Seriously I do believe in climate change.

The Earth’s climate is constantly changing and has done for millions of years. There have been ice ages, floods, famines, droughts and the blistering summer of 1976. Of course we should be concerned if sea levels are rising and people’s lives are threatened.

What I am not convinced about is how much of this is our fault, and how much this new religion of Global Warming is just the latest scam adopted by Governments and the media to scare and tax the population.

Is this the latest millennium bug? That was supposed to herald disaster for mankind but it turned out to be a false alarm that could probably be traced back to innocent speculation by a scientist asked for an opinion at a conference out in the sticks somewhere. Yet we spent billions fixing a problem that didn’t exist.

So now we are spending millions trying to fix climate change when we don’t really know for definite whether we can fix it or whether we are responsible for it in the first place.

But do you know what?

Given that in Scotland we are used to summer being the hottest day of the year, I’m prepared to briefly forget all the Government retoric and media nonsense – and just thank climate change for the fantastic week of lovely weather we have just had up here.

The Scottish Parliament’s latest silly season idea is to set a minimum price for alcohol in a move which they think will discourage binge drinking and loutish behaviour.

Can I start by saying that I do believe that we have a problem in Scotland – particularly with the amount of underage drinking that goes on and the resultant violence and damage that it causes.

However I believe that their ill thoughout proposals, like many other legislative proposals that come from Holyrood or Westminster these days, seem designed to “nanny, bully and tax” the innocent majority whilst not solving the problem or targeting the guilty minority. I have never been a binge drinker, I have never been drunk and dis-orderly, I have never assaulted anyone or wrecked someone elses property whilst under the influence of alcohol. That said I do enjoy a few glasses of wine at the weekend. The proposed legislation targets people like me rather than those who run rampage on our streets.

Proposing new legislation as they have done generates headlines and creates the impression that the Government is doing something. But as always the desire to generate headlines through new legislation obsures the fact that they do not use the existing legislation which is perfectly adequate for tackling the issues. Talking about new legislation hides the fact that we cannot properly police the existing laws let alone any new ones.

We do not need new laws. The Government need to have the guts to force the police to enact the existing laws. If the police say they are too mired in red tape to do that then remove the red tape. Force the police to prosecute those who buy alcohol under age and those that sell it to people who are under age. Close down a Tesco or close down a Pub or two. That would soon send a message that they meant business with the existing laws. If people are drunk and committing acts of violence or property damage – again arrest and charge them under existing laws.

The problem with the headline grabbing new legislation is that theywill fail to enact that in reality but will have succeeded in nannying, bullying and taxing people like me – the innocent majority.

Beyond the question of alcohol to the UK in general – it seems to me that there is an increasing desire to “nanny, bully and tax” both from Westminster and Holyrood. I have decided that I can no longer sit back and stay silent at the constant attack on our hard earned income and our civil liberties. I intend to become much more vocal on this subject and others that concern me. Government is always saying that it “listens” to what the people are saying. I see little evidence of being listened to at the moment – but in future you will find my voice to be louder.

Now the BBC are at it as well. The day after the article I described in my last Blog entry about drinking a glass of wine increasing your risk of getting throat cancer by 168%, the BBC ran the story on Breakfast.

The story was the same but this time the increase in the chance of getting cancer had decreased to 44%. Just makes you wonder about the accuracy of these figures doesn’t it when major news organisations quote different figures.

Anyway they wheeled out a Cancer Research expert and a Doctor and had a debate on the whether we should all give up drinking wine (as well as, presumeably giving up eating anything at all, not exposing our bodies to external elements, and living the rest of our lives huddled in a ball in a dark corner).

Again there was no mention of the starting figure upon which the 44% increase was meant to be based.

No wonder we live in a world where people are at once frightened and confused about what is good for them and what is not.

Probably best just to enjoy everything in moderation and stop buying newspapers and watching breakfast TV.

Being partial to a nice bottle of red wine, especially if the grape is Zinfandel and it comes from California, I was more than a little alarmed to see a headline in the newpapers recently claiming that a new study says that just one glass of red wine per day could increase your chance of getting throat cancer by 168%.

168%!

Gosh that’s a huge increase isn’t it? I bet a lot of people who read that would be worried.

But what is very annoying, when you look into the detail of the article, is that they never tell you what the baseline is. What is the 168% increase on top of?

If the real chance of getting throat cancer is 1 in 1 million then a 168% increase on that turns a miniscule chance into a slightly more than miniscule but still miniscule chance.

Such articles are becoming more and more prevalent and they often contradict each other – after all red wine is meant to be good for the heart isn’t it?

If you see such an article try writing to the newspaper and asking why the journalist missed out the very important baseline upon which his scary statistics were based. I’m sure that their intention wasn’t to mislead. It’s not scary, it’s just sloppy.

Now pass me another glass of zinny!