February 19th, 2011

Public services or bank welfare? CCNet update, EPA, Peak oil buster

In a sardonic rather than his more typical sartorial mood -


From One Short Cut: This short video explains our Plan B for public services and the UK economy:
The current government are making some the harshest spending cuts in history. They are wrongly telling us that this is “unavoidable”.
But we could make one simple spending cut that could make all others unnecessary: we can cut the benefits to bankers!
Whilst vital public services are slashed around the country, ordinary people are being asked to pay for a crisis caused by the banks. Yet at the same time, banks are one of the most heavily subsidised businesses in the world, receiving up to £130 billion of taxpayer support every year.
By  taking away these privileges, we can raise enough to make the spending cuts unnecessary, and stop the banks from blowing up the economy again.
The changes we need to make are surprisingly simple, but if we don’t fight for it, the banks will continue to run off with more and more of our tax money every single year while our public services and our economy crumble around us.
(Sign the petition here.)
Find out how the banks are enjoying a life on benefits…click
Increasing their tax rates would also be a good move. The banker's representative Cameron may find the bankers prefer withdrawal from the fraudulent and anti sovereignty (ergo enemy) EC political dictatorship, severance of financial support of the fraudulent and anti sovereignty (ergo enemy) UN facade, cancelling all green subsidies and actually cutting bureaucracy (e.g. instead of moving quangos sideways) rather than surrender control of the economy. But then the bankers lose their power to legislate via the EC. Perhaps he could sell the Buckingham pile and maybe Prince Charlie's allotment to the Chinese, they could rebuild it in Tienanmen Square as a symbol of what the commie system supplanted. (I still haven't figured out why the EC bureau prats need a palace. Since when did bank clerks merit such?)

CCNet  - 18 February 2011

The Climate Policy Network

 Back To The Dark Ages?

Promotion Of Intolerance Is A Threat To Science

1) Police Investigating Green Smear Campaign Against Popular Science Educator - Veteran children’s television presenter Johnny Ball claimed today his career was being wrecked by environmentalists. The 72-year-old said he had been subjected to a malicious harassment campaign after dismissing climate change as “alarmist nonsense”. -- Graeme Paton, Education Editor, The Daily Telegraph, 18 February 2011

2) Johnny Ball Hounded By Climate Zealots - Times Educational Supplement, 18 February 2011

3) Beddington's Poison: How Gross Intolerance Is Crushing Free Debate On Climate Change - The fate that has befallen Johnny Ball confirms that there is no greater heresy today than to doubt climate change orthodoxy. The government’s chief scientist John Beddington this month called on the scientific community to be “grossly intolerant” of anyone who promotes what he decrees to be “bad science”. The fall of Ball is what happens when gross intolerance is promoted over free debate and no one bats an eyelid. --Brendan O'Neill, The Daily Telegraph, 18 February 2011

4) Andy Stirling: Let's hear it for scepticism: its suppression is one of the principal threats to science - John Beddington is himself coming uncomfortably close to a particularly unsettling form of unscientific—even (in a deep sense) anti-scientific—'double speak'. Anyone who really values the progressive civilising potential of science should argue (in a qualified way as here) against Beddington's intemperate call for "complete in-tolerance" of scepticism. It is the upholding of an often imperfect pursuit of scepticism and tolerance that offer the best way to respect and promote science. -- Andy Stirling, ResearchResearch, 18 February 2011

5) Beddington On Warpath - Bishop Hill, 14 February 2011

6) Whatever happened to honesty, Professor Beddington? - The impact of global warming has been exaggerated by some scientists and there is an urgent need for more honest disclosure of the uncertainty of predictions about the rate of climate change, according to the Government’s chief scientific adviser. John Beddington was speaking to The Times in the wake of an admission by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) that it grossly overstated the rate at which Himalayan glaciers were receding. Professor Beddington said that climate scientists should be less hostile to sceptics who questioned man-made global warming.  --Ben Webster, The Times, 27 January 2010

Thanks Dr Peiser, GWPF for the news links.

EPA coup news
The EPA considers the opinion of agenda driven public servants superior to scientific observation. (Shades of the CO2 scam where models trump data.) Fortunately it was before a real judge rather than a marionette.
EPA’s “Yee Haw” Moment in Texas Sworn statements from key players involved in controversial EPA order shed new light on how it all went down, and why it shouldn’t have.
[...] Fast-forward a month-and-a-half. Rejected by the court after filing at least three separate motions requesting that any attempt to gather sworn testimony from its staff be blocked, EPA Regional 6 official John Blevins finally sat for a court-ordered deposition in New Orleans, where he was asked a series of straightforward questions. Questions like: Did EPA have prior knowledge of the fact that methane had been detected in water wells in Parker County long before Range ever arrived on the scene? Blevins:
“[Y]es, we were aware of those facts.” Did you include those facts in the administrative record? “[W]e do not believe those facts were … germane or relevant to the issue at hand.”
Ok. But at least EPA took a look at the Strawn Formation, right? The shallower, non-producing, higher-in-nitrogen formation that most experts now believe was the actual source of the natural gas in the Parker Co. wells? Blevins: “Not related to this case, no.”
But obviously the nitrogen profile of the methane is an important factor in determining where the methane originated, right? “It’s a factor, yes.” So you’re saying no one at EPA even looked at it? “I don’t believe that I could say EPA has an expert to opine on the nitrogen levels within any gas source.” Then how were you able to determine the pathway? “That was not what we needed to issue the order on.” What, EPA just couldn’t do the work? “The Agency could do the work. The Agency doesn’t believe that we need to do the work.” Come again?

Condom or castration? This discussion favours imposing temporary abstinence on the EPA rear enders:
Hitting EPA’s Pause Button – What Are the Benefits, Risks?
[...] Whitfield spotlights the constitutional principle at stake: “EPA’s regulations are an attempt by unelected bureaucrats to slip in through the regulatory backdoor what Congress has thus far wisely blocked from coming in through the front door.” The Energy Tax Prevention Act takes no position on climate science. As Simpson remarks, one need not be a global warming skeptic to be an ”EPA GHG [greenhouse gas] regulation skeptic.”
Good luck to those who actually put the interests of the US ahead of ideology!

Peak oil evaporative
Mentioned in A Shale Of A Difference
Energy: The brightest hope for America's energy independence has been shut down by an Interior Department that says it wants to review the rules for leases. It really wants to kill off oil altogether.
[...] The U.S. Geological Survey estimates the region, dubbed the "Persia of the West," may hold more than 1.5 trillion barrels of oil, six times the proven reserves of Saudi Arabia, and enough to meet U.S. oil needs for the next two centuries. (IBD)
The Obama admin wants to avoid cheap energy exploitation so guaranteeing the demise of the US as the world power by debt slavery, similar to the crazies in the UK that are attempting to stall the (eco fascist gang-green dream busting) shale gas bounty in the UK and no doubt will attempt to do the same in the former republic of Ireland thus avoiding their chance to recover from their rogering by EC and bankster crime.inc.

On that last, Richard at EUReferendum wrote, Giving in to your rational side "Having been royally stuffed by the EU, one wonders what the Irish must be thinking today when they read their newspapers to find that the EU Brusslime have initiated a second legal action against them over the failure of their government to adopt a farming environmental directive.
Shylock and his pound of flesh come to mind when one then learns that the Euroslime are going to ask the ECJ to fine Ireland (i.e., Irish taxpayers) at least €3.27 million for breaching an earlier ruling.

Obama & The Human Stain: Or How Political Correctness Gave America a Con-Man President
A perspective of how the POTUS is viewed from nearby. Link

And more humour;
Bill To Declare Global Warming ‘Natural’ (Montana, US)
UK Floods in 2000 caused by Millennium bug (Corbyn)
Global Warming Hoax Weekly Round-Up, Feb. 17 2011

Greenpeace hippies are going to jail, Al Gore gets to inspect the underside of a bus and the Dutch want to glow in the dark. (Daily Bayonet)
Permission Awaited to Judicially Review ACMD and SSHD Regarding Alcohol and Tobacco Policy
This could be good or bad. An excuse to increase legislation of freedom if the ideologues are permitted to influence direction. Either way, that it highlights the dimness of legislators justifies its inclusion as humour.

Signed out:
RIP The Lord Monson, an example of what the lowlifes misrepresenting us could have been. From the eulogy here - Among other things he was a confirmed EU withdrawalist, though he also believed that our own government should also get out of people's lives, a man who opposed surrender to the IRA, a stalwart fighter against the hunting ban, the President of the Society for Individual Freedom, a trustee of the Centre for Research into Post-Communist Economies and others, too numerous to mention.

Thanks to Climate Realists, Junk Science,