Archive for December, 2009

What Would a Greenpeace Supporter Know?

December 14, 2009

Lord Monkton vs Greenpeace; On the Streets

Brian Gerrish- Soviet Britain

December 5, 2009

Brian Gerrish’s latest lecture, from the BCGroup conference in London- 31 October 2009.
Some excellent information here, worth spending 40 mins watching this if you have time.

The Origins of the EU- 1942 Germany

December 5, 2009

Here is an interesting document from Nazi Germany :

Europaische Wirtschaftsgemeinschaft

Nazi Blueprint for a United Europe – Berlin 1942

This is the original blueprint for the European Economic Community. They were talking about one Europe, one currency, one transport system…and more importantly, the UK was to be “de-industrialised“, and used for a limited amount of agriculture and tourism. The plan was to strip out anything that put the “Great” into “Great Britain”. If you go through the document, most of the things that the Nazi’s had planned for the UK have already happened.

Climategate- Follow the Money

December 2, 2009

Wall Street Journal- Climategate, Follow the Money

Last year, ExxonMobil donated $7 million to a grab-bag of public policy institutes, including the Aspen Institute, the Asia Society and Transparency International. It also gave a combined $125,000 to the Heritage Institute and the National Center for Policy Analysis, two conservative think tanks that have offered dissenting views on what until recently was called—without irony—the climate change “consensus.”

To read some of the press accounts of these gifts—amounting to about 0.00027% of Exxon’s 2008 profits of $45 billion—you might think you’d hit upon the scandal of the age. But thanks to what now goes by the name of climategate, it turns out the real scandal lies elsewhere.

Climategate, as readers of these pages know, concerns some of the world’s leading climate scientists working in tandem to block freedom of information requests, blackball dissenting scientists, manipulate the peer-review process, and obscure, destroy or massage inconvenient temperature data—facts that were laid bare by last week’s disclosure of thousands of emails from the University of East Anglia’s Climate Research Unit, or CRU.

But the deeper question is why the scientists behaved this way to begin with, especially since the science behind man-made global warming is said to be firmly settled. To answer the question, it helps to turn the alarmists’ follow-the-money methods right back at them.

Consider the case of Phil Jones, the director of the CRU and the man at the heart of climategate. According to one of the documents hacked from his center, between 2000 and 2006 Mr. Jones was the recipient (or co-recipient) of some $19 million worth of research grants, a sixfold increase over what he’d been awarded in the 1990s.

Why did the money pour in so quickly? Because the climate alarm kept ringing so loudly: The louder the alarm, the greater the sums. And who better to ring it than people like Mr. Jones, one of its likeliest beneficiaries?

Thus, the European Commission’s most recent appropriation for climate research comes to nearly $3 billion, and that’s not counting funds from the EU’s member governments. In the U.S., the House intends to spend $1.3 billion on NASA’s climate efforts, $400 million on NOAA’s, and another $300 million for the National Science Foundation. The states also have a piece of the action, with California—apparently not feeling bankrupt enough—devoting $600 million to their own climate initiative. In Australia, alarmists have their own Department of Climate Change at their funding disposal.

And all this is only a fraction of the $94 billion that HSBC Bank estimates has been spent globally this year on what it calls “green stimulus”—largely ethanol and other alternative energy schemes—of the kind from which Al Gore and his partners at Kleiner Perkins hope to profit handsomely.

Supply, as we know, creates its own demand. So for every additional billion in government-funded grants (or the tens of millions supplied by foundations like the Pew Charitable Trusts), universities, research institutes, advocacy groups and their various spin-offs and dependents have emerged from the woodwork to receive them.

Today these groups form a kind of ecosystem of their own. They include not just old standbys like the Sierra Club or Greenpeace, but also Ozone Action, Clean Air Cool Planet, Americans for Equitable Climate Change Solutions, the Alternative Energy Resources Association, the California Climate Action Registry and so on and on. All of them have been on the receiving end of climate change-related funding, so all of them must believe in the reality (and catastrophic imminence) of global warming just as a priest must believe in the existence of God.

None of these outfits is per se corrupt, in the sense that the monies they get are spent on something other than their intended purposes. But they depend on an inherently corrupting premise, namely that the hypothesis on which their livelihood depends has in fact been proved. Absent that proof, everything they represent—including the thousands of jobs they provide—vanishes. This is what’s known as a vested interest, and vested interests are an enemy of sound science.

Which brings us back to the climategate scientists, the keepers of the keys to the global warming cathedral. In one of the more telling disclosures from last week, a computer programmer writes of the CRU’s temperature database: “I am very sorry to report that the rest of the databases seems to be in nearly as poor a state as Australia was. . . . Aarrggghhh! There truly is no end in sight. . . . We can have a proper result, but only by including a load of garbage!”

This is not the sound of settled science, but of a cracking empirical foundation. And however many billion-dollar edifices may be built on it, sooner or later it is bound to crumble.

Friends of the Earth- Against Carbon Trading

December 1, 2009

The Evidence against Carbon Trading

“The report catalogues the repeated failure of global and regional carbon trading to deliver in its own terms as expressed in the promises of its advocates. The authors decisively reject the argument that the disappointing record of attempts to construct carbon markets is due to “teething problems” or because we have not tried enough. Rather, they demonstrate that the carbon trading architecture is fundamentally unfit for purpose and cannot possibly deliver the stabilisation of atmospheric greenhouse gas concentrations that the scientific community is calling for in the time frame that matters.

Far from proving to be an economically efficient instrument, carbon trading and offsetting have been beset by inefficiency and, in places, corruption and are set to become the next subprime crisis.

While various voices in academia and the environmental movement have been expressing these views over the past decade, they have largely been ignored, or even actively muffled, by those who have sunk their political capital into the carbon trading architecture. Indeed, support for carbon trading seems to have become a litmus test of “climate correctness.” Against this background, publication of this report is an act of genuine courage on the part of Friends of the Earth. It is earnestly to be hoped that its voice will be heard loud and clear at Copenhagen and beyond.”

What would the UK Renewables Obligation Pay For?

December 1, 2009

An interesting statement from a friend of mine, worth saving and relevant to the disproportionate attention given to climate change, given the other woes on this planet being ignored:

The UK Renewables Obligation is supposedly gonna cost us £30bn to put up solar panels and wind turbines.

Oral rehydration salts are, for simplicity’s sake, 10p. Malaria nets are ~£10. So, for that £30bn you could provide nets and ORS to every child on the planet, and replace every light residential bulb in the UK with low-energy ones, and still have money left over for insulation.

Carbon Rationing

December 1, 2009

Environment Agency Chairman Chris Smith Calls for Carbon Rationing


“His big idea is to give everyone a personal carbon allowance, which would limit their use of air travel, heating and fast cars. “People could choose what they wanted to do, but life would become more expensive if they went over their carbon limit. They could sell on anything they didn’t use.” “

UK Strategy for Personal Carbon Rations

“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.””


RSA-Carbon Card Points to Better Carbon Management

“After over a year of research the RSA released a ‘carbon card’ pilot scheme earlier this year in partnership with Atos Origin. The aim is to prove that it’s possible to use existing IT infrastructure to support individual carbon footprinting, and slash the estimated costs published by government. This pilot supports CarbonLimited’s research into the viability and deliverability of a personal carbon trading scheme and could be used for public engagement in carbon footprint management and for organisations seeking to engage staff in corporarate carbon targets, driven by regulation or internal policies.

The pilot scheme uses the well established Nectar card to capture emissions data from purchases of fuel at BP filling stations. Each time a participant buys fuel, information about its type and volume is sent to their RSA CarbonDAQ account. To participate, sign up to CarbonDAQ and join the ‘Atos Origin-BP-Nectar Pilot’ group. By taking part, you can also participate in the wider experiment in personal carbon trading. Individuals taking part in the ‘carbon card’ pilot are helping the RSA to understand the acceptability of monitoring carbon emissions in a voluntary setting and will receive near real-time information about the carbon impact of their car use. The project will monitor whether this has any affect on participants’ mileage, the relative merit of different forms of incentive’ and the behavioural impact of being part of a group.

The project team explored a number of card-based options for capturing emissions data from fuel purchases at petrol stations in the UK, such as credit cards, fuel cards and the idea of a ‘stand-alone carbon card’. Going forward, the project is exploring a number of other ways to capture carbon emissions data automatically . Delivering an innovative and networked system will have implications for local environmental policy, community carbon schemes and commercial applications.”


Telegraph- Everyone in Britan Could be Given Carbon Allowance

It would involve people being issued with a unique number which they would hand over when purchasing products that contribute to their carbon footprint, such as fuel, airline tickets and electricity.

Like with a bank account, a statement would be sent out each month to help people keep track of what they are using.

If their “carbon account” hits zero, they would have to pay to get more credits.

Jesse Ventura on Larry King Show

December 1, 2009

Morgan Stanley Fears UK Sovereign Debt Crisis in 2010

December 1, 2009

Telegraph – UK Sovereign Debt Crisis in 2010

“Britain risks becoming the first country in the G10 bloc of major economies to risk capital flight and a full-blown debt crisis over coming months, according to a client note by Morgan Stanley.

The US investment bank said there is a danger Britain’s toxic mix of problems will come to a head as soon as next year, triggered by fears that Westminster may prove unable to restore fiscal credibility.

“Growing fears over a hung parliament would likely weigh on both the currency and gilt yields as it would represent something of a leap into the unknown, and would increase the probability that some of the rating agencies remove the UK’s AAA status,” said the report, written by the bank’s European investment team of Ronan Carr, Teun Draaisma, and Graham Secker.

“In an extreme situation a fiscal crisis could lead to some domestic capital flight, severe pound weakness and a sell-off in UK government bonds. The Bank of England may feel forced to hike rates to shore up confidence in monetary policy and stabilize the currency, threatening the fragile economic recovery,” they said.

Morgan Stanley said that such a chain of events could drive up yields on 10-year UK gilts by 150 basis points. This would raise borrowing costs to well over 5pc – the sort of level now confronting Greece, and far higher than costs for Italy, Mexico, or Brazil.

High-grade debt from companies such as BP, GSK, or Tesco might command a lower risk premium than UK sovereign debt, once an unthinkable state of affairs.

A spike in bond yields would greatly complicate the task of funding Britain’s budget deficit, expected to be the worst of the OECD group next year at 13.3pc of GDP.

Investors have been fretting privately for some time that the Bank might have to raise rates before it is ready — risking a double-dip recession, and an incipient compound-debt spiral – but this the first time a major global investment house has issued such a stark warning.

No G10 country has seen its ability to provide emergency stimulus seriously constrained by outside forces since the credit crisis began. It is unclear how markets would respond if they began to question the efficacy of state power.

Morgan Stanley said sterling may fall a further 10pc in trade-weighted terms. This would complete the steepest slide in the pound since the industrial revolution, exceeding the 30pc drop from peak to trough after Britain was driven off the Gold Standard in cataclysmic circumstances in 1931.

UK equities would perform reasonably well. Some 65pc of earnings from FTSE companies come from overseas, so they would enjoy a currency windfall gain.

While the report – “Tougher Times in 2010” – is not linked to the Dubai debacle, it is a reminder that countries merely bought time during the crisis by resorting to fiscal stimulus and shunting private losses onto public books. The rescues – though necessary – have not resolved the underlying debt problem. They have storied up a second set of difficulties by degrading sovereign debt across much of the world.

Morgan Stanley said Britain’s travails are one of three “surprises” to expect in 2010. The other two are a dollar rebound, and strong performance by pharmaceutical stocks.

David Buik, from BGC Partners, said Britain is in particularly bad shape because the tax-take is highly leveraged to the global economic cycle: financial services provided 27pc of revenue in the boom, but has since collapsed.

The UK failed to put aside money in the fat years to offset this time-honoured fiscal cycle. It ran a budget deficit of 3pc of GPD at the peak of the boom when prudent countries such as Finland and even Spain were running a surplus of over 2pc.

“We need to raise VAT to 20pc and make seriously dramatic cuts in services that go beyond anything that Alistair Darling or David Cameron are talking about. Nobody seems to have the courage to face up to this,” said Mr Buik.

The report coincided with news that Britain is now officially the only G20 country still to be in recession. Canada reported that its economy grew by 0.1pc in the third quarter. Britain, by contrast, shrank by 0.3pc, the latest estimates show.”