August proves climate change exists?

I've yet to read a convincing argument as to why this month's awful weather in Britain (which I had managed to avoid until this weekend after three wonderful weeks in the sweltering heat of the United States) proves that climate change exists.

If this appalling weather is evidence of global warming, then can someone please show me how?

Save the planet: kill farting cows

More environmentally harmful emissions are generated by flatulent livestock than by motorcars. How long, one wondered, until environmental wackos sought not only to ban the car to move on to phase two of their sordid scheme - to make us turn vegetarian?

An Australian scientist has put down the shrimp from his barbecue and his tin of Fosters to encourage us to eat kangaroo meat instead of beef or lamb. It may not be vegetarianist propaganda but it'll certainly mean less people eat cow or sheep meat if he gets his way - and less meat altogether, I suspect. Poor Skippy...

Fascism 1 Liberty 0

Free speech my arse.

Gore's in Cloud Cuckoo Land

Al Gore is deranged: not content with showing how bitter and twisted he's become since losing the 2000 election to President Bush, Gore gave succour to America's enemies during the run-up to the liberation of Iraq. Now he's returned to banging on about the environment.

Gore says that we should get 100% of our energy from renewable sources. 100%! Within 10 years! It'd be funny if it wasn't a serious suggestion. And bear in mind that, like most environmental zealots, he is 100% opposed to nuclear power and not all that keen on wind turbines (unless they're miles away from his home). Never forget that Gore is a hypocrite, whose Tennessee home consumes far more energy than President Bush's Texan ranch. As Ann Coulter memorably said, never mind the size of Gore's carbon footprint - have you seen the size of his actual footprint recently? He's gotten so large that the only energy he's conserving is on the treadmill!

America is right to look at developing as many sources of energy as possible - and to put energy security at the top of the political agenda. For the US to rely on the likes of the Middle East, Russia and Venezuela for oil in the coming years would indeed be madness. But if a multi-faceted energy policy is the solution then part of that solution must be oil - which is why the President's proposals to drill with vigour in the US' waterways and in Alaska is absolutely right. I have no desire to go back to living in mud huts, thank you Mr Gore.

Climate Change Heresy

More heresy on the closed debate on climate change. And yet everyone knows the world is going to end next Thursday afternoon after polar bears were seen swimming in the Rocky mountains - except the American Physical Society. Clearly they must be being paid by Exxon Mobil or Shell. Maybe Halliburton is behind it all? Or Bushitler?

Or maybe we could just have a calm, reasoned debate on the subject - hey, who knows? Maybe this will get covered fairly on the BBC..?

Hat Tip: Saiful Nazmi.

Climate Change: Who Cares?

Am I the only one who thinks that the continued obsession with climate change at a time of economic meltdown is madness?

When families face losing their homes, their jobs and their lives, the last thing on their minds is whether polar bears might have a little less ice in the Arctic or if penguins are struggling to breed in Antarctica. The risk of the planet warming up by one or two degrees centigrade in the next century is also pretty much a non-issue too. The only people who have the luxury of pontificating about such an ephemeral issue are those who are insulated from the current economic crisis - those who work in the public sector and those who are financial very secure.

The BBC, of course, still bleats about the need for Britain to take a lead on climate change at the G8 summit, as though a unilateralist approach by the UK will make the slightest difference when China, India and the US will carry on regardless. It is no surprise that the BBC continues to focus on climate change as a bigger issue than the need to cut taxes, slash spending, curb inflation, repeal regulations and stimulate growth - the BBC has a leftist worldview and is peddling an agenda that is out of kilter with the values and aspirations of voters. And its reporters and staff are immune from the economic downturn because of the poll tax known as the "licence fee".

Our priorities have changed. A year ago, it might have been kitsch to say how much one cared for the planet. Now it's every man for himself. Merrill Lynch is predicting that house prices won't recover for 20 years - TWENTY years. For those of us with mortgages, that is an horrific prospect. The Chambers of Commerce predict hundreds of thousands of job losses. Inflation is rising. Businesses are being choked. And all Gordon Brown can do is tell us to stop wasting food.

Some in the Conservative Party say that we cannot afford tax cuts and that we need to adhere to Labour's spending plans. Those are the people who, again, are insulated against the real life pressures we are all facing. It's easy to miss quite how badly things are going when you can claim tens of thousands in expenses, often without having to provide receipts, and when you know your salary will be paid regardless and you have a fat-cat gold-plated pension scheme waiting for you in 10 or 20 years time.

The response from the Tories needs to be bold. It is what people expect. Voters know Labour is a busted flush. They are waiting for the Tories to show that the Party has some answers. Those answers must include cutting taxes, slashing regulations, reducing spending, curbing inflation and stimulating growth. And that means that all the do-gooders who dribble and drool that they care about the planet will be disappointed for a few years until the good times return. At a time of economic crisis, luxuries need to be dispensed with.

Yeo: NO!

Maybe the Tories are the nasty party after all: at least that's a fair conclusion to be drawn by voters listening to Tim Yeo this morning on Today. At a time when hauliers are facing financial ruin - and the rest of us can barely afford to fill up with petrol - Yeo haughtily proclaimed that the government should NOT reduce fuel taxes.

Yeo is Chairman of the Environmental Audit Committee of the House of Commons. He is also a Tory MP. Such is his zeal in wanting to reverse so-called global warming, he argued this morning that the government must keep fuel taxes high so that people stop driving their cars. This will reduce CO2 emissions. He's right: with fuel taxes this high, fewer people will be able to afford to drive and CO2 emission will indeed fall. Unfortunately the economy and our standards of living will ALSO fall - and Yeo will find that that's far more important to ordinary voters than whether or not the temperature increases by 0.1F in the next decade.

Yeo epitomises the high-handed arrogance of politicians who are cocooned from reality by wallowing in taxpayer-funded salaries, final salary pension schemes and overly generous expenses. Perhaps it's time Tim Yeo went off to spend more time with his families.

Food for thought

I've read an interesting story in today's Daily Mail: it certainly makes you realise how precarious our economy is and how overly dependent we are on foreign oil. Energy security and food security are surely the key priorities going forward - not climate change.

Less stick, more carrot

I have never understood why so many self-styled environmentalists feel that they have to impose their beliefs on others. The latest comments from an Anglican bishop comparing those who fail to play their part as being little better than Josef Fritzl highlights just how hysterical and intolerant some environmental zealots have become. For while many watermelons* might be happy to wear a hair shirt so as to exhibit their moral superiority to the rest of us, the fact is that most people won't be willing to make the unnecessary sacrifices that the watermelons tell us that we must make or else the world will end.

If environmentalists focused on the carrot, rather than the stick, then I expect that they would get further than they have gotten thus far. Even assuming that one were to accept that climate change exists - and that it is a man-made phenomenon (which I do not) - surely it would be preferable to harness technological advancement, innovation, science and entrepreneurship in preference to censorious infringements on our freedom?

* Watermelons = green on the outside, red on the inside; just like so many environmentalists nowadays.

31,000 scientists deny man-made global warming

Funny that: 31,000 eminent scientists deny the notion of man-made global warming and it didn't get picked up on the BBC.

Another reason why we need Fox News in Britain.

Carbon Belch Day

Put it in your diaries: 12 June, Carbon Belch Day.

Grassfire.org, a conservative grassroots group in the US, has called for people to host barbecues, go for a drive, watch television, leave the lights on and even smoke a few cigars to help Americans break free from "carbon footprint guilt" imposed by watermelon "climate alarmists".

I wonder if the idea will catch on here?

Climate Change: The Debate

Good news for those of us who enjoy decent quality debates. Czech President Vaclav Klaus is prepared to debate Oscar and Nobel Prize winner Al Gore. Promoting his new book, Blue Planet in Green Shackles - What Is Endangered: Climate or Freedom?, Klaus argues that our freedom and prosperity are at risk.

He likens the zealotry of the IPCC and climate change campaigners to the approach adopted by communists in the Soviet era. He would no doubt approve of the term of endearment heaped on many environmentalists today whereby they're referred to as "watermelons" - green on the outside but red on the inside.

I doubt Gore will agree to take part in the debate. His last efforts at debating in 2000 saw him beaten by George W Bush. But Klaus' arguments deserve to be aired and debated. Whether they will be is another matter. I expect that his pessimistic view of the likely reception of his book and his arguments is right:

"It could be even true that we are now at a stage where mere facts, reason and truths are powerless in the face of the global warming propaganda".

Climate Change: Not a Problem?

The Daily Mail tells us that climate change may not be such a problem after all.

What chance of this being picked up by the BBC?

Exactly.

A new book on climate change

If you are looking to add to your conservative library, may I suggest your next purchase on Amazon is the provocatively titled The Really Inconvenient Truths: Seven Environmental Catastrophes Liberals Don't Want You To Hear About Because They Helped Cause Them - by Washington DC-based British academic, Iain Murray.

You can read more of Murray's work at www.ismurray.com.

Do you really want wind farms?

The sight of Stirling Castle, shrouded in the overpowering shadow of a wind farm, should put to rest the idea that wind farms are environmentally benign.

While they may produce less CO2 than many other forms of electricity generation, the adverse impact on the visual environment surely outweighs any benefits?

The Daily Mail has before and after pictures: take a moment to have a look and then tell me you want wind farms in Britain.

Who turned out the lights?

Tonight the lights will be dimmed in cities around the world for an hour. It isn't as a result of a Ted Heath style energy crisis. It's to highlight the "threat" of "climate change". 27 cities are taking part - including Sydney, Bangkok, Chicago and Dublin. Last year energy usage was cut by 10% for the hour.

These gestures achieve absolutely nothing apart from making the people who take part feel good about themselves. They can sanctimoniously proclaim their piety at the rest of us whom they hope will feel shamed into undertaking some kind of penance.

I am sure that many of us waste much in our lives - opportunities, time, money and, yes, electricity. I would like not to waste electricity as much as I do, primarily because it's so bloody expensive. But the idea that living in darkness is a way for us to address the supposed challenge of so-called climate change is a nonsense - although it confirms in my mind that the environmental extremists who bang on about this issue won't rest until we have abolished the car, survive entirely on renewable energy and live in mud huts.

Big Brother in your home?

What's the difference between a terrorist and a climate change campaigner? You can negotiate with terrorists.

If you ever, in a moment of weakness, think that environmental extremists are in any way level-headed and looking out for our best interests as a planet, think again. In the United States, we see the future - and it ain't pretty.

The California Energy Commission is proposing that bureaucrats should have the power to control individual thermostats - sending temperatures up or down through radio-controlled devices in Californians' homes.

It will be interesting to see if David Cameron's new friend, the Governator, has the courage to override the wishes of the powerful environmental lobby. If not, how long until we see such proposals being advanced by those on the fascist left such as Greenpeace and Friends of the Earth?

We know what needs to be done: a nuclear power-led energy policy is the only way forward. It meets climate change zealots' CO2 emission goals and would ensure an end to dependence on foreign gas and oil and the beginning of an era of true energy security. So why are Greenpeace and Friends of the Earth opposed?

My Two Cents...on climate change hysteria

And so the scare stories go on. The Chief Executive of the Environment Agency, Lady Young, has said that the battle to deal with climate change needs to be fought "like World War III".

The Environment Secretary Hilary Benn - sounding increasingly as shrill as Hillary Clinton, but without the felonous spouse - said that global warming was a challenge to security, migration, politics and economics, as well as the environment. No hyperbole there then!

Orwellian language and tactics are commonplace when climate change is discussed. Those who are sceptical that climate change is wholly man-made, undesirable or even happening at all (and certainly those who argue that a sledgehammer is being used to crack a nut) are decried not only as "climate change deniers" but, in some cases, "climate change criminals". How long until the thought police come knocking at the door, one wonders.

Robert Kennedy Jr, son of the assassinated former US Attorney General, even describes climate change sceptics as "traitors" (which given the track-record of the Kennedy family, personified by the bloated, alcoholic and shameless Ted Kennedy, is really a case of the pot calling the kettle black).

Ten years ago people were told to worry about the ozone layer. Before that it was acid rain. Before that is was over-population and global cooling. The truth is that the green lobby does not have preservation of the planet or the eradication of disease and poverty at the top of its agenda. It has the ending of capitalism and the erosion of freedom as its primary aims. They just don't have the balls to say so (or, more accurately, are cleverly packaging their message to fool people).

Preventing developing nations from industrialising is as morally reprehensible as obstructing free trade and preserving tariffs. The impact on the global economy of enacting the excessive measures advocated by environmental extremists who seek a socialist utopia will end up propelling western economies backwards. Shrinking economies will mean less money for welfare handouts, overseas aid and (God help us) the arts - have they even thought about that?

I accept that the average punter cares about the environment but not in the grandiose sense the zealots do. The average Briton worries about uncollected litter, preserving the green belt, fresh air, clean water, unsightly graffiti and overuse of landfill. It is to meet the concerns of those Britons that the political parties should be focussing. The sorry truth is that the more politicians try to appease the environmental extremists, the more extreme become their demands. This is how the left operates.

So as we were told in another advertising campaign in the 1980s, our politicians need to learn - when talking to the luddites from Greenpeace, the Green Party and Friends of the Earth - to "just say no". If we don't, watch out for an economic collapse that makes the current credit crunch look like a picnic.

My Two Cents...on the Quality of Life report

There comes a time when you can only bite your tongue for so long and then you have to say what’s on your mind. Today is that day. The Tory Party’s Quality of Life report, authored by Zac Goldsmith and John Gummer and enthusiastically welcomed by David Cameron, has come forward with a series of stealth taxes that will do virtually nothing to halt climate change. If it is adopted, we may as well say goodbye to the next election.

London is the key transport hub for the aviation industry, bringing billions of pounds of foreign into London and helping to propel the City of London ahead of New York, Hong Kong and Frankfurt as the place to do business. Not if Cameron has his way: this report will mean an end to much-needed airport expansions, thereby harming local communities located near airports.

In another move to bash air travel, the report proposes taxing domestic flights so as to force businessmen and holiday makers to take the train or to drive when heading from London to Manchester or Glasgow – as if time is a luxury that businessmen have to idle away while meandering through the countryside for hours on end.

Parking charges are recommended to be introduced at out-of-town shopping centres, supermarkets and DIY stores in an effort to stimulate the High Street and to discourage people from driving. That’s all tickety-boo if your local shop is Harrods or you can walk to it from Notting Hill or Islington. But most families go to an out-of-town Tesco because the food is cheap and it is easy to park there.

If CO2 emissions really are a problem and they genuinely are caused by man and not by flatulent livestock – if climate change truly is a problem that needs addressing – then surely the conservative approach is to look to the market to solutions.

Catalytic converters were invented by Audi and were not introduced at the diktat of governments. In a time when the West wants independence from oil supplied by Venezuela, Russia and the Middle East in the name of energy security, technological advances are what is required to help combat climate change and to make our energy secure. Those technological advances will only come if they are incentivised – not by the incessant use of the stick, as is the Tory way set forth in today’s report.

Stephen Glover put it well: he said that his worry is that David Cameron simply doesn’t understand ordinary people and their concerns. His privileged upbringing, his financial security, his never having had a real job, his circle of chums – all protect him in a social ghetto and insulate him from the trials of daily life that afflict the rest of us.

Most people in Britain are moderate environmentalists. We care about keeping our green belt, we hate vehicles belching out exhaust fumes, we want an end to graffiti and we like the idea of recycling. I really don’t think the public gives two hoots about things they know Britain alone cannot affect.

If we oppose unilateralism in other areas such as disarmament then we should oppose unilateralism on taking measures that will affect our economy. Unless China, Russia, India, America and the rest of Europe sign up, whatever we do is pointless. Yes we will gain moral superiority – but at the price of destroying our economy, our way of life and our freedoms.