A climate for eurosceptics
sees the European Union’s plans to deal with climate change as a route to popularity.
He told the European Parliament that
I am not sure he won over quite everyone in the chamber.
Mr Barroso sat laughing and shaking his head as . This is part of what he said:
“Climate change is precisely that! Climate changes - ALL THE TIME! So what if Earth's climate decides to cool down instead of warm up? Will the "experts" then suggest that we must produce much more carbon dioxide to try and offset the cooling? 
"Of course not - they are so committed to their present "Global Warming" prediction that that would NOT be an option.
“But, sadly, it looks as if that is what IS happening. IF Global Warming has been just a temporary blip and we are now heading relentlessly for the next (inevitable) Ice Age, any reductions in CO2 emissions will have precisely the OPPOSITE effect to that which is intended.
“And all the fancy calculations of carbon trading, the "benefits" of which are highly doubtful anyway, will be completely pointless.â€
, a fierce critic of the European Union, also doubts that global warming is caused by human activity.
So does , and we had quite a discussion about it when we met last year. I was interviewing him, yes you guessed it, about his scepticism towards the European Union.
What is the connection between and doubts about man-made climate change ?
I’m Mark Mardell, the Â鶹ԼÅÄ's North America editor. These are my reflections on American politics, some thoughts on being a Brit living in the USA, and who knows what else? My 
°ä´Ç³¾³¾±ð²Ô³Ù²õÌýÌý Post your comment
Gosh it's quite a surprise… but I think we should reserve judgement until perhaps a statistical analysis could be done?
It probably suggests part of my world view, that the I would expect the pattern to be repeated.
But… !
Thats all the EU should be Mark Climate change nothing else recent ITV teletex Poll should that 89% of the uk think the uk is better outside this bad organisation which soaks up british rule.Why dont the bbc show the true feelings about what the average person thinks about the EU we dont want it and one day our calls will be answered .sorry if i have offened any pro europeans , but the facts are in black and white.Sooner or later we will elect the Tories and hopefully they will salvage us from EU rule.Gordon Brown as no mandate to be doing what he is doing and lying over the treaty referendrum shame on him.
The link between euroscepticsm and doubts about man-made climate change is clear. It is a fear of change, an unwillingness to accept the need to tackle issues that effect the modern world.
Evidence of man-made climate change abounds, but as there is no "definite" link, so some want to ignore it. The same could be said for smoking. No one has ever proved how smoking causes disease and early death, but we know it happens, as statistics tell us how much younger smokers die and what diseases they get. I agree that the earth, environment and climate are extremely complex, but the balance of evidence suggests we are changing it. Looking at the "what if I'm wrong?" argument, if environmentalist are wrong, then very little damage has been done, except a strain on the economy. If the MMCC critics are wrong, the consequences are potentially disastrous. Many take the view that as there is no 100% proof, they don't have to change their comfortable lives as it "might not happen".
Similarly, the benefits of the European Union are clear, to bring the continent together and avoid future conflict and a common economic area is a part of that. Again, many take the view that it doesn't profit them personally (though that's hard to prove or disprove), so it should be abandoned altogether. This misses the entire point of the EUs existence. I agree with many eurosceptic views e.g. the need for CAP reform, avoiding a European "superstate" etc., more power to MEPs (rather than bureaucrats) but I believe that Britain benefits from membership, though maybe not as much as some.
In short, it is a selfish position that says 'why should I pay more money just to possibly save the planet/help avoid future wars/reduce wealth inequality' etc. Personally, I'm happy to pay for these things, others don't take that view. I think the EU need a fair bit of reform, but it's raison d'etre is noble and as valid today as it was on day 1.
Eurosceptics would choose to disbelieve anything that gives credence to the union. They are just that way.
But, I would say this – The EU’s tendency to focus so strongly on climate change is actually just as dense. It is supposed to be an economical and political alliance of states, addressing lots of different issues. The way in which the union is portraying itself to the public recently is as an environment agency, at the most.
The link between euroscepticsm and doubts about man-made climate change is clear. It is a fear of change, an unwillingness to accept the need to tackle issues that effect the modern world.
Evidence of man-made climate change abounds, but as there is no "definite" link, so some want to ignore it. The same could be said for smoking. No one has ever proved how smoking causes disease and early death, but we know it happens, as statistics tell us how much younger smokers die and what diseases they get. I agree that the earth, environment and climate are extremely complex, but the balance of evidence suggests we are changing it. Looking at the "what if I'm wrong?" argument, if environmentalist are wrong, then very little damage has been done, except a strain on the economy. If the MMCC critics are wrong, the consequences are potentially disastrous. Many take the view that as there is no 100% proof, they don't have to change their comfortable lives as it "might not happen".
Similarly, the benefits of the European Union are clear, to bring the continent together and avoid future conflict and a common economic area is a part of that. Again, many take the view that it doesn't profit them personally (though that's hard to prove or disprove), so it should be abandoned altogether. This misses the entire point of the EUs existence. I agree with many eurosceptic views e.g. the need for CAP reform, avoiding a European "superstate" etc., more power to MEPs (rather than bureaucrats) but I believe that Britain benefits from membership, though maybe not as much as some.
In short, it is a selfish position that says 'why should I pay more money just to possibly save the planet/help avoid future wars/reduce wealth inequality' etc. Personally, I'm happy to pay for these things, others don't take that view. I think the EU need a fair bit of reform, but it's raison d'etre is noble and as valid today as it was on day 1.
The connection is independence: of thought and of national sovereignty - as opposed to the collectivist and nannying mindset of the EU, the enviro-fundamentalists, assorted statists and socialist, etc, etc.
So according to Graham Booth its perfectly normal that the polar ice caps are melting, that sea levels will rise, that flora and fauna will become extinct and that parts of low-lying territories such as the Netherlands may disappear. We should, according to Mr Booth, continue pumping co2 and other pollutants into the atmosphere.
He's a scientist right? Qualified in the subject? No and no - he's a retired holiday camp director who never even went to university. Why should his views obtain any credence? More to the point, what is he doing in the European Parliament? Wasting taxpayers money spouting off on matters upon which he evidently has no idea. But sadly that's about par for the course for a UKIP representative. His former UKIP colleague Ashley Mote is currently serving 9 months for benefit fraud!
Tom, you obviously don't remember Britain dropping out of the ERM and the chaos that caused.
We could be happy to be a small island with an ever-decreasing influence on world events, or we could claim our rightful place as one of the main drivers of Europe and help shape the EU into a viable competitor to the economies of the US, India and China. I'm all for more European integration, I don't think it has a huge effect on our sovereignty and we get to make the decisions which can turn the EU into a superpower.
Personally I'm waiting for us to invite Russia to join, that would really seal the deal. Of course they would probably turn it down, what with being populated by a load of nationalists with a worldview closed to events outside their own borders, much like some commentators here no doubt.
Hello ! Is anybody there ?
Is this not a GLOBAL warming ?
Is the E.U.not a part of this planet?
O.K...on the count of three all the blindfold's off !
I'm for leaving the EU and I'm for confronting Climate Change. It's actually the one thing the EU could be good for!
Perhaps Mr. Barroso would busy himself with solving an urgent problem of global economic cooling, which has affected EU countries/banks more than massive third-world style corruption at Airbus, BAE, Siemens, Volkswagen, etc.
The connection is independence: of thought and of national sovereignty - as opposed to the collectivist and nannying mindset of the EU, the enviro-fundamentalists, assorted statists, socialist, miserabilists, millennialists and other doom-mongers, etc., etc.
Mark, methinks one needs to take with a pinch of salt what politicians believe or dis-believe about climate change.
In fact, one needs to reason if the belief that politicians hold (about climate change) merits any mention at all. Politicians are not scientists. They have no clue about what is making the scientists believe that climate change, this time, is induced by human activity. The reasoning of the scientists is based on tonnes of data, which, for non-scientists (and surely for politicians) is beyond their ability to understand. Most of us don't know how simple things like electricity work - "what happens when it leaves my toaster"?
Let's take an alternate scenario.If a doctor recommends you to get an MRI scan done and change your diet, how many of us will dis-believe him and seek enlightened views of politicians on this aspect?
The scientists are experts - and have nothing personal to gain by advising remedial measures. Yes, there are green lobbyists who might allegedly gain by pushing the green agenda. And yes, one can be critical there. But politicians claiming that the scientists are wrong, cannot be more wrong themselves.
Of course I'm not suggesting for a moment that we believe the scientists blind-folded, but positive criticism is different from green-skepticism.
Interesting article. I am trying to understand English Europhobes:
What I find interesting is that English 'Europhobes' must know that their world view is contradictory and incoherant as they never propose a coherant alternative to the EU.
Their entrenched position requires them to deny that the world, and Britain's position in it, has changed since 1945. In their 'world' Britain can survive alone, even though she no longer has her empire, and her former military and economic might.
But of course they know that the world has changed and they know that we know they know this. So they make intellectual pirouettes-in fact they are only really talking to themselves.
Then of course there is the American dimension that comes into play. It has always surprised me that the English Europhobes see no contradiction between their fear of losing sovereignty to the EU and their staunch support of Britain's obviously unequel relationship with the US.
But of course if Britain were to, as they wish, leave the EU, then her only realistic means of survival in the modern world would be through an ever closer alliance with America. So the alternative to the EU is the US. But they know that this is not a popular idea, even in England. So at this point they try to distort the facts to bring people round to their viewpoint and make this idea seem workable-
1. Brussels becomes 'socialist'- (false: it actually promotes market liberalisation and there's nothing socialist about the free market. Example- countries with more state intervention like France and Sweden criticise Brussels for being too free market oriented)
2. Washington is 'economically liberal' and against state interventionism- (No, America did not swallow the neo-liberal pill like Britain, they are much more protectionist than many people in Europe realise, and the federal state is extremely powerful and will remain so).
How can the Europhobes be, as they say, ideologically in favour of free markets that go beyond national borders and are not controlled by states, yet so against the common market and the Schengen open border agreement? Wanting to reduce the power of 'the state' yet obsessed with defending its sovereignty?
Reading Europhobe writings one thing I am quite certain of is that their authors do not themselves believe what they write. But they do try very hard to convince themselves.
England should be worrying. A majority of English would probably, if not entirely endorse, then at least have a lot of sympathy with these Europhobe viewpoints, and most importantly, follow their reasoning. This society appears to be entering a period of collective dillusion and rejection of the modern world- the final phase of Britain's terminal decline. What can be done?
Mr. Mardell:
I quite disagree with some of your views. As a convinced European citizen I believe time will put things in perspective. In a world that tends to gather around blocks, to keep the "splendid isolation" concept nowadays known as "euroscepticism" is just an announced defeat.
I do not know, nor do I care, whether the next Ice Age is due within 50 or 3 million years. Nonetheless, I do not have a shadow of a doubt in the fact that humans have decisively contributed to spoiling natural resources and to, at the very least, partially alter an otherwise natural course of events.
Some 3.5 billion people are, in a way or another, suffering from our reckless, greedy and absurd consumism and moral misery
The EU is being forced on to its people without consent not only in Britain but all over Eu and anti EU is rising at a fast pace Mark surely this will be the EU as we no it downfall sooner or later....They say the EU is coming together peacefully what a lie Mark its being forced in by bad politics lack of democracy.This is what the real EU is about.
Who are you and what have you done with Mark?
What a very stream-of-consciousness like post this is of you Mark, very much unlike your usual observation-cum-lucid-analysis.
Did those quotes not deserve at least a wee comment? Or did you figure they didn't need one because they speak for themselves? (Let's just do away with all Politics altogether, after all "EVERYTHING CHANGES ALL THE TIME", and who knows if what we do policy-wise is really right until the end of time?!).
Maybe the policy would better be 'sold' as 'Reducing our long-term dependence on not necessarily friendly foreign powers for our energy needs'?
In any case, I somewhat doubt there's a connection between 'euroscepticism' and doubts about man-made climate change. In fact, chances are that this will be one of the most-supported EU policies in the UK (second only to the cap in roaming charges, maybe). This is one of the areas where the public is miles ahead of their politicians.
There are also people like South African president Thabo Mbeki who believe AIDS is caused by poverty rather than by a contagious agent like HIV; or people who seriously believe there is no link between smoking and cancer. And a whole bunch of other people who believe things aren't true because they can't be proven with absolute certainty. Graham Booth seems to be keen to join their ranks.
The connection is independence: of thought and of national sovereignty - as opposed to the collectivist and nannying mindset of the EU, the enviro-fundamentalists, assorted statists, socialist, miserabilists, millennialists and other doom-mongers, etc., etc.
In every day and age, people will exist who are too afraid of change, to the point of denying facts. No biggie.
Bit surprised though, that Mark would post about the eurosceptics and climate-change sceptics (wich makes sence) without posting about the Commission's proposal before...
(and no the reports aren't the same)
Hmm ... Mr. Helmer does not believe in climate change. Vaclav Claus too does not. Mr. Barroso as well.
I always thought that climate change was a scientific topic and not a religious one or one to vote for.
Somehow I seem to have missed that you can be 'pro' existance of climate change or 'con'.
I guess that climate change will care if 'he' won't get a majority and will - for sure - simply disappear. Climate change is a democrat, that's clear.
In every day and age, people will exist who are too afraid of change, to the point of denying facts. No biggie.
Bit surprised though, that Mark would post about the eurosceptics and climate-change sceptics (wich makes sence) without posting about the Commission's proposal before...
(and no the reports aren't the same)
What is the connection between euro-"scepticism" and climate change "scepticism"?
How about unavowed financial interests?
The connection is independence: of thought and of national sovereignty - as opposed to the collectivist and nannying mindset of the EU, the enviro-fundamentalists, assorted statists, socialist, miserabilists, millennialists and other doom-mongers, etc., etc.
mmm...that's all we need A laughing fool, Barosso should not have mentioned the money side of the arguement....another tax ....3 euro's each....and WE...the EU will save the planet for you...is this another Religeon ?...I think they have found a shortfall in their pension fund and want some more lucrative way's to fund it...Roll on Summer....and some sunshine.
To me it is obvious that 'climate change' is a stick with which to beat the population into submission to the undemocratic EU.
Yes, it would be prudent to reduce the release of C02 but the apocalyptic message is going to be counter-productive. The main effect of the panic will be boost our economic competitors and leave us less able to mitigate the possible negative effects of warming.
Connection between euroscepticism and man-made climate change? Is there any connection? If so, I do not see it. But I guess this will be used again by the british sceptisim-fraction to moan about the Union and their membership. The European Union can do good, can do bad, by some members it is always used to moan whatever it does. So just leave it. The problem with that option would be that Britain would recognize very early its fault and probably their was no return, so think before you act.
Why didn't you chat with the czech president Klaus a bit over his plans to install parts of the US-anti-missile-shield in his country? You will find much sceptisism thoughout all of Europe and Russia because of that. And as far as I know his people are much more worried about that than they are worried about the EU.
The czech president Klaus should rather realize the scepticism against his US-anti-missile-shield throughout Europe and Russia rather than his own EU-scepticism because his own people are much more worried about this nuclear danger than about Brussels.
Isn't that obvious? Europhobes are againt everything that has to do with the European Union. These people are afraid of change, probably still living in the 19e century. Newsflash for those people: the European dwarves can form together a giant in this world. To combat major social/economic/military/political/ecological problems, the European Union is needed.
Isn't the connection more to do with being ridiculously right-wing? There are left-wing Eurosceptics but have never heard them deny climate change.
I, like Barroso, had to laugh – on his website Roger Helmer claims “Almost every planet is simultaneously undergoing temperature change and volatile weather patterns. Does not this suggest that global warming is a natural cycle as a result of the evolving nature of the sun?â€
Whilst we have plethora of data on our own climate from which scientists have concluded that the current warming cannot be attributed to the sun, ice ages, or anything else other than our own greenhouse gas emissions, Helmer concludes that climate change is taking place on all other planets even though we have relatively little recent, and absolutely no historic data on the climate of those planets.
I can think of one Eurosceptic family member who doesn't deny MMCC, and another who is a Europhile but vehemently denies MMCC. Strangely enough, the latter has repeated the same laughable argument as Roger Helmer.
To James, I applaud your post. You put it extremely well regarding Britain's future prospect as an island, alone and out at sea should it break from the EU.
Most eurosceptics are not very coherant, choosing to put there arguments across by using the lastest rantings of the tabloids especially when they draw comparisions to the former USSR. The two are so at opposite ends of the world to each other that to compare it with the EU is a travesty for all those millions of ordinary people who suffered and died under the former Soviet regime.
To James (14)
You say people never produce a 'coherent alternative to the EU'. Well you are wrong.
The MP John Redwood wrote a very good book on the subject a couple of years ago.There were a number of points raised in his book with one being to join the North Atlantic Alliance which includes Canada,USA, Mexico and others.We also stll have a Commonwealth but have had to either cut back our trade with them or introduce tarrifs because of our membership of the EU.
We have and always will be a trading nation.You do not have to be a member of a club which overrides the law of your own country to be successful! It should only be about trade.Do you honestly think that the EU would stop trading with the UK even if we left their club.They would loose too much.
As for your comment about us leaving the EU only to get the same with the US is laughable. The US does not try to impose their rules on the countries within their trading block.
I am old enough to have voted in the only referendum we have had on the EU.It seems nothing has changed and again we are being lied to by the majority of MPs and the media. Ask anybody who voted back then and the vast majority will tell you they did not want what it has become.We were sold it as being a huge trading block and it would be good for jobs.The liars.
One day we will have some sort of referendum again.The USSR fell and so in time will the EU.Nothing can last without the will of the people.
These political snobs who think they know what is best for everybody, all through history it never works.
If it is such a great deal they have nothing to fear in asking the people.One way or another we,the people will always win!
I think there are many thoughtful people around the world who have nothing to do with Europe who are concerned about climate change, that it may be caused by human activity, and that it could have dire consequences if it continues unabated. That said, it seems the EU has become more than a political concept for many Europeans, it has become a religion and to argue that climate change even if real is not caused by human activity is heresy in the EU.
The problem with the EU's proposals is that they don't work, are inequitably unfair and therefore unlikely to be adopted by enough of the major contributors to CO2 emissions, and there isn't any detailed program to achieve the EU's reduction targets other than all of us living poorer and poorer lives. There is no serious talk of global population reduction for example nor any huge crash research programs to find viable alternative technologies. It was American scientists who first pointed out after Kyoto was touted as the salvation of humanity that its implementation would only slow global warming by 2/3 of a degree over 65 years. Undaunted, the EU climate change alarmists told us Kyoto is therefore just the beginnning. There hasn't been any discussion among economists or scientists about what the consequences for the world's food supply or the world's economy would be if for example the USA were to implement these drastic cutbacks. Nor is there any discussion of how the EU will persuade the US to adopt a mandatory program which will clearly weaken its economy when it agrees with China and India that they should not have to make comparable cutbacks. Their argument is that the "industrialized" nations created the problem so they alone should make the sacrifices. What they are telling Americans is that they should live more poorly so that Chinese and Indians can live better. Now how does Europe expect to sell that to a nation which is on the verge of an open trade war with it already?
And I thought that a significant economic climate cooling within EU would be of much greater concern to Brussels bureaucrats.
Silly me!
I, like Barroso, had to laugh – on his website Roger Helmer claims “Almost every planet is simultaneously undergoing temperature change and volatile weather patterns. Does not this suggest that global warming is a natural cycle as a result of the evolving nature of the sun?â€
Whilst we have plethora of data on our own climate from which scientists have concluded that the current warming cannot be attributed to the sun, ice ages, or anything else other than our own greenhouse gas emissions, Helmer concludes that climate change is taking place on all other planets even though we have relatively little recent, and absolutely no historic data on the climate of those planets.
I can think of one Eurosceptic family member who doesn't deny MMCC, and another who is a Europhile but vehemently denies MMCC. Strangely enough, the latter has repeated the same ludicrous argument as Roger Helmer.
#14
James,
I am trying to understand the "clever" people like you who have the audacity to tell me I cannot think for myself because I do not agree with your view of Europe.
Quote
"Reading Europhobe writings one thing I am quite certain of is that their authors do not themselves believe what they write. But they do try very hard to convince themselves."
What absolute garbage.I believe every word I have ever written about leaving the EU and taking back control of my own country be it on the issue of climate change or anything else.
Us Europhobes are not against the common market (after all this is what the UK voted to join, not the EU) as you claim because this is not the same as having no borders. Just because I wish to buy something from a country, without tarrifs, does not mean I need to allow the person who manufactures it to bring it in person.
Maybe you should have to explain why we should give this corrupt organisation billions of punds while receiving a fraction back and having the cheek to call it EU funding.
Ps on a final point you should make up your mind whether you are talking about England or Britain. They are not one and the same after all.
Mark, this is unrelated to the climate change topic. Why don't you blog on the EU Parliament Presidents axquizition of sweeping powers, allowing him to overrule a censure vote of the EU commission, made by members of the European Parliament? If we have any hope of honesty in regards to the EU, I would have thought it would come from the Â鶹ԼÅÄ!
Contribution No.7 by Philip Edwards accuses me of ignoring "facts" about melting ice caps etc. I have also read many scientific reports that show that many parts of the Earth are cooling. IF my suggestion is right that we are heading for cooler temperatures than warmer ones, my speech will turn out to be very valid. By the way, to be able to understand both sides of this argument I recently passed a GSCE (A-grade) in astronomy - not exactly at Patrick Moore's level but at least I tried!
This romantic 'opinion' about climate change is obviously not serious, however there are some good individual points made by eurosceptics on these blogs who have obviously thought about the European question but ultimately it's difficult to see any well constructed unifying thread in their arguments, there are many individual fears expressed about aspects of the EU but nothing that couldn't in theory be changed from within the EU itself. The only unifying thread I can see is a fear of continental europe 'ganging up' on Britain and an instinct to make no changes to britain's national constitutional settlement as it has existed for the last 200 years: You are pretending to be naive: in the face of globalisation it is not only businesses that need to adapt or die it is also states, nations, institutions and while some of your aims may be noble britain cannot take the risk to stand alone and you know it so if you really love your country you should be practical and not cut off your nose to spite your face.
So I think you admit that if you don't want to be part of the EU then you must find an alternative that is more workable than :
A isolation or
B its opposite - something that eurosceptics often promote is being wide open to globalisation with only a minimum collective settlement for protection / representation of the british citizen at the international level (while other countries continue to play hard ball) coupled with complete trust of international business to do no harm to the sovereignty of the citizen. National and supranational institutions having until now more or less protected this sovereignty you would be taking a huge risk for the sovereignty you claim to cherish by dismantling them or reducing their power. Even just leaving britain's constitution as it is is completely unrealistic as globalisation, rightly, imposes changes at every level of society.
C: Become the 51st state of America - that's not going to happen
So to convince me that you are serious and really love your sovereignty (and your country) you must find a workable alternative that is coherant for the short, medium and long term, not an ideological attachement to a hyperthetical free market model without any rules that has never before been put into practise and that could only be imposed in the longer term after you convince the rest of the world to abandon international institutions.
You clearly have not found this practical, costed, watertight alternative that does not constitute an experiment that would put your sovereignty at huge risk, as your flirting with the idea of being 51st state of the US will just never work and you know it.
So Britain has no more alternative choices available than she had in the 1960s and 70s when she abandoned the british /scandinavian free trade area she had set up and basically begged to join the EU.
- You must be pragmatic and work to protect your sovereignty from within the EU there is absolutely no alternative for Britain, like it or not.
- and if you stopped insulting the intelligence and culture of other europeans who actually share the same values as you, much of the same history, and many of the same concerns then you could work together with them to protect those very European ideas of individual sovereignty and democracy from within the EU and in doing so have much more chance of success in conserving them than by standing on the sidelines and bawling your eyes out.
Come on! Stiff upper lip!!!
What's the connection between pro-EU views and Â鶹ԼÅÄ journalists?
What is the link between Eurosceptisism & doubts about man made climate change?
Possibly the tsunami of non- hypothecated 'green' taxes which cripple our industries and displace the manufacturing to even more enviromentally unfriendly factories in China.
For simplicity's sake I will state that I am not questioning the science but still very much open to quantifying AGWs effects in the overall picture. I am hovever very much questioning the political response. Measures that produce a zero sum gain or worse are no more than gesture politics.
I am all for saving the planet but until politicians understand the first law of thermodynamics, they shouldn't be allowed to legislate!
The one thing they have in common is that that they do not automatically and unconditionally accept everything
they are told unlike too many of the rest of us. The real experts in climatology are not universally convinced
that the current phenomenon is directly attributable to human activity which is small compared to the natural
influences.
Similarly, I have no doubt that those that have a vested interest in the EU machinations will deride those
experienced enough to question the activities and reason d'être of the EU as a means to deflect criticism
and to deceive the less thoughtful.
Euroscepticism must surely be the sole province of the historically uneducated. I've got a good idea: let's have another Thirty Years War! Or how about another WW1? Euroscepticism attracts a fine bunch: there's stupid; and then there's ignorance masquerading as logic. Oh, let's not forget the patriots - those dirtiest of minds. A psychiatrist would label all these attitudes psychotic.
This romantic 'opinion' about climate change is obviously not serious, however there are some good individual points made by eurosceptics on these blogs who have obviously thought about the European question but ultimately it's difficult to see any well constructed unifying thread in their arguments, there are many individual fears expressed about aspects of the EU but nothing that couldn't in theory be changed from within the EU itself. The only unifying thread I can see is a fear of continental europe 'ganging up' on Britain and an instinct to make no changes to britain's national constitutional settlement as it has existed for the last 200 years: You are pretending to be naive: in the face of globalisation it is not only businesses that need to adapt or die it is also states, nations, institutions and while some of your aims may be noble britain cannot take the risk to stand alone and you know it so if you really love your country you should be practical and not cut off your nose to spite your face.
So I think you admit that if you don't want to be part of the EU then you must find an alternative that is more workable than :
A isolation or
B its opposite - something that eurosceptics often promote is being wide open to globalisation with only a minimum collective settlement for protection / representation of the british citizen at the international level (while other countries continue to play hard ball) coupled with complete trust of international business to do no harm to the sovereignty of the citizen. National and supranational institutions having until now more or less protected this sovereignty you would be taking a huge risk for the sovereignty you claim to cherish by dismantling them or reducing their power. Even just leaving britain's constitution as it is is completely unrealistic as globalisation, rightly, imposes changes at every level of society.
C: Become the 51st state of America - that's not going to happen
So to convince me that you are serious and really love your sovereignty (and your country) you must find a workable alternative that is coherant for the short, medium and long term, not an ideological attachement to a hyperthetical free market model without any rules that has never before been put into practise and that could only be imposed in the longer term after you convince the rest of the world to abandon international institutions.
You clearly have not found this practical, costed, watertight alternative that does not constitute an experiment that would put your sovereignty at huge risk, as your flirting with the idea of being 51st state of the US will just never work and you know it.
So Britain has no more alternative choices available than she had in the 1960s and 70s when she abandoned the british /scandinavian free trade area she had set up and basically begged to join the EU.
- You must be pragmatic and work to protect your sovereignty from within the EU there is absolutely no alternative for Britain, like it or not.
- and if you stopped insulting the intelligence and culture of other europeans who actually share the same values as you, much of the same history, and many of the same concerns then you could work together with them to protect those very European ideas of individual sovereignty and democracy from within the EU and in doing so have much more chance of success in conserving them than by standing on the sidelines and bawling your eyes out.
Come on! Stiff upper lip!!!
How right James (@14) is about the sad state of England today.
We are told that we must reduce greenhouse gases to reduce CO2 emissions, but there is no coherent strategy for alternatives. A few wind farms have been built, but only after fierce resistance and many new ones are to be off-shore (which makes them much more expensive to build and maintain) as gaining planning permission for them is more often than not stifled by NIMBY Councils; the Severn barrage (which could supply 5% of our electricity) is still only a dream, even though it has been talked about for decades; the proportion of power coming from nuclear is set to fall, and no new nuclear power stations are under construction. There may be vague discussion about new ones for the future, but they are at least 20 years away.
We are told that we should drive less, and so we get no new major roads - even though every other major country on earth is still building roads, and even though congestion gets worse by the year. We are told that we should use public transport instead, but our trains are not only overcrowded and unreliable but are the most expensive in the whole of the EU. In Sheffield, for example, rail travel to Leeds is advertised as being "only 45 minutes" - but as the two cities are only 35 miles apart most countries would consider 45 minutes to a source of embarrassment not something to boast about.
Cities like Leeds are unable to get funding for a modern tram system, even though Manchester and Sheffield's experience is that they are a genuinely popular alternative to car travel. Instead, we get a cheap-skate solution of guided buses which sum up everything that is wrong with the "that will do" mentality towards public service provision in this country. In fact public transport in many parts of the country is so bad and expensive that car travel is preferred by most people even though it is expensive to park and buy fuel.
At the same time bottomless pits of money can be found to stage the Olympic games, and to fight wars on the other side of the world at the behest of a foreign country (and nobody EVER discusses the CO2 implications of sending ships, tanks and aircraft to the Middle-East - perhaps they think that CO2 emitted by the military does not count?)
Whilst other countries get a network of highspeed trains to provide a real alternative to long car journeys and short-haul flights, none are planned for the UK except the short one from London to the Continent.
In short, the Government seems to have abdicated all responsibility for how we are to genearte power or get about in the future.
No-one really seems to be concerned either that we are taxing our manufacturing industry out of existence in order to meet CO2 reduction targets, but that merely shifts production of, say steel, and the jobs that goes with it to China or India where the pollution will be even greater...but they have no targets to meet so they don't care!
A country that is being run in this shambolic way is of course set to continue the terminal decline that was so briefly interrupted by the go-ahead Thatcher years - and is also quite likely to be Euro-sceptic because accepting the Schengen, the Euro and the EU means accepting the modern world.
Wonder when the English will wake up? I hope it is before the lights go out, and the jobs have all gone...
I'm one of the few supporters of a European super-state but at the same time, I refuse to believe this 'man-made climate change' nonsense
The connection between euroscepticism and climate denial is simple.
Both points of view are antithesis to the Â鶹ԼÅÄ house opinion.
So holding both opinions makes you double plus ungood.
The Â鶹ԼÅÄ has a "house" opinion on just about every subject: 4x4s, climate change, islam, obesity, George Bush, plastic bags, supermarkets.
The house opinion decides what stories are covered and then the angle of coverage.
So the EU is good but boring. Gets very little coverage - but mostly favourable.
America is bad but fascinating. We get a blow-by-blow account of the quarter finals of their selection process. I bet most Â鶹ԼÅÄ viewers and listeners could name more US politicians then they could name european leaders.
What is the connection between euroscepticsm and doubts about man-made climate change ?
The difference is between blindly accepting what you're told - Federal Europe is great, we're better off in the EU, the EU isn't run by crooks, climate change is man made - and being able to make your own mind up.
Those of us who don't believe every word uttered by the eurofederalists make our own minds up and realise that the EU is just a bloated, wasteful, corrupt and undemocratic project and that climate change is being used as an excuse to tax us and restrict our freedoms.
The EU is run by socialists and spurious and indiscriminate taxation is the tool of choice for the socialist dream of making everyone equally poor, unhappy and subservient.
Even if you believe every word of it, they don't have a plan, at least not a vialble one, they have a goal. They have no realistic way to meet that goal. They tell you they expect a 20% reduction in CO2 output but how will they achieve it, especially in light of the fact that the EU didn't even dent the much more modest 8% they committed to under Kyoto? Will they demand that the world reduce population? No. Will they insist that nations where rain forests are being burned down reducing foliage which converts CO2 back into oxygen stop? No. Do they insist that all of the scientists and engineers of the world assemble to organize a crash program to find alternate sources of energy to replace our current sources in quantities sufficient to maintain our standard of living? No. Do they insist that China stop bringing two new coal fired power plants on line every week? No because they know China won't comply and they hear the same from India. So what do they propose? That the US and Europe cut back emissions no matter what the consequences to their standard of living and economy so that China's and India's standards can rise with total CO2 output still falling. It won't work. The US won't agree to any signed committed targets under those conditions and Europe's shabby record under Kyoto bodes ill for their future promises. What's more, no rational cut in US and EU emissions would offset China's and India's projected increases anyway. We'd better figure out how to adjust to global warming because there is NO PLAN WHATSOEVER to stop it.
BTW, I heard Â鶹ԼÅÄ's broadcast on Carbon Dioxide capture and it is as pathetic as the solar boiler project in Spain, the photovoltaic panels in Germany, and the wind farms all over the EU. Totally inadequate. Furthermore, the storage of large quantities of CO2 as a gas could create grave danger to anyone in the nearby area should it ever escape. That's a leading theory behind why many people near a lake in Africa died, a sudden release of CO2 from under the water escaping into the air and blanketing an entire community killing the inhabitants.
People wake up. It is starting to be late. There is, in a world, estimated to be 2 bil. cars(incl. motorbikes, trucks). With the rise of China, Ihdia and others the number is rapidly growing. The averege co2 emission is 150-300 g(lets count with 225g) per km.
Lets say every car travels 40 kms a day(underestimated I believe)
So we have 2 000 000 000 cars
each producing 40 * 225 g every day.
The math is easy. 18 milion tons every day. The power plants, diesel generators and other machinery are believed to produce at least twice as much.
So we could be talking about some 40 milion tons of co2 every day. This is something in the air, something our precious atmosphere must absorb.
The future generation is set to have a different climate.
The only thing we can do is to prepare them for it.
Well the thing is that the 'sunspots cycles' fit the observed temperature changes better than Co2 . Any astronomer can see this. Even if the mechanism for the correlation has not been found . It is evident that there must be one.
The Solar cycle/cosmic rays/cloud cover is the best bet so far. But as I say even if this does not pan out THERE has to be a connection waiting to be found.
William Herschel (astronomer, and discoverer of Planet Uranus) noted in 1801 that "when there are few spots on the Sun the price of wheat went up".
The fact that this was noted in 1801 implies that you don't need to look too deep to find a Solar connection, as he did .... I look at solar data and I see it TOO.
In fact It just occurred to me to look at the current price of wheat... and guess what ,,,
It's not a connection between euroscepticism and climate change denial as such.
There are many on the right of the political spectrum who refute climate change merely to take up a contrary political position to those they percieve as being on the left.
And of course, in politics it's so much easier to say what you are against than to say what you are for.
I would take the E.U more seriously on climate change if it put it's own house in order. On example is the riddiculous dual parliament systen, with M.E.P.'s and the whole entourage of officials travelling on a monthly basis. This in itself is a signicant contributory factor to climate change.
This is just a stunt by the E.U to court popularity by talking a lot but doing little.
I knew it would have to happen the Â鶹ԼÅÄ managing to link euroscepticsm with climate change, I disagree 100% with your article Mark, how you even have the nerve to link the two distinct areas together is beyond belief.
This blog is about Europe, it is not a place for the Â鶹ԼÅÄ MMCC policy to be discussed, as for James comments about europhobes well in my opinion, James comes across as a bigot.
The European Union is something that I support wholeheartedly, the so called MMCC I do not, especially as it seems to be based on flawed data.
Have you seen some of those self-proclaimed environment-conscious EU politicians and "beautiful people" trying to get through Davos trafic jams in their 6 liter V-8 SUVs to express their deep concern about global warming in front of global TV cameras?
This bunch of pool-side pinkos makes me wanna puke right into their Dom Perignon-filled glasses.
And on their Brioni tuxedos.
And on their Bruno Magli patent leather loafers.
The 'hypocrite' entry in reputable encylopaedias should be ilustrated with their group picture.
Regarding Global Warming:
Where I'm sitting right now in Ann Arbor, Michigan there was a sheet of ice 2 miles (!!) thick. 10,000 yrs ago, it melted...today we know it as the Great Lakes! For those who cannot make the connection: The melting was the result of climate WARMING, so it did happened before, many times actually. And it did happened before there were any cars or 6 BILLION humans or Americans or even Republicans!
The whole GLOBALWARMING (one word) movement is good for one thing: The politicians and their minions will stick their sticky fingers deeper in your pockets...and we will end up with the inevitable new ice age anyway (it happened 4-5 times before in earth's recent history).
This "Eurosceptic" does not doubt that human activity is causing climate change. He does have doubts about the word "Eurosceptic". He is not sceptical about the "EU". He hates it. He does not hate Europe. The "EU" is not Europe. We do need co-operation in Europe. We don't need the "EU". The "EU" is not about co-operation. It is about integration, dictatorship and megalomania. We don't need the likes of Barroso or Blair.
Reply to James (33).
You sound like one of those political snobs i refered to in an earlier letter!(21)
I hope people will read the book by John Redwood MP and not believe your views.His book is only one of many.
The thing is with letters like yours is that it is worded in a way that some people will think you have a point.But i am pleased to say people like that are in the minority.
Let the people decide.If the EU is such a great idea you have nothing to fear.But the thing is about political snobs is that they always think they are right and that the people cannot be trusted with a referendum because they do not understand! Rubbish.
By just being able to trade with the EU would be fine and we would not have all this immagration problem with our schools, hospitals etc. being unable to cope. On the other hand with all the money we would save by not being a memeber we could build many new schools and hospitals!
So to readers of this blog i say
the history of a nation is the same no matter where in the world it is.The people will always in the end decide.Better they do it now then later. For as sure as night follows day in the end we will not be a fully paid up member of this club.
Where I'm sitting right now in Ann Arbor, Michigan there was a sheet of ice 2 miles (!!) thick. 10,000 yrs ago, it melted...today we know it as the Great Lakes! For those who cannot make the connection: The melting was the result of climate WARMING, so it did happened before, many times actually. And it did happened before there were any cars or 6 BILLION humans or Americans or even Republicans! [#36]
Yeah, but I'm sure that if Greens (in more sense than one) do more extensive research they're going to find and evidence that the then global warmining has been caused by Pentagon and CIA, which, on orders of George W. Bush, secretly built and buried a Doomesday Machine under the ice bridge over Bering Strait, to stop massive wave of illegal immigrants from North Eastern Syberia to America.
However Homo Sapiens has been saved when Homo Sovieticus managed to reverse that diastrous trend(at huge expense, may I add) by starting Cold War.
Unfortunately since Homo Sovieticus has lost that fight for survival (just like Dinosaurs did) the Evil Empire has begun to warm up global climate again and unless US neocons are stopped by leftist cons...
P.S. After "Katrina" many "reputable scientists" claimed that a dramatic increase in a number of hurricanes that year was a result of the global warming. Now we're waiting (and waiting, and...) for their explanation of the dramatic DEcrease in a number of major hurricanes in subsequent seasons. Here's hoping that their silence on the subject is simply a result of them taking a very long view.
Perhaps even looking as far as 10 million years back?
[I know, I know: hope springs eternal]
@ 32. At 04:20 PM on 25 Jan 2008, john newson,
You must be a UKIP plant/troll. No real EUrophile would ever display such bile and venom towards his fellows Europeans.
Mark,
Someone had to make the connection before too long! The connection is the deep-seated rightwing refusal to engage with the real world.
Just as conservative economists bend assumptions to fit a narrow and erroneous ideology (the likes of which are now returning to haunt us in the financial sector) so conservative eurosceptics and climate change deniers bend reality for their own ends.
Well might Mr Barroso laugh at the buffoonish antics of the zealous anti-EU mob (both UKIP and Conservative) in the European Parliament! This crew shames Britain and leaves her and her people exposed as laughing stocks on the international stage.
The link betwen Europhobia and climate change denial is obvious - the individuals suffering from them have a fantasy relationship to the real world maintained by rejecting all (to them) incongenial facts, specifically the facts that the UK by itself counts for zilch in the world and that CO2 acts as an insulator.
Because, both climate-sceptics and (many) euro-sceptics live in a world very much detached from reality.
I wonder what Tory HQ think about all of this?
A quote I found today in the IHT:
"The 50th anniversary of the coinage of both global warming and global climate change came and went with no commemorative rock concerts or scientific Sanhedrins. My earliest citation of both phrases is a report in The Hammond Times (of Indiana) dated Nov. 6, 1957, about California scientists "studying the possibility that this continued pouring forth of waste gases may upset the rather delicate carbon dioxide balance in the earth's general atmosphere and that a large-scale global warming, with radical climate changes, may result."
Seems that the europhobe climate-change deniers are very lonely people, but the EU is a tolerant place and accepts a wide range of weirdos. We even allow them into our Parliament.
I am both a Eurosceptic, and do not buy into the climate change craze.
The reason is simple, I am a libertarian and just wish to get on with my life. I do not care to be pestered by reams of taxation and legislation, whether it's to fund the EU gravy train or subsidise a wind farm.
Liberty is incompatible with the aims of both the Europhiles and the neo-Environmentalists.
Stephen Bennet (5) is just another EU-phile hopelessly uninformed about the EU's raison d'etre. There only ever was one reason: full political integration and complete elimination of national parliamentary democracy. Jean Monnet certainly didn't make a secret of this. Monnet was never elected to anything and clearly preferred the rule of an unelected elite to democracy.
As for the EU and climate change/global warming: nothing has made me happier as an advocate of parliamentary democracy (and thus EU opponent) that the EU has decided to stake its entire reputation on this climate thing.
I cannot believe that they do not know that climate change is a natural phenomenon. It seems to me that EU-philes are afraid of change and afraid of the big bad world.
This is, I would think, the reason EU-philes love rule by decree instead of parliamentary democracy. They see that the climate changes and they get afraid. They see that the world is changing and the market forces that brought wealth to a substantial portion of the planets population (which socialism and its despicable offspring ideologies totally failed to do).
The beautiful thing is that it is 100% certain that climate change is a natural phenomenon. And thus us 'EU and climate sceptics' are right on that one. It stands to reason that our claims as towards the EU are also true.
EU philes are afraid of the world outside 'Europe' and look to an EU ruled by unelected politicians to protect them from it. Whereas us who love democracy (and thus despise the EU) look to the entire world for trade, and not to the overregulated customs union that passes for a 'free market'.
The EU has thrown up so many trade barriers and destroyed so much of Africa's farming and fisheries industries that no person with any common sense or sense of decency could possibly support that construction.
EU-philes, when will you finally answer the question I've already asked a dozen times: why do you want to transfer legislative powers from elected to unelected politicians and how is this 'more democracy'?
"So according to Graham Booth its perfectly normal that the polar ice caps are melting, that sea levels will rise, that flora and fauna will become extinct and that parts of low-lying territories such as the Netherlands may disappear. We should, according to Mr Booth, continue pumping co2 and other pollutants into the atmosphere."
Actually, it is. The earth changes all the time and species, both animal and plant, are wiped out all the time and replaced with new ones. Don't be so arrogant. Extrapolating on our little blip of time where we have been paying attention to the environment is like trying to predict next years weather in London by taking a one second look outside in a shady garden.
And remember, buying carbon credits is like buying indulgences from the church. You can sin, but if you give someone some money, they are forgiven. A religion does not necessarily have to believe in a God to start messing with your life, it can believe in the environment and do it too.
Try not to get suckered into giving away your freedoms too much. Especially not when the knowledge of climate change is from, mostly, scientists desperate for the next grant or social charity function.
Interesting question, Mr Mardell. I would suggest the answer lies in ethnocentrism. There seems to be a certain strand of consciousness whereby those who wish to preserve their lives as they are (I will label them small 'c' 'conservatives', although they often tend to be large 'C' 'Conservatives' as well), often tend to stick rigidly to the creed of their particular society, faith, religion, moral code and general modus operandi.
Examples would be the fundamentalism we have seen a resurgence of in America over the past 8 years (and thank God may come to a close in 2008) and the very strong Judeo-Christian mentality in Britain.
This is a brief attempt to answer your question - those who want to keep their lives the way they are (conservatives) often tend to be Conservatives as well. I will refrain from making an emotive comment on them but I'm sure my sentiments about this kind of mentality are clear from the foregoing ;-)
#59 said:
"Try not to get suckered into giving away your freedoms too much. Especially not when the knowledge of climate change is from, mostly, scientists desperate for the next grant or social charity function."
And you hit the nail on the head!!
Wait when other scientist start asking for more research for the comet that will kill all life on Earth or when more idiots decide that we can do something about the fact that the sun will die in 20 BBBilionn years and even the roaches will go away to be recycled somewhere in the Universe!
George B
Ann Arbor, MI
Stephen Bennet (5) is just another EU-phile hopelessly uninformed about the EU's raison d'etre. There only ever was one reason: full political integration and complete elimination of national parliamentary democracy. Jean Monnet certainly didn't make a secret of this. Monnet was never elected to anything and clearly preferred the rule of an unelected elite to democracy.
As for the EU and climate change/global warming: nothing has made me happier as an advocate of parliamentary democracy (and thus EU opponent) that the EU has decided to stake its entire reputation on this climate thing.
I cannot believe that they do not know that climate change is a natural phenomenon. It seems to me that EU-philes are afraid of change and afraid of the big bad world.
This is, I would think, the reason EU-philes love rule by decree instead of parliamentary democracy. They see that the climate changes and they get afraid. They see that the world is changing and the market forces that brought wealth to a substantial portion of the planets population (which socialism and its despicable offspring ideologies totally failed to do).
The beautiful thing is that it is 100% certain that climate change is a natural phenomenon. And thus us 'EU and climate sceptics' are right on that one. It stands to reason that our claims as towards the EU are also true.
EU philes are afraid of the world outside 'Europe' and look to an EU ruled by unelected politicians to protect them from it. Whereas us who love democracy (and thus despise the EU) look to the entire world for trade, and not to the overregulated customs union that passes for a 'free market'.
The EU has thrown up so many trade barriers and destroyed so much of Africa's farming and fisheries industries that no person with any common sense or sense of decency could possibly support that construction.
EU-philes, when will you finally answer the question I've already asked a dozen times: why do you want to transfer legislative powers from elected to unelected politicians and how is this 'more democracy'?
"And remember, buying carbon credits is like buying indulgences from the church." [#59]
First will not buy a survival on Earth, and the second - won't buy you eternal life.
BTW. Even tangible, verifiable impact of human activity (air and water pollution, depletion of non-renewable resorces, destruction of rain forests, etc.) is not a cause of a problem, but merely its symptom.
The underlying cause is O V E R P O P U L A T I O N!
But then nobody will touch the subject with a ten-foot pole, because the overpopulation problem does not render itself to any easy and pleasant solutions. On the contrary.
So, I guess, Nature will have to solve it in the end.
In its usual way.
George B wrote:
"Regarding Global Warming:
Where I'm sitting right now in Ann Arbor, Michigan there was a sheet of ice 2 miles (!!) thick. 10,000 yrs ago, it melted...today we know it as the Great Lakes! For those who cannot make the connection: The melting was the result of climate WARMING"
No George, that was the result of the ending of an ice age caused by cyclical variations in the Earth's orbit. There are no such cyclical variations occuring at the moment, yet the climate is changing very rapidly.
Anyone who thinks climate change isn't happening and isn't man made doesn't know much about science. Im a eurosceptic and i know this.
I also know that the issues which will inevitably arise because of climate change is more reason to remain detached from Europe.
Global warming or global cooling?
I think Mark that whatever the reason of the climate changes, there is an evident connection between euroscepticism and doubts about this phenomenon. In this case, scepticism is based on doubts…
Last year I have been highly impressed by the film of M. Al Gore (which brought him world fame) about the destructive results of the CO2 emissions. Later, I have read several articles of other distinguished scholars who have presented enough proofs about the lack of evidence between global warming and human activity…
Whatever the truth about the climate change, each separate European member state is too weak (both financially and politically) to proceed to whatever improvement of the environmental conditions….
I think, president Barroso is quite responsible when putting down the problem on the EC agenda…
Vladimir Bozhinoff, Sofia, Bulgaria