You don't have to say any more. Yet still they prattle about global warming ... or anything else that avoids getting to grips with the reality that we've been help hostage to a scare which is costing us billions.

View full article here

oh oh! just going to the airport to return to blighty from tropics after two months away.
last time it was -15 at manchester with the plane icing up on landing and the plane door wouldn't open (january 7th).
now it's -17 degrees.
this has to be global warming.
might need a hockey stick to break the ice, and to silence so-called scientists from east anglia univ.

"The mercury at Llysdinam near Llandrindod Wells plunged to minus 17.3C "

Excuse me, isn't mercury one of those evil metals that have been banned by the glorious European Onion?

I mentioned the following cartoon from today's Independent on the thread A tale of two Chindamos but I think it has a better place here.

As I said, "It's... rather surprising to see [such a thing] in [that newspaper]. The times are clearly changing. Ha ha."

Oh yes, someone at The Independent isn't toeing the loony AGW line. Long may this new trend toward reality continue.



Here's the link to the original but it will only work directly for today — any other time and you'll have to scroll through to the entry for 28 Nov 2010 to see it.

Welcome to Canada

Short of kidnapping BufHuhne, bringing him back over here and nailing him outstretched, to his outside kitchen door tonight, how are we going to get it (AGW is BS) though their (and his) thick neanderthal skulls?

There is evidently too much at stake.

I read with amazement (eye popping astonishment!) about, a local plan by a bunch of nutter (left wing ecoloony) councillors to build a local recycling depot (whatever that effin does).
This boondoggling lunacy, (no doubt EU inspired) was in the final planning stage, due to the Axis cuts, the private company (the constructors and future managers of this white elephant) was re-considering the project.
The total cost, built on a PFI initiative (f88king madness) was projected to be £750 mil' - you got to be having a larf (I thought) but no, the figure was right.
Of course, the council was bemoaning the fact that, local jobs would be lost if the project didn't achieve the go-ahead (groan).

This sort of thinking pervades local government, the engine of this is: AGW and all the madness it entails. It means f83kwit local councillors jump on the bandwagon of 'saving the planet' to produce - well the type of 'thinking' above.

Now think about this, if this is going on across the country - how much mental incontinence, in the name of AGW and saving the planet is going on here?
I'd be willing to bet, that Britain could purchase and run the USS Pacific and Gulf Fleets with enough of spare to put thirty divisions in the Afghanistan theatre.

This is why, in KanKan - the show must go on.......................even if we are now on the cusp of a return to the glaciation.

No doubt there are those who say Dr North is mistaken as to the real agenda behind so many.
Let's hear it from one of the True Believers(sorry,rather long). Re-read the last paragraph,for the best summary of the Climate Policy Axis real views.

Ottmar Edenhofer is one of the leaders of the international global warming movement: he is the deputy director and chief economist at the Potsdam Institute for Climate Impact Research, the joint chair of the IPCC's Working Group 3, and will co-chair the Working Group "Mitigation of Climate Change" at the upcoming summit in Cancun. On November 14, he was interviewed by the Neue Zürcher Zeitung. His explanation of the current goals of the climate change movement was illuminating:

The new thing about your proposal for a Global Deal is the stress on the importance of development policy for climate policy. Until now, many think of aid when they hear development policies.

That will change immediately if global emission rights are distributed. If this happens, on a per capita basis, then Africa will be the big winner, and huge amounts of money will flow there. This will have enormous implications for development policy. And it will raise the question if these countries can deal responsibly with so much money at all.

That does not sound anymore like the climate policy that we know.

Basically it's a big mistake to discuss climate policy separately from the major themes of globalization. The climate summit in Cancun at the end of the month is not a climate conference, but one of the largest economic conferences since the Second World War. Why? Because we have 11,000 gigatons of carbon in the coal reserves in the soil under our feet - and we must emit only 400 gigatons in the atmosphere if we want to keep the 2-degree target. 11 000 to 400 - there is no getting around the fact that most of the fossil reserves must remain in the soil.

De facto, this means an expropriation of the countries with natural resources. This leads to a very different development from that which has been triggered by development policy.

First of all, developed countries have basically expropriated the atmosphere of the world community. But one must say clearly that we redistribute de facto the world's wealth by climate policy. Obviously, the owners of coal and oil will not be enthusiastic about this. One has to free oneself from the illusion that international climate policy is environmental policy. This has almost nothing to do with environmental policy anymore, with problems such as deforestation or the ozone hole.

From
http://www.powerlineblog.com/archives/2 ... 027776.php

Here's where that council, and all others like it, ought to be made to convene. Problem solved.

When will you people realise that the current coldness is the result of the sterling work done so far by all the enlightened greenies in reducing CO2 emissions?

We should be praising them, not damning them!

Next project: World Peace under a benign, left wing dictatorship.

Wouldn't it be wonderful if we could de-bag a load of these political shysters and leave them locked outside overnight, say on the Pennines. It must be a tad cool up there 'cause it's bloody cold down here in Stockport. It might just teach them the difference between hot and cold, it might be a big ask, they don't seem to know at present.

No, but it sounds depressingly like the development policies we've seen where poor people in rich countries fill the pockets of rich people in poor countries. It also finds its way into the hands of NGOs and other transnational organisations, which start with laudable aims but rapidly become businesses mainly looking out for their own prospects. Logically, their ultimate aim is to put themselves out of business, but of course, that won't happen and even if they solved the problem they're supposed to be solving, they'd invent a new one. That's partly what CAGW has been about.



And there's no getting around the fact that they are not going to. Hence the hook for all these taxes and charges. It's a bit like religion really, making people feel guilty for things they are almost bound to do and thereby providing a mechanism of control.



This is a Utopian dream, essentially socialist, at least it involves the idea that big government can control markets and can bring about a Utopia, even when doing so clearly involves going against the grain of human nature. I don't see that it does bring about a kind of development very different from development aid, unless they think they can change the political nature of Africa say. The Chinese are busily buying the resources of Africa, and it doesn't appear they are very willing to go along with these schemes, except to the point it suits them. The answer to the problems of Africa is trade, which the EU among others is desperate to avoid, or is actively damaging. For instance http://eureferendum.blogspot.com/2006/0 ... -fish.html.

Well, it can be seen as Utopian dreaming, but what underlies it is a hunger for power and money and a breathtaking arrogance.

Looking at history, there's no reason to have faith in government planning, and the more ambitious the plans, the bigger the mess.

I suggest that not only Climate Change is a blind but redistribution is also largely a blind. Both of these carry a large number of useful fools along, as does the prospect of trillions to be made off the racket on the side. The real purpose (or at least the consequence) is to put money and power into the hands of transnational government. I've never been much for World Government/NWO theories and it isn't exactly a conspiracy; it's just where the tide of events will take us unless we are careful. It's all rather like the EU, some people were big government types, some people had been through WWII and were of the 'never again' persuasion, lots of people in power were bribed one way or another, lots of others simply had no faith in the UK. I reckon that a lot of modern politicians think it's a mess, but it's far easier to go along with than call a halt to, even if the end is disaster. Very few could visualise where it was going to end up and that the problems it created were going to be larger than the problems it attempted to solve, of those that could, most thought it wouldn't happen on their watch. Once it got going, it developed its own inertia.

I find this Cancun business very scary, not least because our idiots are desperate to lead the charge and we've sent a True Believer.

Given that most of the funding for the climate change industry comes from the EU, can we expect a radical shake-up if the latter implodes? (Current weather reality notwithstanding)

Don't fall into the trap of thinking of the EU as a lot of Johnnie Foreigners inflicting things on a reluctant UK government. There's no evidence that UK governments have been reluctant, quite the opposite, although they've had to manage an increasingly reluctant public, which they've done quite well so far.

Thinking of the EU as a politicians'/civil servants'/quangocrats' benefit society is more accurate. I'd say that the implosion of the EU was unlikely to be as simple and quick as everyone waking up one day with the realisation that it was a silly and dangerous idea and setting to work to dismantle it.

To bin the climate change industry, we need a fundamental change in British politics, and British government. So while the EU is certainly a problem, there are kindred problems closer to home. The politicians'/civil servants'/quangocrats' benefit society has been so comfy and they're so dependent on it, that it's hard to see the main organisation or the local branch being given up easily.

....where car doors freeze shut while the driver steps out to pee in the snow. Then they die of hypothermia.

Speaking personally I'm sorry GW has morphed to Climate Change and is now going to have to become Biodiversity to maintain the excuse for taxing everyone - I reckon the UK could do with some of that Global Warming now!