Archive for the ‘Uncategorized’ Category

This blog now at


This blog was a temporary home for Heliogenic Climate Change after Blogger deleted  There will be no new posts here.

Go to the new permanent home of Heliogenic Climate Change,, to follow or subscribe to Heliogenic Climate Change.


Double deleted!


Google deleted my blog December 30.  I was able to get it restored December 31.  Then today they did it again.  The reason given both times was “spam” and I was directed to this site.  Apparently anyone can report a blog for “spam”.  I don’t know if Google automatically deletes reported blogs or whether someone reviews it first.  I will attempt another restoration and try to find out why this is happening.

Google deleted my blog!


I woke up this morning to read an email from google informing me they deleted my blog because of “spam”.  There is no spam on the blog.  I have appealed their action and the blog may be restored.  In the meantime I’m starting this new blog here on wordpress.

Follow the money


“This nauseating piggery took two forms. First were the Third World kleptocracies – led by the likes of Hugo Chavez and Robert Mugabe – using “Global Warming” as an excuse to extort guilt-money from the Western nations.

Second, and much more dangerous, were the First World Corporatists who stand to make trillions of dollars using the Enron economics of carbon trading. Never mind all the talk of President Obama’s trifling $100 billion pledge. This is very small beer compared with the truly eye-watering sums that will be ransacked from our economies and our wallets over the next decades in the name of “carbon emissions reduction.”

Richard North has spotted this, even if virtually nobody else has. The key point, he notes, is the Copenhagen negotiators’ little-publicised decision to save the Kyoto Protocol. This matters because it was at Kyoto that the mechanisms for establishing a global carbon market were established. Carbon trading could not possibly exist without some form of agreement between all the world’s governments on emissions: the market would simply collapse. By keeping Kyoto alive, the sinister troughers of global corporatism have also kept their cash cow alive.” “Climategate: we won the battle, but at Copenhagen we just lost the war

“As for saving the planet, well no-one really believes that greenie shit anyway … except the greenies, and they don’t matter. There is plenty of pepper spray left and no shortage of temporary detention space. Now that the money men have got what they came for, all the rest is theatre.” “Going for the money

"What we need is a RICO trial"


“We don’t need a cap-and-trade deal. What we need is a RICO trial.

Every now and then, apparently, history challenges us with a crisis far too important to be left to the democratic process or the vagaries of public opinion. In these instances, the enlightened, the powerful, the moral must act swiftly.

So sayeth the Obama administration this week, empowering the Environmental Protection Agency to police greenhouse gases as a danger to public health and welfare, thus giving the agency discretion to regulate … well, anything it pleases — or, I should say, whatever is left. …

No worries, we’re told. The EPA wouldn’t do it. It’s a bluff. It has other things in mind. In this case, it is all about hastening much-needed “action” on climate change by employing a technique universally known as blackmail. …

Obama, as we know, has no authority to enter into a binding international treaty (isn’t the Constitution irritating?), as any treaty must be ratified by the Senate — a Senate that won’t pass a cap-and-trade scheme any time soon if we’re lucky.

Now that the EPA can duplicate any suicidal emissions pact world leaders can cook up (exempt: emerging nations, poor nations and nations that value prosperity), the president would not need to ratify a thing. And who needs treaties when the Obama administration already has threatened the Senate with unilateral regulations on greenhouse gases unless a cap-and-trade bill is passed? The administration need only mirror the agreement it can’t make.

In effect, the EPA is warning most of the nation’s businesses that burdensome regulations are coming unless the president is suitably mollified with a law that severely caps carbon emissions. In other words, figure out your own punishment, kids, or we’ll have to come up with one for you. You know, choice.

The administration also acts as if this were the last chance to save mankind, when, in fact — on the heels of the ClimateGate scandal, sagging poll numbers on warming hysteria and genuine economic worries (worries that would be exacerbated by more growth-inhibiting regulations) — it might only be its last chance to cram through a framework for harsh emissions standards.

Granted, there are a few obstacles standing in the way. Votes. People. Process. And so on …” “Our Way or … Well, Our Way

What is he smoking?


“Drastic cuts in carbon emissions may not be sufficient to avoid the worst ravages of global warming and the world will need to suck carbon from the atmosphere to avert permanent damage to the climate, according to a leading world authority on climate science.” “Carbon must be sucked from air, says IPCC chief Rajendra Pachauri

Reuters duped by fake U.S. Chamber of Commerce press release


“The headline, if true, would be a news story indeed: the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, according to a press release e-mailed to journalists this morning, had decided to reverse its opposition to strong climate change legislation. But that’s false. Some unknown group decided to punk the Chamber. And in the process, at least one news organization, Reuters, fell for it.” “Fake “Chamber” Press Release Dupes Reuters” Update: CNBC, NYT, and WaPo also duped.

Greenshirts to force poor from flying


“Tens of billions of pounds will have to be raised through flight taxes … according to the Government’s advisory body on climate change.

Ticket prices should rise steadily over time to deter air travel … the Committee on Climate Change says. It believes that airlines should be forced to share the burden of meeting Britain’s commitment to an 80 per cent cut in emissions by 2050. …

The committee was established under last year’s Climate Change Act. It has a strong influence on government policy and proposed the 80 per cent target accepted by ministers.

It says that initially the cost per passenger of compensating for climate change would be small but would rise over time and eventually reach a level that would put people off flying.” “Passengers face new tax to halt rise in air travel” h/t CCNet

Boxer sounds desperate


“If the Senate doesn’t pass a bill to cut global warming, Democratic Sen. Barbara Boxer says, there will be dire results: droughts, floods, fires, loss of species, damage to agriculture, worsening air pollution and more.” “Boxer faces ‘challenge of a lifetime’ on climate change bill

Republicans grill Geithner


“Ryan called the cap-and-trade plan a “tax by any other name,” because energy companies will be forced to pass on the cost of the allowances to consumers, effectively raising prices for everything from gas to heating oil to food.

“Turning on the electricity, putting gasoline in your gas tank, heating your home, and having a government program that makes that more expensive, you may not want to call it a tax, but it’s a tax,” Ryan argued. “If it acts like a duck and it quacks like a duck.”

“To suggest that you’re only taxing wealthy people when in fact you’re taxing anybody who consumes energy, is just not true,” Ryan added.

Diaz-Balart, a Florida Republican, asked Geithner why the administration would implement a policy that was “guaranteed” to raise prices.

“These (energy) industries are regulated industries; they pass on the cost of an increase in the price of energy to the consumers,” Balart said. “Yet you have anywhere between $600 and $800 billion in this cap-and-trade program, a tax on energy prices. Who’s going to pay that?

Geithner explained that the program was necessary, and urged the congressmen to see it as a way to make people change their behavior.

“You can’t change behavior on how people use energy unless you affect the incentives for how they use it,” he replied.

The harshest criticism came from Lummis (R-Wyo.), who said the administration’s energy proposals would destroy productive capacity and punish American energy producers.

Cap-and trade is the biggest damage you could do to the productive capacity of this economy,” she said. “What you’re going to do is send oil and gas production overseas.

“To take something like natural gas, which is the cleanest burning hydrocarbon, and punish it, and punish the people who produce it, is the most counter-productive thing that you could do.”” “Conservative Congressmen Hammer Geithner Over Obama’s Planned Tax Hikes, Cap-and-Trade