It just keeps on coming.

Turns out the Stern Report was altered after publication, on the QT, natch. Don't these pricks realise the damage they're doing to their own credibility? Clearly not, and that suits me just fine. The more this carries on the more people will start to wonder if the reason some of the warble gloaming proponents have acted like they're hiding something is because they really do have something to hide. And while all this is going on Ed Miliband pops up to tell us all - again - how certain he and the rest of the Big Eco crowd are about everything and how we must obey obey obey the Precautionary Principle like good little Daleks.

Two problems there, Ed. First is that you're telling us that the Precautionary Principle means we must assume the worst case scenario, but as I've said before man made warble gloaming ain't it. You and the other Big Eco mouthpieces keep telling us that warble gloaming is something we can reverse, that climate is something we can control. Okay, but that doesn't sound so bad. It might cost so much money we all end up living a more Medieval lifestyle (but without the Medieval Warm Period presumably) but it's technically possible according to Big Eco's AGW proponents. But is something we can fix really the worst case scenario, or would it really be something we can't fix? Something like, ooooh, I don't know, maybe natural climate change? See, if you want to talk about the worst case scenario let's talk about the possibility that the effect of our activities is so small it's lost in the noise and what we see going on would be pretty much what would have happened in our absence. Climate change we can't control, or even dream of one day possibly being able to control, that's a far worse case than climate we think we can control if we're prepared to accept the astronomical cost. In short, Milibrain, far from saying we should act to control CO₂ the Precautionary Principle suggests assuming it's almost entirely natural and completely unstoppable, and all we can do is adapt to it. The Precautionary principle says invest in air conditioning and central heating, not in greenwash and shite lightbulbs and wind turbines. The second problem is that there is a cost, and that it's not likely to be cheap. As the Devil points out there's an assumption that the cost of following the Precautionary Principle is a lot less than not doing so. That's likely to be the case if you read it that the worst case scenario is nature fucking with us, but we already know that it's not the case if you choose to believe that the Precautionary Principle means acting as if the worst case maybe second or third worst, possibly fourth but definitely not more than fifth worst, okay at the outside sixth worst case scenario is true.

What a complete twat.

H/T Burning Our Money.