Save the Humans

Simon Glass Glass left a message for you

template_1







Hi Blog,


Simon Glass sent you a private message







Simon Glass


Simon Glass has left you a private message for you. Click on the button below to view it:


View Private Message
 
 













Regards,
The Zorpia Team






Other Zorpians waiting to meet you...










Shelly, 31

Beverly Hills, California, United States




Karina, 27

Santa Cruz, California, United States




Heather, 33

Redding, California, United States




Lisa,, 20

San Jose, California, United States














This message is sent on behalf of Simon Glass.
Block future emails like this · Privacy policy
Zorpia Co. Ltd. P.O. Box #28960, Gloucester Road Post Office, Hong Kong

Phil Jones' Partial Redemption

What to make of this? Phil Jones, the man who a week ago was thinking about ending it all over the climategate scandal, has turned a corner, seen the light and now can understand where the sceptics are coming from.

He said he stood by the view that recent climate warming was most likely predominantly man-made.

But he agreed that two periods in recent times had experienced similar
warming. And he agreed that the debate had not been settled over
whether the Medieval Warm Period was warmer than the current period.

What a darling - makes you want to give him a hug, doesn't it? What a nice cuddling, understanding global warming scientist.

He strongly defended references in his emails to using a "trick" to "hide the decline" in temperatures.

These phrases had been deliberately taken out of context and "spun" by
sceptics keen to derail the Copenhagen climate conference, he said.

Well maybe, but if anything the context (as far as we understand it) makes these emails worse than they first appear. You can read about the context at Cilmate Audit:

Returning to the original issue: climate scientists say that the
“trick” is now being taken out of context. The Climategate Letters show
clearly that the relevant context is the IPCC Lead Authors’ meeting in
Tanzania in September 1999 at which the decline in the Briffa
reconstruction was perceived by IPCC as “diluting the message”, as a
“problem”, as a “potential distraction/detraction”. A stone in their shoe.

And what of the flat-earther / climate-change-denier claim that things are actually getting colder?

He said many people had been made sceptical about climate
change by the snow in the northern hemisphere - but they didn't realise
that the satellite record from the University of Alabama in Huntsville
showed it had been the warmest January since records began in 1979.

If only we had been told this a few months ago I'm sure everyone would have been convinced that global warming is true and the data don't matter. Huntville can be no more than 7000km from the north pole -for it to be warm is truly remarkable. I stand corrected and will take down this blog immediately.

Sadly the BBC did not ask Mr Jones about the claim that the sun might have more to do with the climate than CO2. Perhaps we can hope for that question next week? Still, given Mr Jones' fragile state, it might be better to leave the poor guy alone until he has recovered. There will be plenty of time to look back on the global warming scam and figure out what went wrong.

Green Police

This Audi ad was shown during the Super Bowl in the US - quite well done and very very funny.

What I like most is that everyone arrested tries to run away. Maybe now it is safe to start laughing at environmentalists.

BBC Rethinking Global Warming?

Two stories suggest that the UK's chief global warming promoter, the BBC, may be rethinking its positions:

• What would the UK do if it snowed this much every year? - a story about what might happen if the UK gets this much snow every year, presumably due to global warming not actually happening
• The BBC is spending money to investigate whether it is biased about global warming. This is quite comical, since the answer is obvious. 

As the Daily Mail says:

Even the BBC Trust is waking up to the idea there are two
sides to every story and has belatedly ordered an inquiry into whether
or not the Corporation's 'global warming' coverage is biased.

Let me save them the time, trouble and expense: yes, it is.

And just for the record here is the view out my back door 5 minutes ago.

Children Recycling Rubbish, Educational Indoctrination

I thought this was funny. This bunch of children spent hours sorting cardboard and paper and other rubbish into different bins. Then the bin man just tossed it all in together in the truck. Then the bin man claimed that the work the children had done was not a waste of time. Hmmm.

The Headteacher's comments [Yvonne Harris] were more terrifying than funny:

"I'm seething. What is the point in teaching the children about recycling when everything is thrown into the landfill right before then?"
"Recycling is a massive part of our curriculum and it forms a large part of the Government's agenda"
"We're told not to use plastic bags from supermarkets and to cut down on using cars, but then this happens. It's a joke"

Here are my questions:

• Why would a highly-educated teacher believe in the supermarket bag scam?
• How could said Headteacher allow recycling to be a massive part of the educational curriculum in her school?
• Why would she think that a government could have a 'recycling' agenda?

Shame on the Headteacher, the educational authority and the British Government for filling the minds of innocent children with this environmental garbage when they should be learning to read, write and count.

Shame on Kent County Council for not having the honesty to just admit that recycling is, quite often, a waste a time, and nearly always a waste of money. Maybe one day robots will pull apart our waste at very little cost and recycle it for us. Not yet.

Celebrities as Environmental Campaigners

What is it about being famous (and sometimes rich) which turns people into environmental campaigners? I am thinking mostly of Prince Charles who is always going on about organic vegetables, forests and ugly buildings.

But he is not the only one. In fact when Prince Charles wanted to do a movie about the rainforests he called upon a long list of other celebrities to join in.You can see the movie here.

Helping him out are:

• James Bond
• Indiana Jones
• More Princes (William, Harry)
• Kermit the Frog
• The Dalai Lama
• Mrs Doubtfire
• And others too obscure to mention

Indiana Jones has even done a little flier for those lucky keen to support the environment by buying dead trees from Amazon (they sent it in the box your got for a few weeks earlier this year). My only comment is that the costume is a bit weak.

The back page of the brochure quotes Prince Charles saying that 'climate change' is the greatest threat facing mankind. Given that this scam has just completely unravelled, will he be thinking up a different reason to preserve the jungle?

(Perhaps he could just save up and buy it? What would it cost all these people to just get out their cheque books and purchase half of Brazil?)

To a large extent I think it is possible to campaign for jungles and still emit large amounts of CO2. After all, the jungle needs CO2 to survive and the higher the level in the atmosphere the happier the jungle is.

But when these celebs also go on about global warming, they become rank hypocrites, so ludicrously dishonest that most people are too gob-smacked by the audacity of it to even mention it.

Take Indiana, for example:

Harrison Ford, who is vice-chairman on the board of Conservation
International, voices public-service messages for an environmental
federation called EarthShare, and once shaved his chest hair to
illustrate the effects of deforestation, is another hobby pilot. He
once owned a Gulfstream but now makes do with a smaller Cessna Citation
Sovereign eight-seater jet, four propeller planes and a helicopter.

The Prince, who said earlier this year, in a moment of comic genius, that we have only 96 months to save the world, went to Copenhagen in style:

He may be the green prince, but Britain's heir to the throne has
been slammed for being a hypocrite after flying to the Copenhagen
climate change summit to deliver a keynote speech on an executive jet
with a large carbon footprint, UK media reports say.

Prince Charles attended the conference in Denmark on the $21,800 RAF Royal
Flight that emitted about 6.4 tons of carbon dioxide, the Daily Mail reported. It was 5.2 tons more than that of a commerical flight, Carbon Footprint Limited told the Mail.

The Prince and Prime Minister Gordon Brown were also criticised for taking separate flights to Copenhagen.

One could ask whether in fact the whole Copenhagen thing was a colossal waste of good CO2, but the Prince wasn't to know that.

He was previously accused of hypocrisy after a 25,000km ride around South America in his private jet.

The prince will travel to the region next month in a visit
costing an estimated £300,000 as part of his crusade against global
warming.

He will use a luxury airliner to transport himself,
the Duchess of Cornwall and a 14-strong entourage to Chile, Brazil and
Ecuador on a 16,400-mile round trip.

Of course, in the CO2 stakes it is hard to top John Travolta, who flies himself to London for breakfast in his 150-seat Boeing 707. Still, Mr Travolta is hardly a strident campaigner so his hypocrisy is limited. Barbra '120 towels' Streisand is much worse. Al Gore is in a league of his own, but that has been well publicised.

Do these celebrities really help their causes? Are people really stupid enough to take any notice of what a famous person thinks they should think? For me the answer is no. Except perhaps for Kermit the Frog. I've always respected him, and he dates from a happy time in children's television where environmental indoctrination was avoided.

Celebrities can learn a lot from the little green frog.

Climategate: World has Lucky Escape, Thanks to Despots

Well we have had a good result from Copenhagen. No deal has been agreed and there is still hope that major governments will pull back from this CO2 obsession that they have developed over the past few years.

How do I know it is a good result? Simply by look at the reactions. Here are some that I found amusing.

James Dilingpole at the London Telegraph is ecstatic at the sweet sound of exploding watermelons (people who are green on the outside and red on the inside):

I take it all back. Copenhagen was worth it, after all – if only for
the sphincter-bursting rage its supposed failure has caused among our
libtard watermelon chums.

CBC News has an article that made me laugh out loud:

As it turns out, the UN summit on climate change ended not with a
bang, nor with a whimper. And certainly not with a binding
international agreement on reducing greenhouse gas emissions.

The two-week long, lumbering behemoth of a conference here staggered
to a close on the weekend with delegates agreeing to "take notice" of
what, on the surface, appears to be a weak, vague document now being
called the Copenhagen Accord.

What is "take notice," you ask? Here's the pained explanation of UN climate chief Yvo de Boer.

Take notice, he said "is a way of recognizing that something is
there but not going so far as to directly associate yourself with it."

How's that for a ringing endorsement?

It's hard to overstate the disappointment and discouragement that most environmentalists felt at the conclusion of this summit.

These NGOs (non-governmental organizations) spent years lobbying,
writing reports, compiling research and building the case for a strong
international agreement to pick up where the Kyoto treaty left off and
tackle global warming.

Copenhagen was supposed to be a turning point.

It turned into a bloated gabfest, one that produced a final document
less than three pages long with none of the enforceable targets to cut
greenhouse gas emissions that green activists were looking for.

We should also note that carbon prices in Europe have fallen to a 6-month low. Oh dear. Hopefully this means a drop in the price of pencils just in time for school to go back.

The London Mail asks for the heat to be turned down on global warming:

So, if governments believe carbon emissions do endanger the planet, how
about more quiet diplomacy and less posturing? Let's turn down the
rhetorical heat, the 'days left to save mankind' bluster. More
persuasion and less proselytising. Fewer bogus timetables. No circuses
like Copenhagen.

Gordon Brown has spent all week at the circus trying to get a deal together, and more importantly to be seen being useful and effective. I say more importantly, because Gordon Brown is doing a 'Helen Clark'. That is, he is inexcusably and cynically screwing over his country of 60m people in an effort to get himself a cushy UN or EU job next week, when he will be turfed out of office.

'Mr Broon' has accused a handful of countries of derailing the talked. No one by name, but it was China. He now wants to reform the UN! Good luck with that, but many would agree. Best to shut it down I feel.

The prime minister will say in his podcast: "Never again should we face the deadlock that threatened to pull down these talks.

"Never again should we let a global deal to move towards a greener future be held to ransom by only a handful of countries."

From the same article, the Swedes are sad:

Swedish Environment Minister Andreas Carlgren said some of
the countries at the talks had not been ready for an agreement that
would have satisfied Europe.

"The EU was ready, the world wasn't ready and that's the failure," he said.

Any failure for Mr Carlgren is a success for the world, in my book.

But who do we have to thank for the failure of a 'deal'? Let's take a look.

First up, we have President Mugabe of Zimbabwe. Mr Mugabe is perhaps the world's leading environmentalist. In less than a decade he has reduced his country's carbon emissions to approximately zero.

Mugabe annoyed everyone by blaming global warming on capitalism. Not that he would have any idea what that was...

Second, Hugo Chevez annoyed everyone by calling Obama the devil [his sulphur metaphor, I omit the least coherent bits].

Chávez said that “the Kyoto Protocol cannot be declared dead or
extinguished... If Obama,
Nobel War Prize, said here, by the way, it smells of sulfur here. It
smells of sulfur. It keeps smelling of sulfur in this world. The Nobel
War Prize has just said here that he came to act. Well, then show it,
sir, don't leave by the back door, eh? Do everything you need to do for
the US to adhere to the Kyoto Protocol, and let's respect Kyoto, and
empower Kyoto, and respond to the world in a transparent fashion.”

Chevez, by the way jails his opponents in Venezuela if they speak this this.

Third, China said it would happily cut CO2 emissions but didn't want anyone checking whether it actually had. China, by the way, can't even cope with an uncensored Internet, so the idea of Al Gore roaming around China in his private jet sniffing the gases was beyond the pale.

Still China gets the blame.

Fourth, some lunatic from Sudan claimed that the deal in the offing "asked Africa to sign a suicide pact, an incineration pact, in order to maintain the economic dominance of a few countries". The Jews at least were presumably upset at this.




Fifth, surely a mention to all the environmentalists, anti-capitalism activists and assorted lunatics that plagued the conference, making it much more difficult to get anything done. Of these, the Greenpeace nut will be the one I remember, who twitted on Friday:

The city of Copenhagen is a climate crime scene tonight, with the guilty men and women fleeing to the airport in shame.

We should stuff this guy and display him in a museum for future generations to marvel at his nuttiness.

It is sad to note that we have these five assorted nitwits to thank for the 'failure' of the Copenhagen Conference. Not one person in the photo below questioned the global warming edifice, despite climategate, Rajendra Pachauri's dodgy business setup (on p4 of the London Telegraph on Sunday) and the freezing cold in Copenhagen itself [God has a sense of of humour, surely you know that - see here if not]



How galling that the democracies failed us while the despots saved our bacon.

Climategate: Mann-made Global Warming is Real, Insists Mann

Michael Mann, the one behind the infamous hockey stick scam is still apparently a practising scientist. This is a remarkable fact when you consider the scientific crimes of which he is apparently guilty.
But the poor man is feeling victimised.

"I think it is unfortunate that some scientists out there are using this situation to settle personal scores, to settle a vendetta," Mann said...

But he is more worried that the whole scam holds together long enough to get him through Copenhagen.

"My main interest right now is to make sure that this manufactured controversy does not distract policy makers," said Mann.

I think it is in all our interests that it does.

Munir Hussain: Jailed for Assaulting a Burglar

The Daily Mail rightly taps into UK public outrage at the man sentenced to 3 years in jail for smashing a burglar about the head with a cricket bat, after his family had been tied up at knifepoint and threatened with death.

The Mail reported the story that the Conservatives are planning to review the law so that homeowners do not face charges under any conceivable circumstances (unless using 'grossly disproportionate force'). The headline was 'Tories' License to Kill a Burglar'. If only.

Most would agree that a burglar breaking into your house should be fair game. In the unlikely event that you are able to overpower and kill the burglar (rather than the more likely opposite result), the local mayor should present you with a medal in the morning, and you should receive counselling and a pay-out for emotional distress.

Unfortunately it is clear that the BBC does not agree. BBC News tonight at 6pm reported the story, saying that Munir Hussain chased the burglar down the street, hit him with a cricket bat and gave him permanent brain damage.

I will leave aside questions about the sort of brain this low life had in the first place, and whether the damage inflicted would improve or worsen the situation.

What I do object to is that the BBC did not mention the death threats at knife point, did not mention the 50 convictions this crook had over many years and did not mention the fact that Mr Hussain is apparently a pillar of society.

The BBC was clearly trying to show that the existing law is fine. This sort of biased reporting is distasteful, to say the least, and is another reason why it should lose its public funds.

Climategate: How to Solve Environmentalism

I read this at the bottom of an article by an environmental scientist:

It has always been hard to persuade the public that invisible gases could somehow warm the planet, and that they had to make sacrifices to prevent that from happening. It seemed, on the verge of Copenhagen, as if that might be about to be achieved.

But he says all that ended on Nov. 20. “The e-mails represented a seminal moment in the climate debate of the last five years, and it was a moment that broke decisively against us. I think the CRU leak is nothing less than catastrophic.”

I certainly hope that this is the end of it, but I am not so stupid as to think that it is. After all, environmentalists want to ban plastic bags, limit power generation, restrict overseas holidays and make us all eat organic food. The mere fact that the evidence against CO2 may have been shown to be 'enhanced' is not going to stop them in their battle against us.

On the other hand, environmentalists gain power only when we (the public) give it to them. If you don't want to read about environmentalism in the paper, don't buy a paper with an environmentalist message on the front page. The editor will soon learn, unless he is the editor of the Guardian. If M&S hassle you over a plastic bag, leave half of your stuff behind and just buy the one or two items you can carry. If someone sends you an email exhorting you not to print it out unless absolutely necessary, print 50 copies and post them individually to the furthest ends of the earth (this only works if you tell the email sender what you have done).

The solution to environmentalism has always been to ignore it. We have successfully ignored it for decades, if not for centuries. The problem recently is that we have forgotten to ignore it. We need to remember.