« Barack Obama nominates Jack Lew as Secretary of the Treasury | Main | Barack Obama's 2013 State of the Union address in full »

February 01, 2013


It doesn't add up...

Gree(d)n policies help Gore's climate racket businesses. They cost everyone else.

Iain Gill

Someone should ask Al Gore the tougher questions.

Question 1: How does ramping up emissions standards in the UK help? All that happens is that production in the UK is made ever more expensive and the production gets moved to India or China. In India or China they produce the same stuff with lower emissions standards than we ever had. Moving production to India or China by making the costs of meeting emissions regulations ever higher in the UK is not reducing world pollution it is increasing it! Why is this a good idea?


Gideon, misinformed? I refuse to believe it.

john parkes

I don`t think there is much doubt that we are experiencing climate change, whether this is by absolute measurement or by the weather patterns altering for whatever reason. The key question is why?
The line espoused by Gore and those of his persuasion is the effects are brought about by man`s way of life in the industrialised nations of the world. He offers a solution that suits his logic by proposing severe limits on those factors under man`s control to reduce the effects of change.
There is another school of thought which allows that change is the result of natural phenomena, mostly activities associated with the sun itself, which are manifestly beyond man`s control. The solution proposed is that all nations should devote their efforts and resources to building defences against the effects of climate change rather than trying to stop it.
In the former case I believe there is a great shortage of reliable, impartial empirical evidence to support the `man is entirely responsible` school of thought. Indeed Mr Gore in his film on the subject devoted special emphasis on the melting of arctic glaciers to back up his case (although the link here is tenuous). This was confounded when real measurements were subsequently taken by reputable scientists that showed one of the glacier in question was in fact waxing in size rather than waning; and Mr Gore has made no reference to this since.
Until there can be propoer evidence produced to support the theory that man`s activities are responsible for climate change we would in my view be better advised to spend our efforts in combating its effects, and using the wealth generated by our commercial activities to pay for them.


"I don`t think there is much doubt that we are experiencing climate change, whether this is by absolute measurement or by the weather patterns altering for whatever reason. The key question is why?"

It's pretty straightforward.

If you listen to climatologists, it's because of our carbon emissions. If you listen to right wing polemicists, it isn't.

Who do you think is more reliable?

john parkes

Those who produce the genuine, empirical evidence to support their case. I fear the record of the scientists smacks too much of politically correct special pleading in far too many cases to qualify for unconditional support. If Gore was prepared to offer doubtful and inaccurate statistics (I don`t imagine he did the research himself so it was presumably carried out by someone aiming to please his master) then it`s `caveat emptor` all the way


You honestly think that, on the subject of climatology, the views of right wing polemicists are more valid than those of actual climatologists?

If so you shouldn't complain about political correctness! That is exactly what lies behind this mad idea that the opinion of some random blowhard should be given just as much weight as that of a specialist in his field.

The comments to this entry are closed.



Most Updated

Other Pages


  • Extreme Tracking