Mr Davey will tell the Institute for Public Policy Research: ‘From the right, fringes of the Conservative Party and Ukip are parroting the arguments of the most discredited climate change deniers – seizing on any anomaly in the climate data to attempt to discredit the whole.
‘This
is undermining public trust in the scientific evidence for climate
change – overwhelming though it is. And we can see around us today the
possible consequences of a world in which extreme weather events are
much more likely. This type of climate change denying conservatism is
wilfully ignorant, head in the sand, nimbyist conservatism.
‘And when married to the europhobia
innate to parts of the Conservative Party, you have a diabolical
cocktail that threatens the whole long-term structure of UK climate
change and energy policy. If you accept the logic of climate change, you
have to accept the logic of European co-operation to tackle it.’
Interesting stuff I'm sure you'll agree. There are just a couple of questions worth raising in response to Mr Davey's rant.
Remind me, was it Climate change deniers who predicted with 90% certainty in 2007 that the polar ice-caps would have melted by 2014? Was it deniers who predicted that the polar bear population would have all but died out by now (when in fact numbers are increasing and the bears are flourishing across the arctic region)?
Perhaps it was deniers who predicted, in 2007, that we'd have 10million climate refugees by 2014? Or that the UK rivers that are now tragically bursting their banks would be 'a mere trickle' by now because of global warming?
Was it deniers who manipulated and falsified data in order to make global warming look much more rapid than it actually is in support of their argument?
Perhaps it was deniers who predicted, in 2010, that increasing levels of CO2 in our atmosphere (to 400ppm) would lead to out of control warming of the planet, catastrophic sea-level rises and low-lying land being swamped by the sea, all over the world. When in fact there has been no surface temperature increase for the past 16 years and no change in sea level rises above trend for at least the past 400 years.
If it was the deniers then I'd have to agree that their arguments have been thoroughly discredited. But it wasn't was it?
Seizing on 'any anomaly' in the data? How many fundamental anomalies do you need before you begin to realise that the whole thing is a crock of shit?
Why have 49 former NASA scientists, including seven astronauts and two former heads of the organisation come out against the scientific crediblity of AGW? Describing it as a hoax, not scientifically robust or just plain false?
'Overwhelming though it is'. You may be overwhelmed Mr Davey - as you seem to be in your role looking after our energy supplies and preventing us form being ripped off by the piss-taking profiteering of the big six energy companies (which I, a non-expert, pointed out last autumn but which you, surrounded by 'experts' only seem to have woken up to this week) - but where is the overwhelming, empirical evidence that AGW is happening? Show us. Tell us. If it's so overwhelming and clear and scientifically robust, why can't you just point out the scientific facts and we'll all just go away?
Because you can't Mr Davey. Because it doesn't exist. Not a single fucking (technical term) shred of real-world evidence (i.e. based on real, measured data rather than manipulated climate models that are designed to deliver a specific result rather than the actualité).
Extreme weather events much more likely? The recent floods are extreme, but are no worse than occurred in 1947 and 1760. And global data suggests that there is not an increased frequency of extreme weather events, you're just latching on to the floods as you latch on to three consecutive days of sunshine as 'incontrovertible evidence of climate change'. It isn't. It's just nature achieving equilibrium over time.
And what chance is there of a proper, rational debate of the so-called 'facts' when every weather condition, from warming to cooling, drier climate to wetter climate, shrinking ice-caps to growing ice-caps are used as 'clear evidence' of man-made global warming?
Will the Thames have to freeze over for 9 months of the year before you agree that the warming theories are false?
Of course by that time we will have impoverished our nation with green energy taxes to solve a problem that there is absolutely no real empirical evidence actually exists.
'Willfully ignorant, head in the sand NYMBYist conservatism'? Willfully ignorant suggests ignoring the facts. What 'facts' am I ignoring Mr Davey? 'Head in the sand' suggests ignoring what's really happening. So what is really happening Mr Davey, on climate - let's just stick to that for now since it would be unfair to test your grip on the facts of energy supply, even though it's your main job. Is the planet warming? Has it been doing so since 1997 despite growing levels of atmospheric CO2. Are the ice-caps melting? Are Polar Bears dying out? Where are the 10 million climate refugees we were promised by Lord Stern et al in 2007?
Nymbyist? You mean people don't want huge great bird killing wind farms that deliver next to no power for most of the year and are entirely unreliable for base load? Well how awful of them.
Europhobia? OK so tell me what good the EU does for young people in any European country except Germany? If you think that our leaving the EU will have a negative impact on UK jobs, given that we have a £46billion trade deficit with the EU, you're a simpleton. They simply cannot afford not to trade with us. We 'create' £46billion worth of more jobs in Europe than our membership creates in the UK. They're stupid, but not that stupid. But you don't seem to understand this. I'm not sure what that makes you?
The 'long term structure of UK energy policy' is a busted flush. The UK reducing its carbon emissions when the world's major emitters are not - The US, Canada, India, Russia, Australia and China are doing nothing to reduce their outputs. Do you really think that reducing our 1.6% of Global CO2 output - less than China's year-on-year increase - will make a difference? If you do, you're not only a simpleton, but a dangerous one.
And tell me (please) how your desperate dash to try to keep the lights on by awarding French company EDF - on crippling financial terms for the UK's paying public - the contract to build a new nuclear power station at Hinkley Point is part of a long-term structure? It's a short-term, desperate measure at the very best.
'If you accept the logic'. We don't accept the logic. There is no logic. AGW and the green taxes and wealth redistribution it creates, the impoverishment of developed economies and the denial of prosperity to developing economies (if they actually gave a toss about what you are advocating, which they don't) is all just a scam. The biggest non-religious hoax in history. And you're the UK face of it.
If this wasn't so farcical and so damaging one might almost laugh.
More, with sources and all that:
On UK energy policy here.
On climate change here.
Green energy defined, here.
On UK job losses if we left the EU, here.
And the sinister rise of the EU & UN Agenda 21 thing (which is behind this AGW scam) here.
Thanks for reading.
Interesting stuff I'm sure you'll agree. There are just a couple of questions worth raising in response to Mr Davey's rant.
Remind me, was it Climate change deniers who predicted with 90% certainty in 2007 that the polar ice-caps would have melted by 2014? Was it deniers who predicted that the polar bear population would have all but died out by now (when in fact numbers are increasing and the bears are flourishing across the arctic region)?
Perhaps it was deniers who predicted, in 2007, that we'd have 10million climate refugees by 2014? Or that the UK rivers that are now tragically bursting their banks would be 'a mere trickle' by now because of global warming?
Was it deniers who manipulated and falsified data in order to make global warming look much more rapid than it actually is in support of their argument?
Perhaps it was deniers who predicted, in 2010, that increasing levels of CO2 in our atmosphere (to 400ppm) would lead to out of control warming of the planet, catastrophic sea-level rises and low-lying land being swamped by the sea, all over the world. When in fact there has been no surface temperature increase for the past 16 years and no change in sea level rises above trend for at least the past 400 years.
If it was the deniers then I'd have to agree that their arguments have been thoroughly discredited. But it wasn't was it?
Seizing on 'any anomaly' in the data? How many fundamental anomalies do you need before you begin to realise that the whole thing is a crock of shit?
Why have 49 former NASA scientists, including seven astronauts and two former heads of the organisation come out against the scientific crediblity of AGW? Describing it as a hoax, not scientifically robust or just plain false?
'Overwhelming though it is'. You may be overwhelmed Mr Davey - as you seem to be in your role looking after our energy supplies and preventing us form being ripped off by the piss-taking profiteering of the big six energy companies (which I, a non-expert, pointed out last autumn but which you, surrounded by 'experts' only seem to have woken up to this week) - but where is the overwhelming, empirical evidence that AGW is happening? Show us. Tell us. If it's so overwhelming and clear and scientifically robust, why can't you just point out the scientific facts and we'll all just go away?
Because you can't Mr Davey. Because it doesn't exist. Not a single fucking (technical term) shred of real-world evidence (i.e. based on real, measured data rather than manipulated climate models that are designed to deliver a specific result rather than the actualité).
Extreme weather events much more likely? The recent floods are extreme, but are no worse than occurred in 1947 and 1760. And global data suggests that there is not an increased frequency of extreme weather events, you're just latching on to the floods as you latch on to three consecutive days of sunshine as 'incontrovertible evidence of climate change'. It isn't. It's just nature achieving equilibrium over time.
And what chance is there of a proper, rational debate of the so-called 'facts' when every weather condition, from warming to cooling, drier climate to wetter climate, shrinking ice-caps to growing ice-caps are used as 'clear evidence' of man-made global warming?
Will the Thames have to freeze over for 9 months of the year before you agree that the warming theories are false?
Of course by that time we will have impoverished our nation with green energy taxes to solve a problem that there is absolutely no real empirical evidence actually exists.
'Willfully ignorant, head in the sand NYMBYist conservatism'? Willfully ignorant suggests ignoring the facts. What 'facts' am I ignoring Mr Davey? 'Head in the sand' suggests ignoring what's really happening. So what is really happening Mr Davey, on climate - let's just stick to that for now since it would be unfair to test your grip on the facts of energy supply, even though it's your main job. Is the planet warming? Has it been doing so since 1997 despite growing levels of atmospheric CO2. Are the ice-caps melting? Are Polar Bears dying out? Where are the 10 million climate refugees we were promised by Lord Stern et al in 2007?
Nymbyist? You mean people don't want huge great bird killing wind farms that deliver next to no power for most of the year and are entirely unreliable for base load? Well how awful of them.
Europhobia? OK so tell me what good the EU does for young people in any European country except Germany? If you think that our leaving the EU will have a negative impact on UK jobs, given that we have a £46billion trade deficit with the EU, you're a simpleton. They simply cannot afford not to trade with us. We 'create' £46billion worth of more jobs in Europe than our membership creates in the UK. They're stupid, but not that stupid. But you don't seem to understand this. I'm not sure what that makes you?
The 'long term structure of UK energy policy' is a busted flush. The UK reducing its carbon emissions when the world's major emitters are not - The US, Canada, India, Russia, Australia and China are doing nothing to reduce their outputs. Do you really think that reducing our 1.6% of Global CO2 output - less than China's year-on-year increase - will make a difference? If you do, you're not only a simpleton, but a dangerous one.
And tell me (please) how your desperate dash to try to keep the lights on by awarding French company EDF - on crippling financial terms for the UK's paying public - the contract to build a new nuclear power station at Hinkley Point is part of a long-term structure? It's a short-term, desperate measure at the very best.
'If you accept the logic'. We don't accept the logic. There is no logic. AGW and the green taxes and wealth redistribution it creates, the impoverishment of developed economies and the denial of prosperity to developing economies (if they actually gave a toss about what you are advocating, which they don't) is all just a scam. The biggest non-religious hoax in history. And you're the UK face of it.
If this wasn't so farcical and so damaging one might almost laugh.
More, with sources and all that:
On UK energy policy here.
On climate change here.
Green energy defined, here.
On UK job losses if we left the EU, here.
And the sinister rise of the EU & UN Agenda 21 thing (which is behind this AGW scam) here.
Thanks for reading.
No comments:
Post a Comment