You may be interested in this speech made by BNP Nick Griffin in the European Parliament earlier today.
While it is hardly surprising that Mr Griffin is a climate change denier, his lack of respect for the high level academic research on this matter is absolutely breathtaking. In addition, virtually all of this research tells us that climate change is man-made and that it is extremely serious. As far I am aware it is only extremists like Tory MEP Roger Helmer, Godfrey Bloom of UKIP, and ex-President George W Bush who deny climate change altogether.
Nick Griffin (NI). – Mr President, there are two overriding themes in this place: first, concern with the growing gulf between the political elite and the ordinary taxpayers. Second, a hysterical obsession with man made global warming. These two themes are intimately linked. The global warming fixation is a classic example of how the political class here is out of touch with the little people who have to pay the bills. While the EU backs the Copenhagen proposals to further the deindustrialisation of the West and the corporate domination of the Third World, a growing majority of ordinary people regard climate change as an elite scam – an excuse to tax and control us and to impose internationalist dogma and global government at the expense of the nation state. Can you not see the danger in this growing gulf? It is time to look at the facts. Man made global warming is an unproven theory based on manipulative statistics. The so called consensus on the issue is the product not of debate but of the suppression of expert dissent. Before the political class and the green industrial complex dare to impose a single new tax, poisoned light bulb or useless wind farm on the ordinary taxpayer, they need to try to convince the public that global warming is man made, that returning to the warmer climate of medieval times would be a bad thing and that there is something that Europe – as opposed to the United States, China and India – can actually do about it. Either hold a debate and close the gap between you and the people, or do not complain when we nationalists – the ones who listen to the people – close it for you.
You can see a video here of Griffin’s speech along with a speech in the same debate by UKIP MEP Godfrey Bloom. As my fellow Labour MEP Linda McAvan points out, they are very similar indeed.
Is this climate change theory as unconditionally confirmed as the sex trafficking one which doesn’t exist but which you continue to promote?
I don’t suppose you’ve ever googled ‘Yamal’ in recent weeks to look into the huge current scientific debate over fraudulent climatology data, have you?
Or do you only ‘respect’ ‘high-level academic research’ which agrees with your skewed personal beliefs?
The climate-change deniers miss the point.
The burden of proof is upon them to show that the highly plausible hypothesis of human causes is wrong.
Concerning Mary’s arguments about trafficking: I am not clear about the absolute figures of forced trafficking, but Mary talks of increases.
When data is unreliable it is often easier to monitor changes as long as the data is equally unreliable over time.
In this way, when a Labour councillor in the distant past, I was able to get quite good predictions of an election result!
Having said all that, I have no expertise on prostitution/trafficking in any form.
http://www.monbiot.com/archives/2009/12/01/the-urgent-threat-to-world-peace-is-%e2%80%a6-canada
Unfortunately there are threats over climate change from more ‘acceptable’ sources: Monbiot believes the present minority Conservative government.poses a greater threat than the US:
“In 2006 the new Canadian government announced that it was abandoning its targets to cut greenhouse gases under the Kyoto Protocol. No other country that had ratified the treaty has done this. Canada was meant to have cut emissions by 6% between 1990 and 2012. Instead they have already risen by 26%.”
Sorry Martin, the scientific method only requires those asserting a link to prove it. The hypothesis of anthropogenic global warming is of yet unproven and has not been scientifically demonstrated with respect to empiricial data/measurement. Computer models do not constitute ‘proof’; they offer a series of projected emission scenarios based on assumptions derived from current knowledge. Assumptions do not constitute PROOF! They are mere educated guesses – nothing more and nothing less. Although computer models are very useful as a scientific tool for investigation, they fail miserably in duplicating the climate system as a non-linear chaotic object which makes long-term prediction of climate – impossible.
The climate is the most complex system that we know of – governed by thousands of factors. Why single out such a minor trace gas as CO2, when there are clearly far more powerful and influential forces at work i.e. ‘Sun’, ‘earth’s vegetation and soil’, ‘the oceans which cover over 70% of the earth’s surface’, ‘cosmic rays and their presumed influence in the formation of low-level cloud development which is thought to be a hugely important factor in itself, etc.
My point is Martin, as Professor Freeman Dyson once quoted: ‘we are all equally ignorant – but some of us are aware of our ignorance and others are not’.
As for Nick Griffin, like all other politicians, he is an idiot – but in this specific case – at least an idiot with some commonsense!
the evidence for human-created climate change seems so compelling that there has to be a burden of proof on the part of the deniers if we are to avoid environmental harm
in any case our resources are finite so the time to stop pursuing indefinite economic expansion is now
Martin, the ‘deniers’ are not making the claims or assertions to begin with. They are in opposition to the ‘consensus’. Opposition is vital in any democracy whether any of us like it or agree with it.
I happen to agree with many aspects of both camps on the issue of man-made global warming, but I will make damn sure to remain objective whether that pits me against the consensus or in favour of it. For example, there is no doubt on either side of the debate that mankind emits tremendous quantities of C02 into the atmosphere (upward of 30 billion tones), but this does not demonstrate or prove the theory of anthropogenic global warming.
The Medieval warm period (approx 1000 years ago) was warmer than today (anything between 1 – 4 degrees warmer globally) BEFORE industrialisation. There have also been many other warmer periods, including the ‘Cambrian Period’, ‘Jurassic Period’, ‘Roman Warm Period’, ‘Minoan warming’. During the Jurassic Period C02 concentrations have been estimated to be anything between 4,500ppm – 7,400ppm by volume concentration.THE CURRENT C02 CONCENTRATION IS 390PPM BY VOLUME CONCENTRATION.
For 80% of geological time, the planet has been warmer than at present. Ice is a rare thing on this planet. The fact that we still have it tells us that things are not as warm as they once were in the past.
I agree that our resources are finite and it wise practise to seek out alternatives, but promoting unproven theories in order to advance any cause – is not so wise,
to my mind, deniers differ from sceptics in that they believe we can act as if the human cause hypothesis has been refuted
Martin, resorting to personal attacks by referring to people who disagree with you as ‘deniers’ is a sign of a person who cannot eloquently articulate their viewpoint. I could equally refer to you as an ‘alarmist’, but I have never once resorted to such language.
The climate has always changed since there has been a climate – with many warmer and colder periods than today. Ice caps are either retreating or advancing – they are never stable. Climate temperatures are either rising or falling – they are never stable.
The problem I have with you’re assessment of climate change is this: you seem to be reasoning on the assumption that prior to industrialization – there were such a thing as a stable climate. Only when nasty human beings came along and upset this perfect balance of harmony – did the climate system go to hell. This always seem to be the underlying tone and insinuation that comes across to me.
Martin, if the rate of global warming is unprecedented today and outside of the range of natural variability – can you please answer the following question:
There have been several ice ages that have occurred in the history of earth’s evolution and all have come and passed before the advent of industrialization. How come these ice ages disappeared? What made the ice melt?
To my knowledge, there were no cars, private jets, gas-guzzling SUVs around before industrialization and yet these ice ages come and went by themselves.
My description of ‘denier’ was not a personal attack, it was a working definition: what would your working definition of ‘alarmist’ be?
> How come these ice ages disappeared?
There is a well-established cycle, of roughly 26,000 years, and smaller cycles within that, for example mini-ice-ages that occur on average 1475 years.
The data we’re dealing with relates to 800,000 years:
http://www.antarctica.ac.uk/bas_research/science_briefings/icecorebriefing.php
“The oldest continuous ice core records to date extend 123,000 years in Greenland and 800,000 years in Antarctica. Ice cores contain information about past temperature, and about many other aspects of the environment.”
And the really dangerous one is the release of methane.
My blog from just over a year ago:
http://martinse.livejournal.com/tag/zz-type-i-and-ii-errors
As proof of climate change… I hope this isn’t too wicked…
Martin, the planet has been around for approximately 4.6 billion years of age. That means we have had 4.6 billion years worth of NATURAL VARIABILITY.
How long have we been heavily industrialized? To my knowledge, for at least 200 years. So let’s do the math: 4.6 BILLION years of NATURAL VARIABILITY vs 200 years of heavy industry!
In light of this FACT, what is more logical:
1. The planet is doing now what the planet has always done throughout the course of time OR
2. Human beings have upset the natural balance of this vast and complex climate system because of pumping out carbon dioxide into the atmosphere?
Also Martin, Carbon dioxide is crucial for all life on earth. It is vital in photosynthesis and is the basis of the planetary food chain. Carbon dioxide is a friend, not an enemy. This is basic and standard Science.