To be honest, one would have thought that a minister might have done a little more in the way of blogging than merely regurgitating some figures from his official briefing pack, but that's Batshit for you: typical, lazy, NuLabour bastard. At least I took time over my entries...
Anyway, to criticise Batshit for being a feckless, freeloading cunt with all the charm and literary accomplishment of a myopic earthworm, whilst fun, would seem to be a little fruitless until he actually starts listening. Mind you, in that case what I am about to write is equally pointless, but when has that ever stopped your humble Devil?
That's right: via Timmy (who was apparently tangentially involved), I see that even the Lefty nitwits at the Beeb might, in fact, be having some doubts over their slavish devotion to the NuLabour line on climate change. Unlike Batshit, you see, they have been paying attention to the ever-growing army of experts who have, to put it mildly, cast some doubts upon the reliability of Sir Nicholas Stern's famous report.
When the Stern Review into the Economics of Climate Change came out last year, it was showered with praise.
UK Prime Minister Tony Blair called it, "the most important report on the future ever published by this government".
In that case, Chuckles, and with all due respect (none), you should have appointed someone who wasn't a complete fuckwit to compile it then, should you?
As it is, it is just another in a long line of NuLabour's "sexed-up dossiers".
But expert critics of the review now claim that it overestimates the risk of severe global warming, and underestimates the cost of acting to stop it.
Yes, it does; just a tad. Or, alterniatively, it is so fucking flawed that reading beyond Chapter 5 is a pointless waste of time. Thanks to Timmy's hard work, we bloggers knew this at the time, reporting the truth mere hours after the report was released and long before the media's lies had had time to get their boots on.
Being a merciful little Devil, I'm really happy that the Beeb has finally caught up but, for fuck's sake, with all of their resources couldn't they have been a little quicker off the mark?
Richard Tol is a professor at both Hamburg and Carnegie Mellon Universities, and is one of the world's leading environmental economists.
The Stern Review cites his work 63 times; but that does not mean he agrees with it.
"If a student of mine were to hand in this report as a Masters thesis, perhaps if I were in a good mood I would give him a 'D' for diligence; but more likely I would give him an 'F' for fail.
"There is a whole range of very basic economics mistakes that somebody who claims to be a Professor of Economics simply should not make," he told The Investigation on BBC Radio 4.
Precisely. It's not worth the paper that it is written on. It is a dead report, it'd be pushing up the daisies if it was where it belonged, i.e. in the fucking ground.
Sir Nicholas is aware of the increasing number of academic critiques of his review, but remains certain about his conclusions.
"It is very important that the report is discussed; a number of people have raised interesting points and we will be discussing them all.
"There are no certainties; but the broad conclusion that the costs of action are a good deal less than the damages they save, I think is pretty robust."
Do you, Sir Nicholas; do you really? You have made a number of appalling scientific and—most importantly, given your remit—disastrous economic errors, and you think that we should still take your conclusions for granted, do you?
Don't make me fucking laugh.
Some of you may have realised that I didn't really think much of Sir Nick, especially after I wrote a post entitled Stern Is A Lying Treacherous Cunt (in which I linked to yet another report [PDF] showing that... well... that Stern is a lying, treacherous cunt) and said the following:
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).
It does seem as though the BBC seems to be reconsidering its position (possibly by looking at some source documents, but I doubt it) it is very far from being on the side of the angels.
None of Stern's critics are advocating doing nothing about climate change.
Er... I am. I say that the advances that we are making in alternative technologies will render this argument pointless within 50 years. For example, to take Batshit's current favourite, India is far ahead of Britain in adopting nuclear power (Russia is helping India to build two nuclear powerstations in the north of the country, and negotiations are underway for more).
I also say that the projected temperature rises are well within previous, tolerated, levels and that we will easily adapt, within the hundred years that we apparently have, to any challenges that might arise.
What they disagree about is how much it is worth sacrificing now to try to prevent a worst-case scenario in a hundred years' time.
The answer is that we need sacrifice nothing. What we should be doing is encouraging free trade and exchanges of technology.
Unfortunately, since Britain has no negotiating power on trade or green issues (both are entirely controlled by the EU), we will just have to hope that the EU disintegrates soon, eh? Oh, and hope that the rest of the world is not so blinkered and stupid as our own politicians.
Talking of blinkered and stupid, I feel that it is time that we returned to that four-eyed bastard, Batshit. Now, you may remember that, a little while ago, your humble Devil took Batshit to task and to pieces (yet again) for the following comment [Emphasis mine]:
When I appeared on the Jeremy Vine programme on Wednesday a number of callers disputed my interpretation of the science of climate change. I said the evidence of cause and effect was unambiguous.
I posed the Polly Toynbee Conundrum (is he/she fucking ignorant or a perfidious liar?) and came down on one side.
Now, I'm going to go out on a limb here: I am calling David Miliband a liar: that's right David, you are a liar. Sorry, I feel I should state this once more, unequivocably and for the record: David Miliband is a liar.
Now, the fact remains that your humble Devil thinks that Batshit is a liar: it is entirely possible that he is just pig-ignorant (it wouldn't be the first time), but all of that is really irrelevent. The fact is that Batshit has been proven wrong. Repeatedly. Again and again and again.
Now, what I want from Batshit is an emailed apology, that I will publish at The Kitchen; actually, I would also like him to reassure me that he is reconsidering this whole "climate change" bollocks, but right now I will be happy for him to email me, apologising profusely for his ill-informed "unambiguous" comment. I think that he should also email a correction to the Jeremy Vine programme.
What are the chances of me receiving said apology, do you think? Or shall I start a petition...?