Powell seems to be quite the rage at the moment. After publicity whore Tory MEP Dan Hannan cited Enoch Powell as one of his key influences nobodies seems to be able to stop talking about either of them.

Powell has been painted a racist, and it is clea…

Yes but so much easier to get them accept higher taxes if its alledgedly for the good of the planet. Quite how giving more money to government helps the environment has never been made fully clear.

“you don’t need to mastermind a worldwide conspiracy, coin the term “anthropogenic global warming,” set up dozens of NGOs, hold international conventions, hoodwink an entire generation of scientists to raise taxes.”

No, but its not just about tax. It’s about political exploiatation. All these middle class eco warriors vote, and they are more likely to vote for you if you make the right noises about their cause de jour (remember the tories green rebranding ?). Plus you can give all sorts of potentially unpopular policies (from reductions in refuse collection to the imposition of toll roads) a greenwash which tends to buy the tacit support of gullible middle class do gooders sorry I meant the environmentally aware, who then attempt to set their pet cause as a social norm.

“You also helpfully ignore the wealth of proposals designed to be revenue neutral, but then they don’t fit with your conspiracy theory do they?”

I have yet to see a green tax that’s revenue neutral in the UK, and I have a feeling that my defintion of revenue neutral (reduces my tax bill if I exhibit green behaviours) is not the one the govt will use (reduces the tax bill for middle class cyclists and increases it for everyone else)

“It’s been very easy to raise taxes, take your conspiracy theories elsewhere.”

Ed “So what” Balls would be proud of you. Relatively easy to raise taxes so far maybe but it’s going to get harder. Taxes from tobacco, alcohol and petrol are going to fall in the medium/long term. Add to that the host of pressures already on public finances and it’s going to get significantly harder. Direct taxes seem to have gone out of fashion (too transparent for the left) so the agenda is to introduce a raft of consumption taxes based on carbon consumption.

Anyone who swallows MMGW hypothesis whole is a fool, and will probably believe anything.

No, sorry, your premise is as false as your name.

It’s been very easy to raise taxes, take your conspiracy theories elsewhere.

“In general, yes, but given how many governments now have a lot of tax revenue wrapped up in AGW it unfortunately is always going to cloud the issue.”

I don’t see how. The politics issue is entirely separate to the scientific debate. Those who want to argue the politics should argue about the politics. The science on the subject is, largely settled. To try to deflect bad political policies by dragging the science into it is just stupid.

“I was seeking to put climate research into two groups, one of which concludes AGW is real, the other that it is not.”

There aren’t two scientific groups though is there? Not when you come down to it, not when you look at it objectively. The scientific argument to the actual existence and cause of Global Warming has effectively been over for fifteen years or more.

The two groups are those who understand the science and the deniers of various hues, from the nutcases, the Right Wing free marketers and the pitchmen for the oil industry. No-one with any credibility in the field disputes the science. The prognosis and time line? Well sure, you could argue that some disputes exist, but the existence of AGW is not seriously disputed.

You may as well argue that two camps exist in history as to the existence of the holocaust because a few ‘historians’ have doubts. No doubt they too would argue that for every piece of evidence the ‘pro’ have the ‘sceptics’ have equally convincing evidence too. Doesn’t make it true, does it?

“So in the case of “The Earth was warmer 200 million years ago” it is being used as a contradiction – essentially, the opposition is saying “How does your theory explain why the Earth was warmer back then?”

That is only relevant if the data you supply forms no part of the evidence. Every climate scientists knows that the Earth has undergone warming and cooling periods before, that is a given. No-one disputes it, no-one is suggesting that natural phenomena and human influence are mutually exclusive any more than death by natural causes would exclude the existence of murder.

“Now you can disagree with the opposition all you want, but you have to admit it has made those arguing that AGW is real work a lot harder and make their cases/research far more watertight”

I don’t see how. The ‘objections’ by most of the anti science brigade are really at the fundamental level, it is the Sun, it was cold last week, it snowed in Germany type of things or just pure inventions. No scientist has had to work harder thanks to the Oregon petition or the halfwitted nonsense that channel four put up a couple of years ago. No scientist was pushed any harder thanks to the church and their machinations and objection to the Earth’s shape or the Earth’s position in the solar system/Galaxy/Universe, nor was any evolution theorist from Darwin onwards helped by religious nutcases either. What pushed these men was the quest for knowledge and intelligent questions, not PR men with profits to protect.

“then they would have had to had everyone rolled over and accepted it.”

Rolled over? Why do you think the World’s economists and oil executives know more about the climate than the best climate scientist?

Lets cut to the car chase, the Rights attempts to derail the science was not brought about by them seeing something in the science, this is a fight for economic supremacy. Had Global Warming been caused by a huge CO2 machine operated by Muslims in Mecca, George Bush would have bombed it years ago.

Just on a point of clarity, was the point of the “Rivers of Blood” speech not [from Powell's point of view] to try and stop immigration to avoid a racial war, rather than to start one? Was he not saying that he was fearful that racial strife would be the result, rather than calling for it?

Precisely that.

Sunny,

Mr Eugenides, here are some choice words by Powell:

In 15 or 20 years time, the black man will have the whip hand over the white man.

That’s a misquote: Powell claimed those were the words of his constituent. Given that many people expressed similar views at the time, I don’t think we can reasonably accuse Powell of lying about this.

That speech doesn’t show Powell was a racist: he claimed whites were not superior to blacks and he believed in equality before the law; he welcomed Commonwealth professionals and students; he just wasn’t keen on immigration in the sense of settlement, nor the notion that a citizen should be prohibited from discriminating in his private life in whatever way he wished. He believed this would lead to great trouble.

Now the fact is that there haven’t been rivers of blood (although Powell didn’t claim there would be, either) but there have been racially motivated crimes and racially motivated riots – and not just between whites and ‘BMEs’ (as the government charmingly calls them) but between British Asians and blacks, too, among others.

Conspirators may be interested in the independent review of the Oldham riots.

There remains concern about immigration, particularly in deprived areas, because people often blame their poor circumstances on immigrants and immigration. And ghettoisation, or de facto segregation (distinct from de jure segregation) does not help.

Immigration is important to people. It is the fifth most important issue in general elections, after economy, law and order, education, and health (those last in no particular order). As with those who claim to be allergic to man-made electromagnetic fields, the public’s concerns are misplaced but genuine. It is therefore wrong to attribute those concerns to mere racism and dismiss them as such.

In general, yes, but given how many governments now have a lot of tax revenue wrapped up in AGW it unfortunately is always going to cloud the issue.

“cannot label that scientist ‘pro AGW’ can you?”

Lazy labelling from me earlier. I was seeking to put climate research into two groups, one of which concludes AGW is real, the other that it is not. While scientist do have their beliefs, I agree that if he does his job correctly then the scientists belief should have nothing to do with his conclusion.

“But you cannot take a piece of data out of context then use it as an example against Global Warming can you”

No, you can’t take it out of context. You can use handy data as examples against it though. So in the case of “The Earth was warmer 200 million years ago” it is being used as a contradiction – essentially, the opposition is saying “How does your theory explain why the Earth was warmer back then?”.

Now you can disagree with the opposition all you want, but you have to admit it has made those arguing that AGW is real work a lot harder and make their cases/research far more watertight then they would have had to had everyone rolled over and accepted it.

“is a great way of raising tax revenue and calling it ‘fair’”

That is clouding the issue though. This is a science debate, not a tax one. You can argue about whether or not you think tax is the correct way to combat GW, but that is a different argument to the existence of GW. I have read and heard lots of decent concerning Labour Polices within the ranks of the Labour Party, right across the spectrum from Iraq and ID cards (another great way of raising revenue)

”A piece written that concludes that global warming is caused by man. Similarly, anti-AGW is a piece that concludes global warming is either not happening or isn’t the result of man.”

Is it as simple as that though? Surely, the science speaks for itself. If you measure something and it is consistent with the theory, you cannot label that scientist ‘pro AGW’ can you? You can only say that his findings add weight to the theory.

”Unfortunately, the sheer amount of data available to collect and analyse regarding the climate is always going to result in a certain amount of cherry picking”.

But you cannot take a piece of data out of context then use it as an example against Global Warming can you? You cannot say:
“ The Earth was warmer 200 million years ago, therefore Global Warming does not exist”
“England grew vineyards 2000 years ago, thus proving GW does not exist”

You have to examine the entire data set and form a hypothesis, constituent with your findings.

Those who are opposed (I use the term deliberately) to the GW theory use the above and other equally idiotic arguments all the time. Sometimes they just resort to lies.

“I have not heard anyone in the Labour Party actually dispute the science as such”

I suspect the situation would have been the same had the Conservatives been in office too. Ignoring whether I believe in it or not, AGW is a great way of raising tax revenue and calling it ‘fair’ (how can one successfully argue against a ‘biggest polluters pay the most’ system?).

“Define ‘pro-AGW’”
A piece written that concludes that global warming is caused by man. Similarly, anti-AGW is a piece that concludes global warming is either not happening or isn’t the result of man.

“Cherry picked data, half truths”
Unfortunately, the sheer amount of data available to collect and analyse regarding the climate is always going to result in a certain amount of cherry picking.

“big oil”
I do believe that we should seek to reduce our dependence on oil, but that goes the same with any finite resource.

Gimpy: Where are the ideas?

We have those too. There’s space for plenty of stuff.

“For what it’s worth, I think Enoch Powell was wrong on immigration. The civil unrest that he forecast, and that many feared in 1968, didn’t materialise. Britain assimilated a large population with an ease that few countries have matched. Being an immigrant myself, I have particular cause to be grateful for Britain’s understated cosmopolitanism. ”

Well, that settles it. Sunny’s an idiot.

Go back to *27* and read the extract carefully, word for word.

What actual inaccuracies can you find?

List them, one by one.

He didn’t mention muggings, crack dealers or exploding Muslims, did he?

One word cluster catches the eye:

“… to overawe and dominate the rest …”

Hmm, just the other day wasn’t that Shahid Malik telling us all that there OUGHT TO BE more Muslim MPs and that sometime in the future there would be a Muslim in Number Ten?

“It’s not like I hear David Cameron telling everyone AGW is a myth. I think you’ll find the pro-AGW and anti-AGW people don’t split neatly between Labour and Tory.”

Dave Cameron is in the minority within his own Party. I get the distinct impression that the Tories are more anti the science behind Global Warming than agree with it. No doubt there are Right Wing Labour supporters who are equally anti science, but they appear to be in the minority of their party. I have not heard anyone in the Labour Party actually dispute the science as such (I will concede that there must be someone I have missed), the only descent I have heard is what the response should be.

“Firstly search for pro-AGW pieces”

Define ‘pro-AGW’. I don’t know anyone who is ‘pro’ Global Warming.

I think the term you were intending to use was ‘pro’ and ‘anti’ science. You cannot have ‘an opinion’ on science. Science is about what you can prove and demonstrate and what the data supports, not what you ‘believe’.

“On either side there are scientists that believe their view is absolutely correct, no questions.”

Scientists? What ‘scientists’ dispute Man Made Global Warming? No-one with any credibility has any evidence that stands much scrutiny.

“You cannot deny that there are anti-AGW writers who come armed with evidence that demonstrate their POV”

Cherry picked data, half truths and downright lies does not constitute ‘evidence’ of anything other than the desperation of big oil and their apologists to cloud the issue.

I do concede the fact that although the scientific ‘debate’ has been won, the Right have indeed won the political argument of allowing GW to take its course. The Left have all but disengaged from the fight and have retreated to the politics of demonstration, via climate camps and plackard waving.

‘“He was one of the great figures of 20th-century British politics, gifted with a brilliant mind.”’

Just goes to show you don’t need to be a Tory to be a cunt.

Like old Powell.

Cheers now!

Cool. Lovely. Job done. Ace.

They don’t get a point for that because the basic premise of their ideals is still shitty.