An inconvenient lie

Normally you expect the MSM to slavishly follow the global warming, climate change, climate disruption mantra, though in the last year or so the wheels have been slowly falling off this ruinous theory that we can do something about the climate of the planet, or indeed that the so called experts who claimed rising seas and mass polar bear die offs were inevitable if we didn't all stop breathing out CO2 and live a nice medieval lifestyle, with no power, homespun sack-cloth and obeyed an elite environmental dictatorship as they flew around in their private jets telling us how to live. But enough of the BBC, this article popped up in the Express.

WITH ­energy firms poised to hike their prices by up to 22 per cent, consumers may well feel it is time to question the growing burden of so-called green taxes.

While energy experts will point to a rise in the price of oil, the Government’s commitment to renewable energy is the real reason behind the increases, as we ­already have 14 per cent added to our bills to fund projects which cut carbon emissions and global warming.

However a leading scientist who worked for Australia’s Department for Climate Change for many years, says experts got their predictions wrong and the whole idea that ­carbon dioxide is the main cause of any global warming is in fact a lie.

David Evans, who was a consultant for the then Australian Greenhouse ­Office until last year, said: “The whole idea that carbon dioxide is the main cause of any warming is based on a guess made in 1980 that was proved totally wrong by scientists as far back as the mid-Nineties.

The whole thing is now a train wreck. Although no one started out to scam or mislead, really the ­climate scientists are a bit corrupt now as they know they are exaggerating, but there are now too many jobs, ­industries, trading profits and ­political careers riding along on this nonsense to admit it is just that.

Now leaving aside my suspicion that energy companies owned by foreign companies are using this country as a cash cow to subsidise their own countries, much of the higher bills we face is due to an environmental levy (or tax) to fund or subsidise so called "green" initiatives which in a lot of cases weren't particularly green, efficient or cheap. When questioned about these "scams" the case was often put forward that the technology would improve, though in the case of bird choppers, it is difficult to see how they could make the wind blow all the time and for solar, the sun shine all day (and night). The other low carbon alternative and the one that actually works was of course denied any subsidies by Chris Huhne the (allegedly) motoring ban dodging Energy Secretary.

Chris Huhne:
I can certainly confirm that we will not be providing public subsidy to nuclear and that we see nuclear as part of the energy mix for the future provided that safety concerns are met.

 So, we're being ripped off by the energy companies, ripped off by the government and lied to by environmentalists who are happy with the fact that we're being ripped off as it means it forestalls the imaginary ecospasm where the planet melts (or something) and there's nothing we can do about it unless or until there is a viable alternative to the LibLabCon power sharing scheme.
In the mean time the old will freeze and die in winter and the rest of us will wonder where all our spare cash has gone, yet many will still vote in the bastards that did this to us!
I'll leave the last word to David Evans...

“Yes, carbon ­dioxide is a cause of global warming, but it is so minor it’s not worth doing much about.”

More about → An inconvenient lie

The fear factor

Enviroloons thrive on fear, fear of the future, fear of resources running out etc. in a sense they are the ultimate in glass half empty types in that the "professional" greenies know if a solution is ever found for our energy problems they'll be out of a well paid job where it's a case of money for simply objecting to anything.
Shale gas extraction is a case in point, it might well sort out our long to mid term energy problems and move us away from foreign suppliers, at least or until someone somewhere finally manages to sort out fusion power.

BBC.

Green campaigners are objecting to plans to explore for gas on farmland in Kent, which they fear will lead to controversial shale gas extraction.

Coastal Oil and Gas Ltd, based in Mid Glamorgan, wants permission to drill an exploratory borehole at Woodnesborough to test coal and shale for gas.

The company said it mainly wanted to extract methane from coal, but did not rule out shale extraction in future.

The Kent Green Party said it was sceptical about Coastal's claims.

Green Party spokesman Steve Dawe said it believed that if gas was found in shale at the site, the company would later seek to remove it using the controversial fracking method.

Fracking was being used in Lancashire but was suspended last week as a precaution after two earthquakes in the county.

The process involves shattering hard shale rocks underground to release gas using either hydraulic pressure or tiny explosions.

"If they find the possibility of exploiting shale gas they will," Mr Dawe said.

"We wish to rule out such exploitation because it is a deeply polluting activity."

 Controversial, check, deeply polluting, check, earthquakes, check. Yep all seems to be in order for the standard enviroloon dogma output. Shale gas extraction is only controversial because greenies say it is, the method itself is not controversial at all just simple physics and chemistry. Nor I suspect does it cause earthquakes, land settlement perhaps, but not real earthquakes, what happened in Lancashire was an earth tremor, they got them before shale extraction started as well, Blackpool had an earth tremor of about 2.2 on the Richter Scale back in 2009 long before they started to extract shale gas. But any excuse by enviroloons to shut down a process they know will put a spanner in the works of driving us all back to a brutal medieval existence (except for those at the top of the tree) It's the same with nuclear power, greenies hate anything that actually works, they'd rather we played about with environmentally flawed and useless bird mincers that only run at 20% capacity and only if the wind blows at the right speed. They're even happy for the generating companies to be paid not to use them when they aren't needed.
Now, I'm all for protecting the environment from pollution and the unnecessary destruction of the landscape (which oddly enough is what a bird mincer does) I'm also very much for an energy policy that works when its needed and when I want it and not simply because the wind is blowing that day. That gives several options non of which are in favour of by enviroloons. We're sitting on masses of coal, we can build nuclear plants (and are) or we can (also) extract shale gas any of which will keep us warm and energy supplied for decades. Personally I don't want to see our old, our sick and our very young dying off from cold during a bad winter, but that I suspect is what the greenies will think is a price worth paying for their destruction of our civilisation.

More about → The fear factor

Save the bluebells, kill a dog

Some people don't get it, they have a passion for a certain subject that borders on fanaticism and then wonder why they get slated by commenter's and people like me.

Mail.

Dogs should be killed to protect Britain's bluebells according to feminist Germaine Greer who blames the pets for killing the woodland flowers.
The outspoken academic told the Hay on Wye literary festival that dog owners walking their pets through bluebells are killing off a fungus necessary for them to grow.
Professor Greer, who owns a one-acre bluebell wood in Essex, said that mycorrhiza fungi is being killed off by dogs' faeces.
She also said the British bluebell is under threat from a Spanish variety of the plant.
'But the real threat to our bluebells is not a foreign invader,' she said. 'It is the use we make of the woodlands, people running through them, taking photos of each other standing on trampled bluebells.
'And, at the risk of making you all very cross, may I suggest it is also time that the British gave up on their endless love affair with the dog.
'If you love your bluebells, kill your dog.'

Of course you could apply common sense and go for a cull of feminists/environmental extremists and save ourselves from comments like that of Germaine Greer. But wandering around Kent this year with my dog Coal I saw an abundance of bluebells for the first time in Places like High Elms near Downe and Ashenbank Woods near Cobham the woodlands despite the dogs are beautiful in late April and Early May with masses of bluebells.
Yes, anyone who owns a dog will watch them immediately head for a patch of bluebells for a crap (not), yes dogs do crap in the woods, but the chances of it being on the bluebells is the same as anywhere else.
So whilst there might be a problem with bluebells and dog faeces, it certainly doesn't seem to be the problem that Germaine Greer seems to think it is, not enough to start a cull of the canine population.

Paul Hetherington from the Woodlands Trust said: 'All UK woods have existed and developed with the presence of badgers and foxes; species of similar size and activity.

It's easy enough to keep people off the bluebells, dog faeces is usually gathered by responsible owners (not pleasant, but necessary) and oddly enough, the stuff that is left is often recycled by other denizens of the woodlands.

Bluebells if left alone will return, the Spanish variety is by far the biggest problem to overcome all the rest just needs to be a case of education and not some sort of barbaric cull by dog hating feminazi enviroloons.

More about → Save the bluebells, kill a dog

Double your money

The high priest of the cult of gaia (UK) who also sidelines in driving offence avoidance is trying to commit the taxpayer to doubling their energy bills. Enviroloon Huhne, the well paid Energy Secretary who hopefully will lose his cabinet position along with any chance of ever being Lib Dem leader wants to make sure the UK will halve its greenhouse gas emissions from 1990 levels.

Express.

BELEAGUERED Energy Secretary Chris Huhne yesterday committed Britain to “exceptionally ambitious” cuts in carbon emissions despite warnings that they could help double domestic energy bills in a decade.
Mr Huhne, who is fighting for his political life over allegations about speeding points, said that by 2025 Britain will have halved its greenhouse gas emissions from 1990 levels.
That is a significant expansion of the previous pledge to cut emissions by 34 per cent by 2020.
He also announced plans to develop giant offshore wind turbines, which would be nearly as tall as Big Ben.
Mr Huhne overcame Cabinet resistance to push through the plan and make Britain the first country in the world to make legally binding commitments to slash emissions in the 2020s.
But critics warned that the consumer will have to foot the bill. Mark Todd, director of price comparison service Energyhelpline.com, said the drive would cost households around £10.8billion a year extra by 2020, taking the average bill from £1,150 to £1,600.
He warned: “Fuel scarcity, political turmoil and natural disasters will drive this figure even higher and it would not be beyond the bounds of possibility to see bills almost double to £2,000 by 2020. Once again the ordinary consumer is ending up footing the bill.”
Price comparison site uSwitch.com also warned that annual energy bills could hit £1,600 within nine years.
Ann Robinson, director of consumer policy, said: “By 2020 the average bill will have rocketed by nearly £500. This doesn’t even take into account any price rises.
“Today’s announcement could be the death knell for cheap energy.”
Others feared big business would be driven abroad. The Civitas think-tank said the plans would create the “highest energy costs in the world” and send turnover worth £60billion and 600,000 jobs “up in smoke”.

Yes, prepare to be crucified by your energy bills in order to stop global warming climate change climate disruption. The stupid thing is, the technology doesn't even exist yet to get us close, bird choppers don't work at anything like their capacity, are expensive to run and maintain, solar power is not great in a northern climate and doesn't work at night and the only real option, nuclear, still gets a slating from the enviroloons who hate it with a passion because its messy if it goes wrong. Electric cars will improve, but they'll need a massive breakthrough in battery life and surge potential to even be a patch on a modern diesel for distance and economy, plus electricity is going to get expensive (and potentially unreliable with this scheme) to power the damned things. Insulation is great, but you still need to heat your home and if the wind isn't blowing?
Half baked, ill thought out, useless solutions to a problem that might not even exist.
As Lord Monckton put it...

“the largest tax increase in human history” driven “by blind, superstitious faith”.

Couldn't have put it better myself, the lights are going out soon.

More about → Double your money

Condoning breaking the law

Some groups are more equal than others, this is one of the sad facts of life in this land in which we live. Some groups get away with a blind eye being turned because a full investigation would be "racist" at least until someone finally got the nerve to complain, well someone other than the BNP of course. And there are some groups who get away with vandalism and squatting because their beliefs fall in line with government policies, groups like the environumpties currently squatting in a school near Brighton.

BBC.

The grounds of a disused school in East Sussex have been occupied by a group of climate activists.

About 40 protesters from Brighton Climate Action entered the grounds of the former St Anne's school in Lewes on Friday, declaring squatters' rights.

They have pledged to undertake a week of training and "direct action" against companies accused of environmental damage.

Sussex Police said the camp was peaceful and no arrests had been made.

Norman Baker, the Liberal Democrat MP for Lewes, said he was "sympathetic" to the protesters' action as "climate change is one of the most serious issues we face".

He said they were right to draw attention to it, but he was doubtful about the method chosen, saying that any protest must be "peaceful and within the law".

Mr Baker added that he did not condemn their use of the school building and grounds as it had been "empty for years".

I wonder whether Mr Baker would have been quite so forgiving if say they'd occupied his house, the Lib Dem party HQ or say the group had been someone like the EDL? I somehow think the response from him or indeed the police might have been somewhat different. After all the followers of the great green goddess have protected status in this land and they can seemingly get away with causing criminal damage in the name of their religion, well so long as they are doing it to someone other than the powers that be of course.
Squatting is illegal, these people don't even have the excuse that they are homeless and have nowhere else to go and I have a sneaking suspicion that any damage done to the site wont come out of their pockets either. Of course they might be perfectly well behaved (hah!) and leave in a weeks time after doing their thing.

The group also said an exploratory oil drilling site in an area of ancient woodland on the South Downs would be targeted for sabotage.

Or perhaps not, seems you can be a criminal in this land provided you're doing it for the right (green) reasons just don't try smoking indoors, driving marginally over the speed limit or drinking too much, apparently they're the wrong kind of law breaking.

More about → Condoning breaking the law

Living on another planet to the rest of us

Yes it's stick the boot into arch ecoloon Chris Huhne.

Express.

LIB DEM CHRIS HUHNE’S PROMISE ON CHEAP ECO-FUELS

HEATING bills will go down once renewable energy is commercial, the Climate Change Secretary has promised.
Chris Huhne said yesterday that the UK needed to prepare for a low carbon future.
In a speech to CentreForum in London the Liberal Democrat admitted there would be costs to consumers at first, but that in the end renewable energy would prove cheaper.
Setting out his vision for a low-cost future, he said the UK needed a “portfolio” of options, adding: “No-one knows what the most successful low carbon technology will be in 30 years.”
The Green Deal, to be rolled out in 2012, will see homes fitted with energy-saving packages.
Householders will pay for the improvements through savings on their bills, Mr Huhne said.

 Unless there is a massive breakthrough in the efficiency of solar power or the wind starts blowing all the time and the bird choppers suddenly become maintenance free (ie unbreakable) then nothing of the sort in the wonderful world of Chris Huhne is going to happen, though admittedly I can't predict 30 years ahead, on the other hand neither can he. I can predict though that prices will go up and not come down without the sort of breakthroughs mentioned and that much of the price we pay for these "green initiatives" will be subsidies and will remain a drain on our energy bills via government taxation.
At the moment though the only thing making green energy even remotely competitive with conventional energy generation is a massive energy subsidy from the government currently at over £1 billion a year for windfarms alone, roughly £32.50 on everyones bills.
The only genuine low carbon energy generating option is nuclear power and it has been an utter joy to watch the green movement dump all its opposition to this viable energy source over the last few years compared to their attempts to close down nuclear plants in the 80's and 90's. Again though because of the safety implications involved in generating by nuclear power, a nuclear plant is a hell of a lot more expensive than a coal or gas powered plant. Perhaps the generating industry could look at clean burn technology in those areas, though it seems unlikely whilst the government pisses our taxes away subsidising wind farms and solar panels that are energy inefficient.
So, unlike Chris Huhne, I'm not prepared to believe that energy prices will come down until or unless the government drop their insistence on renewables as a workable form of energy generation, but that's because I live in the real world, not one inhabited by politicians, the gullible and environmental extremists.

More about → Living on another planet to the rest of us

Green lunacy

No not about their genocidal tendencies (for everyone except enviroloons) but about political parties cobbling together "environmentally friendly" policies that have unintended consequences, well I think they are unintended, but with Labour you can't be too sure, though with Chris Huhne of the Lib Dems in charge of energy you probably can.

Express.

LABOUR’S battle to stop climate change has left school chiefs facing a multi-million pound bill.

Councils are being forced to pay huge penalties because ageing school buildings fail new green regulations.

The Carbon Reduction Commitment Energy Efficiency Scheme, to be imposed for the first time this year, is designed to ensure that public buildings do not waste energy.

A Government proposal to amend schools finance regulations will make it possible for local authorities to charge the schools’ budget for any losses. This will mean schools managing their heating costs well will be penalised with what amount to fines if a neighbouring school is less efficient.

Last year schools in Derby which were involved in a carbon reduction pilot scheme had to pay for meters to be fitted to measure the energy they use after having old electricity and gas bills scrutinised for past usage.

David Nichols, head of Little­over Community School in Derby, said: “We have been warned to install systems sooner rather than later to make savings. But our inefficient building is due to be knocked down in 18 months, so where is the sense in this?

Any fines will be go straight to the Treasury, according to a source from the Department of Energy, a move which will not prove popular with councils whose budgets are being slashed.

 Welcome to the wonderful wacky world of political envirolunacy, or rather a typical Labour cash grab, though you will note that the current crop of greedy barstewards haven't done anything about this either. I'm all for energy efficiency, as an engineer I would be but this obsession with carbon has nothing to do with energy efficiency. You want to see a major greenhouse gas? Go outside and look at a cloud and there you are. Carbon in all its forms is pretty much not going to warm up the planet, makes a good fertiliser, pretty jewels and a good heat source, but warm the planet, sorry you're kidding yourself. So instead of giving grants to help public buildings (and others) to become more energy efficient, or encouraging them to move into newer better quarters if they can't, Labour opted for the fine them till the pips squeak method and to add to the injustice made sure the fine was spread to all, including the energy efficient buildings, how terribly socialist of them. So, here we have in a time of economic slowdown, a useless scheme designed to combat a fake crisis, hitting both efficient and non efficient equally and picking our pockets via local councils having to raise council taxes to pay fines directly back to central government.

It's the perfect political solution, no? It even employs people to rob us.

More about → Green lunacy

90p a gallon, that'll be before tax of course.

Seems our clever British scientists have developed a fuel based on hydrogen that can be used as a substitute for petrol that costs only 90p a gallon (oh halcyon days) and can be used in petrol driven cars without modification. It's also carbon friendly but only idiot enviroloons give a damn about that.

Express.

BRITISH scientists have invented an “artificial” petrol that could spell an end to soaring prices at the pumps.
The new hydrogen-based fuel costs only 90 pence per gallon and could even run in existing cars.
The environment-friendly fuel has been developed in secret at a laboratory in Oxford and could be available in as little as three years.
Motorists could even be able to drive for 300 to 400 miles before needing to fill up.
The breakthrough comes as average UK fuel prices have hit a record high, marking “another milestone along a road of misery for drivers”, according to motoring organisation the AA.
The revolutionary fuel, which has been invented by Cella Energy, produces no greenhouse gases and is “suitable for widespread use as a carbon-free alternative to petrol”.

Clever guys, of course what everyone is forgetting is the cold dead hand of the state and fuel duty. There's no way in hell that we'll be buying fuel at 90p a gallon not with any politicians in charge of the country, not now, not then, not ever.
That said, if it can get us out of the clutches of OPEC and the Islamic oil cartel (yes I know it's not just the Middle East) then it will be a job well done. Until that is the enviroloons start panicking about us turning all our water into fuel. There are already water problems around the world of too much usage anyway. However there is a source of hydrogen available too us if we want to go and get it. All of the gas giant planets out there starting with Jupiter have hydrogen atmosphere's, plus there are masses of Ice asteroids out past Neptune. Not easy to get, but easy enough from a technical standpoint as the technology to convert the stuff to fuel to power the tankers needed to get it is already in development.
I'd expect our enviroloons to come up with some sort of objection though, it's in their nature, they want to reduce the world population (minus the enviroloons) not sustain or civilisation by technology. So this technology will have been a body blow to them.
Isn't science grand...

More about → 90p a gallon, that'll be before tax of course.

The turning wheels

Climate change, Climate disruption, Global warming (what the hell I'm a traditionalist and I like nailing warmists to the mast) started to unravel almost as soon as the phrase was invoked. A lot of scientists went along with it following the money, but a hard core dug their heels in faster than you could say hockey stick and said, hold on a minute this doesn't match what's actually going on. Unfortunately politicians had decided that they needed an excuse to wave in front of the public to justify their raid on our money via taxation for all those lovely bird choppers and climate levies on our fuel bills. So essentially truth became a casualty in the ongoing debate of whether or not mankind was responsible for warming the planet up, but the fightback was growing apace and slowly but surely the warmist camp were being forced onto the back foot as data continually showed they were talking out of their adjusted figures, 3 cold winters on the run didn't help either nor their support from the wilder side of the environmental movement. The so called "climategate" or "CRUtape" leak however tipped the balance, the "proof" skeptics had been looking for was suddenly out into the public arena and for all it's taken a couple of years and two cover ups investigations finally some politicians are taking note of what's going on in the minds of people in the real world.

Express.

TWO inquiries into claims that scientists manipulated data about global warming were yesterday condemned by MPs as ineffective and too secretive.
The row, which became known as Climategate, erupted in 2009 over allegations that researchers had deliberately strengthened evidence suggesting human activity was to blame for rising temperatures.
MPs on the Science and Technology Committee have now concluded that both probes into the scandal had failed to “fully investigate” claims that scientists had deleted embarrassing emails.

The investigations were set up after around 4,000 leaked emails and documents appeared to show that scientists at East Anglia University’s Climate Research Unit had manipulated data to strengthen the case for man-made global warming.

UEA’s Independent Climate Change Emails Review was led by Sir Muir Russell, while the Scientific Appraisal Panel was led by Lord Oxburgh.

But the MPs said they had “reservations” about both inquiries.

They criticised the brevity of the appraisal panel report, at “a mere five pages”, and said both investigations should have been more open to the public.

The committee also said the emails review “did not fully investigate the serious allegation” relating to the deletion of emails and instead relied on a verbal reassurance that the messages still exist.

Though the committee was split over the credibility of the inquiries, an amendment put forward by Labour MP Graham Stringer which said that they had not been independent was voted down by members.

He said Lord Oxburgh appeared to have a “conflict of interest” because of his links to green businesses while the Emails Review panel included a former Climate Research Unit scientist.

He maintained: “We are now left without a clear understanding of whether or not the CRU science is compromised.”

Yes, it's mostly MP's covering their arses, but it does give the first official signs that some MP's are starting to get worried by the web of lies and deceit implicit in the leaked documents and aren't very happy with the findings of the two investigations. It's a shame Labour MP Graham Stringer's amendment didn't get through, but that I suspect would have taken a miracle and run headlong into the administrations ultimate policy of milking us for all we're worth.
The warmists are losing the battle, they know this, but are still hell bent on getting as much cash for research out of the system before it all goes tits up, same with the government, one day someone will pull the plug and scapegoat hunting season will begin. MP's are notoriously good at shifting the blame, pro warming scientists and environmental groups should remember this, it wont be MP's who are hung out to dry, they'll just claim they were badly misinformed by the scientist and enviroloon movement. MP's will move onto the next great cash cow, probably biodiversity unless we hang them all first.

More about → The turning wheels

Never thought I'd see the day

It was always something that attracted the great green unwashed, various leftists and many others of the hard of thinking in society and that was nuclear power. New Labour actually came to power in 1997 with a promise to phase out nuclear power as part of its manifesto.

New Labour is a party of ideas and ideals but not of outdated ideology. ..... We see no economic case for the building of any new nuclear power stations.

All part of Blair's concessions to the left-wing suicidal tendency CND part of the party, a little sop to say we're still (sort of) Labour. Whilst other countries (namely France) moved on to third and fourth generation stations in an area we used to be world beaters at, the UK decided that we would be safe relying on others to provide the fuel for our stations as well as a very unhealthy reliance on mostly useless "Green" energy schemes that don't even come close to generating what is claimed they can never mind what the country needs.
So this little matter caused my eyebrows to raise...

BBC.

Hundreds of people have called on the coalition to reconsider a decision to rule out Dungeness as the site of a new nuclear power plant.

The previous government dismissed Dungeness as a location for one of 10 new nuclear power stations in 2009.

About 200 people gathered at the meeting in New Romney on Saturday, to pledge their support for a new plant.

Conservative MP for Folkestone and Hythe Damian Collins vowed to take the issue right to the heart of government.

He told the meeting he would take a petition signed by hundreds of residents supporting Dungeness to Downing Street on Tuesday.

Mr Collins said thousands of jobs in Kent and East Sussex were dependent on the power plant.

The meeting in New Romney was also attended by officials from the Department of Energy and Climate Change.

Dungeness was rejected as an option for a new nuclear power station primarily on environmental grounds.

It is in an area prone to flooding and the shingle beach which protects the current site from the sea often needs to be replenished.

Strangely enough if anyone 10 years ago had asked me where Dungeness was I'd have hazarded a guess at Scotland. As it is it seems so strange to have people clamouring to have a nuclear power station in their back yard. Yes the jobs are certainly welcome and yes it is essential on top of Labours attempts to strangle at birth any attempt to build any power station that actually worked, now currently carried on by that idiot Chris Huhne in the coagulation.
How things have changed in the last 14 years, any attempt to build a new generation of nuclear plants would have been the cause of marches up and down the country, public enquiries and various attempts at sabotage by enviroloonies. Now staring into the abyss of power brown outs in the next few years nuclear power is the only guaranteed power source that can produce the necessary giga-wattage reliably and of low carbon that the green movement can stomach.
Hypocrisy writ large, though still not the quickest and cheapest way to stop the blackouts, but as that would bring the enviroloons out of the woodwork (google Kingsnorth) it does give me a wry smile to see the damascene conversion of the Green movement and the idiot left.

More about → Never thought I'd see the day

Cashing in on fear

Energy bills are rising, mostly because the energy minister is an enviroloon who still believes in global warming climate change whatever the hell they're calling it this week. So energy providers are being hit by carbon taxes to subsidise useless green power in the shape of bird choppers and solar panels. And because these methods are subsidised by all us tax payers, people are checking out to see if they can get a hold of them.

Express.

CANNY home owners are avoiding huge rises in energy bills by turning to solar power.

With British Gas and npower respectively increasing their tariffs by seven per cent and 5.1 per cent, leading solar panel installer HomeSun said hits on its website have risen by 72 per cent.

The number of people registering with the firm to see if they qualify for free panels has tripled.

HomeSun is set to install and maintain 100,000 units for free under a scheme where customers keep all the power they need and the installer receives fees from energy suppliers, known as Feed-in Tariffs.

HomeSun estimates its panels can cut energy bills by up to 40 per cent.

Chief executive Daniel Green said: “Even on the shortest day of the year, with bleak overcast skies, solar panels will generate enough energy to light your Christmas tree.”

They really are talking total bollocks, most solar panels don't work when covered in snow for one thing, don't work at night, need regular cleaning (despite claims from the companies selling them) and lose efficiency over the years. Most household use more power than a set of Christmas tree lights too, the average set running at about less than an amp, or 40 watts depending on if they are filament lamps or more often these days low powered LED's. Assuming you get more power in the summer, I still can't see families saving that much, so I reckon it's some kind of con and saving 40% likely to be on a cloudless day on the summer solstice. I might be wrong though, I'm sure that someone will put me right if I am. So quick calculation time, I reckon on about 1500 KWh/ year and a payback of about 8%, not the 40% claim, might be more, might be less depending on how many panels are fitted.

Well the catch is of course  is this, the company offering the free solar panels gaining a 41.3p per Kw incentive. They will be using your roof to take a government grant off you. This is the equivalent of taking your chicken lunch off you and throwing you the wish bone to chew on. most people so inclined to go for solar power will wish they had installed them yourself.
Yes they'll get small savings off their electricity bills, but will lose out on the thousands of pounds government grant, the grant that's coming out of the taxpayers pocket.
So is it worth it? Only for as long as the government can screw us with carbon taxes, even then you'll get a minimum return on your investment if you buy them yourself.

More about → Cashing in on fear

Picking our pockets in the name of Gaia

Motorists are going to get a discount if they buy limited range slow charging electric vehicles, guess where the discount is going to come from taxpayers?

Daily Mail.

The first nine plug-in electric cars to qualify for discounts of up to £5,000 are revealed today.

The 'green' emissions-free cars which can be charged up from household mains and deliver 2p-a-mile motoring, go on sale from the New Year with a Government 'Plug-IN Car Grant'.

From January 1, 2011, motorists buying the first three of the named electric cars will get 25 per cent off, up to a maximum of £5,000.

The electric 'plug-in' discount comes as the Government also announces more places around Britain where the cars can be charged up when out on the road.

The taxpayer hand-out aims to kick-start the market for electric vehicles, which are exempt from the London Congestion Charge.

 I don't see why I as a taxpayer should be subsidising anyones buying preference, particularly when the vehicles involved are absolutely no use to me whatsoever. They have limited range, drive at night, in fog or just have the heater going it can get a lot less, large charging times and what they don't tell you is limited battery life with the power pack having to be replaced after 5 or so years at a coat of... you guessed it £5,000. OK if you're just knocking about town occasionally, even then watch your power bills go through the roof too. You might not be buying petrol, but you will be buying electricity.
On top of this usual green madness is the fact the government is handing over taxpayers cash to subsidise this, I'm sure the usual reasons will be trotted out, investing in our future, prices will come down if more are bought, emerging technology etc. Still picking my pocket to do it though.
Can't imagine what will happen when the lights go out in 2012 when the power stations start closing down, doubt the windmills will keep this lot going.

More about → Picking our pockets in the name of Gaia

This is what climate extremism has brought us too.

Fuel bills are high in the UK, some of it is down to the fact that foreign ownership of UK energy firms is used to subsidise foreign fuel prices, but a lot of it has to do with the climate levy that's added on to every household and industrial bill to "save the planet from climate change." The higher costs to industry also mean that higher costs of other services are passed on to us, it's a vicious cycle. What it means in reality is that people, particularly the old and vulnerable die as they count the pennies and make decisions on the grounds of stay warm or eat.
One of the measures of civilisation is how we treat our old folk, in the UK, it's not terribly well.

Express.

THOUSANDS of pensioners died from cold-related illnesses last winter as heating bills soared and temperatures plummeted, official figures reveal.

The number of deaths linked to the cold between December and March reached 25,400 in England and Wales, with another 2,760 in Scotland.

The figures are equivalent to nine deaths every hour.

The total gave Britain the highest winter death rate in northern Europe, worse than much colder countries such as Finland and Sweden.

There are fears the death toll could increase this year following energy price rises which may frighten elderly people into not turning on their heating.

Michelle Mitchell, of Age UK, said: “It’s unacceptable that tens of thousands more older people die in this country every winter from the effects of the cold weather. The fact that the UK has one of the highest winter mortality rates in Europe makes it clear this is very much a home-grown problem.

“Behind these statistics lie deep-seated social issues, such as one in three over-60s living in houses which fail the ‘decent home’ standard.”

 According to the weather forecasts we're in for a particularly cold winter, though as they struggle to tell us what the weather will be like the day after tomorrow such predictions can be taken with a pinch of salt, or not, only time will tell, though I do reckon we're overdue a bad winter.

There's no doubt though, pensioners will die this winter due to the cold, it could be worse if we have a flu epidemic on top of it too. However government and environmentalists are adamant that better insulation rather than cheaper electricity and gas is the way to go, though few pensioners can afford either. Of course there's the suspicion that some environmentalists want a cull of the human race anyway, though pensioners is the wrong target group, still I suppose it would reduce the pensions deficit too from a strictly pragmatic government view.

A large majority in the UK now either totally disbelieve man made climate change, or think it doesn't matter, it's time the government caught up with this view too. Remove the green levy and keep our pensioners warm this winter and bring prices down elsewhere, give us all a break from the holier than thou environmental movement who should never have been put into a position to influence policy on this scale ever.

More about → This is what climate extremism has brought us too.

Envirolunacy

It's bad enough the government wasting our money on bird choppers wind farms and solar panels as well as putting an extra enviro-tarrif on top of our fuel bills. It's bad enough them lying through their teeth when they tell us it's good for us and the environment. It's bad enough they know we know they're lying and going ahead and doing it anyway. However it seems they are even using our money to export their madness.

Express.

MILLIONS of pounds of British taxpayers’ cash will be spent on developing wind turbines and solar panels in Africa and Asia, it was revealed yesterday.

At a time when the rest of the UK is being told to tighten its belt, the Government will pour money into the schemes abroad as part of a drive to help poor countries to develop green businesses.

Critics angrily attacked the move, which was announced by the International Development Secretary Andrew Mitchell, branding it a waste of money and inappropriate at a time of austerity at home.

Mr Mitchell said the aid money was vital to help tackle climate change, as well as funding health and education in poor countries. Announcing two public-private partnership projects in Africa and Asia, he said they would help to stimulate investment in renewable energy schemes. And he defended the use of taxpayers’ cash.

“When it comes to tackling climate change across the world, we have to get on with the job,” he said. “We are at the threshold of nothing less than a new industrial, agricultural and technological revolution. That’s why we are acting now to help the world’s poorest countries adapt to and mitigate against climate change.”

The Government has put aside a total of £2.9billion from its overseas aid budget over the next four years to fight climate change worldwide. But the move sparked an angry backlash last night.

Britain is already dishing out more foreign aid than any other European country despite having to make the biggest spending cuts since the Second World War. Our donations outweigh those of Germany and France and come as Britain’s economy shows worrying signs of slowing down.

 Why are we paying out aid for this? Why are we inflicting envirolunacy and spending billions on other nations when people here are going to freeze to death this winter because global warming didn't? Why are so many people being forced into fuel poverty when we can find billions to give to give away abroad?
International Development Secretary Andrew Mitchell should be amongst the first to be hung from the lampposts come the revolution because it's obvious this and previous governments care more for anyone or anything than their own people.

More about → Envirolunacy

It just keeps getting better

I don't often post on foreign going ons, save only when they impact on England and/or the UK, though I did watch and enjoy the USA voters giving Obama and his democrats a broad hint about what they thought of his policies so far, i.e. stop now because if you thought this was bad, wait two years.
One of the side benefits though at least according to John Prescott (one of Labours great thinkers) though oddly enough he doesn't see it as a benefit, is that there now can be no deal on climate change.

Telegraph.

Barack Obama's setback in the US mid-term elections has killed of any hope of securing a legally binding global climate change deal, John Prescott has said. 

Negotiators should ditch hopes of enforceable targets on emissions reductions and push instead for a voluntary framework at the upcoming Cancun summit, the former deputy prime minister said.

After President Barack Obama's ''shellacking'' at the hands of Republican opponents in mid-term elections, there was no prospect of the US Congress approving legal requirements to cut greenhouse gas emissions, said Lord Prescott, who was a key UK negotiator at the Kyoto global warming conference in 1997. 

Lord Prescott, now the Council of Europe rapporteur on climate change issues, said that the Kyoto Protocol should be extended for five years beyond its 2012 expiry date to allow time for a voluntary system of verifiable emission reductions to be introduced.

After the failure to achieve a legally binding agreement at last year's Copenhagen summit, it would be ''disastrous'' if the UN-sponsored gathering kicking off in the Mexican city of Cancun on November 29 were also to end in stalemate, he said.

I mean apart from talking complete bollocks and totally unable to understand that climate change has been totally discredited by the CRU tapes, more and more evidence coming in showing that it's actually getting colder. There is also the obstacle that more savvy politicians (i.e. not Labour or Liberal ones) are beginning to suspect that the public have seen through the whole charade and realise like most causes political that it's just another tax grab.
Prescott's just another fading ex politician who never realised the harm he and various other politicians and environmentalists did to this country. Unfortunately he still gets media space when all he deserves is mockery and scorn.

 

More about → It just keeps getting better

Living in another world

People are quite territorial, particularly about what they own, where they live, what they do with it and most particularly their mode of transport. It's been noticed that people driving cars undergo a change of character as their personal space is now expanded by the size of the car. The most mild mannered person can become a foul mouthed, intolerant hypersensitive maniac once behind the wheel of a car. So, councils who want people to give up their own parking spaces are probably onto a loser.

Telegraph.

Motorists are to be offered a £200 bribe to surrender their residents’ car parking permits under proposals being drawn up by Brent Council in North London.
The Labour-controlled authority is hoping that the incentive will persuade motorists to enrol in car clubs, whose members will be allowed to park free of charge.
Under the proposals, motorists who give up the permit for two years will be given a £200 voucher which can be used towards the cost of a bike, public transport or the subscription to a car sharing scheme.

I may be wrong, but I suspect the take up of the scheme will be very, very low, parking permits are like gold dust in London and once you've lost it, I doubt you'd get it back.

Brent wants to promote the scheme as “incentives for residents to reduce non-essential car use and contribute to combating climate change.”

Ah yes the old climate change myth as fervently believed by politicians, socialists and enviroloons all over the land and practically no-one else.

According to Cllr Jim Moher, the council cabinet member with responsibility for transport, the proposals are likely to appeal to people who want to help fight climate change.
“It is very attractive for people who want to discard their car and help deal with a growing problem.

Wonder how many want to discard an efficient and personal transporter, only politicians, socialists and enviroloons all over the land and practically no-one else one would suspect.

“I would certainly consider it,” said Mr Moher, a car owner himself. “I would have no problem towards contributing to this sort of thing

Says the politician, socialist and enviroloon.

The council is also proposing to join the growing number of local authorities who vary permit charges according to the environmental friendliness of the car.

Money, money, money, I could understand it if they went by the size of the car and how much space it took, but I fail to see what business it is of theirs what kind of car the residents drive.
I realise that parking is at a bit of a premium in London and I can sort of see the sense of restricting second (and third) car families, I do however have my doubts that £200 will be enough unless they don't need their cars in the first place. If however they need their car, can't get a car share and public transport isn't a viable alternative (as it is with many) then the council is going to screw them for a lot of money if they happen to drive a larger car.

However the council’s initiative was welcomed by both environmental and motoring groups.

“There is huge pressure on parking spaces. It’s good that it is being offered cash as an option rather than people being forced to surrender their permits.

“Brent is showing a far more sympathetic approach than some other boroughs,” said an A spokesman.

Stephen Joseph, executive director of the Campaign for Better Transport, added: “That is very innovative and it will be interesting to see if other councils follow their lead. This is a carrot rather than a stick.

Campaign for Better Transport is not a motoring group, it's a fake charity (site still down what the hell is going on?) Environmental groups are often enough fake charities too and want us all to live back in the middle ages riding horses or walking ( except for politicians, socialists and enviroloons who need efficient transport to tell us how to live)

Daft thing is, people will still vote Labour.

 

More about → Living in another world

Ice melts in summer shock!

You have to hand it to the BBC, they're still trying to find ways to promote the global warming man made climate change scam. Completely ignoring the freezing weather in the southern hemisphere, they're concentrating on the Russian drought and now the fact that a large ice sheet has broken off in the height of summer in Greenland.

BBC.

A giant sheet of ice measuring 260 sq km (100 sq miles) has broken off a glacier in Greenland, according to researchers at a US university.

The block of ice separated from the Petermann Glacier, on the north-west coast of Greenland.

It is the largest Arctic iceberg to calve since 1962, said Prof Andreas Muenchow of the University of Delaware.

The ice could become frozen in place over winter or escape into the waters between Greenland and Canada.

If the iceberg moves south, it could interfere with shipping, Prof Muenchow said.

Cracks in the Petermann Glacier had been observed last year and it was expected that an iceberg would calve from it soon.

The glacier is 1,000 km (620 miles) south of the North Pole.

A researcher at the Canadian Ice Service detected the calving from Nasa satellite images taken early on Thursday, the professor said.

The images showed that Petermann Glacier lost about one-quarter of its 70km-long (43-mile) floating ice shelf.

There was enough fresh water locked up in the ice island to "keep all US public tap water flowing for 120 days," said Prof Muenchow.

He said it was not clear if the event was due to global warming.

The first six months of 2010 have been the hottest on record globally, scientists have said.

Thousands of icebergs calve off Greenland's glaciers annually, but they are seldom so large.

You can almost feel the desperation in the report, despite one of the coldest 6 months with freezing weather all over, it was apparently the warmest 6 months on record. Hell summer didn't really kick into the UK till June, the USA has record blizzards, oh and the Antarctic ice sheets keep on grown and the Arctic icesheets stopped melting, but apparently that was just "weather" not climate change, which is different and only happens when it meets the consensus of the green religion.
They really are getting desperate and they really do think some of us are stupid.

More about → Ice melts in summer shock!

Sting in the tail

In the next few years the government is going to waste more of our money give a £5000 subsidy on electric cars to promote a green lifestyle no doubt. In other words like most governments they are going to try and buck the market with probably the usual results of pouring good money after bad.

Telegraph.

Drivers are to get a subsidy of up to £5,000 towards the cost of electric and plug-in hybrids car under Government plans to promote “greener” motoring. 

The £43 million on offer will be enough to contribute towards for the purchase of 8,600 vehicles during the first 15 months of the scheme, which begins in January.

However with the technology still in its infancy, it was unclear how many models would qualify for the programme. 

According to the AA there are the three which currently qualify for the programme and all priced in the luxury car bracket.

The cheapest is the Nissan Leaf, which will cost £28,000 when it goes on sale. The Mitsubishi i-Miev carries a £38,000 price tag.

At the top end of the market there is the Tesla sports car, which sells for £92,000.

However the Society of Motor Manufacturers and Traders said it expected a number of other models to come onto the market next year.

The grants are expected to be made available on a first come, first served basis and will be used to cut the price of the car when it is bought from the dealer.

Philip Hammond, the Transport Secretary, said the grant showed the Coalition’s determination to tackle climate change.

“We are sending a clear signal that Britain is open for business and that we are committed to greening our economy. This will ensure that the UK is a world leader in low emission vehicles.”

The scheme was also welcomed by Philip Edmund King, the AA’s president.

“This is excellent news and will be a fillip for manufacturers and consumers who are keen to see both further development of low or carbon-free emitting vehicles and for them to be more competitively priced in the market place.,” he said.

“The recent successful scrappage scheme showed just how effective a stimulus package like this can be,”

Ok, my views on climate change are well known to those who read this blog, in that climate changes, but if you think mankind is having an effect then you're deluding yourself. However I can sort of see the advantage of an electric car if you are just doing short trips and don't really expect to go boy racing, bit like an upgraded version of a mobility scooter so to speak. However the disadvantages far outweigh the advantages at the moment. Battery life is only 6 to 10 years or about 100,000 miles (it may improve) and they are damned expensive to replace, something that Toyota Hybrid Synergy Drive owners are about to start experiencing very soon.where the cost of new batteries is more than the car is worth.
But in typical government style, what they give away in one hand, they take back with the other.


Telegraph.

Householders face a £300-a-year rise in their gas and electricity bills and significant cuts in how much energy they use if Britain is to “keep the lights on” and meet its climate change targets, the Government has said.

So they're encouraging you to buy electric and putting the prices up as well also in their "green" madness they are building 44,000 wind turbines and situating them in one of the worst storm areas in the North Sea complete with salt damage and very, very high maintenance costs. Something that the government clearly doesn't have a clue about.
Still, I don't suppose any of the government really care, it's unlikely to affect them at all, unless there's a revolution and we string them up, even then some of the rats will no doubt escape the sinking ship. I expect they'll all make a break for it when the lights eventually go out on a wind less day.

More about → Sting in the tail

Out of touch #2

They still don't get it, but by God they are determined to ram anthropomorphic caused global warming climate change down our throats despite its poisoned chalice reputation. They really do think we're stupid and that flash gimmicks will help change peoples minds.

Sky.

Ministers hope a new Google Earth map can help banish public scepticism and confusion over the potential effects of climate change.

The map shows the effects of a 4C rise in global temperatures

The interactive graphic shows how different areas of the world would be altered by a 4C average rise in global temperatures.
It suggests forest fires, drought and water shortages will be much more common by the end of the century if greenhouse gases are not curbed.
Like other Google Maps, users can drag their way around the globe to see which parts of the world could suffer most.
Climate Change Minister Greg Barker MP told Sky News: "This is really accessible and a high impact way to take on board some quite complex information.
"This brings it all together at a time when of course some people are baffled by the science."
Last week the Muir Russell report into hacked emails between scientists at the University of East Anglia cleared them of manipulating data but called for climate change researchers be more open with their work to promote rigorous debate and openness.

Anyone who's studied a little about global warming climate change will tell you that for twelve years there has been a rise 0.1⁰C, in other words, no significant measurable temperature rise and whilst it is possible that a 4⁰C rise is possible, it's very very unlikely as many of the more sceptical honest scientists believe the Earth to be in a cooling cycle and that temperatures globally are more likely to fall than rise.
Again it seems that politicians, scientists and believers in the global warming religion are prepared to stoop to scare tactics in their increasingly desperate attempts to make us follow them into the abyss and take up a low tech medieval culture with a 90% cull of the human populace (the 10% left would be politicians, scientists and believers, natch)
Still the advantage I suppose is that the more they scream the more people check out their lies, rather than fall for them.

More about → Out of touch #2

Out of touch

Jug Lugs (aka His Royal Highness The Prince Charles Philip Arthur George, Prince of Wales and Earl of Chester, Duke of Cornwall, Duke of Rothesay, Earl of Carrick, Baron of Renfrew, Lord of the Isles, Prince and Great Steward of Scotland, Knight Companion of the Most Noble Order of the Garter, Knight of the Most Ancient and Most Noble Order of the Thistle, Great Master and First and Principal Knight Grand Cross of the Most Honourable Order of the Bath, Member of the Order of Merit, Knight of the Order of Australia, Companion of the Queen's Service Order, Honorary Member of the Saskatchewan Order of Merit, Chief Grand Commander of the Order of Logohu, Member of Her Majesty's Most Honourable Privy Council, Canadian Forces Decoration, Aide-de-Camp to Her Majesty) Has had another tilt at climate skeptics again.

Telegraph.

The Prince of Wales has accused climate change sceptics of using 'pseudo science' and 'intimidation' to stop the world from addressing catastrophic global warming. 

He likened the failure to combat rising temperatures across the world to playing "Russian Roulette with the future of our children".

But instead of acting, the Prince said more and more people are listening to the "siren voices" of climate change sceptics who argue that the theory of man-made global warming is simply a "sinister attempt to undermine the capitalist system". 

"It has been profoundly depressing to witness the way the so-called climate sceptics are, apparently, able to intimidate all sorts of people from adopting the precautionary measures necessary to avert environmental collapse," he said.

"For too long we have treated the planet like a perpetual cash machine which doles out money without there ever being any need to check the bank-balance. But now, finally, the money is running out."

Recent scandals have damaged the reputation of climate science. The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) was forced to apologise after mistakenly claiming the Himalyan glaciers could melt by 2035.

And scientists at the University of East Anglia were accused of exaggering the extent of global temperature rise.

Although , the so-called 'climategate' saga coupled with the coldest winter in the UK for 30 years has led to a drop in the number of Britons who now believe global warming is caused by humans.

A recent survey showed 70 per cent of people in the UK now believe climate change is man made compared with 90 per cent five years ago.

Addressing hundreds of business leaders at St James's Palace, the Prince said scepticism is "on the rise" and called on the private sector to not only cut carbon emissions but persuade the public to take man made global warming seriously.

In this as on so many things Charley Boy is wrong, the evidence has been mounting for years that the alarmists have exaggerated their claim and tilted the peer review  system to be totally in their favour. Yes the the British researchers were cleared of dishonesty, but the suspicion was of a whitewash as the guy doing the investigation was known to be in the governments pocket and the government is obsessed with climate change as it see it as yet another way to milk the taxpayer for money. So for the reasons detailed in the tale as well as those above scepticism is on the rise and with damned good reason and I doubt that Charley Boy or business leaders will ever be able to now persuade the public that somehow the climate religionists are not trying to rip us off and send us back to a medieval economy. It boils down to this, do I believe the IPCC and the people at the core of the warmist religion whom I know for a fact have lied to us and attempted to deceive us, or do I believe a small but growing band of scientists and bloggers who have taken it upon themselves to chip away at the house of cards set up by the warmists and expose their lies. Personally, I tend to mistrust liars, particularly when they are utterly unrepentant about doing so, because if they can do it over the data needed to surmise what's actually happening to the planet, then they will take us down a path we don't need to go down, now or ever. They are tainted goods, even if they were now to release evidence supporting their theories (for that is all they are) many will doubt and assume they are telling porkies. This is why Charley Boy is pissing into the wind, we simply don't believe him and his fellow religionists, after all this is a guy who uses a private jet to carry him and Horse Face (aka Her Royal Highness The Princess Charles Philip Arthur George, Princess of Wales and Countess of Chester, Duchess of Cornwall, Duchess of Rothesay, Countess of Carrick, Baroness of Renfrew, Lady of the Isles, Princess of Scotland) in true hypocritical style from London to the Highlands of Scotland as well as occasionally having food from his "green" Duchy transferred up to the highlands by Range Rover instead of using local produce.
With Charles as with a lot of the higher levels of the warmist religion, it's far more often a case of do as I say rather than do as I do.

More about → Out of touch