The great drought (not) - by Richard... Wednesday, April 07, 2010

The great drought (not) - by Richard... Wednesday, April 07, 2010

http://eureferendum.blogspot.com/

Reading the warmist literature on Brazil, you would find it difficult to avoid the impression that that Amazon rain forest was in the grip of perpetual drought, on the brink of collapse. But, as we remarked earlier, warmist history stops in 2005 in the year of the last great drought. Since then, though, we have seen record rainfall.

And the rain doth continue. From The Times and other sources, we learn that up to 100 people have died in Brazil after the most intense rains in half a century turned roads into rivers, triggering flooding and mudslides.

A state of emergency has been declared in the Rio de Janeiro area where most of the mudslides occurred. Officials have warned that the death toll of 95 will probably rise and Rio de Janeiro Mayor Eduardo Paes has made a statement saying: "The situation is chaos. All the major streets of the city are closed because of the floods. Each and every person who attempts to enter them will be at enormous risk.''

The local weather service reports that the rainfall recorded was twice the amount normally registered for the whole month of April. The head of Rio de Janeiro's civil defence department told TV Globo the amount of rain that had fallen was "more than any city is capable of supporting".

The heavy rain began during Monday's evening rush hour, catching workers heading home for the day off-guard. After a brief afternoon lull, rain on Tuesday again intensified after sunset, and officials warned that flooding could worsen today.


And although the municipality of Rio de Janeiro lies to the south of the Amazon basin, it still has great areas of tropical rainforest, comprising the Mendanha Forest (pictured above), the Pedra Branca (White Rock) Forest and the Tijuca (Swampland) Forest. From a climatic perspective, these are in robustly good health, as the 2007 photograph above indicates.

That the health of the forest has almost become a state secret in warmist circles is readily explained by the REDD agenda, which also explains the determination of the warmists not to conceded any ground whatsoever on "Amazongate".

But quite how important REDD has become is revealed in this startlingly frank piece which clearly indicates that the hopes of a new climate treaty are resting on it.

The crucial role of REDD has been dangerously underestimated by the sceptic "community", which has largely failed to realise its significance. However, as our warmist piece explains, the CDM has not been able to deliver the cash flow needed to sustain their cause. REDD is seen as the only mechanism capable of doing this, producing wholesale quantities of carbon credits to supply the demand manufactured by cap and trade. They are two halves of the same coin.

But, for this to succeed, even more important than the Polar Bears facing extinction, the rain forest must be seen to be under threat from climate change. Hence, the warmist world will forever be frozen in a time-warp in which the clocks stopped in 2005 - until another periodic drought happens along, when the clock can lurch forward again.

Meanwhile, torrential rains continue to hit Brazil.

COMMENT THREAD

Print ready

The great charade - by Richard...

As always Gerald Warner hits the spot, echoing precisely the sentiment in my previous post. In the course of the campaign, he writes:

... many people will be dismayed to see formerly stern critics of the Cameronian Party succumb to the dog-whistle of tribal loyalty and announce themselves as reluctant Tory voters. Such reversions to historic allegiance are not, as some will heatedly complain, "betrayal": they are simply the consequence of mounting a critique that was not underpinned by any fundamental and consistent political philosophy.

David Cameron is not "the least worst option": he is the worst possible option. His victory would condemn the Conservative Party to ideological death; his defeat would offer some prospect of restoring it. No government can totally destroy a nation so long as there is a virile and principled opposition. That has ceased to be the case in Britain. Among the major parties we now have the pseudo-choice that was on offer in some of the Soviet satellite states where people could vote for the Communist Party or for some "Peasant People's Party" that was a wholly-owned subsidiary of the Reds.

There are the sheeple, who will get caught up in this charade, and then there are people who can think for themselves. The whole point of the general election campaign is to convince you that the politicians actually give a toss about what you think – all so that you will go trotting obediently into the polls and give them your vote.

Gerald offers the obvious and necessary antidote. We do not have to choose between their lies. We can reject them altogether.

GENERAL ELECTION THREAD

Print ready

A snake oil election - by Richard...

Speaking last month, energy and climate change secretary Ed Miliband said that the environment and climate change could emerge as a "top three" issue during the campaign as each party seeks to tout its green credentials. 

However, he predicted that businesses and the electorate would have to display higher levels of interest in the low carbon economy if the leading parties are to make it a central feature of their campaigning.

Now we are told by The Guardian that Green business leaders are increasingly sceptical that this will be the case and are predicting that "low carbon policies" will slip down the agenda as politicians choose to focus on the economy.

From a survey in The Sun yesterday (pictured), that is exactly what seems to be happening. "Green issues" rank a lowly ninth in the list of voters' concerns, and that portmanteau term covers a whole range of issues, not just global warming – including energy, one presumes.

But then, Geoffrey Lean put his finger on it, noting that there was nothing to choose between the policies of the three main parties. Any differences are only in the degree to which they are prepared to wreck the economy in pursuit of the global warming obsession.

Thus, as with "Europe", which scores eleventh (of twelve) on the list of concerns, the "big three" are going to adopt their usual tactic of simply not talking about policies where there is a large degree of consensus. By such means, they hope to conceal from the electorate how very similar are all three parties.

What is profoundly irritating though is how the "economy" scores so highly in voters' concerns, without any recognition that "green issues" have a major impact on our economy, as indeed does "Europe", more so if the Greek economy goes belly up.

All of this, of course, simply reinforces Heffer's point, that the election contest is completely artificial, dominated by politicians seeking to impose their visions of what is important on an unwilling and sceptical electorate, instead of addressing the issues that really matter.

Under the weight of media coverage, many people will be sucked into these maw, to the extent that they will buy – albeit temporarily – one or other of the agendas on sale. It takes iron discipline to hold on to the conviction that none of them are real.

The snake oil salesmen have been let loose but, just because their messages are now louder, more strident and more urgent, shouldn't make them any more convincing than they were last week. This is still a snake oil election.

GENERAL ELECTION THREAD

Print ready

Dilettantes - by Richard...

MPs have been criticised for not showing up to the Digital Economy Bill debate during its second reading at the House of Commons yesterday.

So says The Daily Telegraph, which complains that, although the controversial Bill was voted through its second Parliamentary reading, only 40 MPs (approximately five per cent of the total 646 members) showed up to listen to the debate which preceded the vote.

Horror of horrors, at one point during the evening debate, fewer than 15 members were sitting in the chamber, despite over 20,000 voters having written to MPs to lobby against the Bill going through without a proper debate.

Such behaviour, though, is entirely normal. Many times we have remarked upon the sparse attendance, particularly with defence debates, but this cuts right across the board. Except for PMQs and the occasional showcase debate, few MPs bother to turn up. They have become political dilettantes.

This, however, is not entirely the MPs' fault. When they do bother to contribute to a debate, they rarely get any recognition for their efforts, as the media have largely ceased taking an interest in the formal proceedings of the House. There is, though, an element of circularity – the media doesn't bother because the MPs don't, and vice versa.

And yesterday, with the torrent of coverage about the general election announcement, it was hardly likely that MPs would bother with a trivial thing like debating a major piece of legislation. They have an election to fight, and that is far more important.

That, in fact, is the lesson from this little episode. Westminster politics has largely become about elections – who gets in and who gets thrown out. The status of Westminister as a legislature has dwindled almost to nothing. But the MPs are playing with fire.

If they have so little regard for the laws that are passed in their name, why on earth do they think that we should treat them with any greater respect?

GENERAL ELECTION THREAD