Help Sitemap Home Skip Navigation Contact Us Disability Statement


Gerald Warner: Fear the unanimity in our Wee Scotch Senate

Click on thumbnail to view image
Click on thumbnail to view image
Click on thumbnail to view image
Click on thumbnail to view image
Click on thumbnail to view image

Published Date: 28 June 2009
Sorry, Alex, most of us have faster mental reflexes than that
HIGH pretensions in low places: the pygmy politicos in the Wee Scotch Senate surpassed themselves last week by passing the Climate Change (Scotland) Bill, their most ambitious excursion yet into self-parody. As legislation goes, we shall not look up
on its like again – unless the Loch Ness Monster (Protected Species) Bill is in the pipeline.

This was Holyrood at its best: sanctimonious, dictatorial, self-regarding and totally divorced from reality. Stewart Stevenson, the Minister for Climate Change and Candle-Powered Kettles, told the chamber: "Scotland can be proud of this bill, the most ambitious piece of climate change legislation anywhere in the world." One wonders why the rest of the world has passed on this.

Hyperbole became so competitive as to threaten the ozone layer. "World-leading" was a favourite epithet; another refrain ran, "All eyes are on Scotland". When it comes to leading the world in surfing a wave of hysteria, Scotland has previous, for example the witchcraft trials under James VI. Today's condemned necromancers are offenders with inadequately lagged attics, overfilled kettles and lightbulbs strong enough to read by. Their days are numbered.

For it was not to be supposed the Wee Scotch Senate would pass legislation that did not contain severe penalties for heretics and dissenters. Energy criminals can expect the midnight knock. True, the bill only prescribes fines; but be sure more robust penalties will follow. It is for banning and punishing that MSPs live and breathe.

When you are an inarticulate numpty, unemployable in any commercial capacity, and you find yourself translated to the adobe slum at the bottom of the Royal Mile, glued to the public teat for £100k a year and exercising power without responsibility – bring it on, is your natural reaction to the prospect of invading people's homes and inflicting penalties on your fellow citizens. What is power for, if not to abuse?

During its inglorious first decade, which it is currently celebrating amid the passionate indifference of the nation, the Wee Scotch Senate has gradually achieved something fundamentally inimical to democracy: parliamentary unanimity. Now we see the fruition of the aspiration symbolised by the "non-confrontational" configuration of the chamber. The last potential opposition, the Vichy Tories, currently selling out the Union by supporting the Calman Commission, have traitorously joined the consensus.

"This is indeed a great day," drivelled Alex Johnstone, Conservative MSP, in the concluding debate, adding without conscious irony: "The nature of the bill will probably not dawn on us fully for many years." Sorry, Alex, but most of us have faster mental reflexes than that and have already apprehended that the best contribution this bill can make to conservation is by hanging on a nail in the smallest room in the house.

There is probably no other assembly in the world where a contentious topic such as "man-made" climate change would not provoke debate. MSPs, however, have the advantage of being untrammelled by any knowledge or understanding, they bring virgin ignorance to every topic and are guided by whatever the prevailing politically correct consensus may be. Without dissent there is no democracy. Who spoke for the large numbers of people in Scotland who, increasingly supported by emerging scientific evidence, recognise anthropogenic climate change for the scam it is?

Al Gore's convenient untruths exposed, the discrediting of the "hockey stick" model, the cooling since 2000, the resilient polar ice-caps, the fanatics' reliance on computer models programmed with code to produce the desired result, the historic examples of much wider temperature fluctuation than we are experiencing, the sea levels that stubbornly refuse to rise, the unscientific demonising of carbon dioxide, the patronage practised by the IPCC, the growing revolt of scientists against what is actually a political programme to increase United Nations and state power – all of this passes MSPs by.

We are being subjected to a Grande Peur reminiscent of apocalyptic stampedes of flagellants in the Middle Ages. The damage that will be done to developing countries is appalling. Nearer home, last week's fatuous commitment to reduce "greenhouse gas" emissions by 42 per cent by 2020 might better have been titled the Scottish Economy (Annihilation) Bill.

Its punitive powers will create a regulatory gradient between Scotland and England – as Calman would create a tax gradient – repelling investors. There is a cultural void in the landscape too, where 129 Scottish villages are missing their idiots.





Page 1 of 1

 
1

nabodican,

Newton Stewart 28/06/2009 08:22:07
Gerald Warner is spot on.
We can only hope that this bill does indeed hang on a nail in the small room forever.
2

mr broon,

Edinburgh 28/06/2009 09:18:47
It must have come as quite a shock to the author to realise that the unicameral Scottish Parliament has just celebrated its first 10 years in existence!

In its early years, the author did Holyrood a great service by continually attacking UNIONIST devolved government at Holyrood.

During the same period, his beloved Tammany Hall on the Thames has been shown to be occupied by crooks and shysters, specialising in graft and corruption unheard of in the democratic world!

Mither of parlis? More like pig sty of parlis!
3

donald,

glasgow 28/06/2009 09:23:38
Gerry and the Hootsmen are not even embarrassed by this petulant rant. Iggerance is telly bliss.
4

gus1940,

Edinburgh 28/06/2009 09:34:41
Who will rid us of this troublesome bigot?
5

Unimpressed one,

28/06/2009 10:07:09
Good to see Johnston Press has someone on their payroll with the sense to tell the emperor he has no clothes on.
6

n/,

Perth 28/06/2009 10:21:34
............and the following from those 'pygmy politicos in the Wee Scotch Senate'.

''SNP ministers acknowledge an 80% cut in emissions in itself would make no difference on a global scale.''????????

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/scotland/8115597.stm
7

Radge,

Aberdeen 28/06/2009 11:25:05
#6

Bigot:
a person who is utterly intolerant of any differing creed, belief, or opinion.

Takes one to know one.

For my part, I don't yet know enough to make a valued judgement on the whole climate change debate to come down on one side or the other, though my gut feeling is that politicians have been swept along with the Zeitgeist at the expense of critical evaluation. After all it wouldn't be the first time.
8

Observer,,

Glasgow 28/06/2009 11:31:19
9 I don't know whether climate change is real or man made or even happening either. Although I'm fairly sure that preventing waste and pollution is a pretty good idea in a general way. But I am with Warner on this - we don't need any more bans. We should reserve bans for behaviour like killing people and breaking into people's houses. Other behaviours should be tackled in a different way - by persuasion and force of argument.
9

Observer,,

Glasgow 28/06/2009 11:34:46
2 Every pony has got one good trick, and opposing the tally of bans is Warners.
10

Teemackell the Scribe,

28/06/2009 13:55:50
Warner writes, "..Scotland has previous, for example the witchcraft trials under James VI. Today's condemned necromancers are offenders with inadequately lagged attics, overfilled kettles and lightbulbs strong enough to read by. Their days are numbered."

Today's "witches" are dissident scientists and their hunters are not the Scottish parliament but institutions funded by Westminster and seats of other central governments. There is a shocking case, reported by Christopher Booker in yesterday's Telegraph (where Warner, incidentally, has a blogg).

Dr Mitchell Taylor( Booker tells us) has been researching the status and management of polar bears in Canada and around the Arctic Circle for 30 years.

Despite this expertise, the funding has been withdrawn for his attendance at a meeting of the Polar Bear Specialist Group.

His crime? He is a known sceptic of anthropological global warming (AGW) theory. Worse, he is openly scornful of alleged threats to the survival of polar bears and reports that 17 out of 19 populations are actually increasing.

Only true believers in AGW are wanted at the Polar Bear Specialist Group. Real researchers in science's finest traditions of asking awkward questions about the received wisdom, are, seemingly, not welcome.

This is where the real witch-hunting goes on: in national and trans-national institutions funded by central government - a long way from Holyrood.
11

Geomac 1,

Scotland 28/06/2009 14:13:52
Well said Gerald - at last a voice for those of us who are not taken in my the eco fascists. Fortunately the number of derogatorily called "deniers" is rapidly increasing by the day - no doubt because of the ever more strident nonsense emanating from the AGW/CC brigade who are ever fearful of losing their research grants. Also because the climate is refusing to behave as the theories say it will
12

nabodican,

Newton Stewart 28/06/2009 14:48:01
Teemackell the Scribe
Another interesting point from the article you refer to is the picture of the two polar bears much used by the alarmists. It turns out that Amanda Byrd who took the photograph, has stated that it was nothing to do with global warming and the bears were in no danger, she was simply taking pictures of interesting ice formations off Alaska.
13

The Former Mr. Angry,

Perth 28/06/2009 15:27:28
When you look at who supports this kind of intellectual mush you have to ask yourself why a whole parliament would vote for a 42% cut in "carbon emissions" (why not just say carbon dioxide and have done ith it). Who settled on 42% and why? Why not 34%?
What would happen if we did actually cut consumption to this level? Especially when the Parliament itself was reported recently as increasing its own emissions by 9% even without the help of politicians.

Then think about the effect of CO2 overall - negligible - no discernible effect. But to get there we will be taxed and hounded with legislation, threats of this and threats of that to satisfy the Green numpties ande eco-loonies amongst whom the SNP must now be numbered. By necessity the use of petrol/diesel engines would have to be outlawed and the vastly ineffecient and ineffective windmills would require enormous financial input and be uneconomic.

Of course people who sit on their bums all day and talk have little conception of real industry and its energy requirements, but they are quite happy to make use of private transport and to fly to talk even more. That's because they are important and you're not.
14

Observer,,

Glasgow 28/06/2009 19:20:39
Global warming aside, there is no doubt that many of us, especially in the West, live wasteful lifestyles and consume too much. But none of the politicians who will apparently condemn us for using plastic bags and other such nonsense actually challenge the economic system which is based upon perpetual growth and endless consumption. What conclusion can you draw from that.
15

Observer,,

Glasgow 28/06/2009 19:23:59
In case you were wondering the conclusion is that they are talking illogical and hypocritical mince.
16

Observer,,

Glasgow 28/06/2009 19:27:30
With the exception of course of the Greens.
17

Enough Already,

Edinburgh 30/06/2009 05:15:04
Although proper Science shows that CO2 can have little or no effect on Global Warming, politicians have signed the country up to a unilateral commitment to reduce pollution by 80%. But 80% of what exactly? That is the question. Let's have a think about CO2 as a trace gas required to sustain life, and not as a pollutant for taxation purposes.

The latest Global figure for Atmospheric CO2 content was 385 ppm, or 388 ppm as some doomsayers would have us believe, (or whatever figure appears when the next bearded wonder pulls the handle on the IPCC computer and rolls two lemons and a bell), either way, the total Global Atsmospheric CO2 content is still less than four one hundredths of one percent, 4/100ths of 1%, confirmed to me as accurate by Peirs Forster, Working Group 1, IPCC, who wrote the chapter on Radiative Forcing for the IPCC Fourth Assessment Report. (if you find that figure incredulously minute, check it for yourself !)

So, let's do some figures, according to data published by DEFRA, the UK contribution to Global Atmospheric CO2 concentration is 2.2%, and 2.2% of 4/100ths of 1% is 8.8 over one million, 80% of that gives the figure of 7.04 over one million which as a percentage is 0.000704%, but we're not even finished there, the public MUST be told what portion of 0.000704% of 2.2% is anthropogenic and what portion is natural (rotting vegitation, farting cows, etc) because we can only be taxed/robbed on the Man Made portion of the equation.


Before our "windmill obsessed" politicians waste any more money on Climate Change, surely there is enough evidence available from PROPER scientists to warrant a full and open public enquiry, demanding that the IPCC provide peer reviewed evidence to substantiate their "Fairytales" or are they still trying to name their works of fiction "Storylines"?

The only way to end this farce is by televised debate with both sides being given the chance to present their findings, ALL available Scientific data MUST be ex
18

Enough Already,

30/06/2009 06:42:57
As my previous effort was obviousle too big to fit, I will finish my rant here, the figures I gave above are as far as I am aware factual, and I believe showing the data as a percentage is easier for public understanding, so, get calculating and rip my efforts to shreds, if I am wrong then show me where, that is how science is supposed to work. Check out everything, but don't bend it to suit whatever side you may be on.


The only way to end this Anthropogenic Climate Change farce is by televised debate with both sides being given the chance to present their findings, ALL available Scientific data MUST be examined in a right and proper manner, THAT is SCIENCE, the acceptance of politically manipulated data promoted by individuals with an obvious "Self Interest" is NOT Science and must NEVER be allowed to prevail.
19

dido-bendigo,

Scotland 30/06/2009 10:31:29
Nero fiddled, Salmond scoffs. (In both senses of the word).

 

Comment on this Story

 

In order to post comments you must Register or Sign In

 
 
 
  

 
 

Featured Advertising



Sister Newspapers:
Press Complaints Commission

This website and its associated newspaper adheres to the Press Complaints Commission’s Code of Practice. If you have a complaint about editorial content which relates to inaccuracy or intrusion, then contact the Editor by clicking here.

If you remain dissatisfied with the response provided then you can contact the PCC by clicking here.