Click to get your own widget

Wednesday, October 05, 2011

Recent Links - Mainly on Eco Scares

  A comment from Dr Philip Bratby on Bishop Hill which is chilling enough to repeat. It is clearly a significant threat both because of lack of capacity and because throwing intermittent wind power into it destabilises the grid.:
Arguably the most important piece of infrastructure in the country is the grid (transmission and distribution). If it fails the economic damage will be enormous and people will die by the thousand. How long can most people survive with no electricity (for most people this means no shops, no travelling, no frozen food, no cooking, no heating, no work, etc etc). So you would think that the most important job of the energy ministers would be maintaining the integrity of the grid. This means ensuring that the grid code is rigorously applied, i.e. that generators connected to the grid enhance its stability and integrity. So what do we find? Well of course the grid code is relaxed so that harmful generators like wind turbines can be connected to the grid. And what does our chief energy minister think of a policy designed to destroy this most important piece of infrastructure? He thinks wind turbines are pretty and beautiful. Truly we are governed by buffoons.
  I have posted this on 10 "LibDem" sites. We will see how many, if any, don't censor it.
In fact only 4 out of 10 wholly censored it. One even had the courtesy to give an answer, non-factual though it was.
  UKIP have what appears to be not so much a hile in the "warming consensus" scam as ots virtual disintigration:

 50 scientists named as part of the IPCC consensus who have openly denounced the fraud.
Starting with saying that the vital phrase the scientists agreed on "“The IPCC notes that “No significant acceleration in the rate of sea level rise during the 20th century has been detected” was censored from the policy document by non-scientists.

  A major story which will be censored by the MSM
Gore faked a film experiment
The most recent excuse for warming alarmism - ocean "acidification" is a fraud - proven elsewhere previously but worth the confirmation.
40% of scientists don't work for the government (actually 30.0 + 4.9 + 5.9 =41.1%). Useful because iit gives figures to the statistical unliklihood of not one of them (1,992,528 in America alone) supports the alleged consensus. Not vital but some alarmists on "scienceblogs" had claimed to doubt it .
Low Carbon Crony Investment Conference
Alex Salmond says of Scots taxpayer subsidies for sea turbines ""It's a turning point like the discovery of a new world or the change from hunter gathering to agriculture,"  "paradigm shift", "great leap forward for mankind". He predicted 130,000 jobs will be created in the low carbon sector - since economists say each subsidy dependent "green job" destroys 3.7 he is actually saying he intends to destroy 480,000 jobs.
The engineer while naturally being enthusiastic admitted "We have got to get the cost down. The industry's technology is still relatively immature." and the government' current subsidy £35m fund was a "drop in the ocean"
Climate change is certainly not an exact science. In fact, if the Times Comprehensive Atlas of the World is anything to go by, it appears to be a wildly inaccurate science. Spiked

More than one in four people in the capital are currently unable to meet their energy bills as rising prices and welfare reforms threaten to send even more into fuel poverty.

A report by London Councils today warns that rising fuel prices means that fuel poverty could be a key issue this winter.
Catastrophic weather events over the last 2000 years. Nowadays we don't know when we have it easy. G/T Pournelle
There is potential for shale gas elsewhere: in the south-eastern county of Kent, the south coast, the Mendip Hills in the west, the east Midlands, and Scotland's Midland Valley.

And on a different scare story - the anti-nuclear LNT one:

However, research from eminent scientists worldwide, including radiation experts at Lovelace Respiratory Research Institute (LRRI) -- the only facility in the world dedicated to respiratory research -- debunks the LNT hypothesis, especially as it relates to lung cancer.
Now, a mathematical tool developed at LRRI will help scientists measure those health benefits. Through their research, they support a proven alternative to LNT, which is called low-dose-radiation-activated natural protection (ANP). Using a hormetic relative risk (HRR) model, they can actually show that ANP provides a radiation benefit.

Labels: , ,

Thanks for the link
Likewise , we don't realise that people in times past suffered terribly from the weather - regards Sandy Henderson
This is very interesting. I am doubting some of your sources, but still my soul of a leither wiggles to see you care of our planet. Please read more and write more accurate blogs, and I will read them gladly! Rock on!

Pawel (the Polish immigrant)
Thanks Pavel -I do care for nature, though most Greens accuse me of not doing so. But then they have the souls, and bodies, of middle class parasites looking for other people's good intentions to exploit.
Post a Comment

<< Home

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

British Blogs.