Green policies drive up emissions

Posted: December 29, 2014 by tallbloke in solar system dynamics

.

Roger Helmer MEP points out some of the fallacies in the ‘precautionary principle’ as applied to ‘climate change’.

Roger Helmer MEP

image001 (1)

It’s the holiday season.  So a web-site called “Science2.0” has come up with a helpful list of twelve ways to respond to those infuriating climate change deniers that you’re likely to meet in the bar while on holiday. Not the top holiday problem on everyone’s list, but I guess they’re trying to help.  Even though I’ve yet to meet anyone who denies that the climate changes.

There is all the usual tendentious stuff about junk science and tabloid slogans.  They recycle the old “97% of scientists” myth that has been comprehensively rebutted.  But they come up with one point that perhaps justifies a response.  Author Will Grant suggests: Ask them this: “What’s worse, the majority of climate change scientists being wrong but we act anyway, or climate change deniers being wrong and we don’t?”

Well, Will, there is a powerful case that even if the IPCC is right, which looks increasingly…

View original post 546 more words

Comments
  1. Gras Albert says:

    Richard Tol’s recent essay has a strong point to make

    A fifth* of official development aid is now diverted to climate policy. Money that used to be spent on strengthening the rule of law, better education for girls, and improved health care, for instance, is now used to plug methane leaks and destroy hydrofluorocarbons.

    Personally, I wonder how some climate activists can sleep at night

    *source OECD-DAC

  2. jdmcl says:

    The “Science 2.0” website just lifted the 12 points from the Australian version of The Conversation (which seems to have spread like a UN-hyped swine-flu). The article was written by a researcher and an associated professor at the Australian National University in Canberra, who are ultimately funded by taxpayers. The Conversation boasts “academic rigour and journalistic flair” but like the IPCC the claims don’t align with the evidence.

  3. gbaikie says:

    “We are destroying our economies, mortgaging our grandchildren, driving households and pensioners into fuel poverty, merely for the sake of green gestures and modish posturing. ”

    The political class always does gesture and posturing, the problem is the cost of these things.
    I think the reason is they become less capable politicians [lack communication skills] and they are paid too much.