Sunday, October 07, 2012
4 Unpublished Letters
We are continuously told by the state broadcaster that there is a "scientific consensus" about catastrophic global warming and the need to spend hundreds of billions on windmills and the like to ameliorate it.
This makes it difficult to explain a problem UKIP are having. We are recording a public debate on alleged warming and the need for windmills in Glasgow 30th October (upstairs at Yates, West George St)
We have had no problem getting people from the sceptical community, even though 1 Scots politician is on record as saying that everybody not supporting the warming scare is "from Mars". Lord Monckton, the author Andrew Montford & now Jim Sillars have consented to speak. One could hardly have a more widely representative group.
However having asked all of these supporters of warming alarmism
All 129 MSPs; All 5 party organisations; SEPA; Scottish Natural Heritage; The head of the Scottish Civil Service; The Carbon Trust; NERC (a quango you've never heard of but it gets £500 million a year to promote alarmism & did previously call for a debate); Scottish Renewables; Renewable UK; WWF; Friends of the Earth; Stop Climate Change Scotland (an umbrella organisation covering around 90 other alarmist groups); Professor Ann Glover (former Chief Scientific Adviser to the Scottish government, now to the entire EU(; and some individuals I won't embarrass by naming (including the non-Martian former MSP).
Also Glasgow University; Strathclyde University; Glasgow Caledonian University; The BBC and Channel 4
we have yet to find a single solitary supporter of the warmist "consensus" willing to promote their views in a public forum where, unlike the BBC state broadcaster, both sides get heard.
Perhaps readers, or indeed journalists, here would be able to suggest some supporter of climate alarmism who feels able to put the case for a scare story which is costing us all hundreds of billions of pounds.
It is not just that otherwise people might feel drawn to the thought that these people largely know that it is a false scare story. It is also a serious matter of principle. All real democracies, from the time of ancient Greece onwards, have depended on the voters being allowed to hear both sides before voting. A "democracy" in which the state controlled media decide what views may be heard and what may not is not a genuine democracy.
Before anybody suggests it I am aware that on the same day a conference of 5,000 people, gathering to "do business" & schmooze in the subsidy dependent "renewables industry" will be gathered in Glasgow under the aegis of RenewablesUK & Scottish Renewables. Unfortunately none of them are able to attend the debate.
went out to all major papers in Scotland - also with an invitation to those "environment correspondents" who promote warming to do so in this debate. None are willing to.
To the major newspapers across Britain.
British news broadcasting is among the more thoroughly state owned in the developed world - even moreso across the anglosphere. The correlation between state ownership of broadcasting and both authoritarianism and failure is undisputable and has been proven by a recent scientific report from Harvard.
The state owned BBC & Channel 4 control 75% of news on terrestrial TV. 70% is the legal definition of monopoly. This monopoly is justified by the fact that the BBC Charter legally requires them to be "balanced". Unfortunately it is quite obvious that, on many many subjects from bombing people, to the catastrophic warming the BBC insist is as proven as the Law of Gravity (really) to political party coverage in which the BBC barely hide their partisanship. The Greens get 10 times more coverage, all supportive, than UKIP, even though polls show UKIP has the support of 9 times as many people Even the BNP get twice as many votes as the Greens but I defy any employee of the BBC to deny that they deliberately propagandise and censor for the one and against the other.You don't have to be a BNPm supporter to recognise that this is inconsistent with democract - indeed since it is the very definition of Fascism, it may help not to be.
So long as we have the BBC propagandising, censoring dissent a frankly lying we will not be a free nation. Legally they have an obligation to balance but make no attempt whatsoever to do so, even on obvious matters like party political reporting. We need to make a fuss about this. Stare ownership of the mass media is inconsistent with real democracy and with freedom.
Ref - report mentioned http://www.economics.harvard.edu/faculty/shleifer/files/media.pdf
To Scotland on Sunday in response to a clearly false letter from a windmill promoter. Top be fair though they did not publish rhis they did publish another, shorter rebuttal.
SNP councillor Richard Thomson is not merely wrong but the precise and exact opposite of factual in much of what he says in support of windmills and against Clark Cross.
He specifically denies that French nuclear is cheap but the fact is that it costs less than 3p per kwh.
He denies and in the next sentence admits that windmills, particularly offshore ones, are the most expensive - hardly news since if they were not they would not need massive subsidy would they?
He claims that windmills are new technology and nuclear palnts an old one.Since windmills were first built in ancient Persia about 500 AD the pretence that they postdate the atomic pile is clearly untrue.
His claim that windmills are going to drop massively in cost (in which case building them now rather than waiting is perverse) is nonsence because the laws of physics show that a diffuse power source, like wind, cannot achieve the efficiencies of a concentrated one like nuclear.
His contention that nuclear prices cannot fall is ludicrous since at least 75% of their cost is government regulatory parasitism. That fact also proves his claim that nuclear benefits from state aid is untrue - enforcing a fourfold increase is not subsidy.
Repeating this claim that windpower is cheap does not make it factual.
I am certain that every remotely honest SNP politician will be quick to dissociate from this rubbish. Let us hope there are a few.
Every serious politician in the country knows that 93% of our electricity costs are state enforced and that, such is the correlation between electricity use and GDP, we could be out of recession very quickly if they simply allowed the market to choose the least expensive without their interference.
Response to the Herald. No other letter criticising the clearly totally dishonest claim that the SNP are against fuel poverty was allowed either.
I note Alex Neil's long letter leading off today's letter page, in which he claims to be trying to reduce fuel poverty. The truth is the opposite. The inevitable effect of ensuring that we get ever more power from the most expensive and least reliable method (windmillery) while reducing the cheapest and most reliable (nuclear) is that prices go up and as the trend continues, blackouts become inevitable,
Tthe 2.4 times increase in electricity prices in recent years is entirely because the politicians, with the SNP in the vanguard, have determined to increase them. To achieve the SNP target of 100% "renewables" will mean more than doubling again. In December 2010, when temperatures in Scotland fell to 20C only 0.2% of our power came from wind. The effect when the SNP have ensured that all of our electricity comes from such sources, by 2010, as they promise, will be terrible.
The fact is that our electricity bills would be reduced by 93% to under £100 a year if our politicians were not powerful enough to prevent the free market working. This would also be more than enough to get us out of recession. While some politicians do claim that the price increases are because the people producing it have suddenly become greedy, no politician who is remotely honest has ever flirted with that lie. Fuel poverty is entirely the fault not of feebleness but of deliberate policy by technphobe politicians in the LabNatConDemGreen Party. Every honest politician acknowledges this, though there appear to be few of them outside UKIP.
Good examples of what many not be said in our newspapers, even in the one section which is supposed to represent reader's opinions.
No serious criticism of the state broadcasting monoploy; no balanced debate of the facts about "catatrophic global warming"; no serious questioning of the integrity of politician's promises; censorship of UKIP.