[Vision2020] The green hijack of the Met Office iscripplingBritain
Andy Boyd
moscowrecycling at turbonet.com
Thu Jan 6 11:09:34 PST 2011
I don't understand why public health and the possibility of climate change
that could affect millions of people ability to live should be a question of
economically feasible...
Wars, whether jsut or not are not economically feasible but that doesn't
seem to be a deciding factor.
Andy Boyd
----- Original Message -----
From: "lfalen" <lfalen at turbonet.com>
To: "Andy Boyd" <moscowrecycling at turbonet.com>; <vision2020 at moscow.com>
Sent: Thursday, January 06, 2011 10:10 AM
Subject: Re: [Vision2020] The green hijack of the Met Office
iscripplingBritain
> You are right. Anyone who thinks that there is no air pollution should go
> to Riverside, California. There should be efforts made to clean up air
> pollution with in the realm of what is economically feasible.
> Roger
> -----Original message-----
> From: "Andy Boyd" moscowrecycling at turbonet.com
> Date: Wed, 05 Jan 2011 15:42:36 -0800
> To: vision2020 at moscow.com
> Subject: Re: [Vision2020] The green hijack of the Met Office
> iscripplingBritain
>
>> Try this analogy.
>> Would you let the exhuast from your car be piped into your house?
>> I imagine the answer is no for obvious reasons.
>>
>> the earth is the home to all humans and of course all life.
>>
>> the stuff we pump into the atmosphere is not good whether it is causing
>> climate change or not.
>>
>> It would seem prudent to limit this as much as possible...
>>
>> Andy Boyd
>> Manager/Education Coordinator
>> Moscow Recycling
>> 208 882 0590
>> ----- Original Message -----
>> From: "Joe Campbell" <philosopher.joe at gmail.com>
>> To: "Paul Rumelhart" <godshatter at yahoo.com>
>> Cc: <vision2020 at moscow.com>
>> Sent: Wednesday, January 05, 2011 2:17 PM
>> Subject: Re: [Vision2020] The green hijack of the Met Office is
>> cripplingBritain
>>
>>
>> Suppose you're right -- which I don't believe -- that the data is
>> flawed and that the belief in global warning is completely irrational.
>> What follows? Does it follow that we can't use the beliefs of global
>> warming theorists as a basis for passing laws that restrict behavior?
>> Is your view that laws must be based on scientific evidence that is
>> absolutely certain?
>>
>> Now maybe this is something I can wrap my head around! If this is your
>> view than you should be completely against laws based on moral or
>> religious beliefs. Is that your view? That laws should be based on
>> reason and evidence and nothing more? Again, this is an attitude I can
>> agree with.
>>
>> Now if you don't think there is anything wrong with, say, someone
>> passing a law on the basis of a personal religious belief, then what
>> does the issue of scientific evidence have to do with the global
>> warming agenda? Why does science and evidence matter here when it
>> comes to policy decisions but not elsewhere, not in fact EVERYWHERE
>> else? What is so special about this particular issue that it needs
>> scientific evidence to support it or it should be ignored altogether?
>>
>> Again, I think the evidence is there -- or enough of it at any rate.
>> But at the very least there is a lot more evidence that CO2 emission
>> is causally related to a rise in world temperature than that gay or
>> lesbian unions are harmful to the moral and social fabric of the
>> country, so harmful that they should be prohibited. Not that the right
>> to marry whomever you damn well please is as important as the "right"
>> to drive whatever you damn well please, but I'm just saying.
>>
>> On Wed, Jan 5, 2011 at 6:00 AM, Paul Rumelhart <godshatter at yahoo.com>
>> wrote:
>> >
>> > It's not like I'm tearing through intricately detailed publications
>> > looking
>> > for anything at all that might be wrong with their rock solid research,
>> > finding maybe one in a dozen spelled something wrong.
>> >
>> > Looking at an increase in CO2 from 280 to around 390 ppm made me wonder
>> > how
>> > big of an effect that could actually have. I mean, for each million
>> > particles of air, we're throwing out 110 nitrogen molecules (dropping
>> > it
>> > from 780900 to 779790 or whatever) and adding in 110 CO2 ones. That
>> > lead
>> > me
>> > to look at greenhouses.
>> >
>> > Learning about the greenhouse effect as a practical thing (i.e. how
>> > does
>> > an
>> > actual greenhouse heat up it's air), the glass holding the air in place
>> > does
>> > far more than CO2 does to warm it.
>> >
>> > Of course, it's a big planet, and small changes over time can affect
>> > climate. How do they compare to natural processes, still not
>> > understood?
>> > We're coming out of an Ice Age, and locally we are recovering from the
>> > Little Ice Age (at least we were, until they tried to get rid of the
>> > LIA
>> > and
>> > the Medieval Warm Period with their Hockey Stick). CO2 is probably
>> > helping
>> > this along, but how much? Nobody seems to know, because nobody is
>> > looking
>> > at natural processes with the same fervor they are looking at CO2.
>> >
>> > Looking into global climate models made me immediately skeptical for a
>> > variety of reasons about their conclusions. It turns out they aren't
>> > trying
>> > to model the physics and seeing how close it matches the real world,
>> > they
>> > are assuming that global warming is happening and are modeling
>> > scenarios
>> > based on that assumption. All these models are worthless, because they
>> > don't model clouds, which have much more of an effect than CO2 does.
>> >
>> > Looking at the temperature record led me to surfacestations.org which
>> > showed
>> > me that quality control is not their highest priority. Continually
>> > watching
>> > historical measurements be adjusted every fricking month made some
>> > alarms
>> > go
>> > off. No where can you find the original data, before any adjustments,
>> > nor
>> > can you find anything about how they are doing their adjustments. What
>> > procedure are they using? What experiments have they conducted to
>> > verify
>> > them? All I see is a slow movement towards increasing the recent temps
>> > and
>> > downplaying any earlier higher temps. It's crazy.
>> >
>> > Looking for quantified amounts declaring what CO2 increases will bring
>> > led
>> > me to the IPCC's own numbers. Given no feedbacks, expect an increase of
>> > about 1.2C for a doubling of CO2 from pre-industrial times. So how do
>> > we
>> > get those catastrophic scenarios? Assume massive positive feedbacks.
>> > More
>> > and more research is coming in from the field showing smaller positive
>> > or
>> > negative feedbacks in nature on-going, but does that get the climate
>> > modelers to change their model inputs? No.
>> >
>> > I could go on, but what's the point? You choose to believe some guy in
>> > a
>> > white smock that has "scientist" emblazoned on his lapel. Hell, there
>> > are
>> > very few people out there that even have a bachelor's degree in climate
>> > science, because it's so new of a field.
>> >
>> > In answer to your question about what's different about climate as
>> > compared
>> > to medicine, car mechanics, etc, here is what is different:
>> >
>> > Climate, by definition, requires decades of measurements just to get a
>> > baseline. It's similar to the geological sciences in this regard. It's
>> > horribly complex, because it's basically the aggregate of weather,
>> > which
>> > is
>> > the field that inspired the development of chaos mathematics. So many
>> > things are affected by so many other things that modeling it reliably
>> > is
>> > still a few decades off. You can't easily do experiments in the climate
>> > sciences that can really be finished before your career is over,
>> > especially
>> > if you are incorporating new measurements that have no history
>> > before-hand.
>> > Pharmaceutical researchers might have to wait a few years for the
>> > results
>> > of a study. Car mechanics can take the damn thing apart and physically
>> > see
>> > what is happening. Climate scientists might have to wait decades for
>> > their
>> > results to come back. That's why they rely on modeling so much -
>> > without a
>> > time machine, your options are greatly limited. Also, climate science
>> > is
>> > young. Almost nobody was doing it before the 1970's. That's around 40
>> > years in a science that measures things on decadal time scales.
>> >
>> > So, with the money-changers frothing at the mouth over a carbon credit
>> > scheme and politicians looking for any excuse to take over control of
>> > how
>> > much energy people use, I don't think that "trust us, we're scientists"
>> > is
>> > a
>> > reasonable approach to take at this point in time.
>> >
>> > Not that I expect anyone to agree with me.
>> >
>> > Paul
>> >
>> > Joe Campbell wrote:
>> >>
>> >> The man point is if you apply this same level of skepticism toward
>> >> anything, it will lose. We can't know anything for certain. If
>> >> certainty
>> >> is
>> >> the standard, you shouldn't believe anything. End if story.
>> >>
>> >> It's the perfect approach for maintaining irrational beliefs that
>> >> can't
>> >> be
>> >> sustained with a more realistic method, one that asks which among a
>> >> set
>> >> of
>> >> options is best. (On this matter, check out Wilson's own skeptically
>> >> inspired epistemology.)
>> >>
>> >> Nonetheless not all beliefs are equal. So pardon me if, in the case of
>> >> empirical beliefs, I side with the folks who are in the best position
>> >> to
>> >> know: the scientists who are trained to study climate. Pardon me if I
>> >> ignore
>> >> your misuse of skeptical reasoning since it would undermine anything
>> >> you
>> >> had
>> >> to offer as well.
>> >>
>> >> My method, on the other hand, works for you too when it comes to
>> >> medicine,
>> >> car mechanics, and most other areas. If there is something different
>> >> about
>> >> the climate you've been unsuccessful in showing what it is. What is
>> >> it?
>> >>
>> >> In matters empirical, our best bet is to listen to those with the most
>> >> training. Not perfect, as you'll continue to note, but reasonable.
>> >>
>> >>
>> >>
>> >> On Jan 4, 2011, at 9:30 PM, Paul Rumelhart <godshatter at yahoo.com>
>> >> wrote:
>> >>
>> >>
>> >>>
>> >>> Joe Campbell wrote:
>> >>>
>> >>>>
>> >>>> Speaking if which, I still say the anti-climate change rhetoric is
>> >>>> much
>> >>>> worse than the climate change rhetoric. Yet you (Paul) never mention
>> >>>> it.
>> >>>>
>> >>>
>> >>> Because they aren't the ones in a position of power trying to foist
>> >>> some
>> >>> kind of carbon credit scheme on us. Yes, there are plenty of kooks in
>> >>> the
>> >>> "climate deniers" camp. People who have jumped on the political
>> >>> bandwagon
>> >>> because it feeds into their prejudices and is another bone of
>> >>> contention
>> >>> with their favorite enemies. I didn't join this camp, I simply
>> >>> started
>> >>> looking at things a little closer, without an approved list of ideas
>> >>> to
>> >>> follow sanctioned by the IPCC.
>> >>>
>> >>>
>> >>>>
>> >>>> Also, you can't draw ANY conclusions from bad rhetoric. It is a
>> >>>> fallacy
>> >>>> to say "This is an invalid argument, so the conclusion must be
>> >>>> false."
>> >>>>
>> >>>
>> >>> Sure. Even a broken clock is right twice a day. That doesn't mean
>> >>> that
>> >>> I should give any more credence to the truth of a statement arrived
>> >>> at
>> >>> through bad rhetoric than I would any other random, unproven
>> >>> statement.
>> >>>
>> >>>
>> >>>>
>> >>>> The issue is, given everything we know what is the best course of
>> >>>> action?
>> >>>>
>> >>>
>> >>> In my opinion, we've jumped too quickly to the stage where we think
>> >>> we
>> >>> have it all figured out. Which is ludicrous for such a soft and hard
>> >>> to
>> >>> pin
>> >>> down field as climatology, where experiments can and probably should
>> >>> last
>> >>> decades. So, I think we should put more money into the "other side"
>> >>> of
>> >>> the
>> >>> issue. That is, what role does natural variation play? The climate is
>> >>> effected to X% by CO2. What about the 100-X% that's left? How big is
>> >>> X,
>> >>> exactly? This is hard to argue for when asking for money, though,
>> >>> because
>> >>> there is no one to blame and no way to fine Mother Nature into
>> >>> slowing
>> >>> down
>> >>> on the warming. We might just learn a bit more about climate as a
>> >>> whole,
>> >>> though, if we didn't look at it so one-sided.
>> >>>
>> >>>
>> >>>>
>> >>>> Status quo loses when you look at things this way. Changes should be
>> >>>> made for economic and environmental reasons. The real debate is how
>> >>>> much
>> >>>> change, and of what type?
>> >>>>
>> >>>
>> >>> I'm not a big fan of "do something, anything!". It's just as easy to
>> >>> perform the wrong actions as it is to perform the right ones. We're
>> >>> not
>> >>> in
>> >>> danger of death by heat exhaustion in the next few years, so let's
>> >>> take
>> >>> the
>> >>> time to do this right. Let's multiply the number of temperature and
>> >>> other
>> >>> sensors world-wide by, say, 5. Let's get a crap-ton more ocean
>> >>> temperature
>> >>> sensors, and lets go out on the ice and measure the polar caps
>> >>> precisely.
>> >>> Antarctica, too, while we're at it. Let's get every single
>> >>> temperature
>> >>> station in the world to save their raw, unadjusted readings
>> >>> (historical
>> >>> and
>> >>> current) in a place that is publicly available. Lets put CO2 sensors
>> >>> all
>> >>> over the world, in every kind of habitat, and let's measure exactly
>> >>> how
>> >>> much
>> >>> CO2 is taken in and produced over the year. Let's use the money that
>> >>> the
>> >>> rich bastards were going to use to buy carbon credits to fund it, if
>> >>> we
>> >>> have
>> >>> to.
>> >>>
>> >>> Every time I look into this closer, I start to see the men behind the
>> >>> curtain pulling the levers and pushing the knobs more clearly.
>> >>>
>> >>> Paul
>> >>>
>> >>>
>> >>>>
>> >>>> On Jan 4, 2011, at 4:40 PM, Ron Force <rforce2003 at yahoo.com
>> >>>> <mailto:rforce2003 at yahoo.com>> wrote:
>> >>>>
>> >>>>
>> >>>>>
>> >>>>> Paul,
>> >>>>> You do know that the Daily Telegraph is the UK's equivalent of Fox
>> >>>>> News? Consider the source.
>> >>>>>
>> >>>>> I wonder if climate change would have become a such political
>> >>>>> football
>> >>>>> if Al Gore hadn't become a spokesperson? Suppose George Bush
>> >>>>> had...Naaaaaah!
>> >>>>> Ron Force
>> >>>>> Moscow Idaho USA
>> >>>>>
>> >>>>>
>> >>>>>
>> >>>>> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
>> >>>>> *From:* Paul Rumelhart <godshatter at yahoo.com
>> >>>>> <mailto:godshatter at yahoo.com>>
>> >>>>> *To:* Vision2020 <vision2020 at moscow.com
>> >>>>> <mailto:vision2020 at moscow.com>>
>> >>>>> *Sent:* Tue, January 4, 2011 11:32:00 AM
>> >>>>> *Subject:* [Vision2020] The green hijack of the Met Office is
>> >>>>> crippling
>> >>>>> Britain
>> >>>>>
>> >>>>> There was an article in the Telegraph last week that I think
>> >>>>> underscores the problems that the climate change community has with
>> >>>>> overconfidence. I've posted that article below.
>> >>>>>
>> >>>>> I think the proponents of the anthropogenic global warming
>> >>>>> hypothesis
>> >>>>> have been suffering from a case of having blinders on. If you look
>> >>>>> at
>> >>>>> the
>> >>>>> history page on the IPCC website
>> >>>>> (http://www.ipcc.ch/organization/organization_history.shtml),
>> >>>>> you'll
>> >>>>> find
>> >>>>> that their role as they describe it is to "assess on a
>> >>>>> comprehensive,
>> >>>>> objective, open and transparent basis the scientific, technical and
>> >>>>> socio-economic information relevant to understanding the scientific
>> >>>>> basis of
>> >>>>> risk of *human-induced* climate change, its potential impacts and
>> >>>>> options
>> >>>>> for adaptation and mitigation." Note that their role as they see it
>> >>>>> is
>> >>>>> to
>> >>>>> look at human-induced climate change ONLY.
>> >>>>>
>> >>>>> Dr. Roy Spencer, a climate change "denier" whose blog I often
>> >>>>> follow,
>> >>>>> states in one blog entry:
>> >>>>>
>> >>>>> "Twice I have testified in congress that unbiased funding on the
>> >>>>> subject of the causes of warming would be much closer to a reality
>> >>>>> if
>> >>>>> 50% of
>> >>>>> that money was devoted to finding /natural/ reasons for climate
>> >>>>> change.
>> >>>>> Currently, that kind of research is /almost non-existent/."
>> >>>>>
>> >>>>> Anyway, here is the article mentioned in the subject
>> >>>>> (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/comment/columnists/christopherbooker/8223165/The-green-hijack-of-the-Met-Office-is-crippling-Britain.html):
>> >>>>>
>> >>>>> Paul
>> >>>>>
>> >>>>>
>> >>>>> The green hijack of the Met Office is crippling Britain
>> >>>>>
>> >>>>>
>> >>>>> The Met Office's commitment to warmist orthodoxy means it
>> >>>>> drastically underestimates the chances of a big freeze, says
>> >>>>> Christopher Booker
>> >>>>>
>> >>>>> By Christopher Booker
>> >>>>> <http://www.telegraph.co.uk/comment/columnists/christopherbooker/>
>> >>>>> 8:00AM
>> >>>>> GMT 26 Dec 2010
>> >>>>>
>> >>>>> By far the biggest story of recent days, of course, has been the
>> >>>>> astonishing chaos inflicted, to a greater or lesser extent, on all
>> >>>>> of
>> >>>>> our
>> >>>>> lives by the fact that we are not only enjoying what is predicted
>> >>>>> to
>> >>>>> be the
>> >>>>> coldest December since records began in 1659, but also the harshest
>> >>>>> of
>> >>>>> three
>> >>>>> freezing winters in a row. We all know the disaster stories –
>> >>>>> thousands of
>> >>>>> motorists trapped for hours on paralysed motorways, days of misery
>> >>>>> at
>> >>>>> Heathrow, rail passengers marooned in unheated carriages for up to
>> >>>>> 17
>> >>>>> hours.
>> >>>>> But central to all this – as the cry goes up: “Why wasn’t Britain
>> >>>>> better
>> >>>>> prepared?” – has been the bizarre role of the Met Office.
>> >>>>>
>> >>>>> We might start with the strange affair of the Quarmby Review.
>> >>>>> Shortly
>> >>>>> after Philip Hammond became Transport Secretary last May, he
>> >>>>> commissioned
>> >>>>> David Quarmby, a former head of the Strategic Rail Authority, to
>> >>>>> look
>> >>>>> into
>> >>>>> how we might avoid a repeat of last winter’s disruption. In July
>> >>>>> and
>> >>>>> again
>> >>>>> in October, Mr Quarmby produced two reports on “The Resilience of
>> >>>>> England’s
>> >>>>> Transport System in Winter”; and at the start of this month, after
>> >>>>> our
>> >>>>> first
>> >>>>> major snowfall, Mr Quarmby and two colleagues were asked to produce
>> >>>>> an
>> >>>>> “audit” of their earlier findings.
>> >>>>>
>> >>>>> The essence of their message was that they had consulted the Met
>> >>>>> Office, which advised them that, despite two harsh winters in
>> >>>>> succession,
>> >>>>> these were “random events”, the chances of which, after our long
>> >>>>> previous
>> >>>>> run of mild winters, were only 20 to one. Similarly, they were told
>> >>>>> in
>> >>>>> the
>> >>>>> summer, the odds against a third such winter were still only 20 to
>> >>>>> one. So
>> >>>>> it might not be wise to spend billions of pounds preparing for
>> >>>>> another
>> >>>>> “random event”, when its likelihood was so small. Following this
>> >>>>> logic, if
>> >>>>> the odds against a hard winter two years ago were only 20 to one,
>> >>>>> it
>> >>>>> might
>> >>>>> have been thought that the odds against a third such “random event”
>> >>>>> were not
>> >>>>> 20 to one but 20 x 20 x 20, or 8,000 to one.
>> >>>>>
>> >>>>> What seems completely to have passed Mr Quarmby by, however, is the
>> >>>>> fact that in these past three years the Met Office’s forecasting
>> >>>>> record has
>> >>>>> become a national joke. Ever since it predicted a summer warmer and
>> >>>>> drier
>> >>>>> than average in 2007 – followed by some of the worst floods in
>> >>>>> living
>> >>>>> memory
>> >>>>> – its forecasts have been so unerringly wrong that even the chief
>> >>>>> adviser to
>> >>>>> our Transport Secretary might have noticed.
>> >>>>>
>> >>>>> The Met Office’s forecasts of warmer-than-average summers and
>> >>>>> winters
>> >>>>> have been so consistently at 180 degrees to the truth that, earlier
>> >>>>> this
>> >>>>> year, it conceded that it was dropping seasonal forecasting. Hence,
>> >>>>> last
>> >>>>> week, the Met Office issued a categorical denial to the Global
>> >>>>> Warming
>> >>>>> Policy Foundation that it had made any forecast for this winter.
>> >>>>> Immediately, however, several blogs, led by Autonomous Mind,
>> >>>>> produced
>> >>>>> evidence from the Met Office website that in October it did indeed
>> >>>>> publish a
>> >>>>> forecast for December, January and February. This indicated that
>> >>>>> they
>> >>>>> would
>> >>>>> be significantly warmer than last year, and that there was only “a
>> >>>>> very much
>> >>>>> smaller chance of average or below-average temperatures”. So the
>> >>>>> Met
>> >>>>> Office
>> >>>>> has not only been caught out yet again getting it horribly wrong
>> >>>>> (always in
>> >>>>> the same direction), it was even prepared to deny it had said such
>> >>>>> a
>> >>>>> thing
>> >>>>> at all.
>> >>>>>
>> >>>>> The real question, however, is why has the Met Office become so
>> >>>>> astonishingly bad at doing the job for which it is paid nearly £200
>> >>>>> million
>> >>>>> a year – in a way which has become so stupendously damaging to our
>> >>>>> country?
>> >>>>>
>> >>>>> The answer is that in the past 20 years, as can be seen from its
>> >>>>> website, the Met Office has been hijacked from its proper role to
>> >>>>> become
>> >>>>> wholly subservient to its obsession with global warming. (At one
>> >>>>> time
>> >>>>> it
>> >>>>> even changed its name to the Met Office “for Weather and Climate
>> >>>>> Change”.)
>> >>>>> This all began when its then-director John Houghton became one of
>> >>>>> the
>> >>>>> world’s most influential promoters of the warmist gospel. He, more
>> >>>>> than
>> >>>>> anyone else, was responsible for setting up the UN’s
>> >>>>> Intergovernmental
>> >>>>> Panel
>> >>>>> on Climate Change and remained at the top of it for 13 years. It
>> >>>>> was
>> >>>>> he who,
>> >>>>> in 1990, launched the Met Office’s Hadley Centre for Climate
>> >>>>> Change,
>> >>>>> closely
>> >>>>> linked to the Climatic Research Unit in East Anglia (CRU), at the
>> >>>>> centre of
>> >>>>> last year’s Climategate row, which showed how the little group of
>> >>>>> scientists
>> >>>>> at the heart of the IPCC had been prepared to bend their data and
>> >>>>> to
>> >>>>> suppress any dissent from warming orthodoxy.
>> >>>>>
>> >>>>> The reason why the Met Office gets its forecasts so hopelessly
>> >>>>> wrong
>> >>>>> is
>> >>>>> that they are based on those same computer models on which the IPCC
>> >>>>> itself
>> >>>>> relies to predict the world’s climate in 100 years time. They are
>> >>>>> programmed
>> >>>>> on the assumption that, as CO2 rises, so temperatures must
>> >>>>> inexorably
>> >>>>> follow. For 17 years this seemed plausible, because the world did
>> >>>>> appear to
>> >>>>> be getting warmer. We all became familiar with those warmer winters
>> >>>>> and
>> >>>>> earlier springs, which the warmists were quick to exploit to
>> >>>>> promote
>> >>>>> their
>> >>>>> message – as when Dr David Viner of the CRU famously predicted to
>> >>>>> The
>> >>>>> Independent in 2000 that “within a few years winter snowfall will
>> >>>>> be a
>> >>>>> very
>> >>>>> rare and exciting event”. (Last week, that article from 10 years
>> >>>>> ago
>> >>>>> was the
>> >>>>> most viewed item on The Independent’s website.)
>> >>>>>
>> >>>>> But in 2007, the computer models got caught out, failing to predict
>> >>>>> a
>> >>>>> temporary plunge in global temperatures of 0.7C, more than the net
>> >>>>> warming
>> >>>>> of the 20th century. Much of the northern hemisphere suffered what
>> >>>>> was
>> >>>>> called in North America “the winter from hell”. Even though
>> >>>>> temperatures did
>> >>>>> rise again, in the winter of 2008/9 this happened again, only
>> >>>>> worse.
>> >>>>>
>> >>>>> The Met Office simply went into denial. Its senior climate change
>> >>>>> official, Peter Stott, said in March 2009 that the trend towards
>> >>>>> milder
>> >>>>> winters was likely to continue. There would not be another winter
>> >>>>> like
>> >>>>> 1962/3 “for 1,000 years or more”. Last winter was colder still. And
>> >>>>> now we
>> >>>>> have another even more savage “random event”, for which we are even
>> >>>>> less
>> >>>>> prepared. (The Taxpayers’ Alliance revealed last week that councils
>> >>>>> have
>> >>>>> actually ordered less salt this winter than last.)
>> >>>>>
>> >>>>> The consequences of all this are profound. Those who rule over our
>> >>>>> lives have been carried off into a cloud-cuckoo-land for which no
>> >>>>> one
>> >>>>> was
>> >>>>> more responsible than the zealots at the Met Office, subordinating
>> >>>>> all
>> >>>>> it
>> >>>>> does to their dotty belief system. Significantly, its chairman,
>> >>>>> Robert
>> >>>>> Napier, is not a weatherman but a “climate activist”, previously
>> >>>>> head
>> >>>>> of
>> >>>>> WWF-UK, one of our leading warmist campaigning groups.
>> >>>>>
>> >>>>> At one end of this colossal diversion of national resources,
>> >>>>> permeating
>> >>>>> every level of government, we have the hapless Mr Quarmby, who
>> >>>>> feels
>> >>>>> obliged
>> >>>>> to follow the Met Office and advise that the present freeze is a
>> >>>>> “random
>> >>>>> event” and calls for no special responses – with the results we see
>> >>>>> on
>> >>>>> every
>> >>>>> side. At the other, fixated by the same belief system, we have our
>> >>>>> Climate
>> >>>>> Change Secretary, Chris Huhne, hoping we can somehow keep our
>> >>>>> lights
>> >>>>> on and
>> >>>>> our economy running by spending hundreds of billions of pounds on
>> >>>>> thousands
>> >>>>> more windmills.
>> >>>>>
>> >>>>> More than once in the past week, as our power stations have been
>> >>>>> thrashed way beyond normal peak power demand, the contribution of
>> >>>>> wind
>> >>>>> turbines has been so small that it has registered as 0 per cent.
>> >>>>> (See
>> >>>>> the
>> >>>>> website for the New Electricity Trading Arrangements: Google “neta
>> >>>>> electricity summary page”, and find the table of “source by fuel
>> >>>>> type”.)
>> >>>>> At
>> >>>>> the heart of all this greenie make-believe that has our political
>> >>>>> class in
>> >>>>> its thrall has been the hijacking of the Met Office from its proper
>> >>>>> role.
>> >>>>> It’s no longer just a national joke: it is turning into a national
>> >>>>> catastrophe.
>> >>>>>
>> >>>>>
>> >>>>>
>> >>>>>
>> >>>>> =======================================================
>> >>>>> List services made available by First Step Internet,
>> >>>>> serving the communities of the Palouse since 1994.
>> >>>>> http://www.fsr.net
>> >>>>> mailto:Vision2020 at moscow.com
>> >>>>> =======================================================
>> >>>>>
>> >>
>> >>
>> >
>> >
>> >
>>
>> =======================================================
>> List services made available by First Step Internet,
>> serving the communities of the Palouse since 1994.
>> http://www.fsr.net
>> mailto:Vision2020 at moscow.com
>> =======================================================
>>
>>
>> =======================================================
>> List services made available by First Step Internet,
>> serving the communities of the Palouse since 1994.
>> http://www.fsr.net
>> mailto:Vision2020 at moscow.com
>> =======================================================
>>
>
More information about the Vision2020
mailing list