Thursday, October 31, 2013

Gordon Brown- I Am An Ex-Human

Ex-Prime Minister Gordon Brown has angered constituents by declaring that he is an ex-human. Speaking at a panel discussion on education in the Gulf state of Qatar, Mr Brown was asked his views as a "human being" by Radio 4 presenter Mishal Husain. Mr Brown responded immediately by declaring that he was now an "ex-human". In response it was pointed out that Mr Brown was still nominally an elected, though largely absent, MP.

"I repeat," Mr Brown insisted, "an ex-human."

Parliamentary colleagues rallied to Mr Brown's defence. "Where does it say in the rules that you have to be a human to be an MP?" former MP, convicted liar and never-human Chris Huhne demanded.

Former Prime Minister Tony Blair joined in the fray. "It's. Like. This," he said. "If we only elected humans. Then. We'd have no MPs."

Mr Brown has earned more than a million pounds since leaving the human race, most of which he has ploughed straight back into his pocket.

Wednesday, October 30, 2013

Posioned Bags

The mainstream media seemed to have picked up on Professor Hugh Pennington's recent comments about the bacteriological risks of using 'bags for life'. For example the Daily Mail announces 'How your bag-for-life could POISON you'. It's the sort of headline you'd expect from the Mail, but the same kind of thing has been carried across the rest of the media to a certain extent. Of course there's no hint from the Mail that it could be responsible for the push to 'bags for life' as a consequence of its 'banish the bags' campaign.

The risks that Pennington highlights are not a new finding, but it was one that I did not cover in my recent essay on Carrier Bag Scepticism simply because the argument against plastic carrier bags is fundamentally weak. But the fact is that the argument isn't about facts or science, like many greenist causes, the campaign against carrier bags is about punishing us for our consumerist and materialist ways.

Thursday, October 24, 2013

Another Lunatic Lib Dem

No, not Nick Clegg (or Nick Clunge as he's been nicknamed at the Banger), or brain-dead Ed Davey. Not convicted Lib Dem and child pornster Derek Osbourne, or uber slime bag and ex-convict Chris Huhne.

No, the latest Limp Dump to prove yet again that this is not the nice party that they like to pretend to be is John Larsen, an ex-mayor with a pathological interest in explosives. Larsen, now doing a nice long 18-year stretch, was found guilty of setting off explosive devices in Denbigh, Wales. Not content with setting off home-made bombs, including some packed with shrapnel, Larsen liked to report his 'concerns' to the police and media. A bit like those parents who poison their kids so they can get sympathy and be close to doctors and nurses, Larsen liked to cause the problem and then get close to the investigation and media interest.

One can only imagine what the media would have made of the story had Larsen been a member of UKIP, Respect or some other minor party. But being a member of the Limp Dumps doesn't even warrant a mention on the BBC.

Grangemouth and Fracking

Who said this?

Ineos has been flagging likely cuts for months but instead of engaging with the situation and organising a coherent plan to save jobs, Unite called a strike over a pathetic and petty issue related to Labour Party internal politics.  By the time the union woke up to the reality workers faced, it was too late.

Of course the threat to the refinery itself is palpable, and of course local MPs, MSPs and ministers will do everything we can to try to find another buyer for the closed plant. But what’s the proposition as it stands?  Come and enjoy a non-relationship with a militant union acting with its workers’ interests at the bottom of its priorities?

Ineos is a very tough, world-scale company and exists to make as much money as it can – what did people think was going to happen once the company’s offer was rejected following the stupidest of strikes for the most idiotic of reasons?

Workers at Ineos need proper union representation – right now, they’re getting the fumbling, dumbed-down, politicised opposite.

Some die-hard Tory? Someone from Ineos itself? A horrible libertarian?

Nope. This is Eric Joyce, Labour MP for Falkirk,

And let's remind ourselves of what the company offer was to the workers:

The plan would have seen bonus cuts, changes to working terms, a reduction in pension benefits and a no-strike pledge, sweetened by a £15,000 one-off payment. 

For those of us who've managed to cling to our jobs through the financial downturn this would look like a pretty good deal. Not to the Unite though.

Nobody can be surprised at the response of Ineos to the rejection of this survival plan. It's tragic that so many of the workers ignored common sense and voted the way the union said they should vote. The 50% who voted the other way have every reason to feel bitter and pissed off at their co-workers.

There is also another factor at play here, beyond the employer-employee conflict, which is that Ineos needed to invest heavily to cater for the import of cheap shale gas from the United States. A consequence of the reduced flow of gas from North Sea pipelines. This is yet another example of the revolution that fracking has brought to the US. An alternative option is to look to UK supplies of fracked gas - but of course this is a much higher risk proposition because of the opposition to fracking from environmentalists (in and out of government), from the Labour Party and the EU.

If Unite had any sense of vision it would have been pressurising the company and the government to invest in UK fracking as a way of securing jobs and investment locally.

Tuesday, October 22, 2013

Christiana Figueres Is An Irrelevant Old Hag

Oh for f*cks sake, do we really have to be treated to the sight of Christina Figueres shedding crocodile tears on stage? Of course this is faithfully reported by the BBC, where reporter Matt McGrath seems to be fitting comfortably into the shoes left by arch-warmist Richard Black (also known around here as the 'odious Richard Black'). The ostensible reason for Christiana Figueres (head on the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change) blubbing is that she is crying for 'the children' of the future, who are doomed by global warming.

Yeah, right. The only time I want to see Figueres and her like in tears is when she's sacked and the whole stinking edifice of UN climate structures is dismantled for good. Unfortunately this is as likely as Edward Davey finding a brain cell or the BBC admitting that the global warming game is up for good.

In the meantime, we have to put up with our licence fee being wasted on the daily vomit of warmist propaganda.

Monday, October 21, 2013

Insane Nuclear

I hope environmentalists are happy with the news of the government's deal with EDF and it's Chinese partners for the first new nuclear power station in the UK for a generation. Nuclear is the logical outcome of the climate alarmism that greenery has foisted on the world. A climate alarmism that the nuclear industry and it's supporters have largely supported along the way, knowing full well that 'renewables' could not deliver and that ultimately governments would have to turn to nuclear as the only acceptable option. It's the same logic that has seen a succession of high-profile environmentalists, like James Lovelock (who views carbon dioxide as more dangerous than the radioactive waste from power plants, nuclear accidents or bomb tests) and George Monbiot, opting for nuclear to keep the lights on.

For those of us interested in promoting new forms of energy, such as thorium power, this is a major setback as it sets huge trains of investment into a technology that is inherently expensive, has huge clean up costs and which has still not solved the problems of waste disposal. While nuclear may not be as dangerous as some of the more extreme anti-nuclear activists claim, it's still carries greater risks than existing non-nuclear generation.

It fails in economic terms too. What the government has done is signed us up for decades more of over-priced energy. Far from bringing our bills down, this guarantees that we'll be subsidising another energy gravy train to match wind and solar.

But we all know that energy policy is no longer about economics and the supply of cheap energy. It's about reducing CO2 emissions to avert 'climate change' that shows no signs on happening anyway. Nuclear, expensive and as dangerous as it is, fits the bill because it's proponents claim that it produces no CO2 emissions. It produces electricity, which is a bonus compared to wind and solar, but not at a cost that makes sense. Absent the concern about CO2 emissions and we'd be looking at coal and gas as the economically viable forms of energy generation.

And of course, what's missing from all of this is any discussion of what shale could do. The capital costs would be lower, the fuel costs lower and of course the potential problems should anything go wrong are significantly lower. In a sane world this would be a no-brainer. Unfortunately this is an insane world where people can think that carbon dioxide is more dangerous than radioactive slurry from nuclear power plants.

Thursday, October 17, 2013

Unemployment Down - Now Cut Taxes

The continuing improvement on employment figures is something that we can all agree is positive - even though there's widespread disagreement about why this should be happening. Whether it's more accident than design (which is normally the case when it comes to the economy), the falling number of claimants and rising number of people in paid work is positive for the economy. But that's scant reward for those of us who are in work and haven't had significant pay increases for years now, while at the same time inflation has continued to strip away at our standards of living. Our pathetic pay 'increases' are in reality pay decreases as inflation is running at a higher rate. This doesn't look to be changing any time soon.

While economists can argue that this is a necessary rebalancing of the economy, what we're seeing seems to be that we're keeping employment high by taking pay cuts. Maybe it is as simple as basic supply and demand - the demand for labour has increased as the price has gone down, and there's been a steady supply of unemployed to fill that increased demand for labour. Those of us in work normally pay for unemployment because our taxes and national insurance contributions go towards paying benefits to the unemployed. This time round we're paying for unemployment through lower wages. From the point of view of society as a whole that's probably the better way to do it - it's healthier for society if we're all that little bit poorer than if we've got a large pool of unemployed who want to work and can't.

Whatever the explanation, it's clear that the state is saving money by paying less on unemployment benefits, while taking in more from new workers who are starting to pay tax and national insurance. It's a double win for the government. So perhaps it's time to put the pressure on for the state to give something back in the form of tax cuts. Increasing our tax allowances so that we get to keep more of what we earn would give us back some of what we're losing to inflation. It also means that many of those who are newly employed and on low wages (a significant portion of the newly employed in fact) get to spend more of what they earn rather than handing it to the state.

The net effect is to give us all a bit more money. At the very least it can make all this talk of 'recovery' something that we can feel directly rather than viewing it as an abstract thing that others benefit from and that doesn't touch us in the least. Because the sad fact is, that despite all the postive talk about recovery, for most of us it doesn't feel like it's happening - in fact it's the reverse.

Wednesday, October 16, 2013

Plebgate - The Bigger Story

The evolving drama around the Plebgate incident is catching fire again after the intervention of the Independent Police Complaints Commission and the subsequent refusal of the police chiefs to play ball. For those readers not from the UK, this is a domestic drama in which a senior government politician was effectively forced out of office by serving members of various British police forces. Some of these officers were acting on behalf of the Police Federation, which is the police trades union and which was in disagreement with government policy. And, it seems, these officers saw no problem with adopting a strategy of 'retoxifying' the Tory brand by suggesting that Andrew Mitchell, who was Tory chief whip at the time, had called serving offices 'f*cking plebs'.

Aside from the specifics of the row - and let's be honest here, the three representatives from the Police Federation outright lied and were stupid enough to have their lies caught on tape (standards of fitting people up are obviously not what they were) - the story illustrates an important princple that many people are apt to forget. It is that 'servants of the state' - police, doctors, nurses, teachers, civil servants etc - are not disinterested parties who put into play whatever policy we vote for. Civil servants of all stripes, those in uniform and those not, are special interest groups who work, like all special interest groups, to further their own interests.

There are plenty of people who are willing to seek out the special interests at work when they come from the corporate sector but who are blind to the same thing when it comes from trades unions, NGOs, charities and so on. It's the same thing at play in all cases, whether they work in the private sector or the public, for profit or for a 'cause' - special interest groups will work to further their own agendas. While this particular case is big news - because of course we are all wondering what the police can get away with when dealing with ordinary citizens who don't have the influence and power of a top politician to help them - there are lots more cases that are more damaging to society at large than this one.

How much government policy is being steered by special interest groups from green NGOs, charities and campaigning organisations (many of whom are actually funded by government - local, central and European)?

Tuesday, October 15, 2013

Up Is Down, Black Is White

Today's Daily Mail covers a speech that Nick Clegg gave to a group of young people in London in which he makes the bizarre case that cutting the green tax gravy train that is raising our fuel bills will actually lead to even higher bills. This is so far from the truth that it should count as science fiction. The Mail quotes the clueless deputy prime minister as saying:
Actually what will happen is that you will have less investment, probably higher bills over time and an increase in fuel poverty. That cannot be the right answer. The whole point of putting some of these levies on bills is to make sure that we do keep lights on
Surely if the point of all of this is to keep the lights on we'd stop funding useless wind farms and pump that money into shale gas exploration, research into thorium power and other new energy sources. We'd also stop closing down our coal and gas-fired stations that provide cheaper and more reliable energy supply than wind and solar.

But of course what Clueless doesn't say is that the real reason we're paying all these levies and taxes is not to keep the lights on, it's to cut down on the carbon emissions which are supposed to be driving 'climate change'. This is the same 'climate change' which has seen global temperatures flat-lined for the last 17 years, during which time CO2 emissions have gone up around 10%. And, of course, Clueless cannot say that we have to do this because of the Climate Change Act of 2008, (thanks to Ed Militard for that one), and because of our commitments under EU legislation.

If there is any better illustration of the insularity and divorce from the real world of our political classes I don't what it is. They insist that black is white in the face of all the evidence, this is Lysenkoism on steroids and there is no sign of any reigning back from people like Nick Clegg, Ed Davey, Ed Miliband, David Cameron and the rest of the rotten bunch.

Monday, October 14, 2013

Krugman Taken Down

Been too busy to blog for the last couple of days - but still had time to read a few interesting articles here and there. One that stands out is Niall Ferguson's take down on Paul Krugman - one of the Labour Party's favourite economists...

It's a long piece but well worth a read - particularly as Krugman's behaviour is so typical of the Liberal/Left establishment. No wonder the BBC love him so much.

Friday, October 11, 2013

Ed Militard - Time To Change The Narrative

There's no doubting the fact that the announced energy price rise from SSE, and soon to be followed by other providers, is a gift to Ed Militard and the Laborious Party. It means that he can get all worked up about unscruplulous capitalists exploiting the poor consumer and therefore pose as our friend and saviour. It conveniently ignores the part he played in bringing the high costs of energy through (hidden) green taxation - and the fact that he continues to support the same policies as part of a 'fight against climate change'. And lest we be accused of being one-sided here, Militard is doing no different to what that lying piece of shit Chris Huhne did. And brain-dead Ed Davey does the same thing - they all bleat about energy poverty but ignore the part they play in making this happen.

This is nothing new. We saw the same thing with the banking crisis. The popular narrative soon became that it was all the fault of the nasty bankers, conveniently ignoring the part that the politicians played. It meant that Gordon Brown and Barack Obama could both attempt to grab the moral high-ground and yet ignore the part that they had directly played in the fomenting the crisis. How many people really know that Obama pushed hard for policies for 'affordable housing' that ended up giving us the sub-prime crisis?

This isn't to say that the greedy energy companies meme is all wrong - but the problem is way more complex than pinning the blame on greedy executives and their shareholders. The fact is that governments have been dicking with the energy industry in all kinds of ways - green taxes, subsidies in 'renewables', changing the energy supply mix, closing down cheap coal-powered stations, dragging their feet on shale and much more.

So, it's important then that at every conceivable opportunity we remind people of the part that Militard, Davey and the rest have played  - continue to play - in creating the precarious energy supply situation and the high costs that we have to pay. We must not let the politicians do what they do best - create or exacerbate a problem, pin the blame elsewhere and then pose as our saviours.

Quotes like these, from Ed Militard, should be repeated again and again until the message gets through:

November 2009:  It needs a willingness to take the argument to people about the tough choices involved in tackling climate change. This is the starting point: a willingness to engage with people on, for example, the fact that to deal with the problem of climate change, energy bills are likely to rise.

January 2010: Yes, there are upward pressures on energy bills, and that makes life difficult for people, including those in fuel poverty, but it is right that we go down the low-carbon energy route.

Thursday, October 10, 2013

Apocalypse Soon(ish)

Just when you thought things couldn't sink any lower in the weird world of climate 'science', someone comes along to prove you wrong. According to a widely publicised paper from the University of Hawaii we are facing global climate catastrophe within a few decades. The study, headlined as 'Apocalypse Now: Unstoppable man-made climate change will become reality by the end of the decade and could make New York, London and Paris uninhabitable within 45 years' in the Daily Mail, will be published in one of the world's leading science journals, Nature.

According to lead author, Camilo Mora: "The results shocked us. Regardless of the scenario, changes will be coming soon. Within my generation, whatever climate we were used to will be a thing of the past."

Scary stuff of course. And there are lots of frightening graphics and scenarios that make The Day After Tomorrow look like a walk in the park. Not only is it worse than we thought, the paper suggests that we've gone past the tipping point and that there's nothing we can do to avert this looming disaster.

So, well, if there's nothing we can then can't we just scrap the IPCC and enjoy what little time we've got left as a species? Er, nope. According to the Mora:
Scientists have repeatedly warned about climate change and its likely effects on biodiversity and people. Our study shows that such changes are already upon us. These results should not be reason to give up. Rather, they should encourage us to reduce emissions and slow the rate of climate change. This can buy time for species, ecosystems, and ourselves to adapt to the coming changes.
Get that. We should have listened more, now we need to take note and let these guys buy us time. Of course the evidence for all of these is remarkably solid. How can anyone doubt it when it's based on model outputs. Lots of models in fact:
The data came from 39 Earth System Models developed independently by 21 climate centers in 12 different countries.
So, that all clear then. This is just another one of those classic alarmist scares. Model outputs, dire prognosticacians, it's worse than we thought - and of course it grabs headlines world wide and fuels the alarmists who have been feeling like they've been losing the battle recently.

Wednesday, October 09, 2013

Greg Barker - Warmist Tory Scum

To those who think that the labels Left and Right still carry an ounce of meaning, close your eyes and tell me whether this is a Leftist or a Rightist making this statement:

I think there is too much focus on trying to stimulate an increasingly sterile debate on the science, given the overwhelming body of opinion that there is now in favour of the science, and perhaps if they are wanting to have an active debate they should be talking about the policy responses to that science, rather than the science itself. I'm not trying to ban all dissenting voices but we are doing the public a disservice by treating them as equal, which is not the case.

This in the context of the BBC giving too much prominence to the 'sceptic voice' when it comes to climate change. The BBC??? Sorry, I must have blinked and missed it.

So, who is it that is completely unaware of what's going on in the world outside his window? Who is it that wants to shut down what little debate there is, and who believes still that the science is settled? A Labour politician? A Lib Dem?

Nope, this is none other than Greg Barker, a Tory Minister at the Department of Energy and Climate Change. A man close to Cameron, whom he famously accompanied on that husky hugging trip to the Arctic in 2006 (where's a polar bear when you need one, eh?).

When it comes down to it there is no difference - political parties are a flag of convenience for people like Barker. He would be at home in any of the three main parties, subscribing as they all do to the same core beliefs in environmentalism and statism.

OECD - Climate Bailout

Writing in the ever wonderful Watts Up With That, Dr Richard Lindzen of MIT, points out that:

Each IPCC report seems to be required to conclude that the case for an international agreement to curb carbon dioxide has grown stronger. That is to say the IPCC report (and especially the press release accompanying the summary) is a political document, and as George Orwell noted, political language “is designed to make lies sound truthful and murder respectable, and to give an appearance of solidity to pure wind.”

And right on cue we have arch-alarmist Roger Harrabin of the BBC reporting that the head of the OECD, Angel Gurria, is going to make a speech attacking governments for not making progress on tackling CO2 emissions. In other words applying more pressure to move towards binding emissions targets.

Given the absense of warming now for 17 years, how can Gurria (or anyone else come to that), inject a sense of urgency into the situation? The only way is by appeals to authority - it's certainly not through pointing to any concrete evidence. The climate is not changing catastrophically, islands are not sinking beneath the waves, ice caps are not disappearing, the world is not awash with climate refugees or any of the other nightmare scenarios that the alarmists have constantly predicted. Instead there are the IPCC reports, or at least the summaries for policy makers. And here we do get that sense of urgency - the "consensus" numbers get higher and higher, the rhetoric shows no signs of a pause and continues it's upwards trajectory.

So, while the real world refuses to abide by the models, the trans-national bodies like the EU, the UN, the IPCC and the OECD will contiue to work in concert to drive through the policies that they have previously agreed. The political establishments that have made "fighting climate change" one of the core beliefs that binds it together, across national boundaries and across "ideologies", show no sign of disengaging with the juggernaut they've set in train. And we, poor citizens, just have to tow the line and pay for their madness.

Tuesday, October 08, 2013

The Militard Tendency

The big focus in our media yesterday was largely around the movement of non-enitities in and out of cabinet and shadow cabinet positions. While the details are deathly dull it's worth noting that Ed Militard carried out a bit of a mini-purge of the remaining Blairites in the shadow cabinet. As you'd expect he's shoring up his support and doing more to draw support from his union sponsors. Of course this is being interpreted as a 'further move to the Left', as though those labels mean anything any more. Despite some valiant attempts to put space between the parties, when it comes down to the fundamentals of the EU and climate change/environmentalism there's still nothing in it.

However, one thing that may start to happen is that some of the moribund 'Left' who've drifted aray from New Labour may start to be drawn back into the fold. A basic cleavage of the Left in years gone by was between those who brandished the slogan 'Vote Labour With No Illusions' and those who refused to back Labour no matter what. The various Trotskyite and Stalinist proponents of 'No Illusions' preferred a Labour government because they felt it energised the unions and that it opened the way for 'Left' influence at grass roots levels. The hope was that a more energised union movement would inevitably make impossible demands of a Labour government and that when the conflict came it would create the space for the far-Left to organise and grow.

Tony Blair put an end to all of that. The 'No Illusions' line was harder to sell when there was so little difference between New Labour and the Tories. In some ways this has given us the Respect coalition (formed to oppose Labour's wars in Iraq and Afghanistan) on the one hand and the various organisations and alliances around Bob Crow and the RMT. While numerically small in number there's a hard core of militants who are actively anti-Labour and on the Left. It may be that the more that 'Red Ed' postures and makes moves apparently in their direction, the more likely it is we'll see the return of the 'No Illusions' line.

In such a case it may mean that a part of the old Left that has moved away from Labour and put its energies elsewhere may switch tack and give Ed the conditional support and activists on the ground that he will need. This is something that Ed needs. Not because these are people who are likely to vote for the Tories, but because these are people who can get to working class voters who are attracted to UKIP.

Let's not forget that it's not just the Tories who are fearful of losing support to the anti-EU voter, it's Labour too.

Monday, October 07, 2013

Bob Geldof Is An Irrelevant Old Hag

Bob Geldof is right. We should all take note of his announcement that we're facing a 'mass extinction event' connected to climate change. One has to assume that he's talking about the coming extinction of the IPCC and the climate alarmism that it has so assiduously propagandised. Of course it faces an 'existential threat' as Geldof has claimed - after all the IPCC was founded on the premise that CO2 is the driver for catastrophic global warming (how quaint that sounds now) - so without the catastrophy the reason for the existence of the IPCC gravy train has to be called into question.

Now is the time for all concerned citizens to make their feelings known. Let's join together, in that Bob Geldof Live Aid all in together kind of way and drive the IPCC into dust. Bring on the mass extinction event and destroy the great warming con.

What??? You mean that St Bob really did mean that he thought the world was suffering from some kind of climate emergency? That at the very nadir of the warming con he's still trying to sound the alarm? Why, that's like suggesting that St Bob is a has-been rockstar who's had nothing sensible to say for years now...It's like suggesting he's the Viviene Westwood of popular music...

Militard - The Statist

While the Daily Mail may have shot itself in the foot with the story about Ralph Militard - I mean anything that provokes sympathy for Ed Militard is an own-goal - perhaps there will be some good that comes out of it after all. Now emboldened by the positive response to his calls for regulating our energy bills - bills which are highly directly because of policies he put into place - and by the sympathy the Mail has garnered for him, Militard is showing his true statist colours.

According to a piece in the Guardian, Militard is quoted as saying:
Yes, we will be doing more to show the difference a Labour government would make … we will tackle the cost of living crisis and one of the ways we'll do it is by making markets work in the public interest
Because, of course, only under the guidance of the enlightened few can markets be made to work. Because, as history has shown us repeatedly, politicians have worked their magic and have been successful every time they have done this. Apparently our nice Ed Militard is as ignorant of history as he is of economics or even the world of work in the real economy. And yes, like many of our leaders he may have studied economics at some point in his life, but it clearly has made no real impression on him, except perhaps in some simplified Keynesian way.

Still, Militard the statist and his penchant for price controls and other interventions is clearly on show now. The danger is of course that his simplistic calls for state intervention strike a nerve with the electorate. And of course the BBC will continue to do his bidding as his interest coincides with theirs.

We have been warned...

Tuesday, October 01, 2013

Kingston Lib Dem Leader's Child Porn Habit

A while back, in connection with the reptilian Chris Huhne, I remarked that that the Lib Dem's had once been considered the 'nice' party, but that:

But thankfully Chris Huhne through his behaviour has shown that the Lib Dems can be as bad as the rest of them - part and parcel of the British political class, no different in kind to the ambitious and ruthless bastards that make their home in the other major parties.
Derek Osbourne, until recently the Lib Dem leader of Kingston Upon Thames, has just been convicted of possessing and distributing more than 5000 indecent images - including some at the the worst end of the scale - of children. The prosecution showed that the material Osbourne shared :
Some of the material depicts children as young as three being subjected to acts of rape or serious sexual violence...The case is significantly aggravated by virtue of the fact material was shared with or distributed to other paedophiles.
Sentencing has happened yet, but it looks likely to include prison.

So much for the nice party. And ironic that sitting Kingston Lib Dem MP should be Ed Davey, the brain dead minister who took over from that other Lib Dem jail-bird, Chris Huhne.

One can't help but wonder what would have happened had Derek Osbourne been a councillor for a minor party. What would the BBC and the Guardian have made of it had he been a member of UKIP?

The IPCC Has Delivered

The IPCC has delivered something of a crowd pleaser in its latest assessment. There really is something for everybody in this latest report. For the true believers we get the "95% confidence" that humans are the dominant driver of climate change. Forget the models diverging ever more from reality, forget the 15-17 years flat-lined temperature increase despite record CO2 levels, forget the lowered estimates of climate sensitivity to CO2. Just focus on that 95% figure and everything else pales into insignificance. There's little doubt that it's a crowd-pleaser and the true believers will take that number and batter the sceptics with it repeatedly.

For the political classes who pay for the IPCC gravy-train, this is just what they wanted. Here's the justification for the continued green policies and the subsidies for grandiose and futile schemes to reduce CO2 emissions and stop us boiling the oceans. For those in power in the Westsern countries, they've bought themselves permission to carry on as before with failed policies that we citizens are paying dearly for. Obama, Cameron and the rest will quote the IPCC ad infinitum and continue with the refrain that the evidence is incontrovertible and that it's worse than we thought.

And, let's be honest, the IPCC has done a great service to the sceptic cause too. There was a chance that it could have taken a more honourable course and admitted that it's models were wrong, that there was less cause for alarm, that we know less than we pretend to. It could have admitted that the 'science' is far less settled than it has previously claimed. But it hasn't. The IPCC is like a super-tanker set on a course and is unable to nimbly change direction in the face of the obstinate reality in its path. So it continues with statistically incoherent pronouncements and politically acceptable sound bites. For us sceptics this is confirmation that the IPCC is irredemable, and the voices that are being raised against it are growing more vociferous and increasing in number. Witness Judith Curry saying:
We need to put down the IPCC as soon as possible – not to protect the patient who seems to be thriving in its own little cocoon, but for the sake of the rest of us whom it is trying to infect with its disease.
For the moment though, the IPCC have bolstered the confidence of the diminishing band of true believers who are immune to evidence. For them, the 95% number, along with the fake 97% 'consensus' number from Cook and his band of crooks, is all they need to fight off the mounting evidence (much of it in peer-reviewed journals) that climate alarmism is not warranted. In fact it wouldn't suprise me if another 90+ number appeared soon. Having three 9s to quote will feel so much better than just two - as if that's enough to close off reality.