The BBC has apparently told people to avoid giving sceptics any air time, according to a long time newsreader - also see this:
He said: "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... that those views should not be heard."
In comparison the Sunday Times devoted a whole page and a bit to it, as did Sat Telegraph (see my previous entry).
But note the subbie line "Climate sceptics have lied, obscured and
cheated for years. That's why
we climate rationalists must uphold the highest standards of science".
He also calls non-believers 'scumbags', accuses them of 'outright
fabrication, fraud and deceit', and says that they have mounted a
grotesque campaign of lies. He also wrote a book called "Heat: How We Can Stop the Planet Burning"
I did a straw poll of people at my table at the pub other other night -
all think global warming is rubbish, or at least wildly overdone. I
make a point of asking people - I note that those who do believe in
global warming get very upset at any indication that I might not be a
believer. Reminds me of a few religions I know.
Google's top result under 'climategate' is currently this, a nice summary of the email issues: manipulation of evidence, private doubts about whether the world really is heating up, suppression of evidence, fantasies of violence against prominent Climate Sceptic scientists, attempts to disguise the inconvenient truth of the Medieval Warm Period (MWP)
Meanwhile, in our 'Only in the UK' category, we have this story:
GPs 'should offer climate change advice to patients'
Their controversial plan would see GPs and nurses give out advice to their
patients on how to lower their carbon footprint.
The Council believes that climate change “threatens to radically undermine the
health of all peoples”.
The only positive thing is that it is generally impossible to actually see your GP in the UK (since there is no charge), so the brainwashing effect of this will be minimal.
The environmentalists are not thrilled with the ETS. Good. But they are not unhappy enough for my liking. We can only truly be comfortable when the environmentalists are screaming bloody murder and assuring us that the world is about to end.
Academic environmentalists are rather less happy, which is promising. For example the environmentalists at Hot Topic quote a few comments. They are from 'scientists' by the way, not dodgy environmentalist academics, just in case you wondered.
The passing of today’s Climate Change Response amendment bill through
the House is deeply disappointing. Every week, emerging climate science
underlines the need for urgent action to cut emissions drastically,
with developed countries especially needing to make cuts right now to
avoid a global warming drift above 2 degrees, the guardrail against
Developed countries especially? Is their CO2 a different colour
perhaps? Every week? Surely this man is an environmentalist first,
scientist second. As for 2 degrees, temperatures have not risen at all in the last 10 years. What is he talking about?
We have the low-carbon technology –- which include many forms of
renewable energy such as solar electric, solar thermal, wind, wave,
tidal, geothermal and bio-energy. All we need to do is scale these
technologies up rapidly and harvest the economies of scale.”
I have a box of matches. All we need to do is scale it up this technology and we can all be warm.
Well it's all happening in global warming world. The NZ government has passed its ETS legislation (a watered-down version of Labour's effort) which by its own admission will:
Increase household electricity by 5%
Increase petrol price by 3.5c/l
Create lots of compliance costs
Nicky Wagner, a Christchurch MP who seems to believe strongly in global warming, has sent out a confused email entitled 'Protecting our Economy and Environment'. It states in part:
Climate change is
our biggest environmental challenge. How we respond to it now will
determine the future shape of our economy, environment, and communities.
Many would argue that water, or the need to mine as much coal as possible as soon as possible, are greater environmental challenges.
ambition has been to significantly reduce the cost of the previous
government’s Emissions Trading Scheme for Kiwi households.
If that were the case the legislation would simply have been repealed. In fact the driving ambition has been to work out some sort of compromise between the environmentalists and the rest of New Zealand. Why anyone would want to negotiate with an environmentalist is beyond me. It's a little like negotiating with terrorists about how many innocent people they can murder each year.
National has delivered on our election promises and struck the
right balance between our economic opportunities and our environmental
responsibilities. We’ve made the scheme more workable for businesses, and
halved the cost to families in our
Given that global warming is a scan, there are no responsibilities to reduce CO2 emissions. All of this hot air is just a conspiracy to reduce plant growth. It is a pointless cost and regulation increase.
Government is looking for pragmatic, practical ways to address
climate change. As a trading nation, we cannot afford to get our
response wrong. Our two
biggest industries are agriculture and tourism and both rely on our
An obvious way to address climate change, such as it is, is to live with it. It is absurd to believe that we can dial up the temperature we want on Earth. The fact that there has been no warming for 10 shares is proof enough that it is a scam. We can always do something in 10 years if the temperature starts increasing again, or something better than a directed computer model appears to confirm the fully funded fears of the environmental lobby.
to the Emissions Trading Scheme ensure that Kiwis will be doing
their fair share, while protecting our economy and our beautiful
Taking these in reverse order...The ETS does nothing for our beautiful natural environment, which after all largely depends on CO2 for its existence. It does not protect but in fact actively harms our economy. And finally there is no clear idea what our 'fair share' of this international farce really is.
The ETS is a terrible mistake from a government which has been captured by environmentalists and doesn't know what is it talking about.