50% Tax Rate - Political Panto

The issue of cutting (or not) the 50% tax rate is the latest episode in the political panto that passes for discourse in this country. We are led to believe that this is an ideological issue that pits 'heartless Tories' on one side, and their 'heartful LibDems' on the other, urged on, of course, by the Labour Party looking on from the side-lines. In reality it's another non-issue that obscures the reality of an entrenched consensus that likes to offer us the illusion of choice. There's more choice in Coke vs Pepsi than there is in our political class.

Rather than being an ideological issue, it ought to be one of empirical economics. The evidence shows that cutting taxes works - it increases the overall tax take. We need to do more than just cut the 50% rate, we need to cut rates across the board and to take low-income families out of the tax system completely. But that's not going to happen because that requires a decrease in the size of the state - and for all their fine words, none of our politicians believe that is a good thing. Instead we have the political theatre of arguing about the 50% rate in isolation.

You'll notice that the issue is never placed into a broader context that looks at how the public purse is pilfered by large corporates and large landowners in the guise of fighting climate change. There is no linkage to the reverse flow of money from our taxes into the pockets of those building subsidy farms across the country. Why should there be? All our politicians think this is a good thing - and it makes no difference whether this is for venal reasons or an unthinking belief in the goodness of the cause.

It would be interesting to compare the figures - the tax take from the 50% rate versus the cost money that goes into feed-in tariffs and other green taxes.

The Corporate Enemy

Richard North at his EUReferendum blog has an interesting post entitled the 'Corporate Enemy'. The direct trigger for this is an article in the New York Times reporting a speech by Sarah Palin (the reincarnation of Margaret Thatcher in the minds of our liberal media here in the UK). Dr North states:

The New York Times has it that some Palin's ideas cross the political divide, but the real issue is that the nature of the political divide has changed. We no long have the left-right divisions, or the distinction between state and free market.


What has happened, as I argue in the third of my pieces, is that the line has moved from vertical to horizontal, the upper part occupied by the political classes and the corporates – with no distinction between private and public sectors.


That is in fact, where the battle lines are now drawn, something which Palin understands. If the sensitive little souls from UKIP got over their wounded feelings and used their brains, they too might realise that. The EU is only a tiny part of the overall problem. It is one corporate amongst many.


On top of the political classes, therefore, our enemies are the corporates. The battle is to be fought with them as a whole. And that is going to need a lot more than a referendum, or any of the other ideas we've seen coming from a eurosceptic camp that seems unable to comprehend that the battle has moved on.

Obama Is Insane

There's a famous quote attributed to Albert Einstein:

Insanity: doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results.

By this definition Barack Obama is insane. His stimulus packages have failed to deliver. The deficit is up. The economy is largely stalled. Unemployment refuses to budge. So what's his latest and greatest plan? More stimulus.

Why should it be different this time? What magic ingredient is there in this package that isn't in the others?

The deficit will continue to climb. Consumer confidence will continue to stagnate. Unemployment won't shift.

If he wants to boost demand then the measures are simple:

• cut taxes all round
• cut climate-related programs
• quit foreign wars
• stop supporting lame-duck banks and auto manufacturers
• just leave the economy to right itself

Mind you, Obama doesn't have a monopoly on insanity. The entire political class in Europe is infected with the same madness - witness the increasingly desperate closing of eyes and hoping for the best around saving the Euro....

Attack of the Monbions

What is it about Penn State University? Home to Michael Mann, Mr Hockey Stick, it is also home to a certain Shawn Domagal-Goldman, Astrobiologist and NASA affiliated scientist. Dr Domagal-Goldman has been speculating on how humans and extra-terrestrials might make contact in the future. In one scenario our alien neighbours are climate alarmists. They detect rising CO2 levels (presumably they have the technology to differentiate between anthropogenic emissions and natural sources such as out-gassing from the oceans), and, alarmed at our industrial civilisation they take action to wipe us out.

According to the Guardian, these scientists say:

"Green" aliens might object to the environmental damage humans have caused on Earth and wipe us out to save the planet. "These scenarios give us reason to limit our growth and reduce our impact on global ecosystems. It would be particularly important for us to limit our emissions of greenhouse gases, since atmospheric composition can be observed from other planets," the authors write.

What does this prove? It proves once and for all that people like Al Gore, Prince Charles and the like are not of this Earth. The Daily Mash has alrady jumped in with the collective terms for them: Monbions. Yep, that's what they are alright...

I love my model

In this post I want to discuss an aspect of climate change research that is not often explicitly addressed, and that is the activities of the mathematical modellers who construct the complex models which are key components of the whole IPCC process. The outputs of these models are what lead to projections of looming disaster in climate change, biodiversity, population explosions, financial meltdown and all manner of doom-laden predictions that find their way to the front pages of the popular press (and to the front pages of Nature, Science et al). Given the importance of these models, it’s worth spending some time looking in some detail at the incentives of modelling.

Firstly, I need to point out that mathematical modelling is a key part of my day job. I write complex models in the finance and IT operations industry. I can’t go into detail because these models are considered to be major parts of my employer’s intellectual property, and details are shrouded by strict non-disclosure agreements. The content of the models I design, and which I and others code, give my employer a competitive advantage that it does not want to lose. However, I can say some fairly generic statements: our models are empirical models of operational activities in different domains. Some of these models are highly complex and contain tens of thousands of input variables, hundreds of thousands of data points, are multi-dimensional, contain tens of thousands of equations and produce tens of thousands of results (not as data cubes). We use specialised modelling tools and languages. This is anything but a couple of worksheets in Excel. These models have been developed and revised over a number of years and continue to evolve to take account of changes in the business landscape. As an aside, my PhD thesis was in using machine learning to generate data validation models, so aside from the day job I have also studied and researched the topic.

Criminal Stupidity

No, not the rioting and looting, which was way beyond stupid. No, what is criminally stupid is the sentencing now being imposed on those convicted of rioting. Custodial sentences for people convicted of the most trivial of offences is ludicrous. It’s destroying lives, costs us all a fortune and doesn’t rebuild the communities that were trashed. How is this supposed to help? People are not stupid, they can compare and contrast with the derisory way politicians who filch from the public purse are treated. We’re not talking about having sympathy for those who committed acts of violence or arson, but putting people in prison for posting messages on Facebook or picking stuff up that had been looted is madness. Not only will many of these sentences be reduced on appeal (at yet more expense to the taxpayer), it will clog up the so-called justice system even more.By all means punish those convicted, but do it sensibly so that it can make a real difference, not make things worse.

The more time goes on the more I wonder about the intelligence of the political class. It’s not just suicidal policies on windfarms and climate change, it’s everywhere. The harder I try to see signs of intelligence at work, the less I find of it. Where are all the smart people in government? It’s a scary thought that the answer is that there are none.

Thank you so much...

For all those brain dead Anarchists who'll applaud any violent protest so long as it's not by racists or fascists, a big thank you. Next time you mask up for a black bloc protest, the police will beat the shit out of you. Next time you get out of hand the police will be able to call on water-cannon and baton rounds. Next time you use social media to co-ordinate an action, the police will block it or grab the records to trace the messages.

I know it's the rioters who've given the excuse to the police and our politicians who were looking to clamp down even harder on protest. The anti-terror line was getting weak recently, but now there's a new scare tactic that can be employed by statist politicians looking to take away the tiny space left to us to protest. What took hundreds of years of protest to achieve is being steadily chipped away - first in the guise of stopping Islamist terror, now in the guise of stamping out rioting.

And you, brain dead Anarchists, are there on the side-lines applauding the rioting scum who've destroyed their own neighbourhoods and who preferred to steal trainers or TVs to attacking political targets. Rioters who liked the idea of mugging people because they could rather than taking on the politicians who've screwed us all. And before you give me any of that moral equivalence bullshit - trashing and looting shops is not some anti-capitalist, anti-consumerist, anti-anything protest. It's nicking stuff because you can and you don't give a shit for the livelihoods or the jobs of the people who own or work in those shops.

Crimes, Punishments and Riots

I must admit to more than a sneaking sympathy for those who want to cut the benefits of anyone convicted of riot related crimes. It goes without saying that the majority of those who will be convicted who are currently in work won’t be in the future. There’s also probably a case for saying that the parents of anyone under the age of 13 ought to lose their benefits if their child is convicted. I know that 13 is an arbitrary cut-off, but once kids are into their teens it gets harder to keep a lid on what they get up – particularly when the entire welfare system seems to exist to give them free reign.

However, I’m also not convinced that prison is the right punishment for some of the less serious offences. It seems to me that we ought to be thinking of putting some of these kids to work – and it should be unpaid. . And this should be real work – a proper working day, no bus fares being paid, no social workers on hand to soothe the ruffled feathers of teenagers who actually have to do as they are told. It should be real work with some value, not ‘make-work’. How about repairing the damage they’ve committed. Or fixing up some of the estates that are most run down. For this to work you need to have penalties in place. For every day that you are late a day is added to the sentence. For every day that is missed you add two days. If offenders repeatedly don’t turn up then it’s automatically a custodial sentence.

As a corollary, if we’re cutting benefits from offenders, then what do we expect them to do instead? Something like this calls for some radical action. Firstly, waive minimum wage rules for them. If they have to work for less than minimum wage then that’s tough. If they stick to their jobs then they can move on to somewhere that will pay better. Secondly, we have to do something about the gang culture that is a cancer in large parts of our inner cities. I never thought I’d see the day when I’d be agreeing with Diane Abbot, but there you are. The police will have to come down really hard on the gangs. Loss of social housing, loss of benefits, custodial sentences – the full gamut of punitive options should be used. It’s gone too far already – now we need to take the opportunity to kill it off for good.

Nobody wins

Our feral politicians do not have the moral weight to criticise rioting – they are venal, corrupt and deserve our contempt. The media, immersed in navel-gazing and reporting celebrity gossip, similarly carry no moral weight. Our education system has systematically undermined the authority of parents and others. It exists to boost the ‘self esteem’ and greivance culture that exists among sections of the poor (black and white). It too has lost the authority it might once have had.


The only people who can criticise are those of us who get up and work. Those of us who want to stand on our own two feet and not to have to depend on a welfare state that seeks to make us addicted to hand-outs. Those of us, black and white, who have raised kids to know what’s right and wrong, and to make sure our kids stay on the straight and narrow. We’re the only ones who can criticise, and we need to make sure our voices are heard above that of ‘hug a hoodie’ Dave and the rest of the parasites.

Nobody has done well out of this sorry mess. Least of all those people who's lives have been destroyed by their neighbours and the criminally stupid kids in their areas. The costs of doing business in places like Tottenham, Croydon and so on will go through the roof. Shops will be boarded up and left to rot. This effects everyone in those areas, including the morons who smashed, burned and looted. In time people will complain that their communities are not being served and no doubt some will blame racism or seek some other explanation that ignores the facts of what has just gone on.

Just about the only people who win from all of this are the BNP. Who will ignore the fact that a huge number of the victims of the riots are black, Asian, Kurdish and others. They will ignore too that in some places there were as many white faces under the scarves and hoodies as black.

An intelligent voice

Internet Explorer, Intelligence and Climate Change

The recent and much-publicised story about Internet Explorer users and intelligence casts an interesting light on the parlous state of journalism in much of the mass-media. On the odd chance that you missed it the story goes as follows: a psychometrics company releases a study that looks at browser usage and IQ tests, the results show that users of Internet Explorer score significantly lower on the online IQ tests than users of other browsers, the results are picked up and trumpeted right across the world and in all the big media outlets (both in print and online), finally the study is shown to be bogus and the whole thing turns out to be a hoax. Apart from the great Daily Mash headline ‘If you're using Internet Explorer, this is called a 'website'’, is there anything especially noteworthy to report?

I think there is, and it is directly relevant to much science reporting, particularly, but not exclusively, with respect to climate change.

The hoax was not especially elaborate. It appears that it consisted of little more than a purchased domain name, a plausible looking web site and some skills in crafting a press release. The media received the press release, look at the site and then went to print. Instant headlines across the world. Cracks began to show in the story, however, when careful readers and bloggers started digging deeper. It turned out that the domain name had only been recently purchased. The web site contained images stolen from another company. Nobody could be contacted directly at the fake company. This isn’t rocket science, it’s just basic fact checking and it fell to readers and bloggers to do the job that the journalists should have done in the first place.

Climate Change In Black and White

Although this isn’t a new story, this Guardian piece on ‘conservative white males’ being more likely to be climate change sceptics  is worth discussing in a bit more detail. The conjunction of race and climate is an interesting one, combining two of the key planks of current liberal/left orthodoxy.

Firstly, Judith Curry, who is decidedly not a climate change sceptic quite rightly points out what a pitiful piece of work this as in terms of research. There appears to be no clear definition of what a ‘denialist’ is, as she states:

Because of the mounting political and economic stakes of dealing with climate change, this global environmental problem has become extremely controversial in the US, and American efforts to deal with it have provoked a significant degree of denial—both of the reality of climate change and of its status as a problem deserving amelioration.

JC comment.  The above is the first para in the paper.  It is the only place where they come close to defining climate change denial.    Do you know anyone that denies the reality of climate change?  I sure don’t.   Many people on their “denier” list probably also agree that the problem deserves some attention.  It seems that “denier” really means people that don’t support emissions targets.  This whole group of sociologists working in this area seems not to have given much thought to what actually characterizes “deniers.”

It would appear then, that in the absence of a clearly articulated definition, ‘denier’ is essentially a short-hand way of saying people who we disagree with. Note that there is not even an attempt to outline a set of criteria against which we might be able to assess degrees of agreement or disagreement. It’s all or nothing, completely binary thinking that does not allow room for manoeuvre (see the post on the Climate Quadrant on one possible approach to classifying a wider range of views on the subject). Indeed, one has to wonder whether Dr Curry herself wouldn’t qualify as a ‘denier’ as far as many people on the left are concerned – because despite her adherence to the anthropogenic climate change hypothesis she is critical of the idea of a climate change ‘consensus’, of the practices of some of her colleagues (particularly in the light of Climategate), and of the conduct of the IPCC.

No Shit Sherlock!

What a surprise... Really, can there have been any doubt that Anders Breivik is insane? It's been apparent from the beginning that he is a classic spree killer. He is closer to Thomas Hamilton, Michael Ryan and Derrick Bird than Tim McVeigh.

Now, can people please stop taking his rationalisations on face value? Enough already on the Left with all that bollocks about the unpoliced internet, equating doubts about immigration with Nazism and the need to clamp down on civil liberties. Equally, let's stop with similar rubbish on the Right about the failures of multiculturalism, the success of political correctness and so on.

We need to debate all of those issues, but on their own terms, not in connection with a fantasist killing scores of young people as a consequence of his own psychological defects.

The Norwegian Massacre

While the response of the Left to the Norwegian massacre is fairly predictable and opportunistic, there is also evidence that there are some on the Right willing to indulge in similar double standards. On the Left there is a palpable sense of relief that the spree killer was white and clearly identified with the Right. It enables them to trot out the old clichés about neo-Nazis and the internet, it tars with the same brush all those who have concerns about multi-culturalism (presumably not those of us who are dark-skinned though), and they can have a pop at Norway for being xenophobic enough not to want to be sucked into the EU. All so predictable and all so boring.

On the Right, however, we have a parallel story. While few outside of Stormfront or other Nazi forum will applaud Anders Behring Breivik for his actions, there are some who will use the attack as a means of getting back at what they see as a corrupt, liberal society. They will suggest that it is the closing down of discussion on multi-culturalism that is at fault here. They will reason that Breivik was robbed of legitimate avenues of protest, that his views have been marginalised and criminalised so that an explosion of violence was inevitable – if not from Breivik, from some other deranged individual.

The Climate Quadrant

It’s hard not to get angry reading yesterday’s BBC Trust report by Steven Jones. Delingpole does a nice job of laying into it, but there are plenty more bloggers out there covering similar ground. Having read the report it’s pretty poor stuff, and Jones comes across as lazy, arrogant and clearly not interested in attempting to be even handed. But what lies at the heart of his argument is not just another unscientific appeal to consensus, but also a complete lack of understanding that there are endless shades of opinion on the topic of climate change. In his world there are only two camps – the consensus (as represented by the IPCC and supported by the Royal Society) and the denialists (his word). Climate change is a complicated topic, is it really feasible that opinion could neatly fit into two such simplistic categories?

At heart Jones views climate science in the same way that some people view politics. There is an out-dated and unsophisticated view the imagines that political ideas, and those that adhere to them, can easily sit on a single axis of Left vs. Right. All ideologies can be dropped somewhere on this axis. So, simplistically, Hitler is on the extreme right, Stalin on the extreme Left, and everyone else sits somewhere in between. Of course this is redundant in a time when our politicians no longer have much in the way of ideology. But even so, assume that this Left vs Right dichotomy still exists. Where do you place Anarchists on this line? And judged purely on economic policies, surely the BNP are on the Left, having much in common with the authoritarian left (economic protectionism, state control etc).

Monckton, Pachauri and Hitler

Can somebody help me here, please?

Not that long ago climate change sceptic Christopher Monckton compared Ross Garnaut, a leading climate change alarmist advising the Australian government, to a Nazi there was outrage. Monkcton was criticised not just by the warmist side, but by many people on the sceptical side of the fence (Anthony Watts and Andrew Bolt, for example). He apologised almost immediately, but the damage had been done, and it detracted from what he was actually saying. Some Australian academics even wanted to cancel Monckton's lectures in universities.

It's clear then, that Nazi references are verboten in climate change discussions.

So, can somebody point me to the shock horror from the climate change alarmist side when IPCC Rajendra Pachauri compared Bjorn Lomborg to Hitler? Pachauri was quoted as saying:

"What is the difference between Lomborg's view of humanity and Hitler's? If you were to accept Lomborg's way of thinking, then maybe what Hitler did was the right thing."

Mockton doesn't hold an official position, he's not funded by our taxes. Pachauri is the head of the IPCC, and ultimately funded by tax payers the world over. Mockton compared Garnaut to a Nazi, Pachauri went one better and compared Lomborg (who isn't even a climate change sceptic) to the top Nazi, Hitler himself.

So, please help me. Where is Pachauri's apology? And where are the criticisms directed from his own side?

I want my money back

I want my money back. All of it. I was promised global warming. It was guaranteed so long as CO2 continued to rise. I was going to get hot summers and warmer winters. Instead it’s mid-July and it’s cold, grey and miserable. I want the warming I was promised. It was promised to me by Al Gore, James Hansen, the BBC, the UK Met Office, Rajendra Pachauri and the IPCC, Sir David King, Sir Paul Beddington, Tony Blair, Gordon Brown, David Cameron, the BBC, the Guardian, the Daily Telegraph, the Times, the Royal Society, the BBC, Gavin Schmidt, Brian Cox, Leonardo diCaprio and most of Hollywood and the music industry, Greenpeace, Friends of the Earth, Geoffrey Lean, George Monbiot, Michael Mann, Jonathan Porritt, Prince Charles, the BBC, Oxfam, Phil Jones, the Hadley Centre, the CRU, Chris Huhne and the BBC. And that’s just off the top of my head.

So where is it? Where’s this warming I’ve been looking forward to? I just checked the latest figures on the Central England Temperature record. The average temperature for June 2011 was 13.8 C. The 353-year average June temperature is 14.3 C. The 30-year average (1970-1999) June temperature is 14.1 C, the 30-year average for 1980-2009 is higher still at 14.4 C. And before you carp, I know that this is a local temperature for central England and not a global figure. And I know that weather is not climate. But local temperatures have the advantage of being more reality-based than the fictional global temperatures that warmists like.

So, having ranted because of the cold, it seems to me that a refund is in order. Either that or we need to increase the amount of coal we burn to get some of that warmth that we’ve been waiting for.

Chris Huhne and Fuel Poverty

Picture this: You implement policies that are deliberately designed to make energy usage expensive. This you justify on the grounds that it will reduce carbon emmissions. Of course you implement the policy by levying various taxes and additional charges on the power companies and big users of energy (such as the NHS, for example). The energy companies pass the charges on to the consumer, as expected. What's more the systems are so complex that it's not easily possible for the consumer to see how much of the increased cost is down to 'green' policies and how much is down to increased wholesale costs or a desire to increase margins.

In any case, the consumer just gets to see increased power costs. What do you, as the author of these policies do? You pin the blame on the energy companies and encourage users to switch to different providers. Which providers? You know for a fact that all providers will be increasing their charges. But it makes you look good, and you can even convince yourself that you're standing up for the little guy.

When the number of families in fuel power rises, how do you react? With outrage of course. You promise to tackle this injustice, and, as befits a man of principle, you will look at rebates, or tax breaks or some such policy. In other words you will take some of the money that you have grabbed and give a little of it back. And you'll do this by increasing dependence on the state, by increasing the complexity of the tax and benefits system and ultimately by enlarging the state. What you will not do is directly reduce the green levies or make changes to any of your energy policies.

And, just as importantly, you will continue with the narative that the world needs saving from CO2, that the real culprits are the energy companies and that the only defender of the poor is the state.

It's a nice picture, it really is. Chris Huhne really is pissing on our shoes and telling us it's raining.

Aussie climate tax and science journalism

Science journalist Fred Pearce has a piece in the New Scientist on Australia's new carbon tax. The gist of the article is that the tax is so full of loop-holes and rebates and exclusions that it is unlikely to make a dent in what he describes as 'largest per-capita emitter of greenhouse gases in the developed world'. It's the usual New Scientist story - nasty industrialists subverting a policy that is designed to save the planet. One wouldn't expect any different from the New Scientist, which seems to prefer acting as a cheerleader for Greenpeace (and yes, there's a quote from Greenpeace in his article) than in digging any deeper or disturbing the status quo.

What is conspciuously absent from Pearce's careful analysis of Australia's CO2 budget, is what effect any of this is likely to have on global temperatures. The 'per capita' figure is a red herring, Australia's population is relatively small and globally its CO2 emissions come in at 1.32%, putting it 16th in the world rankings (as reported on wikipedia).

Even if, (and it's a huge IF), we accept that CO2 emmissions cause warming, the effect of Australia reducing its emmissions is not going to make a blind bit of difference. Or at least not that you'd be able to notice with the sort of thermometer that you or I can use. So, whether there are loopholes and get out clauses, what we have is a massive new tax, an army of bureaucrats to administer it, all kinds of pain and aggravation and for what? To ultimately make no real difference to a projected (not predicted) temperature change at some point in the distant future.

Forget the science, the question that needs to be asked by Pearce and others in the media, is simple. What are the benefits of this policy relative to the costs? Is the massive cost of making a projected difference of fractions of a degree in the future worth it? Arguing over whether these expensive and intrusive measures will reduce CO2 emmissions by x% or not is almost immaterial.

A public scandal

I have avoided any comment on the whole News International phone hacking scandal. It's sickening. Really, really, really sickening. The orgy of sanctimonious, hypocritical cant on display at Westminster yesterday was hard to stomach. All that bollocks from all sides on how it was parliament responding to the public was especially vomit-inducing. This is the same parliament that has listened to the public on all the important issues, like going to war, handing power to the EU, bailing out the failed Euro, passing the climate change act...

Thanks to intensive therapy, the Progressive Contrarian is able to mix with members of the public (yes, even without a minder these days), and the overwhelming feeling that is expressed by most people is contempt. Contempt for Murdoch and his minions, but even more there's a contempt for our political classes who are jumping at the chance to occupy what they think is the moral high ground. It's a times like these that one feels that removing our politicians from the gene pool would be a gift to humanity.

Science journalism and climate change

In a previous post I posed the question of why our so-called leaders have fallen hook, line and sinker for man-made global warming – which is, at best, a hypothesis which is increasingly being demolished by newer results and empirical facts. It certainly does not look like the science is settled. Nor do the alarmist predictions that were being made a decade ago seem to be coming true. Despite all of this, and in spite of the increasing scepticism of the public, there seems to be no signs that our political leaders harbour any  doubts. I would joke about the lights being on but nobody being home, but the lights in politicians heads are powered by wind – there are only occasional flickers of intermittent light at best.

But it’s not just the politicians at fault here. Arguably the mania for global warming would not be half as strong had there not been a near unanimous chorus of approval from the mass media. From repeating the mantra about scientific consensus, to labelling sceptics as oil-industry funded ‘deniers’ to trumpeting the most absurd alarmist claims of impending disaster – the media are complicit in furthering the green agenda and propagandising for global warming alarmism. The question we have to ask then, is what are the forces at work here? Why are there so few sceptic voices heard in public?

In a recent post at the Global Warming Policy Foundation, David Whitehouse points out that:

Many science reporters haven’t been scientists and haven’t been general reporters. Like the rise of the career politician that goes straight from University to politics it is a worrying trend.

Why Do They Believe?

I must admit that this is a topic that I continually struggle with. I’m sure I’m not the only one, and that in years to come diligent young historians will be earning their PhDs off the same question: how is that the ruling elites in the West bought in so totally into the whole anthropogenic global warming (AGW) theory. And, despite the increasing scepticism of electorates and the growing number of scientists willing to admit to doubts as the evidence grows ever weaker, our politicians shown no signs of coming to their senses. If anything the mania seems to be getting worse as they bet everything on windfarms, solar energy and cutting CO2 emissions.

So why is it? Now there are some who survey the scene and conclude that it only makes sense in the context of some grand conspiracy. You know the score. Evil one worlders out to impose a de facto UN government under cover of saving the planet. They’ll even point the finger at specific individuals, like Maurice Strong, as being behind this conspiracy. But, I’m afraid that being a sceptic means remaining sceptical about conspiracies too. Sure, the IPCC, the major scientific societies, huge chunks of academia, almost the entire mass media and so on are completely over-run by warmista comrades, but that doesn’t make for a conspiracy. Instead I see networks of mutual aid and support, all buying in because that’s where the money and the prestige lie.

Absenting a conspiracy, is there another explanation?

Abnormal Service...

...will be renewed sometime soon.

12 Facts about Global Climate Change That You Won’t Read in the Popular Press

A nice and succinct post from Joseph D’Aleo on CO2 and climate change... Well worth a read.

Plain Stupid Plane Stupid

Who says that the days of radical political action are over? Dan Glass, a member of Plane Stupid, really gets radical when he glues himself to Gordon Brown's jacket. Wow! Down at indymedia there are virtual pats on the back all round... That's really radical, Dan. There you are in Downing Street to pick up an award for 'your protesting work' when you whip out the super glue and there you are, stuck to Gordon's pin stripe.

Yep, you read that right. Pick up an award. That's how radical and anti-establishment environmental protest is these days. How these people can imagine that they are fighting the establishment is beyond me. They are the establishment, lined up behind New Labour, New Tories, Lib Dems and the rest.

Global Warming Swindle - Ofcom ruling

Nice to see that the media's warmist frenzy is in full flow following the Ofcom ruling on 'The Great Global Warming Swindle'. The Guardian even rolled out the former chair of the IPCC to comment that Ofcom hadn't gone far enough. Did he, or the rest of the media warmists, make similar comments when Al Gore's propagandist film was found guilty of more serious charges in court? No, I think not. Where Gore's film contains factual inaccuracies and lies, Swindle did no more than mislead some of the interviewees.

This is a huge difference, of course. Particularly when Al Gore's film gets shown to school kids up and down the country, day in and day out. My own kids report that the Gore film was not prefixed with the required warning about it being propaganda. Can you imagine the out-cry should Swindle get similar screenings in schools?

According to warmists, Swindle must count as one of the most effective pieces of propaganda ever, seeing as how it has been blamed for the skepticism of the majority of Britons when it comes to global warming. I suppose that's easier for warmists to accept than the alternative, which is that no amount of preaching and moralising can hide the paucity of evidence and lack of theory when it comes to climate change.

Brown Goes Green

Gordon Brown wrested the mantle of global leader from the rest of the G8 by urging people to eat their greens. Brown, with one eye on domestic concerns and the success of David 'Green Blue' Cameron, suggested that world problems could be tackled head on by eating a plate of spinach or spring greens. 'It's the only way,' he told the world's press.

Prime Minister Brown's outburst stunned world leaders. Nicolas Sarkozy has privately admitted that he likes tucking into curly kale, but feels compelled to deny this in case it is seen as too neo-liberal by the French public. George Bush, meanwhile, agreed that he shares his father's well-known dislike of broccoli, but that he does like to have some lettuce with his burgers.

In the UK the Tory party has been thrown into disarray. With rising inflation, a collapsing housing market and an epidemic of street crime they had taken their eye of the ball. David Cameron is reported to be furious with newspaper reports that he is a pak choi man. 'Yes,' he admitted, 'I may have had some pak choi as a student, but I didn't inhale.'

Sarkozy vs. Mandelson

The full text of French President Nicolas Sarkozy's comments on the EU Trade Commissioner Peter Mandelson:

'It is an outrage zat Europe is represented by zis man. 'Ee is not a real man. No, Monsieur, Mandelson is not married to a beautiful and sophisticated ex-model like I am. 'Ee is a bandit de fess, no? Such a man 'as no feeling for the realite of Europe. 'Ee does not understand ze soul of Europe. For us Europe 'ees about protection of our farmers, our fisherman and our lorry drivers. For us Europe is about defending our way of life: ze annual burning of British tucks loaded wiz your rotten lamb, selling you our undrinkable wine and keeping ze good stuff for ourselves and most of all blockading our ports to screw your 'olidays. All of zis, Mandelson ignores. When I am President of Europe, all zis will change...'

Labour Deeply Disappointed With Henley Result

Jock McJock, a spokesperson for the Labour Party, has admitted that the Party and the Government are deeply disappointed by the result of the Henley by-election. 'We are just gutted to be in fifth place. Behind the Greens and the BNP,' he said. 'After all that work we still didn't come in last. What more do we have to do?'

His comments were echoed by Mildred Dimkins-Simkins, an advisor to Gordon Brown. 'We've got good money riding on this at Ladbrokes,' she confessed. 'If we can come last then we've got a big payoff coming.'

Arnold Reichstag of the BNP outlined what he believed the Labour strategy was. 'They're doing their best to make themselves unelectable. It seems to be the aim to make even us more electable, and it's working. Just take a look at the London elections where they did everything they could to get one or two members into the Assembly. Brilliant.'

An unnamed source at Labour Headquarters has suggested that future policy announcements will include a plan to kill off first-born children, price cars off the road and reduce the number of successful mortgage applications to one a year.

Dr James Hansen Speaks Out

NASA's Dr James Hansen, the man who made headlines world wide 20 years ago when he brought the subject of man-made global warming to public notice, has again hit out against those who deny the reality of the problem. 'What is it with these people?' he demanded. 'Can't they see that there's a real problem here? The world is warming so fast that soon we'll all be dead. Twenty years ago I said we had 20 years left, well, that's still true. Unless my funding is increased drastically I won't be able to carry on warning the world of danger.'

The ever-controversial Dr Hansen hit out at his critics. 'They've tried to censor me before, and they're trying to do it now,' he announced to the mass of journalists at his 23rd press conference of the day. 'This message has to get through,' he affirmed.

Dr Hansen had a number of radical ideas for raising the profile of the issue still further. Firstly he suggested that all climate change deniers be forced to wear a yellow star for easy identification. Secondly climate change deniers should be sterilised so that they could not breed. Possibly, he suggested, deniers could be used as an energy source - though he did worry about how much CO2 they would emit. Thirdly he suggested that young children should be forced to watch as their pets are boiled alive to illustrate what will happen to the world should his funding not grow exponentially during the next few years.

Finally Dr Hansen described attempts to undermine his work as criminally motivated. 'My work has stood scrutiny. No matter how many times I look at it I think it's fine. Anyone who disagrees is a fool or a liar motivated by nothing but personal greed and ambition.'

British University Announces Degree In Walking And Chewing Gum

A top British academic institution, the University of Trumpton, has announced the world's first honours degree in Walking and Chewing Gum. Dr Irma Dillo, Pro Vice Chancellor and a key advisor to the government, hailed the new course. 'Nowhere else in the world can students study walking and chewing gum to such a high level,' she announced. 'Once again we are at the forefront of academic innovation and creativity.'

The course follows a recent government initiative that aims to have 50% of school leavers able to walk and chew gum at the same time, even if only at the most basic level. Leading educationalists have attacked the plan as being too ambitious. Dr Crispin Crispin-Woods voiced widespread fears that the new course would prove too taxing for many school leavers. 'This is typical of an education system that is insufficiently diverse,' he said. 'Walking, yes, chewing gum, yes. But both at the same time? And where are the NHS resources to tackle the inevitable rise in accidents and injuries as young people attempt to chew gun while taking their first few steps? It's criminal.'

Opposition spokesman gave the new course a cautious welcome. 'Of course we're in favour of our children leaving university with a solid degree in Walking and Chewing Gum,' Tim Etonian told the Times Educational Supplement, 'but we think that going for a 50% target is the wrong way to go. Not everyone needs to walk and chew gum at the same time.'

The government, however, insists that the ability to talk and chew gum is essential if Britain is to remain a competitive economic power. A spokesperson from the Department of Education and Science was quoted as saying 'Industry is starved of people with skills in this area.'

Dr Irma Dillo outlined some of the key areas of study: gum and climate change, walking and obesity, diversity and different flavours of gum. 'The climate change agenda is in an implicit part of the course,' she stated.

The new course was announced on the same day that Trumpton University announced the closure of its Physics, Chemistry and Mathematics degrees.

10p Tax Band

Once more the Progressive Contrarian unearths the minutes of a recent meeting at 10 Downing St:

---

PM: 'Ah, Darling, there you are.'

Chancellor: 'Yes, PM. I am.'

PM: 'What's that, laddie?'

Chancellor: 'I am, PM. You said, "there you are", and I agreed and said "yes, PM, I am."'

PM: 'Enough of your wittering, Darling. We have a problem.'

Chancellor: 'Which one, PM?'

PM: 'What are you saying, Darling?'

Chancellor; 'Nothing, sir. A problem you said.'

PM: 'It's your budget. You've mishandled things, haven't you, laddie?'

Chancellor: 'But you said it was fine, I'd deciphered all the scribbles on the back of your envelope and...'

PM: 'Who delivered the budget, Darling?'

Chancellor: 'I did, PM. Sorry.'

PM: 'In cutting the 10p tax band you've made life very difficult for the most vulnerable members of society.'

Chancellor: 'The Parliamentary Labour Party?'

PM: 'Precisely. And rewarded those who deserve it the least.'

Chancellor: 'The Opposition?'

PM: 'Correct. Now, what what do you propose to do about it, laddie?'

Chancellor: 'Exactly what you tell, me, PM.'

PM: 'Good boy.'

Chancellor: 'But I told people I couldn't re-write the budget...'

PM: 'But you're not, are you?'

Chancellor: 'Technically, I suppose not. How can I be re-writing something I didn't write in the first place?'

PM: 'Well, laddie, that's one way of putting it...'

Chancellor: 'But the tax rebate is going to cost us billions, PM. Isn't that a lot of money to pay for the Crewe and Nantwich by-election? That's an awful lot of money for one MP.'

PM: 'Don't be silly, boy. It's not for one MP, it's for all of the ungrateful buggers. Ask them how much they think we should pay to keep them in their seats...'

Desalinating Livingstone

Way back in May 2006 I blogged about Ken Livingstone's refusal to allow a desalination plant to go ahead in London on the grounds that it wasn't carbon neutral. Now it seems that new Mayor, Boris Johnson, has over-turned that decision. That's a good move for London. Those of us in London were 'warned' that Johnson is a closet global warming skeptic. Personally I'd like to think that this was a factor in his win. But he's a politician and he'll tow the party line, and Cameron is a definite warmist. Perhaps we can hope that Johnson will pick up on the increasingly skeptical mood to finally stand up and declare the whole warmist enterprise dead. But I'm not holding my breath. For the moment, warmism remains the dominant political ideology of all the major political parties in the West.

It's about time he had some good ol' fashioned development (yup, that's development without the obligatory sustainable prefix).

Ends and Means

Numerous discussions with true believers in global warming have often ended with a rather petulant 'even if man-made global warming isn't true, it will have positive spin-offs in the end...' So, having failed to prove a case with any hard science the warmists end up reverting to an 'end justifying the means' argument. And of course they've got a long list of supposed benefits to justify Kyoto-like proposals to cut CO2 emissions. These include:

• Moving away from 'big oil'
• People buying local produce
• More emphasis on 'sustainability'
• Forcing people to think more about Nature

Well, what do we see already resulting from CO2 reduction policies (such as the EU renewal fuels policies):

• Food riots
• Increasing food prices
• Increased fuel poverty
• Environmental problems in the rush to plant bio-fuel crops
• A rush towards more nuclear power generation
• Increasingly authoritarian plans from governments and bodies such as the EU

It's especially ironic of course that the arch-demon of warming mythology (George Bush), is in part to blame for all of this by pandering to environmentalism. The subsidies to farmers for producing bio-fuel crops are seriously distorting things. On this one at least, Fidel Castro is right.

All of this is evidence, if evidence is required, that the logic of global warmism will ultimately hurt those supposedly most at risk from higher temperatures - the poor, both in the UK and the rest of the world.

But hey, at least Al Gore will continue to rake it in.

It's the weather, stupid

While AGW (anthropogenic global warming) advocates like to point out that extended cold weather episodes (like those afflicting huge chunks of the globe) are just weather and not climate, there's also no shortage of them seizing every severe weather episode as evidence of global warming (or climate chaos as some of them prefer to refer to it). This was the case in the UK with last summer's severe floods. Warmists were happy to pin the blame on CO2-induced climate change.

Of course the research suggests that this isn't the case. As reported by the BBC: The UK's summer floods of 2007 were a freak event unrelated to global climate change, according to a report from the Centre for Ecology and Hydrology (CEH).

How many people will take notice of this? In the same way that the European heatwave in 1998 is now known not to have been due to global warming but a consequence of the la Nina event that year, it's still firmly embedded in the popular consciousness as being caused by CO2. It's a regretable part of human nature that we remember the initial accusation and not the subsequent 'not guilty' finding. Of course that plays well for climate alarmists everywhere...

Manhattan Declaration on Climate Change

Not that you would have seen much mention of this in our UK media... Unlike the fuss made about warmist conference and declarations.

Manhattan Declaration on Climate Change

"Global warming" is not a global crisis

We, the scientists and researchers in climate and related fields, economists, policymakers, and business leaders, assembled at Times Square, New York City, participating in the 2008 International Conference on Climate Change,

Resolving that scientific questions should be evaluated solely by the scientific method;

Affirming that global climate has always changed and always will, independent of the actions of humans, and that carbon dioxide (CO2) is not a pollutant but rather a necessity for all life;

Recognising that the causes and extent of recently observed climatic change are the subject of intense debates in the climate science community and that oft-repeated assertions of a supposed 'consensus' among climate experts are false;

Affirming that attempts by governments to legislate costly regulations on industry and individual citizens to encourage CO2 emission reduction will slow development while having no appreciable impact on the future trajectory of global climate change. Such policies will markedly diminish future prosperity and so reduce the ability of societies to adapt to inevitable climate change, thereby increasing, not decreasing, human suffering;

Noting that warmer weather is generally less harmful to life on Earth than colder:

Hereby declare:

That current plans to restrict anthropogenic CO2 emissions are a dangerous misallocation of intellectual capital and resources that should be dedicated to solving humanity's real and serious problems.

That there is no convincing evidence that CO2 emissions from modern industrial activity has in the past, is now, or will in the future cause catastrophic climate change.

That attempts by governments to inflict taxes and costly regulations on industry and individual citizens with the aim of reducing emissions of CO2 will pointlessly curtail the prosperity of the West and progress of developing nations without affecting climate.

That adaptation as needed is massively more cost-effective than any attempted mitigation and that a focus on such mitigation will divert the attention and resources of governments away from addressing the real problems of their peoples.

That human-caused climate change is not a global crisis.

Now, therefore, we recommend --

That world leaders reject the views expressed by the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change as well as popular, but misguided works such as "An Inconvenient Truth."

That all taxes, regulations, and other interventions intended to reduce emissions of CO2 be abandoned forthwith.

Agreed at New York, 4 March 2008

Not at all funny

I must admit to sneaking several looks during the day yesterday - and smiling each time that I saw that electricity usages was marginally higher than normal during the UK's E-Day (Energy Saving Day).

How are you lot going to save the planet (© Al Gore Inc.) when you can't even turn off a few lights...

Test of Britishness

The applicant for British Citizenship must be able to:

Demonstrate a clear understanding of the terms: rat-arsed, bladdered, wankered, smashed. Additionally the applicant must undergo a practical test in order to demonstrate that he or she is able to achieve one of these states (and to show a true understanding of the phrase ‘responsible drinking’).

The applicant must undergo some activity that provides value to the community at large. Suggested activities include: canvassing for the Labour Party, joining the Labour Party, voting for the Labour Party.

The applicant must undertake to understand fully the science of climate change and global warming. Understanding of the consensus is essential. Additionally the applicant must be 100% in favour of other people cutting back on their life-styles for the good of the planet.

The applicant must be able to show an understanding of true British values by being able to slag off in detail the England manager, the England team and the wives/girlfriends of members of the England team.

Finally, a written test of English must also be taken. The exam will be to A level standard, and therefore applicants who show any sign of grasping grammar, spelling or punctuation will be heavily penalised.

Phillip Pullman - Miserabilist

And for a very late kick-off for 2008, here's a nice story from those spiky bastards over at the Register. So, Pullman joins the ranks of the misanthropic miserabilists who want to save humanity from itself - all for the good of the planet of course...

Unfortunately, Pullman's line in reasoning (or lack of), seems to be increasingly common even as the evidence continues to point away from CO2 as the big, bad driver of climate change.

Gordon Brown - Election Planning

The Progressive Contrarian again brings you the latest top-secret goings-on at Number 10. This latest on the election planning still going on shows Gordon Brown in conversation with his Chancellor, Alistair Darling.

PM: Ah, Darling, I want to have a word.
Darling: Yes, PM.
PM: The election, laddie. What are we to do?
Darling: I'm sorry, PM, I'm not sure I...
PM: It's time we took the initiative, Darling.
Darling: Yes, PM.
PM: What do you suggest?
Darling: That we take the initiative, sir.
PM: Excellent, Darling.
Darling (blushes): Thank you, PM.
PM: I'm thinking we go on the road. Let's take politics to the people.
Darling: Yes, PM.
PM: I want every member in the cabinet to stand up and be counted.
Darling: Yes, PM, every member standing up.
PM: The length and breadth of the country needs to see our members.
Darling: Yes, PM. Length and breadth.
PM: Take this down, Darling.
Darling (gulps): Take what down, PM?
PM: Notes. I want Blears to go to Manchester. Jowell to Birmingham. Milliband - Bristol.
Darling (scribbling furiously): Yes, PM. Milliband - Bristol.
PM: Straw - Bury.
Darling: Strawberry, PM? Have we switched to fruits?
PM: What are you wittering on about, laddie. Take it down, take it down. We can button Hutton for Sutton.
Darling: Pardon?
PM: Balls to Liverpool.
Darling: I agree, sir.
PM: Finally, Benn - Dover, Darling.
Darling (sighs): Yes, sir, if you like.

Raising School Leaving - The Truth

The truth behind the plan to raise school leaving age in the UK. Direct from 10 Downing Street...


Gordon: How are the soundings?

Anon1: Not good, Gordon -

Gordon: Pardon?

Anon1 (contrite): I'm sorry, sir.

Gordon: Let's start again, shall we? How are the soundings?

Anon1: Not good, PM.

Anon2: No, PM. The whole 'Gordon is human' thing's fallen flat, I'm afraid.

Gordon: Never mind. At least I don't have to do the smiling exercises any more. What else?

Anon1: The Britishness thing's been commandeered by the Tories again.

Gordon: Never mind, we'd been using it for long enough, they can have it back now that I'm done with it. Next?

Anon2: Well PM, it looks like the civil liberties thing has still got legs.

Anon1: Yes, PM, you can sound statesman-like and concerned while at the same time clamping down on liberties.

Gordon: Ah yes, it's my Iron Chancellor stance all over again. A safe pair of hands. I like that. Do we have anything else?

ANon1: I'm afraid not, PM.

ANon2: Frankly sir, we're not sure where we're going with this raising the school leaving age idea.

Gordon: Do you not?

Anon2: Well...er...we...

Gordon: We?

Anon1: It's more him than me, PM.

Anon2: But...

Gordon: It's simple. If the laddies are in school they're not causing trouble for the polis.

Anon2: Yes, PM. But won't they be causing trouble in school?

Gordon: What's your point, laddie?

Anon2: What are they actually supposed to be doing in school?

Gordon: Lessons, of course. Mostly Global Warming Studies and Voting Studies. They'll be compulsory, obviously.

Anon1: Global Warming Studies?

Gordon: Aye. They can learn that there's a consensus and that anyone who disagrees is some kind of lunatic who'd probably not vote for me in the election and therefore can't be trusted.

Anon2: And Voting Studies?

Gordon: They learn how to vote, what I look like, how to spot my name on a ballot paper and so on. Important stuff.

Anon1: And the West Lothian angle?

Gordon: Good point. We'll be dropping the school leaving age in Scotland. The boys and girls can skip school from the age of 14 so long as they've passed the Voting Studies exam.

Anon2: And how do they do that, PM?

Gordon: By signing over their votes to me, in perpetuity, obviously.

Anon1: Is that legal, sir?

Gordon: Aye laddie, if I say it is. Now, bugger off and find me some lame policies that I can convince Cameron he wants to take off me again...

Anon1 + Anon2: Yes, your Highness.