Sunday, 20 December 2009

CARBON CREDIT SCAM

It has been alleged by "Climate Change" believers that opposition to the measures advocated is driven by self interest and big coal and oil companies, while those in favour are pure scientists with no axe to grind.

The truth is somewhat different.


In this exceptionally cold week after the Copenhagen Talks failure it seems everything is OK for those greedy parasites who seek to profit out of it.
The article above from The Mail on Sunday illustrates the point.
We are being charged through our utility bills and taxes with the money being creamed off by the City and foreign industrialists and Labour donors. Even the NHS has to pay £millions. Worse we are losing thousands of jobs as indicated in the article with the closure of the Corus steel plant in Redcar.


Thus the friends of Labour foreign industrialists and the friends of the Tories, City fat cats are methodically destroying our future.
Our delegates to this farce of a conference flew there (many by private jet) causing huge carbon emissions, a thing they said they wanted to prevent showing themselves to be hypocrits as well as traitors.
It is just an exercise in the move to world government and away from democracy.
Carbon trading will not reduce emissions by one ton, but even if they did it would be too high a price to pay here for such an uncertain science.

Global warming even if it were to occur would not adversely affect our country.
It is ironic that the coldest period in the Northern Hemisphere for many years started during the conference.

That is not to say I am against conservation but any taxes raised on fossil fuel consumption should be used to reduce our dependence here and not sent abroad. We should resurrect the coal industries and ignore these non scientists and student protestors.

Saved our financial system and now the world have you Gordon?

You must be joking!
And you wonder why few intelligent people believe you.

33 comments:

Chris Hill said...

Hi Charles,

You said:

"Global warming even if it were to occur would not adversely affect our country.
It is ironic that the coldest period in the Northern Hemisphere for many years started during the conference."

I say:
Could you provide evidence for both these statements. As far as I understand it, Global Warming will produce wetter summers which will adversely affect wheat harvests, and I've not heard any one claim the current cold spell is anything unusual.

From
Chris Hill
(Lancaster)

Lanky Patriot said...

You have obviously not watched the news on BBC then. In the USA mid West it said that it was the coldest December spell ever. Also in Europe it is the coldest spell since Feb 1990 I think. December is usually warmer than February.
As far as wheat is concerned there is no evidence that wetter summers will be caused. It is a theory as yet unproven.

Andy said...

Apart from following the money. Why did the "climate scientists" lie?

http://www.examiner.com/x-9111-SF-Environmental-Policy-Examiner~y2009m12d18-The-Climategate-code

On this latitude its -20C everywhere else in the Northern hemisphere.

The Sea is freezing over!

Chris Hill said...

Hi again Charles,

You are correct. The US's "National Weather Service Forecast Office" is predicting lower than avarage tempratures on the east coast over the next week.
"US 5 day weather map"'

But as I say one spell of cold weather in late December, on its own proves nothing.

From
Chris Hill
(Lancaster)

Lanky Patriot said...

As a farmer since 1958 Chris I think I would have more idea about the weather than most.
It is rare for a week's frost and snow before Christmas and some years we have had none. 1975 winter for example. A hot summer and a very wet October followed by no frost. I know because we harvested potatoes in February which had not been frost damaged.
I picked sprouts for our farm shop for 10 years and in only one of those was it frosty and snowing before Christmas.
Even in 1962/63 it only froze on Christmas day, and you must remember 1976 when it was very hot and dry.
It has always been RARE for severe frosts before New Year and I can go back until 1952 in my farm diaries.January 1952 was mild.
1954 was a very wet summer and 1959 was a hot summer.So from my own PERSONAL evidence it has not got hotter on average.
The odds are that it will be colder in February, it usually is the coldest month.

Chris Hill said...

Hi Charles,

The average Global temperature seems to have risen by about 1F over the last 30 years, so I think it very unlikely that you would notice any dramatic change: Ref [
"British Met Office on Global average temperatures."]. Such small changes over a long period of time are not obvious to an individual, even a farmer with records, but they do appear when the data is properly analysed by climatologists.

Now if we can get away from this childish claim that scientist have been cooking the books, because it's clear that they haven't been. The data shows the world is warming, and that this will eventually (50-100 years) have a devastating effect on the planet.

I too remember the winter of 1962/63 (although I was 7 at the time), and it was certainly a lot colder than anything we've experienced here in the UK since. But we can't base our knowledge on just one or two events. We must accept that such a small increase (small on an individual basis that is) is not obvious to the individual observer, and may well not be obvious until the sea level rises 4-5 ft, by which time it will be too late. I simply find this attitude of: "what do I care by then I'll be dead" a total disgrace. I'm not implying that you hold such views, I know you don't, but I'm afraid many deniers do.

From
Chris Hill
(Lancaster)

Lanky Patriot said...

I don't say it does not matter as I'll be dead.
I do say we should use any money we have to strengthen coastal defences and I do believe that as we only produce 2% of global emissions the subject is of little interest to us unless we give to other "poor" countries vast amounts of money that we have to borrow when we will have a disaster.
Thus, we should protect our industries, support green energy when possible AND SPEND OUR MONEY HERE, as our country is the one that matters to me.
India China and Bangladesh are as much concern to me as we would be to them---NIL.

Andy said...

Simply telling us "this childish claim that scientist have been cooking the books, because it's clear that they haven't been."

Does not constitute not proof, Chris. They blatantly admitted to cooking the raw data in private emails. Admitted in the program code the parts where the previous gains are added to next years. Created fictitious weather stations and massaged data in others. Admitted the powers that be will not be happy with the wrong answers and to top it off the man in charge was SACKED! For telling the truth! Prior to all this, (Obviously playing safe) They renamed "Global Warming" to "Climate Change". Imagine my shock! So on and so forth. Wheres my hockey stick Chris?

Why is it all the countries that claim they "suffer" "global warming" want money? Surely, only scammers want money. For decades now we have come to understand money does not stop global warming. It increases it. Up goes the GDP to pay for it. They have (for instance) no interest whatsoever to halt long haul travelling by taxation. So whats the game?

Whats wrong with allowing disease starvation and pestilence to cull humans? After all, its humans who consume energy. Imagine if Central Londonistan had a catastrophic flood? I have to say it; An act of Allah. That will help with Our "carbon footprint" and make the area 2C lower. Won't do diddly squat to global temps though.

Sir Henry Morgan said...

Chris

We notice that you are very selective in what you choose to casll evidence and what you choose to call non-evidence.

For example, you seem to think that evidence from engineers doesn't count - but seem quite happy to accept as evidence the word of an Indian railway engineer.

How do you account for these things?

Now I happen to KNOW that all science is decided by statistical analysis of data, so when a statistician (Steve McIntyre) tells me the statistics of "Climate Science" is bollux, I do tend to believe him.

Are you going to argue with my assertion that all science is decided by statistical analysis of the data? Because that would confirm to me, and any other readers who have even a rudimentary knowledge of the scientific process, that you're arguing out of your arse.

Chris Hill said...

Hi Charles,

I must admit I agree with a lot of what you say, and it seems to me that as you said: "I do say we should use any money we have to strengthen coastal defences" you do accept the truth of Global Warming. Now whether it's being caused by man's activities, has indeed still not been conclusively proved beyond all doubt. Although I do think the evidence suggests very strongly that to some great extent it almost certainly is.

I'm not sure where you get that 2% figure from, because the most quoted figure I found was 3% for the UK's green house gases emission, and 14% for the EU as a whole (or should that be hole) Ref [
"BBC facts on Global climate change." ]. But even if your 2% figure is correct, that still means, with a population that makes up less than 1% of the world's total, we are still emitting more than double the world average.

I've really been shocked at the viciousness of the attacks on climatologist, such as in the recent hacked email affair. The vested interests (massive international energy companies and Arab Oil Sheiks) who do think, as I have stated previously, that the major part of the damage to the planet is not going to happen for 40 or 50 years, by which time they'll be dead. It's clear to me that people are being paid to fog the issue, exactly as the tobacco industry paid some unscrupulous doctors and medical researcher (between the 1950's and 1990's) to delay action on smoking.

From
Chris Hill
(Lancaster)

Chris Hill said...

Dear Andy (07:20hrs),

Most of the points you make are covered in this gentleman's series of YouTube videos: "Those hacked emails and climate change." These are of course not scientifically accredited publications, but they are very informative and he does reference accredited sources for the facts he presents.


Dear Morg (08:50hrs),

Please read over my comments again. At no time did I say that an engineers opinions, on climate change, can be rejected simply because they are engineers and not scientists. In fact as an engineer myself, and one whose own Ph.D research included a very detailed analysis of a large amount of data, I have a great respect for engineers and their abilities.

As for you contention that all science is based on a statistical analysis of data, I'm afraid that that isn't quite correct, but of course much of it is. You say you tend to believe Steven Mcintyre because he's a statistician, can I be bold and suggest that (possibly unconsciously) you favour him because he is saying what you would like to hear (I mean this in no derogatory way and I am certainly not suggesting that you are being deliberately dishonest). In your final paragraph you suggest I'm talking out of my backside, this I'll ignore as I don't think theses type of insult helps the discussion at all.

From
Chris Hill
(Lancaster)

Lanky Patriot said...

No Chris strengthening coastal defences does not mean I accept global warming.
On the East coast the land is sinking as part of a geological adjustment which has been taking place for the past 14,000 years following the ice age.
It just shows you can't base your predictions on one aspect.
The coast is rising in Western Scotland or it seems to be. Does that mean that the sea level is falling in Western Scotland or is it the land that is altering. I think the latter in which case global warming has F all to do with it.

Sir Henry Morgan said...

Chris

"But as I say one spell of cold weather in late December, on its own proves nothing."

Aye - but what will we hear from you next time there's a minor heatwave?

Be sure, I will remember this conversation (or do you plan to delete that comment? You have form.

Oh, and while I'm at it - you've several times refused to accept evidence because it didn't come from scientists Yet you tell us now you've never done such a thing.or have you been back and deleted or amended those too?

Sir Henry Morgan said...

Chris

"The average Global temperature seems to have risen by about 1F over the last 30 years"

No Chris - they've apparently risen that much over the past HUNDRED years. And even that is only according to fiddled data - data fiddled to fit the theory; about as anti-science as you can get.

Data-fiddling is proven for New Zealand, China, Russia and Australia - all fiddled by the CRU at the UEA. And no, you can go and find your own bloody "scientific" evidence.

And you're beginning to exhibit trolling behaviour.

Sir Henry Morgan said...

" I'm not implying that you hold such views, I know you don't, but I'm afraid many deniers do. "

That's EXACTLY what you're implying. Weasel words don't get past me.

You're the "denier" - a Climategate denier.

Please stop using that word - it has clinical psychology implications and you lot on the losing side of the argument use it for exactly that reason. Language can be powerful stuff for the unwary.

Morg's mad - they're saying. Oh dear, does it show that much? Shame eh?

Chris Hill said...

Hi Morg,

Let's get this straight. In the 2 or 3 years I've been posting on this blog, I've deleted only one comment, and that was (as I have already explained) by mistake!

Your constant insistence that scientists are fiddling their result to support their contention that the world is warming, is simply nonsense. I ask how do you know this (and please don't reference some obscure blog of doubtful veracity), have you been able to analyser the data more effectively than the whole world's scientific community combined? Because if you have please publish those results, and if you haven't please stop claiming that you have some inside knowledge denied to everyone else.

The attempts to totally distort the meaning of those hacked emails, have now been shown (at least provisionally) up for what they were; outright lies. Although of course we will have to wait for the publication of the official enquiry's report before we can prove that beyond doubt. But I'm confident (although I do accept that this is conjecture on my part) that that enquiry will show that there were far more people involved, in that disgraceful theft of emails, than just a few rogue dishonest troublemakers.

Finally I won't be claiming that one hot summer's day proves Global Warming, because as I have said many times before: "indeed one sunny day doesn't make a summer". But I think a second summer (say within the next 5 years) of clear seas throw the North-East Passage, would indeed be a good indicator of the truth of Global Warming.


Now I've posted this link to the British Met Office before, but as it's a well respected and accredited scientific organisation I feel justified in doing so again.
"British Met Office on Global average temperatures." .

Good science is published by professional scientist not anonymous bloggers.

Keep well and I'd like to wish all the Wigan members a happy Christmas.
Chris Hill
(Lancaster)

Sir Henry Morgan said...

Problem is Chris - I don't believe them. I know what the method should be, and I know how they've violated the whole process from th data analysis phase all the way through tto the journal publication phase. They've violated the rules of peer review - the lot. At every stage of the scientific process they've violated the norms. And the Met. Office takes all it's data from these cheats and frauds.

And we here are an obscure blog. Don't we matter then? Have we nothing useful to contribute?

By your standards.

Sir Henry Morgan said...

Not a good day to argue with me - I've been (over)sampling the Remy Martin.

I was in the Air Force and TA - yardarms and sunrise don't get a look in.

Sir Henry Morgan said...

... Naval terminology is so damned good though - I'm in the mood to metaphorically Deep Six someone. Anyone will do if they appear on my horizon.

Sir Henry Morgan said...

You seem to be into "post-normal science (i.e. you don't have to scientifically prove your theory, only state it). "Evidence" can always be manufacyred later.

Are you also into Mandelsnakes "post-democratic politics"?

Sir Henry Morgan said...

Chris

Imagine what I might be like if I didn't actually like you?

I acknowledge you are highly intelligent, and a nationalist. We all tend to like our own

Sir Henry Morgan said...

I really should leave the Remy alone ...

Sir Henry Morgan said...

Everyone's learning why I stopped drinking entirely for over thirty years. 'Cos I can be a real C***. But I'm 57 and not in good health so I think ... what the hell - a bit of what you fancy, and all that.

I might - might - later delete these comments. I might have one of those "oh f***, what did I do and say yesterday?" moments.

Sir Henry Morgan said...

... but I'll try and argue coherently. Try. Might be good for you to get a laugh out of it.

Chris Hill said...

Hi Morg,

There's no crime in starting your Christmas celebrations early. So I can only say: "have a great Christmas".

Keep well
Chris Hill
(Lancaster)

Sir Henry Morgan said...

Hahahahaha - nice one.

Sir Henry Morgan said...

Christmas - yeah ok. Just another day to me personally, but I envy believers - dying will be a lot easier for them than it will be for me. I know that all it leads to is oblivion.

I beleve - sincerely - that we are conceived, a little time passes, then we die. After dying is death - oblivion; a mirror image of before conception.

The only thing we knoe of befire we were conceived is what was written by those who came before us

Oh bugger - s***-faced.

Nothing moer from me today. I'm not THAT S***faced.

Yet.

Andy said...

Chris,
Your proofs that have "veracity" Come from a suspect (very professional) youtuber who used every propaganda trick in the book and the BBC.

But you deny any major news source that has no remit either way.

OK, Heard enough.

Sir Henry Morgan said...

Ady - you're a thinker.

Want a forum to say what ou hink?

Chris Hill said...

Hi Andy (07:49 hrs),

You said:

"Your proofs that have "veracity" Come from a suspect (very professional) youtuber who used every propaganda trick in the book and the BBC."

I say:
No! As I said, I'm not putting this gentlemen's video forwards as absolute scientific proof, but as a good starting point for anyone trying to understand the issue of Global Warming. Checking the information he gives, with accredited sources, is of course important/essential.

From
Chris Hill
(Lancaster)

Andy said...

Thank you Morg.

Will be BNP be represented over all of Wigan?

Andy said...

Chris,
This is my point! They cannot be accredited sources because of their paymasters.

For instance, when you hear Gov't cronies say Nick Griffin will commence building gas chambers within a month of his gaining office.. Who do you believe? Many will blindly believe the Gov't cronies. Like you are doing about global warming.

Even Blair has publicly stated even though it could be garbage. Carbon tax should be implemented anyway, he says.

Did you see that fantastic Tony Robinson documentary the other night? Its about climate changes that wrecked prior civilisations in our historical past. From Greenland to the equator.

I laughed when the Mayan taxation power base of bringing on the rains fell apart. Belize acquired a 100year drought after their 700 year old scam. Same day earlier, Brown stood on that podium, sounding like some power mad King Canute Who thinks he could turn the tide back. The idiot!

Climate change ended the Mayan rulers scam and hopefully it will spell the end of those who rule by bad science and fear now.

BRITISHLADY said...

LIKE ANDY ASKED,

IN THE ELECTION WILL WE HAVE A BNP VOTE, SOMEONE STANDING BNP ?

yaz