Raising the Climate Religion Stakes
Posted 4 December 2008
You know you have won an argument when you find yourself on the receiving end of a stiff fine or custodial sentence; when your accusers have no debate left in them and resort to the law.
The law truly is an ass, developed for the benefit of the law makers and their underlings and vassals. When the wigs wheel you in and set about bamboozling a jury or judge, you are usually screwed unless you can afford more expensive lawyers.
Knowing the argument is lost, the European governments that give a shit, have desperately sunk again into the legal mire.
William Briggs (statistician) has an interesting take on the development that has legs. Let's hope he is right or many of us 'deniers' will be slurping on porridge for the rest of our days.
Dawning of a New Dark Age
Posted 25 September 2008
I wonder how long the following paragraph will last near the bottom of the page on the BBC News site:
Some researchers have attempted to link the intensity of cosmic rays at Earth to cloudiness and climate change. Current conditions may be a good opportunity to test these ideas further.
It is a feature of our weather over the last two years that has not been mentioned much, viz. we have had a lot of cloud (even when it is not raining). It has been especially noticeably poorly predicted on weather forecasts.
Clearly an unscientific observation but it is explained by Svensmark's 'attempts to link' this to cosmic radiation, quite convincingly. The green/tax-fest/anthropogenic global warming conspiracy freaks have done their utmost to divert our attention from this phenomenon but the truth is out there.
BBC/Greenpeace marriage of inconvenience
Posted 19 September 2008
I never voted for any of Greenpeace's allies. I have never given them money and I never sanctioned any part of my BBC licence tax to be used for political ends. Why then are the BBC so obviously inseparable from this particularly insidious and loathsome political movement?
Today they are being quoted as though they are the final arbiters on the subject of climate. Greenpeace have declared coal to be bad, man-kind to be evil and big business to be the devil himself and the BBC must consult the green Godhead whenever the subject of (anthropogenic) global warming is sicked up.
Greenpeace have not received a penny from the vast majority of this nations' voters. It quotes seriously flawed 'science' every time its spin machine opens its sinister mouth. The BBC are misusing the licence tax and I want my money back, before the banks fritter it away!
It is time for us ingrates to stand up and be counted. Write to your political representatives and make them fear you more than they fear the media manufactured Gordon Brown effect. There is no point writing to the BBC unless you represent the opinion of a tiny minority of over-sensitive issue whores who spotted a nipple or two on your TV.
So, why not mention the obvious, Sir Tim?
Posted 15 September 2008
Sir Tim (Berners-Lee) is worried about the spread of dis-information on his internet; good for him and the Beeb for bringing it up. They cite Large Hadron Collider rumours and MMR scares, laudably but they don't mention (suspiciously) the obvious - anthropogenic global warming!
It's a start, which I certainly welcome, if a little careless.Could do better Sir Tim and you could, while you are at it, fix the insecure nightmare that the internet has become or is that just more dis-information?
Sammy Wilson gets my vote
Posted 10 September 2008
It's just a pity I don't live in Northern Ireland. I don't care what side of that particular divide he comes from, he is not a coward. Apparently he frequently gets up the Greenies' noses by stating the simple fact that there is no proven anthropogenic link to global warming. He is a rare thing indeed - a well informed politician with integrity. I'm coming over all light-headed.
See how he must also be putting the willies up the energy cartels on his web site's news pages.
World War III (the energy war) has been declared
Posted 14 July 2008
The UN (via the IPCC), the G8 and their Kyoto/Bali puppets have declared war on the global poor and on our future prosperity and advancement.
All the most powerful nations on earth are conspiring to control the distribution of energy. Any excuse for war will do, wherever the target nation has significant energy (or development related) resources.
The anthropegenic global warming lie spread by the media propaganda machines (apparantly now completely in the control of the various states) has stageringly quickly been accepted by the masses. The masses will probably never spot the connections and protest at the cost of each war (in taxes and lives) as they see fit. The fact that the green movement too are so easily manipulated and used by the war-mongers has a certain delicious irony.
Why are we having to fight over energy? To maintain the power distribution status quo. This is the new cold-war; a hot-war (or warm-war) if you will. In order for those of us riding the prosperity wagon to remain in front we have to fend off hitch-hiking free loader nations, apparently. Unfortunately, because this tactic was thought up by an inept spook or military drone, it will be self-defeating.
By taxing us to the hilt, restricting energy use and starving 'supporting' economies, they turn back our own developmental clock and risk handing it all to our perceived enemies on a plate. The rapidly rising Asian economies and fence walking Russia are laughing all the way to a super-power future as we sink up to our necks in a mire of unnecessary bull shit and expense.
The big gamble, with all our lives, will be an inevitable power block stand off. The rising powers on one side, who have not bought into the global warming hype, controlling a significant proportion of resources; and on the other us, the old guard, willing to go nuclear, I've no doubt.
Climate bullies out-classed
Posted 4 June 2008
I have been very busy recently finding very little time for everything, especially this blog. Mostly, though, I have come close to giving up battering my head against the CO2 wall. The green lobby has friends in all the lowest places and, in its deluded narcisistic state, will not stop until humanity has been brought to its knees.
Luckily others are bravely soldiering on, not least those stalwart fellows over at Climate Resistance. Their well written exposure of green ideology put me in mind of Prof Brignal's marvelous essay on the religion of science Number Watch.
Keep up the good work chaps. The truth will out! Eventually!
Reprive for Lewis - temporary?
Posted 23 April 2008
The Scottish Parliament's decision to deny permission for the Lewis wind farm development has been notably under-reported in the media. It was going to be Europe's largest wind farm after all.
I have already said why I think it is misguided and you all know why I think it is unnecessary so I won't get out of my pram about it here. I just want there to be one more reference to it on web the spiders' databases.
The Greenies must be in a bit of a lather about it. They like the cutesy cuddly twiry wirly 'renewables', despite their pointlessness. They needn't worry overly much though. The company behind this plan have lots of money and even more lawers and Scottish politicians have no history of much back bone. It ain't over, sadly. 'T will be an odd alliance, Greenies battling to destroy Lewis in order to 'Save the Planet'.
War declared on humanity, by little green wo/men
Posted 8 April 2008
The green movement might as well be aliens. They are winning the current round of their campaign to starve the world's poor and stifle all development and progress. The very progress that gave them the privilege, to do so, that they now enjoy.
Take away all that they hate and you take away their ability to bully the rest of us into mindless submission, worshiping at their hemp sandaled feet. So maybe we should bide our time, fellow advanced (top of the food chain) beings, and wait until they think they've won. Being the species we are, anarchy will ensue and the peace loving greenies will be the first to be squashed. Then we can repair the damage they have done and get on with being human, and progress technologically to beyond the stars.
The planet will be fine, as it always has been and the process of natural selection that got us to this point will continue to roll its dice. Those creatures and plants that can survive in the world of our mutual making will be the antecedants of whatever follows after the next real natural disaster finishes off humanity.
The world will change shape, unecognisably, and the flora and fauna will evolve beyond our imaginings and the religions of old (incluing the bitter, twisted and poisened religion of 21st century science) will not even be visible in any distant archaeological record. The strange objects floating in space might give visitors a bit of a clue about what used to be on this little blue planet but they will find little else.
Because, we truely don't matter and in their distorted morality, narcisistic worshipers of 'environmentalism' have forgotten that we are part of that very same environment. We are natural and, by extension, so is everything we do, absolutely everything we do. Many species of the world create environments, which if they succeeded in becoming dominant, would have a much wider implication for all other life. Why should we ban ourselves from this genetic imperitive? Nothing we acheive can possibly be above and beyond the nature we belong to. Only a weak cowardly tendency to desparately need there to be something bigger than us (because we fear death) allows us to believe that we are bigger than the rest of nature. We are not, except that currently we appear to be a dominant species. That won't last for ever.
So bring it on green bullies and weak politicians, I will survive the anarchy your policies and taxes will lead to. When we have to literally fight for scraps of food and shelter, I won't hesitate to beat the living shite out of you. I might even stop being a vegetarian and eat you! Green is good food, yum.
Yipeeee, La Nina rescues mankind shock!
Posted 4 April 2008
Here's a welcome report from the BBC, acknowledging the possibility that global warming is not real. Get me a glass of water, somebody please (if the 'environment' can spare it), I'm feeling more than a little light-headed.
It turns out that there are natural forces at work, which may just be influencing the weather and climate. I remain to be convinced but I am willing to wait and see what scientific research might conclude after some extensive and expensive research, or mathematical modelling hocus-pocus.
addendum (BBC booted back on message - you can sleep soundly):
OK, you will wonder what I'm warbling on about if you click the link above because the BBC wimps have been bullied into changing their tune. The Register has all the details. We're truely fucked when a whimpering coward can so easily shout down attempts to acurately report a story, which so badly needs reporting!
This is worse than the BBC's mis-reporting of the alledged Royal tantrum that never was.
A nifty now you see it, now you don't comparison between the BBC versions is now available on the American Digest site.
Scottish drivers to destroy planet, claim WWF
Posted 11 February 2008
In reporting the great news that all tolls have finally been removed from Scottish roads, the BBC have yet again managed to embarrass themselves. They just couldn't resist the opportunity to quote the WWF's claim that this will contribute to man-made Global Warming.
That will be because of the huge increase in traffic taking the shorter routes across the now free bridges instead of driving the long way round, I presume. Or will it be because of the significant increase in business and tourists, as claimed by the SNP, who stayed away before because they couldn't afford the £1 charge; and they say Scots are tight!
Getting Environmentalism right, at last!
Posted 25 January 2008
For once the BBC have some some good news to report on the environment. I do have sympathy for the islanders who wanted this project to boost their flagging economy. They also hoped it would keep more young people on the island but they were mis-guided.
Lewis needs investment and it desperately needs people and the Scottish parliament and the Highland Council should act to bring those things about. Selling their souls to 'environmental' mammon was not the answer and thank everybody's God they have been saved.
The damage this monstrous development (see details here) would have done to the Lewisian landscape and habitat over 100's of square miles was irreversible. Other industries can be found that will allow economic expansion and that will still preserve the irreplaceable. This is not conservatism gone mad, on my part; the consequences of this project going ahead would have been crime piled upon crime and our descendants would never have forgiven us (at the risk of sounding a little melodramatic).
update 12th February:
I ain't over 'till the big wumman screeches, it seems. My joy was premature (sadly something I'm used to). The latest whispers from the beeb suggest there is still plenty opportunity for madness, corruption or self-delusion to destroy the Lewisian landscape for ever. It seems the Scottish Parliament is begging people to give them reason not to turn the plans down.
Pish-Posh, Tish-Tosh bollocks hocus-pocus
Posted 23 January 2008
This, from the BBC, is scaremongering bullshit. This, from the BBC, has clearly been forgotten. This, from level-headedness-ville, is entirely relevant and sobering.
The horse is dead people, stop flogging it!
update 25th January 2008:
Now the American Geophysical Union have declared from on high that man-made-global-warming is clearly causing climate imbalance, having just realised, after four years, what a gravy-train their members are missing out on, one presumes. The BBC are reveling in the announcement today.
addendum:
Climate Resistance don't take the AGU's political gob-shite lying down. They wisely summarise here a heated debate, on the New York Times "Dot Earth" blog, about the announcement.
When is a limit not a limit?
Posted 21 January 2008
I am no angel or model citizen (or subject - ma'am) so I may occasionally, when distracted or otherwise, stray above the odd speed limit momentarily when I am occasionally let out. Hence I am not a good driver. I have commented before on this site about this issue but feel the need to clarify one or two things.
Question 1 - what does 'limit' mean in a speeds-on-roads context?
Answer to Question 1 - a maximum that has been determined to be safe according to type of vehicle, type of road and location, and which sometimes varies according to prevailing conditions, and in which no way should be considered a target speed.
Question 2 - what does 'maximum' mean in a speed-limit-on-roads context?
Answer to Question 2 - a speed not to be exceeded in ideal driving conditions; the following not being ideal -
- poor light or darkness
- wet road and/or rainfall, snowfall, hail etc
- fog or mist
- ice
- bright sunlight (especially reflecting on a damp or wet road)
- very busy road
- junctions and turnings of any type
Question 3 - given the above when is it safe to drive at the speed limit?
Answer to Question 3 - very rarely!
Question 4 - what do you gain by driving faster than the speed limit or at an unsafe speed under the speed limit?
Answer to Question 4 - in town nothing is gained because there the journey time is determined entirely by the number of roundabouts, junctions, traffic lights, traffic volumes etc. Out of town time may be gained but only an significant amount over very long distances.
Question 5 - what do you lose by exceeding the speed limit or safe speed under the limit?
Answer to Question 5 - your licence, your dignity, your life, the life of another, damage to your property or the property of others, your job, your freedom, your home, your marriage, your mental health, limbs etc
I suggest we all just learn to chill and try to enjoy our journeys a bit more.
In the meantime, it seems most of you don't give a shit anyway, so what's the point of me? I should just point out though, that as a former motorcyclist, these figures look extremely dubious to me. I would wager that the vast majority of untaxed bikes are actually scooters driven by 'yoofs' acting as drug mules. Also, even the proportion who are genuine tax dodgers will only amount to a tiny fraction of the untaxed vehicles on the road. Most, by a very long way, are cars. This could be another attempt by the itchy classes to rid our roads of the environmentally negligible and traffic jam busting motorcycle.
Qualifications are Dangerous
Posted 17 January 2008
I was recently at a 'drinks party' given by a good friend who works for the Environment Agency where most of the guests were from that or related industries plus a journalist.
They also had all met while doing courses at various levels from ONC to HND (Secondary to 2/3 Tertiary) in environmental management disciplines. They are without exception, apparently, convinced by the IPCC/Kyoto bullshit, not surprisingly.
I stuck my oar in at one point questioning the IPCC's motivations and legitimacy, silencing the group, awkwardly. A few drinks later the room buzzed again, shame!
'Climate Resistance' have done some interesting and revealing research (and here) into the qualifications of the IPCC's high priests.
Pimping the pulpit
Posted 2 January 2008
Call me a right-wing reactionary Holocaust Denier if you like but man-made-global-warming is a myth and it is increasingly likely that global-warming as a whole is nothing more than boogey-man hokum.
So, I find it particularly irritating that Christianinity has so comprehensively given up on soul saving that it has to resort to saving the planet instead. Why? God is going to give it a right royal seeing to at the 'end of days' anyhoo; isn't S/He?
At every opportunity they imply in their preachings that we will burn in hell if we don't stop destroying the planet. Even the Archbishop of Canterbury is at it. Read how Jeremy Clarkson sees him off in the Times.
Happy New Year, by the way!
siding with the enemy
Posted 24 October 2007
Read this definition of hate speech here and let me know what you think.
I think he is right! Free speech is not something enshrined in UK law as in the US but what we do have is being constantly eroded by the politics of fear.
There are many links on this site that will take you to predominantly right-wing (dark side) points of view. There are plenty others that take you to the light side and that has nearly always been where I would naturally position myself, most comfortably. In the seventies I did vote for the right but never since.
So what has that got to do with anything? Change is life and I am struggling with it. I no longer have the patience to solve problems the ‘liberal way’. I’m running out of time. The right offer quick fixes that make more sense in the short-term and we are all here for the short-term, after all. The fearmongers require us to think ahead, to see the bigger picture and to work for the greater good. I am learning daily that this is folly. The future will take care of its own. We are all the future product of somebody else’s past and we managed, and look what they left us with.
Don’t get me wrong. There is no man-made global warming or no real global warming to worry about. I am not talking about that kind of problem. I would be the first to support a project to protect the planet from an asteroid collision and want to do my best to protect as much ecology and habitat as possible. But preserve every building and landscape feature from the past and preserve/conserve as much of the ‘countryside’ as possible - no; that too is folly! There is plenty room for us all to spread out a bit.
None of that is really getting to the point. I have discovered, in my near dotage, that I am more and more aligning with right wing thinking (centre right). They have more solutions that would see beneficial change in my life time. Luckily they are still allowed to express their thoughts reasonably openly but for how much longer?
Praise be John Brignell, the eloquent voice of reason
Posted 22 October 2007
JB on Carbon - one of life’s little necessities.
There is no question that he is right, not least about the religious nature of the campaign. Why don’t we care anymore? The average Briton seems to have entered a mental state whereby s/he no longer gives a single toss whether or not they are being told the truth. What matters is that they feel undisturbed and cosy in their steady, cotton wool wrapped, unrocked boat.
They choose friends who look the same as them; who sound the same as them; who vote the same as them; who listen to the same music, watch the same TV, read the same ‘newspapers’, go to the same pub; who go to the same church, sports events or whose children go to the same school.
They believe that their political representatives and their media lackeys more or less tell them the truth and have their best interests at heart. They believe that the police and security services are concerned mostly with protecting them and their children. They believe in Global Warming.
You are a bunch of dumb asses!
…but here is someone else with true courage (a post-modern lionheart) - Dave Bellamy writing in the Times.
RIP Royal Society - past greats turn in grave shock
Posted 13 August 2007
I agree wholeheartedly with the ever vigilant Prof Brignal (see ‘A Right Royal Panic‘ on his Number Watch, August 2007 page).
What the fuck is going one?
Here we have the premier UK science body publishing a staggering insult to the process of science, in desparate defence of its establishment position (in the interests of fairness and balance have a look at their simplistic ‘Misleading Arguments‘ PDF). Titling every page ‘Misleading Argument…’ and aswering with ‘What does the science say’ is just about the least scientific, Daily Mail headline guff I’ve ever read. Science never says the other theory is wrong because it is not scientific to do so. There cannot be a definitive right or wrong in systems as complex as this (though you will find many more scientists through the links on this site more convinced by the counter arguments and evidence). Of course they use the form ‘the science’ because they are referring to the specific government sponsored, environmental politics motivated cynical science being conducted by the gravy train riders.
They know that many readers of this extremly misleading document will not make the distinction. They have not said ‘What Science says’ because they know that a great deal of science says there is no (or little) man-mad global warming and that the science behind the arguments the RS are attempting to refute here is more robust and easier to defend than the particular science being hyped here.
The great founders and past members of this once great institution will be turning in their graves. Science is dead, long live the religion of ‘New Science’, no empirical evidence required!
Who are the puppet masters?
Posted 10 August 2007
The climate warming myth mongers are getting truly desperate. I posted a rant about the BBC’s reporting of a shoddy looking claim debunking the superb work of Svensmark on solar interaction with cosmic rays and their affect on global temperature. I was angered by the fact that the BBC had concluded that this new paper by Lockwood et al had finally settled the matter and thus we are doomed.
Now you can read a full response to this astonishing claim, which exposes the slipping standards in the Royal Society’s review process and, yet again, emphasises the importance of the Svensmark discovery.
I no longer have the slightest doubt that the green, scientific and political alliance of GAWD (Global Anthropogenic Warming Doom-mongers) are cynically manipulating the media for their own ends. I suspect the scientists are desperate to maintain funding to keep their research groups and University departments afloat. The politicians are keen to introduce new taxes and the green movement want to increase their political influence thus pushing forward the whole of their human progress hating agenda.
We, the easily manipulated, citizens of the world will be their victims as the full economic cost of saving the planet stifles development and destroys habitat as we try to generate power from ‘alternative’ energy, and as we try to feed the world without ‘polluting’ it with chemicals.
That the Royal Society should rush out such a poorly reviewed paper, so easily torn to shreds and that the BBC should so dramatically promote its absurd conclusions (and not report the response), is evidence enough that mainstream media and the public face of science is being used and is happy to be used to promote a ‘Green’ sponsored agenda.
So who is pulling the strings, and why? Is is politicians trying to raise tax revenues? Is it macro-economic manipulation to maintain a power balance status quo? Is it part of the war of fear being waged on the citizens of the world to keep us divided? Is it a religious plot to drive us whimpering back to the pews on a Sunday?
Post your suggestions here, please!
update (feb 08):
Read this this article about financial motivation all the way through (the juicy stuff about Greenpeace is near the bottom) and start joining up the dots.
defending the insurers - wtf!
Posted 24 July 2007
Yes. I do feel that that the global legalised pyramid selling scam they call insurance needs to be defended but just this once.
I have heard many people whimpering about their inability to obtain insurance against flood risk following our recent deluge. What they appear to be unhappy about is a commercial organisation, which has to make a profit to stay in business, refusing to throw money at them. What an insensitive, callous, son-of-a-bee-atch I here you yelling!
Here I am (hypothetically) living in a flood-plane or by a river in a house with no intrinsic flood protection and I expect an insurer, for a few hundred quid, to agree to pay out several thousand every time my house is wrecked by water. Despite the fact, as recent events clearly demonstrate, there is a massive probability that it will happen again. This is not joined up thinking. If all insurance was provided on that basis the industry would very quickly be exposed as the legalised pyramid selling scam it so very nearly is.
Imagine if they had to insure your car even if you had no driving licence and despite your car being unroadworthy. There would be carnage on the roads and premiums would cost more than cars. The only way your flood blighted homes could be insured would be if the rest of us had to endure massive premium increases. Alternatively we could endure massive tax increases to pay for a government administered compensation scheme. I don’t necessarily object to the latter but would prefer that the money was used for one off flood defense construction rather than continued hand-outs.
A better alternative is that people living in homes defined as being at risk should be compelled to pay a ‘premium’ into a central compensation fund that benefits different areas on different occasions. Call me what you like but, especially with new builds, its your bed so you lie in it - once it has dried off of course!
post-diluvian witch hunt
Posted 23 July 2007
The media focus following our current spate of dampness will inevitably focus on the speed, quality and effectiveness of responses to the current crisis. This focus will most likely miss the point.
There will also be an inevitable dismissive resignation of clear thinking to the gospel according to the High Church of GAWD (Global Anthropogenic Warming Doom mongers). Our extreme weather is ‘obviously’ yet more evidence of global warming (they don’t even bother to say ‘man-made’ these days).
So what is my point? The first is easy. It is not caused by global warming. Just look at the TV helicopter pictures of medieval churches standing on islands of dry surrounded by floating houses built in later centuries. They knew a thing or two back then you know. I doubt if they had had divinely inspired visions of our decline and attendant retribution. I suspect they knew that the area inevitably gets frequently submerged. They would certainly lament the intellectual decline obvious in our modern choice of building plot.
My second point is the real cause of problems in areas not in obvious flood planes and river valleys. There has been severe flooding in other areas too, not to mention road and rail chaos. Why? Money, that’s why and poor climate/risk assessment modelling. Money is an issue because of modern accounting/management methodologies that inevitably lead to homes and businesses becoming flooded . The beancounters departmentalise everything, dividing up budgets down the hierarchical tree to ever more desperate managers and supervisors. Eventually you get to the manager whose job it is to decide how often to unblock drains or the manager who decides whether to erect or extend flood defences. You can see what happens next, no? My observation is that in areas where council tax is too low or where the hierarchy is top heavy, flooding and its after affects are worse than they should be. QED
the establishment rallies, hurrah! Sound the charge, Tally Ho!
Posted 11 July 2007
Take the startling revelations on the BBC today with a massive shovel of salt. You only have to notice that, unusually, the article has no links to the source of the research (thus avoiding too much scrutiny of its conclusions), and heavily biased editorial style. It is riddled with insulting platitudes when referencing alternative climate theories and is clearly motivated by a need to firmly anchor its own agenda in the mind set of the masses.
No, great citizens of the globe, do not be so easily swayed. Wait for clear thinkers with true scientific agendas and real climatologists to react and read what they have to say and then bombard the BBC with your protest. Here are links to keep an eye on while waiting for the dust of this malicious attempt to manipulate the truth to settle:
spiked, global warming hoax, sitewave, antigreen, number watch, icecap, friends of science news, previous post on this site
This is a desperate attempt by the British establishment to put their campaign firmly back on the rails after the recent revelation that Britons still have some common sense after all and just don’t believe the hype.
Edit: They must be reading my blog! They have now added the links but have not edited the sensationalist and ridiculous conclusion that the matter is now settled.
Edit (again): Story has now vanished off the Beeb front page, hedging their bets methinks. Some reaction beginning to appear on the web.
See above links. Specific link to an initial level-headed scientific response.
Nigel Calder (co-author of The chilling Stars… referred to below) responds to this report on the London Book Review.
Please, please read this and stop panicking you gullible fools!!!
Posted 30 June 2007
originally posted May 2007
I am soooooo tired of listening to the ‘green’ lobby talking Such Hopeless Irritating Turd-inducing Empty-headed science fiction that I feel moved to raise this backwater blog from its ashes.
Please somebody read this and pass it onto just one friend and ask them to do the same before it is too late. Cheryl Crow can use as little bog paper as she likes. It will not make one tiny dump of a difference to this planet.
There is only one thing you need to know and you will find it between the covers of this book - The Chilling Stars: A New Theory of Climate Change. At first glance you might be put off by the lousy cover design or the mention of ‘cosmic rays’ and other science fiction sounding elements.
But don’t be, this is very serious science which is being cynically hushed-up, ridiculed and side-lined by the self interests of other scientists and politicians. One of the most important side effects of this irresponsible response, to what is actually the result of more than twenty years of meticulous research, is that the full consequences of the authors efforts are not being researched in turn by those dismissive self-interested scientists.
In a nutshell, the authors have (as near as science ever can - and much much nearer than most science ever does) proved that man made carbon-dioxide does not have any bearing on global warming. I won’t go into why our farts, breath, cars and industry are irrelevant but concentrate on what is actually happening instead.
The sun (and the earth to a much lesser extent) have varying magnetic fields which protect us from all manner of space-borne menaces. Cosmic radiation of many sorts and energy levels is spewed out across the galaxy by exploding stars and always has been. These rays penetrate everything in their path but can sometimes be stopped slowed down or changed. The sun’s magnetic field diverts most of the harmful stuff away from the solar system with varying degrees of effectiveness over time and space as it travels through space, and as its own magnetic activity varies.
The earth’s contribution to this effort is much smaller but it too has a magnetic field protecting us from solar and cosmic radiation, again with varying effectiveness over time and space.
The earth and sun are constantly moving through space both in their orbits about each other and as the solar system orbits within its part of the galaxy and as the galaxy moves through intergalactic space. The upshot of this is that the energy, quality and quantity of cosmic radiation crossing our path varies over time.
As the sun’s magnetic field weakens more rays reach our atmosphere, which leads us on to the clever part:
Cosmic rays are the principal agents in the cloud seeding process where it matters at low levels. As they hit our atmosphere, highly energetic rays bombard molecules and cause effects that, the authors of the above book have demonstrated, lead to cloud formation. That cloud cools the earth by reflecting sun light and by radiating heat out into space. The more cloud the more cooling. So, the weaker the sun’s magnetic field, the more rays, the more low-level cloud and the more cooling.
For the past hundred years or so the sun has been very active, diverting more cosmic radiation and producing less cloud and thus warming the earth by exactly the same amount that ‘mainstream’ climatologists claim is caused by industrial activity over the same period.
The book also demonstrates very neatly why the inconsistencies in
‘mainstream’ climatology can also be explained by solar activity and why ‘mainstream’ climatology’s own data proves this ‘new’ theory.
The big question is WHY ARE THE GREEN LOBBY AND POLITICIANS IGNORING THIS? It is good science, very very good science. The answer is this:
Self-interest. Scientists pay their mortgages off the back of research grants directly or indirectly. Scientists are obsessed with their international prestige and status. Politicians live and die by the power of spin influenced opinion, and more and more use fear as their preferred weapon of mass distraction. They have also discovered (bless their sneaky little hearts) that they can raise taxes based on carbon output. Even more sinister is their obvious desire to slow down the development of newly emerging powers. The ‘Green Lobby’, despite their appearance, are also self-justifying politicians.
Another important read that clarifies a great deal about what is really going on, particularly politically at the UN IPCC and Kyoto level, is ‘Unstoppable Global Warming: Every 1,500 Years’ by Dennis T. Avery and S. Fred Singer.
Have a look too at John Brignal’s (University of Southamton) essay on the religious nature of the ‘green’ movement and his essay on bias and censorship, both on his Number Watch site, to understand why.
Tony Gilland of the Institute of Ideas has an excellent essay on Spiked, that you should not miss, focusing on the IPCC’s dubious role in this unnecessary debate.
Look at the scientific establishment’s reaction to Martin Durkin’s documentary for proof of the terror tactics being used by the climate warming police. The zealous priests of the High Church of Global Anthropogenic Warming Doom-mongers (GAWD) will sink to any level to protect their putrid doctrine.
Visit the Friends of Science website for a glimpse of what science was about before it became a religion and Freeman Dyson’s lesson on joined up thinking in the field of ‘climatology’.
Another dent in the plastic armour of the fear-mongers at CO2 Science.
Road Charging
Posted 8 June 2007
originally posted june 2005
I don’t disapprove of our glorious 5th Reich’s plans to introduce GPS based road charging over the next decade, providing they make a few things clear:
- How the information is stored and who has access to it.
- They link the system to a ’smart licence’ or ID card system so that the card has to inserted into the device before the vehicle will start. The database should include insurance status of all vehicles or drivers.
- The device should include an alcohol breath analyser that will prevent the car starting on detection. All such attempts should be recorded and the act of attempting this more than twice should be criminalised.
- They make it clear that such a system’s ability to record speeds WILL be used to fine all the murderous idiots on our roads.
- They make it clear that such a system’s ability to note parking infringements WILL be used to fine all the selfish morons in our towns and cities.
- They make it clear that such a system’s ability to record a number of other detectable traffic offences WILL be used to automatically issues fines.
- They include warning devices in the cars that give the driver a chance to slow down or move before starting to record a fine. This will prevent mass loss of drivers’ licences on single journeys.
- They include warning devices that warn when driving closer than 2 seconds to the vehicle in front and they criminalise the act of driving too close.
- They add a special extra high rate for short journeys that include a short stop near any school at the appropriate times and fine any detected associated illegal parking.
- They include optional add-ons that can take advantage of the GPS for navigational purposes.
- They have sensors on ALL roads that detect and photograph ALL cars with no device fitted or with it disabled.
- Even vehicles registered as being off road and exempt from road fund license must have a device fitted.
- They intercept all cars detected on roads that should not be there or that have no valid insurance, MOT etc.
- They exempt one-off long journeys from any charge so as not to discourage UK based holidays.
- All commercial vehicles arriving from overseas must have a temporary device fitted, which is surrendered on departure. Credit card details taken when the device is issued. Private vehicles from overseas, which can demonstrate they are on holiday will be exempt so as to support the tourist industry.
- They include in the built in warning device timely warnings about road blockages ahead.
- They allow the system to detect and record probable collisions so that the perpetrator’s of hit and runs can be detected.
- All public transport users with registered private vehicles receive credits against road charges whenever they use public transport.
- Cyclist should have the option of fitting a device to their bicycles, which will give them credit against road charges if they have a registered vehicle.
- Motorcycles should be exempt from all charges because they contribute in no way to congestion but should have a device fitted for all other purposes.
Lock up yer wheelie bins!
Posted 8 June 2007
So the Gordon/Tony symbiotic organism thinks it’s a good idea to tax our waste proportionally. I welcome this on the understanding that it is the start of a trend. I assume the GT beast is not simply pandering to the happy-clappy environmentalist/soppy-science lobby who influence most of their voters’ thinking these days.
I say trend because it does need to be. At the moment most car users pay the same to poison the atmosphere no matter how recklessly they do it. If they drive their kids to school they don’t have to pay more tax for example. If they have a TV in every room, driving power stations to distraction, they pay the same towards the BBC as anybody with just one tiny box. I could go on and on and ……………..The poorer people are in this country the larger the proportion they pay for everything, but it is no longer poorer people who keep GT in power.
Questions: who decides how much waste I produce? Who will weigh/measure it? How do I stop my neighbours filling my rubbish bin or my re-cycling bin with their crap? Will there be an extra Christmas tax? Will the GT beast do something about manufacturer’s unnecessary packaging first and tax them for producing it in the first place? Will they make it illegal for my local authority to mix the re-cycling and other waste on their collection rounds? Will they see sense?
Maybe this new initiative will start to reverse the damage started by Maggie and zealously extended by the GT beast. But how will they stay in power. Watch out fellow citizens, they must be planning something.
