logo
Welcome Guest! To enable all features please Login or Register.

Notification

Icon
Error

2 Pages12>
richard
#1 Posted : 04 December 2012 22:48:06(UTC)
Richard

Rank: Administration

Groups: Registered, Administrators
Joined: 16/04/2012(UTC)
Posts: 3,359
United Kingdom
Location: Bradford

Thanks: 113 times
Was thanked: 342 time(s) in 284 post(s)
Britain's "dash-for-gas" strategy has been undermined just a day before chancellor George Osborne is set to place the fossil fuel at the heart of UK energy policy, says the Independent.

This is on the basis of a "new report" which finds the economy would be better off harnessing offshore wind instead. The British economy, it claims, "would be £20bn-a-year better off by 2030 if it favoured offshore wind over gas-fired generation as the driver of an essential overhaul of the country’s energy infrastructure over the next two decades to replace aging (sic) power plants and keep the lights on".

Turning to the source of this wisdom, we find the "think tank" originator named as "Cambridge Econometrics", but to call it a think tank is something of a misnomer. The company actually describes itself as "an independent consultancy", its business being the application of economic modelling and data analysis techniques to the needs of clients in business and government.

View full article here

and

View full article here

Edited by user 05 December 2012 16:36:25(UTC)  | Reason: Not specified

 2 users thanked richard for this useful post.
aster on 05/12/2012(UTC), letmethink on 05/12/2012(UTC)
Ravenscar
#2 Posted : 05 December 2012 00:19:15(UTC)
Ravenscar

Rank: Advanced Member

Groups: Registered
Joined: 17/07/2012(UTC)
Posts: 1,016
Location: The North

Thanks: 124 times
Was thanked: 150 time(s) in 100 post(s)
I cannot speak for other rags but in the pages of today's [4th] Times was running a full page ad' fronted by Greenprice and exhorting the chancellor to:

A picture of Osborne and underneath the headline....

"One coalition he can't afford to ignore"

Then, a list of names including Goldman's + Deutsche Bank investors in green rubbish and extraordinarily biased advocates of the 'green propaganda drive', WWF, Islamic Relief, Veolia, Unicef, Unison, Wildfowl and Wetlands Trust, Gamesa, Methodist Church, Renewables UK [surprise] and a host of others.

At the base of this list is the renewable's apologia................[and some, er critique]

"Britain has a once-in-a-generation opportunity to create a world-leading clean tech industry". Smart Tories want it [are there any?]. Lib dumbs want it. Labour wants it..............blah blah effin blah

The only reason the green economy exists - is the reason all these leeches latch on - massive public funded subsidy and all underwritten by the mugs - you and me.

Without taxpayer monies, Deutsche Bank, BNP Paribas, JP Morgan Chase, Danske Bank, Barclays, Goldman Sachs [all on the list] would run a mile screaming "let us out of here!"

Greenprice, have millions funnelled into their war chest, recycled British taxpayers brass - sent to Brussels by boy George and given in kickbacks to such as Greenprice and WWF, FoE et al - all they do then, is to fund and encourage bent reports from the likes of Cambridge Econometrics - simple lies and propaganda and all mendaciously encourage and egged on by the 'colleagues'.
 2 users thanked Ravenscar for this useful post.
aster on 05/12/2012(UTC), jaguar driver on 05/12/2012(UTC)
letmethink
#3 Posted : 05 December 2012 08:54:30(UTC)
letmethink

Rank: Advanced Member

Groups: Registered
Joined: 17/07/2012(UTC)
Posts: 362
Man
Location: Essex

Thanks: 92 times
Was thanked: 48 time(s) in 35 post(s)
Oh well - here I go again . . . !

(with a small piece of new info.)

The CCA is still law. Under the CCA the government has an obligation to reduce CO2 emissions progressively towards a 2050 target. Due to the recession which was partly caused by and is certainly sustained by the CCA and other 'climate change' policies, the government is currently ahead of trend on their target.

Nothing Osborne does (short of repealing the act) will prevent our continued economic decline and nothing the eco-fascists bleat about will change what he does because the government is legally on a firm footing.

The CCA is fundamentally based on the idea of contraction and convergence. It is DESIGNED to reduce per capita CO2 emissions and the only way to do this is by contracting developed economies. This is fact.

Contraction and convergence pre-dates even Agenda 21 with the Global Commons institute (the perpetrators of this evil) having been founded by a green activist (Aubrey Meyer) in 1990 to satisfy UNFCC needs at that time.

check this link to see who supports C&C and how it has been reflected in the CCA

C&C and the CCA

I commend anyone to spend a little time exploring this website, not least to discover the names of C&C advoocates and what they have to say about it.

The new info. (courtesy of the Wayback machine) is that Aubrey Meyer was nominated by six UK MPs for a Nobel peace prize in 2008. Among the six were those two A-list troughers Yeo and Huhne.
 5 users thanked letmethink for this useful post.
Aurelian on 05/12/2012(UTC), Ravenscar on 05/12/2012(UTC), gareth on 05/12/2012(UTC), meltemian on 05/12/2012(UTC), john in cheshire on 05/12/2012(UTC)
ALeatherland
#4 Posted : 05 December 2012 08:56:34(UTC)
ALeatherland

Rank: Member

Groups: Registered
Joined: 25/07/2012(UTC)
Posts: 12
United Kingdom

Thanks: 1 times
Was thanked: 5 time(s) in 3 post(s)
The giveaway in Ravenscar's find is the inclusion of banking organisations. An industry which has succeeded in privatising the profits and socialising the losses.

They know the business model is not proven to stand on it's own two feet so they recognise for what it is - a taxpayer funded source of cash. Such a fund comes with the added advantage of knowing that no real audit takes place so it's easy for the cash to do a disappearing act.
 2 users thanked ALeatherland for this useful post.
aster on 05/12/2012(UTC), Nottoobrite on 06/12/2012(UTC)
Peter Mauley
#5 Posted : 05 December 2012 09:28:09(UTC)
Peter Mauley

Rank: Advanced Member

Groups: Registered
Joined: 17/07/2012(UTC)
Posts: 13
United Kingdom
Location: Oxford

Thanks: 2 times
Was thanked: 1 time(s) in 1 post(s)
"Department of Land Economy, University of Cambridge"
Even forty years ago this wasn't regarded as a proper part of the university, and was said to have been set up so that promising international standard rugby players etc. of limited intellectual capability could come to Cambridge, play in the Varsity matches, and get a degree to boot. Transfer to 'Land Economy' was only permitted to ordinary students if they got a first in their annual exam, to dissuade the skivers who would otherwise have taken that easy option.
ELF
#6 Posted : 05 December 2012 09:31:18(UTC)
ELF

Rank: Advanced Member

Groups: Registered
Joined: 18/07/2012(UTC)
Posts: 244
United Kingdom

Thanks: 19 times
Was thanked: 14 time(s) in 12 post(s)
Quote:
replace aging (sic) power plants

Implied message, they are being shut as they are at the end of their economic life. Not the LCPD. Liars.
gareth
#7 Posted : 05 December 2012 09:43:43(UTC)
gareth

Rank: Advanced Member

Groups: Registered
Joined: 18/07/2012(UTC)
Posts: 145

Thanks: 1 times
Was thanked: 12 time(s) in 11 post(s)
Originally Posted by: letmethink Go to Quoted Post
Oh well - here I go again . . . !

(with a small piece of new info.)

...

The new info. (courtesy of the Wayback machine) is that Aubrey Meyer was nominated by six UK MPs for a Nobel peace prize in 2008. Among the six were those two A-list troughers Yeo and Huhne.

Nice find. Direct link to the nomination press release. The file had been renamed with an underscore at the end so the link on the GCI website 'endorsements' section didn't work.

What a bunch of sycophants. There are getting on for 200 nominations each year and the public will generally only know who has been nominated if you or your nominees are shallow enough to publicise it.
 2 users thanked gareth for this useful post.
letmethink on 05/12/2012(UTC), aster on 05/12/2012(UTC)
Ravenscar
#8 Posted : 05 December 2012 10:40:04(UTC)
Ravenscar

Rank: Advanced Member

Groups: Registered
Joined: 17/07/2012(UTC)
Posts: 1,016
Location: The North

Thanks: 124 times
Was thanked: 150 time(s) in 100 post(s)
Quote:
Oh well - here I go again . . . !





No, never let up letmethink, it cannot be said often enough and thank you for your post, most enlightening - I hadn't come across that link before.
letmethink
#9 Posted : 05 December 2012 12:00:15(UTC)
letmethink

Rank: Advanced Member

Groups: Registered
Joined: 17/07/2012(UTC)
Posts: 362
Man
Location: Essex

Thanks: 92 times
Was thanked: 48 time(s) in 35 post(s)
Originally Posted by: Ravenscar Go to Quoted Post
Quote:
Oh well - here I go again . . . !





No, never let up letmethink, it cannot be said often enough and thank you for your post, most enlightening - I hadn't come across that link before.



Yeah, I know you're right but it does get dispiriting sometimes.


The Global Commons Institute (GCI) is the most malicious, pervasive, damaging and evil organisation that nobody's ever heard of.

They were founded in 1990 and started touting their contraction and convergence model almost immediately to those tin-pot dictators who form the voting majority at the UN (just one more example of the tyranny of the majority)

virtually all global 'climate' policies; legislation; regulations; attitudes and even to some extent the daddy of them all Agenda 21 are simply trailing in the wake of contraction and convergence.

don't expect redemption any time soon.

Just as an aside - the dumb and dumber Millibands and the dumbest Cameron should not be wholly blamed for the CCA (I know they could have stopped it)

The foundations were laid for this Act long before it became law in 2008 and even long before it was a draft bill in 2007.

check out this matey note from Meacher (as environment minister) from defra in 2002 - note the 'dear Aubrey' and 'sincerely Michael' (handwritten)

letter from Meacher to CGI re. C&C

Meacher was also one of the gang of six nominating Meyer for a Nobel award.

Or perhaps these dfid notes from 2002

dfid notes re. C&C

this is where the Climate Change Act was born

Edited by user 05 December 2012 12:43:32(UTC)  | Reason: added links

 2 users thanked letmethink for this useful post.
Aurelian on 05/12/2012(UTC), meltemian on 05/12/2012(UTC)
madbiker
#10 Posted : 05 December 2012 13:06:44(UTC)
madbiker

Rank: Advanced Member

Groups: Registered
Joined: 17/07/2012(UTC)
Posts: 12
United Kingdom
Location: Wigan

Was thanked: 1 time(s) in 1 post(s)
Ravenscar
#11 Posted : 05 December 2012 13:48:12(UTC)
Ravenscar

Rank: Advanced Member

Groups: Registered
Joined: 17/07/2012(UTC)
Posts: 1,016
Location: The North

Thanks: 124 times
Was thanked: 150 time(s) in 100 post(s)
What is slightly unnerving, Meacher and Aubrey and all that crew - did they consider for a moment - a bit like opening the Pandoran box - you don't know what's gonna happen or what will accrue................

Or was, is it, all intentional and purpose driven, one [as letmethink does] can conclude that even though the 'list' of very stupid people - like Meacher, did it with intent and with a very black malice aforethought.

We thought; Mao, Pol Pot and Stalin were the bad lads, perhaps we shall have to revise the list and ponder the very misanthropic ethos behind all of this - it is after all Malthusian dogma and extremely deleterious to their own kith and kin - WTF?!

I've often thought, the kapos and camp guards, the apparats in the Gestapo - the paper clip counters - they were just as bad as Reinhard Heydrich and Heinrich Himmler - lets stick Meacher, Miliband and Aubrey up there and include the DECC and DEFRA - all the minions of Brussels.
flyinthesky
#12 Posted : 05 December 2012 13:49:15(UTC)
flyinthesky

Rank: Advanced Member

Groups: Registered
Joined: 25/11/2012(UTC)
Posts: 107
United Kingdom
Location: Lancashire

Thanks: 70 times
Was thanked: 10 time(s) in 9 post(s)
"being in the pay of "big oil"."

This often cited by warmists it's to my mind the wrong way round. Big oil and big gas are fully on board with this nonsense. from thier perspective it's a win win. By continually stating that it is becomming scarce they increase it's perceived value so in essence it's double the price, halve the consumption but maintain the profit.
Not content with that they are also major investors, with current profits and subsidies, in renewable technology. They make the profit on the existing resource and wish to maintain or increase it on the next resource. They can't lose.
F U Fed Up
#13 Posted : 05 December 2012 14:54:45(UTC)
F U Fed Up

Rank: Advanced Member

Groups: Registered
Joined: 10/08/2012(UTC)
Posts: 279
United Kingdom

Was thanked: 23 time(s) in 21 post(s)
GreenPiss and Enemies of Mankind can front as many organisations as they like, talk as much rubbish as they like......but it won't change the growing majority of people's opinion that it is nothing but a scam to raise taxes.........and the evidence for that is the real pain people are already suffering, paying for the madness, as the bills go up and up.

If the pols are stupid enough to continue to peddle the scam, then they will be held in greater and greater contempt and until an alternative comes along, fewer and fewer votes.
letmethink
#14 Posted : 05 December 2012 15:13:59(UTC)
letmethink

Rank: Advanced Member

Groups: Registered
Joined: 17/07/2012(UTC)
Posts: 362
Man
Location: Essex

Thanks: 92 times
Was thanked: 48 time(s) in 35 post(s)
Originally Posted by: Ravenscar Go to Quoted Post
What is slightly unnerving, Meacher and Aubrey and all that crew - did they consider for a moment - a bit like opening the Pandoran box - you don't know what's gonna happen or what will accrue................

Or was, is it, all intentional and purpose driven, one [as letmethink does] can conclude that even though the 'list' of very stupid people - like Meacher, did it with intent and with a very black malice aforethought.

We thought; Mao, Pol Pot and Stalin were the bad lads, perhaps we shall have to revise the list and ponder the very misanthropic ethos behind all of this - it is after all Malthusian dogma and extremely deleterious to their own kith and kin - WTF?!

I've often thought, the kapos and camp guards, the apparats in the Gestapo - the paper clip counters - they were just as bad as Reinhard Heydrich and Heinrich Himmler - lets stick Meacher, Miliband and Aubrey up there and include the DECC and DEFRA - all the minions of Brussels.


Yes, it's certainly a poser. What was Mao's, Pol Pot's and Stalin's true motivations? Mao was conservatively responsible for the death of 60million of his own countrymen. Why did he want to do this? what did he ultimately achieve? Maybe they were simply psycopaths?

Then we have Lenin, the archetypal environmentalist, followed in this regard by Hitler and more latterly Strong, Holdren, Gore, etc. . .

so what do Gore, Yeo, Huhne, Holdren, Hansen, Strong, Mann, any number of tin-pot dictators, etc., etc., have in common? They all have vast quantities of personal wealth that they wouldn't otherwise have if it weren't for this 'green' nightmare. If they really believed their mantra they would give every penny they had to support 'green' initatives. They don't. And even these people are just the small fry. How much Goldman Sachs, the Rockefellers, etc., make would probably be enough to reverse the world's economic meltdown.

I have no doubt that the vast majority of people working towards the 'green' agenda make no money from it and really believe in what they are doing. But . . . there is no doubt in my mind that eco-fascism is evil and is designed to make a limited number of people astronomical sums of money by playing on the general guilt of the developed world and with no consideration for the 'ordinary' people who will suffer the most.

What Cameron and Clegg's motivations are I have absolutely no idea.
letmethink
#15 Posted : 05 December 2012 15:16:39(UTC)
letmethink

Rank: Advanced Member

Groups: Registered
Joined: 17/07/2012(UTC)
Posts: 362
Man
Location: Essex

Thanks: 92 times
Was thanked: 48 time(s) in 35 post(s)
Originally Posted by: flyinthesky Go to Quoted Post
"being in the pay of "big oil"."

This often cited by warmists it's to my mind the wrong way round. Big oil and big gas are fully on board with this nonsense. from thier perspective it's a win win. By continually stating that it is becomming scarce they increase it's perceived value so in essence it's double the price, halve the consumption but maintain the profit.
Not content with that they are also major investors, with current profits and subsidies, in renewable technology. They make the profit on the existing resource and wish to maintain or increase it on the next resource. They can't lose.


Of course. Just check out Enron's role in the US negotiations on Kyoto as a primer . . .
Aurelian
#16 Posted : 05 December 2012 16:21:03(UTC)
Aurelian

Rank: Advanced Member

Groups: Registered
Joined: 17/07/2012(UTC)
Posts: 159
United Kingdom
Location: EU East Midlands Region of the former UK

Thanks: 50 times
Was thanked: 19 time(s) in 16 post(s)
Originally Posted by: letmethink Go to Quoted Post
I have no doubt that the vast majority of people working towards the 'green' agenda make no money from it and really believe in what they are doing.
That'll be the Clueless, some of whom nonetheless will be doing very well indeed.
Originally Posted by: letmethink Go to Quoted Post
But . . . there is no doubt in my mind that eco-fascism is evil and is designed to make a limited number of people astronomical sums of money by playing on the general guilt of the developed world
That'd be the Psychopaths.
Originally Posted by: letmethink Go to Quoted Post
and with no consideration for the 'ordinary' people who will suffer the most.
That's us, the Losers.


Please hold: your call is important to us.
 2 users thanked Aurelian for this useful post.
letmethink on 05/12/2012(UTC), Ravenscar on 05/12/2012(UTC)
vincent
#17 Posted : 05 December 2012 16:58:56(UTC)
vincent

Rank: Advanced Member

Groups: Registered
Joined: 17/07/2012(UTC)
Posts: 981
United Kingdom
Location: Sunderland

Thanks: 86 times
Was thanked: 32 time(s) in 29 post(s)
Congratulations Richard,
Nice write up for you by Delingpole,hope the Telegraph are paying a decent rate per word for that rather prominent and extensive quote...though they would probably refuse if they see the moniker you normally give their paperBigGrin

Edited by user 05 December 2012 17:00:03(UTC)  | Reason: Not specified

nemesis
#18 Posted : 05 December 2012 17:16:18(UTC)
nemesis

Rank: Advanced Member

Groups: Registered
Joined: 29/07/2012(UTC)
Posts: 50
United Kingdom
Location: Middlesex

Thanks: 35 times
Was thanked: 3 time(s) in 3 post(s)
Originally Posted by: letmethink Go to Quoted Post
Oh well - here I go again . . . !

(with a small piece of new info.)

The CCA is still law. Under the CCA the government has an obligation to reduce CO2 emissions progressively towards a 2050 target. Due to the recession which was partly caused by and is certainly sustained by the CCA and other 'climate change' policies, the government is currently ahead of trend on their target.

Nothing Osborne does (short of repealing the act) will prevent our continued economic decline and nothing the eco-fascists bleat about will change what he does because the government is legally on a firm footing.

The CCA is fundamentally based on the idea of contraction and convergence. It is DESIGNED to reduce per capita CO2 emissions and the only way to do this is by contracting developed economies. This is fact.

Contraction and convergence pre-dates even Agenda 21 with the Global Commons institute (the perpetrators of this evil) having been founded by a green activist (Aubrey Meyer) in 1990 to satisfy UNFCC needs at that time.

check this link to see who supports C&C and how it has been reflected in the CCA

C&C and the CCA

I commend anyone to spend a little time exploring this website, not least to discover the names of C&C advoocates and what they have to say about it.

The new info. (courtesy of the Wayback machine) is that Aubrey Meyer was nominated by six UK MPs for a Nobel peace prize in 2008. Among the six were those two A-list troughers Yeo and Huhne.


Thanks for the link. I just happened to click on their 'Heros' link where we find:
Helena Schnitner
Big Green Gathering Independent Astrologer
Alan Turnbull
Director Floating Lotus
Ossie Bash-Taqi
Chef

- A big green gathering independent astrologer !!!! - kinda reeks of desperation. Not sure if I should be laughing or crying.
letmethink
#19 Posted : 05 December 2012 17:21:29(UTC)
letmethink

Rank: Advanced Member

Groups: Registered
Joined: 17/07/2012(UTC)
Posts: 362
Man
Location: Essex

Thanks: 92 times
Was thanked: 48 time(s) in 35 post(s)
Originally Posted by: nemesis Go to Quoted Post


Thanks for the link. I just happened to click on their 'Heros' link where we find:
Helena Schnitner
Big Green Gathering Independent Astrologer
Alan Turnbull
Director Floating Lotus
Ossie Bash-Taqi
Chef

- A big green gathering independent astrologer !!!! - kinda reeks of desperation. Not sure if I should be laughing or crying.


I can no longer laugh about this sh*t but I still feel like crying for my children . . .

vincent
#20 Posted : 05 December 2012 19:36:13(UTC)
vincent

Rank: Advanced Member

Groups: Registered
Joined: 17/07/2012(UTC)
Posts: 981
United Kingdom
Location: Sunderland

Thanks: 86 times
Was thanked: 32 time(s) in 29 post(s)
Originally Posted by: letmethink Go to Quoted Post
Oh well - here I go again . . . !

(with a small piece of new info.)

......................

check this link to see who supports C&C and how it has been reflected in the CCA

C&C and the CCA

I commend anyone to spend a little time exploring this website, not least to discover the names of C&C advoocates and what they have to say about it.

The new info. (courtesy of the Wayback machine) is that Aubrey Meyer was nominated by six UK MPs for a Nobel peace prize in 2008. Among the six were those two A-list troughers Yeo and Huhne.


I pick this bit out.....from Lord Adair Turner

Quote:
"Climate change is likely to impose massive economic costs. The case for being prepared to spend huge resources to limit it is clear,” says Turner, arguing that the cost will be repaid many times over by the avoidance of disaster.


This from a man who stood at the helm of the FSA as our banking sector went into meltdown due in large part to his organisation's inadequate supervision.

How can one put a price on avoidance of a disaster,not knowing the extent of the said disaster.And will it not be just as valid to argue we could use the thus saved considerable amount of money to put right any problems arising?I just love the way they put this as some kind of sound economic reasoning when it is no more than a punt in the dark.

I'd rather take Monckton's cost analysis.


Quote:
And what solution? Even if the world were to warm by 2.2 Cº this century (for IPeCaC will implicitly cut its central estimate from 2.8 Cº in the previous Assessment Report six years ago), it would be at least ten times cheaper and more cost-effective to adapt to warming’s consequences the day after tomorrow than to try to prevent it today.

Edited by user 05 December 2012 19:39:50(UTC)  | Reason: Not specified

Users browsing this topic
Guest
2 Pages12>
Forum Jump  
You cannot post new topics in this forum.
You cannot reply to topics in this forum.
You cannot delete your posts in this forum.
You cannot edit your posts in this forum.
You cannot create polls in this forum.
You cannot vote in polls in this forum.

Powered by YAF 1.9.6.1 | YAF © 2003-2013, Yet Another Forum.NET
This page was generated in 0.281 seconds.