I travelled to Germany on Thursday to discuss German priorities for their 'dual presidency' of the EU and G8 next year. Their agenda is squarely aligned with ours - emphasising economic opportuinities and energy efficiency as well as energy security. This will also be discussed by EU Heads of Govt at their meeting this week.
My speech to the german launch conference focussed on the EU's role in tackling climate change (LINK). The environment needs the EU and the EU needs the environment.
Brilliant, David! How do you come up with some meaningless twaddle? Does writing absolute bollocks come naturally, or do you have to try really hard? Still, it is a good thing that you came to this conclusion because, since the EU has near-absolute control over the entirety of our environmental policy, you might as well tell your masters what they want to hear, eh?
Still, there are some choice cuts in Davey-boy's speech, really there are.
Climate change is in many ways the defining economic, social, and political challenge of our times.
Strangely, in the seventies it was also a bit of a challenge too. Only then we were all facing death by global cooling. They aren't online, but I have been able to track down some choice quotes. [All emphasis mine.]
Meteorologists disagree about the cause and extent of the cooling trend… But they are almost unanimous in the view that the trend will reduce agricultural productivity for the rest of the century.—Peter Gwynne, Newsweek, April 28, 1975.
[T]he threat of the new ice age must now stand alongside nuclear war as a likely source of wholesale death and misery for mankind.—Nigel Calder, International Wildlife, July, 1975.
The cooling has already killed hundreds of thousands of people in poor nations… If it continues, and no strong measures are taken to deal with it, the cooling will cause world famine, world chaos, and probably world war, and this could all come by the year 2000.—Lowell Ponte, The Cooling, 1976.
The continued rapid cooling of the earth since World War II is also in accord with the increased global air pollution associated with industrialisation, mechanisation, urbanisation and an exploding population.—Reid Bryson, Global Ecology: Readings Towards A Rational Strategy For Man, 1971.
An increase by only a factor of four in global aerosol background concentration may be sufficient to reduce the surface temperature by as much as 3.5 degrees Kelvin… sufficient to trigger an ice-age.—Dr S I Rasool and Dr S H Schneider, Science, July 9, 1971.
This last is quite interesting, because then Dr Schneider pops up again, describing nicely the climate change advocates' methodology.
[W]e have to offer up scary scenarios, make simplified, dramatic statements, and make little mention of any doubts we may have. Each of us has to decide what the right balance is between being effective and being honest.—Quoted by Jonathan Schell in The Fate Of The Earth, 1982.
You know, suddenly I feel a lot safer; no, really, I do. Although, I have to admit that I would feel even more secure if what little remains of our autonomous environmental policy was not being controlled by a man who is utterly unaware of the successes that we have had with wave power and so continues to push less efficient, more expensive and considerably more unsightly wind option. With the amount of coastline that we have, Britain could be a world leader in renewable power; unfortunately we are ruled by slack-jawed, ignorant cunts.
Economically, the cost of mitigating climate change will be far less than the cost of dealing with the consequences. The challenge is how to finance the transition to a low-carbon economy, not just within Europe but across the world.
Why don't you try conquering it, David?
Politically, the challenge is to secure the consent of citizens, businesses and nations around the world to a stabilisation goal for carbon dioxide in the atmosphere. We have the technology to move to a low-carbon economy; we can afford to invest in energy efficiency and low-carbon fuels; we have the policy instruments that can make this happen; but we need the political mechanisms to prepare and achieve a long term shift in the way we live and work.
But will it do any good, David? There are some people who rather suspect that CO2 may have little to do with climate change anyway. But that's you, isn't it, Dave? Behind the times, as per fucking usual.
I say this because for me the facts that confront us are stark. On any rational basis, the debate about climate change is over, and the question is how we respond.
Is it reeeeeeeally, Dave? Erm, I hardly think so. A couple of decades ago the scientists were "almost unanimous" that climate change was going in precisely the opposite way to the one that you are talking about. I imagine that their grants were just as dependent on them predicting a doomsday scenario as are those of the scientists—from the global warming enthusiasts to the BSE death cultists (whose predicted pandemic was such a damp squib that they have increased the supposed gestation period to fifty fucking years; which, coincidentally, makes a mockery of the whole nvCJD crap)—of today.
All of the ten warmest years since 1850 have occurred since 1990.
Er, if you say so, David. But then, most people think that we are coming out of a Little Ice Age anyway, so that would hardly be surprising. But let us point out that this is part of the Earth's natural cycle, and the planet has been rather warmer.
Fourth, if it carries on unchecked, we could see temperatures rise a further 1.5 degrees by 2050 on 1990 levels, and by 4 degrees by 2100.
Oh, this is really sweet; Davey has, of course, quoted this Friends of the Earth Tufts Report [PDF]. As Timmy pointed out, that report (and David) is rather at the high end of the predictions.
Seems slightly ropy to me. They switch back and forth between $ and pounds for example, but using the same numerators.
One other point, they assume a warming of 4oC by 2100. Rather at the high end of the IPCC scenarios, don't you think?
Especially as the IPCC Report is already out of date—or wrong, if you want to put it a little more plainly—and skewed just a bit; almost as though they were deliberately attempting to… um… how can I put this?… "offer up scary scenarios".
David's speech is so full of bollocks—the stuff that I highlighted is just in the very first section—that I simply cannot be bothered to go through the rest; it's so dreary, ill-researched and plain fucking wrong that I find it deeply depressing. Go read it if you want, but I'd ensure that you have a good couple of grammes of speed available if you are going to stay awake throughout it.
Oh, and David: is there any fucking danger that you might sit down and actually fucking think (or even do some of your own research) just for a few minutes, you stupid prick? Why don't you piss off and live with your bats? I would love to see you haging upsidedown for a good, long time before I ram a stake through your heart...