Thursday, December 24, 2009
15/12/9 to the Telegraph - wrong to say nuclear power is not far cheaper
Dr Wolff is wrong (letter Tues) is wrong to say nuclear power is not far cheaper than what we have now. Despite reports written by opponents & quoted to each other ad nauseam the fact is that Franc's electricity, 85% of which is nuclear, is as low as 1/4 of our price & they happily & profitably sell to all their neighbours. Anyone can say A costs less than B but finding B on sale at a lower price trumps all the spin.
French nuclear is costed at 1.7P a unit & that is using last generation's equipment. If it were done here without unnecesarily expensive regulation a new generation of plants need not be in any way more expensive.
14/12 Herald - no actual evidence whatsoever for catastrophic global warming
Your lead letter today from Dr Richard Dixon (letters Monday) of WWF give a lengthy case for increasing the £500 million a day the world currently spends on the Kyoto process.
However the fact is that there is no actual evidence whatsoever for catastrophic global warming (computers models are a dubious theory not evidence). Moreover we now see concrete evidence of "juggling the figures" to "hide the decline" in temperature by the government funded CRU (£13.7 million to Professor Jones alone. Government here & abroad has poured 10s of billions into "research" trying to justify the trillions cost of extra regulations & taxes on us to stop nature. They have spent at least as much on advertising, including cartoons of crying bunny rabbits to promote this false fear hysteria.
Readers may also be interested to know that WWF also receives substantial amounts of money from government.
In light of the claims there is a "scientific consensus" on this despite 10s of thousands of real scientists signing petitions against this I have repeatedly asked politicians & lobbyists to name 2 real scientists, not funded by government or lobbyists, who say we are suffering catastrophic warming & are not funded by government or lobbyists but without success. Perhaps Dr Dixon can help?
12/12 Telegraph - is Sir Brian Hoskins actually saying he sees catastrophic warming?
Though it gives a fearsome impression I am not sure whether Sir Brian Hoskins is actually saying whether he sees catastrophic global warming or not. He says he believes the world is warming but, even if it were true & the net cooling over recent years were not to count, this is of little effect unless we are agreed on how much CO2 is warming the planet. Best calculations put it at about an extra 0.3 C if CO2 doubles. Since, as recent Greenland ice core measurements have also confirmed, the Medieval warming was a full degree warmer than currently that is hardly grounds for panic. Sir Brian does mention that a 4 degree warming would mean 30% more rainfall but doesn't say if he is predicting this, let alone if there is any evidence to do so. Incidentally 4 C warmer is what we had during the Climate Optimum of 9,000-5,000 BC & that increased rainfall may explain why hippopotamuses could live in the middle of what is now the Sahara. It is questionable how bad that was. He, quite properly, says recent floods are not linked to climate change even though the BBC, in years of flooding, have said it is, while in the year of drought said climate change would cause drought.
His conclusion "The impacts of climate change go far wider than coral reefs, however important they are" is probably not something the most sceptical could disagree with but surely, before we are asked to make war on fire to the extent of destroying anything up to 80% of our power generating & therefore economic capacity we ought to be very sure indeed that it is to stop something more certain & serious than that. For catastrophic warming to be true surely we should have credible promises of something catastrophic.
7/12 Scotsman - Simply untrue that the emails only leaked a week ago
John Webster (letter Monday) says that the fact that the news of the leaked "climategate" emails & orther documentation only came out a week before the Copenhagen meeting proves they must be disinformation. In fact I first blogged on it on 21st november when it was starting to become massive news on the blogsphere. This gave Professor Jones & co ample time to cry fake & the best they have done is saying that using a "trick to hide the decline" of global temperature merely meant he had done something clever. In fact the news has been around long enough for investigators to have shown there was nothing particularly clever or spohisticated in their data use, merely fraudulent. If the British media have taken a very long time to manage even the minimal reporting this has received, bearing in mind that in proving catastrophic global warming a sham it is as important as all the alarmist stories produced over the years put together, this failure can hardly be blamed on the sceptics.
28/11 Everybody - I swear I pulled every trick out of my sleeve trying to milk something
For years we have been told that there was a "consensus" on global warming. We see from the leaked email scandal that "climate scientists" have conspired to prevent publication of sceptical research, even to getting editors fired to pervert the "peer review" system. This is not how real science is done. It has also been known that the largest single expression of scientific opinion, the widely unreported petition of over 31,000 scientists, says that not only is there no catastrophic warming but that increasing CO2 is BENEFICIAL, because CO2 helps crops grow. It has long been obvious that a disproportionate number of scientists putting their heads above the parapet against warming were emeritus (retired) professors which raises questions answered by Dr Joanne Simpson (1st female President of the American Meteorological Society & has one of NASA's Cray supercomputers named after her) when she said on retiral “Since I am no longer affiliated with any organization nor receive any funding, I can speak quite frankly" & proceeded to demolish the alarmist case.
I have asked on a number of alarmist websites if it is possible to name 2 scientists not paid, directly or indirectly, by government or the likes of Greenpeace who actually say that catastrophic warming is real. So far none of them have produced even a single name so I appeal through your pages to see if anybody can. It is time to have an open & public enquiry, as with Iraq, taking evidence under oath to investigate all aspects of this campaign.
18/11 Herald - "As a young graduate engineer"
Duncan McLaren Chief executive of Friends of the Earth showed his credentials to claim impartiality in his opposition to nuclear power by saying "As a young graduate engineer, I believed in the technology" (letter 11th Nov). According to his entry on the FoE website he got an MBA in Business Administration in 2002 & became Chief Executive, Friends of the Earth Scotland in May 2003 http://uk.linkedin.com/pub/duncan-mclaren/4/808/882 . Unless he completed that engineering degree in a few months rather than years, which would be a spectacular achievement it seems the "environmentalist" movement has, yet again, made personal statements apparently irreconcilable with the facts in the same way they continuously make scientific & numerical claims that cannot be reconciled with truth in these areas.
Indeed in the same letter McLaren asserts that, even after we lose half our electricity capacity over the next few years we will still run no risk of blackouts & even be able to export some of the little remaining. There seems to be no way to reconcile this claim with the rules of arithmetic.
18/11 Times - MP's duty to push warming alarmism?
Bob Ward signs himself as being an employee of a government funded climate alarmist organisation. By doing so he entirely disproves his own thesis that "newspapers and broadcasters give disproportionately wide coverage to so-called “sceptics” who peddle inaccurate and misleading information." In fact coverage is overwhelmingly given to alarmists. Even the BBC, legally required to show balance, admits (Newsnight editor) that they deliberately do not show "due scepticism & balance" about catastrophic global warming scares. A balanced report would at least give equal mention to the fact that the globe is now cooling. As regards inaccurate & misleading information may I point him to the video of the alarmist guru Al Gore claiming that the Earth's temperature 2 km down is "millions of degrees" (it is actually well under 100 C).
In his letter Mr Ward makes no attempt to produce any evidence that such catastrophic warming is on the horizon merely asserting it. Nor did this government funded PR flack attempt to do so when he recently lectured Douglas Carswell MP on his blog that it was his duty to support warming alarmism.
While there may be a consensus among politicians & PR people that we are suffering catastrophic warming that is not the case among scientists. Indeed there is barely a scientist, not funded by government who claims it. On the other hand Nobel prizewinning scientist Kary Mullis says "“Global warmers predict that global warming is coming, and our emissions are to blame. They do that to keep us worried about our role in the whole thing. If we aren't worried and guilty, we might not pay their salaries. It's that simple” so perhaps less unanimity than claimed.
(Douglas Carswell subsequently pointed oput how, a few days later after the email leak, Bob Ward made a statement about how we should all be sceptical, though not to sceptical)
17/11 Herald - Lets answer "indefensible"
The Israeli operation in Gaza was embarked on purely because Hamas refused to stop firing rockets at civilian settlements. This was not war because they were aiming only to kill civilians because of their race, which, as both international law & history makes clear, is genocide. Yet Paul Scott says that for Israel to move was "indefensible." At the very least it is incumbent on anybody saying so to explain exactly what they propose Israel could have done to stop genocidal attacks on its own civilians but I know of no critic who has done so. As for "indefensible" - let Colonel Richard Kemp, former British commander in Afghanistan who may know a thing or 2 about war, make the defence:
Operation Cast Lead, the Israeli Defense Forces did more to safeguard the
rights of civilians in a combat zone than any other army in the history of
Israel did so while facing an enemy that deliberately positioned its
military capability behind the human shield of the civilian population.
...The IDF faces a challenge that we British do not have to face to the same
extent. It is the automatic, Pavlovian presumption by many in the
international media, and international human rights groups, that the IDF are
in the wrong, that they are abusing human rights.
The truth is that the IDF took extraordinary measures to give Gaza civilians
notice of targeted areas, dropping over 2 million leaflets, and making over
100,000 phone calls. Many missions that could have taken out Hamas military
capability were aborted to prevent civilian casualties. During the conflict,
the IDF allowed huge amounts of humanitarian aid into Gaza. To deliver aid
virtually into your enemy's hands is, to the military tactician, normally
quite unthinkable. But the IDF took on those risks.
...More than anything, the civilian casualties were a consequence of Hamas's
way of fighting. Hamas deliberately tried to sacrifice their own civilians."
Compare & contrast the words of a real soldier with those of the political appointees of the UN. Compare & contrast also the complaints of British politicians of Israeli self defence with their enthusiastic involvement in a war waged overwhelmingly against civilians in Yugoslavia. That war was carried out mainly by bombing Yugoslav cities (80% of the casualties being civilians) & when NATO occupied Kosovo we enrolled the KLA, the only genocidal organisation in that province, as "police" & sent them out to ethnically cleanse, engage in massacres (e.g. the murder of at least 210 unarmed civilians outside our military HQ in Dragodan), ethnically cleanse 350,000, kidnap schoolgirls to sell to brothels & kidnap & dissect, while still alive, at least 1,300 civilians to sell as organs to our hospitals. That last, alone is more people than died in Gaza & should have had far more coverage.
Israel could, if it were so minded, ethnically cleanse the west bank as we cleansed Kosovo (& earlier Krajina). Let us be glad that under infinitely worse provocation, no Israeli politician has shown themselves 1,000th as uncivilised as almost all of ours have done.
16/11 Everybody - party has reported a major Nazi style atrocity
It is good to see that one political party has, at last, reported on its website news of a major Nazi style atrocity in Europe which has been on the record for a year & a half. That is when Carla del Ponte, the Chief Prosecutor of the Yugoslav war crime tribunal, that she had known for 8 years that NATO police, formerly the KLA, had been involved in kidnapping Serbs & Gypsies & cutting them up, while still alive, to steal their body organs for European hospitals. NATO, by grabbing Kosovo & earlier Croatia & Bosnia from Yugoslavia were following in Hitler's footsteps. The decision to effectively censor mention of this obscenity, at least comparable in evil though not numbers, to Auschwitz, by our major politicians & by the BBC, ITN & major newspapers has been a disgusting action by politicians who have thereby shown themselves to be genocide deniers working in Hitler's cause.
The BNP, as the party who finally mentioned this on their website, are to be congratulated as the only major party that can claim not to have censored to promote genocide in the Nazi cause.
14/11 Times - ministry's figures do not add up
Your report of 13th Nov shows the Ministry of Defence claiming "There are currently 85,730 civil servants .. the majority earned less than £20,000 a year, and the bonus (£287 million) accounted for less than 3 per cent of the staffing bill." Taking that £20,000 as the average the entire staffing bill would be £1.7 billion, 3% of which is £51 million. The nicest thing one can say is that the ministry's figures do not add up.
13/11 - Everybody - Subject: vote for the fascists at Springburn
The vote for the fascists at the Springburn by-election was only to be expected. It has long been said that this was the sort of loyal Labour constituency where you could put up a donkey in their rosette & it would win & once again this has been proven. The fact is that the Labour. Conservative, SNP & LibDem parties are essentially one group imposing fascism not through 1 leader but an amorphous political classwith similar attribute to the old Soviet "nomenklatura".. When Mussolini came to power he changed the system to give an automatic majority to the largest party even though it had only minority support & with the SNP & LDs dissenting, our political class supports a similarly corrupt electoral system here - they know that the only thing that gets people voting for them is that an anlternative vote is "wasted". These parties are also united in their commitment to an undemocratic empire controlling Europe; in their contempt for the electors, cynically making manifesto or "cast iron" promises of our right to a democratic referendum on the country's future & then cynically breaking them; in their enthusiasm for war crimes, mass murder, genocide, ethnic cleansing, the sexual enslavement of children & the dissection of Serbian "Untermensch" while still alive, for their body parts, all to support (ex-)Nazis) (to be fair the SNP were divided on these atrocities); this nomenklatura are united in spending £92 billion of our money on jobs for the boys quangos which cause immense economic destruction, though all of them promise a "bonfire of the quangos" & all of them break the promise after the election; they are unanimously committed to destroying half our economy, but subsidising their friends, in the name of "fighting global warming" when they know this is a lie designed merely to scare us & the globe is cooling; they all know how to end recession, by stopping their own parasitism which amounts to 75% of our entire economic potential; they are all committed to deepening the recession by preventing "continuous economic growth" (though only the Greens are honest enough to say so).
However this under the surface fascist alliance can depend on the total, loyalty of the media, not merely the directly state owned BBC with their enthusiasm for "lynchings" of politicians outside the nomenklatura. It is therefore unsurprising that the fascists took the first 3 places in the Springburn election though gratifying that their 4th segment, the "Liberal Democrats" (a party who have made it a condition of membership that one on no account support free market liberalism but are required to support war crimes & genocide) placed 6th. Such a party is clearly less entitled to the name "liberal" than Hitler was entitled to call his "Socialist Workers." Nonetheless the abysmal turnout proves that though they may be able to smear the opposition they can, under no circumstances, inspire the trust of the people.
11/11 Scotsman - a law to destroy 42% of our CO2 emitting energy
Friends of the Earth's assertion that blackouts will never happen because an "independent energy consultant" says so (letter Weds) should be taken no more seriously than the flattery by King Canute's advisors that the tide wasn't coming in. Their expert, Garrard Hassan advertises himself as the "worlds leading renewable energy consultant," a position he would clearly be unlikely to retain if he were to be independent enough to admit that the whole "alternative" energy business is a scam whose practitioners make far more money from subsidy, paid by the taxpayer, than from actually producing power. In fact I suggest he is totally dependent on this "industry."
The fact is that 1/3rd of our electricity comes from nuclear power & another 6th from coal power which will close in 2015 when new EU emission controls come in. The Scottish Parliament has made this worse by voting, unanimously, for a law to destroy 42% of our CO2 emitting energy over the next 11 years on the grounds that this will cut the world's CO2 release by less than one ten thousandth. This would have no remotely measurable effect on global temperature even if the globe were not in fact cooling. However such is the relationship between electricity & national wealth that the deliberate destruction of, at an absolute minimum, half our power production will destroy half of our national wealth.
I remember seeing the then leader of the Green Party publicly explaining his party had gone from "small is beautiful" to supporting a massive EU bureaucracy because they had decided that this bureaucracy was the only thing that would stop the "continuous economic growth" we were allegedly suffering from. While one may appreciate the dedication that has brought them the success of the current (& continuing) recession one need not support this aim. The same Luddite principles, combined with an anti-environmentalist desire to disfigure the countryside with pylons & windmills are clearly the driving force behind the self styled "Friends of the Earth."
4/11 Everybody - Not just whether we want a referendum but whether we want lied to
We have what he has described as a "cast iron promise" from David Cameron that we will actually get a chance to say, through a referendum, whether we want to be under the Lisbon Treaty. That goes with the manifesto promises of a referendum from the Labour & LibDem parties at the last election. There can be no more important promise from any political leader than an unequivocal promise, at election time, to maintain Britain's constitution & democratic freedom.
Now all of them have cynically broken their most solemn promise. There is not even the excuse George Bush Snr had when he broke his word on "no new taxes" - that he needed the money - for which the American electors, correctly, never forgave him. Compared to this the expenses row is nothing - that was merely money. It is now impossible for any member of any of our major parties ever to say that any promise they make, manifesto promises or just the ordinary sort, can ever be trusted at all. It is not even a matter of whether one wants a vote in the country's future but of whether one wants to be lied to. It is clearly impossible for anybody with any respect for democracy, or even any self respect, to vote for any of these parties.
30/10 Scotsman - Government takes up 80% of the economy
The old "socialist"nonsence is trotted out again by David Fiddimore when he says the voter and the private sector have opposed interests that only the state can hold together. This is the same thing that Mussolini said when he used this argument to support an overbearing state & it is even more wrong now than then. The private sector makes up less than half of Britain's spending (40% of Scotland's) yet provides all the wealth. Indeed the state. through regulation, actually has a net negative effect on wealth creation whether through the quadrupling of our electricity, housing & nursery school costs or the 5% of GNP the EU admits its regulations destroy. The best estimate is that the amount of wealth destroyed by regulation is equal to everything that remains. Thus our non-governmental economy is 20% of what it could be - no wonder we have a recession. It would obviously be in the interest of us voters/consumers to have a more productive private sector & a less parasitic state sector.
Wealth creation is clearly in the interests of those of us who do not wish poverty, which I suggest includes almost all of the voters. Their interest, like the interest of the private sector is not for an overbearing nanny state reducing freedom & increasing poverty. Both voters & the private sector have a joint interest in reducing the overwhelming degree of parasitism the government imposes on both of us. More freedom, more wealth & more progress, economic & otherwise, is the true interest of everybody - except those in charge.
24/1 Everybody - deliberate plan to "open up the UK to mass migration"
A senior Labour advisor has let the cat out of the bag about recent immigration. Andrew Neather, a former adviser to Tony Blair, Jack Straw and David Blunkett has said Labour's relaxation of controls was a deliberate plan to "open up the UK to mass migration" but that ministers were reluctant to discuss such a move deliberately intended "to rub the Right's nose in diversity" publicly for fear it would alienate its "core working class vote".
Since we have just seen the BBC's Question Time wholly devoted to attacking Nick Griffin over his past (while ignoring the colourful opinions of the youthfall Jack Straw when he was a communist backed NUS leader) may we now expect next week's QT to be devoted to a lynching of the Labour representative for that dishonest & destructive fraud against the people? Or will it turn out that the BBC decide such things are not what their viewers would want to know about?
18/11 Scotsman - SNP aim for pork barrelling
The SNP consider it right, even sensible, to try to persuade people to vote for them on the grounds that if we have a hung Westminster Parliament they will be able to get vast amounts of pork barrelling money for Scotland. Since virtually all the seats they aim at are from non-Tory parties they can only hope for a hung Parliament if they think that without their intervention the Conservatives are not heading for a majority. The opposite side of that is that they are inviting a Conservative government which does not need their help (something the vast majority of observers expect) to take away all the extra money we already get as a "Union dividend" & invite them to girn as much as they want. Scotland out of the union may not look like an option with much downside to Westminster Conservatives.
12/10 Scotsman - Space has been a massive net profit to humanity
The imprisonment of a man for letting a child smoke is a perversion of the law. The legal charge was of "exposing a child in a manner likely to cause suffering or injury to health." Nobody disputes that smoking 40 a day for 40 years produces as strong possibility, though not more than that, of killing. Even then the risk drops dramatically if the smoking stops.
I challenge anybody involved in the case to produce any evidence that the kid, who was clearly perfectly happy since she was asking for more, has suffered measurable "suffering or injury to health." I also challenge them to explain why they don't believe locking him up won't cause emotional harm to the girl. If they can't then perhaps we should hear why any prosecution witness who said it would hasn't committed perjury.
Demonisation (or "denormalisation" as the PC brigade call it) of any group in society is not something governments in free societies exist to do. Perverting the existing law to make an example of one person to frighten everybody is disgusting. Anybody who believes in individual freedom must oppose this.
Labels: Unpublished letters