Ed Miliband: Pumping up the Rhetoric with Unparliamentary Language

Posted: February 26, 2014 by tallbloke in alarmism, Education, flames, government, People power, Politics

In the punch and judy show Prime Ministers Questions today, Labour party Leader Ed Miliband used unparliamentary language in framing a question:


So, will you now clarify: are you happy to have climate change deniers in your Government?

John Bercow, leader of the house, should have intervened at this point to remind Miliband that the rules of the house don’t permit hate speech, but did not.

Dr Roy Spencer, a climate scientist who understands much more about Earth’s geophysical processes than all of the MP’s in the house put together, has had enough of this ugly rhetoric being tossed his way. He says from now on, he will fight back by returning fire with “global warming Nazi”.

I think the snappier ‘greenshirts’ is less of a mouthful, while adequately conveying the point. If a party leader in the UK is going to get into normalising hate speech in reference to a group of people he doesn’t like the views of, he’d better get ready to be roundly trounced at the 2015 election. He just alienated over 50% of the population, just as his predecessor Gordon Brown did with his ‘flat earrrther” jibe.

Perhaps his calculation is that it will go down well with the voters young enough to have been greenwashed by Labour climate spin delivered through the national curriculum. But he should remember that a far bigger percentage of older, wiser and less easily bullied people actually use their vote.

  1. oldbrew says:

    It can be very easily shown there is no credible scientific correlation between man-made gases and global temperature, so if Miliband seeks deniers he should start by looking in the mirror.

  2. Ken Hall says:

    As much as I dislike such name calling in normal educated and reasoned debate, the green zealots, as typified by Miliband, have crossed the line.

    This latest outrageous comment by Miliband proves that labels such as ‘Global Warming Nazi’ and ‘Greenshirts’ are warranted and they are dripping with the sinister fascist totalitarian symbolism needed to really convey the threat hanging over our freedoms from such fascists.

    It is time to retire the more reasonable, yet still accurate labels of ‘watermelon’ and ‘ecomentalist’

    When reasonable scientific evidence based doubts are verbotten by political pips Queens like Miliband, then it is time for the gloves to come off and to engage with these bastards in an all out information war. With truth and evidence based science as our weapons.

    It will be all the more stunning a victory when we win.

  3. Anything is possible says:

    Actually Ed Miliband is right for once. The government is full of deniers. Here’s a list of some of the things they are denying (h/t Gordon Fulks via the Hockey Schtick) :

    Who denies natural climate change?
    Who denies the importance of variable solar irradiance and the possible importance of solar modulation of galactic cosmic rays?
    Who denies that our Sun is a variable star?
    Who denies that our oceans contain the vast majority of mobile heat on this planet and therefore dominate our climate, year to year and decade to decade?
    Who denies the importance of natural ocean cycles like the Pacific Decadal Oscillation (PDO), discovered by researchers studying salmon?
    Who denies clear cyclical variations in our climate, easily traceable to ocean cycles?
    Who denies that our recent warming commenced about 1830, long before significant burning of fossil fuels?
    Who denies that ice core data clearly show that recent warming is consistent with previous warm periods, like the Medieval, Roman, and Minoan?
    Who denies that CO2 lags temperature in the ice core data by as much as 800 years and hence is a product of climate change not a cause?
    Who denies 150 years of chemical measurements of atmospheric CO2 that suggest that ice core reconstructions of past CO2 concentrations are low by 60 ppm?
    Who denies that the global temperature went down for three decades after World War II, despite significant increases in human emissions of CO2 due to industrialization?
    Who denies that water vapor is the primary greenhouse gas and by far the dominant climate gas, not CO2?
    Who denies that increasing CO2 is a substantial benefit to plants and therefore helps us feed the seven billion people on this planet?
    Who denies that our oceans are alkaline not acidic and can never turn acidic because of buffering?
    Who denies that the EPA’s three “Lines of Evidence” supporting their Endangerment Finding on CO2 are all fatally flawed?
    Who denies the leveling off of the Global Temperature for the past 15 years?
    Who denies that the ‘Hotspot’ (required by Global Warming theory) does not exist in the tropical troposphere?
    Who denies that all 73 computerized climate models are epic failures?
    Who denies that theories which fail validation tests are dead?
    Who denies the supremacy of evidence over theory?
    Who denies the supremacy of logic and evidence over authority and consensus?
    Who denies that Extreme Weather has always been with us and cannot be traced to CO2?
    Who denies that the Climategate e-mails showed fundamental cheating by those scientists promoting Global Warming?
    Who denies that many prominent scientists oppose climate hysteria?
    In short, who denies both the science and the scientific method?

  4. Andrew says:

    As always, Ed Miliband’s question stinks of desperation. Falling into the language of fanatics. As George Smiley says “fanatics can be defeated because they harbour a secret doubt”.

    Meanwhile the Tories describe their bluish shade of green http://blogs.spectator.co.uk/coffeehouse/2014/02/tory-greens-make-hard-headed-pitch-for-environmentalism/

    An attempt to devalue the AGW brand?

  5. Doug Proctor says:

    The rhetoric has recently intensified. Can it go any further without some eco-green fool bringing criminal charges against someone for what they say?

    The outcome of the Scopes Monkey trial? Even by losing to Darwinism (the teacher lost the case), the anti-evolution cause was lost because the wider community saw what was going on. Or would it be the McCarthy-Murrow interview in which McCarthy failed to prove reasonable the things he was saying (that were criticized by Murrow)?

    Or is the end of this debacle going to be worse?

    You can only speechify so long before somebody decides action, not words, is needed.

  6. tallbloke says:

    Doug: You’re right, the rhetoric is being ramped up. The next IPCC climate jamboree is in Paris which is under the socialiste government of Francois Hollande. I think I’ll head over there. Who’s up for it? 🙂

  7. p.g.sharrow says:

    The Eco Fascist Watermelons are trying to whip up their Ecoloons to be their Greenshirts! The threat of offical force instead of their failing arguments to win the day. Next they will demand to negotiate.
    Greenshirts indicates threat of power.
    Ecoloons indicates insanity.
    Watemelons are socialists in green livery.
    They all feel that they are righteous in wanting to rule the lives of others and save the world!
    I prefer to ridicule the Ecoloons and not give them the satisfaction of the appearance of power.
    They are proud of being Progressive Liberal Socialists and wrap themselves in green to camouflage their Fascist intents. pg

  8. tallbloke says:

    Well said PG! I wonder when the hot-air-politicians will learn some basic physics and realise that to every action, there is an equal an opposite reaction. 😉

  9. Brian H says:

    You got that bassackwards. The teacher of Darwinism lost to Creationism in court. Re-read what you actually wrote.

  10. oldbrew says:

    Fancy a holiday in the Scottish highlands Mr. M?

    ‘Most snow in hills in 69 years, says Hamish MacInnes’

    ‘I have been in contact with people from all over the world, people in rescue teams, and they have got the same pattern – even more pronounced than us.”

  11. Anoneumouse says:

    Perhaps the time has come to deposite something into the ‘green bag’ behind the Speaker’s Chair.

  12. tallbloke says:

    Mark Steyn writes:

    ~Meanwhile, Robert Tracinski continues his fine series on the closed minds of a rigorously policed “consensus”:

    The establishment’s approach to the scientific debate over global warming is to declare that no such debate exists—and to ruthlessly stamp it out if anyone tries to start one.

    That’s how we get the Los Angeles Times loftily declaring that it won’t even publish letters to the editor that question global warming. That’s how we get Michael Mann’s lawsuit attempting to make it a legally punishable offense to “question his intellect and reasoning.”

    That’s how we get the appalling petition to spike Charles Krauthammer’s Washington Post’s column for expressing mere agnosticism about global warming.

    It’s how we get the New York Times casually suggesting that global warming “deniers” should be stabbed.

    And then there is this doozy, from my own backyard: University of Virginia official Thomas Forman II declaring in the student newspaper that global warming skeptics shouldn’t even be allowed to speak on campus, because “we should keep our debates out of our science classes…”

    The pen is only mightier than the sword if you’re free to use it. And Thomas Forman II is not prepared to take the risk of the pen being seen to be mightier than the hockey stick. Mr Tracinski continues:

    To see how fanatical this atmosphere of intolerance has become, consider the case of Bjorn Lomborg, who does not even question whether man-made global warming is occurring, but merely argues that it would cost the world far more to stop carbon dioxide emissions than it would to ameliorate the effects of global warming. For this heresy, he had his funding specifically cut off by the Danish government and has had to move into a kind of voluntary exile in Prague. A long profile of Lomborg describes how he has been ostracized merely for questioning the economic and political policies for dealing with global warming. Which is revealing in itself, because it implies that it is the political end result, the campaign to impose massive taxes and restrictions on fossil fuels, that is the fixed assumption to which science must bend.

    This is why I treat scientific claims about global warming with such skepticism: I would give them a lot more credence if I thought anyone was allowed to come up with a different answer. As I observed in the Mann vs. Steyn case, if it is a sin to doubt, then there is no science.

    Michael Mann and his ilk need a better theory than “Shut up.”

  13. tom0mason says:

    Climate change shows it’s true face – the face is of politics.
    It’s has never been about the science, it has allow been about politics – money, control, and power.

  14. michael hart says:

    The tide has already turned, but Ed Milliband is walking on quicksand and doesn’t realise how far he is from the shore.

    He is, wittingly or otherwise, attempting to insult more than just a bunch of MPs.
    He needs to find some new advisers. Soon.

  15. tchannon says:

    All very well blasting Milli just don’t lose sight of Cameroon doing hysterical shouting as in bed with the same rubbish, no difference between them.

  16. tchannon says:


    Edward Miliband: Excellent; we are getting somewhere. I agree with what the Prime Minister said about the importance of climate change. The reason this matters is that people in the most important positions in his Government are going around questioning climate change. The Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs has said:

    “People get very emotional about this subject and I think we should just accept that the climate has been changing for centuries,”

    and he refuses to be briefed on climate change. The Minister of State, Department of Energy and Climate Change, the right hon. Member for Sevenoaks (Michael Fallon), when asked about climate change, said:

    “You are not going to draw me on that. I’ve not had time to get into the…climate change debate.”

    That is the Energy Minister! Will the Prime Minister clarify his position? Is he happy to have climate change deniers in his Government?

    A very strange statement by Milliband given he quoted nothing supporting his own assertion!

    Given the denier word, which ought not to be an issue (a pair: assert — deny) but is politically…

    I did not know until an hour ago Milliband is jewish, published June 17th on the Labour web site.