February 10th, 2011

CCNet - more on gassing gang-green, Comrade Dave quiz,

Comrade Dave. WHY are industrial wind farms not subject to carbon emissions reduction penalties?
Is it because of the massive investment by the EC, the "elite", the bank mafia, political advisors and representatives?

Comrade Dave. When can we expect fake charities that are protected by the charities commission outlawed? E.g. TERI, a globalists' cash dispenser (and laundry I believe) resembling the UK's DFID, the EC's Common Purpose (From 1997, the New Labour government worked to two agendas. Firstly, the open agenda as laid out in their manifestos and secondly, their hidden agenda.
The objective of the hidden agenda is the creation of a communitarian society controlled by the EU collective.
In order to achieve this objective, the New Labour government ran a parallel administration made up of QUANGOs and fake charities. A fake charity is legally a charity but effectively operates as a government department, receiving a substantial amount of funding directly or indirectly from government and operating as a government department.
The hidden agenda continues to operate under Cameron's coalition government
[Does his father-in-law know?] See here) and many, many more.

Comrade Dave. When can we see the charities commission closed and an unbiased commission set up?

Comrade Dave. How can we find out how DFID funds are disposed of after leaving DFID? What are the qualifiers for DFID largesse?

CCNet continues its focus on the political equivalent of the hypothesised meteor strike that wiped out dinosaurs. Poor comrade Dave caught between the devil and the deep blue (levels falling) sea. Although much is being made of the shale gas exploitation, the fact is that the UK is blessed with abundant conventional gas reserves whose exploitation the gang-green and idealogues have avoided with the deliberate policy to drive the UK's independence and financial stability into the ground, complementing de-industrialisation by taxation and subordination to the EC.
Even importing gas is rock bottom cheap as explained by No Hot Air (see my previous post) and political consequence free if from the US, making utter fools of arm waving green energy advocates and other CO2 reductionist liars.
I suspect the real reason for gas companies to maintain high prices is to conceal how little other countries are paying for energy (e.g. US ~$4 - $6 per million cubic feet) so their ideologue impositions and flow of loot and business out of the UK could continue unfettered.
TOUGH SHIT. The game is up, the scam revealed and yet due to abject complacency of the UK subjects none will receive just reward for their (traitorous imo) chicanery, punishment or residential psychiatric treatment depending on the severity of their mental condition.

CCNet – 9 February 2011


The Climate Policy Network

New Energy Revolution Shakes Green Policy

1) Drilling Technology Sparks Unconventional Oil Revolution - The oil-drilling boom promises what one company executive calls a “quiet revolution” in the industry. The technological breakthrough could put the brakes on future price increases by bringing new, relatively low-cost supplies to the market – not just in North America but around the world. --Shawn McCarthy, CTV News, 7 February 2011

2) Holland’s Radical U-Turn On Climate and Energy Policy - On climate and energy policy, the Netherlands is moving in the opposite direction to Germany: The Netherlands wants to build nuclear power plants for the first time in 40 years. At the same time, the center-right Cabinet under Prime Minister Mark Rutte has cut the subsidies for offshore wind power and solar panels to zero. --Michael Gassmann, Financial Times Deutschland, 8 February 2011

3) Europe's Shale Revolution Shakes Up Energy Policy - At the EU Energy Summit in Brussels, the long-neglected issue of natural gas has thrown Europe’s energy policy into complete confusion. For the energy of the future might not come via Russian pipelines, but from so-called "unconventional resources" - such as those found in German regions
... The real revolution in the natural gas business, however, is not taking place in Israel, the Middle East or Russia. It is taking place in German regions. After the Netherlands, the most populous German state has the second largest gas reserves in Europe. This has been known for a long time. The first test drilling for natural gas in North Rhine-Westphalia took place in 1963. But only in recent years has the new drilling technology become so cheap and conventional oil so expensive that the drilling is profitable. --Kristian Klooß, Manager Magazin, 4 February 2011

4) UK Parliamentary Inquiry: Will Britain Join The Shale Gas Revolution? - Sky News, 9 February 2011

5) Where is the Shale Gas in the UK? - British Geological Survey

6) Shale Gas: Global Game Changer - PennEnergy, 8 February 2011

Thanks Dr Peiser GWPF
(Lubos on Polish rush to shale gas here)

From the last link, Penn Energy, "The main problem in the UK is that, in contrast to the US, there are fewer or no local people with any vested interest in the success of these projects." That means decisions by authorities are highly likely to be influenced against public interest by bureaucratic carbuncles like the EC and termite-esque gang-green lobbyist quangos.

Why termite-esque? Termites burrow unseen into building structures and destroy them. The moneyed implementers of Rothschld ideals and absent morals (such as Rockefeller, Soros, Strong and other henchmen) with their positioned politicians are behind the creation of public funded, flower arranger headed quangos that browbeat authorities into submission with biased and deceptive reports such as churned out by the self anointed EC commissariat, the WWF org and Greenpeace corp'n faux charity lobbyists and the UNEP's IPCC activist lobby. Akin to paying someone to steal from you.

The key words are PUBLIC MONEY. Take it away and balance is quickly restored. Comrade Cameron has demonstrated his unwillingness to do the necessary, to axe their funding and leave their patrons to find their own funds, a demonstration of his socialist tendencies and enthusiasm for EC imposed eco fascism with its attendant crushing big government.

This ever-so-anti CO2 emissions puppet gov't, the greenest ever according to comrade Dave, is aiding the extraction of oil where "Uganda has huge untapped oil reserves. One billion barrels of oil has already been discovered in the Lake Albert Rift Basin and Tullow believes a further 1.5 billion barrels of oil will be found in the basin. DRC is also believed to have some of the largest untapped natural resources in the world." Cronyism trumps pretend ideology. Read more here.

Mentioned in that article was a link to further evidence of comrade Dave's financial ties to the money manipulators that are a major contributor to the UK woes - City financiers 'provided half of Tory funding' City financiers have provided 50 per cent of the funding for the Conservative party, new research has found.
Seems the adage "you get what you pay for " holds water.

Osborne the banks' clerk has shown where his loyalties lie. Benedict - "George Osborne calls time on banker-bashing".
If the big lenders don’t have the support of the business community that makes up the backbone of the economy, they are stuffed. People who set up small businesses should be the natural supporters of the banks, but in fact they view them with distrust. It will take a long time to fix that.

Mr Osborne we don't want it fixed. We want tax revenue spent in and on the country, not in support of gamblers and of increasing debt to banks. Set up an alternative to bank investment run by people whose mandate is to grow business rather than run racketeer fractional reserve rip-offs, much of the fractional reserves being what stakes the gamblers. Cast the banks adrift. Or go join Blair in JPM and clear the way for someone whose loyalties are with the electorate.

How much tax money is spent in the UK for the UK? Forget money from the EC, that mostly pads out landowners' bank accounts. Forget interest on the national debt. Forget donations to the UN, bank bail-outs, bribes to foreign dictators, gang-green boondoggle energy subsidies, donations to TERI and such other gang-green faux charities, climate research funding, prestige white elephant projects, moat cleaning, quango funding, activist badvisors, etc., etc. the actual tax revenue £s spent on what they were allegedly taken for amounts to zero. What is spent is borrowed from banksters that create currency in return for bonds. The government is a debt collector for the banksters. The debt was created and was enlarged to debt slavery level by arrangement with the banksters. In con-man terminology, the public is the "mark" (a victim or prospective victim of a swindle).

Under Benedict's piece, commenter UK_Debt_Slave gave us - A few words from President Andrew Jackson
"Gentlemen, I have had men watching you for a long time and I am convinced that you have used the funds of the bank to speculate in the breadstuffs of the country. When you won, you divided the profits amongst you, and when you lost, you charged it to the bank. You tell me that if I take the deposits from the bank and annul its charter, I shall ruin ten thousand families. That may be true, gentlemen, but that is your sin! Should I let you go on, you will ruin fifty thousand families, and that would be my sin! You are a den of vipers and thieves."
"Every man is equally entitled to protection by law; but when the laws undertake to add… artificial distinctions, [moi - think copyright law, anything gang-green, ] to grant titles, gratuities, and exclusive privileges, to make the rich richer and the potent more powerful, the humble members of society -- the farmers, mechanics, and laborers -- who have neither the time nor the means of securing like favors to themselves, have a right to complain of the injustice of their government."
"If Congress has the right under the Constitution to issue paper money, it was given to be used by themselves, not to be delegated to individuals or corporations."
"As long as our government is administered for the good of the people, and is regulated by their will; as long as it secures to us the rights of persons and of property, liberty of conscience and of the press, it will be worth defending."
"I am one of those who do not believe that a national debt is a national blessing, but rather a curse to a republic; inasmuch as it is calculated to raise around the administration a moneyed aristocracy dangerous to the liberties of the country."
"The brave man inattentive to his duty, is worth little more to his country than the coward who deserts her in the hour of danger."
(VERY prescient don't you think?)
It's time for revolution folks.
Wake up quickly because they will take EVERYTHING from the people if you slumber.


In the struggle against the faceless ones' EPA, Cooler Heads' blog feed advised me "[...] Cap-and-trade is dead because the public finally caught on that it is a stealth energy tax, a big reason being that it makes coal — the most economic electricity fuel in many markets — uncompetitive. Coal generated 44.5% of all U.S. electricity and almost 64% of U.S. baseload power in 2009, according to the U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA).
Obama’s clean energy standard too would make coal generation uneconomic. “Clean” essentially means “anything but coal.” Instead of pricing the carbon emissions from coal, as a cap-and-trade program does, Obama’s new policy would simply prohibit “conventional coal” from competing with other energy sources in 80% of the nation’s electricity market. Existing coal plants could continue to operate within the 20% segment that is deemed “unclean” — unless, of course, EPA’s war on coal (see here, here, and here) succeeds in forcing those plants into premature retirement. Link   

Icecap reports
: Feb 09, 2011
10 Questions for the EPA’s Lisa Jackson
Washington - This morning, EPA Administrator Lisa Jackson will appear before the House Subcommittee on Energy and Power to defend her agency’s attempted takeover of greenhouse gas regulation.  In anticipation, the Institute for Energy Research puts forward its own questions for Ms. Jackson to consider.
1. The point of EPA regulating greenhouse gas regulations is to reduce global warming. The Waxman-Markey bill, which would have forced an 83 percent reduction in greenhouse gases by 2050 would have reduced global temperatures by 0.05C by 2050 and 0.112C by 2100. How many hundredths of a degree Celsius of warming will EPA’s greenhouse gas regulations avert?
2. You have called these carbon dioxide regulations “common sense” regulation. Is it common sense regulation to impose billions of dollars in costs on the American people when the benefits of the regulations are a few hundredths of a degree less temperature increase?
3. The United States is the world’s third largest oil producer, the world’s largest natural gas producer, and the world’s second largest coal producer. EPA’s regulations will increase the prices and costs of using all of these resources. Why does EPA want to increase the prices of these key resources when the regulations won’t have a noticeable impact on global warming?
4. According to data from the Global Carbon Project, from 1999 to 2009, China’s CO2 emissions increased by 126%, India’s CO2 emissions increased by 63%, Brazil's CO2 emissions increased 16%, and South Korea’s CO2 emissions increased by 30%. By contrast, America’s CO2 emissions decreased by 5%. What value does the administration see in reducing carbon dioxide emissions when our emissions have decreased while others countries’ emissions are dramatically increasing?
5. If EPA further regulates new sulfur dioxide, nitrogen oxide, particulate, mercury, and other harmful emissions, it could cost $180 billion in compliance costs - and that’s before carbon dioxide regulations. What others steps has EPA taken to achieve the President’s goal of making electricity prices “necessarily skyrocket” in order to reduce carbon dioxide emissions?
6. The recessions significantly contributed to a reduction in U.S. CO2 emissions. Your “common sense” plan is to reduce CO2 emissions. Does this mean that a recession is a common sense way to reduce our CO2 emissions?
7. How many additional deaths may occur in traffic accidents because EPA’s greenhouse gas regulations will force people to buy smaller, more fuel efficient cars?
8. Studies have found that increased energy prices harm human health because people are forced to spend money on higher energy bills instead of for better health. One study found that replacing 3/4 of U.S. coal-based electricity with higher priced electricity, such as that from renewables, will lead to 150,000 premature deaths. (See Harvey Brenner, Health Benefits of Low Cost Energy: An Econometric Case Study, Environmental Manager, and November 2005). How does EPA assess the harm to human health caused by higher energy prices and more regulations?
9. Are Americans just not smart enough to drive the “right” vehicles or use the “right” sources of energy? In 2010, SUV sales were up 21%, midsize car sales were up 7.8%, but EPA’s preferred high-mileage hybrids were down 8.1% and compact cars are up just 1.1%. See.
10. Who makes better decisions about how my family uses energy - EPA officials or my family?

Extra Credit Question:
In the documentation accompanying EPA’s vehicle greenhouse gas emission regulations, it states that EPA’s regulations will lead to a reduction in global temperature by “0.006 to 0.0015C by 2100” and “sea-level rise is projected to be reduced by approximately 0.06cm-0.14cm by 2100.” Will EPA’s regulation of large emitters of carbon dioxide result in global temperature reduction more or less than 0.0015C?

Institute for Energy Research
1100 H Street, NW | Suite 400 | Washington, DC 20005
See also Senator Inhofe opening statement in committee on the EPA’s planned regulation.
See also Congressional Energy and Environmental Policy Leaders Filed an Amicus Brief with the supreme court.


Icelandic volcano 'set to erupt' 
Scientists in Iceland are warning that another volcano looks set to erupt and threatening to spew-out a pall of dust that would dwarf last year's event.
The Little Ice Age was said to be caused by low solar activity and strong volcanic activity. If Bárdarbunga erupts as strongly as suspected it could reduce the slide into to advancing glaciation from a decade to a year.
How many carbon credits should Iceland buy if it goes off?

Google Ocean: Has Atlantis been found off Africa?
The underwater image can be found at the co-ordinates 31 15'15.53N 24 15'30.53W.
Hmm. Seems rather small to be a city. Perhaps its the foundations for a sub-aqua shopping centre or another Guantanamo?