Friday, October 11, 2013
Why The EU Is An Hideous Aberation
Pleased to say that my speech at the Glasgow University EU debate is now up at ThinkScotland. Read the whole thing and please put any comments there. This is a slightly edited version:
Professor Tim Congdon, one of Britain's leading economists and I acknowledge, a prominent member of UKIP, has calculated the EU costs as follows:
1% of GDP is what we actually pay over. Some of that is returned to spend in Britain but not spent in a way that significantly increases GDP;
3¼% to CAP and other EU protectionism
¼% lost because the open UK labour market allowed 700,000 Eastern Europeans into the UK, taking away jobs of over 100,000 UK-residents
¼% lost to waste - CFP and others, involves fish discard and effective ‘gift’ to other nations; etc
¼% to costs of ‘benefits tourism’ and such but, most importantly;
EU commissioner Gunter Verheugen in 2006 said in an interview that EU regulation costs 5.5% of GDP. That was then and regulation has considerably increased since, so 6% now.
Thus Professor Congdon concludes – 11% of our potential GDP is lost through EU membership – £170 billion.
The BBC, despite its legal charter commitment to impartiality has censored mention of Verheugen's vital admission or Congdon’s calculation ...... no significant europhile has ever even attempted an arithmetical criticism of this calculation......
But that isn't the end of it. Those in power regularly blame our recession on the "world recession" but there is no world recession. The EU is the only zone in recession it is.... 6% for the non-EU world.
Indeed the Commonwealth is undergoing annual growth of a magnificent 7.3%. The Commonwealth precisely because it is a mixture of developed and undeveloped countries is an inherently better trading zone than the EU. When we abandoned it in 1974, it made it up 10% of world GDP, barely a third of the current EU countries but this year its total GDP is moving upwards, is passing the EU's going in the opposite direction. Far from gaining benefits we have chained ourselves to a sinking ship.
.
But that isn't the end of it. The growth disparity is increasing fast because the regulatory burden ratchets only one way. Nobody expects the EU to achieve serious growth in the near future or perhaps at all. If that 6% annual growth continues for 12 years the rest of the world economy will double. If it continues for 36 years (when students at the university I spoke at would be at their career peaks) the world economy will be 8 times what it is now and we will be part of the underdeveloped bit.
There are a couple of reasons why the EU doesn't and cannot ever work.
Firstly we have no demos – no common primary loyalty of the people to the EU rather than the separate nationalities. That means that the only thing that does, or can, hold us together is the bureaucracy. Which is why we end up with such expensive and destructive bureaucracy.
It may also explain why Eurocrats feel it useful to scare us and have eagerly endorsed scare stories – from the 1970s Club of Rome, who promised we would run out of resources in the 1990s, through acid rain (which is now quietly accepted as transmuting into ammonia fertiliser), to the present scare about CO2 which increases crop growth by 20%.
Secondly the EU runs contrary to our history. Europe led the world because Europe consisted of small states in competition so ideas and innovation could not be stifled by any one ruler. In 1433, Cheng Ho returned to China, his fleet having explored the entire Indian ocean but an anti-technology party had the emperor's ear and he stopped exploration dead. China withdrew on itself. Half a century later, when Columbus got a knock back from the king of Portugal he could go to the kings of France, England and finally Spain – and for 500 years Europe led the world.....
Ancient Greece, Renaissance Italy and Europe in the age of exploration. Again and again progress, often magnificent progress is made; freedom maintained where there are separate, law respecting, trading states; where common culture extends beyond the state; where dissidents like Descartes could move from France to Sweden rather than be silenced. This has been the glory of Europe. Now we see China, ponderously, moving towards freedom while we are ruled by progressively stifling mandarins.
Which brings me to the one allegedly "beneficial" effect of the EU I want to end with.
In December 2007 there was an EU debate in Glasgow University Union. Robin Harper, then Green leader carefully explained to us why the "Green" movement had gone 180 degrees from "small is beautiful" to enthusiastic support of the EU superstate. It was, he explained, because they had come to realise that only the massive bureaucratic regulatory system of the EU could stop the "continuous economic expansion" we were, back then, suffering from.
It worked. It surely did.
If you believe that the prime duty of government is to enforce recession; to ensure that the future is poorer than the past; to rob future generations of their birthright; then you should recognise and endorse the idea that the EU has had that "beneficial" effect.
If like UKIP & I, you believe in human progress; that the potential for progress of free human beings has barely been scratched and that it is not merely wrong but evil of the state to try and stifle human progress then you can only conclude that the EU's impoverishment of us all has been a hideous aberration and we should rejoin the march of progress.
Professor Tim Congdon, one of Britain's leading economists and I acknowledge, a prominent member of UKIP, has calculated the EU costs as follows:
1% of GDP is what we actually pay over. Some of that is returned to spend in Britain but not spent in a way that significantly increases GDP;
3¼% to CAP and other EU protectionism
¼% lost because the open UK labour market allowed 700,000 Eastern Europeans into the UK, taking away jobs of over 100,000 UK-residents
¼% lost to waste - CFP and others, involves fish discard and effective ‘gift’ to other nations; etc
¼% to costs of ‘benefits tourism’ and such but, most importantly;
EU commissioner Gunter Verheugen in 2006 said in an interview that EU regulation costs 5.5% of GDP. That was then and regulation has considerably increased since, so 6% now.
Thus Professor Congdon concludes – 11% of our potential GDP is lost through EU membership – £170 billion.
The BBC, despite its legal charter commitment to impartiality has censored mention of Verheugen's vital admission or Congdon’s calculation ...... no significant europhile has ever even attempted an arithmetical criticism of this calculation......
But that isn't the end of it. Those in power regularly blame our recession on the "world recession" but there is no world recession. The EU is the only zone in recession it is.... 6% for the non-EU world.
Indeed the Commonwealth is undergoing annual growth of a magnificent 7.3%. The Commonwealth precisely because it is a mixture of developed and undeveloped countries is an inherently better trading zone than the EU. When we abandoned it in 1974, it made it up 10% of world GDP, barely a third of the current EU countries but this year its total GDP is moving upwards, is passing the EU's going in the opposite direction. Far from gaining benefits we have chained ourselves to a sinking ship.
.
But that isn't the end of it. The growth disparity is increasing fast because the regulatory burden ratchets only one way. Nobody expects the EU to achieve serious growth in the near future or perhaps at all. If that 6% annual growth continues for 12 years the rest of the world economy will double. If it continues for 36 years (when students at the university I spoke at would be at their career peaks) the world economy will be 8 times what it is now and we will be part of the underdeveloped bit.
There are a couple of reasons why the EU doesn't and cannot ever work.
Firstly we have no demos – no common primary loyalty of the people to the EU rather than the separate nationalities. That means that the only thing that does, or can, hold us together is the bureaucracy. Which is why we end up with such expensive and destructive bureaucracy.
It may also explain why Eurocrats feel it useful to scare us and have eagerly endorsed scare stories – from the 1970s Club of Rome, who promised we would run out of resources in the 1990s, through acid rain (which is now quietly accepted as transmuting into ammonia fertiliser), to the present scare about CO2 which increases crop growth by 20%.
Secondly the EU runs contrary to our history. Europe led the world because Europe consisted of small states in competition so ideas and innovation could not be stifled by any one ruler. In 1433, Cheng Ho returned to China, his fleet having explored the entire Indian ocean but an anti-technology party had the emperor's ear and he stopped exploration dead. China withdrew on itself. Half a century later, when Columbus got a knock back from the king of Portugal he could go to the kings of France, England and finally Spain – and for 500 years Europe led the world.....
Ancient Greece, Renaissance Italy and Europe in the age of exploration. Again and again progress, often magnificent progress is made; freedom maintained where there are separate, law respecting, trading states; where common culture extends beyond the state; where dissidents like Descartes could move from France to Sweden rather than be silenced. This has been the glory of Europe. Now we see China, ponderously, moving towards freedom while we are ruled by progressively stifling mandarins.
Which brings me to the one allegedly "beneficial" effect of the EU I want to end with.
In December 2007 there was an EU debate in Glasgow University Union. Robin Harper, then Green leader carefully explained to us why the "Green" movement had gone 180 degrees from "small is beautiful" to enthusiastic support of the EU superstate. It was, he explained, because they had come to realise that only the massive bureaucratic regulatory system of the EU could stop the "continuous economic expansion" we were, back then, suffering from.
It worked. It surely did.
If you believe that the prime duty of government is to enforce recession; to ensure that the future is poorer than the past; to rob future generations of their birthright; then you should recognise and endorse the idea that the EU has had that "beneficial" effect.
If like UKIP & I, you believe in human progress; that the potential for progress of free human beings has barely been scratched and that it is not merely wrong but evil of the state to try and stifle human progress then you can only conclude that the EU's impoverishment of us all has been a hideous aberration and we should rejoin the march of progress.
Labels: EU, ThinkScotland, UKIP
Thursday, October 10, 2013
Idenhtification Of A Climate Changing Volcano About 1275AD
"radiocarbon dating of dead plant material from beneath the ice caps on Baffin Island and Iceland, as well as ice and sediment core data, to determine that the cold summers and ice growth began abruptly between 1275 and 1300 C.E. (and became intensified between 1430 and 1455 C.E.). Such a sudden onset, they noted in Geophysical Research Letters in 2012, pointed to a huge volcanic eruption injecting sulfur into the stratosphere and starting the cooling. Subsequent, unusually large and frequent eruptions of other volcanoes, as well as sea-ice/ocean feedbacks persisting long after the aerosols have been removed from the atmosphere, may have prolonged the cooling through the 1700s.
Volcanologist Franck Lavigne of the Université Paris in and colleagues now think they’ve identified the volcano in question: Indonesia’s Samalas. ...... put the eruption’s magnitude at a minimum of 7 on the volcanic explosivity index (which has a scale of 1 to 8)—making it one of the largest known in the Holocene. The eruption, the authors note, was on the scale of the Tambora eruption of 1815, and more powerful than Krakatoa in 1883.
The team also performed radiocarbon analyses on carbonized tree trunks and branches buried within the pyroclastic deposits to confirm the date of the eruption; it could not, they concluded, have happened before 1257 C.E., and certainly happened in the 13th century."
However they seem to be overstating the influence this had on the medieval warming p
1275 AD is about 750 years ago so this looks like it is after the height of the MWP. Actually it might coi8ncide with a short plateau in the dropping temperature.
(Also it shows we are not unusually, let alone catastrophically warm now)
I commented
:But 1275 ish wasn't the end of the Medieval warming. That as the article acknowledges was about 1430.
In the same way neither Tamboro, said to be about the same strength as this, nor Krakatoa were the start of cooling trends, or even stopped the rise in temperature (even though serious CO2 rise doesn't start till the 1950s.
This strongly suggests that while eruptions can, unsurprisingly, produce years without summers they have little or no effect after about 2 years.
What this does confirm is that we can reasonably expect at least 2 tamboro events per millennium & I would guess at least 4 times as many Krakatoa/Laki sized ones. Which makes another about due
Here are some eruptions over the last 1,000 years.
So although there have been a fair number of these over the millennium Tambora in 1815 seems to be the largest. And that took place in a period of rising temperatures as we came out of the Little Ice Age (& incidentally was well before industrialisation had produced significant CO2 so that can't have been causing the rise).
So basically volcanos can't be tipping points for climate change though they do produce unhelpful short term (ie 1 or a few years) changes. No problem being around 10 years later but might be nasty the next year.
Previous to Tambora the big one was Santorini, 1650 (60km) (also site of the Santorini eruption believed to be Atlantis) so it would be statistically reasonable to expect something similar fairly soon,
Volcanologist Franck Lavigne of the Université Paris in and colleagues now think they’ve identified the volcano in question: Indonesia’s Samalas. ...... put the eruption’s magnitude at a minimum of 7 on the volcanic explosivity index (which has a scale of 1 to 8)—making it one of the largest known in the Holocene. The eruption, the authors note, was on the scale of the Tambora eruption of 1815, and more powerful than Krakatoa in 1883.
The team also performed radiocarbon analyses on carbonized tree trunks and branches buried within the pyroclastic deposits to confirm the date of the eruption; it could not, they concluded, have happened before 1257 C.E., and certainly happened in the 13th century."
However they seem to be overstating the influence this had on the medieval warming p
1275 AD is about 750 years ago so this looks like it is after the height of the MWP. Actually it might coi8ncide with a short plateau in the dropping temperature.
(Also it shows we are not unusually, let alone catastrophically warm now)
I commented
:But 1275 ish wasn't the end of the Medieval warming. That as the article acknowledges was about 1430.
In the same way neither Tamboro, said to be about the same strength as this, nor Krakatoa were the start of cooling trends, or even stopped the rise in temperature (even though serious CO2 rise doesn't start till the 1950s.
This strongly suggests that while eruptions can, unsurprisingly, produce years without summers they have little or no effect after about 2 years.
What this does confirm is that we can reasonably expect at least 2 tamboro events per millennium & I would guess at least 4 times as many Krakatoa/Laki sized ones. Which makes another about due
Here are some eruptions over the last 1,000 years.
- Pinatubo, island of Luzon, Philippines; 1991, June 15; VEI 6; 6 to 16 km3
- Novarupta, Alaska Peninsula; 1912, June 6; VEI 6; 13 to 15 km3
- Santa Maria, Guatemala; 1902, October 24; VEI 6; 20 km3
- Krakatoa, Indonesia; 1883, August 26–27; VEI 6; 21 km3
- Mount Tambora, Lesser Sunda Islands, Indonesia; 1815, Apr 10; VEI 7; 150 km3 -- the "Year Without a Summer"[11]
- Grímsvötn, Northeastern Iceland; 1783–1785;
- Laki; 1783–1784; VEI 6; 14 km3
- Long Island (Papua New Guinea), Northeast of New Guinea; 1660 ±20; VEI 6; 30 km3
- Kolumbo, Santorini, Greece; 1650, September 27; VEI 6; 60 km3
- Huaynaputina, Peru; 1600, February 19; VEI 6; 30 km3
- Billy Mitchell, Bougainville Island, Papua New Guinea; 1580 ±20; VEI 6; 14 km3
- Bárðarbunga, Northeastern Iceland; 1477; VEI 6; 10 cubic kilometres
- 1452-53 New Hebrides arc, Vanuatu; the location of this eruption in the South Pacific is uncertain, as it has been identified from distant ice core records; the only pyroclastic flows are found at Kuwae; 36 to 96 km3
- Quilotoa, Ecuador; 1280(?); VEI 6; 21 km3
- Samalas volcano, Rinjani Volcanic Complex, Lombok Island, Indonesia; 1257; 40 km3 (dense-rock equivalent) of tephra, Arctic and Antarctic Ice cores provide compelling evidence to link the ice core sulfate spike of 1258/1259 A.D. to this volcano. [18] [19]
So although there have been a fair number of these over the millennium Tambora in 1815 seems to be the largest. And that took place in a period of rising temperatures as we came out of the Little Ice Age (& incidentally was well before industrialisation had produced significant CO2 so that can't have been causing the rise).
So basically volcanos can't be tipping points for climate change though they do produce unhelpful short term (ie 1 or a few years) changes. No problem being around 10 years later but might be nasty the next year.
Previous to Tambora the big one was Santorini, 1650 (60km) (also site of the Santorini eruption believed to be Atlantis) so it would be statistically reasonable to expect something similar fairly soon,
Wednesday, October 09, 2013
Prestwick Airport Purchase
The Scottish government are purchasing Prestwick Airport, essentially because the current owner has had it up for sale for a year, it is losing £2 million a year and because they aren't carrying out routine maintenance, it is going downhill.
The step was confirmed in a statement by Deputy First Minister Nicola Sturgeon in the Scottish Parliament.
The airport, which was put up for sale last March by New Zealand-based owners Infratil, has been running annual losses of £2m.
Ryanair, which operates 27 routes from Prestwick, has welcomed the government takeover.
Ministers will now enter detailed negotiations with Infratil on the terms of sale.
Ms Sturgeon told MSPs some private investors had expressed an interest in the airport but it had become clear none was able to commit to buying Prestwick on a timescale that was acceptable to Infratil.
She said the Infratil board had been considering its options, one of which was to seek commercial discussions with a view to public sector ownership and the other being to close the airport."
Unmentioned by anybody is how much we are going to pay for it. The local MP says it should be for nothing but the owner, a year ago, said they had a valuation "which now values Prestwick at about £14.3m and Kent at £7.6m" but clearly the market disagrees and with still declining sales and infrastructure I think the MP's assessment must be closer.
In theory I should be in favour of letting the market work and having it close if that is what it says. After all Glasgow already has an airport and how many cities have more than one. On the other hand its failure seems to be largely because of the government caused economic collapse since 2008 plus, previous to that, government introducing all sorts of airport taxes to stop the common people flying.
"Prestwick Airport saw a drop of nearly 20% in passenger numbers in July 2011, compared with the same month last year.
The Ayrshire airport's owners said there were 37,800 fewer passengers during the crucial first month of the school summer holidays.
New Zealand-based Infratil said the July passenger numbers fell from 194,500 in 2010 to 156,700 last year.
In recent years, the number of passengers at Prestwick topped 230,000 during the month in both 2007 and 2008."
So in theory the SNP should be enthusiastic for closing it.
In practice there is good evidence that government investment in transport infrastructure is the best, perhaps the only, place where government investment in tangibles benefits society.
On balance taking it over and maintaining it is probably worthwhile. However I do not think Nicola Sturgeon or the SNP are the sort of innovative entrepreneurial types likely to turn it round.
So they should be willing to auction it off as quickly as possible to anybody willing to undertake to invest in it. That will lose the government money but less than they would by keeping funding it over the long term and more importantly is much more likely to turn it into a real success.
A couple of other things I have previously suggested could help:
1 - The Scottish government have long had a proposal to build an automated link to Paisley station for £20 million. One advantage this has is that Paisley station is on the same line as Prestwick. Which means that the 2 could easily together operate as a hub.
2 - Back in 2001 I made a proposal at the LibDem conference that the government could take on 100% of the running costs of Highland and Island airports. The cost of this would not have been much more than the subsidy at the time and as it turned out, considerably less than a mire restricted and bureaucratic system that the LD minister ultimately put in place. The advantage of this is that it would have meant zero landing charges at these airports (landing charges per passenger being higher than Heathrow because there are fewer passengers). Thus costs fares would have been drastically reduced and usage massively increased. The natural mainland end of most of these flights would, assuming Paisley International Airport (ok Glasgow #1) is close to capacity, would be Prestwick.
Not magic solutions but a help.
However there must be serious local circumstances which we aren't being told about because though passenger numbers have fallen severely general UK passenger numbers have gone up 10% since 2008 in the UK - and by about 1/3rd worldwide. Though, to be fair most of the EU would be happy to reach 10%.
Which suggests to me that the ultimate reason for the failure of Prestwick must not so much the relative success of the Luddites running Britain but the even more extreme anti-technology policies of the Scottish government and the SNP. Funny old world isn't it.
The step was confirmed in a statement by Deputy First Minister Nicola Sturgeon in the Scottish Parliament.
The airport, which was put up for sale last March by New Zealand-based owners Infratil, has been running annual losses of £2m.
Ryanair, which operates 27 routes from Prestwick, has welcomed the government takeover.
Ministers will now enter detailed negotiations with Infratil on the terms of sale.
Ms Sturgeon told MSPs some private investors had expressed an interest in the airport but it had become clear none was able to commit to buying Prestwick on a timescale that was acceptable to Infratil.
She said the Infratil board had been considering its options, one of which was to seek commercial discussions with a view to public sector ownership and the other being to close the airport."
Unmentioned by anybody is how much we are going to pay for it. The local MP says it should be for nothing but the owner, a year ago, said they had a valuation "which now values Prestwick at about £14.3m and Kent at £7.6m" but clearly the market disagrees and with still declining sales and infrastructure I think the MP's assessment must be closer.
In theory I should be in favour of letting the market work and having it close if that is what it says. After all Glasgow already has an airport and how many cities have more than one. On the other hand its failure seems to be largely because of the government caused economic collapse since 2008 plus, previous to that, government introducing all sorts of airport taxes to stop the common people flying.
"Prestwick Airport saw a drop of nearly 20% in passenger numbers in July 2011, compared with the same month last year.
The Ayrshire airport's owners said there were 37,800 fewer passengers during the crucial first month of the school summer holidays.
New Zealand-based Infratil said the July passenger numbers fell from 194,500 in 2010 to 156,700 last year.
In recent years, the number of passengers at Prestwick topped 230,000 during the month in both 2007 and 2008."
So in theory the SNP should be enthusiastic for closing it.
In practice there is good evidence that government investment in transport infrastructure is the best, perhaps the only, place where government investment in tangibles benefits society.
On balance taking it over and maintaining it is probably worthwhile. However I do not think Nicola Sturgeon or the SNP are the sort of innovative entrepreneurial types likely to turn it round.
So they should be willing to auction it off as quickly as possible to anybody willing to undertake to invest in it. That will lose the government money but less than they would by keeping funding it over the long term and more importantly is much more likely to turn it into a real success.
A couple of other things I have previously suggested could help:
1 - The Scottish government have long had a proposal to build an automated link to Paisley station for £20 million. One advantage this has is that Paisley station is on the same line as Prestwick. Which means that the 2 could easily together operate as a hub.
2 - Back in 2001 I made a proposal at the LibDem conference that the government could take on 100% of the running costs of Highland and Island airports. The cost of this would not have been much more than the subsidy at the time and as it turned out, considerably less than a mire restricted and bureaucratic system that the LD minister ultimately put in place. The advantage of this is that it would have meant zero landing charges at these airports (landing charges per passenger being higher than Heathrow because there are fewer passengers). Thus costs fares would have been drastically reduced and usage massively increased. The natural mainland end of most of these flights would, assuming Paisley International Airport (ok Glasgow #1) is close to capacity, would be Prestwick.
Not magic solutions but a help.
However there must be serious local circumstances which we aren't being told about because though passenger numbers have fallen severely general UK passenger numbers have gone up 10% since 2008 in the UK - and by about 1/3rd worldwide. Though, to be fair most of the EU would be happy to reach 10%.
Which suggests to me that the ultimate reason for the failure of Prestwick must not so much the relative success of the Luddites running Britain but the even more extreme anti-technology policies of the Scottish government and the SNP. Funny old world isn't it.
Labels: Glasgow, Science/technology, Scottish politics
Tuesday, October 08, 2013
BBC Censored News Part 2 - Warming Scare
World's top climate scientists told to 'cover up' the fact that the Earth's temperature hasn't risen for the last 15 years - by numerous governments.
To the credit of the Daily Mail, perhaps the only real newspaper in the country, they report this. The BBC censor.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Antarctic Ice hits an all time high. The BBC have spent thousands of hours promising Artcic sea ice is going to be gone by 2013 but 90% of the ice is in the Antarctic so it is clearly far more important:
----------------------------------------------------
"99% of (government funded) climate predictions overestimated." http://www.thegwpf.org/99-climate-model-predictions-overestimated-global-warming-study-finds/
Compare that undisputed truth with the official media's proven lie about 97% of climate scientists supporting the fraud.
-----------------------------------------------------
Average electricity bills will be £3,000 a year by 2020 if our ruling cartel get their way.
And obviously the BBC will lie and censor to let them get their way
------------------------------------------------------
The estimable Mail again - 50 year old fracking site that has caused no problems despite being beside a nature reserve. The BBC whores, while promoting every scare about shale censor any mention of the real experience.
------------------------------------------------------
This isn't the media censoring - it is the precise reverse, but the effect of the 2 combined is multiplied
six environmental activists glued themselves to the entrance of Bell Pottinger’s HQ. They were supported by several other activists, who patrolled around the doorway area, ensuring that not only was protester-freeing solvent kept at bay, but that nasty journalists didn’t ask anything inappropriate of their brave comrades.
Despite the pathetic size of the protest, news coverage of the ‘event’ was widespread, as if some kind of large-scale civil disobedience had occurred. For instance, the story featured (to name but a few) on the homepage of BBC News, The Times, the Independent and the Guardian.
--------------------------------------------
Met Office’s model, one used generate the official climate projections, has big temperature rises built in a priori.
Of course the BBC know this and of course they deliberately censor it.
------------------------------------------------
A series of clear and presumably deliberate lies found in the new IPCC report on WattsUp - any coverage of such inconvenient facts censored by our state owned media.
Pt 1 Syria lies
Pt 3 Assorted lies
To the credit of the Daily Mail, perhaps the only real newspaper in the country, they report this. The BBC censor.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Antarctic Ice hits an all time high. The BBC have spent thousands of hours promising Artcic sea ice is going to be gone by 2013 but 90% of the ice is in the Antarctic so it is clearly far more important:
----------------------------------------------------
"99% of (government funded) climate predictions overestimated." http://www.thegwpf.org/99-climate-model-predictions-overestimated-global-warming-study-finds/
Compare that undisputed truth with the official media's proven lie about 97% of climate scientists supporting the fraud.
-----------------------------------------------------
Average electricity bills will be £3,000 a year by 2020 if our ruling cartel get their way.
And obviously the BBC will lie and censor to let them get their way
------------------------------------------------------
The estimable Mail again - 50 year old fracking site that has caused no problems despite being beside a nature reserve. The BBC whores, while promoting every scare about shale censor any mention of the real experience.
------------------------------------------------------
This isn't the media censoring - it is the precise reverse, but the effect of the 2 combined is multiplied
six environmental activists glued themselves to the entrance of Bell Pottinger’s HQ. They were supported by several other activists, who patrolled around the doorway area, ensuring that not only was protester-freeing solvent kept at bay, but that nasty journalists didn’t ask anything inappropriate of their brave comrades.
Despite the pathetic size of the protest, news coverage of the ‘event’ was widespread, as if some kind of large-scale civil disobedience had occurred. For instance, the story featured (to name but a few) on the homepage of BBC News, The Times, the Independent and the Guardian.
--------------------------------------------
Met Office’s model, one used generate the official climate projections, has big temperature rises built in a priori.
Of course the BBC know this and of course they deliberately censor it.
------------------------------------------------
A series of clear and presumably deliberate lies found in the new IPCC report on WattsUp - any coverage of such inconvenient facts censored by our state owned media.
Pt 1 Syria lies
Pt 3 Assorted lies
Labels: BBC, global warming, Media
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
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.
--------------------------------------------------------
1st October BBC CENSORSHIP
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."
-----------------------------------------------
16th Sept - all & sundry - POLITICAL SUSPENSION OF TEACHERS
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.
-------------------------------------------------
12th Sept - Evening Standard - THIS IS MY REPLY TO THE HNH SMEAR THEY PUBLISHED
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: Government parasitism, Media, Unpublished letters
Sunday, October 06, 2013
Censored News - Not Seen On The BBC State Broadcaster - Part 1 - Syria
A nun (because no journalist or other expert would) has analysed videos produced by our Syrian "democratic" al Quaeda allies and found much of it was faked with "dead" people returning to life and "bodies" carefully posed etc. Note that some of these videos came out carrying a dateline of the day before it allegedly happened - which is theoretically possible, because Syria is in a different timezone, if they were done and posted inside 4 hours of the alleged attack starting but I don't think that is even theoretically possible if time is taken for fraud. Therefore the "freedom fighters" knew of it before it happened and therefore did it.
"The footage that is now being pedalled was prepared in advance"
---------------------------------------------------------------------
An Italian reporter, who was held hostage by our Syrian democratic allies overheard his guards discussing how their side had carried out the "false flag" gas attack. I cannot see that either the reporter or the guards had any incentive to lie.
------------------------------------------------------------------
"The footage that is now being pedalled was prepared in advance"
---------------------------------------------------------------------
An Italian reporter, who was held hostage by our Syrian democratic allies overheard his guards discussing how their side had carried out the "false flag" gas attack. I cannot see that either the reporter or the guards had any incentive to lie.
------------------------------------------------------------------
Syrian rebels in the Damascus suburb of Ghouta have admitted to Associated Press correspondent Dale Gavlak that they were responsible for last week’s chemical weapons incident which western powers have blamed on Bashar Al-Assad’s forces, revealing that the casualties were the result of an accident caused by rebels mishandling chemical weapons provided to them by Saudi Arabia.
“From numerous interviews with doctors, Ghouta residents, rebel fighters and their families….many believe that certain rebels received chemical weapons via the Saudi intelligence chief, Prince Bandar bin Sultan, and were responsible for carrying out the (deadly) gas attack,” writes Gavlak. (back up version here).
The reporter has previously filed reports used by the BBC, but not this time.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Bandar Bin Sultan is the Saudi spy chief and prime schmoozer with western social circles. Currently he is trying to overthrow the government of Tunisia and establish an Islamofascist regime.
This link shows what he has been getting up to and how, excepting a minor mention in the FT, he is a British media unperson.
----------------------------------
US backed plans to launch chemical weapon attack on Syria and blame it on Assad - leaked emails form defence contractor show idea "is approved by Washington"
Pt 2 Climate lies
Pt 3 Assorted lies
Bandar Bin Sultan is the Saudi spy chief and prime schmoozer with western social circles. Currently he is trying to overthrow the government of Tunisia and establish an Islamofascist regime.
This link shows what he has been getting up to and how, excepting a minor mention in the FT, he is a British media unperson.
----------------------------------
US backed plans to launch chemical weapon attack on Syria and blame it on Assad - leaked emails form defence contractor show idea "is approved by Washington"
Pt 2 Climate lies
Pt 3 Assorted lies
Labels: BBC, International politics, Rise of modern fascism
