the Air Vent

Because the world needs another opinion

Cancun’s Anti-Xmas

Posted by Jeff Id on November 28, 2010

Cancun, the UN political scientists will take yet another shot to scam the public into solving climate change through limitation of usage.  Again, the fact that no evidence for man made climate change has reached any degree of certainty but worse yet they will again ignore the only option which can have any effect.  Nuclear power.

Scam’s for fools.

Of course our leftist friends will jump in to whatever stupid measure is proposed as long as it is bad for the economy and limits our freedoms.  They call themselves ‘liberals’ but I have no idea why.  Mexico will again fail but tentative and allegedly minor limitations will be accepted in principle, taking us closer to the economic tipping point we would be fools to wish for.  Of course the no-experience professors in the sheltered halls of government funded universities are completely unaware of economic realities of being a human animal are fully on board with the stupidity. Their narcissistic intellectual superiority being enough to guide us to the hallowed Eden.

It’s politics, nothing more, nothing less.  Politics disguised as science, underwritten by Oxburgh and Russel scam artists having no bearing on any reality. Even if every prediction of the climate scientists came true, the scams and lies guarantee their true place in history.  It makes me smile to think of our own.

Keep it truthful and the rest will work itself out.  Too bad the ‘big dog’s’ didn’t figure that out.

Yes, I’m becoming far more ‘skeptical’ than I ever was.

21 Responses to “Cancun’s Anti-Xmas”

  1. I agree. “It’s politics, nothing more, nothing less.”

    Why is science being used for government propaganda?

    Perhaps world leaders and leaders of the scientific community felt that they had noble motives for eliminating national boarders and for using science as a propaganda tool after the Cold War (When stockpiles of nuclear weapons could kill every person in the “Free West” and in the “Communist East” many times over) in order:

    a.) To block other countries from getting nuclear weapons;
    b.) To identify a common enemy (AGW) of all nations; and
    c.) To simultaneously level the standard of living worldwide.

    There is no doubt that government science has been compromised, in the very way Eisenhower warned about in his farewell address on 17 January 1961:

    With kind regards,
    Oliver K. Manuel
    Former NASA Principal
    Investigator for Apollo

  2. […] This post was mentioned on Twitter by Science Blog News, C Jenkins. C Jenkins said: Cancun’s Anti-Xmas […]

  3. Brian H said

    Jeff, perhaps the reason is partly (mostly?) that you REALLY don’t want to associate with these sleazeballs?

  4. Insider said

    Hey Guys, the UN-scammers are all painting Cancun as a failure. The reality is they are going to use sleight-of-hand to pull something through. So watch out. The scammers have too much invested in the carbon swindle to pull out now. EU would crash overnight.

  5. BREAKING NEWS!!! The release by WikiLeaks of thousands of confidential and secret US diplomatic cables has sent Jeff Id and his fans into a frenzy over a gigantic ‘wealth redistribution’ scheme that’s not found anywhere in the cables.

    “It’s a humongous scandal,” said Jeff Id. “It doesn’t show up in any of the diplomatic messages, but I know it’s somewhere in them. I can feel it.”

    (Also, where’s the evidence of a deliberate paragraph 44 ‘cover-up’ again?)


  6. Jeff Id said


    The evidence is in front of you. If you can’t admit the CRU deletion of data you don’t like is wrong there is no point in continuing because you are either ignorant or dishonest. If you can’t see that there were a lot of shenanigans pulled to get this particular paper billed as refuting MM into AR4, then you are a enviro warrior without reason. There is/and was extensive evidence for this paper being pushed through (and misinterpreted) for AR4. Read CA for the backstory if you can still read things which don’t support your pre-determined conclusions.

  7. kim said

    Frank, read the Telegraph for a fine quote saying that the developed world has to halt economic progress for 20 years while the lesser developed develop.

  8. John said

    Scam and tangled web detector…

    France generates an electricity surplus which it sells for around 18€ billion each year mostly to Germany, Italy and the UK.

    About 95% of French electricity comes from non-fossil fuel based sources of which 85% nuclear and the rest hydro and geothermal (and less than 1% from wind-mills and wave machines) with its small fossil fuel part from gas.

    EDF has received permission to increase electricity prices by 3% as from next January, on top of 3% this last August, to pay for the cost of buying feed-in power from domestic solar at 10 times the rate it sells electricity.

    The French Government has stopped the grants for solar and the feed-in tariff will be progressively reduced because France has “reached its emissions cuts target” – supposedly. Also the French State is broke.

    Given France has a surplus of electricity, mostly generated from non-fossil fuel why did it need to encourage domestic solar which provides an unmeasurable small amount to the grid anyway?

    I have recently changed from oil fired central heating to air/water heat pump – not to save the Planet, but to save my bank balance.

    I now find that whereas there is no green tax on fuel oil (French Government tried but it was ruled unconstitutional) I now shall pay increased green tax on my increased low/no carbon electricity consumption and be penalised for changing to a heating system that is officially classified as “renewable”.

    Funny old World when politicians in it believe they rule the elements.

    Meanwhile as the politicians focus on the weather in 50 years time, Europe is in economic melt-down for the lack of any competent, sane and intelligent government.

  9. tarpon said

    Most just call it lies, and let it go at that.

  10. Jeff Id:

    The evidence is in front of you.

    That’ll be evidence that you, in fact, have no evidence. In your own words:

    Perhaps it was by accident or perhaps it was by intent but climategate taught us that there is plenty of intent.

    Let’s repeat that:

    Perhaps it was by accident or perhaps it was by intent

    Shall we repeat that?


    In short, you admit that you yourself have no evidence whatsoever of deliberate wrongdoing by CRU in the paragraph 44 so-called ‘scandal’.

    Feel free to [snip] your favourite nuclear power plants now, thank you very much.


  11. Frank, read the Telegraph

    Did the Telegraph receive a WikiLeaks leak which is somehow different from that received by the rest of the universe?


  12. Jeff Id said

    Ok, Frankie, try to settle down.

    Now there is plenty of evidence for you on paragraph 44, claiming that there isn’t is simply dishonest. Claiming that I said there was no evidence is also dishonest. Paul M and David Holland have laid it all out for you in simple English on the other thread. Whether you will read it or not is a different question.

  13. kim said

    No, Frank, the Telegraph did not get any Wikileaks.

    No need to mock you, fella; you mock yourself.

  14. Jeff Id:

    Claiming that I said there was no evidence is also dishonest.

    Once again, you said:

    Perhaps it was by accident or perhaps it was by intent

    So tell me, how does that somehow manage to mean ‘I have lots of evidence’?

    * * *


    No, Frank, the Telegraph did not get any Wikileaks.

    You’re saying the Telegraph just makes up its own version of US diplomatic cables?

    That’s certainly a pretty nifty way to prove a conspiracy: just make up your own collection of US ‘top secrets’.

    You really want to check out the Guardian‘s coverage of the WikiLeaks leak some time. Embassy cables from, you know, the real world, not the ‘cables’ from the Phantom Soviet Empire that exist only in your imagination.


  15. kim said

    Heh, frank psychosis does not become you.

  16. TexasRebel said

    If yall quit responding to the goofball he`ll have to talk to his own stupidity.

  17. Oh, Kim, or you can always check out itself. Plenty of conspiracy fodder there without you having to make up your own.


  18. kim said

    What are you on about with Wikileaks and conspiracies? Did you read the Telegraph?

    Texas Rebel, it’s just too tempting. Yes, I am weak. Steve snipped me yesterday after a wonderful half hour exchange with thefordprefect. Will I ever learn?

  19. Jeff Id said


    The goofballs are good sideshows at times. So far all Frank has been able to do though is run himself in circles. You give him facts (other thread) and he still can’t see them. You make points and he asks for links to the ‘review’ which he is arguing for. Frank hasn’t even read it! Then he asks for dates, rather than looking himself again. Too bad, he may have actually won an argument if he knew how blogs worked.

    I don’t really have time for him so maybe you’re right.

  20. Brian H said

    Trouble is, Jeff, that it’s a de facto highjacking of an otherwise potentially interesting thread. I think you should announce that you will henceforth be exerting arbitrary editorial controls like banning if someone’s just trolling or even generally just bugs you.


  21. TexasRebel said

    Not to worry Kim,I still enjoy your posts. Jeff,not trying to cause you a headache Brian H —+1000

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: