The cavalcade of conspiracy

So the Copenhagen stitch up - sorry, conference - is under way with much fanfare and the usual bunch of Environazis demanding that their voice be heard even though they are proven to be liars and deceivers.

Make no mistake, this has nothing to do with saving the planet. Even if these mad Canutists were correct in their assumption that increasing CO2 will result in runaway warming (which I do not believe they are as there is absolutely no evidence whatsoever to support that hypothesis - none at all) then all these efforts will supposedly delay the inevitable by, at best, 10 years.

The reality is that it isn't going to happen. Any contribution to global warming made by man is insignificant and whatever we do isn't going to make the slightest difference to the climate in 100 years time or 1000 years time - but this isn't really what Copenhagen is about.

The purpose of Copenhagen is not to fix any supposed problem with the climate - it is the first step in an attempt to create a socialist world order under the pretext of some half-baked hypothesis. The main purpose of the conference is to redistribute wealth - and to make that redistribution legally binding. It is, in effect, the creation of a new world government appointed - not elected - to take money from you and me and give it to someone in a far off country.

I have no doubt that in a hundred years time, people will look back on these days in with sadness and bewilderment and wonder how it could have happened. By then, of course, the whole scam will have been well and truly debunked and the mad scramble to "save the planet" will have been revealed as nothing more than a political con-trick.

Unfortunately, it will be a con-trick that will have huge implications for the world and for the west in particular. This is happening at a time when the economic system of the west is on the brink of depression - we're teetering on the precipice of total economic collapse. Don't be fooled by the massaged statistics - all of Europe and the USA remains on the brink - and our political leaders are about to sign away what little hope we had of avoiding this for the sake of a flawed and wholly political belief.

The rise of fascism

As BNP leader Nick Griffin prepares to appear on BBC Question Time this evening I thought it would be appropriate to explore the phenomenal rise of fascism in Britain today.

And what better place to start than with the revelation that the Tory Party are to ban men from being candidates for election in certain constituencies. This was an arbitrary decision taken by a small elite of the Tory Party without consultation or vote by the ordinary members. How fascist is that? Fascism is alive and well and thriving in the Tory Party.

This is nothing new or unique to the Tory Party either. The former London mayor, Ken Livingstone, was prone to rejecting duly appointed personnel purely on the basis of their gender or their colour - those personnel being too white and too male for Red Ken to bear. Fascism is alive and well and thriving in London.

Meanwhile, the Labour deputy leader pledges to end "the nightmare of men only boards" suggesting that she will use the power of government to interfere in private industry purely to promote a specific gender group at the expense of the other gender group. Fascism is alive and well and thriving in the Labour Party.

It's not only in politics where we see fascism is thriving. Environmentalists are trying to close down power stations, thus depriving millions of essential energy at a time when they need it most, purely on the basis of their misguided beliefs. They have no mandate to do so - just their belief that they alone are right - and they have demonstrated that they are prepared to use violence and destruction to achieve their aims. The parallels with Nazi brown shirts are all too obvious. Fascism is alive and well and thriving in the environmental movement.

Then we have the police - once a respected and independent crime prevention organisation, but now nothing more than government enforcers. They arrest and imprison people purely on the basis that they hold views which the government object to or have said something which the government has decreed you are not allowed to say. How fascist is that? Fascism is alive and well and thriving in the police "service".

Fascism is alive and well and thriving every where you look in Britain today. The main political parties are as fascist as anything we have ever seen in this country come to power. And we worry about some minor party leader coming on to a TV programme once in a blue moon? The time to worry about fascism in this country is when the government of this country dictate who you can vote for and who you can listen to. Unfortunately, I don't think that time is far away now.

Sleazy, creepy fascist on Andrew Marr show

Personally, I think it is disgusting that the BBC allow these fascist scum to appear on television shows to spout their poisonous drivel virtually unchecked and unchallenged.

Still, enough about the obnoxious Ed Miliband's appearance on the Andrew Marr show yesterday.

Truly, the world has gone mad

Popeye to be X rated.

NHS managers at Liverpool's Primary Care Trust says its plan to ban the promotion of smoking in films, including cartoons, could mean problems for the spinach-loving sailor if he ever makes a return to the screen.

And who put the NHS Nazis of Liverpool's Primary Care Trust in government? I don't remember voting for them or even seeing their name on the ballot papers - do you?

It is truly a mad world we live in when films aimed at children as young as 12 feature graphic scenes of extreme violence and even sex without censure, but a cartoon caricature of a sailor puffing on a pipe is considered too extreme for the eyes of people under 18.

Environazis living up to their name

A bunch of retards from a group called Plane Stupid did their best to prove just how stupid they are by barricading themselves on a runway at Stansted.

One of the activists, Lily Kember, 21, said they had used bolt cutters to get in to a secure area around 50 metres from the runway.

"Being arrested is a terrifying prospect, but not nearly as terrifying as the threat of climate change."

You think so?

"It's a bit cold, but everyone is in good spirits," she said.

Irony is lost on these people.

Bin Laden in Slough!

There are so many they clutter the pavements making the walk to school a combination of chicanes between them and the cars half parked on the pavements with frequent incursions into the road where the moving cars show little regard for pedestrians whatever age they are.

Eh?

Wheelie bins - what did you think I was on about?

Yep, we're now laden with wheelie bins in Slough. Virtually every household has two - often three. We have red ones for recycling and black bins for everything else - plus an optional green one for garden waste.

The mornings remind me of something out of Doctor Who with alien looking machines patrolling the streets - all they need is to start spying on us and their leaders to demand that "you will obey" - oh, wait ..... they already do.

It wouldn't be so bad if the dustmen were like they were back in the days when the council worked for us rather than vice versa. Back then they used to come and collect your bin from wherever you left it and then put it back there after - and they did that usually before most of us were out and about. All we had to do was remember to leave them a Christmas box and they'd be happy.

Ah well - I guess that's progress for you. Personally, I could have done without it.

The mounting mountain of waste

Thousands of tons of waste collected for recycling is piling up in storage because nobody wants it.

Collection companies and councils are running out of space to store paper, plastic bottles and steel cans because prices are so low that the materials cannot be shifted.

Things are so bad they are considering changing the storage rules so that they can store the rubbish in warehouses and disused military bases. At least they'll have plenty to choose from. It's also kind of ironic that these bases are considered unfit for housing criminals, but are OK to store rubbish in and were OK for our soldiers, sailors and airmen to live in. What does that tell you about the regard our politicians have for our military personnel?

I'm not keen on this whole recycling thing to be honest. I have nothing against it on principle, but I do object to being forced to do it on pain of punishment. If there was a genuine demand for it then the market would find a way.

Indeed, it used to back in my day. I'm sure my street wasn't the only one that had a rag and bone man tour weekly. I actually remember being told to sit outside the front of our house as a young kid to "keep an eye out" for the rag and bone man. He would come round each Wednesday leading his horse and cart and I don't think he ever refused to take anything away - even tatty old water damaged carpet.

Mind you, we didn't waste much in those days. Clothes would be passed down from sibling to sibling until, when they finally couldn't stand one more wash, they were cut up into rags for dusting, polishing, cleaning or even patching.

There was little food waste either. Most families didn't have freezers and most mums didn't work. So food was bought each day to be used that day. The question of "use by" dates didn't arise because most food was bought fresh and eaten on the day it was purchased - and as most communities had a local high street where one could buy the daily essentials, this was never an onerous task.

Far from it as far as my mum was concerned - it was part of her social life. I frequently hear young women today complain that they couldn't bear to be a stay at home mum cooped up all day with the kids, but it wasn't really like that back then. As a young mum, my mother would get my brothers off to school then walk up the high street with me in a pushchair where she'd bump into lots of other young mums who would become lifelong friends. It was part of what made the community we lived in so strong.

When it came to major goods - TVs, washing machines, fridges - we bought new things only when the old ones broke down and were no longer repairable. My mother only just recently replaced the colour TV my dad bought in the seventies - and only then because of the digital switchover. The TV still worked perfectly. I know people younger than that TV who change their set virtually every year!

The other thing today is packaging. As I mentioned, most food was bought fresh so wasn't packaged at all. These days virtually everything comes in a carton, wrapped in plastic or in a box. Perhaps the worst of all is the plastic packs designed, so I'm told, to discourage pilfering. Mrs Stan bought a memory stick for a digital camera the other day - a tiny thing little bigger than a postage stamp, but it came in a plastic pack about the same size as a paperback novel!

I don't suppose anyone cares really anymore. You can't tell anyone that things really were better in the old days because it doesn't fit the post-modern narrative - but they really were.

Personally, I see the mounting mountain of rubbish as a metaphor for the post-modern society. Full of liberal progressive good intentions but ultimately it just creates more garbage for society to have to deal with.

No fool like an old fool

Winner of today's "You'll get no sympathy from me!" award goes to 68 year old ecofruitloop, Clive Kelly.

An environmental activist told the High Court that his flat in West Kensington, West London, was sold without his knowledge while he was campaigning in the Amazon rainforest.

Ha!

What is it that alarmists actually want?

It's rare that I praise The Guardian - and today is no exception. In a piece about thinning Arctic sea ice, Juliette Jowit gets some exercise by jumping to conclusions.

The findings, published in the journal Geophysical Research Letters, raise the possibility that the loss of the Arctic sea ice could accelerate, because as the ice recedes the water temperature rises.

Really? What does the author of the study say, Juliette?

Katharine Giles of the Centre for Polar Observation and Modelling at University College London, who led the study, said it was too soon to say whether the downward trend would continue and lead to summer sea ice disappearing even faster than forecast. "It's dangerous to extrapolate out because colder weather would mean the ice could recover again," said Giles.

So the "possibility" that the Arctic melt could accelerate is "dangerous" to suggest. Not least because, as the article points out, the Arctic has been getting colder. The loss of sea ice in the last two years was not caused by warming temperatures - man-made or otherwise - but by entirely natural warm currents and strong winds. As the author points out, the Arctic is getting colder.

The north pole was predicted to be ice free this year by the alarmists - but it wasn't. Instead the sea ice extent actually grew (that's why this year is the second lowest, not the lowest). Does anyone remember the coverage of the guy who was intending to paddle his kayak to the north pole earlier in the year? He appeared on BBC TV and in lots of newspaper articles to publicise his stunt - and what happened to him?

He failed - miserably. Not that you'd know that from the news here which, having seen him off in a blaze of glory, then allowed the dismal failure of his attempt to drop from their radar. Doesn't fit the agenda, you see.

According to this site monitoring sea ice extent, the Arctic is recovering nicely - it already appears to be above 2005 levels and may even be approaching 2002 levels (my eye-sight ain't what it used to be). You can use this site to compare sea ice today with historic extents going back to 1979. As you can see, October 27th 2008 doesn't look a great deal different to October 27th 1979.

Perhaps the most curious thing about all this is that the alarmists are not jumping for joy at the way their predictions are failing to materialise. You'd have thought they'd be happy that the Arctic is recovering nicely, temperatures have cooled globally over the last 10 years, polar bears are thriving, and the human fingerprint that is supposed to prove we are the cause of global warming has failed to materialise in the tropical upper troposphere indicating that whatever did cause the globe to warm it wasn't man-made CO2 emissions.

So, given that the earth, despite all the nasty things man does, is doing very well thank you very much, you'd have thought they'd be content. Instead their hand wringing becomes even more frenzied.

So why do they seem more determined than ever to push this busted theory forward? You don't suppose that they might actually have a hidden agenda do you?

The ugly side of environmentalism

Sweaty armpits.


You know, you can get a roll-on if you don't like aerosols. Looks like we need to arm the police with Right Guard as well as CS gas.

Economic suicide

The Grauniad has an editorial which must rate as one of the most ridiculous even in a newspaper that excels in a long history of ridiculous editorials.

Yesterday's interim advice from the committee on climate change was short and strong: by 2050 Britain must reduce greenhouse gas emissions to below 80% of 1990 levels, rather than the 60% cut now proposed in the climate change bill. This tougher target, the report says, must be written into the bill before it becomes law.

It's well known that committees - much like CO2 with global warming - lag behind the event they are supposed to influence. The difference is that with CO2 the lag is several hundred years, but with committees it is much much longer. Nevertheless, the poseurs at the Guardian love it.

This excellent report is the first fruit of Britain's forthcoming climate change law. It comes from a committee proposed in the bill and set up at the start of the year, chaired by Lord Turner.

I mean, what sort of lunatic thinks we should have a law about "climate change"? We don't even know how or why climate changes - only that it does change all the time quite naturally.

We also know that our climate is influenced on a cosmic scale - by massive objects such as the Sun and major planets as well as the movement of our solar system around the galaxy - and they think we need a law to sort that out? It's as preposterous as proposing a "gravity" law, but I expect the Gruaniad would favour that as well if they thought they could wring yet more taxes out of the hard pressed public.

But if you thought that was bad enough - get a load of this from the Guardian editorial writers on planet la-la-land.

[C]limate change is now in the hands of three able politicians who do not want the issue to become a backwater: Mr Miliband, the Tories' Greg Clark and the Lib Dems' Steve Webb.

Yippee! We're all saved.

Who are they kidding? These are three professional politicians who have no real idea what life is like in the real world they are proposing to save. Add the fact that anyone who thinks that anything Britain does will make the slightest bit of difference to "climate change" is clearly not playing with a full deck and you have some notion of just how divorced the Grauniad is from reality.

The reality is that the proposal suggested by Lord Turner is akin to economic suicide. Lord Turner is a professional bureaucrat - a self-confessed "technocrat" - who not only chairs the committee on climate change, but is also involved in the FSA and was wearing that hat when he was advising the government yesterday about the economic crisis.

Judging by what he has proposed in his climate change report, Turner has looked at Britain's economic body as the life blood pours from the self-inflicted wounds on its wrists and his only suggestion is to slit the throat as well.

One hundred days

Britain's energy supply capability is now so perilously thin that the blackouts could begin in just over one months time.

The blackouts could began as early as the week commencing November 10, for which the National Grid has warned “that the margin of spare capacity could be as slim as 0.8 gigawatts - the equivalent of one mid-sized coal-fired power station or the electricity consumed by a city the size of Nottingham.”

As the article points out, when there is no energy, there is nothing. No heating, no lighting, no manufacturing, no business - nothing. If you think the credit crunch is worrying, wait till the energy crunch hits us.

Contrary to the belief that the world is on an unstoppable warming path, I believe that the world is set to be plunged into a prolonged cold spell and Britain could experience one of its coldest winters for years. Energy demand will exceed supply by far and people will die as a consequence. This is not some far off scenario - not in the next hundred years or even one hundred months, but within the next one hundred days.

When the energy crunch strikes - as it will - remember who put us in this position; the environmentalists and "green" lobby.

They will have a lot to answer for.

Make sure they know it.

I'm dreading of a white Christmas

For many people still clinging to the unproven and, frankly, unlikely hypothesis that man's CO2 emissions are causing the planet to warm up, our near neighbour in the solar system, Mars, has been an unwelcome supporter of the "warming is entirely natural" hypothesis.

You see, Mars, despite the absence of the man and his killer SUV, has been warming at exactly the same time in the same way as the earth. But the earth now appears to have entered a different phase and may indeed by cooling now - and many AGW supporters cling to the belief that this is just natural cooling masking the unnatural warming. Seriously - where do these people come from?

Unfortunately for the Canutists, it appears that Mars might also be cooling.

Nasa's Phoenix Mars Lander has found evidence suggesting there was once water at its polar landing site on Mars and detected snow falling from Martian clouds for the first time.

The fact that Earth and Mars appear to be going through warming and cooling phases at the same time should tell anyone with an ounce of common sense that AGW is not the driver here. The most likely culprit, given that warming and cooling seems to effect various planets in the solar system at roughly the same time, has got to be the sun - and the sun, rather annoyingly for AGW supporters, has been very quiet for the last year - and this appears to coincide with several parts of the planet going through very cold spells over the last year.

Few sunspots, little solar wind, a weakening magnetic field - all elements that correlate pretty well with various cold spells in the Earth's history. The last time the sun was this quiet was during the Little Ice Age when the Thames would regularly freeze over in winter - and, of course, it is the recovery from that Little Ice Age which has led to the warming over the last 100 years or so. A warming that is entirely within normal ranges and entirely attributable to natural causes.

Will the deceivers admit they were wrong? Will they admit the damage they have caused? Will we see the various raving Environazis writing their apologies in the Guardian? I doubt it - they will never admit they were wrong. Even if a new Little Ice Age does return they'll just say it "proves" global warming. It's a perverse inversion of the null hypothesis - instead of assuming that all climate changes are natural unless proven otherwise, the Canutists assert that all climate variation is man-made unless proven otherwise.

But their deception is unravelling before our eyes. The AGW scam is all but over. In the not too distant future we will be looking out across bleak winter landscapes and wondering why anyone thought warming was a bad thing - especially when our lack of reliable power generation becomes apparent and people are dying in droves as a result. Governments should be aware that they are going to be held to account for allowing us to be misled so completely.

This is going to lead to something of a revolution in politics. The people will see the way politicians have used this AGW scam to deceive them and to impose punitive measures on their lifestyles while utterly failing to perform the first duties of government. None of the old parties will survive this - they have all jumped into the same canoe, paddled up the same creek and chucked away their oars.

In ten years time Britain will be a very different place. Both the political and natural climate are a changing and it ain't gonna be pretty.

Return to Life On Mars

In the TV show, Life On Mars, DCI Sam Tyler spends his entire time trying to wake himself from the coma so as to escape from 1973 back to the present. When he eventually succeeds, though, he finds the modern world so superficial and banal he takes his own life in an attempt to return back to 1973 - which he does.

Turns out Sam may not have needed to do that anyway.

Prof Ian Fells, emeritus professor of Energy Conversion at the University of Newcastle, said the country will lose a third of generating capacity in the next twelve years as old nuclear and coal fired power stations close down.

With the current politicial situation making it difficult to rely on imported gas or oil, he said Britain will face regular power cuts lasting long enough to delay operations in hospitals, close down schools and bring cities to a standstill.

Ultimately he said the situation would lead to economic downturn and mass unemployment.

All very 1973. All Sam had to do was wait a few years and then he too would be able to enjoy 3 day weeks, power cuts, reading by candlelight and cooking his dinner on a one ring calor gas stove.

Back in 1973, though, this was all caused by a miners strike against the backdrop of an oil crisis. This time, although we have an oil "crisis" of sorts, the real problem is not miners, but environmentalists - the Environazis - who, through their successful propagation of the myth of man-mad global warming, have managed to paralyse government's management of our energy generation and supply.

The power cuts and 3 day week of the seventies was the inspiration for Thatcher's battle against union power culminating in the year long miners strike of 1984/85 which effectively ended union power in Britain - a move which was widely supported by the British public.

I expect a similar thing to happen again - this time with environmentalism - with similar "battles" and tactics - and I expect a similar backing for the move by the British public.

When the cuts start to bite, when people have to walk home through pitch black streets because there are no trains running on the electrified line and all the streetlights are off, when there is no heating or hot water in the house, no power to run the TV, computer, washing machine or tumble dryer, when schools are closed for days at a time and when millions are out of work because there is no power to run the industries and businesses that employ them - people will react with anger.

They will be angry with the government, of course - but they will lay the blame squarely where it lies. The AGW movement.

The folly of the belief in "renewables" will be laid bare and those who had pushed for such things will be derided and condemned. The AGW movement will be dead inside 15 years and environmentalists will have a hard time generating public support for their beliefs ever again.

The right to protest and the rule of law

Like most people, I believe in the right to protest, but I disagree strongly with Brendan O'Neill's belief that that right includes the right to invade private property and cause criminal damage.

I may not agree with a word they say, but I sincerely hope that the six Greenpeace protesters accused of causing criminal damage to Kingsnorth power station in Kent are found not guilty.

Why should they be found not guilty? They were caught red-handed and have made no attempt to deny that they did indeed cause criminal damage. They are clearly guilty and, if there is any chance that the rule of law may yet prevail in this country, then they should be punished accordingly.

The six are on trial at Maidstone Crown Court for causing £30,000 of damage after they daubed the word "Gordon" on a smokestack chimney (they had planned to write "Gordon, bin it", but were arrested before they could finish the job). The right to protest has taken quite enough of a battering under New Labour without some forms of protest now being recast as "criminal damage".

O'Neill completely rewrites the definition of "right to protest". No one tried to deny them that right, but these criminals masquerading as "protesters" did more than just protest. They invaded private property and deliberately damaged that property. What O'Neill ignores is suggesting is that the "right to protest" supercedes property rights and that the law should not protect property owners from having protesters rampaging across their property.

Imagine that this was just a neighbourhood dispute. By O'Neill's argument someone who has a grievance with their neighbour has every right to walk onto that neighbour's property and daub slogans over their house, car, garden, dog, whatever.

That is clearly stupid. That would be criminal damage and they would clearly be arrested, charged and prosecuted - as they should be. And these protesters whom O'Neill seems to think should be let off are no different from that. The law is supposed to be impartial and the rule of law includes the notion that no one is above the law - no matter how important the lawbreaker considers the moral issue in question.

The right to protest is important, but nowhere near as important as the right to property and the rule of law. I find it very disconcerting that a supposedly conservative newspaper like the Telegraph employs a columnist who openly espouses the belief that the rule of law should be over turned.

35% price hike for gas? Blame the greenies

The 35% price hike by British Gas has got the socialists hot under the collar as usual. If only we could find a way to use this heat created by fulminating watermelons we'd have no need for gas - but while they are moaning about the "obscene" profits of these energy companies they might like to consider the fact that the main cause of the price hike and why it matters so much is that stupid, short-sighted, ignorant socialists masquerading as eco-friendly environment lovers operating at all levels of society from grungy protesters to senior cabinet ministers are the ones who have set this country up to be held hostage to foreign gas, oil and energy supplies while our own resources go unused underground.

There is a delicious irony to the fact that British Gas announce this price rise just as a bunch of fools are about to set up a "climate camp" outside the Kingsnorth coal-fired power station - a station which supplies 1.5 million homes with electricity (half million more than E-On can supply across the whole UK from its renewable development portfolio).

These protesters are threatening to shut down Kingsnorth - permanently - completely disregarding the need of those 1.5 million homes that rely on it for their electricity supply. Though I have no problem with anyone demonstrating peacefully, I believe that an overt threat to shutdown a power station "permanently" is sufficient to question the motivation of this "climate camp". With such a threat in place, anyone found trespassing on Kingsnorth property should be prosecuted under the full power of anti-terrorist legislation including long prison sentences.

I also think that the names of every protester at this camp should be taken and their access to energy removed. This is what they are seeking for the 1.5 million homes that rely on Kingsnorth - it is only fair that they should accept the same for themselves.

But most of all, they should realise that the reason more and more people are finding themselves in fuel poverty is the simple fact that the protestations of socialists in green hats have ensured that a cheap, plentiful resource of our own - coal - has been marginalised and led to our reliance on the supply of foreign controlled gas and oil which is not only much more expensive than coal, but in considerably shorter supply.

A bucket of woe for alarmists

The alarmists seem to be increasingly desperate to find anything that disputes the "climate change is natural" theme - and judging by this latest effort reported by the Independent they are really scraping the bottom of the barrel. Or should that be bucket?

Scientists believe they can now explain an anomaly in the global temperature record for the twentieth century, which has been used by climate change sceptics to undermine the link between rising temperatures and increases in atmospheric carbon dioxide.

The record for sea-surface temperatures shows a sudden fall after 1945, which appeared to go against the general trend for rising global average temperatures during the past century.

Well, no - it didn't "appear" to go against the trend, it DID go against the trend and, despite the headline claiming this new "study" has "discredited" a significant anomaly, it doesn't dispute the fact that there was a very real cooling period between the 40's and 70's at a time when CO2 emissions were at their peak.

Anyway, the main thrust of their argument is this .......

[A]n international team of scientists has investigated the raw data from the period. They found a sudden increase from 1945 onwards in the proportion of global measurements taken by British ships relative to American ships.

Uh huh. So?

The scientists point out that the British measurements were taken by throwing canvas buckets over the side and hauling water up to the deck for temperatures to be measured by immersing a thermometer for several minutes, which would result in a slightly cooler record because of evaporation from the bucket.

How do they know? They weren't there when this was being done, they did not conduct experiments at the time to see if there was a "slightly cooler record" so what this team have actually done is .... guess.

The preferred American method was to take the temperature of the water sucked in by intake pipes to cool the ships' engines. Those records would be slightly warmer than the actual temperature of the sea because of the heat from the ship, the scientists said.

What heat from the ship? These are INTAKE pipes - not exhausts. A ship doesn't generate heat - it's a fucking great lump of metal and probably a darn sight colder than the water it is pushing through!

This study is absolute crap and they know it. Do they know if the canvas buckets were drawn up in the shade or in direct sun? How much water does each bucket hold. How much colder will it get sitting on the deck for a few minutes?

The most remarkable thing about this study in assumption and guesswork is that it somehow managed to get published in Nature magazine - a once respectable scientific journal. That, if anything, tells you more about the politicisation of science than anything else.

Does the study really discredit - as the Independent asserts - the fact that cooling took place between the forties and seventies? No - the only thing this study discredits is science itself.

Flannery the flim flam man

Former Aussie of the Year, Tim Flannery (if he's the best they can come up with then God help Australia!) says the only way to combat "climate change" is to pump the atmosphere full of so much sulphur it changes the colour of the sky.

Australia's best-known expert on global warming has updated his climate forecast for the world - and it's much worse than he thought just three years ago.

He may be their "best known" proponent of global warming, but if anyone is actually listening to this asshole then we're in trouble.

The gas sulphur could be inserted into the earth's stratosphere to keep out the sun's rays and slow global warming, a process called global dimming.

"It would change the colour of the sky," Prof Flannery told AAP.

Er, yeah - and more besides Tim. I think the change in the colour of the sky would be the least of our problems. Acid rain, anybody? Hello?

We need to be ready to start doing it in perhaps five years time if we fail to achieve what we're trying to achieve."

If you're trying to achieve human extinction then you're probably right, Tim! Jeez, what a fruitcake. Oh, maybe I'm being unfair on Tim as he does admit there are risks .....

He conceded there were risks to global dimming via sulphur.
"The consequences of doing that are unknown."

No shit. So let's see, we can ignore fruitcakes like Tim and enjoy a warmer and more productive world or we could follow his advice, blot out the sun with sulphur and hope it doesn't turn the planet into a rancid desert? I wonder what that would do for "biodiversity"? My vote is for option one (no offence Tim, you deranged moonbat).

If this is what the alarmists have been reduced to in order to maintain their religious zealotry then they are more desperate than even I thought. Meanwhile some 32000 US scientists have signed a petition saying that man is not responsible for climate change and the response of the US government is to say "everyone is entitled to their opinion".

Q WorldNetDaily reports that more than 31,000 U.S. scientists, including 9,000 Ph.D.s, now signed a petition rejecting global warming, the assumption that human production of greenhouse gases is damaging the Earth's climate. My question: What is the White House reaction to these 31,000 U.S. scientists?
MS. PERINO: I would say that everyone is entitled to their opinion. What's your next question? Q That's all?
MS. PERINO: That's all I'm going to say.

The likes of Ms. Perino would rather listen to 2500 highly politicised IPCC "scientists", crazed loons like Flannery or failed Presidential candidates like Gore with a huge self-interest in the unproven and highly contestable theory of anthropogenic global warming than listen to 32000 scientists from her own nation. So much for consensus science!

Nazis in Norwich

A council refused to collect the refuse of a 95 year old war veteran because he'd put the wrong kind of rubbish in the wrong bin.

Mr Woodward, who lives alone following the death of his wife Hilda three years ago, said: "I'm very sorry it happened. It's just I'm confused. I don't know which bin is which so I put the wrong things in the wrong bin.

His daughter, Vicky Marshall, 46, added: "I was really angry about what happened and rang the council to complain.

"You would think they would take into account that he's 95 and could make some concessions. But I was told these were rules and they had to be obeyed."

Mr Woodward spent five years in the Desert Rat's fighting to help save the world from the Nazis. He must be wondering why he bothered as they now work at Norwich City Council.

CO2 hype takes a battering from clouds, sun and sea

Today has been a bad today for supporters of the anthropogenic global warming theory - not that they'd ever admit to that.

First there is this. It's in Belgian German (I think) and I've uses an Alta Vista translation - my comments in (brackets).

CO2 the large boosdoener (wrongdoer?) at the climate change and the reheating of the ground are not. That is the conclusion of a large scientific research of the KMI which is still published this summer.

Not CO2 but water mist is the most important greenhouse gas. That is responsible for wide 75 percents of the greenhouse impact. That is purely scientific facts, but is by the film of already (Al) gore (LOL!) the influence of CO2 this way gehypet (hyped?) that nobody who takes facts still in account, thus Debontridder (the scientist). Everything are attributed unilaterally to CO2. Whereas the complete range warm winters which we have had the last years, is simply a consequence of the ' North Atlantic schommeling '(oscillation). That has now real once do nothing with CO2.

Yeah, I know that we've known for ages that the North Atlantic Oscillation plays a part in European climate and that water vapour is the largest greenhouse gas, is much more significant than CO2 and that man's contributions to greenhouse gases contributes a massive 0.03% of the total atmosphere, but for some reason this is never mentioned by the Canutists. So it's worth it to have something from a Royal Meteorological Institute - even if it is a Belgian Met Office.

If that wasn't bad enough for the AGW religion, next we have this.

Charles Camp and Ka Kit Tung of the University of Washington's department of applied mathematics said that to accurately assess effects from human sources on the planet's climate, scientists must first be able to quantify the contribution of natural variation in solar irradiance to temperature changes.

Camp and Tung said that while the existence of a long-term trend in solar output is controversial, its periodic change within an 11-year cycle has been measured by satellites.

In their conclusion, Camp and Tung note that ....

The pattern shows a global warming of the Earth’s surface of about 0.2 °K, with larger warming over the polar regions than over the tropics, and larger over continents than over the oceans. It is also established that the global warming of the surface is related to the 11-year solar cycle, in particular to its TSI, at over 95% confidence level.

95% certain that global surface warming is related to the 11 year solar cycle. Who'd have thought it. If that wasn't enough to have the climate change wackos reaching for their tranquilisers, along comes another study to send them apoplectic.

Understanding the mechanisms driving such climate variability is difficult because unraveling causal connections that lead to chaotic climate behavior is complicated.

To simplify this, Tsonis et al. investigate the collective behavior of known climate cycles such as the Pacific Decadal Oscillation, the North Atlantic Oscillation, the El Nino/Southern Oscillation, and the North Pacific Oscillation.

The authors show that this mechanism explains ALL global temperature tendency changes and El Nino variability in the 20th century. (My emphasis).

Finally, as an example of the cycle of climate change, we have this nice little representation.

As I've mentioned before, there is NO evidence of an anthropogenic cause to climate change - it is all speculation based on models that are not initialised properly and which can not even be made to replicate current climate let alone future climate.

And yet none of these reports appear on the BBC which treats anthropogenic global warming as proven. Yet another BBC scandal. One which is yet to be exposed by the MSM but which will come back to haunt the BBC - and many other groups - considerably in the not too distant future.