anyway.

It is also becoming apparent that green supporters of the climate change scenario are getting worried. “Framing the issue as ‘global warming’ is completely hopeless.” writes one… “‘Global warming’ sounds nice, and ‘climate change’ sounds harmless, even positive.” These are the people who a few years ago insisted on ‘global warming’ instead of ‘climate change’ – but that was before the earth stopped warming, of course. What phrase would they like now? “The first reframe is this: it’s ‘global over-heat’, or ‘global cooking’, or ‘global over-heating’. It has to sound like what it is.”

Absolutely. It sounds like desperation. Desperation is what it is. And there are signs at last that it may not win the day.

The trouble with democracy is that quantity always wins out over quality. This is a dangerous thing to say, because it is now very easy to brand me as a fascist, right-wing totalitarian dictator. But as Anatole France said, if 52 million people say a foolish thing, it is still a foolish thing.

On September 21 hundreds of thousands of people will attend 1000 events in 88 countries, taking part in what has been described as a “great global climate wake-up call”. Let’s hope the great global climate is listening. But the people the organisers really want to be listening are government leaders and, of course, the media.

The organisers are Avaaz, a global campaigning organization that promotes activism among “ordinary people” and works mainly by way of e-mails. They do a lot of good work in protesting about injustice, but in this case are actually promoting it. Unknowingly, of course.

The aim of the “easy and fun” wake-up call is to persuade Governments meeting in Copenhagen to “make hard choices”, ignore “pressure from oil and coal companies” and “sign an ambitious, fair and binding global treaty that will stop a climate catastrophe”.

That seems straightforward enough. Only one or two problems: first, there is no scientific evidence that we are heading for a climate catastrophe; second, even if we were, the idea that it could be stopped by signing a treaty – even a global one – is preposterous; third, those opposing any such pointless treaty are not so much oil and coal companies but an increasingly growing number of scientists and precisely those “ordinary people” who Avaaz purports to represent.

These are the people who have been deprived of a voice. Having been betrayed by the politicians, they are now inundated by wake-up calls from thousands of people who know virtually nothing about climate science, but who rather like the idea of telling governments what to do.

There is a real danger that such a movement could help sweep to power someone who promised to deal with climate change, without any regard to his or her policies on freedom, law and the rights of individuals. Impossible? Wait and see.

It’s not impossible when the major media, like the BBC, ignore climate sceptics and take every opportunity to promote alarmists.

It’s not impossible when these same alarmists refuse to allow a voice to any other view by saying “the debate is over”. That is an outrageous thing to say, but thousands upon thousands of us calmly accept it.
And this in the face of so much evidence that the climate is not behaving as computers have predicted. I am tired of pointing out that the earth has not warmed at all this century, while carbon emissions have been increasing. Can the papering-over of this crack in climate orthodoxy be anything but sinister?

At Greenbelt arts and music festival I protested to Christian Aid about their massive tunnel vision on this issue (one shared by many charities and NGOs). A charming young girl said they “had to accept what the scientists said”. She had no doubts, and it is not surprising, because opposing views are never publicised. She will certainly not be reading a website like this. Why should she?

Twitter users are currently inundated by messages urging everyone to demand a treaty on climate change. Most of these are simply passed on by people too lazy to think about it or research it, but have accepted the popular view because it ticks all the right boxes: industry is guilty, government is guilty, we are guilty. Woe is us.

Meanwhile in the Spectator, Australian geologist Professor Ian Plimer is saying: “The hypothesis that human activity can create global warming is extraordinary because it is contrary to validated knowledge from solar physics, astonomy, history, archaeology and geology.”

And in Germany more than 60 scientists have written to Chancellor Angela Merkel pointing out that rising CO2 has “had no measurable effect” on temperatures, and global warming has become a pseudo-religion.

In Britain environment expert Paul Briggs says: “Energy and Transport policies are being blighted by CO2 emissions targets that are unachievable without restrictive laws and a huge amount of financial pain for no climate gain.”

And in the developing world there is a real risk that cash for aid will be diverted from, say, provision of clean water for all into measures designed to “reduce the impact of climate change”. The poor will suffer as usual, and the carbon-savvy entrepreneurs will make money. As usual.

There is no doubt that the climate changes, and its effects will sometimes be devastating on a local level. It has always been like that. Much of the eastern part of the county I live in was under water less than 2000 years ago. It is right to protect those affected in the most efficient and human way possible.

But we spend so much time pretending that we can change the climate, and so much money on measures that will have no effect, that we are effectively killing people who we could help. This is the sort of thing you might hope that Avaaz would get upset about. But no. They, like half the population, have been brainwashed.

I’m not a fascist, right-wing totalitarian dictator. I’m a cuddly, open-minded writer with poetic leanings, a love of unpolluted nature and no wings whatsoever. And I’m prepare to admit that democracy may be the best thing we’ve got in the way of government.

But I’m really, really tired of being swamped by these politically motivated, ill-thought-out, self-righteous slogans that bear so little relation to reality.

The war between cyclists and motorists is dragging on, with no sign of a solution. A cyclist writing to my local newspaper, the Norwich-based Eastern Daily Press, recently lamented the “daily slaughter of the roads” and added, with grammatical casualties mounting, that there was only one place for “environmentally and health-conscious cyclists” to ride to avoid this horrific no-man’s-land – the pavement, of course.

Sadly, this brings thousands of innocent civilians into danger, and there is nowhere for them to retreat to, however “environmentally and health conscious” they might be. So they may get mown down by loose cannons at any moment.

From what I have read, many cyclists think this a price worth paying for their own safety, despite the fact that there is no forced conscription into the ranks of cyclists: pedestrians, on the other hand, have no alternative but to walk. Unless they drive, of course, but you will find few cyclists keen on that idea.

The same writer, horrified that cyclists might be banned from the pavements (they are, actually, but no-one seems to care, least of all those who castigate motorists for not obeying the law) points out that “reckless driving by some motorists does not lead to all motorists being banned from the road”. No, but it messes them up through carpet-bombing city streets with road humps, ludicrously low speed limits and speed cameras in lucrative positions.

The average motorist is a pretty good driver, really, and unlikely to discharge his weapon in a threatening manner. He (or she) knows the appropriate speed to drive at for the conditions and pays pretty good attention to what is going on around him. Nevertheless he is, in the words of another EDP correspondent, a “scapegoat for the failings of others”. British soldiers abroad will know the feeling.

Much of the war is sustained by the use of spin. A cleric writing in the same edition of the EDP warns of death traps on rural roads and “speeding motorists with mobile phone in one hand, a cigarette in the other, and often also calming children in the back seats”. Thus the civilian far from the front line will assume that all motorists who exceed the speed limits are also criminally careless when driving: far from true, but a handy weapon of mass destruction.

Recent surveys have revealed that over 80% of drivers break the speed limit, which can be presented in two ways: either most drivers are habitually dangerous, or they all know the speed limits are unrealistically low. The same survey revealed that a quarter of those polled believed speed cameras could improve road safety – or, put another way, nearly three-quarters thought they couldn’t. I wonder which way the High Command will be wording its propaganda.

Meanwhile snipers continue taking potshots, and motorists are in defensive positions: from October, drivers who defend themselves against a motoring charge will have to pay the bulk of their costs, even if found not guilty. “This is like the way witches were tried in the Middle Ages,” said one commentator. To me it seems about as fair as the recent suggestion that when a cycle and a car were in collision, the motorist should always pay. Having seen the random progress of so many guerilla cyclists, I can see how this might be a useful piece of artillery.

But there are signs of a fightback. In Nottingham, in a rare employment of chemical warfare, Boots UK has threatened to move its entire car parking provision across the city boundary to avoid paying an “outrageous” proposed workplace parking levy. And there are more and more signs that speed camera camouflage tactics are getting exposed.

There is, sadly, a risk that spies being dropped into rural villages with radar guns are facing the ultimate penalty. “Catching people out will get people’s backs up,” said one. “It’s not very nice if you catch someone you know.”

Exactly. And if you didn’t think you were superior in some way, you wouldn’t be trying to catch them. Which would be much nicer.

If you want to, it is easy to make life difficult for inconsiderate road users without trying to inflict pain on people who simply prefer a different mode of transport. But when you start a war, it’s hard to stop it. The signs are that we will go on taking chunks out of people who are behaving in a perfectly reasonable and inoffensive way.

You do sometimes wonder about the quality of the research that backs up government policy – especially policy relating to driving. I suspect that the kind of research indicating that speed is a major factor in road accidents goes something like this: “Wow, that guy is going fast. That looks dangerous.” Or maybe: “Hmm. It seems that if you hit something faster it causes more damage. So speed must kill.”

Cynical? Me? Not if you look at the kind of research just put together by the University of Sussex to back up the Government’s “Act on CO2” initiative (whatever that means).

The research in this case consisted of comparing the heart rates of ten – yes, a whole ten – drivers making journeys on their own and ten driving with a companion. This revealed that “on average, there was a ten per cent reduction in heart rate when car sharing than when driving solo”.

I know what you’re thinking, and you’re right: the grammar is pretty awful. But so is the thinking. Why should a lower heart rate be safer? Most people have a lower heart rate when they’re asleep. And even if a lower heart rate is safer, my own 45-year research reveals that I have carried a number of passengers (probably more than ten) who have increased my heart rate considerably, for one reason or another.

Experience leads me to conclude that driving with a companion is more dangerous than driving alone, because when you are alone you are not likely to turn your head to speak to someone who is not there; furthermore, you are more likely to concentrate when you don’t have someone next to you asking questions, commenting on the scenery and saying: “Wow, look at that aeroplane.”

It seems that for once even the Government couldn’t swallow the research and has abandoned a campaign to encourage people to share car journeys on the basis of it. The DfT observed, in announcing this decision: “It was not, and was not intended to be, a thoroughly robust piece of academic research.”

So if anyone has some research that could back up such a campaign, please ring the DfT. But you will need at least 20 people and a catch phrase. Something like: “The debate is over.”

Or to put it another way, we really, really don’t want you to debate it. BBC newsreader Peter Sissons has revealed that the BBC, in common with many other news media, is complicit in keeping quiet about any challenge to “orthodox” climate change propaganda.

It was one of several factors that persuaded him to leave his prestigious job. He describes how, after “what was billed as a climate change rally in London last December, the leader of the Green Party, Caroline Lucas, went into the Westminster studio to be interviewed by me on the BBC News channel. She clearly expected what I call a ‘free hit’ – to be allowed to voice her views without being challenged on them.

“I pointed out to her that the climate didn’t seem to be playing ball at the moment. We were having a particularly cold winter, even though carbon emissions were increasing. Indeed, there had been no warming for ten years, contradicting all the alarming computer predictions.

“Well, she was outraged. I don’t have the actual transcript, but Miss Lucas told me angrily that it was disgraceful that the BBC should be giving any kind of publicity to those sort of views.”

Mr Sissons is one of a tiny number of BBC interviewers who have so much as raised the possibility that there is another side to the debate on climate change. He says: “The Corporation’s most famous interrogators invariably begin by accepting that ‘the science is settled’, when there are countless reputable scientists and climatologists producing work that says it isn’t.

“But it is effectively BBC policy, enthusiastically carried out by the BBC environment correspondents, that those views should not be heard.

“Politically the argument may be settled, but any inquisitive journalist can find ample evidence it is not. I was not proud to be working for an organisation with a corporate mind so closed on such an important issue.”