'Global warming is hoax': the world according to the BNP

[Adam1]

Unpick this...

http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/b ... change-oil

Here's something that we're presumably going to have to listen to a lot more of as a result of the BNP's success in the European elections – Nick Griffin's views on climate change. As he was touring the radio studios yesterday morning, he popped in on BBC Radio 5 Live's Breakfast programme for a chat with Nicky Campbell. After a few minutes of fairly gentle jousting, Griffin interrupted Campbell as he tried to read out another text from a listener…

Griffin: The BBC is obsessed with race and immigration. It would be great to talk about something else for once.

Nicky Campbell: What would you like to talk about? What's the thing you'd like to say given this platform to speak to the nation this morning?

Nick Griffin: OK, how about the fact that I believe, along with the Czech politician [Vaclav Klaus] everyone is berating, that global warming is essentially a hoax. It is being exploited by the liberal elite as a means of taxing and controlling us and the real crisis is peak oil. We're running out of proper, real energy. And it is something with an immediate and catastrophic effect in a few years' time potentially — not worrying about floating polar bears in a 150 years.

(Go to 1.52:15 at this link to hear the interview)

My first reaction was: "As if there weren't already enough reasons not to vote BNP." But then another thought crossed my mind: isn't it interesting how he is convinced by the peak-oil argument, but still believes that global warming is a pinko conspiracy to squeeze yet more taxes out everybody?

Might it be that peak oil somehow fits into his far-right ideology (watch out everyone: let's burn our indigenous coal because we mustn't be slaves to the whims of those foreigners with big oil wells), whereas the regulatory politics of global warming rubs against his far-right libertarian instincts?

[biffvernon]

I suppose it's comforting to know that, as well as being really nasty, he's also really stupid.

[ziggy12345]

I tend to agree with Nick on this.

[Bandidoz]

He could have said that the political response to AGW could well be a smokescreen for responding to depletion; most other political parties merely paying lip-service.

Interesting how the PO message seemed to be largely ignored.

[Ludwig]

I tend to agree with Nick on this.

If global warming were a hoax, don't you think there'd be at least one credible book explaining why?

The "nearest" to a credible source that the anti-global-warming lobby has is Bjorn Lomborg, and he's not a scientist, he's a statistician (and a cynical opportunist, in my view).

The science of global warming has been around for over 50 years. Are you suggesting that all the scientists who studied it were involved in an elaborate hoax with the aim of distracting future generations from the issue of depleting oil supplies?

And that's to disregard the actual evidence.

All I will concede is that global warming has proved a good reason for politicians to try to get us to use less fossil fuel without letting the PO cat out of the bag.

(Disturbed by your affectionate use of "Nick", BTW!)

[WolfattheDoor]

Some people just like to stand away from the crowd, believing they are party to secret knowledge which the rest of the world is blissfully ignorant of. At the moment climate change is accepted by the vast majority and peak oil isn't so Griffin can consider himself "special". When peak oil is finally accepted by the world, he will probably then decide it's all a scam.

[Vortex]

I suspect that he - like most of us - is fairly convinced about global warming.

However Peak Oil is easier to explain and in the UK context PO/'energy descent' - is probably MUCH nearer than climate change.

I certainly consider it likely that we will see a natural gas crisis or oil import crisis through terrorism or political interruption within the next 10 or so years - maybe sooner. (That's certainly the key risk that BERR is planning for!)

The BNP stand a very good chance of being able to take advantage of a PO-like event within a few years.

Why fuss about fuzzy hippy eco worries when you can - with a degree of honesty - convince the populace that the lights will soon go out or their cars will cease to have fuel?

The BNP are certainly NOT stupid.

[clv101]

The BNP are certainly NOT stupid.

Stupid? Well I don't they they are particularly intelligent people! This study shows their supports aren't the brightest either: link

They aren't popular either - fewer people voted for them this time round than last time. It'll be interesting to see what they do with all their new money (could run into millions over their term of office) but I'm not convinced a large proportion of people will switch allegiance to BNP.

[Vortex]

"The Greatest Trick the Devil Ever Pulled Was Convincing the World He Didn't Exist"

[ziggy12345]

Put it this way. If we had enough energy I would be very worried about global warming and would be very active trying to reduce population. However I feel we are facing a really big energy problem and this will do away with far more people than climate change.

I dont think the human race has any intention of reducing its energy consumption unless it runs out and that will take care of global warming

[Papillon]

I dont think the human race has any intention of reducing its energy consumption unless it runs out and that will take care of global warming

Well, apparently there are fossil fuels (including coal, etc.) in enough quantity to toast us a few times over (can't get you a quote on that but the gentleman who wrote 'The Last Oil Shock' talked about it).

[fifthcolumn]

While I don't think GW is a hoax (I think it's very real), I do think that there's relatively little we can do about it.

China's position (and that of most of the "developing world") is that emissions are our problem and we should reduce emissions while they grow emissions.

In other words, an unsolvable conundrum with potentially hostile consequences. GW is NOT going to be stopped by reducing emissions any time soon.

On the other hand, peak oil CAN be mitigated and it's not such a global issue either. It can be mitigated piecemeal in different ways according to their ability in different regions.

The UK could choose to mitigate peak oil while everyone else does nothing. That would still put the UK in a relatively better position.

On the other hand, if the UK (in fact all of the EU and North America) decided to "mitigate" global warming it won't make a shred of difference.

There's already a couple of degrees AT LEAST baked into the pie.

In that sense the BNP guy is right (shudders that I'm agreeing with those nutters): peak oil should be an agenda issue. GW on the other hand is just an excuse for bigger government since nothing we do will affect it without a coordinated global response (Which isn't forthcoming).

[mcewena1]

Sorry I too have doubts about GW. I read that he Martian icecaps are receding and some of Saturn's moons are also warming up. I can't say I've investigated it too deeply but there are some convincing arguments out there. There are lots of sites

google global warming hoax mars saturn

and then investigate

I don't know much about Nick Griffin as I try not to watch TV but I can't say I'm a friend of the BNP. However for him to stick his neck out and go against mainstream thinking probably means he's at least read about it.

[biffvernon]

What happens on Mars and Saturnian moon has nothing to do with Earth-bound global warming, no useful connection, nada.

[mcewena1]

I simply point out that if other planets are warming up the same as the Earth then they probably have the same root cause i.e. the Sun

Mars is not warming up due to martians using fossil fuels.