The BBC has given great prominence to Ed Miliband’s declaration that the UK must meet an 80% reduction in carbon emissions by 2050. (In for a penny, in for a Euro, why not make it 101% Ed) As with all BBC coverage of AGW, there is only ever one-side to the argument. There will be many people who will view this political and legal “commitment” as more of an imposition on future generations, a scorched earth policy by a spectacularly ignorant Labour government. However they are given no voice. BBC orthodoxy requires total subservience to the AGW creed and no dissent must be allowed.
WHY NOT 101%?
Bookmark the permalink.
Picked this story up on FNC last night:
Alaskan Glaciers Grow for First Time in 250 years
http://www.dailytech.com/Alaskan+Glaciers+Grow+for+First+Time+in+250+years/article13215.htm
Here’s the actual transcript from last night’s Special Report:
The Cold Truth
Another chilling report for global warming alarmists. The Anchorage Daily News reports 200 years of glacial shrinkage in Alaska has stopped. Large amounts of winter snow were followed by unusually chilly temperatures over the summer, resulting in the growth of many of Alaska’s glaciers.
Glaciologist Bruce Molnia at the U.S. Geological Survey says, “It’s been a long time on most glaciers where they’ve actually had positive mass balance.”
Mass balance is the difference between how much snow falls in the winter and how much snow melts in the summer. For most of Alaska’s glaciers, snow loss has exceeded snowfall for decades, but glaciers at Prince William Sound, the Juneau Icefield and Bering Glacier all experienced growth this year.
The Sarah Palin effect but you can be confident the BBC will say nothing, it is non-news, never happened…
You mean Sarah Palin being a cold hearted bitch has something to do with the glacial growth?
That could be the new Al Gore Beeb mantra. Hopefully they won’t be reading this!
If they are, they just realise that all the hot air from Obama is going to wipe out all those polar bears and baby seals that Sarah Palin likes to shoot for laughs….
BBC Radio 4 ‘PM’ (first item) today, was typical of BBC’s completely one-sided appraoch in this, personified by presenter, E.Mair.
‘EU Referendum blogspot’, in contrast, has this:
“A nice pot of tea”
[Extract]:
“Meanwhile, the euro-weenies and their greenie friends are still prattling on about their ‘climate change’ agenda, with little Ed Millibean in London proclaiming that we’re going for an 80 percent cut in emissions in year whatever.
“These people are totally obsessed, but then ‘climate change’ is their own comfort zone. Even after we tilt over the edge of the precipice, they will be screaming ‘climate changeeeeee …’ as they hurtle to their doom. But this current surge is their last hurrah.
“In months, if not weeks, their obsession will have slid down the agenda so far as to be invisible. In a few years time it will be a historical curiosity, with people shaking their heads in wonderment at how we could all have been so gullible as to have believed that greenie tosh.”
http://eureferendum.blogspot.com/2008/10/nice-pot-of-tea.html
David Vance: As I mentione elsewhere, the BBC totally ignored the facts. We can expect at least another 20 million + people in the UK over the next 30-40 years.
You can’t cut CO2 emissions whilst growing the population.
It’s OK these thick muppet politicians talking about us driving around in silly little electric cars, but the biggest group of polluters are the large vehicles and vans. They can’t be made electric and we need ever more of them on our roads to meet the needs of an ever growing population.
As usual it’s just another load of climate change bollocks to divert attention from another bad day for the Scotsman.
David Vance | Homepage | 16.10.08 – 11:34 pm |
Great comeback! We certainly are pretty much on the same wavelength.
Martin | 16.10.08 – 11:40 pm |
Maybe Al Beeb wants islam so badly because they hardly put any CO2 into the air in Afghanistan? Or do they?
I wonder if the Government in 1908 had a policy to reduce horse dung emmissions on the streets by 80% by 1950?
It was an astonishing announcement by the idiotic Millipede (talk about fiddling while Rome burns!) and given such prominence by the BBC that I couldn’t help wondering if it was a diversionary tactic to draw our attention away from the plummeting stock market.
archroy: I don’t know, but if they want to reduce horses**t by 80% today they can get rid of 500 MP’s
80% reduction in carbon dioxide emissions? Holy fuck, these people are seriously out of their goddamn minds. I bet the Chinese (and the other emerging states) are getting fatigued with all of the laughing and pointing.
interesting…
bbc news leads with the Milibean’s global warmist bollocks.
over on sky – they lead on the olympic athletes parade.
Oi mates, I feel sorry for you blokes. In Canada, that would never fly. In fact, the Liberal party just got clobbered because they ran on a carbon tax 🙂
Sadly, the tories “welcomed the announcement” and the LibDems didn’t think it went far enough.
I really don’t understand why any opposition party can let Miliband get away with saying: ‘changes to the climate were “happening much quicker than we anticipated or even feared a few years ago”‘
This is an open goal, surely. The only thing that hasn’t been anticipated by the warmists is the cooling of the planet since 2001. Or the cooling of the oceans since they introduced the Argo monitoring devices, or the 25% increase in Arctic sea ice this year. Or the lack of CO2 signature in the troposphere.
In fact he is right – the downward trend is happening much faster than was anticipated.
But who is challenging him on this????
We are talking about the son of a marxist scum-bucket here. His father’s out of date views pump through his veins.
Speaking of corrupt, he’s talking about EU views (to which the BBC happily publishes and takes ‘donations’/soft loans for).
NuLiebore idiots will be out of a job soon and so will seek employment with that shit-hole called the ‘EU’.
Why not reduce carbon emmissions by killing off: The EU, the 25,000 BBC twats, The Bilderbergs, the Bush war-monger clan, the Rothschilds, and the Rockefeller’s.
Now that’s what I call “reducing carbon foot-print”.
All these ‘targets’ to attained at some distant point when most of the current government will be rotting away in OAP homes(prisons)or dead, the commissars like Millbrain will not be called to account.
The Labour serial liars take their grand targets and five year plans straight out the old Soviet book of ‘how to blind people with bullshit’ english edition! Remember all the Soviet 5/10/20/50/100 year plans? Remember all the fake statistics churned out by the USSR and faithfully reproduced by the leftist media as truth, I even remember the BBC news when the presenter beemed as he said that Soviet traktor/food production would outstrip the capitalist west by 2000!
The socialists blind people with fake figures like ending poverty by 2010 or fighting global warming because people are gullible.
Socialism is built on lies and propaganda, every socialist state lies and cheats, its second nature, they cannot help lying! But why? Well Im glad you asked(you did ask didnt you?) Oh well, Socialist theory holds that to create the perfect society the builders of that Nu society can use ANY method, they can lie,cheat,steal,murder,manipulate,
dissemble and use any dirty trick to further its own ends, their mantra is and always has been ‘the ends justify the means’ inside the socialist mind they believe they are right so it follows that everyone else is wrong but it goes further than that, because the leftists have a set vision of how people should live, anyone who prevents their set vision becomes an evil enemy to be destroyed, the socialists need/love their class enemies/scapegoats, in the middle ages the consensus was that the village midwife was satans servant and they must be killed, convenient scapegoat for the ignorant to pick on as they take their eyes off the real reality of the situation ie burning the witch hides a greedy corrupt church living off the poverty of the masses! Today the scapegoat is a harmless gas but it conveniently takes the masses eyes off our corrupt political masters as they live off the fat of the land and get richer and more powerful!
Scapegoats give the masses their rallying point and help the powerful gain and retain power and privilige, do you think the power elite will give up their cars/planes/money/lifestyle?
What these elites want is to take away prosperity from everyone except the elite ruling class, the USSR is their model and ultimate goal, everything the EUSSR does now is focused on bringing about a new improved USSR MK2!
You may well think I am a nutter BUT look at the evidence, all of the EU commisars were Marxist activists in the 60s/70s and they were heartbroken when their socialist paradise was killed off, now they are trying to revive it!
Those who do not learn from history are doomed to repeat it, the leftists are simply repeating the USSRs lies again and we are soaking it up as the truth again!
Cassandra: Some of your comments over the last few days have expressed my views so closely that I am starting to wonder if you are in fact my alter-ego…
Richard North, the masterful writer at EU Referendum, has posted these chilling words. Mark them very carefully – because the BBC never will. Its reporting, by its lack of integrity and focus, is – if anything – precipitating our decline:
In this and a hundred other ways, Parliament is being treated with contempt. Having surrendered its powers • won at the cost of blood by our ancestors – in part to Brussels and, to a great extent, to the Executive • it has been fatally weakened. And, in being treated with contempt, it is also an object of contempt.
We will be the losers • we are the losers. In no manner, shape or form are we any longer a parliamentary democracy.
Dear notasheep,
I have read all your posts and that of all the others I regard so highly, I try to understand and digest the reasoning behind the words and then apply all I have learned to the incoming news and events as best I can.
My point, already made, is that the interaction of posters goes beyond mere words and spreads into a far deeper interactional educational experience than can be found anywhere on the net, this is the true wonder of this forum, it also highlights the MSM/deadtree press for the outdated medium it is!
I find it ironic that our shared anger and contempt for a corrupted and bloated state monolith can lead to such enlightenment and knowledge,
knowledge is power or so the elites believe, I hold that knowledge is freedom.
What the hell is AGW? more jargon limiting the effectiveness of this site. The bbc still sucks in spite of all your pontificating. What use are you?
I too would like to see some “other side of the arguement” but have yet to see any credible group emerge to challenge AGW with any sort of authority.
All I’ve seen is people (usually from/supported by the car and energy industries) crunching numbers in the hope to deny it. Neo-Cons who have interests in denying AGW too. And so far I’ve seen nothing to suggest anything different. It’s all “ah, but…” arguements. EG, ah but the summer was rubbish this year… ah but the Northern ice sheet extended further than ever for one day last year… ah but the weather’s so cold in my back garden… ah but the scientists who support AGW theory get grants… ah but blah blah blah.
Several teams of scientists who specialise in this area have been funded to research the matter over the past several years, and all agree that AGW is a real threat. The BBC is a publically funded organisation and should provide a public service. Reporting unfounded counter-arguements are not in the public interest and until the arguements become credible they should not waste time (and licence fee money) on this.
I have no arguement with the majority of this site… pro-Obama, pro-Labour, hail Muslims, screw the Christians, etc. But not everything the BBC does needs to be jumped on.
I know someone will post a load of stories that counter AGW (the “ah, but” arguement again) and probably a bunch of websites citing “evidence” against it. But I’ve read many of these as objectively as I can, and still the IPCC findings more than hold up to their supposed scrutiny. None of the sites are run by real scientists, many of them just quote figures (such as temperatures) from meaningless points on the globe, and various other errors, so I cannot take these seriously.
I guess it boils down as simply as this: If you trust the vast majority of the world’s scientists (as the BBC clearly does) you understand the dangers facing the planet; if you really, really, really wish it wasn’t true you seek out comfort in psuedo-science and neo-con supporting websites and their various twisted figures.
Eco maniac,
You come across as objective as the BBC enviroment reporters, in your mind NO argument no matter how reasoned will sway you from your’comfort zone’prejudies!
Manns hockey stick is still valid to you, 10 years of falling temperatures mean nothing to you, IPCC proven falsification of data means nothing to you, the lack of concrete proof/fingerprint evidence of carbon dioxide induced warming means nothing to you,the tens of thousands of scientists who dissent from the orthodoxy means nothing to you,the blatant smearing and silencing of ‘deniers’ means nothing to you, the ever growing body of scientific work that shows solar activity is the prime driver of climate means nothing to you! Your belief is political NOT scientific so peddle your rubbish elsewhere eh?
What will make you change your religious/political conviction that humanity is guilty of sins against nature? Will the coming cooling spell/mini ice age change your mind?
You see the basic mistake in your post is to fake impartial thought and then ruin it all with your prejudiced view of ‘deniers’ and how they are wrong in every way! I can never persuade you by ANY argument because rational and sceptical scientific enquiry is beyond you, suffice to say dont bother posting your trash psuedo science mumbo jumbo here, youve been rumbled sunshine!
Eco maniac reads exactly like nearly oxfordian who reads exactly like Richard lancaster, are they the same poster using different handles?
IF so, whats the point?
“Several teams of scientists who specialise in this area have been funded to research the matter over the past several years.”
Those 3 words “have been funded” tell you all you need to know, would be like turkeys voting for christmas if they’d have come up with any answer that didn’t reflect what it was supposed to.
Yes Cassandra I do think that you are a bit of a nutter! I did like your proposal on another thread on charities and the maximum of 10% spend on administration (although having tried to benchmark admin overheads I can see some easy ways for them to get round this).
Where you are going wrong is in thinking that the people running the EU are socialists, there are not, they are in the main social democrats with a bunch of authoritarian righties for back-up. These people really do believe in the tripe they spout; they aren’t lying when they make their long term forecasts as they believe that if they say something often enough then the created narrative will come to pass.
Eco-maniac,
The IPCC “report” was a political tract not a scientific study, the latter was changed. Science is not about concensus, if it were we would still be taught that the earth is the centre of the universe. Let reality in.
‘Telegraph’:
“Climate change targets”
[Extract]:
“There is a lot of ministerial hot air about these targets; new ones are announced long before it is apparent whether existing ones are realistic or achievable. In 1997, the Government said it was going to ‘reduce emissions of carbon dioxide by 20 per cent on 1990 levels by 2010’. By 2003 this had become an aspiration to ‘move towards a 20 per cent reduction…’ By 2005, it was saying that ’emissions of all greenhouse gases would be around 20 per cent below 1990 levels by 2010′.
“In 2006 a target was set for ‘all new homes to be zero carbon within a decade’ but in the first month of 2008, just three zero carbon homes were built. The Government then pledged to reduce carbon dioxide by 60 per cent from 1990 levels by 2050, which Mr Miliband has now said should rise to 80 per cent in line with a recommendation delivered just last week by the Government-appointed Climate Change Committee.”
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/opinion/main.jhtml?xml=/opinion/2008/10/17/dl1701.xml
Eu is ultimately communist.
I have read their stuff
Peregrine,
Point well made, although what is the real difference between an scocial democrat and a socialist? Yes the Euro pro federal conservative is a very different kettle of fish from say a proper free market UK conservative and bears a striking resemblance to their socialist cousins but yes I do make the error of lumping the above euro group under the catch all socialist umbrella.
Should I call them the euro federalist axis? They act as a group with very similar ideals for a central state USSR type EUSSR, as I dislike the right as much as the left then perhaps the name ‘eurofeds’ would better describe them?
Thanks for the correction peregrine.
Astonishingly, I heard Milliband actually say something like ‘… if we will have a planet by then…’
This is the problem in a nutshell. These people have by-passed all logical thought and are now swept away in a cloud of hysteria and hyperbole.
Milliband: whatever happens, the planet will still be here.
Shame on the BBC for not questioning this nonsense.
By the way – eco-manic. I call Godwin’s law on your asinine slur about ‘funding’. Who the hell do you think funds Hanson et al? . How much money do you think Gore is making from his eco-terrorism?
Go and read some science. You could do a lot worse than starting here :
http://personals.galaxyinternet.net/tunga/OSGWD.htm
The author, by the way, is a nuclear physicist.
It’s ironic that Eco-Maniac can’t spell ‘argument’? (arguement)
Probably because the word means nothing to him.
Love his point on why he dismisses any articles that oppose his blind faith on the god of AGW:-
“But I’ve read many of these as objectively as I can”
What, by not reading them at all Eco-Maniac. That’s about as objective as demented lefties get, surely?
eco maniac, i don’t have a problem’s programming generally taking the view of the scientific majority that man made climate change is a risk, but what’s entirely absent from their reporting is any sense of balance in quantifying that risk and offsetting it against other risks.
i wouldn’t ask them to give equal weight to those who think the whole thing is a socialist plot (although some non snide acknowledgement that such views exist would show balance), but their whole approach is that the most doom laden prediction must be the only valid one and any study that appears on the apocalyptic end of opinion is massively newsworthy. I’ve never heard a BBC correspondent challenge a proposal to live in mud huts and survive on mung beans by saying “wait a moment, x and y’s study suggests it won’t be that bad so surely we need to consider the economic and human costs of what you’re suggesting”.
They’re falling off the end of a normal distribution of opinion on this when they should be sitting in the middle.
Bloody hell!
Thats why I love this blog, I have been in error and it struck me straight away, what Peregrine said makes sense.
Often when evidence passes before you your own bias auto corrects and blinds you to what is really happening and who are the major players, I know there are plenty of socialists who believe in the euro dream BUT there are plenty of conservative europhiles and soc/lib dems who are just as pro EUSSR and who are just as fanatical in pushing the EUSSR project to its evil conclusion!
Well done and many thanks Peregrine! ill bugger off and assimilate the info hidden in plain sight and I was too blind to see it(as usual)!
Think this website is great and its good to know there are so many others who get so angry with the wound up pro islam, labour, happy clappy love the poor misunderstood criminal BBC (breathes…)
This AGW issue though keeps coming up and really lets the site down. So many people fall wholeheartedly into the nonsense global conspiracy theories it allows them to get dismissed as people who can find a conspiracy anywhere including one that the BBC loves muslims etc.
Eco Maniac gave a well written response to people basing arguments on one off articles like the increasing glacier and gets slammed.
Cassandra- for your info the whole Manns hockey stick issue came around from the anti global warming folk altering what he said years ago, even the anti AGW gang no longer use it. if there are not 10s of thousands of scientists who deny AGW it there are millions who support it. the IPCC have falsified data? so have the anti AGW people, does that mean both are wrong? the two people who are the main proponents of global warming being down to the suns activity have had there two papers rubbished for having got there sums wrong,twice! you also rubbish the very idea of predicting global warming and yet happily state there is a coming mini ice age.
for the record I appreciate that a lot of the AGW info is nonsense but not as much as the arguments against it.
boredatwork: I commend to you the link I offered eco-maniac. It sounds as if you need some science too.
There are several factual errors in what you have posted – the most egregious being about Mann’s hockey stick.
Here is a link that proves you are wrong:
http://www.uoguelph.ca/~rmckitri/research/trc.html
And here is another:
http://www.climateaudit.org/
Surely the only rational response to the ‘data’ on global weirding is total agnosticism?
Here’s one reason why:
All the data sources have updated now for June. NOAA GHCN data was a clear outlier. NOAA called this the eighth warmest June on record for the globe in the 129 years since records began in 1880 with a positive anomaly of 0.5C (0.9F) for the month. The University of Alabama, Huntsville MSU satellite based global assessment reported that this June was the the 9th coldest in the 30 years of satellite record keeping (base period 1979-1998 with a value of -0.11C (-0.19F). The other NASA satellite source, RSS had June as the 13th coldest out of the last 30 years. Hadley came in today with their CRUV3 data update. They also were in disagreement with the satellite data sets with +0.316C, the 10th warmest June.
http://icecap.us/index.php/go/joes-blog/recent_cooling_and_the_serious_data_integrity_issue/
Boredatwork(arent we all),
Go vist a site called ‘antigreen.blogspot.com’ read through and you will find that the so called consensus is nothing of the kind!
“millions of scientists” I dont think there are that many in the world but I feel you miss the point that as long as so called deniers are muzzled and not given a fair chance to explain their theories and smeared and insulted in the consensus driven media then I will be very suspicious of the AGW/MMCC theories! Tens of billions of dollars have been thrown at those scientists who support the narrative and those who deny the narrative are left without funding but still the numbers of deniers grows every day.
To be fair to me you mistake the post by eco maniac as being well presented when in fact it was the usual factless smear job so beloved of the AGW believers.
The Mann hockey stick WAS discredited and Mann tried to revive it again by using highly selective data and again it was debunked!
The IPCC computer simulations of the last decades have turned out to be inconsistent with reality and every correction has turned out to be just as wrong, the IPCC is a political body set up with a small body of political censors who took all the work of scientist contributers and then removed most traces not consistant with the pre decided agenda, many scientists resigned from the IPCC in disgust at the cutting and pasting to arrive at a given conclusion.
May I remind you that there is still no conclusive proof that a harmless trace gas has any bearing on climate, even your much admired IPCC cannot find it.
What will it take for you to change your mind? You are right when you remarked on my inclusion of a ‘global cooling/mini ice age’ I should have said it was still only a possibility only pointed to by falling world temperatures and the tracking of the current solar cycle which is starting to mirror the maunder minimum that heralded the mini ice age of the 17th/ 18th century.
I have no conclusive proof and neither do you, we can only go by the evidence as it emerges, what makes me very suspicious is the one sided and arrogant ‘the debate is over’ type attitude and lets gamble away our society on a mere theory!
The scientific debate is NEVER over and those who try to say it is earns them my deepest hostility, the consensus was that the earth was the centre of the universe, people died to contradict that ignorance, what makes you think that the current consensus is any better?
Theories come, look good and then fade away, the majority always deride the new theories that contradict the old theories and then after much bitter debate they are accepted IF they match the observable facts, that my friend is what science is all about!
All the theories of years past have been accepted, modified or destroyed based on their ability to weather observable reality, guess what my friend, the AGW/MMCC theories are not standing up well to observable reality, in effect they are failing the true test of science.
I can only hope the world hasnt gambled away its entire future on a failed theory, by the time the old so called consensus is shattered science will always make the painful stretch from one old paradigm to the next new paradigm and its just one of many to be faced in the coming centuries.
Eco-maniac
I’m afraid you sound like a lot of Warmists and argue the same way. You coolly dismiss the work done by one group of scientists because it’s funded by the car and energy interests, but accept the evidence of “scientists who specialise in this area have been funded to research the matter over the past several years, and all agree that AGW is a real threat”. Might there not be the possibility that funding plays an equal part in the work they do? If you’re going to play the man and not the ball, play it equally against both sides.
There’s more than enough stuff about the IPCC to prove that it’s a deeply politicised organisation, enough to cast doubt on its claim to infallibility. Indeed, one wonders why it remains the source of all wisdom to Warmists and not to be challenged. After all, isn’t the argument from Authority alone – the Warmist position – by its very nature, deeply unscientific?
even the anti AGW gang no longer use it
boredatwork Welcome to the bearpit. However if you want to contribute to the debate on AGW you need to keep up to date. The Hockey Stick is, unfortunately alive and well, just like a vampire it doesn’t matter how many times you kill it, it rises up the next day.
The IPPC still uses it, albeit not as prominently in AR4 as in the TAR. Prof Ian Stuart also made it into an iconic part of the BBC Series “The Climate Wars”, parading it around London on the side of a large van.
In addition Professor Mann has recently published a new paper [Mann et al. [2008]. Proxy-based reconstructions of hemispheric and global surface temperature variations over the past two millennia. PNAS September 9, 2008 vol. 105 no. 36.
] attempting to justify the Hockey Stick, without adressing any of the funadamental problems that were found in his original work.
Far from not being used the wretched thing is still being used as a propangada tool despite the fact that it was effectively rubbished by two independent panels of statisticians.
A summary of the new paper by Mann et.al. can be found at the link for the AGW geeks
http://news.mongabay.com/2008/0901-temperatures.html
Energy prices through the roof and the economy about to give up the ghost, and the twat Millibean wants to reduce our ability to keep warm in the winter by applying policies that are intended to make the world even colder.
I sometimes wonder what they teach these idiots in school these days.
Why is the BBC so obsessed with this bollocks anyway ?
Idiotboy wonders: “Why is the BBC so obsessed with this bollocks anyway ?”
That is actually a vitally important question.
Once you realise that all the ‘solutions to AGW’ are precisely the policies the Left has been advancing for the past 50 years, it starts to look extremely suspicious. A put-up job, you might even think.
A view rarely allowed to be developed on BBC:
“My real focus group scorned Climate Change”
(James Delingpole, ‘Spectator’ Magazine):
http://www.spectator.co.uk/the-magazine/features/2294856/part_4/my-real-focus-group-scorned-climate-change.thtml
Nice Post. Thanks for sharing this information with us.
Am I dreaming this? Milliband was woffling about carbon emission or some such ecobollox on Breakfast news while Cameron was giving his speech. I’m sure Sky news was running that in full, but no mention on the Beeb.
Surely not!
Disgrunt – I think AGW is Accelerated Global Warming, but there are probably others.
George R – Love your quote ‘obssession will slide down the agenda’. When the children were at school I thought the ‘rainforests’ would never end.
Gcooper is spot on. Although its not that important as its well known. You can go to the most remote Peruvian mountain or the deepest Amazon jungle and ask the locals what the watermelon is and they somehow know
Idiot Boy and GCooper
In any religion, belief is based on faith. In the “religion” of the left, “global warming caused by human intervention” is a act of faith as much as the Holy Trinity is to Christians and reincarnation is to Hindus.
Like all religious fanatics the Warmists KNOW they are right. They simply believe what they believe, and the high-priesthood within the BBC reflects this.
And one more ‘religious’ analogy: The Left love crusades.
disgrunt | 17.10.08 – 9:17 am |
Pat | 17.10.08 – 3:35 pm |
AGW – Anthropogenic (manamde) Global Warming.
From the comments to this Guido piece
rid us of this wicked government said…
Brown and his bullies have made the BBC the mouthpiece of their lies.They now want to stop us learning the truth from blogs such as yours. My father died of injuries received in WW2 for the cause of freedom.I will happily die to defend the right to tell it as it is.
October 17, 2008 3:41 PM
http://www.order-order.com/2008/10/blog-regulation-theyll-have-to-prise.html