The Heathrow Airport Climate Protesters Are Going to Jail. Good

Oh how the heart bleeds!

According to a small group of green protesters who have gathered outside the magistrates court this represents a terrible travesty of justice. Apparently this will be the first time in the UK anyone has ever been jailed for protesting about climate change.

“A disgrace” says (terrorist-supporting, hard-left) Shadow Chancellor John McDonnell.

“Deeply unjust” says Green MP Caroline Lucas.

No, Caroline, love, what’s really unjust is this: thousands of holidaymakers and business travellers making their way to the airport to catch planes only to miss their flights because a bunch of spoiled trustafarians, unemployable Environmental Sciences graduates and professional wasters have gone and cut through the perimeter fence and lain down on the runway.

One of the idiots – it goes almost without saying – was dressed as a polar bear.

Another of the idiots – again, it almost goes without saying – holds a PhD in climate science from the University of East Anglia (aka the University of Easy Access). And guess who her course supervisor was (h/t Paul Matthews at Bishop Hill). Why – the story gets better and better – it was none other than Phil Jones, the disgraced head of the Climatic Research Unit, as featured so unimpressively in the Climategate emails.

Nobody is suggesting that dressing up as a polar bear or studying Environmental Sciences under Phil Jones ought to be punishable by imprisonment. (Though I don’t think it would do any harm if a few of us wrote to the Home Secretary urging the law to be tightened up in this regard).

But only an utter loon would argue that the right to free protest extended to being given a free pass to ruin people’s holidays, disrupt their business meetings, jeopardise security and cause millions and millions of pounds of economic damage.

This is what is so reprehensible and unjust about so many of the previous decisions made by the courts on environmental issues. The Kingsnorth power station protest, for example.

Kingsnorth was the case in 2008 when a group of Greenpeace protesters successfully defended themselves against a charge of criminal damage (£30,000 worth to a power station chimney) by pleading “climate change” as their “lawful excuse.”

The court had heard from Professor Jim Hansen, one of the world’s leading climate scientists, that the 20,000 tonnes of carbon dioxide emitted daily by Kingsnorth could be responsible for the extinction of up to 400 species. Hansen, a Nasa director who advises Al Gore, the former US presidential candidate turned climate change campaigner, told the court that humanity was in “grave peril”. “Somebody needs to step forward and say there has to be a moratorium, draw a line in the sand and say no more coal-fired power stations.”

It also heard David Cameron’s environment adviser, millionaire environmentalist Zac Goldsmith, and an Inuit leader from Greenland both say climate change was already seriously affecting life around the world. Goldsmith told the court: “By building a coal-power plant in this country, it makes it very much harder [to exert] pressure on countries like China and India” to reduce their burgeoning use of the fossil fuel.

The court was told that some of the property in immediate need of protection included parts of Kent at risk from rising sea levels, the Pacific island state of Tuvalu and areas of Greenland. The defendants also cited the Arctic ice sheet, China’s Yellow River region, the Larsen B ice shelf in Antarctica, coastal areas of Bangladesh and the city of New Orleans.

The jury was told that Kingsnorth emitted the same amount of carbon dioxide as the 30 least polluting countries in the world combined – and that there were advanced plans to build a new coal-fired power station next to the existing site on the Hoo peninsula.

Amazingly, the judge was swayed by this pseudo-scientific guff.

But that was eight years ago, at the height of the green scare. The judge in the #heathrow13 case appears to be made of more robust stuff.

Read the rest at Breitbart.

Cameron’s Favourite Greenie Zac Goldsmith Is Toast

April 22, 2010

One of the many tragic side effects of Nick Clegg’s brief rise to prominence is the havoc it has wreaked on Zac Goldsmith’s election prospects. The beaming, handsome, tree hugging gazillionaire now stands about as much as chance of winning his campaign seat Richmond Park as a baby snaildarter under a Chinese hydro-electric project. My spies in the borough report that his Lib Dem attack dog rival Susan Kramer is making all the running: (Hat tip: Guy Walters)

Richmond Park (LibDem). We have received a Susan Kramer leaflet almost every day for the last three months. Canvassers every weekend. Clegg spent all of Saturday at Kingston Hospital. Not much sign of Zac Goldsmith.

Some people, I know, will feel very sad about this. My famously heterosexual chum Rod Liddle, for example, has been known to talk about the golden Zac in the kind of terms Oscar Wilde might have reserved for Bosie. But speaking as a natural conservative, I couldn’t be more thrilled because in truth a man like Zac Goldsmith should never have been allowed anywhere near the Tory candidates’ list.

It’s not Goldsmith’s vast inherited wealth or the questions over his tax status that bother me. I’m all for people being rich. What I can never forgive in a rich person, though, is when he conspires with the state to pull up the drawbridge so that other people can’t get rich too. This, I’m quite sure, has never been Goldsmith’s intention. But it is an inevitable by-product of his green philosophy – which is essentially a form of Marxism in environmentalism’s garb.

Sure he talks a good game about microgeneration, feed-in-tariffs and Green jobs:

This transition is already happening. In the US, President Obama has promised to spend $150 billion over 10 years on green investment, creating 5m “green collar” jobs. South Korea, Japan and Spain are making similar moves, and in the private sector blue-chip companies have accepted that disregarding the environment is increasingly a financial risk. It’s not just about preparing for the worst, or doing “the right thing”. The transition itself will open windows of unprecedented opportunity. Who can doubt that, in the years to come, clean technology success stories will dominate The Sunday Times Rich list?

In most sectors, we can already see the alternatives, and they work: microgeneration of energy in Germany; combined heat and power plants in Copenhagen; zero-waste policies in Japan and New Zealand; regeneration of fish stocks in Central America; our own Eurostar. In the future, we will see “smart meters” that save money by letting customers know when electricity is cheaper in the day. These meters will be part of a “smart grid” to intelligently co-ordinate how we use new renewable power sources, to regulate supply and demand, and to help reduce greenhouse emissions. If we took the best of today in every sector and made it the norm tomorrow, we’d be halfway or further to our goal.

All of which sounds great till you look into it and find that for every Green job created by government intervention another 2.2 are lost in the real economy; that solar power has been a complete disaster for Germany; that the smart grid is never going to work.

It’s here, though that he gives the game away:

More than that, the government’s purely carbon-related approach does little to address our rapid shift from an era of abundance towards one of scarcity — a situation caused by a combination of huge population growth, insatiable human appetite for consumption, and an ever-shrinking resource base. Rational people know that, without a big shift, we are going to hit a wall. Yet that terrifying truth has almost no bearing on actual policy decisions. Why?

This – though politely phrased, sweetly expressed – is the philosophy of green Marxists everywhere. We must reduce consumption! Our resources are finite! Peak oil! The limits of growth! Government must act to create a new economic paradigm!

There will always be room in the Conservative movement for conservationists. As natural countrymen, sportsmen, animal lovers we’ve always been good at conserving our landscape, nurturing our environment. What we could do without is well-meaning rich kids plotting to wipe out the economy because of a problem that only exists in their pretty, spoilt, guilt-tripping heads. Their place is with the other unelectables: in the Green Party.

Related posts:

  1. Pope Catholic; Obama energy official profits from AGW
  2. Green jobs? Wot green jobs? (pt 242)
  3. Joy shall be in heaven over one sinner that repenteth
  4. The problem with God is He thinks He’s Bob Geldof

9 Responses to “Cameron’s favourite greenie Zac Goldsmith is toast”

  1. Tom Forrester-Paton says:April 22, 2010 at 1:06 pmJames – sorry if this is a bit OT but wondered if you had seen this – http://www.courthousenews.com/2010/04/22/26627.htmFinally, a warmist scientist is suing a sceptic for defaming him, and finally, unless they settle out of court, we may see AGW science aired in the forensic environment it has so long shunned.I hope Corcoran’s ducks are all in a row…
  2. Josh says:April 23, 2010 at 10:59 amDef on topic this timeThe first cartoon on this page…just for you ;-)http://www.cartoonsbyjosh.comAnd yes, Zac, the man up against Susan Kramer in our constituency, is unlikely to make it now.
  3. lester says:April 24, 2010 at 12:07 amRe: TOMIn regards to this lawsuit-the scientist in question actually lives in my area and he is
    an alarmist of the highest order. He has simply filed a suit for slander looking for,in my opinion , a fast buck from the national post.The article in question he is suing over, including by the way he says he is also suing to posters ,looks so contrived espicailly the posters replies . Google him find the article in the National post dated in Jan/2010. He is a petty climate scientist of the worse order .This is nothing more than a publicity stunt from a small man trying to gain recognition feeling frustrated over the ever growing awareness that AGW,MMGW or whatever else they wish to call this fantasy is nothing more than a frenzied religion pushed by the dogma of the enviromental movement .It has nothing to do with climate change and everything to do with cap and trade and carbon credits.
    in my opinion as this fruitloop threatens to even sue posters.
  4. Eric Smith says:April 25, 2010 at 11:33 pmI don’t think there are many green Marxists, there are certainly lots of ecofascists and eco nazis. Like Zac, nephew of his hero, Edward Goldsmith that even Monbiot called a nazi.Black Shirts in Green Trousers
    By George Monbiot,The previous editorial team split with its founder Teddy Goldsmith after he addressed a meeting of the hard right Groupement de Recherche et d’Etudes pour la Civilisation Europeene. Goldsmith, whose politics are a curious mixture of radical and reactionary, has advocated the enforced separation of Tutsis and Hutus in Rwanda and Protestants and Catholics in Ulster, on the grounds that they constitute “distinct ethnic groups” and are thus culturally incapable of co-habitation.http://www.monbiot.com/archives/2002/04/30/black-shirts-in-green-trousersJonathan Freedland used very similar colour coded imagery to describe Zac, describing him as

    “a Green & Blacks organic chocolate bar in human form ”

    http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2010/mar/09/smoothies-party-rich-tories-brand?showallcomments=true#end-of-comments

    Edward Goldsmith was editor of the Ecologist and published Lovelock’s ecofascit Gaia material.

    Zac’s father, the infamous Jimmy Goldsmith was accused of plotting to overthrow the Wilson government wit his eco nazi friend John Aspinall.

    According to former MI5 officer Peter Wright, a group of his colleagues, including Margaret Thatcher’s mentor Airey Neave, began discussing a political coup. According to Wright, they believed that the Labour government had been infiltrated by the KGB and should be overthrown. He also claimed they were backed by a right-wing financier. Goldsmith always denied he put the money behind the group or discussed MI5 matters with former intelligence officers.

    http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2005/jan/09/politics.past

    John Aspinall

    Some of us are now drawn to believe that a demo-catastrophe will be an eco-bonanza. In other words, a population readjustment on a planetary scale from 4000 million to something in the nature of 200 million would be the only possible solution for the survival of our species.and of the eco-system or systems that nurtured us.

    http://tinyurl.com/ydgb2ed

    More ecofascist links here

    http://homepage.ntlworld.com/sealed/gw/greennazis.htm

    History of carbon trading and big money support for global warming

    http://homepage.ntlworld.com/sealed/gw/business.htm

    Great blog, by the way. Unfair of you to use humour against little George Monbiot. He has no defence.

  5. Pete Hayes says:April 28, 2010 at 6:58 am“What we could do without is well-meaning rich kids plotting to wipe out the economy because of a problem that only exists in their pretty, spoilt, guilt-tripping heads.”Ah James! Thats what taking LSD in the 60’s and 70’s did for lots of people. Then the realism set in!I have read your articles for some time now and the one thing sceptics (I so love being called that!) have in common is that we all know climate changes and never deny it! Initially I just thought it was bad science but quickly came to realise it was all about money. Not to long ago someone told me to take a chill pill on a Telegraph comment over the fact that I mentioned the financial side of “Climategate”. I wonder what the person who had a pop at me thinks now.Someone, a few months back made a comment on WUWT, along the lines of, “Climategate, the gift that keeps on giving”. How true! Now Australia bums out Rudds version of Cap and Trade for at least 2 years (like he will be around then!). Its hard not to walk around without a smile on ones face!
  6. Manuel says:April 29, 2010 at 2:02 pmMr Goldsmith has achieved the impossible by making me consider voting Lib Dem, a party I loathe more than Hugo Chavez and George Galloway combined. I think if I could punch anyone in the world in the face, Dame Jenny Tonge (the former incumbent) would need to be getting her mouthguard fitted.He’s a nice chap, but Kramer is a feisty one, she claims no expenses, and she’s attended every Kingston public meeting I’ve been to. Not a bad MP at all.The only thing that’s making me pause now is that if I vote for her it will be considered, by media types who assume I give a stuff about the TV debates, as a vote for Clegg.
  7. Don Stuart says:April 29, 2010 at 3:44 pmManuel, don’t do it – you would hate yourself knowing you had helped Clegg on his way (not suggesting a vote for or against Goldsmith incidentally). Why not abstain.Agree 100% with regard to Tonge – a classic leftist, Israel hating, multi-culti bitch in my opinion, who represents all that is wrong with Lib-Dems. Though to be fair even they are ambivalent in having her within their ranks.
  8. Manuel says:April 30, 2010 at 8:36 amYou’re right, Don.Maybe I’ll vote for Zac after all. Needs must when the devil vomits in your kettle, as Blackadder put it. I can’t see he has much of a hope though, especially with this transparently fictitious “Save Our Hospital!” twaddle that someone’s cooked up.I once wrote such an angry letter to Tonge about her suicide-bombing sympathies that I suspect I may be on some kind of nut-job watch list. Ah well.
  9. Jade Preston says:June 26, 2010 at 10:53 amMy team is out. So much for Cameroon this year. That was a quick exit. I really expected that they had a solid opportunity to do well in this years world cup. Maybe next time. Maybe its time to jump on the Argentina bandwagon. Looks like Demichelis has already scored. Go Argentina. To make me feel better from that devistating loss by Cameroon, I have been listening to some funny jokes.. Here is a good one: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=N3j7uSbccSc

On Plimer, Climate Change and the Ineffable Barkingness of George Moonbat

As Rod Liddle has noticed over at the Spectator today, the Guardian’s resident Climate Fear Promoter George Monbiot has written yet another long and foaming rant about his favourite topic: why he’s right and why everyone who disagrees with him is a heretic and a fool who deserves to be cast into outer darkness.

Now I have no objection to this tack in principle: I have been guilty of it myself from time to time. (Oh all right, always). But here’s one of the key differences between Moonbat and me. Most of the things I advocate are going to make you richer, happier and free-er. Whereas, if anyone ever chooses to take any of the self-hating Old Stoic’s ravings seriously, we’ll soon all be living in caves, travelling round in coracles, and dining on nettles and ground acorns, while gangs of fascistic Misery and Ecological Righteousness Supervisors led by the Prince Of Wales, the Hon Jonathan Porritt and Zac Goldsmith patrol the realm in their BioFuel-powered Aston Martins whipping us (but not in a fun way) with organically grown birch twigs.

Anyway, that’s by the by. What I really want to do here is correct a misapprehension I’ve noticed among one or two blog comments of late: viz, that Aussie Professor Ian Plimer – author of Heaven And Earth – somehow chickened out of, or even lost his debate re Anthropogenic Global Warming with the Moonbat and that the subject was now closed.

What? Eh? Quoi? In your dreams Moonbat!

And I say “In your dreams Moonbat” because the only way anyone could possibly have reached this conclusion is by reading one of his magisterially self-deluding columns. (God they must have some stamina!)

Here are the facts. Prof Plimer offered to fly at his own expense from Australia to London to debate publicly with George Monbiot, fair and square, with no conditions attached.

Monbiot, as I reported before, was the one who chickened out. But he did it such a way as to try to present himself as the victor.

You can read for yourself in full the exchange of letters in which Monbiot wriggled out of the debate at the Moonbat’s website. A more perfect case of cognitive dissonance you rarely did see. The contrast between what Monbiot repeatedly tells you – that he won the debate because Plimer chickened out – and the evidence of their correspondence speaks for itself.

As promised Professor Plimer is now coming to London to lecture on Climate Change on November 12 at Savoy Place. If Monbiot is too scared to turn up and present his side of the argument, that’s his fault not Plimer’s.

Related posts:

  1. Is George ‘Jello’ Monbiot too chicken to debate ‘Global Warming’ with an expert?
  2. Meet the man who has exposed the great climate change con trick
  3. ‘Germany’s George Monbiot’ turns climate sceptic
  4. Climate Change: an emetic fallacy