Saturday, October 02, 2010
See it here
Some alarmists are now attempting to dissociate themselves from this obscenity. Not enthusiastically & thus not entirely successfully as the wording & more importantly comments here show. The comments matter not because they are a randomly selected example of honest opinions on this but because they aren't. I put this comment up & it was censored
Any global warming alarmist who ever in future wishes to be treated as a decent human being is going to have to be able to show that they publicly denounced the obscene filth of 10:10.So while a call for alarmists to seriously dissociate themselves from a video depicting child murder as the best way of convincing people not to question scare stories was ruled so outrageous that it must be censored remarks like "can the Center possibly hold? Not if there is continued denial of man-made global warming’s reality", "some of those involved in the commissioning of this film by Richard Curtis are climate change deniers who are attempting to make the cllimate change lobby look like a facist conspiracy…" No evidence for that last one except for the fact that they certainly do look like a fascist conspiracy.
My guess is that, since they are already members of a genocidal movement which has killed far more people than Hitler relatively few of them are going to balk at "amusing" ways of killing children.
The basic message, which the entire movement has, for years, demonstrated its approval of, is that reasoned discussion of alarmists claims must be prevented at all costs. The principle here, though more graphically displayed, is no different from Hansen's call for imprisonment for scepticism or Monbiot's for the murder of airline executives & I have not seen a single "environmentalist" denouncing them as the obscene filth they are.
Considering that the exploding children special effect was technically very well done I do not see that this video could have cost anything less than £100,000 which means this was not some unthought about aberration, even with heavy funding from O2, Sony & Eaga (UK's largest supplier of state subsidised "renewable" energy.
This has been going round the net. The dog that has failed to bark is the mainstream media as this Google search shows - important enough for the Las Vegas Review Journal but not the BBC. Does anybody doubt that if the BNP, or anybody ever associated with the BNP or anybody ever associated with anybody ever associated with the BNP had made a film of child murder that the BBC would have made it headline news.
The BBC has long been a regular employer of "leftist" Richard Curtis, unlike David Bellamy whom they stopped employing after he supported quitting the EU & opposed windmills & warming alarmism. Curtis' behaviour in endorsing, however "amusingly", the murder of children as a method of preventing free thought on political matters reveals that he is, by any reasonable definition, a complete & total fascist. Of course there is nobody at the BBC who is not personally a fascist child rapist & mass murderer but it will be interesting to see if Curtis being so public about his predelictions will be any bar to future employment.
incidentally checking Google Images for 10:10 & no pressure reveals that no stills & indeed no mention of this film gave ever been shown worldwide - that or some censorship is going on
Friday, October 01, 2010
This article of mine, explaining the consequences of the warming scare, why it is wrong & why it is being promoted is now up on the ChangeScotland site. If commenting please comment there:
LAST YEAR Holyrood, unanimously, passed the most restrictive "Climate Change" law in the world. Together with the closure of our nuclear plants this means that over the next 10 years we have to close down half, far & away the least expensive half, of our electricity production.
This unanimity was largely reflected in the Scots media with BBC Newsnight Scotland breaching its nominal commitment to impartiality by describing the passage of the Act as the "good news" of the day - the bad news being the not unrelated fact that the recession is deeper & worse in Scotland.
There is a close relationship between electricity usage & GNP and Britain already has the highest ratio of GNP to electricity consumption of any large developed country so we might be quite lucky to get off with only halving Scotland's GNP as a result of halving our electricity production. Thus the Scots MSPs are unanimously saying that warming is so catastrophic that destroying half of Scotland's economy, even though the world CO2 reduction will be microscopic, is necessary.
Such unanimity in politics was common in the USSR. It is not expected in a democracy. If Scotland is a healthy democracy with parties who are genuinely free thinking then the evidence that we are experiencing catastrophic global warming must be so overwhelming & unarguable that it is worth destroying our economy simply to make what is, in terms of world CO2 production, only a token gesture.
There is no evidence for catastrophic warming. None. Nothing. Zilch. Nada. There is a theory, described in computer models, but a theory is not evidence & computer models themselves are only an extension of theory. None of the models predicted in advance that we would have the cooling there has been since 1998, indeed they did not show the medieval warming period though it was already known of. The scientific method consists of making observations, producing a theory that explains them & then testing the theory against future observations. The warming hypothesis fails the test of explaining all previous observations & thus cannot even be called scientific.
The claim of any warming at all depends on doubtful measurements, many taken at sites which, a century ago, were in countryside but which have now been urbanised, with a consequent significant increase in temperature. The warming claim also depends on the year chosen. If the start year is 1975, 1850 or 1600 we have had warming & alarmists usually start their graphs then. If the start year chosen is 1998, 1934 (in the US), 1000 or 6,000 BC, which would be equally legitimate, the globe is cooling. What we actually see is no clear upward or downward trend & a remarkably close correlation between temperature & the sunspot cycle. CO2 levels are essentially irrelevant & any recent change is well within historic parameters. The Medieval warming period was about 1 1/2 degrees warmer than today & the well named Climate Optimum of 9-5,000 BC was as much as 4 degrees warmer - this was an era of hippopotamus filled lakes in the middle of the Sahara, the folk memory of which may be reflected in the Garden of Eden story. Obviously that was not "catastrophic" nor had any "tipping point" to runaway warming occur then.
There are many other reasons to doubt the alarmists - the repeated frauds & lies they have come up with; that some of them such as James Hansen, were involved in the previous global cooling story; that CO2 increase means crops & other plants grow faster, absorbing more CO2 & thus making the phenomenon self limiting; that only 3% of all the CO2 produced worldwide is by Man so we simply cannot be causing the disaster claimed; that "environmentalists", have threatened us with dozens of catastrophe stories over the last 30 years, including global cooling, none of which have come close to being true; that despite the hype ("Netherlands under water by 2007") sea level refuses to show any significant rise; that we now know the Greenland ice cap has been there for at least 450,000 years & isn't that fragile; that we know of geoengineering methods of cutting global temperature at a small fraction of the trillions this scare has already cost.
The fact that this year, before the end of September, Scotland has experienced sub-zero temperatures, may also persuade some that the oft repeated official warnings of "mild winters" & "barbecue summers" have not proven entirely factual.
Life is to short to mention all the holes in the theory but suffice it to say that anybody who honestly believed CO2 was causing extinction level catastrophe would have to be demanding massive subsidies for nuclear power as the practical system that can provide large scale reliable power with far less CO2 than, for example, windmills (windmills need massive conventional back-up). Almost nobody pushing this scare does so & if those pushing it know it is a lie we should have no doubts.
Yet if all this is true (& I urge anybody to check) it is legitimate to ask why almost all our politicians & mainstream media warn us of catastrophic warming? Why they say there is a "scientific consensus" on it?
The nature of this lie points to its creators. I have personally asked many hundreds of politicians, newspapers, broadcasters & alarmist websites worldwide to name 2 scientists who are part of this "consensus" & who aren't funded by the state. The editor of the Independent & somebody on a South African website were able to give the same name (Professor James Lovelock who, seeing the climategate emails has largely reversed his position). Nobody else has managed even that. Patrick Harvie, asked on air, merely asserted that everybody knew it so he was not required to name anybody. It is a strange "scientific consensus" from which the large majority of scientists are excluded. In fact the largest single expression of scientist's opinions is from the Oregon Petition where 31,000 scientists have said the scare is false, but you won't see news reports on the state broadcasting service reporting that.
An example of the quality of government supported alarmist science was given recently in a lecture by Scotland's Chief Science Advisor. Among a long list of counter factual statements was the howler that "global warming will extend day length." Day length is determined by the planet's axial tilt as any well informed schoolboy knows. Per capita Scots get more scientific papers cited than any nation other than Switzerland. We have some of the world's best scientists yet the Lab/Libs chose her & the SNP confirmed the appointment. This is not purely a dig at Holyrood - she is also on a quango called NERC with a £400 million budget essentially for promoting "environmental" scare stories. In 2003 the OECD showed that government funding of science had negative value. The way the state has been funding only "science" & "scientists" who support alarmism while preventing sceptical research, when science is nothing but methodical scepticism, supports this disgraceful conclusion.
The explanation, or at least the only one that fits the facts, says much about the nature of modern politics. The great American writer H.L. Mencken once said "The whole aim of practical politics is to keep the populace alarmed (and hence clamorous to be led to safety) by menacing it with an endless series of hobgoblins, all of them imaginary." I do not easily come to believe that our entire political structure, including our nominally free media, whose standard of impartiality is set by the state owned BBC, is so completely corrupt that they would destroy our country simply to maintain power. Unfortunately, “When you have eliminated the impossible, whatever remains, however improbable, must be the truth.” Since we have eliminated the possibility that we really are experiencing catastrophic warming as claimed & even eliminated the possibility that most proponents actually believe it, the truth that remains must be that virtually all our politicians & state controlled institutions are deliberately promoting this false "hobgoblin" for personal power & profit. I am forced to agree with Czech President Vaclav Klaus, who knows what censorship of debate & unanimous votes mean & says "I see the biggest threat to freedom, democracy, the market economy and prosperity now in ambitious environmentalism, not in communism"
The world economy is now back to growing at 5% annually. China & India are growing at 10%. There is no question that we could at least match their growth rate if those in charge were not preventing it. That they are deliberately preventing it, despite almost identical promises from all the main parties, is thus also undeniable. There is really nothing one could say about those in power which would be overly critical.
note the Highlands are already black compared to points linearly north of the central Sahara or west of Siberia
Thursday, September 30, 2010
From a serendipitous Pournelle site link. I hadn't known that Robert Forward had had a home in Scotland, nor of Colin McInnes role in proving the practicality of statites. I had previously used statities in my Big Engineering article on Greening the Arctic & have previously referred to Professor McInnes in that series & elsewhere.
When American space pioneer, Dr Robert L Forward, proposed in 1984 a way of greatly improving satellite telecommunications using a new family of orbits, some claimed it was impossible.
But now engineers at the University of Strathclyde's Advanced Space Concepts Laboratory have proved that Forward was right.
The late Dr Forward -- a renowned physicist who worked in the United States and from his second home in Scotland -- believed it was possible to use 'displaced orbits' to deploy more satellites to the north or south of the Earth's equator, helping to meet the growing demand for communications.
He proposed that the orbit of a geostationary satellite could be pushed above -- or below -- the usual geostationary ring around the Earth, which follows the line of the equator, by using a large solar sail propelled by the pressure of sunlight. However, critics later claimed that such 'displaced orbits' were impossible due to the unusual dynamics of the problem.
Now graduate student Shahid Baig and Professor Colin McInnes, Director of the Advanced Space Concepts Laboratory, have shown that Forward was in fact correct, in a new paper published in the Journal of Guidance, Control and Dynamics.
Professor McInnes said:"Satellites generally follow Keplerian Orbits, named after Johannes Kepler -- the scientist who helped us understand orbital motion 400 years ago. Once it's launched, an unpowered satellite will 'glide' along a natural Keplerian orbit.
"However, we have devised families of closed, non-Keplerian orbits, which do not obey the usual laws of orbital motion. Families of these orbits circle the Earth every 24 hours, but are displaced north or south of the Earth's equator. The pressure from sunlight reflecting off a solar sail can push the satellite above or below geostationary orbit, while also displacing the centre of the orbit behind the Earth slightly, away from the Sun."
Although the displacement distance above or below the equator is small -- of the order of 10 to 50 km -- work on hybrid solar sails, which use both light pressure and thrust from a conventional electric propulsion system, is underway and aims to improve the displacement distance.
Professor McInnes added: "Other work is investigating 'polar stationary orbits', termed 'pole-sitters' by Forward, which use continuous low thrust to allow a spacecraft to remain on the Earth's polar axis, high above the Arctic or Antarctic. These orbits could be used to provide new vantage points to view the Earth's polar regions for climate monitoring."
Shahid Baig and Professor Colin McInnes' work has been funded by the National Centre for Physics, Quaid-i-Azam University, and VISIONSPACE, an Advanced Investigator grant from the European Research Council, respectively.
The Advanced Space Concepts Laboratory is a world leader in frontier research on visionary space systems. Opened in 2009, the Laboratory's researchers are investigating how new space technologies can be used to deliver radically new space services, such as increased telecommunications capacity and new orbits for Earth observation and space science missions. More information at: www.strath.ac.uk/space
Wednesday, September 29, 2010
Glad to see that the government are holding symposia on things I told them how to fix long ago here & here. Perhaps action will follow.
A special summit to examine the possible links between multiple sclerosis (MS) and vitamin D which a schoolboy helped to organise is being held on Tuesday&
solar storm could cause a geomagnetic storm on Earth, knocking out electricity grids around the world for hours, days, or even months, bringing much of normal life grinding to a halt.Doubtless many more to come.
Tuesday, September 28, 2010
the 6,000-member Health Physics Society, the principal organization for radiation protection scientists, issued a position paper (1) stating: "Below 10 rad... risks of health effects are either too small to be observed or are nonexistent."Of course politicians, government regulators (eg SEPA), the BBC & suchlike wholly corrupt, thieving fascist parasites still maintain the no safe limit lie though not a single one of them is able to produce a single piece of evidence for it.
A similar position statement was issued by the American Nuclear Society. When the Health Physics Society Newsletter asked for submission of comments on validity of LNT, there were about 20 negative comments submitted and only a single comment supportive of LNT.
In a worldwide poll conducted by the principal on-line discussion group of radiation protection professionals (RADSAFE), the vote was 118 to 12 against LNT.
A 2001 Report by the French Academy of Medicine concluded that LNT is "without any scientific validity," and an elaborate joint study by the French Academy of Medicine and the French Academy of Sciences (2) strongly condemned the use of LNT.
The same scum who say they believe in catastrophic warming because they have paid, with our money, for "scientific consensus" ignore any mention of the science here.
Sunday, September 26, 2010
From a highly favourable review of the new book Radiation Hormesis and the Linear-No-Threshold Assumption on the Low No Threshold (LNT) by Charles L Sanders-----------------------------------------
There is no safe level of radiation.” For the last 30 years, my colleagues and I at the Energy Probe Research Foundation have held that view, and espoused it through books, media appearances and presentations to regulatory bodies, helping in no small measure to tighten Canada’s radiation standards. The science on radiation as published by official bodies, we knew, made clear that any dose of radiation, no matter how small, carries with it an additional risk of contracting cancer...
This stance is now reeling. Low levels of radiation, science is increasingly telling us, are not only safe, they are actually healthful. It may be more prudent to worry about getting too little radiation than too much...
Hormesis describes something that does harm in large doses but good in small doses. We are all familiar with such hormetic relationships, even if we don’t use the term — we need various vitamins and minerals for our survival, including ones with scary names such as arsenic, but if we overdose on some, we can suffer disability or death. The trick is to get enough to avoid a deficiency in a substance we need, but not so much that it will poison us. An even better trick is to identify the ideal dose — to be able to max out on our intake of vitamins, say, while avoiding any harm. This trick — understanding when we are getting too much of a good thing — is the essence of the rapidly growing scientific inquiry into hormesis.
The other head-scratching term in the book’s title — linear-no-threshold assumption, or LNT for short — refers to the assumption that radiation is an exception to the hormesis rule, and that radiation can never be a good thing. Unlike other substances, which have a threshold between a good dose and bad, the conventional wisdom has assumed that radiation has no threshold — every dose is bad, and the bigger the dose, the badder it gets, in a straight line relationship.
This is the linear-no-threshold assumption, with “assumption” an all-important word that needs to be taken literally. While no one disputes that high doses of radiation cause harm, no one has proof that low levels cause harm. Surprisingly, the scientists and government bodies that adhere to the LNT assumption will tell you that no proof of harm at low levels is even possible because the risk is too low to measure statistically. In the absence of proof, they say, the only prudent course is to play it safe by assuming that low levels of radiation cause harm.
But is it safe to assume that humans, who evolved in a radiation-rich environment, and who live in a world that continually bombards us with natural, background radiation, would be better off by curtailing our exposure to radiation? “Literally millions of lives are less healthy because they have been convinced that living in radiation-deficient environments is healthy; lives are lost in not implementing effective low-dose radiation therapy to treat cancer; lives are lost out of fear of diagnostic radiation that saves lives,” writes Charles Sanders, the book’s author and a participant in radiobiological research over half a century.
Mr. Sanders makes his case for the robustness of hormesis research by citing hundreds of studies ...
Take the case of “an almost perfect study in a human population that demonstrates the highly significant protective effects of near-continuous exposure to gamma radiation.” This case involved more than 180 apartment buildings that had been constructed in Taiwan in the early 1980s using recycled steel that was subsequently discovered to have been contaminated with radioactive cobalt-60. The 10,000 people who were housed there received large doses of radiation over a period of nine to 20 years that, according to LNT theory, should have led to a total of 302 cancer deaths over the 1983-2003 period studied, 232 of which would have been ordinarily expected had no radiation exposure occurred, with the additional 70 stemming from the exposure. To the researchers’ surprise, however, only seven cancer deaths were found, 225 fewer than would have been expected had the buildings been free of radiation. Instead of radiation increasing the death toll by 30%, it may have reduced the death toll by a staggering 97%.
The number of birth defects among children born in this radioactive environment also confounded LNT theory. Instead of the 48 defects expected, just three occurred...
Mr. Sanders’ book is not the first to deal with radiation hormesis and it won’t be the last — research in this field has been increasing at an exponential rate and can only grow unless it can be disproven. The safest course for society is to get on with the research.
I believe that without LNT the anti-nuclear power scares wouldn't have been feasible (3 Mile Island in particular depends on an infinitesimal leak being assumed dangerous) & that the world's nuclear electricity share would have gone up from the 20% it reached to anywhere between 50-100% over the last 40 years with consequent reductions in the cost of living & rise in the rate of growth. If world growth had been 1 1/2% higher over 40 years we would, due to compounding, be about 80% better off. This is only a guesstimate but I don't think anybody could better it.
Beyond that the refusal to use nuclear pulse rockets to reach "Mars by 1965, Saturn by 1970" was because of the test ban & fear of such tiny amounts of radiation. At the described rate we would certainly have a spacegoing civilisation across the entire solar system by now.
LNT scares have certainly cost us many 10s of millions of lives, at least a large part of the world's wealth & a spacegoing civilisation.
The eco-fascists have left us a legacy far worse than Hitler's.