The Modern Church - Hate the sinner, hate the sin

There is this curate see, no doubt a thoroughly nice chap, but as a fisher of men rather occluded. You see he thinks that anybody who dares question the faith of the Climate Change Lobby is beyond the pale. And in a country which voted rather significantly against the left he has no interest in millions of souls, or at best contempt for them. It is also apparent that according to him one has to hate the sin and the sinner. I would guess that this is a novel doctrine, but there you have it.

The reason why I am aware of this curate is that he tweeted this,

Blog: Paranoid and moronic email from @Nigel_Farage. /cc @christian_aid #ukip #climate

and being the sort of anal chap I am I had had a look for recent #UKIP tweets. Thus I bothered to read his post. Delightful it was

Now, the evidence for climate change is – as anyone who’s not a lunatic right-winger knows – overwhelming. Sadly, Mr Farage falls into the exception category. (No surprise given that UKIP is the blurry area that merges the Tories and the BNP on the right of British politics).

Below is a copy of the paranoid and moronic response I received from Mr Farage so all the world can see the lunacy that UKIP espouse.

You can go and read the response if you want on the above link. Not the words I would have used but there you have it.

I replied to his tweet,

@riggwelter good to see your form of faith allows you to dismiss as lunatics those who disagree with you. Nice tolerant sort I see

 and must have struck some sort of a nerve as he responded rather excitedly. In moments he had replied. Not  once,

@GawainTowler The veracity of #climate science is hardly a matter of faith but of cold hard facts sir +++

Not twice,

@GawainTowler +++ and I said that Mr Farage's email was moronic and paranoid, I specifically did not call him names. Unlike you.

But

@GawainTowler If you parse the post correctly, you'll note that UKIP-style right-wing politics are described as lunatic, not any person.

@GawainTowler It's also clear that UKIP don't like light being shined on their true nature else attack dogs aren't unleashed on constituents

Seems #UKIP dislike light being shined on their true nature so much, they've unleashed the attack dogs on lil ol' me.

Yup five times. I particularly delight in that trite, "lil ol' me" and the sanctimonious use of the cross. But of course that is balderdash. Oh yes and the absolute certainty without the space for doubt about science and its veracity. Again interesting for a man of faith.

Of course, it was Friday night and I was moved to respond to this near confessional,

@riggwelter wow, seem to have touched a nerve. Never saw myself as an attack dog, more a spaniel, Clumber by choice

When called on his rather unchristian attitude his defence was as far as I can see denial. Denial that he had called the boss lunatic, or that his actions were paranoid or moronic. Dunno what you think but he thought this,

@GawainTowler Just strikes me that personal attacks and insults on constituents are an interesting way to do politics is all.

Not sure I had launched a personal attack, or an insult, merely suggested that his tone was somewhat intolerant.

@riggwelter just strikes me that adjectives such as paranoid, lunatic and moronic are fairly ripe for a man of the cloth

Not sure why I bothered with this post, but I felt that the way in which this man was so certain of his own truths that he was willing to degrade and insult those who do not share his views was symptomatic of a malaise that faces both the country at large and the Church in particular. His transparent contempt for a majority of the country rather sits ill with his vocation. Or so it seems to me, but I am only a layman.

He tells us that he is interested in,

 in using both inherited and new forms of church creatively to help the church to live as missional communities and is passionate about helping release people into ministering in the power of the Holy Spirit.

Lord alone knows what that means by this, but I think it is meant to suggests that he respects those of different traditions. But actions speak stronger don't you think?

The Green Inquistion

The sight of Januz Lewandowski crumbling in the face of Green pressure is sad. Bruno picks up the tale,

In an interview with the Novy Przemysl magazine, Mr Lewandowski argued the EU's policy of increasing greenhouse gas reduction targets would be a "disaster" for Poland, which is still rebuilding its economy from the backwardness of the Soviet era.

"There is a view breaking through that the theory of coal-generated power as the main culprit of global warming is seriously in doubt," he said.

Brave man in the current climate, too brave it turned out,

Green campaign groups and an alliance of MEPs described the commissioner's comments as "terrifying" because, it was claimed he was seeking to "deny the overwhelming evidence of climate change".


"The commissioner should fully explain himself," Joris den Blanken a Greenpeace spokesman told the EurActiv website. "If not, the consequences for his role in the European Commission should be considered."

Following a week of increasingly shrill calls from the European Parliament and NGOs for him to recant his views or face disciplinary sanctions, Mr Lewandowski made a humiliating climb down.

"In order to clarify misunderstandings," he said in a statement. "I acknowledge the fact that the overwhelming majority of scientific studies confirm the phenomenon of global warming."

UKIP's very own Godfrey Bloom has piled into the fray,

The sight of Commissioner Lewandowski being forced to recant in the face of the strident Greens looks like nothing other than the Inquisition. With the High priests of Greenery acting as so many Torquemada's.
It is not that I often that I agree with the Commissioner, but he absolutely right, and right to speak out. To see him crawling in apology to these people is a sad day for the freedom of speech. For these people to link him to the holocaust and him a Pole is outrageous.

In 1616 a committee of advisors to the Holy Inquisition attacked Galileo and declared that holding the view that the Sun is the centre of the universe or the earth moves is absurd and formally heretical. Today holding that Anthropomorphic Climate Change is anything more that a desire on the part of heavily subsidised pressure groups and government to tax and control our lives is the same.

In 1992 the Catholic Church finally admitted that Galileo was right.

Way to go Ben

From throw away comments great things grow.

I said

I am sure there may be a teensey little bit of public money floating around this august organisation.

And Ben Pile went and did this.

An evisceration of the funding behind EREC.

Here is the conclusion.

It is no surprise that the EU and governments, spurious quasi-autonomous organisations and NGOs are in cahoots. It has long been known that organisations such as Friends of the Earth and WWF are paid by the EU to lobby the EU in favour of the policies that the EU wants. And it is no surprise that the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change takes research that benefits the agendas of governments. We all knew this much.

What is surprising is the sheer scale of this shameless enterprise. We all knew that 'grey literature' -- non-scientific and non-peer reviewed 'research' -- found its way into IPCC reports. What surprises is the extent to which 'grey organisations' -- para-govermental institutions with public functions, but little or no democratic accountability or transparency -- are involved in the production of policy and evidence-making, benefitting a narrow industrial sector and serving a particular political agenda.

Taking a look at the comments there seems to be a feeling that this is the tip of the famous iceberg and more work needs to be done.

Ho hum, no rest for the wicked.

Policy-based evidence-making

First set your policy, then find the evidence. That traditional scientific method.

A great line from Ben Pile over at Climate Resistance when he was looking at the IPCC's most recent report back in May. He goes through the authors of the report and notes that they are al part of the bureacracy of Renewable/para-governmental/lobbyist community that populates the IPCC and its cohorts.

Meanwhile Steve McIntyre at Climate audit has noticed a slight problem with the report's introduction/conclusions, in that they were pre-written by Greenpeace and a Brussels based body namely EREC, the European Renewable Energy Council.

I am sure there may be a teensey little bit of public money floating around this august organisation.

No you fools, don't make it worse

The NFU is one of those organisations that has, to put it politely lived past its sell by date. If Disreali were alive today he would be chucking his extinct volcanoes quip at them. As a voice of the establishment there is scarcely better.

So it should come as no surprise that they are desperate to foist upon us anpother unelected nannying nincompoop who can disrupt our lives from an ineffably superior position. I give you the EU's own Chief Scientific officer.

THE NFU has called on the European Commission to honour its promise to appoint a chief scientist to assist on vital decisions relating to food security and climate change...
Katy Lee, assistant director in the NFU’s Brussels office, said science was often ignored by EU policy makers and urged Mr Barroso to fill the role ‘as a matter of urgency’.

We welcomed the intention to create a chief scientific adviser back in 2009 but we are disappointed the post has still not been filled,” she said.

What the hell are they playing at, from the face of it it looks as if the EU had ditched the self agrandising idea and the morons at the NFU want to breath life into its revanent.

“We are faced with huge global challenges to feed a growing world population sustainably and it is clear that the solutions from the EU must be underpinned by sound science and not destroyed by intransigent politics.”

Stuart Agnew MEP, the UKIP Agriculture spokesman, and normally friendly towards the NFU was moved to write in their comments section,

Whilst the NFU always lobbies hard for the interests of farmers, I believe that on this issue they are attempting to shoot their members in the feet. The EU can be relied upon to engage a scientist who has fully bought into the myth of man made global warming (which is the opposite of ´sound science´) and his recommendations are likely to make life very difficult for farmers. Quotas on emissions are a real possibility, to say nothing of the red tape and record keeping that will further engulf farmers.

We had an example of EU `sound science` when they insisted on the burning of carcases of animals with Foot & Mouth Disease, not to mention a great many that did not have it. The longer this post remains vacant, the better. I will vote against any such appointment, if I get the opportunity.

No wonder the NFU are known across the country as No F  Use

The BBC must "look behind the headlines" before it publishes a report on Climate Change

Or at least that is what I have just been told be someone at the Science and Environment desk of BBC Online.

You see I was trying to let them know about UKIP's response to the devastating John Muir Trust study just published, into the uselessness of Wind Farms.

The chap at the other end of the line let me know that BBC Scotland had already reported on the study (here) . And is was obvious that he wasn't happy with the tone of the report, you see it wasnt critical enough,

"It is obviously wrong that the BBC produce reports without looking into the methodology of the study," he told me, displaying that Reithian responsibility the BBC is so famous for, "We must look beyond the headlines of the executive summary, before producing our own reports".

Yes indeed that is exactly what you should do. As I pointed out to him, it would be nice if the BBC did the same with reports predicting the demise of human civilisation through the dire effects of Climate change.

So I suggest that people should start holding the Science and Environment department to this fine new approach to studies on climate change and renewable technology.

Caveating the caveats

The Huffington Post is linking to a Reuters story about a panel of Climate change types talking about that which they talk about. Headlined,

Heavy Snowfalls, Extreme Storms Linked To Climate Change, Scientists Claim

the story fails to live up to its bidding.

This winter's heavy snowfalls and other extreme storms could well be related to increased moisture in the air due to global climate change, a panel of scientists said Tuesday.

They 'could well be related' to cream cheese. Though I doubt it.

What we seem to have here is some scientists saying that weather is related to climate, about as uncontroversial a statement as one is likely to see. The only chap linking this directly to man is one Mark Serreze,

The only underlying explanation for these events is climate warming due to heightened greenhouse gas levels, Serreze said

and boy does he have form.
"The Artic is screaming"

"The Arctic is screaming," said Mark Serreze, senior scientist at the government's snow and ice data center in Boulder, Colo.

Just last year, two top scientists surprised their colleagues by projecting that the Arctic sea ice was melting so rapidly that it could disappear entirely by the summer of 2040.

This week, after reviewing his own new data, NASA climate scientist Jay Zwally said: "At this rate, the Arctic Ocean could be nearly ice-free at the end of summer by 2012, much faster than previous predictions."

Three years later he appears to wind his neck in a little,

In 2007, the extent of sea ice in the Arctic declined rapidly. The drop from the previous year was so precipitous that it garnered worldwide attention and media coverage. In the last couple of years, the extent of sea ice in the Arctic, measured by the amount of square miles it covers, has recovered. This series of events, which underscored the year-to-year variability of the measurement, has made researchers cautious about describing events in the Arctic.

“In hindsight, probably too much was read into 2007, and I would take some blame for that,” Serreze said. “There were so many of us that were astounded by what happened, and maybe we read too much into it.”

I wonder how long it will take him to retract this time?

We are all going to drown

I love certainty in science. Absolute conviction of the truth. Here is some.

How Rising Sea Levels Will Affect the US Coastline

Scientific projections call for sea levels to rise by one meter by then, and this area is particularly flat and low-lying, much like the Netherlands.
For all the ensuing centuries, sea level will rise another meter for each century at the current rate of global warming. "According to the most recent sea-level-rise science, that's where we're heading," said lead researcher Jeremy L. Weiss, a senior research specialist in the UA's department of geosciences. "Impacts from sea-level rise could be erosion, temporary flooding and permanent inundation."

Worried, I am

If sea level rise was to continue up to six meters, about one third of the land area in all US coastal cities would be affected.

In 600 years, by gad.

Lets think back. You are standing at the field of the battle of Tannenberg, in five years Henry V would kybosh the French at Agincourt. In Geography towns like Shipden still proudly existed on the coast of Norfolk.

See what I mean, the idea of being certain of something (Will) is absurd. Looking at the abstract of the work that evinces this absurdity one can see that though their is a little more reticence, note the use of the word, "Plausible",

recently published work estimates that global sea level rise (SLR) approaching or exceeding 1 m by 2100 is plausible,

the bonkersness remains.

emissions over the 21st century will not only influence SLR in the next ~90 years, but will also commit Earth to several meters of additional SLR over subsequent centuries. In this context of worsening prospects for substantial SLR, we apply a new geospatial dataset to calculate low-elevation areas in coastal cities of the conterminous U.S.A. potentially impacted by SLR in this and following centuries. In total, 20 municipalities with populations greater than 300,000 and 160 municipalities with populations between 50,000 and 300,000 have land area with elevations at or below 6 m and connectivity to the sea, as based on the 1 arc-second National Elevation Dataset.

They are talking about town's populations in 600 years time!!

Cold, colder, coldest

AM has done (another) fine piece of work on the excreable Met Office (oh how they must wish he would go away). It appears that at the very least, unlike constant claims that despite December this was a very warm year, it wasn't.

But while the Met Office has been focusing the attention of the media on the record cold December statistic with its right hand, its left hand has quietly confirmed further down in the article that in the UK 2010 was the 12th coldest year since the ‘national series’ of weather recording started in 1910.

So which is the bigger story? The one that tells us we have just had our coldest winter month in 100 years? Or that against a backdrop of the ‘consensus’ telling us that runaway global warming is transforming the planet, the UK has just experienced its 12th coldest year in the same period?

I would say that 2010 comes into the colder catergory.

Whilst salt runs out, the LGA announces a new Conference

The country is gripped by a big freeze, Councils up and down the country are in a predicament,

County road chiefs have already used nearly two thirds of the salt stockpiled before the big freeze, KentOnline can reveal.
Kent County Council had stored 23,000 tonnes of salt before the winter season began in October.
Now it says there's just 8,000 tonnes left at its seven depots across the county.

So what does the LGA organise and advertise today?

Can we afford not to adapt to climate change?

In breathless prose they pose the question...

Action by local authorities will be essential in ensuring that the UK is well prepared for a changing climate. If we are not prepared this could leave our services and our communities vulnerable and have a severe impact on future budgets.
How can local authorities ensure their communities, services and buildings are resilient to future climate impacts?

What like snow and ice?

They just do not get it do they. They are still planning for this sort of stuff,

If temperatures rise and flash floods occur more frequently, or if new pests or diseases appear, this could create sudden, traumatic and expensive strains on many of the services that councils deliver. It could also be a disaster for local economies.

When the reality on the ground is somewhat different. Is it any wonder that they don't have the true grit required by the country, when they won't buy grit but prefer to spend money on those expected to turn up to the conference,

• Members/Portfolio Holders and Officers with responsibilities for: Environment and Emergency Planning as well as Health, Social Care, Education, Transport, Economic Development and Finance
• Consultants
• Representatives from the private and third sector involved in the climate change agenda

Martin Callanan: Green or Blue?

So as is reported on Con Home, and Guido (who royally stitched up one of the candidates) we find that Martin Callanan is the new Tory delegation leader in the European Parliament.

First up I must offer my congratulations, the scale of his victory must have surprised him. I have known Martin for years and there is no doubt that he is closer to the Tory membership than the other two candidates.

Back in 1999 there is no doubt that he was an adjunct to the infamous H block of Helmer, Heaton-Harris and Hannan, but since then he has moved to a more centrist position. This is most apparant from his position on Climate Change which though not utterly enamoured with everything that is being proposed is fully in line with Cameronian alarmism,

Here he is calling for the EU to impose green taxres on third nations air carriers.

Here he is applauding the EU's position at the Copenhagen Climate Change talks,

1. Regrets the fact that the Copenhagen Accord does not deliver the needed fair, ambitious and binding deal on a post-2012 climate treaty and that it neither sets global mid-term or long- term reduction targets nor states when global emissions would need to peak;
2. Regrets the fact that the reduction commitment pledges that were on the table in Copenhagen do not appear to add up to what is required by science in order to stay within the 2° objective, notwithstanding reduction commitments due to be submitted by the Parties on 31 January 2010 to the UNFCCC;
3. Recommends that the UNFCCC secretariat be empowered to make a technical review of the targets due to be submitted by the Parties on 31 January and report on their compatibility with the 2° limit, in time for the resumed negotiations in the ad hoc working groups; further emphasises that the targets must meet the necessary limit as identified by science;

Is convinced that if Europe invests in a sustainable future and incentivises a low-carbon economy within the framework of a binding international agreement, it will bring about results that are favourable to the climate, energy security, reduced energy dependency, resource efficiency, the competitiveness of European industry and job creation;

Here he agrees with a whole bunch of carbon tagets and so on,

Believes the Copenhagen agreement should bind the parties to mandatory reductions and provide for sanctions at international level for non-compliance, their form remaining to be defined;


6. Recalls that the international agreement should ensure collective greenhouse gas emissions reductions in the developed countries at the high end of the 25-40 % range for 2020 compared to 1990 levels, as recommended by the Fourth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC 4AR), and that recent scientific data indicates that an emission reduction of at least 40 % is required; calls for those reductions to be domestic; recalls that a long-term reduction target should be set for the EU and the other developed countries of at least 80 % by 2050 compared to 1990 levels; recalls that global greenhouse gas emissions should start falling by 2015 at the latest; emphasises the need for the reduction targets agreed in the international agreement to be in line with the 2°C objective and with latest science; calls, therefore, for regular reviews in the agreement every five years to make sure that the reduction targets are ambitious enough to meet the 2°C objective and that those targets continue to be in line with the latest science; calls for the establishment of a global carbon accounting mechanism;

So yes Martin is far better than the others on offer, and he has always supported leaving the EPP, though he was  left for dead in some of the negotiations around it. He is firmly anti-Lisbon Treaty and is generally on the side of the angels across the board (apart from as can be seen on climate change). I just fear that he has got a little comfortable in post.

And the thought that Giles Chichester has been preffered over Jaqui Foster for Deputy suggests two things. 1)The Torys are still as bad as they were.
or/and
2) There was some back room deal between Martin and the pro-Europeans after Ashworth was roasted by Guido.

How to pay for Europe's disasters

We all know that one of the sticking blocks  for an agreement on the EU's budget is the whole troublesome issue of own resources. Here is Josh Chaffin at the FT a few weeks ago,

The European Union should explore taxes on financial transactions, air transport and other activities to generate its own sources of funding, the European Commission recommended as it kicked off a formal debate over the future of the EU budget.

It seems however that things are coagulating around a single proposal to deal with the problem. And no prizes what it is... Yes it's Carbon taxes,

Visiting Greek Prime Minister George Papandreou expressed on Monday his support for carbon tax and transaction tax advocated by French President Nicolas Sarkozy.
Following a working lunch with the French president at the Elysee Palace, Papandreou told the press he and Sarokzy discussed a new mechanism for the stability of the European Union, which should be financed by carbon tax on Europe level and a tax on financial transactions.

Of course scrwing the poor benighted taxpayer in this way will be wrapped in sanctimonious claptrap about hpow we will be both sorting out the financial crisis and saving the world.

HT Reference Frame

Update,

Janet Daley in the Telegraph folows the story,

George Papandreou, the Greek prime minister has said that there may need to be new Europe-wide forms of taxation to help pay for the bail-outs that will be needed by the growing number of crashing economies in the euro-zone. His suggestions include “carbon dioxide taxes” which, he says, could provide “important revenues and resouces for funding such a [bail-out] mechanism.”

I’ve never actually heard a major politician (let alone a national leader) admit this before: what Mr Papandreou is saying is that carbon taxes would have not have the effect of reducing emissions - because if they did, they would be useless as an additional form of revenue. All the hokum that is talked about protecting the planet by taxing carbon use is just a front for the real purpose of such penalties on industry and consumers which is to raise more money for governments to spend (in this case, on trying to remedy their own political follies).

They used to send convicts there - where is the change?

Norfolk Island is a funny place. My aunt lives there. A small speck of rock inhabited by the rich, convict decendents and a large number of former Pictcairmers, descendents of the Bounty mutineers.

Well I hope that their mutinous genes have not deserted them given the social experiment that is about to be practicesed upon them.

This is the personal Carbon Credit scheme dreamed up by some totalitarian nutjob named Gary Eggers at Southern Cross university and funded by the Australian Government.

This scheme is the biogots dream, as the Prof says,

"The way the system will work is basically it will involve giving everyone on the island a carbon card, like a credit or debit card, and they will get carbon units on that card. Then every time they go and pay for their petrol or their power - and from the second year their food - it will not only be paid for in money but it will also come off the carbon units that they are given for free at the start of the program.


"If they're frugal and don't buy a lot of petrol or power or fatty foods, then they can actually have units to spare at the end of a set time period so that they can cash those in at the bank and make money from them.

Ok Professor, and what happens if they fail to comply with your ordrers?

"If they aren't frugal and they are very wasteful and they produce a lot of carbon and consume unhealthy foods then every year they will have to buy extra units. Also over time - as we target lower carbon emissions and increasing health goals - the number of carbon units they are given will go down and therefore the price for the individual will go up to sustain that lifestyle they are not prepared to forego.

So let me get this straight. I buy stuff. And pay for it (and the sales taxes). But if you, or the scheme's devisers think I shouldn't I have to pay for it again.

Who decides what is and isn't good or right for me? I do. Not you, not the Government, not some cabal of alamist morons. Period.
Here is a question and answer with the alaromcrat Eggers,

Me: What happens to those people who overdraw their carbon emissions ...

Egger: In the first year you are just warned ... (Later) if you overspend, you’ve got to buy the units that are cashed in ...

Me: If you put this in on the mainland and you were really strict about it - you really thought the world was warming very, very dangerously and someone exceeded their rations of these carbon units - one would presume that you would make food, for example, too expensive for them to buy.

Egger: That’s right ... so if you’ve got, for example, a very fatty unhealthy food that is imported from overseas which takes a lot of carbon to develop it, then the price would go up ...

Me: What happens to a very fat family, a very irresponsibly fat family, and they’ve blown their carbon budget to the scheissenhausen and you’ve made their food terribly expensive? What about the kids? They go to breakfast and they’ve got one baked bean?

Egger: In general you’ll find that in a very fat family they are low-income earners ... so those people would actually benefit from a scheme like this because the food that they buy, the energy that they use, they don’t use as much energy as the rich anyway ...

Me: But what happens? Their ration of carbon credits runs out and you’ve made food too expensive for them to buy. What happens to them?

Egger: Again, they get money back from doing the right thing.

Me: No, but they’ve done the wrong thing. That’s why they are fat and poor. They’ve done the wrong thing, they’ve run out of their carbon credits. What are you going to do to them then, when the food’s too expensive to buy?

Egger: There are going to be personal cases like this that need to be worked out and they need to be worked out in the tax system as well as in the carbon credits system.

Oh God, I'm feeling all Godwin.

Aunt, Aunt, get off the island.

We give development aid to them

When handing out bilateral aid alone, the biggest recipient each year since 2007 of DfID largesse has been India, in the year 2009/2010 we are talking 295 million, in Bilateral (table 9) 334 million in ODA (table 10) and so on.

Now we know we are handing all this money over to a country that has nuclear powered aircraft carriers, (whilst ours are hawked out to the French).

But did you know that they are now sending teams of explorers to the South Pole!!
Of course they are doing so for traditional reasons,

"We will conduct meteorological experiments, [and] record humidity, temperatures, wind speed and atmospheric pressures during the 20-day trip to the South Pole, and other experiments will be conducted on our way back," Mr Ravindra said.

"Everything is now linked to global warming," he added.

Well that is what the BBC quote however looking at the website of the expedition,

The team will conduct studies on atmosphere aerosol and snow chemistry, the glacial dynamics, the metrological, geomagnetic and glacial landforms along the way.

HT Biased BBC

Google: Don't be Evil redux

Hard on the heels of the Infomation Commissioner  inability to deal with the corporate might of Google and its data harvesting comes this little piece of their corporate non-evilness, according to their  CEO Eric Schmidt had this to say about Climate Change

“There are people who in my view criminally doubt some of the science.”

He was in conversation with James Cameron,  the film Director,

Criminal, got that criminal. I.e. He thinks that those who do not agree with him should be locked up.
Via The Bayonet

Listen to us... please....somebody

Poor old Friends of the Earth, this time last year they were oh so important. On the agenda of every EU Council meeting Climate Change stood like a collosos. Copenhagen was a bright hope and the political elite hammered down their doors just to be seen clutching a frond of Friends of the Earthery.

So it is with some sadness I report Friends of the Earth's press release today, desperately trying to get some purchase whilst the big boys discuss important stuff like budgets and the financial disaster.

"The EU has a crucial opportunity to kick-start the UN climate talks in Cancun when they open next month.

"It is vital that the EU reiterates its unconditional support for strong legally- binding emissions cuts under a second commitment period of the Kyoto Protocol - anything less will leave the world in grave danger of catastrophic climate change and put the lives of billions of the world's poorest people in jeopardy.

"The EU must end its support for expanding carbon markets, which could create a global speculative bubble in carbon trading - a double whammy of financial and environmental disaster.

"The EU must put new money on the table to enable developing countries to cope with the impacts of climate change and grown cleanly, and commit to cutting its emissions by at least 40 per cent by 2020 without offsetting.

"The EU was a world leader in tackling climate change and must find the political will to become one again - even if that means leaving the US outside of any subsequent climate agreement."

Yopu can hear the pain in spokesperson Asad Rehman as he uses that past tense. "The EU was a world leader..." Get over it Asad, they don't care, never did, they only pretended to because they thougfht it could get them votes.

You and your creed has been rumbled.

Meanwhile, back on planet earth

Struggling to breach the wall to wall coverage of Cameron's climb downs over the EU budget, other news touches the surface. Another area where the only party that chimes with public opinion is UKIP. That is the great global warming disaster.

I was reporting only yesterday about how the bird slicer manufacturers were having a tough time of it. Of course there must be somebody to blame, and sure as eggs is eggs it appears that it is the people who are at fault. Ungrateful lowlives that they are,

More than 230 campaign groups across the country are putting plans to generate more than a quarter of Britain’s electricity in jeopardy, it was claimed.
New figures show one in three wind farm applications were approved by councils amid heightened opposition from angry residents.

What, these ghastly subsidy farms are bnot being built because people don't want them. Cor blimy Guv, how can that be. I thought the science was settled, that as Belloc would put it,

The stocks were sold; the Press was squared:
The Middle Class was quite prepared.

But no, citizens are getting in the way. How dare they. Abolish democracy now.
Furthermore the chimera that was biofuels sinks deeper in the immorality mire

Alarmism isn't always a vote winner

It just might be wise for some of our extremists to realise this.

Rep. Bob Inglis (R-S.C.) said this weekend that his biggest stumbling block with conservatives was his insistence that climate change is real. 

Inglis, the GOP lawmaker who was ousted by a conservative primary challenger earlier this year, said that his support for the Wall Street bailout paled in comparison to his insistence that Congress do something to address global warming.

"[T]he most enduring problem I had, the one that really was difficult, was just saying that climate change was real and let's do something about it,"

Well Bob, that might be just because, it isn't in the sense that it is man made, nor in that we can do anything serious to effect it.

And so it comes to pass

Only yesterday Dellers was warning of the new scarier panic to be dealt upon us ignorant proles. The fear of failing Biodiversity,

And so it begins. With all the shamelessness of a Goldman Sachser trading in his middle-aged wife for a hot, pouting twentysomething called Ivanka, the green movement is ditching “Climate Change”. The newer, younger, sexier model’s name? Biodiversity. (Mega hat tips to: Hilary Ostrov and Ozboy at Libertygibbet)

When I say shameless, I’m talking so amoral it makes the Whore of Babylon look like Mother Theresa; so flagrant it makes Al Gore’s, ahem, alleged drunken “Love poodle” assault on the Portland Masseuse look like an especially delicate passage from Andreas Capellanus’s The Art of Courtly Love.

What have we here? From PA today

A "deadly duo" of invasive species and climate change could cost countries 10% of GDP through damage to activities ranging from agriculture to recreation, it was claimed today.

There is a cure of course but only iof we first realise the seriousness of the situation,

Sarah Simons, executive director of the Global Invasive Species Programme, said: "The dangers posed by this 'deadly duo' cannot be overestimated.

Whats that? It cannot be overestimeted. Well I think you are a tad wrong there my love. Everything can be overestimated. I reckon 15 people will read my blog post. Bingo, an overstimation. Indeed the entire industy of panic and fear is built on the inexact science of overestimation. Lets have a look in your case,

The report said the estimated damage caused by invasive species, which have a negative impact on native wildlife, landscapes and even - as in the case of Japanese knotweed in the UK - buildings and infrastructure, was around 1.4 trillion US dollars (GBP890 billion) a year, or around 5% of global GDP.

Now how on earth can you makle a finacial estimate of this sort. The finacial cost to native wildlife? How much money has it cost the red squirrel. How many jobs were lost when Squirrel Nutkin was evicted by his ugly American cousin? Think how much the taxpayer had to shell out to find Nutkin a new home? Oh come off it.

But as Dellers pointed out we have conflation of Climate Change and Biodiversity to make us quake in our beds,

Each driver poses an enormous threat to biodiversity and human livelihoods but now, evidence is rapidly emerging which shows that climate change is compounding the already devastating effects of invasive species, resulting in a downward spiral with increasingly dire consequences."

Electric cars sales fall off a cliff

You can see them now the annoying threesome salivating over this piece of news treported in the Guardian. It appears that sales of electric cars have dropped by, ahem, 90%. Oh frabjous day.

Just 55 of the green cars – whose fans include Boris Johnson, Jonathan Ross and Jade Jagger – were registered in 2009, in contrast to 397 in 2007, says the Society of Motor Manufacturers and Traders.

55... Bwahahahaha...

In the end you see it is the economy stupid. But, according to the enviro nutters at Guardian towers, there is a way round economic reality. And I bet you can guess what it is...

Rudi Schogger, managing director of Goingreen, which distributes the G-Wiz in the UK, said: "Some people might be waiting for the government grants to arrive before purchasing an EV." He added that, even with a grant, most of the new vehicles on the market will be more expensive than a G-Wiz.


Although sales of all new cars fell sharply in 2009 due to the recession, the drop in new registrations for electric cars was around eight times higher. Overall, 2m new cars were registered in 2009, the lowest level since 1995.

Yes that is 55 out of 2,000,000!

But of course this is where our governemnt steps in. Something completely unwanted and unloved is given new life by this so called Conservative lead coalition.

In January, the coalition will begin offering up to £5,000 towards the price of a series of newly launched electric cars, as part of a subsidy announced by the former Labour government. The Department for Transport (DfT) anticipates around 8,600 of the cars will be sold in the first year of the scheme. The government has so far committed £43m for the scheme to run until March 2012, with a review taking place in January 2012, but in yesterday's spending review it talked of "supporting consumer incentives for electric and other low-emission cars throughout the life of this parliament," suggesting the subsidy would continue after March 2012 though possibly at a lower rate.

It is important to note that while the Government is going to continue with this subsidy launch. It is cutting the budget for the armed forces, police and the prisons. Way to go Dave'n Nick.