UK's only climate skeptic party crushingly wins the EU election

Josh_UKIP

UPDATE: A cartoon from Josh drawn about a year ago has been added. See below.

By Christopher Monckton of Brenchley

The United Kingdom Independence Party, the only climate-skeptical party in Britain, has scored a crushing victory in Sunday’s elections to the Duma of the European Union.

Britain’s most true-believing party, the Greens, won one or two new seats, but the second most true-believing party and junior partner in the Children’s Coalition that currently governs at Westminster, the “Liberal” “Democrats” (who are neither), were all but wiped off the map.

The European Duma, like that of Tsar Nicholas II in Russia, has no real power. It cannot even bring forward a Bill, for that vital probouleutic function is the sole right of the unelected Kommissars – the official German name for the tiny, secretive clique of cuisses-de-cuir who wield all real power in the EU behind closed doors.

The Kommissars also – bizarrely – have the power to set aside votes of the elected Duma, which doesn’t even get to vote in the first place without their permission. Democratic it isn’t.

The outgoing Hauptkommissar, Manuel Barroso, is a Maoist – and, like nearly all of the Kommissars, a naïve true-believer in the hard-Left climate-extremist Party Line that is turning Europe into a bankrupt, unconsidered economic backwater.

In the Duma recently (where the Kommissars, though unelected, may sit and speak but not vote), Barroso said there was a “99% consensus” among scientists about the climate. Actually 0.5%, Manuel, baby: read Legates et al., 2013.

Because the Duma is a parliament of eunuchs, UKIP’s couple of dozen members of the European Parliament won’t be able to make very much difference to anything except their bank balances – they all become instant multi-millionaires.

However, after opposition to the EU’s militantly anti-democratic structure and to the mass immigration that has been forced upon Britain as a direct result, UKIP’s third most popular policy with the voters is its opposition to the official EU global-warming story-line.

It was I, as deputy leader of the party in 2009/10, who had the honor of introducing UKIP’s climate policy to the Press. Their reports, as usual, were sneeringly contemptuous. Now the sneers are beginning to falter.

The leadership thought long and hard before adopting the policy. I said we could not lose by adopting a policy that had the twin merits of being true and being otherwise unrepresented in British politics. Private polling confirmed this, so the policy was adopted.

For interest, here – in full – is UKIP’s climate policy as I promulgated it in 2010:

“Global warming: is it just a scam?

“The IPCC’s 1990 First Assessment Report made wildly-exaggerated projections of how global temperature would rise. Yet for the past 15 years [now nigh on 18 years] there has been no statistically-significant “global warming” at all, as a leading IPCC scientist has now admitted. For nine years there has been a rapid cooling trend. None of the IPCC’s computer models predicted that.

“The 1995 Second Assessment Report, in the scientists’ final draft, said five times there was no discernible human influence on climate. Yet one man rewrote the report, replacing all five statements with a single statement saying precisely the opposite. He later said IPCC processes permitted this single-handed rewrite, which has been the official policy ever since.

“The 2001 Third Assessment Report contained a graph contradicting the First Report by falsely abolishing the medieval warm period, which, like the Roman, Minoan, and Holocene optima, and 7500 of the past 11,400 years, and each of the four previous interglacial warm periods, and most of the past 600 million years, was warmer than today. Some 800 scientists from more than 460 institutions in 42 countries over 25 years have written peer-reviewed, learned papers providing evidence that the Middle Ages were warmer than today.

“The 2007 Fourth Assessment Report’s key conclusion that, with 90% confidence, most of the warming since 1950 was manmade is disproven by measurements. A natural decline in global cloud cover from 1983-2001 (Pinker et al., 2005) caused most of that warming.

“The IPCC’s false “90% confidence” estimate was not reached by scientists: it was decided by a show of hands among political representatives who had few scientific qualifications.

“A lead author of the Fourth Assessment Report admits that, “to influence governments”, he knowingly inserted a falsehood to the effect that the Himalayas will be ice-free in 25 years.

“Many other false conclusions of the IPCC were authored not by scientists but by campaigning journalists, members of environmental propaganda groups or IPCC bureaucrats.

“The first table of figures in the IPCC’s 2007 Report did not add up. Bureaucrats had inserted it, overstating tenfold 40 years’ contributions of Greenland and Antarctic ice to sea-level rise.

“The IPCC’s conclusion that CO2 has a major warming effect is false. In the pre-Cambrian era 750 million years ago the Earth was an ice-planet, with glaciers at sea level at the Equator: yet atmospheric CO2 concentration was 300,000 ppmv – 700 times today’s 388 ppmv. If CO2 had the large warming effect the IPCC imagines, the glaciers could not have been there.

“In the Cambrian era 550 million years ago, CO2 concentration was 7000 ppmv (IPCC, 2001): yet that was when the first calcite corals achieved algal symbiosis. In the Jurassic era 175 million years ago, CO2 concentration was 6000 ppmv (IPCC, 2001): yet that was when the first aragonite corals came into existence. While the oceans continue to run over rocks, they must remain pronouncedly alkaline. Ocean “acidification” is a chemical impossibility.

“Many peer-reviewed papers (e.g. Douglass et al., 2004, 2008, 2009; Schwartz, 2007; Monckton, 2008; Lindzen & Choi, 2009) show that the IPCC has exaggerated the warming effect of greenhouse gases up to 7-fold. Without that exaggeration, there is no climate crisis.

“The economics of global warming

“Millions have died of starvation, or are menaced by it, because the world’s governments have unwisely trusted the UN’s climate panel (the IPCC) and the self-serving national scientific institutions that have profiteered by parroting its now-discredited findings.

“The World Bank has reported that three-quarters of the doubling of world food prices that occurred two years ago is directly attributable to the global dash for biofuels.

“Herr Ziegler, the UN’s Right-to-Food Rapporteur, has said that while millions are starving the diversion of farmland from food to biofuels is “a crime against humanity”.

“Lord Stern’s discredited report on climate economics unrealistically adopted a near-zero discount rate for appraisal of “investment” in carbon-dioxide mitigation and doubled the IPCC’s already-exaggerated high-end estimate of the warming to be expected from CO2. Without these grave economic and scientific errors, no case for spending any taxpayers’ money on mitigation of CO2 emissions can be made.

“A carbon-trading scheme that sets a low price for the right to emit a ton of carbon dioxide is merely a tax and does not affect the climate, while a high price drives our jobs and industries overseas to countries which emit more CO2 than us, raising mankind’s global CO2 footprint. The chief profiteers from carbon trading are banks.

“A steelworks at Redcar is closing with the loss of 1700 jobs, because the European carbon-trading scheme has made it uneconomic. Precisely the same steelworks will be re-erected in India. Net effect on the climate: nil. Net effect on British workers’ jobs: catastrophic.

“If we were to shut down the entire global carbon economy altogether, and go back to the Stone Age but without even the right to light a carbon-emitting fire in our caves, it would take 41 years to forestall just 1 C° of “global warming”. The cost is disproportionate.

“Even if the IPCC were right in imagining that a doubling of CO2 concentration will cause as much as 3.26 ± 0.69 C° of “global warming”, adaptation as and if necessary would be orders of magnitude cheaper and more cost-effective than attempting to limit CO2 emissions.

“Global warming gurus humbled

“Dr. Rajendra Pachauri, who chairs IPCC’s climate science panel, is a railroad engineer. The Charity Commission is investigating TERI-Europe, a charity of which Pachauri and his predecessor as IPCC science chairman were trustees. The charity filed false accounts three years running, under-declaring its income by many hundreds of thousands of pounds.

“Dr. “Phil” Jones, director of the Climate Research Unit at the University of East Anglia, on which the IPCC has relied for its global temperature record, has stepped down after a whistleblower published emails between him and other leading IPCC scientists revealing manipulation, concealment and intended destruction of scientific results.

“Dr. Jones has admitted that his Unit has lost much of the data on which the IPCC relies. The “Climategate” files show his Unit received millions in increased taxpayer funding so that it could investigate “global warming”.

“Al Gore has made hundreds of millions from “global warming”, and may become the first climate-change billionaire. In 2007 a High Court judge found nine errors in his film serious enough to require 77 pages of corrective guidance to be sent to every school in England.

“On Gore’s notion that sea level would imminently rise by 20 feet (6.1 m), the judge ruled: “The Armageddon scenario that he depicts is not based on any scientific view.” IPCC (2007) projects sea-level rise of 1-2 ft by 2100: Mörner (2004, 2010) projects just 4 ± 4 in.

“Gore said a scientific study had found polar bears dying as they swam to find ice. In fact, Monnett & Gleason (2006) had reported just four bears killed in a bad storm. For 30 years there has been no decline in sea-ice in the Beaufort Sea, where the bears died. There are many times more polar bears today than in 1940.

“Gore said Mount Kilimanjaro’s glacier had lost much of its ice because of “global warming”. In fact, the cause was desiccation of the atmosphere caused by regional cooling (Molg et al., 2003). Mean summit temperature has averaged –7 °C for 30 years and, in that time, summit temperature has never risen above –1.6 °C. The Fürtwängler glacier at the summit began receding in the 1880s, long before mankind could have had any influence over the climate. Half the glacier had gone before Hemingway wrote The Snows of Kilimanjaro in 1936.

“What is to be done

“Royal Commission on global warming science and economics

“UKIP would appoint a Royal Commission on global warming science and economics, under a High Court Judge, with advocates on either side of the case, to examine and cross-examine the science and economics of global warming with all the evidential rigour of a court of law.

“The remit of the Royal Commission would be to decide –

Ø “Whether and to what degree the IPCC has exaggerated climate sensitivity to CO2 or other greenhouse gases;

Ø “Whether and under what conditions, if any, the IPCC’s imagined consequences of the present rate of atmospheric CO2 enrichment will be beneficial or harmful;

Ø “Whether and under what conditions, if any, mitigation of global warming by reducing carbon emissions will be cheaper and more cost-effective than adaptation as, and if, necessary;

Ø “Whether and under what conditions any emissions-trading scheme can make any appreciable difference to the CO2 concentration in the atmosphere, and whether and to what degree, if any, any such difference would affect global surface temperature.

“Other climate-change measures

“Pending the report of the Royal Commission, UKIP would immediately –

Ø “Repeal the Climate Change Act, and close the Climate Change Department;

Ø “Halt all UK contributions to the IPCC and to the UN Framework Convention;

Ø “Halt all UK contributions to any EU climate-change policy, including carbon trading;

Ø “Freeze all grant aid for scientific research into “global warming”.

“In any event, UKIP would immediately –

Ø “Commission enough fossil-fuelled and nuclear power stations to meet demand;

Ø “Cease to subsidize wind-farms, on environmental and economic grounds;

Ø “Cease to subsidize any environmental or “global-warming” pressure-groups;

Ø “Forbid public authorities to make any “global-warming”-related expenditure;

Ø “Relate Met Office funding to the accuracy of its forecasts;

Ø “Ban global warming propaganda, such as Gore’s movie, in schools;

Ø “Divert a proportion of the billions now wasted on the non-problem of global warming towards solving the world’s real environmental problems.

“UKIP has been calling for a rational, balanced approach to the climate debate since 2008, when extensive manipulation of scientific data first became clear. There must be an immediate halt to needless expenditure on the basis of a now-disproven hypothesis.

“Given our unprecedented national debt crisis, not a penny must be wasted, not a single job lost to satisfy vociferous but misguided campaigners, often led by ill-informed media celebrities, profiteering big businesses, insurance interests and banks. The correct policy approach to the non-problem of global warming is to have the courage to do nothing.”

If you know of any political party, anywhere, that has a climate policy more vigorously and healthily skeptical than UKIP, let me know in comments.

===============================================================

Josh_UKIP

Advertisements

  Subscribe  
newest oldest most voted
Notify of
urederra

Damn.
I am from Spain, Could I have voted to UKIP? I haven’t paid much attention to politics lately, the bias in the Spanish media makes me sick. Had I have the opportunity to vote parties from other members of the union, I would have voted UKIP.

Village Idiot

“UKIP’s climate policy as I promulgated it in 2010”
Woefully outdated then. Why was it exactly you were booted out of the party?

Non Nomen

Many of the points made have become UKIP party line. Well done.
I hope the people will accept the fact that they have been lied to by politicians encouraged by the babble of pseudo-scientists in search of new sinecure grounds.
Anyway, it’s still a long way and I hope that some of the new powers in the newly elected so-called european so-called parliament will manage to lay enough mines around the cohortes of Kommisars that they cant move but just backwards – or rather forward- to a reasonable policy where energy becomes affordable again and lies fabricated by lobbyists about CAGW will cease. Mild hopes? I hope not.

Thank you, Lord Christopher. 🙂

Colin B

A breath of fresh air – at last! Well said Christopher, more power to your elbow.

rogerthesurf

Great Stuff Lord M!
Our congrats.
Now I hope we can deal a similar blow to that nefarious UN Agenda 21
Cheers
Roger
http://www.thedemiseofchristchurch.com

AndyL

Unfotunately climate scepticism is no longer UKIP policy. They have explicitly stated that NONE of the policies they stood for in 2010 are currently UKIP policy, and that they will announce new policies some time before the 2105 election.
This means that they have no policies on education, health, the economy, climate change, defence – and that apart from opposition immigration and the EU they are a policy free zone. This makes UKIP the perfect protest vote. People can vote for them without having to take a position on any of this messy political stuff.

I voted UKIP here in the UK, last Thursday, & I’ve marked my voting papers:”No votes for lying, thieving incompetents.”, for the last 10 years.
At the top of a voting paper about a yard ~(1 metre) long, was UK Independence Now, a party I’d never heard of. 2nd from bottom was UKIP. I wonder how many people were caught by that nasty little trick? “They’re all in it together” Dirty pool, I call it.
Still, I sense the tide has turned: the general public are neither scared nor interested in the CAGW/CC/WW scam, only our poxy politicians & bollixy Banksters, in their limitless thirst for money & power..

Old Goat

Andy L, you live in Cloud Cuckoo Land. I suggest that you do some proper research…

Hari Seldon

Please please reference the world bank report, on the doubling of world food prices . This is the most powerful evidence to shut down the ‘save the planet brigade’. If we can show direct harm to world stability because of these ‘peoples’ activity it would be a very powerful argument indeed.

pat

the MSM has totally ignored any CAGW scepticism in ANY of the eurosceptic parties – if u don’t believe me, find examples & post them here.
however, Reuters KNOWS, & the financial press knows, but not a single MSM Reuters’ subscriber has yet posted a word from the following and, once CAGW sceptic sites began posting text from Reuters Point Carbon, Reuters stopped making the text available some time ago. it’s only for stakeholders, u know!
Q&A – What EU Parliament election means for bloc’s carbon market
LONDON, May 23 (Reuters) – Europe’s Emissions Trading System (ETS) remains in dire straits and is likely to be dealt a further blow on Sunday when elections to the EU parliament end as polls predict a rise for political parties sceptical towards climate change.
http://www.pointcarbon.com/news/reutersnews/1.5277720
the MSM – across the fake left/right political spectrum – concentrated their attack on Ukip & other eurosceptic parties by playing the racist card, but no-one is buying that BS any more. those who scream racist should look in the mirror.
Nigel Farage, on BBC, following the local elections results being made public Friday, & just prior to the EU election on Sunday. as one person comments below the video: “the sneering tone of (david) dimbleby is contemptible”. as for those at the table with dimbleby, they look comatose:
23 May: Youtube: Farage: The old politics of left & right is over

Skiphil

UK voters awaken to Euro-skepticism…. will this have beneficial effects upon climate debates?
UKIP party thrashes LibDems, Labor, and Tories

UKIP leaves Britain’s three main parties reeling in European elections
It was not entirely out of the blue – but Britain’s three main parties were reeling as the UK Independence party swept to victory in the European elections.
….
Ukip’s message of hostility to the EU and its open borders has struck a chord with swaths of voters across the country – particularly outside London.
The party had 27.5 per cent of the vote on Monday morning, well up on the 16.6 per cent it picked up in the last European elections in 2009. In Yorkshire and Humberside it picked up three out of six seats.
With the Liberal Democrats on track to lose all but one of their 12 MEPs the party’s leader Nick Clegg faced a grassroots rebellion by more than 200 activists.
….
Yet Labour came in third behind Ukip and the Tories in several key marginals, such as Swindon, North Warwickshire, Stroud, Peterborough and Basildon – and Newark and Sherwood.
As the dismal Lib Dem result sank in on Sunday night Mr Clegg’s allies were still trying to play down a petition signed by 225 grassroots party members calling for his resignation.
The anti-Clegg uprising is the most serious challenge to the leadership since the start of the coalition in 2010. Lib Dem MP John Pugh compared the his party’s leadership to generals at the Somme: “Repeatedly sending others over the top while being safely ensconced in Westminster and claiming the carnage is all somehow sadly inevitable.”

urederra

AndyL says:
May 26, 2014 at 12:37 am
This means that they have no policies on education, health, the economy, …

Interesting, just like any Spanish party on the left side of the spectrum.

M Courtney

UKIP did well because they won the debates between Nick Clegg (Lib Dem leader) and Nigel Farage (UKIP leader). The debates were over the role that the EU should play in governing Britain.
Climate scepticism was not an issue.
All these result do is demonstrate that:
1 Climate scepticism is not political suicide.
2 Green policies will not pick up the collapse in the Lib Dem vote.
3 There is a definite split in attitudes between London and the rest of England and Wales (and also a different split with Scotland).
It is not a victory for climate scepticism but it does have the potential to persuade all main parties in the UK to get off the Climate Change bandwagon.

richardscourtney

Friends:
As Lord Monckton says in his above article, the European Parliament is a Duma with no powers: indeed, it is so weak that it cannot force the European Commission to provide valid financial accounts. Simply, the recent elections to the EU Parliament are meaningless.
Local Government elections also occurred throughout England and Wales in the last week. UKIP also did very well in those elections (but Labour won most seats). The electorate often use local elections to express dis-satisfaction with a government, and the government coalition Parties (Tories &LibDems) each polled poorly with the LibDems almost being wiped out. However, national government has such tight control of local budgets that local councils only really decide HOW to implement national government policy in their localities.
Scotland is to have a referendum on potential Scottish independence later this year. And next year whatever the UK then is will have a General Election. The results of those polls will have importance and effects.
Please note the factual post by AndyL at May 26, 2014 at 12:37 am. It says

Unfotunately climate scepticism is no longer UKIP policy. They have explicitly stated that NONE of the policies they stood for in 2010 are currently UKIP policy, and that they will announce new policies some time before the 2105 election.
This means that they have no policies on education, health, the economy, climate change, defence – and that apart from opposition immigration and the EU they are a policy free zone. This makes UKIP the perfect protest vote. People can vote for them without having to take a position on any of this messy political stuff.

Consideration of reality should not be clouded by the enthusiasm of any UKIP supporter who is excited at the recent UKIP election results.
Richard

Skiphil

Political Earthquake!
BBC reporters moan, suffer, struggle to report UKIP victory
truly historic results:


“It will be the first time a national election has not been won by the Conservatives or Labour in 100 years – and the first time a party with no MPs at Westminster has achieved such a result.”

Skiphil

well I’m only a distant observer in the USA, and not a close follower of UK or EU electoral politics, but I think that anything that so shakes the 3 old parties and the news media in the UK could have beneficial results….
of course it depends upon the “real” UK elections in the future, and upon how the parties, news media, et al. respond to this challenge…. but I don’t see how it can be less than a beneficial event that the 3 “main” parties, and especially the LibDems, received such a thrashing.

Cheshirered

“Dr. Jones has admitted that his Unit has lost much of the data on which the IPCC relies.”
It amazed me that this admission did not trigger the resignation of Jones, or failing that being forthcoming, his dismissal. On every level, from UEA’s ‘world renowned’ reputation to agw being the ‘Greatest Threat To Mankind, Ever’ through to ‘that’s his f****** job! – if that doesn’t represent gross negligence then frankly, I don’t know what does.

Joe Public

The supreme irony:- UKIP with MEPs in Brussels can have far more influence on Britain and its political policies from there, because it has no MPs in Westminster!

Ex-expat Colin

Well said and well done Sir.
May I add that on halt/closure of the financing of this CC fiasco that all parties fed money by the likes of Ed Davey (DECC) are returned to the Treasury. Just so that we can chop a piece off the mountainous debt that the Labour Gov and related Banks have presented us.
Remember……UK Labour means poverty for all, always has and will repeat further.
If anybody would like to see facts on Wind Turbine costs. complexity and dumb thinking please browse the following pdf. Its published by the UK Crown Estates and no need to say who that belongs to:
http://www.thecrownestate.co.uk/media/211144/guide_to_offshore_windfarm.pdf
Now for the by election in the next few days.

deklein

UKIP MEP Roger Helmer speaking in the European Parliament in November 2013.

“Just wait until the lights go out. Then you will find a real societal challenge.”
See him skewer the Green who blames hurricanes on CO2.

Non Nomen

AndyL says:
Unfotunately climate scepticism is no longer UKIP policy. They have explicitly stated that NONE of the policies they stood for in 2010 are currently UKIP policy, and that they will announce new policies some time before the 2105 election.
This means that they have no policies on education, health, the economy, climate change, defence – and that apart from opposition immigration and the EU they are a policy free zone. This makes UKIP the perfect protest vote. People can vote for them without having to take a position on any of this messy political stuff.
============
The elections take place in 2015, luckily not in 2105…
You ought to listen to that what has been said as well. Farage declared that he “just doesn’t know” in several interviews on TV. He also made statements on other matters, e.g windfarms. The attitude towards coal and nuclear power is positive. Roger Helmer said something very similar. So the tendency is crystal clear: they do not favour CAGW. They are certainly not hardcore sceptics. Call them luke warm, but they are definitely willing to think it all over, unbiased and unimpressed by MSM. Britain is far better off with that sort of politics than with the likes of Camerons’ father in law who earns one thousand quid a day just with wind energy the poor have to pay dearly.

Sure, it’s true that they are AGW skeptics, but that is incidental to why they and other similar European parties won. They are advocating for the protection of western civilisation against rampant immigration. They are also standing up for the interests of whites which they feel have been ignored and, in fact, decried.

climatereason

Urederra
No, you cant vote for Parties from other countries but here in the South West Of England is exposed the lunacy of the EU in as much Gibraltar is lumped in with Devon and Cornwall in one constituency.
I think that Monckton accurately portrayed the big issues here;
“However, after opposition to the EU’s militantly anti-democratic structure and to the mass immigration that has been forced upon Britain as a direct result, UKIP’s third most popular policy with the voters is its opposition to the official EU global-warming story-line.”
Although it must be said that giving existing politicians a good kicking AND complaining about mass migration were head and shoulders above climate change. However it is a very real issue here, as apart from any other consideration people realise we do not have a viable energy policy and erecting giant wind and solar farms on our limited countryside is no solution. Its cloudy and still here this morning and neither system would be working and people realise that.
tonyb

What Christopher Monckton has written is pure sophistry and I can only describe it as deceptive.
In the European election of 2014, UKIP made no mention of climate change or climate skepticism, so why is Christopher Monckton allowed to make such a claim? The only reference I can find in the 2014 local and European manifestos is a commitment to local, binding referenda on things like wind turbines and solar power and to building coal and nuclear power plants to reduce the cost of energy.
The leader of UKIP, Nigel Farage, described the 2010 manifesto as “drivel”, so why is Monckton trumpeting the commitments made then as somehow relevant to the reasons why people voted UKIP in 2014 or even to the UKIP itself?
It seems to me that people voted UKIP largely as a protest vote against further EU integration (which is a common theme across the EU) and against continuing mass immigration (ditto).
I know that WUWT gives quite a bit of latitude to posters in the name of free speech, but this is a political tract for a policy position that even a right-wing party like UKIP does not promulgate any more.

Ex-expat Colin

@richardscourtney says:
May 26, 2014 at 1:06 am
Ref: Please note the factual post by AndyL at May 26, 2014 at 12:37 am. It says (blah-blah)
We shall definitely see and I suggest AndyL thoroughly peruse Roger Helmers (UKIP Spokesman on Energy and Industry) site here: Try to avoid any side issues relating, which of course the MSM loves.
http://rogerhelmermep.wordpress.com/

It seems to me that people voted UKIP largely as a protest vote against further EU integration (which is a common theme across the EU) and against continuing mass immigration (ditto).

Duh.

What Christopher Monckton has written is pure sophistry and I can only describe it as deceptive.

John A, if not deceptive, this line of thought from Christopher Monckton and various commenters here is certainly wishful thinking nearing delusional. BNP’s vote share dropped 5.1% to only 1.14%. They almost all shifted to UKIP as well as UKIP picking up voters from other parties. They weren’t all switching because of climate change.
Not to mention the similar changes in the other European nations. Is Christopher Monckton unaware of this? Does he think this is a great climate-change sweet election? That’s absurd.

Non Nomen

John A says:
May 26, 2014 at 1:28 am
What Christopher Monckton has written is pure sophistry and I can only describe it as deceptive.
In the European election of 2014, UKIP made no mention of climate change or climate skepticism, so why is Christopher Monckton allowed to make such a claim? The only reference I can find in the 2014 local and European manifestos is a commitment to local, binding referenda on things like wind turbines and solar power and to building coal and nuclear power plants to reduce the cost of energy.
The leader of UKIP, Nigel Farage, described the 2010 manifesto as “drivel”, so why is Monckton trumpeting the commitments made then as somehow relevant to the reasons why people voted UKIP in 2014 or even to the UKIP itself?
It seems to me that people voted UKIP largely as a protest vote against further EU integration (which is a common theme across the EU) and against continuing mass immigration (ditto).
I know that WUWT gives quite a bit of latitude to posters in the name of free speech, but this is a political tract for a policy position that even a right-wing party like UKIP does not promulgate any more.
=========================
What the good Lord wrote is neither sophistry nor deceptive. What UKIP wants, as well as Lord Monckton, is just some common sense applied. After having read the points Lord Monckton made here, I recognized having heard a good deal of them on various occasions from UKIP, be it during interviews or speeches I listened to on TV. That party HAS an attitude towards renewable energy, nuclear power, cheaper energy and definitely wants spendings on NGO reduced. Wind turbines, for example, do not make sense, thats a fact UKIP publicly stated. The shutdown of coal fired powerplants does not make sense, that’s a fact UKIP publicly stated as well. I do concede that these points are not on top of their agenda and that the manifesto is under revision(I hope they don’t have it spoiled by peer review), but they are willing to talk about it much more than the LibLabCon men ever would. So UKIP ist the most progressive anti-CAGW political movement of influence of our times in the UK.
Margaret Thatchers just wanted her money back, UKIP wants the whole country back. And the money.

“What the good Lord wrote is neither sophistry nor deceptive. What UKIP wants, as well as Lord Monckton, is just some common sense applied.”

I’m watching BBC coverage of voter after voter discuss the election, ranging from Labour to UKIP voters. They’re talking about immigration. Don’t be daft.

In response to Mr Courtney, UKIP is known to be vigorously opposed to the climate scam, and this fact may well have been of particular value in Scotland. It’s policy on this issue will not change substantially in the current review.
As for the aptly-named “Village Idiot”, a spiteful troll, no, I have not been booted out of UKIP. I am no longer leader in Scotland because I stood by senior Scottish party members bullied by London. The County Court upheld us when we mounted an indicative action against London on behalf of one of those members and UKIP was ordered to reinstate him and to pay £30,000 costs of both sides.

pat

i finally found MSM reporting Ukip’s position on CAGW, or as Debra puts it, “climate change”. it’s in the so-called RIGHTWING Murdoch media & was in their newspapers around Australia today.
the article states Debra wrote it, with AFP contributing some part of it. fittingly, Debra’s own career – see below – proves once again that LEFT & RIGHT is a fiction to keep the plebs under control.
talk about a nasty piece of work, Debra!
26 May: News Ltd (Murdoch Press): UK Independence Party set to cause political ‘earthquake’ in European Parliament elections
by DEBRA KILLALEA AND AFP (Agence France Presse)
THEY oppose same sex marriage, want to reduce immigration and believe man-made climate change is a myth…
The Eurosceptic party believes Britain would be better off without the European Union controlling rules on issues including employment, finance, ENERGY and trade…
The Twittersphere is trying to make light of the situation with a hilarious look at the apathy of Britain’s voters and how the party has come to experience a rise in popularity.
(INCLUDES MOCKING, MOCKING, MOCKING TWEETS)
And it seems UKIP is not the only far-right party making an impact.
France’s far-right National Front has also stormed European Parliament polls, sending shock waves across the bloc…
(WHERE’S THE EVIDENCE?) The National Front, like other far-right parties across Europe, promote anti-immigrant and often anti-Semitic policies…
(SO THERE!) Despite the Eurosceptic gains, established pro-EU parties were forecast to remain the biggest groups in the parliament. The conservative caucus, known as EPP, was forecast to win 211 seats, down from 274, but enough to remain the parliament’s biggest group.
http://www.news.com.au/world/uk-independence-party-set-to-cause-political-earthquake-in-european-parliament-elections/story-fndir2ev-1226931615645
FROM NEWS LTD’S PROFILE OF THE WRITER, DEBRA KILLALEA:
Debra spent six years in the UK working for the Mirror Group (LEFT) including the Mail Online(RIGHT).

Adam Gallon

Before we all get too carried away, with a 34% turnout, it was a resounding victory for the “We could give a flying ~#*$ Party” Three quarters of the electorate regard Euroelections as either irrelevant or not worth voting for, this doesn’t include those who were unaware of the elections in the first place.
I’ll lay good money on most of those who voted for UKIP, did so with little – if any – knowledge of their thoughts or policies on climate change.

Congratulations, Milord

Look more carefully at the results. The UKIP *did* pick up a lot of councilors but they did not win control of any councils. Look at Labour + Lib Dem results compared to Conservative + UKIP results. You will see that the country actually shifted LEFT overall, not right.
Labour gained 338 seats and won control of 6 additional net councils.
Lib Dems lost 310 seats and lost control of 2 net councils.
A net result of a gain of 28 seats and 4 councils on the left
Conservatives lost 230 seats and lost control of a net 11 councils
UKIP won 161 additional seats at gained control of no councils
A net result of a loss of 69 seats and 11 councils on the right.
The European Parliament elections are showing the same thing. The far right parties gained a considerable number of seats but the center left gained more at the expense of the center right.

rogerthesurf
AndyL

UKIP’s entire policy summmed up in one phrase

*Is Christopher Monckton unaware of this? Does he think this is a great climate-change sweet sweep election?

Mike Ozanne

“Why was it exactly you were booted out of the party?”
Usually it’s because Mr Farage prefers to be the only star in the firmament, it’s why they’ll fail at a General Election, that and a total lack of any actual policies.

rogerknights

Slight copy-edit needed: ““A coordinating lead author of the Fourth Assessment Report admits that, “to influence governments”, he knowingly inserted a falsehood to the effect that the Himalayas will be ice-free in 25 years.”
(That was Lal.)

urederra

tonyb says:
May 26, 2014 at 1:28 am
Urederra
No, you cant vote for Parties from other countries …

Thanks for your reply. I have been eurosceptic for some time so I did not bother to read about the elections. In my opinion the European Community is half cooked. You can go to other european countries to work but there is not european social security. So, in fact there is not free movement of workers. If you work 10 years in the UK, 10 years in Germany and 10 years in France, you end up in a bad position when you retire.
Same happens with voting. We are electing the european parliament but we can only vote for parties from your country. Makes little sense to me.
Right now we are in the middle of the road, we have to tear down all the barrirrs or go back to the old borders, but we cannot stand in the middle.

Sasha

jdseanjd says:
May 26, 2014 at 12:44 am
“…At the top of a voting paper about a yard ~(1 metre) long, was UK Independence Now, a party I’d never heard of. 2nd from bottom was UKIP. I wonder how many people were caught by that nasty little trick?..”
That nearly caught me out. There must have been plenty of others who were in a hurry and voted for the “UK Independence Now” at the top of the very long list of candidates instead of the “UK Independence Party” (UKIP) right at the bottom of the list.

ralfellis

Village Idiot says: May 26, 2014 at 12:21 am
Why was it exactly you were booted out of the party?
_______________________________
The problem was putting a left-footer in charge of the Scottish branch of UKIP, especially when that someone has still not realised that we have a de-facto separation between belief and reality in UK politics. This was a clear failure of UKIP leadership to understand the history of the region.
Regards UKIP success, it is true that climate played a very small role in this victory. But it has to be said that this policy was yet another clear indication that Nigel Farage was prepared to swim against the tide of political consensus. And if he was prepared to do it with climate (which is quite contentious), then he was probably prepared to do it with the other European sacred cows of immigration and multiculturalism.
So the UKIP victory was not a simple protest vote. It was a collective understanding that the political consensus in Europe was actually a monarch with no clothes — across a range of issues from climate, to cuckoo-land economics, to spectacularly naive social policies. The people have at last realised that political platitudes do not run a nation or an empire. Sometimes, you need a plain-speaking realist who will make tough decisions, rather than a showman who will play the popularity card. And Farage is that man today. But he has to deliver on that no-nonsense image, otherwise he will sink as quickly as he has risen.
R

In terms of politics, a Liberal Democrat friend once described me as right wing of Ghengis Khan.
But a UKIP meeting in Birmingham full of old Trotsky types who wanted to impose currency controls and sky high taxes on the rich, I was made welcome, even though I disagreed with much of what they said.
Why?
Because the one thing we could agree on was, whatever the decisions about the future of the British economy, the first step was to win back Britain’s freedom from the EUSSR.
Well done EU – you’ve successfully united hundreds of millions of people, created a rainbow coalition which crosses the entire political spectrum, because they all hate your EU bureaucrats more than they hate each other.

Simon

Christopher Monckton’s views on climate change are too radical even for the UKIP. Says it all really…..

rogerknights

Mike Ozanne says:
May 26, 2014 at 2:13 am

“Why was it exactly you were booted out of the party?”

Usually it’s because Mr Farage prefers to be the only star in the firmament, it’s why they’ll fail at a General Election, that and a total lack of any actual policies.

It isn’t “a total lack of any actual policies.” It has a few core policies. Any position it takes on other matters will only lose it votes. Its policy on those other matters should be, “We’ll let the populace decide on those, by a referendum of either the entire population, or of a randomly selected study group on the topic.” That position will win it votes. (Indeed, if the UKIP had NO policies, it would do even better running on such a populist platform.)
The Tories were both unprincipled and too clever by half in successfully opposing the referendum on instant runoff elections. Such an electoral procedure would save their bacon next year.

My congratulations to UKIP and especially you, Christopher. We in Germany can also report some success. The new party AfD (Alternative für Deutschland) founded just one year ago, got remarkable 7 % of the votes, which means 7 MPE.
AfD ist not against EU but for a much slimmer one and wants to bring decisions back to the people in their own country. Regarding the climate issue the AfD program states that the science about manmade global warming is in doubt and is heavily disputed and should therefore not used for measures against global warming. A huge step forward for a german party.
Regarding subsidizing Renewable Energy the party is strictly against it and requires to stop all of them immediately. I am happy to took part in this development.
best regards
Michael

AndyL

Helmer says UKIP is in favour of fracking, but the headline local government policy for UKIP is local binding referendums on planning decisions. So which is their policy?
Meanwhile of course UKIP don’t define what ‘local’ means. Who gets to vote in a referendum on a nuclear power station, or an inter-city train line like HS2?
Even the few places where UKIP attempt to state a policy, they are full of contradictions. The idea that they can take “tough decisions” thanks to their “plain-speaking realist” leader is just fantasy.

rogerknights

PS: What I meant was that under an instant runoff system, a minor party can’t be a “spoiler”–as the Green party was for the Democrats in 2000, and which the UKIP will be for the Tories in 2015. Hard cheese, chumps.