We wrote a little while ago about P****** L****** who had told us how the British government is funding the "Man-Made Global Warming Industry" and their United Nations quisling the IPCC. We asked him for some more evidence, and boy, has he come up with the goods!
And if we wanted to lay the blame for the entire scam at one person's door, who better than … you've probably guessed … Margaret Thatcher? Yes, the woman who dismembered our national assets and sold them off to her friends, the woman who replaced much of the UK's Welfare State with monetarist economics, the woman who decided to break the power of the working man once and for all, was also the woman who gave left-wing control-freaks and weak government ministers a weapon powerful beyond their wildest dreams.
That weapon was a combination of superstitious fear, of protestant guilt-complex, of nostalgic regard for a largely illusory bucolic society, of exaggerated and unfounded trust in pontificating scientists, of mawkish sentimentality about cuddly polar bears and poor little Bambi, and the childish gullibility of ordinary people bombarded with biased television and newspaper reporting. It has proved to be a cocktail more compelling than the rhetoric of demagogues like Hitler, more frightening than despots like Stalin, more convincing than the idealism of Gandhi or the oratory of Martin Luther King.
It appeals to scientists because they seek funding and opportunity, it appeals to politicians because it offers them an admirable moral platform, it appeals to campaigners for its stark and simple message that needs little explanation, it appeals to ordinary people because it fools them into thinking they can make a difference, and it appeals to petty officials because it provides them with a justification for a hundred new rules and restrictions, for a bigger department to enforce those restrictions, and a larger desk for the man at the top.
So, thanks, Margaret. Thanks a lot.
When she came to power in 1979 she was the first female leader of a major western state, and she desired to be taken seriously by political leaders of other major countries. This desire seemed difficult to achieve because her only experience in government had been as Education Secretary (i.e. a Junior Minister) in the Heath administration that collapsed in 1974, a post in which she had achieved little apart from abolishing free school milk.
Sir Crispin Tickell, UK Ambassador to the UN, suggested a solution to the problem. He pointed out that almost all international statesmen are scientifically illiterate, so a scientifically literate politician could win any summit debate on a matter which seemed to depend on scientific understandings.
And Mrs Thatcher had a BSc degree in chemistry.
If a 'scientific' issue were to gain international significance, then the UK's Prime Minister could easily take a prominent role, and this could provide credibility for her views on other world affairs. Tickell suggested that Mrs Thatcher should campaign about global warming at each summit meeting. She did, and the tactic worked. Mrs Thatcher rapidly gained the desired international respect and the UK became the prime promoter of the global warming issue.
When the Nobel Peace Price for 2007 was jointly awarded to the UN's Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change and Al Gore for "their efforts to build up and disseminate greater knowledge about man-made climate change, and to lay the foundations for the measures that are needed to counteract such change," the Secretary of State for the Environment, Hilary Benn, made it clear where the real credit lay. He congratulated his own department, Defra. He said "I've been enormously impressed by the quality of the science and evidence base driving the climate change agenda. I know that many of you have been working for years on the IPCC and have been one of the major driving forces behind the impact it has had around the world. To be part of a Nobel Peace Prize is a privilege rightly reserved for very few. You should all be immensely proud of this achievement on behalf of Defra, HMG and indeed the world."
David Warrilow, Defra's Head of Climate, Energy and Ozone: Science and Analysis, has been involved with the IPCC since 1990. He explained that Defra's role is to lead on the IPCC for the UK. This means agreeing the work programme of the IPCC, supporting UK scientists who are involved in the preparation of IPCC reports, and approving the summaries for policymakers of these reports, which are used by governments around the world. In addition, the UK has also provided two working group co-chairs for the IPCC - Sir John Houghton (1988- 2002) and Professor Martin Parry who is currently the co-chair of the Impacts and Adaptation Working Group. Defra provides financial support to the co-chairs and their supporting secretariats. As such the UK has provided underpinning funding for almost one-third of the major scientific reports produced by the IPCC. A number of Defra staff are involved in supporting the IPCC to develop the latest reports, including David Warrilow, Jim Penman, Steve Cornelius, James Davey, Hannah Ryder, Adrian Butt, Matt Coyne, Cinzia Losenno and Chris Sear. Chief Scientific Adviser, Robert Watson, was the IPCC Chairman from 1997 - 2002.
Not sinister enough for you? A search of Defra's website reveals that "if everyone in the world lived like people in the UK, it is estimated that three planets' worth of resources would be needed to support us. As individual consumers - of food and drink, personal travel, home and household products, and tourism - we are accountable for a large proportion of the UK's environmental pressures both at home and abroad. Around 40% of the UK's CO2 emissions come directly from household energy consumption, including private car use" (really? But only 0.039% of the atmosphere is CO2, and according to the IPCC, only 3.4% of that is the result of man-made emissions. DEFRA tell us that the UK contributes 2% of that which means we are responsible for just 0.00002652% of all the CO2 on the planet, and that's including all our industrial output as well as household energy consumption - GOS)."
Not content with this emotive and exaggerated piffle, we find that Defra are actually intent on a programme of calculated behaviour-change, seeking to alter the attitudes and habits of all ordinary citizens. They seek to establish "A set of 12 headline behaviour goals, covering the main areas of consumption: food and drink, personal travel, homes and household products, and travel tourism; including an assessment of what kinds of actions people are already taking and their relative ability and willingness to do more; and an environmental segmentation model that divides the public into seven clusters, each sharing a distinct set of attitudes and beliefs towards the environment." I don't know about you, but to this writer it smacks of a level of social engineering unprecedented in this country.
The John Daly website has a more detailed history of the establishment of the Hadley Centre and UK policy on atmospheric carbon dioxide under Margaret Thatcher, and is generally an excellent site, well worth exploring by anyone who doubts the so-called "consensus" on Global Warming.
On the Environment page of Defra's website (odd, isn't it, how these days "environment = global warming"? Have these blinkered bureaucrats forgotten all about the real environment, the place where the rest of us live?) is this confirmation of the organisational and financial links between HM Government and the IPCC: "The UK plays a significant role in the IPCC. Hundreds of UK scientists were involved in the preparation of the Fourth Assessment Report and Defra supports lead authors and review editors to participate in IPCC writing groups.
The UK Government provides financial support to Professor Martin Parry, who co-chairs the IPCC Working Group II (WGII) on impacts, adaptation and vulnerability, and the WGII Technical Unit, which supports Prof. Parry in this role. Previously Defra funded the TSU for Working Group I on the physical basis of climate change, which Sir John Houghton co-chaired for fourteen years. The UK government has also been supporting the head of the technical unit responsible for production of the Synthesis Report."
This interview with Geoff Jenkins, Head of Climate Prediction at the Hadley Centre for Climate Change, shows how wonderfully free of balance and scientific detachment are the men on whom the government relies for advice about climate change - understandably so, for it is hard to imagine how someone who didn't believe whole-heartedly in man-made global warming could possibly hold down his lucrative and distinguished position. See how fair and unbiased we are here at GOS?
When Margaret Thatcher opened the Hadley Center she said "… greenhouse gases are increasing substantially as a result of Man's activities; … this will warm the Earth's surface, with serious consequences for us all, and … these consequences are capable of prediction. We want to predict them more accurately and that is why we are opening this Centre today."
There you are. I rest my case.
The GOS says: Let's face it, the Iron Lady ruined almost everything else that we cherished in this country, so I can't think why I should find it quite so astonishing to learn that she was responsible for global warming as well.
Hmm … now there's a thought. Has anyone calculated the carbon footprint attributable to all the hot air spouted at Westminster? Or at the United Nations, come to that?
either on this site or on the World Wide Web.
Copyright © 2007 The GOS
This site created and maintained by PlainSite