Category Archives: Cap & Trade

Gore denounces global warming!

Today Al Gore denounced global warming. In an apology speech he said……….

Global warming is a fraud and I am ashamed of being conned into believing it!

I have immediately cancelled my order for the new Fisker’s Karma electric car and I have ordered a new Hummer to replace it. The Hummer will have a twin-turbocharged 454 Chevy engine in is that bored out to 515 cubic inches, makes 950 HP and gets 1.2 miles per gallon.

Since being green is no longer a problem with global warming and the drought in California is over I have ordered high-flush toilets for the 9 bathrooms in my new Mansion in Montecito, California. I have also added 3 more heaters and 3 more air conditioning units, the latter of which will be great for cooling me off when I have a hot masseuse over.

Tomorrow I will start writing my new book about global cooling titled “An inconvenient deep freeze,” which will suggest that we start burning more stuff to create more CO2 so we can start warming this planet up before we all freeze to death!

I am also suggesting to President Obama that we immediately start to drill baby drill all over the place. ANWAR? No problem! Deep drilling in the Gulf of Mexico! Go for it! Hell, I’m even going to make sure that off-shore drilling around Santa Barbara is approved again! I can’t wait for the view of all those drilling platforms!

And………if you believe this….. I have a nice bridge that is golden in color that goes from San Francisco, California to Marin County, California and will be accepting bids starting at the minimum bid price of $100 billion.

Have a happy April Fool’s Day!

Advertisements

Comments Off on Gore denounces global warming!

Filed under California, Cap & Trade, Carbon Capture, Carbon Trading, Climate Change, Climate Disruption, Climategate, Co2 Insanity, Global Warming, Politics, Renewable Energy, Wind Power

Thousands Rally in Australia to Demonstrate Against Carbon Tax

By: John O’Sullivan

A concerted Australian grassroots campaign holds rallies in six major cities to protest the imposition of climate change taxes and demand new election.

Thousands of protestors are challenging Prime Minister, Julia Gillard’s, “undemocratic” climate policies demanding either an immediate election or that her government drops all such proposals. They say imposing the taxes would be a betrayal of democratic principles because Gillard was elected with no mandate to raise any such taxes.

Speaking at the event will be leading MPs and scientists opposed to climate taxes. In response one Government Minister (Albanese) labeled the rally participants as ‘ratbags.’

A press release by organizer, Viv Forbes, Chairman of the Carbon Sense Coalition (March 23, 2011) announces that 22 diverse associations representing tens of thousands of Aussies will put the Gillard government’s environmental tax policies to the test. The Carbon Sense Coalition claims “thousands of Australians all over the country have signed a letter to Prime Minister Julia Gillard opposing the carbon tax.”

Skeptics say the government is wrongly basing its decisions on the discredited science of the UN’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC).

Climate Taxes Will Achieve Little or No Impact

Forbes adds:

“This tax on carbon dioxide will have no effect whatsoever on global climate, little effect on the production of carbon dioxide but a large effect on the cost of living and job prospects for Australians. This is merely a wealth redistribution scheme where most of the wealth will be consumed on compliance, regulation, red tape, subsidies and price supports for the Climate Change Industry.”

Protesters say any such tax would hurt the Australian economy and gravely impact families, imposing an additional $300 a year on household energy bills. Australia produces only one percent of global emissions of carbon dioxide (CO2) and, based on IPCC calculations, such a tax levied for 50 years will reduce global temperatures by an indiscernible 0.015 degrees centigrade and 2mm rise in sea levels.

Australian Prime Minister Julia Gillard Faces Protests - Adam Carr

Negative public opinion polls also appear to be linked to the growing number of embarrassing revelations undermining the credibility of the IPCC for using dubious non-peer reviewed findings.

Disillusionment in the greenhouse gas theory of climate change is increasing among independent non-government funded scientists. Carbon dioxide is a so-called greenhouse gas and comprises just 0.04 percent of the atmosphere. Environmentalists and leaders of some the world’s wealthiest nations championed the greenhouse gas theory as a promising vehicle for cap and trade green taxes.

No Discernible Human Influence on Climate

Aussie climate skeptics such as Malcolm Roberts, have been at the forefront of promoting science that discredits the IPCC claims. Roberts published his own lucid rebuttal of the man-made global warming theory with, ‘Two Dead Elephants in Parliament.’

Roberts drew attention to the IPCC’s Table 2.11 (2007) that reveals by the IPCC’s own admission, it has ‘low’ or ‘very low’ understanding of 80 percent of all factors impacting climate.

In their Third Report the IPCC claimed that as CO2 levels increased then global temperatures would increase. However, since 1998, despite unending rises in atmospheric CO2, global temperatures have fallen.

On such evidence, along with other arguments, the protesters say there is no compelling reason to show human emissions of carbon dioxide is causing any climate change. Thus the imposition of climate taxes is both scientifically unjustified and impacts negatively on economic freedom.

Wide Cross Section of Society Against the New Tax

Organizers claim these are gatherings of Australian citizens with a peaceful demonstration message. There are no projected figures of the expected turnout but interest has been considerable according to the Consumers and Taxpayers Association. They say they had over 100,000 hits on their website within the two weeks leading up to the rally.

The cities involved in the ‘No Carbon Tax’ protest are Canberra, Melbourne, Sydney, Brisbane, Adelaide and Perth. The six rallies are expected to comprise many representatives of diverse groups including “Young Australians, Working Families, Students, Workers, Small Business Owners and Senior Citizens.”

Source: John O’ Sullivan

You can read my Co2 Insanity take on this here.

2 Comments

Filed under Cap & Trade, Carbon Taxes, Climate Alarmism, Climate Change, CO2, Co2 Insanity, Global Warming, Government, IPCC, John O'Sullivan, United Nations

Australia: Classic – let someone else pay for the CO2 tax

 

Will bribing the poor will get Australian PM Julia Gillard her carbon tax approval?

 

What better way for a politician to connive voter approval on a new carbon tax than to let some groups think that they won’t pay for it, someone else will? That is a classic way liberals get voter approval by making the voters think that if you vote for this tax, you will not pay for it because some company or some rich guys will get stuck with the bill, but not you. It appears that the Prime Minister of Australia, Julia Gillard, has added another dimension to that classic con by stating that some voters will even get someone else’s money back into their bank accounts! What a great way to get votes – hand out free money and they’ll rubber stamp whatever BS you come up with!

Gillard seems to be grasping at ways to get those carbon taxes going so the government has more money to blow on the typical useless crap governments blow money on, like those extravagant salaries, healthcare plans and golden retirement packages, not to mention things like studies on the sex life of the Tufted 3 Tit Bush Mouse and a myriad of other ‘important things’ that are usually a gigantic waste of your tax-dollars. What better thing to tax than that evil global warming causing carbon that’s going to kill us all? After all, we only need an impossible to attain $700 trillion dollars to lower the temperature of the globe by a whopping 1 degree.

In a fit of what I’d term a liberal Ponzi Scheme, Gillard wants to tax carbon to the tune of $5.78 billion and then use those misappropriated funds to bribe people into being on her side of the global warming taxation fence. This will get her a higher approval rating not to mention it will assist her in not getting tossed out on her head like her predecessor Kevin Rudd did. So, who’s she going to bribe? Well from the article at The Australian, we get these little snippets.

Ms Gillard said welfare recipients, who pay little or no tax, would not be ignored in the climate compensation package.

“We do need to remember, not everyone who is going to be in need of assistance is in the workforce. We’ve got around four million pensioners. So we’re talking about a balance here across the tax and transfer system.”

Ahh yes, there you have it, let’s get the poor people on our side by telling them they will be the benefactors of our giant Ponzi Scheme that will be used by the Australian government as a wealth redistribution program, which is what the real goal is anyway. If you are a corporation, or have money, you’ll be paying more for your supplies, food, fuel, heat, electricity, cars, tools, and anything else you care to name due to carbon taxes that are allegedly to save the planet from CO2. If you’re poor we’ll take care of you! As long as you vote for us you will not only get lower taxes, but free money, too! Just check the box next to ‘Yes, I want free money!’

If you’re on welfare or if you’re a pensioner with low-income, the government needs your support and what better way than to dangle dollar bills in front of them to get it?  Robin Hood could certainly be proud of Gillard for her latest ‘rob the rich, give to the poor’ scheme that is designed to screw their citizens out of more money and simultaneously get votes for her and her party, all while doing absolutely nothing to save the planet.

This is nothing other than more CO2 Insanity.

Source: The Australian

 

 

Comments Off on Australia: Classic – let someone else pay for the CO2 tax

Filed under Cap & Trade, Carbon Taxes, Carbon Trading, Climate Alarmism, Climate Disruption, CO2, Co2 Insanity, Financial, Global Warming

Climate Disruption is Really Bank Account Disruption

Well now, here’s some real CO2 Insanity! Think about how the warmers have been and are constantly harping about carbon taxes and carbon trading as a method to eliminate global warming, climate change, climate disruption, or what may be the new name I’m coining – “Bank Account Disruption.”

Remember all the various predictions floating around the internet on how much the temperature will rise in the future? From the EPA’s website we get this bit of nonsense from their take on the 2007 IPCC Report.

  • The average surface temperature of the Earth is likely to increase by 2 to 11.5°F (1.1-6.4°C) by the end of the 21st century, relative to 1980-1990, with a best estimate of 3.2 to 7.2°F (1.8-4.0°C) (see Figure 1). The average rate of warming over each inhabited continent is very likely to be at least twice as large as that experienced during the 20th century.

You can see in the figure below a graph showing the extremely wide range of possibilities predicted by the IPCC. From my point of view they may have done better using a dartboard. I mean with a range like that you just about can’t miss.

The predicted cost of just lowering the Earth’s temperature one lousy degree makes Obama’s proposed 2010 budget of $3.63 trillion look rather miserly. So how much is it? Well according to this article at World Net Daily it will cost only a ‘mere’ $700 trillion to lower the Earth’s temperature by one degree. No that’s not a misprint it’s $700,000,000,000,000 dollars. See why I call it real CO2 Insanity? That’s 7 times the world’s gross production, or we don’t even make enough money to pay for it.

Take the IPCC’s worst high temperature projection of 6.4 degrees centigrade and you have a ‘paltry’ $4,480 trillion dollars. Mind you, we don’t even have the $700 trillion for 1 degree, yet the warmers, in a fit of CO2 Insanity, keep trying to screw us taxpayers out of every penny they can by promoting preposterous claims, use of scare-tactics and plain old brainwashing. Even the EPA has problems with it, though with what goes on with them these days, this is the last thing I’d ever expect to hear.

Citing a study by the EPA’s Dr. Linda M. Chappell and various other sources, the Senate report asserts, “EPA has called the consequences of regulating greenhouse gases under the [Clean Air Act] ‘absurd,’ affecting 6.1 million sources, introducing $78 billion in annual costs, causing ‘at least a decade or longer’ of permit delays, ‘slowing’ construction nationwide for years, ‘introducing burdens that are administratively ‘infeasible,’ ‘overwhelming,’ that will ‘adversely affect national economic development,’ while impacting sources ‘not appropriate at this point to even consider regulating.'”

So, if this is all true (and you just read it from the horse’s mouth above) then why the big push to get rid of coal and oil? Why no drilling? Why do we need ill-advised legislation like California’s global warming law AB32 that will (by the EPA’s own admission) do nothing to save the climate, but will harm California’s economy via raising the cost of just about everything? Why are we wasting money on bird-chopping wind turbines that only make a profit when heavily subsidized? Talk about the big con, this is the ultimate! I mean even Bernie Madoff in his wildest dreams ever thought he’d scam $700 trillion dollars out of anyone!

No this is more CO2 Insanity and it’s proof that the goal isn’t to save the planet from global warming at all, but to rip off as much money as possible from the unsuspecting public, many who genuflect at the altar of the Church of Global Warming and buy into what’s become the globe’s latest religion.

Next time you hear Al Gore at his podium, moaning we’re all going to die from climate disruption, remember to check your wallet to make sure it’s not being disrupted and check your bank account, too. After you’re sure your wallet hasn’t been picked, suggest to Al that he cash the $700 trillion check from Zimbabwe to cover it.

You can read more about it at the source below.

Source: World Net Daily

3 Comments

Filed under AB32 California, California, Cap & Trade, Carbon Taxes, Carbon Trading, Climate Alarmism, Climate Change, Climate Disruption, CO2, Co2 Insanity, EPA, Global Warming, Government, IPCC, Politics, United Nations

UK Govt’s Clueless Carbon Guru is Blowing Your £250 Billion Anyway

By: John O’Sullivan

Britain’s top green bureaucrat on Carbon Markets and Climate Change admits she doesn’t know what she is doing with £250 billion of UK taxes.

European Commission Directorate General of Climate Action, Jill Dugganexposes her utter ignorance in an Australian radio interview when challenged about the costs and benefits of Britain’s rush to a ‘green’ economy.

Duggan is visiting Australia as head of Britain’s International Emissions Trading scheme and was hoping to win over new converts to her cause. Duggan (and Britain’s ‘Big Green’ goofball government) are aiming to cut emissions of carbon dioxide (that trace gas that comprises less than 0.04 percent of the atmosphere) by 20 percent by 2020.

Duggan appeared on Melbourne Talk Radio, on the Steve Price Breakfast Show (March 9, 2011) and when questioned live on air floundered badly exposing the staggering depths of her incompetence.

For those who doubt the following transcript of the radio interview is real and is perhaps some nightmarish early ‘climate denier’ April Fool’s joke, then listen to the actual recording here (acknowledgement: Andrew Bolt,Herald Sun).

Aussie journalist, Andrew Bolt (AB) leads off by asking Jill Duggan (JD) some pointed questions:

AB:  Can I just ask; your target is to cut Europe’s emissions by 20% by 2020?

JD:  Yes.

AB:  Can you tell me how much – to the nearest billions – is that going to cost Europe do you think?

JD:  No, I can’t tell you but I do know that the modelling shows that it’s cheaper to start earlier rather than later, so  it’s cheaper to do it now rather than put off action.

AB:  Right.  You wouldn’t quarrel with Professor Richard Tol – who’s not a climate sceptic – but is professor at the Economic and Social Research Institute in Dublin?  He values it at about $250 billion.  You wouldn’t quarrel with that?

JD:  I probably would actually.  I mean, I don’t know.  It’s very, very difficult to quantify.  You get different changes, don’t you?  And one of the things that’s happening in Europe now is that many governments – such as the UK government and the German government – would like the targets to be tougher because they see it as a real stimulus to the economy.

AB:  Right.  Well you don’t know but you think it isn’t $250 billion.

JD:  I think you could get lots of different academics coming up with lots of different figures.

AB:  That’s right.  You don’t know but that’s the figure that I’ve got in front of me.  For that investment.  Or for whatever the investment is.  What’s your estimation of how much – because the object ultimately of course is to lower the world’s temperatures – what sort of temperature reduction do you imagine from that kind of investment?

JD:  Well, what we do know is that to have an even chance of keeping temperature increases globally to 2°C – so that’s increases – you’ve got to reduce emissions globally by 50% by 2050.

AB:  Yes, I accept that, but from the $250 billion – or whatever you think the figure is – what do you think Europe can achieve with this 20% reduction in terms of cutting the world’s temperature?  Because that’s, in fact, what’s necessary.  What do you think the temperature reduction will be?

JD:  Well, obviously, Europe accounts for 14% of global emissions.  It’s 500 or 550 million people.  On its own it cannot do that.  That is absolutely clear.

AB:  Have you got a figure in your mind?  You don’t know the cost.  Do you know the result?

JD:  I don’t have a cost figure in my mind. Nor, one thing I do know, obviously, is that Europe acting alone will not solve this problem alone.

AB:  So if I put a figure to you – I find it odd that you don’t know the cost and you don’t know the outcome – would you quarrel with this assessment:  that by 2100 – if you go your way and if you’re successful – the world’s temperatures will fall by 0.05°C?  Would you agree with that?

JD:  Sorry, can you just pass that by me again?  You’re saying that if Europe acts alone?

AB:  If just Europe alone – for this massive investment – will lower the world’s temperature with this 20% target (if it sustains that until the end of this century) by 0.05°C.  Would you quarrel with that?

JD:  Well, I think the climate science would not be that precise.  Would it?

AB:  Ah, no, actually it is, Jill.  You see this is what I’m curious about;  that you’re in charge of a massive program to re-jig an economy.  You don’t know what it costs.  And you don’t know what it’ll achieve.

JD:  Well, I think you can look at lots of modelling which will come up with lots of different costs.

AB:  Well what’s your modelling?  That’s the one that everyone’s quoting.  What’s your modelling?

JD:  Well, ah, ah. Let me talk about what we have done in Europe and what we have seen as the benefits.  In Europe, in Germany you could look at, there’s over a million new jobs that have been created by tackling climate change, by putting in place climate policies.  In the UK there’s many hundreds of thousand of jobs.

The above is just excerpt to vividly illustrate how liars, incompetence and junk science are stealing our taxes. Read on for the full transcript of the interview:

Steve Price: There are many experts on both sides of this argument, Andrew.

Andrew Bolt: Yes.

SP: One of them is Jill Duggan.  She’s with the European Union.  She has managed Britain’s initial emissions trading scheme.  She’s in this country to talk at a series of lectures and she’s been good enough to join us on the line.  Thanks for your time.

Jill Duggan: Good morning.

SP:  The debate we’re having which I’m sure you’ve heard resonating around the country since you’ve been here.  Did Britain go through a similar spirited and vocal debate?

JD:  Well, there’s a couple of differences.  Clearly industry in the UK were worried, in the same way that Australian industry is worried, because before the start of any new regulation or scheme . . .  But it didn’t have the same level of public recognition, I don’t think.  And I think that the public in Europe still don’t really know that they’ve got an emissions trading scheme.

AB:  In part isn’t it the case, Jill, that the emissions trading scheme was set so low – the prices – that people haven’t quite noticed it yet and that it hasn’t actually stimulated the investment in green energy that is needed?  And, in fact, Britain next year – apparently – is going to go to a Carbon tax of its own?

JD:  Well it’s already got a Carbon tax, I mean, it’s not been a one-size-fit-all.  It’s not just been emissions trading in Europe – it’s been a variety of policies.  Actually the price of Carbon – the Carbon price in the Emissions trading scheme in Europe is about €15 or €16 a tonne.  I’m not sure what that is in Australian Dollars – it’s probably about $20 a tonne?

SP:  A touch more.  Probably almost $25.

JD:  So that’s the price and that’s been the price for the last couple of years.  I mean, we did get some things wrong in the very beginning and we’ve learned from those.  I fully admit that one of the things that we didn’t do was we didn’t get companies to monitor and report their emissions prior to the start of the scheme.  So when it was set up we did get the figures wrong in that first learning phase back in 2005.

AB:  Can I just ask; your target is to cut Europe’s emissions by 20% by 2020?

JD:  Yes.

AB:  Can you tell me how much – to the nearest billions – is that going to cost Europe do you think?

JD:  No, I can’t tell you but I do know that the modelling shows that it’s cheaper to start earlier rather than later, so  it’s cheaper to do it now rather than put off action.

AB:  Right.  You wouldn’t quarrel with Professor Richard Tol – who’s not a climate sceptic – but is professor at the Economic and Social Research Institute in Dublin?  He values it at about $250 billion.  You wouldn’t quarrel with that?

JD:  I probably would actually.  I mean, I don’t know.  It’s very, very difficult to quantify.  You get different changes, don’t you?  And one of the things that’s happening in Europe now is that many governments – such as the UK government and the German government – would like the targets to be tougher because they see it as a real stimulus to the economy.

AB:  Right.  Well you don’t know but you think it isn’t $250 billion.

JD:  I think you could get lots of different academics coming up with lots of different figures.

AB:  That’s right.  You don’t know but that’s the figure that I’ve got in front of me.  For that investment.  Or for whatever the investment is.  What’s your estimation of how much – because the object ultimately of course is to lower the world’s temperatures – what sort of temperature reduction do you imagine from that kind of investment?

JD:  Well, what we do know is that to have an even chance of keeping temperature increases globally to 2°C – so that’s increases – you’ve got to reduce emissions globally by 50% by 2050.

AB:  Yes, I accept that, but from the $250 billion – or whatever you think the figure is – what do you think Europe can achieve with this 20% reduction in terms of cutting the world’s temperature?  Because that’s, in fact, what’s necessary.  What do you think the temperature reduction will be?

JD:  Well, obviously, Europe accounts for 14% of global emissions.  It’s 500 or 550 million people.  On its own it cannot do that.  That is absolutely clear.

AB:  Have you got a figure in your mind?  You don’t know the cost.  Do you know the result?

JD:  I don’t have a cost figure in my mind.  Nor, one thing I do know, obviously, is that Europe acting alone will not solve this problem alone.

AB:  So if I put a figure to you – I find it odd that you don’t know the cost and you don’t know the outcome – would you quarrel with this assessment:  that by 2100 – if you go your way and if you’re successful – the world’s temperatures will fall by 0.05°C?  Would you agree with that?

JD:  Sorry, can you just pass that by me again?  You’re saying that if Europe acts alone?

AB:  If just Europe alone – for this massive investment – will lower the world’s temperature with this 20% target (if it sustains that until the end of this century) by 0.05°C.  Would you quarrel with that?

JD:  Well, I think the climate science would not be that precise.  Would it?

AB:  Ah, no, actually it is, Jill.  You see this is what I’m curious about;  that you’re in charge of a massive program to re-jig an economy.  You don’t know what it costs.  And you don’t know what it’ll achieve.

JD:  Well, I think you can look at lots of modelling which will come up with lots of different costs.

AB:  Well what’s your modelling?  That’s the one that everyone’s quoting.  What’s your modelling?

JD:  Well, ah, ah. Let me talk about what we have done in Europe and what we have seen as the benefits.  In Europe, in Germany you could look at, there’s over a million new jobs that have been created by tackling climate change, by putting in place climate policies.  In the UK there’s many hundreds of thousand of jobs.

AB:  Actually, that’s not right, is it?  I just saw research.  Did you see this?  It came last week. Verso Economics saying that, for example, in Scotland the investment in green power has cost 3.7 jobs for every one green job created.  And there are similar figures; I’m looking at Italy here, Germany, Spain.  They’re all the same figures.

JD:  They’re not all the same figures.  You can pick figures to support any argument.  What I’m saying is that the experience in Europe is we’ve done things well and we’ve had some things which we wish we’d done differently at the start.  The impact on the economy has been that it has stimulated growth in jobs that will last.  It’s not been noticeable in the impact on households.  Not compared to gas and oil prices and the impact that they have on households.  And that we actually have governments in Europe including the UK, Germany and France who are asking for tougher targets now.  Now governments aren’t in the business of trying to undermine their economies.  They want their economies to grow.  If the UK, Germany and France did not believe that this was good for their economies and good for the planet they would not be asking for tougher targets.

AB:  I wish I could believe that.  We’re talking about a region – Europe – that has unemployment at 10% and a growth forecast this year of 1.6%.  I don’t know what we could learn from Europe actually.

JD:  Well.  Europe is not all the same.  Different bits of Europe have different experiences, clearly, and different economies.  Germany is an economy that’s a coal state like Australia and there may be things that you can learn from Germany.  I would not pretend that the UK is the same as Australia.  I recognise that Australia has its own special circumstances.  But I think if you look at how you want an economy to grow over the next 40, 50 years then you can either embrace what is going to be the way forward – and what the rest of the world is looking towards doing (including China and India) – or you can say “No, I’m not going to look at this, I’m going to stick with the same old ways of doing things”.  Now, actually, it takes time to change and it takes a lot of creativity and thought and I’m not saying that every country in the world should change at the same rate.  But this is a serious issue.  I realise that I’m talking to climate sceptics here.

AB:  Ah, look, economic sceptics as well, Jill.  Because, really, when you say for example that China and India will do something: they won’t.  China will, in fact, be responsible for more than three-quarters of the world’s growth of emission in the next 20 years. But look, I know we are not going to agree on this…

JD:  That’s right.  There are 1.3 billion people in China who would probably like the same standard of living that Australians enjoy.

AB: Precisely my point. Exactly my point.

JD: But they are also investing very heavily in wind.  They’re the largest manufacturers of wind turbines in the world now.

AB:  We won’t get into an argument because they’re building a coal-fired power station every week.  Thank you for joining us.

SP:  Jill, thank you.

AB:  I’m not persuaded I’m afraid and Steven I’m just astonished that someone selling a carbon emissions programme here, saying that Europe works, cannot tell us how much Europe’s costs and what it will actually achieve in lowering the world’s temperature.

SP:  And she did say that 550 million people in Europe, acting alone, would not have any impact on global climate.

AB:  So what does that say about Australia?

SP:  So what are we doing? One quick call.

AB:  My God Almighty.

SP:  Paul, good morning.

Paul:  Good morning Andrew, I’m praying: where can I donate?  Please, that lady was just a clown.  She doesn’t know how much it will cost, what it’ll do and if it’ll make no difference.

AB:  But we’ve got to do it anyway, Paul.

SP:  Well, she was left speechless at one point.

Paul: Where do I donate money to get this interview published?  Can it be an advert?  Can it be run during “An Inconvenient Truth”?  Please, I’m praying, where do I give money?

AB:  Paul, I tell you what, Britons will want to give money too because, listen to this – this is how green policies have left Britain risking not having power when they actually need it.  They had on just a couple of days ago, on the BBC, Steve Holliday, who’s the head of the national grid which distributes electricity around the country.  He said because they’re ramping up wind power – which he thought was good, global warming and all that – people might have to get used to an economy where they could only use power when the wind blows.

Steve Holliday:  “We keep thinking about; we want it to be there and provide power when we need it.  It’s going to be a much smarter system then.  We’re going to have to change our own behaviour and consume it when it’s available and available cheaply.”

SP:  They’ll only have lights when the wind blows.  Great stuff!

Conclusion: Jill Duggan should be fired and a moratorium on all programs relating to climate change put on hold until an independent commission of international experts fully examines this carbon fraud and determines who should be prosecuted and put behind bars.

1 Comment

Filed under Cap & Trade, Carbon Taxes, Carbon Trading, Climate Change, Co2 Insanity, Global Warming, Government, John O'Sullivan, Politics

Germany Dumps Global Warming – Climate Disruption is Last Green Gasp

By: John O’Sullivan

German ministers and scientists finally abandon the global warming hype and  preach ‘climate disruption’ claims as last hope for new raft of taxes.

Germany’s Federal Ministry of Education and Research (FMER) has signalled a decisive switch in global warming policy. In it’s latest official press release titled, ‘Cold Winter in Europe Does Not Question Climate Change’release (February 22, 2011) Germany’s pro-green government finally fell into line with the U.S. and British environmental campaigners; global warming is dead and ‘climate disruption’ lives in the most populous (82 million inhabitants) nation of the European Union (EU).

Germany has long been a major force in the climate wars and Angela Merkel and her Christian Democratic Union (CDU) government, in particular, have shaped wider EU climate policy. With the realization that scares over catastrophic global warming have fooled no one Merkel is pinning her green taxation hopes on the ‘climate disruption’ banner.

Bait and Switch as Warming is Out and Disruption is In

The FMER, however, was not quite letting go of the global warming narrative as it reared its ugly head more than once in the press announcement. But in a bait and switch move that U.S. President, Barack Obama would have been proud of the Germans obfuscated their outmoded global warming hype amongst the increasing and contradictory body of evidence showing cooling. Taking lessons from the Whitehouse the German version of the global warming spin machine has now switched over to a ‘climate disruption’ narrative instead.

In it’s statement, despite conceding that “December in Germany was four degrees colder than average” FMER fiendishly insist that such cold is, in fact, proof of ‘climate disruption’ – a belated tacit admission that global warming had, in fact, stopped in 1998.

The German government line now is that, “all over the world more and more humans seem to suffer from extreme weather conditions. The torrential floods in Australia or the centenary fires in Russia last summer: aren’t they unambiguous signs of climate change?”

Er, no, FMER, that’s not the best way to do it! Aren’t climatologists constantly telling us that weather events are not climate?

Germans Told that Weather is Not Climate

But FMER then contradicted their BS and admitted that recent weather events “are neither proof nor counter-evidence for global warming.”

Then, sticking strictly to the doomsaying warmist line came Jochem Marotzke, director of the Max-Planck-Institute for Meteorology and head of the German climate consortium. Marotzke, an otherwise nice chap to his friends, warned us that “our personal sensations are useless” and that “in spite of the cold Northern European winter, 2010, on a global scale, was one of the three warmest years on record.” Pull the other one, Jochem!

Propagandists like Jochem will have a rather hard time selling that brand of BS in many southern hemispheric nations such as Australia. The Aussies, for instance, had a string of unusually cold weather records in 2010. Alice Springs endured it’s coldest day since August 1966, Sydney had its coldest June morning for 60 years and Melbourne it’s longest cold snap in 14 years.

But here we need to realize where the secret weapon for the global warming fraudsters is hidden – it’s in the so-called ‘homogenized’ data; those computer-crunched numbers (not real temperatures) cooked up by clandestine government organizations such as the U.S. National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) and Britain’s Climatic Research Unit (CRU) who both decline to show their calculations to independent auditors.

World’s Oceans are Cooling, Not Warming

What is not being conscientiously reported is that NOAA admitted that in 2010 sea surface temperatures actually decreased across the equatorial Pacific Ocean with the end of El Niño; a cooling ocean is an excellent signal of future atmospheric temperature trends being that the heat capacity of water is 1000x greater than the heat capacity of the atmosphere and our oceans cover 71 per cent of the planet. So if the oceans are getting cooler they, in turn, will likely begin to cool the atmosphere.

Some measure of sanity is briefly restored in the later part of the statement whereby Annette Schavan, federal minister of research stresses, “The connections between weather and climate are complex and regionally different. We therefore have to further deepen our understanding of system earth to be able to successfully confront the consequences of climate change.” At last, we got a frank admission those climatologists have a lot more to learn.

More Long-term Evidence Needed from Climate Scientists

Thankfully, the minister also affirms what good scientists agree on, which is that “climate change can only be verified by long-term observations” and she suggests we apply caution when we consider the “unusual statistics of 2010 with its record heat in July and the unusually cold winter months.”

Schavan then goes on to assert that climate is subject to rather large natural fluctuations and can change much more on a monthly or yearly basis and that “climate change can have large regional differences.” The problem she and her doomsayers now have is trying to unpick the allegedly ‘man-made’ climate influence from the natural variations our wonderful planet delights in delivering to us.

But, sadly, common sense doesn’t prevail in this trite performance and the minister is soon back into the propaganda groove to pronounce that colder weather still equals global warming. Yes, minister – especially for those ‘scientists’ that prefer to live their lives in the virtual world of computer climate models. Without a hint of irony she then reports, “In spite of general global warming, it is inappropriate to assume a simple exclusive overall rising of temperatures. Models are showing that some regions even get colder or seasons are shifting.”

Germany now to Pursue Climate ‘Adaptation’ Policies

Now hoping she steered enough of her audience back ‘on message’ she concludes, “We need new holistic approaches enabling us to design adaptation to climate change. The federal government, based on their new energy research program to be adopted this spring, will consistently start research activities to max out industrial efficiency potentials as well as those in the fields of buildings and traffic and to open up renewable energy sources. Only this way will we achieve our ambitious climate protection goals and reduce global increase of temperature as much as possible.” So that hubristic ‘we must cut global temperatures by two degrees’ anthem hits the trashcan, too!

To sum up, despite increasing evidence contradicting the claims of global warming the deranged governments in Europe, including pro-green Germany, still clinging to the forlorn hope that voters are going to allow the imposition of some climate-related taxes, only today, the spin is firmly on ‘climate disruption’ and ‘mitigation’ because no one, not even the pro-green Germans, are buying the discredited global warming spiel any more!

Source: John O’ Sullivan

8 Comments

Filed under Cap & Trade, Climate Alarmism, Climate Change, Climate Disruption, CO2, Co2 Insanity, Germany, Global Warming, Government, John O'Sullivan, Politics

Power Supplier Admits Going Green Will Put the Lights Out in Britain

No wind = no power = Problems

By: John O’Sullivan

British families have been told the shocking truth about the price of green energy. They must prepare to go without electricity for extended periods, warns UK’s top electricity boss.

Steve Holliday, National Grid’s chief executive issued a stark warning over the consequences of the UK ‘going green’ speaking to listeners to Radio 4’s Today program.

The shock admission was immediately picked up in the Daily Telegraph (March 2, 2011) in the article, ‘Era of constant electricity at home is ending, says power chief.’

Britain’s largest energy supplier, National Grid is one of the most lucrative privatised monopolies in the world. It dealt the cold realities to a nation already committed to spending £18 billion per year on unnecessary and unpopular ‘green’ taxes.

Brits told – Wind Turbines Whether You Like it or Not

The colossal company is hell-bent in pursuing an ill-conceived agenda to make it’s energy policy more ‘environmentally friendly’ by focusing on wind power.

When tackled about how the company was going to keep Britain’s lights on when the wind wasn’t blowing Mr. Holliday replied, “Families will have to get used to only using power when it was available, rather than constantly.”

Holliday’s plan will, in effect, take Britons back to the bad, sad old days of the 1970’s when the miner’s strike forced electricity generators to restrict supply and throw the nation’s workers onto the ‘three day week’ whereupon uncollected garbage and dead bodies were piled high workers and citizens endured a bleak winter in abject misery.

“As a society, we all need to be clear about what we can and cannot afford” continued the fat cat enjoying a one million a year salary and a £1.27m bonus.

Holliday’s vision confirms the predictions of an increasing number of experts exposing the myths of sustainable energy and documented in a new book,The False Promise of Green Energy. The book strongly suggests that green-job proponents have been getting away for too long peddling an unrealistic vision of energy production.

Holliday’s words are now fulfilling a bleak prophecy that imposing such ill-conceived measures will either bring a dramatic increase in the cost of energy or significant cuts in its use.

Citizens in Revolt over Green Energy Fascism

Physicist and leading energy critic, John Droz Jr. responded to Holliday’s bleak draconian prediction saying, “This is the type of ammunition that will resonate with all citizens, anyplace fighting wind energy.”

National Grid is used to controversy and is so unpopular a website‘National Greed’ has been set up to expose it’s shenanigans. Workers revolted over jobs being sent to India at the same time as annual profits hit £2,914million and senior executives were buying Ferrari’s and stabling them in a “hotel for fine automobiles” (Paul Routledge, Daily Mirror, 31/07/09).

Source: John O’Sullivan

Edit: I have seen some people questioning whether this is legitimate or not on other sites and someone questioned me because they were unable to find the article on the Telegraph website. I searched and manually nosed around their archives and was unable to find it on their site, too. I did locate a photograph of the page in the Telegraph with the article which is below.  Editor.


 

Editor’s Comments: Will this happen in California due to AB32, California’s Global Warming Law? Me and others have been predicting that AB32’s cap & trade will raise the cost of power to the point that people could be left unable to afford power for their homes and could cause businesses to  head elsewhere where  power is cheap. Other draconian measures in AB32 could also cause increases in prices of things made in California and also could cause businesses to take their manufacturing facilities elsewhere, which is already happening. Californians were duped by people like Arnold Schwarznegger, James Cameron, Bill Gates, and other famous greentards into voting no on Prop 23, which would have delayed implementation of AB32 until the unemployment level in California dropped.

You can read more about California’s current and coming problems with AB32 at the below links about this CO2 Insanity.

Thousands More Green and Other Jobs Flee California

Prelude of California Green Job Market

California Chasing Away Cruise Industry?

California Leads Way on Global Warming

California’s Cap & Trade May Encourage Clear-Cutting Forests



1 Comment

Filed under AB32 California, Cap & Trade, Climate Change, Co2 Insanity, Editor, Financial, Global Warming, Government, Green Energy, John O'Sullivan, Renewable Energy, Solar, Wind Power