Friday, March 21, 2014
Taking On The Big Government Sock Puppets - A Qango Against Sock Puppetry
How much does government spend on advertising? I'm afraid this is going to contain a lot of guesstimates. The money comes a whole range of departments and much of it is hidden under other names (such as contracts for publications and fees for courses) and of course, it is a subject the media imply do not mention as googling "sock puppets" shows.
So lets take this from Chris Snowden's report I have previously discussed:
"Between 1997 and 2005, the combined income of Britain’s charities nearly doubled, from £19.8 billion to £37.9 billion, with the biggest growth coming in grants and contracts from government departments ...state funding rose by 38 per cent in the first years of the twenty-first century while private donations rose by just seven per cent."
That is rather equivocal since a doubling of income cannot be made up of a "biggest growth" which was only by 38%. I have to assume that the 38% rise was not for the entire 1997-2005 period and will ignore it.
So the "biggest growth" (ie more than half - I'm going to assume 60%) was government [60%(£37.9bn - £19.8bn) = £10.9bn].
If that had been 38% of the initial government donation would have been £25bn, more than the total received. Lets assume that over 1997-2005 total government charitable spending doubled ie £21.8bn.
Assuming 4% average growth since then (it must have been higher under profligate Brown but I see little sign the coalition are the sort who would have ended it. That make it [ £21.8 x 1.04^9 = ] £31 bn.
But government spends a lot in advertising in its own name. I once saw advice for councils wanting to save money that they should not have more press officers than the local press have journalists and I doubt Whitehall is more parsimonious.
So we can multiply the total by 3 but then I am going to assume that some of the government funding is actually for conventional charitable purposes and let the multiplier be 2.
So that gives us an estimate of government advertising coming to £62 bn. Not set in stone but I would be surprised if it were more than 50% out either way and I certainly don't think my estimates have been unreasonably high.
Note that that is more than half the national deficit. Note also that it is just over 8% of all government expenditure which you will see compares with what industry does.
There is also EU sock puppet funding, particularly (up to 70% for all the big "environmental" charities) but considering what the UK pays the EU it I doubt such charities here could be getting
more than an extra billion.
#################################################
OK, where am I going.
Well this money goes to advertising the ruling political parties like. When UKIP comes to power, or, particularly in Scotland's case, is part of a power sharing parliament, we are entitled to demand a share.
I wouldn't insist on us getting a proportional share (app 20% in UK 10% in Scotland) since I would very much like to see most of this paid totalitarian scaremongering stopped.
Scotland's share of that £62 bn, on population is £5.27 billion. Actually Scotland is stuffed with subsidy junkie qangos and sock puppets so it must be higher than that on the other hand this is probably matched by Westminster being directly responsible some of it.
Say we insist on 1% of that going to UKIP friendly charities - 1% is highly reasonable though £527 million is quite a lot.
So what would that buy:
"As a general rule of thumb, companies should spend around 5 percent of their total revenue on marketing to maintain their current position. Companies looking to grow or gain greater market share should budget a higher percentage—usually around 10 percent."
I would happily see a permanent fund on that basis set up specifically to advertise sorry raise awareness as it is called when government does it, that a lot of government or "environmental" scare stories are lies &/or giving the evidence that free markets work.
That is the sort of budget that 5 £1bn companies would spend across the UK or 50 of them in Scotland. If spent with the sort of efficiency government tends to shy away from and bearing in mind that we are used to the normal scaremongering stuff.
Also, out of this, I would like to see the organisation funding a series of debates on these themes as I have previously said should be a part of normal political dialogue. When I say "debate" I do mean it in the correct not the BBC sense - ie the scaremongers should get the same chance to speak as the sceptics do. People can tell when they are being scammed and a genuine debate would be both ethical and more persuasive.
Of course it might prove impossible to find an alarmist willing to engage in a real debate. This happened recently when a warming alarmist pulled out of an RTE discussion when he found a sceptic (Benny Peiser) was going to be allowed to speak as well. To RTE's credit they went ahead without him - so completely different from the home life of our own dear state broadcaster. (Here for the next 19 days)
Some things the Quango For Truth and Progress should publicise:
So lets take this from Chris Snowden's report I have previously discussed:
"Between 1997 and 2005, the combined income of Britain’s charities nearly doubled, from £19.8 billion to £37.9 billion, with the biggest growth coming in grants and contracts from government departments ...state funding rose by 38 per cent in the first years of the twenty-first century while private donations rose by just seven per cent."
That is rather equivocal since a doubling of income cannot be made up of a "biggest growth" which was only by 38%. I have to assume that the 38% rise was not for the entire 1997-2005 period and will ignore it.
So the "biggest growth" (ie more than half - I'm going to assume 60%) was government [60%(£37.9bn - £19.8bn) = £10.9bn].
If that had been 38% of the initial government donation would have been £25bn, more than the total received. Lets assume that over 1997-2005 total government charitable spending doubled ie £21.8bn.
Assuming 4% average growth since then (it must have been higher under profligate Brown but I see little sign the coalition are the sort who would have ended it. That make it [ £21.8 x 1.04^9 = ] £31 bn.
But government spends a lot in advertising in its own name. I once saw advice for councils wanting to save money that they should not have more press officers than the local press have journalists and I doubt Whitehall is more parsimonious.
So we can multiply the total by 3 but then I am going to assume that some of the government funding is actually for conventional charitable purposes and let the multiplier be 2.
So that gives us an estimate of government advertising coming to £62 bn. Not set in stone but I would be surprised if it were more than 50% out either way and I certainly don't think my estimates have been unreasonably high.
Note that that is more than half the national deficit. Note also that it is just over 8% of all government expenditure which you will see compares with what industry does.
There is also EU sock puppet funding, particularly (up to 70% for all the big "environmental" charities) but considering what the UK pays the EU it I doubt such charities here could be getting
more than an extra billion.
#################################################
OK, where am I going.
Well this money goes to advertising the ruling political parties like. When UKIP comes to power, or, particularly in Scotland's case, is part of a power sharing parliament, we are entitled to demand a share.
I wouldn't insist on us getting a proportional share (app 20% in UK 10% in Scotland) since I would very much like to see most of this paid totalitarian scaremongering stopped.
Scotland's share of that £62 bn, on population is £5.27 billion. Actually Scotland is stuffed with subsidy junkie qangos and sock puppets so it must be higher than that on the other hand this is probably matched by Westminster being directly responsible some of it.
Say we insist on 1% of that going to UKIP friendly charities - 1% is highly reasonable though £527 million is quite a lot.
So what would that buy:
"As a general rule of thumb, companies should spend around 5 percent of their total revenue on marketing to maintain their current position. Companies looking to grow or gain greater market share should budget a higher percentage—usually around 10 percent."
I would happily see a permanent fund on that basis set up specifically to
That is the sort of budget that 5 £1bn companies would spend across the UK or 50 of them in Scotland. If spent with the sort of efficiency government tends to shy away from and bearing in mind that we are used to the normal scaremongering stuff.
Also, out of this, I would like to see the organisation funding a series of debates on these themes as I have previously said should be a part of normal political dialogue. When I say "debate" I do mean it in the correct not the BBC sense - ie the scaremongers should get the same chance to speak as the sceptics do. People can tell when they are being scammed and a genuine debate would be both ethical and more persuasive.
Of course it might prove impossible to find an alarmist willing to engage in a real debate. This happened recently when a warming alarmist pulled out of an RTE discussion when he found a sceptic (Benny Peiser) was going to be allowed to speak as well. To RTE's credit they went ahead without him - so completely different from the home life of our own dear state broadcaster. (Here for the next 19 days)
Some things the Quango For Truth and Progress should publicise:
- Evidence that global warming isn't catastrophic
- Evidence that nothing unusual is happening to temperature.
- Evidence that CO2 is helping solve world hunger.
- Evidence that nobody has ever been harmed by shale fracking, nor likely to be
- Evidence that nobody has been harmed by GM plants, nor likely to be.
- Evidence that nuclear power is the safest form of power generation there is.
- Evidence that nuclear power can be produced at 2% of current costs
- Evidence that the Linear No Threshold (LNT) radioactivity assumption has not and never had any scientific basis.
- Evidence of the correlation between economic freedom and growth.
- Evidence of the correlation between cheap energy and growth.
- That all the annual peak oil in a couple of years over the last 40 years have been false.
- Evidence that all the dozens of other eco-scare stories we have had inflicted on us are equally false.
- Evidence that the smoking ban hasn't saved the promised "1,000 lives a year", or indeed any and was never intended to.
- Evidence that we have unlimited potential if we stop kowtowing to luddite scaremongering.
What a wonderful world it would be if somebody in government actually had the official job of promoting the truth
This is a comment I put on a blog about the need for something to introduce sanity to the nuclear "debate" which ultimately led to this post.
"But what we really need is a rottweiller charity willing to go all out at anti-nuclear campaign. To sue anybody good cases of lies about the industry. To advertise that newspapers that give coverage to false scare stories and don’t give at least as much coverage to the truth (ie almost all of them) are, by definition, corrupt, lying, fascist scum who cannot be trusted to tell the truth on anything else.
And that governments that give money to promote “environmental” issues, they approve of, are engaged in totalitarian fraud if they don’t give an equal amount to technology promoters – just as much as a Democrat (or Republican) Governor who gave money to his own party would be criminally liable.
All of which unfortunately needs a bit of money to start it rolling."
"But what we really need is a rottweiller charity willing to go all out at anti-nuclear campaign. To sue anybody good cases of lies about the industry. To advertise that newspapers that give coverage to false scare stories and don’t give at least as much coverage to the truth (ie almost all of them) are, by definition, corrupt, lying, fascist scum who cannot be trusted to tell the truth on anything else.
And that governments that give money to promote “environmental” issues, they approve of, are engaged in totalitarian fraud if they don’t give an equal amount to technology promoters – just as much as a Democrat (or Republican) Governor who gave money to his own party would be criminally liable.
All of which unfortunately needs a bit of money to start it rolling."
Labels: eco-fascism, Fear, Government parasitism
Monday, January 27, 2014
Things Can only Get Better - Except When The Politicos Are Involved
Bjorn Lomberg has a listing of the 10 signs of how our problems are changing over time. On most of them - health, environmentalism, longevity etc etc we are doing very well. Here are 2 on which we are doing better than recently but in the first not as well as in the period up to WW1 & in the second the same as then.
Trade barriers is not the whole story since the main factor in trade is shipping cost which has dropped enormously with the advent of shipping containers and keeps dropping as ship design and their increasing size keeps making them more efficient. The non-political cost of shipping something from China to Liverpool is now often less than driving it from Liverpool to here.
Nonetheless it is important to remember that even though anything driven by technology is getting much better, politically driven stuff, of which war is the most obvious, is more equivocal.
Our political systems are not only backward compared to technical ones, they are barely improving.
Trade barriers is not the whole story since the main factor in trade is shipping cost which has dropped enormously with the advent of shipping containers and keeps dropping as ship design and their increasing size keeps making them more efficient. The non-political cost of shipping something from China to Liverpool is now often less than driving it from Liverpool to here.
Nonetheless it is important to remember that even though anything driven by technology is getting much better, politically driven stuff, of which war is the most obvious, is more equivocal.
Our political systems are not only backward compared to technical ones, they are barely improving.
Labels: Fear, History, International politics
Thursday, August 08, 2013
ThinkScotland - Windmills 1,000 Times More Dangerous Than Nuclear
Latest article on ThinkScotland. It is an extension of my previous one comparing the real risk of low frequency sound from windmills with the, at best, evidence free claim of, risks from radiation from nuclear plants. please put any comments there:
"WE LIVE in the safest era of human history but our media are full of scare stories. Is this because when life is safe scary stuff fills a popular need – or is there more to it?
We are told there is a Precautionary Principle that must be invoked against any risk at all, but do its proponents really believe what they are saying?
I think there is something more because while it is true we get all these scare stories - global warming; WMDs in 45 minutes; obesity; passive smoking; margarine, butter and peak oil – there are other, at least equally probable scares that apparently don't sell papers.
A massive solar flare and global cooling are at least as fearsome as global warming and at least as credible. Fuel poverty is far more lethal than obesity. The MMR scare is at least as credible as the passive smoking one, though both strain credulity, but nobody pushing the latter has been debarred for not asking his research subjects permission properly (that, rather than any sort of fraud was what Wakefield was removed for).
So what makes a scare story the media will push or one they won't touch with a bargepole? The one thing all the disapproved ones have in common is they aren't government supported scares. Here is perhaps the ultimate comparison – Low frequency sound from Windmills......
If the "Precautionary Principle" is to apply at all it must be applied against low frequency sound for which there has been, inexplicably if you believe research grants are given out purely for the science, far less research but for which there is actually infinitely more evidence of harm. We have had decades of funding of research trying to prove radiation harmful without any papers successfully doing so. Indeed there is at least one case – a herd of cattle being put to sleep 20 years after being exposed to radiation in 1945 – because their record breaking longevity threatened to discredit the theory that such radiation was dangerous.
You can make a scientific case that there is zero risk from radiation from nuclear power stations and a major risk from wind turbine low frequency sonics. You can, less credibly, make a case under the precautionary principle that both might be dangerous, but then you have to admit that the odds are a thousand times worse for the turbines. But you cannot honestly pretend that the anti-nuclear scare is genuine and the low frequency sound from windfarms isn't.
Except, of course, that that is exactly what the world's media have been pretending for decades - with the enthusiastic support of those in power.
If the "environmentalist" proponents of the precautionary principle actually believe in it they must, by definition, be campaigning 1,000 times harder for the closure of windfarms on safety grounds than for the closure of nuclear plants. In fact what we see is that the same politicians who push false scare fears about nuclear plants are deliberately finessing the rules to promote far more dangerous windmills.
Last month the Department of Energy and Climate Change (DECC) published a report by the Institute of Acoustics examining whether ETSU-R-97 was still adequate to the task. Remarkably, instead of stiffening regulations, it made them more lax, not only continuing to ignore the Low Frequency Noise and infrasound issue, but actually giving wind farms leeway to make more noise at night and to be built even closer to dwellings.
.
Thus in a world where scare stories were merely the media satisfying a human yearning for horror stories broadcasters or newspapers must have spent thousands of times more promoting scare stories about windmills than nuclear plants.
But in a world where politicians pick and choose which scares are useful - "the practical purpose of politics is to keep the populace scared and eager to be led to safety by menacing them with an endless series of hobgoblins, all of them imaginary" [Mencken] - and broadcasters and media find life more comfortable pushing the news they want, you would find the false, but more politically approved, scare stories being pushed and the real ones suppressed. Which appears to be what we do find.
"WE LIVE in the safest era of human history but our media are full of scare stories. Is this because when life is safe scary stuff fills a popular need – or is there more to it?
We are told there is a Precautionary Principle that must be invoked against any risk at all, but do its proponents really believe what they are saying?
I think there is something more because while it is true we get all these scare stories - global warming; WMDs in 45 minutes; obesity; passive smoking; margarine, butter and peak oil – there are other, at least equally probable scares that apparently don't sell papers.
A massive solar flare and global cooling are at least as fearsome as global warming and at least as credible. Fuel poverty is far more lethal than obesity. The MMR scare is at least as credible as the passive smoking one, though both strain credulity, but nobody pushing the latter has been debarred for not asking his research subjects permission properly (that, rather than any sort of fraud was what Wakefield was removed for).
So what makes a scare story the media will push or one they won't touch with a bargepole? The one thing all the disapproved ones have in common is they aren't government supported scares. Here is perhaps the ultimate comparison – Low frequency sound from Windmills......
If the "Precautionary Principle" is to apply at all it must be applied against low frequency sound for which there has been, inexplicably if you believe research grants are given out purely for the science, far less research but for which there is actually infinitely more evidence of harm. We have had decades of funding of research trying to prove radiation harmful without any papers successfully doing so. Indeed there is at least one case – a herd of cattle being put to sleep 20 years after being exposed to radiation in 1945 – because their record breaking longevity threatened to discredit the theory that such radiation was dangerous.
You can make a scientific case that there is zero risk from radiation from nuclear power stations and a major risk from wind turbine low frequency sonics. You can, less credibly, make a case under the precautionary principle that both might be dangerous, but then you have to admit that the odds are a thousand times worse for the turbines. But you cannot honestly pretend that the anti-nuclear scare is genuine and the low frequency sound from windfarms isn't.
Except, of course, that that is exactly what the world's media have been pretending for decades - with the enthusiastic support of those in power.
If the "environmentalist" proponents of the precautionary principle actually believe in it they must, by definition, be campaigning 1,000 times harder for the closure of windfarms on safety grounds than for the closure of nuclear plants. In fact what we see is that the same politicians who push false scare fears about nuclear plants are deliberately finessing the rules to promote far more dangerous windmills.
Last month the Department of Energy and Climate Change (DECC) published a report by the Institute of Acoustics examining whether ETSU-R-97 was still adequate to the task. Remarkably, instead of stiffening regulations, it made them more lax, not only continuing to ignore the Low Frequency Noise and infrasound issue, but actually giving wind farms leeway to make more noise at night and to be built even closer to dwellings.
.
Thus in a world where scare stories were merely the media satisfying a human yearning for horror stories broadcasters or newspapers must have spent thousands of times more promoting scare stories about windmills than nuclear plants.
But in a world where politicians pick and choose which scares are useful - "the practical purpose of politics is to keep the populace scared and eager to be led to safety by menacing them with an endless series of hobgoblins, all of them imaginary" [Mencken] - and broadcasters and media find life more comfortable pushing the news they want, you would find the false, but more politically approved, scare stories being pushed and the real ones suppressed. Which appears to be what we do find.
Labels: Fear, Media, ThinkScotland
Friday, August 02, 2013
Windmills Thousands of Times More Dangerous Than Nuclear
Delingpole recently covered the issue of the low frequency sound which windmills create:
"the industry has known for at least 25 years about the potentially damaging impact on human health of the impulsive infrasound (inaudible intermittent noise) produced by wind turbines. Yet instead of dealing with the problem it has, on the most generous interpretation, swept the issue under the carpet – or worse, been involved in a concerted cover-up operation.
A research paper prepared in November 1987 for the US Department of Energy demonstrated that the "annoyance" caused by wind turbine noise to nearby residents is "real not imaginary." It further showed that, far from becoming inured to the disturbance people become increasingly sensitive to it over time.
This contradicts claims frequently made by wind industry spokesmen that there is no evidence for so-called Wind Turbine Syndrome (the various health issues ranging from insomnia and anxiety to palpitations and nausea reported by residents living within a mile or more of wind turbines).
....the 1987 report, based on earlier research by NASA and several universities, tells a .
It found that the disturbance is often worse when indoors than when outside (a sensation which will be familiar to anyone who has heard a helicopter hovering above their house)....
Last month the Department of Energy and Climate Change (DECC) published a report by the Institute of Acoustics examining whether ETSU-R-97 was still adequate to the task. Remarkably, instead of stiffening regulations, it made them more lax, not only continuing to ignore the Low Frequency Noise and infrasound issue, but actually giving wind farms leeway to make more noise at night and to be built even closer to dwellings.....
“We’re often hearing these weird and wacky reports on the effects of wind. It seems anyone can stand up and say anything, which we find somewhat worrying because it gives a false impression. We don’t accept the suggestion that there are any health impacts caused by wind turbine noise, though we welcome any new research into the issue," a spokesman for Renewable UK told me.
However this is contradicted by the author of the original reports Neil Kelley. Kelley has told Graham Lloyd – the environment editor from The Australian who (uncharacteristically for an environment editor puts truth before green ideology) broke the story – that research has shown that it is still possible for modern wind turbines to create "community annoyance."....
US acoustics expert, Rick James – who thinks it somewhat unlikely that the wind industry is unaware of the problem:
I can't."
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
He is clearly right on this indeed more than right as a comparison with the nuclear radiation "no lower threshold" shows.
This is from one of these papers mentioned:
If, in examination of a small group you find real people suffering from heart palpitations and swooning you are talking about something which over time and a large population is undoubtedly going to result in death on a significant scale. Certainly a scale thousands of time worse than passive smoking, which was "discovered" only by a statistical variability in a population of many millions which was well within the limits of statistical error.
Almost all the government funded scare stories we see (salt/weight/passive smoking/mobile phones/watching TV/margarine/butter/salmon/GM etc etc) are of that nature (or for mobile phones and GM less than that in that there is no claim of statistical evidence they are harmful, or as our state broadcaster says "the jury is out" as to whether they are harmful). Windmill low frequency noise is clearly a genuine proven threat to health and killer - these others are at best, speculative.
This goes further for another scare I have discussed before. The linear no threshold (LNT) theory that nuclear radiation, no matter how low the level, even when it is under 2% of natural background radiation is dangerous. There is no evidence for LNT whatsoever - even supporters of the theory (technical actually a hypothesis at best) or scare story acknowledge this. Indeed there is a large amount of data proving the opposite theory, known as hormesis, that such radiation is beneficial to health.
With the disparity in evidence we can say with certainty that windmills are, at the very least, thousands of times more dangerous to outsiders than nuclear plants. For those working on them the fact that Britain has had 4 industrial deaths from windmills in 5 years whereas the entire world has seen 2 nuclear deaths (Japan but not Fukushima) in 20 years. Nuclear provides about 15% of world electricity and windmills under 1%.
Which in turn means that any honest broadcaster or newspaper must have spent thousands of times more promoting scare stories about windmills than nuclear plants.
Or any which is 1/1,000th part (0.1%) honest must have spent an equal amount on each.
Anybody able to name any MSM broadcaster or journalist that is not at least 99.99% corrupt?
"the industry has known for at least 25 years about the potentially damaging impact on human health of the impulsive infrasound (inaudible intermittent noise) produced by wind turbines. Yet instead of dealing with the problem it has, on the most generous interpretation, swept the issue under the carpet – or worse, been involved in a concerted cover-up operation.
A research paper prepared in November 1987 for the US Department of Energy demonstrated that the "annoyance" caused by wind turbine noise to nearby residents is "real not imaginary." It further showed that, far from becoming inured to the disturbance people become increasingly sensitive to it over time.
This contradicts claims frequently made by wind industry spokesmen that there is no evidence for so-called Wind Turbine Syndrome (the various health issues ranging from insomnia and anxiety to palpitations and nausea reported by residents living within a mile or more of wind turbines).
....the 1987 report, based on earlier research by NASA and several universities, tells a .
It found that the disturbance is often worse when indoors than when outside (a sensation which will be familiar to anyone who has heard a helicopter hovering above their house)....
Last month the Department of Energy and Climate Change (DECC) published a report by the Institute of Acoustics examining whether ETSU-R-97 was still adequate to the task. Remarkably, instead of stiffening regulations, it made them more lax, not only continuing to ignore the Low Frequency Noise and infrasound issue, but actually giving wind farms leeway to make more noise at night and to be built even closer to dwellings.....
“We’re often hearing these weird and wacky reports on the effects of wind. It seems anyone can stand up and say anything, which we find somewhat worrying because it gives a false impression. We don’t accept the suggestion that there are any health impacts caused by wind turbine noise, though we welcome any new research into the issue," a spokesman for Renewable UK told me.
However this is contradicted by the author of the original reports Neil Kelley. Kelley has told Graham Lloyd – the environment editor from The Australian who (uncharacteristically for an environment editor puts truth before green ideology) broke the story – that research has shown that it is still possible for modern wind turbines to create "community annoyance."....
US acoustics expert, Rick James – who thinks it somewhat unlikely that the wind industry is unaware of the problem:
The “Kelly paper” is just one of many studies and reports published in the period from 1980 to 1990 by acousticians and other researchers working under grants from the US Dept. of Energy (DOE), NASA, and other agencies and foundations. All of these papers are still available on web sites open to the public.... few acousticians in that period would have discounted the premise that for some people these types of sounds posed serious issues.Can anyone imagine a potential scandal of this magnitude in the fossil fuel industry going uninvestigated by the green lobby – and hitting the front pages of all the newspapers?
I can't."
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
He is clearly right on this indeed more than right as a comparison with the nuclear radiation "no lower threshold" shows.
This is from one of these papers mentioned:
The low frequency sensitivity syndrome includes: feelings or irritation/unease/stress/undue fatigue; headache; nausea; vomiting; heart palpitations; disorientation; swooning/prostration.
If, in examination of a small group you find real people suffering from heart palpitations and swooning you are talking about something which over time and a large population is undoubtedly going to result in death on a significant scale. Certainly a scale thousands of time worse than passive smoking, which was "discovered" only by a statistical variability in a population of many millions which was well within the limits of statistical error.
Almost all the government funded scare stories we see (salt/weight/passive smoking/mobile phones/watching TV/margarine/butter/salmon/GM etc etc) are of that nature (or for mobile phones and GM less than that in that there is no claim of statistical evidence they are harmful, or as our state broadcaster says "the jury is out" as to whether they are harmful). Windmill low frequency noise is clearly a genuine proven threat to health and killer - these others are at best, speculative.
This goes further for another scare I have discussed before. The linear no threshold (LNT) theory that nuclear radiation, no matter how low the level, even when it is under 2% of natural background radiation is dangerous. There is no evidence for LNT whatsoever - even supporters of the theory (technical actually a hypothesis at best) or scare story acknowledge this. Indeed there is a large amount of data proving the opposite theory, known as hormesis, that such radiation is beneficial to health.
With the disparity in evidence we can say with certainty that windmills are, at the very least, thousands of times more dangerous to outsiders than nuclear plants. For those working on them the fact that Britain has had 4 industrial deaths from windmills in 5 years whereas the entire world has seen 2 nuclear deaths (Japan but not Fukushima) in 20 years. Nuclear provides about 15% of world electricity and windmills under 1%.
Which in turn means that any honest broadcaster or newspaper must have spent thousands of times more promoting scare stories about windmills than nuclear plants.
Or any which is 1/1,000th part (0.1%) honest must have spent an equal amount on each.
Anybody able to name any MSM broadcaster or journalist that is not at least 99.99% corrupt?
Labels: eco-fascism, Fear, Hormesis, nuclear
Monday, July 22, 2013
Where Did The "760 Dead In Heatwave" Story Come From & Why Aren't Far greater Cold Deaths Reported?
The media have been pushing a claim that the heat wave has killed 760 people. Remarkably the UPI report, the media's own prime source, on this omitted to say where it came from which certainly looks suspiciously like they don't care in the least about its veracity.
After a certain amount of searching I found it originated with a theoretical calculation by a Professor Armstrong of the London Hospital of Tropical Diseases, based on a previous model he had made up. In his favour he actually said 650 people but, the media being what it is, that got mistranslated into 760. None of this peer review rubbish when a good scare story is needed.
I have put up this comment:
"Or 760 as the media have translated it.
Clearly the calculation is entirely theoretical and the professor has not attempted to find a single one of these.
I would be interested to know how many, by the same calculation, die each year because of cold . I would assume, since cold is much more dangerous than heat and winter lasts much longer the total must be at least hundreds of times greater - and at least half could be prevented by ending the government's deliberate policy of increasing fuel poverty.
Unaccountably the media seem less interested in the professor's figures of the 10s, perhaps hundreds, of thousands killed deliberately killed by our politicians. Assuming winter cold does kill 200 times as many and that half could be saved if energy costs were not a significant limit that makes government responsible for killing 76,000 people annually. Doubtless if this is not the figure the professor agrees with he will say what is.
Of course a hundred times greater figure of deliberate state murder, even if not disputed by the LSHTM is unlikely to be considered as newsworthy by our media - or alternately so newsworthy as to have to be censored. "
I'll let you know if Armstrong officially gives a better figure than 76,000, as he certainly will if doing science rather than just pandering to the media scaremongers but until they do 76,000 seems to be at least as reliable a factoid as the 760.
I'll also let you know if the LSHTM issue a statement that the government is indeed deliberately killing 76,000 a year (or any other number)
And if the media report it as if it were as important as this scare story. Don't hold your breath.
After a certain amount of searching I found it originated with a theoretical calculation by a Professor Armstrong of the London Hospital of Tropical Diseases, based on a previous model he had made up. In his favour he actually said 650 people but, the media being what it is, that got mistranslated into 760. None of this peer review rubbish when a good scare story is needed.
I have put up this comment:
"Or 760 as the media have translated it.
Clearly the calculation is entirely theoretical and the professor has not attempted to find a single one of these.
I would be interested to know how many, by the same calculation, die each year because of cold . I would assume, since cold is much more dangerous than heat and winter lasts much longer the total must be at least hundreds of times greater - and at least half could be prevented by ending the government's deliberate policy of increasing fuel poverty.
Unaccountably the media seem less interested in the professor's figures of the 10s, perhaps hundreds, of thousands killed deliberately killed by our politicians. Assuming winter cold does kill 200 times as many and that half could be saved if energy costs were not a significant limit that makes government responsible for killing 76,000 people annually. Doubtless if this is not the figure the professor agrees with he will say what is.
Of course a hundred times greater figure of deliberate state murder, even if not disputed by the LSHTM is unlikely to be considered as newsworthy by our media - or alternately so newsworthy as to have to be censored. "
I'll let you know if Armstrong officially gives a better figure than 76,000, as he certainly will if doing science rather than just pandering to the media scaremongers but until they do 76,000 seems to be at least as reliable a factoid as the 760.
I'll also let you know if the LSHTM issue a statement that the government is indeed deliberately killing 76,000 a year (or any other number)
And if the media report it as if it were as important as this scare story. Don't hold your breath.
Labels: eco-fascism, Fear, Media
Monday, January 28, 2013
"If we make resources infinite we make war obselete"
Adrian Veidt aka Ozymandias - Watchmen film only
Over the last few years I have laid out a range of ways by which the human race can indeed make resources and personal wealth almost infinite. Unlimited nuclear power, unlimited physical resources in space, unlimited technological opportunities which the ecofascists are intend on suppressing and while technology prizes could greatly expand the rate of discovery.
etc.
So am I offering eternal peace.
Unfortunately I don't think I am. Veidt was wrong.
It is a considerable time since the last wars involving major countries were fought even mainly to get resources. Possibly as long ago as the Seven Years war 1756-63 when Britain got Canada and India and France, Austria, Russia and Prussia fought over Silesia (Prussia kept it though neither place remains).
The Napoleonic wars were fought for ideological reasons, as was the US Civil War. The Franco-Prussian War was fought for grandeur. The various Victorian military excursions, including the Sapnis american war were fought for the grandeur of having colonies. WW1 was fought because both sides thought the first strike option was necesary to win - if they didn't carry out their invasion plans first the train time tables would be out of kilter and it would be a mess.. You can make a good claim that Hitler started his war for resources (lebensrum) but the fact is that Germany post WW2 became wealthier though without all the lands Hitler wanted to conquer and it is at least as arguable that he was fighting for grandeur and ideological hatred of communists and Jews & Lebensrim was simply an excuse.
The cold war was fought for fear of the other side having that first strike option, so mainly, was the Six Day War. Vietnam was for grandeur. The destruction of Yugoslavia was ideological (to prevent a successful socialist society remaining in eastern Europe), racist (on Germany's part) & to provide the modern equivalent of gladiatorial games on TV. Afghanistan was initially revenge. Iraq, Libya, Syria nad now Mali are gladatorial. .
The ability of human beings to find reasons to compete is one of our strengths, but that competition is easily reduced to combat. We live in a world where travel is ever quicker which makes the first strike question ever more vital.
If we are goi8ng to have peaqce it will take something other than making us as wealthy as we ever dream. It will take us accepting the rule of law in international disputes as we, generally, accept it in argumentsw with neighbours.
Adrian Veidt aka Ozymandias - Watchmen film only
Over the last few years I have laid out a range of ways by which the human race can indeed make resources and personal wealth almost infinite. Unlimited nuclear power, unlimited physical resources in space, unlimited technological opportunities which the ecofascists are intend on suppressing and while technology prizes could greatly expand the rate of discovery.
etc.
So am I offering eternal peace.
Unfortunately I don't think I am. Veidt was wrong.
It is a considerable time since the last wars involving major countries were fought even mainly to get resources. Possibly as long ago as the Seven Years war 1756-63 when Britain got Canada and India and France, Austria, Russia and Prussia fought over Silesia (Prussia kept it though neither place remains).
The Napoleonic wars were fought for ideological reasons, as was the US Civil War. The Franco-Prussian War was fought for grandeur. The various Victorian military excursions, including the Sapnis american war were fought for the grandeur of having colonies. WW1 was fought because both sides thought the first strike option was necesary to win - if they didn't carry out their invasion plans first the train time tables would be out of kilter and it would be a mess.. You can make a good claim that Hitler started his war for resources (lebensrum) but the fact is that Germany post WW2 became wealthier though without all the lands Hitler wanted to conquer and it is at least as arguable that he was fighting for grandeur and ideological hatred of communists and Jews & Lebensrim was simply an excuse.
The cold war was fought for fear of the other side having that first strike option, so mainly, was the Six Day War. Vietnam was for grandeur. The destruction of Yugoslavia was ideological (to prevent a successful socialist society remaining in eastern Europe), racist (on Germany's part) & to provide the modern equivalent of gladiatorial games on TV. Afghanistan was initially revenge. Iraq, Libya, Syria nad now Mali are gladatorial. .
The ability of human beings to find reasons to compete is one of our strengths, but that competition is easily reduced to combat. We live in a world where travel is ever quicker which makes the first strike question ever more vital.
If we are goi8ng to have peaqce it will take something other than making us as wealthy as we ever dream. It will take us accepting the rule of law in international disputes as we, generally, accept it in argumentsw with neighbours.
Labels: Fear, History, International politics
Wednesday, November 21, 2012
Spiked Letter - Politicians Falsely Claiming Scientific Authority
In response to this Spiked article about the conviction of Italian earthquake scientists.
O’Neill is wrong to say that scientists as a group are guilty of supporting the global warming scare.
Of the 60 per cent of the world’s scientists who are not paid by government, not a single one has been identified as supporting the catastrophe theory. Easily the largest single expression of an individual scientist’s opinion is the Oregon Petition signed by 31,000, saying a CO2 rise is actually a good thing.
What we see is government giving money and publicity to a very small number of people, none of whom have any independent scientific reputation, but who are willing to endorse the government’s desire for some scare story to keep us obedient.
In the Italian case too, it seems that the only verifiable failure was not that the convicted scientists made a false statement but that their political boss did. Thus the disaster is caused not by scientists claiming authority but by politicians claiming scientific authority and having the media control to make it stick.
Neil Craig, UK
Nothing I haven't said before about warming but the comparison with Italy, where the political push was in the opposite direction, to damp down fear not to raise it, is worthwhile. The difference is that there was no extra power, taxes or controls to be gained by raising fears of earthquakes.
Doubtless if the Church of England was a broad enough church to include earthquake gods, as it does catastrophic warmism, we would be being taxed to placate them.
O’Neill is wrong to say that scientists as a group are guilty of supporting the global warming scare.
Of the 60 per cent of the world’s scientists who are not paid by government, not a single one has been identified as supporting the catastrophe theory. Easily the largest single expression of an individual scientist’s opinion is the Oregon Petition signed by 31,000, saying a CO2 rise is actually a good thing.
What we see is government giving money and publicity to a very small number of people, none of whom have any independent scientific reputation, but who are willing to endorse the government’s desire for some scare story to keep us obedient.
In the Italian case too, it seems that the only verifiable failure was not that the convicted scientists made a false statement but that their political boss did. Thus the disaster is caused not by scientists claiming authority but by politicians claiming scientific authority and having the media control to make it stick.
Neil Craig, UK
Nothing I haven't said before about warming but the comparison with Italy, where the political push was in the opposite direction, to damp down fear not to raise it, is worthwhile. The difference is that there was no extra power, taxes or controls to be gained by raising fears of earthquakes.
Doubtless if the Church of England was a broad enough church to include earthquake gods, as it does catastrophic warmism, we would be being taxed to placate them.
Labels: Fear, Government parasitism, letters
Wednesday, July 18, 2012
A useful article on Forbes "lists the mortality rate of each energy source as deaths per trillion kWhrs produced. The numbers are a combination of actual direct deaths and epidemiological estimates, and are rounded to two significant figures."
Energy Source Mortality Rate (deaths/trillionkWhr)
Coal – global average 170,000 (50% global electricity)
Coal – China 280,000 (75% China’s electricity)
Coal – U.S. 15,000 (44% U.S. electricity)
Oil 36,000 (36% of energy, 8% of electricity)
Natural Gas 4,000 (20% global electricity)
Biofuel/Biomass 24,000 (21% global energy)
Solar (rooftop) 440 (< 1% global electricity)
Wind 150 (~ 1% global electricity)
Hydro – global average 1,400 (15% global electricity)
Nuclear – global average 90 (17% global electricity w/Chern&Fukush)
So nuclear is conclusively the safest.
However that is the "epidemiological" number of nuclear deaths, which means they are using the LNT theory of radiation damage. However that is indisputably evidence free and thus nonsense. In fact there was a conclusive figure for the beneficial effect of hormesis it would almost certainly turn out that the number of deaths was negative.
However if we simply ignore LNT effects total deaths over the last generation total under 60 (51 for Chernobyl, 2 in an accident in Japan & zero at Fukushima).
Nuclear electricity has amounted to about 20,000TWh average over the last 25 years. so that gives us 500TWh.
So that should read:
Nuclear - Global average 0.2
Is there any significant industry in human history that has been remotely as safe as that?
Energy Source Mortality Rate (deaths/trillionkWhr)
Coal – global average 170,000 (50% global electricity)
Coal – China 280,000 (75% China’s electricity)
Coal – U.S. 15,000 (44% U.S. electricity)
Oil 36,000 (36% of energy, 8% of electricity)
Natural Gas 4,000 (20% global electricity)
Biofuel/Biomass 24,000 (21% global energy)
Solar (rooftop) 440 (< 1% global electricity)
Wind 150 (~ 1% global electricity)
Hydro – global average 1,400 (15% global electricity)
Nuclear – global average 90 (17% global electricity w/Chern&Fukush)
So nuclear is conclusively the safest.
However that is the "epidemiological" number of nuclear deaths, which means they are using the LNT theory of radiation damage. However that is indisputably evidence free and thus nonsense. In fact there was a conclusive figure for the beneficial effect of hormesis it would almost certainly turn out that the number of deaths was negative.
However if we simply ignore LNT effects total deaths over the last generation total under 60 (51 for Chernobyl, 2 in an accident in Japan & zero at Fukushima).
Nuclear electricity has amounted to about 20,000TWh average over the last 25 years. so that gives us 500TWh.
So that should read:
Nuclear - Global average 0.2
Is there any significant industry in human history that has been remotely as safe as that?
Labels: eco-fascism, Fear, nuclear
Tuesday, March 27, 2012
99.75% Of Scientists Say CO2 Rise Is beneficial - BBC Report Opposite
A few days ago Richard Bacon on BBC Radio 5 interviewed James Delingpole For a couple of hours beforehand he had been advertising his upcoming chastisement of Dellors the "denier" who was opposed to "97% of scientists".
Instead Dellors tore apart the "97%" lie and proved that Bacon was ignorant both of Dellors' book, which it was made obvious he hadn't read, but of any part of the alarmist case as well.
The "97%" claim is widely used by alarmists, not least by the BBC. Here is why it is a deliberate lie.
Bacon's ignorance was demonstrated by the fact that, at no time in the interview, did he attempt to introduce any factual arguments. It was entirely that it is the opinion of these 75 and some others but no discussion of any factual basis they may have had. In the end he was reduced to asking "is it possible that these scintists predictions may be right" without even being capable of answering James' response as to what
the specific predictions are. In fact these predictions range from Hansen's 0.5 C a decade claimed in 1988, through the Guardian's claim that the netherlands will be underwater by 2007 (both of which have definitely not come true) through to predictions of warming so low as to be virtually undetectable (which has). Clearly if he doesn't know what his question is it is difficult to complain about the answer.
However to show the problem with fighting BBC corruption - a couple of hours after this attempted demolition.the same channel did an interview with an eco-nutter who wants a ban on Britain exploiting any of the oil in British Atlantic waters, possibly depriving the British people of as many hundreds of billions as have come from the North sea.
The BBC, being bound by its Charter to "balance" andrespecting the law first spent a couple of hours saying how they were going to interview an econazi and then started by asking him a range of hostile questions while interrupting his answers introduced him as favourably as possible as an "environmentalist", asked him the softest possible and most supportive questions, gave him time, without interruption, to say everything he wanted and even went so far as to editorialise, when the econnazis only serious reason for banning this was that not burning oil would reduce CO2 that "cutting CO2 is a good thing". The BBC thereby proved that they are a national; news service of unique integrity a wholly corrupt, propaganda organisation every single employee of whom is obscene scum willing to tell any lie and censor any fact in the cause of the state fascism, no matter how damaging to the country or how many people are murdered by them.
On the more later:
By the standard, or actually far more factual than the standard, which allows corrupt journalists to claim "97%" of scientists on their side (4,810,000 so far) there is an opposite conclusion to be drawn.
The Oregon Petition has a list of 31,487 scientists who agree that not only is there no evidence of CAGW but that "there is substantial scientific evidence that increases in atmospheric CO2 produce many beneficial effects on the natural plant and animal environments of the Earth" (ie plants grow better with more CO2).
31,487 + 77 = 31564.
75 equals 0.0023%
31,487/31564 = 99.756%
So, ignoring even the fact that 31,564 is a much larger number than 77 & thus a much more statistically valid sample; that, while in both cases the sample is equally self selected by those who answered it in the latter case it is open to all scientists, in the former it is only open to a small subsection of scientists all, or almost all, of whom are paid by government to hold such beliefs....
Over 99.75% of scientists agree that catastrophic global warming is a lie and that that saying "cutting CO2 is a good thing" is a total lie, at least methodology our MSM aspire to.
This will be going to the world's media and we may say for a certainty that every single honest journalist will be far more willing to publish the 99.75% of scientists say CO2 rise is beneficial than the opposite.
By comparing how close the number of reports of the 2nd finding comes to the first
we will be able to determine what precise proportion of our media is in some way honest.
We will also see if Bacon or anybody at the BBC has the honesty to acknowledge that cutting CO2 is not provably a good thing.
Instead Dellors tore apart the "97%" lie and proved that Bacon was ignorant both of Dellors' book, which it was made obvious he hadn't read, but of any part of the alarmist case as well.
The "97%" claim is widely used by alarmists, not least by the BBC. Here is why it is a deliberate lie.
First, it was the claim that 2,500 IPCC-related scientists agreed with the 2007 IPCC report. Soon after it was discovered that the actual number of scientists who actually agreed with the report contents was only 25.
Next, when the 2,500 shrunk to 25, a couple of University of Illinois researchers conjured up a 2-minute online, anonymous survey that they hoped would deliver some big numbers to crow about. They solicited 10,257 earth scientists and only 77 chose to answer the online survey (yes, only 77). 75 of those “climate scientists” agreed with the survey’s two questions (yes, only 2 questions).
Voila, the infamous and widely publicised “97%” of climate scientists (75 divided by 77) who thought man was the cause of global warming turned out to be a numeric joke.On top of that all the question asked was whether mankind was having some effect on bringing about warming - nothing on whether it was a serious effect let alone one so catastrophic as to warrant spending these billions. On this more later. So of a self selected fraction of a selected fraction of government funded scientists it was only possible to find 75 who supported even the concept of anthropogenic global warming let alone anything catastrophic.
Bacon's ignorance was demonstrated by the fact that, at no time in the interview, did he attempt to introduce any factual arguments. It was entirely that it is the opinion of these 75 and some others but no discussion of any factual basis they may have had. In the end he was reduced to asking "is it possible that these scintists predictions may be right" without even being capable of answering James' response as to what
the specific predictions are. In fact these predictions range from Hansen's 0.5 C a decade claimed in 1988, through the Guardian's claim that the netherlands will be underwater by 2007 (both of which have definitely not come true) through to predictions of warming so low as to be virtually undetectable (which has). Clearly if he doesn't know what his question is it is difficult to complain about the answer.
However to show the problem with fighting BBC corruption - a couple of hours after this attempted demolition.the same channel did an interview with an eco-nutter who wants a ban on Britain exploiting any of the oil in British Atlantic waters, possibly depriving the British people of as many hundreds of billions as have come from the North sea.
The BBC, being bound by its Charter to "balance" and
On the more later:
By the standard, or actually far more factual than the standard, which allows corrupt journalists to claim "97%" of scientists on their side (4,810,000 so far) there is an opposite conclusion to be drawn.
The Oregon Petition has a list of 31,487 scientists who agree that not only is there no evidence of CAGW but that "there is substantial scientific evidence that increases in atmospheric CO2 produce many beneficial effects on the natural plant and animal environments of the Earth" (ie plants grow better with more CO2).
31,487 + 77 = 31564.
75 equals 0.0023%
31,487/31564 = 99.756%
So, ignoring even the fact that 31,564 is a much larger number than 77 & thus a much more statistically valid sample; that, while in both cases the sample is equally self selected by those who answered it in the latter case it is open to all scientists, in the former it is only open to a small subsection of scientists all, or almost all, of whom are paid by government to hold such beliefs....
Over 99.75% of scientists agree that catastrophic global warming is a lie and that that saying "cutting CO2 is a good thing" is a total lie, at least methodology our MSM aspire to.
This will be going to the world's media and we may say for a certainty that every single honest journalist will be far more willing to publish the 99.75% of scientists say CO2 rise is beneficial than the opposite.
By comparing how close the number of reports of the 2nd finding comes to the first
we will be able to determine what precise proportion of our media is in some way honest.
We will also see if Bacon or anybody at the BBC has the honesty to acknowledge that cutting CO2 is not provably a good thing.
Labels: BBC, Fear, global warming
Thursday, December 22, 2011
Linear No Threshold Radiation Theory Proven False - After 40 Years of Anti-Nuclear Hysteria Campaigns To Impoverish The World
“There is nothing more practical than a good theory.” — Kurt Lewin
The corollary of this must be that there is nothing so damaging as a false theory, about something vital to civilisation, which is generally accepted and enforced by government worldwide.
That is why I have been so persistent in disputing the Linear No Threshold theory of radiation damage. There is not and never has been any actual evidence for it. This fact is not disputed even by supporters, they have merely said that, for low level radiation it is so statistically difficult to provide certain evidence against it that it is an unfalsifiable theory and thus must be accepted.
This is not a scientific attitude since it is axiomatic that a theory which cannot be falsified cannot be scientific. But it does have the advantage of being enforced and accepted. I have previously said I doubt any theory is wholly unfalsifiable it merely that there are some whose proponents will not recognise any.
The entire anti-nuclear movement depends on being able to scare people that tiny amounts of radiation, at virtually homoeopathic levels can still kill because there is "no threshold" level at which it is safe.Without that radiation releases at a very low level would not be a fear. Without that the Dalgety Bay fraud would have nothing to work with. Without that the alleged fear that it could be dangerous to store radioactive "waste" (most of it is actually highly valuable) deep underground because it might, in infinitesimal quantities, leak thousands of feet upwards would be a matter of no importance.
Without that "unfalsifiable" claim the hysteria against nuclear power and its suppression could not have been justified. It has left humanity with no more than 40% of the electricity and therefore wealth we would have had if the trend before suppression had continued.
However science goes on and even the most "unfalsifiable" ignorance based claims fall victim to scientific progress from a new direction.
Which is why this, while the result is in now way unexpected to believers in science, is such a game changer it ought to be headlined worldwide. (OK I know it won't but it would if the media were uncorrupt) -
The LNT theory was always political rather than scientific. The theory absolutely requires that there be no repair mechanism for radiation damage which, is contrary to experience with almost all other injuries to living systems. This looks like conclusive proof LNT is wrong. This does not prove hormesis, that low level stimulation to the system is beneficial, correct but is certainly consistent with it. Particularly the evidence that long term exposure is less troubling than a burst exposure, which was always intuitively reasonable.
The corollary of this must be that there is nothing so damaging as a false theory, about something vital to civilisation, which is generally accepted and enforced by government worldwide.
That is why I have been so persistent in disputing the Linear No Threshold theory of radiation damage. There is not and never has been any actual evidence for it. This fact is not disputed even by supporters, they have merely said that, for low level radiation it is so statistically difficult to provide certain evidence against it that it is an unfalsifiable theory and thus must be accepted.
This is not a scientific attitude since it is axiomatic that a theory which cannot be falsified cannot be scientific. But it does have the advantage of being enforced and accepted. I have previously said I doubt any theory is wholly unfalsifiable it merely that there are some whose proponents will not recognise any.
The entire anti-nuclear movement depends on being able to scare people that tiny amounts of radiation, at virtually homoeopathic levels can still kill because there is "no threshold" level at which it is safe.Without that radiation releases at a very low level would not be a fear. Without that the Dalgety Bay fraud would have nothing to work with. Without that the alleged fear that it could be dangerous to store radioactive "waste" (most of it is actually highly valuable) deep underground because it might, in infinitesimal quantities, leak thousands of feet upwards would be a matter of no importance.
Without that "unfalsifiable" claim the hysteria against nuclear power and its suppression could not have been justified. It has left humanity with no more than 40% of the electricity and therefore wealth we would have had if the trend before suppression had continued.
However science goes on and even the most "unfalsifiable" ignorance based claims fall victim to scientific progress from a new direction.
Which is why this, while the result is in now way unexpected to believers in science, is such a game changer it ought to be headlined worldwide. (OK I know it won't but it would if the media were uncorrupt) -
Imaging of a cell’s DNA damage response to radiation shows that 1.5 minutes after irradiation, the sizes and intensities of radiation induced foci (RIF) are small and weak, but 30 minutes later damage sites have clustered into larger and brighter RIF, probably reflecting DNA repair centers.
“Our data show that at lower doses of ionizing radiation, DNA repair mechanisms work much better than at higher doses,” says Mina Bissell, a world-renowned breast cancer researcher with Berkeley Lab’s Life Sciences Division. “This non-linear DNA damage response casts doubt on the general assumption that any amount of ionizing radiation is harmful and additive.”
The LNT theory was always political rather than scientific. The theory absolutely requires that there be no repair mechanism for radiation damage which, is contrary to experience with almost all other injuries to living systems. This looks like conclusive proof LNT is wrong. This does not prove hormesis, that low level stimulation to the system is beneficial, correct but is certainly consistent with it. Particularly the evidence that long term exposure is less troubling than a burst exposure, which was always intuitively reasonable.
Labels: eco-fascism, Fear, Hormesis, nuclear
Monday, September 26, 2011
Anti-Nuclear Linear No Threshold (LNT) - Fraud Goes Back to 1945
University of Massachusetts Amherst environmental toxicologist Edward Calabrese, whose career research shows that low doses of some chemicals and radiation are benign or even helpful, says he has uncovered evidence that one of the fathers of radiation genetics, Nobel Prize winner Hermann Muller, knowingly lied when he claimed in 1946 that there is no safe level of radiation exposure.
Calabrese’s interpretation of this history is supported by letters and other materials he has retrieved, many from formerly classified files. He published key excerpts this month in Archives of Toxicology and Environmental and Molecular Mutagenesis.
Muller was awarded the 1946 Nobel Prize in medicine for his discovery that X-rays induce genetic mutations. This helped him call attention to his long-time concern over the dangers of atomic testing. Muller’s intentions were good, Calabrese points out, but his decision not to mention key scientific evidence against his position has had a far-reaching impact on our approach to regulating radiation and chemical exposure.
Calabrese uncovered correspondence from November 1946 between Muller and Curt Stern at the University of Rochester about a major experiment that had recently evaluated fruit fly germ cell mutations in Stern’s laboratory. It failed to support the linear dose-response model at low exposure levels, but in Muller’s speech in Oslo a few weeks later he insisted there was "no escape from the conclusion that there is no threshold." To Calabrese, this amounts to deliberate concealment and he says Stern raised no objection.
Calabrese adds, "This isn’t an academic debate, it’s really practical, because all of our rules about chemical and low-level radiation are based on the premises that Muller and the National Academy of Sciences’ (NAS) committee adopted at that time. Now, after all these years, it’s very hard when people have been frightened to death by this dogma to persuade them that we don’t need to be scared by certain low-dose exposures." ctd
=============================
I have, for some time, been promoting the fact that the LNT theory, which has no evidential backing is not only wrong but that the opposite theory, hormesis, that low level radiation has vitamin effects, is clearly proven.
This is important because LNT is the only vaguely credible reason for opposing nuclear power and and the part of the anti-nuclear scare which is most scary because it is invisible.
In turn the anti-nuclear movement has meant that humanity do not have two and a half times more electric power and therefore approaching two and a half times more wealth. Also it is why we do not have inexpensive space ships which could have got us to "Saturn by 1970".
All in all far more damaging than the global warming fraud, at least so far.
However a positive development is that this researcher has been able to publish and had a signnificant amount of coverage , ok significant in terms of a physics story from 1945. That would not have happened a few years ago.
Look at the comments on this post on Junkscience . OK Junkscience is a sceptical blog, unlike "Skeptical Science" or "scienceblogs" and thus might be expexted to have readers open to this idea. However they are not merely interested the commenters almost entirely understand that the LNT theory is fraudulent.
Scientific fraud, from whaterver motives, comes about not merely, perhaps not primarily, because of the fraudster. Scientific opinion is the ocean scientists swim in and if that ocean were not conducive to particular frauds they would either not be done or not develop the critical mass (ok mixed metaphor) to achieve common acceptance.
The growing strenght of online scientific scepticism is a major factor in promoting scientific progress. Even the fact that opponents are trying to adopt the label, misspelled, is a sign it is becoming mainstream, as well as of their dishonesty and intellectual bankruptcy.
Calabrese’s interpretation of this history is supported by letters and other materials he has retrieved, many from formerly classified files. He published key excerpts this month in Archives of Toxicology and Environmental and Molecular Mutagenesis.
Muller was awarded the 1946 Nobel Prize in medicine for his discovery that X-rays induce genetic mutations. This helped him call attention to his long-time concern over the dangers of atomic testing. Muller’s intentions were good, Calabrese points out, but his decision not to mention key scientific evidence against his position has had a far-reaching impact on our approach to regulating radiation and chemical exposure.
Calabrese uncovered correspondence from November 1946 between Muller and Curt Stern at the University of Rochester about a major experiment that had recently evaluated fruit fly germ cell mutations in Stern’s laboratory. It failed to support the linear dose-response model at low exposure levels, but in Muller’s speech in Oslo a few weeks later he insisted there was "no escape from the conclusion that there is no threshold." To Calabrese, this amounts to deliberate concealment and he says Stern raised no objection.
Calabrese adds, "This isn’t an academic debate, it’s really practical, because all of our rules about chemical and low-level radiation are based on the premises that Muller and the National Academy of Sciences’ (NAS) committee adopted at that time. Now, after all these years, it’s very hard when people have been frightened to death by this dogma to persuade them that we don’t need to be scared by certain low-dose exposures." ctd
=============================
I have, for some time, been promoting the fact that the LNT theory, which has no evidential backing is not only wrong but that the opposite theory, hormesis, that low level radiation has vitamin effects, is clearly proven.
This is important because LNT is the only vaguely credible reason for opposing nuclear power and and the part of the anti-nuclear scare which is most scary because it is invisible.
In turn the anti-nuclear movement has meant that humanity do not have two and a half times more electric power and therefore approaching two and a half times more wealth. Also it is why we do not have inexpensive space ships which could have got us to "Saturn by 1970".
All in all far more damaging than the global warming fraud, at least so far.
However a positive development is that this researcher has been able to publish and had a signnificant amount of coverage , ok significant in terms of a physics story from 1945. That would not have happened a few years ago.
Look at the comments on this post on Junkscience . OK Junkscience is a sceptical blog, unlike "Skeptical Science" or "scienceblogs" and thus might be expexted to have readers open to this idea. However they are not merely interested the commenters almost entirely understand that the LNT theory is fraudulent.
Scientific fraud, from whaterver motives, comes about not merely, perhaps not primarily, because of the fraudster. Scientific opinion is the ocean scientists swim in and if that ocean were not conducive to particular frauds they would either not be done or not develop the critical mass (ok mixed metaphor) to achieve common acceptance.
The growing strenght of online scientific scepticism is a major factor in promoting scientific progress. Even the fact that opponents are trying to adopt the label, misspelled, is a sign it is becoming mainstream, as well as of their dishonesty and intellectual bankruptcy.
Labels: Fear, nuclear, Science/technology
Saturday, September 10, 2011
Government "Childcare" Parasites Prevent Middle Classes Having Children and Impoverish Everybody
Some time ago I suggested a number of ways in which government artificially pushed up the cost of living. The main ones were housing (75% parasitic) and electricity costs (93%). Here is an interesting comparison between costs of living in Britain and the US.
When I did the article I also suggested childcare was another area of high government parasitism, but at the time had no figures. Now, following discussion on Mark Wadsworth I have. (p3) which shows childcare costs of as a % of family income:
Belgium 4%, Poland 5%; Portugal 4%; Greece 5%; Sweden, Latvia, Lithuania, Hungary & Luxembourg 6% Finland 7%; Germany, Norway, Czech, Slovak, 8%; Korea 9%, Australia 10%; France 11%; Netherlands and EU average 12%, moving up through USA 19% finally to Britain 33%
This gives the first 10 an average of 5.5% or 17% of costs in Britain. I decline to believe the Swedes hate their children that much and so must assume that that leaves 83% of childcare costs in the UK being the regulatory costs government enforces.
In Britain you can get child support of up to £175 a week or £300 for more than 2 if you are poor. Indeed you can get this even if you are only in part time employment so that you can still get full time childcare.
This is government paying a selected part of the population compensation for an added cost government have created in the first palce, at considerable expense at both ends. Thus being a further example of how the state destroys at least 50% of our possible economy.
It also destroys affordable family formation, of which Steve Sailer has written, for the middle classes while encouraging it among the poor and single parents. As Steve has shown the correlation across the US states between voting for individual responsibility parties and welfarist parties is, not that surprisingly, very closely correlated with the cost of family formation. It is understandable why Labour pushes this government parasitism, less understandable why the Conservatives do too.
In my opinion even more importantly than voting patterns is that discouraging children is normally not in a country's long term interests. Discouraging it among families who are self sufficient and competent but not among those who are neither is storing up a multitude of disasters.
According to the BBC
However the obvious and real answer is that getting government out of the way would allow costs to go down from £8,216 by 83% to £1400 and that would be good for the economy, for the individauls involved, for national growth and for a free and self confident society.
At the time I estimated that government parasitism left us with about 24% of the money we could have without both taxation and parasitic regulation. Looking at child care being a higher proportion of HNP than I assumed and 83% parasitic rather than 75% it now comes out at 23% being left to us.
People should be allowed to afford that
Gasolene prices: about $1.00/quart in Mariposa; about $2/quart in Sunderland. Groceries to feed two for a week: $138/Mariposa; $136 in Sunderland. Prices for comparable houses: $237,000 in Mariposa; $480,000 in Sunderland. Real estate tax: $2600/year in Mariposa; $1800/year (ave) in Sunderland Sales tax/VAT: 9.25% in Mariposa; 20% in Sunderland. State income tax: 10% for a middle class income in Mariposa; 0% in Sunderland Marginal income tax rate for a middle class income: 25% in Mariposa; 40% in Sunderland National insurance/social security: 15.3% in Mariposa; about 20% in Sunderland Medical costs: about 17% of GDP in Mariposa; included in the income tax/national insurance in Sunderland.Higher personal taxes in the UK but they seem to not far above US Taxes + Health Care. He doesn't mention electricity but does petrol - overwhelmingly tax. The big unmatched difference is housing which is not due to tax so it must be regulation. If housing prices are 50% government parasitism in the US that makes 75|% here though I would not be surprised if it was higher there.
– Harry Erwin, PhD
When I did the article I also suggested childcare was another area of high government parasitism, but at the time had no figures. Now, following discussion on Mark Wadsworth I have. (p3) which shows childcare costs of as a % of family income:
Belgium 4%, Poland 5%; Portugal 4%; Greece 5%; Sweden, Latvia, Lithuania, Hungary & Luxembourg 6% Finland 7%; Germany, Norway, Czech, Slovak, 8%; Korea 9%, Australia 10%; France 11%; Netherlands and EU average 12%, moving up through USA 19% finally to Britain 33%
This gives the first 10 an average of 5.5% or 17% of costs in Britain. I decline to believe the Swedes hate their children that much and so must assume that that leaves 83% of childcare costs in the UK being the regulatory costs government enforces.
In Britain you can get child support of up to £175 a week or £300 for more than 2 if you are poor. Indeed you can get this even if you are only in part time employment so that you can still get full time childcare.
This is government paying a selected part of the population compensation for an added cost government have created in the first palce, at considerable expense at both ends. Thus being a further example of how the state destroys at least 50% of our possible economy.
It also destroys affordable family formation, of which Steve Sailer has written, for the middle classes while encouraging it among the poor and single parents. As Steve has shown the correlation across the US states between voting for individual responsibility parties and welfarist parties is, not that surprisingly, very closely correlated with the cost of family formation. It is understandable why Labour pushes this government parasitism, less understandable why the Conservatives do too.
In my opinion even more importantly than voting patterns is that discouraging children is normally not in a country's long term interests. Discouraging it among families who are self sufficient and competent but not among those who are neither is storing up a multitude of disasters.
According to the BBC
Many parents in Britain are paying in excess of £8,000 a year for a full-time nursery place, a survey suggests.
The Daycare Trust found the yearly cost of a typical nursery place for a child under two was £8,684 in England, £8,216 in Scotland and £7,592 in Wales.Which sounds like about £40 billion or 3% of GNP. The BBC being the corrupt fascists they are they spin the story as need for more government and subsidy, particularly for fakecharites like the Daycare Trust.
However the obvious and real answer is that getting government out of the way would allow costs to go down from £8,216 by 83% to £1400 and that would be good for the economy, for the individauls involved, for national growth and for a free and self confident society.
At the time I estimated that government parasitism left us with about 24% of the money we could have without both taxation and parasitic regulation. Looking at child care being a higher proportion of HNP than I assumed and 83% parasitic rather than 75% it now comes out at 23% being left to us.
Labels: British politics, Fear, Government parasitism
Friday, August 12, 2011
Kosovo - Steve Sailer on How, for the Pleasure of Bombing People, NATO Squandered "the most valuable lesson learned from centuries of war"
I have previously praised the intelligence of Steve Sailer. This is a fisk, in light of what we know now, of an article he did, some years ago, decrying the Kosovo War. This was long before the public acknowledgement of the dissection of living people by NATO "police" though most of the other atrocities were on the record. Clinton, Blair and the other Nazis knew it all, indeed must have known of the previous organlegging by the people they hired and armed to pose as the "Liberation Army" and ultimately appointyed, in complete viopation of the occupation agreement they had just signed, as "police". He came to very much the same conclusion as I of why it is not merely evil but also not in the interest of any of the rest of us who would rather have the safety of a civilised world (so clearly he must be highly intelligent!) He also writes more lucidly than I. I have added further information lin italics not available, at least to the public, at the time all of which narrows the range of possibility of whether the NATO leaders were foolish or evil
===========================
Exactly one year ago, NATO attacked Yugoslavia. It's worth recalling President Bill Clinton's explanation of Why We Fought: "[T]he principle we and our allies have been fighting for in the Balkans is the principle of multiethnic, tolerant, inclusive democracy."
Well ... happy anniversary, Kosovo! Our adventure in "humanitarian warfare" proved a fiasco, as anyone with a firmer grasp of history than Mr. Clinton could have predicted. .....
Ascendant in the '80s, the Albanians began to cleanse Kosovo of its Serbian minority. The New York Times reported in 1987, "Ethnic Albanians in the [Kosovo] government have manipulated public funds and regulations to take over land belonging to Serbs ... Wells have been poisoned ... crops burned. Slavic boys have been knifed, and some young ethnic Albanians have been told by their elders to rape Serbian girls." ...
Then, last year, U.S. Secretary of State Madeleine Albright convened the Rambouillet conference to demand that Milosevic allow NATO's armies to invade not only Kosovo, but Serbia itself. Obviously, no national leader could acquiesce. Milosevic refused to sign; NATO initiated war. it is now known Albright gave an off the record briefing to world media saying she had deliberately set up the negotiations to fail so that bombing could take place...
NATO's aggression backfired as Milosevic responded by expelling roughly a million Albanians. we now know he didn't it was being bombed by NATO, terrorised by NATO's KLA and the thought of being in the midst of a ground invasion and that NATO always knew this ...
Eventually, Milosevic gave in and withdrew his forces from Kosovo. A glorious victory for the forces of multiculturalism over ethnic hatred? Proof that with enough virtue, will power and cluster bombs, we can affirmatively answer the famous question posed by Rodney King, "Can't we all just get along?" Not exactly. Our Albanian pals in the KLA promptly began ethnically cleansing Serb civilians from Kosovo. While they were at it, they also sent most of Kosovo's Gypsies fleeing ....
There is nothing uniquely evil about the Balkans. In this world, there are several thousand ethnic groups with their own nationalist/separatist movements. Most such movements do not represent a majority of their peoples, being comprised of a few underemployed intellectuals hoping someday to become the rulers of a newly independent Lower Slobbovia.
But the ethnic troublemakers know that if they can provoke the government into repressing their entire group, they might convert their kinsmen to separatism (under their leadership, of course) or simply if they can fake such things and have the ear of the NATO powers....
Mr. Clinton and his comrade, Tony Blair, blundered in the Balkans because they didn't understand that the sanctity of national borders contributes to international peace in the same way that a settled distribution of property rights contributes to domestic peace. The secret to the success of the "Anglosphere's" experiment in self-government since, say, the Magna Carta has been the assurance that property rights, especially in land, will be respected and enforced by the state. If you can't be sure that your land title is secured and respected by the state, then for your own protection you need to cast your lot with your armed extended family. And since a racial group, like the Serbs or the Albanians, is nothing more than an extremely extended family, insecurity of property is an open invitation to ethnic strife.
It's no surprise Clinton and Blair didn't grasp the importance of settled borders -- both for real estate and for nations -- because they've never had to worry about them in Britain or America. Much of what we know about Shakespeare's life comes from the English equivalent of the county registrar of deeds office. His real estate dealings are on file because there has been no major interruption in the security of property in Britain. So when the Peruvian economist Hernando DeSoto visited North America, the leading economists wanted to talk about the money supply, currency devaluations and fiscal deficits; but he kept raising something they had never considered: how do you set up and run a registrar of deeds office?...
If domestic property rights are not secure, bad things follow. People arm themselves and band together with their extended families/clans/ethnic groups/races for self-defence. They shoot first and ask questions later.
Basically, the same things happen when national property rights are not secure. If you are the dictator of a small country, what lessons do you draw from watching NATO pound the hell out of Yugoslavia? The joys of multiculturalism are probably not the first that come to mind. More likely, your thoughts follow the same trajectory as those of a drug dealer when he realizes that the law does not protect his stock in trade. You must arm yourself heavily enough to deter NATO. Missiles, nukes, chemicals, and germs readily suggest themselves. NATO recruited the KLA form several sources but Albanian drug lords was probably the largest
And what about that separatist group that wants to split your country in two? Do you let them go as the Czech Republic let Slovakia go a few years ago, when the Gulf War had seemingly ended the era of international aggression so that nations could be as small as they liked without risking conquest? Hell no. National security will require every draftee and tax dollar you can drag in at gunpoint. After the glorious events of 1991 in Kuwait and Moscow, the world appeared to be entering a pax Americana even more promising than the pax Britannica that helped make the 19th century such an age of human betterment. A world dominated by a single superpower with no territorial ambitions and committed to protecting lawful property. Yet now, less than a decade after the liberation of Kuwait, the West has grown so arrogant that we've squandered away the sanctity of national borders, the most valuable lesson learned from centuries of war.
Still, should the world sit idly by while civil wars cause humanitarian nightmares within sovereign states? Not necessarily. There are certain countries so dysfunctional that they cry out for internationally supervised revision. Yugoslavia might have been one, and Sudan is one. What can the West do? The answer, shockingly enough, is to sponsor ethnic cleansing.
In certain regions, ethnic strife is so endemic that the last resort of wise statesmen must be some form of partition followed by population transfers. The Treaty of Lausanne in 1923 ended hundreds of years of war between Turkey and Greece by uprooting Greeks from Turkey and Turks from Greece. Similarly, the fractious island of Cyprus has been at peace for quarter of a century due to its division into Turkish and Greek zones.
Even the Bosnians have stopped killing each other now that Serbs, Croats, and Muslims each have their own sectors. While heterogeneous Northern Ireland is notorious for sectarian strife, the exit of Protestants has left the Republic free of troubles.
Madeleine Albright's Czechoslovakia expelled millions of Sudeten Germans at the end of the Second World War, permanently ending that source of friction. Overall, we victors in the war agreed to the deportation of at least 12 million Germans from Eastern Europe. According to "A Brief History of Ethnic Cleansing" in a 1993 issue of Foreign Affairs, "About 2.1 million of these died from a combination of war, hunger, cold and disease."
The question, however, is how to conduct ethnic cleansing humanely. This is necessary for practical reasons as well as moral ones. Ethnic cleansings that leave the displaced feeling robbed and humiliated are likely to lead to future violence -- e.g., the Palestinians. If property rights have to be violated, compensation should be paid. ...
The simplest way to prevent the 1.8 million Kosovar Albanians from being repressed by the Serbs, for instance, would be to give them independence. But the 200,000 Serbs who lived in Kosovo would have had to be taken care of so that the Albanians didn't oppress them. A big chunk of Northern Kosovo, home of most Kosovar Serbs and Serbia's sacred battlefields, could have been permanently ceded to Serbia. That might have left, say, 100,000 Serbs living in Albanian Kosovo and 100,000 Albanians living in Serbian Northern Kosovo.
These Serbs and Albanians could then have exchanged homes -- NATO chipping in $50,000 per family of four to grease the skids. Then NATO could have paid $2.5 billion to Serbia as compensation for its lost territory. A grand total of $5 billion -- a pittance set against the costs of war. NATO, well officially the US & EU but it is the same thing. have probably spent more than10 times that since to prop up their client regime of genocidal, sex slaving, organlegging "freedom fighters" and to maintain a massive American military base of little other conceivable military use
Further, NATO could have gained a huge degree of leverage in the region by making the compensation payable over a ten-year period, dependent upon good behavior. If Kosovo Albanians violate their contract by, say, trying to destabilize neighbouring Macedonia, the uprooted Albanians families get cut off. The same goes for Serbs. the KLA, with new cap badges hastily sewn on, did invade Macedonia and carry out terrorism in southern Serbia, presumably with NATO approval since members of the "police" were allowed leaves of absence to carry out the invasion I have no idea if Milosevic would have accepted such a deal. But it would have been a more honourable offer than Albright's at Rambouillet. And if Milosevic had rejected it, could he have stayed in power? Again not reported by our media, Milosevic had already done more than that - when Albright demanded as part of the Ramboullet "deal" that NATO should have the right to occupy all of Serbia, take anything not nailed down and destroy anything that was, Milosevic countered by offering to join NATO which would have given NATO forces entrance legally but is a degree of leverage greater than Sailor suggests here but without the pleasure of getting to bomb civilians
These kind of cold-blooded calculations may seem unappealing to all those in the media who whipped themselves into a moralistic frenzy over the crimes of the Serbs. They may feel that Yugoslavia deserves to have its territory stripped away without compensation, and that all those vile Serbs should lose their homes. According to God's scale of justice, they may (or may not) be right.we now know, as the leaders and media did at the time, that the atrocities by the our ex-Nazi allies were at least many times worse that anything the Serbs did.The worst atrocities in Bosnia were when our ex-Nazi Croatian allies represented western civilisation by burning villages of Moslems represented, at least in out media, by the ex-Nazi Moslem Izetbegovic, a representative of western civilisation whose expressed opinions about genocide make his and our ally at the time, bin Laden, look moderate But it's unlikely that the Serbs will view it that way. And those innocent Kosovar Serbs who fled the KLA's lynch mobs are not likely to forgive and forget. People in the Balkans are used to waiting for that sweet moment when they can cry, "Vengeance is mine!"
.
=================================
This leads to a whole range of Steve Sailer VDARE.COM Articles - while that is the only one on Kosovo they are well worth reading. You will see nothing remotely as informative, or indeed honest, on the MSM
NATO police with human headsin Kosovo
Our al Quaeda allies, flown into Bosnia by the US airforce)Labels: Fear, International politics, Yugoslavia
Sunday, June 05, 2011
LINKS ABOUT NUCLEAR POWER - "the main driver of growth"
Chernobyl compared with normal background radiation and illness
The real lesson of this graph is that, any nation which greatly increases its power supply, as any nation able to install nuclear reactors can, it will become much wealthier.
Molten salt reactors - operate at near atmospheric pressure and thus can't explode catastrophically
Al Fin on Thorium reactors
Vietnam to build 30 gigawatts of nuclear power by 2030 which is about 60% of AL Britain's electric power now
"In modern times the main driver of economic growth has been, and continues to be, energy" - Jim Mather, SNP minister
Unregistered nuclear reactors with no safety measures whatsoever up to 1.8 billion years ago
Nuclear costs
The WSJ explains some of the various measures of radiation
Radon levels in Scotland
and by what is clearly a very different shading, in England and Wales
The real lesson of this graph is that, any nation which greatly increases its power supply, as any nation able to install nuclear reactors can, it will become much wealthier.
Molten salt reactors - operate at near atmospheric pressure and thus can't explode catastrophically
Al Fin on Thorium reactors
Vietnam to build 30 gigawatts of nuclear power by 2030 which is about 60% of AL Britain's electric power now
"In modern times the main driver of economic growth has been, and continues to be, energy" - Jim Mather, SNP minister
Unregistered nuclear reactors with no safety measures whatsoever up to 1.8 billion years ago
Nuclear costs
The WSJ explains some of the various measures of radiation
Radon levels in Scotland
and by what is clearly a very different shading, in England and Wales
Labels: economics, Fear, nuclear
Saturday, May 28, 2011
Professor Eric Wolf answers my 7 Global Warming Questions
Following the recent conference between global warming sceptics and alarmists Dr Eric Wolff attempted to sum up the areas on which there was agreement and on which there isn't. This was posted on Bishop Hill's site and produced a lot of discussion in the comments section (in which I participated). In turn I sent Dr Wolff my list of 7 questions which I had sent originally to Simon Singh (who had asked equivalent questions from his side of the debate) then Professor Jones (head of the British investigation and producer of the "hide the decline" email), Michael Mann (US inventor of the Hockey Stick theory now proven mathematically false), Sir Paul Nurse (head of the Royal Society), Sir John Beddington (Britain's Chief science Advisor), Alan Thorpe (head of the £450 million a year warming propagandist quango NERC who, some years ago, challenged sceptics to a public debate and disappeared when the challenge was accepted), Roger Harrabin (BBC Environmental correspondent and the public face of UK warming alarmism) a number of different people at the BBC, the editors of most national & several US papers, a number of leading MPs and every member of the Scottish Parliament, Realclimate & some other sites & last and least Ann Glover (Scotland's Chief Science Advisor and the one who said warming would increase day length). Since none of them had felt able to provide an answer supportive of the dangerous warming theory I thought they might also be indicative of points on which, if not exactly agreement, nobody on the alarmist side disagreed.
Despite somebody else at his facility taking umbrage (& I must admit some of the questions #4 in particular, were phrased in a more argumentative manner than necessary) Dr Wolff has indeed replied and given me permission to post here. I would like to thank him for doing so in a reasoned and constructive manner. I will probably give my comments next week but, with the exception of a few words on point 7 I think his comments should stand on their own today:
1 - Do you accept Professor Jones' acknowledgement that there has been no statistically significant warming since 1995?
*I have not heard this statement. However, because the climate system is inherently noisy, with alternating short runs of cold years and of warm years, there could NEVER be a statistically significant trend over just a few years. One can only determine a multidecadal trend by looking at the gradient over multi-decades. If you insist on taking trends over a decade, you will find periods with a positive gradient, a negative gradient or flat, but none of them significant. This was exactly my point about the analogy with months. There will quite certainly be a warming trend in temperature between January and July, but you will certainly find periods of 10, perhaps even 20 days, that have no, or even a negative, gradient.
2 - Do you accept that the rise in CO2 has improved crop growth by around 10% & that the consequent influence on world hunger is more beneficial than any currently detectable destructive action of alleged global warming?
*I am not an agricultural scientist, and have not looked into this, but yes, in general increasing levels of CO2 in the atmosphere are likely to increase crop yields. The second half of the question asks me to make a moral and economic value judgement. While I may have a view on it as a citizen, this has nothing to do with the science.
3 - Do you accept that the Hockey Stick, as originally presented by Mann and the IPCC contained calculations that were inconsistent with good science and that Mann's refusal to make calculations and algorithms available for checking were inconsistent with scientific principle?
*The Mann reconstruction was a first attempt at doing an exceptionally difficult job. There are now numerous other attempts (shown in IPCC AR4) which all tell roughly the same story, but that have suggested better ways of doing some aspects of the job. This is how science works - someone does their best, then someone else comes along and shows you how to do it better.
4 - Do you accept that many claims from people and organisations on the alarmist side, from Al Gore's claim that South Sea islands had already been abandoned due to rising sea levels and Pachauri's claim that any dispute that the Himalayan glaciers will have melted by 2025 was "voodoo" are wholly, completely and totally untruthful and would have to be openly denounced by anyone on the alarmist side who has any trace of honesty?
*There was clearly an error in the IPCC WGII report regarding Himalayan glaciers. This has been acknowledged as soon as the error was recognised. Even one error in 3000 pages is unacceptable, no disagreement from me on that. I am less clear why you are asking a scientist to comment on a film by a politician; I have never cited this film as a source for my science and I don't plan to.
5 - Do you accept that there are a number of geoengineering solutions which arithmetically can be shown would work (including stratospheric dust, the geritol solution or even just replacing CO2 burning with nuclear power) which would work at a small fraction of the cost of the war against fire, or in the case of nuclear, at negative cost?
*There are definitely geoengineering solutions that might theoretically work. Much more research will be needed to assess whether they can be implemented at reasonable cost and without excessive side effects. But yes, they are certainly among the options that have to be considered. My view is that all different energy options should also be considered, and may be needed: but this is again a personal view not a scientific one.
6 - Do you accept that the refusal of alarmists to denounce fraud on their side, or even its active support or covering up, detracts from the credibility of the entire movement?
*No scientist I know would accept fraud. Luckily so far no fraud has been proven in climate science. I don't know many alarmists, and I don't know what movement you are referring to.
7 - Of the alleged "consensus" - can you name 2 scientists, out of the roughly 60%, worldwide who are not paid by the state, who support catastrophic warming & if not can you explain how something can be a consensus when no member of a subset of 60% of the alleged consenting, consent?
*There are several problems with the question as written. Firstly, I assume you are asking whether people support the idea that significant warming will take place (not whether they want it to happen). I also can name only a very few scientists who would say "catastrophic". I don't really know many private companies that carry out climate science, so I am not sure how one should compare these two groups. However, I frequently speak to ordinary scientists in private companies who seem happy to accept the points I made in the left hand column of the original post on Bishop Hill, including the warming range projected in the studies cited by IPCC, which I assume is what you are asking. They are not however people who consider themselves experts on climate, so they would not expect to be making public pronouncements, nor to be asked to be part of a consensus. However, if you really want two names of people who have had a major stake in the oil industry in particular, then Lord Oxburgh (formerly Shell Chairman) and Bryan Lovell (formerly Chief Sedimentologist and Exploration Manager with BP) would be a good start.
Professor Eric Wolff FRS
British Antarctic Survey, Science Leader (Chemistry and Past Climate) at British Antarctic Survey
On point 7 Lord Oxburgh is not salaried by government but as boss of a wind turbine company does benefit from government subsidies, indeed his.“direct financial interest in the outcome” has been a cause of complaint over his appointment as chair of the climategate enquiry. I am however both surprised and heartened to see that there is general scientific agreement on both sides, with only very few scientists dissenting that claims of "catastrophe" are unwarranted (though I had, a couple of weeks ago been told something similar elsewhere). That seems to allow far more space for rational debate than many politicians and news media allow.
I welcome comments but lets keep them courteous. I am perfectly capable of giving and getting robust comments when required but this is part of a scientific discussion in which both sides are on their best behaviour.
Despite somebody else at his facility taking umbrage (& I must admit some of the questions #4 in particular, were phrased in a more argumentative manner than necessary) Dr Wolff has indeed replied and given me permission to post here. I would like to thank him for doing so in a reasoned and constructive manner. I will probably give my comments next week but, with the exception of a few words on point 7 I think his comments should stand on their own today:
1 - Do you accept Professor Jones' acknowledgement that there has been no statistically significant warming since 1995?
*I have not heard this statement. However, because the climate system is inherently noisy, with alternating short runs of cold years and of warm years, there could NEVER be a statistically significant trend over just a few years. One can only determine a multidecadal trend by looking at the gradient over multi-decades. If you insist on taking trends over a decade, you will find periods with a positive gradient, a negative gradient or flat, but none of them significant. This was exactly my point about the analogy with months. There will quite certainly be a warming trend in temperature between January and July, but you will certainly find periods of 10, perhaps even 20 days, that have no, or even a negative, gradient.
2 - Do you accept that the rise in CO2 has improved crop growth by around 10% & that the consequent influence on world hunger is more beneficial than any currently detectable destructive action of alleged global warming?
*I am not an agricultural scientist, and have not looked into this, but yes, in general increasing levels of CO2 in the atmosphere are likely to increase crop yields. The second half of the question asks me to make a moral and economic value judgement. While I may have a view on it as a citizen, this has nothing to do with the science.
3 - Do you accept that the Hockey Stick, as originally presented by Mann and the IPCC contained calculations that were inconsistent with good science and that Mann's refusal to make calculations and algorithms available for checking were inconsistent with scientific principle?
*The Mann reconstruction was a first attempt at doing an exceptionally difficult job. There are now numerous other attempts (shown in IPCC AR4) which all tell roughly the same story, but that have suggested better ways of doing some aspects of the job. This is how science works - someone does their best, then someone else comes along and shows you how to do it better.
4 - Do you accept that many claims from people and organisations on the alarmist side, from Al Gore's claim that South Sea islands had already been abandoned due to rising sea levels and Pachauri's claim that any dispute that the Himalayan glaciers will have melted by 2025 was "voodoo" are wholly, completely and totally untruthful and would have to be openly denounced by anyone on the alarmist side who has any trace of honesty?
*There was clearly an error in the IPCC WGII report regarding Himalayan glaciers. This has been acknowledged as soon as the error was recognised. Even one error in 3000 pages is unacceptable, no disagreement from me on that. I am less clear why you are asking a scientist to comment on a film by a politician; I have never cited this film as a source for my science and I don't plan to.
5 - Do you accept that there are a number of geoengineering solutions which arithmetically can be shown would work (including stratospheric dust, the geritol solution or even just replacing CO2 burning with nuclear power) which would work at a small fraction of the cost of the war against fire, or in the case of nuclear, at negative cost?
*There are definitely geoengineering solutions that might theoretically work. Much more research will be needed to assess whether they can be implemented at reasonable cost and without excessive side effects. But yes, they are certainly among the options that have to be considered. My view is that all different energy options should also be considered, and may be needed: but this is again a personal view not a scientific one.
6 - Do you accept that the refusal of alarmists to denounce fraud on their side, or even its active support or covering up, detracts from the credibility of the entire movement?
*No scientist I know would accept fraud. Luckily so far no fraud has been proven in climate science. I don't know many alarmists, and I don't know what movement you are referring to.
7 - Of the alleged "consensus" - can you name 2 scientists, out of the roughly 60%, worldwide who are not paid by the state, who support catastrophic warming & if not can you explain how something can be a consensus when no member of a subset of 60% of the alleged consenting, consent?
*There are several problems with the question as written. Firstly, I assume you are asking whether people support the idea that significant warming will take place (not whether they want it to happen). I also can name only a very few scientists who would say "catastrophic". I don't really know many private companies that carry out climate science, so I am not sure how one should compare these two groups. However, I frequently speak to ordinary scientists in private companies who seem happy to accept the points I made in the left hand column of the original post on Bishop Hill, including the warming range projected in the studies cited by IPCC, which I assume is what you are asking. They are not however people who consider themselves experts on climate, so they would not expect to be making public pronouncements, nor to be asked to be part of a consensus. However, if you really want two names of people who have had a major stake in the oil industry in particular, then Lord Oxburgh (formerly Shell Chairman) and Bryan Lovell (formerly Chief Sedimentologist and Exploration Manager with BP) would be a good start.
Professor Eric Wolff FRS
British Antarctic Survey, Science Leader (Chemistry and Past Climate) at British Antarctic Survey
On point 7 Lord Oxburgh is not salaried by government but as boss of a wind turbine company does benefit from government subsidies, indeed his.“direct financial interest in the outcome” has been a cause of complaint over his appointment as chair of the climategate enquiry. I am however both surprised and heartened to see that there is general scientific agreement on both sides, with only very few scientists dissenting that claims of "catastrophe" are unwarranted (though I had, a couple of weeks ago been told something similar elsewhere). That seems to allow far more space for rational debate than many politicians and news media allow.
I welcome comments but lets keep them courteous. I am perfectly capable of giving and getting robust comments when required but this is part of a scientific discussion in which both sides are on their best behaviour.
Labels: Fear, global warming, Science/technology
Sunday, December 05, 2010
THE RULE OF LAW EXISTS ONLY WHERE APPLIED IMPARTIALLY
"Barak Obama intends to kill; all the white people in America. He intends for them to be dropped from an aeroplane, dropped from a helicopter, left in the sea".Anybody think that is not a false statement of fact in relation to that Obama's character or conduct? I must admit I do think it is false. But it was said by British Labour MP Margaret Hodge. Though she didn't use the word "Obama".
The relevance of the "false statement of fact" remark is that that is precisely what the LudDims got Labour MP Phil Woolas removed for
Mr Woolas ran a "risky" campaign, the court was told, designed to "galvanise the white Sun vote" because he feared he faced defeat on poling day.... was also accused of making a false statement that Mr Watkins had reneged on a promise to live within the constituency prior to the election.
Declaring the May poll result void, Mr Justice Nigel Teare and Mr Justice Griffith Williams said Mr Woolas was guilty of illegal practices under election law.
They said he knew all three claims to be untrue, and had sought personal advantage by making them...
As a result not only is the election to be rerun but Woolas, who has been expelled by Labour in any case, is not allowed to stand again.The case was brought under Section 106 of the Representation of the People Act. This makes it an offence to publish "any false statement of fact in relation to the candidate's personal character or conduct" to prevent them being elected - unless they believed it was true and had "reasonable grounds" to do so
OK on that precedent the BNP are bringing a similar case against Margaret Hodge who, among other things said and was recorded by C4 as saying the BNP want
“everyone who is sitting in this room to be expelled from this country, dropped from an aeroplane, dropped from a helicopter, left in the sea.”Now correct me if I'm wrong but quite certainly that is a "false statement of fact in relation to that candidate’s character or conduct", which the court have decided is illegal when a LudDim objects. Indeed it is a far more dishonest & extreme lie than anything Woollas said.
I will admit I was surprised when the LDs won this because politicians have always told lies to get elected, not leadt the LDs who made manifesto promises to support an EU referendum at the previous election & to vote against tuition fees at this one. If this reinterpretation of the law is honest I am rather happy with it - politicians should be accountable for their promises and a chance to do so onl;y 5 years latter, possibly after they have changed the electoral rules without asking us, & at best after they have taken a couple of trillion £s from us, is hardly accountability.
However if the law is not blind on this but run in a blatantly discriminatory way that removes such democratic rights as we nominally have. This appears to have been done when the court told the BNP to "legalise" their constitution & when a body which decided the LudDims had no duty to return money a donor had given them which had been stolen & then turned round & confiscated money from UKIP which had been honestly earned but with a minor technical irregularity in form filling.
If Woolas is guilty & deserves to be banned from Parliament & the Labour party then Margaret Hodge is 100 times moreso.
A big practical difference is that Woolllas only just won & Hodge won massively so the odds are Labour would beat Griffin again but that is of no relevance to the the principle of the "false statement of fact in relation to the candidate's character or conduct".
Legally the BNP clearly have a cast iron case.
Lets see if we live in a democracy or a police state.
We certainly don't live in a country where the news media prefer balanced reporting to party propaganda. BNP/Hodge coverage V LibDim/Woolas coverage
Dear Ed Miliband,
When Phil Woollas was found to have lied about another candidate the Labour party expelled him without even waiting to see if his appeal succeeded. I assume you have seen the video of Margaret Hodge claiming the BNP candidate wanted to throw a large section of the population out of helocopters into the sea & that you accept that this claim is a lie. If so a respect for democratic principles would appear to require Ms Hodge's immediate expulsion too. Or do you & your party disagree with this assessment in any way?
Labels: British politics, Fear, Government parasitism
Thursday, November 25, 2010
SCOTLAND'S CHANGING LANDSCAPE - BBC PROGRAMME ON "CLIMATE CHANGE"
I sent this yesterday to numerous BBC emails & also to the programme's presenter Professor Iain Stewart. I quickly got a reply from Professor Stewart & the correspondence is reprinted. I don't think it needs explanation.
I have not yet received any response whatsoever from any BBC representative, disputing in any way the accuracy of my accusation. I don't think that needs explanation either. I will be notifying them & Professor Richard Tait Chairman of the BBC Trust’s Editorial Standards Committee & if any of them do choose to factually dispute that the BBC are "fascist" & "censors in a manner reminiscent of the era of Lysenkoism" I will certainly publish their defence.
trust us on that
I understand that the BBC has recently publicly alleged that they will, in future, make a serious attempt to maintain something approaching impartiality, as required by their charter, at least on the subject of alleged catastrophic global warming. I was thus disappointed, though I admit not surprised, to see Sunday's episode of Making Scotland's landscape. http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b00vjvyw I think you will agree this 1 hour programme about alleged catastrophic warming made no attempt whatsoever to balance the hypothesis that we are in the process of experiencing catastrophic warming with the observed fact that we are not.
There were numerous factual untruths in what can only politely be described as a pack of untruthful ecofascist propaganda, with lots of mood music, fitting the assumption that the practical purpose of the BBC is to promote scare stories designed to keep the people cowed & eager to be led by authoritarian big government fascists.
2 particularly egregious lies:
Firstly the "experiment" of testing 2 bottles, one filled with air & one allegedly filled with CO2 were exposed to sunlight & the latter was observed to become 2.5 C warmer. What was omitted was that the actual increase in CO2 is approximately 1 part in 10,000. Thus for the "experiment" to be meaningful the sample used would have had to be of the same order. Had the BBC broadcast an experiment showing alleged "catastrophic global warming" to be 0.00025 C that would have been accurate & acceptable (in theory to both sides) though you might have found some difficulty in accurately measuring it.
Second was the claim of catastrophic warming that "the level of consensus is greater than in any other area of science". Ignoring the fact that even one of its major proponents, Professor Jones, has acknowledged that there is no statistical evidence of warming having happened over the last 15 years whereas I have just produced evidence of Isaac Newton's Law working by placing a pen in mid air & observing it fail to float. Even taking the new view of science as a matter of counting opinions rather than of evidence that claim is untrue. The Oregon Petition shows 31,000 scientists who dissociate themselves from the warming scare (probably many more now). If the BBC was being remotely truthful they would be able to name at least 32,000 scientists who reject the consensus that gravity works in the manner described by Newton, as slightly amended by Mr Albert Einstein. I will be interested to see if the BBC claim to be able to find 1/10,000th as many & are that thus any employee of that organisation is able to claim being 10,000th of the way to remotely truthful.
Professor Stewart & the BBC should apologise for all untruths in a manner as public as the original programme.
I would also like to know if, in an attempt to even appear balanced, the BBC intend to show a programme produced by a scientific sceptic, in which he is free to speak without interruption as Professor Stewart was, within the next 2 months? I assure you, in the interests of balance, that if such a sceptic demonstrated the same untruthfulness as professor Stewart, for example claiming that CO2 is a lifeform native to the planet Zarg, I would be equally scathing. This is known as balance. Fortunately, as I'm sure you know, no sceptic has demonstrated anything close to that ignorance or dishonesty endemic in the alarmist movement.
So far the BBC have made no slightest attempt to show such balance, Their so-called 'news" consistently censors or denigrates scientific scepticism, usually both, in a manner reminiscent of the era of Lysenkoism.
Were the BBC to be remotely interested in even appearing not to be fascist censors or indeed were they not fully convinced that "catastrophic warming" is indeed a fraud that cannot survive open examination they would long ago have been willing to broadcast a genuine debate on the subject. Their continuous, deliberate & total refusal to allow free debate demonstrates their continuous & total commitment to propagandising & lying in the fascist cause.
Or do either Professor Stewart or anybody at all in the BBC dispute the facts in any way?
Neil Craig
======================================
Your message regarding the Climate episode emphasises that it was dealing with catastrophic warming, and that is not the case. The word ‘catastrophic’ was employed in one sentence, near the end, which simply noted…
“Unchecked, climate change could be catastrophic. But, unlike the people of Skara Brae or Culbin Sands, we now have the knowledge and technology to do something about it.”
In other words, this was a nod to future worst-case scenarios. So, instead about peddling an extremist notion of dangerous warming, I think our outline of how we got to where we are today was fairly modest and conservative.
I shall let the BBC employees comment on the new editorial guidelines, which ask for balance in proportion with the scientific consensus not 50:50 ‘impartiality’. It is that balance that I want to address. I am not a BBC employee, so I do not represent the BBC’s views on climate change. Instead, as a geoscientist, I represent my geoscience community. In that regard I follow the consensus of earth scientists, some of them climate scientists, who support the prevailing hypothesis of human-accelerated warming. The Geological Society of London, the Geological Society of America, and the American Geophysical Union are among the long list of international scientific bodies that have produced clear position statements arguing that the climate is warming, that the warming relates to human action, and that action is principally the burning of fossil fuel leading to rising greenhouse emissions. To suggest that this is a BBC led view is preposterous, unless you feel the world’s major academic institutions are following a media cabal.
Moreover, this isn’t just the case of a few politically-motivated geoscience groupings. The latest review of geoscience opinion on the issue of climate change, published last year in the American Geophysical Union’s Transactions, found overwhelming agreement (>80%) among geoscientists (and >97% among climate scientists) with the statement that ‘ human activity is a significant contributing factor in changing mean global temperatures?’ They concluded their review with the remark.
‘It seems that the debate on the authenticity of global warming and the role played by human activity is largely nonexistent among those who understand the nuances and scientific basis of long- term climate processes. The challenge, rather, appears to be how to effectively communicate this fact to policy makers and to a public that continues to mistakenly perceive debate among scientists.’
Source: Doran, P.T & Kendall Zimmerman, M. 2009. Examining the Scientific Consensus on Climate Change. EOS Transactions, volume 90 number 3 20 january 2009
I have little doubt that this will induce no change in your view that ‘global warming’ is a myth. But it really ought to make you appreciate that the BBC is not the target. Your target will need to be the whole geoscience community.
Thanks,
Iain
==============================================
Thank you for your very prompt reply. I will look forward to seeing if anybody working directly for the BBC replies at all.
On the point of catastrophe, even leaving out the fact that you did use the term, if warming is merely within historical parameters & I believe the evidence is that it is clearly well within them, then it is not a matter requiring action let alone scaremongering. The entire coverage implies that it is catastrophic.
We may also legitimately discuss the degree of "consensus" among scientists. I have asked organisations representing hundreds of thousands of alarmists to name 2 scientists who support the alarmist case & are not ultimately funded by government & have only twice received even 1 - Professor James Lovelock from the environment editor of the Independent & from somebody on a South African site - Professor James Lovelock. As you may know Lovelock has, since the emails came out, reconsidered his position & now says only the sceptics have kept the discussion "sane". You may know more but you will understand that I find a "consensus" that excludes the large majority of its putative members unimpressive.
The BBC should change their minds & acknowledge the propriety of broadcasting genuine debate on the subject. Something they have repeatedly refused. I hope you agree that would be more in keeping with true science than their wholly one-sided reportage. It is certainly infinitely more in keeping with their purported commitment to balance.
I note you do not dispute either of my specific complaints. We may leave it at that for now until the BBC have had time to say whether they believe I am wrong.
Once again I thank you for courteously responding so much faster than anybody at the BBC has felt able to.
Neil Craig
========================================
Thanks Neil, but confused by your take on Lovelock’s stance. I know the piece that you refer to, in the Guardian, in which he celebrates the sceptical stance for making climate scientists take more responsibility. But in no way does he distance himself from the view that climate change is reality,
e.g.
‘I have a feeling that climate change may be an issue as severe as a war. It may be necessary to put democracy on hold for a while.’
‘I don't think we're yet evolved to the point where we're clever enough to handle a complex a situation as climate change. We're very active animals. We like to think: "Ah yes, this will be a good policy," but it's almost never that simple. Wars show this to be true. People are very certain they are fighting a just cause, but it doesn't always work out like that. Climate change is kind of a repetition of a war-time situation. It could quite easily lead to a physical war. That's why I always come back to the safest thing to do being adaptation.’
Those don’t seem to me to be the views that suggest it isn’t happening.
iain
=====================================
No the article I referred to was in the Sunday Times http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/comment/columnists/guest_contributors/article7061020.ece
“I think you have to accept that the sceptics have kept us sane — some of them, anyway,” he said. “They have been a breath of fresh air. They have kept us from regarding the science of climate change as a religion. It had gone too far that way. There is a role for sceptics in science. They shouldn’t be brushed aside. It is clear that the angel side wasn’t without sin.” ...
But he is concerned that the projections are relying on computer models based primarily on atmospheric physics, because models of that kind have let us down before...
“What would you bet will happen this century?” a mathematician asked him. Lovelock predicted a temperature rise in the middle range of current projections — about 1C-2C — which we could live with.
I did subsequently read something in the Guardian which, to my jaundiced eye, seemed to be long on what the Guardian journalist had been told to say & light on phrases the interviewee had said. You may know how journalists work.
I suspect the reality will be less than the 1-2C change he still expects & higher than the 0.00025 C your experiment, done correctly, would seem to suggest but both are well within historic experience.& therefore provably not catastrophic.
That our politicians have passed laws requiring the destruction of as much as 80% of our electric capacity (which is closely linked to GNP) bringing us back to Victorian standards, for the purpose of ameliorating such a, historically largely beneficial, rise does indeed seem to me to be insane. Unfortunately I do not think anybody relying on your programme alone could have come to any conclusion but that such insanity was desirable. Since you have already described the claim of "dangerous warming" as "extremist" I hope you will accept how regretable that was.
Neil Craig
I have not yet received any response whatsoever from any BBC representative, disputing in any way the accuracy of my accusation. I don't think that needs explanation either. I will be notifying them & Professor Richard Tait Chairman of the BBC Trust’s Editorial Standards Committee & if any of them do choose to factually dispute that the BBC are "fascist" & "censors in a manner reminiscent of the era of Lysenkoism" I will certainly publish their defence.
trust us on thatI understand that the BBC has recently publicly alleged that they will, in future, make a serious attempt to maintain something approaching impartiality, as required by their charter, at least on the subject of alleged catastrophic global warming. I was thus disappointed, though I admit not surprised, to see Sunday's episode of Making Scotland's landscape. http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b00vjvyw I think you will agree this 1 hour programme about alleged catastrophic warming made no attempt whatsoever to balance the hypothesis that we are in the process of experiencing catastrophic warming with the observed fact that we are not.
There were numerous factual untruths in what can only politely be described as a pack of untruthful ecofascist propaganda, with lots of mood music, fitting the assumption that the practical purpose of the BBC is to promote scare stories designed to keep the people cowed & eager to be led by authoritarian big government fascists.
2 particularly egregious lies:
Firstly the "experiment" of testing 2 bottles, one filled with air & one allegedly filled with CO2 were exposed to sunlight & the latter was observed to become 2.5 C warmer. What was omitted was that the actual increase in CO2 is approximately 1 part in 10,000. Thus for the "experiment" to be meaningful the sample used would have had to be of the same order. Had the BBC broadcast an experiment showing alleged "catastrophic global warming" to be 0.00025 C that would have been accurate & acceptable (in theory to both sides) though you might have found some difficulty in accurately measuring it.
Second was the claim of catastrophic warming that "the level of consensus is greater than in any other area of science". Ignoring the fact that even one of its major proponents, Professor Jones, has acknowledged that there is no statistical evidence of warming having happened over the last 15 years whereas I have just produced evidence of Isaac Newton's Law working by placing a pen in mid air & observing it fail to float. Even taking the new view of science as a matter of counting opinions rather than of evidence that claim is untrue. The Oregon Petition shows 31,000 scientists who dissociate themselves from the warming scare (probably many more now). If the BBC was being remotely truthful they would be able to name at least 32,000 scientists who reject the consensus that gravity works in the manner described by Newton, as slightly amended by Mr Albert Einstein. I will be interested to see if the BBC claim to be able to find 1/10,000th as many & are that thus any employee of that organisation is able to claim being 10,000th of the way to remotely truthful.
Professor Stewart & the BBC should apologise for all untruths in a manner as public as the original programme.
I would also like to know if, in an attempt to even appear balanced, the BBC intend to show a programme produced by a scientific sceptic, in which he is free to speak without interruption as Professor Stewart was, within the next 2 months? I assure you, in the interests of balance, that if such a sceptic demonstrated the same untruthfulness as professor Stewart, for example claiming that CO2 is a lifeform native to the planet Zarg, I would be equally scathing. This is known as balance. Fortunately, as I'm sure you know, no sceptic has demonstrated anything close to that ignorance or dishonesty endemic in the alarmist movement.
So far the BBC have made no slightest attempt to show such balance, Their so-called 'news" consistently censors or denigrates scientific scepticism, usually both, in a manner reminiscent of the era of Lysenkoism.
Were the BBC to be remotely interested in even appearing not to be fascist censors or indeed were they not fully convinced that "catastrophic warming" is indeed a fraud that cannot survive open examination they would long ago have been willing to broadcast a genuine debate on the subject. Their continuous, deliberate & total refusal to allow free debate demonstrates their continuous & total commitment to propagandising & lying in the fascist cause.
Or do either Professor Stewart or anybody at all in the BBC dispute the facts in any way?
Neil Craig
======================================
Your message regarding the Climate episode emphasises that it was dealing with catastrophic warming, and that is not the case. The word ‘catastrophic’ was employed in one sentence, near the end, which simply noted…
“Unchecked, climate change could be catastrophic. But, unlike the people of Skara Brae or Culbin Sands, we now have the knowledge and technology to do something about it.”
In other words, this was a nod to future worst-case scenarios. So, instead about peddling an extremist notion of dangerous warming, I think our outline of how we got to where we are today was fairly modest and conservative.
I shall let the BBC employees comment on the new editorial guidelines, which ask for balance in proportion with the scientific consensus not 50:50 ‘impartiality’. It is that balance that I want to address. I am not a BBC employee, so I do not represent the BBC’s views on climate change. Instead, as a geoscientist, I represent my geoscience community. In that regard I follow the consensus of earth scientists, some of them climate scientists, who support the prevailing hypothesis of human-accelerated warming. The Geological Society of London, the Geological Society of America, and the American Geophysical Union are among the long list of international scientific bodies that have produced clear position statements arguing that the climate is warming, that the warming relates to human action, and that action is principally the burning of fossil fuel leading to rising greenhouse emissions. To suggest that this is a BBC led view is preposterous, unless you feel the world’s major academic institutions are following a media cabal.
Moreover, this isn’t just the case of a few politically-motivated geoscience groupings. The latest review of geoscience opinion on the issue of climate change, published last year in the American Geophysical Union’s Transactions, found overwhelming agreement (>80%) among geoscientists (and >97% among climate scientists) with the statement that ‘ human activity is a significant contributing factor in changing mean global temperatures?’ They concluded their review with the remark.
‘It seems that the debate on the authenticity of global warming and the role played by human activity is largely nonexistent among those who understand the nuances and scientific basis of long- term climate processes. The challenge, rather, appears to be how to effectively communicate this fact to policy makers and to a public that continues to mistakenly perceive debate among scientists.’
Source: Doran, P.T & Kendall Zimmerman, M. 2009. Examining the Scientific Consensus on Climate Change. EOS Transactions, volume 90 number 3 20 january 2009
I have little doubt that this will induce no change in your view that ‘global warming’ is a myth. But it really ought to make you appreciate that the BBC is not the target. Your target will need to be the whole geoscience community.
Thanks,
Iain
==============================================
Thank you for your very prompt reply. I will look forward to seeing if anybody working directly for the BBC replies at all.
On the point of catastrophe, even leaving out the fact that you did use the term, if warming is merely within historical parameters & I believe the evidence is that it is clearly well within them, then it is not a matter requiring action let alone scaremongering. The entire coverage implies that it is catastrophic.
We may also legitimately discuss the degree of "consensus" among scientists. I have asked organisations representing hundreds of thousands of alarmists to name 2 scientists who support the alarmist case & are not ultimately funded by government & have only twice received even 1 - Professor James Lovelock from the environment editor of the Independent & from somebody on a South African site - Professor James Lovelock. As you may know Lovelock has, since the emails came out, reconsidered his position & now says only the sceptics have kept the discussion "sane". You may know more but you will understand that I find a "consensus" that excludes the large majority of its putative members unimpressive.
The BBC should change their minds & acknowledge the propriety of broadcasting genuine debate on the subject. Something they have repeatedly refused. I hope you agree that would be more in keeping with true science than their wholly one-sided reportage. It is certainly infinitely more in keeping with their purported commitment to balance.
I note you do not dispute either of my specific complaints. We may leave it at that for now until the BBC have had time to say whether they believe I am wrong.
Once again I thank you for courteously responding so much faster than anybody at the BBC has felt able to.
Neil Craig
========================================
Thanks Neil, but confused by your take on Lovelock’s stance. I know the piece that you refer to, in the Guardian, in which he celebrates the sceptical stance for making climate scientists take more responsibility. But in no way does he distance himself from the view that climate change is reality,
e.g.
‘I have a feeling that climate change may be an issue as severe as a war. It may be necessary to put democracy on hold for a while.’
‘I don't think we're yet evolved to the point where we're clever enough to handle a complex a situation as climate change. We're very active animals. We like to think: "Ah yes, this will be a good policy," but it's almost never that simple. Wars show this to be true. People are very certain they are fighting a just cause, but it doesn't always work out like that. Climate change is kind of a repetition of a war-time situation. It could quite easily lead to a physical war. That's why I always come back to the safest thing to do being adaptation.’
Those don’t seem to me to be the views that suggest it isn’t happening.
iain
=====================================
No the article I referred to was in the Sunday Times http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/comment/columnists/guest_contributors/article7061020.ece
“I think you have to accept that the sceptics have kept us sane — some of them, anyway,” he said. “They have been a breath of fresh air. They have kept us from regarding the science of climate change as a religion. It had gone too far that way. There is a role for sceptics in science. They shouldn’t be brushed aside. It is clear that the angel side wasn’t without sin.” ...
But he is concerned that the projections are relying on computer models based primarily on atmospheric physics, because models of that kind have let us down before...
“What would you bet will happen this century?” a mathematician asked him. Lovelock predicted a temperature rise in the middle range of current projections — about 1C-2C — which we could live with.
I did subsequently read something in the Guardian which, to my jaundiced eye, seemed to be long on what the Guardian journalist had been told to say & light on phrases the interviewee had said. You may know how journalists work.
I suspect the reality will be less than the 1-2C change he still expects & higher than the 0.00025 C your experiment, done correctly, would seem to suggest but both are well within historic experience.& therefore provably not catastrophic.
That our politicians have passed laws requiring the destruction of as much as 80% of our electric capacity (which is closely linked to GNP) bringing us back to Victorian standards, for the purpose of ameliorating such a, historically largely beneficial, rise does indeed seem to me to be insane. Unfortunately I do not think anybody relying on your programme alone could have come to any conclusion but that such insanity was desirable. Since you have already described the claim of "dangerous warming" as "extremist" I hope you will accept how regretable that was.
Neil Craig
Labels: Fear, global warming, Media
