Something’s Missing In This Election Campaign

The campaigning of the ‘big three’ hasn’t exactly set the heather alight has it? 

The American styled hustings have been a complete turn off for me. How can any politician be taken seriously when they so blatantly falsify major announcements. The photograph above was headlined ‘Cameron at election rally in Cornwall’. Looks impressive doesn’t it?  But fortunately one journalist, Niall Paterson from Sky News, decided the public shouldn’t be duped and published the reality of the ‘event’. 

If the Tory leader can’t muster more than a handful of local supporters it doesn’t say much for the Tory party.

Ed Miliband continues to stumble from one disaster to the next.  It seems he’s rather fond of a particular lectern because it makes him feel ‘ministerial’.  This particular piece of equipment is being hauled round the country to assist Ed in his campaigning.  No event is spared the ‘lectern touch’, not even your own back garden it seems.

Even if I was a staunch Labour supporter I’d cringe at seeing my beloved leader looking so foolish.

However, there’s one subject which has hardly been mentioned during this campaign.  Climate change.  Is it not being mentioned because of the passing of the joint pledge in February?  Are they too afraid past errors will reflect on their decisions?  The NIPCC think it’s been grossly overstated but I’ve read nothing about their latest findings in the media.

Maybe our politicians think the science is settled. I think there’s a lot more proof required and I’m uncomfortable being forced to pay a tax on my utility bills.

Sometimes it’s the grass root voters who put sensible efforts into politics.  I was sent this link the other day.  It’s a neat piece of work made by a home furnishing business and obviously is aimed at English voters because there’s no mention of the SNP, but  I was asked to include it on the blog in order to encourage people to vote and I’m happy to oblige.

Tweet

Who Cares?

click to enlarge

The eco warriors, like all fanatics, dislike discussion.  They are right. Always.  

Yesterday I made a comment on a Facebook post of someone who is ardently against the plan for fracking in Fife.  I respect anyone who has firm convictions but the respect diminishes when common sense is lacking.  Her post was to protest about the lack of interest of Fifers in the recently awarded fracking licences.  She’s furious there are a lack of objections to the plans and refuses to accept the answer that obviously people aren’t concerned.  

I did attempt to ask if she thought fracking would be more damaging to the environment than the thousands of windmills which have been thrust upon our beautiful countryside, but there was no response.

The above prompted me to suggest this post may be of interest to those of us who are concerned with the Scottish Government’s green policies. It is a global poll carried out by the United Nations.

Recently China, in order to preserve its industries, stated its use of fossil fuels would peak in 2030.  It appears Obama is quite happy with China’s stance. Westminster has been quiet in the hope that the greenies will not introduce mass protests against China and India’s policies of building unlimited coal fuelled power stations.

In the comments of my recommended article, I note that several people are concerned about the effect the warmest agenda will have on our future trust in science.

I believe that the only hope for science, academic institutions, as well as government, and the mainstream media is a full and honest exposure of what has been fabricated by the so called “environmentalist” movement. The failures, deceit, and plundering by previously well respected academic institutions is appalling. A gentle “sweeping under the rug” is not going to bring respect back to these once leading monuments of the free world. I don’t believe the mainstream media will ever recover. Only a complete and open reversal will offer any chance of that but I will not hold by breath.

The greenies have created a hideous mess with the promotion of this false science.  How will we recover?

If the above graph (taken from here) is anything to go by most of us aren’t interested in action on climate change.  That’s not good news for countries but of course it will be celebrated in environmentalist quarters. They are free to continue destroying populations.

It’s time we decided to bring a halt to those spreading their false science. Climate change may not be important in the many people’s everyday life priorities but the fanatics must not be given free reign. We must care in order to protect the future of honest scientists the world over.

Tweet

Where Are the Greenies?

Hopefully the image has made you chuckle but this is serious.

Is it a sake of 'out of sight out of mind' with the planet savers?  Reading the response of the academics makes a mockery of the whole subject.  No doubt these same academics are happy to fly anywhere in the world to preach their sermons about how the world is set to explode due to global warming. I very much doubt if they'll be paying for their carbon footprints - who with any sense would part with money for such an obvious scam?

I've tried to find if there is a similar account of the North Sea or other European seas, but found nothing.

Where are the protests from the Greenies?  

Tweet

A Sign Of The Times Down Under

It's only four years since the Australian government passed its Expanded Renewable Energy Target policy to ensure that renewable energy obtains a 20% share of electricity by 2020. Other renewable energy programmes preceded this one and Australia and it was highly praised, by the highly vocal eco-loons, for passing legislation to tax carbon.

Australia announced it was going to lead the stop-the-world-warming battle. Its politicians found the easy way to gain massive income for their adoption of the new religion by placing a tax on the energy people use and low and behold it worked.  As it has done here.  I've yet to hear of anyone deducting the 'green' tax from a utility bill and although I thought about it last year, the premium I would have been forced to pay if I wanted to pay by cheque or card, instead of direct debit, was too much.  Perhaps that's why so many of us haven't protested by withholding these taxes.

However, after last week's leadership farce in Australia, PM Gillard has reshuffled again and the Department of Climate Change is disappearing into a 'super ministry'. This is the classic way politicians kick issues too contentious to drop altogether, into the long grass.

The greens aren't happy because they consider the Gillard government has moved closer to abolishing a stand-alone climate department.

The usual bureaucratic process is to merge two departments into one and change the name of the new department into something non-specific.  This is what has happened in Australia.

Is there any chance it may happen here soon?  Please?

Note:  Earlier this morning another inch or two of global warming adorned the view from my window. Of course the world is warming.

Tweet

The Prediction Of A New Ice Age

click to enlarge

Credit for this post must be given to Edward Spalton because he has supplied me with the information.

Says Edward: '1972 was the year when severe frost destroyed all the Soviet Autumn-sown wheat crop. We had a great shortage in 1973.'

In case anyone has a problem reading the image, it is a clip from the Ontario, Canada's Windsor Star dated 9 September, 1972.  It quotes Professor Hubert Lamb, the then director of climate research at the University of East Anglia:

"The full impact of the new Ice Age will not be upon us for another 10,000 years and even then it will not be as severe as the last great glacial period.

"We are past the best of the inter-glacial period which happened between 7,000 and 3,000 years ago.

"Ever since then we have been on a downhill float regarding temperature.  There may be a few upward fluctuation from time to time but these are more than offset by the general downward trend."

He continues by saying, "We are on a definite downhill course for the next two centuries. The last 20 years of this century will be progressively colder.  After that the climate may warm up again but only for a short period of decades."

Professor Lamb didn't use modern 'modelling' computer technology for his prediction, but he studied the science. He developed early theories about the medieval warm period and little ice age and became known as the 'ice man'.

However, according to Edward's friend Philip Foster, these theories were to be Lamb's downfall:

Interesting, however very important to point out that Prof. Hubert  Lamb never changed his view on this and, consequently, was ousted from UEA in a politico-academic coup d'etat by Tom Wigley, Phil Jones et  al. He was disgracefully treated. It was his Medieval Warm Period that the warmistas tried to 'get rid of' as an infamous leaked email shows.

The whole science has been corrupted by greed and a strong desire for power and fame.  

Is it any wonder so many people have disputed the recent claims by Phil Jones and his ilk, whose predictions have been proved to be tainted (to put it kindly)? 

Tweet

Take Your Pick

A Remarkable Escape

Thinking about thorium

stopgreensuicide.com (leaked draft of latest IPCC report)

Been There, Done That

Who's afraid of being fat?

The Inside Story Of The Dog Who Saved My Life

Extremely normal

Tweet

Flawed Science Costs Us Dearly

The average annual household energy bill is £1,330 - twice what it was five years ago.

The 'big six' energy companies are claiming that aside from the wholesale gas price, the biggest factor in rising tariffs is the raft of subsidies for wind farms and other low-carbon technologies.

British Gas, the country's biggest utility, said green charges account for £150 of the overall bill - a 50% increase from 2007, when they accounted for £94.

Energy UK, the industry body, will publish a report within the next few days, which is expected to say that a new scheme designed to slash household energy use will add as much as another £50.

Politicians blame the huge increases on the greed of the 'big six' but never mention the increasing 'green' tax on bills.  They substantiate imposing these green taxes on every household and business because they want us to believe that without them these islands will shortly lose all power and we will be back to living as they did in the 1800s.

But I suspect few noticed the Met Office report (graphic above) which was released recently. According to the Mail on Sunday it states the world stopped getting warmer almost 16 years ago and that from the beginning of 1997 until August 2012 there was no discernible rise in aggregate global temperature.  I never heard that on the main BBC or Sky news - mainly because it the report was issued quietly on the internet.

This means that the 'plateau' in global warming has now lasted for about the same time as the previous period when temperatures rose, 1980 to 1996.  Before that temperatures had been stable or declining for about 40 years.

Naturally there's disagreement with the pro and anti groups, with Phil Jones, of the University of East Anglia saying 16 years is too short a period from which to draw conclusions.  Others disagree. Judith Curry, who is the head of the climate science department at America's George Tech university, said it was clear that the computer models used to predict future warming were 'deeply flawed'.

The Guardian rubbishes the Mail article and insists the journalist has misinterpreted the report. (Unfortunately I can't find it on their site now).  The Guardian's summary is dependent on 'global surface temperatures have most likely increased since 1997'.  Don't they know?  How can they insist others are wrong when they themselves have no proof they are right?  The last point in their summary shows the prime concern of  the Guardian's view - money. 'Carbon pricing will result in a net benefit [to] the economy as compared to doing nothing and trying to adapt to the consequences'.

Joe Bastardi, a meteorologist and chief forecaster to Weatherbell Analytics (a respected company) has questioned Barack Obama's climate change plans.

Anthony Watts has an interesting article entitled Carbon dioxide - our salvation from a future ice age? which suggest peatlands could contribute towards global cooling.

For the first time in 18 years the IPCC will not be attending the upcoming United Nations Climate Change conference.  Why?  Because they haven't been invited.

Are other countries waking up to the cost of green taxes which have evolved from flawed science?

Tweet

Has AGW Been Found Out?

Q-Cells, once the world's biggest maker of solar panels, is filing for bankruptcy.  The German firm says it has abandoned an attempt to refinance its debts and filed for insolvency on Tuesday.

The panel manufacturer has been hit by falling prices and last year the company lost €846m (£702m). It had been trying to organise a deal to swap debt for shares in the company but it said that a court ruling last week, which blocked a similar restructuring for a wood processing company, convinced it that it could not go ahead with its rescue plan.

Last year there was political controversy regarding the giant US solar panel manufacturer Solyndra went into administration.

It's been obvious that solar panels are non-profitable and cannot operate without large subsidies.  Fortunately Scotland hasn't been too badly affected because we lack the regular quality of light required to power the panels, but there are still households which will suffer should they have one of the many now defunct manufacturers panels installed.

Jonova's latest post begins:

Soon, the moment will come when the crowd will say "I always knew it was a fake'.  Here are three signs we are at the beginning of The End [of global warming].  Read it here.

AGW has been found out but it will take much longer to unravel the plots than it took to plan them.  I can wait.

Tweet

The Greatest Literary Review EVA!

The Thames Under Ice

A post from Tedious Tantrums

Charles Dickens was 200 years old yesterday, quite some feat I’d say. Okay it was the 200^th anniversary of his birth then. By all accounts he was a busy man, capable of writing more than one novel at a time. Impressive. I toil with two blog posts at a time.

I’ve read a few of his books, Oliver Twist, Great Expectations, A Christmas Carol jump to mind. I read them because I was told to at school. I’ve also seen some of the films and the TV series as well. I’m not sure I got as much out of the books as I should have done. It’s difficult to read a book that someone else insists you do, not always mind you, but when you are young you are less likely to want to do what you are told.

Dickens was writing successfully from the early 1830’s onwards which was during the end of the “Little Ice Age”. This is more famous now because it’s existence was omitted from Dr Manns hockey stick graph which our dearest and most respected friend A Gore used to such good effect in his film about global warming.

Old Charlie boy Dickens makes mention of the cold and describes the winters in his books referring to ice and snow which we don’t get anymore, well apart from last week anyway and last year and the year before that. According to Charlie D there were Ice fairs on the Thames and people skating and the like as you do when the weather is chilly and inclement. He was there, he saw it with his own eyes.

Don’t let anyone tell you that the Thames failing to freeze is a sign of global warming. It is nothing of the sort. It doesn’t freeze because the river has been altered by man, (not that Mann, I know he goes to enormous trouble to get his facts right but even he couldn’t manage that) and now flows quicker than before making it unlikely to freeze; although that won’t happen because we don’t have ice and snow and frost anymore.

Where were we? Oh yes Charles Dickens. He was strong on social comment. Oliver Twist “Please Sir can I have some more?” “No Oliver. You’ve had your bowl of gruel so you can’t have another. I’d like to but of course it wouldn’t be good for you. Calories you see. Don’t want you growing up over weight. Good grief no.”

On a lighter note though, lots of good songs in that book.

And then there’s delightful Mr Scrouge. He won’t part with money. He’s a canny soul. Oh no. No point in throwing money around and as for charity? Well. We have the Big Society now and thank goodness for that! Is there still such a thing as the Big Society, it’s gone awfully quiet Dave if there is?

Charity begins at home apparently, I beg to differ it actually begins in India. We pay our taxes and our government then use some of that money for “aid”. Sometimes it’s good aid but, well, sometimes its not so good. Our politicians give the money to people who don’t actually want it and because we’re skint we have to borrow it in the first place and then pay it back at a rate of interest, which is less than appealing.

David Copperfield was just magic! Tricky at times though.

Did Dickens write the Merchant of Venice? He must have because it’s pretty damn fine. Keeps you on the edge of your seat right until the last bit. I’m not altogether sure about the accuracy of it mind you. It might be just me but where were the descriptions of those chaps with the long poles and the groandolas? No mention either of the tourists and those whacking great cruise liners they park round the back? Stupidly I thought that Venice was in Italy. How wrong was I? It’s actually in Las Vegas. Now there’s a place that gets it’s pound of flesh - regardless.

Tweet

Happy Monday Morning!

Today a two week United Nations climate change summit begins in the South African coastal city of Durban. Thousands of suits, representing the world's governments, will gather to pose on this world stage and insist they're taking action against emissions. The usual build-up hype provided by politicians and the media has been lacking in recent weeks. Probably because the politicos know they've been rumbled.

The scaremongering continues with the Guardian proclaiming global emissions need to start to fall within the next five years or so - or else.  Or else what?

Where did the global warming theory originate?  With the amount of 'scientific' evidence floating round the MSM and BBC the past few years, many may have thought all these scientists can't be wrong, so assumed the scientists brought the threat to the public's attention.  Not so. The threat of catastrophic warming was launched by the United Nations to promote climate treaties that would transfer wealth from rich countries to developing countries.

This is important.  The global warming theory did not come from a breakthrough in scientific research because scientists don't yet understand global climate.  The science is in its infancy.

"First off, there isn't a consensus among scientists.

Don't let anybody tell you there is.”

- Dr. Charles Wax, past president of the American Association of State Climatologists

source

From the beginning the global warming theory was political and the political mouthpiece, the IPCC, was funded to report on how man was changing the climate. However recently I sense a more sceptical public - with the exception of the global warming alarmists who believe that man-made CO2 threatens life on earth and are prepared to sacrifice life to fight it. The first tranche of leaked emails suggested certain scientists were working towards a pre-defined objective while the emails recently leaked more or less confirm that idea. One blogger thinks there is more to come.  Quite possibly.

Once again I'll be criticised for not wanting the world to be a healthier and cleaner environment. I do, but I consider my efforts are based on common sense rather than the fear that I must do x,w or z, in case the political global warming theory is true.

It does scare me that Scotland's present government is putting all its eggs in the one basket. An independent Scotland will not survive long-term on renewable industries alone, particularly when these industries are owned by other countries and Scotland will only be producing a percentage of the work force.

We could produce many more skilled workers if our education system provided a quality vocational system for our young from around the age of 14, instead of insisting all children follow a rigid curriculum until they are of an age to leave school.  By that time many of these children have lost the enthusiasm to learn such skills, because our education system refused to recognise their needs.

That's a topic for another post though. This one is for you to imagine how much of the world's hard-earned taxes are being spent in Durban for the next two weeks. Happy Monday morning!

source

Tweet

Carbon Man To Visit Scotland

Global warming campaigner - now calling himself a climate change campaigner - and former US vice-president Al Gore is to be the keynote speaker at the Scottish Low Carbon Investment Conference (SLCIC) which will take place in Edinburgh this September.

The event is described as a leading international forum for emerging renewable energy and other low carbon markets. The cost of the conference will be mainly met by the taxpayer ie the Scottish government and Scottish Enterprise.

Fancy attending? The bargain price for the two day bash, including refreshments and lunch, is £495+VAT but if you want to splash out and join the 'exclusive drinks reception' and dinner that will set you back £645+VAT.

Whilst I applaud the use of natural resources to create energy, I have no time for Mr Gore and his carbon scam.  Why should anyone believe his environmental rhetoric about reducing our use of energy when he uses more than 20 times the US national average in his own home?

Only recently Fergus Ewing, the Scottish government's energy minister, stated the Scottish government was 'perfectly open' to the continued use of Hunterston and Torness power stations to ensure there was security of supply.  This statement had the usual suspect, FoE Scotland, foaming at the mouth, but it was welcomed by those with common sense.

Where energy policies are concerned I have to agree with this man, although Scotland did address the issue well before Westminster.

Tweet

Global Warming Strikes Dundee

Yesterday afternoon Dundee was the recipient of a thunder and lightning hail storm which resulted in the streets flowing with ice cold water.

Yet the warmists insist the onset of a mini Ice Age "... will be disguised by global warming." I'll wait until around March before I comment.

Tweet

Latest EU Policy To Cost EU Countries €270 billion A Year

She's a bonnie woman but who is she you may be thinking.  She is Danish Connie Hedegaard and she has been given one of the most thankless tasks in Brussels politics - trying to pilot proposals through a crippling dependency on oil and gas imports, deep social instability in north Africa and potentially the Middle East as well as public suspicion of leaders' number one 'clean energy' preference, nuclear power.

Ms Hedegaard's intentions are to target agriculture, transport and construction so we can guarantee food, travel and homes will be costing a great deal more in the future. I'm not talking about the 20% rises we have a present but increases which will cause harm to a large percentage of our population.

Why?  Because her plans are expected to cost an estimated €270 billion per year if the historic switchover is to become reality.  Twenty seven countries paying €1 billion a year each ensures that many countries will become third world status.  Is this what we want from being part of a European community?

Are the Greens pleased that their policies will bring many, especially those of my age, further into the abyss of so much poverty that they can't feed or keep themselves warm.  No, I don't think they care a jot even although most like me are now forced to give taxes to policies in which they have no faith. Let me say I agree with some green policies such as recycling, when it is viable, and the need to control pollution, but when many people here live in houses built long before insulation was invented, how can they sleep at night when they know that many can't afford to insulate to their specifications.  The greens have yet to announce grants for older properties; the kind which cannot accept cavity wall insulation.  It's all very well for them to say every home should have adequate loft insulation and this cavity wall procedure, but have they any conception of the cost of internal wall insulation to houses pre-1900?  No because they're not interested.

A couple of years ago I had the study here insulated (because it had none and is a strange addition to this 1800's house) and the cost was £3000.  I decided to pay it because I have little savings these days and wanted to keep myself warm.  I prefer to be warm in life because I know I'll be cold when I'm dead.

More and more I consider we need to step back from the EU and observe just what their policies are inflicting on families.  If my bills rise much further I will be forced to sell my home and apply for a council home for the elderly. Do we want a country full of people requiring subsidised homes?  Yes, of course anyone can say they know pensioners who live in big houses and obviously have income by means other than pensions.  Living in an area which is quite a geriatric paradise, I think only around 15% of the population could be called 'wealthy' pensioners and those are mainly English people who have decided to retire here.  Their wealth comes from the extraordinary amount of money they received when they sold their property in England.  Those I know admit they won't last much longer than me in their own property and will also require to downsize.

Where are the green lobby's policy about building hundreds of thousands of 'green' homes for our pensioners?  Nowhere, because they know the economy could never afford it.

I'm trying to think of a way to protest against more green taxes because I don't believe they will be of benefit to the people.  Refusing to pay seems to be the way and I quite fancy being in prison for a while - no heating or power bills and I can smoke in my cell or anywhere outdoors.

source

Tweet

A Small Victory for Common Sense

The US House of Representatives have voted, by 244 to 179 largely along partisan lines, to strip the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change of its funding for the remainder of 2011.

Some climate scientists aren't happy.

Asked about the vote, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration head Jane Lubchenco said she disagreed with the House’s action. “Science should not be partisan. It is highly unfortunate that in many cases it is,” she said. The spending measure, which would fund the government for the rest of 2011, now goes to the Senate, which disagrees with many portions of the bill.

“It’s a real tragedy that the issue is so poorly understood that it doesn’t have the support I think it deserves given how important it is,” says Stanford ecologist Chris Field, the lead author on one of three IPCC working groups. The House doesn't "like the message so they are killing the messenger," says climate scientist Mike MacCracken, former director of the U.S. Global Change Research Program. source

Dr Roy Spencer's research work has been entirely supported by US government agencies and he has written a post On the House Vote to Defund the IPCC.  A wee taster for you:

Politicians formed the IPCC over 20 years ago with an endgame in mind: to regulate CO2 emissions. I know, because I witnessed some of the behind-the-scenes planning. It is not a scientific organization. It was organized to use the government-funded scientific research establishment to achieve policy goals.

Now, that’s not necessarily a bad thing... 

The rest can be read here.

This is a small victory for common sense.  I've said all along if humans are responsible for polluting the atmosphere we should take responsibility for our actions, but to impoverish hundreds of thousands by claiming green taxes on our basic need for heat and light, on a science which is proving to be inaccurate, is robbery.

The IPCC has shown its bias with the exposure of their methods.  It can no longer be trusted even by those who do consider humans are responsible for the destruction of the planet.

Tweet

Fuel Increases Are Only The Beginning

The vendace (pictured) is now Britain's rarest fish and was only ever known as a native species at four sites: three in England and one in Scotland.  The declining populations are thought to be due to introduced species that have used the native vendace as a food source and also due to pollution.  It is one of three species of whitefish in the UK. More information here.

The Independent reports that fish from the Lake District will be moved to cooler waters in Scotland under radical plans - which will be unveiled this week - aimed at coping with climate change.

The first of seven of more than 100 reports by government agencies and utility companies will set out how Britain needs to change to cope with hotter summers and wetter winters.  Officials say the studies are needed because levels of carbon emissions mean climate change over the next four decades is unavoidable.

The dangers to wildlife have triggered the most extreme solutions: the Environment Agency is poised to catch and transfer thousands of vendace and schelly, both freshwater white fish, from the lakes of Cumbria to Scottish lochs.

Scientists warn higher temperatures and lower rainfall in summer will lead to lower river flows and rising water temperatures.  As a result oxygen levels will fall.  "We may also need to reintroduce species to re-colonise stretches where fish have died."

The decline in eels in the past 30 years is also, in part, due to climate change.  The Environment Agency doesn't mention the size of the 'part'.  The devil will be in the detail of their report I trust.

Other climate change adaptation reports which will be released this week include those by National Grid, covering gas and electricity, the Trinity Lighthouse Authority, the Highways Agency, Network Rail and Natural England.  The DoE, Food and Rural Affairs says: 'the reports are the first step in preparing a nationwide plan in two years' time.'  I read that as 'the reports are the first step in hiking up domestic taxes'.

Malcolm Fergusson, the agency's head of climate change, said: "Climate change is one of the greatest challenges facing the world today. We are beginning to feel the effects in the UK. It's important we understand how this changing climate will affect our lives and the environment.

"The Environment Agency is at the forefront of the fight against climate change, through our work as greenhouse gas emissions regulator and our lead roles on managing flood risk and water resources. But we are also on the front line, helping communities and organisations to be ready to face the consequences of more extreme weather."

There's no turning back now.  The UK government is hell-bent on draining each and every one of us of every penny.  If you think the increase in fuel prices is excessive remember that is only the beginning.  There's worse to come.  Far worse.

source

Tweet

Is Green Turning Yellow?

The floods in Australia have become a disaster similar to the floods which occurred in the same places back in 1974.

Toowoomba is built on a plateau.  At least 8 people were killed in the Toowoomba flash floods on Monday. A young journalist expressed his astonishment at the flooding there but floods in the south-east Queensland area are not uncommon.  This graph shows known floods in the Brisbane and Bremer River basin from 1848 to date.

As an aside, some years ago my local council addressed the issue of flooding in the town of Perth by spending millions on renewing flood defences. Yet home owners, who are stupid enough to buy property which is built on a flood plain, complained.  It is complicated.  The planning department allowed the building of homes on these plains and are now responsible so owners say.  Surely the purchasers of these properties looked into why the houses were so much cheaper than in other areas of the city.  But no, it was a sake of this modern attitude that every one of us, regardless of age or in many cases income, must own our homes and developers who insist that flood plains are safe, are believed over the common sense of the farmers and those who understand the land.

To date there have been at least 70 reported dead or missing in the Queensland disaster and resident Australians are beginning to point a finger at Australian's Environment Minister Peter Garratt who, in order to please the Green lobby, refused a planning application for a dam which would have helped protect from the floods.

Memory Vault states 'CO2 AGW madness has already taken hold'. Indeed.  The only people who care enough to prise their grip from their loaded coffers are the folk who they've denigrated in recent years.  That's the deniers.  Those of us who prefer to read widely and not accept the vast amount of propaganda messages which have been pumped into the public domain by others who have a self-interest in the CO2 scam.

AGW is unravelling.  The quicker the better - before the perpetrators are given carte blanche to bleed us dry with their 'green' taxes.

Prior to writing this most I spent some considerable time looking for comments -about our weather or that of Australia - from any of those experts who have been so assertive in their claims that the science is unequivocal.  I found none. I disregard the nonsense from the Met Office which has been well and truly scuppered by the likes of Piers Corbyn - people who don't rely on computers but nature.

The Green lobbies are silent.  They're perhaps quite content now that politicians are all for 'green taxes' - hidden taxes - no questions asked.  But of course there are other reasons for our ever-increasing energy bills.

This post is about the Australian floods but do realise in Brazil things are much worse, but owing to their political system it doesn't seem to matter.  What daffles me is that we spend more on overseas aid than any other country in the world yet it makes little or no difference to the vulnerable.

Shame on politicians world wide.  Do any of you know of a politician who is exposed to such disasters and has improved the lives of us voters?

I won't go into how candidates in any political party is selected, but more and more I'm thinking I would vote for an independent - as long as I agreed with around 50% of their policies.

Is green turning yellow?

Update:  An interesting article entitled 'Brisbane's Man Made Flood Peak.  Makes sense to me.

Tweet

The Cold Truth

Prior to publishing these videos, I attempted to see how often the BBC has given any airtime to Mr Corbyn.  My Google request for BBC+Piers Corbyn returned the following:

click to enlarge

Isn't it time the likes of Corbyn and Bastardi were included in our weather forecasting system?  But of course that would be detrimental to the bank accounts of those who make fortunes from the CO2 scam.  Remember, the BBC supports all of us paying higher hidden fuel taxes based on a false premise.  The evidence against global warming is waning but the profiteers and politicians go on with their propaganda.  The day will come when the Piers Corbyn's of this country are recognised as the honest scientists.

Thank goodness the Americans are pursuing the issue and with some enthusiasm as the following videos show.

Tweet

More Hypocrites

A couple of years ago did you had a leaflet through your door telling you how to reduce your carbon footprint?  I have. Whether it was published and distributed by the Scottish Government I can't remember because it was binned within a minute.  The usual propaganda of wearing multiple layers of clothing to keep warm instead of turning up my thermostat in temperatures such as it as right now (-7), made me realise I'm very detached from these people who write and/or believe that by carrying out their orders I would be saving the world.  If I remember, there was nothing in it to warn those older people who tend to suffer from the cold or the frail who need heat, that they shouldn't take the advice so strongly given.  No, lives of those people don't matter in the great scheme of things where the supporters of humans being responsible for the changes in our climate is concerned.

The Scottish Government continue to insist that climate change is one of the most serious threats facing the world.  Nothing to do with nuclear weapons or terrorists for them, it's climate change.  They say on their website 'its people and its environment is determined to play its part in rising to the challenge'.  I'm not.  In fact I'm firmly against paying hidden taxes to fund the scam.  Yet I get no choice.

Scottish MSPs have choice though.  They're not restrained from using airplanes, taxis and cars to go about their business.

What could you do with £36,000?  That would pay the winter heating bills of perhaps 3600 of Scotland's more vulnerable residents.

It is the amount of money the Scottish Government's Climate Change Division spent on flying round the world preaching their message.  In fact most of the money was spent on regular flights to and from Edinburgh to London, with a few to Copenhagen and Brussels and even Bali was included.  Those concerned squandered even more public money paying 'carbon levy' charges in a bid to offset the emissions generated as they took to the skies.

I've spent some time today trying to identify those who belong to the SG's Climate Change Division but with no success.  They seem to be invisible yet produce much information to the media about the need for everyone to reduce their use of energy.  Patrick Harvie, the Green MSP, wasn't too pleased.  Surely as he is chair of the SG's Climate Change Committee, he should be in constant contact with this other setup the Climate Change Division?

Now there is a suggestion that the UK government purposely kept the Met Office's warning of a cold winter secret because it could affect the UN Climate conference.  I don't often believe in conspiracies, but this one has some substance.

The Scottish Government needs to reduce the amount of money promised to climate change and put in into creating jobs.  There are thousands of people who would like to work for themselves, and perhaps employ others at a later date, yet there is no help out there for them.  Scottish Enterprise isn't interested in the one person business, they want the big boys who require large loans and yet it doesn't matter to then if they are ships in the night.

Windfarms have now proved to be incompetent and excessively expensive. I've no objection to the SG continuing with their quest to find efficient wave power and I think the Scottish topography is sympathetic to hydro in many areas.  Let's pursue these ends and do away with the Climate Change Division for starters. They're a joke but one I don't find in the least amusing.

source

Tweet

Who Would You Believe?

The photograph shows Professor Julla Slingo OBE, who is the Met Office's chief scientist, posing in front of "deep black" the MO's Supercomputer (courtesy of WattsUp).

Professor Slingo firmly believes in global warming.  Well she would wouldn't she as head of the Met Office.  A fellow blogger has quoted part of an interview Prof Slingo gave to Nature magazine.

What’s the biggest obstacle to creating better, hazard-relevant weather forecasts?

Access to supercomputers. The science is well ahead of our ability to implement it. It’s quite clear that if we could run our models at a higher resolution we could do a much better job — tomorrow — in terms of our seasonal and decadal predictions. It’s so frustrating. We keep saying we need four times the computing power. We’re talking just 10 or 20 million a year — dollars or pounds — which is tiny compared to the damage done by disasters. Yet it’s a difficult argument to win. You just think: why is this so hard?

So bigger computers, costing more millions, is the answer to more accurate Met Office forecasting.

My fellow blogger wasn't at all happy with the above comment and yesterday decided to email Joe Bastardi and Piers Corbyn to ask what computers they use in their far more accurate forecasts.

Already he has received comprehensive replies from both men.  You can read them here.  It will be a few minutes well spent.

Tweet

Piers Corbyn Interview

Strange the BBC haven't interviewed Mr Corbyn when his weather forecasting has been so much more accurate than the Met Office.

If you'd like to follow Mr Corbyn on Twitter his address is piers_corbyn.

Tweet