How the World Bank Keeps Poor Nations Poor

Its policy of eco-imperialism forces renewables on a reluctant but largely helpless developing world.

Market
Market sellers in Lagos sell goods under candle light due to electricity shortages (image: Getty)

What is the point of the World Bank? You probably think of it, if at all, as a benign institution, a kind of giant, multilateral aid agency, whose job it is to bring liquidity to developing nations and help them grow out of poverty.

Until not so long ago, that was indeed its function. Created alongside the International Monetary Fund at the 1944 Bretton Woods Conference, the bank did sterling work in its early years helping countries like France recover from the war; and later, giving mostly third world countries the vital seed money needed to help attract investors to risky capital projects. Its multiplier effect on investment can be extraordinary. In 2013, the World Bank gave Kosovo $40 million towards building a lignite power station. This sent out the positive signal needed to encourage the private sector to complete the funding with another $1,960 million.

Amazing. Except that’s not what the World Bank does now.

Read the rest in the Spectator.

Urgent Memo to Donald Trump—Biggest Threat to the Environment Are Environmentalists

fire
Genna Martin /seattlepi.com via AP

Did you hear the scary rumor at the weekend that President Trump was about to renege on his promise to quit the UN Paris Climate Agreement?
The good news is that it was #fakenews. (Shame on you, WSJ!)

The bad news is that it wasn’t so implausible as to make anyone go “Donald Trump? Cave to the Greenies?? That would never happen in a million years!!!”

Because the fact is, he still could very easily.

After all, on green issues it’s not just a case of Donald Trump vs. Greenpeace, the Sierra Club, Friends of the Earth, the New York Times, CNN, MSNBC, National Geographic, the Weather Channel, the Democrats, the Washington Post, the National Academy of Sciences, the UN, the European Union, the Nature Conservancy, the WWF, most university professors, and your kids’ schoolteachers, etc.

It’s also a case of Donald Trump vs. large chunks of Congress and most of his administration, from all the Obama holdovers at the EPA to the majority of his inner circle including Javanka, Secretary of State Rex Tillerson and Chief Economics Advisor Gary Cohn.

Read the rest at Breitbart.

Climate Change Skepticism Now Virtually Illegal in Trudeau’s Canada

REUTERS/KACPER PEMPEL

Did you know that in President Bieber’s Canada it is now virtually illegal to express doubts about the existence of ManBearPig?
No, I wouldn’t have believed it either, till I learned via Lorrie Goldstein about the extraordinary criminal action brought in Canada by a bunch of eco-fascistic litigants against three climate skeptical organisations.

The complaint was filed by Ecojustice on behalf of six “prominent” Canadians, including former Ontario NDP leader and UN ambassador Stephen Lewis.

It accused three groups, Friends of Science, the International Climate Science Coalition, and the Heartland Institute of making false and misleading claims about climate change, including that the sun is the main driver of climate change, not carbon dioxide, and that carbon dioxide is not a pollutant.

When it launched its complaint in December, 2015, Ecojustice told the National Observer it would press the Commissioner of Competition to refer the matter to the Attorney-General of Canada for “criminal charges against the denier groups.”

What’s really shocking is the reason the case was dropped by the Competition Bureau (an arm’s length agency funded by President Bieber to the tune of $50 million a year) after an investigation lasting 14 months.

Read the rest at Breitbart.

RIP Stefan the Stork – One of 30 Million Birds Killed by Wind Farms Every Year

Though I’ve given him a name – Stefan – I think we can safely predict that his ugly and entirely unnecessary demise won’t generate nearly the same level of public outrage as did Cecil the Lion‘s. Or even Finsly the Tiger Shark’s.

That’s because, as Stalin might have put it, the killing of one mammal by a white, middle-class male is a tragedy. But the massacre of millions of birds (and bats) every year by greenies who say they’re doing it because they really care about the environment is a statistic.

Just how many of the world’s avian fauna are killed every year by bat-chomping, bird-slicing eco-crucifixes?

If you believe the conservation group Save The Eagles International, then the annual global death toll is jaw-dropping.

But this is shy of reality by a factor of ten, because 90% of casualties land outside the search perimeter and are not counted. We are thus really talking about an unsustainable death toll of 30 million birds and 50 million bats a year – and more still if we factor in other hide-the-mortality tricks documented by STEI.

But we’re unlikely ever to get an accurate figure because the wind industry takes such pains to cover up this embarrassing data. For example, last year, PacificCorp – an energy company which operates at least 13 wind energy facilities in three US states – sued the US Interior Department to prevent it releasing to the media the figures on how many birds have been found dead at its facilities.

Read the rest at Breitbart.

Tim Yeo: no headline can do him justice

Slimeball of the year

Yeo: Yeuchh!

I’ve just gone and voted for Tim Yeo MP in Bogpaper.com’s Slimeball of the Year competition. I hope you will too. The competition is stiff (Ed Balls, Keith Vaz, Lord Deben – truly, with his silver salver of golden-wrapped balls of suppurating ordure the ambassador is spoiling us) but for me the winner is still a no brainer.

We’ve detailed one or two of the Problems With Tim “Trougher” Yeo here several times this year.

Just Why Is Tory MP Tim Yeo So Passionate About Green Issues?

Tim Yeo: like a cross between Ebola and Chris Huhne? (I was threatened with legal action after that one by the World Ebola Council, which argued I had no business sullying the name of a blameless disease with such dodgy associations)

Tim Yeo MP – even when he’s right he’s wrong.

and

Tory sleaze is worse than ever: Yeo and Deben must go!

Guido had a few good ones this year too. There was the one about Tim Yeo’s China Bonanza. and the one about the highly beneficial deal he struck regarding London Taxi legislation which, even Yeo eventually seemed to recognise, might be seen as pushing his conflicts of interest a bit too far. Then there’s this one (about fracking) and this one, where Guido spells it out once more:

Conflicted Energy and Climate Change select committee chairman Tim Yeo is at it again today:

“Lumbering the economy with a centralised power system largely reliant on gas would be like running an office using a fax machine in the age of the iPad. I think the choice facing Britain is clear. We can embrace the technology of the future, set a target to reduce our present heavy dependence on fossil fuels and upgrade our electricity system, or we can cling to the combustion-based technologies of the past, gamble the future on assumptions about the availability of abundant cheap gas and slow down the process of decarbonising our economy.”

Tim Yeo’s green interests in full:

Chairman of AFC Energy, company developing alkaline fuel cell technology. Wage: £4,340-a-month.
Chairman of TMO Renewables, which develops and supplies technology for second generation biofuels. Wage: £5,832-a-month.
Director of ITI Energy, manufacturer of environmentally friendly ‘clean’ gasification technology.

My main worry about Tim Yeo, though, is that he is not merely routinely unpleasant but actively dangerous. Among the few to have noticed just how dangerous he is is Richard North at Eureferendum, who notes the terrifying, eco-fascistic undertones of a speech Yeo gave recently at Bloomberg’s HQ.

Instead of “lumbering the UK economy with a centralised power system largely reliant on gas”, Yeo wants, “super efficient solar cells, anaerobic digestion, wind power, new nuclear reactors, wave and tidal power and carbon capture and storage”. These, he declares, are the technologies of the future. “Smart meters, new grid technology and increased interconnection across the continent will lead to a new ‘energy internet'”.

What we then see for our money is, “decentralising electricity generation, giving consumers much more control of their use of energy, and empowering people and businesses, both large and small, to produce and sell electricity back to the grid themselves”.

But what Yeo then describes should chill the very marrow of your bones. “The dynamic demand management allowed by these new technological developments”, he tells us, “will help to address the problem posed by increasing proportions of intermittent generation in the system; gradually reducing the amount of gas back up that is needed”.

If you can’t see what the problem is here, let me explain. Up until now we have all lived in a world where we expect to enjoy electricity on demand. When we want a cup of tea, for example, we take it for granted that we can put on the kettle there and then. It would strike us as barmy beyond measure that we might have to wait for two or three hours until such time as the National Grid deemed it fit to provide us with the electricity we desired. Yet this is the principle behind those “smart meters” and “new grid technology” which Yeo is advocating. Yeo and his fellow green ideologues and eco-profiteers are trying to usher in a new world in which it is the State – through the National Grid – which decides when, where and how much electricity you get to use, not you the consumer.

I first cottoned on to this when I was researching Watermelons:

You hear “smart” employed in its new meaning quite often by environmental propagandists and technocrats these days, as for example, in an interview on BBC Radio 4 in March 2011 with Steve Holliday, chief executive of Britain’s electricity connecting network the National Grid.“The grid is going to be a very different system in 2020, 2030. We keep thinking that we want it to be there and provide power when we need it. It is going to be much smarter than that. We are going to change our own behaviour and consume it when it is available and available cheaply.”

Traditionally “smarter” has tended to mean positive things like “more intelligent”, “better designed” , “sharper” or “quicker”. But not in this context. “The time when consumers were free to use electricity whenever they wanted is coming to an end,” Holliday is basically saying. “Now we must prepare ourselves for a new golden age of environmental righteousness, when power is rationed according to the whim of Big Brother.”

It’s no surprise that self-confessed watermelons like Caroline Lucas MP should be four square behind such schemes. But what, you might not unreasonably ask, is a Tory MP doing trying to advance something so inimical to conservative principles as state-controlled energy rationing? This is eco-fascism, pure and simple. It’s not about free markets; it’s not about consumer choice; it’s not about a healthy economy; and it’s most definitely not about rationalism or common sense. Remember, we are about to enter a new era of abundant, relatively cheap, home-grown energy – the shale gas revolution. This revolution will make a mockery of all the assumptions behind so-called “smart growth” – ie that scarce resources need to be preserved, that we need “energy security”, and that the only way we can achieve this is through “rationing” sexily rebranded as something desirable and “smart.”

At the moment “smart growth” is just an unpleasant twinkle in the eyes of a few (very well-placed) green ideologues. But just you watch as, with the help of eco-fascist-dominated government departments like DECC, hard-left lobbyists like Friends of the Earth and Greenpeace, hairshirt anti-prosperity movements like Transition Towns and their amen corner on the Guardian’s Environment pages, the concept slowly mutates from “What? Energy rationing by the government? We’d never stand for it” to linchpin of government energy policy.

The single best thing the Conservatives could do in 2013 is boot Tim Yeo out of every position of power he holds and watch as he crosses the floor to his natural home: Caroline Lucas’s barmy, misanthropic, anti-capitalist Greens.

Related posts:

  1. Millionaire Chris Huhne finds new ways to waste your money
  2. Tory sleaze is worse than ever: Yeo and Deben must go!
  3. Broken Britain
  4. Climategate 2.0: Lawson squishes Huhne

3 thoughts on “Tim Yeo: no headline can do him justice”

  1. Phoenixw2 says:4th January 2013 at 12:15 amThe Eagles’s had a lyric, ‘You can’t hide those lyin’ eyes’ …. well.
  2. rtj1211 says:7th August 2013 at 7:33 pm‘Self-serving, deceitful, unprincipled, dishonourable cunt’ perhaps??

    Can’t say that in HOC of course.

    But then again, if Hitler had been in there you couldn’t have called him dishonourable either!

    About time that the HOC had a mechanism for calling the dishonest, the dishonourable what they really are.

    CACAC and CACAC I call it.

    Unfortunately I”d be named by Bercow if I used it on the floor of the House.

    Why, I really can’t understand…….

  3. rtj1211 says:7th August 2013 at 7:33 pm‘Self-serving, deceitful, unprincipled, dishonourable cunt’ perhaps??

    Can’t say that in HOC of course.

    But then again, if Hitler had been in there you couldn’t have called him dishonourable either!

    About time that the HOC had a mechanism for calling the dishonest, the dishonourable what they really are.

    CACAC and CACAC I call it.

    Unfortunately I”d be named by Bercow if I used it on the floor of the House.

    Why, I really can’t understand…….

Comments are closed.

Post navigation

Australia’s green orchidectomy* | James Delingpole

April 25, 2012

The Krait Crew: How Aussies looked before the eco loons took over

A week into my Australian tour and I already I love the country and its people so much I could happily stay here forever. (Articles like this and this and this may partly explain why.) There’s just one small problem – well, one bloody big problem actually: the rampaging political correctness. How, in God’s name, did the robust, no-nonsense pioneer spirit of the original settlers who carved an earthly paradise out of burning hell allow itself to be watered down, warped and wimpified by a minority of tofu-knitting greens and tight-sphinctered lefties?

Let me give you one example. (Plenty more will follow, let me assure you, for Oz is the land of Political Correctness and Eco Fascism gone mad. Traditional Owners, anyone???) I’ve just returned from the remote Western Australian fishing port of Exmouth, point of embarkation for one of the most daring missions of the Second World War: Operation Jaywick.

A mixed British and Australian team of Z Special Unit commandos (their skin dyed the kind of Asiatic yellowy-brown which would probably have had the operation cancelled before the start, nowadays, because of its evidently racist undertones) set out in a small, captured Japanese fishing boat – named MV Krait – for what should have been a suicide mission to attack the Japanese in Singapore harbour. They anchored the boat off shore, paddled the last 31 mile leg in kayaks, and used limpet mines to destroy 39,000 tonnes of shipping. The Japanese were so completely unprepared that they didn’t know what had hit them. Amazingly the commandos all made it back safely. (Only to perish on a subsequent mission). (H/T Barry Corke)

And what has become of Exmouth nearly 70 years on? It’s a remote and exotic tourist destination well worth a visit as possibly the best place anywhere in the world to go snorkelling with whale sharks, magnificent leviathans up to 60 feet long. That’s the good news. The bad is that the whole region is in thrall to the agents of DEC (Western Australia’s Department of Environment and Conservation) which enforces environmental correctness throughout the state with a zeal which would not have disgraced Imperial Japan’s secret police the Kempitai.

A few years ago, the fishermen who ran the whale spotting trips for tourists made the mistake of asking the Western Australian government for help regulating the business. (They feared competition). The state government was more than happy to oblige by issuing them with permits, withdrawable at a moment’s notice, and subject to any number of draconian restrictions. One operator nearly lost his licence for failing to display the correct flag signifying “my boat is next to a bloody great whale shark”; another – incredible but true – was given a severe warning for stopping on the way back to let its tourists view a school of whales. His crime? Though he had a whale-shark snorkelling licence he didn’t have a whale-spotting licence and was therefore in breach of regulation.

For anyone in Western Australia trying to make a living outside the cities be it mining, tourism, the wine trade, fishing or farming, DEC is more vexatious a pestilence than a swarm of sand flies. What’s more, local taxpayers must stump up an annual A$ 300,000 for the privilege of having their economy spavined, their businesses hamstrung and their liberties shackled by DEC’s army of sanctimonious brown shirts.

And while I’ve seen and heard for myself how bad Western Australia is, I gather that the further east you go the worse it gets. No wonder the Queenslanders couldn’t wait to get shot of the Greenies terrorising their beautiful state. Let’s hope for Australia’s sake the electoral carnage continues into 2013 when the Aussies have the chance to tell Julia Gillard exactly where she can stick her Carbon Tax.

What I realise, though, now that I’m here is that the Carbon Tax is just a fraction of the problem. There is, for example, the equally stupid Mining Tax which is punishing one of the most productive sectors of the Australian economy, killing jobs and driving business abroad. And then there all the Eco Fascists in local government poisoning the wells with their sustainability programmes and their pursuit of the UN’s sinister Agenda 21.

Today I bid a very fond farewell to Perth. Tomorrow I’ll be in Adelaide, at a lunchtime event hosted by the IPA and launched by my old mate – and one of Australia’s soundest politicians – Cory Bernardi. My book – did I mention this? – is called Killing The Earth To Save It: How Environmentalists are ruining the planet, destroying the economy and stealing your jobs.

Every copy you buy grants you the power to inflict on Christine Milne the nightmare of your choice:

a) baby polar bears tumbling off melting ice floes and drowning

b) happy Australians with real jobs earning a living

c) a dozen new mines opening in the Pilbara

d) every wind farm in Tasmania being taken down and replaced by a solitary nuclear power station

e) slow motion replay of the Queensland election result, with Greg Withers – head of the state’s Office of Climate Change – being told by incoming premier Campbell Newman that from henceforward his job is to undo all the state’s insane environmental legislation.

f) a chorus including Ian Plimer, Bob Carter, David Archibald, Joanne Nova, Andrew Bolt, Tim Blair, Bill Kininmonth and James Delingpole singing “Tomorrow Belongs To Me”

So remember Aussies,  buy early, buy often: the future of your great nation depends on it!

Related posts:

  1. What Dave and his chum Barack don’t want you to know about green jobs and green energy
  2. If I could go back in time to my Oxford days, I’d warn myself against idolising Cameron
  3. Shock US Senate report: left wing ‘Billionaire’s Club’ using green groups to subvert democracy, control the economy
  4. Sir David King condemns green scaremongering; Herod condemns child abuse; Osama Bin Laden condemns Islamist terrorism; etc

 

Earth Does Not Have a Cancer; the Cancer Is Not Man

Some deeply unpleasant remark

Chris Packham, 'wildlife expert' (Photo: Paul Grover)

Chris Packham, ‘wildlife expert’ (Photo: Paul Grover)

Any minute now I’m going to lay off blogging for a while, for health reasons. But I can’t pretend I’m going to find going cold turkey easy, especially not when there are stories like this around.

It concerns “wildlife expert” Chris Packham – presenter of some of the BBC’s most popular nature programmes including Springwatch and a new series called The Animal’s Guide To British Wildlife – and some deeply unpleasant remarks he made in the course of an interview with the Radio Times.

“There’s no point bleating about the future of pandas, polar bears and tigers when we’re not addressing the one single factor that’s putting more pressure on the ecosystem than any other – namely the ever-increasing size of the world’s population. I read the other day that, by 2020, there are going to be 70 million people in Britain. Let’s face it, that’s too many.”

So what does he suggest we do about it? Get people to stop having children?

“Yes. Absolutely. I wouldn’t actually penalise people for having too many children, as I think the carrot always works better than the stick. But what I would offer them tax breaks for having small families: say, 10 per cent off your tax bill if you decide to stick with just one child. And an even bigger financial incentive if you choose not to have a family at all.”

What frightens me almost more than these remarks – whose loathsomeness I shall gloss in a moment – is the response of the Daily Mail’s readership. All right, perhaps the Mail’s online audience is not representative of the entire country, but I do think they’re probably close to embodying what the reasonable other person from Middle England thinks, and in this case what they seem to think is frankly bloody terrifying.

All right, so I don’t imagine many of us here would quibble with the most popular comment so far, with 1300 plus positive votes:

How about offering people nothing for not having children as well as not giving them anything when they have ten children? Let them pay for their offspring with their own money for a change. That might make a few people consider the population even if it’s the one in their own home.

This is in line with the very sensible remarks that once got Howard Flight into such trouble. And of course the Tory peer was quite right: it’s absurd to have a situation where the most feckless, unproductive sector of the economy is subsidised by the state to have children they would otherwise be unable to afford.

But here are the second and third most popular comments, with well over 1000 positive votes each:

He is quite right you know, the most eco friendly thing you can do is not breed.

Well done Chris I couldn’t have said it better myself. That is the main problem with this planet — too many people. We require a massive birth control programme, never mind growing more food and building more houses — cut back on breeding is the only answer.

There are so many things wrong with this attitude I don’t know where to begin. But why not let’s start with the plight of only children? Almost everyone I know who was brought up without a brother or sister wishes it could have been otherwise. I myself grew up in a family of seven, and while it’s true that I have never quite forgiven one of them for voting for Caroline Lucas in the last election I count the friendship and kinship of my wonderful brothers and sisters one of the greatest joys of my existence. I know there are many in China who feel much the same way: the tyrannical one-child policy, it is now being recognised, has not only led to much unnecessary unhappiness but is also leading to potentially disastrous economic consequences (especially in its battle for economic supremacy with India, where no such restrictions have applied).

Yet such is the misery that Chris Packham wishes to import to Britain. And to be fair, he is far from the only high profile figure who thinks this way. Very much of the same view is that famously nice, caring natural history TV presenter David Attenborough, concerned environmentalist the Hon Sir Jonathon Porritt, actress Susan Hampshire, Gaia theory inventor James Lovelock, ex UN apparatchik Sir Crispin Tickell (the man who – briefly – persuaded Margaret Thatcher of the imminent perils of Man Made Global Warming) and chimp expert Jane Goodall. All of these luminaries are – with Packham – patrons of the Optimum Population Trust, an organisation which believes that the world’s growing population is “unsustainable” and which is dedicated to finding ways of reducing it.

The problem with the Optimum Population Trust – one of them anyway – is that its very existence is predicated on a vilely misanthropic view of the human species: that there are too many of us, that we do more harm than good.

And yes, superficially, this view of the world makes a kind of sense. It’s what I call an “I reckon” argument: the sort of argument you’d make in a pub, after a few beers, based on information you’ve established from a gut feeling so strong it doesn’t need any awkward details like facts getting in the way of your opinion. I mean obviously more people means less space, and more demand on “scarce resources”, so the more people there are the more trouble we’re in. Stands to reason dunnit?

This is exactly the kind of wrong thinking I address in my new book Watermelons. You’ll forgive me if I don’t come up with all the counterarguments here. (Read the bloody book!). But in a nutshell, it’s that this Neo-Malthusian pessimism – as warped and wrongheaded today as it was in the era of doom-monger Thomas Malthus (1766 to 1834) – is based on fundamental misconceptions about the ingenuity of the human species and about the nature of economic growth.

Sure if all populations did as they grew and grew was use up more finite “stuff”, then we would indeed have cause to worry. But they don’t: as populations increase in size, so they learn to specialise and adapt and find ever more ingenious ways of making more with less. That’s why, for example, the mass starvation predicted by Paul Ehrlich in his Sixties bestseller The Population Bomb never happened: because thanks to Norman Borlaug’s Green Revolution, crop yields dramatically increased while the area of land under cultivation remained unchanged. If you want to read more about this, I recommend not just my book, but also Matt Ridley’s superb The Rational Optimist or anything by Julian Simon (known as the Doomslayer because of the way he constantly confounded Neo Malthusian pessimism and  junk science).

The reason I have become so obsessed with “global warming” in the last few years is not because I’m particularly interested in the “how many drowning polar bears can dance on the head of a pin” non-argument which hysterical sites like RealClimate and bloggers like Joe Romm are striving so desperately to keep on a life support machine. It’s because unlike some I’ve read widely enough to see the bigger picture.

One thing I’ve learned in this wide reading is how obsessed so many of the key thinkers in the green movement are with the notion of “overpopulation.” As one of their favourite think tanks, the Club of Rome, puts it: “Earth has a cancer and the cancer is man.” This belief explains, inter alia, why the “science” behind AGW is so dodgy: because the science didn’t come first. What came first was the notion that mankind was a problem and was doing harm to the planet. The “science” was then simply tortured until it fitted in with this notion.

I do not share this view. Indeed, though I believe that while people like Chris Packham (and Prince Charles; George Monbiot; Al Gore; David Attenborough; Robert Redford; Mikhail Gorbachev; Ted Turner; et al) may believe what they do for the noblest of reasons, their ecological philosophy is fundamentally evil. And I do mean evil. Any philosophy which has, as its core tenet, the belief that mankind is the problem not the solution cannot possibly be one that pertains to good, can it?

This is why I have been fighting this Climate War so hard for so long. And why I have no compunction whatsoever in calling the people who promote that repellant philosophy by the names they deserve. The ideological struggle that is being fought now over the issue of “Climate Change” (and related, quasi-Marxist weasel concepts such as Sustainability) may not yet involve the bloodshed caused in the wars against Nazism and Stalinism, but the threat it poses to individual freedom and economic security is every bit as great. But there aren’t enough of us fighting this war on the right side – and I’m knackered.

I want to leave the last words here to one of my favourite commenters, Tayles, who brilliantly explained the other day why there is moral equivalence between the green/liberal fascist side of the argument, and the one libertarian, empirical one for which I’m so frequently vilified by some of the posters below this blog. It really should be a separate post but that might confuse commenters as to where to go.

UPDATE

Just one more thing before I pass you over to Tayles. While of course I value the rich panoply of varied opinions I’m seeing appear below this blogged, I’m disturbed by the number which seem to determined to conflate “immigration” with “overpopulation”. These are entirely separate issues. It’s quite possible to believe, as I do, that unchecked immigration (encouraged as a deliberate policy under Blair) has been a disaster for Britain, especially when allied with the pernicious philosophy of multiculturalism which encourages division and separatism, while yet disagreeing violently with the loathsome Neo-Malthusianism of Chris Packham and his ilk. Do not confuse the two issues. Many – indeed the majority – of Britons are rightly concerned about how the character of their country has been changed and the infrastructure swamped by deliberately poor border controls. But this is a separate topic for discussion.

So, here he is: Tayles on why James Delingpole is right:

Such an approach is the one Delingpole adopts. Why do you never have a go at him for “cherry picking internet sources”? – Endeavour

That’s a fair question. There is a straightforward answer, which is that the Left’s evidence is normally one-eyed, misleading or downright dishonest. That extends to the AGW sham, which is propped up by a bunch of cobblers, peddled by scientists and politicians with much to gain from the spread of their dogma.

There’s a more philosophical answer too, which I’ll indulge you with if you’ve got a minute. The fundamental condition of mankind is one of liberty – which is to say, freedom from the constraints imposed by higher authorities. The only real ‘rights’ are those that exist in the absence of other people’s intervention, such as freedom of speech and property rights. Taxes, laws and so-called positive rights are man-made constructs that require the enforcement of a higher power, such as a government. Clearly they are no more naturally-occurring than iPods or Ford Fiestas.

When some new constraint is scrawled onto the blank page of freedom, it must be justified. The onus is on the person who wants to enforce that constraint to justify the need for it, rather than on those who must suffer its effects to explain why they should be spared. Just as a person is innocent until proved guilty, and the burden of proof is always on the True Believer, so the defenders of freedom should not really have to defend their position.

For this reason, the benefit of the doubt must be always be given to those looking to protect our freedoms, while those who wish to take them away should be required to be especially thorough and honest, and deserve to be treated with suspicion. The consequences and trade-offs of what they intend to impose should be weighed and analysed. We should be especially concerned if they try to brush aside the concerns of their opponents or ignore contrary evidence.

I think that the arguments put forward by AGW zealots should be a lot more convincing than they are. And I think that the defence of our freedoms advanced by James Delingpole are perfectly good enough. There is more at stake here than our climate.

Related posts:

  1. Pandas: do we need ’em?
  2. Pope Catholic; night follows day; IPCC found telling pack of lies about sea level rises
  3. What on earth is Bob Ward?
  4. ‘We must live more sustainably’ says Jeremy ‘Seven Homes’ Irons

5 thoughts on “Earth does not have a cancer; the cancer is not man”

  1. Max Eastern says:6th April 2011 at 9:16 pmWatermelons: is it really a book or is it just a joke? You inisit in your last blog that we read the bloody book, but where? At first I thought there really was a book, then, when I couldn’t find any evidence of it even on your own website, I thought it was a joke, then you mentioned the book again in a blog and I wasn’t sure. I might even be tempted to read the bloody thing if I thought it existed.
  2. Nige Cook says:8th April 2011 at 5:06 pmJames, can I just say well done for today’s Daily Express article, “What Exactly has the World ever Done for Britain?”, http://www.express.co.uk/ourcomments/view/239388/What-exactly-has-the-world-ever-done-for-Britain-

    “The fact is that we in Britain have done far, far more for the world than ever it did for us.

    “And it’s about ruddy time that pitifully ungrateful world gave us something back.”

    It’s spot on. We’d at least expect some respect, but the rest of the world is too full of bigotry against Britain’s history of colonialism to remember that, for example, slavery continued in America for 32 years longer than in Britain. If we had no immense deficit, we could afford to play God and sort out the world’s problems, if others were genuinely deserving and genuinely grateful for the help. But borrowing money to throw down the drain “helping others” while we cut jobs and social spending here is not generosity, but stupidity.

    Because we’re virtually throwing money at the recipients in a stupid manner, it comes across in the wrong way; we even don’t get respect in return. It’s perceived that we’re stupid and frivolous with our money, that we have “more money than sense”, that the giving of money is some kind of reparation for our colonial past, or that the leaders who agreed to give the money are corrupt and must be doing it to get a secret private brown envelope of cash back from the recipient, etc. Nobody is grateful to Britain under these circumstances. The fastest way to make false “friends” is to start giving money for nothing. You don’t get genuine respect, instead you’re looked on as a loaded fool. If Cameron wants to help the world, let him write his cheques on his own private bank account, not increase Britain’s debt burden by giving unwanted help to selfish anti-British regimes, while making cut backs here.

  3. Velocity says:9th April 2011 at 9:16 pmConsider Prince Phillip said if he was re-born (God help us!) he’d like to come back as a virus as there’s too many of us. He’s on the WWF and ‘surprise surprise’ has born 3 children himself!!!

    The problem i see with eugenicists is that they’re still alive and having children adding to the population ‘problem’. A ‘problem’ that would disappear overnight if they were all eradicated

  4. Deadpeoplestuff says:21st April 2011 at 12:40 pmWell JD, down targets, patch-out. That’s to say, don’t stay away too long, recharge the batteries or should that read ‘stoke the coal fired boilers’ and come back fighting! (although I entirely understand the need to take a break….the trolls wear everyone down eventually)

    Please try to remember, you are one of the few writers prepared to represent the ‘other side’ of the great global warming racket. These ‘deep greens’ can not be given free run or those who respect and care for all life would lose an important voice.

    Anyone concerned about the ozone layer may wish to consider the nuclear tests and the continued deployment of so called ‘low yield’ depleted uranium (er..nukes) around the globes war zones (there are a few to choose from..) and may care to look deeper into the whole CFC story

  5. Nige Cook says:21st April 2011 at 10:00 pm“Anyone concerned about the ozone layer may wish to consider the nuclear tests and the continued deployment of so called ‘low yield’ depleted uranium (er..nukes) around the globes war zones (there are a few to choose from..) and may care to look deeper into the whole CFC story” – Deadpeoplestuff

    But 438 megatons of atmospheric nuclear tests, including high altitude tests in the ozone layer, had no measurable effect on ozone: see Nature (vol. 244, pp. 545-551), http://www.bmartin.cc/pubs/79bias/Goldsmith.pdf

    Nuclear explosions in sea level air produce a strong blast wave which heats and compresses air to produce nitrogen dioxides. Simplistically, a tiny amount of nitrogen dioxide can set off a chain reaction that destroys the entire ozone layer – ignoring reactions with water vapour to form nitric acid, which is of course what happens to most nitric acids formed in shock wave “thunder” around lightning bolts (it was proved that this happens in nuclear detonations too, when America flew sampling aircraft through a Chinese megaton yield mushroom cloud in 1976). Water vapour is entrained by afterwinds and is sucked into the cloud, where it mixed with nitric oxides, forming nitric acid.

    High altitude nuclear explosions which don’t produce a significant blast wave, don’t produce significant amounts of nitric oxides, but the gamma rays released from such bursts do produce a massive amount of ozone, which gives a good boost for the ozone layer. This is still deliberately covered up by the American military, who are still classifying as secret early-time thermal radiation emission which shows the absorption of ultraviolet by the ozone created by the action of gamma radiation on the air around the fireball.

    People think this kind of data either (1) doesn’t exist, (2) isn’t precisely measured, or (3) is “controversial” (ignorable), when it’s merely still being classified as restricted data under the US Atomic Energy Act of 1954!

    This shows the danger of believing early scare-mongering “scientific” claims from armchair theorists. There’s also a media “selection principle” where only nuclear disaster claims are deemed newsworthy at all. Facts debunking widely-held dogmas don’t sell the Guardian and aren’t objectively reported. Scientists always pick up on this and ensure their reports are scary stuff that attracts more funding and research, like the self-perpetuating AGW scam. Lefties rely on lies (using dogmatic “science”) to camouflage their ecofascist eugenics policies: they censor out science criticisms as if they’re the same as religious heresies.

Comments are closed.

James Lee is Al Gore is Prince Charles is the Unabomber

Green death

james lee discovery channel

Al Gore’s Church of Climatism has claimed a new glorious martyr. His name is James Lee – the Discovery channel attempted eco-suicide-bomber – and if he’d had his way he wouldn’t have been the only one who ended up in the great recycling bin in the sky. That’s because, as far as the late James Lee was concerned, humans like the innocent Discovery channel employees he held hostage are the scum of the earth.

Just read some of the manifesto he posted on the internet and see for yourself:

The humans? The planet does not need humans.

You MUST KNOW the human population is behind all the pollution and problems in the world, and YET you encourage the exact opposite instead of discouraging human growth and procreation. Surely you MUST ALREADY KNOW this!

Does this sound like the ravings of a sad, deranged loner on the wilder fringes of eco-fascist lunacy? Not to me it doesn’t. Strip away the block capitals and what you have, word for word, is the core manifesto of the entire global green movement.

Some greens, such as Al Gore, the Prince of Wales, the Hon Sir Jonathon Porritt or that nice David Attenborough try to express their philosophy more diplomatically. Others, such as James Lee and his kindred spirit the Unabomber, are more forthright. Ideologically, however, there is not a cigarette paper’s difference between them. All cleave to the same fundamental tenet of the Church of Climatism: that humans are the problem not the solution.

It was for just this same strain of dodgy thinking that I castigated Boris Johnson yesterday. And the fact that people like Boris express their concerns about “overpopulation” jovially doesn’t make their stance any less reprehensible. In fact it probably makes it more so. At least with the Unabomber or James Lee you know that you’re dealing with a nutcase. But when an apparently reasonable, decent, pukka fellow like Boris or the Hon Sir Jonathon Porritt or the Prince of Wales or that nice David Attenborough off the TV expresses a similar opinion, there’s a strong risk that what is au fond exactly the kind of poisonous, misanthropy the Nazis took to its logical extreme begins to look moderate and sensible and considered.

What’s really depressing is that the philosophy expressed in James Lee’s (and the Unabomber’s) manifesto – which is also, incidentally, the philosophy expressed in Al Gore’s The Earth In Balance – is also the philosophy that is taught every day to our children in their schools: the world is fragile; human beings are a blot on the landscape; through our greed and selfishness we make everything worse; really it would be better if we vanished altogether and let all the lovely pure noble animals take over.

Or, as James Lee put it: (H/T: Watchman)

Saving the environment and the remaning species diversity of the planet is now your mindset. Nothing is more important than saving them. The Lions, Tigers, Giraffes, Elephants, Froggies, Turtles, Apes, Raccoons, Beetles, Ants, Sharks, Bears, and, of course, the Squirrels.

Not only do our schools teach our children this misanthropic – and deeply ahistoric – rot, but so also do broadcasters like the Discovery Channel. Their sister station, Animal Planet, for example, broadcasts a series called Whale Wars celebrating the real-life adventures of animal rights extremist Paul Watson. (H/T: MSher)

It’s time we woke up to the threat posed by this mass brainwashing of the younger generation. We worry, rightly, about those Muslim children who are being indoctrinated with the extreme Wahaabist version of their faith. Yet we seem astonishingly complacent that every day, in schools of every kind throughout the Western world, our children are being taught by well-meaning teachers to view their world and culture through exactly the same anti-capitalist, anti-human, anti-growth eyes as James Lee and the Unabomber.

The modern environmental movement is not kind, caring or gentle. It is a series of ticking time bombs waiting to blow up in our face.