web analytics

We’re tired of lies we want the truth!

By Mike Cunningham On October 12th, 2014 at 10:44 am

As can be seen in the Telegraph story regarding Owen Paterson and the truly awful Climate Change Act, he is calling for the repeal, or at least the suspension, of this Act which promises to be THE most expensive legislation ever saddled upon this benighted Nation of ours. He states that the absurd levels of the so-called ‘Decarbonisation’ demanded by this Act will cost us £1,100 Billion in terms of cash we cannot afford, and after the disastrous damage wrought by the ‘Decarbon’ process, we will not have altered the Carbon Dioxide levels in the atmosphere by one ounce. Click on the Link, and read the story for yourselves.

Now speaking and writing personally, as I always do, I had a fair amount of time for Owen Paterson as a man, but probably a bit less for him as a politician. He was, in many respects, the typical old-time Tory from the Shires; his background was rural, his values seemed to be based in the English countryside. He voted against the truly ghastly Same-Sex marriage farrago, and he also, happily, came down like a ton of bricks on the limp-wristed Chris Smith in his disgusting and disgraceful actions when the Environment Agency’s wholesale abandonment of decades of sensible flood management systems resulted in the worst flooding of the Somerset Levels since records first began.

But I think that Owen Patterson ought to state why he has come out against the Climate Act only now, when on the back-benches, instead of when he was in Cabinet, and in a much higher profile position than now, when he could have stood up and denounced this Act for the ‘Green Crap’ it so soundly endorses.

Why did he keep quiet, if he believed that the Act was so wrong for Great Britain?

Why did he not threaten to resign if no-one took any notice of a countryman standing up for the Country?

Why did he stay in the Coalition Government if he felt that this policy, and this Act, was so wrong?

Why did he allow the Environment Agency to continue for so long with the perverted schemes of Chris Smith, when it was plainly obvious of the damage they were doing to the landscapes of England?

 

Or is the simple truth that he is, and always has been, just another greasy bloody politician, out purely for his own purposes, and ever ready to ditch a long-held belief for his own advancement?

 

Hushing Up Science to Promote AGW Legislation

By ATWadmin On July 1st, 2009 at 5:51 pm

Just last week the House passed the Obama’s Administration’s “Cap and Trade Bill.”

Talk about central planning!  

As a candidate, President Obama stated that one of the objectives of his Cap and Trade policies would be to encourage “clean” energy sources.  He stated that he would to this by making the production of “unclean” energy, like coal, so expensive through fees, taxation and global warming credits, that producers of unclean energy would have no choice but to abandon their endeavors.  He also stated that his cap and trade policies would increase the price of energy to the consumer. The consumer  absorbs the additional governmental fees and taxes in the cost increases passed on to them in their energy bills.  It was Obama’s thought that energy usage will decrease as the consumer is economically forced to reduce consumption and to be more energy efficient.

Now, Obama’s Cap and Trade Bill is tied to the UN and Al Gore’s Global Warming thesis. But new scientific evidence indicates that manmade gasses might not be the cause of any global warming.

Alan Carlin, a scientist at the EPA (Environmental Protection Agency) issued a EPA report stating that the EPA should consider actual science and not politicized summaries issued by the UN as they have done in the past.  

The report was hushed up.  Mr. Carlin’s supervisor sent Carlin an email which said:

“The time for such discussion of fundamental issues has passed for this round…I can see only one impact for your comments given where we are in the process, and that would be a very negative impact on our office.”

 

Understanding ‘Carbon Ration Cards’

By ATWadmin On May 29th, 2008 at 3:15 am


We Report.

You decide.


Programming note: You won’t want to miss the conclusion.

See also Eco-lunacy: Brits Want To Force ‘Carbon Ration Cards’.

H/T: Mark

Trouble In Gordon Brown’s Paradise

By ATWadmin On January 19th, 2008 at 1:37 am

Could a no confidence vote be on the near horizon?

EU treaty won’t work, says Labour MP


The new EU constitution treaty “won’t work”, the government is warned today, as ministers prepare for a bitter Commons showdown over the controversial document.

Gisela Stuart, one of the “wise men” that drew up the original EU Constitution, said the Lisbon treaty lacked the necessary legitimacy to work across Europe.

The Labour MP has signed an amendment to the Bill, which returns to the floor of the Commons on Monday, calling for a referendum on the treaty.

Stuart believes the UK’s Europe minister should be a cabinet-level post, akin to a deputy prime minister, and should be directly accountable to the Westminster parliament.

She also wants an assurance that any future changes to qualified majority voting (QMV) in the European parliament would be subject to primary legislation in the House of Commons.

In an interview with Guardian Unlimited, Stuart said: “I think this document pushes to the limits the areas I think I could just about agree with, but I would need further safeguards, so these are the limits and I think that’s what this debate is going to be about.”

Stuart said the revised document gave the European Union a “toolbox” of powers that would allow it to “interfere in virtually every aspect of our lives”.

“There is no longer a question of saying, there are certain things that the union can’t touch. Actually the union can touch everything.”

Pressed on her objection to the treaty, Stuart said: “I don’t think this is going to work.

Asked why, she added: “Because of a lack of legitimacy in the eyes of large swaths of people across Europe … The crunch will be the environment. If you look at the golden opportunity to tax the little people into oblivion acceleration of climate change, at the moment on the environment we are in a comfort zone of thinking all we need to do is take our bottles to the skip, recycle our newspapers; if you are really daring you say we should put tax on plastic carrier bags. And we think that’s enough.

Well the penny is going to drop that it’s not going to be enough, and you will need to make a decision on whether you tax or ration carbon emissions. Of course no one country can sensibly do this on its own, so this will be a classic case of where you need the EU to do this. And the EU will start to ask its citizens to stop doing something they have always comfortably done before. There will be some fairly hard demands.

“People accept hard demands if that’s a deal from their own government. But when politicians across Europe start saying, as they have always done, ‘it is not us’ – it’s always been the politician’s way of getting out of uncomfortable positions – at that point, it doesn’t have that kind of legitimacy.” Describing the Lisbon treaty as the same as the failed EU constitution “in substance”, Stuart said: “I’ve been struggling to find analogies of how you compare this. It’s like a cookery recipe: all the same ingredients, but you’ve just rearranged them differently. Or [former French president] Giscard d’Estaing came up with a wonderful phrase: he said, ‘it’s the same letter; just in a different envelope‘.

Stepping up pressure on Gordon Brown to call a referendum, Stuart said: “My view is whether you call it a constitution or whether you call it a treaty, in essence it is something pretty significant, and it’s a matter of trust now for the political parties to honour their promise.

“The British people should be given a say, as they were promised by all the major political parties in the 2005 election.

“I certainly will find it difficult to vote for the treaty on Monday unless there is a commitment to have a referendum.”

How ’bout dem apples?!? Like Gordon Brown, Gisela Stuart is a member of the Labour Party and she’s just thrown down the gauntlet.

Warning of the potential for Europe creep, Stuart said: “I give you one example. Ten years ago everyone said health was [the competence of] national member states. Absolutely no doubt about it. You then started to get court cases where people from one European country were going to another European country for dental treatment. The question was, was that part of the internal market? One of the key things of the European Union.

“So we have the first court decision, the European Court of Justice, that says, ‘yes, it is part of the internal market’. And then over a number of years you get more and more decisions because cases come up, until last year when someone in England goes over to France to jump waiting lists and the courts say ‘well yes, you can do that, but you need prior permission and all kinds of caveats’ – but the principle is established.

“You then at the same time over those 10 years have things like CJD [and] bird flu, so people say, ‘well of course, bird flu and CJD don’t recognise national boundaries, so public health must be an EU competence.’ So we make public health an EU competence; we make health service delivery a court judgment … so what’s the next thing?

“A European commission draws up a proposals for an EU health directive, which it did before Christmas, then decides to withdraw it to consult more. It doesn’t say we’ll put it back on the table, and as we in the UK are the only ones to have a totally taxpayer-funded [health] system we will have particular problems. But this just illustrates that there is nothing where the EU doesn’t have means – whether it’s court judgments; whether it’s internal market; free movement of labour – the way it makes laws. In every way it now has means, and once it has taken away a UK competence, there is no way you can ever go back.

Stuart called for a strengthening of the prime minister’s assurances over QMV.

The prime minister committed himself to saying, ‘no more extension of qualified majority voting or any further powers unless this house agrees to it.‘ Well, I would like that tightened up,” Stuart said. “First of all, the only area where that could happen is in defence and foreign policy, because everything else already has gone to QMV.

But I would want primary legislation, so it’s not just one vote the government can whip through with their majority, but [instead] it would actually have to be a bill and go through the House, and go through [all] the stages.

“The second thing is the way the House itself operates has to change – very, very significantly.”

Asked how she would vote in a referendum, Stuart said: “I don’t know yet. There are a number of things I would want to hear from our ministers, and assurances in terms of their interpretation, and it will be extremely finely balanced which way I will go.

My argument is that all the deals struck in Brussels need to be answered at the dispatch box. Create a proper Europe minister, take the Europe minister out of the Foreign Office, but make that person accountable for those negotiations. And that’s almost a deputy prime minister post.

I want them to come to the dispatch box every two weeks and say ‘those are the deals we have struck’. I think you would find that that person would probably be responsible for negotiating something like 50% of our legislation, and that would merit a cabinet post.”

Via The Guardian

José Manuel Barroso was unavailable for comment.


And hoping to avoid Nigel Farage

See also Reality Confronts European Union.

Also at JWF

Reality Confronts European Union

By ATWadmin On January 18th, 2008 at 4:28 am

The al-Goracle cult, otherwise known as the Religion of Environmentalism, has many devotees within the corridors of the European Commission and European Parliament.

That is, until a known eeeeevil – reality – jumped up and bit ’em on the ass.

eu_climate.jpg

EU Members Lobby against ‘Harmful’ Climate Plan

European countries and businesses have criticized a climate change action plan that COMINTERN the European Commission is scheduled to unveil next week. Their concerns about competition and carbon trading could undermine the EU’s commitment to confront climate change.

As the European Commission puts the finishing touches on a sweeping climate change policy package to be unveiled on Jan. 23, politicians and business leaders from the EU’s richest member states are lobbying to revamp draft policies that they believe could harm them in Europe and abroad.

Among the critics of the bill are France, which wants to protect its nuclear investments, Germany, which is worried about its renewable energy sector, and major European auto and steelmakers, who are concerned that Europe could lose its competitive edge.

But the Commission says it will not be bullied into diluting the climate change package. To back down, Commission President José Manuel Barroso told Reuters, would be an international embarrassment after the EU worked to promote itself as the international leader in addressing climate change. “We knew from the very beginning that transforming Europe into a low-carbon economy is not an easy task,” said Barroso. “But this is the moment to be serious, responsible and coherent with our commitment.”

In other words, Barroso believes that saving face is more important than the economic health and well-being of European Union member states. Nice to see that the consummate tax tick has his priorities straight.

Barroso was responding to complaints that include a letter from French President Nicolas Sarkozy, in which Sarkozy objected to a policy that would raise the share of energy that Europe derives from renewable sources from 8.5 percent currently to 20 percent by 2020. He said the policy “unnecessarily penalizes the prospects of growth.” France wants to have its huge nuclear energy program counted in the mandatory contribution it will be asked to make toward the EU goal, but atomic power, which produces toxic waste, is not considered a form of renewable energy.

Germany and Spain are protesting another proposed policy. Ministers in Berlin and Madrid sent a letter this week to the Commission criticizing a system [that] would encourage companies in Europe to trade renewable energy across borders. They are worried that an EU-wide system would undermine their existing national systems. “This will put a very successful development of renewables at risk, which is not acceptable to our governments,” read the letter in part. It was the second time this week that German officials criticized the forthcoming policies, after Bavarian politicians condemned (more…) a proposal to cap the amount of carbon dioxide that new automobiles produce per kilometer they are driven.

In an interview with the German magazine Capital published Tuesday, the EU environment commissioner, Stavros Dimas, denied that a new renewable energy trading system would infringe upon existing “feed-in” systems in Germany and Spain. “Don’t worry,” said Dimas. “We will ensure that Germany can keep its system without restrictions in (the) future and … we will construct it in such a way that it doesn’t hinder national promotion systems in Germany and other countries — that’s a promise.”

A politician making a promise. ROTFLMAO .

Private sector leaders also criticized the forthcoming policy package, saying strict limits on greenhouse gas emissions will hit major industrial polluters unfairly and encourage them to relocate outside of Europe. BusinessEurope, a lobby group that represents most of the Continent’s largest companies, said it had learned that the Commission will require industrial polluters to cut emissions to 21 percent below 2005 carbon emission levels by 2020.

EU officials explained that 2005 was chosen because it is the first year in which data includes the impact of the EU’s Emissions Trading Scheme; BusinessEurope says it is unfair because it does not take into account efforts to reduce emissions that companies made between 1990 and 2005. In a letter to Commission President Barroso, the group also objected to broader plans to strengthen the continent’s carbon trading scheme.

Many of the permits that a company must hold to emit carbon are currently distributed for free, but the Commission is proposing to auction those permits to the highest bidder by 2020. To offset the impact that might have on the competitiveness of a European business, the Commission is considering a carbon tariff (more…) on imports from outside the EU that were not produced within a carbon trading market. Still, BusinessEurope calls the prospect of an auction-based trading scheme “extremely worrying.”

The lobbying in Brussels this week is in sharp contrast to the proud tones in which European leaders announced last March their joint agreement to cut carbon dioxide emissions to 20 percent below 1990 levels by 2020 and make major investments in renewable energy and biofuels. As the Commission drafts policies that will make those goals a reality, Europe’s richer countries are frustrated that they will be asked to bear the brunt of the collective goal.

EU officials told Reuters this week that the Commission wants to allow the EU’s poorest member states to actually increase their emissions, by up to 20 percent above 2005 levels. That would help poor states like Romania and Bulgaria grow their economies – but could spell trouble for the strong European countries charged with making up the difference.

Via der Spiegel Online

See also Moonbats and Economics.

Also at JWF.

“Most of the models couldn’t predict the past”

By ATWadmin On December 22nd, 2007 at 4:56 pm

al-Goracle, line one, please.

Global Con-sensus

December 21, 2007: 08:05 PM EST

Dec. 24, 2007 (Investor’s Business Daily delivered by Newstex) —

Climate Change: A Senate minority report lists 400 reputable scientists who think the only melting ice we should really fear was in the cocktail glasses of attendees at the recent global warming conference in Bali.

In the wake of the Dec. 3-14 conference, where delegates worked to draft a successor to the failed Kyoto Protocol on global warming, Sen. James Inhofe, R-Okla., ranking member on the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee, has released a report that lists scientists who challenge both Al Gore’s assertion that the debate is over and the Bali conclusion that the planet is in imminent danger.

Many of the 400 scientists have taken part in the U.N.’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, whose climate change reports tout consensus but which critics charge are heavily edited to support pre-defined conclusions.

Among the IPCC’s warming “deniers” is atmospheric scientist Hendrik Tennekes, former research director at the Netherlands’ Royal National Meteorological Institute.

I find the Doomsday picture Al Gore is painting — a six-meter sea level rise, 15 times the IPCC number — entirely without merit,” he said. “I protest vigorously the idea that the climate reacts like a home heating system to a changed setting of the thermostat: Just turn the dial, and the desired temperature will soon be reached.”

Physicist John W. Brosnahan, who develops remote-sensing tools for clients like the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, says: “Of course I believe in global warming, and in global cooling — all part of the natural climate changes that the Earth has experienced for billions of years, caused primarily by cyclical variations in solar output.”

Brosnahan says he has “not seen any sort of definitive, scientific link to man-made carbon dioxide as the root cause of global warming, only incomplete computer models that suggest that this might be the case.” Those models, he says, leave out too many variables.

Indeed, a study in the Royal Meteorological Society’s International Journal of Climatology looked at 22 computer models used by the IPCC. Most of the models couldn’t even predict the past.

Predictably, after a quick review of the report, Gore spokeswoman Kalee Kreider said 25 to 30 of the scientists may have received funding from Exxon Mobil (NYSE:XOM), though she didn’t name which scientists she thinks were bribed to distort the truth. Wise move.

This is not like Al Gore getting 75 hours of free airtime on NBC, a unit of General Electric (NYSE:GE) , which stands to make wads of cash on things like solar panels and wind turbines. Or Gore being involved with a company that sells carbon offsets.

Heartland Institute senior fellow James Taylor has noted that more than 600 scientists at the Bali gathering could have debunked Gore’s warming theories, but the U.N. “censored” them.

By the way, Gore and his statist friends in Europe repeatedly have criticized the U.S. for its “failure to act” on warming. But new data show the U.S. in 2006 slashed output of greenhouse gases by 1.3%, while Europe’s output continued to grow. So who’s failing to act?

Here an idea: How about NBC hosting 75 hours of debate between some of Inhofe’s 400 scientists and any one of Gore’s choosing, including himself? Afraid of some inconvenient truths, Al?

Via CNN

truth-gore.jpg
Also at JWF