He finds no real answers in the “four pillars” of the UK’s energy policy:

The first is that electricity companies should not be allowed to replace those coal-fired power stations which help provide us with 35 per cent of our electricity unless new ones are fitted with a system to pipe off their CO2 emissions and bury them under the North Sea. The Government has allocated some £4 billion for four new plants to pioneer this unproven technology (to be paid for by all of us through electricity bills), but the Tories say that no new plants should be permitted unless carbon capture is already in place.

The Tories’ second headline policy is what they call a “decentralised energy revolution”, subsidising millions of homeowners, firms, schools and hospitals to cover their roofs with solar panels and mini wind turbines. Again, the Government has already got on to this one with its new “feed-in tariff” scheme, appropriately due to start on All Fools’ Day. This will pay 34.5p to the owners of mini-turbines for each kilowatt hour (kWh) of power they feed into the grid, and 41p per kWh for electricity from photovoltaic panels. Even The Guardian’s green crusader, George Monbiot, has denounced this as a scandal, which he estimates will add £8.6 billion to our electricity bills over 20 years.

…the third pillar of their energy policy, which is to support the Government’s plan to see £100 billion spent on 10,000 giant wind turbines, in a further desperate bid to meet the EU’s requirement that, within 10 years, 32 per cent of our electricity must come from renewables. (Last Thursday, our 2,900 existing turbines met just 0.1 per cent of demand, or 1,000th of the electricity we were all using.) Again, even if it were worth doing, there is not the faintest chance that we could install three giant offshore and onshore turbines up to 650 feet high, each costing up to £4 million or more (and almost all produced and installed by foreign-owned companies), every day between now and 2020.

And what is the fourth pillar of the Tories’ energy policy? They want every home in the country to be fitted, at a cost of a further £10 billion, with “smart meters”, to allow for “better management of supply and demand”. Indeed, that is precisely the point about smart meters. They not only allow consumers to monitor their own electricity usage, they also allow electricity companies to “manage supply”, by cutting off the power when not enough is available to the grid.

It sounds like a plan dreamed up by some politically correct schoolchildren. You know, like those we have in the US congress across the pond.

Full story: Telegraph UK

Most of the witnesses seemed like polished BSers. But Jones isn’t as polished. He seemed very nervous.

He was all over the place on his answers regarding the question of if data was withheld and why, but he did end up admitting that he had withheld some scientific data about global temperatures.

Why would he not want to release it? Well, for one thing, even though he said it would be a good idea, it was “not standard practice.” Following up, Labour MP Graham Stringer asked him: “If that’s not standard practice, how can science progress?” Professor Jones replied: “Maybe it should be but it isn’t.”

He also said, “because all he [a skeptic] wants to do is find something wrong with it.” To which Mr. Stringer again challenged Jones: “But scientists make a name by proving and disproving things, don’t they? The statement seems to be anti-scientific. It is an absolutely clear denial of the man’s attempt to get at what you were doing. He wanted your information and you refused to give it to him? Why?”

Jones’ answer: “Because we had invested a lot of work and resources in it, and this was before FOI [Freedom of information legislation] started.”

And he’s calls himself a scientist?

Oh wait, there is some good news: Jones says that children will likely still see some snow someday.

To see Phil Jones squirm, watch the video beginning at aorund the 01:02:00 hour/minute/sec mark.

Source: Independent UK

In all seriousness, you can watch this afternoon’s proceedings from the UK Parliament’s Select Committee Hearing on the Climategate Scandal held in the House of Parliament’s Grimond Room, with Phil Jones testifying. We’re watching it right now, so we can’t comment on it yet.

Watch it on this page. Sorry we don’t have an embeddable version (if anyone does give us the link).

Here is the agenda:

The disclosure of climate data from the Climatic Research Unit at the University of East Anglia

Witnesses:

1. Rt Hon Lord Lawson of Blaby, Chairman, and Dr Benny Peiser, Director, Global Warming Policy Foundation
2. Richard Thomas CBE
3. Professor Edward Acton, Vice-Chancellor, University of East Anglia, and Professor Phil Jones, Director of the Climatic Research Unit
4. Sir Muir Russell KCB, Head of the Independent Climate Change E-Mails Review
5. Professor John Beddington, Government Chief Scientific Adviser, Professor Julia Slingo OBE, Chief Scientist, Met Office, and Professor Bob Watson, Chief Scientist, Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs

If you have a life threatening illness, what’s your priority–your carbon footprint or receiving treatment?

If you decide to set up a free healthcare service, what do you think you need most–a host of ‘green’ bureaucrats or doctors and nurses? I doubt you’d consider your priority would be to have someone investigating your carbon footprint as you’re clinging to life or hoping for treatment, but that’s the way it’s going in the UK.

Consider this from the the NHS’s Kidney Care website:

NHS Kidney Care is funding a one-year “Green Nephrology Fellowship” for a Specialist Registrar (SpR) to work on sustainability in kidney care.

That sounds like a stupid idea–employ a qualified doctor not to treat patients, and he’s just the first of many. Don’t think for one moment that the NHS isn’t spending taxpayer money on a myriad of consultancy firms as well, and in my research I even discovered there’s an NHS forest programme. Once anything becomes taxpayer funded, then it’s open season to invent jobs for problems that don’t exist.

If you question my qualification to make such a comment, I’ll confirm that I had, or have, kidney cancer, and I can also add that every step of my treatment by the NHS, from diagnosis beyond, was a disaster.

Okay, maybe I’m bitter and twisted, but I’m not alone. Amazingly, one UK hospital (here, here and here) has been responsible for more fatal casualties than the Taliban have inflicted on our troops in Afghanistan, but for some reason that’s accepted

The NHS bureaucracy is legendary, and by appointing a myriad of ‘green’ commissars all over it is only going to divert resources from patient care.

What’s this have to do with global warming? Not a whole lot, but it’s the same insane crowd pushing it, healthcare is a hot topic now, and I’m down a kidney.

Dean Vernon Wormer of Animal House, or Dean Vernon Warmer of East Anglia?

I’ve heard of people not learning from their mistakes, but not universities. Sounds like the University of East Anglia just can’t seem to figure out that honesty is the best policy.

On February 27, Times Online has an article titled “University Tried to mislead MP’s on climate change e-mails.”

They’re pretty “cheeky” over there.

The university at the centre of the climate change row over stolen e-mails has been accused of making a misleading statement to Parliament.

They not only don’t tell the truth verbally…they even put it in writing.

The University of East Anglia wrote this week to the House of Commons Science and Technology Committee giving the impression that it had been exonerated by the Information Commissioner’s Office (ICO). However, the university failed to disclose that the ICO had expressed serious concerns that one of its professors had proposed deleting information to avoid complying with the Freedom of Information Act.

Professor Edward Acton said:

a letter from the ICO “indicated that no breach of the law has been established [and] that the evidence the ICO had in mind about whether there was a breach was no more than prima facie”.

But the ICO’s letter really said:

“The prima facie evidence from the published e-mails indicate an attempt to defeat disclosure by deleting information. It is hard to imagine more cogent prima facie evidence.”

and that:

that the university had failed in its duties under the Freedom of Information Act by rejecting requests for data.

The ICO is still maintaining they can’t prosecute becuase of the 6 month time limit on FOID denials, which may not be true.  If that is the case then it’s like the pot calling the kettle black.

I think the administration at East Anglia makes Dean Wormer in Animal House look pretty good.  Maybe they should put themselves on double-secret probation for ahwile.

Early warnings of higher gas and electricity prices were sounded by Centrica on Thursday as the British Gas parent faced demands for further tariff cuts after announcing a big jump in profits in its retail business.

My own concern is that now there are reports that the UK economy may never have actually have come out of recession as had been previously believed. If consumers now face mounting energy bills. it means that the economy may never recover if people are using their money just to pay for energy.

The mismatch between the fall in wholesale and retail prices saw British Gas operating profits jump 58pc to a record £595m last year, comfortably beating analysts’ forecasts.

Is that good business?

……the huge investment needed to ensure security of supply and meet environmental targets meant the group was in a “very different commodity price environment.”

I think we get the message. The cost of financing the great Carbon Trading bandwagon is going to be paid for by the rise in consumer energy bills.

Source: Telegraph

In the UK, Anthropogenic Global Warming (AGW) isn’t a political issue, because all three major political parties support it. I consider AGW, instead, to be an anti-democratic movement. No matter which way you vote, you get it.

And get it you do. This is from the website of a politician representing a deprived UK inner city constituency.

…..introduction in April of the Carbon Reduction Commitment (CRC). This will introduce mandatory carbon emissions trading for all businesses and organizations who consume more than 6,000MWh per year of electricity (equivalent to an annual electricity bill of about £500,000) – meaning that organizations who manage to reduce their emissions are able to sell their excess energy on, whilst those who continue to be high consumers will bear the financial burden of having to purchase additional carbon allowances.

Who do you think the burden (cost) will be passed on to ?

The scheme begins in April 2010, when organizations will have to record and report their carbon emissions over the course of the year, before purchasing their first emissions allowance based on those figures in April 2011. Initially, carbon emission allowances will be sold at the fixed price of £12 per tonne of carbon dioxide, before being subject to auction from 2013.

So, the solution is to form a massive new financial market dealing in an intangible product, already widely reported to be riddled with fraud?

Considering that the Copenhagen Summit fell dead on the floor, why is the UK government launching itself into massive cost penalties on our industry (which we consumers will end up paying) regardless? All this while our economy is fighting for survival.

Source: streathamlabour.org.uk

Firstly, ACPO is the statutory consultee for the British Government coordinating national police operations and major investigations. My concern, shared by many others, is that despite the Information Commissioner’s Office (ICO) affirming that crimes had been committed, no charges were being brought under the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) because the statutory time limit had expired.

But this was a disingenuous under-reporting of the facts because criminal charges could still be brought against Professor Phil Jones, chief climate scientist at the Climatic Research Unit (CRO) at the University of East Anglia (UEA), because he confessed to destroying crucial climate data and the leaked emails appear to suggest a conspiracy among a clique of climate scientists to commit data fraud.

As I have shown in an earlier article, criminal charges may still be brought against Jones and his alleged co-conspirators because under the Fraud Act (2006), conspiracy to commit fraud is not subject to such a statutory time limit.

Question: is it true or false that ACPO, a private limited company with no obligations under the Freedom of Information Act, has investments in carbon trading stocks and thus has a personal conflict of interest in investigating ‘Climategate’ thoroughly – a scandal involving alleged global climate data fraud that concomitantly would impact the value of such stocks?

Answer: Firstly, I can confirm that the Association of Chief Police Officers does not have any investment or financial interest of any kind in the trade of carbon stocks.

On a more general point, ACPO became a company limited by guarantee in 1997. This was a pragmatic step taken to maintain independence from Government while enabling the Association to fulfill its functions, including employ staff, enter into contracts for accommodation and allow for transparency in publishing accounts. All funds to ACPO are employed in the public interest.

As a company limited by guarantee, you correctly point out ACPO has no obligations under the Freedom of Information Act. However you may be interested to know that the Ministry of Justice has said it intends that ACPO will be added to the list of bodies subject to the Act, an intention which we welcome.

Question: Can you confirm or deny that officers under your sway are following up the recent Information Commissioner’s (ICO) admission that government officials working at the University of East Anglia did, indeed, unlawfully break the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA), such offences not being subject to any statute of limitations (see below) so that you are now centering your investigations, not solely on ‘hacking’ of emails, but the illegal conduct and possible data fraud of international climate scientists involving many millions in taxpayer grants?

Answer: On your second request, Norfolk Constabulary has confirmed it is investigating a data breach at the UEA and how the circulation of private e-mails became public, with the assistance of the Information Commissioner’s Office (ICO) which is providing advice on Data Protection and FOI. This investigation is led by Norfolk Constabulary and the National Domestic Extremism Team has provided assistance. NDET’s role is to assist police forces: it does not have a remit to carry out investigations independently.

Question: Would you care to comment why the NDET, a non-specialist fraud unit are investigating what some legal commentators are saying is likely to be the greatest science racketeering fraud of all time, a matter more properly dealt with by the Serious Fraud Office?

Answer: NDET has provided assistance as a national police unit with relevant expertise and good background knowledge of the groups involved in climate change issues. Computer forensic expertise is one aspect of that assistance. The Serious Fraud Office has clear case criteria which are a matter for that body.

Question: Would you please relay to us your interpretation of the fraud laws so that our readership may be in no doubt that you recognise that while there may exist a continuum of fraudulent data manipulation, such crimes cannot yet be time barred under the rules of ‘compounded offences’ so that charges may still be lain under the Fraud Act (2006) and ‘conspiracy to corrupt,’ contrary to section 1 of the Criminal Law Act 1977.

Answer: It would be for Norfolk Constabulary to make any comment, if appropriate, on potential outcomes to this investigation. Under legislation, charging decisions are made by the Crown Prosecution Service.

To be frank, no one can reasonably accuse ACPO of foot dragging on this issue. It is simply the duty of ACPO to advise the government that the Serious Fraud Office (SFO) as per the recommendations of the Roskill Report (1988) ought to be conducting this case, not Norfolk Police nor NDET.

The SFO is under the sway of that political appointee, the Attorney-General who in turn is accountable to Prime Minister, Gordon Brown. The British Government knows only too well that since the Criminal Justice Act 1987, the Serious Fraud Office is mandated responsibility for the investigation and prosecution of suspected cases of serious or complex fraud where £1 million or more is involved or in cases of multi-national jurisdiction (i.e. the Climategate scandal).

Prime Minister Brown knows the buck stops with him on this but he is so far having an easy ride and not being exposed for his own complicity in this scam. While the mainstream media is yet to pick up on this it is left to the blogosphere to pursue the matter. I will now be writing to the Attorney General, the Director of the SFO and the Chief Constable of Norfolk Police and I urge other British taxpayers who also feel ripped off to help keep the pressure up.

We must ensure that self-serving politicians like Gordon Brown cannot bury Climategate by, as I suspect, unjustly under-employing the powers of the police merely because we are in the run up to a general election this Spring.

—————————————–
Acknowledgment: Gareth Bowden of ACPO

Yesterday we revealed how the UK’s Climate Challenge Fund spent £9 million in green propaganda. Now the UK TaxPayers’ Alliance has made a video that shows where some of the money was wasted. After watching their video, read their exceptional full report in this PDF–it’s unbelievable.

If you're a UK taxpayer, you paid for this illustration.

The UK government’s Climate Challenge Fund was established in large part to increase pro-warming public opinion. We wanted to find out exactly what their published goals are but their website (www.climatechallenge.gov.uk) seems to be no longer active. We found this quote of its goals on one of the sites it funded: “educate, excite and inspire others so that we can start working together to tackle climate change.” In others words, government propaganda bullshit.

The good news is it failed in its goals; the bad news is that it cost taxpayers £9million between 2006 and 2008. A Whitehall report found that the initiatives were almost entirely directed to those who already believe in climate change, and in addition, the sensationalism put people off.

The Daily Mail reports:

Schemes included a £40,000 DVD in which schoolchildren explained that in ten years everyone will have to wear sunglasses all the time, because the sun will be shining more.

A tent set up in shopping centres and labelled an ‘experiential climate dome’ was subsidised by Whitehall to the tune of nearly £400,000; a computer game cost £47 every time it was played; and a series of ‘challenging pub quizzes’ about climate change cost more than £85,000.

Large grants went to councils, schools and youth groups for ‘ attitude modification’ programmes and to assure the public that man-made global warming is an established scientific fact.

And £200,000 went to Oxford University to ‘take climate change into the community’.

Of course, this information was not freely let out by government officials. It had to be unearthed by the TaxPayers’ Alliance through Freedom of Information requests. Matthew Sinclair, the group’s research director, said:

“The Government has clearly crossed the line from public information to propaganda on climate change.

“Many of the Climate Challenge Fund projects are utterly bonkers and misleading, and come with a huge price tag.

“Despite a fortune having been spent on these projects, the fund has failed even on its own spuripeopleous terms. It is infuriating for taxpayers to see their money squandered on attempts to scare and indoctrinate the public.”

We found one example of a funded project on the internet. It’s a game developed for teachers and students, called Operation Climate Control. Take a look, we think it should have been called Operation Mind Control.

Source: Daily Mail