Last week, I half-jokingly said I was off to try and track down the three MPs who voted against the UK's world-leading climate change bill.

Well, my colleague Tom Young has gone and done exactly that, and found that not all of David Cameron's model green army are marching in the same direction.

Here's what he discovered:

In the world of politics, MPs are often required to put their personal views on hold for the greater good of the party.

Whips, the party political system, and personal ambition all conspire to pervert an MPs voting record to reflect factors other than their own beliefs.

Those factors were mercifully in absence last week as MPs voted through an ambitious Climate Change Bill that achieved the rare feat of drawing near universal praise from environmental groups and green business leaders.

The Bill had been toughened and could have expected more opposition from MPs with a more traditional view of what constitutes pro-business policy - targets were raised from 60 per cent to 80 per cent and are now likely to be extended to include aviation and shipping.

But despote the changes the bill was passed with an overwhelming majority - 463 votes for, and just three against.

But who were the three who refused to fall into line with both their party hierarchy and the unerring demands of climate change science.

Three Conservative MPs voted against the bill: Christopher Chope MP for Christchurch, Peter Lilley MP for Hitchin and Harpenden, and Andrew Tyrie MP for Chichester.

Their small number means this was not a whipped issue - David Cameron, George Osborne and a number of other frontbenchers voted with the government - so ist must have been a conscience vote.

Let's take at their arguments more carefully.

Christopher Chope is an ex-Conservative frontbencher, who used to be spokesman on, amongst other things, the environment, and undoubtedly reflects a pre-Cameron Conservative view on the issue.

In the most recent debate on the Bill he called for some "context" on the issue citing a PricewaterhouseCoopers report which projects that the United Kingdom will produce only 1.2 per cent of global emissions in 2050.

"Even if we eliminated that 1.2 per cent," he argued, "would it make any difference to the world? I do not think that it would."

Talking about his opposition to the second reading of the Bill, Chope said: "When the history books are written in 2050, people will ask why only five people voted against Second Reading of the ludicrous measure."

He argues that the bill will have an adverse affect on the economy, particularly with the inclusion of aviation and shipping, and that households bills will rise as business growth is inhibited.

Along with environmental groups and green businesses, the government has maintained that such arguments are outdated, citing the Stern Review's conclusion that failure to act now to tackle climate change will lead to greater costs in the long run.

Like Chope, Tyrie refused to be swayed by the Stern's Report citing one Professor Nordhaus' - who he describes as "probably the world's leading environmentalist" - view that Stern's conclusions are "completely absurd".

Tyrie recently quoted Nordhaus' belief that, "If a student of mine were to hand in this report as a Masters thesis, perhaps, if I were in a good mood, I would give him a 'D' for diligence; but more likely, I would give him an 'F' for fail."

And he doesn't stop there. The MP also cited a survey by Professor von Storch, "probably Germany's leading climate scientist", which says that one third of IPCC scientists don't believe recently observed warmings are man made.

Even if the Bill is passed, there will be no penalty for not meeting emissions targets, so there is little point, he argued.

His description of the bill is worth quoting in full, if only for the quality off its rhetoric:

"This Bill combines some of the characteristics of both the poll tax and the Dangerous Dogs Act 1991, except on a much grander scale. Either it will be implemented, in which case, like the poll tax, it could be as economically unworkable as it would be politically suicidal, or it will not, in which case, like the Dangerous Dogs Act, it will turn out to be yet another exercise in gesture politics."

On to Lilley, who describes himself as having "reservations about the certainty with which some people adopt the scientific case behind global alarmism", but is "equally uncertain that it is necessarily wrong".

As a result, he is "quite prepared to take out an insurance policy against the possibility that we will face global warming, just as I insure my house against the possibility of fire". But at the same time he is unconvinced that the insurance premiums imposed by the climate change bill aren't that bit too dear.

"Any measure that we introduce must pass two tests," he explains. "First, the benefits, even if they accrue to other people, must be greater than the costs, even if they are all incurred by us. Secondly, the measures must be effective, rather than just demonstrative."

Apparently the bill failed these tests as Mr Lilley decided to vote against the final bill.

So there are the three. We'd love to find out a little more about why they voted against the measures and the extent to which they support David Cameron's greening of the party, but none of them responded to my inquiries.

I also look forward to finding out if Mr Chope is right and those in the future will ask why more people did not vote against this "ludicrous measure".I'm guessing not.