What these 200 companies actually mean when they say they demand “more action on climate change” is that they are after more subsidies from the money that government is taking off us in taxes, and they want more green taxes on the public so that the government will be able to give them more subsidies. This story proves beyond doubt the grim reality that every single one of our major companies has now been infected by the the corporate responsibility disease and has high priests of green nuttiness at board level advising strategy.
And these parasites have realised that if they hold out their begging bowls marked “green” and chant the phrase “action on climate change” loudly (turning in circles as they do so), they will be lavishly filled with Chris Huhne’s largesse.
Jo Nova points out eloquently here what these green measures entail: the Canadian government has just committed to introduce measures to reduce temeperatures at the equivalent of $84 trillion per degree (at least it’s centigrade, not Fahrenheit). What’s terrifying is that the same is being requested here.
Richard Black , as usual, recycles the views of these grasping eco-nutters with grim self-smug satisfaction. Not for one second does he doubt that they are right, and nor does he have the self-awareness to realise he’s nothing but a pawn in their greedy, eco-fascist games.
Will Beeboid Climate propagandists we finance also migrate?
From London to Manchester?
Such profundity here.
Well, did you ever?
“Climate change migration warning issued through report”
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-15341651
Can I draw your attention to an interview on yesterday Hugh Hewitt Show in which Oklahoma Senator James Inhofe talked about the White House manipulation of science to achieve liberal agenda goals
James Imhoff: I went to Copenhagen as a one-man truth squad, to make sure that everybody knew that the president of the United States, and Nancy Pelosi, and Barbara Boxer, and John Kerry, were lying to them, and that America was not going to pass any kind of cap and trade. And it had 192 countries there, and a press conference with all of them represented. They all had one thing in common. They all hated me. But they’re trying to use science, and that’s what your discussion is right now. We had Lisa Jackson before my committee, the Environment and Public Works Committee. And I said to her, this was in December two years ago, I said Lisa, I’m going to be going to Copenhagen to tell the truth there, and I have a feeling that once I leave, you’re going to have an endangerment finding. Well, an endangerment finding has to be based on science. So I said I know you’re going to do this. Tell me what science you’re going to base this endangerment finding on. And she said the United Nations IPCC, Inter-governmental Panel on Climate Change. And so it would happen, it was right after that, Climate-gate. We found out they were cooking the science, and we all know, and you’ve talked about that on your program. Now, the most recent thing that you may not even be aware of it that sixteen months ago, I made a request to the IG, the Inspector General, to tell us about the quality of the science that was used in that endangerment finding, and they trashed it.
Hugh Hewitt: Oh, my goodness.
James Imhoff: It took sixteen months.
Hugh Hewitt: I didn’t know that.
James Imhoff: I know, this is brand new. But again, this administration has been using phony science to get their very liberal agenda passed, and it’s something that we’re exposing, and we’re winning on it.
http://www.hughhewitt.com/transcripts.aspx?id=64e1ce79-0ec9-4efa-8f56-dcd3e245712a
If President Obama is defeated in the election and both houses go Republican you’ll find a lot of Congressional investigation on the subject of the massaging of climate science. As the truth emerges let’s see how the BBC and other European media outlets, who have bought into the climate change agenda, react.
O-B-A-M-A…
O-B-O-G-U-S…
Glorious !
Funny you should mention that, Louis. I was just reading this:
GOP Lawmakers Challenge White House on ‘Scientific Misconduct’
Several Republican lawmakers are challenging the Obama administration’s science czar over what they claim are repeat incidents of “scientific misconduct” among agencies, questioning whether officials who deal with everything from endangered species to nuclear waste are using “sound science.”
The letter sent Wednesday to John Holdren, director of the Office of Science and Technology Policy, cited four specific controversies in recent years where scientific findings were questioned. Sens. David Vitter, R-La., and James Inhofe, R-Okla., and Rep. Darrell Issa, R-Calif., rattled off a slew of questions on what they called “the apparent collapse in the quality of scientific work being conducted at our federal agencies.”
Snap, David. But how long before the MSM admit they were propagandizing – not reporting? I won’t hold my breath.
They’ll never admit it. After all, we know that the Beeboids believe – as stated unequivocally at the BBC College of Journalism – that it’s the nasty Republicans who are “anti science”.
Black’s attitude towards the 200 companies is typical of the unprofessional and lazy journalism and ‘analysis’ we expect from the BBC.
When someone says what the BBC likes to hear it is accepted by them in good faith and presented in a favourable, or at worst neutral way.
When someone says something that isn’t the BBC party line, it is reported with insinuations of sinister and base motives such as greed and profit.
The laughable BBC ‘analysis’ only kicks in when they need us to view something in a bad light.
“Shifting to a low-carbon future in the UK and internationally will require the adoption of a very broad range of technologies, many of which are at a very early stage of development. Developing and nurturing new technologies takes a long time. If we are to
be where we need to be in 2050, serious investments need to be made today in the rapid development of low carbon transport and energy technologies. For example, research done by the World Business Council on Sustainable Development shows that, even if we
start seriously developing the market for zero emissions cars now, total global emissions from cars will not start to fall until 2040.
The private sector faces real challenges, as well as real opportunities, if it is to deliver the level of investment needed to ensure that the world’s economies continue to thrive in a
low-carbon world, and that energy is available to meet the needs of all the world’s people. This can only be achieved through close partnership between businesses and government. We are therefore keen to work with the Government to help set the UK on a path to a thriving, world-leading low-carbon future.”
The Corporate Leaders Group on Climate Change
27th May 2005
http://tinyurl.com/67844tl
Which means taxes raised by government going into the pockets of private companies. They obviously have no intention of risking their own money, therefore they are “Corporate Leaders for Government handouts”
Following this posting, I thought I would have a look at the Prince of Wales’s Corporate Leaders Group on Climate Change. I found this:
The Science of Climate Change
For the non-specialist there are four points to make about the science.
Firstly, it’s happening – there is clear evidence of global warming.
Secondly, it’s us – human activities are the main cause of this warming, largely through the greenhouse gases emitted when burning fossil fuels for energy generation and transport.
Thirdly, it’s probably very serious and will lead to a range of undesirable and largely irreversible effects such as rising sea levels, an increase in extreme weather events, and negative impacts on eco-systems, and food and water availability. Whilst there is some disagreement and uncertainty on exactly how serious, the majority scientific opinion is in the ‘extremely serious’ camp.
Fourthly, only major cuts in net emissions can reduce the risk of ‘runaway climate change’ – probably to atmospheric concentrations below the current level of around 390ppm of CO2. Any equitable distribution of these cuts implies a dramatic reduction of emissions in industrialised countries in the order of 80–95%.
Climate change cannot be tackled if we continue ‘business as usual’. A range of studies by McKinsey and others have shown that reducing GHG emissions is cheaper than commonly assumed, and is often cost-negative. Other studies, such as the report by Lord Stern, suggest that effective mitigation and adaptation can be achieved at a relatively modest price in macro-economic terms.
I wish I had found the site earlier – would have saved me all that time reading McIntyre, Watts and The Bish and trying to educate myself on the complexities of the AGW debate.
/sarc off
my apologies, link here:
http://www.cpsl.cam.ac.uk/Resources/What-is-Sustainability-Leadership/The-Challenge-of-Sustainability.aspx
How’s this for Black’s lack of self-awareness:
Tweet:
More reports of Gore weather-climate link http://bit.ly/oLO3mW & http://bit.ly/o8PAG2. Clearly lots of ‘dreadful’ journalism out there…
What’s that expression? something to do with pots…