Submitted by climaterealists on Sat, 27/03/2010 - 18:12
By Richard Rennie
NZ Farmers Weekly
A carbon company has reneged on farm deals valued over $50 million in
the Central North Island and could face charges under the Fair Trading
Act from 15 affected farmers.
Last month New Zealand Farmers Weekly reported on CO2 Farming's efforts
to secure hill country land in the Taumarunui, Taihape and Wairarapa
region to plant in trees and sell the carbon credits on the open market.
"CO2 Farming has never paid any of the money owing to buy either my
property or any of the others owned by 14 other farmers," said Janette
Walker of Pongaroa.
Walker had originally intended to sell the property to CO2 Farming,
headed up by Robin Lewis and his partner Julie Chegwidden of Rotorua.
Making no secret of her financial difficulties, Walker has been
responsible for organising the Farmers Weekly banker survey, run in
February.
She has been under bank pressure to sell her 840ha property and said the
Lewis offer was unconditional, taking an invoice for the deposit,
claiming the GST back and using that as payment toward the property.
Submitted by climaterealists on Sat, 27/03/2010 - 18:10
Bryan Walker's latest missive (WT 16th Mar) smacks of considerably more denial than most climate skeptics. Like the majority of his kind, he is desperately trying to play down the impact of the recent IPCC blunders in the face of a growing skeptism towards man-made climate change.
Submitted by climaterealists on Sat, 27/03/2010 - 18:02
James Delingpole blog
24th February, 2010
Heroic, monotesticular UKIP MEP Nigel Farage was bumped off the BBC Question Time panel at the last minute last week. Shame. That particular edition was broadcast from Middlesbrough and it would have been fascinating to hear the audience’s response to the choice things he was planning to say about the closure of their local steelworks.
Here is how he describes it in a letter:
Sir
Corus’ steelworks at Redcar, near Middlesbrough, “Teesside Cast Products”, is to be closed (”mothballed” is the euphemism). It is Britain’s last great steelworks and an essential national resource. Without it, we are at the world’s mercy.
Submitted by climaterealists on Sat, 27/03/2010 - 17:17
Hilltopper Haven.com
by John O'Sullivan on February 17, 2010
The world’s largest private sector coal business, the Peabody Energy Company (PEC) has filed a mammoth 240-page “Petition for Reconsideration,” a full-blown legal challenge against the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency.
The petition must be answered and covers the entire body of leaked emails from ‘Climategate’ as well as those other ‘gate’ revelations including the frauds allegedly perpetrated under such sub-headings as ‘Himalayan Glaciers,’ ‘African Agricultural Production,’ ‘Amazon Rain Forests,’ ‘Melting Mountain Ice,’ ‘Netherlands Below Sea Level’ as well as those much-publicized abuses of the peer-review literature and so called ‘gray literature.’ These powerful litigants also draw attention to the proven criminal conduct by climate scientists in refusing to honor Freedom of Information law (FOIA) requests.
Submitted by climaterealists on Sat, 27/03/2010 - 17:15
The Wall Street Journal
23 March 2010
The United Nations' Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change admitted for the first time last month that it is facing a crisis of confidence. But the IPCC's failings go far beyond the recent spate of errors identified in its reports. The problem began with the global political climate that led to the formation of the IPCC two decades ago.
Contrary to popular perception, the IPCC is not a scientific organization. It does no research of its own. Composed of scientists nominated by different governments, its key function is to collate evidence of human-induced climate change, not just changes in climate.
It is hardly surprising that with such an inherently biased objective the scientists lost their objectivity. Many of them went on a crusade to support the political goal of proving anthropogenic global warming. Concerns about scientific objectivity and critical discourse were thrown overboard.
Submitted by climaterealists on Sat, 27/03/2010 - 17:02
Submitted by climaterealists on Sat, 27/03/2010 - 15:03
Honorable PM Key
Honorable Bill English
Honorable Dr Nick Smith
Sirs
You can expect farm impact statements such as this to be circulated every week throughout New Zealand. The uncertainties dumped on rural New Zealand by the ETS are real, and these are people who supported placing the National Party into office - and who are now being damaged.
The fact that National is going to get a backlash is most unfortunate, because there is much important work to be done. Trashing New Zealand's primary export sector means to Kiwis that promises of 'catching up' with Australia are as hollow as when they were previously made by Helen Clark. Furthermore, the ETS belies the claimed intent of this government to reduce red tape and bureaucracy - and you all know that.
Why is the National party doing this to it's own flock???
Sincerely,
Ken S
Submitted by climaterealists on Sat, 27/03/2010 - 15:00
Dear John,
I am a Helensville electorate voter and supporter of the National Government. However I am becoming increasingly alarmed by the ETS legislation soon to come into effect. Worldwide the ETS is a shambles. France has backed off; we don’t know what Australia is going to do (originally we were going to align ourselves with Australia); there are huge question-marks around the AGW science; the scheme does not reduce emissions, it just transfers them from one country to another; the effect of the scheme on our economy is at best uncertain and most likely very harmful. I urge you and your government to repeal the ETS legislation or at least delay its introduction until there is some certainty about what the rest of the world, and in particular Australia, are going to do.
Yours sincerely,
Graham C
Submitted by climaterealists on Sat, 27/03/2010 - 14:57
Dear Prime Minister,
I write to you because I am concerned that the advice you have been given in
respect to the Catastrophic Anthropogenic Global Warming scare is not based
on sound science and because my original query put to my local MP well over
a year ago has remained unanswered. My emails to Heatley were never even
acknowleged. Two further emails were copied to Nick Smith and yourself. My
original question was,"Who will be held accountable when the science
surrounding CAGW is shown to be flawed?"
Submitted by climaterealists on Fri, 26/03/2010 - 15:56
Telegraph.co.uk
by Gerald Warner 12 March 2010
It looks as if the tottering IPCC has just made its biggest mistake yet. Twenty-four hours after the announcement of an “independent” inquiry into certain aspects of its activities it is possible to make a considered assessment of its significance. By any reasoned analysis, it is not only a whitewash but one in which the paint is spread so thinly as to be transparent.
First, who appointed this review body? Those two iconic standard bearers of climate science objectivity, UN Secretary General Ban Ki-moon and IPCC head (still!) Rajendra Pachauri. There is nothing like being judge in your own cause – it secures a less damaging verdict. Ban Ki-moon is the clown who, on a visit to the Arctic last September, despairingly proclaimed that “100 billion tons” of polar ice were melting each year, when the sea-ice around him had just extended itself by half a million square kilometres more than at the same time the previous year. Pachauri, among many other solecisms, is also the buffoon who denounced criticism of the IPCC’s absurd claims about melting Himalayan glaciers as “voodoo science”.
Pages
