Click to get your own widget

Monday, October 07, 2013

Letters Unpublished in September/Early October

    Another round up of unpublished letters. I do these because what I have written is, by definition, either to poor to be publishable or to correct not to be censored.

2nd Oct - IPCC Scepticism- Scotsman
   Steuart Campbell is wrong to think the IPCC's "Summary for Policymakers", widely promoted by the media, is a scientific document. The organisation is primarily a political one, which explains their numerous "mistakes" over the years. The full document is now out and though it is not intended to get the same media coverage, it is where the science, or lack of it, is displayed. Already Stephen MacIntyre, who demolished the IPCC's previous Hockey Stick "mistake" has spotted another major one where, by changing a graph showing their previous predictions they have "accidentally" obscured the fact that the real standstill in  "catastrophic warming" over the last 18 years, now brings reality outside the error limits of the lowest temperature possible under their previous "90% certainty" of warming.
        Catastrophic warming is clearly merely the latest of hundreds of "environmental" global catastrophe stories the powers that be have promoted (& which serve their interests by making us more obedient and taxable). 
        Not one of them have proven to be true - and that includes the prediction of continuous and catastrophic warming.
        Not only is the world not currently warming but current temperatures are not in any way unusual - it was warmer during the Middle Ages and late Roman Period and several degrees warmer before 5,000 BC when the only "catastrophe" was that the Sahara was verdant.
       There has been some criticism, mainly by the state owned BBC, of recent reporting of the political views that Ed Miliband's father taught him.
       I note that the BBC & their supporters have never made a fuss about reporting that David Cameron's father-in-law makes £350,000 a year from subsidised windmills. Nor should they have. The public has a right to know all such things.
       The hypocrisy of the BBC is, however, particularly uninhibited. This is the same BBC that last year broadcast the  smear that everybody who doesn't see catastrophic global warming is the moral equivalent of the Rochdale child rapist gangsters. That, unlike your well researched article, was simply an obscene rant for which they have repeatedly refused to either produce any evidence or retract. Obviously the did not even contemplate the possibility of the BBC giving any right to reply to the people they attacked.
       As somebody who, and whose party, dispute that we see any sign of catastrophic warming I would very much like to see our state owned broadcaster either trying to produce some evidence for the obscene lie they broadcast, or apologise for it. I would even like to see them living up to their legal Charter duty of "balance" by allowing the people they attack in this disgusting manner, a right of reply as the paper in question did for Milband. I do not think anybody with any real concern for honest reporting could fail to be thousands of times more critical of the BBC than of the coverage of Miliband snr. 
27th Sept - all & sundry - BBC CENSORSHIP
       I note the vast amount of BBC coverage being given to the, well leaked in advance, certainty that we are experiencing catastrophic global warming.
       On the one hand there is no dispute that we haven't actually had an global warming, catastrophic or otherwise, for 15 years, a considerably longer period than that between 1979, when a warming trend started, and the dropping of the previous cooling scare and adoption of this one.
       On the other hand the BBC Charter gives them a specific legal duty to "balance" so if they were to be in any way biased in their enthusiasm for scaring us this would be illegal.
        On the 3rd hand this is the same BBC which 7 years ago claimed to have run a symposium of "28 world leading scientists" telling them they were right to censor dissidents on the scare. Indeed BBC employees even testified, under oath in court, in a case brought to identify them, to them being such scientists. But when the names were eventually leaked it was found that they were not scientists at all but carefully selected Green activists, plus a psychological warfare expert from the US embassy. If this "28 gate" claim remains the highest standard of honesty to which anybody in the BBC aspires, as it officially still does, is it possible to believe they are being infinitely more honest now.
         On the 4th hand no alarmist from Al Gore to the IPCC, to the BBC, to any journalist, has been able to name a single solitary scientist, anywhere in the world, who isn't ultimately funded by government or "Green" organisations, who supports the alleged catastrophic warming "scientific consensus". I know because I have asked for several years
24th Sept -all and sundry - MILIBAND'S ENERGY FREEZE PROMISE
      Politicians may be thought dishonest, cynical and uncaring of our wellbeing but Ed Miliband has set a new record in his promise to freeze electricity prices.
      Firstly he knows that blaming electricity price rises on the producers is simply a lie. The increase is wholly and completely the fault of the traditional political parties. If it were, as implied but not stated because they could be sued, collusion between suppliers to make exorbitant profits they would inevitably be making exorbitant profits compared to turnover and they aren't. Indeed it has been shown that at least 90% of the wholesale price of electricity is political parasitism and regulation. Miliband, as the instigator of the Climate Change Act, far and away the most expensive legislation ever passed by a British parliament, is the single politician most responsible for these prices. For years our political class have been pushing up electricity prices, currently £1,400 a year but we are told, intended to be £3,000 by 2020.
      This is similar to the claim that the bankers were responsible for the recession while the innocent politicians were somewhere else spending the money.
      Secondly, he knows that passing a law to hold back the laws of supply and demand will not work. Telling producers they cannot sell at the cost of generating power will simply mean they do not produce. and indeed British gas has already said it could not "continue to operate".  Certainly no sane company will invest in new capacity when there is even the possibility that Labour will simply bankrupt them by enforcing loss making prices. This is what Labour did to British Nuclear a decade ago as part of their campaign to put the lights.
     Thirdly Miliband cannot be ignorant of the devastation he has already caused and intends to worsen. 25,000 pensioners a year already die, unnecessarily, because of fuel poverty. There is also as close a correlation between energy use and gdp as any figures in economics, proving that the current recession (while the rest of the world grows at 6% a year) is entirely caused by this Luddism of our political class.
      Fourthly he must know that if his party (or the be fair the Tories, LibDems, SNP or Greens) wanted to end the recession they could do so, in weeks, possibly days, simply by ending all unnecessary restrictions and regulations on electricity production and allowing the free market, including shale and nuclear, to operate, as Roger Helmer, UKIP's energy spokesman, has long advocated.
Neil - I sent this to the Evening Standard pointing out that he had previously promised that, though he had refused to publish my letter objecting to their editing of my Spectator letter he would be willing to publish another letter from me to show balance. I called him on this promise. They replied lying that they had made no promise but saying because this was a good letter they were inclined to publish it.
Obviously lying again, apart from the bit about it being particularly good, which goes without saying for most of my letters.
"Neil thank you for your email. I neither refused to publish a letter from you or promised to publish another letter, I suggested you should write one! Energy prices are a good subject this week and you make lots of interesting points so I will certainly consider this."
       Is it really in the interests of children's education that a school's leading teachers be suspended because, for 8 years, there has been somebody present who disputes evolution? This is what has been done to Kirktonholme School in East Kilbride. Politicians should stop their PC meddling in schools and let them work.
        One does not have to be a believer in creationism to be offended by state power being used, rather than intellectual debate. Creationism is wrong but harmless - totalitarianism is very harmful, and must be opposed by all liberal minded people.
         There is also the suspicion that this was not started, 8 years on, by the unnamed "outraged parents", who may or may not exist but by political apparatchiks as a shot over the bows at those who object to the Orwellian redefinition of "marriage". It seems that the chaplain in question opposed redefining marriage for all 8 years - whereas almost every politician in Britain did so for little more than the earlier half.
         If it was really a matter of saying unscientific things in school virtually our entire traditional cohort of MSPs would have to go because they insisted on al Gore's ridiculous film being shown across the school system (with its 20 ft sea level rises, islands already underwater, catastrophic warming when there has been no warming for 18 years & Arctic ice melted. all proven false in court). Since the UK Climate change act is costing £800 Billion & Scotland's is worse this is clearly very far from a harmless story.
      I note you have published a letter of mine from another paper, edited in the manner the Hope not Hate organisation did, as a news item. 
       I accept my opinion that President's Assad's past as a doctor in south London(when so many in his position would have been playboys) is evidence he is not the cartoon monster he is painted as, is a controversial one. On the other hand I think it is an arguable one, or would be if you or HnH had not edited that part out of what I said.
      Simplistic analysis of foreign conflicts tend to devolve into goodies and baddies but real life is unfortunately rarely so simple. That is why UKIP, alone of the major parties, has opposed all the illegal wars the UK has been involved in.
       I do not agree with HnH's apparent disrespect for the medical profession but to their credit I must acknowledge that they did publicly accept that the only recent instance of real fascism in Scotland was against my own party. That was the mobbing of Nigel Farage by what purported to be an anti-English racist mob but turned out to contain a number of "leftist" activists bussed in from England.
10th Sept - Scottish Government Funded Anti-Tory Campaigning Scotsman
      I note your article from Mr Stuart of Scottish Renewables attacking the Conservative party for saying that "renewables" are responsible for fuel poverty.
       "Renewables", the subsidy they derive from the levy on other forms of electric power generation and the politicians who, knowing all this, have insisted on raising electricity prices are solely responsible for fuel poverty. It is difficult to believe that anybody involved in the industry is unaware of this deliberate policy.
       Gas prices in the US are a quarter of what they were because of the shale revolution while Britain is 10 years behind because of politicians. At least 90% of the cost of nuclear is government regulation. Yet we pour hundreds of billions into the windmills Scottish Renewables and others lobby for. That and that alone is why we have some of the highest energy prices in the world.
       Fuel poverty is responsible for 25,000 excess winter deaths annually.
       Energy use and national wealth are joined at the hip so the current recession is clearly also caused by this Luddite policy.
       When choosing to launch attacks on party lines Scottish Renewables should make public the fact that they are funded not just by windmill companies but by government, quangos , councils etc.  and consider the propriety of using taxpayers money for party political attacks.
      And the Scottish Tories should remember that they were part of the unanimous support for the Climate Change Act which loaded Scotland with the single most damaging global warming legislation in the world, despite the fact that they, all the other Hollywood parties & indeed Scottish Renewables are afraid to defend their catastrophic warming scare story in public debate.

Labels: , ,

Comments: Post a Comment

<< Home

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

British Blogs.