Counting Cats in Zanzibar Rotating Header Image

Public Support For Unpopular Decisions

I don’t ever read the Guardian, honest, but in this case I followed a link before I realised where it led. We see here words of warning direct from the millipede’s bottom.

“The danger of climate scepticism was that it would undermine public support for unpopular decisions needed to curb carbon emissions, including the likelihood of higher energy bills for households, and issues such as the visual impact of wind turbines, said Miliband, who is also energy secretary.”

What does the word “unpopular” mean? Surely it means “without public support”. This is some strange form of doublethink – the people of this country want unpopular decisions! And Ed’s just the man to deliver those.

"Every­thing we know about life is that we should obey the precautionary principle; to take what the sceptics say seriously would be a profound risk."

Obey! That’s all we know!

Are you getting the subliminal message yet? “Danger! Obey!” Apart from that, the interview is pretty much empty of content. You don’t need to worry about the IPCC’s mistakes because its report has thousands of pages. There’s a “physical effect” of CO2, but that’s apparently all he knows about it. (6,000 years? Is that a typo?) And slightly more concerning but no real surprise – there’s “no doubt” that the next report will suggest even more dramatic changes have been happening, even though it hasn’t been written yet. Not even the events it will eventually describe have happened yet. (And remember, this is the weather they’re talking about.) So how does he know?

He who controls the present, controls the past. He who controls the past, controls the future.


  1. HSLD says:

    ‘Siren Voices’ – nice reference to the classics there, I wonder if climate change will cause the river Tiber to foam with blood :)

    He should lay off that public school education stuff if the next general election is going to be fought on a class war strategy… won’t endear him to the Spartists

  2. RAB says:

    Just another little error here!
    Or is it another on top of an other on top an other?

    But the science is sound we tell you!
    It’s 2000 pages long! It cant all be made up crap to make our case!
    Oh Yeah?

  3. CIngram says:

    Surely scepticism is the rational use of the precautionary principle. Or the precautionary principle is the rational use of scepticism (or the precautionary use of reason). Either way, ‘we must take every precaution and throw ourselves off the cliff without checking for rocks because that would be risky’ is not an argument that stands up to rational scrutiny. Oh, this is Milliband writing in the Guardian? OK, now I see.

    Actually it reminds me of all that ‘Bush’s election victory is illegitimate because nobody wanted him to win’ stuff. Not so much doublethink as ‘they’ll all stupid, they’ll fall for it.’

  4. NickM says:

    Ed Milliband is a tit-wank performed almost to completion.

    By a lady regarded in low repute in the parish.

    If there was any justice in the world he ought to be shot dead.

    For that is all I have to say on the matter.

  5. john in cheshire says:

    This is what you get when you elect communists to run the show. I’m puzzled why the other parties don’t take every opportunity to expose the communists in the labour party; especially during an election year. At least the electorate won’t have the excuse that they didn’t know.

  6. Canon Alberic says:

    This is becoming the new line: even though it might not be happening in the way or for the reasons of AGW; even if AGW is a mix of wishful thinking fraud fundamentalism and self promotion we must still follow its proscriptions in case they are accidentally right for other reasons.

    Still when the only public voices of this classic cultist line are figures with the intellectual and moral authority of Milliband, Pauchauri and the BBCs claque of globally warmed fellow travellers reasonable voices have little to fear.

  7. JuliaM says:

    “This is some strange form of doublethink – the people of this country want unpopular decisions! And Ed’s just the man to deliver those.”

    That’s just the way all politicians seem to believe, now. The people are sheep who need to be led. Once they’ve voted for us, that is. Then they’ve served their purpose, and we can get on with the real business of telling them how we think they should live.

    Usually, they aren’t stupid enough to admit to that, but Ed, after all, is no Brains Trust…

  8. I allways worry about the effect on “global warming” wehen I open a bottle of tonic water to add to my gin.

    DSurely iof cows can fart the planet to death, the CO² from a freshly opened bottle of tonic must also be fatal?

    Or wopuld they think I was jsut taking the piss by asking?

  9. I see my typing skills are living up to reputation.

  10. Pa Annoyed says:

    All true.

    But mainly I was struck by his argument that climate scepticism might undermine “public support” for vastly higher energy bills and bloody great concrete and metal bird-blenders stuck all over our most beautiful natural environment.

    He thinks he’s got public support for doing that?

    Sharkey’s End cannot be long delayed now, but it’s not clear yet if the other lot are going to be any better. There’s said to be a lot of sceptics in the new intake, but of course political parties are run on somewhat more dictatorial lines. And remember only three of the buggers voted against the Climate Change Act.

  11. Kevin B says:

    The (current) top comment (11:13 by James Denning) on the Telegraph article linked by RAB is terrific. It starts:

    The greater shambles is that you so-called journalists in the main stream media are about 6 months behind various blogs and behind even your colleague Richard Booker IN THE SAME NEWSPAPER!!! You breathlessly use terms like “it can be revealed” and “revelations uncoverd by the Sunday Telegraph” but all this has been sitting staring us in the face for months if not years.

    and then gets serious.

  12. Sam Duncan says:

    It might have carried more force if he’d got Christopher Booker’s name right, Kevin. But he’s right. The wheels are flying off the AGW gravy train in all directions – the image that springs to mind is, rather appropriately, a clown car – and the papers are only just beginning to notice. Most of the BBC hasn’t yet, and the politicians are carrying on as if nothing had happened. (Glasgow City Council unveiled its climate change strategy last week, and it’s a doozy: they want to phase out electric, oil, and gas heating throughout the city. What, exactly, does that leave us with, on the same latitude as Moscow? Huddling together? Could be fun, but hardly practical.)

  13. Kevin B says:

    Sam, I think he meant the composite writer who is Richard North/Christopher Booker;)

    What I can’t understand is why iDave and/or his minions isn’t reading the runes and saying something about this, even if it’s only to say “the science has been called into question therefore, (while we’re just as committed as ever to being good little greenies), we’re going to wait a while and see which way the wind blows.”

    Oh I know why of course. He’s too tied up with carbon trading and the money and power that will bring, but does he honestly believe he can still get away with it?

    I read somewhere that a couple of polls are talking hung parliament so he needs to put some distance between himself and the Brownies and this would seem the ideal issue.

  14. Anon 00:32 says:

    unpopular green taxes

    that’s all the greedy money grabbers want in order to shore up their money spending. thrift seems to be a liebore blind spot.

  15. Swm says:

    Mr Miliband’s arguments in that article seem to boil down to the following: “We know X Y and Z are true because a lot of scientists agree they are true.”

    “The deception and manipulation of the truth is justified because it has a lot of other data that it claims it didn’t alter.”

    “The existence of doubt about climate change poses a terrible threat to our nation’s future, therefore the public should shut up and listen to those who know better for their own good.”

    “Therefore, for the sake of our safety, whether climate change is occuring or not, we should assume that it does and force people to adopt a green agenda, because no cost to the public can be greater then that of this possible global catastrophe.”

    Even as someone who doesn’t know much about the evidence presented, this does not look like a stable platform from which to launch a war, to put it mildly. Less mildly, it stinks of paternalism, alarmism, and hypocrisy for using the very same “siren voices” he accuses his targets of. Stones and glass houses, Ed.

Leave a Reply

%d bloggers like this: