We conclude that the Stern Review is biased and alarmist in its reading of the science. These and other related problems arise because the Review has relied for advice almost exclusively on a small number ofpeople and organizations that have a long history of unbalanced alarmism on the global warming issue. Most of the research cited by the Review does not, on inspection, make a convincing case that greenhouse warming constitutes a major threat that justifies an immediate and radical policy response. Contrary research is consistently ignored, as are basic observational facts showing that alarm is unwarranted. The Review fails to present an accurate picture of scientific understanding of climate change issues, and will reinforce ill-informed alarm about climate change among the general public, the bureaucracy and the body politic. HM Government will need to look elsewhere for a balanced, impartial and authoritative review of the current climate change debate.—Robert M. Carter et al., World Economics, October-December 2006
This is just another, more conventionally authoritative, confirmation that Sir Nicholas hasn't got a fucking clue what he's talking about, and that his Review is, and always was, intended simply to provide a veneer of respectability to the bastard government's planned tax increases. In effect, it was a carefully and, admittedly, beautifully orchestrated con designed to convince the British people that the tax increases required to prop up the increasingly creaky public finances (not to mention the fucking Gobblin' King's reputation) were absolutely necessary in order to save the planet. This impression was backed up by the BBC which, at one point, reported that we had "only ten years to save the planet" (I heard that on the news the day that the report was published; I have no idea if it is online).
Which explains perfectly, of course, why David "batshit mad" Miliband has never acknowledged any of the evidence placed, by many people other than myself, on his "blog". The Stern Report was never intended to convince those in the know, for they knew the real reason that it was commissioned: it was designed solely to convince the ignorant and uninformed people that, alas, form by far the greatest part of our population.
And yet there is more to it than that; I cannot shake off the increasing suspicion that all the MPs were working in concert; yes, it may be time to don my tinfoil hat, for I cannot rid myself of the idea that the British people have been duped by a conspiracy if the "great and the good". It seems very strange that all three main parties would collude in this way: surely some people must be aware of the dodginess of climate change science?
So why the conspiracy? Why this collusion? Why should the Conservatives and LibDems work with NuLabour to deceive the British people when they are, in theory at least, to provide opposition to the government? There are really only two possibilities here:
- climate change really is a world-threatening phenomenon, or the politicians believe that it is.
- our politicians have to convince the population that climate change is a world-threatening phenomenon because something is about to happen politically that our MPs are unable to stop, and they do not wish the electorate to be aware of their representatives' impotence.
Given the vast number of advisors of all stripe that those in power can afford, I simply cannot accept option 1. If we in the blogosphere can find any amount of evidence and science to suggest that climate change is simply not the Extinction Level Event that it is being painted as, then I simply cannot believe that the politicians are unaware of this countering evidence.
That leaves option 2. And there really is only one body that produce such paralysis in our politicians: the European Union. It is the only body with the power to relieve the British Parliament of any decision-making power and we are already seeing some serious moves by the EU to curb "climate change" and, since our environmental policy is entirely in the hands of the EU, our politicians are utterly unable to prevent these measures.
But my objections to option 1 above must surely apply to the EU as well; they must also be aware of the dubious nature of the science, so why on earth are they pushing ahead with these policies? The answer is simple, of course: control.
Many of the countries of the EU have resisted attempts to harmonise taxation, frustrating the EU in much of its determination to control nations; what after all, is the keystone of politics? "It's the economy, stupid!"
If the EU can force more and more taxation to be collected through "green taxes" then it has far more control over the economies of its member states, because these taxes will fall under the aegis of "the environment" which is, as I have said, a competence wholly controlled by the European Union. Suddenly the EU has real control over even those countries who are not part of the Eurozone.
Now, as I said, I may be a candidate for a tinfoil hat (and spares) but it seems to me a logical conclusion: we are being deceived by our venal cunt politicians so that control of our economy can be delivered into the hands of a bunch of even more corrupt, greedy, power-hungry, unelected cunts in the EU. So, I ask once again: can we leave yet?
Unio Europaea delenda est!