Gradual and moderate warming brings benefits as well as incurring costs. These benefits and costs will not, of course, be felt uniformly throughout the world; the colder regions of the world will be more affected by the benefits, and the hotter regions by the costs.

I was frequently embarrassed by the way Margaret conducted herself within the European Community. Her tactics were counter-productive and damaging to the UK's interests. On most issues her approach was foolish. Her style and tone of voice came to irk the others so much that they instinctively sank their differences and joined forces against her.

In Europe, where climate change absolutism is at its strongest, the quasi-religion of greenery in general and the climate change issue in particular have filled the vacuum of organised religion, with reasoned questioning of its mantras regarded as a form of blasphemy.

If I really believed in Friedman's economic theory, then I'd be quite satisfied to spend the rest of my life with a garden hose shoved down my throat, being filled with custard by representatives of the people of China.

There has always been, and there always will be, an economic cycle.

I think that the ordinary bloke has an instinctive sense that it wouldn't be too bad if the weather warmed up.

Hopelessly uneconomic on any substantial scale, since it requires a conventional power back-up for when the wind stops blowing, forests of wind turbines are rightly regarded in most countries as an environmental monstrosity.