Environmental policy: not so much enviro as mental

the-screamGuest opinion by Christopher Monckton of Brenchley

The Environmentalist Committee of the House of Commons, chaired by the ghastly “Tim” Yeo, who has profited to the tune of approaching $1 million from chairmanships of numerous shady windmill subsidy-farming corporations during his undistinguished and soon-to-be-terminated time in office, held a mutually sycophantic hearing last May with Sir David King, the ever-fatuous “climate-change ambassador” to the Children’s Coalition that has made amateur and costly attempts to govern Britain for the past five years.

In that time of supposed “austerity”, the national debt has doubled.

No small fraction of the rapid growth in debt arises from the vast sums the kids have been flinging at heroically stupid measures such as converting Drax, the world’s largest, cleanest and most thermally efficient coal-fired power station, from burning coal to gobbling wood-chips imported from America.

The tiny tots had not understood that the energy density of coal is many times that of timber. Even if Birnam Wood should come to Dunsinane, there are not enough trees in the whole of Europe to keep Drax going.

Then there was the London rent-a-bike scheme that came in at a mere $26,000 per bike, and no one blinked because this was Saving The Planet.

Then there were the recent decisions both by the Scottish Executive and by the UK Government that fracking would not be allowed. For more than a decade, Russia and other vested interests have been pouring money into “green” groups that have protested against fracking on the specious ground that it causes earthquakes, contaminates the water supply and will visit the Ten Plagues of Egypt on anyone who indulges in it.

Yet at the same time – one couldn’t make this up – Scottish and British Ministers have been subsidizing schemes to push CO2 from power stations deep underground through pipes under very high pressure. Er, hello, is there anyone at home?

Then there were the useless windmills. These bat-blatting, bird-blending eyesores now grimly overshadow close to two-thirds of Scotland’s once-beautiful land mass. Tourist numbers in formerly beautiful areas of the countryside now scarred by this pointless industrialization of the landscape are nosediving.

The vast sums once spent by various taxpayer-funded busybody agencies to protect Scotland’s rare raptors and game birds – the hen harrier, the golden eagle, the osprey, the capercailzie, the black grouse, to name but a few – have all gone to waste. The subsidy farms are mincing the birds daily. Soon they will have wiped out all of these noble but fragile constituents in Scotland’s environment, in the name of – er – preserving the environment.

Don’t get me started on the cost. Let me just point out that if in the recent referendum Scotland had separated herself from her nearest and dearest neighbor so as to become a more cringingly abject satrapy of the European tyranny-by-clerk (independence was not on offer), a situation unprecedented in the history of economics would have arisen.

Before long, as the last eagles flutter to their bloody deaths at the foot of these cruel towers of steel, more than 100% of Scotland’s electricity will come from wind on those rare occasions when it is blowing neither too little nor too much.

For geographical reasons the only grid interconnect with another nation is with England. So England will be the monopsony customer for Scotland’s intermittent surplus of electrical power, and can pay as little as she likes for it.

Yet most of the time the turbines are not turning – or, if they are, they are powered by the grid to stop their bearings seizing. At those times, Scotland will have to import most – and eventually all – of her electricity from England, which at these times will become Scotland’s monopoly supplier of power, and can charge as much as she likes for it.

Never before in economic history has any nation been so crass as to place itself at the wrong end of a monopoly and a monopsony simultaneously. This is a world first for economic stupidity.

Idiocies such as these are the policy context in which the Environmentalist Committee of the Commons operates. The Climate Change Act 2008, justly described as the costliest and most pointless law ever enacted by the Mother of Parliaments, was pushed through while inches of global warming were falling in Parliament Square, the first October snow to settle there for 74 years.

“Tim”, who sneers ignorantly at the very few skeptics allowed to appear before him and fawns upon the true-believers whose fraud has made him rich, asked King how many countries would back the dismal, world-government Treaty of Paris, due to be signed by most nations this December. King’s answer was as alarming as it was revealing. All but two nations would sign without hesitation, he said.

The first of the two standouts was Canada, whose Prime Minister, Stephen Harper, has dismantled most of the enviro-boondoggle quangoes that once infested his nation. However, said King with his signature smirk, there is an election due in Canada this Spring. One got the impression that the U.N. would see to it – at all costs – that Harper was not allowed to win under any circumstances.

The second standout was Australia, whose freshly-elected non-Left government was also bent on dismantling many of its Socialist predecessors’ costly absurdities of environmental policy (hereinafter simply “’mental policy”). The CO2 tax was already on its way out as King spoke.

However, the electorate will not be able to remove Tony Abbott, Australia’s current Prime Minister, until long after December’s climate conference in Paris. And it is particularly necessary, from the U.N.’s point of view, to ensure that not a single nation dissents from the world-government treaty.

The reason is that, whatever the bureaucrats and “scientists” are saying publicly, in private they are terrified that they have gotten the science so grievously wrong that they will be publicly humiliated when it becomes apparent to all – as it is already apparent to all who read our WUWT monthly temperature updates – that the rate of global warming is a small and ever-dwindling fraction of the alarming rates that were once predicted with such “substantial confidence”.

Those soi-disant “world leaders” who once told us how sure They were that They were right cannot now be seen to admit that They were wrong. That would be a humiliation that the governing class has collectively decided it is unwilling to endure. Therefore, to these creatures, unanimous assent to the world-government treaty is essential.

For it is only if CO2 emissions are cut to almost nothing that They will be able to pretend that the real reason for the embarrassing and continuing failure of global temperatures to rise at anything like the predicted rate is that They have taken the tough decisions that led to the near-total suppression of CO2 emissions.

Indeed, I was on Russia Today not so long ago with some forgettable Minister or another (it did not seem at all clear even to her what she was Minister of), and she was already claiming credit for the pause in global warming, notwithstanding the continuing increases in CO2 concentration.

No more striking example of the Left-driven, hate-filled insanity of ’mental policy can be found than in an agonized email just in from Anne Easby, a doughty campaigner for common sense in Australia.

The Socialists and their friends in the governing Liberal-National coalition are attempting to unseat Australia’s non-Left Prime Minister Tony Abbott, so as to make sure he is not in office at the time of the new Versailles disaster this December:

“No doubt you have been watching the news unfold about the imploding Liberal Government and the unprecedented attack by the media, Labor and the Left on Tony Abbott. Now a leadership spill is planned for Tuesday by some very disloyal and very stupid Western Australian nobody MPs who are full of their own self-importance and full of vengeance for being overlooked.

“I have no doubt that this whole campaign of hatred against Tony has been aided and abetted by GetUP! (Soros) but I just don’t know how they’ve managed to be so successful. Social media, aided by the news services, report hourly on the failings of Abbott. Even Alan Jones’ 2GB has news reports that could have been written by the hateful ABC.

“At the Press Club address this week [live on TV every Wednesday lunchtime], during the question time afterwards, the Canberra press gallery (hyenas) were positively dripping venom with every question they asked Tony. They didn’t want to know the answer: they just wanted to stick their journalistic knives into his heart. It made me sad and ashamed that my fellow Australians could treat our Prime Minister in this way.

“The polls are always down for Tony, which makes me think the polls are being manipulated. Maybe that’s my conspiracy theory side taking over, but when you speak to people, it’s never as bad as the polls indicate.

“Tony has been PM with his hands tied behind his back. He’s done as much as he could with a hostile Senate full of unelectable bogans. Labor has been courting the Queen Bogan, Jacqui Lambie, and she hates Tony Abbott with a passion. What has the poor man done to her, except exist?

“All the while, Malcolm Turnbull [a global-warming profiteer whom Abbott ousted for the leadership of the Liberal-National coalition some years ago] and Julie Bishop (who is friends with Kevin Rudd [former Labor Prime Minister who signed Australia up to the Kyoto Protocol at Bali in 2007 immediately after being elected, and was subsequently deposed by Julia Gillard, authoress of the CO2 tax], no I’m not joking) are sitting quietly in the wings, waiting for Tony to be taken down so one or both can assume power. We all know what that means. Signing the UN’s climate agreement in Paris will become a priority and a certainty.

“There is a dark power behind what is happening in Australia and, Christopher, it scares the hell out of me. I can see my gregarious and proud country slipping into a dark, UN-controlled place where free speech is banned and we all worship at the altar of Gaia.

“I spoke to my MP and friend, Craig Kelly tonight and he is shocked and saddened by what is unfolding in Canberra. He stood up for Tony on Facebook and the Guardian attacked him (as did their readers). Craig is a decent man and even he was surprised at the hatred expressed on his Facebook page by savage people.

“Craig stood up for Tony because our Liberal branches demanded he did. There is much support on the ground for Tony, because more than anything, people still like to give someone a fair go and Tony has done what he promised as far as he could.

“This is what has me puzzled … are we all wrong with what we see in Abbott the man? No, we’re not. He’s a good man and one the Left has been after since the day after the election.”

“Next Tuesday is the day of the leadership spill and I and others like me will be hammering the airways, social media, politicians to try and knock some sense into their pickled brains.

“What sickens and saddens me is that Tony Abbott is a good man, a good family man, who has done nothing really wrong. He’s made a few mistakes but nothing major, and the press and Labor have dissected his every move.

“God, the poor man can’t even wink without it causing an uproar in the press. How must his family feel, seeing their husband and father being crucified on a daily basis when he’s doing his best?

“I saw a word called AGITPROP last week and that appears to be the tactic the Left and media are using to destroy Abbott. Agitation and propaganda. It’s an old Russian Marxist tactic and it seems to be working. Unfortunately, the stupid, traitorous Libs can’t see they’re being played.

“On Tuesday, my greatest fears for our nation will probably become reality and Turnbull or, worse, Bishop will be installed as PM. That will be the day the dark UN cloud will cover Australia because I can’t see how we can stop her signing that damned treaty in Paris.

“I’m sorry to rant and rave but my heart is heavy, watching what’s unfolding here. Our Liberal Party till be torn down the middle after Tuesday if Abbott is deposed, and we can all sit back and watch Shorten, that disgusting Oompa-Loompa freak-show of a man, drive in the Prime Ministerial limo to the Lodge.

“We may need you, Christopher, to help us start an Australian UKIP because the majority of us will not vote Liberal with Turnbull or Bishop in charge.

“The Left have been brilliant in their attack on Abbott – and the losers will be the Australian people. We won’t realise what a good man we’ve had in power until we’ve lost him. And until it’s too late.”

0 0 votes
Article Rating
Newest Most Voted
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
Amr marzouk
February 10, 2015 10:11 am

Spot on Anne Easby

February 10, 2015 10:15 am

For me the problem is that the members of MSM have abdicated from the job of researching and then publishing what they have found. All they do is regurgitate what is fed to them by the politicians, and now they are too embarrased to do a U turn.

Walt Allensworth
Reply to  Oldseadog
February 10, 2015 11:12 am

Good lord man. The MSM is in on it!
Wake up and smell the coffee! 🙂

Reply to  Oldseadog
February 10, 2015 12:32 pm

Oldseadog–it is called media education and it is an official policy of UNESCO announced by their director Irina Bokova to advance “scientific socialism”.
The education component is how I became aware of it, but to the UN education and the media are both components of communication and its messaging of its Marxian Human Development Model agenda.

February 10, 2015 10:16 am

How embarrassing.

Harry Passfield
Reply to  Oldseadog
February 10, 2015 11:07 am

You sshould be asshamd! Sit at the front for the rest of the lesson! 🙂

February 10, 2015 10:45 am

From where I’m sitting he hasn’t needed the left to take him down (and after all isn’t that their job, so who could blame them if they did), he has done it quite well himself, with the knives sharpened by his own people. Abbott is toast and anyone who backs him has their money on a loser.

Harry Passfield
Reply to  Simon
February 10, 2015 11:09 am

Abbott is toast and anyone who backs him has their money on a loser.

As opposed to Julia Gillard – or her mob??!!

Reply to  Harry Passfield
February 10, 2015 12:05 pm

Absolutely Gillard was a loser… she suffered the same fate he is going to. But painting this all as some big conspiracy by the left to nail his innocent bottom is simply not true. Of course the left want him to fall, why wouldn’t they. My point is Abbott’s days are numbered and it will be from within his own team that the upper cut comes, don’t blame the left.

Reply to  Harry Passfield
February 10, 2015 4:37 pm

There are members of the parliamentary Liberal party that are part of the Left. They are collectivists and want more power. So it is the Left that are doing this.

Reply to  Harry Passfield
February 11, 2015 10:40 am

OH PLEASE you can’t blame the left for this. Abbott is damaged goods and in politics that means you are a liability for your party. Cut him loose and move on will be the strategy. Watch.

Tom O
Reply to  Simon
February 10, 2015 12:43 pm

Actually, it should never be a party’s “job” to take someone down. It should be their “job” to govern in the best interests of those that are being governed. In US history, Thomas Jefferson is accorded the thought that the worst thing that can happen to an nation is the formation of “parties.” I don’t know his particular reasoning for that belief, but in my own mind, when “parties” are formed, the “party” becomes more important than the government or the people governed.

Reply to  Tom O
February 10, 2015 12:54 pm

That was a very prescient observation; but it was not made by Jefferson. In his farewell address, George Washington had this warning to give about parties,
“It opens the door to foreign influence and corruption, which find a facilitated access to the government itself through the channels of party passions.”
ref: http://www.ourdocuments.gov/doc.php?doc=15&page=transcript

Brian Bingham
Reply to  Tom O
February 10, 2015 2:49 pm

where’s Margaret Thatcher when you need her

Reply to  Tom O
February 10, 2015 11:49 pm

George Washington wrote in a letter to a friend in 1798, “mark my words, the rival (two party) system that you so eloquently champion will one day lead to the downfall of this great nation.”
Washington also predicted the European Union at a time when such a notion was considered absurd. He was a very insightful and intelligent man. I’m in California for a few days and my source material is at home so I’ll add that when I return. I don’t recall it offhand.

Reply to  Tom O
February 11, 2015 10:35 am

Put another way, it is not about governing, it is about wining the next election.

david smith
Reply to  Simon
February 10, 2015 12:57 pm
Reply to  Simon
February 10, 2015 8:57 pm

Sorry to say that but you are a complete tool.

en passant
Reply to  Simon
February 11, 2015 1:05 am

Hi loser! How do you feel now that Tony gas remained PM? Stupid, I suppose.

Reply to  Simon
February 11, 2015 1:49 am

Simon you are clueless. Abbott has been attacked by the LEFT and the cheerleaders have been the ABC who are so far left they make Karl look right. Abbott has bee attacked non stop by ABC, Fairfax, ALP, GREENS, GetUp and everyone else who does a left head tilt. Of course it is a ^&^% conspiracy you goose.

David S
February 10, 2015 10:46 am

Whilst you may fear no Abbott leading the Libs he is unelectable. If they don’t change him we will have Bill Shorten running the country. We can all leave the country and we won’t have to turn the lights off before we do. Labor will have done that for us already.
What the conservatives must do is give the party a choice. When the next spill inevitably occurs they must give the MPs a proper choice. The obvious person is Scott Morrison whose performance in his portfolio is recognised by all voters. The conservatives within the party need to be prepared because otherwise we will be left with a choice of Labor or a Labor led Liberal Party. Then if we had Labor in power it would be correct to say that Global warming alarmism is one of the greatest moral issues of our time.

D.J. Hawkins
February 10, 2015 10:51 am

Looking over at Jo Nova’s site, it looks like Abbott has survived the spill vote by a 2-1 margin.

Reply to  D.J. Hawkins
February 10, 2015 11:15 am


Reply to  D.J. Hawkins
February 10, 2015 12:06 pm

Well done, Tony. You have more supporters than the socialists think! Carry on with your anti AGW programme, then maybe NZ will come to it’s senses and follow suit. Despite the stupidity and/or corruption of the MSM, especially the NZ Herald!

February 10, 2015 10:54 am

“…Whatever the bureaucrats and “scientists” are saying publicly, in private they are terrified that they have gotten the science so grievously wrong that they will be publicly humiliated when it becomes apparent to all…”
Maybe more like “they” (bureaucrats etc) are terrified that their purposeful deceit and fraud will land them in the worst of public shame, and “they” obviously have no shame or humility, so will probably go down like the Titanic.

Stuart Jones
Reply to  highflight56433
February 10, 2015 2:53 pm

Interesting point, the politicians cant be wrong, so eventually they will blame the people who told them the lies, the scientists and bureaucrats are pooping themselves because they know where the buck stops. All we need to do is wait for the politicians to realise that they have been had and then the fun will start.
Tony Abbott is one of the first world leaders to work it out, so they are trying to get rid of him before he can spread the truth to other world leaders.

Reply to  highflight56433
February 10, 2015 5:42 pm

The reason is that, whatever the bureaucrats and “scientists” are saying publicly, in private they are terrified that they have gotten the science so grievously wrong
What evidence is there to support this statement?

Reply to  PMHinSC
February 10, 2015 9:19 pm

I assume that the lack of an answer means there isn’t any evidence supporting this statement.

richard verney
Reply to  PMHinSC
February 11, 2015 3:35 am

I suspect that there is no evidence supporting the contention that the bureaucrats at this stage are questioning their policies.
I would envisage, on the otherhand, that any competent scientist is now alive to the possibility that previous estimates of cAGW may have been overstated (in fact in the Climategate emails, one of the Team, I think Phil Jones, said that they would kill us if all we have been measuring is multidecadal natural variation). The flattening of the rise in temperatures is recognised, it is not due to curbing CO2, and (if CO2 drives temperatures upwards) it can only be due to natural variation being lager than previously thought, and strongly suggests that a large component of the reconstructed temperature record is simply multidecadal natural variation.
The explanations for the flattening in the tmperatures is unconvincing, not least whilst it is easy to assert that the energy is lost in the oceans, the sparse data does not support thqat it has absorbed all the ‘missing’ energy.
As the flattening/pause continues, the problems become worse and CO2 sensitivity must become less and less with each passing month.
The more than 50 reasons given for the flattening/pause, in itself shows that the warmist scientists are grabbing onto anything that may be available, rather than putting out a well thought out explanation, and this shows panick and strongly suggests that there may well be misgivings with the theory.

Reply to  PMHinSC
February 11, 2015 5:30 am

18 years of pause
All the recent papers putting climate sensitivity below 2C, sometimes below 1C.
The scientific papers examining negative climate feedbacks that were ignored by the IPCC crowd.
The scientific papers undermining the claim that water vapor was a massive positive feedback.
The fact that CO2 has been much higher in the past, without the planet warming up.
PS: Aren’t you the impatient twit. Just because nobody refutes in in a couple of hours, when you are posting in the middle of the night, you assume that you have won the day.

Reply to  PMHinSC
February 11, 2015 9:48 am

PS: Aren’t you the impatient twit. Just because nobody refutes in in a couple of hours, when you are posting in the middle of the night, you assume that you have won the day.
I think I asked a reasonable question and have had enough experience with my comments and questions being ignored that yes I am impatient and I do prod after 4 hrs or so. As far as “in the middle of the night,” I don’t consider 9.19 time stamp to be in the middle of the night, not every one who reads WUWT is in the same time zone and it does seem to attract a lot of night owls. I also had a recent experience where I posted a comment on a live post, albeit the next day and received the comment “thread dead; Read my book and get back to me.” So perhaps you can tell me what is an acceptable wait time before the “thread is dead?” I’ll let someone else pass judgment on the “twit” part. None the less I do appreciate the response from “richard varney,” yourself, and others. Oh, and by the way I am not in a competition and have nothing I am trying to win or anyone I am trying to best.
[duplicated italics removed around second paragraph. .mod]

Reply to  highflight56433
February 11, 2015 1:54 am

You may be right ,but since most politicians preface any comments on the subject with “Well of course,as you know I am not a scientist but I am advised blah blah 97% blah blah , ocean acidification, blah blah , our childrens children blah blah…………blah” So when the glorious day comes ,only a very few of the sniveling creeps will be strung from the street lights,,,,ok ,ok , maybe just sacked or removed from office with a tidy pension, the rest of them will rely on their ignorance, “How could anyone have known when the best minds in the World were telling us otherwise? We deeply regret that this utter nonsense was not exposed long ago and be sure that the relevant people will pay the price ! blah blah,,,,,blah”
On a personal note , since I have been banned from the Guardian,, oh,,, about 10 times now ,I hope Nutticcelli gets it right in the gonads when the truth is revealed.

February 10, 2015 10:58 am

But my Dear Lord Monckton, the intention is to despatch up to half the UK population as part of UNEP Agenda 21’s globalisation programme.
It is the accelerated ‘Olduvai Cliff’, designed to kill off inner City populations. Another part of the game is Islamic immigration, to cause inter-ethnic and internecine conflict.
The 1980s’ PPE and Common Purpose graduates doing this were programmed by Hansen’s fake IPCC physics and by being given accelerated progress to the top. However, along the way they were a;lso compromised by Marching Powder and underage temptation so have to stand together, or fall.
The UK population is realising the danger; the Fascists are combating this by muddying the water.

Terry - somerset
February 10, 2015 11:03 am

Rants like this leave the unambiguous impression that the sceptics are in fact unbalanced loons.
An unfortunate impression as this site also includes a wealth of informed, thought provoking analysis, and justified criticism of the scientific consensus. Why do we need to emulate the worst aspects of of the warmist fraternity?

Alan Robertson
Reply to  Terry - somerset
February 10, 2015 11:16 am

Bunch o’ anti- heaterist loons, eh?
Think of the children.

Mac the Knife
Reply to  Terry - somerset
February 10, 2015 12:47 pm

I thought loons were the ‘calling card’ for the enviro-mentalists??!!

Reply to  Terry - somerset
February 10, 2015 12:55 pm

Example of emulating the worst aspects of the warmist fraternity: Rants like this leave the unambiguous impression that the sceptics are in fact unbalanced loons.

Reply to  Terry - somerset
February 11, 2015 5:33 am

Somebody’s got his knickers in a twist.
Compared to the nonsense put forth by the warmista crowd, this post was calm and very well reasoned.

Reply to  Terry - somerset
February 12, 2015 1:03 am

Sometimes things are not what they seem , occasionally I will write something pretty alarmist suggesting we hang the deniers on alarmista jihadi sites like the Guardian just to wind them up and see who agrees.
The rant above could easily be a 5th columnist who is smirking away in his evil manner whilst stroking his pussy , or correctly he could just be as you say a total wombat (H/T to the aussies)

February 10, 2015 11:04 am

Canada’s federal election is actually in Nov….god help us if Trudeau gets into power…he is already stating he wants to put in a ‘carbon’ tax on Alberta…and his side kick giving him directions “Gerald Butts”….was the boss of the World Wildlife Fund Canada…so you know we are suck if he gets in.

Reply to  lance
February 10, 2015 11:05 am

meant to say sunk…

Harry Passfield
Reply to  lance
February 10, 2015 11:11 am

And I thought you meant *uck*d. But ‘sunk’ is better for the mods…

Reply to  lance
February 11, 2015 5:34 am

Works either way.

Reply to  lance
February 10, 2015 5:38 pm

The good news is that Turdeau’s talk of a federal involvement with provincial responsibility by creating a device similar to Medicare by use of transfer payments has put Stephen Harper ahead in the latest polls by 3 points.

February 10, 2015 11:09 am

Disturbing reading but i get the sense that the general public are cottoning on quick to the agw scam. Some of these alarmist networks are losing viewers.

February 10, 2015 11:23 am

It is an excellent overview.
Thus the Cannabis Generation’s reversal of all their parents accomplished in energy, agriculture, personal transportation, and mass manufacturing is nearing completion.
But the real give-away is who that Generation betrays their own “nation-states” to – Germany, central power of Europe now through the EU, and destroyer of electricity generation through top-down Climate Change Regulations; Russia, supplier of gas to Europe and armed to the teeth with nuclear weapons and submarines; and China, destroyer of agriculture through Sustainable Science. The goal, of course, being a scientific paradigm shift in agricultureand a Great Transformation to a low carbon economy, no less. (But that Generation never did weep much about the Great Leap.)
They have always wanted to betray their own English-speaking countries to foreign interests. They claim they will ring in peace by destroying the “nation-state.” Their treachery is dressed up in a false historic paradigm, to appear noble.

Mac the Knife
February 10, 2015 11:27 am

As I’m eating my lunch, this extended tale makes me feel ill……
I can only hope that the modern day kith and kin of my doughty Scottish ancestors may yet realize the truth of their folly:
Wind Power Sucks…..When It Doesn’t Blow!

Reply to  Mac the Knife
February 10, 2015 12:05 pm
Reply to  vukcevic
February 10, 2015 12:08 pm

300ft wind turbine in Ardrossan, Ayrshire, Sxotland, exploded into flames when it was buffeted by high winds

Bubba Cow
Reply to  vukcevic
February 10, 2015 4:06 pm

Love the picture – but having trouble making physical sense of it. Is there another whirligig off to the right that blew as well?

Reply to  vukcevic
February 11, 2015 1:24 pm

@ bubba looking at the one next it looks the lower piece is the housing “blowing in the wind”.

February 10, 2015 11:32 am

Not going to comment on foreign domestic politics – let the Aussies decide.
But I will comment on the accusation that the polls are fixed. That has no evidence.
Your comments on the UK’s policy failings are entirely correct and could be substantiated. But the idea that polling agencies are corrupt and manipulate Australian society? That is a little out there, don’t you think?
Lord Monckton, you are free to write in any tone you want.
You have a duty to expose malpractice where you see it (as do we all) and that is a duty you fulfil admirably.
But this claim needs justification or withdrawal.

Reply to  MCourtney
February 10, 2015 11:40 am

He made it very clear that he is quoting an Australian, here: “email just in from Anne Easby, a doughty campaigner for common sense in Australia.”
It does invite reflection upon other instances of manipulation of data:
1. the downward adjustments to past temperatures,
2. the use of 35,000 year-old respondents in studies, and
3. the math which claims that adopting a Carbon Tax will make Australia an economic leader of the world.

Reply to  Zeke
February 10, 2015 12:30 pm

Repeating a libelous statement by someone else confers no protection in most jurisdictions. just the usual ad Hominem attack that we have come to expect from the fatuous little twerp.

Reply to  Zeke
February 10, 2015 12:34 pm

Eric Worrall February 10, 2015 at 12:21 pm
“According to JoNova sitting LNP members of government received a tsunami of emails 20:1 in favour of keeping Abbott – that is why they backed off.”

Reply to  Zeke
February 10, 2015 12:36 pm

Zeke and Phil, you both extrapolate from individual cases to the general.
But the general is very complex and the cases are very few.
This is an error. The same error.

Reply to  Zeke
February 10, 2015 12:39 pm

Clarifying: I was replying to Zeke’s 1st comment. Not had time to read JoNova yet.

Reply to  MCourtney
February 10, 2015 11:51 am

Q: if you knew all cats grow up to murder humans would you support laws to stop this?
Public answers yes
Q: Do you support killing all kittens at birth?
Public answers no.
same end result..which of the 2 questions would pollsters use?
posing question in a manner to get a preconceived answer is fraud.

Reply to  MCourtney
February 11, 2015 1:30 pm

are you kidding? A poll can be manipulated as easily as the price of eggs, example: Poll people in the inner cities and keep those results for the day you need them, then poll people in a rural area and keep those results for when you need them , ELEMENTAL polling 101. ( widely used by politicians as they stand on the back of trains and fire trucks).

Reply to  asybot
February 11, 2015 2:47 pm

A poll can be manipulated, yes.
The allegation is that polls are being manipulated by polling agencies to influence the politics of Australia. That is that the polls not only can be manipulated but that they actually are.
Frankly, that seems like commercial suicide for the pollsters (thus calling them stupid) and worse – a grave slur on their integrity.

Reply to  asybot
February 11, 2015 5:01 pm

As I said they are and the Polticians pick the ones that fit the crowd, each party hires polling companies that will bias in their favor, sorry it is reality and trustworthiness of polls is in serious jeopardy, remember how originally the margin of error? it used to be 1-2 points now on a regular basis it is 3-6 points that is a possible swing of 12 points and that is huge in most elections at local level or at the Federal level. If a candidate appears to be running 8-10 points ahead or behind there are 2 impressions 1 he is losing and 2 he is winning and for monetary support that will make all the difference. But it is the reality. I do not know what the turn out for voters is in your country but in a lot of places it as low as 30%. At that point who ever brings the people to the polls wins and at 30@ of the electorate that then be as low as 16$ of eligible voters. To me every tax payer should be made to vote or get fined!

Lil Fella from OZ
February 10, 2015 11:39 am

Leftist and more Left. They will leave us with nothing left!

Reply to  Lil Fella from OZ
February 10, 2015 12:57 pm

Useful idiots are always the first to be expunged by their own making.

February 10, 2015 12:05 pm

If Gaia is true, and it sort of is, then it’s ironic that those who really believe in it are so anxious about CAGW, because a living organism like Gaia will see anthropogenic CO2 as nothing more than a temporary itch.
If Gaia is true, then we have nothing to worry about. Earth, as a life form, has a very strong immune system. Even if CO2 was undesirable, which it isn’t, Earth’s immune system can deal with it without the slightest effort.

Alan Robertson
Reply to  Karim D. Ghantous
February 10, 2015 12:33 pm

CO2 increases the bounty of life on Earth, so unless any planetary consciousness would consider all life as an itch, then Gaia must be overjoyed with our reintroduction of the life giving substance, which time has sequestered away from life’s yearnings.

Greg Woods
February 10, 2015 12:06 pm

A bit off-topic: http://www.city-journal.org/2015/eon0205hm.html – Queering Agriculture?

Reply to  Greg Woods
February 10, 2015 6:52 pm
February 10, 2015 12:21 pm

According to JoNova sitting LNP members of government received a tsunami of emails 20:1 in favour of keeping Abbott – that is why they backed off.

Reply to  Eric Worrall
February 10, 2015 1:00 pm

most excellent.

February 10, 2015 12:21 pm

Please stand for parliament in the upcoming election, I’d move to your constituency just to vote for you, you’d be in No.10 within 6 months.

Chris Hanley
February 10, 2015 12:23 pm

“Yet most of the time the turbines are not turning – or, if they are, they are powered by the grid to stop their bearings seizing …”.
An apt metaphor for the circularity of the ‘overwhelming human influence’ reasoning.
(New Yorker).

February 10, 2015 12:54 pm

I’d like to hear more about this Treaty of Paris and what it says.

Reply to  jdgalt
February 10, 2015 1:06 pm

It formalised the rules of war at sea and weakened Russian influence in the Middle East and Eastern Europe – mainly in favour of France.
And ended the Crimean War, of course.
(Helpful me).

Ian W
Reply to  jdgalt
February 10, 2015 1:22 pm

jdgalt February 10, 2015 at 12:54 pm
I’d like to hear more about this Treaty of Paris and what it says.

Here is the EU view of it, there is more on the UNFCC website. It would be ‘worse than we thought’
I would think that work is going on behind the scenes on a way for China, Russia and India to abstain, be unaffected by the treaty, and the treaty still be signed and the treaty otherwise have force worldwide.

Reply to  jdgalt
February 10, 2015 1:25 pm

I think rather it is a mockery of the original Treaty of Paris.
Treaty of Paris 1783
“On September 3rd, 1783, the Treaty of Paris was signed by the three American negotiators, John Adams, Benjamin Franklin and John Jay, and David Hartley, representing King George III. The treaty was signed at the historical Hotel d’York in Paris. The Treaty of Paris was ratified by the American Congress of the Confederation on January 14, 1784 and by British Parliament on April 9, 1784.
The Treaty of Paris formally ended the American War of Independence and recognized Great Britain’s former thirteen colonies as free and independent states, acknowledging the existence of the United States as a sovereign country. The American Independence War became a world conflict where France, Spain and the Netherlands were formally involved. Britain signed separate peace agreements with each of the counties.”

Reg Nelson
February 10, 2015 1:07 pm

For the US, even if Obama were to sign the treaty, it would require approval by two thirds of the Senate, which isn’t going to happened. His trip will just be a big waste of money and carbon.

Ian W
Reply to  Reg Nelson
February 10, 2015 1:26 pm

The Administration and all Federal Agencies such as EPA and DEA with all their regulatory powers will behave as if the Paris Climate treaty had legal force. On recent performance do you expect Congress or the Senate to do anything to stop them?

Reply to  Reg Nelson
February 11, 2015 5:39 am

Obama has declared that he doesn’t need to wait for congress to pass laws in order to start enforcing them, so I’m sure waiting for them to ratify a treaty won’t be necessary either.

Luther Bl't
February 10, 2015 1:13 pm

So, in brief, burn ’em wood has in fact come to dunce inane.

Bubba Cow
Reply to  Luther Bl't
February 10, 2015 1:49 pm

American wood pellets that we’re running low on here – pathetic.

Reply to  Bubba Cow
February 11, 2015 5:40 am

Do wood pellets have more energy in them, than it takes to create the pellets, and then ship them across the Atlantic?

Reply to  MarkW
February 11, 2015 7:37 am


Do wood pellets have more energy in them, than it takes to create the pellets, and then ship them across the Atlantic?

If subsidized, it doesn’t matter the actual cost.
If mandated by Big Government, for a product that MUST be produced regardless of cost (electricity), the energy density of the pellets doesn’t matter.
To the policeman wearing his gun, forcing you to burn diamonds to heat your house for a politician’s law written by the diamond merchants … To that Big Government agency, “because that is the law” is the only thing that matters! …
Hence, the EPA hides behind the “law” written by the Supreme Court in a twisted meaning that the EPA wanted! Thus, “carbon” is a pollutant! And WE must control the pollutant!

Phil's Dad
February 10, 2015 1:55 pm

The Noble Lord is correct in most respects; but it is most unlikely Yeo will lose his seat. Yeo’s 2010 competition in Suffolk South were the LibDems who have mercifully (when put to the test) lost half their vote.
UKIP will come second but with only half Yeo’s vote share. Realistically the best we can hope for is that the conflict of interest is recognised and he is “shuffled-out” of anything to do with environment.

Reply to  Phil's Dad
February 10, 2015 3:24 pm

Let’s hope that someone else replaces the LibDems and crushes the venal Yeo.
The LibDems are in crisis and rightly so.
Who can step up and do this?
Bite the bullet, admit there is only one non-Tory party that won’t destroy the common market, and vote Labour.
Except for the Greens or ISIS proxies.

Billy Liar
Reply to  MCourtney
February 10, 2015 4:48 pm

‘The common market’ – what a quaint old expression. The ‘common market’ – now known as the European Economic Area won’t be destroyed because it exists outside of the European Union and a country does not have to be a member of the EU to be a member of the EEA.

richard verney
Reply to  MCourtney
February 11, 2015 3:14 am

But they will gradually destory the UK.
In my life time, every Labour government has left the country economically worse off. Once this becomes apparent, Labour is kicked out of office, the Conservatives are left to pick up the pieces and get the country back on track (which involves many difficult and unpleasnat decisions and causes much pain), and just as the country is back on track and ready to flourish, the electorate, who are fed up with medicine and the pain that that has inflicted, kick the Conservatives out, and reinstate Labour, only for Labour to once again ruin the UK’s economy; and so the cycle continues, but inevitably, in relative terms compared to the rest of the world, on a downward trend.
Almost every major woe that the UK faces can be traced back to Labour policies, not least the disastrous state of education since the war, which has led to significant numbers of young people left unemployable, which in turn has led to the need to import labour/workforce from overseas.
PS. I am not a Conservative voter; I consider myself disenfranchised and do not vote since it appears that all politicians are incompetent, so too all political parties, it is just that some are worse than others; albeit there is little difference in the bulk of their policies. My vote would be negative, ie, designed to keep what I perceive to be the worse party out of office, rather than to vote for a party the views of which I support.

Reply to  Phil's Dad
February 10, 2015 9:30 pm

Wasn’t Yeo deselected? James Cartlidge will be standing as Tory candidate in the coming election.

Leo Smith
Reply to  AlexB
February 11, 2015 2:52 am

Yep. he’s gone, but not before squeezing the last immoral cent out of his tenure.
There is a particularly good UKIP candidate in South Suffolk, too. UKIP has an outside chance of toppling that seat.

Leo Smith
Reply to  Phil's Dad
February 11, 2015 2:49 am

I thought his local party had deselected him as candidate.

Phil's Dad
Reply to  Leo Smith
February 11, 2015 3:34 pm

Indeed I miss-spoke. I should have said it is unlikely Yeo’s seat will be lost. The man himself was lost decades ago.

Jaakko Kateenkorva
February 10, 2015 2:12 pm

They make an effort to stay composed under all that pressure.

Reply to  Jaakko Kateenkorva
February 10, 2015 2:55 pm

Bette doesn’t need the teeth to be scary. Yikes.

February 10, 2015 2:33 pm

I’m not in OZ, but poll rigging seems a stretch. But, as abbot survived 2:1 yet polled abysmally, who were they polling? Likely voters I would hope. Perhaps media are cherry picking from certain favorable polls?

Reply to  brians356
February 10, 2015 2:54 pm

Or it could be party MPs do the spill voting, not citizens. Duh. Yet the implication is that MPs vote largely according to polling amongst constituents.

Reply to  brians356
February 10, 2015 4:40 pm

Brians356, in Australia we have compulsory voting. All adults (over 18) are likely voters.

Reply to  Truthseeker
February 11, 2015 3:37 am

Actually, you don’t have to vote for a candidate. You just need to register to vote. You can leave your ballot paper “blank”.

Reply to  brians356
February 10, 2015 6:53 pm

brians356 February 10, 2015 at 2:33 pm
I’m not in OZ, but poll rigging seems a stretch

Poll rigging happens all the time. Just not in the sense that you are thinking of. The first question to ask when you hear a poll result, is who commissioned the poll? Polling companies don’t conduct poll for free, they do it for someone and that someone in many cases (not all) has an agenda.
Suppose you are an environmentalist group fighting a pipeline project. You might commission a poll like this:
1. Were you aware that there have been X pipeline disasters in the last 10 years causing $Y billions in environmental harm? (Y/N)
2. Bob’s oil company wants to build a pipeline through this area, are you in favour of that? (Y/N)
Now suppose that you are Bob’s oil company trying to build support for your pipeline project. You commission a poll too, and yours goes like this:
1. Were you aware that the proposed pipeline will create X number of jobs and bring $Y billions in economic benefits to this area? (Y/N)
2. Bob’s oil company wants to build a pipeline through this area, are you in favour of that? (Y/N)
The second question is identical in both polls, but will yield completely different results. The polling company dutifully publishes the results, but they may be directed by their to only publish the results of the second question. So unless you know who commissioned the poll, what their agenda is, and if the question was asked in a context that influenced the outcome, you are at risk of being manipulated, and the case can be made that there was no lies were told in doing so. Not a stretch at all.

February 10, 2015 5:33 pm

Adds new meaning to Quixotic. A modern Don might need to employ something more than a lance, but at least unlike most thermal systems, there is no boil.

February 10, 2015 7:22 pm

The Scream painting by Edvad Munch is certainly appropriate image for Lord Monckton’s excellent post.
The Law of immutable Leftist Irony holds true for insane CAGW leftist energy policies.
China recently announced they have slashed their deadline to have a commercial Thorium reactor design ready for large-scale rollout from 2040 to 2024; a mere 9 years from now.
China’s first test thorium reactor goes online THIS YEAR!
So, while the West builds wind and solar monuments to leftist stupidity, China will be well on its way to 100% energy independenceb by 2030, with inexhaustible energy that’s 50% cheaper per kWh than natural gas/coal, and 10 TIMES cheaper than wind/solar.
In the meantime, the West prepares for Paris, where they will negotiate economically devasting energy policies to address the CAGW scam, while giving China and India special dispensation to pollute as much as they like until 2030…
China will, of course, show full support for CAGW in Paris, which will assure the West destroys their economies and force manufacturing to move to China.
When China’s CO2 sequestration limits start in 2030, China’s rapid deployment of thorium reactors will easily allow compliance.
China has played this CAGW scam perfectly.

richard verney
Reply to  SAMURAI
February 11, 2015 2:50 am


Reply to  SAMURAI
February 11, 2015 1:51 pm

You’re right about China running rings around the West. Obama thought it was a big win that China would cap its emissions in 2030. A think tank in the US a few years ago studied China’s demographics, and concluded that their population would probably stabilise by 2030. What a coincidence! If the population isn’t expanding (and becoming more prosperous), then the need for heavily polluting industries (building, manufacturing etc) becomes much less.

February 10, 2015 11:01 pm

You are off the mark completely if you think that Tony Abbott has lost support due to a climate change conspiracy. He has lost support for hiding his agenda of cuts to things he promised not to cut. If there is a case for it, he didn’t make it before the election and he certainly has been woefull at selling it since coming to power. And if the Left are attacking freedom through Green policies, Abbott has been attacking freedom through increased surveillance and so called anti terror laws. It should also be noted that even though Tony Abbott got rid of the Carbon Tax he increased the fuel tax in its place. A Carbon tax through the back door which mining companies are exempt from.
As someone who is Left leaning in political pursuation, let me tell you that Abbott’s global warming skepticism is not the thing to bring him down, rather it is the ONLY thing still keeping him up!!

Gareth Phillips
February 11, 2015 1:31 am

1) The UK invests 300 times more investing in non environmental energy sources as it does for traditional ones. http://www.theguardian.com/environment/2015/feb/10/uk-spent-300-times-more-fossil-fuel-clean-energy-despite-green-pledge?CMP=share_btn_tw
2) Tim Yeo is not unusual, it is very common for Tory politicians to make substantial; amounts of money from others sources while working as politicians.
3) Using a term like “mental” to describe policies you disagree with is a dreadful reflection on your view of those with mental health problems. What next? Spastic politicians?

richard verney
Reply to  Gareth Phillips
February 11, 2015 2:52 am

So too labour Politicans.
Has anyone been more successful at this than Blair?

Gareth Phillips
Reply to  richard verney
February 11, 2015 3:16 am

Indeed you are right Richard, although Blair is no longer an elected politician, it’s just that a Tory politician was given as an example. The register of members interests in the commons is indeed hair raising. The lead for making a real killing out of milking the payments and expenses system is Nigel Farage who has managed to claim multi million pounds with of expenses for himself from the European Union which puts most run of the mill politicians in the shade.

Reply to  Gareth Phillips
February 11, 2015 5:46 am

The fact that you consider it routine for politicians to use their positions to make themselves rich, is truely sad.

Darkinbad the Brighdayler
February 11, 2015 2:21 am

Christopher, you made me laugh but I wouldn’t want to stand in the shooting line with you.

Leo Smith
February 11, 2015 2:46 am

For geographical reasons the only grid interconnect with another nation is with England.

Er, no. The Moyle interconnector is to Northern Ireland.

richard verney
February 11, 2015 2:48 am

It seems to me that the politicians failed to discharge the obligations imposed upon them, by not even scrutinising how effective the green policy would be, before putting that policy into place.
At the time, it was already known that solar cannot deliver 24 hours 7 days a week power, and therefore requires backup. Likewise, it was known that the wind does not always blow and requires back up. It was already known that conventionally powered fossil fuel generation works most efficiently when running at steady state 24/7 and is not efficient, and in relative terms consumes more fuel and therefore prodces more CO2 emissions when being used in ramp up/ramp down mode. Heck, every politician has a car and knows this from urban driving where a car uses much more fuel (and hence produces much more emissions) than compared to driving at a steady speed of say 60 mph (~100 kph).
Given these known facts 2 basic questions should have been asked:
1. How much CO2 will be saved over the course of the life of a wind turbine after taking into account, the CO2 used in its manufacture, transport to site, errection thereof, coupling it to the grid, and that expelled by the back up required for when wind conditions make the turbine in operative (whether because of too little wind, or because of too much wind)?
2. Given the above saving, if any, in CO2, how much will (i) the UK temperatures be reduced by building windfarms sufficient to supply say 12 to 15GW, and (ii) global temperaturesbe reduced by building windfarms sufficient to supply say 12 to 15GW
The answer to the first question is about zere tons, and the answer to the second, is again about zero.
If these questions had been asked, it would be immediately apparent that wind turbines are futile. They do not achieve the desired goal, ie., the significant reduction of CO2 (assuming that is a desired and/or necessary goal), and they do not result in the significant reduction in local or global temperatures.
Of course, the politicians should be asking how many turbines are required to produce 12 to 15 GW, what area of land is required to produce 12 to 15 GW, what are the costs involved, including the costs of coupling to the grid, what is the effect of this intermittent energy on the grid, what is the life span and maintenance requirements of the turbines etc.
The only incentive that should have been given is capital write down against tax. Most capital expenditure can be written down against profit, but instead of saying allowing qualifying capital expenditure to be written down over the expected life of the plant and machinery, or say over 10 years, it could, in the case of wind turbines, be written down over say 3 to 5 years. This would have helped the roll out of windfarms since energy companies would in effect be paying no tax as long as they were building windfarms. There should have been no floor price fixed on the selling price of the energy produced by wind turbines, it would be left to find its market value.
Politicians are in denial as to the true cost of their green programme. It has more than doubled electricity bills, and yet they suggest that it ads only about 7 to 10% onto the cost of duel fuel bills. It is about time MSM did a proper expose on the true cost of the renewable programme, including all the needless premature winter deaths thatb have arisen as a consequence of the vulnerable being in fuel poverty.

Reply to  richard verney
February 11, 2015 1:53 pm

richard verney
February 11, 2015 at 2:48 am
It seems to me that the politicians failed to discharge the obligations imposed upon them, by not even scrutinising how effective the green policy would be, before putting that policy into place.

No, the really scary thing is that they didn’t continue scrutiny of the scheme and back once they found out it didn’t work. That’s the part of the Left I really don’t comprehend. Making a mistake is normal. It’s human. But you don’t compound the mistake by continuing on a failed path. That’s just, silly.

February 11, 2015 5:25 am

I was a little surprised when I read Alan Jones (radio commentator) thoughts on why there has been such a vitriolic campaign to unseat Tony Abbott.
I think that he hit the nail squarely on the head when he reveals the shadowy effect of GetUp a very small group of like minded extreme left wing agitators who have modelled themselves on the Fenton Communications strategy of working behind the scenes to bring about what they see as world wide social reform. What they do is grab any issue that they think might be dear to the heart of sections of the community, this week injustice or cruelty to animals, next week aboriginals, next justice for refugees, Peta style animal rights, saving trees, animal rights including farming and export issues, Sourcing and harvesting timber from non sustainable forests, boycotting Australian businesses rightly or wrongly for alleged participation in doubtful business practices, environmental crimes, saving the planet, the whales, Polar Bears or any other environmental issue that can emotionally be exploited.
The aim being to get their audience to email or write to them supporting one or any of their campaigns, once the have those contact details, that person becomes a “member number” and for the group that are pulling the strings these people become emotional puppets, a number to be quoted when influencing issues.
On the Global Warming front the wife of one of the leader group took part in a highly publicised and scripted TV program with the aim of discrediting the sceptical scientists and commentators.(JoNova has the full story on her site)
Getup also tried hard to keep the Gillard Green alliance alive and got huge funding that was channelled to them via the union movement and likely originating from the Labor government of the day. Fortunately much of their effect was blunted by their hope that the Greens would GetUp and roll both the on the nose Labor Government and Tony Abbot’s Liberal Party.
When Abbot won and the Greens were almost wiped out in Tasmania some of their most vocal and rabid followers could not believe they had lost and their minority wails of pain on social media has been worked very well through the ABC left wing taxpayer funded media, the Fairfax Media and of course the imported British left wing Guardian and associated newspapers and of course the Global Warming promoting university network former grant recipients that were so upset when the Flannery’s, Steffen and Co were effectively defunded and they were forced to fund the new Climate Council all of this out of a network of funding and jobs for the boys set up by the previous government.
With all this fifth column to deal with and the unfortunate fact that while the Abbott government had the power by weight of numbers in one house of Parliament, due to a convenient “lost” bundle of votes in the Senate in Western Australia , there had to be fresh elections in those seats.
By this time the wailers had re-grouped with hate Abbott as their aim and watchword, an with such effect that cautious electors put in place a loose group of blocking senators and the political loose cannon, Clive Palmer a disaffected former Liberal supporter and major contributor that didn’t get his way that he expected in return for his monetary support.
It is said that Clive supports Malcolm Turnbull the Liberal Communications Minister who is no friend of Abbott as Abbott rolled him as a former Leader of the Party, All water under the bridge, but that does set the tone for the very vicious and in my view quite unreasonable media campaign, where every trumped up issue could be slated as Abbott’s error in the social media as well, and you can see feeding frenzy of sharks developing around any leak from within the party due to discontent real or manufactured easily got traction.
The only way that most leaders could deal with blocking senators is to bring on a double dissolution which would lead to a fresh election of both houses, the kind of thing that usually, voters will have a re-think and re elect the government with a workable majority in both houses.
But this present need for Tony Abbott to re-assure his own party to keep him as leader has all but robbed him of that political reality.
Stack the additional issue on top of the Global Warming meme falling over worldwide and Australia and Canada leaders likely to oppose the stacked deck at Paris, means a last ditch movement to reach some UN binding solution, and a home front where many extreme left wing and emotion wracked conservative voters are being exploited and worked over by Getup and the ABC media manipulations it is unlikely to see a double dissolution happening.
So Yes I think Alan Jones is right to question why the vicious hate campaign, it is all they have. For conservatives who want to see stable and effective government and progress back to fiscal responsibility they have been stung into action by the awful reality of the consequences of a return to Malcolm Turnbull or “Turncoat” as he is known, or worse still, the installation of an inept fool like the present leader of the Labor Party Bill Shorten or worse again, that we could fall into the clutches of the Green left economy wreckers, either of course will mean chaos and waste for this country.
Thanks Alan Jones and it is time for all of us to get Tony and his party dealing with defeating those combined forces, that can only be done with 100 per cent commitment. .

February 11, 2015 5:33 am

Thank you Christopher Monckton for your continued analysis.
Environmental policy is the prisoner of politics. The first casualty of war is truth, and the climate wars are one more example. The very worst and most dangerous examples of this policy is censorship, and I just was censored by Scientific American online which responded to my one line post with a link thus-
Commenting has been disabled for this account, please contact webmaster@sciam.com for assistance
I disagree with some of the political rhetoric and bashing by political conservatives here, sometimes equating it to the over-reach and incivility of the CAGW folk they are criticizing, but we can all agree (I hope) that the free marketplace of ideas underpins everything we value in science and in democracy.
Scientific American’s shameful conduct requires exposure.

Reply to  Doug Allen
February 11, 2015 6:16 am

sometimes you have to stand up and shovel it right back at them – bullies hate that.

M Courtney
Reply to  Doug Allen
February 11, 2015 7:53 am

If Scientific American is anything like New Scientist then the problem for Scientific American is that they can’t refute your point.
If they could then they would.
If it was merely questionable then they could get a debate going and build comments and advertising revenue.
But if they know they are wrong they have a problem. They can’t back down and make their editorial policy of the last two decades look ridiculous. They will have actually equated catastrophic climate change scepticism to belief in astrology or homeopathy. When you lose credibility you lose everything – look at the US newsreader and his helicopter tales.
They have got themselves in a right pickle and in the meantime the internet has destroyed their business model.
Income is falling and readership is easily distracted. If they can find a group of middle-class well-paid obsessives who will buy their magazine they will grab hold of them like a lifeboat. And the last thing they want (or can afford) is to shake the faith or resolve or ‘willingness to spend’ of their special interest group.

Gareth Phillips
February 11, 2015 8:27 am

I think it’s worth bearing in mind that HSBC ( a UK bank), robbed the UK tax payer of £78 billion pounds over the last 10 years through various swindles. This amount of money puts subsidies for renewables in the shade. Interestingly the boss of HSBC at that time was not punished, he did not go straight to jail, do not pass go etc. No, what happened is the Conservative government used him as a government advisor, then enobled him making him a Lord, similar status to Monckton. He now sits in the Lords reviewing legislation. The Conservative government have now belatedly tried to recoup some of this horrendous loss, but I fear it is too little and too late.

richard verney
Reply to  Gareth Phillips
February 12, 2015 8:01 am

i do not know the ins and outs of the HSBC’s actions and whether this was tax avoidance (which is legal) or tax evassion (which is illegal), but the public is being sold a pup with regard to corporate tax.
Companies do not pay tax. All expenses born by a company are pased onto its customers. It is the customer who pays the corporation tax since this is built into the selling proce.
If Amazon are forced to pay more corporation tax, then this will be paased onto Amazon Sellers who in turn will raise their prices so that in the end Amazon buyers will pay the extra price. So too with eBay. If eBay are forced to pay more tax, they will put up the price of listing, they will put up the price of using PayPal so as to cover the extra tax they are being asked to pay. The same is so with Starbucks and Costa, the price of coffee will be increased say by 5 to 10 pence.
At the end of the day, the consumer will pay more. With squeeze on wages these extra costs will dig into the pocket of every citizen since the cost of living will increase but wages will not increase in like manner.
Politicians like to grab money. If corporations are forced to pay more tax, at the end of the day, this will be a stealth tax on the consumer, and since we all consume from these big companies we will not reap the reward of these big companies paying more tax.
The position is different with individuals, if wealthy individuals are forced to pay more tax, then this could beneefit the public at large, but even then, it may be less than one thinks. A few years ago, there was a case with Elton John where some of his spending was revealed. he was spending £5million per year on flowers. This is £1million in VAT. IF he is forced to pay more tax, he may end up spending only £4million on flowers and therefore £200,000 less VAT. Other expenditure may also be curbed. Direct taxation take may go up, but indirect taxation receipts may go down. How this pans out, ie., the net bottom line, is moot.
But you should always be very sceptical of what a Politician tells you. They are after yout money, and they will almost cetainly waste it!

February 11, 2015 10:42 am

“Industrialization of the landscape”.

Excellent description!
I am not against industrialization, I am aghast at the hypocrisy and hubris of those that do not recognize wind and solar as having a much larger industrialized footprint on the environment than oil rigs.

February 11, 2015 11:04 am

Christopher, a very good and very true article, I cannot believe that it has taken so long for this scam to continue running.
We were told in the Eighties not to eat dairy produce and animal fat because it would fur up our arteries and we would suffer premature death. We were told not to expose our children or ourselves to the Sun for fear of developing skin cancer. Lead needed to be removed from our petrol to protect our health. All the advice of so-called “Experts”; the result? Diabetes and obesity through the roof because carbohydrates replaced fats, the return of rickets in children and an increase in auto-immune diseases in adults, due to lack of Vitamin D and an increase in cancers from benzene in unleaded petrol which is a 1000 times more toxic than lead.
Now back to the AGW experts:
1)Electric cars are more inefficient than petrol or diesel, especially in the winter when they need to have headlights turned on and be warmed. I have just read that their depreciation after a years ownership from new is 60%.
2) Wind power and solar power are intermittent and unreliable, they cannot provide power for a modern computer based society. Their actual output is a lot less than their claimed output as is their lifespan.
3) How is buying wood from the USA, pulverising it, gluing it to make pellets and then shipping it across the Atlantic going to produce less CO2 than not converting a power station to wood and continuing to burn coal?
4) CO2 has been almost 20 times higher in the past than it is now without any CGW
The £/$ billions spent on “climate research” could have been better spent in developing thorium reactors and/or fusion power.

Reply to  andrewmharding
February 11, 2015 2:21 pm

Just a minor quibble: processed dairy milk (apart from not having any nutritional value) does cause congestion, but in the intestine, not the arteries AFAIK. And the heliophobia – my lord, we humans have grown up with the sun for over 100,000 years and suddenly we have to cower from it?

February 11, 2015 9:03 pm

It’s not until you put Agenda21 and Climate Change together that it starts to make sense. Agenda 21 is the aim with Global governance, and Climate Change is the key to achieve it. Tony Abbott is a threat they want to remove.

Jim Francisco
February 12, 2015 6:11 pm

I was fortunate to get to work in Australia for most of 2005. Several Aussies let me know that they were embarrassed by Steve Irwin the crocodile hunter and Crocodile Dundee. They knew that many Americans liked them very much and were puzzled by that fact. They knew that we Americans don’t know much about the rest of the world and even less about Australia. They were afraid that we think most Australians were like Dundee and Irwin.
I told one of my Aussie friends that I think the reason we liked those two was that they weren’t afraid of anything and were full of spunk. We long for the good ole days when we as Americans used to be like that. Now we are mostly a bunch of wimps and I was disappointed to find that Australia is becoming that way too.

%d bloggers like this:
Verified by MonsterInsights