Can you say more about it?

Go Rodney!!, …..but get ready for the smear campaign that will ensue…

I can hear it now:

Right wing extremist, policies stuck in the 80′s (don’t you know about the ‘third way’?, lier, denier, self interest group….etc etc etc……

I just want the damn truth!! and I can’t understand why everyone else is so hell bent on putting fingers in ears……

I used to wonder how we got so many reports on Cancer studies in the media telling us that doing, eating, drinking or breathing anything at all will give us cancer…… me thinks that the climatologists are using the same funding model!

Yes, what matters is the truth. – Richard.

Some of the opening words of Dr Smith were that in his opinion the science is correct and current climate change is indeed caused by humanity. A few minutes later he states that even if the “science” was to be wrong the economical reasons for introducing ETS are correct.

A rather interesting statement in that it would appear that the government is already gearing up for the fall out for when the “science” has to admit that they had it wrong and all doubt about climate change is almost over. I say almost because this has now been going on for more than a century and we just can’t bury the monster.

But good news, we made the right decision because it was the right economical reason. Phew that was lucky.

Tax reasons could be good economical reasons for a government to get into something like this, of course the other economical reason could be that no developed nation can be seen any longer to not do its “thing” in relation to the fear of climate change in fear of being called a pariah state and its products being banned by other nations public ( the unions will help in this to preserve jobs in their own countries, any reason to exclude imports is a good reason).

So we have now entered the era of economic ransom from UN controlled bodies whose wishes are fulfilled by the masses and mass hysteria.

The train has indeed left the station, except it left for the wrong reasons, but it does not look like it can be stopped yet.

We can all argue that there is nothing wrong with reducing the use of fossil fuels, apart from life giving CO2 there is also a fair amount of undesirables released with every tonne of coal burned. All these resources are potentially finite so let’s start looking for alternatives now and increasing the cost of the use of fossil fuels will possibly help with this search. Just “not in my backyard” will be heard a bit more often in the future by anyone who may get a major wind generating development or solar panel array nearby. Although there are some interesting studies being done on the origin and formation of oil and it may not be anywhere near as finite as thought.

To reduce oil and coal use and to promote nuclear energy , and seeing that there was no credible fear factor, someone looked in the box and pulled out an old one. No matter how dubious, it had the backing of the UK and Germany did not want to be left out. And even though the initial reasons I believe were created for a different purpose once the greenies picked up on it the monster was unleashed. Margaret Thatcher’s lasting legacy sealed by Tony Blair getting a less negative response from the Bush administration in return for support in Iraq and Afghanistan.

The fact that the train left for the wrong reasons will backfire hugely on science, politicians and technical progress in the years to come and skepticism and lethargy within the masses will set in. People will want to be led even more and Super UN is there to help (with even more regulations).

We will then need an even bigger fear factor to change that behavior, if at all possible.

Dr Smith also mentioned that the developing nations need a hand with their emissions since 97% from all future CO2 growth is expected to come from these countries. Of course it will, for the developed nations to stick to their targets they will export their high emitting industries, and the jobs that go with it, to these countries so that the politicians in the developed nations can claim victory. At the same time as the developing world emissions go up the press in the developed part of this planet will stir up hatred towards the third world for not doing enough to reduce emissions, a campaign to buy locally made will surface – produced with CO2 friendly machinery.

Then when I asked him if we can get out of any UN treaty once it would indeed be clear that climate change was not human induced he disappointed me by stating that a little knowledge can be a dangerous thing. I can only assume that he was talking about his own knowledge as he does not know me from a bar of soap so would not know what knowledge I may or may not have. I had to answer him on that by stating that that little knowledge issue etc goes both ways and he agreed with me on that (so he does have little knowledge about this issue then). The whole comment was very disappointing and usually only coming from someone on the proverbial back foot.

After a bit more probing on the question the answer was “of course we will get out of ETS if that was to be the case and the whole world would accept that fact”.

So the answer really is: yes we can but no we won’t (and the ability to get out is a non issue as we wouldn’t dare).

Back again to scientific consensus, which we will never get as it will be impossible to prove that it would not have been even colder without the higher CO2 level then what it will be in 3 years time.

But by then Dr Smith won’t be Minister of Climate Change any more.

Yes, it’s hard to know where Nick Smith is coming from. Sometimes I think he’s just being led by other interests, but which ones? It’s obvious he doesn’t know much about climate change but it’s a bit harder to determine whether he believes in it. - Richard.