David Craig, on May 27th, 2013As we all know now, the “dodgy dossier” that gave Blair the excuse to start the Iraq invasion and kill over 100,000 mostly innocent people was based on about as much fact as the story of Goldilocks and the Three Bears. However, all those involved in producing this piece of fiction (Blair’s dodgy dossier, not the Goldilocks story) were promoted and well-rewarded.
So, what about the 2006 Stern Report on Global Warming (aka Climate Change). Was this a rigorous scientific presentation of the facts? Or was it a work of suppositions and spurious claims all designed to satisfy the Labour Government and give it the excuse to introduce Secretary of State for Energy and Climate Change’s (Ed Miliband’s) 2008 Climate Change Act that would mandate an 80% cut overall in six greenhouse gases by 2050?
Last week, Lord Stern, author of the eponymous report admitted “I note this last decade or so has been fairly flat”. Ah, the good lord admits that the earth has not warmed in the last 10-15 years in spite of a massive increase in the amount of CO2 being released into the atmosphere.
Here’s a nice graph showing the relatively stable temperatures in Central England for the last 350 years and the humungous rise in CO2 emissions (click on chart to see more clearly)
Good heavens. Surprise, surprise. There seems to be no link at all between temperatures and the levels of CO2. Who would have thunk it?
So, has the good lord changed his mind about the dangers of Global Warming or Climate Change or whatever it’s called this week? Absolutely not. In fact he has written to the Prime Minister “urging him to introduce a target to decarbonise electricity by 2030 as part of the Energy Bill, currently going through Parliament”.
While China and India and Germany and many other countries are rushing to build CO2 emitting coal-fired power stations, the good lord is urging Britain to commit economic and commercial suicide by hugely increasing the cost of electricity in Britain. But then the good lord probably has a well-paid public-sector job and wonderful public-sector pension. Plus he’s got all those generous “expenses” from just turning up at the House of Lords to sign in if he’s ever short of a bob or two. So, a cynic might perhaps conclude that Lord Stern is not particularly sensitive to the destruction of the British economy and British jobs caused by Ed Miliband’s appallingly pointless Climate Change Act based on his Stern Report. After all, he’s all right Jack.
So, is Lord Stern a far-seeing, rigorous and selfless public servant bravely battling to save us all from extinction?
Or is he just another sycophantic bureaucrat, who has produced a dodgy dossier on Global Warming, and now finds he cannot lose face by admitting he got it (intentionally or unintentionally) wrong and so keeps on defending his claims in spite of the mounting scientific evidence proving his report was a load of baloney?
I don’t know.
Oh, and here’s a link to a story that “leading scientists” (Global Warming figure fiddlers?) have requested immunity from prosecution if it’s found out that they’ve been fiddling with their figures all along.
How did our useless leaders ever believe the whole Global Warming scam?
(every week I ask readers of this blog to support the site and the work I put into it by buying a copy of my latest book GREED UNLIMITED. Each time only about one person does. So it’s all a bit of a struggle. Hey, ho, that’s the way it goes)
Category: 
With reference to your last paragraph, it begs the question, what kind of people
are reading your excellent blog if they won’t open their wallets to buy your
very good books?
I’ve got 3 of them, highly recommend them.
With regard to global warming, I just knew it was nonsense from the start, if the left believe in something it’s generally wrong. However, if an efficient electric car was on the market, and solar panels were half the price and not so ugly, I’d buy them. Sod the electricity companies, and let the arabs drink their oil
“kill over 100,000 mostly innocent people”
Can you please prove that Blair “killed” 100,000 people, innocent or otherwise?
Opening with a paragraph such as this nullifies everything else you have to say, whether right or not. Factless, oversimplified nonsense such as this gives an informed reader the impression that everything else that you have to say here is simply a collection of emotionally inbalanced, inane rantings.