THE STERN GANG...

Just back to ATW central after a little break and I see that the sky is about to fall in all our all heads!!! Or at least that is what we would conclude if we swallowed the guff trotted out by the Government appointed Sir Roger Stern, the latest recruit to the "We're all doomed" global warming hysteria gang.

According to Sir Roger, global warming could shrink the global economy by 20%.  But taking action now would cost just 1% of global gross domestic product, the 700-page study says. Tony Blair, responding to what his Puppet says informs us that scientific evidence of global warming was "overwhelming" and its consequences "disastrous".  According to David Milliband, the "debate" on global warming is OVER, and the only way forward is...to RAISE taxes! LOL - what a nonsense this all is. I enjoyed Melanie Phillips in the Mail today exposing Stern's fraud...

As the distinguished American meteorologist Professor Richard Lindzen observed last weekend, the computer modelling performed at the Hadley Centre, one of Britain’s most vociferous proponents of man-made climate change, was seriously at odds with the actual warming that was taking place.

The facts are that the rise in temperature over the past century, 0.6C (plus or minus 0.2C), is unexceptional; and that clouds and water vapour are far more significant presences in the atmosphere than carbon dioxide.

Yet this is an issue where ideology is simply driving out evidence. Sir Nicholas will apparently highlight the threat of catastrophic rises in sea level. But according to the IPCC, the seas are not rising. Although they were higher in the last century than in the previous one, it says in its Third Scientific Report: ‘No significant acceleration in the rate of sea-level rise during the 20th century has been detected.’

Attributing global warming to anthropogenic activity is just another scam for lefties to CRANK up your taxes, to try and limit where you can travel, and to punish you for driving a car bigger than a kettle on wheels. Contrary to Blair, Milliband and Stern, the DEBATE is just starting, and the apostles for global apocalypse need to find some science to back up their wild claims.

Comments

[mahons]

David: What is the obsession with global warming among the right? It seems to be the sole environmental issue that is focused upon. I know that certain elements of the left use it as a political issue, but they seem to at least be interested in other environmental issues as well. I think what concerns those of us who are not committed particular direction is that the zealous detractors of the global warming theory do not appear to be among the most environmentally conscious crowd to begin with. In addition there is an awful lot of collateral attack on the so-called leftist leanings of those who believe in global warming without a lot of scientific contradiction of the theory.

[David Vance]

Mahons,

Just reacting to the lead story in the UK!

[mahons]

David: I didn't want to come across as complaining, but I note that it seems to be an issue that is being prejudged by a lot of folks (I'll give you on both sides of the equation) that doesn't seem like it needs to be a political one. Is global warming a total fraud, an exaggeration, or the real deal? If it is the real deal, or even if it has significant validity, then I don't get why it isn't the lead story.

Of course at least I haven't accused you of downplaying it as a significant threat to the Irish Woolen Industry.

[Peter]

The only ideology in this debate is introduced by right-wing extremists like Melanie Phillips, who routinely smear anyone who supports global warming as a communist. For them, it's all a vast left-wing conspiracy to take us back to the stone age.

The melting ice-caps, melting permafrost and routine record temperatures every summer are all of no account. The UK has just experienced yet another record summer and is half-way through a record autumn. Spring is arriving up to two weeks earlier than 20 years ago, but still they deny that the planet is warming.

These blinkered right wing zealots will NEVER accept that they could be wrong, because their world view prevents them. They prefer to claim that the scientists are all either stupid, plain wrong or corrupt and that the politicians are cynically jumping on the bandwagon to squeeze more taxes from us. It would be laughable if they were not preventing affordable action being taken now. If we leave it too late, the cost, as the distinguished economist Sir Nicholas Stern has pointed out, will be horrendous.

[Allan@Aberdeen]

It's worth visiting here for a view on the Stern report (paid for by?).

http://timworstall.typepad.com/timworstall/

Global warming may or may not be happening. If the government REALLY believes that it is, then why don't they just ban activities which contribute most grossly to our carbon emissions. Why don't they just ban cheap flights abroad: not tax them but ban them?
The answer to that very question gives the game away. The government is using environmentalism as a veil for its program of punitive taxation, but the veil is green. However, some are seeing through the veil.

[mahons]

See what I mean?

[Allan@Aberdeen]

Courtesy of Gordon-bennet at the Biased-BBC.

http://www.geocraft.com/ WVFossil...house_data.html

http://www.bbc.co.uk/weather/ fea...tervapour.shtml

http://www.bbc.co.uk/weather/ fea...ondioxide.shtml

And I'd be grateful if mahons would address the point which I put. I'm not ruling out the reality of global warming but it is clear that Gordon Brown will attempt to use it to raise taxes. If the Govt was serious, they would simply ban the offending activities.

[mahons]

Allan: How grateful?

[Allan@Aberdeen]

DFH has some info on 'the distinguished economist'.

http://drinkingfromhome.blogspot.com/

What appears to have happened here is that the Government paid an economist to produce a report which concludes, by chance, that the Government's policy of wishing to raise revenue by taxing transport is correct and that it will save us all from disaster, just as the government says it would. I'm saying that if the threat is real, the Government should ban the activities which enhance the threat.
As DFH has reported, Stern has a bit of form.

[mahons]

Allan: Seriously, is your point that the government is using global warming as a veil for taxation? Here in the States the Bush government is not, and I am not trying to cause shock here, leftwing. Perhaps that argument could be met without laughter in the UK, but in the U.S. it wouldn't wash.

[Allan@Aberdeen]

Mahons; the Government claims that 'global warming' is the greatest threat to mankind. If they really believe that, then they should be taking steps to eliminate the activities which engender this threat. Cheap flights - ban them. Car engines over 2.2 ltrs - ban them. Car weight - restrict by decree. Quite simple really. They either believe what they say or they don't.

[mahons]

That may be your government. On this side of the pond it is the opposition that sees it that way. Thus it strikes me that the issue is approached from a political perspective without the necessary attention to actual science. If the theory is real, then, as once was relayed to Houston, we have a problem.

[Frank O'Dwyer]

mahons,

Thus it strikes me that the issue is approached from a political perspective without the necessary attention to actual science.

Not trying to cause shock, you say!?

[willowfield]

Allan

Global warming may or may not be happening. If the government REALLY believes that it is, then why don't they just ban activities which contribute most grossly to our carbon emissions. Why don't they just ban cheap flights abroad: not tax them but ban them?

Because they would lose votes.

[mahons]

Frank: I think the topic has such political baggage that each side ignores the actual discussion and offers competing articles as scripture (see above and of course the archive of ATW, litterd if you will with global warming arguments from all sides).
I do like the claim that Bush will embrace global warming this winter as a Republican invention to reduce heating bills.

[Peter]

Allan posted:

"The government is using environmentalism as a veil for its program of punitive taxation.."

Here we have the truly paranoid right-wing take. The government (and the Tories and Lib Dems) are not seeking an overall increase in taxes - if they are raised on transport costs they will be reduced elsewhere.

Obviously they don't want to (a) cause a recession or (b) lose the next election by increasing the overall tax burden, which is probably too high anyway.

[Garfield]

How about the billions wasted on military hardware that is now useless in the battle now being fought?

[Richard Carey]

"Here we have the truly paranoid right-wing take"

From the man who labels Melanie Phillips a "right wing extremist."

[The Troll]

The number one cause of greenhouse gas in the atmosphere are volcainoes the number 2 is saltwater evaporation NEITHER are caused by man and NEITHER can be cured by raising taxes....

[Neal]

The number one cause of greenhouse gas in the atmosphere are volcainoes the number 2 is saltwater evaporation NEITHER are caused by man and NEITHER can be cured by raising taxes....

The 5 leading causes of death in the US are, in order, heart disease, cancer, cerebrovascular disease, respiratory disease, and unintentional injuries. I guess we don't need to worry about the last 3, because they don't contribute as much to the total number of deaths as heart disease and cancer.

[Wolfie]

I'm glad you mentioned the sea levels, few people do.

The ice-caps are melting at alarming rates yet there has been little appreciable rise in sea levels - Why?

That's because there is more atmospheric water than ever before and its on the increase. This will contribute to dimming.

Great you say, earth heals itself so no need to worry!

Well only if you don't mind violent electric storms and flash-floods.

Peter wrote:
The government (and the Tories and Lib Dems) are not seeking an overall increase in taxes - if they are raised on transport costs they will be reduced elsewhere.

Two words- yeah, right.

[Allan@Aberdeen]

The above was me BTW.

[Allan@Aberdeen]

And if taxes were to be raised on transport and reduced elsewhere, then the Government becomes dependent on the continuation of the activities which are causing 'the greatest threat to the planet'. Does Peter not see something wrong with sucha fiscal policy?

[Peter]

The overall tax take stays the same. As polluting behaviour decreases in response to price signals, taxes are gradually increased on the remaining polluters.