January 18th, 2011

Gang-green rape and ruin of UK countryside continues

Cash-strapped UK to sell its forests to stop climate change
To raise revenue and stop global warming, the cash-starved UK government plans to privatize England’s crown forests. Environmental groups, unable to explain why climate change shouldn’t trump the preservation of forests, have to date been largely muted.
The UK policy, revealed in November by Jim Paice, Minister of State for Agriculture and Food, would see a “very substantial disposal of public forest estate, which could go to the extent of all of it.”  In part, he explained, the decision is ideological, a belief that the private sector is more efficient than the government in managing forests. But the ministry’s decision to privatize assets – which will provide it with £100-million — is largely driven by the need to fund itself and its climate change priorities in these times of government austerity.
Under the government scheme, a more efficient private sector will increase the rate of cutting of forests, which will lead to more carbon being stored in people’s home.
“Forgive me, but I feel so strongly that we have to get people to realize that timber, in whatever form–including the desks we are all sitting at now–is carbon,” Paice explained. “Planting more trees and harvesting them sustainably, using that timber in furniture, construction and things like that, is fixing carbon and taking it out of the atmosphere.”
This “market relationship” to reducing the UK’s carbon footprint, however, requires cash, because forest companies in the UK need subsidies to operate. This cash, Paice explained, would come both from direct subsidies from UK taxpayers and indirect subsidies via “carbon offsets in one way or another–whether for social corporate responsibility reasons or any others.” In addition, electricity consumers would be forced to buy electricity generated by wood chips at above-market prices.

“We must understand that commercial forestry is what pays for all the other benefits,” he elaborated. “We have to get the whole lot into perspective. We have to persuade the general public that a tree is just a very aged plant that, like any other plant, comes to the end of its life. That is the point at which you harvest it, hopefully use it sustainably, and replace it.” /more

Three questions.
How much will the requisite committees, lawyers, advisors and supporting propaganda cost?
Where is the economic sense in paying someone to buy something? (Is this the Huhne syndrome at work - or another Rothschild scam?)
Who are the forests to be sold to, the same anonymous that bought the gold?

CO2 is not harmful to the climate, the sell-off is unjustified.
Paying people (subsidies) to buy forests to get short term money (to bribe S. African dictators to not build coal fired energy plants or to buy carbon credits?) is criminal, sad and sick at the same time.
Deforestation will accelerate in the UK,  there will be more bare soil that adds to CO2 emissions, as if CO2 emissions mattered.
Less trees will increase the severity of severe weather events such as flooding as trees hold back large volumes of water and regulate the climate by their water vapour production.
Less trees will increase real pollution as trees are remarkable air filters.

This government as for the previous has its lips super-glued to bankers' posteriors. The rape of the UK using deceit and lies continues apace. The agenda gives every appearance of guaranteeing all future generations will be debt slaves.

Hansen Shafts The US, QLD Wetness, Hoax Round-Up, BBC Bias

Australian experts comment on various aspects of the flooding crisis in south eastern Queensland.

Jo Nova has a post that comprehensively covers the bureaucratic errors and explores the downside of employing activists masquerading as advisors.

Another interesting post at Jo's site includes a guest post by George White, "Evolution of an Energy Budget"
Half of the energy is flung out to space… (along with the model projections)
[...] "Like Judith Curry (see her blog, Part I and Part II), we think the calculation of a 1.2C warming for CO2 doubling  is opaque and uncertain, and open to challenge. On the face of it, it may well be half that, around 0.6C. (And it’s not like those who aim to alarm us, ever exaggerate or hide behind obscure and unexplained data or calculations, is it?)
The flow-on effects of this would run rampant through the scenarios and projections. Instead of causing 1.2 degrees C of direct warming (as per Hansen et al 1984), doubling CO2 would only lead to 0.6 C, and all the feedbacks apply to that.  So the “average 3 or 4 degree” estimate for the mass of climate models comes back to 1.5 – 2 degrees, and the skeptical view, which points at empirical evidence for negative feedbacks (Lindzen and Spencer) would roughly halve the 0.6C which makes 0.3C, and that converges nicely with the Miskolczi estimate of around 0.24 C."
George's post shows simplistically how to arrive at Trenberth's fanciful energy budget in which he magically doubles the available IR so as to match model products..

The comments and George's defence of his assumptions are both entertaining and informative, even Dr Spencer's explanation of how cold heats warm gets dismissed by logic.

Via the Daily bayonet:
Going Nowhere Fast
The BBC has completed an electric car challenge by driving an EV Mini from London to Edinburgh (video at the link). The journey is a little under 400 miles and at legal speed limits will take about 7 hours to drive, assuming no breaks and no traffic. Unless you’re in the BBC’s green Mini, in which case it will take 9 stops to recharge and four days to reach Edinburgh.  Each charge may take 10 hours during which forward motion (or any motion) is impossible. /more

Global Warming Hoax Weekly Round-Up, Jan.13 2011
“If there is another extinction event coming, rest assured the only reason to blame mankind is because someone, somewhere needs a study funded.”
"Corporate welfare bum GE finds itself in an eco-Catch 22 where it was forced to dredge a river it polluted with PCB’s even though the company noted it was safer to leave them in the sediment.  Now dredging has started, The Saratoga County Water Authority is suing  GE for cost of cleaning up the PCB contamination caused by the work.  Maybe NBC should cancel green week this year."
"Greenpeace have yet to retract their statement blaming the fire on global warming."
"In considering the latter portion of the record (1946-2008), results indicated that the internal variability component of climate change (the IMP) operated in a cooling mode between 1946 and 1977, but switched to a warming mode thereafter (between 1977 and 2008), suggesting that the IMP is strong enough to overwhelm any anthropogenic signal. Of this the authors state: "Specifically, the trend due to only the forced component is statistically the same in the two 32-year periods and in the 63-year period. That is, the forced part is not accelerating. Taken together, these results imply that the observed trend differs between the periods 1946-1977 and 1977-2008 not because the forced response accelerated, but because internal variability lead to relative cooling in the earlier period and relative warming in the later period"
Studying penguins to see what global warming may be doing to them appears to be doing more harm than a small increase in temperature ever could. Why do warmists hate birds so much anyway that if they can’t shred them they study them to death instead.
Florida's Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission released the annual manatee mortality report Friday, saying 699 manatees died in 2010 between Jan. and early Dec.
That's a record high.
According to FWC, a record 244 deaths were directly related to the cold weather. Last year's freezing temperatures gave many acute cold shock, live severe hypothermia.
The cause of an additional 271, however, couldn't conclusively be determined, but officials believe the cold was a contributing factor. /link

As reported by J. Delingpole in the DT, BBC's biased reporting of Global Warming - the consequences
Patrick Moore's segment - I don't like to call it the environmental movement anymore because really, it is a political activist movement and they have become hugely influential at a global level.
By the mid 80s a majority of people now agreed with all of the reasonable things we in the environmental movement were saying they should do. Now when a majority of people agree with you it is pretty hard to remain confrontational with them. So the only way to remain anti-establishment was to adopt ever more extreme positions. When I left greenpeace it was in the midst of them adopting a campaign to ban chlorine worldwide. Like, I said "guys this is one of the elements in the periodic table you know, I not sure if it in our jurisdiction to be banning a whole element".
The other reason extremism emerged was because world communism failed, the wall came down and a lot of peaceniks and political activists moved into the environmental movement bringing their neo-marxism with them and learned to use green language in a very clever way to cloak agendas that actually have more to do with anti capitalism and anti globalisation than they do anything with ecology or science.
The climate activist cum astrophysicist masquerading as a climate scientist has shown his true colours. Hansen is an admirer of the Chinese dictatorship prefering it to democracy.
"In the op ed piece for the Chinese newspaper, which he entitled Chinese Leadership Needed to Save Humanity (published as The Price of Change) Hansen placed the blame for the vast majority of Co2 emissions supposedly causing global warming on his home country of America, and appealed to China not to follow the same path. Hansen said that China was the world’s “best hope” and called for them to “lead the world through the most dangerous crisis that humanity and nature have ever faced”.
In a follow-up article published on his website Hansen calls Americans “barbarians” and slams American democracy, calling for China to raise tariffs on American-made products until such time as America falls into line." /full tale of betrayal here and in the WT here.
As well as discussing the above, Bishop Hill noted Tree Hugger had also reported, with surprisingly neutrality, on China's 20% efficiency increase (if you believe the Chi Gov propaganda). 20% is actually irrelevant when considering China's increase in energy use.