Thursday, December 31, 2009
France’s Constitutional Council has struck down a carbon tax that was planned to take effect on January 1st. The council, which ensures the constitutionality of French legislation, said too many polluters were exempted in the measure and the tax burden was not fairly distributed.
It was estimated that 93 percent of industrial emissions outside of fuel use, including the emissions of more than 1,000 of France’s top polluting industrial sites, would be exempt from the tax, which would have charged 17 euros per ton of emitted carbon dioxide.
I wonder how many donators to the ALP would have been exempt under the Rudd & Wong ETS?
Why was Malcolm Turnbull so determined to support the rort to the extent he lost his leadership, if you could call it leadership?
There is a scary story available here to an unbiased and free media to investigate political donations and to keep an eye on what firms retiring politicians are offered directorships in!
“Come to the directors meetings once a month, sit in the corner, shut your mouth and vote as you are told and your reimbursement will be $100,000 per year!”
Say, three companies make this offer to a politician who has been loyal to them. At his/her retirement, add this sum (paid by the shareholders)to their super (paid by the taxpayer) and they are set for life!
How do you feel about the fact that this politician may have been crucial in passing the ETS that increased your taxes by 30%?
Our problem is we have neither an unbiased nor a free media in this country. We do, however, have many politicians of all parties that neither serve nor care for us, the electors. They do know how to feather their own nests by doing the bidding of their true masters, those who contribute to their election coffers.
I think we are going to need all the luck we can muster to get through 2010 with what little savings we have left intact. Make you and your family as safe as you possibly can because,as Bob Dylan sang in Hurricane "... didn't know what kinda shit was about to go down".
I will diversify from climate fraud occasionally on this blog to touch on personal sustainability and survival.
Meanwhile this little gem came from England’s Daily Telegraph in early December 2009 as a shipload (sorry, many private jet loads) of planet huggers were coming to Copenhagen to save the world from all those people out there “creating carbon”!
That many of them were going to make a pile of money at our expense was not mentioned!
'On a normal day, Majken Friss Jorgensen, managing director of Copenhagen's biggest limousine company, says her firm has twelve vehicles on the road. During the "summit to save the world", which opens here tomorrow, she will have 200.
"We thought they were not going to have many cars, due to it being a climate convention," she says. "But it seems that somebody last week looked at the weather report."
Ms Jorgensen reckons that between her and her rivals the total number of limos in Copenhagen next week has already broken the 1,200 barrier. The French alone rang up on Thursday and ordered another 42. "We haven't got enough limos in the country to fulfil the demand," she says. "We're having to drive them in hundreds of miles from Germany and Sweden."
And the total number of electric cars or hybrids among that number? "Five," says Ms Jorgensen. "The government has some alternative fuel cars but the rest will be petrol or diesel. We don't have any hybrids in Denmark, unfortunately, due to the extreme taxes on those cars. It makes no sense at all, but it's very Danish."
The airport says it is expecting up to 140 extra private jets during the peak period alone, so far over its capacity that the planes will have to fly off to regional airports – or to Sweden – to park, returning to Copenhagen to pick up their VIP passengers.
As well 15,000 delegates and officials, 5,000 journalists and 98 world leaders, the Danish capital will be blessed by the presence of Leonardo DiCaprio, Daryl Hannah, Helena Christensen, Archbishop Desmond Tutu and Prince Charles. A Republican US senator, Jim Inhofe, is jetting in at the head of an anti-climate-change "Truth Squad." The top hotels – all fully booked at £650 a night – are readying their Climate Convention menus of (no doubt sustainable) scallops, foie gras and sculpted caviar wedges.’
Talking about sustainability, cop this lot below courtesy of another guy on the correct side of the climate change rort, Tim Hedges.
‘Now that the Copenhagen charade has begun, I can reveal that the Lady Mayor, Ritt Bjerregaard (Ritt would appear to be a girl's name) has written postcards to the city's hotels warning them not to introduce prostitutes to conference guests. 'Be sustainable, don't buy sex', she writes, without explaining the connection between sustaining and abstaining.
In return the hookers' union, the Sex Workers Interest Group, has offered a free ride to anyone who can produce one of the offending cards.
Be warned: the private sector cannot be bullied out of business.’
Catch Tim at http://timhedges.blogspot.com/
Saturday, December 26, 2009
- Michael Crichton, "Environmentalism as Religion," (A lecture at the Commonwealth Club, San Francisco, CA, September 15, 2003).
The Global Warming circus in Copenhagen was politics driven by a consensus that, by definition, has nothing to do with science. The apocalyptic nonsense that opened the meeting highlighted that fact. How many who attended or demonstrated at the meeting actually understand the (disputed) scientific grounds for the hysteria?
Meanwhile, leading science journals allow skeptics of Anthropogenic Global Warming (AGW) to be labelled "deniers" and refuse them the right of reply. It is doctrinaire denouncement, not science. It is the journal editors who are denying the scientific method by censoring debate. It is they who are peddling ideology.
Despite the glossy media image, modern science is a mess. When the fundamental concepts are false, technological progress merely provides science with a more efficient means for going backwards. At the same time, government and corporate funding promotes the rampant disease of specialism and fosters politicization of science with the inevitable warring factions and religious fervor.
"Science has become religion! ..although religion may have borrowed some of the jargon of science, science, more importantly, has adopted the methods of religion. This is the worst of both worlds. "
- Halton Arp.
There have been several warm climatic periods documented in history that had nothing to do with human activity. There seems to be evidence that the Earth has actually been cooling since 2001, in line with reduced solar activity. So it would be more realistic to consider climate change as a normal phenomenon and to plan accordingly because despite all of the hoopla in the media, modern science is founded on surprising ignorance.
See the rest of Wallace Thornhill’s article here:
Friday, December 25, 2009
I had arrived in good time to take my seat among the dignitaries in the front row. Rapidly, the room filled with enthusiastic Greenies and enviro-zombs waiting to hear the latest from ye Holy Bookes of Ipecac, yea verily.
The official party shambled in and perched on the blue plastic chairs next to me. Pachauri was just a couple of seats away, so I gave him a letter from me and Senator Fielding of Australia, pointing out that the headline graph in the IPCC’s 2007 report, purporting to show that the rate of warming over the past 150 years had itself accelerated, was fraudulent.
Would he use the bogus graph in his lecture? I had seen him do so when he received an honorary doctorate from the University of New South Wales. I watched and waited.
Sure enough, he used the bogus graph. I decided to wait until he had finished, and ask a question then.
Pachauri then produced the now wearisome list of lies, fibs, fabrications and exaggerations that comprise the entire case for alarm about “global warming”.
He delivered it in a tired, unenthusiastic voice, knowing that a growing majority of the world’s peoples – particularly in those countries where comment is free – no longer believe a word the IPCC says.
The rest of Lord Moncktons report on Dr. Rajendra Pachauri’s lie fest is available here:
Although the final Copenhagen agreement is largely being dismissed as a failure by both the mainstream media and climate skeptics, it does establish the framework for a global government which will control climate finances via taxes on CO2 emissions, as Lord Monckton warned on The Alex Jones Show this week.
Monckton said that the main goal of Copenhagen was to “establish the mechanism, the structure, and above all the funding for a world government.”
“They are going to take from the western countries the very large financial resources required to do that.” Monckton said, adding “They will disguise it by saying they are setting up a $100 billion fund for adaptation to climate change in third world countries, but actually, this money will almost all be gobbled up by the international bureaucracy.”
The final text of the accord states that funds obtained from climate financing will be controlled by a “governance structure,” and that a “High Level Panel” will be appointed to decide where the money will come from. In effect, this means that a UN-controlled structure of global governance will override the sovereignty of nation states in collecting and doling out funds obtained under the justification of climate change.
As Lord Monckton explained, these funds will come from a global tax on financial transactions and a tax on GDP. Earlier draft versions of the agreement spelled this out in detail, but the final version leaves it more vague, merely stating the funds will be collected “from a wide variety of sources, public and private, lateral and multilateral.”
As information that was leaked in the first few days of the conference revealed, the money will not even go to the UN, but it will go straight to the IMF and World Bank who will then lend it at loan shark rates to poorer countries, thus further indebting them to the global government and advancing climate colonialism.
The agreement also gives the green light for carbon trading markets, which as we have documented are all owned by climate kingpins like Maurice Strong and Al Gore, to be more heavily financed and expanded.
The Club For Growth organization said that President Obama’s failure to get developing nations to agree to more draconian measures has “probably saved thirty million jobs” in America.
“I am greatly relieved that the last-minute agreement President Obama negotiated is being widely described as ‘meaningful.’ When politicians call something ‘meaningful,’ that means it isn’t,” states their press release.
However, Copenhagen delegates have already promised to convene another series of meetings next year to strengthen what is spelled out in the final agreement.
Globalists are persistent and they will continue hammering away until they get what they want, not because the environment is on the verge of collapse, but because their agenda for world government is stalling as more people find out the true agenda behind the global warming scam.
This is why we need to be more vigilant than ever and keep the elite on the back foot. While it’s true that the globalists have failed to achieve the entirety of what they set out for, they are still moving forward with their agenda by taking baby steps rather than giant leaps.
We have slowed the juggernaut of global government, but it continues to grind forward, which is why we need to continue to awaken more people so that we can have greater strength in pushing back and resisting the tyranny that the globalists want to enforce by taxing and regulating the very life-giving gas that we all breathe.
As fairy-tale snow gently descended on Copenhagen, the great global warming conference degenerated through pantomime, boredom, chaos and anger to its entirely predictable conclusion – a colossal pile of fudge with a very hard and nasty rock hidden at its centre.
The "world summit" on climate change was never really going to be about saving the world from global warming at all. Even if the delegates had got all they wanted, it would no more have had any influence on emissions of CO2 – let alone on the world's climate – than the 1997 Kyoto Protocol before it.
As was argued in 1997 by Tom Wigley, one of Al Gore's trusted allies and formerly head of the East Anglia Climatic Research Unit, or CRU (recently at the centre of the Climategate scandal over rigged temperature data), even if the world had implemented Kyoto to the full, it would only have delayed global warming by six years.
Copenhagen was not about global warming but money. The cash that Hillary Clinton so dramatically plonked on the table, rising to $100 billion by 2020, which includes the £1.5 billion offered by Gordon Brown (money which of course he hasn't got) and which like a crazed gambler he last week upped to £6 billion (even more money he hasn't got), was merely a "sweetener" to persuade the developing countries to maintain the money-machine set in motion by Kyoto.
This is the new global industry based on buying and selling the right to emit CO2, estimated soon to be worth trillions of dollars a year, which through schemes such as the UN's Clean Development Mechanism and the EU's Emissions Trading System is making a small minority of people, including Al Gore, extremely rich.
The part played at Copenhagen by all the tree-huggers, abetted by the BBC and their media allies, was to keep hysteria over warming at fever pitch while the politicians haggled over the real prize, to keep the Kyoto system in place.
The only tree they were concerned with hugging was the money tree and all the vast political apparatus that now supports it, allowing governments to tax and regulate us into handing over ever more of our money, largely without realising it, every time we drive a car, fly in a plane, pay our electricity bill or carry out any of a vast range of activities that involve the emission of CO2.
Here is an update on the Dopenhagen Climate Change Fiasco from Senator Steve Fielding. Sorry I am a bit late getting it to you, festive season and all:
Update from Copenhagen
Thursday, 17 December, 2009 4:29 PM
"Senator Steve Fielding"
Add sender to Contacts
Thank you for signing my climate change petition and for demanding
greater accountability of the Government.
As supporters of the petition I wanted to give you a personal update of what I’ve been up to at the Copenhagen Climate Conference.
Since I arrived in Copenhagen on Saturday I’ve been busy at the COP 15 conference hearing numerous speakers as well as meeting with a number of politicians from around the world and various NGOs.
One interesting person who I sat beside was Borjn Lomberg. Although Mr Lomberg is actually on the record as believing that carbon dioxide emissions are the leading cause of climate change, he was still very critical of scheme like the Rudd Government’s CPRS and thought it was bad public policy.
According to Mr Lomberg, an ETS will not do anything to stop climate change and will just be a big windfall for the bankers and brokers and other financial institutions, while ordinary Australian families are left to foot the bill.
Given that there is clearly a growing opposition to the government’s CPRS, and now even from people like Mr Lomberg who don’t have questions about the science, it’s now clearer than ever that we need a proper inquiry into the scheme before we go any further with it.
As far as what is happening here in relation to negotiations between the different countries, to be blunt things are a total mess and it doesn’t appear likely that there’ll be any meaningful agreement by Friday.
However, there is talk of a three tiered system which would see one rule for China and the US, another for developed nations and compensation for the rest.
This is hardly a fair deal as it will disadvantage Australia and impact upon many hard working families. This is something we don’t want to see happen as it would destroy our economy and see thousands of jobs being booted offshore.
Debate about whether man made carbon dioxide emissions are the main driver of climate change has been muted over here, but that only makes me more determined to find why the temperature over the last 15 years has remained steady while carbon dioxide emissions have sky rocketed.
As things develop further I’ll keep you posted.
Many thanks to Steve Fielding for his latest update on the direction Rudd the Dudd is taking us.
Tuesday, December 15, 2009
The Federal Government wants to pay to protect tropical rainforests in Papua New Guinea and Indonesia, and to count the greenhouse gas emissions saved as Australian.
I guess this means our tax money we will be paying to save the planet will be funnelled through the carbon emissions scheme into the pockets of the very rich to stop them from logging some forest they had no intention of logging!
Is this how it works?
There are 30,000ha of Mulga bush north west of Broken Hill and I have decided not to log it even though the trees are only 1 metre high! For not logging it, you the taxpayer, will most kindly give me a shipload of money through some carbon emissions scheme that a shonk like Al Gore is running.
Yeah I reckon that is fair. Well, to Al Gore and me it is very fair but how do you feel about it?
The Government was relying on the forest sham to meet its promise to cut emissions by up to 25 per cent by 2020.
The Copenhagen climate summit was supposed to sort out the forests scheme, known in summit-speak as Reduced Emissions from Deforestation and Degradation (REDD).
But negotiations have run into trouble and conservationists are warning the REDD scheme may not get off the ground, or may not work properly, which could make it harder for Australia to meet its promise to reduce emissions.
Virginia Young from The Wilderness Society said the REDD scheme was "precarious" with just four days of Copenhagen negotiations left.
"This could turn into greenwash for industrial emitters instead of actually reducing emissions from destroying forests," Ms Young said from the summit today. "It's D-day for forests."
Ms Young said negotiations were fracturing, with a draft REDD scheme on the table that contained lots of options and was not nearly ready. She was concerned that there was not enough time to finalise the scheme so it might languish.
"Or we might get something that's weak," she said.
Conservationists want the REDD scheme to exclude companies who log forests then put in plantations.
There are many kinds of truth. Al Gore was poleaxed by an inconvenient one yesterday.
The former US Vice-President, who became an unlikely figurehead for the green movement after narrating the Oscar-winning mocumentary An Inconvenient Truth, became entangled in a new climate change “spin” row.
Mr Gore, speaking at the Copenhagen climate change summit, stated the latest research showed that the Arctic could be completely ice-free in five years.
In his speech, Mr Gore told the conference: “These figures are fresh. Some of the models suggest to Dr [Wieslav] Maslowski that there is a 75 per cent chance that the entire north polar ice cap, during the summer months, could be completely ice-free within five to seven years.”
However, the climatologist whose work Mr Gore was relying upon dropped the former Vice-President in the water with an icy blast.
“It’s unclear to me how this figure was arrived at,” Dr Maslowski said. “I would never try to estimate likelihood at anything as exact as this.”
Mr Gore’s office later admitted that the 75 per cent figure was one used by Dr Maslowksi as a “ballpark figure” several years ago in a conversation with Mr Gore.
Perhaps Mr Gore had felt the need to gild the lily to buttress resolve. But his speech was roundly criticised by members of the climate science community. “This is an exaggeration that opens the science up to criticism from sceptics,” Professor Jim Overland, a leading oceanographer at the US National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration said.
“You really don’t need to exaggerate the changes in the Arctic.”
The embarrassing error cast another shadow over the conference after the controversy over the hacked e-mails from the University of East Anglia’s Climate Research Unit, which appeared to suggest that scientists had manipulated data to strengthen their argument that human activities were causing global warming.
Mr Gore is not the only self though of titan of the world stage finding Copenhagen to be a tricky deal. Australian Prime Minister Kevin Rudd was savaged by a Chinese Climate Delegate for “Telling lies to the people of Australia regarding his (Kevin Rudd’s) plans on containing emissions”.
The move underlined the distrust between rich and poor countries over the proposed legal framework for the deal. Last night key elements of the proposed deal were unravelling. British officials said they were no longer confident that it would contain specific commitments from individual countries on payments to a global fund to help poor nations to adapt to climate change while the draft text on protecting rainforests has also been weakened.
In a speech - which the former Prime Minister insists he did for free - he said it would be 'grossly irresponsible' not to sign a deal curbing global emissions of greenhouse gases.
But his appearance will raise suspicions that he is planning to cash in on global warming.
It comes just weeks after he registered the internet name 'Low Carbon Capital Fund' - thought to be a way of making money out of the demand for green technology.
Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1235629/Is-Blair-trying-cash-climate-change--Ex-PM-arrives-summit-urge-greenhouse-gas-deal.html#ixzz0ZoJBohUP
I thought for a couple of seconds and realised I didn’t have the answer but I knew who did! His name is Les Visible and I quote from his site:
“I was trying to explain to someone once about what happens when you go too far down the road with alcohol and certain drugs. It’s no different than what happens with the intoxication of power; the pursuit of sexual satisfaction, gold fever and whatever obsession might come to mind. I was telling this fellow that it was similar to the way the water swirls in a toilet bowl. At first you encounter certain events and phenomena and there may be an exception that occurs once or twice. As you continue down, what was an exception becomes commonplace and then a new exception will occur. Then this exception becomes common place. The lower you swirl on the side of the bowl the more the environment changes until it suddenly gets very dark and then stays that way.
Surfers can experience a particular condition that can be caused by extreme wave action where they no longer know which way is up or down. So it is that people climbing up the ladder of personal power and personal influence might actually be climbing downward in a cosmic sense which would, sooner or later, become personal. Sometimes people think that steps they are taking are going to protect them and find that they succeeded only in putting themselves in greater danger. Some people think having a lot of money will make them rich when it winds up making them poor in everything that counts.
Men and women born with great physical beauty often come to rely on it and never develop the other qualities that actually make them attractive in an enduring way. Once their looks are gone, it’s a sad affair. This is the judgment of Nature. However, it is possible that when one kind of beauty would ordinarily fade, it becomes illuminated with another kind of beauty. There are realities about life that it is valuable to become aware of, unfortunately most people never do.
The very rich and powerful have put themselves in a most undesirable position. Instead of making sure that the underclass has enough to get by and then keeping all the usual distractions in operation, they have overstepped themselves. Their greed and lust for power and wealth and their disdain for public opinion, which they demonstrate by their arrogant disregard for what others think; believing themselves to be above the reach and judgment of those they consider beneath them, is going to come back on them with a fury. The King Louis and Marie Antoinette mindset never goes out of style with those driven mad by vanity and self-interest. It comes with the territory.
They have continued to steal when they already had more than they could ever need or ever spend. They made public displays of their wealth, while showing a calloused indifference to the plight of the people they stole their money from. They have awakened a beast in the hearts of the populace. This beast has its own intelligence outside of the minds of those in which it has been kindled. They are only the means. The beast is the awareness that drives the means to the end. This is how unruly mobs suddenly coalesce as if they were possessed of intelligent purpose. All of a sudden they have leaders and a structure. It seems to come out of nowhere but it does not. It is the natural response to conditions set into being by people who should have known better and did not.
When you set about repressing people’s freedom of speech and movement, you have created a problem. When you make their jobs and their savings disappear you have created another problem. When you send men and women to fight wars for profit or to serve the interest of a foreign nation that sees them as less than human, you have created another problem. When you fail to see to the aftercare of these soldiers you have created yet another problem. These are only a few of the problems.
Many times, the rich and the powerful have considered themselves above the law and secure behind their walls and under the protection of their guards. Very often this proves to be untrue. Often enough the danger is behind the walls with you already and simmers in the hearts of those charged with your protection.
The rich and the powerful could go on indefinitely were it not for their arrogance and sense of impunity. It’s not rocket surgery to understand that you have to make sure that ‘the people’ have enough to get by on. No sane leader would let the banks take away the homes of the people when they caused the problem in the first place. The worst of times in which to behave this way is during the presence of an apocalypse because it is then- due to a little understood working of the laws of Nature- that we become exposed for what we are. We get seen at what we are doing. We wind up at another level in the swirling bowl and the exception becomes the rule.”
To see the rest of the article here is the link:
Monday, December 14, 2009
But - according to top experts on climate and cap and trade - the regulatory framework being rammed through in America and attempted in Australia, won't actually reduce carbon to any meaningful degree!
The Copenhagen framework uses Enron-style accounting tricks to give the impression of cutting carbon, without really doing so
Remember Enron? A creatively planned accounting fraud, known as the "Enron scandal" and the biggest corporate collapse in US history up to that stage. Enron has since become a popular symbol of willful corporate fraud and corruption.
The first week of the Copenhagen summit was dominated by the representatives of the rich countries, including Australia, trying to lace the deal with Enron-style accounting tricks that will give the impression of cuts, without the reality. It's essential to understand what happened last week, so we can understand the reality of the deal that will be announced with great fanfare this week.
A study by the University of Stanford found that most of the projects that are being funded as "cuts" either don't exist, don't work, or would have happened anyway. Yet this isn't a small side-dish to the deal: it's the main course!
Trick one: hot air. The nations of the world were allocated permits to release greenhouse gases back in 1990, when the Soviet Union was still a vast industrial power – so it was given a huge allocation. But the following year, it collapsed, and its industrial base went into freefall – along with its carbon emissions. It was never going to release those gases after all. But Russia and the eastern European countries have held on to these permits in all negotiations as "theirs". Now, they are selling them to rich countries who wish to purchase "cuts". Under the current system, the US can buy them from Romania and say they have cut emissions – even though they have not. Nice scam! Paid for by the American taxpayer who believes he/she is saving the planet!
We aren't talking about climatic small change. This hot air represents 10 gigatonnes of CO2. By comparison, if the entire developed world cuts its emissions by 40 per cent by 2020, that will only take six gigatonnes out of the atmosphere.
Trick two: double-counting. This is best understood through an example. If Britain pays China to abandon a coal power station and construct a hydro-electric dam instead, Britain pockets the reduction in carbon emissions as part of Britain’s overall national cuts. In return, Britain is allowed to keep a coal power station open at home. But at the same time, China also counts this change as part of its overall cuts. So one tonne of carbon cuts is counted twice. This means the whole system is riddled with exaggeration – and the figure for overall global cuts is a con.
Trick three: the fake forests ... the Canadian, Swedish and Finnish logging companies have successfully pressured their governments into inserting an absurd clause into the rules. The new rules say you can, in the name of "sustainable forest management", cut down almost all the trees – without losing credits. A felled forest doesn't increase your official emissions... even though it increases your actual emissions.
There are dozens more examples like this, but you and I would lapse into a coma if I listed them. This is deliberate. This system has been made incomprehensible because if we understood, ordinary citizens would be outraged. If these were good faith negotiations, such loopholes would be dismissed in seconds. And the rich countries are flatly refusing to make even these enfeebled, leaky cuts legally binding. You can toss them in the bin the moment you leave the conference centre, and nobody will have any comeback.
Saturday, December 12, 2009
Jerome R. Corsi of WorldNetDailey reports a story emerging out of Britain suggests "follow the money" may explain the enthusiasm of the United Nations to pursue caps on carbon emissions, despite doubts surfacing in the scientific community about the validity of the underlying global warming hypothesis.
A Mumbai-based Indian multinational conglomerate with business ties to Rajendra K. Pachauri, the chairman since 2002 of the U.N. Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, or IPCC, stands to make several hundred million dollars in European Union carbon credits simply by closing a steel production facility in Britain with the loss of 1,700 jobs.
I wonder how these workers now feel aboutBritian's headlong rush into the EU with the promises that all would be better off?
The Tata Group headquartered in Mumbai anticipates receiving windfall profits of up to nearly $2 billion US from closing the Corus Redcar steelmaking plant in Britain. About half of the savings are expected to result from cashing in on carbon credits granted the steelmaker by the European Union under the EU's emissions trading scheme, or ETS.
How crazy and destructive are these emissions trading schemes where some businesses will make obscene profits from ceasing production of an essential product? My take on economics is that to make a profit you have to produce either a product or a service that people are willing to pay for.
I wonder how many people will see where all the extra taxation they forked out to "save the planet" is going to?
Corus has accumulated 7.5 million European Union surplus carbon allowances, or EUAs, given the company free by the EU, after corporate officials lobbied EU officials aggressively in Brussels.
The Corus-owned 7.5 million EUAs are estimated at up to $650 million; the company also anticipates "saving" 6 million tons of carbon dioxide by closing the plant and not producing the plant's capacity of 3 million tons of steel. The 6 million tons of carbon dioxide is worth an estimated $130 million at current rates and possibly as much as $325 million at expected market levels.
How does the closing of a steelmaker in Britain tie to the chairman of the U.N.'s global warming science committee?
In 1974, the TATA Group provided the financial resources to found the Tata Energy Research Institute, or TERI, a policy organization headquartered in New Dehli, India, of which Pachauri has been chairman since the group was formed.
Continued business ties between TERI and TATA are demonstrated by a press announcement on the TERI website dated Feb. 4 in which Jairam Ramesh, the Indian minister of state for commerce and industry as well as minister of state for power, announced a joint venture with TERI and TATA power to extract and use carbon dioxide for the propagation of micro-algae.
On Dec. 10, 2007, Pachauri shared with Al Gore the Nobel Peace Prize for his work on global warming. At the Nobel ceremonies, Pachauri in his Nobel lecture openly represented the U.N.'s IPCC.
The TATA Group decision to close the Corus steelmaking plant has caused the Labour government of Prime Minister Gordon Brown political difficulties. According to the London Times manufacturing accounted for 22.5 percent of Britain's economic output when Labour came to power in 1997, while it accounts for little more than 11 percent today.
Friday, December 11, 2009
Gore claims that the ClimateGate emails have been taken out of context and that , “The most recent one is more than 10 years old.”
As Andrew Bolt documents, Gore repeated the claim that the emails were over 10 years old no less than three times.
“In fact, as Watts Up With That shows, one Climategate email was from just two months ago. The most recent was sent on November 12 – just a month ago. The emails which have Tom Wigley, seeming (to me) to choke on the deceit are all from this year. Phil Jones’ infamous email urging other Climategate scientists to delete emails is from last year.”
For the full report from Paul Joseph Watson please see the link below.
However, before we trundle off I would like to bring your mind to a farmyard fable. Fables and parables have been used as teaching aids right through recorded history. Jesus let us in on quite a few good ones.
A fable with a great connection to the man made global warming scam is Chicken Little.
Chicken Little wasn’t the sharpest pencil in the farmyard, pretty much about average for a chicken. He is playing near the gate to the barnyard when he is hit on the head by a falling acorn. The wiley fox, standing outside the barnyard gate, convinces Chicken Little that the sky is falling and that the chickens and ducks must flee. Chicken Little opens the gate to flee and the fox enjoys the ensuing feast.
Let us move this parable into the global warming scam arena.
The acorn is played by combustion and its byproduct, CO2. Chicken little is played by the hijacked green movement and the scientifically illiterate media. The safe barnyard is played by Western democracies and their freedoms. The fox? Who plays the fox? The fox is played by the new corporate global pirates.
Many thanks to the unknown scribe who posted this fable on the Internet.
Yes the same internet Al Gore claimed to have developed! Why Can’t Al Gore Tell the Truth, Just for Once?
Thursday, December 10, 2009
Gore has now virtually abandoned scientific facts in his presentation of An Inconvenient Truth. It has become a “religious sermon”.
He admits that laying out the facts is just not working!
Gore now has a Christian based training programme, a Muslim programme, a Jewish program, and a Hindu programme is being developed. He has recruited lay preachers and ministers to present a slide show of his program filled with spiritual references.
He has obviously seen how successful the Scientology movement has become since becoming the Church of Scientology. Any criticism of such an organisation has to be worded very carefully or the critic could find themselves charged under various Religious Vilification Laws.
Look out! Here comes the Church Of Climatology! Scary stuff indeed.
This fits in well with the almost religious zeal that Australian Prime Minister, Kevin Rudd, has embraced the man made global warming fiasco with. Note also his mad rush to ram through an emissions trading scheme that 80% of Australians don’t understand.
According to Wikipedia, before joining politics Mr Rudd had a distinguished career in the Foreign Affairs Department including a lengthy stint in Beijing.
The Chicago Climate Exchange has direct ties to Al Gore and a business associate Maurice Strong, a billionaire with the majority of his interests in Beijing, China. Gore and Maurice Strong have been part of a long standing movement to use the theory of man made global warming as a mechanism for profit and also embrace social engineering, the darling child of the left in Australian politics.
Wednesday, December 9, 2009
The above graph comes from the IPCC via Australian Senator Steve Fielding" website.
The black line is carbon dioxide and the red line is global surface temperature. As can be seen the hottest year is 1999 and from then there has been a steady decline in the surface temperature of the earth.
The CO2 readings were taken at the Mauna Loa Observatory (MLO), an atmospheric baseline station on Mauna Loa volcano, on the big island of Hawwaii.
The surface temperature readings come from the Hadley Centre and the Climate Research Unit of the University of East Anglia. Both of these organisations are at the centre of the Climategate scandal where a whistleblower released emails detailing among other matters, how:
- Climate data was manipulated or not used unless it confirmed human caused global warming.
- To stop peer review papers that didn't agree with human caused global warming.
- To discredit scientists who didn't agree with their views.
- To hide the fact that global warming stopped in 1999.
Back in the 1920’s the hypothesis of human caused global warming was proposed by a Swedish physicist called Svante Arrhenius . Arrhenius argued that variations in trace constituents—namely carbon dioxide—of the atmosphere could greatly influence the heat budget of the Earth. Using the best data available to him and making many assumptions he performed a series of calculations on the temperature effects of increasing and decreasing amounts of carbon dioxide in the Earth's atmosphere. His calculations showed that the “temperature of the Arctic regions would rise about 8 degrees or 9 degrees Celsius, if the carbonic acid (carbon dioxide) increased 2.5 to 3 times its present value. This may well be where Al Gore got his twenty feet rise in sea levels from.
Within a few years a rival physicist, Knut Angstrom, proved the carbon dioxide warming predictions to be in error by a factor of three.
Arrhenius was a founding member of the Nobel Committee and remained a member for 27 years. He used his positions to arrange prizes for his friends (Jacobus van't Hoff, Wilhelm Ostwald, Theodore Richards) and to attempt to deny them to his enemies (Paul Ehrlich, Walther Nernst). During this time he became a Nobel Laureate himself! Many years later this organisation awarded President Obama the Nobel Peace Prize after he had been in office only 21 days. It is of some interest that Obama was presented with the prize just days after announcing a troop increase of 30,000 to help fight The War in Afghanistan. An Obama election promise was to “bring all the troops home when I become President…”
Arrhenius was actively engaged in the creation of The State Institute for Racial Biology in Sweden, a fore runner of the eugenics movement. Eugenics is the study and practice of selective breeding applied to humans, with the aim of improving the species. In a historical and broader sense, eugenics can also be a study of "improving human genetic qualities." Advocates of eugenics sought to counter what they regarded as dysgenic dynamics within the human gene pool, specifically in regard to congenital disorders and factors relating to the heritability of IQ.
Widely popular in the early decades of the 20th century, it has largely fallen into disrepute after having become associated with the Nazi’s use of eugenics to cull “non Aryans”, mainly Jews, from Germany during the Second World War.
That is where the idea of human caused global warming started and the character of the man who started it. It was proved wrong then and it is just as wrong now!