Books Click images for more details
A few sites I've stumbled across recently....
From the video yesterday. Around about 16:49:45 - kind of summarises the whole debate ;-)
Cartoons by Josh
View Printer Friendly Version
Baronness Verma's' comment about "decarbonizing" the economy said it all...
Be fair Josh. I was listening to her........(I had to go for a long walk.) Nice one.
@16:27:30 "The EMR is meant to be about uncovering least cost package...... well actually it's not, really.... it's about trying to transition to a low carbon economy,..."
This is honest, if nothing else. It is about about how they wish to make fuel/electricity/heating prices go up without passing a law that explicitly says "we are putting up the price of your fuel/electricity/heating".
And it is being done through some bizarre hatred of the element carbon. (I should perhaps declare my obvious conflict of interest, which is having a Ph.D. in carbon chemistry).
These people are in charge of something?
Yep. That sums it up for me, Josh. When I watched it, I couldn't help but think about her having a marital spat. And that's all. She shows no competence - apart from an obviously capable mind - and there are very many voices on here and other blogs I would prefer to be making policy in my name. (Which demands an answer to: What the heck has ex-TUC man, Lord Whitty (sp?) Got to qualify him in this?)
Who has inflicted the most damage on British industry, Goering's Luftwaffe, or our home-grown "green'" politicians? Note that I managed to resist the temptation to write "quislings" instead of politicians and I spelt "green" with a lower-case "g" as I was thinking of members of all the main parties.
Perhaps Goering is still in the lead, but if the greenies have there way they will do a far more comprehensive demolition job.
(I should perhaps declare my obvious conflict of interest, which is having a Ph.D. in carbon chemistry).Jul 25, 2013 at 6:38 PM michael hart
You unspeakable swine.
People like you should have to wear a bell round their neck.
Roy @ 7.43 - it already happened. When I was a teenager in Manchester, the demolition of the "slums" started. One local politician said - "this council has done more damage to Manchester than the Luftwaffe ever did". Considering what came after, I think he was right.
It may seem funny, but these people are discussing rigging the energy market to deal with what may be a non-problem, and guess who's paying? No, it's not funny, on reflection. It's very, very scary.
Its reassuring that we are not the only ones frustrated by our noble friend Baroness Verma's responses.
Nice one, Josh!!
p.s. I hesitate to 2nd-guess a Josh cartoon (especially since I can't draw worth a lick), but I'd like to give her a "hippie headband" to emphasize the greenie irrational, anti-economics core of her message:
turquoise hippie headband
[this one from "Messenger of the Sun" no less]
(I should perhaps declare my obvious conflict of interest, which is having a Ph.D. in carbon chemistry). Jul 25, 2013 at 6:38 PM michael hart
People like you should have to wear a bell round their neck.Jul 25, 2013 at 8:18 PM | Registered CommenterFoxgoose
I too must declare an interest...Wait for it.....I am in fact ...a carbon life form. I have been trying to decarbonise and have in fact lost 1 kg of carbon over the last month. I may not meet the 2020 target. Should I look for a place to hide from Verma and Briony?
SHOULD WE TRY TO STOP THE RENT- SEEKERS’ UGLY SISTERS?
Let’s not get too distracted by the personal failings of the baronesses, because we loose sight of whose vest-interests they represent. They both act as the representatives of crony capitalism. They both seek to consolidate the power of the big six energy oligopolies via creating a heavily-regulated rigged energy market. They also both seek to boost the incomes of big land owners with windfarms including the Queen!
I think we all know by now this ridiculous climate scare narrative is very much a power grab by ‘the haves, that want to have some more’. And let’s face it there is nobody powerful enough to stop them taking whatever they want! And they know this. The WWF knows this.
The reality is there are far too few MPs or Lords taking an active interest in the climate and energy debate. They defer to NGOs like the WWF and don’t bother to learn the facts for themselves.
I mean just look at all the nonsense MPs are being sent and look at how politically active the WWF (Prince Charles) is nowadays:
WWF Parliamentary briefingshttp://www.wwf.org.uk/what_we_do/working_with_government_and_parliament/parliamentary_briefings/
WWF Public Affairs https://twitter.com/WWF_UK_Politics
WWF Strategies for Change http://www.wwf.org.uk/what_we_do/campaigning/strategies_for_change.cfm
And who will take on the eco-activist Prince Charles and his political front organisation the WWF?
Will UKIP? I don't think so. Will the Conservatives? Surely, not. The authoritarian Labour party? Definitely not!
The only MPs/Lords that attend climate and energy committee meetings are the ones that have a vested-interest. So I fear there is little hope of gaining much support to defeat this diabolical Energy Bill.
So let them hang themselves by their own Green rope! Eventually, the oppression and hardship caused by the WWF, Prince Charles and these rotten oligopolies clothed in Green, will create such anger and resentment amongst the public, small businesses and the trades unions, that it might well lead to some kind of a revolution or civil war or more lasting change for the better - like a return to the politics of 'give and take' and representative democracy.
My dear old Dad used to use the word 'decarbonise' as a euphemism when our pets went to the vet to render them incapable of making duplicates (sorry if that's obscure to readers who aren't familiar with typewriters and pre 1980s document copying methods).
I'm not sure how widespread this usage is/was, but when I read of 'decarbonising the economy' it makes me wince quite a lot...
"Baronness Verma's' comment about "decarbonizing" the economy said it all..."
Translated to the public what she really is talking about is Marxism. Because that's what you will get if you look at all their solutions to the great great climate problem.
Watching Newsnight interviewing the Protesters outside the drilling site in Balcombe in Sussex.
Just a question i would like to ask.How many of them are on State Benefits.
"Who has inflicted the most damage on British industry, Goering's Luftwaffe, or our home-grown "green'" politicians? Note that I managed to resist the temptation to write "quislings" instead of politicians and I spelt "green" with a lower-case "g" as I was thinking of members of all the main parties.
Perhaps Goering is still in the lead, but if the greenies have there way they will do a far more comprehensive demolition job."
Well much of them are the the offsprings/results of earlier USSR's and international marxism effort to establish and support "innocent clubs" movements in the western world that in the end would undermine it.from within.
Not difficult to imagine what was going on in the Noble audience's minds as BW kept talking and talking by herself with a petulant, cracking voice.
"climate bore...climate bore...climate bore...climate bore...climate bore...climate bore...climate bore..."
"They also both seek to boost the incomes of big land owners with windfarms including the Queen...!" ... "Eventually, the oppression and hardship caused by the WWF, Prince Charles and these rotten oligopolies clothed in Green, will create such anger and resentment amongst the public, small businesses and the trades unions, that it might well lead to some kind of a revolution or civil war or more lasting change for the better - like a return to the politics of 'give and take' and representative democracy." --Fay Tuncay
I've wondered for some time what the outcome will be when "global warming" is revealed as a complete hoax.
I believe that when it comes to Vermin and Worthless I'm reminded of Kissinger's remark about the Iran-Iraq war
If it was the same type that took part in the Occupy protests, very few.
Most are financed by 'Bank of Mum and Dad', which is typically fairly generously funded.
'You're not even listening to me!'
Now she knows how *we* feel .... :-)
SOURCES OF FINANCE FOR ENVIRONMENTAL "ACTIVISTS"
Reply to Ian Blanchard
"Most are financed by 'Bank of Mum and Dad', which is typically fairly generously funded."
No. Most of the "activist" funding comes from American oligarchy's foundations.
SEE Here http://ega.org/about/those-we-serve
New York based Environmental Grantmakers Association states:
“EGA members gave more than $1 billion to a variety of environmental issues domestically and internationally in 2007. This represented 38% of the U.S. environmental philanthropic community.”
Fay: Thank you for both your contributions. I only noticed the first because of the latest.
You paint a depressing picture which you back up with some sombre facts. The thing you don't mention is shale gas post the latest Bowland estimates. I think it's possible - though by no means certain - that this factor will bring our legislators and executive, prior to the all-important contracts for difference being signed, to their senses. As James Delingpole once said in this context: there must be a God! But even if divine love has provided, it's possible for stupid man to spurn the gift. Not in the bag by any means.
Reply to Richard Drake
Prince Charles will soon become King and this will raise the issue of political neutrality.
“As a constitutional monarch, the Sovereign must remain politically neutral.”http://www.royal.gov.uk/monarchuk/howthemonarchyworks/whatisconstitutionalmonarchy.aspx
There is enough evidence to argue that Prince Charles, as president of the WWF (which is a founder member of Stop Climate Chaos), is acting in an ideologically and politically motivated way.
I do think forcing Prince Charles to give up the WWF is an important objective, because: it will help weaken environmentalism and help MPs change their minds.
I think a report needs to be sent to the Constitutional Committee for consideration.
Fay: I entirely agree what Charles should resign as president of WWF prior to becoming King and hopefully long before that. (That can be taken either way and deliberately so.)
I think having a WWF President who shoots is an enormous plus. Long may he reign.
Fay/RichardI think you'll find that Charles will play by the rules once his Mum passes on. If not then he will be in for a thin time of it. The Palace Establishment can make life extremely difficult if need be — or so my media contacts tell me.I suspect that he might try to hang on to Patronage of WWF (any active role which would include chairman or president or similar would be a definite no-no) but even there he will be strongly "advised" and unless he wants to provoke a constitutional crisis he will listen and heed.Same goes for his coronation which is, in effect, his consecration as head of the Church of England. He can say he wants to be defender of faith(s) till he's blue in the face but he will be installed as head of the CofE no matter how many representatives of other denominations or faiths are permitted to attend.Live with it, Charlie boy, and then follow your mother's example and keep your trap shut.
The Hanovers can only stick around as long as Parliament doesn't object. I am sure Charles III will know that.
Notify me of follow-up comments via email.