The Guardian – a rebuttal

Some people in the media have got a bit excited about the cost of my climate campaign. Here’s a good example of this in the
Here is the rebuttal I posted on the website:-

Thanks to the Guardian for giving so much airtime to my campaign.  I appreciate it.  But you say that I am “speaking for no one but myself”.  Actually, I believe that I am speaking for the majority of British voters, who are sceptical of what they see as the Great Climate Myth.  And I am speaking for all those wind farm protest groups up and down the East Midlands (and up and down the country) who are hopping mad at the imposition of useless, ugly, ideologically-motivated industrial-scale structures close to their homes and villages.

We are dealing here with what I see as a profoundly misguided policy (the Climate Change Act 2008) which will cost £700 Billion plus over the next forty years.  I believe that it will also result in blackouts and power shortages by the middle of this decade and raise domestic electricity prices by 40% by 2020.  Moreover, a misguided policy could drive a million British families into fuel poverty. 

The Information Fund is there to allow all MEPs to communicate their campaigns and inform constituents about their work. For example, both sides in the Irish referendum campaign made use of this information fund. I have used mine for that purpose. The Guardian can attack my position, which I often repeat is a personal one in the Chamber of the European Parliament, but I doubt it would criticise me had I chosen to use it on a campaign with which the Guardian was in agreement.

This entry was posted in Uncategorized. Bookmark the permalink.

6 Responses to The Guardian – a rebuttal

  1. Daniel Arnott says:

    These inefficient monstrosities would not be constructed if they were not heavilysubsidised by the taxpayer. Here in Fife where we are experiencing the
    severist winter for decades, and for the past week or more there has been no wind, rendering these so called energy producers totally inefficient and unreliable.
    If we had to rely on wind turbines to heat our homes many elderly people would
    be suffering from hypothermia.

  2. Clearly, David Arnott has firsthand evidence of the inadequacy of wind turbines in any location where there is too little wind. Indeed, why is it still the cae that claims from scientists (and others with vested interests) are taken more seriously than the real-life experiences of those who are supposed to rely on so-called “alternative energy”? As Roger has clearly explained, close to a million of our country’s families are on the road to fule poverty – unless this coalition government makes radical changes to how they intend to manage UK energy resources in future years. Perhaps, there is a very strong case indeed – to repeal the Climate Change Act 2008? Like many other people in the East Midlands, I do not want to see our countryside desecrated by monstrous wind turbines and factory-like structures which are supposed to create energy. Particularly, in beautiful Derbyshire locations such as the Peak District (for example).

  3. Pingback: Roger Helmer’s Greatest Hits (1999-2011) | Political Scrapbook

  4. Pingback: Nigel Farage gets too much air time (continued) | THE HONEYBALL BUZZ

  5. Pingback: UKIP uncut – acoloytes of America’s far-right corporate gunslingers | Eco Bio III Millennio

  6. Pingback: ALEC's Involvement in British Climate Change Denial » Resist the Privatization of America

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s