Reynard

There was some sleety rubbish about lunchtime. I got caught in it when I was coming back home. I dont know what its like outside now as its dark.

Green tea.

I'm quite happy to recycle whatever I'm asked to recycle. No worries. I have woodburners in the house and in my workshop and they cost me f**k all to run. My gas bill so far this year has been for cooking and hot water, so its not been that much. Last year we were paying £220 a month for gas alone. Another £140 a month for electricity. Hefty. So for reasons of sheer survival its best to cut down energy use as much as possible especially as the government seems to be hell bent on punishing us for using any form of energy based on their "consensus" opinion based on shite science.

Here's an open letter from Nigel Lawson and his BFF to Chris Huhne. It challenges Huhne to prove his assertions that global warming has anything whatsoever to do with us and also to drop the moronic green targets which are so damaging to our industrial competitiveness as well as adding unnecessary money to everyones fuel bills. This is a government policy based around the lies and bullshit of the climate change lobby consensus and its liar scientists. Dear Secretary of State, We are pleased that you have decided that a public response to growing criticism of your climate policies is now required. We regret, however, that you do not address our main arguments and key concerns. Neither are we impressed by evidently ill-advised assertions. For a start, you make the mistake of connecting the reality of 20th century global warming, which no one doubts, with the various causes for it. You claim that the evidence for man's influence is getting stronger every year, yet you fail to provide any empirical evidence for this statement. In reality, over the past few years there has been a growing realisation among scientists that other influences (such as solar, stratospheric water vapour, oceanic cycles, to name but the most dominant) are likely to be more significant than previously thought. These factors have seriously impinged on estimates of the magnitude of mankind's influence. Your faith in the conclusion of Australia's Garnaut Review — that there has been no change in the rate of global warming in recent years — is wholly at odds with the latest scientific work and even the Government's own Met Office: Most research papers published in the last 12 months confirm that there has been no warming trend in the last 10 years. It is true that the fundamental greenhouse effect yields only a 1.2°C increase for a doubling of CO2 (so-called climate sensitivity) and that larger increases depend upon various feedback mechanisms. There is no convincing evidence, however, to support your assertion that the increase of the level of water vapour in the atmosphere (as a result of doubling of CO2) would (other things being equal) raise global average temperature by around 3°C. In reality, the magnitude of water vapour feedbacks, positive as well as negative (such as increased cloud cover and precipitation) remains a poorly understood subject. Do you seriously believe that only 'one or two people' (sic) have published research that shows moderate rather than catastrophic warming in the next 100 years? You do not seem to appreciate the incomplete state of scientific knowledge regarding these extremely complex feedbacks. In reality, most scientists will tell you that we do not know all of them; and that most of those we do know, we understand only rudimentary. What is more, estimates for climate sensitivity in the peer reviewed literature have been going down. You and your advisers will no doubt take a look at the latest research findings on this very subject by Schmittner et al. published this week in the journal Science. This is yet another study that corroborates a low estimate of climate sensitivity and concludes that "these results imply a lower probability of imminent extreme climate change than previously thought." Your faith in the integrity of the IPCC process is no less ill-advised. There have been three reports on the IPCC — by the InterAcademy Council in 2010; the recent book by Donna Laframboise; and the report by Professor Ross McKitrick published recently by the GWPF (a copy of which is attached ). You and your advisers need to study all three as they all identify a common set shortcomings in the IPCC's scientific approach and its working methods. The IPCC seeks to present itself as embodying the independent, impartial advice of the world's best scientists in the field. All three reports reveal serious flaws in this claim — its lack of transparency in how the so-called experts are chosen, its resistance to views challenging its orthodoxy, its lack of proper governance to deal with conflicts of interest, its excessive use of non-peer reviewed (grey literature), and its infiltration by activists from environmental pressure groups. We are surprised that you have been so slow to recognise that the IPCC, which has influenced a great deal of UK policy, no longer carries the credibility necessary to persuade society of the massive changes it is advocating. It should be drastically reformed or wound up and replaced. We note that you appear to be denying the charge on unilateralism in UK policy. This is curious as you and your predecessors were keen to boast that the Climate Change Act made Britain a world leader in decarbonisation. And you personally have been urging the EU to adopt even more ambitious targets, fortunately unsuccessfully. Admittedly, you limit your claim that Britain has not adopted unilateral policies to "until 2020," but even this ceiling is at odds with the introduction of the carbon floor price which you wish to introduce in the next couple of years. This scheme most certainly is a unilateral folly which is already having a devastating effect on manufacturing and energy-intensive industries — which, of course, are also concerned about what is planned for after 2020. In reality, the UK stands alone as the only country in the world to impose long-term legally binding CO2 emissions targets. No other country in the world is willing to inflict such unilateral burden on its business sector and economy. Even within the EU Commission major concerns about its unilateral targets have begun to surface. The EU is now seriously considering to discontinue its unilateral decarbonisation in the absence of a global agreement. Whether you like it or not, the Chancellor of the Exchequer, George Osborne, has pledged that the government will no longer be bound by unilateral decarbonisation targets that cut CO2 emissions in Britain faster and deeper than other countries in Europe. We trust that his promise to abandon the path of green unilateralism will be followed, sooner rather than later, by a less extreme and more pragmatic policy. Lord Lawson Lord Turnbull

Scargill was a Marxist. He thought he would be able to bring down a government and destabilise the country as a result. The union members were pawns in his game, as you rightly point out, he didn't give a f**k about them and he still doesn't. That was the way the unions were operating back then, led by bitter little Marxist pr1cks with too much power. Thankfully thats gone now. Unions are a little bit more democratic now. Their leaders are still thick lefties and they still get over involved in politics rather than trying to help the members but that will change in due course. What helped Thatcher was the utter predictability of Scargill. She knew fine he was spoiling for a fight, she stockpiled coal, fucking masses of it. And Scargill brought the men out in the summer. He then kept them out for far too long and wrecked the industry completely. There were a lot of men that wanted to go back to work but were afraid to do it thanks to the attitude of the likes of thick f**k socialists like Motownclic. So the pits all flooded. The equipment couldn't be salvaged and Scargill went back to his mansion to live off the proceeds of his union while his men lost their jobs. Thatcher won their little spat, the unions lost the power they once had and that was pretty much that as far as flying pickets, walk outs and idiots like Scargill were concerned. The strike next week was at least balloted properly and while its a tiny minority of members that bothered to vote to walk out, they have the right to do it. It was all done properly and thats their affair. As for coal, there is loads of it under the ground in my part of the world. Absolutely masses of the cleanest burning stuff in the world. It is the highest grade of coal around but it will stay under the ground. Health and safety would be all over deep mining like a rash nowadays and it would become too expensive to bring it out. So we will build shit, innefficiant windmills (I mean we will install the ones we buy from abroad ). We are being conned by a bunch of fucking liars about climate change. Anyway. Climate change science is a load of bollocks peddled by utter c***s.

It would have been Thatchers fault if they started the song in the wrong key.

This is just part of the README.TXT file from the Climategate 2 email tranche. A searchable database is foia2011.org <3111> Watson/UEA: I’d agree probably 10 years away to go from weather forecasting to ~ annual scale. But the “big climate picture” includes ocean feedbacks on all time scales, carbon and other elemental cycles, etc. and it has to be several decades before that is sorted out I would think. So I would guess that it will not be models or theory, but observation that will provide the answer to the question of how the climate will change in many decades time. <5131> Shukla/IGES: ["Future of the IPCC", 2008] It is inconceivable that policymakers will be willing to make million-and trillion-dollar decisions for adaptation to the projected regional climate change based on models that do not even describe and simulate the processes that are the building blocks of climate variability. 0850> Barnett: [iPCC AR5 models] clearly, some tuning or very good luck involved. I doubt the modelling world will be able to get away with this much longer <4443> Jones: Basic problem is that all models are wrong – not got enough middle and low level clouds. <2440> Jones: I’ve been told that IPCC is above national FOI Acts. One way to cover yourself and all those working in AR5 would be to delete all emails at the end of the process My reaction the Climategate2 has varied from fascinated interest to a kind of weary acceptance that we are stuck with the tenth-rate scientists who do these things and the only option we have is to keep telling it as it is. Yet the question arises – why was climate science so easy to subvert? Because that’s what has happened – climate science has been subverted by senior UN bureaucrats. In a sense I know these people because I was a professional environmental scientist. I’ve seen people like this at first hand, well-meaning, well-qualified middle-class scientists without an ounce of talent. I’ve sat with them in meetings, tried to persuade them to introduce efficiencies, to do what is worthwhile rather than what we’ve been doing for decades. After years of wasted effort, I know to the marrow of my bones that it’s a complete waste of time. You cannot get such people to venture a single millimetre beyond their comfort zone if they don’t have to. And climate scientists don’t have to, not with institutions like the BBC protecting them. And why wouldn’t the BBC protect climate scientists? Same species – same motives. Intelligence doesn’t come into it. What matters is the consensus to which they cling like limpets. Consensus means their private club consensus – it always did. They aren’t evil people, but their status and comfortable situation has made them profoundly stupid, almost childlike, unable to distinguish right from wrong, rational from irrational, science from politics. The Climategate 2 emails show that some climate scientists are well aware that what they are doing is wrong, that climate models don’t work and the public is being lied to over and over again about the degree of certainty behind the official UN narrative. Yet they clearly lack the courage to say so beyond the odd furtive comment. They should be resigning in droves, but won’t. They are easily manipulated by modest status, by an office, a title, by the ease with which poor quality research is published and cited. They are entirely satisfied, not with good science, but with well-attended lectures, idealistic students, interviews, foreign travel, lunching on expenses and meetings with ministers and senior bureaucrats. They are easily manipulated by their peers into an incestuous circle of back-slapping approval. They aren’t evil people – just stupid and childlike in their vicious reactions to those who dare point out their self-serving lies I just thought this was a relatively interesting take against the "consensus" view. This chap is also a climate scientist, but he is obviously not on the "consensus" side of things.

She encouraged miners that wanted to go abck to work to do so and try and get on with at least basic maintainence of the pits. I think most of us that lived through the time will remember what happened to the poor sods that went back to work. We still have the remnants of it with imbeciles like Motownclic calling people scabs that want to get on with their work. On the plus side. My mates dad ran a bus company and they became millionaires off the back of running about two miners (initially) to the Killoch and Barony pits.

You've been brainwashed into feeling good about paying more tax in the name of being green. And you've probably had it shoved down your throat in school as well. I know my son and daughter get similar drivel peddled as fact too.

The three I know blame Scargill 100%

I'm quite sure most left wing clowns would love to think that. But unfortunately for them the vast majority of miners realise that Scargill kept the miners out for so long that the pits flooded, the equipment got ruined and the pits were beyond saving. He came out in order to try and save the industry.... He actually came out to try and overthrow a government he disagreed with. He was a fucking Marxist imbecile in charge of a relatively powerful union and he got his tactics all horribly wrong. I worked with an ex miner in a mining area. While they are no fans of Thatcher, they certainly realise that Scargill played his part in their downfall. Many of them could see he had lost and that the pits they worked with were fucked long before King Arthur did. Still, at least Scargill is living in his mansion in total comfort sipping champagne and trying to get his sweepie over to stay in place.

The vast majority of miners I know blame Scargill for keeping the strike going for so long and not maintaining the pits that there was no work for the striking men to go back to when he eventually did admit he had made an arse of his men. Unlucky.

This is still bothering me this morning. I'm writing to Edna Baxter to complain. edit. If that's her name. She was the old dear they used to wheel out in their adverts so she might be dead or bewildered in a nursing home somewhere.

Don't forget that even though the UK has plenty of shale gas to extract, the green lobby have ensured that it will just have to stay in the ground and we build more windmills, Chris Huhne is toeing the shitty green line that daft wee pr1cks have been brainwashed into at school. Well done the green spacker army. We have plenty of natural resources in the UK, coal that will last at least another 400 years even using at at the rate we once did and it can all just lie there unused and unmined as we fanny around with innefficient windmill shite.

Was supposed to be hillwalking tomorrow. But the fannies I was meant to be walking with are getting all precious about storm force winds and a bit of sleet. Poofs

Yes. But as we have a "consensus" there's no need to listen to THEM. Our politicians have decided that green issues are the way to go and that's pretty much all about it. It just means that we all pay a bit extra(in tax of course) for gas and electricity and for running a car. But we are saving the planet I guess.

Well possibly lunacy. Possibly not. It will depend how much our actions have changed the climate percentage wise. How much climate change have we been directly responsible for? And how much would a reduction in human pollution change it for the better? I'm not for a minute saying that what we do has no effect, I just wonder how much effect it actually has. For instance Krakatoa caused climate change pretty much overnight and fairly dramatically and it was totally natural .

What is in dispute is how much, if any of it, is down to human beings.

A cull of illiterate morons like you would be a good place to start.

Ugly jaffa

Mussells Followed by cod done with baby tomatoes, mozarella and grated parmesan and some basil and boiled baby potatoes. Simple and fucking excellent.

Googling diy sound proof booths might be the way to go. If I've heard Twinkle twinkle little star once played badly on a violin I've heard it a hundred times. Not good.

My son is learning the violin. f**k

She was cutting around the house in a bikini top during the summer when we had a BBQ with the neighbours. She's about six foot two and has a pretty big rack. But naw, although shes a lot better looking that her mangled pished face in the photo shows, I'd probably rather pump her maw.

she stays two doors along from me.