Global Warming: Peak Energy Problems Take Precedence

“The BNP will continue to push our post-Peak energy agenda, which global warmers will see as addressing their worries. Nevertheless, fresh evidence on the issue from both sides is welcome.”

by John Bean
http://www.bnp.org.uk

As regular readers will know, I have long been a sceptic in regard to the veracity of some of the claims put out by the Global Warming fraternity. Whilst we cannot dispute the fact that the earth is warming up, the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) gives the impression that the debate is now over on whether or not this warming is due solely to man-made causes and the increased CO2 emissions. Furthermore, it has also pretended that all but a few scientists who were in the pockets of the oil companies supported the IPCC view. This impression is false on both accounts.

Those who have said we must also take into account the sun’s cycles of solar activity and resultant variations in cosmic rays, which have consistently led to cold and warm periods in the earth’s history, have received a boost with last month’s Channel 4 documentary The Great Global Warming Swindle. This was an authoritative account of how the hysteria over global warming (very useful to exploit for increased taxation and for getting political simpletons to accept that the one-world global community is our only source of salvation) has parted company with reality. The dissenting voices included Timothy Ball, a former climatology professor at the University of Winnipeg; Richard Lindzen, the professor of Atmospheric Science at Massachusetts Institute of Technology; Dr Myles Allen from Oxford University; Roy Spencer, the former top climate expert at Nassa; Nigel Calder, a former editor of the New Scientist; and Patrick Moore, a co-founder of Greenpeace, among others. A number of these contributors have received death threats since the programme was shown. Others have just been told that as deniers they are in the same category as those who deny the holocaust, a parallel which is an obscenity.Meanwhile the EU’s contribution to the debate is that we must reduce emissions by 20 per cent. To aid this the Energy Policy Director has put forth a ban on filament light bulbs!

With Dave Boy’s passionate embrace of global warming orthodoxy and competing in press conferences last month with Gordon Brown, where both announced their desires to put up our taxes – including on our holiday trips to the sun – to deal with the matter, it is tempting for the BNP to openly make a stand with the deniers of man-made causes of global warming. Not least because Britain only contributes 2 % of total global CO2 emissions and China, India and America show no signs of wanting to follow our tax example. However, as befitting the Party that was the first to warn of the escalating energy problems we now face since the world reached “Peak Oil” production, it would be more responsible for the BNP to support those measures that will help to increase the use of renewable energy sources – not least nuclear energy. If that means appearing to accept some of the arguments of the global warmers, so be it.

I agree with BNP Chairman Nick Griffin’s view on this when he says: “On one side of the debate are people with links to polluting industries which have a clear vested interest in downplaying climate change. On the other we have new Marxist One Worlders and kneejerk anti-technocrats who have a vested interest in persuading people that the world will end unless we all go back to the level of 17th century China. Both will distort and sensationalise their facts and arguments. It is not for us to take either side.

“The BNP will continue to push our post-Peak energy agenda, which global warmers will see as addressing their worries. Nevertheless, fresh evidence on the issue from both sides is welcome.”

2007-05-22