Socialize / RSS

FacebookTwitterRSSMySpacePicasaFlickrLastFMLinkedInYoutubeVimeoDeliciousStumble UponDeviantartDiggFourSquare

Subscribe by Email

John Kerry Saves The World From Climate Change

Sir Robin Malarkey CBE PIE ( former BBC Climate Expert )

The noble John Kerry has spoken out regarding climate change. US Secretary of State Kerry  is quoted as saying

“Denial of the science is malpractice”.


By definition malpractice in the law of torts.

Malpractice is an “instance of negligence or incompetence on the part of a professional.”

The IPCC report cited presumably as factual  by John Kerry has according accounts been “influenced” by an official of the British government working for the fanatical radicalised climate preacher MP Ed Davey Secretary of State for Energy and Climate Change  ( quite a mouthful that ) . Ironically for some Ed’s Missus is called Emily Gasson LOL. Davey employs the letters FRSA after his name he is apparently a Fellow of the Royal Society of Arts. Quite a lot of people in the arts world have a wild imagination a key talent when making up fictional stories.

Deceitful fictional stories thoughout history have been used to influence the masses the great philosopher Plato came up with the concept of the “noble lie”.

In politics, a noble lie is a myth or untruth, often, but not invariably, of a religious nature, knowingly told by an elite to maintain social harmony or to advance an agenda. The noble lie is a concept originated by Plato as described in the Republic.

Whilst blathering on and laying the blame for changes in the weather at the feet of the public expenses trougher Lib Dem MP Davey flies of on a carbon powered junket with 45 other hipocritical numpties to discuss how to cut carbon emissions to stave off the unproven threat of scary global warming.

Another gambit of Davey and the warmist believers is the introduction of “smart” meters to help us all reduce our carbon footprints. Laughable indeed considering that many scamming MPs unlike the rest of us get their energy bills paid our of the public purse.

Better still Davey claims more in expenses to cover the cost of renting a constituency home than it would cost to buy the house on a mortgage. Heck – that is value for money. As it happens Davey represents a London seat so why the fuck should taxpayers have to pay for any home of his at all?

As a bonus the taxpayer also pays rent on a constituency office for Davey. Plus  a director of the company from whom the office is rented is er…his wife. This is all perfectly legal. But does it make you think that we are “all in it together?” Austerity is for little people…it does not apply to the political classes.

If we are to take John Kerry and the fanatical Ed Davey at their word we would expect to see firm evidence of their commitment to saving the planet from what they believe to be the imminent threat of eternal doom due to scary carbon dioxide. Actions speak louder thann words.

The publication Salon who only pose one side of the story wrote this little piece regarding John Kerry.

In Paris Sunday, Secretary of State John Kerry took a break from negotiations with Russia to release a statement in response to the IPCC’s new report on climate change, which warned that now, more than ever, is the time to take action.

“Read this report and you can’t deny the reality: Unless we act dramatically and quickly, science tells us our climate and our way of life are literally in jeopardy,” Kerry said, adding, ”Denial of the science is malpractice.”

It would seem that Kerry is far too busy to do his homework one presumes he relies upon advice.

It is this graph of the widening gap between the predicted and observed trends that will continue to demonstrate the absence of skill in the models that, until recently, the IPCC had relied upon.

As a final parting shot I remind John Kerry that the worlds greatest single user of fossil fuels is the US Military.

If and its a very big if John Kerry and the US government remain true to their word on climate change then they will surely call for the imediate withdrawal of US forces from around the world, its the only carbon option and the reality cannot be denied.

Half of the US Military carbon footprints are outside the USA.

After all our climate and our way of life are literally in jeopardy.

We might also add to the figures below the numerous footprints of all of those organisations that supply, serve and manufacture equipment for the USMIL.

kerrys co2 elephant


How Much Energy Does the U.S. Military Consume?

Posted on January 3rd, 2011 by Sohbet Karbuz


Since the beginning of the 20th century energy has been a critical factor for armed forces worldwide. From the end of the Cold War to the first years of the 21st century, the U.S. Department of Defense’s (DoD) energy consumption dropped by some 40 percent, but with the Global War on Terror consumption has raised again.


In fiscal year 2009, the DoD consumed 932 trillion Btu of site delivered energy at a cost of 13.3 billion dollars. Energy consumed per active duty military and civilian personal is 35 percent higher than the U.S. energy consumption per capita, which is amongst the highest in the world. While consuming that amount of energy, DoD emitted 73 million metric tons of CO2, corresponding to over 4 percent of the total emissions in USA.


The DoD accounts for less than 2 percent of the US energy consumption and more than 93 percent of the U.S. government energy consumption. Although this may seem small, the fact is that DoD is the largest single consumer of energy in the United States. Nigeria, with a population of more than 140 million, consumes as much energy as the U.S. military.


On average, mobility fuels (for aircraft, ships, vehicles and equipments) have accounted for three quarters of the DoD’s total energy use over the past two decades. Buildings and facilities have made up the rest.


The U.S. is the strongest military power in the world and just like any other military in the world, energy, in particular energy derived from oil, is at the heart of that power. Oil accounts for nearly 80 percent of total DoD energy consumption, followed by electricity (11 percent), natural gas and coal. DOD pays immense effort for reducing its dependency on conventional oil and seeks ways to use alternative and renewable energy sources. Despite all these efforts, less than 4 percent of the DoD’s energy consumption comes from renewable sources.


The above graph breaks down energy consumption by the U.S. Military in 2009 based on data from DoD FEMRFY2009.


The DoD uses 360,000 barrels of oil each day. This amount makes the DoD the single largest oil consumer in the world. There are only 35 countries in the world consuming more oil than DoD. The U.S. Air Force is the largest oil consumer within the DoD services.


Less than half of DoD oil consumption occurs in the continental U.S., and the rest is consumed overseas. According to Sharon E. Burke, the Pentagon’s director of operational energy plans and programs, the Defense Logistics Agency delivers more than 170,000 barrels of oil each day to the war theaters, at a cost of $9.6 billion last year.


Although energy costs represent less than 2 percent of the DoD budget, indirect costs such as those for transporting fuel to battlefields and distributing it to the end-user add to the total. When the average American is paying $3 per gallon of gasoline, the price can soar to $42 a gallon for military grade jet fuel delivered through aerial refueling.


The military is aware of its dependence on energy. Defense Secretary Robert M. Gates identified energy as one of the department’s top 25 transformational priorities, and 2010 Quadrennial Defense Review addressed energy for the first time as a strategic issue. Although the DoD has already become a leader in some areas of renewable energy, it is yet to be seen whether it will be able to increase its energy efficiency and conservation, create viable alternatives and wean itself off oil.


Energy Costs
(million $)
Site delivered energy consumption (trillion Btu)
Buildings $3,553.4 209.8
Energy Instensive/exempt facilities $230.4 10.8
Tactical Vehicles $9,335.8 698.3
Non-Tactical Vehicles $225.0 12.6
$13,344.7 931.6


Written by Sohbet Karbuz, Energy Blogger

 Read the 2012 Report here How Much Energy Does the U.S. Military Consume? – An Update

Note: elements of the text above were plagarised from


You must be logged in to post a comment Login