A Place to Stand

At the recent Labour Party conference Gordon Brown announced his new policy for unmarried teenage mothers

“…that there be no council flats and no welfare benefits available to unmarried mothers under the age of 21. Instead they will be placed in ‘mother & baby homes’. Here they will receive academic education as well as parenting classes, plus courses covering all aspects of their social development. The homes will be run by ‘matron’ type figures.”

As the Mirror described it

Defiant Gordon Brown unveiled a bold new manifesto yesterday as he warned the next general election would see Britain facing "the biggest choice for a generation".

Oops my mistake - though this is indeed the policy of Labour the actual phrase I gave came from a previous BNP policy. The BNP are, naturally, amused at Gordon "jobs for British workers" Brown once again being caught stealing their policies.

When first put forward the Mirror said

Unmarried mothers are next in the line of fire of the BNP maggots.

The warped racists are now out to persecute lone parents be they white, Asian or black...

All lone parents under 21 would be put in a home under 9pm curfew...

The extremists will discuss this barmy idea at their annual hate-a-thon in November.

The more I learn about the BNP the more nastily deranged it becomes

Of cfourse the difference in press coverage may be biased by other policy differences between Labour & the BNP parties. One is guilty of supporting Nazism by committing war crimes & appointing known criminals as "police" & sending them to carry out massacres, ethnic cleansing, genocide, the sexual enslavement of children & dissecting people of "inferior" races, while alive, to steal their body organs. The other is the BNP. I strongly disagree with the Mirror's claim that to be opposed to Nazism & genocide is "deranged" but I guess that is what is to be expected from such corrupt propagandists.

Labels: British politics, Media

Sellafield

Courtesy of Al Fin & Next Big Future I have scooped the entire UK media. Clearly not that difficult to do.

I have previously discussed the mass production of small scale nuclear plants designed by Hyperion. Well one of the factories that will be mass producing small nuclear plants for the whole world will be in Britain:
------------

Hyperion Power Generation plans to build a small reactor manufacturing plant in the United Kingdom within the next two years. The firm says it plans to use the existing UK supply chain to build its 70MWt (27MWe)*, self-regulating reactor and that the UK will be its ‘launch pad’ for the European market.

“This week we’ve made the decision as a company to commit to building a manufacturing plant in the UK. Our commitment is to use the UK as a launching pad for Europe and to use the UK supply chain,” Hyperion Power Generation CEO John (Grizz) Deal told NEI in London on 30 September.

Hyperion has chosen the UK to be its European manufacturing hub because of its active nuclear community, trained staff and existing infrastructure.

“We’ve got so much demand that we need to go ahead and start planning our manufacturing facilities,” he said.

“We have customer commitments for over a hundred units already. We’re going to be very busy! In fact, we’re now scheduling deliveries out to 2018-2020 even though we expect to go to market in the 2013-2014 timeframe.”

Hyperion plans to build three manufacturing facilities: one in the USA to support the North and Latin America markets, and a third in Asia, probably Japan. Although the firm hasn’t made a decision on where its UK plant will be located, it’s likely to be near existing nuclear facilities, which are clustered around the Sellafield site in Cumbria, northeast England...

Hyperion has had several enquiries from people who want to use its reactor as a source of baseload power for wind projects... Basically putting up a windmill with government grants & then selling the nuclear electricity at multiples of the cost because it is windpower. There are a bunch of windmills a mile from Hunterston nuclear plant. I wonder if they have thought of buying them up & reclassifying themselves as a windmillery with nuclear back-up ;-)

Hyperion expects to submit its design certification application to the US Nuclear Regulatory Commission ‘within the next year’. It also plans to get its design licensed in the UK.

“We understand the process in the UK and we have sufficient customer demand. We will be applying to the Nuclear Installations Inspectorate. We’ve not had conversations with them formally because you need to get your licence application together but... within about a year or so we will be going to the NII and talking to them about the generic design assessment process.”

In terms of cost the reactor itself will cost approximately $30 million Deal says that the firm is committed to generating electricity for less than 10 cents/kWh. “If you look in terms of reactor cost, plus plant size it comes out to be $2000/kW....
------------

This, on a smaller scale, would work like the proposal I made that Britain should, investing the money the Luddites want to waste on decommissioning, create a national industry as the world's major supplier of full size off the shelf nuclear reactors. The Hyperion design is not that & indeed at 10c a unit is not competitive with full sized reactors, though reading between the lines many such reactors sited together would be much cheaper & more than competitive with most British power generation.

Al says

Hyperion is doing something very clever: They plan to get their design licensed in the UK, to allow UK production and international delivery. This bypasses the exorbitant US licensing fees for new reactor designs.

When you consider that Britain is heading for blackouts by as early as 2012 purely because of the anti-nuclear Ludditry of the British government it should be a matter of some pride that, idiots as our politicians certainly are, there are moments when they aren't quite as destructive as some foreigners.

*MWt is the amount of heat released, MWe is the amount of electricity making this a creditable 40% efficiency. MWe is the important figure.

Labels: British politics, nuclear

Blackout in New York

It seems commonly agreed that the Conservatives are going to win the next election. Even that Labour aren't really interested in winning. While for the LibDems getting more votes than Labour is what they hope for, losing a lot of seats is what they fear & the way the polls are going both together is not impossible.

In which case both parties are positioning themselves for the election after next. The Conservatives should do the same. Losing an election is often good for a party - it allows them to shake out the dead wood, reassess their policies & come roaring back.

Such a Labour recovery is quite possible. The Tories aren't winning this election because of their popularity, Labour are losing it because of their making a mess of it. If the Conservatives don't fix the economy it will no longer be Labour's mess, it will be theirs. The big problems I see are:

The Economy: We are in recession despite massive borrowing. That borrowing will have to stop, which will make it worse; be repaid which will make it worse; & lead to higher interest rates which will mean serious numbers of house foreclosures. The answer is to have a successful, growing economy, which in fact, with a bit of gumption, as I have previously described, we can easily do.

Electric Power: This is a problem that makes recession look nice. Even the government have acknowledged that we are going to have blackouts by 2018 & that is an optimistic forecast assuming that our power use doesn't grow (ie the recession lasts) & taking no account of the closure, under EU emission rules, of much of our coal power in 2015. This, again is entirely the fault of a Labour government who have been worse than negligent in actively preventing the building of new working power stations & instead promoted windmills which they know simply cannot, being intermittent, provide any part of baseload power. To be fair the LudDims have worked hard to be even more irresponsible on this than Labour & the Tories have been not much better. The answer to this is to publicly acknowledge exactly how disastrous the situation is & to allow the immediate building of as many new nuclear plants as the market wants. If the Conservatives soft soap this now they will not be able to evade responsibility when it happens. A plant can be built in just over 3 years which would mean the power starting to come online, if we do very well, in winter 2013/4. By comparison energy trader Inenco says we face blackouts by 2012 which seems likely to me. Brown has commissioned a report which says we need to be getting 35-40% of our power from nuclear. Since nuclear is cheaper if we want a successful economy we should obviously be willing to let the market supply more but that demonstrates the scale of the problem.

Whatever they do the Conservatives have to tell the truth on this now. I am sure that if they do so the population will support immediate action. If they lie & drift as Labour have they will, correctly since hypothermia kills real people, be strung up.

Electoral system: The Conservatives have always supported the First Past the Post (FPTP) voting system since it provided a cosy relationship keeping the Labour/Conservative coterie in power. Because people move faster than they used to Labour constituency electorates are shrinking & Conservative ones growing. Also in Labour constituencies more people simply don't vote. This means that to beat Labour they need to be as much as 10% of the vote ahead of them. Labour won the last election on 36% of the vote but even with their current vote collapsing the Conservatives need about 40% to win. Answer is that, with Labour promising a referendum on the Alternative Vote system (not really proportional but a bit better) the Conservatives should promise one quickly on the properly proportional top up system we have in Scotland & if won (I'm sure it would be) bring it in before 2013.

The BBC; The BBC is institutionally a state funded part of the civil service. As such it has an institutional bias, not necessarily on party lines, towards big government & thus nanny statism. The answer is to privatise it.

Postal ballots: Before the last election Labour refused to act on the quite obvious corruption revealed in the Birmingham postal ballot trial where the judge said "short of writing "steal me" on the envelope it is hard to see what more could be done to ensure their coming into the wrong hands". The cabinet decided to do nothing, allegedly because it would be electorally disadvantageous. The answer is to go back to the old system where postal ballots are not easy to get.
________
Put together this would level the playing field for the next election. I also think PR would allow UKIP to compete with the LibDems for the3rd party position. Since they are largely a liberal party & almost entirely a sensible one while the LibDems are neither I think it likely they would take much of the LD's vote & supplant them. I also think that the fact that the FPTP electoral system allows Labour to keep far more seats than the LIbDems in a disaster (on a 40%/20%/20% vote Labour would get 156 seats & LDs 64) which is probably the only thing that would stop the party's meltdown in such circumstances. PR would therefore reduce the Conservative's socialist opposition & produce some real opposition on the "right". Since there will always be opposition that is the best long term opposition they could have.

Labels: British politics

Cameron, Osborne & Clarke

The Conservatives celebrate their reunion with the Sun by a Blueprint of 10 promises. Mark Wadsworth is writing negatively in detail on them. My opinion is positive. This may be because I had lower expectations or because I recognise this is a sales brochure & thus bound to contain a certain amount of fluff. The promises are in bold with my comments following:

1. We will work with councils to freeze council tax for two years - saving more than £200 for the typical family. Since it doesn't say how this is fairly fluffy. "How" should include cutting all the rules & advice central government imposes on them.

2. We will reassess 2.6 million people on incapacity benefit to see if they are fit for work. every out-of-work claimant capable of doing so will be expected to work or prepare for work. Everybody knows most of them are & that incapacity has been used by both this & the last government to hide unemployment figures. "reassess" & "or prepare for work" is not setting the bar high but it gives the potential to do so.

3. We will replace the Human Rights Act with a new British Bill of Rights to strengthen Britain's traditional liberties. I am in favour of this. The fact that Britain didn't have written constitutional limits on government has always been a potential weakness & an increasing actual weakness in recent years. The European Act is a mess of apparent good intentions extending state power. As always the devil will be in the detail.

4. We will cut the number of MPs by five per cent, and ministers' pay by five per cent and reduce the number, size, scope and influence of quangos. The first part is tokenism. Quangos do need to be drastically slashed & I am seriously disappointed that the promise is simply to "reduce" them & that it is the tail end of the promise.

5. We will honour the Military Covenant we have with our brave troops and make sure they are properly equipped to do their jobs. We will also introduce a free sports and entertainment Tickets for Troops programme. Who could be against this. It is up there with motherhood & apple pie. The free tickets thing should be done just by government telling the cinemas they should do it, not by any sort of subsidy, after all the marginal cost of a cinema ticket in a cinema that isn't full is zero.

6. We will cut corporation tax to create jobs, reform inheritance tax to encourage saving and build a stronger society by rewarding families in the tax and benefit system. OK admit it this is the one. I have been trying to persuade people on CT for more than 6 years. It, plus the cutting of regulations, is what got Ireland its 7% average growth rate. CT is the single most economically destructive tax since it targets investment & within that disproportionately targets the most successful businesses. It takes courage for the Conservatives to promise a tax cut to big business when the pressure will be upwards elsewhere. I would suggest to them that they do a 20% cut (5.5p in £)(cost £10 billion) in the budget immediately they come in, which can be sold as a better stimulus than the things they are going to have to cut & make a promise that they will not allow the CT tax take to rise above present levels. The Laffer curve suggests that any cut in CT leads to sufficient growth that the take rises to at least the same level. That plus the fact that recession artificially depresses the current take suggests that within the Parliament a reduction to Ireland's 12.5% would take about the same amount. Since investments now decided on will take a few years to show a profit that sort of cut would be nearly as effective as cutting to the Irish rate immediately, & much easier. I note that this, which is a new policy, has been put ahead of the promise on cutting inheritance tax which was previously their standard bearing policy (on the Marr show today Cameron promised the latter only "within the length of the Parliament". This means they are serious about CT.

Cutting Inheritance Tax does have an economically beneficial effect & encouraging married families has a beneficial social effect.

7. We will get to grips with national debt and public spending, to keep interest rates lower for longer and boost investment - this is vital for recovery. It is indeed vital & "get to grips" is not exactly a promise of success. However I would be happy to see the deficit grow if it meant cutting CT & thus achieving growth. Better both the economy & the deficit growing at 7% than that neither are, & I suspect easier too. If the economy were growing at that rate then lenders would be reassured & thus interest rates kept down. 6 & &, if taken together, suggest that growing the economy is indeed the priority.

8. We will help restore discipline to schools by giving heads the final say on exclusions. Our NHS is special so we will protect its budget. Absolutely. Bring back the belt too. Interesting that discipline in schools takes priority over the HNS. However I am disappointed that there is no specific mention of the Tories introducing the voucher system in schools which is one of their most radical & beneficial ideas & one which should be, on balance, popular. "Final say on exclusions" may be code also implying that they, not local authorities, decide that people can come there which is the voucher system.

9. If the Lisbon Treaty is not yet in force at the time of the next general election we will suspend ratification, hold a referendum and campaign for a No vote. More on this re the Marr show.

10. We'll double magistrates' sentencing powers from six month to a year and make sure knife offenders can expect to go to jail. And we will get more police officers on the street by slashing paperwork, including the stop and account form. More motherhood & apple pie but note that Labour did manage to greatly increase police paperwork.

So nothing I think silly, which alone puts them well ahead of Labour & LibDims & a promise to do the thing which, I have been saying for years, would fast track the economy & seriously raise our standard of living.

Compare this with my 16 point plan to get into maximum growth. They are promising the CT cut & less clearly the regulation cut. I would have liked some specific promises on cutting those regulators with negative economic benefit (elfinsafety, building planning, all the committees & reviews whose only function is to make buiding anything from reactors to golf courses slower & more expensive) & something about the need for getting on with nuclear building - however I can see why that is not shop window stuff. And yes I would like promises on the tech stuff as well but those are not for primary promises. I have noticed that in most of Palin's speeches & articles she mentions "economic growth". I think this is both tactically wise of her & shows she really gets it. I would like to see David Cameron doing the same.

While the party are now officially pro-nuclear they are not so with the necessary enthusiasm. Even the government have acknowledged blackouts are coming by 2018 & that assumes no economic growth. Labour have been officially pro-nuclear for 3 1/2 years though, while that is long enough to build a reactor, they have allowed nothing to be done. Nonetheless it means supporting it & promising real action, is hardly risky. Particularly against the LibDems this is something to mention because their policy of a "renewables revolution" at all costs, now quietly unmentioned, is grossly irresponsible & can be seen to be so.

--------------------
Cameron Interviewed on Marr Show

This morning Cameron was interviewed on Andrew Marr's show.

He was questioned on the EU referendum (point 9) & interestingly finessed his position. He said that he was not going to say whether he would or wouldn't have a referendum if the treaty was ratified before the election because he didn't want to make it easier for the Czechs & Poles to choose not to delay it. Now maybe he is just whistling but the only logical way that works is that, if driven to it, we will have a referendum but he doesn't want them to rely on that. It also strikes me that if it is ratified before the election, which seems most likely, he will have to make a decision.

My opinion is that the Conservatives have little to fear from going for a referendum. Whatever ructions it would cause would be less than the damage to Labour/LibDems from the repeated reminding the voters get that both of them made manifesto pledges to support a referendum & cynically broke their word as soon as the last election was over. Voters don't like such contemptuous behaviour.

If the constitreaty is ratified the Conservatives should adopt the official LibDem policy of having a referendum on membership. Because it is, officially, LibDem policy it is difficult to call it extreme & they would be in a cleft stick. It should be a 3 option referendum - status quo with treaty / leaving / associate membership like Norway & Switzerland. I think the party should, as a party, be neutral & Conservatives, like Ken Clarke totally free to campaign as they wish. I would very much like not to put Clarke in a position where he felt he had to resign because he was a very able Chancellor who could, several times, have become party leader if he had been willing to curb his Euro-enthusiasm. I think he is on the wrong side there but politics is not overly endowed with people willing to put their principles ahead of their ambition & I respect that even when I disagree with the principles.

Cameron was quite clear that the economy was the issue & made a point of saying that current unemployment is 5 million (including those hidden on "disability" payment. This suggests he is setting a high target & serious about doing something. Marr harped on "how many jobs will your cuts cost" to which Cameron properly replied that he didn't accept the premise of the question. On this he is certainly right & Marr/BBC wrong. Marr suggested 2 million which is everybody added to government under Labour. This would certainly be ambitious & produce savings which slightly exceed the £180 bn deficit. However the point is that for every job "created" by government money 2 or 3 are destroyed by that money being taken out of the productive economy. This is simply fact & Conservative politicians should be willing to say so.

Labels: British politics, Fixing the economy

This is a book by Stuart Fairney who, like me, regularly comments on JR's blog.

Ted Kennedy wouldn't like it. The villain bears more than a passing resemblance to him, being a United States Congressman who is kingmaker to Presidents, immensely wealthy through his connections, a strong "liberal" supporter of welfarism which he doesn't use & pretty disgusting libertine. Perhaps Kennedy is not the only model. On the other hand there are moments when his pathos shows through.

The protagonist, Halle is a Lara Croft of high finance. The novel is set in what purports to be an alternate universe where the Confederacy succeeded though like the moon settlement in LeGuin's The Dispossesed, this is mainly a literary vehicle to create a libertarian society. Though where LeGuin is a "left wing" anarchist (ie one who doesn't work through the free market) Fairney is a "right wing" one who does. Both authors have views they are keen to promote which either elevates them or interferes with the action according to taste.

The plot involves an attempt by Halle, as CSA representative, to sell the South's economic freedom to the Northern people using methods, including the net, used in this world too Though I think in the real world broadcasters are not quite as easily fooled into letting people speak we have since seen, subsequent to publication, Sarah Palin using the net equally successfully. One nitpick is that economically free economies grow significantly faster than over regulated ones (eg Hong Kong's rise from one of the poorest countries in the world to one of the richest in 60 years). The people of the Confederacy should thus be many times richer than those of the North which would make Halle's task much easier. In Britain we are seeing the beginning of that effect where Ireland, which adopted some comparatively minor economic freedom (mainly cutting business taxes) 20 years ago has gone from 2/3rd Britain's standard of living to 4/3rds. However a tale where an entire population was many times richer than any in our world would have made an entirely different book.

But Fairney has created an interesting heroine caring, frighteningly competent, able to beat up muggers, but much too serious for her own good. Did I mention she is black.

The title is a quote from Thomas Jefferson

“Single acts of tyranny may be ascribed to the accidental opinion of a day; but a series of oppressions, begun at a distinguished period and pursued unalterably through every change of ministers, too plainly prove a deliberate, systematic plan of reducing [a people] to slavery.”

This is a comment I put on Belmont Club

The selection of tree rings here simply cannot, on a statistical, basis, be random. Therefore we are not dealing with some possible honest accident but deliberate fraud. Deliberate fraud on which the whole catastrophic Global warming swindle is based. We also see at total refusal to mention this, indeed censorship of any comments that ask, on Realclimate & related sites. If there were any defence to this accusation realclimate should be shouting it now.

I think this is the death knell for CAGW.

It may also be the moment the blogsphere became the primary news source. This has been growing geometrically over the last few days online yet has been virtually non-existent in the dead tree press & TV. The UK's Guardian (a nominally liberal, certainly PC publication) has been deleting any comments put up on its online site. Unless disproved it is the story of the decade, since it is at least as important as all the CAGW stories over that time put together. That the MSM have allowed themselves, presumably out of fear, to be so thoroughly scooped by the blogsphere completely discredits them.

What its effects on politics will be I hesitate to guess - certainly all those politicians who have spent so long saying ", "debate is over", "scientific debate has now closed" " & "science is beyond dispute" & poured billions into "research" & advertising of this scam. The only thing that may keep them in power is that there are so many of them. The entire western world run by Vaclav Klaus, Senator Inhofe, Sarah Palin, Ron Paul & 1 minister in the Northern Irish government is stretching things thin.

Giving credit where it is due here, Via CCNet, are a couple of MSM reports on it:

Financial Post - by Ross McKitrick, McIntyre's co-worker on his first debunking & recommended to show how extensive the lying was.

National Post (Canada)

But online we have
The Register

http://www.climateaudit.org/

http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/10/01/response-from-briffa-on-the-yamal
-tree-ring-affair-plus-rebuttal/

http://bishophill.squarespace.com/blog/2009/9/29/the-yamal-implosion.ht
ml

http://bishophill.squarespace.com/blog/2009/10/1/yamal-the-debate-conti
nues.html
Bishop Hill points out the Guardian online censorship of anybody mentioning this. I have experienced Guardian censorship before in support of our Nazi friends in former Yugoslavia & thus have a low opinion of this government funded Fakenewspaper but still find such wholesale censorship of anybody mentioning a very important news story shocking.

jennifermarohasy@jennifermarohasy.com

& I get a pleasant mention
Obviously nothing from the BBC or ITN

If this is the eclipse of the MSM by bloggers as a trustworthy news source it is not because the former has been eclipsed by technology but simply because the MSM (& the vast majority of politicians) have forfeited any trust.

Labels: global warming, Media

Steve McIntyre - not somebody who poses for photos

Once again Steve McIntyre has proven a crucial part of the global warming swindle to be without factual merit. In this case he has proven statistically that Michael Mann, in producing his Hockey Stick theory has deliberately faked his most basic evidence.

After 10 years of data being withheld that would allow true scientific replication, and after dozens of requests for that data, Steve McIntyre of Climate Audit finally was given access to the data from Yamal Peninsula, Russia. He discovered that only 12 trees had been used out of a much larger dataset of tree ring data. When the larger data set was plotted, there is no “hockey stick” of temperature, in fact it goes in the opposite direction. Get your primer here.

Since all 12 trees were very much at variance with the average readings from that group it is just statistically impossible that Mann selected all 12 at random. Therefore it is fraud. These particular tree rings were the evidence on which the entire Hockey Stick theory, that we had flat temperatures for the previous, originally, 1,500 years & an unprecedented sharp rise this century. This is effectively the entire "global warming"/""climate change"/"dangerous climate change" case.

McIntyre has previously found that the Britain's Climate Research Unit, charged with collating world climate records, whereby official records allegedly show warming this century had "lost" all their original data. This excuse after their chief had said "Why should I make the data available to you when you are going to try to find something wrong with it". Even if it were true that "the dog ate the homework" that remark alone proves the CRU is a corrupt propaganda organisation not a scientific one.

Previous to that he found a somewhat different group of scientists had fabricated data purporting to show Antarctic ice melting.

Previous to that he obtained the US official climate records, found they were deeply flawed, stations being moved or built over & no corrections made and that in fact the claim that 1998 had been the warmest year there was false & it was actually 1933.

Previous to that it was he who analysed the algorithms in Mann's Hockey Stick computer programme which magnified the tree ring data & was should would magnify almost any set of data to produce his Hockey Stick graph. Scandalously Nature refused to publish his paper, while publishing attacks, mainly of an ad hominum nature, on him.

The degree of praise Stephen McIntyre is due can hardly be understated. He should be the 2nd person, after Marie Curie, to get a Nobel Prize & bar for mathematically dissecting this (technically this shouldn't be as difficult as most Nobel winning stuff but no better mathematician did it) & the Peace Prize, if that has not been rendered worthless by Al Gore.

This final nail in the coffin of "climate change" obviously is by definition more important than all the false stories & "studies" alleging that warming "may" be worse than previously thought. It proves that ALL the members of an entire allegedly scientific discipline have been either engaged in deliberate fraud or have been hoodwinked by colleagues because they failed to show basic scientific scepticism or make the sort of investigation government was, officially, paying them for.

As such it has, naturally been front page news in every single remotely honest newspaper in the western world (so that would be not one in Britain then); every journalist who has appeared to endorse warming & is not a wholly corrupt whore willing to tell any lie to promote modern big government fascist fear mongering (at time of writing that is 1, worldwide, in Australia); & of course the whole GW scam is now being denounced by every single politician who is sane & not a wholly corrupt, lying, thief intent on establishing fascism through fear such as.

In my increasing opinion that 99% of all government is parasitic & corrupt (& failure to find counter examples) I should point out that while billions have been poured into doing "climate science" from government none of it could find out the basic facts & it depended on Stephen McIntyre, who funds himself, to prove it. Nor is this unique.

UPDATE I have received this email:

Please note: Steve McIntyre's post concerns work by climate scientist Keith Briffa and not Michael Mann. You will probably wish to correct your post.
Cheers
Avisame

My understanding is that while Briffa did the tree ring measurement, Mann, in his paper, chose to choose 12 atypical tree rings out of at least 34 to fabricate the global warming trend. My assumption is that Mann is responsible for fabrications in his own paper & that this is a damage limitation exercise. I am open to correction on this & indeed have emailed Professor Briffa to see.

UPDATER My email has surfaced within the leaked emails. This is the reply they decided not to send which is wise since it is both a simple piece of fluff which makes no specific answer & as events have shown, untrue.

If we are to respond, it would be to indicate that there are multiple sources of supporting
evidence and that we continue to place our confidence in the international scientific
assessment process. This confidence has proven to be well placed.
Roger

Labels: Fear, global warming, Government parasitism