Click to get your own widget

Wednesday, September 14, 2011

Short Global Warming Letter in the Metro

  I am told this letter, well actually a small part of it, was in the Metro free paper on Tuesday. The Metro don't do long letters and rarely very serious ones so I am pleasantly surprised. Haven't seen it so I don't know how much was in it. The letter is largely a cannibalisation of the stuff the Scotsman edited from my previous letter.
750,000 Scottish homes are in fuel poverty; our few remaining real industries are expected to compete with economies where energy prices are under 1/4 of ours. All this is because our government insist on using the money to subsidise windmills and other "renewables" because they allege it is necessary to reduce CO2 and prevent the catastrophic global warming we allegedly see around us. Paradoxically the same people demanding this oppose nuclear power though it combines the advantage of being available ay under 1/4 the cost with the possible advantage of being much more CO2 free than even windmills.
But is this alleged catastrophic warming true or a fraud created by government so that we will submit to more tax and regulation?
I have asked repeatedly and no alarmist, anywhere, is able to name a single scientist who supports the catastrophic warming scare and is not paid by government. I intend to keep asking. Perhaps some reader here believes they can name one.
The largest expression of scientist's opinion on the subject is the widely unreported 31,000 who have signed the Oregon Petition saying that CO2 rise is not only not catastrophic but likely to be beneficial (more CO2 means better growing crops). The BBC, with typical disregard for their legal duty of "due balance" maintain that catastrophic warming is more widely accepted than the law of gravity, censoring any mention of this document - showing literally more heavy censorship than Stalin ever practised over Lysenkoism.
It will be obvious to anybody who understands statistics that it is statistically impossible for "97%" of state funded "climate scientists" to be promoting alarmism and 0% of independent scientists doing so without it being a case of deliberate promotion, to a career making or destroying extent, by the politicians funding the former which is why my unanswered question is very relevant.
When one bears in mind that those and such as those can sell intermittent and unreliable "renewable" electricity to the grid at 46.1p per kwh when French nuclear is produced at 1.4p a kwh (a 3,190% difference) and that the Prime Minister's father in law is making nearly £1,000 a day from "renewable" subsidies, it is clear that there are considerable incentives to keep the scare going despite the obvious lack of evidence, after 32 years, that the planet is suffering.

In modern times the main driver of economic growth has been, and continues to be, energy.
So such government parasitism explains why we are in recession while China and India are growing 10% annually

Ref - 750,000 fuel poverty

Father in law's £1000 a day

Oregon Petition - all BBC mentions ever of Oregon Petition - - 2 out of the 3 are responses from members of the public.

BBC claim warming more certain than the law of gravity

"In modern times the main driver of economic growth has been, and continues to be, energy".

paying 46.1p for power available at 1.4p (Scotsman "new vistas for domestic power" 7th Sept)

PS The Metro published a reply yesterday, quite unusual for the relatively light lettercolumn they run, and it supported what I said.

Labels: , ,

HHi Neil - just to give you some idea how ill conceived the present government stance is on energy, the total pump storage capacity in Britain would only replace the output of one nuclear power station like Torness for less than 46 hours. Since last winter we had the not unusual occurence of several weeks with little or no wind, but sub zero temperatures, it could be argued that to replace nuclear power stations, storage in the order of a months output per station replaced would be a bare minimum ( and by the way require at least a thousand large wind turbines per power station replaced)Not only are there no published plans for this scale of pump storage development, but there would be shortage of suitable sites. They are pinning their hopes on carbon capture and storage, which, as well as not fully proven and tested will add at least 25% to the cost of the electricity produced. regards Sandy Henderson
And here we see the 80-vote garnering censoring brown shirt wonder back at his old games!

The great Oregon Petition has been debunked by the NAS and proven to be a fraud. Donald Duck was once one of its signatories. The OISM still lists dead people as part of its "faculty" even though it has no campus!

And you *have* been shown non-government-paid examples of scientists who accept the fact of anthropogenic global warming that *could* indeed be catastrophic, but, like Joseph Goebbels before you, you just censor dissent.

Readers of this blog beware: Neil Craig is an illiterate, embittered, hateful man, who will be at the head of Einsatzgruppen A killing all scientists and burning all books if he or his like minded ilk ever gain real power--although so far he as a ways to go, mustering but 80 votes of the as- of-yet-not-duped Scottish populace.

Instead of pretending to have a clue about a subject of which you know nothing, Mr. Craig, why not devote an entire link discussing the childish flaws in your idiotic diction--starting with your proven inability to even correctly spell your own name consistently?

At least then you'd have entertainment value, as the rest of us can watch and slap our knees as you slaughter the English language, one misspelling and grammatical blunder at a time.

You're already an object of deserved ridicule. Why not make it pay?
It is tedius ,rather than amusing to read anonymous obscession with trivia, rather than trying to grasp the import of the many cases of deceit from professionals who should be above it, but are not because they fear loss of government funding. If you ( they? ) had something importantto say youmight have theguts to put your namme to it. And while your venting you're venting your spleen reflect that Mr Craig allows you that liberty. regards Sandy Henderson
The anonymouse here, with the memorable intellectual style calls himself Skip on "Scienceblogs". He has credibly (by mentioning others in the same boat, who have not denied it) claimed to be an American "peer reviewed climate scientist", published "in the finest journals".

As such he fully demonstrates what must be the acceptable and common level of intellectual rigour, honesty, courtesy and respect for facts which is normal and expected among "climate scientists".

As such I think he is doing a useful service and I allow his posts to stand except when they are too repetitive or obscene.
Post a Comment

<< Home

This page is powered by Blogger. Isn't yours?

British Blogs.