Alistair McConnachie published Sovereignty from July 1999 to its 120th consecutive monthly issue in June 2009, and he continues to maintain this website.
Alistair McConnachie also publishes Prosperity - Freedom from Debt Slavery which explains a solution for the economic crisis and A Force For Good which makes a positive case for the UK Union.
To find out more go to the about who is Alistair McConnachie page.
Buy the Complete 10-Year, 120 Back Issue Set of Sovereignty - worth £162.50 - for only £89 inc p+p, a 45% discount. Cheques to Sovereignty, at 268 Bath St, Glasgow, G2 4JR or go to the Sovereignty home page and click "Buy Now".
|THE GREENLAND QUESTION
Alistair McConnachie writes: In October 2006, the Stern Report was full of dire predictions about the consequences of global warming and climate change.
Sovereignty believes it makes sense to cut down on fossil fuel use for 3 reasons explained here -- it saves us money, it reduces toxic pollution and it builds national energy independence.However, the possibility that the world may be getting warmer is something which may be a good, bad or neutral thing, but probably not something to get too worried about - as this article by Robert Kemp suggests. It was published in the October 2006 issue of Sovereignty and was reprinted with permission from the Nov/Dec 2005 issue of Right Now! magazine www.right-now.org
Robert Kemp writes: We are constantly being told by 'experts' that global warming is upon us and that in order to avert catastrophe, we must modify our behaviour in various ways, all of which involve self-denial and unpleasant consequences.
Even worse, if we do not Repent, the consequences of our selfishness will be even more dire. Whilst not denying that this very well might be the case, as an old and weary cynic, I mutter sotto voce to myself "Cui bono?"
I remain utterly unconvinced of the disinterestedness of those who are doing the shouting.
Global warming is being pushed as an incontrovertible fact, and a bad fact at that. No-one has a good word to say for it. Another universally accepted truth (unless you live in Alabama) is Darwin's Theory of Evolution. It is one of those things that everyone just knows to be right, without having even to think about it, but Darwin's theory has never actually been proved to be true. I rather suspect that Darwin did in fact get it more or less right but, nevertheless, no-one has ever actually proved him to be right. Likewise, in some areas of measurement, there is solid evidence that the world is now a warmer place than it was a hundred years ago, but that doesn't justify worldwide hysteria. And in any case, even if the world is getting warmer, is that necessarily a bad thing?
It seems to me that the temperature of the earth has always fluctuated and it has been getting warmer and colder for centuries. In the 17th Century, they used to roast whole oxen on fires lit on the ice covering the river Thames at London.
Can you remember the last Frost Fair, or even the last time that the Thames froze from bank to bank? No, neither can I, so the world must be getting warmer, but it doesn't seem to have done us much harm.
In the 19th Century, when our collective subconscious formed its notions of the traditional Christmas, it was still pretty damned cold, as is witnessed by all those Christmas cards with skaters and holly and snow-drifts and what-not.
So the world must be getting warmer. QED, one might say, but before getting too excited, let us turn to the Greenland Question.
Greenland is the biggest island in the world, nominally part of Denmark, but virtually uninhabited and moreover largely uninhabitable. But it wasn't always so.
When you come to think about it, Greenland is a pretty weird name for anyone to give to a country that is now 99% glacier or barren rock and 1% lichens. Not the sort of name that springs to mind for such a grey, treeless and windswept place, is it?
But wait. A thousand years ago, Greenland was settled by the Vikings, who prospered, and grew wheat and flax there, and it was at that time that it received its name.
It was, 1,000 years ago, genuinely a green land.
At about the same time, monks in Yorkshire were tending their vines.
If the Vikings could grow wheat in Greenland, and monks in Yorkshire could grow grapes, it was pretty certain that those two spots did not enjoy the same climatic blessings as they do today.
Since wheat growing in Greenland is now impossible and grape growing in Yorkshire would be a distinctly unprofitable occupation, I would incline to the view that we could have a good deal more global warming without coming to too much harm.
If it was fine for the world to be that warm then, what's the problem with it being quite a good bit colder now, even if the temperature is going up?
It should not be forgotten that these terrible doomsday scenarios are being peddled by those who have a vested interest in our believing them. Whether they are true or not is immaterial; it is whether we will swallow them which is important.
Those who propagate the global-warming-equals-catastrophe thesis are scientists, and other pseudo-scientific hangers-on, but they are first and foremost human beings, with the ordinary worries about ordinary life. Just like the rest of us, they want bigger and newer cars; they want more frequent and more exotic holidays; they want bigger houses; they want to be able to send their children to private schools and so on. Their ordinary life depends upon there being a pay-check every month, and the pay-check depends on there being a crisis. No Global Warming Crisis, and instead you have a domestic balance of payments crisis, consequent upon being fired by your lab.
No-one is going to cough up research grants to a laboratory which comes up with the notion that "It's alright, chaps, nothing to fret about, just a minor blip well within the earth's natural variation; just relax and pour another G&T"
Not many new Volvos in that kind of report, but plenty of P45s. Far be it from me to suggest that the scientists involved are corrupt, or self-serving, but they are hardly disinterested observers either and their findings should be viewed with scepticism.
Thousands of jobs worldwide are dependent upon the menace of global warming, and these people aren't going to roll over and join the dole queue without a fight. For them, global warming has to be right; the mortgage payments depend upon it.
I remember 30 or 40 years ago the boffins were predicting that the next ice-age would shortly be upon us, with the Channel clogged, not by ferries and container ships, but by icebergs. The oil would have all been used up by 1990 and we should go to work on an egg, as it was good for us. Oh yeah?
The wallies who made all those alarming and totally wrong predictions are either now dead, or safely enjoying an index-linked retirement, in their egg-free, oil-fired homes, with nary even an ice-floe in sight, let alone a proper full-size 'berg to scare them. Will one of the survivors kindly explain why we haven't all died of salmonella poisoning or frozen to death in our unheated houses? If they could be that wrong then, why should we believe that the next generation of so-called experts is any better at getting it right?
When a scientist can convince me that it was fine for it to be warm enough to grow wheat in Greenland a thousand years ago, but that to move back to the same climate would be a catastrophe now, then I might start to get worried.
Till then, while we wait for some real scientists to do some proper research, pass me another G&T, there's a good fellow.