Libertarian Alliance “circumlocution award of the day”

David Davis

Climate change has mutated from being a physical phenomenon to be studied to an idea to be contested. The sites of adjudication between competing truth claims have therefore moved from the secluded academy and scientific peer review to the vociferous agora and the extended peer community.

H/T Englishman’s Castle, referring to this article.

In other words, “the bastards have been rumbled and all the dirty washing’s out in the open.”

Climate Change, and what people really think

Update:- Good physics-based demolition of the CO2 myth over at Counting Cats….h/t the Devil

David Davis

I was intrigued just now by something Bishop Hill has done, in placing different strands of opinion about AGW and climate change generally, on a sort of Johari Window.

Here it is, but do read his piece.

Green bastards getting really dangerous now….

I think they really mean to do this unutterably evil and destructive stuff.

Will we, perhaps and regrettably, really have to kill them all? It is to be hoped that – before it is too late and the planet is ff****d into an iceball – they will be able to distinguish what is objectively good, and follow it. As Auberon Waugh would have said: “I do not know”.

David Davis

At least we could chop up and burn the “cloud ships” to keep warm for a few days, after the earth has got covered with ice. I really don’t think these bastards ought to be permitted to buy and operate expensive toys whose effects they don’t begin to understand. The fact that it will be also with other people’s money is neither here nor there…

…because libertarians spend too much time arguing about how wrong things are if done by force with tax-money, and not enough time actually assaulting the Enemy-Class’s primary premises about whether certain things ought to be done at all.

Wind turbines: The CPRE buggers are skirting round the issue…

…of whether these objects are the product of minds which are innately evil and wicked, and are thus specifically designed to destroy liberal institutions or the means to run them, reduce populations to subsistence-farming, attenuate industrial and economic growth, and enslave, or whether they merely have “visual impact on the landscape”…

…and the education issues are worse – my older boy complains at school, over /why/ they have to “study” __global warming__ as an anthropogenic effect, __every year__ …

David Davis

Ed Milibugger is a GramscoFabiaNazi. He is clever (didn’t he go to Oxford, blast him? Must have got three “A”s at least or even four – what a bloody waste of an intellect which he could have used in retailing or mining or space research.) Therefore, if he was not a GramscoFabiaNazi, then he would be doing a proper job in The Royal Bank Of Scotland or a factory in Leeds. Or perhaps he’d be running a small chain of successful pound-shops in East London. Brick Lane would do for a first one, then he could go into Hackney, Bethnal Green, Stoke Newington and Shoreditch and Limehouse, selling cheap goods to people who want to buy them. Then, he could set up a few in Nottingham, Leicester (better be careful there, old fella!) Derby, Sheffield, Bradford (later maybe!) Bootle (let’s have a punt on that one eh?) and so on. He’s Jewish, so he could have done anything, and thus so he ought to understand why retailing is an intensely moral and good calling, inside the Canon of Western Philosophy.

But he’s a politician: what is it that comes over very, very clever people, whose minds could match up to the scale of the Universe and try to comprehend it, and so easily corrupts them to do evil with such deeply-held conviction?

(What went wrong with the bugger? Where did we fail? Were we asleep?)

The battle about Wind Turbines (which is to say, big-corporatist-statist nationalised plans to build many thousands of vast and useless ones on other people’s land, for no valuable result) ought to be brought back to whether we are to be persuaded that “global warming” is all our fault, or whether – as we /do/ require more and more energy, the obvious solution – nuclear – is the correct one.

As a libertarian, I am not at all against individual householders and, say, people such as farmers, setting up their own wind turbine with their own money…if they decide they want one. I am sure that the same companies that fall over themselves to lick the arses of ZanuLieBorg  will make “small” turbine systems, say about 10-50Kw, for anyone who wants them. If those who say that power companies will buy “surplus power” from such private producers are honest, then we have a win-win-situation. the GreeNazis have to say they are satisfied, and those who have “small” turbines can then try to get back into the money after installing the things, if it’s possible: if not, then they do have some “free” power (Nothing of course is totally free.) Factories can produce more alternators and more spiral-wound-pipe (I expect that’s what the steel-type is that holds the things up) and everyone is happy….

….except Ed Milibanana. I wonder why?

But if the CPRE want to be a player in the ideological battle for the landscape, then they ought to stick to whether the things are any use at all, and then – knowing the facts – oppose the things on mathematical and physical grounds of truth. “Visual Impact” considerations will not turn the faces of committed political enemies of The West – like Ed Milibanana -  away from installing the turbines and using our money to do it. The CPRE has to face the facts about what these things are really for, and why they are being dumped all over us.

The Landscape of the British Isles is almost 100% manufactured and managed anyway: it got to look like that through centuries of adjustment by Man. The fact the the GramscoFabiaNazis pretend to like it as it is [for "Ramblers"], while looking as though they fail to understand how it got to be what it is through the Hand of Men for generations, is neither here nor there.

Libertarians would say that the property-owners should decide what is set up. if the State-Wind-Power-Installation-Bribery-Service  [SWPIBS] was removed (as we will, when we Come To Power) then I doubt if we will see any more of these monstrosities.

It is nothing to do with “green energy”: it is to do with trying to reduce what they believe is an enemy-civilisation (us) to the Prison Of The Endarkenment.

Milibanana is actually right, but now, nobody will believe him: his party has done too much damage to what he purports to support, also favours “disarmament”, and won’t buy his soldiers any kit (so that they can die.)

David Davis

Here’s the milibanana on Afghanistan. there will be more about this later after I have done chores.

More later, here it is:-

I have concluded my household wife-imposed duties, for the present.

Now then: most British  libertarians are against our being involved in wars in Asia – or anywhere for that matter. They say that the UK has no “vital interest” in that region. I disagree absolutely, and the principal proponents of the “no involvement” school of thought know this quite well.

I expect to be aggressively excoriated in the next week, as a result of this opinion, mainly by friendly libertarians, some of whom even know me. Comments from all sides will be welcome, it makes life exciting.

Although “fundamentalist Islamists”, the “Taliban”, (whatever he is – I think he publicly hung a Wireless Tele Vision Set a few years ago for capital crimes – good bloke then) and “Al Quaeda” (whatever she is – I think she has a David Frost type TV channel like Big Brother?) do represent a threat to liberal Western civilisation, and certainly a threat to its spread (which is a Crusading-Duty and an obligation laid upon us) they do not represent such an immediate short-term threat as home-grown GreeNazis.

I have spoken about these latter kinds of Green-trons before, but they will have in the end to be sorted out separately: it is a different sort of war, and more tragic, for we will have to assault or restrain our own people, who grew up with us and whom we trusted, and whom we even shagged, sometimes, because we thought they loved us for ourselves. Sex makes war and conflict harder later – ask any divorcee.

[Don't even get tempted, while drunk, to shag willing pretty hippie Green women who invite you back after a political argument which they say they enjoyed - you will live to regret it.]

However, if we leave this Taliban bloke untouched and unexterminated, then owing to the nature of state structure currently in Pakistan – and probably in other neighbouring outfits too in the medium term –  he will get his hands on far more powerful WMDs than he has at the moment, and our task of doing what the Milibanana says will be 1,000% more difficult. I believe that Baluchistan, a large tribal gathering of some 120 million people, struggling right now to keep some kind of writ running in parts of itself, has missiles called something like “Shitbag-3″ , or some such resonant acronym. We will, later, face the possibility of actual anihilation, as opposed to daily humiliation.

If we do nothing in Afghanistan in these next two decades, then the kind of spectacle that the BBC is pleased to send you, underlining its policy-position that you should “get out” (and join places like the USSR – a failed state –  in ignominy) will be amplified a hundredfold: in Baluchistan, Kashmir, Persia and places to the North and West. Probably in Burma and Malaya too if you are not careful. India will probably hold out, and the Chinese, properly unscrupulous in the /correct sense/ of the word, will stand no nonsense in Tibet and other near places.

Milibanana’s problem as Foreign Secretary (is he still?) is that he knows what is being fought for as he in an intelligent man. He’s even a Jew, for f***’s sake – so he ought to know what I and he and our enemies are talking about. However, his entire policical historiography, and his whole educational upbringing,  is based in the belief about the iniquitousness of Western liberal Classical civilisation, and how it must be aborted and attenuated at all costs, as he is a paid-up GramscoFabiaNazi.

It’s not what he can’t say, that I compain about – it’s the way he can’t say it.

He can’t say, in front of his masters, that this war is a small, tragic and necessary part of the defence of Western Civilisation, for his masters in the GramscoFabian movement won’t allow it to be said on the Wireless Tele Vision.

Because he can’t now, any more, fall back on the simple truth – which is outlined above – he has to appear to panic at the severe (by our standards today…!…think of the Somme – 19, 247 killed on 1st July 1916 alone…) loss of life among British Soldiers – some of whom might even have been his constituents. He has to put, hastily and desperately, some sort of manichaean gloss on what is by our standards really bad news. He can’t, in fact, bury it, much as he’d love to: he has to say something approximating to the truth, but he can’t put it the way it ought to be. (He’s also terrified of what he thinks “Muslim voters” will do to his party at home here…but he need not be, for as I said, the British GreeNazis are far, far more potentially lethal to him and to us than anything Islam could even dream of.)

As regards, too, the sad fate of the eight British soldiers who died in one day just now, there could be a remedy.

British modern people are not accustomed to these kinds of Wireless Tele Vision reports. Every death is an individual sorrow for the man’s family. From this there is no escape.

We are not like Stalin, the archetypal Mark-III-GramscoFabiaNazi personified, who said famously “one death is insignificant”, but being ideologues like him we knew what he meant – that did not make him right however. We deplore both the deaths and also the effects of these deaths on the political morale of the UK. (OK some of us are at leats minimal-Statists and we think the British got it least wrong in terms of defining stateness…) Charges could be laid of course at the door of the present UK government, for both hating the Armed Forces for what they represent and for their ethos of loyalty to what they undertook to do.

But in the end, this Taliban bloke is getting his munitions form somebody. That somebody can’t be far away or we might have noticed. Perhaps it’s Russia. I would not evince surprise, as their governments always cheat and lie (more fool the Russian people for failing in the last 30 years to resist more, when they could.)

But perhaps it’s not Russia. I also don’t think it’s China or Japan or India or Iran or Korea or South Africa, or Israel, or Pan-Arabia, and the like.

The point of having Nuclear weapons is to be able to point them, in public of course, at someone that is upsetting your foreign policy objectives – providing he does not have either any, or as many as you do. Therefore, whoever is supplying this Taliban man with his IEDs, and thingies that blow up Land-Rovers, ought to be able to be threatened. Otherwise, there is no point in having sumbarines that can deliver such a weapon to anywhere in the world, form anywhere unknown.

I can’t really see whay we could have any problem in stopping these unpleasant deaths among our soldiers, whose only mission is to peacefully protect the longer-term-future-survival of Western liberal Civilisation.

Like we did over eradicating slavery, for about 200 years [ - AND we had to apoligise -  we WILL get you GramscoFabiaNazi bastards...one day...and you WILL pray to be sorry, and we will not let you.]

Liberals like us want to be merciful people, but the quantity of mercy (strained or unstrained) that you will now require, when we find you finally, has become too great for the market to provide – so you will have to make do with what will be available.

You yourselves, GramscoFabiaNazis, keep on trumpeting – especially in your text books for students – that “the market” “distributes goods and resources imperfectly”…so now you can eat your own words at last.

Buy this book now

David Davis

I am obliged to The Englishman’s Castle ticket-office-and-souvenir-bookstall, for flagging up this book, which we all ought to buy a number of copies of and force our GreeNazi friends to read.

Anna Bramwell (who he?), environmentalism, and fascism

David Davis

Scary, scary stuff.

It confirms all I have ever suspected about GreeNazis and environmentalists.

I am indebted to davidncl for pointing to it, somewhere else, I think on Mr Eugenides, somewhere on his comment thread for this piece here.

Christopher Booker confirms what I said earlier about British State national curriculum GCSE physics papers

David Davis

He says what he says here. I had previously put these up here.

I now put up a new one here.

http://store.aqa.org.uk/qual/gcse/qp-ms/AQA-PHY1H-W-QP-JAN08.PDF

And here’s the answers:-

http://store.aqa.org.uk/qual/gcse/qp-ms/AQA-PHY1H-W-MS-JAN08.PDF

This is not physics: it is brainwashing by GramscoFabiaNazis who know precisely what they are doing, and why, to the children of the people who taught the rets of the world how to know how to recognise their snake-oil, and refuse it.

Far from “not wearing seat belts” or “not having wind turbines”, being a “crime”, this destruction of originally-held common scientific knowledge, in an entire population, is a crime of the First Order. These people ought to be…I can’t bear to say what [should be done to them]…the police will kick down my door.

BEST SONG EVER!!!!

Peter Davis

I happened to stumble apon this Hugely funny website on the internet here. Let’s all make a point today to annoy the Asse-Hat, who’s weeping into his communion wine somewhere, about the planet…

 

Are the C of E pagan earth-worshippers yet?

The video on it is hilarious, everyone has to watch it…

…or else.

And to ”Fred Bloggs”, would you kindly post something that could be better than this!

Greens: like Kermit in a liquidiser, green outside, running red with blood and Gore inside.

David Davis

“Sir” “Jonathon Porritt”, (….on…? Bit prissy, n’est-ce-pas?) described as an “adviser”, has apparently come out in the true colours of GreeNazis, and on the original 1960s paleophilosophic Rachel-Carson-Paul-Ehrlich-Hegelian battle-ground. This was human population, its supposed right size, its growth, and what should be done about it in the light of their belief that lots of humans is bad, and a few well-chosen ones is good.

The Landed Underclass integrates his own thoughts about why Greens and other antihuman-oids have these ideas about population levels, with the notion of what populations would become, for a polity, under different market conditions.

The Devil, also cited by Landed, has this. I tend to agree that people who advocate population levels of humans under those which currently exist, are deliberately wicked and evil killers.

Poor mad tormented Prince Charles has been at the green sauce-bottle again

David Davis

In Rio this time: nice for some I guess.

“100 months to save the world”…..my trousers.

Kicking Anthropogenic Global warming downhill before it’s too late

The Devil spots this Japanese report: let’s hope more scientists break ranks.

Derek Draper gets tarred and feathered on YouTube, and Gaians are very very dangerous guys, and should be stopped…

…by a massive Geo-education project, starting before it’s too late and most of us die in this century because of their crackpot projects.

David Davis

I read this and was stunned. That real people might suggest such things, beats me. Hope we run out of money first (might do even that.)

And here’s Derek “Dolly” Draper, wannabe-arch-deliverer of the blogosphere to New labour, getting pilloried in the usual way:-

(Psssssst…..Why’s he called “Dolly”?)

The London Evening Standard (is it still called that I wonder?) cleans up the Derek Draper Degree Débacle.

The problem with the Left, and the blogosphere, one which they can’t get yet, is that broadly speaking those on the “right” are sharper and cleverer than those on the “left”. This has to be the case evolutionarily speaking, since all external threats to existence  - and even survival – have in general come from the “left”. Everybody round here knows and agrees that foxhunting for example increases the survivability and intelligence of the fox population. This is no bad thing for foxes.

To make a living in leftist organisations such as governments, the BBC, death-camps, the Police, quangos,  “local councils” Soviets and the like, one doesn’t have to be very smart: only to parrot the party line loudly enough in front of the right selectors, and to grass people up whom you have a thing about.

Furthermore, “rightist” bloggers on the whole seem to be a widely-read, classically-liberally-educated bunch of chaps, and even their off-the-cuffs seem statistically to be funnier and more cutting, more often.

The left takes politics and the Utopianising of civilisation too seriously. Yes, we do too, but not in that way. This very fine Jack Thurston article, (I do believe he is a socialist, but a rather sharp-witted one who can write well) hat-tipped via Guido Fawkes, sums up their problem nicely.

The left, to succeed in actually, really, really, madly deeply truly, winning the battles of ideas, has to lighten up and get out more. The trouble for it then, is that it will get mugged by reality and become conservative.

And, then what?

Stop Climate Change (errr?)

David Davis

Be like Dirty Harry and make these dudes’ day. Via Counting Cats and The Devil.

The Amazing Story Behind the Global Warming Scam

David Davis

reprinted from http://groups.yahoo.com/group/eurorealist/message/27001

By John Coleman

The key players are now all in place in Washington and in state governments across America to officially label carbon dioxide as a pollutant and enact laws that tax we citizens for our carbon footprints.

Only two details stand in the way, the faltering economic times and a dramatic turn toward a colder climate. The last two bitter winters have led tthe public to be skeptical that any runaway global warning. There is now awareness that there may be reason to question whether CO2 is a pollutant and a significant greenhouse gas.

How did we ever get to this point where bad science is driving big government? And how will we ever stop it?

The story begins with an Oceanographer named Roger Revelle. He served with the Navy in World War II. After the war he became the Director of the Scripps Oceanographic Institute in La Jolla in San Diego, California. Revelle saw the opportunity to obtain major funding from the Navy for doing measurements and research on the ocean around the Pacific Atolls where the US military was conducting atomic bomb tests. He greatly expanded the Institute’s areas of interest and among others hired Hans Suess, a noted Chemist from the University of Chicago, who was very interested in the traces of carbon in the environment from the burning of fossil fuels. Revelle tagged on to Suess studies and co-authored a paper with him in 1957. The paper raises the possibility that the carbon dioxide might be creating a greenhouse effect and causing atmospheric warming. It seems to be a plea for funding for more studies. Funding, frankly, is where Revelle’s mind was most of the time.

Next Revelle hired a Geochemist named David Keeling to devise a way to measure the atmospheric content of Carbon dioxide. In 1960 Keeling published his first paper showing the increase in carbon dioxide in the atmosphere and linking the increase to the burning of fossil fuels.

These two research papers became the bedrock of the science of global warming, even though they offered no proof that carbon dioxide was in fact a greenhouse gas. In addition they failed to explain how this trace gas, only a tiny fraction of the atmosphere, could have any significant impact on temperatures.

Now let me take you back to the1950s when this was going on. Our cities were entrapped in a pall of pollution from the crude internal combustion engines that powered cars and trucks back then and from the uncontrolled emissions from power plants and factories. Cars and factories and power plants were filling the air with all sorts of pollutants. There was a valid and serious concern about the health consequences of this pollution and a strong environmental movement was developing to demand action. Government accepted this challenge and new environmental standards were set. Scientists and engineers came to the rescue. New reformulated fuels were developed for cars, as were new high tech, computer controlled engines and catalytic converters. By the mid seventies cars were no longer big time polluters, emitting only some carbon dioxide and water vapor from their tail pipes. Likewise, new fuel processing and smoke stack scrubbers were added to industrial and power plants and their emissions were greatly reduced, as well.

But an environmental movement had been established and its funding and very existence depended on having a continuing crisis issue. So the research papers from Scripps came at just the right moment. And, with them came the birth of an issue; man-made global warming from the carbon dioxide from the burning of fossil fuels.

Revelle and Keeling used this new alarmism to keep their funding growing. Other researchers with environmental motivations and a hunger for funding saw this developing and climbed aboard as well. The research grants began to flow and alarming hypothesis began to show up everywhere.

The Keeling curve showed a steady rise in CO2 in atmosphere during the period since oil and coal were discovered and used by man. As of today, carbon dioxide has increased from 215 to 385 parts per million. But, despite the increases, it is still only a trace gas in the atmosphere. While the increase is real, the percentage of the atmosphere that is CO2 remains tiny, about 41 hundredths of one percent.

[BLOGMASTER: I want to correct an error in the reprinted article above: the CO2 precentage is 0.031%, which is 3.1 humdredths of one percent.] [Sorry]

Several hypotheses emerged in the 70s and 80s about how this tiny atmospheric component of CO2 might cause a significant warming. But they remained unproven. Years have passed and the scientists kept reaching out for evidence of the warming and proof of their theories. And, the money and environmental claims kept on building up.

Back in the 1960s, this global warming research came to the attention of a Canadian born United Nation’s bureaucrat named Maurice Strong. He was looking for issues he could use to fulfill his dream of one-world government. Strong organized a World Earth Day event in Stockholm, Sweden in 1970. From this he developed a committee of scientists, environmentalists and political operatives from the UN to continue a series of meeting.

Strong developed the concept that the UN could demand payments from the advanced nations for the climatic damage from their burning of fossil fuels to benefit the underdeveloped nations, a sort of CO2 tax that would be the funding for his one-world government. But, he needed more scientific evidence to support his primary thesis. So Strong championed the establishment of the United Nation’s
Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. This was not a pure climate study scientific organization, as we have been led to believe. It was an organization of one-world government UN bureaucrats, environmental activists and environmentalist scientists who craved the UN funding so they could produce the science they needed to stop the burning of fossil fuels. Over the last 25 years they have been very effective. Hundreds of scientific papers, four major international meetings and reams of news stories about climatic Armageddon later, the UN IPCC has made its points to the satisfaction of most and even shared a Nobel Peace Prize with Al Gore.

At the same time, that Maurice Strong was busy at the UN, things were getting a bit out of hand for the man who is now called the grandfather of global warming, Roger Revelle. He had been very politically active in the late 1950′s as he worked to have the University of California locate a San Diego campus adjacent to Scripps Institute in La Jolla. He won that major war, but lost an all important battle afterward when he was passed over in the selection of the first Chancellor of the new campus.

He left Scripps finally in 1963 and moved to Harvard University to establish a Center for Population Studies. It was there that Revelle inspired one of his students to become a major global warming activist. This student would say later, “It felt like such a privilege to be able to hear about the readouts from some of those measurements in a group of no more than a dozen undergraduates. Here was this teacher presenting something not years old but fresh out of the lab, with profound implications for our future!” The student described him as “a wonderful, visionary professor” who was “one of the first people in the academic community to sound the alarm on global warming,” That student was Al Gore. He thought of Dr. Revelle as his mentor and referred to him frequently, relaying his experiences as a student in his book Earth in the Balance, published in 1992.

So there it is, Roger Revelle was indeed the grandfather of global warming. His work had laid the foundation for the UN IPCC, provided the anti-fossil fuel ammunition to the environmental movement and sent Al Gore on his road to his books, his move, his Nobel Peace Prize and a hundred million dollars from the carbon credits business.

What happened next is amazing. The global warming frenzy was becoming the cause celeb of the media. After all the media is mostly liberal, loves Al Gore, loves to warn us of impending disasters and tell us “the sky is falling, the sky is falling”. The politicians and the environmentalist loved it, too.

But the tide was turning with Roger Revelle. He was forced out at Harvard at 65 and returned to California and a semi retirement position at UCSD. There he had time to rethink Carbon Dioxide and the greenhouse effect. The man who had inspired Al Gore and given the UN the basic research it needed to launch its Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change was having second thoughts. In 1988 he wrote two cautionary letters to members of Congress. He wrote, “My own personal belief is that we should wait another 10 or 20 years to really be convinced that the greenhouse effect is going to be important for human beings, in both positive and negative ways.” He added, “…we should be careful not to arouse too much alarm until the rate and amount of warming becomes clearer.”

And in 1991 Revelle teamed up with Chauncey Starr, founding director of the Electric Power Research Institute and Fred Singer, the first director of the U.S. Weather Satellite Service, to write an article for Cosmos magazine. They urged more research and begged scientists and governments not to move too fast to curb greenhouse CO2 emissions because the true impact of carbon dioxide was not at all certain and curbing the use of fossil fuels could have a huge negative impact on the economy and jobs and our standard of living. I have discussed this collaboration with Dr. Singer. He assures me that Revelle was considerably more certain than he was at the time that carbon dioxide was not a problem.

Did Roger Revelle attend the Summer enclave at the Bohemian Grove in Northern California in the Summer of 1990 while working on that article? Did he deliver a lakeside speech there to the assembled movers and shakers from Washington and Wall Street in which he apologized for sending the UN IPCC and Al Gore onto this wild goose chase about global warming? Did he say that the key scientific conjecture of his lifetime had turned out wrong? The answer to those questions is, “I think so, but I do not know it for certain”. I have not managed to get it confirmed as of this moment. It’s a little like Las Vegas; what is said at the Bohemian Grove stays at the Bohemian Grove. There are no transcripts or recordings and people who attend are encouraged not to talk. Yet, the topic is so important, that some people have shared with me on an informal basis.

Roger Revelle died of a heart attack three months after the Cosmos story was printed. Oh, how I wish he were still alive today. He might be able to stop this scientific silliness and end the global warming scam.
Al Gore has dismissed Roger Revelle’s Mea culpa as the actions of senile old man. And, the next year, while running for Vice President, he said the science behind global warming is settled and there will be no more debate, From 1992 until today, he and his cohorts have refused to debate global warming and when they are asked about we skeptics, they insult us and call us names.

So today we have the acceptance of carbon dioxide as the culprit of global warming. It is concluded that when we burn fossil fuels we are leaving a dastardly carbon footprint which we must pay Al Gore or the environmentalists to offset. Our governments on all levels are considering taxing the use of fossil fuels. The Federal Environmental Protection Agency is on the verge of naming CO2 as a pollutant and strictly regulating its use to protect our climate. The new President and the US congress are on board. Many state governments are moving on the same course.

We are already suffering from this CO2 silliness in many ways. Our energy policy has been strictly hobbled by no drilling and no new refineries for decades. We pay for the shortage this has created every time we buy gas. On top of that the whole thing about corn based ethanol costs us millions of tax dollars in subsidies. That also has driven up food prices. And, all of this is a long way from over.
And, I am totally convinced there is no scientific basis for any of it.

Global Warming. It is _the_ hoax. It is bad science. It is a highjacking of public policy. It is no joke. It is the greatest scam in history.

John Coleman
1-28-2009

Story Created: Jan 28, 2009 at 6:19 PM PST

Story Updated: Jan 29, 2009 at 9:15 PM PST

Mr Eugenides guesting at The Devil does “climate change” wonderfully well.

Update1:- (from the Devil today 29th Jan 2009) where he picks up from Tom Nelson that more and more people are noticing the glaring contradictions and total lack of scientific rigour emanating form the warmists’ camp.

David Davis

We ought to use him to warm the planet for it will need it. Antarctica is of course getting both colder and warmer at the same moment, so the “mystery of global warming’s missing heat” is of course solved: the models predicted it all along. So pay up, taxpayer-suckers.

Harold Ambler on Huffington Post, refuting some Al Gore

David Davis

I can be very slow, sometimes. Tip the Devil.

Rolls Royce Phantom: the car for Al Gore … and you

David Davis

I chanced on this. Good car, nearly 3 tons, o-60 in under 6 seconds, 18 mpg tops. I’ll have a six-pack. They can tow my friends’ tractors out of the mud.

Eat my slipstream-dust, greenazis and Gramsco-Marxians.

What Greens are really up to…..

…..and Simon Heffer on Victorians. (Just incidentally so right, that one.)

David Davis

But I quite accidentally chanced on this stuff today. We all know that most GreeNazis have been articulating their beliefs with quite disarming frankness for decades. So it’s good to find more people (b)logging their progress for the rest of us, sadly too busy to do much about it.

As Auberon Waugh would have said, “I’m not suggesting that we should arrest, tie to MacDonald’s restaurants and then publicly tar-and-feather all lovable sandal-wearing-greens; but  more does need to be done to combat the Green Terror”.

It won’t let me paste any links, not get rid of the bloody italics, so here they are:-

http://windfarms.wordpress.com

http://windfarms.wordpress.com/agenda21/

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Auberon_Waugh

GAS: RUSSIA. North Sea. Britain should just turn it off. Do not masturbate in front of Russia while talking about gas.

David Davis

I hear a nasty rumour that “the EU” will take “our” gas. This is because the EUmonsters masturbated with Russia the USSR on screen, and have come unstuck. Do not masturbate with Russia the USSR on your screen. Bad things will come to you. Russia the USSR is not exactly anybody’s friend at present, until we have done régime change there, and it has become liberalised and Putin is out of office.

Press ENTER to liberalise Russia the USSR. This may take some minutes, and you will need a paypal account.

In the meantime, go to http://www.libertarian.co.uk and give us some money. In the long run (very long I fear) this will help us to liberalise Russia the USSR. Then, the gas won’t be turned off by them, just because they think we don’t like them – or because they think we might just slightly like Israel.