BNP Document Proves The Far Right Is At Home With Climate Change Denial

If you were still in any doubt that climate change scepticism is largely fuelled by rightwing ideology, along come the British National party to drive the point home. The far right extremists yesterday published a "sensational 40-page briefing paper in which the case for calling into question 'man-made global warming' is presented in detail".

Nick Griffin, the BNP leader and MEP for north-west England, is currently in Copenhagen as a representative of the European parliament's environmental committee. He has chosen to use the occasion to release a document, entitled "Debunking global warming" (pdf), which can be best described as copy-and-paste denial. All the sceptic crowd pleasers are referenced and quoted within: Monckton, Plimer, Morano, Lindzen, Booker, Klaus, et al. Space is even found to quote Goebbels:

"As the information in this paper demonstrates, the claim that the world is warming on account of greenhouse gases is based upon limited, prejudicial and manipulated information. Much of the evidence has been extracted from a tiny part of the Earth's climatic cycle. This is equivalent of the prime minister having based his spending plans on the most productive day of the economic cycle, when tax receipts were highest. But as Dr Goebbels once observed, if you repeat something often enough, even the most sceptical will believe it."

As has become the norm in recent months with sceptics (interestingly, the document proudly refers to them as "deniers"), Ian Plimer is quoted chapter and verse, particularly in a section labelled, "Professor Plimer's Killer Statistics":

"The hypothesis that human activity creates global warming contradicts what we know of solar physics, astronomy, history, archaeology and geology, according to Professor Plimer… In a lecture delivered at a conference in London in early Dec 2009, Professor Plimer stated that in five of the past six major ice ages, atmospheric CO2 was up to 1,000 times higher that today. In two of these ice ages, ice was present at ground level at the equator. The corollary of this, therefore, is that CO2 does not drive global warming."

There is also evidence within the document that Lord Monckton (who has called young climate activists "Hitler Youth") was approached by the BNP and assisted them in drafting the document by writing a précis of his sceptical views, as well as where similar views can be found online. To see Monckton's response go to p35 of the pdf. This is noteworthy because Monckton signed up only last week to become the climate change spokesperson for the UK Independence party. Why would he choose to partake in dialogue with the BNP?

Elsewhere, there are some delightfully ironic pronouncements made throughout the document, but none more so than this:

"The BNP, like all interested bodies, must weigh the evidence carefully and reach an opinion. In so doing, it must also identify, within the debate, vested interests and influences, both covert and overt."

And, as you might expect, the document regularly veers into cranksville:

"Global warming is the new secular religion, many of whose proponents doubted Christianity and whose political philosophy was destabilised with the collapse of communism in 1989."

But it's the comments left beneath the document on the BNP's website that perhaps speak the loudest…

"Truebrit" says: "This BNP paper is a miracle of common sense and sound reasoning. I applaud the clearly stated and concise wording of this document which absolutely debunks the whole fraudulent hoax of man made global warming."

"Pete K" says: "They are going to spend hundreds of millions on African roads which will allow the Africans a speedier journey to the UK to pick up their passports, benefits, housing, healthcare and become Labour voters for life."

"EnglishLady" says: "Just the sort of thing we come to expect from the BNP – facts, truth, evidence, common sense, reasoning – and above all ...............NO LIES OR COVER UPS !!!"

And "MrDoodles" says: "Fantastic work guys! Bit of a weighty document, but at least it shows we're serious about the science!"

Eighty Members Of Parliament Challenging The Results Of Repayment

As much I believe in the civil liberty & human rights movement I strongly believe if any human being whether it be a Member of Parliament(MP) that they have a right to challenge the process if they are not happy with the outcome of the inquiry into the MPs expenses.

The powers to be needs to to provide the evidence that is requested by the MPs to clear up any misunderstanding and not one individual deciding on how much you should pay back without providing hard evidence.

Eighty MPs are challenging the results of the review process set up to ensure the repayment of expense claims allowed in the past but now deemed questionable, it was revealed today.

The figure, which is higher than expected, illustrates the extent to which the Commons auditor, Sir Thomas Legg, has infuriated MPs by effectively imposing retrospective rules that have led to some members being asked to repay tens of thousands of pounds.

Sir Paul Kennedy, a former appeal court judge, will consider the appeals and report early next year, although he will only consider submissions made in writing and he will not be able to overturn the broad principles established by Legg.

Legg, a former civil servant who was appointed to audit claims in the wake of the expenses scandal, angered many MPs because his review went much further than expected. It has reportedly resulted in around 250 MPs being asked to repay money, partly because Legg imposed retrospective rules declaring that some claims that had been allowed at the time were now unacceptable.

On Tuesday Legg submitted a 168-page report to the Commons members' estimate committee recommending how much individual MPs should repay. Many MPs have already complied with Legg's demands, but today – after the deadline passed for MPs wanting to appeal – the Commons authorities revealed that 80 MPs are challenging Legg's findings.

One senior MP said that Legg had antagonised MPs because some of his "final demand" letters asked for repayments without giving full reasons.

"I'm staggered that Legg has asked people to give money without providing comprehensive reasons. A lot of people are really pissed off that their reputation is being tarnished and that they are being put through some extraordinary financial discomfort on the basis of one sentence," the MP said.

The Legg review has cost between £1m and £1.25m. It is thought that the amount being repaid by MPs will cover most of this cost, but there is unlikely to be a net saving to the taxpayer.

Among those who have declared publicly that they are appealing are:

Bernard Jenkin, a Tory asked to repay £63,250

Jeremy Browne, a Liberal Democrat asked to repay almost £18,000 in mortgage interest

Frank Field, the Labour former minister ordered to repay around £7,000 in gardening and household bills

Frank Cook, a Labour MP asked to repay £600 for a fridge

Patrick Hall, a Labour MP asked to repay £260 in mortgage interest payments, and

Roger Gale, a Tory Mp who said that he also was appealing against a demand from Legg relating to £2,100 claimed for mobile phone calls and £400 claimed for rent.

Gale claimed that Legg had wrongly accused him of claiming for 13 months' rent for last year. "I told him the situation and he is still knowingly releasing false information," Gale said.

"I do not view this as an issue about money. It is about my financial probity. I am not prepared to have my reputation traduced ... on the back of factual errors. Am I angry? Yes, I am."

Legg said decided to impose retrospective caps of £2,000 a year for cleaning and £1,000 on gardening. He also said that claims involving MPs paying rent to a close relative were "tainted" and that MPs who bought goods unnecessarily would be asked to repay money.

The rule about relatives explains why Jenkin, the MP for Essex North, has been asked to repay so much. He used his expenses to rent a property owned by his sister-in-law.

Jenkin said today this arrangement was within the rules until 2006 and explicitly authorised by Commons officials. "I am lodging an appeal. There is no question being raised by Sir Thomas about my integrity and honesty. I will pay back whatever is finally decided," he said.