EU e-Privacy Directive

This website uses cookies to manage authentication, navigation, and other functions. By using our website, you agree that we can place these types of cookies on your device.

You have declined cookies. This decision can be reversed.


This success story well illustrates the truth that incessant propaganda over many years can lead even the finest lawyerly minds to join the most dubious of band-wagons.

Of course if

(a) you believe the hype about the "settled" nature of probably the most complex science known to man (settled according to the many climate science models, which inevitably perform exactly according to the wishes of their designers - we have explored how models may not be science elsewhere) and

(b) that legal coercion is an acceptable way to enforce an entirely political agenda, 

then you will share the delight of the climate zealots who still believe that our world will become uninhabitable unless we turn off all the facilities that enable civilisation, and do it now.

Those of us who do not suffer from the delusion that governments can invariably be trusted to get the most major of policy decisions right (when they so obviously cannot even get the small ones right) may take a different view.

In the end, the only way to safeguard against the overbearing power of any government is to defer to the collective wisdom of the people, and the best way yet devised to defer to the people is to provide them with the choice and let them make their own decisions individual by individual within a market-place.

If enough people believe in the climate disaster story then they will gladly save the world by scrapping their cars, demanding building and buying "zero-carbon" homes, cycling everywhere, and (crucially) persuading others to do likewise. They should be given every encouragement short of restricting the choices available to others. 

The future is bottom-up, not top-down, lives by persuasion and abhors coercion. It's called "civilisation".

Life would be much safer that way.