Putting the Collective First

A crypto-grass-roots organisation has emerged to agitate and manipulate - "putting the collective people first".

Putting the obvious comments about the faux-edgy, with-it, urban, retina-busting website aside for a moment, lets just look at what they are saying on the surface, with Thornhill translation for the hard of spinning:

What are we demanding with menaces calling for?

The platform is united by three linked calls: Decent subsidised jobs and public services for the many all paid for by the enemy, end poverty by redefining it and inequality by pulling everyone down to the same level, build a green economy based on subsidy. More specific demands on the UK government are to:

• Create a ‘Green New Deal’ to create jobs in the environmental sector - Translation: Create a Econazi Charter to synthesize fake jobs and thus create costs in the rent-seeking, could-not-sell-otherwise sector.
• Invest in essential services including social housing - Translation: spend other people's money in areas we want to that give us and our mates salaried unemployment and provide subsidised housing for those we decide are worthy while those who work to pay for it live in cramped conditions unable to afford anything larger.
• Provide emergency funding to countries that need it to protect jobs and provide social protection - Translation: distort the economies of other countries to prolong the agony and delay the recovery.
• Tackle tax havens - especially those linked to the UK - Translation: make the globe subject to the same onerous, wealth-destroying, innovation-suppressing parasitical tax regimes, with self-loathing guilt thrown in.
• Insist on democratic reform of the World Bank and IMF - Translation: Force our form of Tyranny of the Majority on Supra-National organisations.
• Make all financial institutions and multinational corporations transparent and accountable - Translation: De facto nationalisation of financial institutions and multinational corporations, making them tools for our ends, thereby riding roughshod over property rights.
• Ensure that poorer states are allowed to take responsibility for managing their own economies rather than having liberalisation measures forced upon them - Translation: support protectionist, corrupt and totalitarian regimes around the world.
• Introduce robust regulatory requirements and financial incentives at national level and push for them at international level to stop climate chaos - Translation: Install a global mechanism for rent-seeking in pursuit of an unproven dogma while denying Mankind the wealth and means to mitigate natural cycles in climate change.
• Commit to substantial new resource transfer from North to South to support low carbon development - Translation: Commit to trying to salve guilt and self-loathing by making the rich poorer and the poor no richer.

Unfortunately, examination of proposed government solutions to date are either piecemeal, or advocate yet more ‘free’ trade policies, likely to only to make the crisis worse for moonbat policies.

Go on, believe it, you know it doesn't makes sense.

More Econazism: Incandescent Light Bulbs

As many of you may know, the EU had previously slapped an import tariff on CFLs (Compact Fluorescent Lightbulbs). Anti dumping? Well, protecting German manufacturer Osram, more like.

So, they, the EU, are now banning the manufacture and sale of incandescent, i.e. "trad" lightbulbs at or above 100W, they say because of "green issues".

This is wrong on so many levels.

1) Alternatives are far from mature. 

CFLs:

take time to come on (when I turn a light on...I want it ON)

flicker, causing headaches

give off an ugly light

are often just not powerful enough.

they contain highly toxic mercury, so MUST be recycled. 

Apart from the above, if one shatters or breaks, you have to reach for your NBC suit...

The Government advice is:

• Vacate the room and ventilate it for at least 15 minutes.
• Do not use a vacuum cleaner.
• Clean up using rubber gloves and aim to avoid breathing in any dust.
• Sweep up all glass fragments and place in a plastic bag.
• Wipe the area with a damp cloth, add that to the bag and seal it.
• Don't put the bag in the bin. Take it a council amenity site or recycling centre where it can be handled as hazardous waste.

Nice. Just what I want around my home. 

LEDs:

Very expensive

Not powerful enough

Not dimmable in normal conditions*

2) The "replacement" is subject to protectionism, which means we, the consumer, have to pay more than the market rate to keep Osram execs in Mercedes Benz.

3) Traditional light bulbs give off heat. This is only a "waste" when outdoors and in summertime. Considering the ratio of lightbulb use in summer vs winter and the fact that most traditional bulbs are in domestic, interior settings, the "waste heat" is far less than people would initially deduce from a direct bulb-to-bulb comparisons.

4) The issue over CO2 is rapidly becoming a canard.

Damn them and damn the EU for forcing me to buy such hazardous products. Note the concept of force here. I am not being advised or encouraged via lower purchase prices and lower running costs - quite the reverse as the high up-front price of Corporate Welfare - but forced due to "legislation" (again, I will not tarnish the term "law" by using it here). The term "enviro-mental" rings ever more true.

I do believe that LEDs are the way, so it is half-cocked to go off banning the only viable alternative for human beings (unless your brain runs so slowly the 50Hz flicker is ok for you) until they are bright and cheap enough to take over.

This is another example of Authoritarianism, protectionism, Corporate Welfare and Eco Fascism from the EU.

It is not a case of "can we leave yet". I've never joined, so how do I make it legal so they stop pestering me?

* unlike EU ministers, who seem to come pre-dimmed.

A Convenient Lie

Via commenter Jones on a post by DK, we see a roll-back in the all-pervasive power of the Religion of AGW.

As we know, AGW is the Enviro-mentalists Mad Uncle and has been locked up in the attic for a while now. He was used to scare the kiddie-winkies into believing anything and was so effective, a proxy was introduced - Climate Change - which was just as good at scaring thanks to the memory of the Mad Uncle but was far more flexible and needed fewer excuses for when reality did not match the myth. Of course, we have had a changing climate throughout Human history, but such details do not get in the way of rabid religions intent on subjugation, power and control, and that is what Governments, NGOs and flat-earthers covet and crave. It is therefore no surprise that such bodies have seized upon the Mad Uncle and then the proxy with such relish*.

Al Gore is going to have to make the biggest apology in history. I also want to see all those talking heads, all those government ministers line up and apologise, too. No regret - that is a Japanese mumble-swerve face-saving technique to avoid taking responsibility and admitting an error - but an apology and resignation. I suspect that there is going to be an army of people who will soon realise they have been taken for a ride. Suckered in. They will look back on their public pronouncements and realise they have humiliated themselves. The problem is with this digital age, all those statements now exist and can never be eliminated. Youtube and other such sites will be a place where the blatherings can resurface to haunt.

What is worse is that the kids will cotton on and there will be blood. Will they ever believe adults again? I hope the learn that this is a lie caused by vested interests, by those wishing to forcibly collectivise. You should know who they are.

Do we need to prepare for Climate Change? Hell yes we do. Rivers and coastlines. Floods, water supplies, power, navigation, insulation and most of all food production. We need to determine what might well happen and use risk, timeframe and probability-weighting to prioritise our activities. This needs to be addressed first before we ponce about with trying to "reverse" it, which is, frankly, impossible until India and China (and probably Brazil too) adopts technology not even established. 

*If you notice, most if not all the attempts to "control" or "reverse" Climate Change involves forcing people to hand over money, freedom or regress to some antediluvian existence. Preferably all three. The amount of rent-seeking in the sector is colossal.

Does What it Says on the Tin

Plane Stupid.

Disingenuous, Righteous Econazis.

Not content with wanting to live their own lives in a mud hut on the Danube (so they imply), they want to force others to believe or submit to their beliefs.

On one hand their scrubbed spokesmuppet on BBC London was bleating that they did not intend to disrupt passengers - yeh, right - but then said it was a success because 250 tonnes of carbon was not put into the atmosphere due to the cancelled flights.

Make your mind up.

Fights are high profile. There is a killjoy, envy politics angle to all this that is a hot button for all the disaffected Enforced Collectivists and unwashed Clarse Warriors out there. People who are frustrated about airport expansions are seeing their protests hijacked by these parasites who want to tack on the unproven, rabid and fantastical "Convenient Lie" that is AGW, now rebranded "Climate Change" because even they know it is bollocks but this is just too good a bandwagon not to keep pushing.

Heathrow should be shut and turned into housing, but the capacity of a three runway Heathrow should be built in the Thames Estuary with effortless expansion to 5 runways if need be.

Planes will eventually become less polluting with constant pressure from passengers. The FIRST task is to make them QUIETER. However, these protesters will have about as much traction over the flight industry as vegetarians have over the meat industry. The treatment of animals has improved because meat eaters want that to happen. Veggies have ZERO economic traction. Air travel will improve if and only if the passengers demand it, not a bunch of self-indulgent, infantilised, self-centred and self-righteous involuntary collectivisers.

They will not learn because their mindset is grounded in Socialism, which has been a flawed ideology since the day it was invented. Socialism does not recognise the sovereignty of the individual and as such cannot comprehend how to use self interest to improve the lot of all. All it can do is try and force others to obey. It is doomed to failure.

Remember the Polar Kayaker?

The chap by the name of Lewis Gordon Pugh? You know, the guy who wanted to show how the pole was pretty much ice free by setting off on the 30th August?

Apparently, according to Wiki:

The attempt was abandoned on 2nd September, when the team were still in excess of 1,000 km from the North Pole. In his weblog, Pugh confirmed that despite several attempts, they were unable to find a gap in the ice.

Pugh claims on his website that this was the furthest North anyone has ever travelled by Kayak, (81 degrees N) however critics point out that in 1895, explorers using Kayaks reached 86 degrees North, and their expedition records show that one of them swam to retrieve a Kayak, thus exceeding Pugh's trip and preceeding him by 113 years. Pugh has not chosen to respond to these accusations.

So, 100+ years ago with far far less technology, a group got half as far away, for that is what 86N is vs 81N, 500km instead of the lycra'd one's 1000km. Bearing in mind that the distance from the pole at the start of the latest expedition was 1200km to start with brings it all into context.

Just to show you what it means graphically...

Now, that to me says he was more than twice as far from the pole than some chaps in sealskins and straw boaters.

Funny that we did not see this event splashed across the pages. POLES NOT FREE OF ICE would have been a good start, or even "POLES AT WORST HAVE MORE ICE THAN 100 YEARS AGO!!!". I suppose it would have been filed along with the "WWII Bomber found on moon has DISAPPEARED!" headline of the Sunday Sport in its heyday.

Balance? Nah, remember, we are talking Religion here.

Polly: Carbon Cretin.

I am going to break with my normal approach of pressing the "track changes" button, for in this case, I don't think Polly is being disingenuous or hypocritical. She is just barking mad.

Energy use has to be cut soon, so it's odd that this techno-savvy cabinet still shies away from a simple credit system.

What is with the "has to be cut"? No. Energy use will increase around the world. It is not the use of energy, but how, what and where. As for the government being "techno-savvy", one only needs to look at the dismal failures in IT and other areas to know the Government is incompetent at this. Why break a habit?

Awful August, the weather forecasters call this unseasonably cold, wet month, as holiday-makers huddle against intermittent monsoon downpours, reminded that global warming doesn't necessarily mean a Mediterranean Britain.

Post Hoc fallacy. By the way, Polly, environazis are now hiding behind the more general and weedle-worthy term "climate change".

Every month, reports from climatologists deliver worse predictions of the speed and tipping points for irreversible climate change.

They are paid to, dear.

A 4C temperature rise is the latest warning: it would bring unimaginable horror in its wake.

Would, if it were true. Is it? No proof.

The time to act gets shorter, but the political will to act lags ever further behind the science that tells politicians they must do so.

The time to act does not get shorter, it is just that the dire warnings are getting shriller and for good reason - the AGW game is nearly up.

Latest figures, including air travel, shipping and energy used in our goods manufactured abroad, show no cut in Britain but an 18% growth in emissions.

Goods manufactured abroad, eh? Like in China, perhaps. Go there and ask them to cut their output if you believe it is the case. No? Thought not.

If the market is the answer, soaring energy prices should drive down emissions. Road traffic figures showed a 2% drop in car use, with demand for petrol briefly 20% down - but already it is rising again as the price falls.

And? Your point is? The market is functioning correctly - you sound as if you WANT to see high energy prices.

On household energy - responsible for 27% of emissions - it's too early to know the effect of 30% price increases. But as one hour of an old-fashioned lightbulb still only costs 0.8p, energy prices may not be noticed by those who already consume most.

Now, Polly, you are joking right? If one hour of an old-fashioned light bulb only costs 0.8p, then surely the energy consumed is very small also. The reall issue is HEATING. Inside the above is a subconcious nagging to buy low energy, high mercury, flicker-on, shimmer while on "low energy" bulbs. Lead by example. I bet Chez Toynbee is not bedecked with such bulbs, or would remain so for long. Even Polly's dim-bulb brain can detect the hesitation caused by CFLs.

Those who will make serious cuts are the poorest and debt-averse pensioners. Official fuel poverty figures are expected to rise to 5 million people this winter: more deaths are expected among the old and cold. Back in Labour's optimistic can-do days in 2000, the Warm Homes and Energy Conservation Act created a legal obligation to eliminate fuel poverty among the vulnerable by 2010, a target missed by so many light years that Friends of the Earth is seeking a judicial review to get the act enforced. Gordon Brown's plan to buy off the problem with £100 vouchers for the poor is no answer.

An unenforceable Act does not mean we spend more time trying to enforce it. It means it should be scrapped.

What does the public think the answer should be? The Institute for Public Policy Research has just conducted the most extensive consultation so far, with focus groups in Newcastle, Camden, Southwark, Bristol and rural Suffolk across all social groups, as well as a nationwide opinion poll and interviews with energy companies, climate change NGOs and consumer organisations. The results pointed in one clear direction.

Seventy-four per cent said they are "very concerned" or "fairly concerned" about climate change - so politicians can ignore the shrinking, unconcerned minority.

Climate change is not the same as AGW, Polly. I am concerned about climate change, but I do not buy into the man-made back-to-the-caves mentality of the "enviro" lobby.

Seventy-one per cent thought action was necessary to curb people's energy use.

Then where is your problem? 71% will then curb their energy use, so energy use will be down. Or do you consider them like yourself - hypocritical?

But there was pessimism about the public changing its behaviour: only one in 10 thought people would drive less or take fewer flights.

Oh, ok, so "other people" need to cut back.

Naturally, favourite choices were the painless ones - the cheaper, environmentally friendly options. Least popular was any system that taxed energy use.

Common sense at last.

They were offered three possible government actions.

A false trichotomy.

First, a carbon tax could be added to all energy not generated from renewables. Second, a cap on the amount of carbon that companies could emit in selling their energy to consumers would force them to generate more from renewables: they would pass on the extra cost to consumers. But both of these were regarded as too unfair, with the impact felt least by the wealthy who burn most energy.

Very free with your use of percentages, eh? The rich are a small number in the scheme of things. Tax will either not affect them or they will move away and THEN it will not affect them. People get rich and are determined to stay rich so people like you cannot dictate how they live.

Personal carbon trading was the most popular option: it was the fairest and it wasn't seen as a new tax.

Most popular or the least worst of an appalling shortlist? In a way it is not a tax, but a form of privatised rent-seeking, as we shall see.

Here's how it works: each year everyone gets equal carbon credits to spend on petrol, home heating or air travel. People exceeding their quota can buy more credits. People who use less can sell credits. It encourages home insulation, energy saving and less driving or flying. Since low earners use less - 20% have no car, 50% don't fly - they can profit by selling to those with big houses, foreign holidays and gas-guzzling cars. It would be a powerful but voluntary agent for redistribution.

Firstly, you gloss over a massive factor in all of this - the State will need to track EVERY purchase we make in the areas so deemed by the State to have an impact. Very soon it will cover food, clothing, technology, everything. Secondly, it is NOT "voluntary" as people are not free to step outside the scheme. It will demand that all such purchases are paid electronically, so getting more information into the hands of the State (which it can, of course, sell without our permission to marketing organisations).

Failure to pursue personal carbon trading (or any other method) joined the long list of good causes killed by Labour cowardice.

I am not disputing that there is a long list of good causes killed by Labour cowardice, but this load of old crock is certainly not amongst them.

At Defra, David Miliband took it up with enthusiasm and commissioned a feasibility study, but after he made a strong speech advocating it, Gordon Brown at the Treasury banned any further mention.

Yes, I recall that "carbon credit card" idea. It was barking mad authoritarian moonbattery then, and it is still authoritarian moonbattery today.

Miliband was moved away and what was called a "pre-feasibility study", limped out with the judgment that this idea was "ahead of its time".

Yes, the Police State is not quite in place yet. Wait a few years when the EU is fully in control, then it will be a doddle.

They guessed it would cost £2bn a year to run, threw up sundry obstacles, and the report disappeared.

Only £2bln? From government IT? I wonder if those "sundry obstacles" were things like "impractical", "too expensive", "massive invasion of privacy", "AGW unproven".

Odd that a government with computers thinks it can't introduce a simple credit system, when a Nectar or Oyster card shows how easily home and car fuel bills and airline tickets could be deducted.

"A government with computers"? - Jesus wept! You forget, polly that oyster and nectar are OPTIONAL. One can still pay by cash. It is not a "simple credit system", but yes, we see the plan. I have long thought Gordon Brown has lusted after the idea of eliminating cash as a means of payment and this would move further in that direction. You also gloss over the "idea" of inter-personal trading of "carbon credits". People don't trade Nectar points on the open market, do they? Even if it did work what do you think would happen, numbnuts? The "rich" would buy up points and live as before. The poor, due to, erm, poverty, will sell points to pay for the energy that they can afford. The ONLY result is that the Government invades our life and a bunch of useless, non-productive parasites and IT supplies who cannot hack it in the private sector cream off huge wedges of taxpayers cash, some of it sticking to the governments ever-outstretched hands.

By supporting a carbon credit system, you, Polly, show yet again that you have absolutely NO IDEA how a market works and cannot get your Socialism-addled noggin to think beyond the immediate and self-serving.

Historian Mark Roodhouse of York University draws comparisons with his work on wartime rationing. Back then the state provided ration books for all, covering not just fuel but coupons valuing virtually every individual item in the shops from clothes to food.

We were under siege and supply was limited, UNLIKE NOW. Even then, the black market thrived.

Have we become more administratively incompetent since then?

Absolutely, for we now have a Government chock-full of morons, product of the dumbed-down "show-and-tell" coursework generation.

Roodhouse records the wartime internal debates about whether to cut national consumption by raising prices. "They concluded rationing was the only way to achieve dramatic cuts without feeding inflation or causing social unrest," he reports. They, too, considered making ration coupons tradable but decided equality of sacrifice was essential. But Roodhouse considers tradable carbon rations "would improve on the system, preventing black markets in unused coupons".

But this does not "improve on the system" for one is comparing apples with oranges, with actual hard scarcity and one trying to be synthesized by Authoritarian Government Fiat.

The trading element makes carbon rationing feel more voluntary and less oppressive.

Only to a moron, perhaps. "Feel" is not the same as "is". This IS involuntary and it IS oppressive.

In distribution of wealth, Britain is now back to 1937 levels of inequality, regressing backwards every year:

Yes, war followed by 60 years of the Welfare State. Well done. Thanks, you spiteful creatures!

that's what makes any kind of carbon tax or reliance on high prices impossible, the burden falling too unfairly.

Ah, so if the Socialist dream of a lumpen clay was actually achieved, higher prices could have been used. Oh what joy!

Doling out ad hoc energy vouchers to the poor at the taxpayers' expense is the wrong answer, and it only adds to the poverty trap by making the step up harder to climb.

Polly, I want to you to remember that statement and when you come up with any more ideas about redistribution and welfare, replace "ad hoc energy vouchers" with the current madcap idea that is rattling around your bonce.

Will Brown at least pay for it with a windfall tax on profiteering energy companies?

No, not even if he implemented such a windfall tax, for Brown pays for NOTHING. We, the taxpayers, pay for EVERYTHING in varying degrees. It is a zero-sum game (bit like your IQ) - energy companies will sandbag again or just not bother to build infrastructure, for how could they if Grabber Gordon keeps shoving his clunking fist into their savings and stealing all the notes?

But if personal carbon trading is "ahead of its time", that is exactly where we need to be.

It is not "ahead of its time" (unless...see above re EU), but is "a head up its arse".

Cowardly political leaders dare not tell voters the plain truth that we need to cut energy use.

It is not about telling here, Polly, you are proposing that people are FORCED. Big difference. Anyhow, since when have they got all honest?

If Miliband makes his run for the leadership, plain speaking about the climate will be one of his pitches - and bravery on personal carbon trading will be a test of candidates' seriousness about both climate and social justice.

Both "climate" and "social justice" are concepts for the subjugation of people and the removal of freedoms. I think Miliband is too smart to lash carbon credits to his leadership mast. Oh no, if he is still for it, he will bring it in once he has counted all his chickens after his premiership is hatched.

The Milk of Human Blindness

The Times reports today (via, Tim Worstall), that faceless interfering ricebowlers at DEFRA are seriously suggesting that the milk industry shift, as they so quaintly put it "to ensure that some 90 per cent of milk on sale will not require refrigeration by 2020".

This means we will be expected to switch to that god-awful UHT. Currently 93% of our milk is fresh. We consume fresh milk despite all the inconveniences because it is infinitely better than UHT, which, to me, has one purpose, to both colour and reduce the bitterness of bad warm drinks sometimes passed off as tea or coffee. Fresh milk is better to me because it tastes good. I can drink a pint of fresh milk and sometimes get a primordial desire to do so, but I can barely tolerate 5g of UHT. However, DEFRA wish to change consumer behaviour and force us to go backwards, to accept substandard food and drink in the name of the Great Green God. No, not really, but upon the dogma of that "religion" in reducing our sin carbon footprint.

DEFRA appears to have been infested with that mind virus, the Green Religion of Unthought. This is "Global Warning" - not Global Warming, but the trend now for using the threat of some future as an excuse and cover for, basically, totalitarian, authoritarian or just plain Robber Baronetcy.

What I see, apart from the blatant social engineering, undermining, guilt, bullying, memes, insults and just plain Fascism, is a convenient way to destroy our fresh milk habit and industry. The aim, I suspect, is to turn the UK into a market for ghastly UHT from anywhere in the EU. Right now, European calcified water and fat emulsions UHT is pretty much ignored in the UK and rightly so. One reason, apart from the fact that UHT is just plain shyte, is, I suspect, tea.

The UK are tea drinkers. Unlike coffee, tea is almost always drunk with milk and that milk needs to be fresh milk unless you are a self-flagellating zealot who is happy to train your taste buds to accept mediocrity or worse in the pursuit of your punishment dietary regime.

One of the excuses for this issue is the energy used in refrigeration. I suspect this is a bit of a con, really. A refrigerator is just a mover of heat, not a creator of cold. If you chill the contents you are warming the outside. If you want to reduce the amount of pumping losses, then you create more efficient refrigerators using such wonderful devices as Stirling Engines or, duh, put DOORS ON THEM. You do NOT use the PATHETIC excuse of "carbon footprint" to try and destroy an industry which exists solely due to consumer choice (note that) so that the world can bend to fit the prejudices, plans and non-sequiturs of a bunch of imbeciles at DEFRA.

Pound to a penny there is an EU directive at the bottom of this.

UPDATE: The BBC covered this at 1PM today, but just parroted the government lie line and had no real exposure, almost like a softening up exercise. Self-loathers!

Eco-village with a stark warning (track changes: ON)

NotBy Jon Kelly, BBC News, Heathrow

As the workshy tanned, wasted cheerful twenty-somethings set up their tents, you could be forgiven for thinking this was the summer's latest music festival.
But the lines of able bodied, working burly police officers around the site, not to mention the bleedin obvious 747s roaring overhead, give a clue as to the true purpose of this gathering.

Flanked by Heathrow Airport on one side and west London's outer suburbs on the other, this is an unlikely setting for an impromptu econazi-village.

Collectivist, self-obsessed, delusional Environmental campaigners have assembled here not just to oppose a third runway for the airport but to ram their own crackpot ideas down the throats of everybody, with force if necessary.

With their pestilential compost toilets, tokenistic but useless wind turbines and faux-leaderless command structure, they are also keen to present the charade demonstrate that an alternative, more sustainable way of living is possible.

But despite the inevitable privations they face (aw, diddums!), not all the protesters conform to the typical econazi-warrior twattish stereotype.

Brenda Hatton, 60, a retarded retired head teacher from an inner city Soviet hell-hole central London, says she woke up to the issue of climate change after her 29-year-old gullible son began being indoctrinated studying geography at university.


"I'm not here for me much - I'm here for my cats children and my grandchildren," she said with a thousand yard stare.

"I've just arrived It's all been very good-natured so far. I hope there won't be any trouble for us, and if there is we are all going to live in denial and blame-shift it won't be because of the people on the camp."

The police, however, are collecting their overtime not so sanguine.

Some 1,800 officers have been dragged away from their BBQs mobilised, almost matching the 2,000 campaigners who are expected over the coming week.

All vehicles approaching the site are searched under section 44 of the Terrorism Act and photographs are taken of anyone who enters so just like driving down the M4, then.

Campaigners - who insist their protest will be peaceful - want a free hand to cause mayhem so disingenuously complain that the police approach is heavy-handed.

"We've had to shuttle all the supplies in here using stolen wheelie bins. It's not exactly high-tech," laughs barely shaved gibbon volunteer Tony Chambers, 35, a forestry worker from Ceredigion, mid-Wales.

"But we've managed to set everything up without any problems so far. The attitude of the authorities just smacks of parental resignation over a screaming tot desperation, really."

So far only about 250 sponging, disingenuous collectivists activists have gathered at the camp, but organisers are preparing for cholera an influx they expect to join them as the weather improves week progresses.

Protesters pitch their tents alongside others from the same area - Oxford, London and Nottingham already have settlements, each with their own kitchen serving sanctimonious, inedible, methane generating vegan, high carbon-footprint organic food.

More than 100 propaganda fests workshops are due to be held on subjects like carbon denial offsetting and building tokenistic wind turbines.

But despite their faux-leaderless structure - where all decisions are taken by the first sheep to move consensus at regular meetings - reporters must follow the censorship and control protocol of going through a dedicated media politburo team before setting foot on site.

On Sunday - expected to be one of the airport's busiest days of the year - they plan opportunistic lawlessness and vandalism "mass direct action", although all insist this will be non-violent as long as everyone lets them do precisely what they want and there will be no attempt to blockade runways because the terminal buildings will be razed to the ground.

"We have to think first do something," says Gary Dwyer, 34, a care assistant from Southport, Merseyside.

"Climate change is the biggest issue I've been told about we face and we haven't got I don't know how long to act.

"I can't tell you what will happen, because I will be wasted we'll decide collectively when everybody gets here, but it will be a peaceful protest as long as everyone lets us blah blah blah"

As they wait for more hypocritical parasites reinforcements to arrive using carbon-producing tranport, the campers say they are enjoying the camaraderie of pulling together and committing a blatant act of trespass setting up their temporary community.

"It's been fun so far - I've been topping up my tan while I don't work," laughs Claire Blatchford, 20, a "full-time parasite protester" who has spent four months claiming benefits and increasing the burden of law enforcement at a peace camp outside Faslane naval base in Scotland.

"I've brought lesbian day-wear sturdy boots and my waterproofs, though. I'm sure I'll need them after the summer we've had."

Even the most ardent climate change protester, it seems, is forever at the mercy of 4bln years of climate change British weather.

Climate Camp My Aunt

A Unisex Greenham Common for the current decade has finally sprung up outside Heathrow.

Right off the bat it is a cynical, disingenuous act of spin. They are against the expansion of Heathrow, they say, and are duping getting local groups to support them. I pity these local protest groups - talk about spoiling the pitch for them! Well, I suppose if a major hijack is to occur, where else than an airport, eh?

What is not said is how many of these people are against flying, the consumption of hydrocarbons and even electrickery.

Protester Gary Dwyer, 34, said "there are many carbon criminals to think about who are driving climate change."

"Carbon Criminals" - a manifestation of the whole carbon footprint irrationality. Creation of "the other". Creation of nameless, faceless enemies. Guilt by association. Collectivist authoritarian newspeak.

Fact is, I am against the expansion of Heathrow, but my answer - building a new Airport on an artificial island in the middle of the Thames estuary - is equally abhorrent to these people. Forget that such an airport would remove the need for vast numbers of planes to fly right over the Capital. Forget that it would be easy to defend from terrorism compared to the current location. Forget that the fumes from the airport would be blown out to sea instead of right across the streets of London. Forget that the lack of housing and a sea approach could permit near 24 hour operation. Forget that the site of Heathrow has good communications and would be a very viable location for desperately needed new housing. Forget all that. Forget it, for we must HATE travel, HATE consumption and place our recycled organically smelted tin-foil hat on our heads and curse the global conspiracy of "carbon criminals".

I want this "Climate Camp" to fess up to what it really wants to do - restrict air travel to all but essential movement. I wonder if that would be their kind of holidays in "outreach" or "aid" trips or to visit other "climate camps" elsewhere? I wonder if the likes of Gore will be permitted, or "Aid Workers"? First to go would be cheap holidays and air flown produce and they would not have even started yet.

The protesters are, at heart, collectivists. I oppose them, not just for that, but for their duplicity and disingenuous sanctimony. They are not even juvenile - this is ab-dabs on the supermarket floor, toddler ranting, red in the face "I want my way" childishness. Any more of this and I might even call them Islamic.

p.s. climate campers, Roger is no "right winger" but is a Libertarian and thus anti-collectivist. If you can't tell the difference, you should be ashamed.

UPDATE: The NUJ are upset about media restrictions, which I also found irritating but not surprising, given their mindset of collectivism. Media control adds another pillar to the Fascist tent. Being militaristic and violent? We shall see.

I am Glad it is Gore

...because it makes it more obvious what a total fraud AGW is.

Climate change? Yes, for the last 4bln years or so.
Global Warming? Maybe...or maybe not, depends on your timeframe.
Anthropogenic Global Warming? Possible.

What do do?

a) Tax people into the stone age, oppress them with "Sactimoaning" and control their lives even more.
b) Subsidise feeble, impractical "alternatvies" like biofuel (10x the land needed to fuel the car than feed the driver...) and ugly windmills?
c) Invest in research for Fusion power - e.g. the Bussard electric containment system
d) Build the infrastructure and arrange the nation to cope with the consequences of climactic unpredictability.

I am a c) and d) man, myself.

Over at the Telegraph, they report some Gore Sanctimoaning. In the comments I noticed this gem:

Al Gore reminds me of a second hand car salesman and a fairground shouter!
Want an easy answer? too stupid to understand the complex issues? are you a guilt ridden self hating middleclass handwringer? Are you jelous of people who have more than you? Then Al Gore is the man for you! He will tell you all you need to know in easy to understand words! He will tell you who you should blame and persecute! Roll up, roll up folks, come and see the greatest con on earth, all you have to do is listen and obey without question and good ole Al will save you all from the evil capitalist swine who swan around in their big cars and fancy homes! CO2 is to blame for all your woes he shouts! If someone is not convinced, heretic he cries!
Al Gore will stir up the mob and tell them who to blame as long as you DO NOT question his wisdom and he will lead the huddled masses to a socialist utopia and paradise just as long as you do exactly what he says with no questions asked! Hail the great and all knowing Al Gore! Hail the greatest scientist the world has ever seen! Vote for Al and you need never bother to think for yourself ever again because he will do all your thinking for you! HOORAY! - Stephanie Clague, 10:18AM.

Well said, Stef.

Gore and his ilk know how religion works. They want a piece of that mind-control pie.