Captains Search

Wednesday, 27 April 2011

Ello Wealdens got a lotta new motors.

I think you will agree that these pictures show nice premium model cars.Are they anything like the cars you have parked outside your house?.

Perhaps it will come as a surprise to know that these are the sort of brand new cars that you get to drive if you get a job with Wealden Council.

Wealden Council goes on and on about bollocky climate change and how we should all make sacrifices to ensure the future of our planet but hypocritically allows its staff to swan around in top of the range convertibles and people carriers paid for by us the taxpayers.

If you look through the monthly spend of Wealden Council there are loads of vehicle lease payments and only a small percentage actually specify the make and model of car concerned.I wonder what gems are to be found in the unspecified vehicle lease payments .I wonder what car Chief Dickhead Charles Lant drives around in at our expense on top of his £150,000 annual salary.

The excuse that crappy councils like Wealden always come out with is that they always need to pay the going rate for the job in order to get the best people.Well if all the councils reduced their salaries for Chief Clerks aka Executives to lets say £12000 a year that would be the going rate and would definitely be commensurate with their non existent abilities.

If they want to get around then travel by bus like they want everyone else to do.

Whilst looking through the spending I also noticed that we seem to be paying for a lot of yoga classes for some reason.

Tuesday, 26 April 2011

The strange story of the pigs and the pikeys.

My post about home defence has proved to be correct.Today we hear of a lady who was threatened with death by a bunch of pikeys who were trespassing on her land.The pikeys were told to fcuk off but the lady was so concerned about the threats made to her and her animals that she contacted the plod.

Plod finally turned up 35 minutes later and oh so predictably treated the lady as the felon and the pikeys as the victims.Here comes the best bit though...despite no firearms being involved the lady concerned had her legally held shotguns removed on the orders of the token black female Chief Super.The lady concerned was probably a bit naive in expecting the modern (we value diversity) filth to actually do anything but leaving her defenceless against the inbred pikeys is disgusting.Next to gayboys and lezzers ,pikeys are fast becoming a protected species who can do no wrong in the eyes of the bumboys in blue.

Sunday, 24 April 2011

Cut a long story short.

I lost my mind.

Royal Wedding.

This will be my only post on this subject so enjoy it.

Tuesday, 12 April 2011

Climate Change Worm starts to turn.

Carbon warming too minor to be worth worrying about
By David Evans

The debate about global warming has reached ridiculous proportions and is full of micro-thin half-truths and misunderstandings. I am a scientist who was on the carbon gravy train, understands the evidence, was once an alarmist, but am now a skeptic. Watching this issue unfold has been amusing but, lately, worrying. This issue is tearing society apart, making fools out of our politicians.

Let’s set a few things straight.

The whole idea that carbon dioxide is the main cause of the recent global warming is based on a guess that was proved false by empirical evidence during the 1990s. But the gravy train was too big, with too many jobs, industries, trading profits, political careers, and the possibility of world government and total control riding on the outcome. So rather than admit they were wrong, the governments, and their tame climate scientists, now outrageously maintain the fiction that carbon dioxide is a dangerous pollutant.

Let’s be perfectly clear. Carbon dioxide is a greenhouse gas, and other things being equal, the more carbon dioxide in the air, the warmer the planet. Every bit of carbon dioxide that we emit warms the planet. But the issue is not whether carbon dioxide warms the planet, but how much.

Most scientists, on both sides, also agree on how much a given increase in the level of carbon dioxide raises the planet’s temperature, if just the extra carbon dioxide is considered. These calculations come from laboratory experiments; the basic physics have been well known for a century.

The disagreement comes about what happens next.

The planet reacts to that extra carbon dioxide, which changes everything. Most critically, the extra warmth causes more water to evaporate from the oceans. But does the water hang around and increase the height of moist air in the atmosphere, or does it simply create more clouds and rain? Back in 1980, when the carbon dioxide theory started, no one knew. The alarmists guessed that it would increase the height of moist air around the planet, which would warm the planet even further, because the moist air is also a greenhouse gas.

This is the core idea of every official climate model: For each bit of warming due to carbon dioxide, they claim it ends up causing three bits of warming due to the extra moist air. The climate models amplify the carbon dioxide warming by a factor of three — so two-thirds of their projected warming is due to extra moist air (and other factors); only one-third is due to extra carbon dioxide.

That’s the core of the issue. All the disagreements and misunderstandings spring from this. The alarmist case is based on this guess about moisture in the atmosphere, and there is simply no evidence for the amplification that is at the core of their alarmism.

Weather balloons had been measuring the atmosphere since the 1960s, many thousands of them every year. The climate models all predict that as the planet warms, a hot spot of moist air will develop over the tropics about 10 kilometres up, as the layer of moist air expands upwards into the cool dry air above. During the warming of the late 1970s, ’80s and ’90s, the weather balloons found no hot spot. None at all. Not even a small one. This evidence proves that the climate models are fundamentally flawed, that they greatly overestimate the temperature increases due to carbon dioxide.

This evidence first became clear around the mid-1990s.

At this point, official “climate science” stopped being a science. In science, empirical evidence always trumps theory, no matter how much you are in love with the theory. If theory and evidence disagree, real scientists scrap the theory. But official climate science ignored the crucial weather balloon evidence, and other subsequent evidence that backs it up, and instead clung to their carbon dioxide theory — that just happens to keep them in well-paying jobs with lavish research grants, and gives great political power to their government masters.

There are now several independent pieces of evidence showing that the earth responds to the warming due to extra carbon dioxide by dampening the warming. Every long-lived natural system behaves this way, counteracting any disturbance. Otherwise the system would be unstable. The climate system is no exception, and now we can prove it.

But the alarmists say the exact opposite, that the climate system amplifies any warming due to extra carbon dioxide, and is potentially unstable. It is no surprise that their predictions of planetary temperature made in 1988 to the U.S. Congress, and again in 1990, 1995, and 2001, have all proved much higher than reality.

They keep lowering the temperature increases they expect, from 0.30C per decade in 1990, to 0.20C per decade in 2001, and now 0.15C per decade — yet they have the gall to tell us “it’s worse than expected.” These people are not scientists. They overestimate the temperature increases due to carbon dioxide, selectively deny evidence, and now they conceal the truth.

One way they conceal is in the way they measure temperature.

The official thermometers are often located in the warm exhaust of air conditioning outlets, over hot tarmac at airports where they get blasts of hot air from jet engines, at waste-water plants where they get warmth from decomposing sewage, or in hot cities choked with cars and buildings. Global warming is measured in 10ths of a degree, so any extra heating nudge is important. In the United States, nearly 90% of official thermometers surveyed by volunteers violate official siting requirements that they not be too close to an artificial heating source.

Global temperature is also measured by satellites, which measure nearly the whole planet 24/7 without bias. The satellites say the hottest recent year was 1998, and that since 2001 the global temperature has levelled off. Why does official science track only the surface thermometer results and not mention the satellite results?

The Earth has been in a warming trend since the depth of the Little Ice Age around 1680. Human emissions of carbon dioxide were negligible before 1850 and have nearly all come after the Second World War, so human carbon dioxide cannot possibly have caused the trend. Within the trend, the Pacific Decadal Oscillation causes alternating global warming and cooling for 25 to 30 years at a go in each direction. We have just finished a warming phase, so expect mild global cooling for the next two decades.

We are now at an extraordinary juncture. Official climate science, which is funded and directed entirely by government, promotes a theory that is based on a guess about moist air that is now a known falsehood. Governments gleefully accept their advice, because the only ways to curb emissions are to impose taxes and extend government control over all energy use. And to curb emissions on a world scale might even lead to world government — how exciting for the political class!

Even if we stopped emitting all carbon dioxide tomorrow, completely shut up shop and went back to the Stone Age, according to the official government climate models it would be cooler in 2050 by about 0.015 degrees. But their models exaggerate 10-fold — in fact our sacrifices would make the planet in 2050 a mere 0.0015 degrees cooler!

Finally, to those who still believe the planet is in danger from our carbon dioxide emissions: Sorry, but you’ve been had. Yes, carbon dioxide is a cause of global warming, but it’s so minor it’s not worth doing much about.

Financial Post
David Evans consulted full-time for the Australian Greenhouse Office (now the Department of Climate Change) from 1999 to 2005, and part-time 2008 to 2010, modelling Australia’s carbon in plants, debris, mulch, soils, and forestry and agricultural products. He is a mathematician and engineer, with six university degrees, including a PhD from Stanford University in electrical engineering. The comments above were made to the Anti-Carbon-Tax Rally in Perth, Australia, on March 23

Taken from financial post article

Saturday, 2 April 2011

Dummies guide to the climate changing.

Firstly we need to establish what the climate is exactly.Contrary to what we have had rammed down our throat on a regular basis by warmists the climate is NOT the same as the global atmospheric system.
Looking for a definition of climate and you find " the typical weather conditions in a particular area". Climate therefore can be local or cover a wider area but it is NOT anything to do with the Earths atmospheric system.If someone was to say Los Angeles has a warm climate there would be no argument but to describe the whole Earth as having a particular climate is ridiculous because everyone knows that different parts of the planet have different weather systems influencing them and therefore have different climates.Knowing that climate is local and not global means that climate change across the whole globe is impossible.Every local area has an overiding climate which obviously fluctuates due to the intereaction of all the other local climates across the globe.You cannot view one area without taking into account what is happening in other areas.
These changes in temperature are the driving force behind our weather.Warm air rises which creates low pressure and cold air falls which produces high pressure and the difference between the two causes ground air in the form of winds to be forced from high pressure areas to low pressure areas.
Like a 3d puzzle weather and local climates do not operate on one level nor do they operate on their own.Low pressure (rising air) causes clouds due to the cooling the warm air undergoes when it rises.High pressure however is falling cooler air so less clouds will form in warming cooler air than in cooling warm air due to the difference in the amount of condensed water that warm and cool air can retain.
On the edges of high pressure and low pressure areas is the area that is most volatile and is what we call a weather front.Simples really if you think about it.

The weather in the UK is not formed over the UK.Depending on what direction the weather fronts are coming from and the time of the year dictates the weather we have in the UK. The other driver for weather is the difference between sea and land with the land heating and cooling much quicker than water adding in another variable for our weather.Weather can change over a very short period but an areas climate will only change over a very long period.To take Los Angeles as an example-its weather will change from day to day or hour to hour but the climate will always be warm and dry.A thunderstorm would not change the climate but it would change the weather.
From this I think you can see that the term Climate Change to describe changes in the Earths atmosphere over a short period of time is a misnomer.
Even if we were confident that global temperatures over the last 30 years was showing an slight upward trend (which incidently they dont)that would be meaningless
given the age of the Earth (approx 4.5 billion years old).Only a fool would try to establish a meaningful trend from 30 out of 4.5 thousand million years.Given that
the Earths atmospheric system is so complicated and chaotic only a fool would believe that the Earths atmospheric system is reacting to minute changes (parts per million) of its constituent gases.
Underpinning all the weather drivers is obviously the Sun because without the warming of the sun there would be no heat which would mean no weather and no life .
The Sun however is not a stable source of consistent heat radiation .The Sun has periods of high activity and periods of low activity for reasons we are not really sure about but we do know that these highs and lows can be predictable because they occur in a cyclical pattern and can be monitored from earth.
Common sense would tell us that when the sun is most active the global weather system would be most active purely by virtue of the increased solar energy being put into the atmosphere.Also more energy would reach the surface of the Earth especially at the Equator which would produce higher ground/sea temperatures making the global weather system more energetic and chaotic.Lower solar activity would produce less energy in our atmosphere and less heat reaching the ground /sea making the global weather system less energetic and less chaotic.
Those people that believe that a tiny increase in one minor constituent gas in the atmosphere can drive changes in global weather are ignoring the Elephant in the room that is the Sun and its cyclical activity.If they can ignore a star on our doorstep
then is it any surprise that the weather warmists have no credible explanation to their theory.The only "supporting evidence" they provide for weather warming are the
adulterated temperature datasets spat out by their own computer models which bear no resemblance to fact.The computer models are designed in such a way that whatever figures you put in (say the number of doughnuts eaten in the UK per day)it will always produce an upward temperature trend.The warmists are so insecure about their theory that they do not publish the raw data and instead rely on their computer model results which are warped to say the least.
The earth is an incredibly complicated system and no part of the system can be viewed in isolation.In fact you cannot start to understand the Earth system unless you understand the Earths place in the solar system.Life as we know it is only possible on this planet because the Earth is just the right distance from the Sun.
Any closer to the Sun and we would be toast and any further away we would be ice.
Believing that tiny quantities of C02 in the atmosphere have a huge effect on the global weather system but changes in the heat being put in the atmosphere through the cycles of the sun doesnt is pure madness and flies in the face of all scientific understanding.
I think the problem is that the warmist alarmists are not scientists.They may call themselves climate scientists but they are no more than computer modellers and system analysts.Trying to fit real science into the man made warming theory is like trying to squeeze a quart into a pint pot-it simply will no work.Science says that
you cannot squeeze a quart into a pint pot but the warmists would point out that their model says you can and a consensus among themsleves agrees so therefore you can get a quart into a pint pot.
While we are at it can we also put to bed the ridiculous phrases "greenhouse effect" and "greenhouse gases".Greenhouses magnify and trap the heat from the sun by reducing the cooling effect of convection which has no bearing or similarity to the Earths weather systems nor does glass (which is technically a liquid) have any common properties with C02.It would be fantastic if we could use C02 as a high efficient heat insulator but we cant because it isnt and even if it was i dont think it would be very effective in a ratio of a few parts per million.
Another ridiculous phrase that we hear regularly but means nothing is carbon free or carbon neutral.On earth all lifeforms are carbon based and although C02 obviously contains an element of carbon it also contains more oxygen atoms .C02 is no more carbon than water is oxygen.When you make a cup of tea you dont fill up the kettle with oxygen do you so why is C02 suddenly transformed into carbon which it clealy isnt.
The answer is that everything is simplified so those that dont know their arse from their elbow will be able to explain something that simply doesnt hold up to scientific scrutiny.Education has been dumbed down to such an extent that if Al Gore said that sticking your head down the toilet would help the poor ickle Polar Bears from extinction loads of people would have very wet and smelly hair.