?

Log in

No account? Create an account
 
 
16 October 2010 @ 11:14 pm
Lords of the Lies, Cameo Government, other crap and CCNet news tips,  
Royal Society in Free Fall Claes Johnson
[...] Take a close look at this amazing statement produced by the combined brains of RS ["The three men largely to blame for this were its fanatically warmist presidents Lord Rees and Lord May, together with the even more dismal Sir John Houghton, who was partly responsible for perhaps the most embarrassing document in the institution’s history: the one called Facts And Fictions About Climate Change." Delingpole revealed here.].

#The surface receives IR energy emitted by the atmosphere!
The cold atmosphere thus heats the warm surface, by IR energy! Once this is understood the strong evidence is completed by making CO2 equal to clouds and water vapor:
This is a stunning collapse of science:
* incorrect description of the effect of clouds and water vapor
* incorrect attribution to CO2 of the same effect as clouds and water vapor.
Neverthless, armed with this amazing power of thinking RS concludes:
# There is strong evidence that changes in greenhouse gas concentrations due to human activity are the dominant cause of the global warming that has taken place over the last half century. [A lie. There is no credible evidence.]
# However, the potential impacts of climate change are sufficiently serious that important decisions will need to be made.
[Speculation based on lies and assumptive modelling. There is no credible evidence that CO2 is harmful to the climate.]
# Climate science – including the substantial body of knowledge that is already well established, and the results of future research – is the essential basis for future climate projections and planning, and must be a vital component of public reasoning in this complex and challenging area. [Accurate projections may be possible 100 years from now - if there is sufficient undoctored data.]

See Why Heat Doesn't Flow from Cold to Hot and the Myth of AGW

CCNET


Peiser: Next IPCC Report At Risk If Pachauri Stays On
Dr Rajendra Pachauri will stay on as chairman of the United Nations climate change panel, despite calls for his resignation. The Indian [railway] engineer has led the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) since 2002. However his leadership came under question after the panel mistakenly claimed the Himalayan glaciers will melt by 2035. A review of the IPCC by the InterAcademy Council (IAC), that represents major scientific institutions around the world, called for reform of the whole body. It suggested that the chairman should not be allowed to serve more than one six year term. But in the latest meeting of the IPCC in South Korea it was made clear that Dr Pachauri will stay in post, although the body promised to reform its working practices.
/more: The Daily Telegraph, 15 October 2010 Louise Gray
[Also see EUReferendum below]

UK Quangos Working On Renewable Energy No Longer A 'Priority'
Two renewable energy quangos have been axed, with a leaked letter describing the function delivered by one of them as no longer a "priority".
The government, which the prime minister pledged would be the "greenest ever", also radically reformed its key environmental bodies, the Environment Agency and Natural England, leaving campaigners asking how it would receive the independent advice needed to make effective policy.
The "body and function" of the Renewables Advisory Board was abolished. In a letter to board members seen by the Guardian, the chief executive of the Office for Renewable Energy Deployment (Ored), Hugh McNeal, writes: "Those bodies that are considered to no longer deliver functions that are a priority … will be wound up."
The Renewable Fuels Agency (RFA) was abolished, with some of its functions taken into the Department for Transport.
Campaigners reacted with horror at the suggestion that renewable energy was no longer a government priority, but the Department of Energy and Climate Change said its advisory function had already been taken up by Ored.
Matthew Spencer, an RAB board member for the last five years and director of the Green Alliance, said: "Policy will be poorer if they don't get external advice."
But another board member, Juliet Davenport, chief executive of Good Energy, said the board had "done some excellent work historically but going forward its existence is neither here nor there".The letter seen by the Guardian was not sent to either Spencer or Davenport.
The RFA is responsible for monitoring the renewable transport fuel obligation, under which 3.5% of petrol must be biofuel. That function will be taken over by the DfT. It is unclear what will happen to its work of setting crucial sustainability criteria. Rachel Cary of the Green Alliance said the axing of the RFA could mean "the already floundering renewable fuel industry in the UK will struggle".
On the reform of the Environment Agency and Natural England, Martin Harper from the RSPB said: "They have been scaled back and asked by government to focus on delivery, which is code for 'stop nagging us'."
/more: The Guardian, 14 October 2010 Damian Carrington and James Randerson
[Rothschild-Rockefeller getting worried?]

President Klaus To Meet Hague, Thatcher, Lawson
[Czech] President Vaclav Klaus will on Tuesday leave for a working visit to Britain, during which he is to meet British Foreign Secretary William Hague and former prime minister Margaret Thatcher, the Presidential Office said at its web page Wednesday.
Klaus is also scheduled to meet Nigel Lawson, chancellor of the exchequer in Thatcher's cabinet.
Klaus will deliver a lecture on global warming at The Global Warming Policy Foundation's [inaugural annual GWPF lecture].
Czech News Agency, 14 October 2010 
[I nominate Vaclav to be the next PM of the UK. What a change that would be, an intelligent and honest PM...]
 
Europe Remains Deeply Divided On Climate Policy
EU environment ministers once again failed to reach agreement on whether to upgrade the EU's emissions reduction target for 2020 from 20 per cent to 30 per cent at a meeting in Brussels yesterday, although they agreed to revisit the issue early next year.
/more: BusinessGreen, 15 October 2010  James Murray
[Keep the carbon credit fraud supported no matter how blatant the CO2 lies. I can think of better ways to "deeply divide" the commissioners.]

Lawrence Solomon: Global Warming Propagandist Slapped Down
William Connolley, arguably the world’s most influential global warming advocate after Al Gore, has lost his bully pulpit. Connolley did not wield his influence by the quality of his research or the force of his argument but through his administrative position at Wikipedia, the most popular reference source on the planet.
Through his position, Connolley for years kept dissenting views on global warming out of Wikipedia, allowing only those that promoted the view that global warming represented a threat to mankind. As a result, Wikipedia became a leading source of global warming propaganda, with Connolley its chief propagandist.
His career as a global warming propagandist has now been stopped, following a unanimous verdict that came down today through an arbitration proceeding conducted by Wikipedia. In the decision, a slap-down for the once-powerful Connolley by his peers, he has been barred from participating in any article, discussion or forum dealing with global warming. In addition, because he rewrote biographies of scientists and others he disagreed with, to either belittle their accomplishments or make them appear to be frauds, Wikipedia barred him — again unanimously — from editing biographies of those in the climate change field.
I have written several columns for the National Post on Connolley’s role as a propagandist. Two of them appear here and here.
Financial Post, 15 October 2010
[Someone should sue alarmist wiki for allowing WC to tirelessly disinform for so long.]

UK Regulator Greenlights Climate Alarmism
The long-running saga of drowning dogs and weeping rabbits finally drew to a close this week, with the pronouncement by Ofcom that last year’s "Act on CO2" advertising campaign was "not political". Critics fear that this ruling now gives the green light to government "information" campaigns that otherwise look, sound and feel like state-sponsored politicking.
The story begins last year, as TV audiences across the UK were "informed", cartoon fashion, of the perils of global warming as a result of man-made CO2 emissions. Adverts went out across a range of media, but the one that excited the most comment was a cartoon version of the campaign – which included the aforementioned dying dog and sobbing bunny - broadcast on TV in October 2009.
The ad led significant numbers of viewers – some 939 at last count - to complain to the Advertising Standards Authority and, for reasons peculiar to the UK’s Byzantine media regulatory rules, a chunk of these were then passed onward to Ofcom.
The ASA ruled, in March of this year, that the ad was OK to air, dismissing claims that the ad was misleading because it presented human induced climate change as a fact, and had exaggerated the possible effects of climate change on the UK with its depiction of "strange weather and flooding".
It is unclear whether the ASA were dazzled by the science, or whether the complainants just missed their target. Certainly, the Department of Energy and Climate Change (DECC), which led the cross-departmental group responsible for these ads put up a spirited defence, claiming that "if there was more and more CO2 in the atmosphere, irrespective of the agency, average world temperatures would rise, causing sea levels to rise, land loss, permafrost to melt and other climactic impacts".
Well, up to a point. There certainly is a wide degree of consensus amongst climate scientists and international bodies (including the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change and the Royal Society) that increased atmospheric CO2 leads to warming, and that a proportion of the increase is directly attributable to human action.
Unfortunately for the alarmist point of view, there is next to no agreement on the precise relationship between increase in CO2 and amount of warming. For instance, one of the most authoritative reports on global warming in recent years –the Stern Review – quotes studies that show that for an outwardly cataclysmic rise in atmospheric concentrations of CO2 above the pre-industrial baseline of 1,000 parts per million, the forecast increase in global temperatures ranges from a mild 2.2 degrees Celsius, to a species-extinguishing 17.1 degrees.
No matter: as the ASA point out, DECC justify their position on the grounds that scientists have openly said that the most alarmist scenarios "could" happen. Pay very close attention to that word, since it features significantly in what comes next.
Although the ASA patrols UK advertising in general, it is to Ofcom that complaints of political advertising are referred. Political advertising is prohibited on television and radio under the terms of section 321 of the Communications Act 2003 – although there is also a general get-out if the ad was "of a public service nature inserted by, or on behalf of, a government department".
So was this ad political? Or just public service info? /find out here: The Register, 15 October 2010
Jane Fae Ozimek

Thanks to GWPF Director: Dr Benny Peiser
_______________________________________________

Elsewhere

Osborne’s cuts are relatively modest
IT is time for a reality check. The public spending cuts planned by the coalition only involve reversing, over five years, a small part of the enormous increase in expenditure which took place under Gordon Brown. This is highlighted again this morning by Tim Morgan of Tullett Prebon in A Shower, not a Hurricane: the Modest Nature of the Proposed Cuts, published by the Centre for Policy Studies.
In 1999-2000, government spending was £343bn. Had this merely moved in line with inflation, total expenditure would have reached £450bn in cash terms by 2009-10. Yet actual spending in that year had jumped to £669bn, an entirely unaffordable 53 per cent increase in real terms. The spending plans outlined in George Osborne’s emergency budget reduce real terms outlays from £697bn this year to £671bn in 2015-16. Remarkably, spending in real terms then will still be much higher than it was in 2008-09.
The numbers are telling. Total expenditure in nominal terms in 2008-09 was £630bn, £669bn in 2009-2010, going up to £697bn this year, £700bn in 2011-12, £711bn in 2012-13, £722bn in 2013-14, £737bn in 2014-15 and £757bn in 2015-16. In every single year, spending goes up in cash terms. It is only when one adjusts for inflation that the cuts become apparent, though they are not that great overall. Taking 2010-11 prices as the base, real spending was around £656bn in 2008-09, £682bn last year, going up to £697bn this year. It then falls to £687bn next year – in other words, real spending drops £10bn between this year and next. Total spending then dips another £5bn in real terms to £682bn in 2012-13, £675bn in 2013-14 and then £671bn in 2014-15, where it also remains in 2015-16. /more
Allister Heath

Schools budget protected from the Osborne axe
No cuts: Chancellor of the Exchequer George Osborne says the current schools budget will remain intact
The schools £35million budget is to escape any cuts in George Osborne’s spending review, it was reported last night.
Sarah Harris

Spending Review: Universities 'to face £4.2bn cut'
Students in a lecture Students and their families face a steep increase in tuition fees
Universities in England face funding cuts of £4.2bn in the coming Spending Review, an e-mail leaked to the BBC News website suggests.
Hannah Richardson
______________________

EUreferendum by Richard [A less angry and more qualified Bradford honorary cloth cap.]

Bonfire or damp squib?
The Cleggerons promised us a bonfire of quangos. The Independent, amongst others, is not particularly impressed. We share that view and was planning to give the issue a good going-over today. The MSM is crawling all over it though, and this is one instance where you don't keep a dog and bark yourself.
Even The Daily Telegraph is being sniffy, fronting a story headed "Bonfire of quangos 'is a smokescreen that will cost money'". The strap-line reads: "Ministers have been accused of reneging on promises to start a 'bonfire of the quangos' and of simply moving many functions elsewhere in Whitehall".
That's about the size of the problem, and the measure of the dereliction. Quangos and the rest are instruments of government. To get rid of them, you have to get rid of their functions. Then the organisations wither on the vine. Simply to abolish the organisation achieves nothing. The functions must then be absorbed into the general government machine, or another way must be found of fulfilling them.
Also, the whole idea of quangos was to give their functions greater visibility and transparency, so that their costs would not be buried in departmental budgets. On this basis, to re-absorb necessary functions into the respective ministries is a retrograde step.
That the exercise is turning out to be "smoke and mirrors" seems to be entirely consistent with the Cleggeron experience. Elsewhere, in the letters column of the Telegraph, we see a letter from Sir Paul Judge, headed "myth of spending cuts", telling us that the coalition government is not planning to reduce its expenditure. /more

Pachy stays
It's a win-win for us, with the climate guru staying in place as head of the IPCC. The discredited charlatan can lead his failed institution to its ultimate nemesis with the production of its next climate change report. With him in charge, its credibility is already fatally damaged.

Political theatre
[...] The brilliant, all-seeing and wondrous Daily Mail (I got a cheque from them this morning for my Halal piece) is pointing out that Cameron is dithering (remember that word, and how the Tories loved to apply it to Brown?) about whether to cut the cold weather payments from the current level of £25 per week to the original £8.50
On the other hand, we have The Daily Telegraph telling us that fuel poverty has doubled in five years. And then, we have the idiots arguing in front of the Commons energy that "failure to impose CCS levy on energy bills would be 'disastrous'". They want the government to add £4bn to our energy bills for demonstration carbon capture and storage plants.
Noises off, though, come from Peter Voser, chief executive of energy giant Royal Dutch Shell PLC. He is saying that the UK government should divert investment from offshore wind power to natural gas exploration and production.
It will be impossible, he says, to hit 2020 carbon dioxide emission reductions targets without increased use of natural gas in the country. Using natural gas instead of coal is also a cheaper way to cut emissions than offshore wind. /more
______________________

Telegraph
Renewables will add £880 a year to bills

The UK’s renewables target, the most ambitious in the EU, will entail spending £100bn on wind farms.
Christopher Booker

Fuel poverty doubles in five years
The number of households who are in "fuel poverty" has more than doubled in the last five years because of surging energy bills, according to official statistics.
Harry Wallop
[Due to the gang-green infected EC CO2 regulations rubber stamped by HMG as advised by the lying and or wholly incompetent RS. Energy bill hikes go towards paying gang-green quangos and the likes of Thanet, wind farms being a con to transfer wealth from the poorest to the rich. As noted somewhere above, quangos are being sideways transferred. EC sychophant Cameron is a liar.]

Pension tax changes: Q&A
The Government has cut the amount we can save tax-free.

Bank of England 'must be prepared' for more QE
[Print more IOUs (banknotes) and give them to banks. Why not give them carbon credits? Better still keep public cash far away from banks, they have enough to look after themselves, much more than the government. As well, Barclays is a US bank, is it classed as foreign aid?

Coalition pledge to publish pay details of every civil servant paid over £58k dropped
Another con eu lie in the Blair manner, but -
The chart that will keep Cameron up at night  (Not in the way of viagara)

Govt-chart-cameron

Click for full size or download a full resolution version (JPG | PDF)

Behold, the “Organogram of Government”. Released in bits by the Cabinet Office, this chart details the structure and pay of people working in central Government departments. Everyone from Chief Executives and Ministers, down to employees on less than £20,000 is represented here. An insider on the Organogram project told Benedict Brogan that the aim of the project was to “expose the crap”. I think the Cabinet Office can safely say it’s achieved that today.
[...] (The chart above was inspired by the Republican Party’s Obamacare flowchart, a monstrous example of an infographic used as political weapon). /more
Conrad Quilty-Harper

Why painting wind turbines PURPLE could protect birds and bats from being killed by their blades
Painting wind turbines white could be attracting vast numbers of insects to them
Wind turbines could be painted purple to stop them killing thousands of bats and birds each year, a new study has suggested. /more.
By Niall Firth
[How much will the Huhne £black hole charge energy users for that exercise? How many advisors and MPs (will) have shares in the paint company? Strap WE advocates, BBC ecotards and Brown to the machines, they are good at scaring.]

Lords Oxburgh (Royal Society) & Stern (Grantham inst.), Blair, (Club of Madrid, Bilderberg)  Cameron, (Bilderberg, freemason) Osborne, (Bilderberg) Brown (Bilderberg) and others full of wind and hot air with interests in carbon credits, WE, CCS, biofuels etc.

Wind turbines are supposed to reduce CO2 emissions and fossil fuel dependence. They don't. Wind energy is supposed to be affordable. It isn't.
Pursuing totally nonsensical carbon capture and storage is not only admitting WE does not reduce CO2 emissions, it will dramatically increase fossil fuel dependence. Where the hell are they and the rest of the deceivers coming from?

"Around 10-40% more energy is required with CCS than without [IEA GHG]. Energy is required mostly to separate the CO2 from other gases and to compress it, but some is also used to transport the CO2 to the injection site and inject it underground."
http://www.worldcoal.org/carbon-capture-storage/ccs-technologies/

The Waxman-Markey Gravy Train
“No, I have to do this my way. You tell me what you know, and I’ll confirm. I’ll keep you in the right direction if I can, but that’s all. Just… follow the money.”
- Deep Throat to Bob Woodward, All The President’s Men
(1976).

"The many hands that wrote H.R. 2454 forgot that the entire CCS process is only as strong as the chain’s weakest link. The failure of one technology to mature coincident with the other technologies necessarily causes a chain failure. Given that a [single] 500-MW coal-fired plant produces about 3.5 million tons of CO2 per year, the complexities of such an operation on a national level for hundreds of coal-fired plants defies description."

A major factor for CCS units is the need to use 20-30% of energy produced in the capture process; such as providing steam for a water-shift-reactor in a pre-combustion process, regenerating amine in a post-combustion process, running an air separation unit (ASU) in a pre-combustion or oxy-fuel process and compressing the captured CO2.
http://www.carboncapturejournal.com/displaynews.php?NewsID=656

Capturing and compressing CO2 requires much energy and would increase the fuel needs of a coal-fired plant with CCS by 25%-40%
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carbon_capture_and_storage

Pretending that CO2 is a pollutant and human emissions of almost 4 parts per million per year are turning the planet into a mini sun (brrrr):

CCS raises a number of serious financial, environmental and safety concerns:
CCS cannot deliver in time. The best-case scenario is that the technology would be ready by 2030. Every decision made about new power plants today influences the energy mix for the next 30-40 years. We need to make the smartest choices to address the global warming crisis and invest in proven solutions as soon as possible.
CCS is cost intensive. It increases the cost of power generation by 40 to 80 percent compared with conventional coal plants. Current research shows electricity generated from coal equipped with CCS will be more expensive than other less polluting sources, such as, wind power. [The whole reason for the scam]
CCS technology reduces the efficiency of power plants. Up to 30 percent more fossil fuel must be burned when CCS is used to achieve the same power output.
CCS poses a risk of carbon dioxide leakage. Continuous leakage, even at very low rates, could undermine the climate benefit of CCS and large releases of carbon can also pose significant risk to human health.

http://itsgettinghotinhere.org/2008/05/06/public-interest-groups-oppose-carbon-capture-scam/

BECAUSE SOME OF THE CO2 EMITTED IS CAUSED BY WIND ENERGY INCLUSION IN THE ENERGY MIX; WILL WIND ENERGY COMPANIES BE REQUIRED TO FINANCE PART OF THE CCS SCAM?
OR BUY INTO CARBON CREDITS FRAUD?
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Given that the fancied increase in cooling by 2100 for the UK's carbon emission reduction is between 0.0000C and 0.0000C, given that China is building a coal driven plant every week (or is it every month?) until 2030 and that they overtook the US in the CO2 emissions race (gods bless China), what is the point? Oh yes. EC carbon credits, Obama+Gore+Soros+Strong (CCX) carbon credits, and the CoR (UN)+Bilderberg-Fabian (EC) "rule the world by controlling energy" power crazed. The few profit at the prohibitive taxpayer and energy end-user expense. 
Biofuels kill. Not as efficiently as the UN's DDT ban that head-counts millions but certainly thousands, maybe in the tens.

In my opinion they are no more than a gravy train full of deceptive, unscrupulous crooks to a man. Elites? El is a place holder for hypocr or sh.
________________________________________________________

BTW natural gas (mostly methane) is renewable. It is flamed off from oil wells and rubbish tips, burns naturally at some places (search for eternal flame) and there is hundreds of years worth in frozen tundra and in ocean clathrates, there is enough to see out this century and maybe next in shale in the UK.
------------------------------------------------

Blair's reward
(In January 2008, it was confirmed that Blair would be joining investment bank [Rothschild cartel's] JPMorgan Chase in a "senior advisory capacity").

"The words of HM Leader of the Opposition, the Rt Hon David Cameron MP, at an address to the Conservative Friends of Israel. Out of context, the sentence is uncharacteristically declarative, but even in context, it is forthright, bold, and, in this day and age, rather brave. When asked about the Zionism and Conservatism, Mr Cameron said: ‘If what you mean by Zionist, someone who believes that the Jews have a right to a homeland in Israel and a right to their country then yes I am a Zionist and I’m proud of the fact that Conservative politicians down the ages have played a huge role in helping to bring this about.
What if Zionist was meant to refer to Rothschild's federation?

With his support for Zionist occupation of Palestine stated, maybe he could elaborate on his views for the rights of goyim Brits having a right to a homeland and country.
As well as in hell I imagine there is a place reserved in one or another of Rothschild's bankster cartel institutions for him, Huhne and Osborne.