An alternative? Really?

An alternative to the new wave of ecofascism

By liberating humanity from the compulsion to consume, climate catastrophe can be averted without recourse to authoritarianism

It is time to acknowledge that mainstream environmentalism has failed to prevent climate catastrophe. Its refusal to call for an immediate consumption reduction has backfired and its demise has opened the way for a wave of fascist environmentalists who reject democratic freedom.

In which our intrepid blogger tells us that those nasty population controlling, back to the stone age eco-fascists have got it all wrong and instead a cuddly environmental movement will ban advertising, 'liberate' us from consumption, revoke the power of corporations and bring about a downshift in the economy.

So by doing the same as the 'eco-fascists' but doing it with a good heart.

Yeah, right.

Just more of the same mantra, ignoring that this twat can't see he's just calling for the same control-freakery nonsense that his alleged targets are.

Humanity can avert climate catastrophe without accepting ecological tyranny. However, this will take an immediate, drastic reduction of our consumption. This requires the trust that the majority of people would voluntarily reduce their standard of living once the forces that induce consumerism are overcome.

So 'humanity' can avert disaster by bringing disaster upon itself. See it's consumerism that's the cause of the world's ills. Not stone-age theocracies that seek to diminish individualism, not tin-pot dictators who like to keep their poor cowed and accepting what scraps are thrown at them, not western societies that spend half their GDP on government and building a client-state of reliant masses firmly stuck in the bottom.

No, it's ingenuity, invention and production of desirable products that are going to kill us all. In Micah's world a kettle is far worse than a gun, a toaster more depraved than preventing women from getting an education and cars worse than tanks. To be fair, he has a vested interest in this seeing as he edits a magazine which you can buy in the name of reducing your consumption.

What is it with these loons that makes them unable to see that everything they say is hypocritical?

Here's what Adbusters think:

Citing the global vilification of tobacco as his model for other industries, Adbusters chief Kalle Lasn writes: “[Culture] Jammers are now mobilizing to repeat the tobacco story in many other areas of life. We’re going to take on the global automakers, the chemical companies, the food industries, the fashion corporations and the pop-culture marketers in a free-information environment …We want auto executives to feel just as squeezed and beleaguered as tobacco executives. We want them to have a hard time looking their kids in the eye and explaining exactly what they do for a living."

I blame Bill Hicks.

Nah, just kidding, at least Bill could see through hypocrisy.

So the Guardian pay a guy to write an article about how the 'eco-fascists' are wrong, and what is needed is big dose of eco-marxism instead. If it wasn't in the Guardian I guess you couldn't make it up.

War is Peace, Freedom is Slavery, Ignorance is Strength

Norwegians lose ice artifacts to climate change

Ice layers once covering Norwegian mountain summits are melting so fast, archaeologists cannot keep pace with and preserve the number of emerging discoveries.

It takes a fairly special interpretation of the facts to deduce that uncovering archaeological treasures going back some 3,000 years is somehow 'losing' them.

The doublespeak being offered here seems to be based on the idea that, because they have found so many they must have lost even more and so that great global bogeyman 'climate change' (even this phrase is about to be binned in place of Global Climate Disruption, yet another coverall phrase) can be wheeled out and applied in this case.

Do these people think we're stupid? I think they do.

The scientists talking to the reporter here don't mention climate change in any of their quotes. Indeed:

"It's like a time machine...the ice has not been this small for many, many centuries," Pilø told Reuters this week.

I'll accept that the ice is melting due to climatic processes right now. I'll accept that some portion of that may well be related to man on earth. But you need to remember it's also been reported that cow, pig, sheep and chicken on earth are responsible for about a third too (oO,). But what exactly happened many, many centuries ago that is fundamentally different from what may or may not be happening now?

The standard answer is time period. Like we're to accept that the ice encroached over a leather show over hundreds of years. Not forgetting that the artifacts they are finding stretch back 1500 years up to 3400 years. Did the ice stop coming slowly for nearly 2000 years do you think? Or is it at all possible that in a period of 3500 years alone the ice has moved back and forth sometimes more than today, sometimes less?

You need to remember if you even have the audacity to wonder about this stuff you're a denier and an anti-science flat earther.

I'd like to know why this article is even tagged with climate change considering they couldn't get a money quote from the scientists? Do you think they've just not used it, or the implication is in the quotes and it doesn't need to used. Or is the sub-editor just so lazy they've seen melting ice and automatically added the climate change tag. Personally I think it's more likely that we're being spoon fed yet more bilge dressed up as concern for the planet.

Carry on Camping

Camped down and ready to take on RBS

CLIMATE-change activists gathering in Edinburgh for a four day-day protest last night vowed to "shut down" the Royal Bank of Scotland after setting up camp at the firm's HQ.

Yeah, because climate change is an environmental issue and absolutely nothing to do with socialists and the left in general!
Lets have a look at what these people are planning to do on their world saving crusade shall we?

An RBS source said they had been using bolt cutters to try to cut padlocks on security bollards.

Why are they trying to cut padlocks on bollards? Surely not to allow their cars and vans access to the land? Land, by the way, which is owned by the bank. So they don't have any problem with setting up a protest on land which is not public. And about those cars? What's the carbon footprint of this protest. I hope to hear it's fully carbon neutral (don't hold your breath though).
Because it's a 'green' protest the bank seem to be ignoring this issue and are allowing them to protest. I wonder if I would be able to protest about their bail out money on that land without having my collar felt? If you read the article you'll also see that the bank are closing the nursery in the grounds to 'ensure the children's safety'. I doubt that the eco-warriors would be a threat to any kids and so this is grandstanding a wee bit, but this likely means staff who have their kids in the nursery (and any non-staff parents) will be inconvenienced by these people choosing to protest here. Why not protest on public land near the bank?
Then there's the choice quotes:

"We want to make a big scene, cause RBS to lose money. You might be looking at what we've done to RBS before - getting in the building, locking ourselves in, superglueing ourselves together, disrupting them."
-
"We are looking at peaceful protest and everything with the police is fine so far. But we hope from the police's point of view they'll be keeping themselves peaceful throughout as we've had bad experiences with them at the G20 and Kingsnorth power station protest in Kent."
-
"It is not our intention to put anyone in danger. When we have to break the law to make our point about RBS it will not be done in a destructive way. RBS is part of the problem, not the solution, there is no point in talking to them"

Then there's this idea that the police are 'fine so far' with a veiled threat that if the police then try to enforce the law they'll squeal like children and insist that they're victims of police brutality.
OK, so the stated aim is to cause a bank to lose money. So far so left-wing. As for that 'getting in the building, locking ourselves in', again - would I be able to protest in that way? I'd be lifted for trying to rob a bank! It seems that you can do anything you like as long as it's to save the planet.
The next quote above tells us that they'll break the law, but not in a destructive way. So that's OK then. Next time I steal a car I'll make sure I don't do any damage and then plod can just supervise me doing it. Save everyone a load of trouble.
The last line is the kicker. 'There's no point in talking to them'. In other words, since banks and business are part of the problem it is that which must be taken down. Classic lefty arguments. I dunno where they think the lifestyle that allows them to protest against the system will come from under socialism, what I do know is that every single socialist state we've ever seen has been brutal in suppressing dissent. Of any kind.
Funnily enough, the protesters have a 'non-hierarchical' setup (very Monty Python), yet manage to organise monthly gatherings (who does this) and have managed to appoint a 'media team' including the lovely Natalie Swift who is the source of the third quote above.
A lot of these people are the same ones who got away with breaking into Kingsnorth, the judge who felt they were OK to do that as they had their hearts in the right place is likely feeling very proud.
So it seems that we have a bunch of activists, spouting the same anti-globalisation, anti-capitalist, anti G20, in fact anti-everything that allows them their self-indulgent western lifestyle tagging themselves onto climate change. But, hey, climate change is not a left-wing issue. Give me strength. There's nothing I have seen in years of reading up on and following the news on this particular issue that has told me that there is a catastrophe waiting to happen. But it's a convenient catch all that makes plants grow more (and less), snow fall more (and less) and, well you get the picture, we have a science full of uncertainty that we don't yet fully understand but the scientists decided, for reasons I don't fully understand to claim had very little uncertainty. Before we allow the world to reorganise itself along the same lines as Stalin, Pol Pot and Castro I'd quite like to see something more than computer generated scenarios and studies that return so many conflicting results.

Looks like the scare is over; what's the next one?

That global warming meme seems to be dying now. Good. Hope you never put too much stock in it, this time next year it'll be like bird flu.

Might mean you'll feel a bit daft for having bought into it, but it's OK, you're most likely a socialist anyway and so you'll have plenty of experience of being wrong. Now, leave the rest of us alone ya nutters.

Making it up as they go along

or are they? The BBC's Michelle Roberts - Health Reporter says this (my emphasis):

Climate change 'will increase heart deaths'

Many more people will die of heart problems as global warming continues, experts are warning.

Climate extremes of hot and cold will become more common and this will puts [sic] strain on people's hearts, doctors say.

Except it's not what the report says at all, the report says a 2.0% increase in heart attack risk is attributable only to 1C drops in temperature and even better it specifically says:

Conclusions Increases in risk of myocardial infarction at colder ambient temperatures may be one driver of cold related increases in overall mortality, but an increased risk of myocardial infarction at higher temperatures was not detected. The risk of myocardial infarction in vulnerable people might be reduced by the provision of targeted advice or other interventions, triggered by forecasts of lower temperature.

So the usual alarmist note is taken, so caught up is our intrepid reportrer in her assignation of anything that is available to that modern catch-all 'climate change' that she is either blithely ignoring the referenced article she is reporting on, or she is well aware that a guaranteed byline is available on surely the world's top alarmist source (sorry Guardian) if those two dog-whistle words are in the copy.

I wont blame her completely for this blatant misreporting of what the study says, she does, after all, manage to find an accompanying piece on the BMJ site 'Temperature changes and the risk of cardiac events' where Paola Michelozzi, head of environmental epidemiology unit, Manuela De Sario, epidemiologist manage to perform the heroic task of making sure anything bad that can happen manages to have some climate stakeholder claim.

Climate change is a concern in many regions of the world where extreme hot and cold temperatures may affect people with cardiovascular diseases and increase the incidence of coronary events. The impact may be greater in areas with inequalities in the access to medical services.1

In the linked study (doi:10.1136/bmj.c3823), Bhaskaran and colleagues assessed the effect of temperature on the risk of myocardial infarction and other acute coronary syndromes2; they performed a time series analysis across 15 conurbations in England and Wales using clinically confirmed hospital admissions data. They found that each 1°C reduction in daily mean temperature was associated with a 2.0% (95% CI 1.1% to 2.9%) cumulative increase in the risk of myocardial infarction for 28 days; the highest risk was within two weeks of exposure. They found no association at higher temperatures.

So fair does, she's parroting a line that's been parroted onto a report which had nothing at all to do with rising temperatures. But it's a nice insight into the mindset - people wont respond to articles about climate change that don't mention heat so make sure that heat is also bigged up and scare tactics applied.

Is there a point to this? I think there is. I don't think this is sloppy reporting, I think it's desperation to add a bogeyman onto any story, no matter how tenuous the link. I don't doubt that if climate change was instead a fear about fuel shortages the article would have been skewered accordingly. And, to me this is what is so wrong about the whole thing, the alarmist nature of so many of the scientific advocates, journalists and politicians points to a problem that no one knows the actual outcomes but have vested interests (research grants, tax increases, environmental political goals and selling copy) and so will always push the worst (or worse!) case scenarios.

Either that or they really think the report said 'hot and cold' temps will increase heart attack risk and they want us all to live in hermetically sealed, air conditioned (irony alert) rooms kept at a perfect temp for optimal heart performance.

That's alright then

Government departments spend £6m on search engines

Four government departments spent almost £6m ensuring their websites appeared on search engine results pages in the last two financial years, according to newly released figures.

The Department of Health was the biggest spender, running up a bill of £4.4m in "paid search" fees.

It said the money was spent supporting campaigns on smoking and the flu pandemic.

Well that's alright then I suppose, long as it was for the children.

Where does any government department that's already blowing so much of our money on advertising to hector us get off on blowing another load on placements on Google?

Listen fucknuts, if your content is relevant to what people search for, then Google shows it, that's how it works, and if people aint interested enough in your pet projects to find them when they search for what they are into, ditch them.

Why am I not surprised to find Act on CO2 listed among the bilge I've now paid to see promoted at me? Another example of government pushing an agenda at us.

Where is that oil?

I said to Mrs Niggurath when this happened, please show me the pictures of the dead birds and fish.

I'm not trying to suggest that there have been none, but then again where are the pictures of the dead birds everywhere else that climate change is killing them. Oh that's right. Those pictures don't exist.

What about the birds killed by windmills? Oh. Sorry, doesn't happen.

I also asked my good lady to show me the dead creatures that I killed by my addiction to oil.

But it appears that that evil witch Gaia is destroying all evidence of an oil spill. Who'd a thunk it?

Politics: Showbusiness for ugly people #3

Vince Cable always looks as though his nose it too near his arse to me.

The day the coalition stood still

Back in May, it was widely reported that the new coalition government intended to hold a consultation on repealing draconian and unnecessary parts of the law which the previous administration had enacted (many people think there were a lot of these).

Part of the Deputy PM's speech was this:

"As we tear through the statute book, we'll do something no government ever has: we will ask you which laws you think should go,"

"Taking people's freedom away didn't make our streets safe. Obsessive lawmaking simply makes criminals out of ordinary people. So, we'll get rid of the unnecessary laws, and once they're gone, they won't come back. 

All very laudable I'm sure.

They even set up a website to let us tell them.

In typical politician fashion though, this is just a box-ticking exercise so that they can claim to have listened, but instead just do what they want.

So Nick Clegg turns up with the one-liner that 'of course' the smoking ban will not be amended.

What people have been consistently requesting on the site with regards to the smoking ban is that the blanket ban on smoking in enclosed spaces is amended so that private businesses can be allowed to choose whether or not to allow smoking on their premises.

No one is petitioning for a complete repeal, just for a sensible approach to the issue. I haven't even seen anyone asking that the smoking ban be amended for railway stations, cinemas or workplaces. Really it's just pubs. One type of business, one type of amendment. Not to allow smokers to smoke wherever they want, just where the business owner would allow.

The search for smoking on the site yields 345 results as of just now. More than for climate change for example (there's a peachy climate one if your interested where someone is demanding 'deniers' be sent abroad on forced labour schemes).

This is the point the coalition stopped listening, took them all of two months. I've seen plenty of cynicism and criticism of the coalition so far, but the truth is many people were just relieved to be shot of Brown and so were taking a breather and perhaps even hoping to aim criticism at targets where they were failing. So I guess now the coalition might have to get used to losing popularity. And not having an overall majority that's a big risk for them. The simple act of agreeing to look at the smoking ban in the lifetime of this parliament (meaning a couple more years of the status quo) could have given them  a lot of Brownie points from the 20 percent of the adult population who do smoke, maybe not all, but enough to matter.

Idiots.

He's got big balls, I'll give him that.

Edward Michael Balls tells us that the economic policy he supported as a cabinet minister was a mistake.

Cuts pledge was a mistake - Ed Balls

Labour leadership hopeful Ed Balls has said he believes it was a "mistake" for Labour to promise to halve the deficit in four years by cutting spending.

He told the BBC News Channel he "didn't think it could have been done" but had accepted "collective responsibility" when Labour was in government.

Mr Balls has previously said it "made no sense" for Labour not to rule out raising VAT ahead of the election.

He was Gordon Brown's chief economic adviser for his 10 years as chancellor.

Happily using the idea of collective responsibility as though he was some kind of junior member and not instrumental in forming policy. Undoubtebly taking credit when it suits his agenda.

Oh! And this:

In the interview Mr Balls also said it was "not true" he had briefed against other MPs and had "no time for that sort of nasty politics".

Hahahaha.

And so it begins

We always knew that it had to happen, Labour have managed to hold it together for a lot longer than I thought they ever could before the inevitable spats that party politics inevitably causes turned ugly.

They managed 16 years of outward unity in the face of the egos of Tony Blair and Gordon Brown seeking the same job, the drip-drip-drip spite of Peter Mandelson who much prefers to be the power behind the throne and the positioning of the up and coming apparatchiks Balls and the Miliband brothers.

All the rest was just the behaviour of ordinary politicians - Jaqui Smith, Prescott, Blears, Hewitt, Hoon and all the others just grandstanding for their own benefit, some financial, most just ego strokers.

But that's all over now, and the calculations have been made, the party can descend (much as the Tories have done in the past, and will do in the future) into a power struggle for the leadership of it, and for the inner circle membership of that leadership.

Which makes for much more interesting politics I always think.

So here we have the first real blow, and like all great stories it's the young prince killing the king. Or in this case:

David Miliband says public lost trust in Labour

David Miliband has criticised Gordon Brown's record in office, saying Labour's failings worsened under him.

Mr Miliband said the former Prime Minister had failed to demonstrate the "moral seriousness" he had promised.

The shadow Foreign Secretary said that by the time of the election in May Labour had lost the people's trust.

and then goes on...

He said: "I supported and voted for him. I agreed that we needed greater moral seriousness and less indifference to the excesses of a celebrity-drenched culture.


"I agreed with him when he said that we needed greater coherence as a government, particularly in relation to child poverty and equality.

"I agreed with him on the importance of party reform and a meaningful internationalism that would be part of a unified government strategy.

"I agreed that we needed a civic morality to champion civility when confronting a widespread indifference to others.

"But it didn't happen." 

This is the Miliband who refused to criticise Brown in office at all, and even stood by when one of his allies tried to get a bandwagon rolling. So is this something he's just realised he felt throughout the past three years? No, he knows Gordon is now yesterday's man so he's trying to establish himself as tomorrow's.

Good for him, except... read that second part again. I agreed, I agreed, I agreed. Oh! Whether intentional or not he's just stabbed Tony Blair in the back too. For he's saying that Blair had allowed an immoral, frivolous, celebrity obsessed and aloof Prime Ministership to thrive.

So he was in government through two Prime Ministers that he disagreed with during their office and said, well nothing really. And now he's going to be the man to 'renew' Labour.

Did he think all this up by himself or is he being led in a particular strategic direction? His main rivals for leader are Ed Balls (Brown's closest ally) and his own brother Ed (another Brownie). So he's positioned himself against the position of the Brownies, but also managed to distance himself against Blair - who is mistrusted because of his record on foreign policy in particular. Will either man be willing to also speak out against Brown, or risk defending the man who lost them the election, but neither can now misdirect onto Blair.

And who should turn up but our old friend Peter Mandelson, the real heart and soul of the current Labour party, mistrusted at best by most, figure of disgust by many within that party, and yet in thrall to his magic. He helped them win power, and for lefties power is all that really matters. Integrity, well thought through positions and a desire to see individuals succeed are alien concepts. All that matters is power and the perpetuation of the conditions to keep that power (keep people in need of you).

Here's the charming Peter, the one who returned from the EU to shore up, um, Gordon Brown when he was in trouble (and danger of losing that power):

Brown waged 'insurgency from next door' against Blair, says Lord Mandelson

At times, Lord Mandelson said, Mr Brown feared that he had “killed” all three men, but, wound up by his lieutenants, was unable to stop the feud, meaning that Mr Blair was forced to devote too much energy dealing with him.

The former business secretary said some of the blame for the hostilities lay with the people around Mr Brown who, he said, treated Mr Blair with “unbridled contempt”. 

I think we can see the attack on Ed Balls for what it is here. We all knew Mandelson was going to push David Miliband as his preferred candidate - though it's probably a safe bet anyway. Which just goes to prove they need that backstabbing and infighting to feel alive.

And so it begins.

Politics: Showbusiness for ugly people #2

#2 The Milipede

He's a gurning, bristle headed, bug-eyed monster.

And has the knack of making me change the channel

Baron Prescott of Kingston-upon-Hull

Even though it shouldn't, the hypocrisy of politicians still manages to anger me.

John Prescott, New Labour's key link to the party's old Labour roots, today became Baron Prescott of Kingston-upon-Hull, despite previously saying he was opposed to becoming a peer.
The Guardian, 8 July 2010

Lord Prescott took the ermine at a ceremony in the Upper House yesterday morning - despite his previous insistence that he did not want a seat in the Lords.The Daily Mail, 9 July 2010

I guess the working class really can kiss his arse now then, because this is not just the foreman's job now, now he's moved on from being shop steward under Labour to being the full-time trougher he's always aspired to be.

A man who happily blamed his overeating on bulimia, his use of chauffeur cars to travel 200 hundred yards on his wife, when caught with his trousers down tried to claim the woman was after money, caught playing croquet (pastime of the the wealthy) puts out the line that it was his aides who wanted to play (though later claimed he'd played all his life) and now says he's went against his lifelong 'principles' because either his wife wanted to be a 'Lady' or because he wants to continue to serve the country.

Whatever the truth, I suspect there's a feeling inside him that he's earned it, deserves it and will claim the fullest possible expense and earnings through it, still buggering about in cars and planes while telling the rest of us that we need to cut back on our carbon footprint to save the planet.

Isn't that always the way with the most vocal proponents of environmentalism? Can anyone point me to just ONE high profile climate changer who has genuinely scaled down their own carbon footprint, who teleconferences instead of junkets, who eats local produce, who cycles or walks instead of drives, indeed who makes do with just the one house, because even this 'socialist' firebrand can't get by on less than two, uses a Jag instead of a Prius, flies all over the world and demands all the trappings of his role.

So when an awful man bares his hypocrisy for all to see, I still get angry, not through surprise, through disgust.

Carbon emissions by local authority

So am sat there, minding my own business (as usual) when I stumble across this:

Carbon emissions by local authority


from The Guardian

Data released today slices up the 8.3 million tonne carbon footprint of local authorities' buildings and transport - equivalent to 1.6 per cent of the UK's CO2 emissions in 2008 - in England into local council chunks.

The numbers, collated by the Department of Energy and Climate Change, show a wide disparity in the carbon footprints of the different councils. At one end of the spectrum are large, bustling metropolises with large populations, such as worst offender Birmingham with 177,360 tonnes of emissions for 2008 to 2009; and at the opposite end, the tiny Isles of Scilly, where schoolchildren get to school by boat and the year-round population amounts to just over 2,000.

Another prism to look at the data through would be the wealth of the respective councils. But at the moment I can only get hold of data of assets for regions from the Office of National Statistics. But it would be interesting, if the data became available, to see if richer councils spend more in carbon terms than their poorer relations - in the same way that data suggests richer householders have a bigger footprint than poorer ones.

If this was the case, would this be because they spend more in public services or on their own creature comforts, like the civil servants at DECC last summer who reverted to air conditioning after an attempt to live without it.

There's a few interesting aspects to this, one might be the fact that we are having the money spent on collecting this data at all during a recession. Another might be, if we're being charitable, that we might want to ask if it's reasonable that some places appear to have a bigger footprint than others with a similar demographic.

What interests me about it is this. We're currently going through a huge pub argument in Britain today over cuts in spending. It's getting quite bitter as it happens.

On the one hand there are people like me; I want to see cuts in spending on everything but the most basic services that keep the streets clean, reasonably safe and well lit in the dark. On the other there are those who are of the view that any cuts in public spending are a step backwards, that we need to spend money we don't have on services we don't need on behalf of people who don't care as a way of growing ourselves out of the recession.

And yet it gets ironic, because, in general the people who claim to care most about the negative effects of 'climate change' are the same ones who are arguing not only for retaining public services, but actually growing them.

Don't get me wrong, I don't want councils to cut back the spending in the vain hope that one less teaching assistant is going to hold back the seas; I just despise a large state.

Another thing that makes me chuckle is that these figures are released with a straight face. I suppose in some respects they totalled up their power and fuel consumption bills and so on, but at some point in the exercise there simply has to be a figure tossed in that is simply plucked from thin air.

There are lies, damned lies and then there are statistics, and after statistics there are climate change statistics I suppose.

Politics: Showbusiness for ugly people #1

Well we did have to start with the Gorgon really.

But there are some truly terrifying ones to follow.

Hypocrisy

I'm very tired of the sheer hypocrisy of many people who rant about mankind killing the planet, these days always about climate change, who then simply get on a plane and scoot about the world while telling the rest of us we need to cut back on our hard earned holidays or business travel requirements.

I suppose in the world of the climate changers it's OK to be a complete and utter hypocrit as long as you are saving the planet.

These people are all scum.

Overall I'm quite into the idea of keeping wildernesses wild. I'm not at all into the idea of seeing the Snow Leopard becoming extinct and I am quite a keen gardener and as such have been composting for years.

The single biggest tragedy of this entire climate nonsense agenda is that, as a movement for a cleaner world, the environmentalists have done much more damage to the planet than the majority of the population who just want to live their lives in peace.


Climate change is absolutely real, it has always been so. And even the effects mankind has on the overal climate are real. Of course it will have an affect if we build a dam, divert a river, empty a basin, chop down a forest. So what?! The Western world, or the developed world are having a more positive relationship with the local envirnonment than any branch of humanity have had for over a thousand years. To try and claim that modern humans are a negative effect on the climate of this planet is nothing more than short sighted hubris.

It's no surprise that the laymen who are most obsessed with the concept of AGW are always lefties. They've been seeking a way to dominate politics for over a hundred years and those pesky voters have never, ever given them that much authority. So they are now seeking to take that authority.

The scientists involved in this need to take a deep breath and decide if they are scientists or politically inspired advocates. For James Hansen there's no way back. He is a politically motivated advocate now. Mann, Jones, Trenberth and Briffa probably all are too, as are many more.

A policeman said a funny thing to me after Climategate. He said that his interviews with the UEA staff told him that the were true believers and he couldn't tie that together with the fact that they obsessively protected 'their' data.

Like the temperature in China actually belonged to them,

Full moon tonight?

Reject sceptics' attempts to derail global climate deal, UN chief urges
Ban Ki-moon urges environment ministers to reject attempts by sceptics to undermine negotiations by exaggerating shortcomings in Himalayan glaciers report.

"Tell the world that you unanimously agree that climate change is a clear and present danger," Ban said.

These are the same faces who less than three months ago couldn't bring themselves to agree on what to do about this 'clear and present danger' at Copenhagen. Some thought we should spend 1% of the GDP of the 'west' on the climate protection of the 'developing world', while others felt that was an empty gesture and we should do more. Still others wanted assurances that this spending was guaranteed to be on top of other aid projects and not instead of.

When you have so many people arguing over what's in it for them it's not really surprising that they can't manage to agree to save the world.

There are the western leaders who pontificate about the subject every day. They've even started denigrating their own populations, calling anyone who disagrees with them flat-earthers, deniers and deluded. They all seem to have their own projects that will raise money, from us, for pie in the sky schemes that will likely see every taxpayer in their country paying more and more. Most of us are already taxed at the 50% mark already. But they will never commit to the demands of the developing world.
It seems to me that politicians in the west just want to raise more tax from us in a way that lets them do it with the least resistance, every single true believer I hear demands that we are taxed more to pay to save the world from a 2C rise in average global temperatures. I'm very wary of anyone who wants me to pay for their beliefs.

Meanwhile the developing world eye this greedily. And they are right to, they can see EU, Canadian, Aussie and US politicians parroting the same lines over and over. They are right to believe they are entitled to a slice of the pie. They say 600 billion a year, the west says maybe 40 and in between the UN thinks they should meet in the middle.

That's why true believers are quite happy to make noises about forcing through policy changes without the consent of the people. They know the politicians are using their hobby horse as a tool to force tax policies in. They know they have no hope of ever convincing the majority of opinion. They really only have one avenue they can go through. Tthe UN, with all it's corruption just happens to be their best hope for changing the world. It's no surprise that the most militant warmists also regularly shout off about social justice and anti-capitalist politics.

As that article above shows in it's punchline: "It should have been urgent last year, but we didn't live up to that urgency", they've got no chance with politicians.

Weather is not Climate

It seems that, in this fairly harsh winter of 2010, the deniers and the alarmists have more to argue about than ever. So when the snow came down, all the way down to Florida and Texas those who have reason to be sceptical of the theory of climate change / global warming had a bit of a field day with lots of mockery, satirical cartoons (mostly aimed at Al Gore) and a general feeling of, well, warmth inside because the climate change believers were getting it from all directions.

There was the release of emails from the Climate Research Unit at the University of East Anglia. You know, the ones where the world was taught some new memes like 'hide the decline' (in published climate reconstructions, proxy data which did not fit the observations since 1960 were removed - but the same proxy types were still used to show the guessed temperatures going back another 900+ years) and offered a unique insight into just what was meant when 'peer-reviewed' was held up as a shield against all doubt in the methods (like pushing environmental issues). Google 'Climategate' for more of this.

Hot on the tails of that we seen the UN's Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change at first ridicule, then claim this is not the real problem, then admit that a particular statement about the Himalayan Glaciers was incorrect, not properly peer reviewed and basically a lot of unadulterated nonsense. After this several other mistakes became apparent - and to be fair the sceptical camp should have exposed these claims much earlier than they did. Lessons to be learned on both sides?

Well, no. The alarmists have since then said the released emails are meaningless in the bigger scheme of things (though most of the scientists involved are the top guys in the field, so it's not a small local issue). They've also written off the IPCC failures as unimportant to the overall science and even just as typos.

In the background mother nature let rip with the biggest snowfall in over 30 years.

So there were the sceptics laughing at the alarmists who first came out with a mantra they have Weather is NOT Climate, then when that fell on deaf ears they tried the line that extremes of weather, like snow and ice, are actually examples of climate change.

Their theory here appears to be this:

Weather is not climate, record breaking weather events are always examples of climate change.

Has this always been their theory? I find what people have said in the past, rather than what they are saying right now is generally more instructive. Especially since so many of the vocal supporters of climate change as a theory of everything have vested interests. They run consultancies, charities, advocacy groups and lobbying firms all of whom do not have any reason to exist outside of the science of climate change leading to man made global warming.

You tell me if this theory is a new one or a long standing, but quietly believed principle that all the warmers held...

• 1991 Recent variations in Norhern Hemisphere snow cover "The reduced extent of snow cover over northern hemisphere lands has coincided with some of the warmest surface air temperatures of the past century. An examination of the past 19 years of snow and temperature data shows a striking relationship between the two."
• 1991 Warmer winters fit greenhouse model  "The warming of the past three years has been most marked in winter, which is also predicted by computer models. And this observation has been reinforced by satellite pictures. They show less snow cover over the Eurasian land masses during this and the past two winters than at any time since records began 20 years ago." including quotes from Phil Jones, CRU from 1991 on polar temps, El Nino effects and snow cover.
• 1991 Interpretation of Snow-Climate Feedback as Produced by 17 General Circulation Models "Snow feedback is expected to amplify global warming caused by increasing concentrations of atmospheric greenhouse gases. The conventional explanation is that a warmer Earth will have less snow cover, resulting in a darker planet that absorbs more solar radiation. An intercomparison of 17 general circulation models, for which perturbations of sea surface temperature were used as a surrogate climate change, suggests that this explanation is overly simplistic. The results instead indicate that additional amplification or moderation may be caused both by cloud interactions and longwave radiation. One measure of this net effect of snow feedback was found to differ markedly among the 17 climate models, ranging from weak negative feedback in some models to strong positive feedback in others.
• 1995 Seasonal relationship between temperature, precipitation and snow cover in a mountainous region "Higher winter temperatures can be expected to lead to a general decrease of snow and to a decrease in precipitation, but only at higher elevations; warmer winters would conversely be associated with an increase in precipitation at lower altitudes."
• 1999 The impact of global warming in North America a list of things that are symptomatic of global warming, every one of them is an example of heat and warmth not one predicting snow or colder weather.
• 2000 WHAT’S FAIR? CONSUMERS AND CLIMATE CHANGE "Climate change will affect many customary activities. Cultural impacts include Christmas without snow or fewer snow recreational opportunities. Skiing and other snow sports, for example, are likely to become less available. One study predicts a 60 percent decrease in skiing overall (Cline 1992). A widespread snowmelt in January or February can end the New England ski season. In eighty years, climate change is estimated to decrease the snowpack in the Cascades of the western United States by as much
  as half during the ski season, while the snowpack in the Rockies is estimated to fall
  almost 30 percent (Leung 1999). In some southern areas of the United States, such as
  the South Georgia Bay, the downhill ski season may be completely eliminated (Watson
  1998)." multiple quotes here are to higher other snowless predictions.
• Projections for Temperature/Precipitation "When data from the Great Lakes Watershed from 1961-1990 is used to run climate change scenarios for 2050, the trend is towards less snow and more rain."
• 2001 IPCC Third Assessment Report - Working Group II -13.2.1.4. Mountains and Subarctic Environments "As warming progresses in the future, current regions of snow precipitation increasingly will experience precipitation in the form of rain. For every 1C increase in temperature, the snowline rises by about 150 m; as a result, less snow will accumulate at low elevations than today, although there could be greater snow accumulation above the freezing level because of increased precipitation in some regions"
• 2005 Less Snow, Less Water: Climate Disruption in the West "It is very likely that more winter precipitation will fall as rain instead of snow"
• 2006 Less Snow and Drier Summers in German Forecast "New weather models predict arid summers and less time for winter sports in Germany if climate changed isn't turned around"
• 2006 Climate Change: So where has all the snow gone? "But it is not just the Alps that are sweltering in this warmest of winters. Friday was the hottest winter day ever recorded in Moscow at 8.6 degrees centigrade - as opposed to the usual minus four degrees - and the temperature in the Russian capital is expected to climb even higher over the next few days."
• 2007 Not as pure as snow "there has been an undeniable reduction of snow cover in the northern hemisphere over the last 45 years or so"

One other thing for you to try on Google, hardly scientific, but worth the noting;
Search for webpages that mention "Climate Change", "less snow" and the year 2010 - 13,700 results
and then for webpages that mention "Climate Change", "more snow" and the year 2010 - 136,000 results, so yep, they certainly have been predicting more snow in 2010 (while the snow is here), and then what about webpages that don't mention the year 2010?? 33600 results, so it appears more snow didn't really come into the alarmists peripheral vision until there really was more snow. As I said, not scientific, but then neither are most of them.

Hello world

10 PRINT 'HELLO WORLD';
20 GOTO 10.

I used to do a small amount of blogging a long while ago. First on Live Journal, then Blogger and then on my own domain. It was a mix of sweary politics, technology articles and things I'd been doing (like walking the West Highland Way or going to a gig).

I tend to get totally into something for months then walk away. So this time, no pressure to write something, it's not a diary, it's an outlet.

The reason I'm doing it is simply because I've began commenting on others blogs again so often perhaps I have some more to say.

We'll see.