24 1 min 9 yrs

Everything has consequences, and indulging ecowackery is a serious matter;

“UK industry will become increasingly uncompetitive due to soaring green energy taxes, according to the Government’s own advisers. A shocking report has found UK manufacturers’ electricity bills are already significantly higher than those in other leading nations due to climate change levies. By the end of the decade, our green taxes will be double those in other EU nations and dozens of times higher than those in the US.”

So, we lose our competitiveness but hey – our politicians feel good about saving the planet. This witless insanity will cost us dearly.

Click to rate this post!
[Total: 0 Average: 0]

24 thoughts on “THE HIGH PRICE OF ECOWACKERY

  1. One thing I know for certain: my children won’t call me an irresponsible bastard for not taking steps to bequeath to them (and their children) a healthy and habitable planet.

    I’m certain because—to the best of my knowledge—I have no children 😉

  2. One thing I know for certain: If the Self-righteous, can not ‘get at you’ they will .. try and get at your children.

    If they had any shame .. shame on them.

  3. Climate Lessons
    A blog sharing information about materials presented to children on climate, highlighting those intended to frighten or mislead, and those which seek to inform and inspire rather than to recruit, even the very young, for an ill-founded political campaign. A campaign which is both soul-destroying and inhumane.

    http://climatelessons.blogspot.co.uk/p/climate-anxiety-reports-of-frightened.html

    ‘I voz only following orderz ‘

    Ring any bells? .. the Nazis are alive and well, that 1000 year prophecy was correct.

  4. It’s nothing to do with the environemnt, climate change or the like. Those with access to government will always get government to do its bidding. These “green” taxes will be redirected by the rapacious State on whose behalf it is looting.

    “Government is the great fiction through which everybody endeavors to live at the expense of everybody else”, said Bastiat, That’s what’s going on here.

    The taxes, of course, will be paid by consumers via higher bills and employees whose jobs will go. In the meantime, the bloated friends of government will get richer and politicians will have their pay offs and glowing reviews from a BBC/Guardian complex which doesn’t give the slightest damn for working people.

    Wealth will disappear, investment will fall and with it the tax take will diminish. Government, as it always does, will then impose new laws and taxes in a vain attempt to overcome the problems caused by its last round of laws and taxes. In the end we’ll have little investment, blackouts, mass deaths and even more cries that “the government must do something”.

  5. Even, If ( and that is a big IF ) ‘Climate chnage’ was real, alive and kicking,the very second the State, and the self-righteous, got involved .. it all turned to dust.

    And calling someone .. anyone ‘Deniers’ does more damage to the Eco-loons self-rightoeus cause, than any of us so called ‘Deniers’ could ever dream of .. good job, keep it up?

  6. Harri,

    “Even, If ( and that is a big IF ) ‘Climate chnage’ was real, alive and kicking”

    Well let’s see – extreme events that are expected to happen once in a 100 years or a 1000 years, or even less, seems to be happening pretty regularly these days. This year alone there’s been the off the charts USA heatwave, forest fires, exceptional rainfall and flooding, derecho storms, monsoon rains driving over two million people from their homes in India, record wet spring and early summer in Europe, more forest fires in Siberia, and Arctic sea ice extraordinarily low for the time of year. For a fake those are some pretty good special effects.

    And according to kooks like you, this is what happens when it isn’t even warming (perhaps the extreme weather is caused by homosexuality?). One wonders what will happen when it does heat up.

  7. “Well let’s see – extreme events that are expected to happen once in a 100 years or a 1000 years, or even less, seems to be happening pretty regularly these days.”

    Probably because “extreme events” are not so extreme and they’ve always been pretty regular.

    “Off the charts” USA heatwaves are notable only because charts are so young the ink is barely dry. Check the literary record and, further back, the natural record (tree rings etc), and nothing is off the charts. Monsoons driving people from their homes in India? When haven’t they done so?

    Bottom line: any sentence based of the “once in x-years event” premise is bullshit.

  8. Slightly off-topic (or at least, “at a tangent to the main point”), on the subject of medium/long-range weather forecasting,
    Casting my mind back to late March in the UK, when the weather-related news was all about the drought conditions that existed, and the hosepipe bans had just been (or were about to be) introduced,
    This is just a general memory, but I recall lots of news articles which said “…and the bad news is, forecasters say there is no end in sight to these drought conditions”. Nowhere, not once, did I read any article which said “…but some forecasters are predicting that record amounts of rain will fall from early April onwards, and so there is doubt as to whether the hosepipe bans will be required”.
    Can anyone link to a medium-range weather forecast dated on or before 31 March 2012, which predicts that April 2012 will probably see widespread, prolonged rainfall in the UK?

  9. Harri et al,

    To be clear, I won’t be around in 50 years’ time. Nor will you—but your children will be.

    They won’t be talking about “eco-loons” but wankers who messed up their planet in a selfish and utterly shortsighted pursuit of filthy lucre. They’ll piss on your graves.

  10. UK industry will become increasingly uncompetitive due to soaring green energy taxes

    This report focuses exclusively on green taxes. It ignores the fact that corporation tax, income tax and even Vat are generally lower in the UK than in Europe.

    Frank

    It’s a total waste of time arguing about AGW with those whose minds are 100% shut on the subject. But it is amusing to see how they wriggle from one moronic “argument” to another.

  11. Pete,

    “Probably because “extreme events” are not so extreme and they’ve always been pretty regular.”

    Nah, they are obviously extreme, and if they were more regular than once in 100 or a 1000 years or more, they would have almost certainly been observed more often than they have been. And no, appealing to geologic or literary and historical records doesn’t change that.

    While there is certainly difficulty in putting odds on events that are by definition rare, it’s obvious that the clusters of rare events we are seeing recently are unusual. It stretches credulity to call it the normal course of events or some kind of a coincidence.

    Tom,

    “Nowhere, not once, did I read any article which said “…but some forecasters are predicting that record amounts of rain will fall from early April onwards, and so there is doubt as to whether the hosepipe bans will be required”.”

    No, but that’s because the state of play in March was heavily depleted water resources such that even a single wet month wouldn’t have made a lot of difference. Around that time the met office were giving it about a 1 in 4 chance of a very dry quarter and a 1 in 7(*) chance of a very wet quarter – so, much like the odds of rolling a six on dice throw, it could happen but you wouldn’t want to bet your life on it. So given that information, and knowing that long range weather forecasts are uncertain in any case, if you had to bet on whether it was safe to gamble your own water security to water the garden, what would you have done?

  12. Frank O’Dwyer –

    Your last comment there is mechanical and lacking your usual passion. You sound like the boxer who’s suffered one defeat too many and whose heart is no longer is in it.

    It was a great knock but there’s no sense in taking a further battering.

    Hang up the gloves.

  13. Pete,

    Your last comment sounds like someone who cannot address the argument changing the subject.

  14. Frank, but all you are really saying (re medium-term weather forecasts relating to April 2-12) is that the forecasters didn’t have a clue what April 12’s weather would be like, so they based their forecasts upon past statistics and probabilities.
    Now that would be fair enough, were it not for the fact that they constantly give out all these long-range predictions about the effects of global warming, and we are expected to take them on trust.
    It would have been nice, it would have added to, or at least given them, some credibility, had they been able to predict, back in March, that there was a fairly good probability that there would be heavy rainfall in Apr/May/Jun 2012. No such prediction was made. They totally did not forecast it, not at all. It took them completely by surprise. And yet we are supposed to believe their forecasts re the effects of global warming. I just want some evidence that they can get a fairly short-term forecast correct, in hindsight.

  15. Peter,

    “This report focuses exclusively on green taxes. It ignores the fact that corporation tax, income tax and even Vat are generally lower in the UK than in Europe.”

    Good point although there is a lot of double counting in green taxes. All of these energy taxes and duties and levies and subsidies should be done away with and replaced with a price on carbon – which, arguably, is already high enough in the UK and Europe anyway.

  16. Frank O’Dwyer –

    I addressed the point of your argument in my 8.58pm, however it’s unBritish to chin an opponent when he’s on the ropes. To take it further would be unsporting.

    But come on, you have to admit that statements like “off the charts USA heatwaves” are lazy and meaningless.

    Where you once clung to science you now resort to hyperbole. Bow out with your integrity intact instead of because a circus side show.

  17. Tom,

    “Frank, but all you are really saying (re medium-term weather forecasts relating to April 2-12) is that the forecasters didn’t have a clue what April 12′s weather would be like, so they based their forecasts upon past statistics and probabilities.”

    Pretty much, apart from the ‘so’. At least there is no way to tell from that single forecast whether or not they had a clue. You’d have to look at a reasonable (and random) sample of forecasts, or all of them, and see how they turned out.

    Similarly nobody would have expected Rosol to beat Nadal at Wimbledon this year but he did. You would have got great odds betting on him. But things like that happen, and that doesn’t mean the bookies have no clue about tennis. If you bet on Nadal beating a similarly ranked player to Rosol, 99 matches out of 100 you’d be right.

    “Now that would be fair enough, were it not for the fact that they constantly give out all these long-range predictions about the effects of global warming, and we are expected to take them on trust.”

    Not really comparable. Nobody is trying to predict what the weather on April 2-12, 3012 in central London is going to look like, or even the local temperature. A climate forecast is also different to a weather forecast – if you say that Spain has a sunnier climate than Ireland, or if you book a summer holiday there expecting sunshine, nobody is going to find that odd, even though it might rain while you’re there. That’s because climate is average weather, and that’s a lot more predictable than weather.

    Saying that, it’s still very uncertain and you get a range of possibile outcomes, especially for regional forecasts. And maybe we will lose our ability to predict even that much. For example even the recent heatwave in the USA was no kind of success for climate science, as it did not predict it. And that’s kind of the point, changing the climate is risky precisely because we have little idea of what will happen. There will be surprises and they may or may not be pleasant.

  18. No, I’m sorry, Frank, and I DO get the overall gist of your argument, but my point still stands.
    If you want me to accept climatologists’ / meteorolgists’ LONG-range forecasts about the effects of global warming, then it is not at all unreasonable for me to demand that their short-to-medium range forecasts of the weather should bear some accuracy.
    And when we look at their medium-range forecasts around March 2012, we find not a hint, not a single hint, of the rainfall that was to occur from April 2012 to the present date. They could not even predict that, with all their computer models. And yet we are expected to believe their longer-range forecasts re the effects of GW? Do their computers need reprogramming? What has gone wrong?

  19. Pete,

    “I addressed the point of your argument in my 8.58pm”

    No you didn’t. You just swung at the strawman that these individual events are unprecedented, when the claim is only that they are rare. And you didn’t even hit that.

  20. Tom,

    “If you want me to accept climatologists’ / meteorolgists’ LONG-range forecasts about the effects of global warming, then it is not at all unreasonable for me to demand that their short-to-medium range forecasts of the weather should bear some accuracy.”

    Would you make the same demands of travel agents when you book a ski holiday? After all they can’t predict it will snow but they can tell you where the ski resorts are. They are there for a reason, and it’s not because weather is predictable.

  21. No, I would not make the same demands of travel agents, because I am not asking them what will happen to a climate within the next 100 years. I just want to know what a climate will be like during the 7 days of my holiday. Different thing.

  22. Tom,

    That’s still confusing terms. What will happen during your holiday is weather and the travel agent can’t tell you that. What happens over most people’s holidays over decades is climate. The reason people invest in building sun and ski resorts and stay there many years is not because they can predict the weather next week.

    As to the climate in 100 years, you should be more concerned not less if you think that we don’t know what it will be like, because we do know for sure that we are changing a parameter that matters to it.

    If someone had a revolver pointed at your head, I’ll assume you wouldn’t feel safe if you knew for certain there was 1 bullet in it. Now ask yourself if you would feel more safe or less safe if you knew nothing at all about how many bullets were in it. After all, now it might not be loaded at all, but equally it might have 6 bullets.

  23. over the past ten years the planets magnetic pole has shifted 5% if there has been any change in climate it is due to that and the earths rotation around the sun.

    The number one factor in global warming and global cooling is the amount of water vapor in the atmosphere. Since that number is beyond mans ability to calculate your all just masterbating over fantasies

  24. “over the past ten years the planets magnetic pole has shifted 5% if there has been any change in climate it is due to that and the earths rotation around the sun.”

    LOL!!

    http://knowyourmeme.com/memes/fcking-magnets-how-do-they-work

    The number one factor in global warming and global cooling is the amount of water vapor in the atmosphere. Since that number is beyond mans ability to calculate your all just masterbating over fantasies

    Yeah sure. Water vapour in the atmosphere has increased about 4% since 1970. Maybe it’s the magnets or maybe it’s just the basic physics that says warmer air holds more water vapour.

Comments are closed.