Putin meets the new Ukrainian President

Most western media are totally wrong about this "significant" meeting:

Russia used the D-Day commemorations to signal an apparent détente over the Ukraine conflict, as Vladimir Putin met the country’s new leader for the first time and called for an end to fighting on both sides.

On the sidelines of ceremonies to mark the 70th anniversary of the Normandy landings, President Putin held what aides described as a brief but significant meeting with Petro Poroshenko, the victor in last month’s Ukrainian presidential elections.

The 15-minute conversation was the first time the two men had spoken since Moscow’s annexation of Crimea in February. Back then, Mr Poroshenko was chased from the peninsula by a pro-Russian mob while attempting a peacemaking mission.

Confirming the talks, Dmitry Peskov, the Kremlin spokesman, said: “Both Putin and Poroshenko called for a speedy end to the bloodshed in south-eastern Ukraine, as well as to fighting on both sides – by the Ukrainian armed forces as well as by supporters of the federalisation of Ukraine.”

Mr Peskov added: “They also confirmed that there was no alternative to resolving the situation with peaceful political methods.”

In reality the meeting between the Russian dictator and Poroshenko was meaningless, because Putin's "promises" are nothing but empty rhetoric. Putin is a lier, who cannot be trusted.

Further proof that Vladimir Putin's China gas deal is an expensive failure

Vladimir Putin's much lauded China gas deal is nothing but a huge failure, as I pointed out right after the signing.

I'm pleased to note the Royal Institute of International Affairs agrees:

The $400 billion natural gas deal Gazprom signed with China National Petroleum Corp. last month strongly favors the Chinese company and its country, writes an analyst with Chatham House, the Royal Institute of International Affairs, London (OGJ Online, May 21, 2014).
“At best, the contract with China will barely allow Gazprom to cover costs,” writes Ilya Zaslavskiy, Robert Bosch fellow in the think tank’s Russia and Eurasia Program. “At worst, it could expose its monopoly and result in huge losses.”
Gazprom is to supply 38 billion cu m/year of gas under the 30-year deal at an average price, confirmed by Russian Energy Minister Alexander Novak, of $350/thousand cu m (Mcm), Zaslavskiy reports. Links to the price of oil remain vague.
Undisclosed take-or-pay requirements and future price negotiations probably are less favorable to Gazprom than those features of the Russian company’s contracts with European customers, the analyst says. CNPC had the stronger bargaining position because of its alternative gas supplies from Central Asia, Myanmar, LNG, and domestic resources of gas and coal.
Zaslavskiy estimates Gazprom’s direct expenses on production, processing, and transit might exceed $300/Mcm.
That total includes $100/Mcm for development of Chayanda and Kovytka fields in eastern Siberia. Costs related to transportation and processing—including construction of the Power of Siberia pipeline, expansion of the Sakhalin-Khabarovsk-Vladivostok pipeline, and construction of a processing plant and petrochemical facility in Belogorsk—will be at least $150-200/Mcm, the analyst says.
Russian President Vladimir Putin suspended the mineral extraction tax in a move that will lower government receipts by $30 billion over the life of the contract.
“The real winner,” writes Zaslavskiy, is China.

It is sad to see how the failed dictator Putin is wasting enormous sums of money (that would be needed to improve the crumbling Russian economy) on this entirely political deal.

A Church of Global warming "synod" in the Hudson Bay Lowlands

An assembly of the clergy and sometimes also the laity in a diocese or other division of a particular church.
(Definition of a synod, Google)



If anybody had any doubts about the climate change establishment being a religious sect, read the description below of a gathering of climat change tourists in the Hudson Bay Lowlands. The proceedings, which are called "synods", are led by Dr. Peter Kershaw, a University of Alberta scientist:

"My big hope is always that a group goes away with the feeling that they've made a contribution," says Kershaw, who has hosted dozens of such synods.
Indeed, we each now counted ourselves ambassadors of awareness.
Furthermore, the group had transformed from strangers to people who could work, have fun and learn together despite disparate sensibilities, ages, and backgrounds. The reasons too easily found for not getting along with someone elsewhere are routed in such situations by the camaraderie of understanding and revelation. --

For example, Lisa Silliman-French, a 48-year-old college instructor from Texas, was on her fifth Earthwatch trip. She'd started with leatherback sea turtles in Trinidad and subsequently voyaged to Central America and Africa on endangered animal projects. "I love giving my time to those kind of things," she'd shared one night. "It connects you; opens your mind but narrows your focus — you know? Doing something keeps you from getting too frustrated, where you could drive yourself insane and not make a difference."
Her first trip had been alone, but she'd gone on Earthwatch trips with friends, relatives, even people met on previous ones. Churchill offered the possibility of seeing polar bears, true, but mostly she'd wanted to get far enough north to see an environment truly impacted by climate change. "I can't understand people who won't open a door to the idea," she tells me. "It's like they're on a narrow path with no lights. I'm hoping to open the door a crack for, like, 50 people in my life and pass it on. Look at Kaylee—I met her in an airport on my way home from an Earthwatch trip; she asked what we were doing and when I told her, she lit right up."
Kaylee Spacizek, Environmental Sustainability Manager for Pepsi Co.'s global operations based in Houston, was indeed kneeling with us on the tundra swatting mosquitoes. "I'm trained as a chemical engineer," she says. "When I started (at Pepsi) I had zero environmental knowledge, but seeing An Inconvenient Truth changed my life. Since then it has been one big revelation after another. But it's difficult to converse with co-workers about climate change, and that's a large part of why I'm here."

Obama's legacy of failure

One of the weakest and most incompetent US Presidents ever is about to confirm the total failure of his domestic policy legacy:

The Obama administration will seek to cut greenhouse gas emissions from existing power plants 30% from 2005 levels by 2030, potentially one of the biggest steps any country has taken to confront climate change, people familiar with the plan said Sunday.
Seen as the linchpin of President Obama's climate campaign and a key part of his domestic policy legacy, the proposed power plant rule would set state-specific targets for carbon dioxide reductions and let local officials decide how best to meet the goals.
The proposal by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency is intended to limit air pollution by carbon dioxide, a gas that traps heat in the atmosphere and drives global warming.

Fortunately, there are some strong voices, who will try to stop Obama:

Opponents — including the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, the mining industry and congressional Republicans and Democrats from coal-producing states — have already lined up against it. Critics labeled it government overreach that would do little to reduce climate change while costing tens of billions of dollars and thousands of jobs.
"Now the president is once again looking to do through regulation what he couldn't accomplish through legislation. But myself and others are sounding the real alarm of how the president's plan will be dangerous for our economy and future job opportunities," said Sen. James M. Inhofe (R-Okla.), citing a U.S. Chamber of Commerce report that estimated the rule could cost the economy $50 billion annually.