We have surrendered power over every aspect of our lives and industry to fifteen debating chambers in eight ruling cities. These assemblies are controlled by lawyers, unionists, centralists, green dreamers, power seekers and tax consumers.
Their direct cost alone is horrendous. There are 837 politicians (ignoring local government). Each has a salary (say $200Kpy), travel and office costs (say $150Kpy), and staff costs (say $200Kpy) – a billion here, plus a billion there and pretty soon you’re talking real money. Continue reading “Ruled by Fools”
This is a huge and a very complex subject. The literature surrounding climate change is enormous, diffuse and profoundly contradictory. The reason; climate scientists have not exactly been lily white in their recording and reporting of information. A considerable amount of data has been distorted or altered to give them the results they desire.
My approach to this subject is factual and as accurate as my research has allowed in several years of study. The last forty years have seen massive multinational scientific studies costing millions of dollars. The scientific backing for the Global Warming scare comes from climate science, not politicians. Climate science is a weak science. The atmosphere is chaotic and difficult to define with scientific theories. Many of these studies attempt to predict the future of the climate and to quantify the effects of change on the world’s populations. The effects of Carbon Dioxide are speculative and influenced by ideological biases of the various scientists. This then produces strong elements attempting to enforce uniformity of opinion. The climate scientific community now say there is ‘consensus’ among scientists supporting anthropological climate change. This is a nonsense. In science there is no such thing. Either the scientific evidence proves the hypothesis or it doesn’t. The opinion of the scientists is irrelevant without factual and repeatable evidence.
Václav Klaus, previous president of the Czech Republic, comments on the European Commission’s ‘climate package’:
This EU climate package is not bold. It is stupid and nonsensical. It is unrealistic, and if it were to be implemented, it would be a completely destructive package. Completely destructive to the lives, freedom and living standards of the people of Europe.