Oh look. It would seem that someone at the BBC has their finger in the pie of climate change.

The man responsible for looking after the fat pensions of the boys and girls at the BBC is a climate change fanatic, and he is part of an international group of investment managers who bust a gut to invest in 'climate change' schemes. He's called Peter Dunscombe, and he runs the £8.2bn corporation pension fund, advising trustees on a day-to-day basis about their investments. Mr Dunscombe, who addresses conferences about 'ethical investments', is also chairman of the Institutional Investment Group on Climate Change(IIGCC), which has 47 members and manages four trillion euros' worth of investments; yes, four trillion. Their goal is to find as many 'climate change' investment opportunities as possible:

I would really laugh my head of if the Beeb got burnt by this man's fanatism with climate change.

Then again I suspect the government would just allow the BBC to raise their license fee to cover it.

H/T to Biased BBC

Are the Cornish a different race?

Having read over the weekend how the Cornish have failed in their attempt to have rude jokes about them stopped in law. I bring you this justification that they are no different to you or I.

• According to some American academics, the Cornish are racially distinct because they are descended from two Celtic tribes, the Dumnonii and the Cornovil.

This is hogwash, of course. A young man born in 1975, say, is descended from two parents. Those parents were probably born about 1950 to two sets of parents, so our young man is descended from four grandparents. He has eight great-grandparents born around 1925, and 16 great-great-grandparents born in 1900. If you keep going at a rate of four generations per century, by the time you get back to the year 950 (shortly after King Athelstan decided that civilisation began at the Tamar) our young man has 4,398,046,511,104 ancestors, which is about eleven thousand times the population of the entire world at that time.
What this probably means is that we are all related and share a common ancestry, and to talk of any one group of people (the Corns) being descended exclusively from any other group of people (the Dumnonii and the Cornovil) is complete and utter rubbish. Mind you, it's a rather unsettling thought that I am therefore related to, say, Jade Goody. And don't tell me I shouldn't pick on her because she's dead. Most of my ancestors have been dead people. Many of them still are. What is this spurious sensitivity about dead people? Does being dead make you a better person?

At it again. Smoking is now cast as an epidemic.

Although smoking rates are declining, the epidemic is far from solved

The Health secretary is at the forefront of a campaign to stop smoking in Britain completely.

Why is it that they want to stop a perfectly legal pastime for millions?

maybe it's the money it costs the NHS?

Smoking costs the NHS £2.7 billion a year

Nope it can't be that. From HMRC website, the tax take last year is £10.3 billion (Vat included). Now that is nearly 4 times as much as the cost to the NHS. If we eradicate smoking altogether it will mean that a typical family of 4 will have their tax go up by £500 per year. You anti-smokers are going to love that, aren't you?

No, just more control freakery.

 

SOURCE

Who said this?

 

In any area of new knowledge, historically the world has witnessed a number of people who remain sceptics and resistant to change in conventional ways and customs. Today, the power of sceptics has become extremely high because economic interests which resist change support them on a substantial scale. The Center for Public Integrity in Washington D.C. issued a report in March 2009, in which it reported that 770 companies had hired an estimated 2304 lobbyists to influence federal policy on climate change. That represented a 300 per cent increase in numbers in just five years, amounting to four climate lobbyists for every member of Congress. As it happens, this enormous economic power and manifestation of vested interest is not confined to Washington alone, and the lobbyists and the sceptics are flexing their muscles right from Australia to Britain to North America. The current situation is reminiscent of the brutal no-holds-barred campaign carried out by the tobacco lobby when scientific evidence on the link between smoking and cancer became overwhelming and was seen as a threat to their profits.

Of course it was our old friend Dr. R.K. Pachauri.

It would appear, that he  thinks that there is a concerted act, by vested interests such as "Big Oil", to scupper his religious crusade.

He might be advised to have a look around the Blogosphere and then he might appreciate that there is a groundswell of individual criticism of the bogus science pedaled by the IPCC.

Just look at the comments to articles in the MSM concerning AGW. It usually is, 95% against and a meager 5% for. And that includes the Guardian.

SOURCE

Is it legal?

Ed Miliband declares war on climate change sceptics.

Hope you've got a UN resolution on this one Ed?

The BBC's environmental analysist is wriggling now.

I give you Roger Harrabin.

In his article about the so called Amazongate scandal, where it was reported that the IPCC had declared that the Amazonian rain forests were in imminent danger of dying due to a lack of rainfall, due to Global warming, he now appears to distance himself from it.

After the usual bluster he concludes with this:

I have tried to contact the lead author of Working Group II to ask why his team cited WWF not the journals - but without success so far.

My guess is that NGO reports often offer an easy synthesis of already-published evidence.

In my experience, NGO papers are often both accessible and accurate - though clearly written from a point of view.

But it is obvious that the next IPCC report will have to be much more meticulous about flagging up the provenance of its sources.

There will need to be more clarification of what is known as "grey" literature (not peer-reviewed) and IPCC panel participation.

It all points to the need for much greater transparency, though that will throw up issues of its own for a body striving to offer a coherent view to policymakers of an issue dominated by risk, uncertainty and values, rather that unambiguous science.

Just this week, for instance, there were two pieces of published research in Science and Nature suggesting that the very worse effects of climate change may have been overestimated.

The researchers of both papers say they are still concerned about man-made climate change, though.

The unfinished science of climate change goes on.

Full article here At the BBC

MEN ARE JUST HAPPIER PEOPLE

NICKNAMES
· If Laura, Kate and Sarah go out for lunch, they will call each other Laura, Kate and Sarah.
· If Mike, Dave and John go out, they will affectionately refer to each other as Fat Boy, Godzilla and Four-eyes.
EATING OUT
· When the bill arrives, Mike, Dave and John will each throw in £20, even though it's only for £32.50. None of them will have anything smaller and none will actually admit they want change back.
· When the girls get their bill, out come the pocket calculators..
MONEY
· A man will pay £2 for a £1 item he needs.
· A woman will pay £1 for a £2 item that she doesn't need but it's on sale.
BATHROOMS
· A man has six items in his bathroom: toothbrush and toothpaste, shaving cream, razor, a bar of soap, and a towel ..
· The average number of items in the typical woman's bathroom is 337. A man would not be able to identify more than 20 of these items.
ARGUMENTS
· A woman has the last word in any argument.
· Anything a man says after that is the beginning of a new argument.

FUTURE
· A woman worries about the future until she gets a husband.
· A man never worries about the future until he gets a wife.

SUCCESS
· A successful man is one who makes more money than his wife can spend.
· A successful woman is one who can find such a man.
MARRIAGE
· A woman marries a man expecting he will change, but he doesn't.
· A man marries a woman expecting that she won't change, but she does.

DRESSING UP
· A woman will dress up to go shopping, water the plants, empty the trash, answer the phone, read a book, and get the mail.
· A man will dress up for weddings and funerals.
NATURAL
· Men wake up as good-looking as they went to bed..
· Women somehow deteriorate during the night.
OFFSPRING
· Ah, children. A woman knows all about her children. She knows about dentist appointments and romances, best friends, favourite foods, secret fears and hopes and dreams.
· A man is vaguely aware of some short people living in the house.
THOUGHT FOR THE DAY
A married man should forget his mistakes. There's no use in two people remembering the same thing!

So he hoped it wouldn't be noticed, I suppose?

 

It really takes the biscuit.

Rajendra Pachauri was told that the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change assessment that the glaciers would disappear by 2035 was wrong, but he waited two months to correct it. He failed to act despite learning that the claim had been refuted by several leading glaciologists.

The IPCC’s report underpinned the proposals at Copenhagen for drastic cuts in global emissions.

It makes you wonder what else he hasn't been telling us.

And the article ends with this bit of bluster.

“And within three or four days, we were able to come up with a clear and a very honest and objective assessment of what had happened. So I think this presumption on your part or on the part of any others is totally wrong. We are certainly never — and I can say this categorically — ever going to do anything other than what is truthful and what upholds the veracity of science.”

Dr Pacharui has also been accused of using the error to win grants worth hundreds of thousands of pounds.

Bring it on.

Full article in The Times

Women look away now.

In 1912, the world famous Austrian gynecologist, Dr. Hermann Otto Kloepneckler, M.D. Ph.D. published the following:

"The best engine in the world is the vagina. It can be started with one finger. It is self-lubricating. It takes any size piston. And it changes its own oil every four weeks. It is only a pity that the management system is so temperamental."

Health and safety trumps commonsense again.

 

A while ago we had the story of the two PCSOs' who allowed a man to drown because they hadn't had the "Necessary" training.

Now we have another entirely preventable death caused by blind obedience to "The Rules".

A drunk who was killed after stumbling along a motorway was seen by two police officers who decided not to stop and help him because of safety rules, an inquest heard today.

Now, when they first saw him:

"was walking down the embankment"

Surely they could have pulled over onto the hard shoulder and then bundled him into their Police vehicle? No, and it gets worse.

Instead, they radioed in to the control room at 00.19 and asked for a motorway patrol to be deployed to the spot near Aintree.

But 'crucially' the officer reporting Mr Fairbrother provided inaccurate information - saying he was near junction one.

The car hire worker was actually at the opposite end of the 14-mile M57, close to junction seven.

Bloody hell. They didn't know which end of the motorway they were on. IMHO that would be an open and shut case for careless driving.

The drunk was most certainly doomed it would seem.

To make matters worse, the control room operator rated the call as Grade 3, 'any other police response', then downgraded it to Grade 4, passing it to the Highways Agency.

Well I could go on but you can see my point. "Commonsense is now being overruled by " The Rules".

I give up.

Read the whole story in the Mail.