This report exposes the complete farce behind the carbon trading scam which is costing all western taxpayers bilions of pounds to export our jobs and our wealth to the 'developing world'. This is what our politicians are signing up to and trying to defend.
Tuesday, 30 March 2010
Monday, 29 March 2010
This report exposes the tangled web linking numerous environmental advocacy bodies to the BBC, highlighting the man responsible for investigating the behaviour of the Climate Research Unit being also linked in this web. Is anyone truly impartial in this business, I wonder.
James Delingpole also delves into this murky world see here.
Sunday, 28 March 2010
Saturday, 27 March 2010
Friday, 26 March 2010
This article is well worth the effort to read it, as it gives the opinions of some very well qualified scientists who doubt the current global warming hypothesis. You often hear it said that those who doubt the apocalyptic warnings are simply ignorant, yet nothing could be further from the truth as this article testifies. Many of those who question this are the most qualified people in the field. We must not let the 'establishment' get away with dismissing critics as 'a handful of sceptics and deniers'.
Thursday, 25 March 2010
This article from the Times sums up the sheer folly of subsidising wind farms with billions of pounds of taxpayers money. So many times has this been pointed out to those who govern us that this policy failure cannot be explained on ignorance; it must, therefore, be down to utter stubborn stupidity. How long can the merry-go-round of subsidy continue in these hard times?
Wednesday, 24 March 2010
Science is always being updated as new evidence is uncovered. This report into something as basic as the way water moves through soil shows that even here long-established beliefs can be shown to be incorrect. When comparing this with the huge complexity of climate, one can only wonder at how much we still have to learn about that.
Tuesday, 23 March 2010
This report explains how this phenomenon is affecting our climate. Alarmists will be likely to seize on the effects to boost their flagging hypothesis, but they should not rely on it to save them because it is not factored into their climate models, due to its temporary nature.
Monday, 22 March 2010
Sunday, 21 March 2010
If you have read the 'exciting' news about the new electric cars being brought out, this article gives the reality of what is going on. We are being fed a false picture of a so-called energy crisis, and being given silly solutions which sound about as impractical as a Sinclair C5.
Saturday, 20 March 2010
Friday, 19 March 2010
This article explains how new methods of extracting gas has revolutionised the industry and already ensured the USA is self-sufficient for the foreseeable future. This technology is now being exported all over the world with the potential to ensure sufficient affordable gas for the coming century. The implications for the 'climate change' industry are staggering as the article explains. Those wind turbines could be obsolete before they are built!
Thursday, 18 March 2010
Wednesday, 17 March 2010
Tuesday, 16 March 2010
What a wonderful euphemism 'carbon leakage' is the term for jobs being lost due to high carbon costs. This article explains the views of one member of the House of Lords, who is aware of the problem. However the government seem quite oblivious of the problem.
Monday, 15 March 2010
This bizarre story takes a glimpse at what the future of farming might be if the climate change 'experts' get their way. Cattle being kept in giant gas-proof sheds would ensure that food becomes increasingly expensive. Surely a dire future for both farmers and animals.
Sunday, 14 March 2010
Saturday, 13 March 2010
I have been handed a copy of the correspondence below, in which it is clear that HRH Prince Philip had personally asked that Ian Plimer, the renowned Geologist and well known climate sceptic author, be invited to give the Annual Prince Philip Lecture, only to find that he is later pressured into rescinding the invitation. The excuse given - "as I am sure you are aware, members of the Royal Family need to be scrupulous in avoiding any appearance of advocating or supporting a particular political stance", seems rather disingenuous, as Prince Charles has very publicly taken a stance personally on a number of politically sensitive matters, notably on climate change where he is a well known alarmist.
This is the highest profile example yet of pressure being applied to prevent any alternative to the 'official stance' being publicised.
Here is a copy of the correspondence:
From: Matthew Taylor
Date: 6 March 2010 4:24:18 AM
To: Ian Plimer
Cc: Alex Lucas
Subject: RE: Invitation to Professor Plimer to give Annual RSA
President's Lecture: 5 May 2010
Dear Professor Plimer
I am afraid I am writing to you with some disappointing news
regarding the Prince Philip Annual Lecture on 5 May.
As you well know, the debate around climate change has recently
become highly politically charged, both globally and especially in
your home country. Equally, as I am sure you are aware, members of
the Royal Family need to be scrupulous in avoiding any appearance
of advocating or supporting a particular political stance. The
RSA's charitable status also requires us to maintain absolute
political independence in our programme of events and research events.
After discussion with Buckingham Palace, it is therefore with great
regret that we must withdraw your invitation to give this year's
Prince Philip Lecture. The Duke of Edinburgh is personally
disappointed as he read your book with great interest and was
looking forward to hearing you speak, but I know that you will
recognise that the now highly controversial debate surrounding this
issue would make it inevitable that he was seen to be taking a
We recognise that you may have already begun preparations for your
visit, so if you have incurred any expenses, please let us have a
copy and we would be happy to make reparation.
With sincere apologies,
RSA, 8 John Adam Street
London, WC2N 6EZ
+44 (0)20 7451 6883
From: Ian Plimer [mailto:email@example.com]
Sent: Wednesday, 23 December 2009 00:22
To: Matthew Taylor
Subject: Re: Invitation to Professor Plimer to give Annual RSA
President's Lecture: 5 May 2010
Dear Mr Taylor,
Thank you for the kind invitation which I accept.
On 23/12/2009, at 5:10 AM, Matthew Taylor wrote:
Dear Professor Plimer
I am writing on behalf of His Royal Highness The Duke of
Edinburgh, President of the RSA (Royal Society for the
Encouragement of Arts, Manufactures and Commerce), to invite you
to give the 2010 RSA President's Lecture.
For over 250 years the RSA has been a cradle of enlightenment
thinking and a force for social progress. Our approach is multi-
disciplinary and politically independent and combines cutting edge
research and policy development with practical action.
We encourage public discourse and critical debate by providing
platforms for leading experts to share new ideas on contemporary
issues. The annual President's Lecture is a key event in our
prestigious programme of public events.
With recognition of your expertise in the geological and
technological sciences, His Royal Highness has requested that we
invite you to talk about the issues raised in your book 'Heaven
and Earth - Global Warming: The Missing Science'. His Royal
Highness will chair the proceedings.
The date for the President's Lecture has been confirmed with
Buckingham Palace as Wednesday 5 May 2010, starting at 6pm. I do
hope this will fit in with your existing diary commitments.
The event will take place in the RSA's historic Great Room
Auditorium, which seats 200. The audience will be made up of RSA
Fellow members and other informed and influential guests including
key representatives from the media, government, policy-makers,
NGOs, business and academe.
Please note we will be pleased to cover reasonable travel and
accommodation expenses for your trip to the UK.
Thank you for your consideration and I look forward to hearing
from you at your earliest convenience. I will of course be pleased
to let you have further information on the event if required.
RSA, 8 John Adam Street
London, WC2N 6EZ
+44 (0)20 7451 6883
The RSA combines thought leadership with social innovation to
further human progress. Building on our 250 year history as a
beacon for enlightenment values, we undertake influential and
varied research projects and host the UK's most ambitious free
lecture series. Our work is supported by 27,000 Fellows, an
international network of influencers and innovators from every
field and background.
Friday, 12 March 2010
This report uncovers the murky world of government attempts at 'behaviour change' in relation to global warming. Is it legitimate for our government to be trying to change our behaviour in an area where there is such uncertainty (although they claim there is certainty)?
Thursday, 11 March 2010
Wednesday, 10 March 2010
According to this article it is alleged by the government to be £77 per household, but in this earlier article it says £250, and one 'expert' in that same article says it could easily be £500. It all looks very vague and I wonder whether the government or anyone else has any idea of the true cost.
Tuesday, 9 March 2010
Here is a fascinating, and at the same time disturbing, insight into the large sums of government money being offered to universities in the UK to come up with the "right" answers on climate change. Is it surprising that when salaries and careers depend on it that they do so?
Monday, 8 March 2010
This article in the Times looks at the decision of the management of the Drax power station to continue to burn coal rather than go over to biomass. The decision is based on cost (of course) and apparently even with the current level of government subsidy coal is cheaper, even after buying carbon emission trading permits. We are seeing the start of a massive increase in fuel and energy prices, largely driven by a vain, but hopeless attempt to reduce CO2 emissions.
Sunday, 7 March 2010
Saturday, 6 March 2010
George Monbiot, the darling of the Greens, is starting to question some of the key tenets of the environmentalists in this article. He rightly recognises that solar panels are not a viable way of making electricity. When he starts to question it, how long will it be before our politicians start to do so? The following quote is very pertinent:
"To the greens who accuse me of treachery I say this: we do not have a moral obligation to support all forms of renewable energy, however inefficient and expensive they may be. We do have a moral obligation not to be blinded by sentiment. We owe it to the public, and to our credibility, to support the schemes which work, fairly and cheaply, and reject the schemes which cost a fortune and make no difference."
So back to nuclear and fossil fuels then!
This paper takes a look at the world temperature data supplied by CRU and compares it to original data. It shows that there is a significant difference in the warming trend, sufficient to cast doubt about the data on which the whole GW scare is based. Scientists must now go back to square one and re-do their data calculations in an open and transparent way, so that they can be checked.
Friday, 5 March 2010
Don't be scared, but this UK report by the Chief Scientist and his advisors is not to be read by those of a nervous disposition - unless you are of a sceptic nature, in which case it would be funny, were it not for the massive bill we are all paying based on trying to prevent it.
Thursday, 4 March 2010
This article gives the details. What he also says is that he cannot look at the most crucial codes as they have stil not been published. The more we learn, the more errors we find. These scientists remind me of naughty schoolboys who have produced the 'right' answers, but show no working out.
Apparently Al gore has been given an honoray degree by his local university in Tennessee, but a local paper is running a poll to see what the public think about it. When I last looked at it here, no less than 98% thought he should not have been awarded it. If you are starting to feel sorry for poor old Al, there is still time to vote.
This article gives the details of how some MPs put forward an amendment to the government's emissions legislation to try and make the controls even tougher. Luckily they were defeated, narrowly. It seems that even this feeble government has its limits.