Archbishops and taxation

Some things never change, in the week that saw the Archbishop of Canterbury still demanding that taxpayers fork out more money . It's  630 years ago this month since  thousands of rebel peasants descended on Canterbury Cathedral demanding the Archbishop be deposed.

It followed the introduction of a crippling poll tax which had been brought in under Archbishop of Canterbury Simon Sudbury, who was also the Lord Chancellor.

The Great Rising – also known as the Peasants' Revolt – saw Maidstone man Wat Tyler lead thousands of peasants from across Kent and the South East to attack Rochester Cathedral and then later break into Canterbury Cathedral during the celebration of high mass to demand that monks depose the Archbishop.

But it ended with bloodshed and the murder of Tyler and Archbishop Sudbury.

Half a millennium later still the old establishment expect the workers, poor, old and small business owners to pay vast amounts of money so that they, politicians,  Churches and NGO's can waste our money by spending it better than we can on their pet pork barrel projects.

Climate models go cold

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.

This is an article written by Dr David  Evans  who 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 product

Full article here

SOCIALNOMICS

Eric Pickles defied by Conservative Kent council

"Kent County Council pays Katherine Kerswell, its group managing director, £197,000, while five directors below her earn more than than £150,000. One interim director is said to be earning £1,100 a day. This is despite calls by Eric Pickles, the Communities and Local Government Secretary, for any chief executive on that level to take a 10 per cent pay cut, and for other staff to maintain salaries below the £142,500 earned by the Prime Minister."

Tax Freedom Day

Today is Tax Freedom Day – the first day of the calendar year that Britons stop working for the state and start working for themselves. This year, we've worked for a full 5 months this year to pay their taxes, with every penny earned in the UK between January 1 and May 29 taken by the taxman to support government expenditure.

· Britons have worked 149 days to pay their taxes in 2011 – three days longer than in 2010.

· Regional figures reveal that Londoners have to work the longest to pay off their income tax burden (51days) whilst the Welsh spend the least time paying their income tax (35days)

· UK income taxpayers would have to work for almost a year and a half with all their money going to the government to pay off our national debt.

This means that Tax Freedom Day, the day when people stop working for the government and start making cash for themselves, will come on May 30 in 2011 – 3 days later than in 2010. The main reason for this is that the government has raised VAT, in order to help reduce the UK’s record budget deficit.

New calculations by the ASI also reveal the worrying extent of the UK’s debt. Our burden of debt is so great that UK income taxpayers would need to work for nearly a year and a half (525 days) - with their entire wage packet going to the government, and not a penny being spent on public services – to pay off the national debt.

KCC being economical with the actualité rather than tax payers money

A £200,000 windfall payment to Kent County Council’s former chief executive actually cost the taxpayer twice as much as originally stated.

Peter Gilroy was given the six-figure sum after agreeing to extend his contract for a year.

It was designed to ensure that his pension was not affected by his decision to stay on.

Now KCC’s auditors have disclosed that agreeing to pay Mr Gilroy actually cost £408,000, taking into account relevant National Insurance and income tax contributions.

The revelation comes in a formal report by the Audit Commission that makes a number of criticisms of the authority over a series of six-figure severance payouts to top officers.

The Auditors have been  critical of how the county council negotiated the settlements, saying it failed to properly set out why they were considered value for money.

In the case of Mr Gilroy, who was paid £214,000 last year, the report says councillors were given too little information to allow them to make an informed decision about the proposed payout.

It criticises the council over its failure to assess whether the agreement with the chief executive was value for money, saying no alternatives were explored.

It also says the finance director was not told.