Revealed: the UK government strategy for personal carbon rations

Guest post by Dr. Tony Brown

Food_ration_book_UK

From Their Past Your Future - click for website

“Personal carbon rations would have to be mandatory, imposed by Government in the same way that food rationing was introduced in the UK in 1939… Each person would receive an electronic card containing their year’s carbon credits …see the Tyndall Centre’s study on “domestic tradable quotas”… and their recent establishment on the political agenda…the card would have to be presented when purchasing energy or travel services, and the correct amount of carbon deducted. The technologies and systems already in place for direct debit systems and credit cards could be used.”

(Environmental Audit Committee minutes-House Of Commons-London)

Preface. This is a factual account of the highly politicised concept of catastrophic man made climate change. The views quoted above are supported in principle by the UK govt but said to be ahead of their time. However, the means to achieve them are now being quietly introduced into main stream thinking through the systematic use of a political agenda that uses the alarming notion of catastrophic man made climate change as the means to force through a measure of social engineering unequalled in the UK in modern times.

In promoting this notion, alternative and well researched views that oppose the science lying behind the unproven hypothesis are stifled, and derision heaped on those pointing out previous well documented warming and cooling periods that occur in, as yet, little understood cycles throughout our history.

This is a long and complex document so it is suggested that a read through of the text that can be seen on your screen should serve as a useful introduction to the highways and byways of our political and scientific establishments. Additional information is provided in many of the links-some deserving of considerable time- so a second much more leisurely examination of the account will enable the reader to acquire a deeper knowledge of the subversion of science in pursuit of political objectives.

******

Crossing the Rubicon: An advert to change hearts and minds.

Finnish Professor Atte Korhola said:

“When later generations learn about climate science, they will classify the beginning of 21st century as an embarrassing chapter in history of science. They will wonder our time, and use it as a warning of how the core values and criteria of science were allowed little by little to be forgotten as the actual research topic — climate change — turned into a political and social playground.”

An advert on “climate change” – aired for the first time in Oct 2009 – is part of a long term £6 million campaign to “change the hearts and minds” of a mainly sceptical British public. This form of communication is known as “ad-doctrination.”

Link 1

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/environment/article6867046.ece

It was shown at peak time on one of the mainstream British TV stations, with the message that it is unacceptable, indeed irresponsible, to be a climate sceptic, as there will be catastrophic consequences for your grandchildren if you don’t get on board. This chimes with the Governments declaration that it is also ‘anti social’ to oppose wind farms.

There is a British govt department who were behind the rationale for this advert that is known as The ‘Dept of Energy and Climate Change’ which is a 2008 spin off  from a longer established dept called Defra. At this point it is useful to backtrack a little to see when the UK government got turned on to climate change and exchanged rhetoric and ‘warm words’ for action.

Link 2

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/science/article3176458.ece

Margaret Becket headed Defra .from June 2001 to May 2006 with the brief;

“To lobby for the UK in other international negotiations on sustainable development and climate change.”

Defra have been key in shaping and promoting climate policy and the Hadley Centre (for Climate research) is largely funded to the tune of many millions of pounds through Defra’s Global Atmospheric division. Additional resources come from the Ministry of Defence and European Commission. Tony Blair’s fervent conversion to the climate cause seems to have led directly to Steven Byres organising the ‘Stopping Dangerous Climate Change’ conference at Hadley (Met office) in Jan 2005.

Link 3

http://randd.defra.gov.uk/Document.aspx?Document=GA01012_6499_FRP.doc

Extract;

5.1 Alignment of the Climate Prediction Programme with Defra’s business and science objectives

The Climate Prediction Programme was not an academic research programme; its work plan and deliverables was driven by Defra’s requirements for science to inform UK government policy on climate change mitigation and adaptation. As the policy requirements changed, so did the research programme objectives. In this section we show how the work described in the CPP Annexes contributed to one or more of the science and business objectives and issues, as published in the Global Atmosphere section of the current strategy for the Climate, Energy and Environmental Risk (CEER) Directorate for 2003-2006. The full strategy can be seen at:

Link 4

www.defra.gov.uk/science/s_is/directorates/asp.

Our convoluted story starts with Defra:

Here is Defras “Communication strategy scoping report” which directly led to Futerras “new rules of the game.” Futerra is a very high powered “sustainability  communicator” (or Environmental PR Agency)

Link 5

http://www.defra.gov.uk/evidence/social/behaviour/documents/behaviours-1206-scoping.pdf

Extracts:

“This work has contributed to a shared understanding of the vision for environmental behaviour to underpin ‘one planet living’

“As part of our mapping of Defras work we drew up an initial set of ‘desired’ behaviours”.

This scoping report was the original basis for the advert on British TV through implementing Futerras “New rules of the game”.

Link 6

http://www.futerra.co.uk/downloads/NewRules:NewGame.pdf

These are their Directors and credentials:

Link 7

http://www.futerra.co.uk/about_us/directors

These are some of their clients:

Link 8

http://www.futerra.co.uk/clients/

Which includes the BBC.

Extract from Futerra web site:

“Various BBC teams have enjoyed training sessions on communicating sustainable development. Participants have ranged from producers for EastEnders ( a popular soap) to researchers on the CBeebies channel.” (The latter a Childrens’ channel)

The BBC appears to have shown reporting bias on the subject for several years and perhaps the genesis for this attutude lies with their being indoctrinated with the ‘right’ message at one of these meetings.

Further information on the background of the activities of Futerra and related research by an organisation called the Institute for Public Policy research is given below.

Link 9

http://ccgi.newbery1.plus.com/blog/?p=47

Link 10

http://ccgi.newbery1.plus.com/blog/?p=60

The Institute of Public Policy Research (IPPR) is a leading left of centre think tank, which seems to have a revolving door with Labour. That the climate message should not be seen as “too alarming” was a message carried by the BBC as can be seen here:

Link 11

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/5236482.stm

This is a report by Richard Black environment correspondent for the Corporation, concerning IPPR acting on advice provided by Futerra.

Extract:

“The style of climate change discourse is that we maximise the problem and minimise the solution”

Solitaire Townsend, Futerra

Richard Black is already very knowledgeable on Earth matters, so may not have felt it necessary to have attended one of Futerra’s training sessions on “communicating sustainable development.”

Part of Defra metamorposed in October 2008 into;

Link 12

http://www.decc.gov.uk/en/content/cms/about/about.aspx

The already mentioned “Department of Energy and Climate Change”

The Four principals involved are Ed Miliband, Lord Hunt, Joan Ruddock, David Kidney.

Joan Ruddock’s work focuses largely on “how we can change behaviour across UK society and reach an ambitious global agreement to reduce our carbon emissions in a fair and effective way”.

Joan needs no introduction to British readers.

Link 13

http://www.joanruddock.org.uk/index.php?id=13

For years she was chair of CND (Campaign for Nuclear disarmament) Eventually moved to Defra and ended up in this new dept.

Ed Miliband is a senior Labour Govt figure. His father was Ralph Miliband, the Marxist political theorist, one of the most influential left-wingers of his generation. Ed’s girl friend is an environmental lawyer.

From here:

Link 14

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/comment/article4449710.ece

Britain likes to think of itself as a long time leader in climate action, but the EU and the G8 only got on board in 2005 with this matter:

Link 15

http://74.125.77.132/search?q=cache:eGPj89Zrb2EJ:ecologic.eu/download/zeitschriftenartikel/meyer-ohlendorf/g8_impact_on_international_climate_change_negotiations.pdf+tony+blair+ad+hoc+working+group+for+annex+first+session&cd=4&hl=en&ct=clnk&gl=uk

or as a pdf

Link 16

http://ecologic.eu/download/zeitschriftenartikel/meyer-ohlendorf/g8_impact_on_international_climate_change_negotiations.pdf

Extract:

“The UK Prime Minister Tony Blair defined climate change as ‘probably, long-term the single most important issue we face as a global community,’ and made climate change one of his priority topics during the UK’s G8 Presidency, along with Africa. Climate change was also made a priority for the UK’s EU Presidency (1 July 2005 – 31 December 2005). In a keynote speech on climate change, Tony Blair set out three ambitious targets for the UK’s G8 Presidency in 2005:

“To secure an agreement as to the basic science on climate change and the threat it poses, to provide the foundation for further action;

“To reach agreement on a process to speed up the science, technology and other measuresnecessary to meet the threat;

“To engage countries outside the G8 who have growing energy needs, like China and India.”

To put this information into context we need to examine the run up to key events in 2005, as this led to the step change increase in the political promotion of climate change. As the British have been leaders, so it is fitting that the next part of our story – which preceded the events in link 12 and 13 – takes place at the Mother of Parliaments with the Environmental Audit Committee of the House of Commons.

The EAC had met regularly for some years and report their findings in detail after examining memorandum and questioning some of those they viewed as ‘expert witnesses.’ The relevance of this particular report of the EAC cited here, is that it was written just before the UK took over EU presidency AND the chair of the G8 in 2005. These are two very influential positions that fell to Tony Blair who was getting ‘on message’ with climate change and saw the opportunity to cement Britain’s pre eminence in this field-the Americans being decidedly “off message” and out of the picture through the refusal of George Bush to ratify the Kyoto agreement.

The report, intended to shape international policy on climate change during that influential year, has a tone that is decidedly apocalyptic That the science is settled is a recurring theme (this was prior to the IPCC assessment in 2007) with no mention of natures contribution to co2 levels, the overwhelming importance of water vapour, nor of cyclic variations in our climate. Indeed, no other information was being considered that would show that the science was not as settled as the protagonists claimed.

At this point we take this next series of links concerning this particular report of the EAC as part of one story and return to the link numbering system just before number 17, when we conclude our examination of this report and continue with the piecing together of the wider political climate change jigsaw.

http://www.gci.org.uk/briefings/EAC_Final_C&C.pdf

This report of the Environmental audit committee is subtitled

“Fourth report of session 2004/5 published March 2005”

The next few extracts come from “Conclusions and Recommendations” at the start of the document. However the whole piece is well worth reading. The footnotes in particular give some interesting snippets of information on who is informing UK policy.

Item 26: “In the context of the G8 the UK could pursue a broader range of complementary policies including the need for greater coordinated effort low carbon research (sic) the scope for developing forms of international traction and in particular the need to embed environmental objectives more firmly within a range of international organisations.”

Item 27: “It is simply not credible to suggest that the scale of the (co2) reductions which are required can possibly be achieved without significant behavioural change.”

(Note: The term used, “significant behavioural change,” is similar to that used in the extract at link 2.)

Item 28: It can be seen that the highly alarmist viewpoint detailed here echoes the recent comments about “thermo dynamic crimes”*.

(Note: *The increasingly frenetic tone of the climate debate in the UK can be seen in this comment from David Mackay that was made public just before the first airing of the advert.)

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/politics/article6860181.ece

“Setting fire to chemicals like gas should be made a thermodynamic crime,” he said. “If people want heat they should be forced to get it from heat pumps. That would be a sensible piece of legislation.”

Who is David Mackay?

(From the same link above) “Speaking last week on his first day as chief scientist at the Department of Energy and Climate Change, MacKay set out a vision of how Britain could generate the threefold increase in electricity it needs, with nuclear power at its heart. DECC is the govt dept that is the successor to Defra in climate change.”

Mackay has also been an expert witness in front of this EAC committee.

Those individuals and organisations who presented information for the report that we are examining in detail here are listed in this document:

http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm200405/cmselect/cmenvaud/105/10502.htm

All the minutes on the fourth report of the EAC are here:

http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm/cmenvaud.htm

The next extracts are taken from this document and for reasons of space are by no means exhaustive, but are reasonably representative.

Question 133 onwards from Friends of the Earth giving witness in a Q and A format.

“Do you think there needs to be a different approach to the setting of the targets? It seems to some of us that the targets have been set as some sort of political horse-trading.”

Miss Worthington: “Yes, absolutely.”

Q137 Chairman: “Do you have any idea how that process might be reformed?”

Miss Worthington: “Anything would be an improvement. Essentially it was exactly horse-trading, where countries simply went into a darkened room and beat each other up. We had no methodology attached to it at all.”

Q137 Chairman: “Do you think that the way in which, for example, most of the allocations were handed out free in the European Union scheme, has hindered or helped matters?”

Miss Worthington: “Practically, it has meant that it can get off the ground. Environmentally, it certainly breaches the polluter-pays principle quite spectacularly. We would advocate a move towards 100% auctioning. Not only would that give government a revenue stream upfront which you could then redirect, but it would stop all the horse trading around projections which are causing everybody complete nightmares, both over in Defra and DTI and other parts of government at the moment.”

(Questions 40-61 on 17 Nov 2004 are particularly interesting.)

Q41 Mr Challen: “I was just thinking of Winston Churchill’s comment that democracy is a bad way of organising society but all the other alternatives are worse. Picking up from your submission, is that your view about emissions trading systems?”

Mr Lanchbery: “Yes, it probably is. A lot of claims are made for emissions trading, for example that it provides certainty. No, it does not provide certainty unless you have got an absolutely rock-crushing compliance regime.”

“Each government, would you agree, should look at how they can get their public on board directly rather than simply saying this is an objective for our policy makers in Whitehall.”

Mr Lanchbery: “It is an appealing concept. It was mooted some time ago. I remember having a meeting with the European Commissioner at which it was mooted. I think it is a matter of practicality really though. Although most well-educated people again would be okay with it and you could see them using their carbon credit, it might be difficult for an elderly person to take any advantage of it. I can see the appeal of it, I just wonder about the practicality of it.

“It is an interesting question. Getting the public on board and using fiscal instruments to do that are not necessarily the same thing and your natural response is to think fiscal instruments doing anything is likely to alienate the public, but I think probably of all the mechanisms available the notion of per capita allowances that can be traded electronically through a credit card system—and I know the Tyndall Centre for Climate Change Research has done some investigation of this—is quite appealing if it is technically feasible because as well as being economically efficient it is also socially progressive in that a person who does not have many means and does not travel very much at least has an asset that they can sell to an affluent person who does wish to travel more. It has some social progressivity about it, too. It is quite an appealing way. There are obviously other fiscal measures, taxation in particular, and we would all be in favour of a variety of fiscal measures for achieving different purposes, so we argue, for example, for a well-to-wheel carbon tax on vehicle fuels.

“Do you think that without such measures as that—and that is music to my ears on DTQs by the way—we could achieve any more stringent or radical post-Kyoto targets because, after all, the domestic sector in this country contributes about 40% of our emissions.”

Dr Jefferiss: “I think that there are other policy mechanisms for driving reductions in the non-industrial sector. It is really a question of whether the Government will have the political will to implement them. Certainly, as you indicated, energy efficiency measures in the domestic sector in particular could achieve significant cuts but the fear, naturally, is a political one and the fuel poor in particular will be adversely affected. Our response to that would be that it would be much more politically expedient and effective to tackle fuel poverty head on and remove that as an obstacle to introducing a rational taxation system for energy or for carbon use. I think it is really a question of not whether there are other policy influences but whether there is the political will to deploy them. The same with fuel duty on transport.”

(Note: This link gives an explanation of DTQ’s [Domestic Tradable Quotas].)

http://www.eci.ox.ac.uk/research/energy/downloads/pct/dtq-and-pca.pdf

To continue: Appendix 7 “Memorandum from the Green party” makes fascinating reading.

“However, much of the carbon dioxide that is presently produced is wasted in transporting goods from one market to another. Trade should be reduced so that it returns to being a means of obtaining goods that are not available locally, according to the principle of trade subsidiarity.

“Proposal:  The Committee should investigate the possibility of creating a new global currency for carbon trading. Such a currency would need to be backed by and administered by the UN.”

(The suggested carbon quota per capita are mentioned in table 1, 2, and 3)

“The IPCC, the RCEP and more recently the UK government have accepted the need for global CO2 reductions of 60% by 2050. However, if these global reductions are to be made in an equitable fashion, the higher-polluting countries like the UK must make bigger reductions. This would translate into a UK target more like 90% by 2050 at the very latest, with clear and definite targets at stages along the way.

“We would also propose, as a short-term measure en route to a full system of eco-taxation, the reintroduction of the fuel tax escalator, which was removed for reasons of political expediency that ignored the requirements for CO2 reductions.

“The national road building programme must be scrapped, and the resulting £30 billion saving invested in a package of emissions-reducing policies including 20% traffic reduction within 10 years.”

Appendix 12 “Memorandum from Institute of Policy Studies” (This highly influential body is also mentioned in the main body of this story)

“Attention therefore needs to be given beyond these solutions towards measures of sufficiency, of social and institutional reform, and of modifications to lifestyles with much lower energy inputs and lower carbon emissions.

“The only logical way (to cut CO2) is by the introduction of personal carbon rationing, which would cover the 50% of total UK emissions which come from household energy use and personal transport, including international air travel. (The Tyndall Centre study on domestic tradable quotas discusses methods of ‘rationing’ the remainder of emissions in the economy). Personal carbon rations would have to be mandatory, imposed by Government in the same way that food rationing was introduced in the UK in 1939. A voluntary alternative to carbon rationing would be highly unlikely to make significant savings as recent history suggests that individuals would be unwilling to start taking action for the common good unless they saw others doing likewise—and the ‘free-rider’ would have far too much to gain. Appeals to reason and conscience have not been effective in achieving major changes in our irresponsible consumption patterns. In circumstances such as this, when the wider public interest is at considerable risk and the fact that the changes are made is of critical importance to the welfare of the community and, in this case, future generations, Government intervention is in our view imperative.

“The administration of carbon rationing should be simple. Each person would receive an electronic card containing their year’s carbon credits (see the Tyndall Centre’s study on ‘domestic tradable quotas’ and their recent establishment on the political agenda in Colin Challen’s Private Member’s Bill). The card would have to be presented when purchasing energy or travel services, and the correct amount of carbon deducted. The technologies and systems already in place for direct debit systems and credit cards could be used.

(My highlighting and emphasis)

CONCLUSIONS

21.  Personal carbon rations offer a positive, fair and effective way of making the carbon savings necessary to prevent “potentially disastrous climate change”.

Of course attendance at this committee can be an entirely different thing to exerting actual influence, but the obvious bias to those from the environmental groups-who appear to be pushing at an open door- and against the representatives of industry such as Shell and BAA can be seen when following the full transcripts.

We now revert to our main narrative. The following year was the first meeting of the ‘ad hoc group’ to set up integrated action betwen the EU, G8 and the IPCC working groups. Both these parties and the UN (who sponsor the IPCC) are following ‘Agenda 21’ In the case of climate change that relates to the work of the IPCC whose findings are endorsed by those countries following the agenda, and who therefore subsequently have a legal obligation to implement that agenda. This includes teaching climate propaganda to our school children through Sage 21.

Agenda 21 is linked to the AD Hoc working group of the IPCC negotiations that are leading to the Copenhagen summit in December 2009. The group has five chairs, of whom several have been termed green activists. Several of them have openly written of the need for a new world governance. The SAGE21 education agenda from the UN clearly sets out to influence schools.

The Agenda 21 aims has been endorsed at UK Govt level, and councils and govt bodies have been instructed to follow this agenda.

Below is the first session of the AD Hoc group in 2006,  which is the prelude to the meeting of world leaders in Copenhangen in December 2009 to sign a treaty to combat “dangerous climate change.”

Link 17

http://unfccc.int/files/meetings/cop_11/application/pdf/cmp1_00_consideration_of_commitments_under_3.9.pdf

Good resumé of events below:

Link 18

http://www.iisd.ca/vol12/enb12357e.html

These are the minutes and action plan of latest meeting in April 2009

link 19

http://unfccc.int/meetings/items/4381.php

This is the ad hoc working group composition and its aims, that have fed into the UN report above. There are many individual sections worth exploring as they concern negotiating points and amendments for the Copenhagen summit.

Link 20

http://unfccc.int/resource/docs/2008/awg6/eng/08.pdf

These are the key chairs:

Harald Dovland Norway –chair minister for environment http://www.highbeam.com/doc/1G1-180526631.html

Mam Konate of Mali Vice chair http://www.iisd.ca/climate/cop11/enbots/enbots1704e.html

Chan Woo-Kim   Republic of Korea http://74.125.77.132/search?q=cache:py3_vPi45-wJ:www.unescap.org/esd/environment/mced/singg/documents/Programme_SINGG_Final.pdf+chan-woo+kim+republic+of+korea&cd=18&hl=en&ct=clnk&gl=uk

Ms Christiana Figueres Costa Rica http://figueresonline.com/

Nuno Lacasta Portugal http://www.wcl.american.edu/environment/lacasta.cfm

Brian Smith New Zealand

Marcelo Rocha Brazil http://www.berr.gov.uk/files/file50347.pdf

This is the ‘information note’ (Background) for the meeting

Link 21

http://www.foxnews.com/projects/pdf/032709_informationnote.pdf

It appears to be a UN document to substantially re-shape the world through the medium of the threat of catastrophic climate change.

Whilst readers should scrutinise each line for themselves in order to see what many had always believed was an agenda behind the IPCC, some highlights are;

Page 6 item 17

Page 8 item 25 and 27

Page 9 item 34

Page 10 item 37

Page 14 item 60

Conclusions on p15

Here is the effective draft of the Copenhagen treaty produced by the Ad Hoc working group.

Link 22

http://wattsupwiththat.com/?s=copenhagen+draft+treaty

(Click on PDF once linked in)

Page 67 and 122 are of particular interest. This from p. 122:

16. [Adverse economic and social consequences of response measures [shall][should] be addressed by proper economic, social and environmental actions, including promoting and supporting economic diversification and the development and dissemination of win-win technologies in the affected countries, paying particular attention to the needs and concerns of the poorest and most vulnerable developing country Parties.]

Alternative to paragraph 16:

[Adverse economic and social consequences of response measures shall be addressed by various means, including but not limited to promoting, supporting and enabling economic diversification, funding, insurance and the development, transfer and dissemination of win-win technologies in the affected countries, such as cleaner fossil fuel technologies, gas flaring reduction, and carbon capture and storage technologies.]

17. [[Developed [and developing] countries] [Developed and developing country Parties] [All Parties] [shall] [should]:]

(a) Compensate for damage to the LDCs’ economy and also compensate for lost opportunities, resources, lives, land and dignity, as many will become environmental refugees

(b) Africa, in the context of environmental justice, should be equitably compensated for environmental, social and economic losses arising from the implementation of response measures.

In comparing the draft to the overall aims of Agenda 21 (in Link  23), it can be seen the logical progression that has been taken in order to implement Agenda 21 through the means of the dangerous climate change hypothesis .

Link 23

http://www.un.org/esa/dsd/agenda21/

Extract:

Internationally Agreed Development Goals & Climate Change:

“Internationally agreed frameworks and goals have set an agenda for integrating climate change and sustainable development. Agenda 21, which addresses climate change under its Chapter 9 (Protection of the atmosphere), recognizes that activities that may be undertaken in pursuit of the objectives defined therein should be coordinated with social and economic development in an integrated manner, with a view to avoiding adverse impacts on the latter, taking into full account the legitimate priority needs of developing countries for the achievement of sustained economic growth and the eradication of poverty.”

Both Agenda 21 and the Johannesburg Plan of Implementation (JPOI) assert that the United Nations Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) is the key instrument for addressing climate change. The Kyoto Protocol, which entered into force on 16 February 2005, sets binding emission reductions targets for industrialized countries for the first commitment period 2008-2012.

Britain has always liked to see itself at the forefront of the fight against ‘dangerous climate change’ and the subject has been highly politically charged since Margaret Thatcher decided to promote it as a reason to favour Nuclear over coal and made a speech on the world stage about the subject in 1988. She then opened the Hadley Centre in 1990 who ever since have-through Defra – offered considerable practical and financial support to the IPCC.

It helps that the Chief Scientific Advisor to Defra and Director of Strategy at the Tyndall Centre for “Climate Change Research”, is an old friend and advisor of ex-VP Gore, namely Professor Robert Watson.

He was IPCC chairman before Pachauri and when asked in 1997 at Kyoto about the growing number of climate scientists who challenged the conclusions of the UN, that man-induced global warming was real and promised cataclysmic consequences, Watson responded by dismissing all dissenting scientists as pawns of the fossil fuel industry. “The science is settled” he said, “and we’re not going to reopen it here.”

These links show Watson as representing Defra and Tyndall. The second is newer.

Link 24

http://209.85.229.132/search?q=cache:82ff4Gvql-gJ:www.guardian.co.uk/education/2007/sep/20/highereducation.uk+professor+robert+watson+defra&cd=2&hl=en&ct=clnk&gl=uk

Link25

http://www.tyndall.ac.uk/content/%C2%A345m-boost-tyndall-centre

Link 26

Provides some interesting background.

http://sovereignty.net/p/clim/kyotorpt.htm

The nature of Defra support is described here in this DEFRA staff document  relating to the Nobel Prize award for IPCC and Al Gore: http://www.civilservice.gov.uk/news/2007/December/Defra-IPCC.aspx

“Defra provides financial support to the co-chairs and their supporting secretariats. As such the UK has provided underpinning funding for almost one-third of the major scientific reports produced by the IPCC, which the Nobel committee believes have ‘created an ever-broader informed consensus about the connection between human activities and global warming.’ ”

Link 27. The full strategy can be seen at:

www.defra.gov.uk/science/s_is/directorates/asp.

Extract:

5.1 Alignment of the Climate Prediction Programme with Defra’s business and science objectives

“The Climate Prediction Programme was not an academic research programme; its work plan and deliverables was driven by Defra’s requirements for science to inform UK government policy on climate change mitigation and adaptation. As the policy requirements changed, so did the research programme objectives. In this section we show how the work described in the CPP Annexes contributed to one or more of the science and business objectives and issues, as published in the Global Atmosphere section of the current strategy for the Climate, Energy and Environmental Risk (CEER) Directorate for 2003-2006. Defra and now the dept for energy and climate change, see AGW as being the vehicle to promote ‘one planet living’ “

From the Met office web site

Link 28

http://www.metoffice.gov.uk/climatechange/science/hadleycentre/

Three events occurred in 1988 that assisted greatly in bringing the issue of man-made climate change to the notice of politicians:* A World Ministerial Conference on Climate Change in June hosted by the government of Canada *A speech in September by Margaret Thatcher where she mentioned the  Anthropogenic climate change and the importance of action to combat it. * The first meeting of the IPCC in Geneva in November 1988. Delegates from various countries agreed to set up an international assessment of the science of change, together with its likely impacts and the policy options.

In December 1988 the UK Government announced it was committed to extending its influence internationally to provide information about climate change and to supporting appropriate research. Discussions were held with the Department of the Environment to strengthen climate research at the Met Office. This led, in November 1989, to an announcement of a new centre for climate change research in the Met Office — then called the Hadley Centre for Climate Prediction and Research. Margaret Thatcher opened this in 1990; it has since moved-as part of the Met office- to Exeter.”

The wheel has turned full cycle as the science becomes irrelevant to the politics. Observations that things aren’t as the models predicted are ignored, the planet has failed to read the script by inconveniently cooling for nearly a decade, whilst sea levels stubbornly refuse to rise beyond natural variability. The effects of the Jet stream is little understood and historic precedents for cyclic variability in our climate dismissed. Far from the ‘science being settled’, it is very poorly understood as yet. Even the Met office admit they have no idea –despite being world leaders- as to how much sea level will rise and its relationship to melting ice sheets, as this recent advert shows:

Polar ice-sheet modelling scientist

Salary: £25,500 + competitive benefits, including Civil Service Pension

Generic Role: Senior Scientist

Profession: Science

Permanent post at the Met Office, Exeter

Closing date for applications: 11 June 2009

Background information

A significant uncertainty in future projections of sea level is associated with dynamical changes in the Antarctic and Greenland ice sheets and a key aspect of this uncertainty is the role of ice shelves, how they might respond to climate change, and the effect this could have on the ice sheets. The goal of the post is to contribute to improved scenarios of sea-level rise, which is an important aspect of climate change, with large coastal impacts.

Specific job purpose

Incorporate a model of ice shelves into the Met Office Hadley Centre climate model to develop a capability to make projections of rapid changes in ice sheets, thereby leading to improved scenarios of future sea-level rise.”

So the poitics that started this all off have come back to the fore with the TV advert. This time through a Labour govt who have a penchant for control, taxes and an idealistic view of the world. Clearly they share this idea.

Link 29

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

“The common enemy of humanity is man. In searching for a new enemy to unite us, we came up with the idea that pollution, the threat of global warming, water shortages, famine and the like would fit the bill. All these

dangers are caused by human intervention, and it is only through changed attitudes and behavior that they can be overcome. The real enemy then, is humanity itself.”

– Club of Rome,

(premier environmental think-tank, with numerous high profile and influential members)

This is not to say that anyone in this complex saga has done anything illegal in following and promoting their own particular world view through the message of collective social responsibility, woven into the apocalyptic notion of catastrophic man made climate change.

However, the nature of the highly convoluted linking of dedicated and sincere organisations and individuals with their own interpretation of the science, means the process is not at all transparent, dissenting voices have been ignored, and there is an element of “group think” in order to conform secure desired outcomes. In effect public money has been used to promote a politically inspired ideology subject to substantial mission creep, in order to meet political aims.

Politicians and the media who share the “one world living” viewpoint have probably not been as assiduous as they should in questioning the science (because many want to believe it)  Many others who may not share this world viewpoint have been equally as guilty in nodding through what has been put in front of them. The taxation, social, and cost elements of “environmental”policies has also not been clearly spelt out to the population, and are of fundamental importance to everyone as they will have a dramatic impact on their way of life, basic freedoms and finances.

“H.L.Mencken wrote:The whole aim of practical politics is to keep the populace alarmed (and hence clamorous to be led to safety) by menacing it with an endless series of hobgoblins, all of them imaginary.”

The science behind the IPCC has always been debatale at best – but never openly debated. It has now become the means to persuade the populace to follow broader social objectives in a “one world” scenario.

” ‘Jacta alea esto,’ Let the die be cast! Let the game be ventured!”

That was the famous declaration of Cæsar when, at the Rubicon, after long

hesitation, he finally decided to march to Rome,

With the airing of this advert a political line has been crossed. The die is cast.

Tonyb

Advertisements

  Subscribe  
newest oldest most voted
Notify of

It is not a conspiracy it is just the cosequence of extreme democracy which has taken the most idiot of commoners into power positions.

wws

Dr. Brown, you have good information. You *Badly* need a good editor!!!
I’m sorry, I’m extremely sympathetic to the Doc Brown’s viewpoint, but this post is just too long and contains far too many lengthy quotations. It came off as a very overwordy Encyclopedia Britannica article. It is badly in need of editing, and it could have 10 times the impact if it was effectively edited so that it was only about 1/20 as long.
And please, I want to be clear that I support this information and want to see it get out. But hiding it in posts that no one will make it all the way through because they are so mindnumbingly tedious is not the way to influence opinion.

Michael

Mann uses Holocaust to Smear Sceptical Scientists
http://blogs.news.com.au/heraldsun/andrewbolt/index.php/heraldsun/comments/manne_uses_holocaust_to_smear_sceptical_scientists/P20
I left this comment over there. I wait with great eagerness to see if they publish it.
“I believe the Jewish burnt offering Holocaust happened. I believe the Russian burnt offering Holocaust happened. I believe the Chinese burnt offering Holocaust happened.
I do not believe the man-made global warming burnt offering holocaust is happening. I believe our sleepy Sun has something to do with making our planet colder.”

Jari

Is it only me but are these posts getting more and more difficult to read with the various links, quotes, inline references, headlines, fonts etc. making the whole post so messy that I cannot anymore see what the is author actually saying?

Jari

I have problems too, I meant “what the author is actually saying” in the above post.

Barry Foster

I’m telling you people in the US (and other places) just like I stated on another thread here (and AlantheBrit has too), this is what the UK is like now, but do not think it won’t happen soon in the US! Seriously. It has crept up on us here in the UK.
They’ve tried it too with ‘fear of terrorism’ and managed to pass laws which have already been misused. We even had tanks at Heathrow Airport one day to try and ram home the message. However, a lack of terrorist attacks (and some good work by MI5) have made people wonder what the fuss was all about, but I digress. The UK government has always wanted nuclear power, and this has given them a way in (which the Greens never realised!). ‘Carbon taxes’ raises a huge amount for the UK, and NO government anywhere in the world will miss what is going on. It WILL be used as an excuse in the USA to raise an enormous amount of money, you’ll see.

Brian Johnson uk

I never thought I would live in a time that would show me how Medieval thought processes totally disrupted Medieval lives. We are heading for a very dark time ahead if all this Climate Change Carbon Claptrap is allowed to dominate every facet of our existence.
Climate fanaticism without a shred of proof. The present UK Government is on its last legs, will the next one be any better?

Michael (09:39:24) :
“I believe our sleepy Sun has something to do with making our planet colder.”
Could be, but you have precious little evidence for that. Do you also believe in the tooth fairy? [there is actual evidence for that, just ask my 8-yr old granddaughter].

Peter Plail

I have just finished listening to the BBC reviewing “6 degrees – our future on a hotter planet” by Mark Lynas
http://www.bbc.co.uk/iplayer/episode/b00n88d1/A_Good_Read_20_10_2009/
It was environmentl activist Tony Juniper’s favourite book (http://tonyjuniper.com). He was shamelessly talking about melting ice, dying polar bears and the swamping of possibly London and certainly Boston (US not Lincolnshire, although if the former goes there is not much hope for the latter, it’s pretty low lying). He was not challenged by the presenter but it was questioned by the other guest reviewer who pointed out that there were scientists at the UK Met Office who doubted the “science”. Juniper’s reaction was that some scientists believed that Lynas’s book was too conservative.
Another nicely balanced piece fron the Beeb.

For a more succinct summary of the current situation, see http://bit.ly/2GVuOT where a humanist supporter of Gaia goes up against a couple of deniers of Gaia’s powers.

royfomr

If this is a vision of the future of the UK then for naught were the sacrifices of those brave souls who fought for freedom from tyrants.
For what are our brave soldiers shedding limbs and lives in a distant land and for whom and for why?
We reallly should be getting very angry about what our political
masters are planning for us but, most of all, we should be furious that we have allowed a once brave nation to be savaged by sheep!

Michael

“Leif Svalgaard (09:51:36) :
Michael (09:39:24) :
“I believe our sleepy Sun has something to do with making our planet colder.”
Could be, but you have precious little evidence for that. Do you also believe in the tooth fairy? [there is actual evidence for that, just ask my 8-yr old granddaughter].”
Leif,
I have a theory on this matter. I call it;
Compound Solar Climate Forcing.

M White

Remember the poll tax

geoffchambers

Congratulations Tony on unearthing all this. This article will be a mine of information for historians and social scientists interested in the propagation of mass hysteria.
The British government is frequently accused of having lost its way, discarded its principles etc. But in fighting Global Warming they’ve obviously found their Mission. It’s the most awe-inspiring example of misplaced fanaticism since the Crusaders sacked the Christian city of Constantinople. Psychologists call it displacement activity. We shall see soon what voters call it.
I do feel your message needs paring down though, if it’s to reach the average punter. If only we sceptics had the support of Big Oil and their Public Relations outfits, maybe the story coud be simplified (or sexed up) to get it into the mainstream media.

tallbloke

Tony, comprehensive. Thank you.
The above posters are right though, it needs a headline summary and some condensing. Keep this one as is and try to do a ‘press release’ in 800 words as an exercise.

Hank Hancock

“We would advocate a move towards 100% auctioning. Not only would that give government a revenue stream upfront which you could then redirect…” states Miss Worthington.
Redirection of revenue stream might be the new, more palatable and PC catch phrase we’ll be hearing in the future for redistribution of wealth. Like climate change expresses a “cover all scenarios” shift away from the more limited applications of global warming, redirection of revenue broadens the means by which people like Miss Worthington plan to milk your wallet or purse.
This isn’t about science or even about saving the world from some perceived crisis [manufactured or not]. It’s about the “green” cloaked greed of the political elite hijacking science for a purpose that cares not for science or the state of our planet.

Disarmament of British citizens in the last decade makes perfect sense now.

Aligner

Micheal (09:39:24)
(09:39:24)
Manne uses Holocaust to Smear Sceptical Scientists
I thought for a moment you were referring to hockey stick Mann, but it seems not. So who is this presumptive circular argument merchant and what is his claim to fame?

Severian

It’s beyond ironic that all this is playing out in the UK, considering George Orwell was a Brit. But then Orwell was a socialist, proving even he wasn’t immune to the dangers of doublethink.

Sean

Carbon is well related to wealth. A tax on the basis of carbon, why not? Of course if you live in Europe, 2/3 of the price of a litre of petrol is already tax. So it is just extending the principle.
In the UK and other Northern European countries, thousands more old people die in cold winters than mild winters. If you explode the price of gas/electricity/heating oil to lower demand, there will be a lot more dead grannies.
Rationing seems fair. But folks are rarely happy to play a fair. Likely to make the Mrs Tatchers Pole Tax look popular. Plus in the age or cross border shopping, how do you run cross border rationing? UKIP and other anti EU parties will love that!!
In short, the voters will not stand for the kind of measures being talked about. In UK they have enough trouble introducing national ID cards – ration cards -please.

If you have some energy and you want some heat then you can either blow your energy away and use the waste heat (e.g. run electricity through a resistor to get a radiator) or you can use your energy to run a heat pump. The latter works MUCH better. That’s all Prof MacKay was saying about “thermodynamic crimes”. In the UK it has as much to do with energy security as climate change. The whole climate change issue is muddied by the fact that many people who think we need to do unpopular things to fix energy security (e.g. move to nuclear power) support climate change fear, to make the public more malleable. I’m not saying Prog MacKay is in that category, but he wants Britain to reduce its dependency on fossil fuels for various reasons. He was the head of the Inference group at Cambridge Physics department, and I encourage everyone to read his books that are free on the net: “Without hot air” and his book on Inference.

Al Gore's Holy Hologram

I will raise more than just my voice against anyone who dares impose this nonsense. I will raise an army. I will make sure the children of politicians will never sleep. My children will haunt their children, my grandchildren will haunt their grandchildren. I’ll make it a family ethos. There will be no let up.

Michael (10:14:07) :
I have a theory on this matter. I call it;
Compound Solar Climate Forcing.

still not evidence. Al Gore has a theory too. He calls it: AGW.

Vincent

The idea of a “war time” type ration book is not accurate at all. If only it were. At least everyone would have to make the same sacrifice.
No, what has been proposed is precisely the most regressive form of taxation ever devised. Some liberal do-gooder in that article enthusiatically proclaims that “a person who does not have many means and does not travel very much at least has an asset that they can sell to an affluent person who does wish to travel more.” I can almost see them smiling as they bask in their self-righteousness.
In reality, the poorest members of society will be forced to sell their credits to “make ends meet”. When a friend asks Mr. Poor if he will be vacationing this year, what is he going to say? “I’ve had to sell my credits. I can’t aford my bills.” It is the moral equivalent to the time when women had to sell their hair to pay for food.
And this from a Labour government – Labour! Unbelievable.
However!!! I say bring it on. Give these loons enough rope and they will hang themselves. It will be worth enduring the suffering just to see the noose tighten around their necks, when the public finally snap.

Johnny Honda

Oh, I look forward to the carbon rationing! The same amount of carbon footprint for everyone. Everyone has a limited ration of flight travel miles….everybody? No, not everybody….some are more equal than others. You have to see, that politicians are other kind of people, they can fly as much as they want.
As soon as people will realize that, the politicians will dangle from the lamp poles and the spook will be over.

Kate

geoffchambers
“…If only we sceptics had the support of Big Oil and their Public Relations outfits, maybe the story coud be simplified (or sexed up) to get it into the mainstream media.”
Reply
You will never have the support of the oil companies or any energy corporation. This is because their financial interests, and those of their shareholders and directors are with the promotion of the global warming hysteria, and then providing a solution to the “problem” with hundreds of billions of dollars in taxpayer subsidies.

Noelene

Adolfo
Your post prompted me to look at Gordon Brown’s education.He is well educated,surprisingly he is a religious man,who has had personal tragedy,but his personality is lacking to say the least(if his colleagues are to believed,and I think his actions show they are)
http://www.epolitix.com/latestnews/article-detail/newsarticle/profile-gordon-brown/?no_cache=1
Written in 2007,the criticism seems to be spot on.
Lord Turnbull said Brown operated with a “Stalinist ruthlessness”, and had a “very cynical view of mankind and his colleagues”. Of discussions with Cabinet colleagues, he said: “His view is that it is just not worth it and ‘they will get what I decide’.”
Change
Some suggest that Brown wants friends and colleagues to be compliant at best and subservient at worst.
They fear that his strict Calvinist trait of “I know best” means he will attempt to run every government department from inside a Downing Street lair – a pattern already begun during his time at the Treasury.

(Not sure this ‘took’ on the first submssion)

“Personal carbon rations would have to be mandatory, imposed by Government in the same way that food rationing was introduced in the UK in 1939… Each person would receive an electronic card containing their year’s carbon credits

What of those with ‘special needs’?
What of years where one needs to run the air onditioners more on account of say, a warmer than usual summer?
Is taking an airline flight going to count in these cerdits? Will an additional credit be available for business travel? Bereavement/funeral travel? Attending the execution of a will? Personal testimony/subpoena in a court case?
What about those few of us who run a community Internet server, or a ham radio repeater (for the benefit of our community) from our homes – will we be eligible for ‘extra rations’?
What if I put up my *own* solar or wind powered sources – will I still get my _standard_ ‘carbon credits’ from the goverment – or will those credits be deducted from my allotment on account of my solar/wind sources?
If I chop firewood/collect fallen trees (long approved by the township) from the nearby woods – will that fallen would have to be declared on an ‘energy income’ form?
.
.
.

John Edmondson

Thankfully our “government” has zero credibility with just about everyone in the UK.
Not surprising when you consider the level of damage they have inflicted on what was once a reasonably successful country.
This is not the forum for a political debate, but suffice to say the UK is now effectively bankrupt.
The architect in chief of this chaos?
Gordon Brown our unelected , and soon to be ousted, Prime minster (aka the one eyed Scottish idiot).

Michael (09:39:24) :
“I believe our sleepy Sun has something to do with making our planet colder.”
Leif Svalgaard (09:51:36)
“Could be, but you have precious little evidence for that. Do you also believe in the tooth fairy?”

How long shall we fight over one settled issue?
http://blog.sme.sk/blog/560/195013/armaghcetssn.jpg
/OT

Lassen Sie mich Ihre Kohlepapiere sehen!

John Edmondson

As to the “advert” regarding CO2 complain here
http://www.asa.org.uk/asa/how_to_complain/complaints_form/
This is an utter disgrace and the more people who point this out the better. Unfortunately appears to be UK only. If you are not in the UK send them an e-mail and ask for an explanation
enquiries@asa.org.uk.
Thanks

timbrom

Holy cow!
I’m getting out of here.

Neil

Good and important work TonyB.
I’d propose rationing of politicians’ emissions. maximum 5 words per century.

Zeke

Do UK citizens want a carbon ration card?
I hope the extent of this research will be a help and an incentive for many to take this question seriously, who otherwise might be dismissive at first blush. I also look forward to the Cliff Notes! 🙂
A rationing card for each UK citizen does have all the fingerprints of a “progressive” type of wealth control and redistribution:
“Mr. Lanchbery: I think probably of all the mechanisms available the notion of per capita allowances that can be traded electronically through a credit card system—and I know the Tyndall Centre for Climate Change Research has done some investigation of this—is quite appealing if it is technically feasible because as well as being economically efficient it is also socially progressive in that a person who does not have many means and does not travel very much at least has an asset that they can sell to an affluent person who does wish to travel more. It has some social progressivity about it, too. It is quite an appealing way. There are obviously other fiscal measures, taxation in particular, and we would all be in favour of a variety of fiscal measures for achieving different purposes, so we argue, for example, for a well-to-wheel carbon tax on vehicle fuels.”

matt v.

If you want absolute control of the populous of the world, control their energy usage and availability. Better still control their energy emissions. You don’t need an electronic chip under the skin. [Socialist] like techniques are being implemented again while the people are asleep? Create a false issue by distracting them with a false carbon emissions problem, limit debate and then offer a phony solution which is then used for completely different purpose entirely- control of people and more taxes. This is a test for the British and European people.[ US ?] Do they stand for freedom and democracy or will they voluntarily submit to dictatorship and absolute control. This game has been played out throughout our world history. Europeans especially should recognize the early signs or the the start of over control having come through so many recent struggles for freedom .

PaulH

“…it does not provide certainty unless you have got an absolutely rock-crushing compliance regime.”
Hmmmm… Where do I sign up? I’m sure they’ll be providing brown shirts and shiny hobnailed boots.
Good grief, are these wackoes for real?

timbrom

Juraj V – Disarmament of British citizens in the last decade makes perfect sense now.. Likewise the dismemberment of our Armed Forces.
For those who thought this overlong and convoluted, I couldn’t agree less. Tony demonstrates, through the thoroughness of the article, an enormous amount of research, which lends weight to the credibility of its conclusions. By all means chop it up in to sound bites for consumption by those with a more limited attention span, but the full article needs to be somewhere and here is as good as any.
At times it felt like I was reading a science fiction story. It also reminded me more than somewhat of the Branagh dramatization of the Wannsee Conference. Utterly outlandish proposals made in relatively mundane language and with all the appearance of logic and reasonableness. I think what it showed more than anything is how metastasized the AGW/ACC disease has become. While we’ve shouted and screamed at the headliners, such as Gore and Hansen, the termites have been busy burrowing away and building their nests. It will take more than merely refuting the AGW theory (and having that recognised by MSM and the great unwashed) , to make this thing go away.

Old Goat

There’s nothing wrong with reducing the need for fossil fuels, or for looking for alternative technology.
The worrying thing is that at the moment, there are abundant known deposits of fossil fuel, and probably even more undiscovered deposits, and there appears to be a concerted effort to curtail discovery, extraction and use. This can only lead to security problems, and will eventually result in strife as a result of the uncrupulous (or desperate) trying to muscle in on, or steal what IS available.
You can’t hide this stuff, it exists, and if it makes life more tolerable in a cooling world, then it should be extracted and used for the benefit of everyone. There’s no point in trying to hide it and deny it’s existence, similarly there’s even less point in not using it just for the sake of it. You just can’t eke it out a bit at a time – that’s of no use to anyone.
Discovery and extraction should be continued with all haste, whilst development of a credible and viable alternative is encouraged. The two should run in parallel. We can’t afford to cock this one up.
And all this in the forlorn hope that the planet is going to warm up to fit the “modelling” of certain “scientists”.
And if it cools? What then?

timbrom

Paul H – Good grief, are these wackoes for real? Yup.

Patrick

@rks (10:36:50)
3kw electric fire £20
5kW Heat o/p pump, electricity input 1-2 KW, installed cost £5000
How many pensioners in the UK can afford that to save a kw?
Also Heat pumps output low grade heat 30-40 deg C, requiring new heat transfer systems eg underfloor heating instead of rads = much more expense.
Air or ground exchange heat pump, ground exchange is much more efficient, but how many city dwellers can stick 80m of piping in 2m deep trenches around their apartments? (or a 80 m bore hole even?)
P

matt v.

If you want control of the populous of the world, control their energy usage and availability. Easier still control their energy emissions. You don’t need an electronic chip under the skin. Excessive control techniques are being implemented while the people are asleep? Create a false issue by distracting them with false carbon emissions problem, limit debate and then offer a phony solution which is then used for completely different purpose entirely- control of people and more taxes. This is a test for the British and European people. Do they stand for freedom and democracy or will they voluntarily submit to dictatorship and over control. This game has been played out throughout our world history. Europeans especially should recognize the early signs of over control having come through so many recent struggles for freedom

Chris S

If you manage to make your way through the mass of information included here, you will begin to understand why debate about “the Science” will do nothing to halt the environmental movement and the impending legislation that will soon affect all of our lives. (Regardless of whatever happens to global temperatures).
It is difficult to explain briefly, the comprehensive and widespread infiltration by environmental extremists of our political and socio economic organisations, without it sounding like a conspiracy theory. The author has done a good job of highlighting much of the publicly available information that shows that, as far as a “conspiracy” goes, it’s worse than we thought.
If you have the time to read all of the links, it will become obvious that we’ve reached a stage where it will be almost impossible to stop this eco philosophy. They believe they are acting for the Greater Good of mankind, and AGW is just a means to an end.
I appreciate blogs like WattsUp and Climate Audit working hard to point out the bad science/logic etc, but I don’t know what else can be done. I fear that like here in the UK with the EU constitution, legislation is going to be passed under our noses and without our consent.
Short of an anti environmental uprising (probably not the best term) I think we’re all stuffed.
http://green-agenda.com/ like this article, gives an insight into what we’re up against.

Neil Jones

As an Englishman this is the most terrifying thing I’ve read since all the AGW fuss started. It raises the prospect of people being unable to get medical treatment, CT or MRI scans, operations or even just get to hospital without enough carbon credits on their card.
What sort of world do they think they are creating?

UK Sceptic

A personal carbon ration will be a law too far. Pressure is building in our system and when it explodes it will be ugly. Legislation of this type will be the last straw.
This is what we think of the Thermageddon induced drowning dog propaganda.
http://uk.news.yahoo.com/5/20091020/tuk-outrage-over-drowning-pets-climate-a-45dbed5.html
One of those complaints is mine.

timbrom

John Edmondson. Re that advert, so far there have been over 200 complaints to ASA, which apparently is quite a lot. One of them was mine. For my money, I think this was a feeler from HMG, to test the water. Advertisers normally have to bare quite a lot of female flesh, or throw in something racially/culturally/sexually inappropriate to get this many complaints, so the more the merrier. If the reaction from Joe Public is vituperative enough, we may be able to squelch this particular approach. No doubt Futerra have another couple of lines (pun fully intended) ready to run, but we’ll deal with those if and when they crop up.

Ron de Haan

Brainless in the UK, Brainless in Montana:
http://tomnelson.blogspot.com/2009/10/brainless-in-montana.html

SandyInDerby

It has been my belief for several years that all the global warming/climate change bruhaha was leading this way. I still tell people that this is the way we’re headed.
I have personal experience of a low carbon life style. An old farmhouse in Perthshire Scotland. No electricity, no mains water, septic tank etc. Heating using a wood-burning range (logs were recycled old fence posts sawn by family members) cooking on this and a two burner lpg hob. Lighting by parafin (kerosene) lamps and candles. I never thought in my wildest dreams I’d end up back there!!
On the bright side we have clock-work radios now.

David Hoyle

This all goes along with the dumbing down of the education system and the sheeple who follow without thought as long as they can watch M.U. or Chelsea on a Saturday … hopefully they have not yet drunk themselves into oblivion with all that cheap booze and are not too dumb and realize what is happening to them… I left for greener pastures 17 years ago but I now see the same things happening in New Zealand …the whole world is turning to crap and its coming to a town near you soon…

Perhaps, in a hundred thousand years, a team of scientists, drilling the two or three thousand meters of ice layer will find the remnants of some good fossilized specimens of anthropithecus politicus angliensis.