Translation: Only the wealthy should be able to enjoy luxuries. Nothing new really, elites have been trying to figure out how to put the serfs back on their fields ever since feudalism fell out of favor in Europe. They tried mercantilism, socialism, communism, and now climate change. Old tactic, new name. These people need to be called out for what they are.

Well, I guess we can count our lucky stars that they aren't yet claiming that murdering children will save the planet. Guess we'll have to wait till next week at the least for that line of reasoning to grace the websites of the elitist crowd.

That guy has form. Just amuse yourselves with this little gem from July - I entered into correspondence with him. He is a warmist. I have learned my lesson and the tablets are really working now.....

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/6290228.stm

Only the wealthy should be able to enjoy luxuries.

Wrong. The wealthy are criminal exploiters of the poor and should be sent to reeducation camps.
Only "we", the avant-garde cadres, should be permitted to have luxuries, which we don't really enjoy, but need in our line of duty.

Those who love cheap clothes, cheap food and cheap cars, run by cheap oil suffer from consumerism ( a mental illness), and need to be reeducated too, and these cheap goods need to disappear. We will make them disappear when we reach power.

Why has "addiction" been redefined to mean "doing something you like"? It seems to be a word impartial public service broadcasters roll out to describe things that people like but which they wish they wouldnt, the implication being "people dont really like flights, capitalism, progress, Etc., it's just the addiction talking".

Get a load of this thread in PZ Meyer's Pharyngula Blog:

http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2007/08/dont_look_to_bjrn_lomborg_thou.php#comments

There are comments in support of Lomborg and against. I posted that it is better to replace fossil fuels with realistic alternatives (nuclear fission today, nuclear fusion tommorrow, etc) than using government coercion. One of those who supported coercion and opposed me (MikeB comment #100) said this, As Al Capone once said, "You can get much further with a kind word and a gun than you can with a kind word alone." That floored me!

Posters who acknowleged manmade causes of global warming but advocated alternate energy over coercion were vilified.

Why has "addiction" been redefined to mean "doing something you like"? It seems to be a word impartial public service broadcasters roll out to describe things that people like but which they wish they wouldnt, the implication being "people dont really like flights, capitalism, progress, Etc., it's just the addiction talking".

Maybe its usage here is intended to imply (almost) an illness. Like, an unnecessary or lazy mental/emotional deficiency? And it needs to be cured for citizen and environment to be healthy. Maybe the citizen can only really be healthy with a healthy environment? Sometimes the word is easier to use, and for a whole bunch of reasons, than to claim someone is "wrong". I think that word could make for an entertaining change to watch the BBC justify themselves, and with taxpayer impartial service.

I bet the bastards buy cheap food instead of fairtrade too!

Coercion seems to be the common denominator in the Green Religion of Unthought. To me it indicates a mindset not properly evolved from the toddler having tantrums because they want their own way. Socialist, in other words.

Oh here is an update with MikeB the Supreme Gaian Priest. The Dear Leader (MikeB) said in response to my astonishment of his Al Capone quote:

Frankly, I'm a little concerned that a) you seemingly refuse to believe that climate change is real, despite the truely massive amounts of evidence (just check out RealClimate for someone to answer your questions); and b) that you are 'floored' by my use of Al Capone's quote. It simply repeats the truth (which is evident to any parent) that sometimes asking nicely is not enough. If your shocked by that, you should get out more.

One, his quote in "a)" apparently means he ignored my statement that CO2 from fossil fuels could be a problem.

Two, and this is the best part, part b of Dear Leader's quote implies that adult citizens are children and Mommy government must babysit them. He even repeats that meme again!

"My children, my children, why do you make me suffer so? Must I be the unwilling user of force yet again to protect you from yourselves?
You are so cruel!"

Given its horror at C02 emissions I take it that the B.B.C. will now be supporting nuclear power (it should not be taking political positions at all - but if it does it should be consistent).

"You do not understand, we support electric cars or hydrogen fuel cells".

And the electricity to power the cars (or to "split" the sea water for the hydrogen) is generated by........

At least we have not had more of the great "wind farm" fraud.

Next we will be told that holiday aircraft to Spain (and so on) can be powered by the wind.

Let us end tax (including television tax) money going to the B.B.C. - then they can have any political opinions they like.