Saturday, 14 May 2011


Trevor's Website 
Never mind ‘Tweeting’ in the Chamber…
                            there may be ‘Bats in the Belfry’

Look, let’s get one thing in the open straightaway. Not only do I loath 99% of Senator Sarah Fergusson’s political views I’m equally sure that unchecked pursuit of them could lead only to that final slide over the edge of the economic and social Abyss. Just a few hours analysis of the writings of Ha-Joon Chang - highlighted in my last post - make that quite clear.

Nevertheless, as much as you can do with someone who actually stands up in the States and talks about “the so-called poor” in Jersey with a straight face - on a personal level I actually get on pretty well with Sarah. Why? Well, firstly unlike all too many in the States Chamber whilst she is happy to dish it out in putting her right-wing views across she is also equally willing to take it: and take it without running to teacher to blub about how horrible those nasty Progressives have been in challenging her politics.

Secondly, Jersey’s answer to Margaret Thatcher also has a decent sense of humour. I only mention this last fact because this sense of humour is surely just as well given her bonkers amendment 26 to P48 (the Island Plan) i.e. seeking to remove all reference to climate change/global warming from consideration due to it apparently being pseudo-scientific! She is just having a laugh surely I can almost hear you say? Sadly, like Eddie Noel’s contention that making multi-millionaire tax-evading parasites even wealthier with tax breaks makes us all “better off”, the Senator is not!

If the public doubt the States’ credibility now they sure will if we debate this!

Now, I have absolutely no intention of boring readers here with a few thousand words of my own analysis of the ‘for’ and ‘against’ arguments on global warming. Firstly, because there are a myriad of sources which put this across far better than I could. Secondly, because even leaving aside the dreaded ‘experts’ the argument is so obviously cut and dried. A basic fact: for every one report dismissing the concept there is at least three fully in support.

But being on the subject what I would like to flag up briefly as a result of this nonsense being put forward for debate is this. How desperately we need this next election to bring us more support in the Chamber in terms of people able to actually focus on, and work toward the bigger picture.

After all, one of the really disappointing outcomes of the last elections in 2008 was that only Daniel Wimberley of the four ‘Green’ candidates who stood got elected. For all of his now legendary over long speeches – make no mistake - Daniel has been a real breath of fresh air for anyone, who like me, really cares about Jersey’s long-term future.

Indeed, from what I saw of them, and I spoke to each at some length during the 2008 Senatorials and quite often since, Chris Perkins, Mark Forskitt and Nick Palmer would all have been equally welcome additions to a Chamber where a few of us are constantly fighting against the ‘quick buck today – tomorrow will never come’ mentality of the crackpot, free-market fundamentalist Establishment.

If nothing else this madness flags up how government needs a reality check.

And why that little bit of faith in me that hasn’t yet been curdled to utter cynicism after two years in the Chamber whispers that - surely we won’t be that stupid to vote Senator Ferguson’s amendment through - I can’t help thinking that just to be on the safe side we really could have done with Chris, Mark and Nick in there with us to be on the safe side.

As I have said more than once, I have never believed in what was the so-called ‘move to the next item’ motion but I must admit, faced with a two day debate on this amendment I could almost be persuaded otherwise. It is quite frankly a complete joke.

A silver lining for every cloud?

But ever looking for positives the way I see it there can only be two possible plus factors as we draw nearer to the Island Plan debate. One is that through a lengthy series of informed speeches as a final result some of the numpties who will usually vote for anything – so long as it isn’t being put forward by a so-called ‘leftie’ - will actually wake up and smell the coffee of political credibility brewing! It is election year after all…

The second is that the amendment may not even get debated at al. Rumour has it that the Senator may actually be out of the island investigating another Thatcherite antipoverty proposition: this being that the “so-called poor” who can’t afford Jersey’s inflated bread prices can actually survive by buying cake instead…

Keep the Faith!


  1. I do not like this womans ideas regarding climate change and global warming i find her arrogance that she cannot admit that these things are happening extremely worrying.

    I would not mind so much if she was wanting to remove the words man made from the report as that is actually what most people of her ilk are against but the arrogance of this particluar person who is simply in total denial is beyond all reasonable belief.

    I was hoping she was up for election this year and would be off but it appears we have to put up with her for longer

  2. I thought Philip was Jersey's answer to Margaret Thatcher? But global warming a myth - farcical.

  3. Excellent post Deputy. Government in Jersey really is a joke if there are not enough of you big enough to stand up and say "we aren't going to insult the public by debating this."

  4. Hi

    Sorry it took a while to sort the problems and thanks again for those who took the trouble to contact me to point out the problem.

    Yes, I certainly share the sentiment that debating this is a joke - and I don't say that lightly as I think Members should generally be able to lodge and debate any reasonable issue.

    Exceptions would be stuff like this. If there are still deniers out there in the world regardless of all the evidence how are we meant to prove to such peole that their argumant is nonsense?

    Another exception, it has to be said, would be countless attempts to overturn a States decision that has been voted on and passed time and time again like the recent Senators reduction farce.

  5. Anonymous. Maybe you have a point about Philip. Stick a big, blond boufffant wig on him and there you go...

  6. There has been 'bad science' on both sides of the argument and exaggerations certainly don't help the cause. The big difference in my opinion is that the 'bad science' on the part of those who would deny climate change has largely come from vested interest driven by profit. Just remeber George Bush (the oil mans' friend) and how he had to put the American economy first! With that sort of short-sightedness you have to wonder if there is any hope?

  7. Trevor

    Hope none of you have booked an early summer holiday this year. Once Wimberley and Duhamel get stuck in this you may as well write the next six months off.

  8. Beware of thinking your enemies enemy is also your friend. These 'greens' certainly don't agree with Sen Ferguson on climate change, but the sort of taxes and policies they would follow will reduce the lot of the working man to drudgery lacking any significant choice or leisure activity. The climate change problem is real enough, but the medicine these 'greens' prescribe is worse.

  9. Maybe Anonymous who made the comment about enemies could enlighten us as to what exactly could be worse than destroying the world for our children? Because this is where the likes of Fergusson, Ozouf and their counterparts the world over will lead us if we don't stop them.'Telling it how it is' Your are right Trevor this is the only approach. If it upsets a few people on the way so be it.

  10. Did anyone else see the program called Armageddon on BBC 4 last night? Wasn't just about mankind's contribution to global warming but scary viewing anyway. Wonder if our head in the sand Senator watched?

  11. The question of the likely taxes that our so-called Greens would want to impose is an interesting one. If Daniel Wimberley or the other three gents would like to come on here and comment they are more than welcome to do so.

    Personally I do have to make the following observation as to whether any taxes or policies could be a 'worse medicine'than just slipping toward destruction.

    Having recently accompanied my mother over to Southampton whilst she was undergoing medical treatmeant; thinking of her and all of the many decent, ordinary people I spoke to whilst there the reality surely can't be denied.

    Such 'medicine' is highly unpleasant, regularly painful and not even, of course, guaranteed to work in every instance. However, not a one of those people would say that it was not worth taking when set against the alternative.

    Looking at the issue of saving the planet and our children's future in the same light it is difficult not to conclude some unpleasant 'medicine' may by far be the lesser evil.

  12. I am unsure Mark will be much help even if he were elected. Apart from the obvious friction that he supported Syvret in the by-election when Wimberly supported Southern, his recent blog postings have been very downbeat. Example plan B

  13. I don't see what who any particular 'green' supported in the last by-election as to do with climate change?

  14. Maybe an easy way to see if Ferguson's view is regarded as the minority one is if you put one of those polls on here where readers could click on? I would be very surprised if the result was not something like 7 or 8 to 1 against her.

  15. If the Greens Trevor rated so highly as candidates in 2008 are still so sure of their case in 2011 you might think they would come on here and spell out why Senator Ferguson has got it wrong?

  16. Trevor.

    More informative and frightening revelations from former DCO HARPER

  17. Hate to admit that I buy it sometimes but a couplke of good letters relevant to this story in The Rag tonight.

  18. This is a message for M.

    Thanks for your latest comments and your kind words about the efforts of Shona and me in fighting for the truth. It is quite obvious that you too care deeply for Jersey, truth and transparancy.

    However, to be able to publish your comments - as I cannot edit out bits nor would I want to - I will have to ask you to re-word what you state about the son of a very well known person and how you say he should be charged with murder.

    As I'm sure you would acknowledge we are all entitled to be considered innocent until proven guilty. To publish such allegations I obviously need to be provided with proof.

    As I state within the site guidelines with regard to sensitive matters I am happy to meet up to talk things through. The numbers are on the contact page.



  19. M

    Thanks for your post. No problem - I know how easy it is to just want the truth outin the open no matter what. If you can/wish to provide more information call me at any time.


  20. deputy pitman
    as strange as it may seem some people do talk to me but they are allso in fear of there jobs they will not talk to anybody in government or to police as they know what will happen to them just how bad dose it have to get on this island

  21. Martin

    I don't think it is strange at all. I know how worried many people are about speaking up - many over far less serious issues than what you refer to.

    All I can repeat is that the offer remains to all and any who do feel they can confide highly sensitive information like this. I also very much appreciate your support and desire to make Jersey a better place.

    It is the people like you that we all need to try and get out voting in every parish come October.


  22. Congrats. Your site looks really smart. Will keep checking it now that I have finally found it.

    Not just interesting but quite different in your approach to any I have seen from your fellow States members. Serious stuff but funny with it! You could certainly pass on a few tips to Philip Ozouf and his dry approach.

    As for accusations about combativeness all I can say to that is this. If you aren't willing to stand up and content you really shouldn't be in politics. I want politicians who will fight for my interests all the way! Mice achieve nothing.

  23. Trevor, could your next blog posting please be naming and shaming the 29 people who voted against the GST exemptions today and could you also put a photo up of them?

  24. Another shameful result in the States. Let multi-millionaire parasites pay less tax than a hard working road sweeper but reduce elderly couples to wishing they were dead because they can't afford to eat. Disgusting. These twenty nine should be booted out come October.

  25. Let's talk about the Abuse

  26. Please name and shame the 29 with photo's

  27. Whatever has happened to Francis Le Gresley? Is he crossing over?

  28. Brilliant speech today in the GST debate!

  29. I'm sorry that I haven't got around to making many replies these past few days. With the States, lunch time meetings and evening commitments I just haven't had the time.

    I also have a new proposition just lodged that seeks to put a hold on further reform debates until the work of the recently agreed Electoral Commission has done its work.Hopefully write something about this soon.

    Also have a new blog up by the weekend.


  30. As for the question about naming the latest GST party members - happy to allow 17 x 1 (1) Ks pay less than £5.000 in tax whilst seeing elderly local people all but starve - yes, I will get a list up by the weekend too.

    Though I'm sure one or two Citizen's Media sites may well beat me to it.

  31. Trev

    Beware of people who want both to be anonymous AND post links to your most excellent of blogs. I hear through the grapevine the Troll is desperate to get on here somehow. Genuine posters also wanting to put link won't have a problem saying who they are. Just look at VFC and Rico.

  32. Troll Watcher

    Thanks for the tip off. I've had a number of contacts from people who want to help keep the site a TFZ (Troll Free Zone) offering tips.

    I do want to keep things reasonably focussed on the blog at hand - particularly when these are not general ones. However, you can only consider what you are sent.

    Not just this but if someone takes the trouble to send a link to something they feel is important, than so long as its within the spirit of the guidelines I set, I will consider using.

    It is also far different to accept a link to another story/site which takes up just a line of space, as opposed to letting people go off on lengthy posts about those subjects.

    Thus far I'm pleased to say that I have only knocked back a couple of clearly libellous and trouble-making posts.

    Thanks again

  33. Mr. Pitman. I introduced myself today in town and just wanted to reiterate that I think your speech in the exemptions debate said exactly what so many people think. You really are one of very few who stand up to be counted for the public against the Ozoufs of this world. When I say the public I mean the ordinary man in the street - not these millionaire vampires who Ozouf and Le Sueur let pay a pitiful few thousand in tax while so many struggle. Keep up the good work.

  34. Good to see you giving your support to environmentalists. Will you be putting a link to Mark Forskitt's website on your links page too?

  35. Big Trev

    Don't know if you get the JEP but if you do what do you think about the rant by John Boothman? I remember when he was employed by the paper to write what were never really anything more than childish right wing rants. Must be getting near election time if this type of low brow political stirrer has been wheeled out again by the tax evasion brigade!

  36. mr pitman
    id just like to say i agree with everything AL said above. so keep up the good work witch both you and shona are doing for this island.

  37. Trevor.

    A little reminder of how things were a little over a year ago. Do you think things have changed much and in particular ILM's way of "doing business", and the Scrutiny PROCESS?

  38. Al & Martin

    Thanks for your posive comments. They are much appreciated.

    The GST issue is far from dead - nor should it be allowed to die whilst we have a Treasury Minister and Council of Ministers who are happy to support greed while others who have contribued to the Island all their lives are left to struggle in old age.

    The truth is many of out Ministers aren't fit to hold office. You may have heard I challenged Philip Ozouf to take his taxation stance to the electorate in October if he really believed that he had most people's support.

    Of course he won't because he knows he doesn't. Its that simple. Shona has already lodged the next round in the battle. Updated from the proposals she brought three years ago and now everyone says are correct - yet oddly enough so many voted against at the time!

    As I have pointed out so many times, for the dregs that make up the Establishment Party it isn't about a proposition - they vote according to who brings it.

    Keep the Faith


  39. Anonymous

    John Boothman? I summed this clown up back before I even stood for election when he used to spout innumerate/right-wing drivel in a column for the JEP before the 2005 elections.

    He says we need a 'better class' of candidate? Well, he is right when you look at the Council of Ministers! But what would be a really good laugh would be to see this self-important free-marketeer buffoon stand for election.

    Come on, John...we all could do with a good chortle in these difficult economic times!Hey, maybe he could even explain why anyone should vote for him when it is the dinosaur politics of so many like him that has got the world into such a mess?

  40. VFC

    Thanks for the link. I will give you an in-depth answer over the weekend. New blog up on Sunday too.

    Keep up the good work.


  41. Thanks for the GST link - saved me a bit of typing too!

    Let's see how the 'Great & the Greedy'will vote on Shona's commonsense health-based proposals?

    Probably against like last time because for most of these clowns it is all about personality and having to be in control.

  42. dear Deputy Pitman,
    thank you for this blog and engaging with citizen media.

    i would like to ask for you opinion on the fact that the states of jersey is an incorporated business, eg;with shareholders and owners,
    memorandum and articles of association,
    who must file an annual return somewhere.

    have you seen the memos and arts and annual returns?
    do you know who the owners and shareholders are?

    are you comfortable that a private for profit company is acting as our government and its departments

    thank you

  43. Hi

    Three things as I'm afraid a couple of calls for assistance that came in today have left me without the time to do what I had intended.

    1 - As readers will know, last week there were some problems with Blogger (don't ask me to explain what underlay them as I simply do not have enough knowledge of how this medium works!).

    A result was that some of the most recent posts vanished. Oddly (at least to me who doesn't understand this phenomenon!) a couple re-appeared days later. A couple of others still haven't.

    I highlight this just to re-assure one poster who had asked a number of questions on my views. For example, where did I see Jersey being in five years? What would the States be like if there were 53 Deputy Trevor Pitmans in there (don't have nightmares - they haven't perfected cloning yet!) Did I think I was combative in my approach?

    Hopefully having a bit more time in the next couple evenings I will answe those in the next blog wwhich will now be up dduring Monday.

    2 - As you see from above - tonight's intended new blog will now be up tomorrow. An interesting subject I can tell you it will be put up in two parts. Hopefully some comments as to people's thoughts will be forthcoming!

    3 - The above very interesting question regarding a poster's view that Jersey is being run as a business. This too I will give you my thoughts on.

    Thanks and sorry for the delay. But I did point out when I launched this site on the 6th May that my work would always come first!

  44. A final point.

    Having been directed to the latest rant from 'Tom Gruchy' and - like most who have experience of this pathetci individual who year after year never does nothing else but whine and complain about others - being heartily sick of him I will also try to get around to posting some observations about him and his comments too.

    Hope this is OK with you, Mike? It really is time someone woke you up to smell the coffee. You are, after all, probably the Establishment Party's greatest friend. Certainly you are someone totally incapable of working with others for the common good.

  45. Correction to spelling and wording.

    Sorry, Mike. I obviously meant to say that you are a 'pathetic' individual who never does 'anything' else but whine.

    Fingers typing but brain still working on the proposition I left off after being contacted about your latest rant.

    Interestingly enough I was left to try and fight 'Tom' Mike's corner about Citizen Media at the Chairman's Committee after his latest act of school, boy petulance.

    Maybe more about this too later...

  46. 'Tom' is a classic case of why the progressive element of Jersey politics has not been as successful as it could. Targets those already working for good and fair government because his approach is all about his own inflated ego.

    I read his rant on that other blog and it isn't even accurate. He says you have just let people moaning about trolls take over yet I can find only two posts out of 90 odd even mentioning this. Time 'Tom' Dun some work and started looking at the real enemy.

  47. If Senator Fergie's daft amendment gets through don't people agree that it will really undermine Jersey's international standing? Probably even impact on trying to teach our kids in school too?

  48. When you consider the news from Australia today Trevor. How the government is highlighting how climate change is being attacked by people with no credentials in the field. It really sshows how barmy Sarah Ferguson's ideas are. Maybe some kind of sanity test should be put in place for future elections?

  49. Deputy. I think you may be upsetting a few people within the ranks of our far right masters. Not just with what you are saying and how you pull no punches saying it. But by getting a lot of people checking your site out. I must be up front and say that I would not have thought of my self as a natural supporter back in 2008. But tell it how it is you certainly are not afraid to do. Like many others this is a quality I have to admit I like set against all of the constant spin. Good luck

  50. Big Trev

    Don't bother responding to Mike/Tom Gruchy he is not worth the time or effort. I'm surprised that someone like David is even letting him attack you on his blog.

    I took the trouble to go through the posts from people and twenty out of 50 on this story are linked to your original post. With a couple of exeptions all the rest are people making comments on GST and the like and you responding.

    If this is a blog dominated by tittle tattle and an obsession with trolls I really don't see it. Will the next post still be up tonight?

  51. Hi

    For those of you not in bed the answer to the question above is as follows.

    With a couple of lovely photo images to sort the first part of what will now be a three part post on the subject of the next Chief Minisster will be up in time for breakfast.

    Off to walk the dog now as it is ten past midnight and I have PPC all day tomorrow and then constituent meetings from 6 till 8pm.



  52. Im getting very hungry. Up at dawn, and still no breakfast, waiting for your new posting. Lucky that I live alone since the wife left. I only want to slag you off so hurry up! Otherwise I will have to read Phil Ozouf's rubbish blog instead. LOL!

  53. If "Tom's" piece had been an direct attack on Trevor I would have given it the same sharp treatment I have given the other direct attacks I have received amongst my comments. However, his point seems to me to be a general one, that there is no coherent alternative at present. I do not think that politics should be so one-dimensional that there are only two polar opposites, but the fact remains that the Unofficial Tory Party are pulling together, while the rest are heading in all sorts of different directions. And that is a big impediment to getting the UTP out.

  54. Hi Trevor. Just found your blog tonight. It's pretty busy.

    Senator Fergusson's expressed opinions on global warming/climate change are of course crackers. What her secret inner beliefs are might be another matter. People like her and ex-Deputy Gerard Baudains seem to believe their political ends trump everything else. They seem to share many of the characteristics of the extreme American faction called Libertarians (which are absolutely nothing like English Liberals...).

    Sarah gets annoyed if you call her a denier because, like so many other deniers, she takes it that one is equating her with Holocaust deniers who deny that Hitler's minions killed 6 million Jews and other (to the Nazis) undesirables.

    This insult that she claims to feel is rubbish. The term denier simply means to be in denial of reality, like an alcoholic or drug addict cannot acknowledge their problem, or a wife can be in denial about her husband's philandering.

    Climate change deniers have well over 100 "sound bite" arguments that they repeatedly bring up that have been crafted to fool the maximum number of people. They only take a few short sentences to say and, unfortunately, take a lot of words and time to demolish. They have all been comprehensively destroyed a zillion times but that never stops denialists from regurgitating them over and over again whenever they find more gullible people to listen to them.

    For example, Baudains recently used two common pieces of denialist misdirection in his recent letters to the JEP. These were: scientific history shows rises in CO2 always come after temperature rises (therefore, he claims, CO2 logically cannot be the cause of temperature rises).

    Secondly, that humans are only responsible for 2% of CO2 emissions whilst the other 98% of planetary CO2 emissions come from natural sources, so (he claims) how can humanity's tiny emissions have an effect while the natural ones don't?

    Both of these seriously misleading pieces of disinformation are based on genuine facts ( at least they're not lying about the facts) but they cherry pick those facts they want the public to see and "accidentally" don't mention the other facts which would clarify the situation and show that the conclusions they jump to are just stupid.

    Unfortunately, this propaganda technique is very successful and works really well to fool the public.

    As I said, when AGW/Climate change deniers are called deniers they are not being equated to Holocaust deniers at all. However, just imagine, if they get their way, by persuading too many voters to vote that we do nothing to forestall serious climate change like that at the top end of the IPCC projections, they will be responsible for the probable deaths of billions and the destabilisation of our climate for at least a thousand years. Definitely not comparable to the Nazi's body count!

    If people ignore the Fergusson's and the Baudains' of this world, then we can avoid this future and have a much better one but we have to start now and start fast.

  55. Thanks for that Nick. Just shows how simple it can be when people who know what they are talking about are given the chance to explain.

  56. Anon. I didn't actually explain anything. You should be sceptical of those who just assert stuff. But the climate science side do not just do that. I have just sent a letter to the JEP, on behalf of J-CAN, showing exactly why Baudains' two arguments are fallacious and the pieces of information that he leaves out (or doesn't understand) in his simplistic one piece jigsaw.

    I don't blame anyone who isn't extremely familiar with the subject for being fooled by these tricks - they seem very plausible. Every time they come up with a new one I confess to doubting the science a little myself. The fundamentalist US think tanks and Institutes who come up with these ideas have some pretty smart people skilled at spin and misdirection.

    I think there are very few denialists though who know for sure that they are deceiving people. Mostly, I think they are the type of personality that can easily fool themselves with wishful thinking.

    Scepticism is a good trait but the "scepticism" the denialist mentality exhibits is pathological. They relentlessly insinuate corrupt practices and incompetence in every aspect of the science, they nitpick and dispute any evidence that supports global warming/climate change but accept uncritically almost any old rubbish that purports to disprove it. Even once their ideas are clearly seen to be wrong, they don't shut up but will usually use the same arguments again later - as if they are incapable of learning anything new if it conflicts with what they want to believe in.

    I go into greater depth in the letter about his "arguments" but here is what they leave out. In the geological record, there has rarely been any event when buried carbon (fossil fuels) has been constantly brought back up into the atmosphere, so naturally there has not been an obvious "CO2 causing warming" signal to find. When the planet warms for other reasons, such as orbital changes, the oceans warm up too and they outgas dissolved CO2, like a warm sparkling wine. This is the "CO2 lags warming" fact that Baudains relies on. CO2 acts as both a forcing - it will warm up the climate if enough is admitted that not reabsorbed - and a feedback - it is emitted from the oceans when the climate warms for other reasons. Of course, once it is emitted by "other reasons" it then acts as a forcing and yet further warms up the climate.

    If, as we are doing, we warm the climate up with excess CO2 then the oceans will eventually warm up (they have a huge thermal capacity, so it takes a long time) and will out-gas further CO2 which will in turn add to the warming in a positive feedback loop. This does not mean that the Earth's climate will runaway, getting hotter and hotter, as the warming does not increase as fast as the concentration of CO2 does.

    He also states that the natural emissions (sources) are much larger than those of mankind (98% vs 2%) whilst not mentioning that the natural aborbing systems (sinks) are slightly larger than the natural sources. The sinks were absorbing all the natural emissions and then we came along and added CO2 from sequestered fossilised carbon (oil, gas, coal, peat) etc on top of that. About 50% of what humans emit is absorbed by these sinks and the rest keeps on piling up, causing the rate of heat loss of the planet (heat radiated into space) to fall, thus inevitably warming it up.

  57. Hi Nick

    Thanks for this and also thanks for copying your recent letter to all States Members via Daniel.

    I really can't believe that sarah's amendment will get through. However, the very fact that we have States Members willing to promote ssuch fews in the face of overwhelming eevidence is worrying enough.

    This is not just our future at stake but our children's and we shouldn't be contributing to the power base of those who would play Russian roulette with it.

    Hope you are going to stand again.


  58. Standing again? Almost certainly not - at least for the immediate future.

    Without the use of a time machine to perform experimental science by repeatedly going back 60 year or so altering what we did back then to see what happens to the climate, climate science predictions must be regarded as uncertain. That is why the science says it is 90% certain etc.

    Your analogy of Russian Roulette is a good one. What is the most sensible thing to do - what are the chances of the climate bullet being fired? Far more than the game with a gun. People have a right to to gamble with their own lives but not if it affects everybody else's too. Do you feel lucky, punks?

  59. This is such an important topic. Is there any chance of the author of A View from the West, Tony the Prof, Mark Forskitt, Chris Perkins or Nick Palmer to stand?

  60. Mr Palmer. I don't know you apart from reading your views but you should stand. Deputy Pitman and the few other live ones need more support against the morally dead!

  61. And for those who may want to retaliate, try reading my "green" speech on Hansard. Virtually nothing on the science - the climate has been changing for the last 600 million years or so - but quite a lot on the financial implications.