The UK economy continues to teeter on the edge of recession, with all the misery that this entails. But Richard Black and his assorted greenie fascist chums want to push us even further down into the mire. Here, Mr Black wheels out a range of eco nuts led by the Committee on Climate Change (as well as his bosom buddies Oxfam and WWF, whose idea the shipping tax is) who want Britain to impose taxes on the cost of shipping fuel. Where do these nutters come from? Out country is an island. Our very existence is based to a major extent on physical imports and exports with the big, wide world (as this excellent Civitas pamphlet points out) – but have no fear, the greenies want to hobble our economy even more by ensuring that we make it as costly as possible to go about activities that have sustained us for centuries. As usual, there’s scarcely a peep in the story from anyone with an ounce of common sense or a contrasting view; the main thrust is that nasty “carbon” emissions must be curbed, whatever the price.

I’m all for free discussion, but Mr Black is engaged in a deliberate, sustained camapign to damage Britain and its people. Time he read Matt Ridley.

Tweet about this on TwitterShare on FacebookShare on Google+Email this to someone
Bookmark the permalink.

17 Responses to TREASONABLE?

  1. pounce_uk says:

    Robin, I hope you don’t mind but I knocked this out earlier and feel that it deserves a home here:

    I see the eco nuts at the bBC are heavily promoting this story about how the Committee on Climate Change (Note the omission of who COCC are, you know, say leftwing, right wing or even as in this case an independent NGO) are screaming out how emissions from British shipping should be included . Now here is something the bBC doesn’t mention, the size of the British merchant fleet.  
    Here is the link to the worlds merchant fleets, Tell you what you’ll be surprised at actually how small the UK’s fleet is.(16th) Which is probably why in the COCC article they have to say (something Richard Black fails to mention)  
    “We believe that the UK should consider itself responsible for all of the shipping emissions involved in the transfer of cargos between the UK and its trading partners. “




    • pounce_uk says:


      “It is crucial that international shipping emissions are, at some point, included in the UK’s 2050 target to reduce emissions by 80% on 1990 levels. “

      Get that a NGO, feels that Britain should take on the CO2 burdens of nations who have much bigger fleets than we do. The UK in 2008 had 254 ships registered at British Ports. China had 1806 , Greece had 805, Singapore had 518. Yet these idiots state we should add their CO2 emissions onto our books, if they visit our shores.    


      And the bBC kind of leaves that information out of the article. Gee I wonder why???


      • deegee says:

        Never accuse of conspiracy when stupidity is an equally valid explanation. Black probably read the press release and didn’t read the report.


  2. cjhartnett says:

    I do wonder where Burgess and Macleans fellow-travellers ended up…clearly not all of them made it to Moscow.
    Seems the rest of them quietly brough their progeny up via the public sector, and now they`re in full bloom now.
    These people seem to have been steeped in anti-Thatch stuff in the 80s and got a coating of ecoslime throughout the nineties…a whole ship of fools under Petra Kellys shroud.
    And here they are now…all over the airwaves, public sector and parasitic quangos and research/think tanks…perpetual revolution as long as the State pays their school fees!
    Putin and Hu Jintao, let alone tomorrows Saddams and Gadhafis won`t be needing to do anything other than watch it all unfold…but I happen to think that the media and the political elite will be tomorrows Benito and Clara!


  3. Grant says:

    I am not entirely sure that idiots like Black really understand the effects of their moroni


  4. Geyza says:

    I see Black still hasn’t acknowledged the hammering that Dr. Muller from BEST has taken from the BEST Co-auther, Dr. Judith Curry over his dishonest and premature media blitz.  I notice that the likes of Black et al are constantly banging on about the value of “peer review”, UNLESS that peer review passes a paper which is critical of cAGW, (Lindzen and Choi, Spencer and Braswell, and now Richard P. Allan).  Well the BEST papers have not had ANY sort of peer review at all as yet, and Black et al is claiming it is the ultimate proof of AGW.

    What I have discovered over the past decade is that peer review is utterly irrelevant.  Whether a paper is properly peer reviewed, PAL reviewed or not reviewed at all, these people only value any paper based solely on the conclusion of the paper.  If it os pro AGW, they will defend it to the hilt.  If it is critical, they will dismiss it.  The actual validity or standard of the science is not considered at all.

    Black is just a partisan hack at best.


    • Grant says:

      “Peer review”, even anonymous, is a farce because everyone in a particular academic field knows what topics everyone else is working on.


    • Richard Pinder says:

      Some news from Oxford on its way to Mensa members, I would like to share here. The temperature on Venus at the altitude that has identical pressure to that on the Earths surface is 1.177 times the Earths average surface temperature. The radiating temperature of Venus is 1.177 times that of the Earth. This fits in with Fredric Miskolczi’s theory. It means that the carbon dioxide Atmospheres of both Venus and Mars can and are being used as proxies for the Earths Atmosphere and that CO2 warming on the Earth is shown to be Zero. Also results from the CERN CLOUD Experiment not shown in Nature magazine are known at Oxford and seem to confirm that a one percent decrease in cosmic rays causes a 0.13 Kelvin increase in Global temperature. Then add to this, results showing that the cloud albedo of the Earth decreased by 6.5 percent from 1985 to 1997, and you have two demolition balls on their way to peer review that should demolish the AGW Theory.


    • George R says:

      Yes; this article by James DELINGPOLE is outstanding. It’s partly about BBC-‘Greenie’ propaganda against the development of Britain’s gas resources; but it’s about some more insidious aspects of BBC political attitudes towards Britain.  
      An article to be savoured:  
      “Why does the BBC so hate Britain? ”  


      • George R says:

        -From DELINGPOLE (above)*:

        “The BBC’s job is also to represent – or try to represent – the interests of people who are shocked by rising energy bills, who are desperately worried about Britain’s economic future, who might benefit from a job working in or servicing the shale gas industry, who innocently believe (in their sweet but oh-so-naive way) that the British Broadcasting Corporation’s true purpose is to broadcast for Britain.
        “Add all these people together and you’ll likely find that they outnumber the membership of Frack Off, Damian Carrington, George Monbiot, Caroline Lucas, Chris Huhne and the various spokesmen for the WWF, Greenpeace and Friends of the Earth by an order of magnitude rather greater than the minuscule, barely noticeable tremor that lightly stirred Lancashire during the summer.”

        *(Delingpole’s on ‘Any Questions’ today.)