Did Farage Vote in Camera to remain in the EU. Or is this Tory Bojo Fake News.

1Selection_805

Mike Gascoigne to Supporters of Gerard Batten

NIGEL FARAGE BREXIT U-TURN

I found this in a collection of replies to a sub-topic under a main topic in this group and I didn’t know whether to believe it, so I got in touch with Stuart Agnew and he confirmed that it’s true, it’s an extract from his diary which is sent to all Eastern region email subscribers.

I thought I should bring it up front and re-post it as a main topic, so here it is (note especially the 4th paragraph):

******

MY WEEK STUART AGNEW MEP

I was in Brussels last week voting in Committees. I also attended a Green Warmist farming event as the fly in the ointment. We were told that Fen soils should no longer be cultivated. Reeds suitable for thatching should be established and regularly harvested for roof thatching, which must be promoted because this would ‘sequester’ CO2. I spoilt the party by pointing out that thatched roofs require re-thatching every thirty years or so and that the old thatch is either left to rot or is burnt, releasing its CO2. The Fen soils found in the west of our region are highly fertile, producing a significant quantity of food. Abandoning a farming area about the size of Bedfordshire (NB: that County is not in the Fens) in the futile hope that this will improve the world’s weather will just increase our dependency on other countries to feed us.

The main highlight of the week was a surprise invitation to attend the ‘Conference of Presidents’ as the substitute of the ENF Group Leader Nicholas Bay. This event is held monthly and comprises the leaders of the eight Political Groups, chaired by Tajani the President of the Parliament. They usually discuss Parliamentary procedure. On Wednesday an emergency meeting was called just ahead of Theresa May’s visit to grovel for yet another extension. The President wanted to consult the leaders of the Groups, before he himself attended the European Council Meeting to sound out the views of the Parliament. If, thirty years ago, someone had said to me that on 10th April 2019 I would be personally consulted as one of the nine most senior members of the European Parliament on my view as to whether the EU should grant an extension to the UK to remain in the EU, I would have pointed to a flying pig.

Nevertheless, there we all were. Each MEP had their Group’s most senior civil servant beside them, plus all the inevitable Parliament secretarial sidekicks, sycophants and hangers-on, etc. Each MEP was asked in turn whether they thought an extension should be granted. There is a pecking order here, with the leader of the largest Group (Manfred Weber of the EPP) being consulted first and so on. None of the first six leaders objected to an extension, but some insisted that full EU rules must apply to all UK citizens, and others that any interim conditions agreed by Theresa May could not be revoked by another UK Prime Minister.

It was then Nigel Farage’s turn to speak (leader of the EFDD Group) followed by myself. Following Farage as a speaker is very much a ‘graveyard slot’ and I was wondering how I could hold anyone’s attention after one of his barnstormers. What he said, however, utterly astonished me. The meeting was ‘in camera’ which means it is not broadcast. He stated that he wanted an extension of Britain’s EU membership so that he could parade the candidates of his new Party. I have known him for 20 of the 25 years that he has been campaigning against EU membership. To hear him say he wanted to remain in the EU, when there was a genuine opportunity to leave 48 hours later, was akin to hearing Geoffrey Boycott saying he would support Lancashire against Yorkshire. It was the very last thing I expected.

It did at least give me a chance to say what he should have done, and with a fair degree of passion. The main thrust of my statement was that whilst many British MPs were frightened of self-government and a so called cliff edge, I could remember ‘Brentry’ as a voting adult in 1973 and the days when the EU did not interfere in British government. I outlined a list of examples of interferences with each passing Treaty and how increased interference made Britain more difficult to govern, not easier. I urged the President to urge Donald Tusk to expel the UK from the EU so that we could forget politics and start talking trade. My intervention was not well received.

I am now concerned that touring the country giving such eloquent, engaging, enjoyable and entertaining anti-EU speeches has become such a raison d’etre for Nigel, that the prospect of all that finishing last Friday was the equivalent of the farmer shooting the huntsman’s fox.

On route home on Thursday I had lunch in the Farmers Club with a British Canadian, Jim Buckingham, who had campaigned with me in the 2004 European Parliament elections. He comes to Britain in alternate years and maintains an intense interest in the politics of both countries. He tells me that Canada’s soft left Prime Minister Trudeau is racking up a huge public spending deficit. It sounded almost as irresponsible as Greece in the early 2000s.

I was in for a disappointment when I got home. My middle son Kit has joined UKIP and wanted to give me the very pleasant surprise of going into the polling station for the local elections on May 2nd and seeing his name as the UKIP candidate on the ballot paper. Unfortunately, he didn’t understand the process for doing this. He obtained a clean bill of health from HQ on the internet and then assumed it would all be taken care of. If only he had mentioned this to me, I could have put him in touch with our Branch Chairman, David Moreland, who would have shown him the way. Breaking the good news to me at that stage would have made his old Dad a very happy man. I can’t help wondering if other young Kippers have made a similar mistake and we have lost candidates unnecessarily in this way.

On Friday I listened to Gerard Batten on ‘Any Questions’. Inevitably, Jonathan Dimbleby introduced Gerard with the ‘death cult’ quote. Gerard might have pointed out that last week the Sultan of Brunei announced that in the name of Islam all homosexuals would henceforth be stoned to death. If burying somebody up to his waist in a public place and inviting passers-by to throw stones at him until he dies of his injuries is not a ‘death cult’, what is?

 

Advertisements

Political Cartoons, American Thinker, Mike Harris Political Cartoons.

via Political Cartoons

al-gore-warming

Politics and Greenhouse Gases

Advocates and sympathetic politicians claiming that man-made global warming from use of carbon-based energy sources mandates international controls on economically prosperous nations were already worried that their victory is slipping. Now another blow has been struck against the basic “science” used to support their case. Following an extensive theoretical analysis, two German physicists have determined that the term greenhouse gas is a misnomer and that the greenhouse effect appears to violate basic laws of physics.
To briefly review, the entire argument for immediate political action on carbon-based emissions rests upon three premises, formulated over the last twenty years by scientists affiliated with the U.N. Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC):
1. The planet is experiencing worldwide atmospheric warming, threatening life as we know it.
2. This warming is unprecedented because average worldwide temperatures for at least a thousand years have shown no significant variation until the last seventy years, which correlates with a thirty-percent increase in carbon dioxide (CO2) gas generated by industrial activity.
3. Invoking a “greenhouse effect” model, the IPCC claims that CO2 exhibits a property involving special characteristics of long-wave energy absorption and radiation with altitude (called “radiative forcing”) which accelerates near-surface warming and, as the CO2 quantity increases, spells planetary disaster unless reversed.
In an AT article posted September 27, I laid out the case for why the first two premises were flawed, if not outright fraudulent. Now, the IPCC “consensus” atmospheric physics model tying CO2 to global warming has been shown not only to be unverifiable, but to actually violate basic laws of physics.
The analysis comes from an independent theoretical study detailed in a lengthy (115 pages), mathematically complex (144 equations, 13 data tables, and 32 figures or graphs), and well-sourced (205 references) paper prepared by two German physicists, Gerhard Gerlich and Ralf Tscheuschner, and published in several updated versions over the last couple of years. The latest version appears in the March 2009 edition of the International Journal of Modern Physics. In the paper, the two authors analyze the greenhouse gas model from its origin in the mid-19th century to the present IPCC application.
The Greenhouse Model
The paper initially tackles the concept of thermal conductivity of the atmosphere (vital for any discussion of radiative heat transfer) and how it is affected by carbon dioxide, which, they point out, is a trace gas. The current estimated concentration of CO2 is 0.04% by volume and 0.06% by mass. Gerlich and Tscheuschner show that even if CO2 concentrations double (a prospect even global warming advocates admit is decades away), the thermal conductivity of air would not change more than 0.03% — within the margin of measuring error.
The authors then devote nearly twenty pages to a detailed theoretical and experimental model analysis of the classic glass greenhouse. This model posits that glass surrounding a large volume of air allows solar radiation to pass through to heat the greenhouse surface and then selectively blocks resulting infrared energy from escaping. However, calculations show that no property of glass can adequately explain the temperature rise. Normal glass assumed in the model just cannot selectively screen and filter sufficient radiation energy by spectral absorption or reflection. Thus, assumption of a dominant radiative heating model must be incorrect.
Gerlich and Tscheuschner rely on referenced experimental evidence to show what is really going on. The dominant heat transfer mechanism is not radiation, but convection. Experimental evidence shows a greenhouse interior warms merely because the glass physically traps interior rising air, which then becomes warmer and warmer relative to air outside the greenhouse, which conversely can rise and cool unimpeded.
If the classic glass greenhouse model is obviously wrong, then this raises suspicions about the atmospheric “greenhouse effect” itself. The authors examine definitions of “greenhouse effect” by three respected sources (the Dictionary of Geophysics, Astrophysics, and Astronomy; the Encyclopedia of Astronomy and Astrophysics; and Encyclopedia Britannica Online). They show how each uses ill-defined global concepts (such as “mean temperature”), confuse infrared radiation with heat (they’re different), incorrectly describe the physics inside a glass greenhouse, and use other terms unsupported by the laws of physics.
Surprisingly, the authors find that the term “atmospheric greenhouse effect” does not occur in any fundamental work or text involving thermodynamics, physical kinetics, or radiation theory. They then attempt to fill that void. They first derive the generalized equations a computer would have to solve to calculate an average radiative temperature for a rotating smooth globe without oceans (half exposed to the sun and half not) and inclined relative to the sun (as is Earth). They show that for a globe the size of Earth, even this simple non-convection model would be unsolvable by the most powerful computers available today or for the foreseeable future — not only because of the quantity of calculations required, but also because of the impossibility of setting the initial boundary conditions at every point needed to even begin the calculation process.
Relevant Atmospheric Physics
Gerlich and Tscheuschner next show that even the simplest forms of the special equations needed for a true analysis of magneto-hydrodynamic (MHD) relationships involved in planetary atmospheric heating cannot be solved — even for small-space regions and small-time intervals — because of the inhomogenities of each fluid involved and relevant solid, liquid, and gaseous phases to be considered.  The real world is just too complex.
However, they are able to show that MHD-type equations offer no terms corresponding to absorption of electromagnetic radiation, do not include equations for “radiative transfer,” and give no indication of the point where the concentration of carbon dioxide would even enter into the computations. Further, they go on to show that any mechanism whereby CO2 in the cooler upper atmosphere could exert any thermal enhancing or “forcing” effect on the warmer surface below violates both the First and Second Laws of Thermodynamics.
There are too many different transfer phenomena (radiative transfer, heat transfer, momentum transfer, mass transfer, energy transfer, etc.) and types of interfaces (static or moving) between solids, fluids, gases, plasmas, etc. for which no applicable scientific theory nor ability to determine boundary conditions exists. “Hence, the computer simulations of global climatology are not based on physical laws,” the authors conclude (their emphasis). “Nevertheless, in their summaries for policymakers, global climatologists claim that they can compute the influence of carbon dioxide on the climate.”
Dr. Roy Spencer, in his book Climate Confusion, points out how man-made global warming alarmists attempt to mislead the public by claiming that global CO2 emissions total about 50 billion tons per year while failing to acknowledge that the total weight of the atmosphere is 5 quadrillion tons. In other words, the 50 billion tons adds to 5 million billion tons, or a mere 10 parts per million — relatively speaking, a trivial change each year.
Spencer shows how with oceans covering nearly seventy percent of Earth, water vapor and ocean currents totally dominate our global climate. He attributes oceanic and atmospheric circulation in the North Pacific as the dominant modern climate forcing mechanism. As for infrared radiation, Gerlich and Tscheuschner agree with earlier studies that water vapor is responsible for most of the IR absorption in the Earth’s atmosphere. Thus, any infrared radiation absorbed by carbon dioxide represents only a tiny part of the full IR spectrum and is affected little by raising CO2 concentration.
Gerlich and Tscheuschner state without equivocation that there are no common physical laws between the warming phenomenon in glass houses and the fictitious atmospheric greenhouse effect which explains the relevant physical phenomena. They call the terms greenhouse effect and greenhouse gases“deliberate misnomers” and a “myth beyond physical reality” and conclude:
The point discussed here was to answer the question, whether the supposed atmospheric effect has a physical basis. This is not the case. In summary, there is no atmospheric greenhouse effect, in particular CO2-greenhouse effect, in theoretical physics and engineering thermodynamics. Thus it is illegitimate to deduce predictions which provide a consulting solution for economics and intergovernmental policy. 
Thus, scientific support for the man-made global warming hoax slowly collapses while politicians rush to lock in massive international wealth-redistribution in its name. Those pesky “greenhouse gases” just don’t behave in a politically correct manner.

 

boris head

Boris’s Tricycle?