UK: global warming nuttiness as official policy

March 31, 2010

It’s reasonable for the state to mandate basic measures to protect people in the workplace from unsafe conditions: wearing safety goggles in a machine shop or a hard-hat at a construction site, for example.

But what about workplace safety rules for a problem that doesn’t exist?

Climate change is the new health and safety

All public bodies should have a legal duty to protect their workers from climate change in the same way as institutions currently carry out health and safety checks, according to the Royal Commission on Environmental Pollution.

The body set up to warn Government about the risk of environmental disasters said climate change will cause floods, droughts and heatwaves in future.

In a key report on ‘Adapting Institutions to Climate Change’ the committee of experts recommended that every school, hosptial and business should have a legal duty to adapt to climate change. For example by putting in place flood defences and plans for water shortages.

Sir John Lawton, Chairman of the Royal Commission, said global warming is a real risk and could cause huge problems for Britain.

He said all businesses and public bodies should have to carry out a “climate change adaptation test” in the same way as they currently conduct health and safety checks.

The laugh-while-you-cry statement was this:

But Sir John said that adapting to climate change will not cost organisations extra money or add bureaucracy.

And if you believe that one….

Workplace safety rules exist for a couple of reasons. The first is simply to protect the employee from employers who don’t take safety seriously, or who don’t themselves. The other is to save society the cost of the lost productivity of the injured worker, and perhaps the expense born by the community to support him while he can’t work. (Whether through the dole or insurance payments, the costs of which are borne by premium-payers.)

But, if we’ve had hard evidence of anything climate related in the last few years, it’s that the anthropogenic/carbon-dioxide model of climate change is highly questionable, and that the computer models and data the alarmists use are worthless.

But try telling that to government bureaucrats determined to keep Britain from becoming a heat-ravaged desert. Does this look like a desert to you?

And that was just last winter. Like the US, Great Britain needs to create jobs now, not impose additional costs on businesses and thus discourage them from hiring by forcing them to guard against a Green phantom.

Lord, save us from those trying to save us.  Praying

(via Heliogenic Climate Change)

RELATED: A parliamentary committee whitewashes Climategate. Canadian Steve McIntyre shreds them for it.


Wednesday morning funnies

March 31, 2010

The latest NewsBusted, with Jodi Miller:


Smart Power goes to Canada

March 30, 2010

America wants Canada to keep at least some forces in Afghanistan. Canada, after all, makes an important contribution to the war effort there, and Prime Minister Harper has been under pressure to withdraw. So, in the era of Smart Power(tm), how does Secretary of State Clinton go about doing this?

By first insulting the Canadians at a meeting hosted by Canada:

Clinton rebukes Canada at Arctic meeting

It was supposed to be a meeting of polar pals. But a high-level session on the vast opportunities opening up in the Arctic got off to a chilly start Monday, as Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton criticized Canada for leaving several players off the guest list.

The Canadian government invited foreign ministers from the other four countries with Arctic coastlines — Russia, Norway, Denmark and the United States — to hold talks on developing the region, which is being transformed by climate change.

Within a few years, the Arctic’s ice blanket could melt for at least a few months a year, opening up access to huge oil and gas reserves, as well as a new shipping lane. Under a United Nations treaty, the Arctic countries can claim ownership of natural resources up to 200 miles off their coasts.

Clinton noted that the three other nations in the Arctic region — Sweden, Finland and Iceland — had complained they were not included in the meeting. She said she also was contacted by representatives of indigenous groups in the area that had been left off the list.

“Significant international discussions on Arctic issues should include those who have legitimate interests in the region,” Clinton said, according to a prepared copy of her remarks to the meeting, which was closed to press. “And I hope the Arctic will always showcase our ability to work together, not create new divisions.”

You would think the Secretary of State of the United States would understand the basics of diplomacy, including the idea that issues between two nations rarely stand in isolation and that the status of one may affect the other. Or how about common courtesy, such as not chastising a valued ally in public over minor protocol issues?

Of course, this boorish behavior rests on one of the pillars of Obama Doctrine, that the United States has no real friends or enemies, and that conflict is reduced when we are an impartial arbiter between all. As Seth Cropsey described it in his article “Remedial Diplomacy,”

Barack Obama’s theory is that partisanship is the source of conflict. There should be no more red states or blue states. Every political choice is a false choice, an example of old thinking. Similarly on the international stage. If the United States distanced itself from its allies and drew closer to its adversaries, conflict would be reduced. The United States could then serve as the international mediator rather than as the guarantor of global order and an agent of democratic political change.

But, the real world doesn’t operate that way. Cozening up to North Korea, Russia, China, Iran, and Venezuela, while backhanding Great Britain, Israel, Canada, Poland, and the Czech Republic will only signal to our allies that we’re unreliable while telling our rivals that we’re feckless.

This is what they meant by “smart power?” It’s more like a recipe for a weakened United States and, therefore, a more dangerous world.

(via Hot Air)


Spot the real tyrants

March 30, 2010

Were they in Searchlight, or in Los Angeles? On the Right, or the Left? You make the call.

*(And note that, once again, all the hotties are on the Right. The babes of democracy live.)

RELATED: At a book signing Beverly Hills, the Left once again demonstrates its commitment to free speech and tolerance – for themselves and no one else.


Democracy must stand aside to fight global warming!

March 30, 2010

So says British scientist James Lovelock (Wikipedia bio), who thinks we’re all too stupid to deal with a (nonexistent) problem that only Supreme Geniuses(tm) are smart enough to recognize. The only hope of the sheep Mankind is to institute a dictatorship of the really smart!

Humans are too stupid to prevent climate change from radically impacting on our lives over the coming decades. This is the stark conclusion of James Lovelock, the globally respected environmental thinker and independent scientist who developed the Gaia theory.

It follows a tumultuous few months in which public opinion on efforts to tackle climate change has been undermined by events such as the climate scientists’ emails leaked from the University of East Anglia (UEA)and the failure of the Copenhagen climate summit.

“I don’t think we’re yet evolved to the point where we’re clever enough to handle a complex a situation as climate change,” said Lovelock in his first in-depth interview since the theft of the UEA emails last November. “The inertia of humans is so huge that you can’t really do anything meaningful.”

One of the main obstructions to meaningful action is “modern democracy”, he added. “Even the best democracies agree that when a major war approaches, democracy must be put on hold for the time being. I have a feeling that climate change may be an issue as severe as a war. It may be necessary to put democracy on hold for a while.”

Here we have fascist elitism at its most exposed: “You fools can’t understand vast complexities, and so must be lead like children or animals, guided by your betters. You’re getting sleepy, very sleepy….”

What garbage. I’m not denying there are stupid people in the world (hint: Joe Biden), but what really bothers elitists such as Lovelock is that people lacking the proper degrees have the temerity to question and even disagree with him and his brethren. In this modern information age, people can seek their own sources independent of the Lovelocks of the world, whether on the Web or between the covers of a good book. And if they’re more than a bit skeptical of what “their betters” are telling them, perhaps it’s because they’ve been pandered and lied to.

And that’s the real problem people like Lovelock and other statists have with democracy: all those smelly people get in the way of the Truly Enlightened. (All bow.)

It’s not an attitude limited to Lovelock and a few others, nor is it new by any means. Woodrow Wilson, a US president, thought the Constitution was obsolete, that limited, participatory government got in the way of progress. Erudite men such as H.G. Wells, who advocated a form of fascism, and George Bernard Shaw, a supporter of eugenics, felt that Man simply couldn’t be left to govern himself, that he had to be lead by an elite. Their intellectual descendants sit in the White House and run Congress today.

(I can’t let this moment go by without again shilling for Goldberg’s brilliant book, Liberal Fascism, which surveys the history of the fascist idea from the French Revolution to the modern day, though I think he needs to add a chapter for the Green Statists of the Cult of Anthropogenic Global Warming.)

Anyway, back to Dr. Lovelock and his annoyance with democracy. If you ever needed a reason to fight the global warming fraud besides the bad science behind it, there you have it. It’s not nearly so much about “saving the planet” as it is about controlling it.

And us.

(via Ace)

LINKS: More from Sister Toldjah and Hot Air. James Delingpole struggles to reconcile the call for dictatorship with the othwerwise sensible things Lovelock says.


The jihad targets children, too

March 29, 2010

Remember the horror of the Beslan massacre, which started when Islamic “holy warriors” took over a Russian school and ended with over 300 death, 186 of them children?

They’ve tried again, this time in Azerbaijan:

Azerbaijan’s National Security Ministry said police had arrested eight members of an “organised criminal group, crossing illegally from Georgia into Azerbaijan with the aim of carrying out terrorist acts.”

A ministry statement said seven were Azeris, including three women, and the eighth was from Russia’s southern Chechnya republic.

It said the group had earlier concealed weapons and ammunition in the roof of a kindergarten and a school in the capital Baku and planned to attack both. The suspected ringleader is still at large, it added.

And yet we’re to believe Islam is a religion of peace.

RELATED: The attacks in Moscow yesterday were indeed carried out by al Qaeda-affiliated suicide bombers, in this case the notorious Black Widows.

(via Jihad Watch)


America gives its opinion of Congress

March 29, 2010

The Pew Research Center asked people to give a one-word impression of Congress, from which they built a word cloud. The size of a word relates to its frequency. Behold the result:

Vox populi, vox Dei.  Rolling on the floor

(via: American Thinker and International Liberty)


Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 15,951 other followers