Two thirds of Brits think the green agenda has been hijacked

Two thirds of Brits (67 per cent) believe the green agenda has been hijacked as a ploy to increase taxes.
Just over a third (34 per cent) believe that extreme weather is becoming more common but that it has nothing to do with global warming while one in 10 believe that climate change is a totally natural phenomenon.
The report by research group Opinium provides a valuable glimpse into the way in which people now view the green movement.
The over 55’s, for example, are the most cynical about of all about global warming with 43 per cent believing that extreme weather and global warming are completely unconnected.
While the report showed more and more people are willing to take steps to live greener lifestyles, scepticism surrounding the green movement persists.
Is it justified? Does it jeopardise the aims of the environmental movement?

Comments

[D Baker]

Climate change is the hoax of the Century, full stop. It has become a political issue, and we all know what that means!

[Gerard]

Anthropogenic global warming is only a hypothesis. There is no objective data available over a long enough timeframe to indicate it one way or another. The catastrophists rely solely on the "results" from imperfect computer models. Just because a computer produces a sexy graphic showing us roasting in our beds in 100 years doesn't make it the truth, or in any way a valid prediction. Unfortunately the research gravy train is rolling fast provided the politicos are continuously provided with new headlines. Design a theory, design a model that works according to your theory and then present the results as proof of the theory. Yeah! right! And I can levitate by pulling my shoelaces.

The "climate change" industry is a political construct that conveniently seems to replace the discredited ideals of Marxism.

[Masrock]

Mr Simmons, the question of climate science and its accuracy is not the main question, the hijacking of the 'green taxes' and the fact that almost none of the money is going towards developing a solution is the key point. You are more likely to get funding approved if you label any thesis "The effect of climate change on...." but that is another story

[Peter Simmons]

M A Swann, care to provide some proof that a) you are a physicist and b) you know enough about this subject to make bald statements like the ones you have made?
And as for BYSTANDER's claim that it's all a con as there has been no global temperature change for the last seven years, well I'm almost speechless at the crass stupidity of this remark. Talk about limited thinking capacity. Try please to step outside your little world view and see the Earth's ecosystem for what it is. It's taken two hundred years of industrial spewing of pollutants to bring us to this, within that gradual slide there are going to be blips, often lasting longer than seven years, it is not a simplistic smooth curve. Many factors are involved which cause temporary changes, but the UPWARD TREND IS WELL ESTABLISHED and the tens of thousands of climate scientists all agree that man-made emmissions are contributing. Now that would be one hell of a conspiracy.
So let's not bang on about government conspiracies, governments around the world have been extremely slow to take this onboard and start to act. But if you have a need to be reassured, then go ahead and believe this tosh, the day will come when reality will dawn even on the Sun readers here and others who find it difficult to understand.

[Peter Simmons]

It's astonishing how many posting here think climate change is an issue that's up for debate, it isn't, thousands of scientists have worked for decades and all agree that warming is being caused [in part] by our activities. The posters who seem to think otherwise supply no facts, just sneers and attempts at heavy-handed humour. But it's no laughing matter, and the results are already being experienced. Perhaps not in the developed world so much yet, although drought in Australia, floods almost everywhere and extreme weather events proliferating across Europe and America show it is no repecter of wealth. Poor, especially low-lying countires like Burma and Bangladesh are getting the full effects right now. But the complacent stupids just make cracks about the hard left and appear to think climate change has reversed if DK is anything to go by.

Dream on oh hard-of-thinking, reaality will come and slap you round the face any day now, and then I expect you'll be whining 'why didn't the government protect me from this?' We get all the insinuations about 'trying to suppress the truth' and apparently it's all the fault of the hippies and anti-apartheid demonstraters, though what it has to do with anti-racism only a racist could tell us.
If politicians use climate change as an excuse to raise taxes, then they are only doing what politicians do all the time.

But green taxes are a perfectly viable method to get people to change their habits; if petrol was 10p a litre, even more of it would be wasted, but if it was £5 a litre [as it will be as oil runs out] people would treat it as a precious resource.

Energy generally is much too cheap, and is thus wasted by those who don't care for anything but themselves and their first level desires. Yeah, global warming a temporary phenomenon, nuclear power is safe, the Earth is flat and pigs can fly.

[Reg Parke]

No wonder the over 55 s are sceptical/cynical !!

As an over 65 I want to know whatever became of the 'nuclear winter' that was such a threat to the total existence of the earth not so long ago.

Some people took it so seriously that they constructed nuclear shelters in their gardens.

They will now have to knock down their shelters and bring in loads of good soil so that they can grow their own vegetables(provided they can get clean water from a renewal source).

When food shortages become widespread they will have to mount a 24 hour armed guard on their priceless crops.

I think Mr Brown should set up another review to look into this matter !!!!!!!

[Sam]

Sorry to mention the obvious, but politicians take decisions based on politics. ie not what is best for you and me or Joe Public, but what is best for them, their family and their politically connected friends (eg big companies). That is, the decision which is more likely to keep them in power and living off the public purse for just a little bit longer. The decision that is more likely to give them a little bit more power over the rest of us for their enjoyment and to give them the warm glow inside that says "they know best".

There is only one non-violent way to break this downward spiral and that is to vote for less government whenever possible. Doing nothing just encourages them. Keep your eyes open...

[Sam]

"My son is an Ecologist specialising in bio-diversity and conservation. He is well traveled and is nobodies fool. He has witnessed the destruction of rain forest and productive food land to grow thousands of acres of oil palms. He, together with many fellow ecologists, is appalled by the hipocracy of world governments. In his opinion global warming and terrorism are the two largest growth industries in the world and governments are using both to justify the removal of freedom and rights and the imposition of taxes and other incomes streams. Governments across the globe look at these two major issues and only ask themselves "how can we use these to our advantage".

Posted by: Ed Aburrow | 7 May 2008 12:05:24 "

It was worth saying twice Ed! (three times now)

[Dan Xuereb]

The problem is that most people in this country are too willing to accept what they're told as the truth by politicians. It doesn't help that scientists are now absolutely rolling in funding for new "green" products, energies, and statistics, so that the important things like disease are losing scientific talent to the biggest payers.

The irony is that without the Toyota Prius (or should that be "pious") brigade, we'd have this sorted. It is they who have held back nuclear power because someone in the sixties decided it was dangerous, they who put a stop to the Severn tidal system (and will again, you mark my words) because they thought it might upset a worm or slug or something, and they who have caused the price of grain to skyrocket by demanding biofuels, killing millions through starvation in the process.

But don't worry, so long as you can sit in a wine bar chatting with your friends about how you're "like, a part of the solution, not a part of the problem" and look down on those who recognise this media scare for what it is, there's no problem. You can feel superior, and in 50 years when nothing has happened and there's a new "threat" to the Earth, you can delude yourself into thinking that your misguided efforts actually did something to help.

[Bystander]

Posted by: Will
“My hat, and there I thought climate change was a scientific fact.” Climate change is a fact, and always has been. What isn’t is man made global warming.
“…nothing to worry about and we can carry on happily rogering our planet.” There is a difference between ensuring we do as little localised environmental damage as we can, and making best use of finite resources, and believing the lies pumped out by political vested interests, in order to make the population guilty enough to accept being shafted. If you swallow this load of unsubstantiated nonsense, you must still believe in the Easter bunny and the tooth fairy.

[Masrock]

furthermore, if I was in charge,

For one year every penny raised in green taxes would go to the study of the problem, I'd have the biggest 'effing' supercomputer in the world, I'd hoover up every qualified brain put them into one place and tell them to work shifts 24 hrs a day 7 days a week, I'd subsides R&D in industry for private ' fixes' to the problem.

After 1 year if the link is proven, the whole show would continue till the problem is solved, if the link was not proven by a large margin then the green taxes would be stopped and the greens told to shut up!

I'd then capitalise on the industry and technology created over the last year.

[Glenn]

I saw "An inconvenient truth" and shuddered. What a scary film. Then I started looking into Global warming and the "facts" being presented to me. I can't help but feel it's all drivel. None of the Global warming evidence really holds any water and the hysteria that comes from the Green lobby prevents any serious debate. Someone here has already coined the use of the word "denier" - putting anyone who doesn't believe in global warming on a par with holocaust deniers. Worse than this, bad science and ignorance is actually causing harm. Look at the problems associated with Bio fuel - Which genius thought it would be a good idea to grow fuel instead of food? But to address the issue of taxation - take the Toyota Prius, fantastic piece of engineering but the environmental footprint in manufacturing and disposing of the batteries is huge. It's no more fuel efficient than a diesel and yet it gets huge tax concessions. As do electric cars. Where do people think the electricity to power these cars comes from? Unless it's recharged from a renewable source, it's NOT green!

[M A Swann]

Of course we should be concerned about the environment. Pollution and dwindling resources are very real problems.
Man-made-global-warming, fortunately, isn't.
It is bad science, it has declared war on legitimate scientific enquiry and, most worrying of all, seems to be a scam to bring in 'carbon trading' to bolster a flagging commodities market.
As a physicist I have seen no evidence fr MMGW at all. It is based on the absurd notion that the earth is a closed system and, by denying the effect of solar activity on the earth's weather system, it makes a mockery of scientific method.
In conclusion, hijacked is exactly the word I would choose. A ridiculous fringe belief advanced by a small clique that seems content to usher in a new age of fascism in the name of environmentalism.

[Ed Aburrow]

My son is an Ecologist specialising in bio-diversity and conservation. He is well traveled and is nobodies fool. He has witnessed the destruction of rain forest and productive food land to grow thousands of acres of oil palms. He, together with many fellow ecologists, is appalled by the hipocracy of world governments. In his opinion global warming and terrorism are the two largest growth industries in the world and governments are using both to justify the removal of freedom and rights and the imposition of taxes and other incomes streams. Governments across the globe look at these two major issues and only ask themselves "how can we use these to our advantage".

[Ed Aburrow]

My son is an Ecologist specialising in bio-diversity and conservation. He is well traveled and is nobodies fool. He has witnessed the destruction of rain forest and productive food land to grow thousands of acres of oil palms. He, together with many fellow ecologists, is appalled by the hipocracy of world governments. In his opinion global warming and terrorism are the two largest growth industries in the world and governments are using both to justify the removal of freedom and rights and the imposition of taxes and other incomes streams. Governments across the globe look at these two major issues and only ask themselves "how can we use these to our advantage".

[Masrock]

If this was an asteroid approaching earth, every penny of the 'save the earth' tax would be put into finding a technical solution, every scientist drafted to the cause, whole industries redirected to manufacturing the technology.

How much of the green tax is put towards finding a solution? What percentage?

Well we have had the science budget cut and science in schools diluted to nothing.

Enough said.

[Andrew T]

Global Warming is just a money making scam by governments to tax and control our lifestyles via Sigmund Freud style tactics. Investigate yourself; don’t just swallow what they are spoon feeding you! Have you not heard of "cycles" before??
More CO2 does not mean higher temperatures, there is no direct correlation between the two, take a look for yourself!

People now class you as a "holocaust denier" if you question the science of global warming, its disgusting the tactics the government and lobby groups imposes to change our way of thinking.

There have been many previous Ice Ages and periods of high temperatures throughout history, what caused these global changes? It's all a natural process, its mother nature correcting it's self. What caused the increase in CO2 prior to the industrial revolution and during the ice ages?

The Sun plays a much larger part for weather changes and temperature on earth than anything man could contribute, read up on Solar Flares/Sun Spots for instance. Also they don’t mention the fact that every other planet in the solar system is also heating up as far as we can tell, how is this explained?

Most of the UN's modeling on Global warming only take half of the contributing factors to the issue therefore are totally inaccurate. They do not factor in many things, one thing being underwater volcano's etc. The global sea temperature has not risen in 5 years and they don’t expect it to in the next 5.

Yes the Polar ice caps are melting but the Greenland ice caps are growing, it's all just part of change, since when has temperature and weather been static, and it’s always dynamic and changing/adapting.

People are willing to have a greener lifestyle not because they are worried about how much Carbon Dioxide (stuff plants breathe) they are “using” but because pollution is affecting the air we breathe, we want our air as clean as possible, which is a TOTAL different thing to "global warming"!! Industry’s pump out most of the toxins we breathe, I live in the North East.

Unfortunately Paul Owen is a victim of the green tax propaganda, repeating the double speak he hear's his leaders saying.

Fossil fuels are not cheaper, the price of oil for instance has risen constantly and there is no alternative to fossil fuels. The government promote "bio-fuels" yet they use more CO2 to produce, again it's "double think".

Why would the government not want us not buying petrol when they is over 70% tax on it?? Without this huge tax, they would not be able to function as a government.

Andrew, 22.

[Jarrad Wilkes]

Of course Global Warming is real - I mean, just think - it's warmer today than it was just 6 months ago. What more proof do you need?

[Will]

My hat, and there I thought climate change was a scientific fact. Turns out a handful of curmudgeons in suburbia and some scientists in the pay of the oil industry are right. It's good to know we've got nothing to worry about and we can carry on happily rogering our planet.

[Clive]

We can all come up with various theory about climate change both for and against. But the one thing that make me lean towards green is saving money and not let Darling and his cronies get any more money out of me

[craig]

My feeling is that given 5 scientist will never agree on simple issues I doubt 5000 ever will or could have, so the UN/EU climate change report is prob politically motivated and at best tainted and biased. Very few if any of these scientist have tenure so all have a vested interest to maintain funding etc. to prove that climate change is happening which is a natural event so easily proved. Add to this publication bias, political pressure and we have the closed minds that climate change is a man made event. The world has been warmer before. How we are separate to every other living organism in the world ecosystem in that our effects our percieved to be detrimental is beyond me. Who determines and what are the standards or parameters we judge mans effect to be good or bad on the environment? A bunch of unelected self appointed climate change experts with vested interests. CO2 alone is just all too simplistic and may be simply a marker of our times/world population. That being said recycling/renewable energy source all makes sense and if they 'sex up' reports to get us to do this then so be it (this is my presumption) but lets be realistic the agenda is being driven by antiglobalisation/isolationists left wing policies to maintain current positions and the effect is to stunt growth in the 2nd/3rd world (maintain poverty etc and therefore maintain the need for socialists to 'protect' or provide aid to the poor yet we all know that liberal free ecomomies are the wealthiest which promotes health etc better tha any aid project). Realistically if CO2 is the cause the only way to reduce CO2 is to reduce the population and thereby our demands that produce CO2 (sheep/cows/energy etc.) Save Iran/syria etc this isnt going to happen anytime soon. wealth creation is what slows poulation growth non violently. Allow the 2nd and 3rd world to grow. Spend the money on coping with the inevitable change and investing in renewable energy. Some places will become more productive some less. adapt to it stop fighting an inevitable unwinnable fight. this is what natural selection is all about. Stop trying to control the weather which seems to be man's enduring but unreachable dream and wastes endless resources. This all converges with the classic socialist agenda of anti- americanism/ anti-globalisation/protectionism.

[Bystander]

"...one in 10 believe that climate change is a totally natural phenomenon." Judging by the posts on this site, this is way off the mark. As more and more facts are, grudgingly, revealed, the extent of the lies and propaganda is becoming apparent. However, the media, in general, and the BBC, in particular seem intent on pushing the myth of global warming, despite mounting evidence to the contrary. It's becoming clear that there has been no rise in global temperatures for, at least, the last 7years, and now the man made global warming fascists are saying there will be no rise in temperatures for the next 10 years. They then go on to say that global temperatures will resume their upward trajectory. All as predicted??!! What garbage!! Call this science! So all the scaremongering about polar bears and icecaps was lies then. You cannot have it both ways.

[John]

The whole issue is well summarised in the recently published book by Nigel Lawson where he adapts a well worn phrase from the fashion industry and states....

...."Green is the new Red"

Environmentalism is now seen as the best excuse to control, interfere, and raise taxes with apparent consent. The opinion poll results once again prove out the old saw that you cannot kid all of the people all of the time...the worms are turning.....good.

[Dave]

Global warming is a pack of lies & the manner in which those promoting it have sought to squash any scientific evidence that suggests otherwise is evidence enough. To hell with the lot of them.

[Dominic]

An excuse to raise taxes?
Hummer Road tax up 10%
Nissan Micra Road Tax up 22%

Obviously not, those wonderfully green humvees didnt get battered as much as those evil micras.
Of course, if you were trying to raise more money, well.

[pete best]

Global warming (GW) and the green movement are not connected directly but the greens see it as the latest in the great industrialisation wrecking the planet. There can be no doubt that Governments are not tackling GW in any meaningful way so they are placing the burden on the tax payer but the tax payer should understand that GW is real and very worrying especially if we continue to live our lives as we currently are burning 8 billion tonnes of carbon per annum which immediately latches onto two O2 atoms to make 27 billion tonnes of CO2.

I wonder if anyone really understands this as the population at large do not really but they understand taxation.

[Mark Wallace, TaxPayers' Alliance]

This fits almost exactly with recent TaxPayers' Alliance polling on the same topic - the public know that politicians are exploiting the green issue to raise taxes. The hike in car taxes in the last budget is a good example, where ordinary family cars were clobbered despite the fact that motorists already pay far more tax than is necessary to offset their CO2 emissions.

[John]

No it is not an excuse to raise taxes. It is an excuse to advance the New World Order, lower the standard of living of the masses and introduce global communism.

[Dave Kinsley]

I am a father approaching 50, with three young children, who can remember thescares over the past decades that came to nothing. My children come home scared because they have been told at school that their future is bleak because of global warming.

I sat talking with them for an hour and explained the cycles that primarily involve the earth and the sun. Told them about ice ages and interglacial periods. I also told them about propaganda and how it is used by goverments to frighten their people.

They have had more propaganda 'teaching' of global warming at school than I have spent giving them the facts. Thay are now happy that global warming is a myth and are telling their teachers as much.

Their teachers must lack integrity if they are happy to propagandise our children and not give the full story from both sides.

[Morvan]

Posted by (Anonymous) | 7 May 2008 00:44:29

“over 55s don't acknowledge global warming because that would mean them taking part of the blame for the massive and unchecked use of fossil fuels ever since the industrial revolution.”

The above quote is wrong on so many counts, just like most of your post, in that the reason that most of us do not acknowledge it is that we have been there before – many times. I would also point out that for any of us to think that we were to blame for the industrial revolution and its aftermath we would have to be exceptionally old.

You also state that the “rate of change has never been this rapid”, on what basis do you make that claim. If you are relying on the ‘hockey stick’, then that has been proved to be a fraud for several years now. There have been periods in the last 2000 years that have been warmer than today, and also those that have been colder.

You are correct when you say that the technology of ‘renewables’ is costly; some of it downright harmful. No one is disputing that we will need a replacement for oil and gas in the not too distant future, and the shame is that work on this has not been carried out before. A lot of this inaction is down to the Green Lobby, which has frustrated things like nuclear energy, tidal barrages (Severn), and hydro-electric schemes (National Parks); all of which should now be on stream providing more renewable power than any amount of windmills.

Lastly, your comment that global warming is not temporary is quite true. Over some billions of years the long term outlook is that the earth will be consumed by a fireball as the sun eventually dies; otherwise I presume that it will do what it has always done – vary. This will make the 80’s & 90’s very slight rise in temperature temporary in the short term, and I believe that it has been cooling over the last few years and is expected to continue to do so for the next ten. People like me are old enough to remember that, if one has an agenda, statistics can prove anything – it all depends on how you choose the data and how you use it. Which I suppose brings me back to the famous ‘hockey stick graph’.

[Ripsnorter (a very happy ex-pat)]

An excuse for raising taxes - of course it is.
I didn't realise this was still in question.
World population 1940 - 2.2 billion: 2008- 6.6 billion well within my lifetime. Deal with that Mr. & Mrs Politician - Oh dear! can't you? well let's raise some more taxes.

[Mister Jones]

'Growing evidence'? The only growing evidence is that we have as much influence on the climate as a chilled Martini. Since 1999 and in the recent spate of cooler weather a warming trend has been conspicuous by it's absence, despite recent backpedalling by some alarmists.

CO2 levels have risen, but the global temperature hasn't, which would indicate to this poor intellect at least; that the 'Green' agenda is nowadays more about making money for vested interests and unscrupulous bandwagon jumping politicians than for the benefit of the environment..

[SS]

There are two issues which superceed the rather tenuos (though populist) link between fossil fuels and the world's weather. Firstly, a dramatic rise in energy needs (and therefore costs) as Brazil, Russia, India and China come to play a more active part in the international economy, and secondly energy security as our reliance on the Middle East and Russia for our energy needs increases. Who needs a green argument?

[Kate]

I agree that the governments are using
'green' projects to jack up the taxes. In
the province I live in we have had tariffs
put on the sale of rubber tires and car
batteries for at least 8 years. However the
old ones have never been recycled and nothing has been done with them They are
just clogging up a landfill site somewhere and periodically the tires catch on fire burning for weeks polluting the air. Governments think this is what the public want and they are using it to bolster their flagging popularity. I think this is true no matter where you are in the world. I would like to point out as an 'over 55' even though that may seem very old to you I wasn't alive at the start of the Industrial Revolution and therefore take no responsibility for effects of the global climate.

[mahler]

Apologies but, furthermore, the damned CFL bulbs are an abomination: more energy used in manufacture and ditto in disposal. And if you break one, the H&S guidelines are to leave the room and put a facemask on. Most of them will be thrown in the bin to further contaminate landfill. They're replacing a simple glass and metal object (which gave off some heat, thereby helping thermostats to turn off) with a complicated thing using mercury and (ignorant here) some kind of electronic device. The light they give off is dreadful and they are only economical if they are left on all the time. Anyway - my cupboard is filling up nicely with incandescents - 6 a week until the new junk laws come in.

[mahler]

I, too, think the green agenda has been hijacked. More than that, I think that governments are well aware that it is a con with a short life. If they thought it was real there would be more carrot and less stick; more engagement and less authoritarianism. Global climate variations, common sense must tell us, can be frequent or infrequent; speedy or slow in their impetus; long-lasting or short. The earth cannot be static. No-one apart from a few sceptical scientists has given credence to the influence of that rather large ball of fire in the sky and the effects of its fluctuations. Since it provides all the heat for the world and is responsible in no small part for different climates in different parts of the world, why do the AGW proponents deny it's part in the 'climate change' they bang on about?
CO2 feeds plants. Carbon is absolutely not a problem. However, general pollution and landfill, together with the coming shortage of fossil fuels is, of course, something that needs to be addressed. There are completely separate issues here, but AGW (MMGW) isn't one of them. Politics is, tho......

[Paul Owen]

It's probable that man is having some impact on the environment, of course it is. But it has been wildly exagerrated. Climate change and environmentalism has become the new religion and they are just as dogmatic and intolerant of dissent as the worst fundamentalists. The science does not stack up in the way we keep being told it stacks up.

The politicians should be ashamed of themselves. They have raced each other to leap on this bandwagon and risk doing irreparable damage to economies that are already struggling against those in the far east.

i'd like to see the evidence that global warming is about to reverse.

over 55s don't acknowledge global warming because that would mean them taking part of the blame for the massive and unchecked use of fossil fuels ever since the industrial revolution.

global warming is not 'temporary', and while the earth does go through temperature cycles, the rate of change has never been this rapid and there is no precendent against which to compare our current situation.

'green' alternatives do cost more, reflecting the high capital cost and investment that needs to go into investigating, installing and optimising new technologies; whereas fossil fuel based resources have undergone decades of refinement making them cheaper, more convenient and more readily available. being a nation of greedy, lazy consumers, we don't care about doing what's environmentally responsible as long as we don't have to put any effort in. nothing will change unless the integration of new technologies to replace the old is supported on an international scale.

[MikeL]

Of course the 'Green Agenda' is and has been hijacked by people like Mr Brown who think it is clever to tax the problem away but in reality is just another government inspired scam to fleece us of even more of our hard earned money. If the government were serious about the 'Green Issue' but they aren't really, they would ensure that the sources of greenhouse gases ie, manufacturers such as foodstuffs were prevented from packaging everything in plastic which is not only expensive in energy terms as it comes from oil but is extremely wasteful. They would ensure all cars on our roads had to do at least 40 miles per gallon, they would re design our road systems with more roundabouts instead of millions of traffic lights, they would encourage more people to work from home, they would encourage more employers to allow flexitime so that we are not all on the roads and in the station at the same time, they would give us tax breaks, yes give us money instead of finding a reason to take it off us to take up some of these ideas. The problem is that the government are only really interested in seeing this as an opportunity to increase their own revenues, witness the bin taxing fiasco, 60% fuel taxes, etc etc when in reality they haven't really offered a solution at all.

[James Russell]

Why are the over-55s cynical? Partly, perhaps, because they've lived through lots of scare stories. We were all supposed to be blown up by atomic weapons, then frozen in a new Ice Age, and here we still are. That generation has seen us achieve such an ascendancy over nature that the idea of nature having the power to destroy us must seem rather old-fashioned.

In the end the opinion polls tell us nothing about the truth or otherwise of climate change predictions, but they do tell us how people will react if and when life becomes difficult. Unfortunately, in their determined opposition to the left-leaning Green movement, the majority may condemn us to a future ruled by the eco-fascists they fear.

[Ian]

Absolutely! Green agenda EQUALS stealth taxes. Mr Brown uses green as an excuse to raise more taxes. Green just means very expensive.

[Matt Turner]

D K, what's the 'growing evidence'? Not being scathing or anything, I'm just intrigued to hear about such a study at a time when everyone's jumping on the eco bandwagon just for the 'fun' of it......

[D K]

The 'green' movement seems to have been completely taken over by the 'hard left', as a result of which we now see the same objectives and the same tactics that typified their other obsessions : Anti-Apartheid, Ban-the-Bomb, Anti-'Racism', Gay Rights, Human Rights, Women's Rights, absolutely anything anti-American, and all the rest.

Everything becomes highly political, and is marked by lies, exaggeration, distortion, and misrepresentation. Those with the courage to disagree with the new religion are subjected to censorship, vicious abuse, character assassination or threats to their careers ; and all is the fault of the White Man, the West, and any form of Capitalism.

And now evidence is growing - in spite of their attempts to suppress it - that they are completely wrong. Global warming is a temporary phenomenon, about to reverse; and it has nothing to do with man's puny efforts.